Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 14, 2005 12:33:25 GMT 1
file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Colin%20Bowman/CB%20Documents/CB%20Projects/Luke%20Mitchell/Natural%20born%20killer.%20Dobbies%20theories..htm
A propos of the “folk psychology” concern, could I direct others to this fairly extensive revealing of personal perspective on the part of the officer in charge of the police investigation.
I would make the following hypothesis, based on the characterisation of this gentleman as a modern “manager”: that what he routinely engages in as a manager has fundamentally biased how he views Luke Mitchell; in particular I would direct attention to how he views Luke’s composure, self control, and situational mastery. For this policeman, all these individual positives of personal capacity, are negatives which draw suspicion to Luke Mitchell. I suggest, and advance as a general hypothesis: that when radically autonomous subjects such as Luke Mitchell, exercise that autonomy in encounter with some modern managers, whether found in polices work, education or wherever; these managers, using perspectives they have routine recourse to, in their subculture of managing, can fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent those autonomous subjects they come to deal with. In today’s modern world of the New Labour reform: the manager, or manager culture can be God; and the radically autonomous subject is something they have no time for, and little genuine understanding of. Where, in consequence, they often reach for a battery of reductive prejudice, that can be in play in managerial culture. The action of the media in this case, has seen a stirring of prejudice in the wider society: where much of that prejudice has its current forms, as a result of New Labour reform having somewhat reshaped our culture; we are encouraged to see threats to the collective as stemming from outsiders, and we are encouraged to see authority and orthodoxy as being able to protect us from these threats. This hypothesis suggests no malice in this police officer: rather it reflects a recognition that he uses as perspective what he has to hand; where the question simply becomes, does that perspective have a bias, where it was never possible for him to fairly discern the nature of Luke Mitchell. However, the nature of modern regulated management, with its protocols of seeking guidance always from superiors: means that the direction given from the top, can come to direct every detail of what can be vast enterprises, such as this police investigation. In a case where profiling has become central: this police officer must expect himself, certainly as manager, to become subject to scrutiny.
There is also the wider political matter: that the use of the type of evidence led in this trial, and the building of trust in police investigation generally; are crucial to New Labour reforms of the judicial system. Without causative evidence: and where we see cases continue to be defended on the basis of presumption of innocence, and individual rights and process is emphasised; then the New Labour determination to see legal process more effectively and efficiently “punish the guilty”, simply dies in the starting gate. That in turn is part of a sustained New Labour campaign directed against genuine individuality. Whether you are an Iraqi nationalist, or Ken Livingston, or George Galloway, or David Kelly, or Cooke or Short, or Hans Blix, or Martin Sixsmith some dyslexic or ADD child, or Luke Mitchell: your radically exercised and autonomous individuation will be opposed with all the powers of the state; you will never receive unbiased treatment at the hands of that state. Only when as with Livingston in politics, and in the courts for Galloway and Sixsmith, your grounding in the collective proves more powerful than the state, can you countervail that states power. The media campaign against Luke Mitchell ( and we must ask who fed the media, who briefed the media behind the scenes), cut the ground from under Luke Mitchell: where we must look to other instances where this undermining of individual ground, has paved the way for grave injustice.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 14, 2005 12:37:48 GMT 1
Bobbie dog as guest, the link you posted won't work as its from your harddrive.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Feb 14, 2005 12:49:03 GMT 1
Bobbiedog, I detect a Habermasian approach to your analysis. Lifeworld, systems world, insidious role of the media etc. Would I be correct?
You have a most interesting, and novel take on this. One that I've never seen applied to a situation in Scotland before.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 14, 2005 14:22:01 GMT 1
I'm guessing the scottish system and the english system are very different?
|
|
|
Post by wl on Feb 14, 2005 20:38:10 GMT 1
They are all coming out the woodwork now the girls who were threatned with knives and now probably offered cheques to talk to tabloids where were all these people during the prosecution . The girls were cited for court and were not called in as a witness against him as Luke's defence claimed it would be unfair, also you have to realise how much it would have affected the girls seeing evil mitchell again. There's much more girls that have been unfortunate and been threatened at knife point by luke but only they've chosen not to speak out for various reasons. Knowing fully what happened to one girl at the hands of mitchell, I hope he rots in hell and he'll have a very abusive life in prison and not be allowed out of their site to kill himself, he deserves to suffer!!! He should have got more than twenty years!!!!! Also what is up with these stupid goth girls, do they fantasise about being murdered by him or something? He had 3 girls (Cara, Kim and Jodi) to choose from to kill and unfortunately it was Jodi, but what happens when he gets out? With all these lassies sending him fanmail he'll have 100x the amount of girls to pick from, heaven forbid anymore upset due to mitchells involvement. We must campaign to make sure he never has the chance to do this evil again. btw, I don't think we should be blaming Marilyn Manson for Jodi's murder, I think he probably had an influence on Luke's actions but it's not like Marilyn Manson goes about killing anyone, he just wants to shock people and entertain, it's the pyschos that want to do it in real life that should be blamed and punished, noone else! Give Marilyn a break, I don't like him but I also don't think he should get all this nuts for doing his job. Justice for Jodi and her family, it took so long, but in the end it's worth it!!
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 14, 2005 21:49:11 GMT 1
Also what is up with these stupid goth girls, do they fantasise about being murdered by him or something? People will idolize, more to the point people seem to developed a strange fascination with killers, look at how some people view serial killers for example.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 14, 2005 23:24:52 GMT 1
Sorry about that bad link. It should read: news.scotsman.com/print.cfm?id=85762005&referringtemplate=h It may well be Gerrard, that what I say has in some manner been previously said more generally by Habermass. For me to agree to such suggestion however, you would first have to tell me what Habermass had said. That he and I were in agreement would be significant. There would be a degree of endorsement or corroboration entailed: where any competence he was held to have in some area; would suggest that I too was also being somewhat competent. This can be understood as a specifically dyslexic thing, sometimes called “mentoring”. As a dyslexic person I’m capable of originality: I can think and articulate for myself; I don’t necessarily need a template for this to be supplied by anyone else. What I do have to constantly do, is check out my originality: where, having sensed and reflected and conceived and articulated for myself; it is important for me to run that articulation by others who have some grounded experience in whatever field I address. The focus of concern for me, in this instance: is the possibility of Luke Mitchell being an innocent person, wrongly convicted; with all that might mean for him and his family, the legal process, and our society and its future generally. To consider this matter of possible innocence, and as corollary what might have driven matters to wrong judgement, entails a very specific holistic analysis. You have the subject in question, Luke Mitchell: and around that point of subjectivity, you have all else that is our human project of the present time; where that “all else” needs be brought to account in analysis. Where the crucial matter, at all points of such analysis: is just how this or that contributed to this outcome for Luke Mitchell. Each this or that may have other frames of reference in which it might be placed: but, for the purposes of this analysis, which only has concern for how this or that lead to this outcome for Luke Mitchell; the applied frame of reference in this analysis, becomes very specific. Existentially, this may require the analyst to go against and outside the collective process and what sustains it: that, and that alone is the only real challenge in such analysis; the conceptual and perspectival tools involved in articulating such analysis, while crucial, are not intrinsically primary. Very often, if you cannot get through, in terms of communication and persuading using one instrument, say Habermassian perhaps: then it is often possible to switch to using another instrument, without loss in what you wish to articulate. What is crucial at the moment, in this instance of Luke Mitchell, IMO, and as we still somewhat hang fire pending appeal: is to articulate the suggestion that we can map, using fairly down to earth perspective, the manner in which this matter involving one person, Luke Mitchell; is connected with lots of other matters with which we are equally familiar. To me it always seems, and this may be a specifically dyslexic thing: that any one thing always exists in the context of all else; and what we are called to do, as best we might, is to understand the dynamics of this interconnected whole. The details of this conception of management, and management culture, and New Labour political and social reform: may well be lacking, may well not be useful, may well be so out of order as to be wrong; but that these things are actually in play and effecting all of our current society, is something able to be argued for with much more confidence. It then becomes a matter of priority: where I now place such priority on my sense as to what may have gone wrong in this conviction of Luke Mitchell; that where I see no other person stepping up to the plate and articulating this sense: then no matter what the limitations of what I have to hand to articulate what has to be brought to public domain; I’m simply going to strive to do what my senses tell me must be done. You are perhaps right when you suggest that this makes for novel analysis. This would reflect what else is novel in what is currently happening to our law, and to our society. All of this is pragmatically driven, and concerns the fate of one concrete person. Use may be made of instruments better understood when embedded in disciplines: and it is right that such use be scrutinised in terms of that discipline; but, at the end of the day, their utilisation is directed towards amelioration of the circumstance of a concrete and actual subject, one Luke Mitchell. If what I and others suggest is right; then what has occurred for Luke Mitchell, tests our overall society, its overall arrangements, its overall hermetic: where finding in favour of Luke Mitchell, in this matter of him not having received fair and full trial; we find against that overall society, those overall arrangements, that overall hermetic. What analysis would you have needed: when your France found against Dreyfus, when your Germany found against the Jew, when your China found against those in Tianennemen square, when your Soviet found against the trial victims of the Stalin show trials, when Ghandi and Mandella were convicted: to explain to yourself how the details of your society had come to work against justice. That some details of these historical instances differ is not the primary matter. What is the primary matter, is just what analysis will give you understanding of what is happening in such instances: and just what relation to the prevailing collective will be required to carry that analysis through. The failure in this legal exercise against Luke Mitchell, is not likely to be found in the improper actions of this or that party, although that remains a possibility: the failure is to be found in the overall arrangements of our society; where this instance has precipitated an inappropriate and unjust outcome, which was always present and potential in the very dynamic architecture of these arrangements. Where, IMO, that architecture can be identified as having been brought about by, and being integral to New Labour reforms. Having said all that, and sketched out a high ground and exotic horizons for conception and perspective: concrete progression to an overthrowing of such outcomes, of possibly unjust verdicts; occurs through the valleys and fields of persuading others of a collective, to change its details. You possibly cannot overstate how difficult it is going to be, to persuade a collective to change details of its arrangements, arrangements they find complacently convenient: for the sake of the fate of one, Luke Mitchell, whom they have so readily colluded in demonising. In such a circumstance one often looks to those who are marginalised by that collective. Within the New Labour reform society, the spectrum of those so marginalised is wide, even if often indeterminately defined. Five or ten years from now, perhaps when disillusion with the New Labour reformed world has bitten deep, both in our own society and abroad: the ground may be more fertile for suggestion and perspective more favourable to the plight of Luke Mitchell. Being realistic, and whatever formal appeals are raised immediately: that is possibly the very earliest time when public opinion could be swayed in Luke Mitchell’s favour. The perspective being laid down now, and the scale of what it grapples with, has to be geared to this deferred possibility of reversing what currently obtains as social process.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 14, 2005 23:25:28 GMT 1
Last night I Googled “Goth”: and began exploring something I know nothing about, through the sites which would claim to promote and exemplify “it”. I have to admit I was impressed: and no way did I get an impression of a nihilistic or decadent culture. Basically, going simply on what I encountered in that trawl, Goth is a means of creating yourself by counter-culturing. What Goth really seems to say, is “No way your straight society for me”. They don’t then seem to lay down any conflict with what prevails: they simply make it clear that what prevails isn’t their cup of tea; they want some other whole. It made me look at Luke Mitchell again: especially at photographs. It would be possible to offer a heuristic of Luke Mitchell as simply a strong Goth: one for whom the inner perspective offered by Goth really took hold; where that perspective really was a working and holistic philosophy for him. What you then see, with Luke in trial, and Luke in prison: is the Goth martyr; where just as Quantanamo sees a struggle between Islamic integrity and faith, and an American determination to break the Muslim person in this; so conviction sees Luke as the Goth martyr, where the living strength of his philosophy, is now pitted against the mechanisms of the society which has so abused him. I think it is foolish to marginalise and reductively denigrate Goth. For a large body of children, school under New Labour has become an authoritarian experience: where despite the rhetoric of inclusion and equal opportunity, the reality for many is much darker and dispiriting than this inclusion fest would have us believe. Autonomous children, who require autonomously configured education, are being denied the education they require. Forget what the government says about badly behaving children and parents. Our educational system is failing, where it is failing, precisely because it cannot effectively educate so many in its charge: where the reason why they are denied the effective they require; is that the autonomy which would characterise that education, conflicts with the regulated conformity which New Labour would have for all of us. Children like Luke Mitchell, autonomous in every cell of their being, never receive the education which would see them grow into responsible exercise of that autonomy. Instead they are offered only what is reckoned good enough for everyone: where we learn to defer to our superiors; and only work in regulated teams. In that circumstance, where they are constitutionally incapable of buying into the education offered: they inevitably begin to do badly; and, in retaining autonomy, are forced to seek the means of a survival and future, out with the terms of a collective project they have come to fit so ill. That is all Goth, and other adaptive instruments are: means of continuing in autonomy; when your collective fails to support you in that autonomy. Luke Mitchell was profiled negatively, to give glue and weight to a causative nexus of “evidence”: simply in the terms of his autonomy. Luke Mitchell was found guilty by virtue of being dangerous: and what was seen as dangerous, were all those things which saw him effectively autonomous; all those traits which made him other than the man of New Labours brave new world. None of this judges whether Luke Mitchell did, or did not kill Jodi. What it does do is begin to suggest why his trial was unfair and unsatisfactory. “Prove” beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Jodi: and we serve law well enough. “Prove” that Like Mitchell might have been able to murder Jodi, by virtue of how different he might be from the rest of us, and the law simply becomes the sleeper of collective prejudice.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 14, 2005 23:36:47 GMT 1
Some auto-corrector has put "sleeper": where I put a word often used to describe those who exchange sexual favours for cash; maybe a word the more Biblically minded would use.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 14, 2005 23:55:37 GMT 1
www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Personality_Disorders/news_2005/evil.htmPsychiatrist Brings Back Concept of Evil (February 13, 2005) -- EVIL, a concept long reviled by psychologists, may have been rehabilitated. A study of serial killers and mass murderers suggests that some criminals are so inherently bad that there is no other word to describe their actions. The term evil has been derided because it is regarded as unscientific and carries unhelpful religious connotations. Psychologists argue the most awful crimes can usually be explained by mental illness. However, this orthodoxy is now being questioned by Michael Stone, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 0:48:40 GMT 1
On your topic about Goths. Yes some of them indeed are what you described, Goth was originally a counter culture, some against the mainstream as such. But now it has become stale, I’m in no way saying all Goths, are just following the sub-cultures mainstream, but most Goths now are just basically following a mainstream with in a mainstream it is in away a hopeless rebellion against society as society now controls most of the Goth structure.
People that parade around as Goths while wearing a T-Shirts that states “You laugh at me cause I’m different, I laugh at you because your all the same” fail to see the irony in it.
As a side note the word goth was taken from. A member of a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 2:35:51 GMT 1
I would agree with you about what tends to happen to all human action, it does tend to become assimilated to the collective, and often as some cliche or parody of itself. It's very difficult to really keep breaking through to ferality, to keep doing that through your own cliches. I thought what motogina had to say, as regards what another had paraphrased Jung as saying, was to the point in this. I think that we might then discuss exactly what "Cosmic Consciousness" was in any instance: but the value, and difficulty of breaking through to precisely this, can be more easily agreed upon. I'm not as keen on conceptualiising this breakthrough in terms of what Zen masters strive for. I think that we must have a more sociologically grounded conception: where it resides in what a wider spectrum of subjects do. I use the term autonomous. Where a subject can be considered crucially self substantiating, as opposed to being validated by collective or institutional meaning: and I consider the autonomous subject to be more common that allowed for in many models. Many subjects commonly considered in deficit terms: are actually, IMO, better considered as autonomous singularities; where self managing that singularity in collective context, can prove extremely difficult. Here I might place the dyslexic, the autistic, the schizophrenic. So, for example, autistics and dyslexics such as Newton, Einstein, Jesus: have the self managing power, to actually take their personal autonomous singularity back to the collective; and persuade some of that collective to adopt that singularity, or at least its perspective. Most such dyslexics and autistics are simply overwhelmed, broken and crushed by collective process: where, sometimes, they come to settle for the role of broken or lesser straights; as opposed to pushing on to an affirmation of their own singularity. The schizophrenic is a much more challenging singularity, and one I'm not at home with. Like Eienstein I am essentially mono-theistic and ordered-universe oriented. Nevertheless, I do believe that the schizophrenic is, at least initially and in itself, epistemologically valid: it is a processing algorithm that is required, and does compute legitimately; however, the relation of any subject running such algorithm, to contextual collective, is invariably so exigently negative, that it proves impossible to abstract that validity from the exigent noise. Chaos theory is closer to the schizophrenic, than is Einsteinian: but, while I've known many people who have lived well through the dyslexic, the autistic and ADD; I've never known anyone who could sustain a genuine schizophrenic cosmology. The two friends I can think of, most characterised by the schizophrenic, both very powerful, one a scientist, the other a traveller: were both threatened by being personally broken in their schizophrenic episodes. I think I' m blethering about this in relation to you speaking of a hopeless rebellion against society. I don't think it's hopeless: and I don't yet know whether it has become hopeless vis a vis Goth. I think lots of people currently choose to rebel against society. Almost everyone on the New Labour hit list is a rebel: from the "Terrorist" to the ADD child, to the medication refuser, to the angry parent in the school, through all those who remain unreconstructedly inappropriate and maverick. I would say that the hit list gets ever longer. That just as the New Labour project raises its regulatory game, some new fertile field for another troublesome minority comes into being. I think that rebellion has become very tenable in fact. What confuses this data, is the constantly spun New Labour refrain that it will not be so: the strident, upbeat programmatic laying out of what is intended; as if it were achieved fact. Culturally we may have lost confidence in rebellion against society: we may no longer have much in the way of collective prism to register autonomy in people; we may proceed as if their was only the orthodoxy and uniformity of programmatic intention: but in reality, through the science that actually cuts to the data on the ground, rebelling against society has never been easier. If you just rely on your own senses, and your own integrity: and dance simply because you find that you can; then you find that in fact, rather in the manner of motogina's free subject who does because they choose to; you can determine just what the collective is to be to you, can do that unilaterally. Of course that might mean that you're less employable, less promotable, less orthodox, less appropriate: with all the hits and costs that might entail in collective context; but, we shouldn't confuse that cost with difficulty or impossibility. I know you are not saying that. You are talking of what happens when things go stale. When the forms you live through become defensive cliches: rather than understandings that see you ongoingly recover truths; shields rather than vehicles of journey. Did you ever come across a book by Hermann Hess, called "Journey to the East"?
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 10:27:50 GMT 1
Much was made of Luke Mitchell's "obsession" with the satanic: and Goth may seem to opely concern itself the "dark" side of the mind; and for some, that may see both categorised as evil. What is Satan, the dark side of the mind, evil. Classically, Satan or Shaytan, the adversary arises in association with, and some contradistinction to a God project: a project where some subject, or collective of subjects strives for existence and life in terms of a God conception; where the Satanic is that which comes to oppose this striving, and the dark side of the mind and evil, have to do with subjects who take path alternate to that of the indicated righteousness of the God project. In our society, the God projects, whether Judaic of Islamic, are mono-theistic. In many senses of "before", other holistic projects preceded the Abrahamic mono-theisms: and we can gather some of what preceded, under the rubrics of pagan and heathen, even satan. What is crucial to recognise, is that while we, in our Christian coloured society, may see the satanic in contradistinction to the Christian: before Christianity, or Judaism more generally, the satanic was a holistic project which self characterised, most likely, in manner very different from its portraylal under Christian aegis. Prior to Christianity, in some important sense, what is now the satanic, was merely a philosophical approach to life, another hermetic, another life form. Today there are live hermetics in play, such as the Wiccan and the pagan generally, which people choose to occur through. In the USA, in much current debate, where the Christian constituency can be strong, and its hermetic have much currency: being "liberal" often comes close to being equated with the satanic, in the eyes of many American Christians; where, in being liberal you can be seen as both anti-Bible and anti-American. What is satanic, as this part of the Christian constituency would have it: is that which opposes the collective, as that sub-constituency would see that collective, and its forms of life. When our dyslexic boys were growing through their early years in state education: in became apparent to us as parents, that this education was failing to burn in the synaptical pathways which our children needed, just to be the autonomous subjects our parenting intended; where as this accreted in effect, our children were developing a "balance" or orientation problem. To correct this, to give our children balance, dyslexic balance, autonomous balance: to see the appropriate synaptical reinforcement for them, in their daily development; we as parents found that we required, and required to give to our children, hermetic which countervailed that of the educational project, especially in its behavioural aspect. In doing this we sponsored for our children, perspective and hermetic which was heretical, inappropiate, satanic, in terms of what we came to characterise as the New Labour project and hermetic. We were openly telling our children: the whole New Labour project has got it fundamentally wrong; and no person labouring under its aegis can have it right. And the proof of that was simply that this New Labour project was failing to give them what was required in the way of appropriate and effective education. Luke Mitchell attended a Roman Catholic school: where, to similarly rescue himself from an inappropriate education, then it was almost inevitable that he would use hermetic which began to countervail the orthodoxy of the hermetic of his social context; the satanic was hermetic which would countervailingly dig him out of identification with the hermetic of that context. When Luke Mitchell talks of tasting the green blood of the devil, and of him reflecting a satanic rerquired to balance the world: he makes every sense, simply making reference to what distinguishes him from some of his social setting; to countervail the hermetic of monotheistic God, it makes every sense to go to the hermetic of the satanic. The green blood of the devil, is simply the existentiality of escape from the Catholic hermetic. If Luke Mitchell had been Arthur Miller, or the author of Ulysses: then perhaps his teachers would have been in awe of the author's talent, moved by their use of such a construction; but because Luke was a child, because such sentiment breaks with the favoured New Labour PC, then his usage of such construction may see him considered for reference to some corrective specialist. The notion that Luke Mitchells recourse to the satanic betokened ill intent in its outcome, was always left hanging in the air, but never documented. The notion that his exploration of the dark side of the mind, was more than him just growing and exploring, to beat his own path, to escape from a contextual orthodoxy: was left hanging in the air; but never documented. Luke Mitchell needed to burn in the synaptical pathways that satanic hermetic activated in him cerebrally. Given what was in his environment, at school and in the New Labour society generally, he was offered no hermetic resource which was directly supportive in this: he was forced into countervailing; forced into making indirect use of what was to hand. Do we commend this child for his talent, strength and resourcefullness in this: do we give succour to his growing. No we do not. We marginalise and denigrate him for his active difference from an orthodoxy we favour: and then when we need a culprit for a murder done; we, quite possibly, use these external features of his differences from us, to fit him up.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Feb 15, 2005 11:50:15 GMT 1
Bobbiedog. Jurgen Habermas is a German sociologist in the tradition of the Frankfurt School, a movement that established modern day social sciences from the late 19th Century. The scholars that made up the Frankfurt school were all directly, or indirectly associated with a place called the Institute of Social Research. The nickname of the thinkers, originates in the location of the institute, Frankfurt Germany. The names of the men who made significant contributions to this school of thought are, Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher, sociologist and musicologist), Walter Benjamin (essayist and literary critic), Herbert Marcuse (philosopher), Max Horkheimer (philosopher, sociologist), and later, Jurgen Habermas. Each of these philosophers believed, and shared Karl Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism. Each of these individuals observed the beginning of Communism in Russia, and the resulting fascism in Italy. They lived through the first world war, the rise and fall of Hitler, and of course the devastation of the Holocaust. They formed reactions that were attempts to reconcile Marxist theory with the reality of what the people and governments of the world were going through. Each member of the Frankfurt school adjusted Marxism with his additions, or "fix" if you will. They then used the "fixed" Marxist theory as a measure modern society needed to meet. These ideas came to be known as "Critical Theory." It is good stuff, if a little mind-bending at times! Habermas is still alive and when he says things publically his views always make front page news in the German media. He talks about a model, and subsequernt analysis, of society consisting of Lifeworld and Systems World. Introduction to the Frankfurt School home.cwru.edu/~ngb2/Pages/Intro.htmlWikipedia Frankfurt School en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_SchoolHabermas and modern society www.nuim.ie/academic/sociology/ModHabermas5.pdf
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 14:15:33 GMT 1
Thanks Gerald, I'll follow that up. I like the idea of taking broad paradigmatic analysis, such as Marxist historical materialism, and adapting it pragmatically. I tend to orient not to the world which these analyses might nominally direct attention to: but to the ontology and existentiality they mediate; where, laterally, I've been trying to operationally indice such mediation, in terms of the cerebral activation required for their entertainment, which in turn bears on the cerebral activation they tend to induce. So if you have a subject who might benefit from particular cerebral activation, or synaptical reinforcement: then what is the hermetic that might mediate that; and thereby what is the intellectual form of that hermetic. So the significance of historical materialism, or Christianity, or whatever: becomes not the question of how validly it captures the nature of some phenomenon; but how well it might serve to kick start the cerebral activation a subject would benefit from.. The corollary of this, and an indice of how horrific the New Labour reform project has become: is that we might have a somewhat imposed hermetic of orthodoxy; where the cerebral activation spectrum it mediated, was simply not capable of sustaining the spectrum of subjectivity and social process involved. Maybe what this indicates, in terms of what you say about Habermas and the Frankfurt School: is just as they had to tinker with and rework the original Marxist hermetic; that the New Labour hermetic needs immediate and fundamental reworking, if it is not to simply hit a series of historical walls.
|
|