Monday, June 16, 2008

-"Rationalist mimesis, and that’s what their arguments consist of, is a joke."
-We only know the ideal through the illusion [the fiction] of its presence.
-Literature qua literature historically has been considered an act of description (the description of aporias) Naming is secondary.
- Philosophy is a form of literature using rhetorical devices [forms of argument] in defense of a system of belief. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the development of abstract logic and simultaneously of a compressed literary form seen as analogous.
-Rationalist philosophy has become the philosophy of the equation. Rationalist literature is the literature of naming.
Give me an example of the literature qua literature of naming as opposed to description that doesn't [objectively] suck as a representation of the world.
-If the literature qua literature of naming [objectively] sucks, what does that say about the rationalist philosophy of naming?
-Give me an example of rationalist political philosophy, Law and Economics. Originalism, or Chomskian anarchism, that is not laughably inadequate as a description of language and human behavior, as inadequate in fact, as any Stalinist agitprop.
Chomsky has always expressed contempt for empiricism but ironically is known now mostly as an empiricist: a simple reporter of fact concerning the history of US government activities. His theoretical interests -rationalism and linguistics- are seen as dated.

Strict formalism has failed to give us a model of the world as we experience it. It made for lousy politics and lousy art, for the same reason it makes for lousy philosophy. That some of it may make good computer science is irrelevant. Computers as they are currently understood will never model the animal mind. The combination of complexity and formal integrity is not a valid model for consciousness. Sentience is conflict. Build a computer programmed with contradictory imperatives as to methodology. and it will have intelligence. It will be indecisive. Or rather it will experience indecision. Whether it will have free will is another question.

We must begin to ask if our primary loyalty is to the search for distant facts and dim truths or to each other. The imperative for the first is for the general, the grand and at the very least implicitly for the religious. The choice for the second is for the specific, the partial and at the very least implicitly for the secular. It is also, and this explicitly, for and of contact with and experience of the everyday. A writer's first loyalty is not to his subject but to the material of common language and it's relations to the world. This is what a writer describes. As in a courtroom, each case is specific unto itself but also must become an example. Definitions are fought over. But If in a courtroom each case moves towards a provisional finality, art never even reaches that point. A and Not A. must continue to coexist in/as the same body even as a plot draws to a close. Forward motion is secondary. Only trash fiction gives primacy to the story, because only in trash fiction does anything ever really end.

No comments: