and in its latest incarnation, neo liberal economics, it continues to crush native peoples and their space to extract riches from the earth
my favorite thinker, Bruno Latour, published a paper in 1992 that is actually close to his most recent book “Down To Earth” which challenges earthbounds to return to the earth
the title of the article is “…a (philosophical) platform for a left (european) party
Plank 1: modernity rode the arrow of time. Now time to consider space. The arrow of time, and thus progress, does not lead to less entanglements, it leads to more entanglements. Progress was emancipation from the drudge work of the ancients.
“. Maybe we have entered a different time than that of modernization. It is time for a left party to engender a new difference with the Right on the way time flows and what the future will offer in terms of freedom and entanglement. To sum it up in one more provocative way, the quest for emancipation might no longer be the slogan of the Left.
Plank 2: A special responsibility of Europe Europe invented modernity, it has a special responsibility to, so to speak, desinvent it. I am not sure a left party should have the United States’s worries as its own and only horizon. The United States are too powerful, too isolated, too insular in a way, to be interested in the specific European problems of remaking modernity. When manufacturers realize that one of their products leaves to be desired, they do what is named a “recall” of their products to fix, at their own expense, the problems and retrofits the new devices that will make the product better. I believe that Europeans have to “recall” modernity in order to turn it into a different project, especially a different way to tackle again the huge labor of universalizing the world (see plank 5). This task will not be done by the United States who go on endlessly on the road of Progress, doing even more of the same, and still ignoring the consequence of their action, as if modernity was still the order of the day. No one seems to know exactly what it is to be European. Now the occasion arises to decide collectively what it is to be European: it is to have inherited the formidable project of modernization and universalization, and then, at the end of this century, to realize that something different is needed, that is, to desinvent it and to deeply modify what it has inherited. Just at the moments when there is much talk on the topic of globalization, it is just the time not to believe that the future and the past of the United States are the future and the past of Europe. A left party should produce a new difference, utterly unrelated to the Cold War, between the future of the US and that of Europe. Actually, only the Left could imagine a European future, the Right —the neo-liberal one at least— can only imagine a universalist future, that is, in effect, an American one.
Plank 3: from successions to coexistence
Plank 4: Learning to live in time of scientific controversies
Plank 5: Globalization is not the order of the day
Plank 6: one viable political order or two unviable ones
Plank 7: collective experiment
Plank 8: the collective appropriation of economic calculus
The above article by Bruno Latour has an Appendix which is a short article he published in Science magazine.
This was during the time that most of his work was in STS, Science Technology Studies.
In this short appendix, he contrasts Science with research. Science often deals in certainty, the facts, and like fundamentalists builds a wall to defend their position. A 1924 book by John Dewey “The Quest for Certainty.”
In contrast, research lives in uncertainty.
In religion we are seekers, searching. Well, maybe it is better to say we are researching and researching. Open to experience.
Looking for an expression that could capture the change that has occurred in the last century and a half in the relation between science and society, I can find no better way than to say that we have shifted from Science to Research. Science is certainty; Research is uncertainty. Science is supposed to be cold, straight and detached; Research is warm, involving and risky. Science puts an end to the vagaries of human disputes; Research fuels controversies by more controversies. Science produces objectivity by escaping as much as possible from the shackles of ideology, passions and emotions; Research feeds on all of those as so many handles to render familiar new objects of enquiry.
Unfortunately, there is a philosophy of Science, but there is no philosophy of Research yet. There exist in the public spirit many representations, many clichés, for grasping Science and its myths; very little has yet been done to make Research a part of common sense. If an Association was created 150 years ago for the Advancement of Science, it might be appropriate to probe what an Association for the Advancement of Research would look like, and what changes it would entail in the nature of society.
Science and society cannot be defined in disjunction, they depend on the same foundation: they are like two branches of power defined by the same “Constitution”(1). If you change this “separation of powers”, you immediately alter both the view of what science is and of what society can do. This is probably what has changed most since the beginning of the AAAS. Science and Research have completely different ways to relate to the rest of culture. In the first model, society was like the flesh of a peach, and Science its hard stone. Science was surrounded by a society, that, in its essence, remained foreign to the inner workings of the scientific method: society could reject or accept the results of Science, it could be inimical or friendly towards its practical consequences, but there was no direct connection between the core of scientific results on the one hand, and the context — which could do no more than slow down or speed up the advancement of an autonomous Science. One cliché says it all: in one palace, Galileo deals with the fate of falling bodies while, in another palace, princes, cardinals and philosophers deal with the fate of human souls
This Guide is meant to lay out 2020’s vital details as simply as possible so YOU can ACT to make things right:
This fall’s outcome turns on the Election Protection Trifecta:
1. Voter registration rolls 2. Vote by mail 3. Tabulation/recount of the ballots
All are under serious attack.
Losing just one can undermine all else.
Don midwest
Glad you provided their email addresses, so folks can email them to stop trashing sorting machines, removing mailboxes and so they can try to get ride of the postmaster. https://t.co/1AkBTq2ECy
Someone should remake Schoolhouse Rock showing how Mr. Just a Bill always ends up dying on Mitch McConnell's desk, so he stops getting cover for his role in sabotaging everything, including COVID relief. https://t.co/D1vgOScaZ2
The President was supposed to throw out the first pitch at the Yankees game tonight in New York but canceled because of his "strong focus on the China Virus, including scheduled meetings on Vaccines, our economy and much else."
It was more like he’s a fat unhealthy maggot and did not want to strike out. gawd forbid.
jbob
He was never invited to throw out the first pitch at a Yankee Game this year. It was all “Rumpian” bullshit. The way this comment/tweet was published diminishes that fact considerably.
Don midwest
Tonight I’ve made a criminal referral to the New Jersey Attorney General asking him to empanel a grand jury to look at subversion of NJ election laws by donald trump, louis dejoy, and other trump officials in their accelerating arson of the post office. pic.twitter.com/mxqbV8EmVn
wpDiscuz
Tip Jar
modernity crushed native peoples
and in its latest incarnation, neo liberal economics, it continues to crush native peoples and their space to extract riches from the earth
my favorite thinker, Bruno Latour, published a paper in 1992 that is actually close to his most recent book “Down To Earth” which challenges earthbounds to return to the earth
the title of the article is “…a (philosophical) platform for a left (european) party
Plank 1: modernity rode the arrow of time. Now time to consider space. The arrow of time, and thus progress, does not lead to less entanglements, it leads to more entanglements. Progress was emancipation from the drudge work of the ancients.
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-76-DING-THING.pdf
The above article by Bruno Latour has an Appendix which is a short article he published in Science magazine.
This was during the time that most of his work was in STS, Science Technology Studies.
In this short appendix, he contrasts Science with research. Science often deals in certainty, the facts, and like fundamentalists builds a wall to defend their position. A 1924 book by John Dewey “The Quest for Certainty.”
In contrast, research lives in uncertainty.
In religion we are seekers, searching. Well, maybe it is better to say we are researching and researching. Open to experience.
T and R, LD!!😊🕊👍
How to Save 2020: The Grassroots Emergency Election Protection “Trifecta” Action Guide
It was more like he’s a fat unhealthy maggot and did not want to strike out. gawd forbid.
He was never invited to throw out the first pitch at a Yankee Game this year. It was all “Rumpian” bullshit. The way this comment/tweet was published diminishes that fact considerably.
https://twitter.com/7im/status/1294484948640907264?s=20