Sofie Channel

Sofie Channel

Anonymous 0xce
said (12mo ago #989 ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️ ):

What books are you currently reading?

I'm reading:

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman

Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Charles Taylor

The Collected Works of C.G. Jung Volume 10: Civilization in Transition by C.G. Jung

I'm reading: ... (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xcf
said (12mo ago #991 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

I'm reading the I Ching and the Dao De Ching, with a lot of aid from the translations by Richard Wilhelm and James Legge respectively.

I'm also looking at how mysticism has influenced East Asia on a practical level in modern times.

I'm reading the I Ch (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xd0
said (12mo ago #992 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

I've been reading histories of American intelligence. Some of these are CIA publications, or from people closely related, like Ray S. Cline's memoir. There were also Secret Agencies: U.S. Intelligence in a Hostile World by Loch K. Johnson, and Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence by Joshua Rovner... I realized my knowledge of this stuff was exclusively from crank parapolitics guys, which is fine, but it's necessarily limited.

I've been reading hi (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xd1
said (12mo ago #997 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1022:

Life in the Negative World by Aaron Renn
Ravenor by abnett
Selective Breeding and the birth of philosophy by bap
The Climb to investment excellence by marshall
The redemption of time by baoshu
Casting fire: a guide to the adventure and imagination of boyhood by searby
Lifeline: the religious upbringing of your children by stenson

Basically I just doxxed myself, hah

Life in the Negative (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xda
said (12mo ago #1019 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1022:

Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer

A third of the way through. The first time I thought of Speer was on a college trip to Berlin. We were chaperoned through the city for two weeks by an American who'd worked for NPR in the city for twenty years - and when a classmate threw a fit in a cafe because his water had bubbles in it, it fell to me to ask for *stille Wasser, bitte?*, because in two decades he hadn't learned enough German for that. At one point on the trip, we met the American ambassador to Germany; he loved the country, he said, and was working on learning the language. I later learned that he'd come from Goldman Sachs, and had donated a lot of money to the Obama campaign, and had lost his job in the aftermath of Wikileaks' publication of some diplomatic cables. He had not been very polite. He never did learn the language.

We had one free day. I walked through some parks. They had statues of great German(-speaking) cultural figures; I remember one of Haydn. Somehow I found myself at Speer's Olympic stadium. It was snowing. The air was still. Arno Breker's statues of victorious athletes, of lithe men and toned women, too beautiful for abstract-expressionist America, lined a great stone structure by Hitler's most notorious architect. The other Nazi buildings had been pointed out to me; they looked like ours in DC, tedious, forbidding monoliths, acts of aesthetic violence, to bludgeon all who saw them into brute submission. The stadium was different.

Ten years later, I saw Speer's memoirs for $2 in a used bookstore, and I had to buy them. After the fall of the Third Reich, he'd constructed himself as an apolitical careerist, a type you get by the truckload in any land of forbidding monoliths. Whether or not Speer was a true believer is a question for historians, but the type - the social climber from Mannheim or Iowa, the man awed by the access to power he lucked into - is real; if he was an authentic Nazi, he saw no shortage of inauthentic ones, as anyone would have.

It's mostly a self-defense, thus mostly tedious, but there are some funny anecdotes. In one, Hitler concocts a plan to forge Berlin into Germania, the world-capital of the Aryan race, with government office buildings on the most prestigious boulevards, and faces opposition from the mayor of Berlin. He starts making noise about forging a new capital; when the mayor drops his objections, he stops. Speer asks, "were you serious?", and Hitler says, no, purpose-built capitals are always miserable: just look at Canberra, or Washington.

If he said that, he was right - there are problems we have that even the nadir of European governance knew to avoid. Why shouldn't we have a capital on par with Paris or Berlin?

Gentrification of the Mind by Sarah Schulman

Changing tacks completely: a Jewish lesbian from NYC complains about suburbanites, the publishing industry, and Andrew Sullivan.

Anthropologically fascinating; highly recommended. Where Speer is an old man telling tales, Schulman is a *blogger*, from an era when in order to blog you had to convince a publisher to take financial risk on you. From an era when you respected this, as a fact about the world: tastemakers exist, and you must appeal to them. She complains in the introduction: "How ideas are allowed to be expressed has narrowed considerably in the current era." Publication date: 2012.

And if they're allowed to be expressed: "By the time the book is written, able to find a publisher, actually printed, possibly distributed, and finally available at the mall, about two to six years have passed. By the time those books are purchased and finally read, two generations of subsequent, newer discoveries have already taken place." In academic publishing, we have preprints, but we still have to wait for Elsevier.

Inside the Third Rei (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xd0
said (12mo ago #1020 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1023:

I've been reading about Michel Foucault at the end of his life.

The Japan Lectures, edited by John Rajcham. These all delivered in 1978 or 1979.
Foucault's Orient by Marnia Lazreg. This covers territory going back to the early 1960s, but it's mostly post-1978 adventures.
Foucault in Iran: Islamic Revolution after the Enlightenment by Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi.
The Last Man Takes LSD: Foucault and the End of the Revolution by Mitchell Dean and Daniel Zamora. Foucault was a lightweight.
Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seduction of Islamism by Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson. I read this a couple years back now, but I flipped through it again this week. It includes most of Foucault's journalism from Iran, essays on the revolution and Islam, as well as selections of attacks on him.
I have the sense now that what little I knew of Foucault's contributions to contemporary philosophy were already by the 1970s outdated, by which I am trying to say that they didn't keep pace with what he actually believed. I won't say much about that earlier work. Maybe, since I encountered him interpreted by men of other tendencies, translated, and distorted, I have completely misunderstood Foucault.

I am not interested in the Foucault that intellectualized getting his ass reamed at the Mineshaft. But can I separate him from the Foucault that scandalized the French left by enthusiastically embracing the possibilities of political Islam? I relate to his belief in a sort of political spirituality that the West abandoned in the aftermath of the Renaissance. There is a reason that his enthusiasm for Shi'ite theocracy, or some other "collective will" rallied against modernity, is not remembered. (But he also takes an interest in the fact that the Ayatollah seemed open to his interpretation of same-sex romance.)

This can more easily be integrated with Foucault the Nietzschean opponent of Freudo-Marxism. I enjoyed reading the lectures he delivered in Japan in the late 1970s, where, unlike everywhere else, the left was never Marxist, let alone Maoist, and, so, must have been more open to his call to treat Marx as a historical actuality, rather than a "coercive force over a certain truth." This willingness to expand his political imagination is what led to his tentative embrace of neoliberalism, which is covered in The Last Man Takes LSD.

That's what I've been reading. As you can see, I'm not sure what to make of it!

I've been reading ab (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xdc
said (12mo ago #1022 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1019
I guess I need to crack open Speer one of these days. I did enjoy the small bit I read of a random chapter in the middle when I found a copy in a library.

>>997
I'll re-read Selective Breeding soon. It strikes me as a very significant work. The questions Dr Alamariu raises for philosophy as a way of life in the 21st century are very interesting, and we would do well to figure out our answers.

I'm also re-reading Savitri Devi's Lightning and Sun, which has an interesting core of historical philosophy if you can handle her insane fangirl ranting.

I guess I need to cr (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xdc
said (12mo ago #1023 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1020
Sounds interesting and I'd like to hear your more fully developed thoughts when you have them. What if anything is worth reading in Foucault? How should we take it?

Sounds interesting a (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xd0
said (11mo ago #1107 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1109:

>> 1023

It's a tough question to answer. I won't do a good job. There are many revolting aspects to Foucault as an individual. His theoretical contributions don't deserve to have been so thoroughly abused. His conception of power is useful, an extension of Nietzsche, he would say, imagining it as a productive force in "the regime of truth," power as relations that must be analyzed through its employment within a complicated network. I think there's something important in his attempts at coming up with neutral (or not politicized, at least) conceptions of history. He escaped the strictures of Marxism, Freudianism, and other philosophical straitjackets that his peers couldn't escape. He's a model thinker, if nothing else.

In particular, from these readings, his engagement with Asia was fascinating. It was naive but brave. It's fun to read his responses to the socialists and feminists that were attacking him in the press for celebrating theocracy. His rejection of modernity as true backwardness, written after a stay in Tehran, is worth thinking about. All of that stuff is in the appendices to Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seduction of Islamism.

I realize this is all very vague. In short, I think Foucault should be rescued from queer theory and allowed reinvention as a Nietzschean anti-Marxist, anti-feminist, anti-Freudian radical lifestyle guru.

I am slowly making my way through the Deleuze study of Foucault, and I recommend it. If anyone else is interested, skip the introductory essays, which are mostly about debates around Foucault's legacy, and start right into it: https://altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gilles-deleuze-sean-hand-foucault-university-of-minnesota-press-1988.pdf

It's a tough questio (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xdc
said (11mo ago #1109 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1107
you should write a book review or start a reading thread of your favorite Foucault.

you should write a b (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0xd0
said (11mo ago #1126 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>> 1109

I think there's value in that. Despite Foucault being the most frequently cited contemporary philosopher in academia, and there being readymade attacks for abuses of ideas branded Foucauldian, that he's misunderstood. That's my feeling. We can see if it's true.

I think there's valu (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

You must login to post.