http://www.truthandpower.com/blog/blog/politicalphilosophy/the-puzzle-of-power/
In very ordinary way I noted and stated that I regarded power (you know, the stuff of society etc) as imaginary. This was before I accepted Lacan had something to say. What Sluga says and not well enough due to Foucault - he's wrong if there's no irony intended in one of assertions, on politics and family - is interesting.
I don't see representation as incorporated or consolidated with the Symbolic. That's my point. I cannot say the same of the Real, yet it is supporting the Imaginary - or with some memory of it.
The final remark omits to accept that it is possible that for humans nature will ne seperated off. It may still get them, if they at all exist as humans. It is the very absence of power, of agency if you will, that generates this pursuit of control by machines - they argue, sometimes they are only making the machines better at being human, or at least animal - that by all standards revealed so far are not good for humanity in their standardising and selection trajectories.
So, as religions hope and pray, we are pursuing the creation of power that cosmological nature may indeed absorb.
I don't want more of yesterday, today or the tomorrow that representations are delivering as imagined.
That's why the investigation of our spatial needs and uses, archeaology is especially provocative, may even do better to prevent conflict than ai bots with suicide mission quantum direction. Presently those machines are indistinguishable from the humans we imagine hold power.
This is not notes. Sluga, you'll see, does miss the point Foucault held of mobile fields?
No comments:
Post a Comment