Re[3]: 13.02.2018-21:57:21 :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	Re[3]: 13.02.2018-21:57:21
template:	4
parent:	Re[2]: 13.02.2018-21:57:21
owner:	al-caid
viewed by:
created:	14.02.2018 - 10:45:41

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63535
21
8456445
8456468
8456482
8456515
8456604

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

jj, ved som ju aj mal trochu na mysli; konkretne v nej ten pesimizmus nie je az tak silny - ono je tam este trochu nekoherentneho idealizmu, predstava o "rozumnosti", ktoru potom Adorno skritizoval, aby k pesimistickym zaverom dosiel; obsesia materializmom je vseobecne slabinou frankfurtskej skoly, podla mna aj Adorno chcel prejst k fenomenologom, ale uz bol prilis zapleteny do Horkheimerovho systemu :)

000001010006353500000021084564450845646808456482084565150845660408456671

point bol skor ze kriticka teoria ci uz materialisticka alebo idealisticka (aj ked tieto sa nevylucuju navzajom) by nevysvetlila jav ako izolovanu neznamu zalozenu na nejakej esencialnej kvalite (sloboda jednotlivca)

00000101000635350000002108456445084564680845648208456515084566040845667108456722

to je Horkheimerov problem, ze nie je schopny sebareflexie, ktora by ho posunula za nutkanie otvorit si zlavovy letak

trebars fenomenologia ponukla riesenia, ktore Adorno nazval "fantazmagoriami" - https://www.scribd.com/document/173842517/Adorno-Theodor-W-Zur-Metakritik-Der-Erkenntnistheorie

ked riesis ako je system zly, naucis sa fundovane stazovat sa (pekne pise Adorno: "was mit Fug Fortschritt des Bewusstseins heißen darf, die illusionslos kritische Einsicht in das, was ist"), no kam ta to posunie v osobnostnom vyvoji? je to ako pri tych identity politics co spominas, kriticky teoretik vlastne kritizuje system tym, ze sa donho zapaja, venuje mu cely cas a neveri, ze moze nieco existovat mimo neho

0000010100063535000000210845644508456468084564820845651508456604084566710845672208456736

skor len v systeme mozes hladat oporu pre dalsiu emancipaciu- kritika ti pomoze identifikovat protirecenia a trenia ale neda ti odpovede, aj ked neskory program frankfurtskej skoly sa preonacil aj na tuto notu (u nich bol shift ked nastupil fasizmus a silny monopolny stat na kulturnu kritiku od kritiky politickej ekonomie aj ked tato vzdy ostavala v pozadi)

dobre vyvoj FS zhrna esej od seyly benhabib https://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/415_mapping-ideology-slavoj-zizek.pdf
tretia esej

toto je z obdobia prechodu:
'This changing function of theory' signals the growing gap between the critical truth of Marxism and the empirical consciousness of the proletariat, which the theory none the less continues to designate as the objective agent of the future transformation of society.[. . .]
Horkheimer maintains that the Marxian critical theory of society has continued to be a
philosophical discipline even when it engages in the critique of the economy; he names the three aspects which constitute the 'philosophical moment' of the critique of political economy. First, the critique of political economy shows the 'transformation of the concepts which dominate the economy into their opposites'. 11 Second, critique is not identical with its object. The critique of political economy does not reify the economy. It defends 'the materialist concept of the free, self-determining society, while retaining from idealism the conviction that men have other possibilities than to lose themselves to the status quo or to accumulate power and profit'. 12 Third, the critique of political economy regards the tendencies of society as a whole and portrays 'the historical movement of the period which is approaching its end'. 13 Horkheimer names these the 'philosophical moments' in the critique of political economy, for each conceptual procedure aims at more than the empirical comprehension of the given laws and structures of society, and judges and analyses what is in the light of a normative standard, namely, the 'realization of the free development of individuals' through the rational constitution of society. For Horkheimer, it is the critique of the given in the name of a Utopian-normative standard that constitutes the legacy of philosophy.

000001010006353500000021084564450845646808456482084565150845660408456671084567220845673608457587

vdaka, uz si hladam z toho clanky

ale uz aj tu vidis, ze uz (ci snad este?) v tom 1937 tam bolo to "conviction that men have other possibilities than to lose themselves to the status quo or to accumulate power and profit" - inymi slovami (Zizek nech sa trasie), ze sa z drapov ideologie da nejak uniknut: reklamny letak, napriek objektivnym kvalitam putania pozornosti, moze aj nejaky zeleninar odlozit (napr. po kritickom zhodnoteni tychto prvkov na uputanie pozornosti, ktore ho upozornia na to, ze sluzi "to accumulate power and profit" niekomu druhemu) a namiesto toho citat detom Sofiin svet, ak nie rovno Kapital

teda uz Horkheimer si vsimol, ze je to idealisticke... ja som bol v tom, ze az Adorno to skritizoval, tak ako tu myslienku "rozumnosti", co bola v tom clanku co som uploadol; podla mna 1937 bol este pred doslednym antiideologickym zameranim, pred negativnou dialektikou povojnovej kritickej teorie

ci to je uz dezinterpretacia habermasianky Benhabib? lebo "the very notion of an access to reality unbiased by any discursive devices or conjunctions with power is ideological" (s.7)?

00000101000635350000002108456445084564680845648208456515084566040845667108456722084567360845758708457750

pozicia ani nie je ze sa neda z ideologie uniknut ale u frankfurtskej skoly sa musis stat minimalne kritickym teoretikom aby si vedel zhodnotit situaciu (vela studia) ostatne to plati aj pre to aby clovek vobec pochopil Marxovu kritiku “nie je nic horsie” ako samozvani komunisti

ten spodny uryvok nie je reakcia na adorna ale na dnesnu prezentaciu toho ako ideologia posobi- ze uz nie je ziadna ideologia a realita je nam podana taka aka je
v negativnej dialektike je prekvapujuco len dalsia formu dialektiky odlisna od hegela - aj ked zrejme neskora frankfurtska skola opustila liniu kritiky politickej ekonomie teda robili skor kritiku jej superstruktury- odklon ak tomu dobre rozumiem nie je v tom ze by uz nenahliadali vztah kapitalu ako urcujuci ale v tom ze zmenou v systeme (prechod na fasizmus alebo statom riadeny kapitalizmus) sa kritika musi orientovat na kulturnu reprezentaciu systemu- dialektika osvietenstva a zatmenie rozumu rozpitvavaju ten duchovny level - ale nie su tam nejake odpovede- ak sa nerata odpoved stat sa kritickym teoretikom
z pohladu zmeny systemu je plodnejsi koncept “event”u- udalosti ktora sa udeje akoby necakane z nicoho nic a da na svetlo zamlcane protirecenia systemu rozobera ho badiou