Jump to content
Squirrelloid

Possible K idea against Ocean exploration

Recommended Posts

So, there's this Werner Herzog quote:

“What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the dark? It would be like sleep without dreams.â€

 

Unfortunately, it seems to have gone viral as a quote without proper attribution.  Can anyone help me place that with a source?  I'm wondering if there's a K here, like 'ocean exploration is bad because it is the unknown that gives life meaning, and the ocean is one of the few uncharted places left'.  Of course, to cut cards one must find the source...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there's this Werner Herzog quote:

“What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the dark? It would be like sleep without dreams.â€

 

Unfortunately, it seems to have gone viral as a quote without proper attribution.  Can anyone help me place that with a source?  I'm wondering if there's a K here, like 'ocean exploration is bad because it is the unknown that gives life meaning, and the ocean is one of the few uncharted places left'.  Of course, to cut cards one must find the source...

Seems pretty Nietzsche/Delueze/Security-esque to me, especially with Deleuze's concept of the diceroll.  I could see a K at least borrowing lit from them with the link being from Herzog being "the aff attempts to dominate and externalize their deepest fears instead of confronting them"

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure but I think this is similar to what you might possibly be getting at: 

 

Resist the attempt to take everything and lay the world open to analysis. We must maintain the intelligence of mystery or suffer planetary symbolic extinction

Baudrillard 2010 CARNIVAL AND CANNIBAL p 70-3

In the Promethean Perspective of unlimited growth, there is not merely the desire to make everything function, to liberate everything, but also the desire to make everything signify.  Everything is to be brought under the aegis of meaning (and reality).  In some cases we know that knowledge will forever escape us.  But in the immense majority of cases we do not even know what has disappeared and has always already eluded us.  Now, science makes a systematic effort to eradicate this secret area, this "constellation of the mystery" and to eliminate this demarcation line between the violable and the inviolable.  All that is concealed must be revealed; everything must be reducible to analysis.  Hence the whole effort (particularly since the death of God, who restrained this attempt to break open the natural world) leads us to an extension of the field of meaning (of knowledge, analysis, objectivity, and reality).  Now, everything inclines us to think that this accumulation, this over-production, this proliferation of meaning, constitutes (a little like the accumulation of greenhouse gases) a virtual threat for the species (and for the planet), since it is gradually destroying, through experimentation, that domain of the inviolable that serves us, as it were, as an ozone layer and protects us from the worst - from the lethal irradiation and obliteration of our symbolic space.  Shouldn't we then, work precisely in the opposite direction, to extend the domain of the inviolable?  To restrain the production of greenhouse gases, to reinforce that constellation of the mystery and that intangible barrier that serves as a screen against the welter of information, interaction and universal exchangeThe countervailing work exists - it is the work of thought.  Not the analytic work of an understanding of causes, of the dissection of an object-world, not the work of a critical, enlightened thought, but another form of understanding or intelligence, which is the intelligence of mystery.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...