Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nietzsche and Derrida
BrainMeta Forums > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Philosophy > Nietzsche and PostModernism
Robert the Bruce
Nothing Wrong With Nietzsche?
I can show that in Canada the Family Compact flat-out stated it would do no good to make people capable of participating in government or knowing what is really going down. NO Good - for the Family Compact that is!
This is all because some elites (unlike Nietzsche and Carlyle) believe in a ONE PIE competitive, dog-eat-dog, power system of the Platonic hierarchy. But the truth is we can have an earth with 10,000,000,000 millionaires and no destructive ecological predation! Will I be able to prove his break with Wagner had to do with his disgust at the manipulation of the Illuminati? Probably not. But he was institutionalized and that is one way they deal with threats to their schemes.
It would appear logical to me, that ancestor worship was a very early root to many forms of divination and spiritual attunement. When do you think man first grieved? Until recently some of our great 'thinkers' (should I say 'stinkers'?) felt man was an animal and no animal could communicate, have a soul, or grieve. That, of course, is more than simple nonsense. The first man was able to develop a close spiritual relationship with his departed and loved ones through the skull and bones of the departed. The ecstatic altered state of the meditation upon the skull or body of a loved one would cause meditative and psychic events to happen and images to come to mind. The images soon became things that people shared and developed means of communicating about. If they didn't have ESP then certainly it was a very long time ago that language started. Signs with hands and mouths or other aids would assist the intuitive compassion people feel for each other. In many ways we have lost our closeness with one another. It is highly probably that Australopithecines and other common threats led to early socialization and tribes. The high concentration of skeletons in the Olduvai Gorge is one example of a defensible (rock- rolling) area where this certainly occurred.
The ability to communicate with the spirit world is not 'occult' and/or weird. The time of Jesus saw it as a 'normal' thing. Thus when Paul or Peter see Jesus that would not have made as big an impression as people today might think. However, this picture of humanity is seldom if ever presented, even as an option. We now know of at least 6 million years from the time we diverged from the ape and it is entirely possible that we were a 'quantum leap' in evolution that had no precursors. Johanson won't engage in evolutionary trees (he discovered 'Lucy'.) and agrees it could well be nine million years of hominids that have walked the face of this earth. That was before the Mungo Man DNA research hit the airwaves a month or two ago. Now the field is open to speculation. Mystics have spoken about 12,000,000 year old man for a long time. When we were still harboring the academic illusion that said we had been here one tenth that time; a lot of the anthropological and other sciences developed numerous theories that must now be drastically changed.
Some day we may learn the evolution of spirit guides and the multitude of variations of conscious energy that String Theory says is part of the one dimensional harmonic force that makes all matter. Some day we may trust our instincts and listen to our soul. We are still struggling with the meaning of these images that Jung (and the Human Genome Project seems in agreement with) called archetypes. In fact all pedantry and philosophy is far less certain or valid than the 'experts' like us to believe. Here is the professorial work of Dave Robinson who wrote Nietzsche to illustrate some of the point we hope is becoming clearer.
"STRUCTURALISTS
Various philosophers, linguists, anthropologists and psychologists, all conveniently called 'structuralists', proceeded to investigate these complex sign systems in order to discover what they revealed about human culture, and human ways of perceiving and thinking about the world. The systems were often thought to be 'binary', generating meanings by contrasting perceived 'opposites' like 'Reason' and 'Passion', 'Male' and 'Female', 'Nature' and 'Culture', and so on. Although these systems aren’t at all pre-ordained or 'natural', structuralists originally thought they were relatively stable. {And thus began a paradigm shift away from 'thinking' and towards 'fitting'.}
DERRIDA AND DECONSTRUCTION
This structuralist account of how stable meanings emerge from organised signs was challenged, most famously, by Jacques Derrida (b. 1930). He pursued the insights of Saussure to their destructive conclusions. If signs are 'arbitrary', then their meanings cannot possibly be fixed, and will always be inherently unstable. Derrida is a subversive anti-philosopher whose 'deconstructive' readings of other philosophers reveal semantic instabilities. Derrida doesn't engage in arguments with philosophers, but re-reads their texts to reveal that their inconstant language can never have on set of meanings.
Deconstruction shows that any collection of linguistic signs can always produce different sorts of meanings, many of which may be wholly unintentional. All writers, even the most careful and 'objective', are unconscious prisoners of the sign systems that constitute their thoughts, and will inevitably leave traces of this in their work. Creative re-readings of any text will reveal how some ideas signified by any binary system are 'privileged' over others. If it is correct to say that meaning is generated by difference, then some differences will be given priority over others, whose meanings are 'deferred'. Meanings are inherently unstable, and so will inevitably 'slip' when exchanged. There can be no 'presence' of stable meaning when communication takes place between writer and reader, speaker and listener. So Derrida subverts any claims a philosopher might make about permanent truths somehow lying outside or beyond language.
Derrida's conclusion is that language is always 'metaphorical' in the uniquely Nietzschean sense. This has several serious implications. One is that philosophers {And 'experts' of over-professionalized mechanistic prejudices.} cannot go 'beyond' language to reach some kind of objective 'truth' that lies beyond their own immediate local history and culture. A text can never have one single meaning. Language can never penetrate the inner meaning or pin down the 'essences' of concepts like 'truth' or 'knowledge'. The belief that it can do this is usually known as 'essentialism'. Even more radically, Derrida's conclusion means that the fundamental human belief in identity - that A can and always will be A - is no longer guaranteed. Like Nietzsche, Derrida is a great advocate of transition and transformation, and critical of the belief that language can somehow prevent change and fix ideas, a belief he calls 'logocentricity'. {Does this mean 'purpose'-identified then projected to formulate social norms and manipulate behavior?} The conviction that language can generate stable and 'total' certainties is dangerous as well as misguided. Language can only be made to do this by repressing alternative readings or by excluding whatever is considered to be 'other'. In practice, this has usually meant the establishment of hegemonies that marginalise all those whose values and beliefs don't conform to some limited and contingent world view. Postmodernists like Derrida celebrate difference, diversity and the marginal, those things that flourish in a pluralist and tolerant democracy.” (2)
The 'experts' like Wiseman of Archaeology magazine decry the speculative ignorance of the postmodern people who actually have the nerve to challenge the 'hegemony'. The doctors who eschew honest talk about the uncertain prognosis in favour of definite diagnosis are not enthralled that clients wish to become informed consumers. The
Theological pressures against authoritarianism are well underway and 'sins and demons' no longer rule the hearts and minds of most people. Still Nietzsche is a close associate in something other than the sense inherent in the common man, and like Hegel and Machiavelli appeals to base urges like power for the elite. Hopefully this lack of genuine purpose is not a product of 'Intelligent Design' or god. Nonetheless Machiavelli made it absolutely straightforward that he felt appeals to the basest of human urges was the way for power to be best garnered and maintained. Fukayama is another Hegelian who consults with the highest decision-makers after his recent move up from the US Government to a 'think-tank'! (?)
Did the advent of language separate us from the meridians of energy that interconnected us or have we simply allowed it to atrophy due to early life parenting and programming? Will people ever start to think more with their own mind, body and soul or are we doomed to be 'food for thought' rather than 'feed our thought'? When do you think Derrida's ideas would be best learned? After decades of indoctrination or before learning to dump 'black and white' answers in parrot-like efficiency. This professor correctly states one of our main themes in trying to apply positive knowledge; and it deserves repetition and Capitalization:
"IN PRACTICE, THIS HAS USUALLY MEANT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HEGEMONIES THAT MARGINALISE ALL THOSE WHOSE VALUES AND BELIEFS DON’T CONFORM TO SOME LIMITED AND CONTINGENT WORLD VIEW." (3)
We suggest that most people who know where their 'bread is buttered' are using a different kind of common sense than what is best for all of humanity. The creative and productive application of resources would make the rich richer and the poor would only exist in the history books which would tell the unbelievable nature of what we have been doing to each other. We are not willing to salute this 'contingent world view' and we hope the pigs lined up at the elitist trough of Malthusian 'one pie' stupidity soon awake from their narcissistic or narcotic-induced state.
anonymust
Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Trip like I do
Order within disorder.
Disorder is far more probable than order, so disorder happens; disorder is an oportunistic disease, and it is highly predictable in the long run.
Breathe order into chaos - order within disorder.
Impose your own order on your own chaos.
There is order and an underliying pattern.
Societies attempt to transform humans into machines.
Reduce life to its quantitative mechanical components.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am