I became a muslim last night

[xes]

*blows a raspberry at Santino*

 

[Random]

Don't you mean what's not great? Would make more sense

Another blow against rationalism is struck

 

[revol68]

The track record of taking religion and rationalism seriously isn't that great, though, is it?

What are you doing, some kind of sub-Debord riff on lament for the enlightenment and the Jesuits?

Well it depends what you wish to look at, many radical grassroots movements challenged power structures and oppression by taking religion more seriously than their masters, infact it could be argued they approached their religion with rationalism, refusing to overlook contradictions and blind spots.

As for the track record of rationalism, well I would argue that the problem is precisely when rationalism doesn't take itself seriously, when it cops out half way through and says "well this will do and no further".

The Jesuits and the Enlightenment both reinforced the status quo when they stopped taking themselves seriously, when they became matters of convenience; empty platitudes, rituals and symbols.

 

[cesare]

I'm quite interested to learn more about when the Jesuits stopped taking themselves seriously revol, if you wouldn't mind expanding on that?

 

[kyser_soze]

On the suject of 'Just be nice'

That principle isn't up for debate. It's how one chooses to be nice, the flavour of the niceness, that causes fights. And of course, how 'nice' is defined. I mean it's all well and good saying 'be nice to your fellow man' but if your definition of fellow man fails to include those who don't follow your creed of nice, then it's not really that useful, is it?

 

[revol68]

I don't think that trade unionists and leftists in South America or the Middle East would agree with you, really.

Really, cos I always understood the rise in fundamentalist Islam as being bound up in the death of ideology of the early 90's, not to mention the concrete support given to it by western states. Fundamentalism is part product and part reaction to the cultural relativism of capitalism.

Though I see the point you are trying to make and I agree with it to some extent, the growth of this relativist culture is itself the product of the defeat of the working class and the decomposition forced upon it over the past 30 years. However in terms of the intellectual culture and it's role as the perfect (non) ideology for late capitalism, this relativist inertia is the biggest block on the development of an emancipatory politics. Of course as a materialist the best way of breaking holes in that is actual class struggle, however we shouldn't underestimate how this atomised intellectual and ethical culture acts to rule out collective struggle from the off.

 

[revol68]

No different from any other age; you're falling into the conservative trap of assuming that there is a glorious past and a lousy present.

Eh no, there were different types of poverty, sure there were always bullshit ideas and reactionary nonsense but they all can't be reduced into each other.

You are of course falling into the typical conservative ahistoricalism of assuming history never changes.

Also you said earlier that there was a difference between post modern relativism and pomo relativism as poorly grasped, I'd be interested in you explaining the difference and why it is important.

 

[Random]

Really, cos I always understood the rise in fundamentalist Islam as being bound up in the death of ideology of the early 90's, not to mention the concrete support given to it by western states. Fundamentalism is part product and part reaction to the cultural relativism of capitalism.

Are you still a materialist? I really don't think that leftists in the Middle East and Pakistan were destroyed by relativism, but rather by actual suppression by a very non-relativist (and often militarialist-rationalist) military, and then the finamdentalists filled the gap.

There's really no role there at all for your so-called 'death of ideology' which is tbh a very Western phenomenon.


Really, you're talking so much nonsens here, that you probably don't even believe yourself, that I'm having a hard time motivating myself to answer it.

 

[kyser_soze]

You are of course falling into the typical conservative ahistoricalism of assuming history never changes.

Where do I say that? I think that there are long term patterns in human behaviour that are repeated in different ways over time; I also believe that we haven't developed any really new ways of behaving since we were hunter-gatherers and that what we've done is adapt the first characteristics of humans as h-gs in small groups to an agrarian lifestyle (which is where the problems start)...

However, to get back to your statement:

We really do live in an age of intellectual poverty.

The implication being that at some point there was an age of intellectual riches which is now lost. I say this is indicates a conservative mind, or at least a conservative mental process, at work - harking back to a 'better time'.

Really, cos I always understood the rise in fundamentalist Islam as being bound up in the death of ideology of the early 90's, not to mention the concrete support given to it by western states. Fundamentalism is part product and part reaction to the cultural relativism of capitalism.

I know it's been a while since our resident Imam was around, but surely you know better than this? Modern Xtian fundamentalism can be traced back to the revivalist movements in the C19th which arose as a response to the (rapid) displacement of Christianity by science as a means of explaining the world, and of philosophy saying 'Man makes his own rules, doesn't need god'. Islam as a faith is 'fundamentalist', if by fundie you mean 'Takes the words of it's scripture literally'.

Also you said earlier that there was a difference between post modern relativism and pomo relativism as poorly grasped, I'd be interested in you explaining the difference and why it is important.

I'll get back to you with the quote on it that I'm thinking of.

 

[revol68]

Are you still a materialist? I really don't think that leftists in the Middle East and Pakistan were destroyed by relativism, but rather by actual suppression by a very non-relativist (and often militarialist-rationalist) military, and then the finamdentalists filled the gap.

There's really no role there at all for your so-called 'death of ideology' which is tbh a very Western phenomenon.


Really, you're talking so much nonsens here, that you probably don't even believe yourself, that I'm having a hard time motivating myself to answer it.

Are you deliberately misreading my posts or is your thinking really that mechanical and one dimensional that you can't grasp that one thing is bound up in the other?

You seem to imagine that stuff like the 'death of ideology' have no material causes or material effects, infact you seem to be restating a very crude dualism.

The notion that the death of ideology is just a very western phenomenon is extremely ignorant when you look at the middle east since the collapse of the soviet union and the failure of secular nationalist movements. Firstly it overlooks the very real material support that was given to religious opposition groups to undermine secular movements, not to mention the effect the failure of these nationalist groups to deliver modernisation has had, and this is before we get onto how late capitalism creates a breeding ground for fundamentalism in opposition to it's lack of meaning and how it has diluted all faiths and ideology to the point of impotence and hypocrisy.

 

[kyser_soze]

The death of ideology was a load of rot put around by Fukyama and associates during the 90s after the wall came down, and slotted in nicely with '3rd Way' politics. The world has since been disabused of it as a notion.

 

[Random]

Gosh revol, yes maybe I am just dim and can't see how the rise of extreme political Islam is actually part of the 'death of ideology'. What a lot of painfully shoehorned together nonsense. Is this something you've got from Zizek, because it certainly has the musty aroma of the academic coridors about it.

 

[Random]

Considering the greatest enemy of any emancipatory politics is the intellectual inertia of 'post modernism' and it's retarded relativism I think it's fair enough.

Jesus I'm still taken aback by what nonsense this is.

Oh, and btw you clearly said 'intellectual inertia' rather than 'CIA dollars which are themselves linked with teh zeitgeist of the end of ideology thingy thingy' or what ever awful alamagam you're trying to shoehorn together right now.

Zizek with an O level.

 

[revol68]

Where do I say that? I think that there are long term patterns in human behaviour that are repeated in different ways over time; I also believe that we haven't developed any really new ways of behaving since we were hunter-gatherers and that what we've done is adapt the first characteristics of humans as h-gs in small groups to an agrarian lifestyle (which is where the problems start)...

However, to get back to your statement:



The implication being that at some point there was an age of intellectual riches which is now lost. I say this is indicates a conservative mind, or at least a conservative mental process, at work - harking back to a 'better time'.



I know it's been a while since our resident Imam was around, but surely you know better than this? Modern Xtian fundamentalism can be traced back to the revivalist movements in the C19th which arose as a response to the (rapid) displacement of Christianity by science as a means of explaining the world, and of philosophy saying 'Man makes his own rules, doesn't need god'. Islam as a faith is 'fundamentalist', if by fundie you mean 'Takes the words of it's scripture literally'.

I'm not harking back to a better time at all, what I am perhaps harking after is the notion of 'change', of people being able to shape history, in one way or the other. I'm not looking back and thinking 'oh what a golden age' and overlooking the brutality of early modernity and the reification of science into a cult of progress, instead I'm lamenting the fact that now the brutality and violence exists not in ruthlessly uprooting the present and imposing the future but rather in the brutal imposition of the present onto eternity. We are told that this is it, nothing is changing bar a few reforms around the edges and perversely nothing changing means the continuous restructuring of everything in line with the needs and demands of capitalism. The perversity of this 'end of history' is that this 'eternal present' depends upon constant development and change, it's just that these changes are already understood as part of the present, they don't represent the future as a potential means of breaking from the present but instead are understood as a means of ensuring the endurance of the present well into the future.

 

[maximilian ping]

this thread, from such a scintillating beginning, is now making me want to go to sleep. and it's only 3.23pm

 

[xes]

Goand have a drin....oh, sorry

 

[Random]

this thread, from such a scintillating beginning, is now making me want to go to sleep. and it's only 3.23pm

oh, go and have nice pray, why don't you

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I've considered it, since my wife is nominally Muslim, as will be our son, and there are circumstances where my being nominally Christian might pose a problem. I was thinking "since it's all just nominal who gives a toss? None of us practice any religion anyway." But that's probably not the right attitude to go into these things with.

Is it like Christianity in that you can piss all over the rules so long as it's 'nominal'?

Well its sort of quite serious blasphemy to pretend to believe when you don't. It'd be a bit like lying under oath.

punishable by death....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#In_Islam

and claiming faith which you do not have for your own personal reasons is considered by most muslims to be a form of apostasy....

 

[butchersapron]

What's your feeling on the matter garfs?

 

[revol68]

Jesus I'm still taken aback by what nonsense this is.

Oh, and btw you clearly said 'intellectual inertia' rather than 'CIA dollars which are themselves linked with teh zeitgeist of the end of ideology thingy thingy' or what ever awful alamagam you're trying to shoehorn together right now.

Zizek with an O level.

Didn't I already explain what I meant by that and how it didn't mean I thought some scarey abstract spectre by the nomiker 'the death of ideology' existed independent of material world.

And for your information Zizek does have quite a bit of interesting things to say on such matters but I reckon you'd be better of engaging critically with some basic Marx, as you seem to have ended up grasping a very one dimensional crude materialism, infact it's so uncoth that the ghosts of the second international are having to look at it through their fingers.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, now you've exaplained your position I accept that you weren't presenting some kind of nostalgia for some intellectual golden age when everyone sat around creating the future in the present. You should be aware of saying what you mean tho - it does look like your being nostalgic!

brutal imposition of the present onto eternity

Nice turn of phrase, is it yours?

We are told that this is it, nothing is changing bar a few reforms around the edges and perversely nothing changing means the continuous restructuring of everything in line with the needs and demands of capitalism

And do 'we' have to listen? No. Will many, for some time, yes, but the same has always been true. We're developing culturally - there is nothing to say that in 10 or 20 years, strongly held ideological positions will once again be de rigeur for people (in fact I'd say it's almost inevitable - the morass of 'everyone's opinion is equally valid' rubbish will end). The real question of development is if we can make something post-ideology that also incorporates action toward social justice, whatever form that takes.

 

[cesare]

I'm quite interested to learn more about when the Jesuits stopped taking themselves seriously revol, if you wouldn't mind expanding on that?

When you have a minute revol ...

 

[maximilian ping]

oh, go and have nice pray, why don't you

ok. good idea, but i'm at work. you may have to pray for me

 

[maximilian ping]

good luck for the weekend max

Cheers guv'nor

 

[IC3D]

Religion just exists because people lack the intellect or inclination to think things through themselves, and converting to some dubious load of cobblers to please religious types is pretty weak

I think eduction is to blame and if I had my way there would be a lot more Marx and Plato discussed in school so in adult life people could have a broader out look on humanity

Its actually quite scary thinking that children are having this stuff force fed to them from the cradle, and adult converting to it is pathetic

 

[kyser_soze]

Religion just exists because people lack the intellect or inclination to think things through themselves, and converting to some dubious load of cobblers to please religious types is pretty weak

I think eduction is to blame and if I had my way there would be a lot more Marx and Plato discussed in school so in adult life people could have a broader out look on humanity

Its actually quite scary thinking that children are having this stuff force fed to them from the cradle, and adult converting to it is pathetic

Hmm, I'd rather let people make their own minds up about whom they choose to read, and rather teach methods of learning and how to develop critical thinking, rather than just substitute one set of someone elses ideas as to what's 'good' for people for another.

 

[revol68]

OK, now you've exaplained your position I accept that you weren't presenting some kind of nostalgia for some intellectual golden age when everyone sat around creating the future in the present. You should be aware of saying what you mean tho - it does look like your being nostalgic!



Nice turn of phrase, is it yours?



And do 'we' have to listen? No. Will many, for some time, yes, but the same has always been true. We're developing culturally - there is nothing to say that in 10 or 20 years, strongly held ideological positions will once again be de rigeur for people (in fact I'd say it's almost inevitable - the morass of 'everyone's opinion is equally valid' rubbish will end). The real question of development is if we can make something post-ideology that also incorporates action toward social justice, whatever form that takes.

There is an example given by Zizek where he talks about how 80 years ago the big debate was how the economy should be structured, communism, social democracy, corporatism/fascism etc and now however this is essentially a none issue and the big issue is one of ecological disaster and whether we can avoid it, as he points out today it seems easier to imagine the continuation of capitalism as it is and this producing the end of the world than it is to imagine an economic restructuring to avoid it, the present economic system is so above question, is so naturalised that it's existence synonymous with the world itself. If I an guilty of being nostalgic then it is for wanting a return to an age when the economy was still an issue of debate rather than an assumed truth.

As for the turn of phrase, well it's not consciously taken from anyone but I've probably picked it up from somewhere or atleast it's just a reworking of concepts I've encountered.

The issue of post ideology is where I will differ from you, to me there is no outside of ideology, nor is ideology simply distortion of reality, rather it is fundamentally constitutive to reality.

 

[revol68]

When you have a minute revol ...

sorry missed that.

I simply meant that if they took their oath of poverty, chastity and dedication to scripture seriously they would have found themselves at odds with the Vatican, which they did quite a few times in their early years, it is when they start taking such matters less seriously and make room for the real politic of compromise that they became apologists for some of the Catholic Churches worst crimes, those that took their oaths seriously often stood in the way of the slavery of european colonialism.

Now whether or not the vows of the order where ever meant to be taken so seriously is another matter or where these vows always meant to be secondary to serving the Catholic Church itself.

It's kind of akin to the anabaptists who took Luther's criticism more serious than Luther himself who was happier to compromise.

Likewise many Jesuits took themselves and their vows seriously enough to end up in conflict with the Catholic Church with liberation theology.

 

[cesare]

sorry missed that.

I simply meant that if they took their oath of poverty, chastity and dedication to scripture seriously they would have found themselves at odds with the Vatican, which they did quite a few times in their early years, it is when they start taking such matters less seriously and make room for the real politic of compromise that they became apologists for some of the Catholic Churches worst crimes.

Now whether or not the vows of the order where ever meant to be taken so seriously is another matter or where these vows always meant to be secondary to serving the Catholic Church itself.

It's kind of akin to the anabaptists who took Luther's criticism more serious than Luther himself who was happier to compromise.

Cheers revol.

Well I can't speak with any great authority on the subject, but I was under the impression that they've fallen out with the Vatican pretty regularly.

*Has watched The Mission *

 

[kyser_soze]

Fair point re post-ideology - I need to have a think about how I could better phrase that, but on your first paragraph have heart! Things Will Change - as you point out in one of your replies to me. The central problem of capitalism is it's pervasiveness and naturalism - our socities have been coercive/oppresive hierarchies for so long it's not the economy that's the issue, it's the basic fact that all out myth-making, all our tales, are built around the narrative needs of the elite. All cap has done is embed itself as deeply as any religion has managed in the past - it hasn't invented any new forms of social control, or any new myths, only finessed and rewritten those that serve it best...and commodified them and sold them back to us and itself as truth.