Total Pageviews

Friday, 9 November 2018

The tragedy of South America and Mary Daly's patriarchal cycle

This blog was silent and me absent for the whole of last month. I was too shocked with the local elections in Brazil and too sad for the terrible fate of Abya Yala in the coming years.

We live terrible days were capitalist realism seems to be the only reasonable explanation - that will run in terms of how collective intelligence works these days when there is no culture beyond the dogma of capital - for the increasing choice for more control and greater misery and for the boosted stupidity that is making this continent give up anything that was communal, interesting, creative or inspiring.

There is a cyclic historic scheme that I believe is Mary Daly's (didn't read the end of Gyn/Ecology yet, but Robin Morgan in Demon Lover quotes Berit Äs as the author of the scheme and Berit tells me is all Daly's). The cycle has that patriarchy is a system with three stages, it is successively preparing for the war, waging war and recovering from the war. The third phase, surely, is the most inventive, welcoming, open, creative, gentle and capable of new instruments of fairness - and yet is still patriarchal. This is the phase of grief and grief makes people less self-centered, more tolerant, less keen on luxury and to some extent more inclined to solidarity. Capitalist realism, I said in my class on Mark Fisher yesterday,is perhaps the passage from a time of recovering from the war (the thirty glorious and their more ambivalent aftermath) to a preparation for the war. The coming war, for sure, is the climate cataclysm that is orienting a great deal of political decisions although its shape and speed are still fairly unknown. Moving from phase 3 to phase 1 really feels like the end is near, the present is thin and there is not much new ahead. According to the scheme, this can only be remedied in patriarchy by a war.

Urgently needing a way out.

Tuesday, 6 November 2018

Nigarestani and the space of the inhuman

The inhumanists claim that reason which is autonomous can be automated; that humans can be redefined by a navigation in the space of norms where institution and application is always simultaneous. Nigarestani gets from Brandom the idea that we are norms and in that sense we are open to modification while we apply the very norms by which we recognize ourselves. He intensifies the political element in Brandom´s construction by pressing autonomy towards automation. (It is a move that makes the space of norms similar to the space of desires where human practices are changes and reshaped.)

The question here concerning AI is whether capital is already a norm-mongering which institutes and applies - maintains and modifies - directly or indirectly the existing (human but not all too human) norms. Does the Nigarestanied Brandom us include already the prothetic capital?