nice to see that Paul is still writing, miss his blog.
https://filmsick.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/bleak2bnight.jpg
Bleak theory accepts that it itself is almost entirely wrong. However, precisely on the basis that it accepts humans are almost always wrong about how it goes with the world and so what are the chances of this theory being right? In this paradoxical, confused sense it is a theory of human fallibility. Or the inability of humans to see themselves for what they are, even when, as per contemporary neuroscience, we kind of know (have you not yet heard the “good” news that you are not what you think you are?). We kind of know because we are beginning to see ourselves from the third-person perspective. Subjectivity is devolving into objectivity and objectivity entails seeing things clearly, even if not transparently. That opacity, always there in the subject-object distinction, is collapsing and the consequences are bleak. The second reality-appearance “appeared” as a crack we cracked. It has been going…
View original post 1,071 more words
Thanks for posting that, it is a wonderful essay!
my pleasure, he’s a thoughtful fellow and a welcome antidote to the cult of solutionism.
Heh – the Cult of Solutionism. I like it!
ah i only steal the best, see: @evgenymorozov
Got it! http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/the-god-that-failed-evgeny-morozovs-to-save-everything-click-here
Solution-ism vs. praxis?
“reactionary polemic” can only go so far…
ha yes masterminds vs tinkerers