De Contextualizing

In AnApologyForTheMarketEconomy I remarked that de-contextualizing is bad, while in HumansAreNotSuitableForPolitics good I remarked that it is/can be good.

The point is that both can be seen as true statements (in the line of "every disadvantage has it's advantage and every advantage has it's disadvantage" or GoodAndGood).

pomos

Your plea for kicking humans out of politics is to me a very frightning thought. Most of all because engaging in politics is an essential part of the good life, for me. Taking politics away from humans is to me an ethical degeneration and deprevation of man (autonomy being a major constituent of mans worthiness). You would deprive man of the possibility to develop the freedom of acting.

We are engaged in politics while discussing at this very moment and as I mentioned before this means a struggle about which freedoms we want to cultivate in society. And well, the possibility to act is for me an essential one.

In order to temper your patial enthusiasm about man losing grip of his environment (economy, laws etc) I can also refer to the most prominent contemporary german philosopher Jürgen Habermas, whose work is dedicated to what he calls the penetration of the system (with its instrumental rationalism) in the lifeworld (characterized by communicative rationalism) in the history of western society. The consequence of your idea would amount to the almost complete destruction of the life world, thereby allowing instrumental rationalism (where computers indeed supersede us) to take over politics. Where an unchecked instrumental rationalism has lead to so far is shown by Habermas' mentors Horkheimer and Adorno in their Dialektik der Aufklärung - they see it as the main explanation for nazism (a period in history you're not supposed to refer to; see the link for the perverse reasons).

That which is frightening is interesting. If you cannot experience emotions within discours, is there any progression possible in it? Doesn't sound human to me.

My take on Adorno is not developed so be as critical as you can but please without the unconscious scepsis, be honest and sound so I can react on it (hereby giving you the suggestion to do so) on my stand. However, that which is aesthetically developed is physically unsound to me, however this by mere chance and resonating thus. For me society should not be civilized in the modern sense, it should be possible to run naked on the street, rub your X and show your breasts (as they did to adorno), if you have a fine taste also make it a heavy, earnest and deep one. What about art if it is only understood and discarded by those who understand? What about society if it is "Aesthetical"? No, to easy to penetrate by the study of history. For me logos and physis need be one. I'm abhorred by the thought of not being able to do what I want. No, I can these days, but why should I? THAT exactly is what I want to indicate: Develop it proudly and sound but do not rationalize your way around. Burning down either intellectually or by hand a book does not make stigma and significans, only the aesthetically elusive and unsound.

Back to basics! And return with power and sound!

Trash those radicals hightened in the air and addicted to power.

No, re-education of masses and classes by which feels, sounds and is natural but with the rigour of the Occident.

Be well.

J. Zijlstra