Dear Victor and Rodrigo Silva Browne:
After reading the book "cannibalism. The indiscipline of communication "would like to send you some brief remarks (and some concerns) about what they conveyed.
As this letter is intended to be an informal letter, let me speak in terms of what I mean and I do not understand the volume.
understand (and I think highly relevant) the proposition on the modes of resistance, which are arranged in several parts of the book and not always in a linear fashion. I mean what is explicitly outlined in Chapter 4 as the first two modes of resistance: resistance and resilience of archaeological resistance. In my view, these two "structure" the assertion of the book and suggested two alternatives to escape noxious dichotomous thinking and postmodern simulacrum. The big challenge is to try to locate volume in a third space that is in a location other than unsatisfactory extremes: the defense of absolute truth or the disappearance of truth, since both documents are authoritarian [1] (one for defending a truth that oppresses another and another to simulate a truth that washes the other) is located in a third space also is linked to specific problems of Latin American reality (reality that goes beyond the purely Latin American) : What to do when the nation-state is broken? How to resist the economic and cultural globalization? Also, if seen in terms of Hardt and Negri, the third space may also find an alternative to two forms of domination: the imperialist and imperial.
other hand, I understand that this third space is linked to the concept of cannibalism (as opposed to cannibalism), and that the option is linked to cannibalistic communication discipline, as outlined in the volume, because communication is condition for the possible third area of \u200b\u200bresistance. This means, in short, if Caliban is expressed in terms the language of Prospero and even ES Caliban Caliban and Prospero's language, it does not remove the possibility that the same language can not resist Prospero, without being trapped in a framework of cultural boundaries imposed to restrict their resilience. Thus, the importance of "desencasillar" communication method of amputation or any other science typically involves opening the possibility to:
The ways in which Caliban can re-think, re-invent itself and other game released
The ways in which Caliban can take other items from other cultures and resignified
Finally, assuming the communication discipline junto a la antropofagia, permite la posibilidad de independencia mental (por usar un término de Ardao), a pesar de que Caliban no pueda desprenderse de lo que lleva en el propio nombre (la imagen eurocéntrica del caníbal)
Caliban entonces, puede escapar así de dos opciones igualmente equívocas: o bien asumirse como caníbal (y así adoptar la dicotomía opresora eurocéntrica) o bien mimetizarse con Próspero, perdiéndose a sí mismo. La opción de la antropofagia, entonces, viene a ser el tercer espacio, en el cual sucede un cambio de mira en la percepción y auto-percepción de Caliban: pensar con la lengua del otro pero en los términos de sí mismo. En el libro hay dos claros examples that depict how can this change of focus:
the perception of Latin American artists themselves (as opposed to the view of Europeans, for whom the other is exotic, non-natural)
bossa nova, as fusion exogenous factors, but from the perspective of Brazilian culture itself. This looks
understand that change is necessary, and that enables a creative space or reinvention.
far as I understand ...
I do not understand is how all this relates to "throw them all" raised in the last chapter. But before proceeding, it is worth making a disclaimer: I have spoken from what I understand and I do not understand and, at this point, I must say what you mean this "not understand." In particular, results in the question: If I subscribe to this third space, what does this mean? Where do I stand?
fully support the need to escape the dichotomies (for endangering themselves from their own constitution, a clipping problem in the way of thinking). Also share the need to avoid falling into the "anything goes" or the banality of postmodernity (postmodernity understood in derogatory terms, of course). Share the need to resist the multiple processes of globalization and openness to share creative renewal. I do not share the "throw them all out" in many ways:
First, do not share the "throw them all" is really a popular proclamation, as it stands. The reading of the facts is, in my view, somewhat exaggerated, because the conflict in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia (among others) that review does not necessarily imply something like that cries out that the state should disappear. It seems the movement is not against the state but against certain operations of the state.
But put that point "to" I'm wrong because of ignorance or myopia of the facts. However, I realize what kind of anarchy or chaos remains after the "throw them all." What is being proposed? What gap is proposed to launch?
But let's say at point "b" I am wrong and that what seemed to me it is not so chaotic. Still do not see what ensures that small movements, groups, minorities, etc., Can achieve a sort of understanding after the "throw them all." One possibility would be to appeal to understanding Habermas's theory, but since that is not mentioned in the book, I feel that it would be unwise to associate the pose with that of Habermas.
But let's say at point "c" fruit of my prejudices rationalist, I have been wrong and has erroneously claimed that there must be something that "guarantee" a subsequent order. In that case, my question is much more minuscule: in case of joining the posing of "cannibalism": what should the intellectual who decides to follow the proposal?
In short, what I mean is that I share the reconstruction of the problem, but I fail to see what is the proper alternative. Visualize themselves an opening to the creative event but I do not think radical "to them all" is the best way to cause it. Does the "throw them all" leaves no step open for "anything goes" to the simulation and that the rule phagocyte us more quickly? Sincerely
Horacio Bernardo
From the paradox of "Anything Goes" by Paul Feyerabend to the fallacy of false Freedom by Horacio Bernardo *
The epistemologist Paul Feyerabend, who threw a vision "anarchist" of science, summarized critical theories in the phrase "anything goes". He objected also to a single "scientific method" as any of those known today as science possessed greater cognitive value than, say, alchemy or astrology. Behind the statement "anything goes" indeed, there is an attitude of rebellion and this leads us to believe that Feyerabend's criticisms lead us towards an intellectual and epistemological openness, struggling for the freedom of research and thought. I would like to dwell on this concept, that of freedom, related to the phrase "anything goes" of Feyerabend, because here, in my view, begins to take shape the fallacy and paradox of the claim. Consider this asunto.Dividamos the scope of the claim into two parts. The first addresses the 'anything goes' in terms of scientific method. For Feyerabend no scientific method that leads us to the "truth", which takes a radical position to say that any method is valid. If we admit the existence of the above range, then it follows the second: the "anything goes" on product knowledge. If any method is valid, then the product of any of them valid. For example, consider two theories which attempt to determine the age of man on earth. One of them used as a method of induction, and findings from analysis of fragments. The other is based on the analysis of the biblical text, proceeding to the count of days elapsed between the "birth" of Adam to our time. Let the product of two theories: the first determines that some two million years man appeared on earth, while the second states that about six thousand years. If for Feyerabend both methods are valid, then both products are valid, because if, for example, we admit the theory of analyzing the biblical text, would not accept the "anything goes" raised at the beginning. Even if both theories arrived at different conclusions from the same method, we could not rule any of them because, remember, the concept of 'anything goes' implies the incommensurability of scientific theories. Therefore, if for Feyerabend any of the methods used is valid, then the product of both methods will be valid también.Ahora let's focus on scientific theories. K. Popper says, rightly, that any scientific theory involves some kind of restriction. It is possible, therefore, be able to get two incompatible theories. In this case, how can it be valid, the 'anything goes' of Feyerabend? If adhered to, can we adhere to other incompatible? This is where the paradox begins to loom. We can summarize the above in the following scheme: a) if I say X about an event and, b) then I am denying Z (with Z than X) to the fact Y. Any theory, therefore, arrive at conclusions that undermined the whole Feyerabend uses because, since each theory implies endless denials, validate all methods quite "scientific" and therefore all possible theories, involve denying all. Now let's focus on testing the paradox in the 'anything goes' of Feyerabend. To do this, suppose that an epistemological theory, through a 'scientific' method M (valid for Feyerabend), up to the conclusion that in science "some things are worth and not others." For Feyerabend, the conclusion would be correct since, as we saw, the 'anything goes' of the product is clear of "anything goes" method. But if "anything goes" then the claim is not worth "some things are worth and not others" and whether it "some things are worth and not others" is not worth the statement "anything goes". Are we not, therefore, a paradox? If we accept this, then we should ask, how is behind this statement? Feyerabend finds arguments through a careful study of the history of science, and observation of the scientific community. His intention is to deprive the latter of the power autoadjudica, allow freedom of research, and even give fair share of "reason" to ordinary citizens. 'Anything goes' and freedom are concepts that seem to go together. No However, this association is misleading. If we abide by the "anything goes" of Feyerabend, and acknowledge that 'anything goes' of the method follows the 'anything goes' of the product, we will conclude that we can not accept a theory X as if they do, we necessarily deny a host of alternative and incompatible theories. Extending this reasoning shows that if you adhere to the theory "anything goes" we can not necessarily adhere to any other theory of any kind, because if someone would stop acceding to adhere to the theory "anything goes". Any theory that we should be displayed or processed systematically discarded. Ironically, the "anything goes" becomes an "anything goes". But, as the attentive reader will have noticed, "no good", is also a paradox, because if anything goes, it would not the statement "anything goes". The "anything goes" of Feyerabend, must be replaced by the phrase "no good, except this sentence." The "except this sentence" is not a mere "patch" to escape the paradox, but is of fundamental importance, since it implies, as we shall see, a question of legitimacy in the same denial. Asunto.Si better explain this I say "anything goes, except the phrase" I'm saying "this sentence is the only valid" with So my sentence is the only legitimate. But in whom lies the power and legitimacy needed to sustain such a position? What Feyerabend? How ordinary people? Of course, lie in a specific person or entity to which, for now, we will call X. Necessarily the person or entity X must have some justification that enable to say "anything goes" and thus claim "only this claim is valid." But there may be such person or institution? How would you justify your position? Justification is precisely the argument that supports freedom "absolute", accepted, no doubt, by the wider community because obviously no one would deny an assumption that "go towards freedom." But have you noticed what is the aberration of this contradiction?. We ended up giving to a person or entity X, in pursuit of freedom, the power to deny everything. Feyerabend's reasoning leads to what might be called "fallacy of the false freedom", defined as that postulated that, through the proclamation of absolute freedom, leads to the opposite position, that is, slavery or absolute immobility. Delve a bit more about this concept, noting how it operates the "fallacy of the false freedom" in the realidad.Vayámonos for a moment the scientific field e internémonos in the field of art. The "anything goes" of Feyerabend can be compared to the attitude of the artist Michel Duchamp, who introduced a hair dryer (including ordinary objects) as a work of art. His position is analogous to that of Feyerabend about science. If you adhere to the position of Duchamp, we have to admit that "anything goes" art. Not far from this statement of the tendency of contemporary art. Beatriz Sarlo points out this fact very well, showing the current crisis of art. If everything is art, what is the point of talking about art?. Comparing this approach with the "anything goes" of Feyerabend, the position of "anything goes" art end up being, "nothing true except this statement "and therefore not only come to a complete conceptual confusion, it will cancel all bids and try to define art. Obviously, in art there are no "ordinary" contradictory, so that the impact of this statement is different. However, both share the "fallacy of the false freedom ', whereby, in science, you get to deny any theory, and art, to create chaos at the expense of conceptual art itself. What do we mean by this? "We are against freedom? Not really. That is why we believe it is necessary to notice this fallacy, to really identify where it can be true sign of freedom and where not. Not discuss here what is meant by freedom. What it does do is illustrate with an example the person or entity X cited above, who have argued that part of the legitimacy of the fallacy. For this we turn to the economy política.Para neoclassical theory, the State should summarize their position to that of "judge and policeman", giving full economic freedom. For this theory, the economy if it is free, self-regulating. In the terms in which we are speaking, we can translate this into "the economy should enjoy absolute freedom." Did not like this statement to the intentions of "anything goes? We said, 'Anything Goes' leads to the conclusion "is worth nothing, except this sentence." We also saw that it was necessary some person or entity that could legitimize the phrase. In this example, we found the market as an abstract entity that legitimizes the fallacy. In the pure theoretical case, that of a perfectly competitive market, the absence of monopolies, oligopolies and government gives employers complete freedom to maximize their profit. However, further analysis, we see how, in this theory, "the market" is presented as a divine hand in the first place, manages to systematically determine the price of the goods (including wages) and reducing entrepreneurs gain - long term - to zero. For this reason, the purer is the perfect competition will be more fallacious, and peaked in absolute freedom will lead to absolute slavery, via deregulation of prices, reduction of state intervention in very low levels, labor flexibility, etc.. Notably, the neoclassical theory of perfect competition arises only as an example, it is not our intention exculsivamente reach a conclusion contrary to it. The ultimate intention is, therefore, as in the previous examples, invite reflection on the proposals for absolute freedom and on their statements, often false and dangerously misleading.
BA in Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences of Education (UDELAR), Uruguay, proximafrase@yahoo.com
[1] Linked to how it can be so commanding the defense of truth as any, I would get yourself a piece I wrote about it. This is based on the "anything goes" Feyerabend (as apparent total opening), work in which I attempted to show how to hold that "anything goes" is as pernicious as holding a single truth.
0 comments:
Post a Comment