Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part XIX

Orla-O(1): “ You’re not answering the question. For example, if you justify your behavior by saying it helps others, this leaves hanging why it has to be compulsory. If what you do is helpful, why aren’t others clamoring for help? Why do people need to be compelled to accept help?”

Carlos-O(1): “ They don’t know what’s good for them. I, however, do.”

Orla-O(1): “ The point was never to fire back at you the accusation of narcissism (and I’m not sure that’s fitting anyway), but as you chose to answer as if it was, and then said this, I assume you see a chink is revealed in your armor.”

Carlos-O(1): “ I don’t have to see any such thing. What I see is someone who is of the ‘great unwashed’, the ignorant and unlearned, who presumes, from within this ignorance, to see ‘chinks in my armor’…Lacking the background in philosophy I have, you can’t possibly evaluate me.”

Orla-O(1): “Whatever. I don’t want to stray too far from your ideas as you’ve actually stated them. (And forget about this self justification altogether, if I can.) You speak of totalization. When I first heard you use this word, I understood it, not as naming a concept or set of concepts, but as a symbol—a symbol for enclosure or imprisonment of thinking. A symbol for all which blocks, inhibits, represses, and arbitrarily limits thinking. I didn’t relate it historically to philosophy…Then I realized totalization used the way you used it is postmodern lingo,slang. You are literally speaking of and viewing Enlightenment from the vantage of the postmodern. That’s why totalization to us seemed for such a long time self-explanatory. Obvious. Totalization is a key term of our historical era, of the postmodern. Only in the era of postmodernity would the Enlightenment be defined as you defined it, as overcoming totalization. As postmodern we have 'easy access' to the meaning of totalization.”


Post a Comment

<< Home