[lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:11:10 -0330
I agree with Omar. But is it also the case that one can't vote for democracy? Is
it something like asking how much the Rolls Royce costs? Not quite, but close.
More like a self-referential paradox. Donal will explain, ich bin sicher.
Cheers, Walter
Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Is it even possible to "vote for dictatorship" ? It might even be a
> contradiction in terms, and empirically I don't know of any dictatorship that
> had a genuine and fair voting system. Those dictatorships that apply voting
> in some form don't publicly describe themselves as dictatorships. Of course,
> Hitler was originally voted in, but not on an open platform of dictatorship.
>
> O.K.
>
> --- On Sun, 12/5/10, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 10:47 AM
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/12/10, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Donal goes the Adorno route to
> > explain, or perhaps to frame, the question of
> > totalitarianism.
>
> You are confusing me with Veronica, admittedly an easy mistake to make in the
> dark.
>
> Brief comments
>
> > In his course on the Biology of Human Behavior, Sapolsky
> > stresses that no human behavior can be explained by putting
> > all explanations in a single "bucket" (his term). Using his
> > thesis, one would have to explain totalitarianism by
> > developmental psychology, evolutionary biology,
> > environmental stresses, neurobiology, neuroendocrinology,
> > and a host of others factors operating in individuals and
> > groups.
>
> The first sentence I understand and would tend to agree and disagree: agree
> if "explained" means 'fully explained', as nothing (human behaviour or
> otherwise) can be fully explained; disagree in that insofar as human
> behaviour is capable of understanding, using a multiplicity of explanations,
> the fullest possibile understanding will be in the "bucket" containing the
> multiplicity. If his point is that the multiplicity of explanations will not
> be reducible to a single, over-arching explanation, then I tend to agree.
> However, to explain fascism by way of the frontal cortex, for example, seems
> as far-fetched as explaining GDP this way. Fundamental to why it is
> far-fetched is because new problems arise at the level of human sociology
> that are not reducible to human psychology, which in turn gives rise to
> problems that are not reducible to biology, chemistry or physics. For those
> interested in considering this point, about the emergence of higher-level
> problems
> that are irreducible to the lower-levels from which they emerged, it is worth
> considering the failure of attempts within the natural sciences to reduce
> chemistry to physics or of Russell's valiant attempt to reduce maths to
> logic.
>
> > The frontal cortex, for example, is in its operation, a
> > part of the limbic system. (See _Descartes' Error_ by A.
> > Damasio.) Therefore species-dependent emotional centers as
> > well as socialization come into play in the way people vote.
> > And people do seem to vote their self-idealization or vote
> > their emotional defense of a symbolic self.
>
> It is surely worth mentioning that, given genuine choice, they rarely vote
> for dictatorship.
>
> > Yet to postulate a "personality" prone to totalitarianism
> > seems unnecessary. Rather one can look at kinship and
> > "pseudo-kinship" in shaping aggression in groups.
>
> If we are to take "kinship" or "pseudo-kinship" as an explanatory framework
> here, it ought to be taken in proper neo-Darwinian terms: there of course it
> has been the subject of much discussion, for a fundamental problem for
> Darwinism is accounting for apparent altruism. Even taking a genes-eye view
> of things, the role of 'kinship' as an evolutionary force is problematic and
> controversial; and the genes-eye POV is hardly adequate to even partly
> explain the political organisation of human societies, since the levels of
> explanation needed for human society involve factors far beyond those needed
> to explain genetic material.
>
> > One can see pseudo-kinship in Hitler Youth, al-Qaeda, the
> > US army, and even Peace rallies where, again,
> > species-dependent emotional centers as well as socialization
> > overtake the supposedly rational mind.
>
> Yes. One can equally "see" 'pseudo-kinship' in the workings of democratic
> political parties, in our accepting the results of a democratic vote and our
> obeying democratic laws etc. Also in going to war against fascist states. So
> how does pseudo-kinship furnish a specific explanation for fascist tendencies
> as opposed to anti-fascist ones? [Not for nothing did Spielberg et al title
> their anti-fascist warriors the "Band of Brothers"; and of course in, say,
> the Spanish Civil War we have people fighting their fascist genetic kin - it
> is hard to imagine a genes-eye POV that could explain why some
> 'pseudo-kinship' trumps kinship here, rather than the explanation lying in
> the moral beliefs of the anti-fascists].
>
> Donal
> London
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
