Latour and the External

Largely due to our conversation on Friday morning, I have been thinking a great deal about all of the readings we have done and the relationship between external information and a kind of internal working relationship with this information. Your description ,almost spherical, which represented an approach that seemed to encompass the whole spectrum of ideas covered, helped contextualize and define a lot of the things rumbling around in my head. I have mentioned before that in doing the readings I place myself, perhaps a little more accurately, in this world. It is at once a set of tools or 'useful ideas' but this implies that these are external devices to be used in the construction of my internal Frankenstein or Metroplolis 'witch.' In reading the beginning of Latour I tangentially have been thinking about the definition of epistemology, and how this relates to all that we have read in the past year and a half, and this notion of knowledge connected with belief and how that might interrelate. So loosely, there are these external ideas which we have been ruminating over that become connected with my belief system in a culling process that then act as new internal conceptual base from which to begin from. So my departure points are moving as I assimilate Mills, or Harvey etc. I sensed with your description there is even more at play here but I need a little more reflective time with this. Latour with his reference to the nonhuman existence outside the 'cave' is a different take on this concept of the external or maybe not. Given that say there is a freedom of thought in this space and possibly the readings indeed have been coming from a somewhat enlightened place then using them to build a core knowledge/belief base makes sense. Ideally, like you had mentioned, we can put these things to use without 'reifying' them in the process.

More Barthes and Plato

In thinking more about the relationship I think with the 'Nautilus,' Barthes leaves it open ended in his romantic view of the drunken boat. There is a value judgement, in that observing or following the 'Drunken Boat' we are free to explore and absorb or engage life. There is no reference to responsibility. In Plato's Cave if you manage to 'see the light' you then have the burden of going back in the cave to toil next to the unenlightened which by some accounts would be worse than the original 'ignorance is bliss' scenario, of toiling without ever leaving.

Mythologies

I have been meaning to sort of reflect on 'One Dimensional Man' but have gotten sidetracked with Barthes, ' The Nautilus and the Drunken Boat.' This very short little piece seems an interesting metaphor for a number of the things we have been reading and questioning all throughout this course. His observations in regard to Verne's 'exploration of closure' and his remarks on Verne as constructing worlds that were 'finite.' I have been spending a great deal of time ruminating these concepts, in that there is this struggle, active struggle, to contain ones world in any number of ways, it is the world of Marcuse's 'One Dimensional Man,' it is the necessity to define a secure and rational existence. And by the very act of doing so we are prevented from leaving the cave.
I went back to Plato to reacquaint myself with the shadows on the wall and I will now explore Rimbaud's 'Drunken Boat' to understand, "the boat which says 'I' and, freed from its concavity, can make man proceed from a psycho-analysis of the cave to a genuine poetics of exploration." This ,in closing, caught me by surprise and in its simplicity, arrested a moment in time.

Useful Ideas

"Ideas that relate to your personal experience or interests. List ideas you find personally useful here, whether as tools for understanding your own experiences or for analyzing contemporary issues that you find particularly interesting."

There is a process that usually happens on the walk home from class that directly relates to the above. It is a kind of placement of myself in the world as redefined by the classes readings and discussions. Some nights it is more pronounced if I happen to feel a little bit more passionate about the material covered or if the dynamic was particularly thought provoking. So, it is not so much 'useful ideas' rather 'defining thoughts and/or moments.' Some of them carry forward and act as a kind of internal reference, others, which in the moment may seem so profound are sometimes lost only to be resurfaced when a name or a phrase is directed my way. Some even when brought up by someone else still remain lost, in an intellectual mash of concepts and ideas.

That said, lets go with the basics before the specifics. I used to tell the teachers I hired for Continuing Ed at Parsons, that if you can teach a student one thing they will remember and/or use forever you have done a great job. The 'Frank way', conversations with classmates about the weeks readings sometimes go like this, 'I read the material but did not do a Frank read.' So as a useful tool or idea the premise of 'critical reading' of a persons work. I refer to it in my mind as full immersion into the text. I have often stopped reading when I realize I am surface reading and wait until I can devote time to a closer read. I have read things differently from the first class and will continue to do so and I am little dismayed I was never really presented with this earlier in my life. Understanding and formatting another persons argument. This can be done with examples and 'critical reading' of the text. This gives reverence to another persons point of view, 'before one can criticize someones work it is important to understand it first.' A seemingly simple concept very often overlooked and replaced with half informed opinion. Then last in this process, is contextualizing the argument in regard to ones place in the world. As mentioned above, defining oneself in relation to the information being presented.

Using this as the rubric I will now get specific about a few examples of this in the readings.

I presented on 'Harvey' which in an of itself always has a lasting impression, that is the presenting part not necessarily the 'Harvey' part. There is no better way to really absorb material then leading or teaching it to others. The take-aways for me were really a few simple concepts. We are 'imperialistic' or the we are the personification of 'the new imperialism' and that we should not only own up to it but take responsibility for it. These seem like ideas which are really self evident but they have been maligned and 'spun' in all kinds of directions to deflect responsibility for our actions as a nation. This really helped place me in a position within the U.S. That is until one can define who and what the U.S. is, it is impossible to understand where I might fit within this paradigm. Now don't get me wrong, reading 'Harvey' did not suddenly illuminate everything to me in relationship to my citizenship, but it did aligned certain elements of it. His argument rang true in our constant actions toward other nations without the responsibility associated with those actions. It is not like I hadn't thought about our stature or lack there of in world, but it was loosely constructed and not based on a solid argument. I got to look at myself from the macro, 10,000 feet up point of view, and to look at the actions of our nation in much the same way. I am not necessarily happy with this construct but it is one I will maintain and add to as time goes on.

With Mills and "The Power Elite," comes to mind off of 'Harvey,' and here I am struck with a few things, first that the notion that the 'power elite' oftentimes does not recognize its own power. This along with the idea that the people that are sycophantic to the 'power elite' have a greater notion as to the 'elites' actual influence. This was very reminiscent of the triangle we spoke of last semester with the 'ruling class' at the top, a tier right below them that is made up of 'upper middle class' which completely enable the 'ruling class' and then below them the masses. This becomes important to me in that clearly as a member of the enabling tier, I am probably more a part of the problem than the solution. Additionally, having owned and operated a few corporations in my life, understanding the 14th amendment was another eyeopener in regard to the corporation as an entity with 'rights.' This will stay with me as I have enjoyed some of the benefits of this but have also incurred some of its negative tax implications as well. I wish, as I expressed in class, that Mills would have spent more time in reference to the implications of this ruling, but have mentally bookmarked it for future research.

Jumping to Benjamin having a BFA in Photography and doing a fair share of painting, initially I was drawn to his arguments and analogies to art, film, actors, painters and their various processes. His weighted stance on 'aura' and 'ritual' and the differences inherent in film versus paint bring to mind questions of the relationship to art and man, which are worthy of further viewing. To me the key is the relationship between art and man or society at any given point in time. His success to me is to revisit his work but to more importantly move beyond his work and ask some of his same questions with an eye to clearer solutions.

In 'Fear of Small Numbers' the concept of 'predatory identities' and how they are interdependent on the very minorities they exploit gives rise to the the general notion of how oppression is a collaborative dance. This is not to suggest ,as above, with the upper tier that the oppressed are enabling the oppressors because in most cases that do not have the power or influence to do so, no he points out majorities can turn predatory given circumstances control. It is about the relationship of the larger group versus the smaller, weaker one. But the term 'predatory identity' resonates as a defining one to illuminate large groups of very powerful and influential people.

Illuminations

Having gone to RIT undergraduate school for photography the question that was always surreptitiously behind every conversation was 'is photography art.' It was loudly pronounced that indeed it was, but there was always the outside critics that seemed to infuse doubt in many a teacher and student alike. This led to a kind of categorizing of what constituted 'Art' in the form of photography. It was largely elitist and revolved around certain newly traditional views on Art borrowed from the aesthetics from earlier in the century. To clarify this was 1975 and what was accepted as Art was a very romantic form of photography which echoed painting in a number of ways. There were many out there playing with sequencing and pushing the medium but this was just beginning. In reading Benjamin's work it immediately became relevant with his, "The primary question-whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art-was not raised. Soon the film theoreticians asked the same ill-considered question with regard to film. But the difficulties with photography caused traditional aesthetics were mere child's play as compared to those raised by the film." This concept of reproduction and the very nature of 'Art' and its de-ritualization is one that has exploded 1000 fold since his insights from this writing.

The notion of the 'aura' lessening with the reproductive process is at once eminently understandable but one I would like to bring up in conversation in class and study group. his take is a very romantic one and serves as a definition or descriptor for his argument, but could it be argued that there is an 'aura' that is created in film, video, etc. it is just a different construct. In picking the sequencing of shots isn't the artist building another kind of 'aura.' When he quotes Duhamel in regard to movies,"a pastime for helots, a diversion for the uneducated," he brings light to the comparison that one form may indeed be more valid than another. He works hard to illuminate that the very concept of 'Art' has changed but then falls back on a kind of romantic view and value judgement that habits are formed, much like Dewey last week, and I am left with a negative take on this particular illumination.

The Public and Its Problems

In addition to the class discussion I was particularly drawn to the Dewey's thoughts on knowledge, "It is implied throughout that knowledge is communication as well as understanding." He goes on to posture, " The schools may suppose that a thing is known when it is found out. My old friend was aware that a thing is fully known only when it is published, shared, socially accessible." 'Dissemination' is a key to the spread of knowledge and, "distribution as to take root and have a chance of growth." This is one of those macro views that points out the need to stop and reflect on the very way we use communication to gain knowledge. It seems a process that may start with an idea that may germinate through communications and then in order to get this concept to take hold it must be spread an encompass a larger public. Here he is referring to 'public opinion' but I have been thinking about the transference of knowledge in general.

This ,for me, is a sometimes difficult conceptual framework that makes perfect sense but is often neglected. It then follows that when knowledge is not disseminated it stays in a myopic opinion state.

Poverty, Genocide and an Eroding Environment

In addressing the three readings for this week I was struck by the enormity of these issues and at first pass with the 'Bottom Billion' and the 'Stern' paper the macro view or vantage point they spoke from. As I mentioned in class I was also struck by the almost cavalier statement in the 'Bottom Billion' that the problem was fixable and not as difficult to overcome as 'fascism, communism, etc.' This seemed a great leap of faith and it didn't quite fit with the rest of the argument in this text. Part of this may be attributed to the fact that I did not have the complete book to read and only the pages supplied in the wiki, but there was a definite detached feeling to the text and to the overall argument. Stern, seemed a bit clinical as well and although not uninteresting it appeared more of a reference than a read. The deforestation issue was a particular fact that I found compelling, in that I was unaware of its importance in the global environmental structure.

In 'Fear of Small Numbers' from the onset it was a different kind of read. since I had lead the class the week before on 'Harvey' I found a lot of correlations between the two texts. The concept of 'molecular' vs 'cellular' movements was very similar as well as 'territorial' vs 'vertebral.' I think the larger question becomes what level of involvement from some group, whether it be government, global collective or in some other form political organization is needed to influence any of these issues, poverty, genocide or environment.

On a personal note I was interested in Appadurai thoughts on collective motivations toward minorities and the manifestation of same. That positioning for 'we-ness' that is always going on around and within ourselves. It momentarily makes me stand back and try to assess my own either active or tacit participation in larger orders which may not be altogether healthy.