The revolution will be watered down and absorbed into institutional dogma.
I propose an alteration to history and philosophical reckoning (a proposal that will be set aside):
Materialism is the view that all we have to work with is the stuff we have to work with. We have material to work with.
Yet, when we look at what philosophy has to say about Materialism, we come to a striking conclusion that they were talking about something rather regular and then confusing it.
So when Harman (maybe?) and Berkeley say “Immaterialism” we have to think: What?
the philosophy that is immaterial?
Well. because of the convoluted and overcomplicated manner that philosophers have distorted simple things, Berkeley had to say ‘immaterialism’, but it is really nothing much more than the definition I just gave, so:
the conventional philosophical ‘Immaterialism’ is based upon the view that we have only this “stuff” to work with, and whatever it is, there it is, and we work with it. It is the material we work with in philosophy. Whether it is a table, a computer, a quark, a vacuum, a singularity, a skyscraper, a museum, a painting, a mote, a speck of dust, an anteater, a word, an object, a subject, a God, an atheist, a universe, a feminist, a philosopher, a person, an angel, an alien, speculation, practicality, ideal, forest, duck, electrons, space, density, think, thought, act, chair, blanket, act, activist, set, setting, setter, langue, parole, term, blades, bladder, piss, fuck, sex, happy, sad, rape, abuse, power authority, religion, philosophy, carpet, dog, pond, park, warm, cold, heat, hearth, internet, small mind, offense, sin, punch, intelligence …
its all material. But due to the general abusive authoritarian density of conventional philosophical method, they had to come uno with a different term: immaterial. But its so stupid; it should be called material, but this point, for now, is indeed, immaterial.
We can’t really complain; it does no good. Nevertheless.
So, we just have to go with it. We have to wonder not merely what people are talking about, but why they are speaking the way they do. When we begin to see why they use the term immaterial, we have to begin to wonder why. And this is not to say that we have to launch another investigation into the proposed progress of philosophical history of ideas because then we have not gotten anywhere. The more significant question is why would ‘material’ indicate anything else besides the stuff we have to work with? It would be like saying “please turn on the TV” and the person brings you shoes, or goes to find a pencil. What is this showing us about what humanity does? There is no irony here; the irony shows where the problem occurs.
Variability of meaning that goes into a statement such as what I’ve just made, The insistence upon the individual appropriation of clausal structure is exactly irony, and is what amounts to what people 200 years ago going forward called “enlightenment”. That we can continue, infinitely, to extrapolate into this clausal structure ‘inspiration of the truth’. The problem is not that we come to various meanings about things, it’s more that we feel that these meanings have a certain significance or that are somehow better than or more inspired despite what other people may have intuited. In other words, capitalist individualism.
Though the poem below does tend to route one’s picture of what is revolutionary to a particular time in Modern history, and as that to particularly social issues, the meaning is pertinent to what occurs all the time. As evident in “Immaterialism” perhaps being a fashionable idea now, as if 300 years ago they weren’t worried about the same thing…what is different is the operative mean.
Like Harman’s question: How do we get back to the thing in-itself?
It was Fifty Years Ago Today
It was fifty years ago today
Revolution took to the streets.
In Grosvenor Square and Paris
Students sang to different beats.
In Prague too they were coming alive
Digging the jive as establishments swayed,
Responding with an iron fist
As those rebellious songs played.
They used tanks against the Czechs
And armed guards in Ohio
Tear gas in London
And swung clubs in Chicago
Give Peace a Chance
For the Street Fighting Man
As the Unknown Soldier
Asked what was the plan in Vietnam.
Fifty years on from that protest and change
Now the psychedelic colours are muted.
What is the legacy of the great revolution?
In simple terms that can’t be refuted?
Environmental movements and Women’s Lib?
Or just fashion, music and wind?
The establishment’s firmly back in control
And revolution’s been binned.
But, the revolution was not a lie, it just already happened and people missed it!