Many people in the past few years have talked about a end of history or end of philosophy. Zizek might be probably the most noticeable of authors buy his book ‘living in the end times’. We have many years of report analysis and theory about what nothingness and nihilism might really be or what it could mean. We have Speculative Realism arise at a time where people are tired of staring in the end soup, The soup of nothingness, and so a few authors decide to step over the muck and per claim some sort of new realism; but I would say that we just can’t simply step over it and move on.
I have said in earlier post of mine, The problem of alienation and postmodernism and the end of discourse lay in the fact that we are still here. The problem is that the world did not end.
Now with this brings about is a curious sort of phenomenon. For we are tempted to look to the past and say that people believed this or that and that now we have a much more clear view upon the situation. I myself tend to look at the development of discourse and see that there is some fundamental linkage occurring such that it brought it self to nihilism , to a conclusion of meaninglessness, and/or a foundation of everything upon nothing. For the question must be why didn’t the world end? But more so what was it that made people come to this way of speaking about things, which is to say what is it about discourse or about thinking or about knowledge that is capable of coming to any sort of conclusion that she’s there should’ve been some sort of into anything? What could’ve possibly occurred that brought people to a conclusion of despair and anxiety over existence?
In fact it is the most ridiculous thing, from a certain view, that people are so distraught about the meaninglessness of everything. I was just pondering the other day while I was listening to the Sex Pistols (i’m currently working on a version of anarchy in the UK) and pondering about my youth and punk rock, and in particular ‘Anarchy in the UK’ The song, and I couldn’t help but wonder what was it that Pissed kids off so much? What were they so angry about? Jobs? Opportunity? From my own experience I think about the 80s in nuclear destruction and poverty and famine, basically the idea that somehow we got into our minds that everything was going to be dandy because of what for a short term we can call is modernity technology intelligence basically enlightenment, and yet we discovered that there’s all this crappy abuse going on underneath the façade. Maybe that’s what piss them off so much wood pissed us off so much. But is that really what we were rebelling against? Is that really what we are complaining about even as we used to those complaints?
I mean I think about this in reference to the fact that I was probably barely 13 years old when I started formulating these complaints. Now, I wonder how that came about. How is it possible that I came to some conclusion about how great the world was going to be in reference to the fact that it’s based upon didn’t dying The terrible things that it creates in its wake? In fact I don’t remember making any sort of analysis of the sort. I didn’t at say 12 years old read some sort of compendium of history and political analysis and cultural critique about the world to come to some conclusion that it supposed to be so great. And neither did I read (I hated reading because I did it so slowly) or watch the news or getting in any sort of debate or discussion with with any other intelligent people to come to some sort of conclusion that the foregoing analysis might be incorrect. In fact I can’t even say that I had any sort of perception of incongruity. In fact the only incongruity I could say that I indeed consciously thought about and reacted to what is that my life was apparently good while other people in other parts of the world their lives weren’t so good. And somehow I came to some conclusion without much thought about it that somehow my life was based on a fallacy that it was fake somehow.
But really why would a whole generation or couple generations since the sex pistols are really the generation before me, have some sort of cognitionthat our lives were based in a sham? We were not all talking to one another about it. In fact it appears that at some point we were just kind of already talking about various things but then again not so intellectually. I’m just kind of looking at this whole situation on the fly right now, but really if there is any sort of intellectual analysis going on it was really based on material that was already given to me. But we can’t say that it was given to me through any sort of intellectual medium, my school definitely wasn’t teaching about these critiques, like I said I wasn’t reading the newspaper nor any books know any papers nor talking with any university academics. One could say maybe that maybe there was some sort of cultural communication going on, but then that merely begs the question. I didn’t come to any sort of considerate analysis that lead to the conclusion that the world is fucked up; my world was great I was raised in middle-class America where we could shoot BB guns at each other we wouldn’t get arrested. We could shoot paper clips from rubber bands at each other at school and we would just get a strong reprimand.
The true conclusion that we should have is not that the world is fucked up or that there’s any problem. If you really look at where these ideas come from, from where the problematics arise, it’s actually more honest and truthful to say that I already was fucked up. But maybe not me at some person, because I was pretty well-adjusted I was pretty happy guy pretty confident in life and what I was doing. It was more that somehow there was another part of me that was disrupting this confidence this happiness. But I wouldn’t say it was some subconscious or some unconscious awareness of some deeper truths that exist below some façade of good. Because as were seeing there’s no processed subconscious elements that could’ve allowed me to have the situation where what is apparently good for me or good about my situation somehow has to be problematic.
But likewise as I described, there was no communication going on in any sort of manner or dynamic or vector that was intersecting with me so I could have such a conflicted view. And also neither was I engaging with any of my friends on this kind of intellectual level; but further was there any sort of discourse occurring across the continent or across the world to enable us to come to some terrible conclusion. For if there was some communication going on and that way there was no analysis that was coming to the conclusion found in the communication.
In fact we should see it’s only once we’ve grown that we take these loose ends that occurred in our childhood and begin to describe and theorize and coalesce justifications into how that childhood meaning could’ve arisen; indeed we call that justification culture.
So this is pretty sensible really when one looks at it honestly to say that this cultural justification repeating upon itself and philosophical theory eventually gets to the point where it sees that it’s cultural analysis has no original or originating ontological basis outside of the cultural context that is supposing it’s analysis. We call this now ‘correlationalIsm’. But we should not fool ourselves about what this means; it is improper an exceedingly non sequitur to further lump correlational Lizum into its own brackets by which to argue something outside or beyond its purview by merely emphasizing the bracketing of the term.
It is here that Bruno Latour ideas take hold. Because so many and so much of philosophy wants to emphasize brackets in order to start something new. We find in the talk below that L does not agree with that method. But likewise it is not a further prefacing upon the preface, to use my critique of Derridas ‘Of Grammatology’.
In my terms it is more that reality just stays reality; in Latours terms it’s that we were always modern but never modern. Hence we can say that while the Latour is still attempting some sort of reconciliation, however theoretically consistent it might be with the terms of progress, I must say that the mower significant analysis concerns what is real and not real, for this that’s really defines in a quite meaningful manner what we’re up against, rather than just posing that we’re not up against anything but theoretical determinations of meaning – even as ironically that’s exactly what we’re up against.
Latour: Reset Modernity -the limit of a method