Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Pakistani Gangs Are STILL Abusing British Girls, Yet Media, Police & Politicians are SILENT!" video.

  1. Part 1: I guess through out most of our adult lives our experience is if not mundane at least composed of mundane objects. We naturally arrange objects so far as we can afford them, in mundane ways, and only re-arrange, or derange, them from within traditional arrangements we are raised within. That is we do not take up in learning as children experience of separate objects, as traditional empiricism would have it perhaps, in empiricism “given” mythical content. No for most of us in the first world we have experience drawn in from within a living room with parents or a parent (called now primacy care gives perhaps). Our experience is formed our sensibility actualised in the living room. We only later see the kitchen, and only later see the “connection” or “relation” of the kitchen and the living room through a gradually expanding framework bilder becoming cultured. We cannot retrospect this and get back to the original living room experience any more than we can really experience a single mythical empirical object. This means absolute single origins are in accessible except by an intellectual act of abstraction post facto. Which is useful but really a mythical foundation. Our creativity imagination and freedom really consists mostly in re-arrangments or derangements. This is not then solipsistic It is in being in the world with others. But like the discovery of the kitchen, we find similar arrangements of living rooms in other houses, other living rooms as we are allowed to expand our frame into the public space expand our space of freedom, we see it is with other peoples living rooms as similar but with differences s. They all look similar we feel at home but also we see different arrangements. Other people’s houses show us both similarity repetitions but also differences but such as are variations “in living rooms” like some may have a cat. There are radical differences for some, the baby found in a shopping bag by a dog, the homeless person or family. These are different differences than difference in living room. They can come to us more as a shock not as the experience of creativity freedom and interesting surprise. We don’t think the homeless person in the shop doorway has a very creative living room. Maybe something similar is true as we expand our frame from within a community to others, similar but the same with differences, creative differences interesting and surprising but not normally shocking. You might be shocked to go to a house in a community where the husband beat the wife or vice versa in discourse. You might be shocked to find a house where the kitchen is a drug manufacturing laboratory. Or used as a technical work and play studio for You Tube presentations to the world through the internet. This is not so radical we discover early on that the house and community is within a technical complex system of electricity supply institutions and the people who work in them have stations and duties within them. We are drawn into an understanding of how we are intertwined within technologies institutions of all kinds with their own version of kitchens technical apparatus for their actions, the actions of people that have almost God like effects in the world in contract to our ordinary actions. These institutions and technologies which include laws and rules as technologies are called architectures but are different radically from houses. Without the laws and rules and apparatus that stretch out into the world as internal relations to the architecture of projects. The institutional buildings are at once externalised. It make no sense to think of institutions as just a building it is in the world and now the buildign itself is a mythical original since the 20th century. The internet and computers have really made the buildign redundant for a network, a change in ontology from objects to relations trans-infinite relations. Like a legion of ... Gods. This has resulted in a gradual change in peoples stations and duties here gradual differences and expanding relational networks have made a radical difference in kind but so slowly we did not notice like the frog in the water in saucepan in the kitchen that won’t jump out as the temperature is gradually increased. Don’t try this at home!
    1
  2. Part 2: Back in the day there were more clearly demarcated indifferences invariances between person’s station and duties in institutions. People with a station, and so being in having an authority had clear responsibly for instituional action and in action. Self interest, neglect of duty, partisanship, conspiracy and solidarity networks were easier to spot as was malfeasance and misfeasance. But now just as the ontologies of the building have dissolved into relations so have the sense of these traditional categories and concepts their differences and identities in stations and duty. What has been gained by power of action though networks: power relations and wider degrees of freedom and creativity by people “in” a “station” with a “duty” has come at the cost of clear authority, and responsibility? They are “called to account” though incomprehensible un traceable networks “all roads and paths lead nowhere, to nobody. Often we experience this as the contrast between phoning up a person and phoning up an institution. But this difference has dissolved too: we don’t phone up anyone from our living room we speak to everyone in the world on the internet “possibily” if not humanly “potentially”. We can speak but most will not be listen or understand we have to speak a scientistic/beaurocratic like language to have scope of reach and followers on youtube “likes” and advertising revenue. This is our experience and action of the new relational institutionality where no one is there and everyone is there. (Very Wittgensteinian and Heideggerian is this laid against Deleuze and Derridia and Foucault. Iris Murdock has a good go at this in Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals especially chapter 7 “Derrida and Structuralism” first half of pg. 186 and first half of pg 188. She does claim that Wittgenstein unlike Derrida has disclosed a pre technical pre scientific world in his work in 1930’s and 1940’s. I think she is wrong because first off you can feel the tension between the ordinary and the technical in his work. A tension disclosed by Wilfred Sellars as well as many continental philosophers of or near the Frankfurt school (Benjamin, Adorno and so on). But when Murdock wrote this no one knew much about Turin and his collaborations with Wittgenstein it is now post 1990 well documented. Enter here Dreyfus on AI. I view Murdock’s book on moral philosophy as a companion to Roger Scruton's history of modern philosophy.
    1
  3. Part 3: Now I must say here I thought I’d heard everything. I’ve grown up being cultured into a work outside the living room through the TV with knowledge of Brady and Hindley, then the Yorkshire Ripper, and Fred and Rose West. I’m sure it’s not this kind of thing but I bet we will now be subjected to more speech and image performances and documentaries and mini-series of them. You think you seen everything on TV and the world has nothing shocking to present to us, the media has really exhausted the power to shock, by both these examples of extreme quality, or extreme quantity as in wars, and then the slide between the two of the Holocaust and what was going on with the institutions architecture and technologies and its people. It sort of not so much combines quality and quantity shock as goes to another kind of category or non-category altogether. We know this because it exceeds our ability to express it name it categories it. This is a traditional way to un-show the unpresentable character of the holocaust machine and its agents and stations and duties. But like everything else these days it has become a reference point for associations, a president a new origin for collapsing sameness and difference. They knew this might happen years ago.
    1
  4. Part 5: Really it is the duty of various institutions to do this: heath care, social care, police politicians. It seems contrary to Kant’s view of the enlightenment “dare to know” and dare to speak. But Kant wasn’t stupid. In Critically bizarre discussions of sex he says in Metaphysical of Morals that appropriate punishment for the more extreme perversions in the living room perhaps is the expulsion from society, but then goes on to say, or not say, there are “unmentionables” that contrary to the enlightenment should be “kept in the dark” less people up on learning of them have their shall I say aesthetic sensibility quicken by the discourse and so are then under a radically new temptation to set about doing it. I mean we would all agree that knowledge of bomb making should be kept in the dark, a privilege of trusted officials. Also this maxim of silence is common in limiting political and terrorist discourse control on the internet too. It even crops up in the budget as immediate acts due to possible response as to advantage for those in a position to exploit knowledge of the future to come. Of course business must have secretes from competitors and, couples and friends can rightly and virtuously keep secrets, within limits of course, even if brain science in the hands of psychologist with technologies, or behaviourists, and social science in the hands of social actors with data algorithms are eroding this natural traditional private space, with sciences apparent absolute right and absolute unlimited duty to the enlightenment to say everything. Also political parties and their wide networks of affiliates and solidarities do this too. Lots of stuff is acceptably disquoted un-said not conceptualised. The politically conceptualised content is highly partisan, we know this, we can accept much of this again within limits. The problem arise when we realise the nature of political action is necessarily though public and private institutions: as the audience might say “Oh no it isn’t, and the clowns “oh yes it is” if they are on the wrong stage. That’s a reference to David Bowie’s Major Tom songs. Then the players the performers on the stage are partisan they have perverse incentive that can distort pervert even destroy their anticipation of here duties, be malfeasant in their station. Make the pursuit of hypothetical imperatives the primary prima facie rule of their duty the new private role for their public performance. Their scope of action and inaction. Covert networks of agents with agendas not duties. The public roles of their station and the people’s duties public authority are used for extra ends. Indeed it seems to be recognised as a new kind of heroic virtue for many. Their conceptualising content and per formative utterances (see the Johnathan Miller Enoch Power discussion with for this expression and use.) They think and conceptualise events not for people but pragmatic aims and objectives they claim are for all the people or even just some of the people: their mates and political friends. The public rules and duty and aim are covertly changed into private formulas of the Good or the Just. They think, I guess, that if they win politically then there private rules and duties of subversion, will becomes or sublate into the public duties and rules. Thereby becoming legitimate, and retroactively justified. A kind of eschatology of the space of legitimacy for the performers.
    1
  5. Part 7: Now while Kant might think that the primary agents here are the immediate performers on the ground and that they might find the after life quite different than they imagined. I think the mediating instituional actors here as repetitions organised with proper station and duties they exploit, as well as our lack of understanding we might have to go back to Dante Hell on this, or forward cos its time after time, time and time again. They travail alone in eternity without their architectural machine of pseudo legitimacy and authority. Perhaps that the best we can hope for. But as for action, what to do: some of you want to let labour get in with their shifting sands of polices and deferance to the results of their partisan democratic committees, while you wait, watch wait and plan your return. Call it project "the view from the “Job” Party” if you can measure and name it. Just to be clear the rich can do this sort of stuff too. find a Klaus Kinskie film from the early 70's.
    1
  6. Kant References are from “A Kant Dictionary” Howard Caygill Especially entry under “Sex”. This in turn refers to Kant's "Lectures on Ethics". Murdock References “The period between the formation of Wittgenstein’s later ideas in the thirties and forties and the emergence of structuralism in the fifties and sixties was one in which the techniques of science (computers data bases artificial intelegence ) began with remarkable speed to enter the lives and awareness of ordinary people.” (pg MGM p.g.186) “Saussure separated language conceived of as a general system from its particualkr local use by individuals. He retained however the idea (which belongs with “presence”, consciousness, experience) that speech, not writing was the basis of language and meaning. Plato expresses this intuition in the “Phaedrus” and the “Seventh Letter”….Derrida reverses this.” (MGM 188)
    1