This little video is cool and quite thought provoking, but Im not sure the conclusion is commensurate with the premises. I like the premises; I tend to agree that there is a kind of ‘wholistic’ kind of human reproduction occurring that extends into the furthest reaches of our Being/activity. But I am not sure that the broad conclusion that appears as a specificity is really coherent as it sounds. (Although I do think there is a viable option of sex and gender that is probably at play that I do not consider below.)
Im not sure.
yet I tend to say…
… the simple version is that we have do not have sufficient purchase upon our reproductive apparatus to cause such change, and the notion of a sort of ‘objective’ ability for self correction is itself a part of the capitalized identity of being human. This is to say that the idea that our mode of being can be categorized in an essential manner by the terms we use to describe it such that the terms indeed become tools or ‘leverages’ by which to change our situation, this is a redundant operation based in a religious type maxim of faith. Feudalism, say, says nothing of the daily activity of people except in as much as we are invested in a certain manner of seeing (-being) something that is ‘not’ capitalism, but this is not to say that there is/was no feudalism distinguished from capitalism, merely that no one ‘reflected’ in any manner to have brought about the change (or that the reflection was exactly ‘of feudalistic); the reflection was determined by the situation wherein we had kings and queens and such to thereby deal with the situation at hand; this is the irony of correlationalism. It is not that we are trapped in an eternal recurring capitalism, it is more that our categories never exceed themselves for the escape we might seek. For example, I may work as a programmer, and like my work but complain about long hours, lame management, ‘low’ pay, etc… but these complaints do not change if I were to be a ditch digger, they merely change form, the words I use, the annoyances I have. The perspectives that we have upon any situation of our doing/being are such that our views have little to do with what we are doing, and mostly with our attitude. Yet, our attitude never overcomes the present situation in which we have the complaint. Only with a specific horizon of ethical activity, a specific ideal of what we are ‘worth’ grants us a relative ‘manifest destiny’ of ‘free will’ and agency. And these all contained an determined by the capitalist state. Feudalism, in this way, is not merely some sort of presentist idea of a capitalized Being, rather, we only are capable of viewing feudalism as a kind of ‘ideal’ through which we know what capitalism is. The issue is not epistemological or ontological as it is logistical.
The problem of change noted by Graham Harman of this situation is moot: This situation is not evoking a kind of flipping of static images through a lens to convey an illusion of movement; it is evoking the movement of universal objects in a determined medium, but not only this: It evokes the scientific segregation of controlled objects. The only escape that Harman can summon os a type of ‘limited Object Ontology’ wherein the human being 1)exists along a continuum of potential knowing, which is another way of saying a common humanity, and 2) maintains as essential ‘free agency’, for lack of a better term, the Being of which I tend to call a ‘agent of transcendence’. These two functions work in secret to block even the effort to know how human beings function by posting an eternal random subjective variable to which then human beings keep at bay investigation that might breach the sanctity of Being Human. As long as we can envision, and hold this vision as absolutely true, a common human Being, then we have a viable ethics which prevents the invasion of science into what the human being actually does as a universal object. It is not difficult then to see how such a project is a religious apology. It says: Thou shalt not be privileged in your Being, for all human beings are of equal stature and ability in the potential of the universe. Yet even as we know this is not true, we still beckon to its commandment when it is announced, albeit philosophically.
To ask into reproduction merely reproduces the capital that we are as we ask such questions, just as the question that arose in feudalism where ‘feudalistic’; there is no ‘ideal’ linking of ideas that inherently must lay with feudal states. This is the beauty and genius of the human mind, of the universal object that is the human Being: It sees its productions as essential universal constructs that arose independently from the universe’s necessary operation. When we begin to view the human Being as merely one type of Being in a universe of Beings (objects), then we begin to understand that human consciousness ‘creates’ such distance, such sufficient purchase, that such creation is the Being of human functioning as a universal object universally.
The problem with stating the matter in this fashion is that it is offensive to the free state which is current of our idea of Being. For such invested identities, such announcements call forth an uncomfortable idea of Being, i.e. determined, which then shows just how capitalism has us regardless of what sort of free agency we which to apply, and regardless of what terms we use to identify our state.
It would seem we need a more novel solution. And I fear (again, I am not totally sold on this as yet) that it is the functionally divided state, where one part sees itself within a holism where it works within as it creates purpose within a free state, one that sees itself with reference to its human right of freedom and representation, and another functional level that knows of its autonomy of power: the setting of Star Wars. (lol).
I will get back to the Star Wars allegory soon.