Tuesday, April 10, 2018

One Dimensional-Church

Image result for Herbert Marcuse
Herbert Marcuse,1898-1979


On Monday I said the right wing had coopted and reduced the charismatic movement and evangelical movement from an agent of transformation to a booster for there Republican party,I intimated that this was just a symptom of a larger sickness effecting all of Western civilization. In fact that larger sickness,according to Albert Schweitzer, was the death of civilization, The concept changed from a collection of living arrangements designed to further the pursuit of the individual's potential to a material process of consumerism and factory life. This was the result of the industrial age and rise of factory as a major way of life cutting off the masses from the goals and ends of their life's journey, I have written a paper on the reduction of knowledge to science which is another aspect of this problem, You can read about all of this here: part 1, part 2. The problem moves into phase II after the second world war, The factory has been largely replaced by the office the problem is more complex. Rising to meet the challenge were thinkers like C. Wrote Mills and Herbert Marcuse,

C. Wright Mills was a sociologist at Columbia University in New York. He is best known for his work The Power Elite.[1] It is from that work that we take the popular phrase of the 1960s, “military industrial complex.” In The Sociological Imagination[2] he explodes the illusions by which the power elite cover their own lack of understanding. His message there is that not only does the system run over the individual but even those who are in charge of it are dragged along by its momentum and don’t really know where they are going. Mills was one of the first thinkers to use the term "post-modern" (which he hyphenated). For Mills, writing in the '50s, modernity had already passed away, post-modernity had dawned. "The ideological mark...[of the post-modern epoch] --that which sets it apart from the modern age-- is that the ideas of freedom and of reason have become moot; that increased rationality may not be assumed to make for increased freedom."[3] As with Schweitzer, Mills reflects that the technological structure separates people from control over or reflection upon the ends of their lives. "Caught in the everyday milieux of their limited lives, ordinary people cannot reason about the greater structures both rational and irrational of which their milieu are subordinate parts."[4] (168).

The individual learns not to reason, but to rationalize the goals and ends of life, and his or her position in the overall scheme of things. Given...the ascendant trend of rationalization, the individual 'does what he can.' He gears his aspirations and his work to the situation he is in and from which he can find no way out. In due course he does not seek a way out: he adapts. That part of his life which is left over from work he uses to play, to consume, to have fun. Yet this sphere of consumption is also being rationalized. Alienated from production, from work, he is also alienated from consumption, from genuine leisure. This adaptation of the individual and its effects upon his milieux and self results not only in the loss of his chance, but in due course of his capacity and will to reason; it also affects his chances and his capacity to act as a free [person]. Indeed, neither the value of freedom nor of reason, it would seem, are known to him.[5]

The end result, according to Mills, is that society becomes filled with "cheerful robots," those who obey the programming of technique and cannot seek alternatives.[6] Mills charged that the social sciences help to further the aims and methods of technique, hiding behind the " scientific objectivity," unwilling to mount any critique. Mills anticipates Herbert Marcuse's work, written in 1964, One-Dimensional Man.

            Herbert Marcuse (July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German academic who fled to America to avoid the Nazis in the 30s. He worked for the OAS during the war and latter become the major intellectual powerhouse behind the New Left of the 1960s. He was based in San Diego where the taught, Ronald Reagan tried to have his Doctorate revoked to silence his criticisms of the war and the establishment. He was a Marxist, some say Neo-Marxist he was critical of Stalin and called a revisionist by Stalinists. Marcuse was best known for his seminal work One-Dimensional Man (1964), one of the greatest books of the era and one of primary importance for the century. In One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse argues that affluent capitalist society has been good at providing primary needs to a mass population (despite continuing poverty for some) and it has created a bourgeois society that perpetuates false needs. The American worker has bought into his place in the capitalist order as a cog in the machine, or a bit of overhead for the owners of the means of production, because in exchange will continue to supply the false needs upon which he has become admitted; that is the material trammels of an affluent society.

...The irresistible output of the entertainment and information industry carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits...The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against falsehood. And as these beneficial products have become available to more individuals, in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity; it becomes a way of life. It is a good way of life' much better than before and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change. Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior, in which ideas, aspirations, and objectives that, by their content, transcend the established universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of this [social-political] universe. They are re-defined by the rationality of the given system and of its quantitative extension.[7] (12).

The prognosis for one-dimensional man doesn’t end with just supporting capitalism as the basis of false needs. The whole concept of being a thinking person who lives in a society in which thinking people can determine their own lives is called into question and in fact done away with because the concept of freedom is illusory and not scientific. The scientistic crowd is telling us that freedom is a trick. The issues of one-dimensional man don’t stop Marxism because there is more to power than just capital vs labor, or capitalism vs. Marxism. Lurking behind the accumulation of false needs (technological version of bread and circuses) is operational thinking. This is what Marcuse means by "quantitative extension of the given system" (quotation above). " The trend [one-dimensional consumer society] may be related to a development in scientific method: operationalism in the physical, behaviorism in the social sciences. The common feature is a total empiricism in the treatment of concepts; their meaning is restricted to the representation of particular operations and behavior...In general, we mean by a conceptnothing more than a set of operations...a positivism which, in its denial of the transcending elements of reason, forms the academic counterpart to the socially required behavior."[8] The positivist and reductionist tendencies of contemporary scientific thought, which props up the technostructure and furnishes it with "empirical proof," works to eliminate all concepts that cannot be quantified, and therefore, eventually ”commodified.”

            Stanly Aronowitz wrote Science as Power, in which he argues two things: power is possessed by a process of legitimating, and science has lent itself to that legitimating at the expense of all other forms of truth.[9] In other words power is not merely taken by a group or an institution but it is built through a process of self legitimating moves. That process is part of the means by which modern science procures funding and perpetuates itself in modern society; by being of use to power through lending itself to the development of the means of power. We see this explicitly through the military but more subtly through industry and the development of technology, the status of scientific funding in the university and so on. In lending itself to power as an enforcement mechanism science subsumes other views and other concepts of truth. This process is inherent since science has always provided a certain aspect of truth in revealing the mechanism through which the natural world functions. Apart form the cultural currying of power, Aronowitz finds, science has an intrinsic power in its conflation of truth and knowledge. “Devising a method of proving the validity of propositions about objects taken as external to the knower has become identical with what we mean by ‘truth.’”[10] In other words science purports to tell us how the physical world stacks up and wont allow any other method to introduce other kinds of truth that it would consider authoritative, that becomes all there is in the world, the physical set up that science can study and quantify. The process by which modern though came to understand itself as its own object, from Plato’s observation of truth as self representing, to Hegel’s notion that consciousness takes itself as its own object, is done away by modern science. [11]Perhaps that’s why atheists have such abhorrence for the subjective. We can’t trust our own perceptions we can only trust that which is produced by the scientific method. The problem is so much of modern science is not procured through the process of empirical verification that is the hallmark of modern science, but must be reached though calculation, in terms of modern quantum theory for example. Then truth comes to be a rubber stamp placed upon “truth” by science. As Aronowitz points out, “Science is truth, and can for this reason represent itself by means of its procedures…self criticism of science is conducted within the boundaries of its own normative structures.”[12]

            The thinkers from Schweitzer to Marcuse and Aronowitz they are all building on the indicators of civilization in decay that Schweitzer originally saw. By the time we get to the end of the twentieth century they are so far gone one dimensional man is established. We are now working on moving from one-dimensional to cheerful robot. There’s a snowball relationship in that the scientistic mentality creates the situation then feeds off of it. Knowledge is reduced to one thing, science, then that one thing is transmogrified from knowledge to technique, or illusion of technique. Finally humanity itself is displaced as freedom is reduced to just anther false need. That is to say freedom becomes confused with the products one buys and with the process of choosing products. The concept of freedom itself is ratcheted down from a personal philosophical understanding of the goals and ends of one’s life to purchasing power to obedience. The real discourse becomes closed around the one possibility left to us, which is how best to obey. When the only form of knowledge is science knowledge of freedom must disappear, there is no freedom in science. The concept of freedom requires a substantial conceptual background to cover all the bases. We have to understand the parameters of freedom, the possibilities, the impediments to freedom, balancing freedom against responsibility and so on. When the only form of knowledge is about the facts of nature and how they work there’s no room for an abstraction like ‘possible freedom.’

Separation from God.

            For those of us who feel we know the reality of God in our lives, this is a great harm. It would rob those who don’t know that reality of the ability to ever learn. Reduction of knowledge to only scientific knowledge, ala the ideological administration of scientism, robs us of knowing God because it reduces religious experience to the level of the “subjective” the emotional, these are greatly things to be avoided in the ideology of scientism. Scienstism portrays itself as rational and objective it places all that does not bow before it in the category of the irrational and the subjective. We have already seen the way new atheism rationalizes scientific protocols to manipulate “God does not exist” into a scientific fact, via Austin Cline (see above FN 7).  To reprise that statement:
"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful." [13]

But that’s just circular reasoning because it assumes at the outset that since there is no argument that is deemed acceptable scientifically, there can be no warrant for belief in God. As long as the only form of knowledge is science then the only valid argument is scientific. While there are valid scientifically based arguments for God (see chapters nine and ten) there is no “fact” accepted in science such that “God exists.” Therefore, any argument for the existence of God is met with “that’s disproved before we start because it’s not science.” Cutting off other forms of knowledge the gate keepers of scientific acuity merely denounce warrant for belief based upon their own prejudices. Based upon that assumption it is deemed “unscientific” to argue for such a warrant. In fact what I’m saying is that scientists are human and they embody the same prejudices as anyone. That has to be ignored when the only from of knowledge is science because the human factor is not part of the scientific process. Thus belief in God is removed from reality by a series of protocols that amount to nothing more than jumped up ideology.

God belief and the realm of discourse

            Belief in God is more than just belief in an entity. It’s also the basis for rejecting the closed realm of discourse. This is true for two reasons, (1) because as the Transcendental signified God sets in motion the basic first principles that serve as premises of logic. God determines the basis upon which truth is held, since God alone is the ultimate creator then God alone is the final assigner of meaning. Thus the realm of discourse can never be truly closed by temporal power or human concerns. (2) Because in a practical sense the open nature of discourse depends to a great deal upon the understanding of technique. When we come to vest the illusion of technique with all power and all logic then we vest it with all right. That’s when we start thinking its right to pursue actions merely because we have the physical prowess to do so. As long as God is understood as the orbiter of truth no human technique affords one the efficacy to close the realm of discourse around any one social project. An example of what I’m talking about is the case of a worker in stem cell research who was injured by the technology but was denied direct medical care. “I was denied directed medical care for exposures from dangerous embryonic stem technologies incurred while at work. Unbelievably, I was denied under the premise that ‘trade secrets’ supersede a worker’s right to specific exposure information. Welcome to the embryonic stem cell world, a world of legal quagmire where human rights and public rights are slated toward the chopping block.”[14]

In fact, the public has been fooled. The embryonic stem cell research industry is far from the altruistic persona it has painted itself to be. Rather, embryonic stem cell research is about big money, first and foremost. It is about securing a position of power within the economic and legal mainstream of the American public. That is why biotech worker’s rights regarding safety and healthcare have been denied. That is why, unfortunately, the public’s right will be denied too.

And the media has not helped. The media has purposely turned the human embryonic stem cell debate into a polarized “religion versus science” contest.

But issues lying in-between those two polarities contain much of the tainted meat that can negatively impact the public toward human rights. These concerns get no media attention. The public remains ignorant. In fact, the public lacks an understanding of the legal, social and cultural effects that could negatively impact them as advanced technologies move forward.[15]

What’s the link from science as the only form of knowledge and this case? The realm of discourse is closed around the illusion of technique. Ethical consideration disappear because we have the technology we know how to do it, it’s sanctioned by the thinking experts who make decisions for us. These are the guys that know stuff, there’s no knowledge outside of science, these are scientists so they must know all about ethics and if they do can do it, must be good to do.


my huge paper on Schweitzer that was published in the academic journal Negations.
read more,




Sources


[1] C Wright Mills, the Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. No page given.
[2] C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination. New York, London: Oxford University Press, 1967 (originally 1959)
[3] Ibid, 167
[4] Ibid., 168
[5] Ibid., 170
[6] Ibid., 171
[7] Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Soceity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology In Modern Society.Minneapolis Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1988, ix.
Stanley Aronotwitz is professor of Sociology and cultural studies at CUNY Graduate Center, New York. He is a long time cultural critic and political activist.
[10] Ibid., vii.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., viii the idea about quantum physics he states on page ix
[13] Austin Cline, “Scientifically God Does Not Exist: Science allows us to say God Does not Exist, there is role for God in science, no explanation that God can provide.” About.com, Agnosticism/Atehism. Online publication:http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm  accessed 12/27/13.
[14] Becky A. McClain, “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Threatens Human Rights and Public Interests.” Watchdog on Science. On line resource. Septermber 14, (2010). http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.fr/2010/09/embryonic-stem-cell-research-funding.html
accessed. 1/15/14.
[15] Ibid.



51 comments:

7th Stooge said...

Adorno discussed similar ideas in "Education after Auschwitz." The systems manager can only focus on technical operation and success rather than moral ends. Peter Simpson, a classicist and philosopher from CUNY, also discusses the tendency for the sciences to become the only legitimate form of knowledge displacing speculation about morality, being, causality, etc.

I would be careful about conflating atheism with scientism and science with scientism. I know that you don't actually conflate these things but occasionally you seem to do so in your posts. I think it's just a rhetorical tic that you should be aware of.

Joe Hinman said...

Adorno discussed similar ideas in "Education after Auschwitz." The systems manager can only focus on technical operation and success rather than moral ends. Peter Simpson, a classicist and philosopher from CUNY, also discusses the tendency for the sciences to become the only legitimate form of knowledge displacing speculation about morality, being, causality, etc.

I was just watching a thing on You Tube of Charles Taylor discussing similar issue.

I would be careful about conflating atheism with scientism and science with scientism. I know that you don't actually conflate these things but occasionally you seem to do so in your posts. I think it's just a rhetorical tic that you should be aware of.

Most of the atheists that I deal with are scientisistic,even Quantum Troll. But I know not to make that equation.

This post is going to be part of a chapter in my next book, the issue is one-dimenstiomal chruh,I think I'll call it "Christianity, Civilization and Barbarism."

Joe Hinman said...

Adorno and Marcuse were both Frankfort school. So they have a lot of presups in common.

JBsptfn said...

Good entry about an important topic. It is sad that morals get put on the back burner nowadays. Money is at the forefront of it (which is why I am becoming egalitarian now in my thinking. Money can't continue to be our future, or we may not have one).

Joe Hinman said...

good point JB

Mike Gerow said...

Interesting .... I hope we see more about your "one dimensional church" concept soon.

:-)

Joe Hinman said...

I am starting my next book on it

im-skeptical said...

This post is going to be part of a chapter in my next book, the issue is one-dimenstiomal chruh,I think I'll call it "Christianity, Civilization and Barbarism."

- Thanks for the warning. This article is poorly written and poorly researched. We can expect no better from the book. Your example of a worker denied medical coverage is an attempt to equate corporate malfeasance with science in general, and stem cell research in particular is laughable. Nobody is "injured by the technology". It was poor safety practices, and it could just as well have been any industry. But you have managed somehow to turn this into a screed pitting science against religion, as part of your never-ending quest to paint scientific thinking as BAD, BAD, BAD. Typical.

Joe Hinman said...

no one is hurt by technology,O offended your god hu? I guess it's pretty hard to face the fact that you gods is just an idol. You wouldn't know bad research because you are not capable of doing any other kind, your writing is as juvenile as your understanding of ideas.

you can;t even make criticism without getting personal.

Joe Hinman said...

of course to the little un-read lout who has ever heard of mills or Marcuse that's "bad research,"

Jethrow has graduated 6thy grade and he does cypher'n. Well dogies unclke Jed.

Joe Hinman said...

with all the thing we know about facebook how they hook people it's imbecilic to say anything like ":technology never hurt anyone." what an idiot.

im-skeptical said...

no one is hurt by technology,O offended your god hu?

- No. I am not offended by anything you write. It is just so much incoherent babbling. To say that one could be hurt by technology is to say that knowledge is harmful. It is what we do with it that can hurt someone. But you wouldn't understand that, because understanding requires a mind. In the example you used in your article, McClain was "injured" be exposure to a virus. That was a result of a greedy and uncaring corporation not ensuring proper safety precautions in the workplace, which happens in many industries, regardless of the technologies they employ. How many thousands of coal miners have died for similar reasons? In fact, one might argue that high-tech industries have a much better safety record than low-tech ones. Your mindless diatribe is directed against the wrong villain.

Joe Hinman said...

- No. I am not offended by anything you write. It is just so much incoherent babbling. To say that one could be hurt by technology is to say that knowledge is harmful. It is what we do with it that can hurt someone. But you wouldn't understand that, because understanding requires a mind.

you painfully ignorant sophomoric illiterate,I never said:hurt by technology. I had a more sophisticated diagnosis than: technologist huts, Mills and Marcuse are highly respected thinkers from the century of greatness. You are an illiterate windbag not to know who they are.

well dogies uncle Jed




In the example you used in your article, McClain was "injured" be exposure to a virus. That was a result of a greedy and uncaring corporation not ensuring proper safety precautions in the workplace, which happens in many industries, regardless of the technologies they employ. How many thousands of coal miners have died for similar reasons? In fact, one might argue that high-tech industries have a much better safety record than low-tech ones. Your mindless diatribe is directed against the wrong villain.

Look doufus, you cretinous ignoramus, why don't bother to have adequate safe guards stupid, It's not in their mentality because like you they are mesmerized by technology.

Joe Hinman said...

here is the sectio from my essay:"“I was denied directed medical care for exposures from dangerous embryonic stem technologies incurred while at work. Unbelievably, I was denied under the premise that ‘trade secrets’ supersede a worker’s right to specific exposure information. Welcome to the embryonic stem cell world, a world of legal quagmire where human rights and public rights are slated toward the chopping block.”[14]

In fact, the public has been fooled. The embryonic stem cell research industry is far from the altruistic persona it has painted itself to be. Rather, embryonic stem cell research is about big money, first and foremost. It is about securing a position of power within the economic and legal mainstream of the American public. That is why biotech worker’s rights regarding safety and healthcare have been denied. That is why, unfortunately, the public’s right will be denied too.

And the media has not helped. The media has purposely turned the human embryonic stem cell debate into a polarized “religion versus science” contest.

But issues lying in-between those two polarities contain much of the tainted meat that can negatively impact the public toward human rights. These concerns get no media attention. The public remains ignorant. In fact, the public lacks an understanding of the legal, social and cultural effects that could negatively impact them as advanced technologies move forward.[15]"


to which Jethrow says "In the example you used in your article, McClain was "injured" be exposure to a virus. That was a result of a greedy and uncaring corporation not ensuring proper safety precautions in the workplace, which happens in many industries, regardless of the technologies they employ. How many thousands of coal miners have died for similar reasons? In fact, one might argue that high-tech industries have a much better safety record than low-tech ones. Your mindless diatribe is directed against the wrong villain."

wt is missing in his analysis"

1. the issue of trade secrets
2. the media reducible the issue to religion vs science
3,The public remains ignorant. In fact, the public lacks an understanding of the legal, social and cultural effects that could negatively impact them as advanced technologies move forward

Jethrow is obviously the one who reduces it to "technology good technology not hurt people." I never said anything about stopping technology. He boils it down to that because his ultimate concern is to feel himself powerful because he has small measure of understanding of science,meaning power,that is why he must reduce all issues to "Scottie good religion bad.

7th Stooge said...

- Thanks for the warning. This article is poorly written and poorly researched. We can expect no better from the book. Your example of a worker denied medical coverage is an attempt to equate corporate malfeasance with science in general, and stem cell research in particular is laughable. Nobody is "injured by the technology". It was poor safety practices, and it could just as well have been any industry. But you have managed somehow to turn this into a screed pitting science against religion, as part of your never-ending quest to paint scientific thinking as BAD, BAD, BAD. Typical.

I didn't read this post as a screed against science but against the tendency to reduce all knowledge to science, and the reduction of reason to technique. The resulting "closed universe of discourse" is what Joe claims leads to the type of thinking that allows for incidents like the stem cell worker's. I didn't read this as Joe claiming that science or technology themselves harm people but that the thought and social practices associated with science and technology are potentially harmful.

im-skeptical said...

I didn't read this as Joe claiming that science or technology themselves harm people but that the thought and social practices associated with science and technology are potentially harmful.
- That was what I said about it. But Joe said it was the technology.

Joe's words: "what I’m talking about is the case of a worker in stem cell research who was injured by the technology ... "

It's pretty clear. He condemns technological development.

I have more to say about it HERE.

7th Stooge said...

You're not reading it very closely. He's not condemning technological development but the ideology that has grown up with that development. I agree that his post could be clearer in places, but you could try to familiarize yourself a little bit with the thinkers he refers to, ie try to be a little more sympathetic in your reading rather than merely adversarial. I did read your blog post. It's not very informed, imho.

Joe Hinman said...

Skepie you are a bright guy, you do what my father would call "going off half cocked." You react hysterically to things that push your buttons, it's knee jerk reaction.

Hey I do that too sometimes,right now Jim (7) is saying (roll eyes) "sometimes!?"

We are all friends here yes i lose my temper a lot and say things I should not, but just read carefully and approach with a critical but friendly attitude.

Joe Hinman said...

sorry to do this to you Skepie but I have to use the ultimate weapon, to you I say:Ni!

NI,Ni ninini

im-skeptical said...

You're not reading it very closely. He's not condemning technological development but the ideology that has grown up with that development.

- Well, sure, in a way. He is condemning scientism, and tying that to Marcuse's concept of the one-dimensional man. But that isn't what Marcuse was talking about. Marcuse was making a statement about the techno-capitalist society, and subjugation of working people by the elite. He wasn't talking about science or scientism. Joe is really stretching it. But that's Joe for you.

Mike Gerow said...

The question about "one dimensional church" is still open....

If, as you say, "techne" and the secular society around it have such an affect on Xian movements that (at least in the US) they become just a branch of one of the secular political parties, then how and why does that happen?

Especially considering they're such such Biblically-oriented groups, since there are at least as many resources in the scriptures supporting the DNC's agenda as the GOP's.

But that's awfully complicated & prolly a good topic for a big, long future blog (as well as a big complicated book....)

Mike Gerow said...

skep, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is no 'pure science' since someone always has to pay for it.... so what makes you think that science and technology are o easily extricable from the (often-brutal) economic systems that produce them?

Joe Hinman said...

Well, sure, in a way. He is condemning scientism, and tying that to Marcuse's concept of the one-dimensional man. But that isn't what Marcuse was talking about. Marcuse was making a statement about the techno-capitalist society, and subjugation of working people by the elite. He wasn't talking about science or scientism. Joe is really stretching it. But that's Joe for you.

8:06 AM

Now he's an expert on Marcuse, Two days ago he had never heard of the bum. Scietism is part of the techno-structure.

If counter culture was the carnation on the lapel of capitalism then scinetism is the pocket protector.

Joe Hinman said...

Mike Gerow said...
The question about "one dimensional church" is still open....



If, as you say, "techne" and the secular society around it have such an affect on Xian movements that (at least in the US) they become just a branch of one of the secular political parties, then how and why does that happen?

Especially considering they're such such Biblically-oriented groups, since there are at least as many resources in the scriptures supporting the DNC's agenda as the GOP's.

But that's awfully complicated & prolly a good topic for a big, long future blog (as well as a big complicated book....)


Excellent question. I;m going to bring it home tomorrow by talking about what it means that ther is 1DC.

I have a heck ofa book plaed but it;sonly partlya out 1DM


8:23 AM Delete

7th Stooge said...

If, as you say, "techne" and the secular society around it have such an affect on Xian movements that (at least in the US) they become just a branch of one of the secular political parties, then how and why does that happen?

This could be due (in part) to the fact that Xianity has fallen out of its position of cultural dominance over the last several decades. Progressivism is kind of a luxury when you have enough social capital to spare. Now that a lot of Xians see the culture moving away from them, that tends to spur a reactionary attitude, especially among those who are more doctrinaire. We see the same trend among white voters. They're voting as a racial block now more than ever as they see their dominant status declining.

Mike Gerow said...

"If counter culture was the carnation on the lapel of capitalism then scinetism is the pocket protector."

rofl! :-O

Mike Gerow said...

Stooge, I think there's still a philosophical question about whether the social realities define the theological ones or not, and why.... what do we reasonably and unreasonably expect "our religion" to be and to do for us?

im-skeptical said...

skep, science doesn't happen in a vacuum.
- Right. And institutional religion doesn't happen in a vacuum, either. Religion has long been used as a tool for the subjugation of man by the elite. They brainwash the religious, turning them into something that much more closely resembles the "one-dimensional man" than anything a technocratic society has ever done.


Now he's an expert on Marcuse, Two days ago he had never heard of the bum.
- You think you're the only one who was around in the sixties? Apparently, I know more about his writing than you do, Joe. It is much more focused on socio-political matters than science. (And by the way, you have written about him before.)

im-skeptical said...

Good article on Marcuse, here.

Mike Gerow said...

Skep, even if I agree with your point (and I tend to), that doesn't absolve the scientific community. Xianity, with its central figure put to death by collusion of religious and secular elites, has resources to address that built in, right at the centre of its core narrative. So the co-opting of that narrative by reactionary elites could have been a misappropriation.

Otoh, if you wanna play at comparative guilt, for science and technology, one could spin it like, the brainchildren of bourgeois, imperialist, leisured, powdery-wigged "gentlemen", science and technology have always been upper-crust phenomena, always essentially resources at the disposal off power elites, and that's never been more clear than with today's so-called Big Science projects (like the $50 bil Hadron collider) that must be driven by "the big money"....

That $50 bil cost could have also bought an awful lot of school lunches or something too! ;-)

im-skeptical said...

I hardly think that building the Hadron collider serves the purpose of subjugating working people.

Mike Gerow said...

Sure, in that kind of analysis, it comes under the heading of "circuses"....

Joe Hinman said...

that is stupid why dont;you trying reading what I aside?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#DiaTec
__________quote________
In their famous book Dialectic of Enlightenment Marcuse's colleagues Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno attempted to demonstrate the Enlightenment embodied a tension between its own project of liberation and its own new mechanisms of oppression and domination. For Marcuse, modern technology (a product of the Enlightenment) embodies a similar tension. The question for him was “what role does technology play in the project of human emancipation?” The technological boom has been supported by the idea that there is some fundamental connection between technological development and the human quest for liberation and a better life. However, we were disabused of this idea by Freud and many others. The question now is “does technological advance lead to more repression and domination?”





Marcuse's critical theory is always dialectical, as he examines forms of oppression and domination he also sees at the same time the potential for liberation. In an essay entitled “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology” written in 1941, Marcuse makes an important distinction between technology and technics. He would continue to employ some version of this distinction for the rest of his life when writing about technology. In this essay he says:

In this article, technology is taken as a social process in which technics proper (that is, the technical apparatus of industry, transportation, communication) is but a partial factor. We do not ask for the influence or effect of technology on human individuals. For they are themselves an integral part and factor of technology, not only as the men who invent or attend to machinery but also as the social groups which direct its application and utilization. Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and contrivances which characterize the machine age is thus at the same time a mode of organization and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination. Technics by itself can promote authoritarianism as well as liberty, scarcity as well as abundance, the extension as well as the abolition of toil. (Marcuse 1998)

On the basis of the above passage it may sound as if technics is neutral as it can promote either oppression or liberation. However, this is not the case. Marcuse makes this clear in another essay entitled “The Problem of Social Change in the Technological Society” written twenty years later. Also, in a 1960 essay entitled “From Ontology to Technology”, using the term “technicity” instead of “technics” he again rejects the neutrality of technics or technicity. By “technics”, Marcuse means the devices or instruments that are used to transform nature in the service of human beings.
____________end_____________

Joe Hinman said...

look at the stuff about Face book being primed to stemless diction to being online,then the data gleaed is used to elect Trump. That's a direct example of technology leading oppression.

7th Stooge said...

Stooge, I think there's still a philosophical question about whether the social realities define the theological ones or not, and why.... what do we reasonably and unreasonably expect "our religion" to be and to do for us?

I don't know if I'd go as far as say that the social realities 'define' the theological ones. The relationship is probably more reciprocal and dynamic than that. But if a community isn't particularly encouraged to engage in self-criticism, in fact if that kind of activity is actively discouraged, then the influence of social realities is prbably that much stronger because it goes unquestioned.

7th Stooge said...

religious beliefs can act as a counterweight to the big social realities of the day. Look at MLK and Gandhi and the abolitionists. Not that their beliefs are immune to social pressures but it can be inflected differently. There can be an opening there for creative intervention, albeit a slight one.

im-skeptical said...

Well, Joe, you have confirmed what I said. Technics is defined (by Marcuse) as "the technical apparatus of industry, transportation, communication". It is not scientific thinking. It is not what you call "scientism". That is most definitely NOT what Marcuse was talking about.

Joe Hinman said...


Skepie:
Well, Joe, you have confirmed what I said. Technics is defined (by Marcuse) as "the technical apparatus of industry, transportation, communication". It is not scientific thinking. It is not what you call "scientism". That is most definitely NOT what Marcuse was talking about.


My answer:

I have always distinguished between legitimate scientific thinking and "scientism." The whole reason for using a term like"scientisim": instead of just calling it "scientific" is to indicate a difference, something not science itself but a certain attitude toward science.

Yes Marcuse did not limit the idea of technique to just economics and politics. You can't limit the illusion of technique to just those areas it;s i legitimate scientific thinking. Science is laced with people using science as the grounds fr other ideology,obviously transhumanism sees itself as the vanguard of sickness. Evolutionary psychology certainly does. But those are people whose world views are scientifically based but they are doing more than just serious science,they are mixing the two. Certainly not all serious scientific thinkers do that.

You are no expert on Marcuse, did you even know about him before you read my paper? You have not read any of of his books. In the 90's when I was a Ph,D. candidate and published Negations:an interdisciplinary Journal of social criticism we were about the only academic journal that centered on Marcuse and tried to expand upon his work.

im-skeptical said...

Science is laced with people using science as the grounds fr other ideology,obviously transhumanism sees itself as the vanguard of sickness. Evolutionary psychology certainly does.

- I have no idea what the "vanguard of sickness" is. Certainly there are charlatans who engage in pseudoscience. That is not what scientism is, even by your own definition (as I understand it). Evolutionary psychology is not pseudoscience. But you think the mind is some kind of ghost - not something that evolved. Frankly, my dear, you are no expert on science.

As for Marcuse, I know perfectly well that he's not talking about the same thing you are. He's not talking about scientific mindset, or scientism, or anything like that. He does talk about the influence of technology on society - the techno-bureaucracy, etc. And how technological tools are used by the elite to achieve domination in society. That's a completely different thing, and if you don't understand that, then you don't understand Marcuse.

7th Stooge said...

- But you think the mind is some kind of ghost - not something that evolved. Frankly, my dear, you are no expert on science.

The problem isn't in knowing empirically which of those positions (and there are many more positions than the ones you refer to)is the right one but in first trying to understand what they mean. That's why it's partly a philosophical question. Before you go looking for something empirically, you have to have a pretty good idea of the kind of thing you're looking for.

As for Marcuse, I'll have to dig up my copy of "One Dimensional Man," but I don't think he's talking primarily about domination. He's talking about seduction and reduction of thought based on technique, whether that's the technobureacacy or scientistic bureacracy.

im-skeptical said...

"That's why it's a philosophical question" - Well, anything is a philosophical question if you don't have or don't like the scientific explanation. But there is a whole group of sciences (collectively known as cognitive sciences) dedicated to understand mind and thinking from a scientific perspective.

And what do you mean by "scientistic bureaucracy", anyway? Sounds like that's a way to force-fit Marcuse into Joe's way of thinking.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
"That's why it's a philosophical question" - Well, anything is a philosophical question if you don't have or don't like the scientific explanation. But there is a whole group of sciences (collectively known as cognitive sciences) dedicated to understand mind and thinking from a scientific perspective.

so much for actual thought, scientists say it, I believe it,that settles it

And what do you mean by "scientistic bureaucracy", anyway? Sounds like that's a way to force-fit Marcuse into Joe's way of thinking.

you don;t undertone Marcuse from reading wiki articles, go read his books,

1:23 PM Delete

im-skeptical said...

so much for actual thought, scientists say it, I believe it,that settles it
- That comes straight from the religionist's mouth. It actually helps if you understand what scientists say.


you don;t undertone Marcuse from reading wiki articles, go read his books,
- You don't have a clue what I've read. And you ARE misinterpreting Marcuse.

Joe Hinman said...

so much for actual thought, scientists say it, I believe it,that settles it
- That comes straight from the religionist's mouth. It actually helps if you understand what scientists say.

You are a "religionist" you don't think like a scientist you think like a worshiper, a fan, Science doesn't say anything it obverses. It's a method. not a set of doctrines,


you don;t undertone Marcuse from reading wiki articles, go read his books,
- You don't have a clue what I've read. And you ARE misinterpreting Marcuse.


I know what you haven't read--as much Marcsue asI have.

Joe Hinman said...



https://frankfurtschool.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/herbert-marcuse-on-science-and-phenomenology/

Ben Daly and Rose Mackey

"In his essay On Science and Phenomenology Herbert Marcuse attempts to lay out the ways in which a split has occurred between the scientific and philosophical views on the world, and how this split has been detrimental to the development of human society in the west. For Marcuse this split is located in the relationship between human subjects and the concept of reason, which has been present in the discourses on science and philosophy since the ancient Greeks."

7th Stooge said...

"That's why it's a philosophical question" - Well, anything is a philosophical question if you don't have or don't like the scientific explanation. But there is a whole group of sciences (collectively known as cognitive sciences) dedicated to understand mind and thinking from a scientific perspective.

It's not a question of 'not liking' the scientific explanation, as I've said numerous times. It's a question of trying to understand what it is that's supposedly being explained. It's a matter of trying to clarify the terms being used and the questions being asked.

And what do you mean by "scientistic bureaucracy", anyway? Sounds like that's a way to force-fit Marcuse into Joe's way of thinking.

No. IN "One aDimensional Man," Marcuse refers a number of times to the reduction of reason to calculation and instrumentality, the reduction of thought to functional and operational organization. He talks about all truth becoming subsumed under objective rationality and quantification. He didn;t use the term "scientism" but he's talking about the same thing. This is what you're doing with mind and consciousness. It has to fit into this box; it has to be explained in functional and operational terms. Every other possibility is ruled out a priori.

im-skeptical said...

He didn;t use the term "scientism" but he's talking about the same thing.
- I don't think so.


You are a "religionist" you don't think like a scientist you think like a worshiper, a fan, Science doesn't say anything it obverses. It's a method. not a set of doctrines
- You say that I treat science like a religion. Then you assure me that science is not a religion. You think I am a stupid religionist, just like actual religious people. No, Joe. I don't believe what they tell me. I understand. And you don't, so stop pretending you have some kind of wisdom in science.


I know what you haven't read--as much Marcsue asI have.
- Maybe, maybe not. But as I have said before, you are prone to misunderstanding the philosophy you read. You always try to twist it to your own views, even when it means something quite different.

Joe Hinman said...

I know what you haven't read--as much Marcsue asI have.
- Maybe, maybe not. But as I have said before, you are prone to misunderstanding the philosophy you read. You always try to twist it to your own views, even when it means something quite different.

Bull shit! I ran a respected academic journal i was asked to referee another journal because of it.I have never seen guys like Eric and Ryan M, tell me that I see them tell you that quite a bit. I see a lot of people telling you that. People rarely say that to me. If you ask people who know my writing they wont agree with you. Jim will say I express ideas badly at times he never says I don't understand what I read.

you don't Your understanding of the hard problem is pathetic,

Joe Hinman said...

Skepie did you not see my quote form the article by Ben Daly and Rose Mackey saying Markcue's necrotic applies to science? They agree with my reading.

im-skeptical said...

I ran a respected academic journal
- It was a blog, with poetry and various miscellaneous musings. It is difficult to discern any particular academic focus. And it was NOT peer-reviewed.


They agree with my reading.
- It is a religionist's view. Decidedly one-dimensional. That's what I said in my response.

7th Stooge said...

- I don't think so.

Scientism is the kind of reduction Marcuse was talking about. Why would you think it isn't?

- Maybe, maybe not. But as I have said before, you are prone to misunderstanding the philosophy you read. You always try to twist it to your own views, even when it means something quite different.

I think you misunderstand what Joe is saying. He's using Marcuse and then expanding on him to talk about God and religion. Joe has a good understanding of Marcuse, imo. Joe is not claiming that Marcuse was talking about God.