Member 1688
2 entries

Contributor to project:
Start your own revolution
Immortal since Mar 28, 2008
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From dragon
    Smoking is cool
    Understanding Psychopathy...
    Huffameg’s project
    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    In this annexed posting, a coup d'œil is cast at the conflict between Mythos and Logos as being essential to a understanding of how the secular, atheistic, natural sciences is capturing the spotlight and forcing off the social scene the myth in the form of Logos. This debate has continued under a call for a narrative, a reclaim of Mythos, addressing that which we feel is "missing from a completely rational understanding of reality".

    The problem, however, is not very clear and it is not evident what can be meant with a call for Mythos. We can get help in solving this entanglements by asking what Logos actually is and how we are to understand the apparently sudden appearance of this mystical stranger that surfaces as a contrast to the old, and all too familiar Mythos. We must in this way force ourself to see beyond the immediate utility of Logos in the modern society and look more closely at the presupposed concepts of it. Many of the characteristics of Logos is widely known and have been discussed in the philosophy of science and through several attempts of social diagnostics. What is not so common is to analyse these characteristics precisely within the symbolic realm that is Mythos. We are therefore going to give an account of some of the most important of these concepts and we will see, I expect, that the problem pointed out by obvious and later by rene is not that which we first thought, but is essential in quite another realm. But first, let us take a look at the Mythos in itself and its relationship with Logos.


    The myth is composed of many different parts and plays widely different roles in a society. It can be that of legitimizing some social construction, to attribute a character or quality to a particular phenomenon or to present ethical or other kinds of motivations for a certain behaviour. The myth can be that of Jesus being God's son, tortured and killed for the eternal and final redemption from the intrinsic sinful way of mankind or it can be that of Oedipus, caught up with his destiny, being violently forced by his own ignorance to kill his father and marry his mother. The myth can be that of the teleological constitution of nature, postulating the ideal, or even the myth of the absolute and inviolable human rights. Whichever myth we take and whatever role we suppose the myth to have there is one thing that combines them in their "being myths", namely their ability to establish concepts from nothing.

    Let me explain this point. The role of the myth, in every form, is to construct a (not necessarily single) concept from which we are to understand reality or at least at part of it. The myth pretend in this way to be a singular point of leverage, a stable point from which any thing can be moved, but a point which is not preceded. If it were, it would not never be a point of leverage. This can be the concept of salvation, destiny or any ethical foundation. If we use obvious' notion of a narrative, that is a construction of a story, this same point can be put in the following terms: the reality needs, in order to be reality, to be constructed as a sense. The reality qua reality is put into words, images or sound and in this way summoned to life. I hope that we now have succeeded in outlining our idea of the myth. However, as our main problem here is not that of the myth but of the Logos, we should now look more closely at it.


    As obvious himself points out: while the myth is equipped for the "utterance" of reality, true or not, the rational Logos is occupied with the truth by showing us that which is true. Let us therefore, before we continue, direct our attention towards two essential aspects of Logos, to cast some light on our current question.

    1. The first problem that presents itself is closely related to our idea of truth: objectivity. For is it not so that truth is a result from any investigation that is profoundly and sincerely objective?

    The objectivity of the natural sciences has been contested before but remains nevertheless a big problem, and it is not easily solved. We see for instance that the project The Total Library, even in its title and project description, implies the objectivity of the sciences. It does this precisely with the idea that the "complete quantity of human knowledge" is growing toute vitesse through a cumulative process. This is the idea, though rarely uttered, that the human knowledge is progressing and is directed, through the tryings and failings of the sciences, towards an ideal, complete knowledge. Let us continue to the second aspect of Logos.

    2. This problem is, as far as I can understand, that which is vaguely outlined in both obvious' and renes postings. It follows practically from the the first point, the idea of a cumulative knowledge, that Logos can solve any problem. That is, we redirect our attention from the deductive method of the sciences to the rationality of Logos that plays a great role in our social arrangement. Increasingly the societies obtains a technocratic attitude towards the social problems of our time - they can, and will, be solved if we only give the expertise the time and resources. In other words, the influences on society that is not based on this expertise is something that blocks our rapid advance.

    Already pointed out, a great problem arises from this arrangement, namely that of alienation. This phenomenon appears when the Logos, the instrumental rationality, begins to govern our lives rather than being to our help. We become slaves under the rationality rather than having Logos as a slave of humanity. This is evidently a problem that Logos itself cannot solve. A call for Mythos as a "way of looking at things" is presented.


    But what does this "call for Mythos" means? As we underlined in the introduction this appeal is not what it seems precisely because we only know have a more thorough understanding of the concepts of Logos and Mythos. Let us now, at last, look more closely at the relation between these concepts:

    The character of the Logos can be even clearer if we contrast it to that of Mythos. We said earlier: "while the myth is equipped for the "utterance" of reality, true or not, the rational Logos is occupied with the truth". But the problem that for so long has been hidden in the opposition of the two contestants becomes now evident and clear for any reader, for what is more of a utterance of reality than the truth? If we look at the two aspects of Logos pointed out in II. we see now clearly that these are precisely that which characterizes the Mythos: a construction of a reality through the rational myth of truth.

    What, then, can the call for Mythos possibly be? It seems now that the problem of Logos is not simply a problem of Logos, but of the construction of Mythos. It seems that it is for the debating parts the ethical values, our intrinsic humanity and our social, interpersonal relationships that are at stake, put at risk by Logos so unwilling to make compromises. However, it becomes now clear that these aspects of human life is in fact endangered but has been so for a long time, if not forever. Not necessarily through the alienation rationale, but through other means, this is precisely the danger of the will to dominate that should be the investigated.

    obvious points out that "If Space Collective can redefine, then it can build from scratch". How this reconstruction can be performed is now our question, how we can "look at things differently".
      Promote (2)
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (5)
    Before diving into a project of starting our "own revolutions" it is critical that we cast a, at least quick, glance at what a revolution is. This has several reasons. First of all we would have to know what the project is all about, what exactly are we to start? Secondly the revolution, if it is to be justified, it must be identified in some way, either in itself or in a relation to something else. Then and only then can we later begin to throw out ideas on the nature of the revolution, the means and the goals of the revolution and finally we can promote this revolutionary activity.

    There are several questions that needs to be asked. Among these are question of who the revolutionaries are, who is to revolt, which means are available and possible for the revolution and in which way they could be effective means. I will set forward two central question here considering the revolution itself and in doing this I hope to throw some light on our current problem. Hopefully, this will make us able to ask the questions above with a greater sincerity and a better chance of reaching some answers.


    We shall set out from the point of the "revolution" itself. The revolution is in this way necessarily a re-evolution, an overthrow of something that is already there. The revolution is something that returns to re-do that which is already there. Either in disposing of that which exists or to change it fundamentally. The prefix re is in any case a strong indicator of the revolutionary search for the roots of the fault that is already committed. The existence of the revolution is hence dependant on this first principle - it defines itself, if not in whole at least partly, by the establishment of that which is there. Our first question for the revolution to answer in order to identify itself will therefore be: what, then, is this evolution, this "coming to be", that the revolution wants, or needs, to redo?

    Two things are in this way crucial for this existing:

    Firstly, it has to include a dominating aspect. This existing, this, that in the logic of the revolution is to be overthrown, can be either a system, different sets of categories, social or scientific structures or even persons, but it needs to dominate the revolutionary base. No marginal, non-dominating system or structure can ever provide the grounds necessary for a revolutionary upheaval and as the necessity of a revolutionary movement takes the fundamental redoing as its subject, the marginal system or structure, that is neither total nor absolute, can never be this subject. This seems to me to a rather trivial point, so I will quickly move on to the next.

    Secondly, it has to be a movement, an evolution, a "coming to be". This becomes evident when we look back at the notion of revolution, the contrasting notion being evolution - something that evolves, unfolds. This is however not merely a etymological point but a quite profound one: a static and fixated structure or system can in no way be dominating.

    I will explain this a bit closer. The domination is not a mere placement in an hierarchy, nor simply a relation of status. The domination is rather the capability to adjust those relations in order to keep in control that which is dominated. This implies that the hierarchy and the controlling relations are movements which in the dominating process compensates for any changes and the factors uncontrollable so that the dominating position is maintained.

    In this way we can now see that the revolution is not only get rid of some constant factor of domination but rather a structure or system that will seize, with all means possible, the movement of domination - even compensate for the revolutionary struggle and strike it down. That is: the structures or systems are a will to dominate. Several questions arises from this analyse and one in particular: how can the revolution in this way create the means of the revolutionary struggle when the dynamic movement of domination constantly seizes control over exactly those means? Marx, in his revolutionary theory, points out that the means of the revolution is crafted by capitalism itself but are now in the hands of the proletariat. When we see the system as a movement rather than the monolithic machinery of Marx, we can also grasp how the system colonizes exactly those means every time the revolution tries to resist. To illustrate this point we can use the simple example of how revolutionary symbols and popular movements immediately is controlled by capitalism and made into merchandise. Let me formulate the question again: how can the revolution bring about revolutionary means that are larger and stronger than the system that makes them possible? This, I hope to be able to answer more clearly in a later posting, but the following remarks will address this question through a view on the revolution itself and I hope that will outline this point, at least in part.


    We have now outlined, if not given an account of, the aspect of the revolution that relates to that which is to be overthrown, the existing. And we have found that this existing, whatever it may be, is better to be understood as a movement rather than a constant factor that can be destroyed like one takes away the source of an epidemic disease by eliminating the virus. We have in this way established that to which the revolution contrasts itself. It is for us now a task to bring about an understanding of the revolution on its own terms. That is, what are the intrinsic characteristics of the revolution?

    In handling the revolution in itself I will use the concept of movement as we have seen it in the preceding. I will argue here that it is true that the revolution is necessarily linked with the existing, the dominating evolution. This however does not in any way keep us from analysing the revolution on its own terms and it is precisely in the use of the concept of movement that we can grasp the heart of the revolution and distance the revolution from that which it tries to redo. Here, again, will we use to steps to throw light on the problem:

    The first step is to point out the character of the revolution that distinguishes it from the structures or systems. In the same manner as earlier, we have to understand movement as something distinct from something that is fixed, constant and stable. We can here make good use of the notion that is used by Alain Badiou, among others, namely that of rupture. This concept is to be understood as a negation of that which is, an act of separating the revolutionary, radical and redoing reality from that which is already established, the dominating reality. Let me here, once again, remind you that this dominating reality is no less of a movement than the revolution. In fact, it is exactly because of this movement that the revolution can realise itself as a movement. Said in another way: the revolution needs to negate from something, hence the dominant reality is a necessary condition of the revolution. But as soon as the revolution ruptures, separates itself from the movement of domination, it takes a independent form - it becomes revolutionary.

    The second step is to identify the immanent character of the revolution, that which makes possible a rupture of this kind. As we have seen, the revolution cannot be realized without the dominating reality and this poses the problem previously pointed out: how can the revolution use the revolutionary means without either loosing control over them to the will to dominate of the system or structures or itself becoming a will to dominate? My answer to this will be, again: precisely through the negating movement. It is through this movement that the revolution obtains a will to resistance that is neither controllable nor controlling. This fundamental character, this will to resistance must in this way be the intrinsic dynamic of the revolution itself.


    Now we have looked closely at the revolution in itself and in relation to that which it tries to overthrow. It is now that our debate should begin. We should identify the revolution and the revolutionary acts, and the nature of the dominating reality that emerges from our own situation, a society largely dependent on internet and recent technology. And this revolution, in effect, must be analysed in order to start "our own revolution".

    Some questions are, however, more evident than others. I will ask two questions that I hope that we, in the course of this project, will be able to answer or at least outline. Firstly, we must ask if redoing, the revolutionary act, necessarily implies destruction? Secondly, when we strive for revolutionary goals, the overthrow of the will to dominate, how do we preserve the revolutionary movement that is the will to resistance and prevent it from ever stopping, even in the achieving of the revolutionary goals? That is: can we at all talk about revolutionary goals?

    Let the revolution begin.
      Promote (7)
      Add to favorites (5)
    Synapses (3)