Member 420
242 entries
1981216 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    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.
    From Wildcat's personal cargo

    Noam Chomsky - vs. Michel Foucault




    A short part of a larger talk, what is interesting however is the distinct difference between those two thinkers, whilst Foucault implies that it will be wrong to profile and or define a future society, Chomsky claims that it will be irresponsible to not define at least the direction into which we are proceeding.

    Sun, Nov 9, 2008  Permanent link
    Categories: Noam Chomsky , Michel Foucault
      RSS for this post
    4 comments
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (3)
     
    Comments:


    Spaceweaver     Sun, Nov 16, 2008  Permanent link
    Very interesting short exchange. Yet, regretfully both Chomsky and Foucault fail to address what, in my eyes, is the crux of the issue they both try to elaborate. The issue is of course the intimate interrelation between the state of society as reflected by the operation of its institutions, and the mental/emotional state of the individuals participating in society. It is easy to criticize social institutions, it is much more difficult to address the state of mind of the individual humans who are the organs of society. It seems to me (and Foucault makes a better point here) that social institutions, especially those that are meant to operate according to criteria which is not a derivative of one or other political disposition, are merely abstractions or collective realizations of the much more fundamental characteristics of human mental states and what we believe we know about such states. What should be addressed is how we can manifestly upgrade our individual mental/emotional states, and how can society become an instrument of such activity.
    connor     Sun, Nov 16, 2008  Permanent link
    I agree, I feel that the conversation lacks resolution. I think that the dialogue is too controlled by the 'debate', limiting their discussion from making it to the point the you mention.

    The audience reaction shots are great, though. :]
         Sun, Dec 28, 2008  Permanent link
    Haha, yeah, in part 2... The structure of formalized debate ironically seems to generally represent the oppressive restrictions on things moving forward. I wonder what Foucault would have had to say if he was given more than 2 minutes. I think that he thought that his 2 minutes remaining being unjust said a lot, but now he's dead. Can't really give him any more time now.

    Chomsky mentions "the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions". Are time limits a subtle form of coercion?

    Formalized debates never really seemed to have much constructive appeal to me. Anyone else think so?
    meganmay     Thu, Jan 1, 2009  Permanent link
    Spaceweaver:
    What should be addressed is how we can manifestly upgrade our individual mental/emotional states, and how can society become an instrument of such activity.

    Space Collective wins the debate.

    dmitribd:
    during my upbringing debate was never a valued form of discourse, and i've come to think of it as one of the more unproductive means of advancing ideas, if nothing else because debate is explicitly structured around the notion that disagreement will prevail. I prefer conversation.
     
          Cancel