#intelligentsia

[bocadosdefilosofia]

«Nietzsche y Heidegger especialmente son desde hace tiempo —también fuera de Alemania— objeto de una profunda veneración y se han convertido en ídolos de las nuevas corrientes hipersubjetivistas, antihumanistas, nihilistas y postmodernistas, una tendencia que el derrumbamiento de las ilusiones marxistas sobre la dictadura del proletariado no ha hecho más que acentuar. Muchos de los intelectuales que en su juventud habían militado en el campo marxista, han perdido la fe en sus antiguas ideas o se han convertido en decididos adversarios de la misma ideología a la que antes habían estado fervorosamente adscritos. Y de la misma manera que en los años dorados del marxismo y del diálogo cristiano-marxista la "intelligentsia" europea —sobre todo en los países latinos— se empapaba de Marx y de Hegel, lee ahora a sus antípodas Nietzsche y Heidegger. Así, una gran parte de los sistemas de ideas, modas filosóficas y teorías surgidas en Francia en las últimas décadas —Estructuralismo, "nuevos filósofos", Deconstructivismo y Postmodernismo en general— se han amamantado en las ubres nietzschianas y heideggerianas, desde Lacan y Foucault a Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze o Jaques Derrida. Eso explica que el debate en torno a la filosofía alemana sea en Francia más intenso y popular que en la propia Alemania.»

Heleno Saña: Antropomanía, en defensa de lo humano. Editorial Almuzara, pág. 32. Madrid, 2006.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia

@dias-de-la-ira-1

[worker-and-soldier]

Intelligentsia vs. Intellectual

'Anatoly Cemenka, A group portrait of intellectuals in Moscow — Tamiji Naito, Boris Pasternak, Sergei Eisenstein, Olga Tretyakova, Lili Brik, Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Diplomat Voznesensky, courtesy of Anne Tucker, the Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1924.'

"Why use the foreign-sounding "intelligentsia" when the English language has the word "intellectuals"? The answer is that one needs different terms to designate different phenomena - in this case, to distinguish those who passively contemplate life from activists who are determined to reshape it.

Marx succinctly stated the latter position when he wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.

[raisongardee]

"Les écrivains, surtout lorsqu’ils agissent en corps et dans une seule et même direction, exercent une grande influence sur l’esprit public ; c’est pourquoi l’alliance des auteurs en question avec les capitalistes n���a pas peu contribué à affaiblir dans le peuple les sentiments de haine et d’envie que lui inspirait cette forme de richesse. Ces hommes de lettres, de même que tous ceux qui propagent des nouveautés, affectèrent un grand zèle pour les pauvres et pour les classes les plus basses de la société, en même temps que dans leurs satires ils attiraient, à force d’exagération, les haines les plus fortes sur les fautes des Cours, de la noblesse et des prêtres. Devenus une espèce de démagogues, ils servirent de chaînon pour unir, au service d’une même entreprise, l’opulence et la misère, le faste odieux des uns et la turbulence affamée des autres. Comme ces deux espèces d’hommes – gens d’argent et gens de lettres – semblent jouer, dans les évènements actuels, un rôle capital, c’est par leur association et par leur politique que s’explique (non pas comme raison, en vertu de tels principes de droit ou de gouvernement, mais comme cause) la furie universelle avec laquelle on a attaqué l’ensemble du patrimoine foncier de l’Eglise et des communautés religieuses, tout en protégeant avec un soin extrême, contrairement aux principes mêmes qui sont invoqués, des intérêts d’argent qui tirent leur origine de la seule autorité de la Couronne."

Edmund Burke, Réflexions sur la révolution de France, trad. Pierre Andler, 1790.

[timbarrus]

Take notes. We all want to know, is it worth it. This question haunts us as the Internet becomes a utility. The tech oligarchs are not keen on the idea. One of the things FDR did, was bringing electricity to rural America. The people who got electricity last, knew they received electricity last. They could drive into town and see everyone had it but you. The Internet came last to rural America. Let's see what we can do with this and throw the bums out. It didn't work, so now they have focused on -- not kicking people out -- but in who can replace them with the proper messaging. One brick at a time. Journalists, gatekeepers, and opinion folks are flailing around with Let's Normalize Him when in their troubled guts they know he's laughing at you while he has his babycakes revenge of the entitled. They already own all the money. What more do they want. Do they really need the crumbs. Klein and Applebaum are playing a game where the intelligentsia cannot admit that they dropped the ball. They seem to think that the civil war will be a soft landing because it will have to be at least partially constructed by (who else) the intelligentsia. They articulate how surprisingly ordinary the opposition is. They go from We Will Never Ever -- to -- We Might in less than one tenth of a second for the pause. Pretty quickly. What choice do we have. We can't all move to Vancouver. I got my kids out while I could. You cannot talk the talk if you are unwilling to walk the walk.

[articlesofnote]

SCoR - Section II, Ch. 2, Part C "Social Organization for Universe Maintenance"

I. Reality is socially defined, and these definitions are always 'embodied', i.e. specific individuals and groups are 'definers' of reality. So, to understand a given social universe or its development, one must understand the organization supporting these 'definers'.

II. Specialization of knowledge (and the associated organization of administration of this knowledge) arises from division of labor, as we have seen; at this 1st stage it is possible to imagine that these "pragmatic" bodies of knowledge do not lead to conflict with one another.

III. As economic surpluses arise and accumulate, experts devote themselves to their expertise, and those experts who maintain meta-knowledge gain prominence, i.e. maintainers of knowledge pertaining to all reality/the "symbolic universe."

IV. There are a number of consequences at this stage, starting with the development of "pure theory" which at least can have the appearance of platonic separation from "lived" reality.

V. A second consequence is a strengthening of the tendency toward institutional inertia - more abstract knowledge -> less likely impacted by pragmatic exigencies -> more likely to persist as-is, even beyond the point of "genuine" pragmatic utility.

VI. Full-time universe maintenance personnel can also become targets/loci of social conflict such as between experts and laymen, originating in a lay resentment of expert perquisites, power, and claims to superior understanding of lay lives. Re: Brahmans vs. Jains/Buddhists

VII. Conflict between coteries of experts is equally likely/possible; some such conflicts are amenable to pragmatic testing/resolution but this is not usually possible. Abstract argumentation or resort to armed violence, is often then required to allow a 'victory'; "in other words, definitions of reality may be enforced by the police" - a form of "pseudo-pragmatism."

VIII. Thus it is possible to infer that there is always a "socio-structural" base for rival definitions of reality, and that the outcome of the rivalry will be at least influenced and possibly determined by this base. Theoretical development may proceed in isolation from the "base," but the eventual primacy of a given viewpoint will be established in a larger social arena, with particular social groupings "carrying" particular theories for reasons which may be totally unrelated to the motivations of the theoreticians themselves.

IX. When groups of experts are engaged in "practical" competition, pragmatic potency is emphasized - that is, what becomes important in a materially-significant conflict is the applicability of a theory to the social interests of a "carrier" group. This leads to patterns of organization among theoreticians, which we will now look at generally.

X. The (possibly canonical) first example is of a single group of experts holding an acknowledged, unchallenged monopoly over definitions of reality in a society; this pattern seems typical of "earlier phases of human history."

XI. In this case, the theoretical administrators are sustained by a unified power structure which is deployed to negate competing theories as they appear - either physically destroying their carriers, or absorbing and integrating them and their theories in various ways.

XII. Medieval Christendom - a very effective symbolic monopoly! - shows examples of many negatory processes: killing heretics, absorbing folk belief, segregating possible competitor structures (Islam, Judaism). The segregation is mutual in practice, and can break down with violent consequences.

XIII. Monopolistic arrangements presuppose\ high social-structural stability/consistency, and are themselves structurally stabilizing and thus inherently conservative (once they have their monopoly!)

XIV. Monopolistic situations may fail to be established, leading to ongoing struggle between competing theoretical constructs and their administrators; "When a particular definition of reality comes to be attached to a concrete power interest, it may be called an ideology." 'Ideology' does not apply to a monopolistic symbolic universe, nor does it apply to a clash between symbolic universes. Rather, it applies when "the same overall symbolic universe is interpreted in different ways, depending on concrete vested interests within that society."

XV. Particular ideologies tend to be adopted when there are theoretical aspects conducive to the material interests of the adopting group, but AN ideology is needed to help generate group solidarity. Once an ideology is adopted, it starts to be modified to better support the group it must now legitimate, but this process is not likely to affect the "whole" ideological apparatus.

XVI. The pluralism of modern societies causes problems for the theoretical practitioners of traditions with monopolistic pretensions, since they have to find ways of legitimating their de-monopolization.

XVII. Pluralism presupposes: urbanization, high division of labor, high social differentiation - and therefore, high economic surplus. Pluralism goes with rapid social change, both as a product and a driver.

XVIII. A historically important type of expert is the "intellectual", "an expert whose expertise is not wanted by society at large." The intellectual works in a relative institutional vacuum, objectivated by few, depending on a degree of pluralism to allow them their niche.

XIX. The intellectual has some options for getting by, such as sectarian withdrawal to protect against the nihilating processes of the larger culture…

XX. … or action to realize their design in the larger society, i.e. revolution. Both options REQUIRE social objectivation, and as they are successful (or not) in their aims, the reality that the intellectual chooses to maintain will be reinforced (or weakened).

XXI. In short, institutions and symbolic universes are maintained by LIVING INDIVIDUALS, who have concrete social locations and material interests. No "history of ideas" is separate from the "blood and sweat" of general history. This relationship is dialectic: theory informs, and is informed by, institutional structure, as institutional structure informs and is informed by theory. "Definitions of reality have a self-fulfilling potency" and are ultimately based in human lives, without which they have no reality. ----

re: I - They use "embodied" here in a much stricter sense than I would - I would take it to mean "reality-definitions are are borne in the members of the society" i.e. ALL, not a select group - but, ultimately, true that some groups/individuals are privileged with more potency in these roles (vis the presidential election in "Succession" where the Roys end up deciding who wins)

re: III - What happens when the surpluses are gone? Or, more precisely, when the accumulated structures outstrip the ability of the geobiosocioenergetic systems of earth to support them? WHAT KNOWLEDGE SURVIVES??

re: VI - Agree that this construction ("lay ressentiment leads to upheaval") makes sense, but stated as a given and it seems worth exploring especially since symbolic universes should be 'liberating' in some (many?) sense(s) - ref. discussion of existential terror from 2.a.XX - so experts should/could be just as likely to be seen as protectors as targets for ire. Where's the rub? (catholic reformation, U.S. as examples - chains of persistent abuses lead to mass desire for institutional renewal?)

re: VII - The rise of the Nazi party is classic example here - need to reread "the nazi seizure of power" but IIRC they coupled "pragmatic" control of messaging ("what gets us most donation money at our meetings") with "create problem, provide solution" dynamic - i.e. picking street fights with the social democrats then claiming only they (the Nazis) can solve the problem once they're given power.

But, thuggish violence is ultimately self-defeating (vis. the fate of the SA, murdered and imprisoned by the SS). Thugs also necessary for refined ideological fascists to come to power (ecological succession - pave the way for large-scale violence and its administrative apparatus)

re: X - Any argument on the basis of what "early" humans did now really has to contend with eg. Graeber/"Dawn of Everything" - but despite my initial reaction, this may not undermine their statement that much; I'm thinking of Jaynes here - what do we actually know about "early" social theorizing/worldbuilding? Pirsig - "Zen" - conflict between Platonist/Sophists - Graves' analysis of Greek myths

re: XII - My understanding of the history of the Jews in medieval Europe particularly suggests lots of examples of partially-successful segregation. Gotta finish reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism"!

re: XIII - Interesting distinction here between SOCIAL stability (limited in medieval era compared to our own!) and SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL stability i.e. persistence of particular social groupings and their relations to one another ("the three estates") which certainly were much more stable

re: XIV - This plucking-out of "ideology" seems very fishy to me - clearly it's an important term/concept with cultural potency for us, but I don't think they're addressing it correctly here. "Ideology is only ever applied to concrete interests within the same symbolic universe" suggests they're using the word differently than I've always understood it.

Which is… what? I guess something like "ideology is what we believe about social reality, guiding our actions, without concrete proof beyond the social system itself" - which sounds an awful lot like the 'symbolic universes' themselves.

re: XV - again this idea of selecting from social structures/justifications that are already "out there" in society. Also, still not seeing how "ideology" in this discussion is different from their previous discussion of eg. "legitimations."

re: XVI - "Canticle" final section - "not asking you, abjuring in the name of christ" - also gotta find that passage re: modern reception of catholicism

re: XVIII, XIX - Discussion of "intellectuals" seems a bridge too far - self indulgent, even? self-lionization in America that has a tradition of celebrating (successful!) heterodoxy?

re: XX - the hated "intelligentsia" in Russia pre WWI

[coffeeeverydamnday]

[shotbyshe]

WORDS OF THE DAY

ameliorate:

To make or become better; improve.

To grow better; to meliorate.

paradigm:

One that serves as a pattern or model.

A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories.

A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Locus of control: is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. 

intelligentsia:

The intellectual elite of a society.

An educated and intellectual; elite; intellectuals, collectively or considered as a class.

~~ Oct. '23

[russia-libertaire]

Khozhdenie v narod

'During the 1870s there was a wave of peaceful attempts to bring the revolutionary movement out of its claustrophobic isolation, to make contact with the masses, and to convince them of the necessity of common action to end the existing system. The thinker who inspired this wave was Petr Lavrov, a retired military engineer who had been involved in one of the student circles and was exiled to Vologda guberniia. His Historical Letters (1869) was widely read and became a kind of Bible of the intelligentsia. He preached that intellectuals, since they owed their education and culture to the sweat and toil of the masses, had a duty to repay the debt by going out to them and sharing the fruits of their learning. He believed revolution would ultimately have to be the work of the people themselves, but he rejected Bakunin's idea that blind destruction would prove fruitful. Instead, he argued, the level of culture and consciousness of the peasants must first be raised, so that they could bring their own socialist potential to full fruition and not dissipate it in indiscriminate violence. During the mid-1870s thousands of young people, mostly students, tried to put his message into practice. Some of the early attempts to contact the people were aimed at Old Believers and sectarians, on the strength of their record of alienation from regime and church. By this time, however, the Old Believers had long ago lost their oppositional fervor, and in any case regarded the atheism of most of the radicals with alarm and repugnance.'

Russia and the Russians, by Geoffrey Hosking

[worker-and-soldier]

'Rebellions happen; revolutions are made.'

"Whether the conflicts and resentments that exist in every society are peacefully resolved or explode in revolution is largely determined by the presence or absence of democratic institutions capable of redressing grievances through legislation, and the presence or absence of an intelligentsia determined to fan the flames of popular discontent for the purpose of gaining power. For it is the radical intelligentsia that transforms specific, and therefore remediable, grievances into an uncompromising rejection of the status quo. Rebellions happen; revolutions are made. And they are made by bodies of professional "managers of the revolution," namely the radical intelligentsia."

(Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Paw Prints, 2008.)

[value2society]

using natural resources.

[jiinglespurs]

after being told the worst science jokes of his life

[10yrratiolover]

The Intelligentsia Guild is, according to its wiki, is a group that is financially supported by the IPC. Meaning, that by default, those within the Intelligentsia Guild are in a lower position in power than those in the IPC.

Yet, Ratio is almost always showcased alongside the higher ranking IPC members, commenting under their social media posts (albeit only Aventurines but I digress), being very frequently shown alongside them in promotional material, and even having a reference in the actual IPC trailer.

Now, it's been made clear already that he does have direct relations with the IPC, as seen in the Penacony story, but trying to figure out what these relations exactly are is where I'd like to look.

It is clear he isn't a direct member of the IPC, seeing as he is exclusively introduced as a member of the Intelligentsia Guild, however, in his third character story Margaret states that he received an invitation from the IPC. The exact details of this invitation are not given, but it is described as carrying an amount of solemnity. This, and the fact that during the Penacony story Ratio states, "…only IPC senior members and related members can access it - but I happen to be among them." THIS as well as the fact that in the space station mission, he is introduced as a Delegate from the IPC.

Now, I believe that Ratio is not necessarily a direct member of the IPC, but more an honorary member. I think this is mostly because he is never mentioned as a member of the IPC, only the Intelligentsia Guild. However The Intelligentsia Guild is heavily implied to be an extension of IPC of sorts, and many Intelligentsia Guild members likely do work for IPC, Ratio included. It's clear in his third character story that the IPC is aware of his existence specifically, and I find it easy to believe that his intelligence is used for the benefit of the IPC, especially since in that character story he was sent that letter during the test-firing of an anti-planetary weapon he had developed.

I think he refuses to accept a direct job with the IPC, not wanting that title before or after his name when he's introduced after knowing about all the things that the IPC has done.

I don't think Ratio would want to be associated directly with the IPC, instead being perfectly content to remain in the Guild, leading to yet another faction that he will never join due to his humanity and care for people.

[starcurtain]

I would pay such good money for confirmation of whether Ratio and Aventurine have worked together before Penacony. How did it happen??? The talks that went on before Final Victor... The initial spark of inspiration to stick Those Two Guys together...

Like, I just have to know if someone in the IPC deliberately tossed Aventurine and Ratio on to a team together (with or without good intentions). Are any of the higher ups in the IPC or the Intelligentsia Guild out there counting on this partnership working out for the best?

To be a fly on the wall when Ratio found out who he'd been hired to "consult" with...

And Aventurine, getting the IPC mission orders across his desk like "Ah, yes, finally. He's here. My Government Assigned Boyfriend™."

[another-goblin]

After 2.2, many people noticed that the first part of Ratio's "Doctor's Advice" isn't just a vague encouragement (to think about it, that would have been a bit out of character for him); it actually foreshadows certain revelations about the Dreamworld we only discover in 2.2.

It can't be a coincedence that the words "Death" and "Dormancy", capitalized and placed in quotation marks, are the exact words used to refer to that "Death "meme when we discover the truth about it.

It's safe to assume that he knows more about the Dreamworld than he lets on, and that note is partly a hint to Aventurine about what's going on. And it probably helped, judging by the fact that Aventurine somehow ended up in Dreamflux Reef after that.

So first, that really reminded me of what he did on Herta station. He basically slips into his teacher mode: "I'll make sure nobody dies. I won't disrespect your cognitive abilities by just telling you what's going on. I'll just direct you towards the truth because I know you are smart enough to ultimately get there by yourself"

And secondly, if that's true, if he really knows a lot about the Dreamworld, that would finally explain why the IPC sent him as a technical consultant.

The question is, what's in it for him.

At first glance, he doesn't have a horse in that race. I don't think he gives a damn about the IPC's claim on Penacony. He doesn't strike me as a fan of the IPC in general (his philosophy is "people should have access to education," and money never factors into it).

And they can't directly order him to go; the IPC bosses are not his bosses. The Intelligentsia Guild is affiliated with the IPC and probably sponsored by it, but they are not the same. (I had a little theory about the IPC financing his educational projects. So theoretically, they could use it as leverage. But it's an unsopported speculation on my part)

One of his goals could have been to study the Dreamworld, but I don't think that's the case because he could have just visited it as a tourist for that purpose at any time.

So, why would he agree to go on that mission, taking his valuable time away from teaching and potentially risking his life and reputation (by getting involved with the IPC's shady affairs)?

He's only there to help Aventurine. Currently, that's the only explanation.