Larval Subjects, the Impetus for Communication and the Common Thought of the Past.

Prof Bryant has an interesting post today.  And it inspired me to comment, below:

As I taught Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics today, I emphasized the manner in which so many of the virtues he lists are social in nature. Although we intuitively value many of the virtues Aristotle lists, I don’t think it would occur to many of us to count these among more or ethical issues. I wonder what the […]

via The End of Dialogue? — Larval Subjects . 


It is interesting that you happened to ponder communication right now, because I was also pondering it, but along a slightly different line. I think you are commenting along a different vector of knowledge, perhaps a different category, but still…

I was asking myself if the academic form-method of “papers” and “journals” are even needed any more, if they are relevant in the sense that considers the actual possibility of being human, in the sense of being involved with what can Be. 

I recall a post you made a while ago where you were questioning the academic proper method and presentation of papers, how the whole act seemed in some instances to mock the content of some of the papers themselves, as though the manner by which an author has to present their ideas in academia in order to be taken seriously actually functions to devalue and or discount what they have to say, actually invalidates their ideas, such that the seriousness required detracts from the significance of the meaning of the paper.


I wonder what you might think of this:

I was thinking along these lines:

The reason why ‘papers’ and journals and that whole thing came about (I could be wrong) was because thats what they had. Thinkers had to be able to communicate their ideas at length and so they had these vehicles by which to circulate those ideas so other thinkers could consider them and comment on them. The whole idea of ‘communal’ -cation.

And when you think about the whole ‘modern’ – ‘post modern’. thing, and then this ‘speculative realist’  kind of thing; It seems to have occurred in correspondence with the methods of communication available.

The breakdown of the metanarratives that Jean-Francois Lyotard brought up occurred with the opening up of methods of communicating, namely computers and similar technology. But perhaps, old ways die hard.

Think about back in the pre-computer day: It could appear that everyone was involved in a common progress, every philosopher involved in moving toward some great reckoning of knowledge (of sorts), like knowledge itself was moving in a particular direction (of enlightenment, of progress, etc). because there was only a relatively small number of papers one could come accross, not that one could read, but just the sheer lack of theoretical material, or, at least, people could still entertain the perception that because there was only a relative few number of people who were saying anything significant, we were indeed moving in a progressive motion. Also, though, just the (again relative) small number of people who even entered into “higher education” or were even allowed if not privy to being privileged even to be able to think intelligently and critically, was extremely limited. It was easy to think there was a “manifest destiny” of sorts, an “historical conscious’ moving philosophy and indeed the world. It was easy to discount the ‘ignorant’ as the necessary condition for such ‘thought’, as an historical and divinely ordered hierarchy of progress.

Now think about now. What does it mean when we have raised the ability of the aggregate and or average of people in the world to be able to consider these once effectively esoteric philosophical ideas? Is it not possible that the product itself (philosophy) might change under different conditions? What happens, say, just as a hypothetical example, when instead of 1 out of 10000 people are able to understand, consider, ponder and respond appropriately to ideas, now 50 out of 100 are able to understand, but 75 out of 100 are able to also give a considerate response. And more: The bare fact that all these people can now actually enter the discussion via our technology. I would think that not simply do we have the situation where many more people contributing to what is possible within the possibility of thought, but more so we have an entirely new arena in which thought is possible. Indeed; do you not think there would be a difference in not only the nature of ‘thought‘ itself but in fact the ‘nature‘ of thinking also? It is an odd perplexion; we need only consider what is occurring all over the world to begin to start to understand that perhaps what we are calling thought or thinking is not something that is commonly understood, but only assumed as common thing, and indeed enforced. Must we stop at the Colonialization of a particular era? Does that now bring into question what we have merely accepted due to the Fact of Colonization?

We might discover that what we are calling thought is really a harkening to another time (time is a construct also; Heidegger beckoning us to that other time), a time when there was indeed a functioning meta-narrative, a time by which we displace our time and are unable to reconcile what we experience with what we are knowing of thought and thinking, this because we are not actually considering what is really occurring right in front if us through the ability of consciousness as it is occurring right now, but are rather considering how things should be with reference to this common thought of the past.

What might happen then if we look with opened eyes upon what is occurring now? We night find that Lyotard was correct, but in a significantly different light. It is not that we become aware in someway that we must now be critical in some form about general descriptive and directive narratives. No; such an approach is missing what is occurring for what we think should occur. It is the fact that we are unable to look at knowledge without an authority as to which knowledge we are supposed to consider, why we should consider it, and how we are allowed to consider it. It is a condition of knowledge and not some logical reductive result of a traditional heritage: The heritage is alive and well in the proposal that we had some choice over whether we should approach philosophy through these tropes (meta-narratives).

Perhaps we might be able to glimpse that what occurs through the convention of Papers is no longer a general communication that concerns a direction and purpose involved in finding out independent, dependent and dynamic aspects of our world, but rather an exclusive correspondence between those who decide which knowledge is valid, a manner by which knowledge is to be contained within a certain traditional lineage of what thinking is supposed to be, presumed to be, but indeed, perhaps, allowed to be.

You, Professor Bryant, who facilitated the very notion of Object Oriented Ontology, who entertains the idea of Being machinery, involved with the Speculative; is it not possible that what before was functioning implicitly (Zizek), invisibly, is now merely staying invisible though the very ideal mechanisms that are supposed to defy such oppression (the Modern by the post-modern: The liberal critical academy) ? Would this not be a minimum plausible factor in our moment of the attempt to account for and displace the nihilism of Modernity not coming to pass?

Think not only about how difficult and fortunate you were (are) to have gained a position as a professor at an institution, but how much more difficult it is now to get one, but also the anxiety that accompanies such a position; I am thinking of The Academic’s Peculiar Dissonance — Samir Chopra, his recent post on this topic.


Here I get speculative:

One could argue that it has always been difficult (We have always been disenchanted), but I might venture to say for the cloister itself, that the difficulty has reached a different timbre now, and not merely more of the same kind of difficulty; I think a different type of difficulty might be in play now. Perhaps you might disagree? No?

Perhaps it is not merely an effort to keep one’s position of power and prestige, as well as identity capital that is involved, but a creeping suspicion, maybe not even yet apprehensible, that the academy is no longer involved with the legitimacy it is proposed upon. Perhaps it is more involved in the perpetuation of a particular kind of thinking, and that this implicit agenda is behind the difficulty, and the sheer number of ‘thinkers’ that are just as able and who have just as novel thought hiding under their dresses, pants, belts, bras and jock straps, are eager congregants just waiting to impeach the Ideal Priests of the Academy so they can Preach the message?


I do get grandiose; for sure.


But I think there is something in there that needs consideration –I mean, if we are indeed involved with something legitimate.


6 thoughts on “Larval Subjects, the Impetus for Communication and the Common Thought of the Past.

  1. Basically, I see all these critiques of “modern digital society” and people critiquing Facebook and stuff as just a distraction from a critique of consumer society and Capitalism. We have to be ruthless in our critique of capitalism

  2. Even the concept of evolution is displaced for the sake of keeping our knowledge and ‘thought’ intact as a non-evolving aspect; that is, only evolving within our ever-connected basis of thought (which is thus beyond the force of evolution). What happens if thought itself is evolving? Would we know how to view it?

  3. I definitely get what you are getting at here. Just in terms of the doomsaying about technology destroying communication- yeah sure, it looks from the studies that millenials are more selfish and self-absorbed than ever, but apparently that has more to do with the “self-esteem” movement then technology. There are definitely dystopian aspects to the new interconnectedness, but we can’t just idolize the past as some sort of utopian pre-technological philosophical Enlightened society. Nietzsche was preaching about the herd mentality back in the 1880s! Yeah, when I see critiques of social media, my critical thinking ears immediately pick up. It seems like a fashionable thing to do nowadays- look at all the fake news! The lack of real face to face communication! Like Zizek said, maybe we need more alienation. I for one definitely believe too much of a good thing can be a a bad thing, I take time to “facebook detox” and concentrate on other things, and I don’t feel my generation uses it as wisely as me, but isn’t this another form of generational poo-pooing. Oh look at these youngsters, so anti-intellectual, taking selfies! The horror! At least they aren’t smoking crack

    1. As well, technology as an aspect of Being that has taken front seat, thought itself may be discovered to be much more than what traditional and indeed conventional Philosophy has reckoned. Perhaps maybe even a type of ‘ubermensch’. The post trans human thing I think attempts to grapple with this kind of thing , but I think the significance of it is that we won’t even know. The humans of the future could indeed develop thought that is foreign to our 3000 years of cumulative progressive philosophy, but they would not see it that way any more that we see it from 3000 years ago, or at least as much. E.g. we can point to all the technological differences and different appearances and conceptual interfaces with those appearances, but what we consider thought remains along one consistent line.

      As my other post: we cannot fathom that ours is just as ignorant as we see the natives upon a Spanish ship.

      This points to what consciousness might actually be doing, and then upon recognition of This, thus an Actual shift in how we come upon thought itself and likewise thus our ability to function in world.

      And then: It seems like this should be the case, but it takes more that a lifetime for awareness to take hold; as I say, all the conceptual argumentative and definitional defaults must play out before something happens. This takes generations. Circulations rise and fall upon this.

      We might consider what happens when all the pedals of a particular lotus unfold. What is the new lotus that begins unfolding then?

      1. yeah the post-human thing. I think what people like Zizek have recognized is that there are elements of truth and elements of ideology in the whole post-human way of seeing things. I remember watching an interesting Ted talk with Gary Kasparov (I don’t know if you follow chess, but he’s arguably the greatest chess player ever) and Kasparov was talking about his famous match with Deep Blue computer. He said what we shouldn’t do is say “chess is dead now” or lament that the computers are taking over- we should celebrate that humans built a machine with a capacity to beat the world champion! But then after saying many valid points, his talking points veered into technological fetishism. I don’t know where to draw the line myself honestly. I know that as Deleuze says, it brings a whole host of new problems- surveillance, digital control through marketing, new media. But are these essential to technology itself, or could they be overcome? I think they can be overcome- the essential communist insight, that technology can be reappropriated from being exploitative to being at the service of people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s