VI.
It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.
Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.
Showing posts with label das thrace marx. Show all posts
Showing posts with label das thrace marx. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 November 2016
Thursday, 28 July 2016
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (V)
V.
It must be noted that the title of Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' is an amusing reflection upon the reduction of the labourer to labour-power. The subtitle also might be saying something. That the book seems to be trying hard to turn off most casual readers, or people who might read other books, thus seems like its own message.
It must be noted that the title of Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' is an amusing reflection upon the reduction of the labourer to labour-power. The subtitle also might be saying something. That the book seems to be trying hard to turn off most casual readers, or people who might read other books, thus seems like its own message.
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (IV)
IV.
In speaking of possession, we must also mention Kierkegaard (not Proudhon, whose names were in the opposite order), who of course wrote many works while seemingly being another person. Now, this is passed off in part as an act of self-control, but the actual writing is instead a restraint of self-control in order to write against it, or certainly apart from it, so to say that Kierkegaard was exercising self-control by restraining self-control seems fairly absurd and would cancel - as dealing with a specific problem - so as to leave merely that Kierkegaard was nothing and the spirit writing it was in complete control. Now, obviously, this is mediated, and one particular character has a name which is a parody of Georg Wilhelm, or Hegel, whom he was polemicising against, although obviously he did not count on accessibility here because the other side is more Hegelian, perhaps suggesting either that Kierkegaard wrote like a Hegelian, or that this was discarded polemical material which was found to sit better on that side, where it could be developed. Their treatment of Mozart is not, however, aesthetic, but rather detached, relative to the aesthetic material, but they get away with this because they are still praising them, although this need not mean that they like him, nonetheless it is perhaps likely that the aesthetic side would only come across as an abstraction if they weren't discussing Mozart, which feels like it might be Kierkegaard making life too easy for himself, while assuming that people of that sort would like Mozart's art just because they like Mozart's life, or in brief that they are 'existentialists' like Kierkegaard.
But obviously this makes sense, as a coherent work begins with the author writing, and only then can they begin to distance the story from themselves, before again at the ending having to make an explicit intervention to (explain themselves to Regine Olsen, who looks like Emma Roberts on a bad hair day) give the works some coherence as part of an authorship, rather than an exercise in mechanical or automatic writing. However, Kierkegaard was always clear that he did not identify with the views which are actually in his earlier works, and preliminary research or follow-up would show that. We are hence to believe that his early works are popular either because people want to spite him but nonetheless feel obligated for whatever reason to say that they like some of Kierkegaard (which would make them Marx), or that after that he just disappeared and was never heard from again, and his legacy was never revived, but his earlier works always taken in terms of some abstract initial impact. But this is subject to the Orwellian clause, namely that he's relying on these two views to popularise his work. However, what actually occurs is that people like Kierkegaard's earlier work, or they view this as a mess unrelated to his real concerns, and prefer their later works - however, people generally avoid this choice, and merely moderate this by liking some of his later works, but then disliking the rest because they're polemical, which is a lie as Fear and Trembling for instance was a polemic against Christianity, and in brief equates to saying they dislike the others because they actually only like the earlier works, which is incoherent - but they do not view him as an authorship, with a progression, but rather just some isolated phrases and views spread through time, some of which they like.
Kierkegaard explicitly guards against this interpretation, by the concept of authorship and pseudonymy. While more valid, this is still a lie, as he is either a religious author or not, either a philosophical author or not, and instead wants to write in such modes in an irreligious form, basically just out of the spur of the moment and because of a lost engagement.
However, one may also ask whom Kierkegaard wrote for, and in this you would have to look briefly at his work. One frequent answer is Regine Olsen. This is fake, but as they use it often misdirected, misplaced and malign. Firstly, though, who is Regine Olsen? Regine Olsen is ultimately a bit like a ghost who is, certainly, watching his work, but not alone, and the whole turmoil begins because of what? - he hurt her feelings. You might usually expect such a case of a broken engagement to be a problem because of, for instance, unforeseen circumstances, or the need for support, but instead it becomes apparently a matter of feelings. Hence, unspecified others - but not Regine Olsen directly - continue to channel these hurt feelings to attack him, on behalf of Regine Olsen, and he apparently leaves that situation noticing that it's actually just this seeming mechanical progression of people. His further work hence involves constantly apologising for and dealing with these hurt feelings, repeating these feelings as if to give people ammunition, and as a result Regine Olsen is ever-present, but merely as an accuser who is constantly watching in accusation, while the actual point of his work is necessarily not to write to her, for as a reader she is merely suffering, and suffering because she was and is being insulted, but this is quite detached from the works themselves, which are for some unspecified other whom is also rejected by one Regine Olsen, which Regine Olsen, of course, could not have gone through, and as such which is not a basis for her. Obviously, the analogy excludes Regine Olsen, it does not allow her in unless she is rejected by Regine Olsen as if a completely different person, which she is not. Kierkegaard's audience is merely a projection of himself as a ghoul, who may or may not be, but is pre-supposed, and hence ultimately socially neutral or passive themselves, but is nonetheless necessarily distinct from Kierkegaard himself. They would hence speak about what people are, or their existential state, but in a way less likely to shake anyone's sense of propriety, and will instead be known for their marital adventures mostly and possibly bringing this to an end. Their face would be frozen into this one progression. However, that this was just Kierkegaard's functional object, and not necessarily their actual object or hoped reader, might also be clear, and as a personal hope would instead reduce to someone in the future, probably distinct from the audience posited in the works.
Kierkegaard and Hamlet:
Hamlet also has a female who has little other point in the progression than to be a romantic character, he begins by being separated from her, implicitly however, although he himself says little about this relationship or why he was in it in the first place. In this sense, in romance, he is just your typical Romeo, with his 'family' separating him from Ophelia, him breaking this, and then being sent by a monarch, into exile, where he discovers this time that he is going to die, before returning and doing just that. We may here observe a Horatio/Mercutio - Claudius/Capulets/Gertrude/Montagues - Hamlet/(Ophelia)/Romeo/(Juliet) axis here, where the former dying means that the second live, and so on - and Mercutio's apparent death is a major cause of uproar in the play and its change of tone - such that Horatio's survival may apparently be correlated with Hamlet's end in that specific way, but was necessary in some form for the conclusion to occur, as for instance when Hamlet jumps into public contentions with Laertes, over Ophelia's dead body, and nonetheless can be seen as somewhat restrained and not abandoned because of Horatio being there as a bit of a silhouette rather than a completely-formed character, or as still, and hence Hamlet as a unit with them can always withdraw to the character who doesn't half sound like Polonius - and it must be noted how Mercutio's random decision to fight with Tybalt, which the play condemns, seemingly, but does not bother to engage with, with Mercutio not even being the passionate one, basically turns the direction of the play, in a way which is basically just random chance rather than resulting from anyone's action or anything else. This is then supposed to be taken as somehow inevitable, in the process pretending that the purpose of Mercutio's action can be summarised in terms of Romeo and Juliet's almost equally random relationship, when it is presumably not that simplistic.
Hamlet, like Kierkegaard, begins by speaking in things that can't be understood, which in this case are for both of them riddles, although Kierkegaard's are temporally mediated or clear to the audience, which might seem to undermine the point. While Hamlet references 1 Corinthians 7 in the statement that those unmarried shall stay as they are, Kierkegaard is also fond of such passages, especially later on. Both of them get into heated conflicts over splitting with Regine Olsen or Ophelia, coincidentally with their 'brother,' which become interminable. Kierkegaard signally failed to get his 'recruits' to follow along with him, and instead figured that they were conspiring against him, although to what cause he was unsure, not being certain if he was doing this in the name of true Christianity, his beliefs, his personal temperament, or what. Both Regine Olsen and Ophelia have no independent works, not only as not given a chance to speak back, but also as represented in the works, in addition to which while Ophelia is a strange character, almost Kierkegaardian in an inverted way, who Hamlet would in no wise wish to be around, as her general characterisation is of one whom is not only passive with regards to others, but absorbs what they say and merely may shriek this out at Hamlet as if deeply felt, one whom is not only influenced but possessed constantly, albeit by those around her instead of spooks, so in that sense more secularly than Kierkegaard, as indeed turns out to be the case, and likewise Regine Olsen's distress and hurt feelings amplify or otherwise merely on account of others' use, or are mostly then used by others repeatedly against Kierkegaard, making her hurt feelings merely a vessel for whatever calumny they may wish to unleash, at which point you might realise that Hamlet is faced likewise with Ophelia mostly simply following others' orders when it involves hurting or at least seeming to act against him, leaving Hamlet facing a court where almost nobody likes him, and people will spin things against him, although not accusatively so much as just speculatively or with a slightly negative twist, while any negative actions in that direction are taken explicitly, because Hamlet is still ultimately just acting upon various feelings within the context of this court as a setting. Kierkegaard and Hamlet both, of course, as they are from Denmark, also effectively reject someone whom they were engaged to in favour of other things. They do both tend to be found, when with Ophelia or everyone's favourite 'Mean Girl,' although oft confused, Regine Olsen, in intimate or symbolic situations, occasionally sending letters about things, which may occasionally address the female in mostly positive terms although we are given no real reason to like them, other than dubious victimhood, or alternatively alone and harsh towards them, or alone and observing them closely in a sort of painted scene, possibly offering something for some reason, without either really getting much further comment from them, other than perhaps apologetically.
Is it possible that, in restraining his self-control in the pseudonymous works, he was not merely subjecting these each to their own author as if possessed or negated, but in fact that the consistent carrying out of this in an authorship was also subjected to such a possession by something else entirely? Spooky, but kind of cool.
In speaking of possession, we must also mention Kierkegaard (not Proudhon, whose names were in the opposite order), who of course wrote many works while seemingly being another person. Now, this is passed off in part as an act of self-control, but the actual writing is instead a restraint of self-control in order to write against it, or certainly apart from it, so to say that Kierkegaard was exercising self-control by restraining self-control seems fairly absurd and would cancel - as dealing with a specific problem - so as to leave merely that Kierkegaard was nothing and the spirit writing it was in complete control. Now, obviously, this is mediated, and one particular character has a name which is a parody of Georg Wilhelm, or Hegel, whom he was polemicising against, although obviously he did not count on accessibility here because the other side is more Hegelian, perhaps suggesting either that Kierkegaard wrote like a Hegelian, or that this was discarded polemical material which was found to sit better on that side, where it could be developed. Their treatment of Mozart is not, however, aesthetic, but rather detached, relative to the aesthetic material, but they get away with this because they are still praising them, although this need not mean that they like him, nonetheless it is perhaps likely that the aesthetic side would only come across as an abstraction if they weren't discussing Mozart, which feels like it might be Kierkegaard making life too easy for himself, while assuming that people of that sort would like Mozart's art just because they like Mozart's life, or in brief that they are 'existentialists' like Kierkegaard.
But obviously this makes sense, as a coherent work begins with the author writing, and only then can they begin to distance the story from themselves, before again at the ending having to make an explicit intervention to (explain themselves to Regine Olsen, who looks like Emma Roberts on a bad hair day) give the works some coherence as part of an authorship, rather than an exercise in mechanical or automatic writing. However, Kierkegaard was always clear that he did not identify with the views which are actually in his earlier works, and preliminary research or follow-up would show that. We are hence to believe that his early works are popular either because people want to spite him but nonetheless feel obligated for whatever reason to say that they like some of Kierkegaard (which would make them Marx), or that after that he just disappeared and was never heard from again, and his legacy was never revived, but his earlier works always taken in terms of some abstract initial impact. But this is subject to the Orwellian clause, namely that he's relying on these two views to popularise his work. However, what actually occurs is that people like Kierkegaard's earlier work, or they view this as a mess unrelated to his real concerns, and prefer their later works - however, people generally avoid this choice, and merely moderate this by liking some of his later works, but then disliking the rest because they're polemical, which is a lie as Fear and Trembling for instance was a polemic against Christianity, and in brief equates to saying they dislike the others because they actually only like the earlier works, which is incoherent - but they do not view him as an authorship, with a progression, but rather just some isolated phrases and views spread through time, some of which they like.
Kierkegaard explicitly guards against this interpretation, by the concept of authorship and pseudonymy. While more valid, this is still a lie, as he is either a religious author or not, either a philosophical author or not, and instead wants to write in such modes in an irreligious form, basically just out of the spur of the moment and because of a lost engagement.
However, one may also ask whom Kierkegaard wrote for, and in this you would have to look briefly at his work. One frequent answer is Regine Olsen. This is fake, but as they use it often misdirected, misplaced and malign. Firstly, though, who is Regine Olsen? Regine Olsen is ultimately a bit like a ghost who is, certainly, watching his work, but not alone, and the whole turmoil begins because of what? - he hurt her feelings. You might usually expect such a case of a broken engagement to be a problem because of, for instance, unforeseen circumstances, or the need for support, but instead it becomes apparently a matter of feelings. Hence, unspecified others - but not Regine Olsen directly - continue to channel these hurt feelings to attack him, on behalf of Regine Olsen, and he apparently leaves that situation noticing that it's actually just this seeming mechanical progression of people. His further work hence involves constantly apologising for and dealing with these hurt feelings, repeating these feelings as if to give people ammunition, and as a result Regine Olsen is ever-present, but merely as an accuser who is constantly watching in accusation, while the actual point of his work is necessarily not to write to her, for as a reader she is merely suffering, and suffering because she was and is being insulted, but this is quite detached from the works themselves, which are for some unspecified other whom is also rejected by one Regine Olsen, which Regine Olsen, of course, could not have gone through, and as such which is not a basis for her. Obviously, the analogy excludes Regine Olsen, it does not allow her in unless she is rejected by Regine Olsen as if a completely different person, which she is not. Kierkegaard's audience is merely a projection of himself as a ghoul, who may or may not be, but is pre-supposed, and hence ultimately socially neutral or passive themselves, but is nonetheless necessarily distinct from Kierkegaard himself. They would hence speak about what people are, or their existential state, but in a way less likely to shake anyone's sense of propriety, and will instead be known for their marital adventures mostly and possibly bringing this to an end. Their face would be frozen into this one progression. However, that this was just Kierkegaard's functional object, and not necessarily their actual object or hoped reader, might also be clear, and as a personal hope would instead reduce to someone in the future, probably distinct from the audience posited in the works.
Kierkegaard and Hamlet:
Hamlet also has a female who has little other point in the progression than to be a romantic character, he begins by being separated from her, implicitly however, although he himself says little about this relationship or why he was in it in the first place. In this sense, in romance, he is just your typical Romeo, with his 'family' separating him from Ophelia, him breaking this, and then being sent by a monarch, into exile, where he discovers this time that he is going to die, before returning and doing just that. We may here observe a Horatio/Mercutio - Claudius/Capulets/Gertrude/Montagues - Hamlet/(Ophelia)/Romeo/(Juliet) axis here, where the former dying means that the second live, and so on - and Mercutio's apparent death is a major cause of uproar in the play and its change of tone - such that Horatio's survival may apparently be correlated with Hamlet's end in that specific way, but was necessary in some form for the conclusion to occur, as for instance when Hamlet jumps into public contentions with Laertes, over Ophelia's dead body, and nonetheless can be seen as somewhat restrained and not abandoned because of Horatio being there as a bit of a silhouette rather than a completely-formed character, or as still, and hence Hamlet as a unit with them can always withdraw to the character who doesn't half sound like Polonius - and it must be noted how Mercutio's random decision to fight with Tybalt, which the play condemns, seemingly, but does not bother to engage with, with Mercutio not even being the passionate one, basically turns the direction of the play, in a way which is basically just random chance rather than resulting from anyone's action or anything else. This is then supposed to be taken as somehow inevitable, in the process pretending that the purpose of Mercutio's action can be summarised in terms of Romeo and Juliet's almost equally random relationship, when it is presumably not that simplistic.
Hamlet, like Kierkegaard, begins by speaking in things that can't be understood, which in this case are for both of them riddles, although Kierkegaard's are temporally mediated or clear to the audience, which might seem to undermine the point. While Hamlet references 1 Corinthians 7 in the statement that those unmarried shall stay as they are, Kierkegaard is also fond of such passages, especially later on. Both of them get into heated conflicts over splitting with Regine Olsen or Ophelia, coincidentally with their 'brother,' which become interminable. Kierkegaard signally failed to get his 'recruits' to follow along with him, and instead figured that they were conspiring against him, although to what cause he was unsure, not being certain if he was doing this in the name of true Christianity, his beliefs, his personal temperament, or what. Both Regine Olsen and Ophelia have no independent works, not only as not given a chance to speak back, but also as represented in the works, in addition to which while Ophelia is a strange character, almost Kierkegaardian in an inverted way, who Hamlet would in no wise wish to be around, as her general characterisation is of one whom is not only passive with regards to others, but absorbs what they say and merely may shriek this out at Hamlet as if deeply felt, one whom is not only influenced but possessed constantly, albeit by those around her instead of spooks, so in that sense more secularly than Kierkegaard, as indeed turns out to be the case, and likewise Regine Olsen's distress and hurt feelings amplify or otherwise merely on account of others' use, or are mostly then used by others repeatedly against Kierkegaard, making her hurt feelings merely a vessel for whatever calumny they may wish to unleash, at which point you might realise that Hamlet is faced likewise with Ophelia mostly simply following others' orders when it involves hurting or at least seeming to act against him, leaving Hamlet facing a court where almost nobody likes him, and people will spin things against him, although not accusatively so much as just speculatively or with a slightly negative twist, while any negative actions in that direction are taken explicitly, because Hamlet is still ultimately just acting upon various feelings within the context of this court as a setting. Kierkegaard and Hamlet both, of course, as they are from Denmark, also effectively reject someone whom they were engaged to in favour of other things. They do both tend to be found, when with Ophelia or everyone's favourite 'Mean Girl,' although oft confused, Regine Olsen, in intimate or symbolic situations, occasionally sending letters about things, which may occasionally address the female in mostly positive terms although we are given no real reason to like them, other than dubious victimhood, or alternatively alone and harsh towards them, or alone and observing them closely in a sort of painted scene, possibly offering something for some reason, without either really getting much further comment from them, other than perhaps apologetically.
Is it possible that, in restraining his self-control in the pseudonymous works, he was not merely subjecting these each to their own author as if possessed or negated, but in fact that the consistent carrying out of this in an authorship was also subjected to such a possession by something else entirely? Spooky, but kind of cool.
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (III)
III.
It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.
What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.
However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.
It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.
What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.
However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (II)
II.
The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.
However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which is displayed as well in the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.
The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.
However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which is displayed as well in the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.
Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (I)
I.
Marx and Engels early wrote the famed 'Manifesto of the Communist Party.' This begun its main sections in a somewhat inaccessible, idiosyncratic manner by instead focussing on the development of capitalist society, and its nature, from a mostly positive point of view, before unveiling - the reader perhaps not drawn in at this point by the excitement of capitalism portrayed in its own terms - its difficulties, and finally a movement against it. This somewhat strange mode of beginning, which goes on for some time, is found again famously in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works, incorporating the ideologies of 'the aesthetic,' or ordered fornication, and 'the ethical,' or reactive or reactionary marriage, which he associates with Hegelian Christians and Judaism, before undermining both critically from the perspective of faith, which they were merely attempting to reach while violating it inherently and standing against it. In this, he is still, like Hegel before him - and that his 'pseudonymous' form is merely a vulgarisation of Hegel's categories is fairly obvious despite his polemic, and he is generally as you might expect better off philosophically when writing down his own thoughts rather than someone else's while in the guise of another, which a less respectable person might call stealing - overly positive about what he criticises via a pseudo-personal identification, while obviously in his recollections of Regine Olsen she fails to take on any clear symbolic purpose other than that of a character, and likewise neither 'the aesthetic' or 'the ethical' come to mean anything, again hoping that Hegel's categories will somehow anchor this by giving it sense, but one quite different and more detached.
In all of this, he falls into the trap that we may call 'GWF' Hegel, the one and only, just as Hegel perhaps subscribed overtly to Hellenicism and so on. He is unable to escape the lure of the Hegelian categories, like that of Regine Olsen before or rather after them. We shall hold off comparing them, but the Hegelian categories seemingly would compare favourably, and clearly can have more lasting impact. His later work, in journals and articles, is generally more direct, but also more extreme, generally, in the questions with which Kierkegaard was concerned. It is also worth noting that Kierkegaard and Marx begin from similar stand-points of looking at concrete human activity and the human individual, which is perhaps a half-excuse for Marx in this form if not for Kierkegaard making up abstactions whose unique human activity could be summarised as other people's, except that Kierkegaard nonetheless focusses on the human individual at least in the religious realm, responding to issues apparently raised in Denmark at the time (after divorcing from an engagement, perhaps out of basic common sense or if for whatever reason necessary nationalism, with a nominal doppelganger for 'Ophelia'), while Marx effaces this, but through this can consider the hypothetical relation of the human individual to society, and hence discuss the faults of the social system at the time, which of course did not change until that was abolished. Nonetheless, Kierkegaard's literature is as a result more living in itself, although this is confined by its focus on the religious to the poetic sphere mostly or to an inauthentic reproduction of philosophy, although some of his later polemic within a delimited region could be a highlight of the genre, and also, because of his regard for the circumstances and the opponent he was attacking, and his personal stand against this on behalf of Christianity but on their own, came across as significantly more necessary than many of Marx's attacks on other socialists, which tended to be quite minor and a implied no real nor living opposition, although there was some cynicism to this which was obscure, but promising and anticipative.
Marx and Engels early wrote the famed 'Manifesto of the Communist Party.' This begun its main sections in a somewhat inaccessible, idiosyncratic manner by instead focussing on the development of capitalist society, and its nature, from a mostly positive point of view, before unveiling - the reader perhaps not drawn in at this point by the excitement of capitalism portrayed in its own terms - its difficulties, and finally a movement against it. This somewhat strange mode of beginning, which goes on for some time, is found again famously in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works, incorporating the ideologies of 'the aesthetic,' or ordered fornication, and 'the ethical,' or reactive or reactionary marriage, which he associates with Hegelian Christians and Judaism, before undermining both critically from the perspective of faith, which they were merely attempting to reach while violating it inherently and standing against it. In this, he is still, like Hegel before him - and that his 'pseudonymous' form is merely a vulgarisation of Hegel's categories is fairly obvious despite his polemic, and he is generally as you might expect better off philosophically when writing down his own thoughts rather than someone else's while in the guise of another, which a less respectable person might call stealing - overly positive about what he criticises via a pseudo-personal identification, while obviously in his recollections of Regine Olsen she fails to take on any clear symbolic purpose other than that of a character, and likewise neither 'the aesthetic' or 'the ethical' come to mean anything, again hoping that Hegel's categories will somehow anchor this by giving it sense, but one quite different and more detached.
In all of this, he falls into the trap that we may call 'GWF' Hegel, the one and only, just as Hegel perhaps subscribed overtly to Hellenicism and so on. He is unable to escape the lure of the Hegelian categories, like that of Regine Olsen before or rather after them. We shall hold off comparing them, but the Hegelian categories seemingly would compare favourably, and clearly can have more lasting impact. His later work, in journals and articles, is generally more direct, but also more extreme, generally, in the questions with which Kierkegaard was concerned. It is also worth noting that Kierkegaard and Marx begin from similar stand-points of looking at concrete human activity and the human individual, which is perhaps a half-excuse for Marx in this form if not for Kierkegaard making up abstactions whose unique human activity could be summarised as other people's, except that Kierkegaard nonetheless focusses on the human individual at least in the religious realm, responding to issues apparently raised in Denmark at the time (after divorcing from an engagement, perhaps out of basic common sense or if for whatever reason necessary nationalism, with a nominal doppelganger for 'Ophelia'), while Marx effaces this, but through this can consider the hypothetical relation of the human individual to society, and hence discuss the faults of the social system at the time, which of course did not change until that was abolished. Nonetheless, Kierkegaard's literature is as a result more living in itself, although this is confined by its focus on the religious to the poetic sphere mostly or to an inauthentic reproduction of philosophy, although some of his later polemic within a delimited region could be a highlight of the genre, and also, because of his regard for the circumstances and the opponent he was attacking, and his personal stand against this on behalf of Christianity but on their own, came across as significantly more necessary than many of Marx's attacks on other socialists, which tended to be quite minor and a implied no real nor living opposition, although there was some cynicism to this which was obscure, but promising and anticipative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)