anarchism and time

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 15 2008 21:25

Confusion around the subject/object goes back further than capitalism though. Certainly the separation between subject and object is fundamental to the emergence of human consciousness. However, it could be argued that this has hitherto only been experienced as an alienation (and hence as a 'confusion'), although there have perhaps been many glimpses of a higher synthesis.

tsi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Jun 15 2008 22:38
Alf wrote:
Confusion around the subject/object goes back further than capitalism though. Certainly the separation between subject and object is fundamental to the emergence of human consciousness. However, it could be argued that this has hitherto only been experienced as an alienation (and hence as a 'confusion'), although there have perhaps been many glimpses of a higher synthesis.

true dat. although likewise, heirarchy, separation and alienation go back further than capitalism too... but capital is the most advanced relationship of separation.

I also should have mentioned that Holloway is completely regurgitating Lukacs

and while I can't stand it when QM & relativity are used as some sort of space-hippie justification for contentless mysticism, I do think that the points brought up earlier here about QM and Relativity have relevance. it's interesting to note how while there does appear to be the potential in there for undermining separation and alienation on a theoretical level, it seems (to me at least) that almost all popular interpretations of the subjects have functioned on an ideological level to uphold the status quo or to increase mystification.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 16 2008 07:53

I would agree with both points. I think the only way to approach this is historically. I think it's true that there are profound insights in the real, historical 'mystical' traditions (eg Buddhism) regarding the overcoming of the alienation between subject and object, But these insights have to be seen within their historical limitations, which at best restricted them to an elite, and at worst clouded the insights with a mythological fog that ultimately served the status quo.

tsi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Jun 16 2008 17:37
Alf wrote:
I think it's true that there are profound insights in the real, historical 'mystical' traditions (eg Buddhism) regarding the overcoming of the alienation between subject and object, But these insights have to be seen within their historical limitations, which at best restricted them to an elite, and at worst clouded the insights with a mythological fog that ultimately served the status quo.

I agree 100%.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jun 16 2008 20:24
pingu wrote:
If knowledge is power then how do different conceptions of what the universe is like reflect social concerns? In the middle ages it was "known" that the earth was the centre of the universe and the fixed stars and planets revolved around it in crystal spheres, justifying and naturalising the mediaeval order. Time was cyclical, everyone knew his place and everything was ordained by god.(Although whether anyone actually believed that the earth was flat is a moot point, particularly sailors who knew that a ship's mast would only gradually become visible as it came up over the horizon. Church dogma however, insisted that it was.) Then very much later came the "steady-state" theory a la Fred Hoyle, in which the universe had always existed and always would, new matter being continuously created to fill in the gaps as the universe expanded. This was around the sixties when the threat of social upheaval required a theory of unchanging stability. Then a bit later came the cyclical Big Bang /Big Crunch theory perhaps indicating the reimposition of cyclical work time after the preceeding period of uncertainty for capital. Now we have the indefinite expansion theory in which the cosmos will just keep on getting older, all the stars will eventually burn out an an "Everlasting Dark Era" will ensue. Time is unbounded and linear once, more perhaps indicating the possibly indefinite expansion for capital. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (1905), which involved time roughly coincided with the first Russian revolution, his General Theory (1915) with the second. There were a multiplicity of diferent points of view nothing was certain "all static order turns to dust" and time depends on the observer's frame of reference. The construction of the atomic bomb in the 1940s, however using the principle of mass- energy equivalence, required this understanding of the relative nature of time to be the property of a minority of privileged experts. The use of this new understanding of time was kept from society at large . How time is conceived depends on the ideologial needs of society at any given moment. This is not to gainsay the validity of Einstein's insights or of physics in general I am merely trying to indicate their function in society. I hope time travel is never developed.

Physicists are shifiting between big bang/big crunch vs. eternal expansion simply because new evidence seems to strengthen one or the other idea, not because they are reflecting the underlying structure of society. Recent research on the asymmetricality of the background microwave radiation of the universe suggests the universe may have existed before the big bang, for example.