This was mildly interesting:
"The struggle of our generation..an existential threat"
Well, what poppycock, what utter nonsense on stilts! That the fundamentalists and extremists are morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt goes without saying. How, then, could they ever pose a threat to 'the west', or state powers? And here we get to the crux of it: their lack of being to one side, it has to be said they are not politically bankrupt. But to go down that line is to ask some awkward questions, such as: who has been funding these crazies from the start? No-one wants to look to Saudi or Qatar because, well..er..they're,like, our allies. Yeah, whatever.
No-one wants to talk about one of the root problems: the wahabi backlash, post '79, that has spread its venomous tentacles everywhere. Don't mention that because one would be forced to talk about internal reasons for the growing backwardness (internal to the history, and perhaps even theology) of the place and religion. Equally, it would be to question why 'the west' has supported so many dictators and autocrats over the years (don't go there!).
The wahabis, with their puritanical outlook, share something with the gnostics in that they do not have a proper appreciation of the world. Materialism, hedonism and fundamentalism share an affinity.
~~
This is a summary of one of his chapters. Makes for fascinating reading:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-reality-as-moral-ideal
Makes you wonder, again, about the connection between virtual reality and the mindset of fundamentalists and ideologues (read: Conservatives and Right-wing parties). Free is 'free from'. The fundamentalist want to be free from the complexity of the world and any real engagement with it. Gibbon was surely right: fantasy, fancy and imagination can lead to all sorts of destructive behaviour; the Church, on the other hand, was more moderate because it had to mediate its position in the world, had to take into account contingencies, complexity, conflicting dispositions.
~~
There is some nice writing here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/08/the_best_teachers_and_professors_resemble_parental_figures_they_provide.html
'You need to step outside the role a bit, regard it with a little irony, if only to acknowledge the dissonance between the institution and the spirit. It often feels that there are certain things you cannot say inside a classroom—the most serious things that you want to say, the most genuine things. You want to say that life is tragic, that we are dangling above a void, that what’s at stake, when you read a book, is nothing less than life itself. But you feel your institutional surroundings holding you as if between quotation marks.'
~~
Yes, will get to the Le Guin in a mo. and then try and tie all this together.
"The struggle of our generation..an existential threat"
Well, what poppycock, what utter nonsense on stilts! That the fundamentalists and extremists are morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt goes without saying. How, then, could they ever pose a threat to 'the west', or state powers? And here we get to the crux of it: their lack of being to one side, it has to be said they are not politically bankrupt. But to go down that line is to ask some awkward questions, such as: who has been funding these crazies from the start? No-one wants to look to Saudi or Qatar because, well..er..they're,like, our allies. Yeah, whatever.
No-one wants to talk about one of the root problems: the wahabi backlash, post '79, that has spread its venomous tentacles everywhere. Don't mention that because one would be forced to talk about internal reasons for the growing backwardness (internal to the history, and perhaps even theology) of the place and religion. Equally, it would be to question why 'the west' has supported so many dictators and autocrats over the years (don't go there!).
The wahabis, with their puritanical outlook, share something with the gnostics in that they do not have a proper appreciation of the world. Materialism, hedonism and fundamentalism share an affinity.
~~
This is a summary of one of his chapters. Makes for fascinating reading:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-reality-as-moral-ideal
Makes you wonder, again, about the connection between virtual reality and the mindset of fundamentalists and ideologues (read: Conservatives and Right-wing parties). Free is 'free from'. The fundamentalist want to be free from the complexity of the world and any real engagement with it. Gibbon was surely right: fantasy, fancy and imagination can lead to all sorts of destructive behaviour; the Church, on the other hand, was more moderate because it had to mediate its position in the world, had to take into account contingencies, complexity, conflicting dispositions.
~~
There is some nice writing here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/08/the_best_teachers_and_professors_resemble_parental_figures_they_provide.html
'You need to step outside the role a bit, regard it with a little irony, if only to acknowledge the dissonance between the institution and the spirit. It often feels that there are certain things you cannot say inside a classroom—the most serious things that you want to say, the most genuine things. You want to say that life is tragic, that we are dangling above a void, that what’s at stake, when you read a book, is nothing less than life itself. But you feel your institutional surroundings holding you as if between quotation marks.'
~~
Yes, will get to the Le Guin in a mo. and then try and tie all this together.