Tag: history

69

summer 22, reading the Dawn of Everything, re. p. 159 on sacred & private property:

maybe history has in fact not whitnessed a de-sacralization, but instead a total sacralization:

[transitioning over millenia] from the sacred being limited to special rituals     to the abstract god’s sanctity: omnipresent locally and temporally, extending down to every man & thing through the sacred rational structure/institution called law –

thus replacing the functional, informal {property/safety/freedom}-{ensuring/producing} relationship of inter-personal trust with the alienating/particularizing individual connection to [quasi/de-facto ]monotheistically centralized law … culminating historically in the abstract sacral legal structure of money

– of course, single entities can no longer be sacred per se, but instead only relative to their connection to the one god – i.e. through their ‘value’… 

(…and historically this relation spreads automatically, through commerce and rational governance, to everything and anything that exists in [mainstream culture’s consensus ]reality… and once it becomes global and total, it is no longer noticeable that our reality has this sacral, magical property.

61

The main sign of the stagnation[ which is in turn a sign of failure] of science is the rise of pseudo-science.

And the success of pseudo-science is not from its own merit – in fact it is entirely independent of its own merit.

so: non-p and non-non-p

but those are two types of negation.

the one abstractly logical,

the other referring to the manifestation of the first negation(, the historical reaction to it),

and thus

entry 15

This entry and the next address the same question in different ways, the first written around 7 weeks ago, the second written a few days ago. This first one was posing difficulties to me on re-reading it and trying to understand it, though in this transcription I’m happier with it again. The second note addresses the same topic in a different way and together they may make more sense.

[human] History is the process consisting of the reciprocal duality of material changes & ideological changes: material conditions and [largely] unconscious ideological conditions change and cause/precipitate eachother and so constitute the dialectic process that is history. 

It is philosophy’s task to understand this dialectic, which means to make the unconscious ideology conscious & visible so that it can be seen and consciously processed and reacted to by society/humanity. Hegelians, e.g. Zizek, seem to understand this – however, Marxists, following Marx’ Dialectic Materialism*, actually don’t:

Marxists [at least ostensibly] want to move on to the post-capitalist phase of history, which would be the dialectic synthesis of capitalism and capitalism’s antithesis: The synthesis would be a new whole that fully produces and holds/includes the antithesis to capitalism. The antithesis is the dialectic negation of capitalism – which would negate exactly every component of capitalist ideology. To negate all components of the ideology, one requires exactly all components of the ideology – identifying the underlying generative process/concepts of capitalist ideology, aka finding the thesis of capitalism.

Now, only such an antithesis would be the true, exact negation of capitalism – and a less thorough negation is not dialectic*, it’s just a contradicting thesis. And such an antithesis or full negation would require capitalist [unconscious] ideology to be understood completely, i.e. made conscious at its deepest/root levels.

However, Marx’ approach is to go straight to changing the material conditions (marxist revolution, workers seizing power over production) in the blind hope that material change will end capitalist ideology or at least provide a way out of it, i.e. hoping that, in the changed material conditions, current/existing ideology won’t inevitably re-produce the same dialectic and the same problems and that there aren’t deeper material or ideological conditions/processes/concepts – i.e. a deeper dialectic – that also re-produce capitalism. And marxist denial of the necessity of fully working through this excavation of ideology makes it impossible to complete the step of the historical dialectic and reach the next higher level of the dialectic totality. And what Marxist endeavor instead leads to is a different, very speculative, question.

So one thing I’m proposing – which I think corresponds to Hegelian
thought – is that changing the material conditions in order to escape a certain material-ideological reality is ineffective without understanding the [logical] relations between existing ideology and proposed altered material conditions, and without ascertaining that the proposed material conditions aren’t just one of many possible manifestations of an underlying ideology and that the proposed material change really is a way out of the dialectic in question.

 
 

*Marxists do of course excavate, explore, analyse and critique capitalist ideology, to varying depths/degrees. But it seems to me that their aim in this isn’t to reach full understanding, but instead to reach sufficient understanding to be able to see and explicate enough problems of capitalism to motivate material change…

 

entry 11

de-mystifying the term ‘unconscious ideology‘ – a term that may sound esoteric or meaningless or unscientific etc. – what it means and how it occurs:

Some material change occurs, and that change means that different strategies/behaviour patterns are now viable [to different degrees].

In these new circumstances, those agents have an advantage whose dispositions (which are unconscious structures of the mind) are better compatible with the new set of more viable behaviours.

And those agents who possess advantageous unconscious traits rise in success/power relative to others, and thereby those unconscious traits spread through [higher levels of] hierarchies of success/power/respect etc. .

And this proliferation constitutes an emergence of common/shared [similar] unconscious traits [- and a shift in the makeup of unconscious traits within certain social/hierarchical groups/levels].

And those shared unconscious dispositional traits at the same time are a shared causal foundation/base for common sets of rationalizations – in other words, now that minds with certain shared intuitive/unconscious aspects/traits have grouped together, this leads to certain [new] sets of rationalizations finding group appeal & acceptance and becoming prominent and standard.

This kind of complex of such sets of group rationalizations with a shared unconscious causal basis that comes about through material change interacting with unconscious mental traits is what I mean by ‘unconscious ideology’.

And of course such sets of rationalizations can build/produce more complex structures of rationalizations over time, thus more obviously becoming ideologies or systems/structures of common thinking.