Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/26/organizing-time-social-distancing
This is sort of a “tired time” in my life. It’s that way especially tonight, so I’m sorry to have right now only a tiny, tiny suggestion…only relating to online stuff. Maybe more this weekend, which I’m lucky enough to have off.
How bout a little acronym like AOO, agnostic on origins (of the virus)?
My comment here goes off on tangents, but the article I mention at the end is right on topic. So, skip everything in between if you like. Forgive my caps (not intending shouts); was gonna put this up somewhere else, and then decided, without much time to re-write, it was better off here.
A guy who is now a fb friend brought up Karl Popper on the Rene Girard fb page. At one point in time I LOVED what the dude wrote. Popper dealt with all kinds of philosophy beginning with The Republic. He wrote FAIRLY about the totalitarian dimensions of the latter treatise. He even delved into the free will problem and Compton’s “amplifier theory” [look up with “The Information Philosopher”]. And…here was one “Karl” I could talk about that had all the answers (or many of’em I thought then) that folks couldn’t bad-mouth me for bringing up (!)…he could argue for pluralism like nobody’s business. Popper was sweeping in his scope, and a rigorous thinker (making him “scientific”). One mark of his rigor was the layout on his pages, more footnotes than you could shake a stick at.
In those days THAT WAS WHAT MADE A PHILOSOPHER/SOCIAL-CRITIC BELIEVABLE! But that’s only part of the picture, my friends. IN TRUTH ANOTHER APPROACH CAME ABOUT, and I thought then it had actually begun in the 60s–people swung over to challenging books without a ton of footnotes!! For example, “The Only Revolution” by Krishnamurti. Or “Steal This Book.” Or “The Joyous Cosmology.” So this “trend” in its way was less “scientific.” It was less “scholarly,” and, in a way, more existential. The authors had GAMBLED: I’ll rush this thing out with maybe five footnotes total, and my points streamlined in this way will either grab her/him, or they won’t.
Now I will mention something I can’t remember well. Was it Gramsci or Foucault that discussed camouflauging meanings when writing during the era of a repressive regime? Like I say, I can’t remember. I ran into some mention of it somewhere. The guy I’m trying to think of talked about how astute commentary under repression had to “code” itself often. It might have been in Romania…where he said this had to be the case at one time or another. It’s seeming like that is what’s happening now to me (seems like that’s happening all over the place to me)…not regarding what’s too “radical” to suggest outright [for instance, things Oliver Stone hopes aren’t true], but regarding some message inside ourselves we are unable to articulate, and that what we force out of ourselves isn’t really stating it.
When we share something on social media, our name’s on the share. What does this make us
think…it’s partly “mine”? Years and years roll by, and we have shared (owned) things that haven’t really summed matters up well. It’s evident, cause they’ve grabbed almost no one. Maybe it creates anxiety. Yes, despite the fact we can empathize…that even the credentialed (under austerity) had “general” depression trickling up from the bottom on their footsoles. Thus, even they weren’t in the best of shape to land on the thing. Like walking around on a hard floored warehouse full of slaves.
The best thing I can find is this “An often overlooked region of India is a beacon to the world for taking on the coronavirus” by Vijay Prashad 3/24/20