Jump to content
KTricksfordays

Oceans Ks

Recommended Posts

What are people thinking for Ks on this topic? Obviously Anthro... Ive been looking into development discourses and human-nature dualisms as well. Thoughts? Ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger.

 

Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure there's a link about exploration to psycho/Lacan floating around somewhere.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i had to guess, i would say cap is returning...

And 1-off security

Edited by MCat
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze's theories of striated/smooth space apply so well to this topic it's insane.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the subject of the last ocean topic was marine natural resources. i'm thinking developmental discourse's framing of the oceans is similar. do we kritik the framers?

 

What I have so far is sort of in the context of development=imperalism/heg bad, so its the idea that we develop for the purpose of becoming more powerful on the world stage. I also contrast development to underdevelopment, because when you call half the world "underdeveloped", a hierarchy is created where a whole portion of the population becomes inferior just because they are behind of economic growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yeah let's read a generic politics disad on this topic 

let's also do it for next year's topic

and the year after

and the year after

 

Politics #1

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what I was thinking, but I couldn't find any lit on it.

Pretty sure the traditional ocean is cited as one of the primary examples of smooth space.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the nomads of the ocean? Pirates? Doesnt seem too unique, any midern pirates probably fit into the category of sedentary more than nomad as Id assume they mostly live in houses in the real world for the majority of the time. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the nomads of the ocean? Pirates? Doesnt seem too unique, any midern pirates probably fit into the category of sedentary more than nomad as Id assume they mostly live in houses in the real world for the majority of the time. :/

I'm not sure why the K would need to identify "the nomads" of the ocean. Deleuze's point isn't to be a nomad - it's to become nomadic. I'm pretty sure that both Desert Islands and A Thousand Plateaus identifies the ocean, as Miro says, as the prime example of smooth, unstriated space; a pretty cool metaphor for nomadism and resisting organization if you ask me.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah let's read a generic baudrillard kritik on this topic 

let's also do it for next year's topic

and the year after

and the year after

Subjectfreakingtivity. 

Granting subjectivity and rights to nature is handing it a poisoned chalice, entering it into a competition it can never effectively play, which inevitably results in disaster, and the more we are reconciled with nature, the less we can be reconciled with ourselves, resulting in mass extermination through nuclear or biological means.

Baudrillard 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End†p. 80-84, certified badass]

Hence the recent proposal, following this same logic, from the moment it achieved the status of virtual waste-product, to accord nature international recognition of its rights, to elevate it to the status of a subject in law. Thus the 'contrat nature/"" amounts to a definitive recognition of nature as waste. Just as, in bygone days, the recognition of the rights of the unfortunate meant not their emancipation as citizens, but their liberation as the unfortunate. It is always the same with rights: the right to water, the right to air, the right to existence, etc. It is when all these fine things have disappeared that the law arrives to grant their disappearance official recognition. The law is like religious faith. If God exists, there is no need to believe in Him. If people do believe in Him, this is because the self-evidence of his existence has passed away. Thus, when people obtain the right to life, the fact is that they are no longer able to live. When nature is recognized as a subject in law, as it is by Michel Serres, we have objectified it to death, and this ecological cover merely asserts our right to go on doing soAll this has been brought about by the highly dubious way in which the concept of nature has evolved. What was initially matter became energy. The modern discovery of nature consists in its liberation as energy and in a mechanical transformation of the world. After having first been matter, and then energy, nature is today becoming an interactive subject. It is ceasing to be an object, but this is bringing it all the more surely into the circuit of subjection. A dramatic paradox, and one which also affects human beings: we are much more compromised when we cease to be objects and become subjects. This is a trick that was pulled on us long ago, in the name of absolute liberation. Let's not pull the same one on nature. For the ultimate danger is that, in an interactivity built up into a total system of communication, there is no other; there are only subjects - and, very soon, only subjects without objects. All our problems today as civilized beings originate here: not in an excess of alienation, but a disappearance of alienation in favour of a maximum transparency between subjects. An unbearable situation, all the more so for the fact that, in foisting on nature the status of a subject in law, we are also foisting on it all the vices of subjectivity, decking it out, in our own image, with a bad conscience, with nostalgia (for a lost object which, in this case, can only be us), with a range of drives - in particular, an impulse for revenge. The 'balance' we hear so much of in ecology ('out of balance') is not so much that of planetary resources and their exploitation as the metaphysical one between subject and object. Now, that metaphysical subject object balance is being upset and the subject, armed as he is with all the technologies of advanced communication (technologies on whose horizon the object has disappeared), is the beneficiary Once that balance is disrupted, it inevitably sparks violent reactions on the part of the object. Just as individuals counter the transparency and virtual responsibility inflicted on them as subjects with unexplainable acts, acts of resistance, failure, delinquency and collective disorder, so nature counters this enforced promotion, this consensual, communicational blackmail, with various forms of behaviour that are radically other, such as catastrophes, upheavals, earthquakes and chaos. It would seem that nature does not really feel a sense of responsibility for itself, nor does it react to our efforts to give it one. We are, admittedly, indulging in" a (bad) ecological conscience and attempting, by this moral violence, to stave off possible violence on nature's part. But if, by offering it the status of subject, we are handing it the same poisoned chalice as we gave to the decolonized nations, we ought not to be surprised if it behaves irrationally merely so as to assert itself as such. Contrary to the underlying Rousseauist ideology, which argues that the profound nature of the liberated subject can only be good and that nature itself, once emancipated, cannot but be endowed with natural equilibrium and all the ecological virtues, there is nothing more ambiguous or perverse than a subject. Now, nature is also germs, viruses, chaos, bacteria and scorpions, significantly eliminated from Biosphere 2 as though they were not meant to exist. Where  are the deadly little scorpions, so beautiful and so translucent, which one sees in the Desert Museum not far away, scorpions whose magical sting certainly performs a higher, invisible – but necessary - function within our Biosphere 1: the incarnation of evil, of the venomous evil of chance, the mortal innocence of desire (the desire for death) in the equilibrium of living beings?

What they have forgotten is that what binds living beings together is something other than an ecological, biospherical solidarity, something other than the homeostatic equilibrium of a system: it is the cycle of metamorphoses. Man is also a scorpion, just as the Bororo are araras and, left to himself in an expurgated universe, he becomes, himself, a scorpion. In short, it is not by expurgating evil that we liberate good. Worse, by liberating good, we also liberate evil. And this is only right: it is the rule of the symbolic game. It is the inseparability of good and evil which constitutes our true equilibrium, our true balance. We ought not to entertain the illusion that we might separate the two, that we might cultivate good and happiness in a pure state and expel evil and sorrow as wastes. That is the terroristic dream of the transparency of good, which very quickly ends in its opposite, the transparency of evil. We must not reconcile ourselves with nature. It seems that the more the human race reconciles itself with nature, the less it is reconciled with itself. Above and beyond the violence it inflicts on others, there is a violence specific to the human race in general, a violence of the species against itself in which it treats itself as a residue, as a survivor - even in the present - of a coming catastrophe. As if it too were ready to repent of an evolution which has brought it such privileges and carried it to such extremes. This is the same conjuncture as the one to which Canetti refers, in which we stepped out of history, except that here we have not stepped out of history, but have passed a point beyond which nothing is either human or inhuman any longer and what is at stake, which is even more immense, is the tottering of the species into the void.

It is quite possible that, in this process, the species itself is commencing its  disappearance, either by disenchantment with - or ressentiment towards - itself, or out of a deliberate inclination which leads it here and now to manage that disappearance as its destiny. Surreptitiously, in spite of our superiority (or perhaps because of it), we are carrying over on to our own species the treatment we mete out to the others, all of which are virtually dying out. In an animal milieu which has reached saturation point, species are spontaneously dissuaded from living. The effects produced by the finite nature of the earth, for the first time contrasting violently with the infinity of our development, are such that our species is automatically switching over to collective suicide. Whether by external (nuclear) violence or internal (biological) virulence. We are subjecting ourselves as a human species to the same experimental pressure as the animal species in our laboratories. Man is without prejudice: he is using himself as a guinea-pig, just as he is using the rest of the world, animate or inanimate. He is cheerfully gambling with the destiny of his own species as he is with that of all the others. In his blind desire to know more, he is programming his own destruction with the same ease and ferocity as the destruction of the others. He cannot be accused of a superior egoism. He is sacrificing himself, as a species, to an unknown experimental fate, unknown at least as yet to other species, who have experienced only natural fates. And, whereas it seemed that, linked to that natural fate, there was something like an instinct of self-preservation - long the mainstay of a natural philosophy of individuals and groups - this experimental fate to which the human species is condemning itself by unprecedented, artificial means, this scientific prefiguring of its own disappearance, sweeps away all ideas of a self-preservation instinct. The idea is, indeed, no longer discussed in the human sciences (where the focus of attention would seem, rather, to be on the death drive) and this disappearance from the field of thought signals that, beneath a frenzy for ecological conservation which is really more to do with nostalgia and remose, a wholly different tendency has already won out, the sacrificing of the species to boundless experimentation.

Edited by glg1995
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't "grant" nature subjectivity, it has subjectivity independent of human conceptions of ontology, its just a matter of whether we view it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't "grant" nature subjectivity, it has subjectivity independent of human conceptions of ontology, its just a matter of whether we view it that way.

How is "the matter of which we view it" not the equivalent of granting it subjectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is "the matter of which we view it" not the equivalent of granting it subjectivity?

1. It assumes nature is currently an object

 

2. It assumes we, as humans, are overlords who have the ability to just give subjectivity to anything we want.

 

3. It assumes humans and nature are ontologically independent, which I would argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the nomads of the ocean? Pirates? Doesnt seem too unique, any midern pirates probably fit into the category of sedentary more than nomad as Id assume they mostly live in houses in the real world for the majority of the time. :/

 

the ocean is now a hyperreality?

 

I'll card this post for my baudrillard link.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...