Yes, Henry, thanks for the question: it's a tightly folded remark,
i'll try
to unfold it in a quick way to show what meaning could be given to it.
(Please allow me to be a bit sloppy about it, i'm short on time)
The successes of science have led to a widespread popular belief
that any
problem can be overcome, that 'we' can manage anything, that
although their
might be some trouble with the environment and such 'we' will find a
solution, just by sitting on our backs and let 'them 'handle it.
That's the
fiction, part of it. When i say this fiction has a proven fictional
status,
i mean that many scientists have definite proof that besides
technological
interventions major changes in our way of life are required to
avert the
present dangers.
It's arresting force: (e.g.) a lot of scientific reports where
available
that New Orleans was seriously threatened whenever a hurricane like
Katrina
would come along, hurricanes like Katrina where more than ever
likely to
happen within our lifespan because of proven effects of global
warming, so
the knowledge that something had to be done was out there.
Scientist just
don't get their message out in time through the thick barriers, the
closely
knit machinery of media/power and the people taken 'en masse' as
voting
consuming objects , a deafening global wish for everything to be
the best
in the best of all possible worlds. That's bad enough in its own
right, like
you mention in your third 'choice', this popular line of thinking
is further
being encouraged by people who should know better, and their
positions get
lot's of attention in the media so you get all kinds of trouble
spiraling
down.
As far as i know, scientist don't indulge in fiction but are
seriously at
work within their hypothetical-deductible framework. There's some
philosophical, ontological speculation that the framework itself is
fictional, i belief such statements to be useful if not valid in *
other*
discussions but * not* in this particular instant.
Another fiction is the nihilist one that nothing can be done to
stop the
world from ending in a scenario of doom some hollywood producers
would love
to get their hands on. In spite of its appaling appearance the
function of
that fiction is a reassuring one: if nothing can be done we needn't
worry.
On the other hand, the nihilist fictions also hook up into the
individuals
death-wish, common to all humans as (forgive me the sloganesk lingo)
desiring machines on a psychological plane of coherence. That's a
way of
looking at it, there are many others, but it has some explanatory
power.
There's also a possible (post) marxist analysis with equal power
indicating
that all messages of imminent doom, indeed all well purposed
critisiscm
trying to stir us into action is being encapsulated from the moment
it is
being uttered into disposible objects on todays opinionated
market. Each
manifestation of anti-globalist actions accompaning a G-7 summit is
reduced
to (make a list of possible deconstruction)
- a minor blop on the news show(reel)s
- a minor security hazard
- a great boost to our conscience
-...
Within this analysis solely along economic-political lines, the
academic
world where most of the science is being done could be 'de-
masked' (i'm a
bit lost for the right English word here) in its entanglement
within the
processes of power, the commercial interest driving the opinions and
influencing the very framework of science, a subject that i think
was still
a taboo twenty years ago while now commercial ties and dictates to the
scientific community are taken for (sic) granted.
Mistaking such analysis for nihilism is what happened to Derrida a
few times
in America, i've written a text on a similar kind of injustice hiding
beneath 'solutions' being offered to the Derridian critique on my site
(http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/leibniz.jsp). A plain case of shooting the
messenger to solve the problem turns into a strategy to defuse the
message
before it's being delivered.
So no thank you, none of the positions you offer here are mine, my
position
tends to shift with what i'm thrown into daily, much like anybody
elses, i
guess.
Best wishes,
dv
________________________________
Van: Henry Warwick [mailto:henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net]
Verzonden: zondag 4 december 2005 16:54
Aan: dv@vilt.net; soft_skinned_space
Onderwerp: disaster containment
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Dirk Vekemans wrote:
As for scientists my thread runs dry quickly,
so i can only dubiously infer they need it to recover fast
from an age in
which their own successes have lead to an arrestive global
faith in disaster
containment that disables those very scientist to adequately
communicate the
proven fictional status of such faith.
*What exactly do you mean* by an "arrestive global faith in disaster
containment that disables those very scientist to adequately
communicate the
proven fictional status of such faith"?
Are you saying that
-the many thousands of scientists who have analysed the planet's
present condition are engaged in writing fiction?
-that such efforts are a waste of time (i.e. are you agreeing with
the nihilist position that catastrophe is inevitable and efforts to
stop it
are futile?)
-or are you siding more with the cornicopian position of the
techno-positivists (i.e. you agree with those who feel that we'll
be able to
develop technologies that will somehow ameliorate the ecological
presence of
many billions of people looking for some fun?)
Henry Warwick
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre