The politology of twosomeness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The politology of twosomeness » The politology of twosomeness

The politology of twosomeness

Page: 1 2 3 4

The politology of twosomeness

John-Paul
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2006
Location: Munich, Germany

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 68

Posted 01/01/08 - 10:40 AM: Subject: The politology of twosomeness	#1
A household has a father-element, which decides on the direction, and a mother-element, which provides the essential (life-)support. The Athenian Polis is therefore an impossibility, because there can be no real democracy. Democracy is a club-concept, and we no longer relate to clubs. Male friendship is purpose-related, and there is no plurality of purpose any more. Purposes grounded in the common good must fight for existence. They wade against the tide. The aristotelian Polis had the common good as its purpose, but this is (to us) unattractive. The tide now is exploitation by trade. And only this: you cannot think of another true lead-purpose. A friendship grounded in the purpose "trade" attracts (neologism!!!) "dividual" interest (see below) and is called a corporation. This is a household: the father-element is the board, or a single charismatic executive (e.g. Wendelin Wiedeking, Porsche), the mother-element is the co-workership. In terms of money-value, the two are equally weighted. The board (or the lead-executive) can earn just as much as the co-workership put together though the latter are numerically vaster. This is the lead-monad amongst humans. It kills the nation-state, relegating this through the Indian summer of Gothic to the Middle-ages (see my last thread). "But what about the individual?" cries the sociologist. There are no "individuals", just "Dividuals". We are in truth enslaved (by original sin maybe, atheists have no better concept) to the household. The household is the unique sociological monad. In my argument, I am here helped by Peter Sloterdijk, Professor of Aesthetics und Philosophy at the Hochschule für Gestaltung in Karlsruhe, Germany. Peter Sloterdijk wrote: I would prefer the concept of household to that of society. A household is a monadic unit which has the potential of bringing forth a global product at a single juncture. But a global world contains many units - just as Robinson had his Man Friday, so the contemporary single person has his multi-media, with which he can simulate twosomeness. Today's single person is the blossoming of the heretofore unfortunately mainly psychiatrically documented split personality. This is not any more justified. Many single persons with multiple personality have developed unique strengths, especially that of not becoming bored with one's own company. To my thinking there are no such things as individuals anyway, just "Dividuals", that is elements of pair-groupings or of households ... ... with singles having learnt how to live with themselves as a "pair". Thus, the "household" is the only meaningful grouping in the human world, corporations being megaversions and single persons forming microversions of this grouping. We are back to patriarchalism http://www.single-generation.de/wi...ophie/peter_sloterdijk.htm
"Christianity is not a religion of morals but of therapy" (Eugen Biser) to which I add "... not properly a religion ..."

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 01/01/08 - 11:28 AM:	#2
John-Paul wrote: We are back to patriarchalism But we never left patriarchalism. It's the one formidable thing that didn't budge in the fall of any civilization. Nice, nice post.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 01/01/08 - 12:21 PM:	#3
I like the idea of seeing "single persons" as parts of a whole rather than as isolated individuals, but the excessive use of odd terms like "dividual" and the terming of society as a household confuses me. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 01/01/08 - 03:35 PM:	#4
There is a lot of ideas in the OP, and I have some trouble seeing how they articulate to entail some of the conclusions. I will start with the bit on democracy: John-Paul wrote: The Athenian Polis is therefore an impossibility, because there can be no real democracy. Democracy is a club-concept, and we no longer relate to clubs. I guess it depends on how you define democracy, but if you take it as a system within which decisions for the community are made through debates and negociations, I don't see it as an impossibility. If by "real democracy", you mean democracy as an ideal (in the greek sense), I will agree with you, though I never looked at democracy in such a way, it seems to me more like a process than a political ideology. Besides, democracy (as this system with debates and negociations) is not an athenian concept, it is therefore not necessarily linked to a greek concept of individual. Such democracies existed in India and actually flourished during the buddhist period, and if anything Buddhism is much closer of a concept of "dividual" than of "individual", in the sense that a person's self is infinitely divisible nad illusory as an essence; the indian concept of atman (self, ego, soul) is clearly opposed as an illusion by early buddhism. So, at least historically, there does not seem to be incompatibility between the acknowledgment of our "dividuality" and democracy. John-Paul wrote: We are in truth enslaved (by original sin maybe, atheists have no better concept) to the household. The household is the unique sociological monad. What is the sense of being enslaved for a "dividual"? And I don't get the reference to the original sin either, does it mean that we have fallen from a state of individual into a state of dividual? Or is it that we are now falling, by getting disillusioned? Or maybe you mean that the dividuals are somehow limited by the household, with which I would agree, I don't see this limitation as necessary and final though, and certainly as nothing metaphysical, see below. John-Paul wrote: Thus, the "household" is the only meaningful grouping in the human world I am not sure about the word "meaningful" here, certainly, as of now, the household being the first structure within which we come to the world, its importance has been paramount in building up our selves. But I am not sure we ever stop building them up (while unbuilding some parts of them), so I don't think we ought to consider the household as the only possible origin/repository of sense. You seem here to promote what Deleuze and Guattari saw as a forced oedipianisation of mankind, pushing the mind into freudian structures, not to attempt an understanding of it (as Freud did) but to normalise it. There may be other venue for meaning than this antique greek theatre. Oedipus has a universal relevance, just like the household, but this relevance does not make it the necessary origin of sense. And consequently, patriarchy is not the necessary form of all possible societies, it's only one of them, clearly a very common one, but the dividuals may escape it, and certainly much more easily than the individuals, because the dividuals are not paranoid, they are schizoid, their multiple personalities obey to multiple hierarchies, something that the father-figure cannot handled (even if there are many of them, and even if they are hypostasized into a transcendent realm). The polyvocality of the dividuals is infinite, and will not stand this infinity to be amputed by the finiteness of patriarchal cults. Edited by enkidu on 01/01/08 - 07:43 PM
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 01/01/08 - 08:34 PM:	#5
enkidu wrote: ... certainly, as of now, the household being the first structure within which we come to the world, its importance has been paramount in building up our selves. But I am not sure we ever stop building them up (while unbuilding some parts of them), so I don't think we ought to consider the household as the only possible origin/repository of sense. You seem here to promote what Deleuze and Guattari saw as a forced oedipianisation of mankind, pushing the mind into freudian structures, not to attempt an understanding of it (as Freud did) but to normalise it. Culture thrusts itself upon us and confines us to itself. There is historical residue within the household (i.e. tradition), before a child is even abandoned into this world. The inescapable, and invisible labrynth of culture(s) extrapolated - time spread open - where all culture is visible, retains morphed, re-shaped, entropied remnants of a (categorized) time before another (categorized) time. Social-cultural sense making time is no different than the entropy of say, geologic time. Entropied residue remains with tradition, and meaning evolves through the pressure of time, in an analagous way to the way variations in rocks form. The origin of sense-making can be (not?) found in the future of evolutionary biology, and neurology. At least, this is where I speculate that this aspect of the meta-narrative will come from. Saying that a fountain is a falic object in the unconscious world of sense-making, is as you say, pushing the oeadipal model onto the world as a fictitious explanation. The Freudian model has only pragmatic power that will have nothing to do with the meta-narrative, except perhaps as a culturally embedded (metaphysical?) model that shaped the material world. enkidu wrote: And consequently, patriarchy is not the necessary form of all possible societies, it's only one of them, clearly a very common one, but the dividuals may escape it, and certainly much more easily than the individuals, because the dividuals are not paranoid, they are schizoid, their multiple personalities obey to multiple hierarchies, something that the father-figure cannot handled (even if there are many of them, and even if they are hypostasized into a transcendent realm). The polyvocality of the dividuals is infinite, and will not stand this infinity to be amputed by the finiteness of patriarchal cults. Are you saying the patriarchal cult can be transcended? How do we transcend the confines of culture? Through evolution? Does the rock vanish after so much time?
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 01/02/08 - 07:47 AM:	#6
CypressMoon wrote: Culture thrusts itself upon us and confines us to itself. ... Are you saying the patriarchal cult can be transcended? How do we transcend the confines of culture? Through evolution? Does the rock vanish after so much time? Culture attempts to confine us to itself, or rather ghosts who build walls for the livings to get lost in the confines of the night (according to a chinese belief); but ghosts can be vanquished, we can forget them, we can stop praying for/to them, we can stop feeding them. Patriarchy cult does always lead to an ancestor cult, that's why killing the father does not solve anything, he becomes stronger as a ghost, as a holy ghost. But yes, this cult can be transcended. Killing the father does not help, but having the father killing himself, having him deconstructing his own father-figure, and trampling it, that will put an end to all ersatz of patriarchy. And the trigger for this suicide of the father is that a dividual cannot be a father-figure, the illusion of positive power was the illusion of the 20th century, a misrepresentation of Nietzsche's Will to Power, the power a dividual wishes for is the power to express itself, to exist in his multiplicity, not to dominate others. The illusion of the individual is necessary for the father-figure to be perennial, for the dictator to exist. A dividual could not want, could not stand, to be limited to the role of a father-figure, it would force him into a double-life with pathological consequences. And, in addition, the status of the father-figure is nowadays openly contested, we are here questioning it, this discussion could not have happened 200, 100, or maybe even 50 years ago. Democracy itself, in its structures, requires the father-figure (president or prime minister) to retire after a number of terms, and those who persists (Putin for instance) are seen as abnormalities and even as stepping out of democracy itself (while, in fact, Putin has stepped out of democracy a long time ago, but that's another matter). So, indeed, I think the end of the individual will trigger the end of patriarchy. Edited by enkidu on 01/02/08 - 07:53 AM
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 01/02/08 - 02:43 PM:	#7
enkidu wrote: And the trigger for this suicide of the father is that a dividual cannot be a father-figure, the illusion of positive power was the illusion of the 20th century, a misrepresentation of Nietzsche's Will to Power, the power a dividual wishes for is the power to express itself, to exist in his multiplicity, not to dominate others. I'm sorry, but I disagree. It is through dominate expression that an individual gains, or maintains power. With dominion comes influence, It is only through this influence that one, "inept", or socially different, can become "accepted." The criteria for becoming "accepted", changes with the dominate father-figure's expressions of maintaining dominion. S/he creates new criteria with which to gain, or maintain a power-role within a heirarchy, or patriarchy. This creates a time-spiral that is inescapable. Individual power is the thrust of the human cult. The revolt, due to an inadequacy, and frustration with the criteria of power, only creates a new criteria with which one gains or looses power. It is an infinite spiral of social-cultural time. The dividual is a conscious fantasy propagated by the veheminent denial of of the confines of culture. The criteria for power is not infinite. It is finite. The edges of this finiteness are the extremities of the criteria for power-play. If it is finite, then it cannot be transcended. So, if you're going to refute me, you must grapple with this proposition. There will be no end to the individual because of the finiteness of the possible social-cultural criteria of power.
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 01/02/08 - 03:43 PM:	#8
CypressMoon wrote: I'm sorry, but I disagree. It is through dominate expression that an individual gains, or maintains power. With dominion comes influence, It is only through this influence that one, "inept", or socially different, can become "accepted." The criteria for becoming "accepted", changes with the dominate father-figure's expressions of maintaining dominion. S/he creates new criteria with which to gain, or maintain a power-role within a heirarchy, or patriarchy. This creates a time-spiral that is inescapable. Individual power is the thrust of the human cult. The revolt, due to an inadequacy, and frustration with the criteria of power, only creates a new criteria with which one gains or looses power. It is an infinite spiral of social-cultural time. The dividual is a conscious fantasy propagated by the veheminent denial of of the confines of culture. The criteria for power is not infinite. It is finite. The edges of this finiteness are the extremities of the criteria for power-play. If it is finite, then it cannot be transcended. So, if you're going to refute me, you must grapple with this proposition. There will be no end to the individual because of the finiteness of the possible social-cultural criteria of power. You're staying in the logic of the individual, a person that wishes to further his personality. But a dividual is not a person anymore, it is potentially many persons, and his expression is also a negation of himself (or parts of his existing selves), so the power he's looking for is not one of dominion, which still relates to one-person and would confine him to one role, that of the dominant, even though, from here, he will indeed have more power of expression than in the position of the dominated, this expression will still be univocal. The dividual aims at polyvocality, he yearns for being something else than what he is, this is the power he's interested in, not the one of dominion. And there's no revolt, as that one would precisely consist in killing the master, and lead to the oedipian neurosis the dividual aims at outgrowing. Culture has confines but these confines are created by human being, the confines created by a race of dividuals are not the same as the one created by a race of individuals. I want to precise that I am not proposing a life outside of culture, but simply an extension of this one, which simply is the movement of human evolution (if not, we would still be living in caves). And eventually, holding the dominion/political power is not the condition for this to happen, it is not the place where the mutation from individual to dividual is happening, it may even be the last place where it will really occur; this is because we are living in an economic system where the old hierarchies are incessantly questioned, destroyed and replaced by new ones, which, in turn are destroyed, our world is constantly decoded and recoded, and there is no need for consistency, individuals are at odds in this fluctuating universe of sense, they have just become obsolete and will dissapear by themselves. Edited by enkidu on 01/03/08 - 08:16 AM
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 01/03/08 - 02:05 AM:	#9
John-Paul wrote: We are in truth enslaved (by original sin maybe, atheists have no better concept) to the household. The household is the unique sociological monad. Yes! We have mastered a lot of things except -- ourselves, for we are forever bound to the "family". That arrangement will always be the master.

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 01/03/08 - 08:02 PM:	#10
Caldwell wrote: Yes! We have mastered a lot of things except -- ourselves, for we are forever bound to the "family". That arrangement will always be the master. Yes, but God can replace the conventional Father-figure in a broken home. (as a placebeo of course)... Good God-fearing fathers make for strong Atheist sons. Edited by CypressMoon on 01/03/08 - 10:43 PM
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.