Why Michel Serres is, and is not, an ecological thinker
The Secular Fanaticism of Indifference
I think this links-post is right on the mark.
We see here the setting of an Age. I say this in a sort of manner with Zizek: We have a responsibility to leave such discourses to the context in which they arise: their own self-referencing group. Not “the world”. This is so much the case that I don’t even need to make any sort of argument for my point because the theorists (as an over-generality) involved in this kind of posturing already make the argument for me. (The loosely defined “Dark Ecologists”)
It is almost ridiculous, like some sort of slapstick routine: Over the years, I have engaged with a few authors which I could probably put into this general category of “dark ecological” discourse. I find it interesting, and often quite accurate. But I see a problem of it is that many (again, as most probably an over generalization) authors into this stuff have lost their ability to reckon where they are, literally: They are floating in space, and thats all.
I say this because if one were to enter into a critical discussion with them (again, the impression I got from three or four authors who seem very founded in this kind of Landian Realm of Dark Ecology) they simply will not recognize any critique of their position that does not use their own jargon. And I ask: what kind of critical theory is immune from critique, or only accepts critique along lines it supplies?
If one tries to engage with them on a critical level, try to ask questions into what they are really saying, they often will (1)refer you back to their own jargon which supposedly explains the problem you have having, and (2) if you continue to ask what those terms of jargon really mean or are referring to, they will discount what you have to say, imply that you are not educated in general, not just uneducated in their cosmology, and (3) refuse to listen to you until you have the decency of using their words.
That is one aspect of what I call the postmodern religion. That is what religions do, and that is what we take for granted human beings are supposed to do.
And the big problem with these types of knowledge is there is no getting the thinkers of this knowledge to see outside of their own view, exactly because the post-modern religion understands that everyone is subjectively inscribed in a vacuum of subjectivity, or, what I call redundancy.
In my view, my educated understanding of the authorial heritage from which they draw, is that they are misunderstanding the texts. They erect a vicious circle that one cannot get them to see outside of, so there is no point of trying. In old street terms: They are spun.
The significance of this is not so much that they are talking about the world of human beings. As much as they are talking about their particular view upon the world, a particular view of a kind that everyone is presumed to be involved with and have, to thus form a world of “patchwork”, they are giving us an example of what human beings do, which is to say, an example of the post modern religious view. Of course, if we fall down the rabbit hole of trying to understand what they’re really saying and we do end up using the same terms that they have erected for their particular religious cosmology, we soon enough must come to a decision: if we are even able to see what happened ,of course, then we must decide if these terms we learned so well in order to understand them, is indeed talking about the world, or their world formed from a very human manner of pure reason which believes itself.
Now; in my recent posts, I have indicted The Psychologist Who Will Not Be named likewise for misunderstanding various Postmodern philosophers’ ideas he uses. Yet, how can the Christianity be gets behind be a postmodern religion, as well as this “non-religious” and quite academically intellectual theoretical arena?
It is because they are both involved, still, in the philosophical modern paradigm which we loosely call Capitalism. And Capitalism (as a philosophical containment) is the religion of the Pure Reason, which is to say, a theological appropriation of texts over what the texts actually are saying. The postmodern condition is the modern manner of being human in the world. The real issue is then whether anyone will take responsibility for themselves in this world, or will they continue in their self-serving phenomenal righteousness?
Indeed, it is not a polemic between ecology and evolution as much as it is that the ecology is evolving. As I have said numerous times (and in my paper I will post soon): What is the climate that is changing? How do we act responsibly in this world which poses its polemical method over everyone as a cosmological mandate, which is to say, in order to count as valid knowledge?
This is not an issue of choice, or of who is right or who can argue the better point, but rather of how we behave within such condition.
Bruno Latour interviewed in Artnet