Skip to toolbar
 
HomeUncategorized8/15 News Roundup & Open Thread

62
Leave a Reply

avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
48 Comment threads
14 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
jbobBennywi62NYCVGjcitybone Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Don midwest
Don midwest

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.

“. 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

Plank 9: from calculability to descriptibility

Plank 10: a strong state

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-76-DING-THING.pdf

Don midwest
Don midwest

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

orlbucfan

T and R, LD!!😊🕊👍

Don midwest
Don midwest

How to Save 2020: The Grassroots Emergency Election Protection “Trifecta” Action Guide

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
Don midwest

Don midwest
Don midwest

Don midwest
Don midwest

orlbucfan

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
Don midwest

Don midwest
Don midwest