I have just read a phenomenal essay called "The CIA, Hollywood, and soverign conspiracies" by James Der Derian (chapter 10) and am posting this imploring anyone else to read it as well.
He delves into the psychology of hollywood's dipiction of intelligence agencies and alludes that hollywood has set the tempo for people's morals to pine for a lone gunman that can piece together why things happen. This leads people to conspiratorial views of politics which are reinforced through Hollywood's depiction of the heroics of the "outsider on the inside." He quotes George Bernard Shaw when he said that the "made-in-America" stuff was dangerous for nationalistic ideology. Stabs at the nature of the US state post Cold War and questions the logic of politicians singling out "terrorism" over other acts of violence that cause as much mayhem.
The best is the last line (that I won't quote so you'll have the same intellect-gasm that I had) which is a response to a statement, which Derian quotes earlier, by CIA director James Wooley; "we have slain a dragon. But we now live in a jungle filled with...poisonous snakes." ...it involves the reasons why states exist.
Seriously, this is a great essay. (Some references to Kant and Nietzche's philosophies are made without reference - this should give you an idea of the target audience of the essay). Enjoy.
I did a quick read, and for some reason I can't go back to the page right now for a reread (so I may be a bit off).
This sounds exactly like things the people who major in the humanities / social sciences I (unfotrunately) know from the U of Chicago get off on (these self proclaimed "diagnosticians"). They love setting up geneologies and psychologisms a certain way not realizing they don't mean anything - or to utilize that Nietzche quote a bit better; they do mean something, as a social signal for academic recognition to get patted on the back by their own peers. They want to criticize "the wrong kind" of Hollywood, "the corporations", "the banksters", Milton Friedman, or whatever other right wing boogy man they can throw at you. It's funny when they use Nietzsche, Marx, Kant and whatever other "nihilists" they can conjure up, it's a good sell - even if it doesn't mean much other than playing "the right notes to the right crowd".
Q: Does it matter if the state is "the ultimate absurdity"?
A: Yes, because it fulfills his audiences expectations - what a brilliant entrepreneur (or at least a good enough one to survive under government subsidy)
Even if there is something of a legit complaint, it's absolutlely boring. Either way it's all aesthetics, tones, flavors, and moods. Everytime I want to try and take Foucault and Marx seriously, I keep getting reminded that almost all people who use them are irredeemably obnoxious.
I like "American Anarchism" when compared to the endlessly boring "European Anarchism" these academicians seem to be in love with. Give me an Ayn Rand's cheep pulp detective novel, or some kind of "right wing" Sadistic manifesto, if for no other reason just to irk these people - maybe that's too reactionary or counter productive, but I don't really care it should still help make a point. I just don't think all critiques of the state are desirable, there are worse things out there - such as "socialist anarchists" in the humanities / social science department.
If I had be a "diagnostician" about things (assuming I wouldn't vomit from using that word) I would say these articles are a psycho-sexual symptom of the "scribe" class having a beef to grind with the "merchant class" . A bourgoise civil war (assuming the "merchant class" has any clue or care whats going on, if not it's just some negative nancys trying some kind of coup).
I think there is a decent Rothbard article review of some James Bond flick praising spy movies.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
so you'll have the same intellect-gasm that I had
This is disgusting on so many levels...
Clayton -
so you'll have the same intellect-gasm that I had This is disgusting on so many levels...
Are you unfamiliar with the Symposium?
@ vive
they do mean something, as a social signal for academic recognition to get patted on the back by their own peers.
That's funny, that is what analytic philosophers say about economists and their theories.
They want to criticize "the wrong kind" of Hollywood, "the corporations", "the banksters", Milton Friedman, or whatever other right wing boogy man they can throw at you.
Are you familiar with his other works? I didn't notice that he was directing angst poltically. He is a professor of international media studies...political propaganda is probably a pretty cool field to understand beyond what the end user is used to.
The essay didn't not mean anything. It is pointing out the relationship between people's perception of spyies and what spies can get away with because of it. I also think that people generally abuse Nietzsche and Foulcat and especially Marx (the Gramscian IR theories have so much truth and precience wrapped up in nonsense ideology).
We pay to be entertained that way and, as the author points out, the CIA 'consults' with our entertainment. This is explicitly criticism of the security state propagandizing people with fear and this irrational and wholly unrealistic concept of the "anarchist" - the one that doesn't fit the mold, not black flag sporting bombers, but individuals who act far out of character - who pieces it all together and saves the day. But, the disconnect of reality is that there is nothing to piece together. They find enemies, even after we slay one, and continue their dealings.
Either way it's all aesthetics, tones, flavors, and moods.
What is wrong with understanding people's perceptions in these terms? I'm reading Schopenhauer WW&R right now and it is hilarious in semantics, but penetrating in syntax. Making sense of people's fears as art is in part the disconnect of their reality with their aesthetic experience. I'm sure I'm not the only person to point out that media assimilates...it is calculated. I thought the essay was a decent way of pointing out that the American public asks for what it gets. (The state exists because the state scares people into thinking that they need it. The indoctrination reinforces itself because the people grow to learn to want the state.)
Where?
Also, you think Kant was a nihilist?
What is wrong with understanding people's perceptions in these terms? I'm reading Schopenhauer
Oh, absolutely nothing - in fact that's what I do ( As I have pointed out my fondness for Stirner, Nietzsche, Lachmann, and Schopenhauer; and it is funny semantics when Shopenhauer talks about sex organs).
Your explaination makes a bit more sense - or at least shows me I may be totally misreading it, unfortunatly my internet explorer is going crazy so I cant open the article. I think I just picked up on a lot of the language and use of Foucault analysis and went into my usually "contrarian" mode - because I am so used to dealing with people who piss me off when they start to bring up these styles of analysis and geneologies but still have a freaking deus ex machina of some kind up their sleeve.
So would this be on topic, or off topic (as I still don't know if I missed the point of the article, and my head flew in a totally different direction, because I got irked):
I would still say the probelm or a focus on analysis shouldn't be "the state" unless he is willing to prove that this phenomena is unique only within state perameters - if not I'm content with just putting into some phenomena of any action - and their is no reason to pick out the CIA and the state over intellectuals, acadamies and socialism - in other words all the nouns become widgets to describe action imperatives... and we are simply talking about the phenomena of the market / sociological process.
As for the Rothbard Article:
It's pissing me off that I can't find it now (the internet on the fritz isn't helping) hopefully I can post it within the next 48 hrs. And it is Rothbard just being contrarian, which is kind of funny.
As to Kant being a nihilist:
No, and I never understood that accusation, but it's good enough that enough people people do (funny enough I think Ayn Rand is one of them). That is, it seems a comon enough perception where one could say it and it wouldn't be shocking.
And as to what the analytics say about economists:
I don't think there is any quick way to address that issue without sounding like an absolute fool, and I'm certainly not saying I won't empathize with them to some degree. Besides all that, I don't read all too much analytic philosophy.
Rothbard James Bond Review:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_07-08.aspx#10a