great stuff! i am working with the intellectual history of intelligence agencies in the post-world war 2 era to present and Dr. Rockhill is extremely on point here.
If the powers in control keep wide-held beliefs and popular ideologies going, I don't know how the population could be reached by a radical or leftist view. For example, many run-of- the -mill suburban , middle class US citizens smugly think that they are in a social-economic position due to their merit.. and likewise, that the poor people in the ghetto are there because they inherently deserve it. This is the structure of foreclosure in a way, at least it has the effect of the said suburban person from looking up any facts, or experiencing any real life poor people first hand. They love to believe also that they are such benefactors of society... Being the people who paternalistically donate money to the advancement of bougiouse culture. Classism......it's an ideology which holds a tremendous collective power in favour of the ruling elites and of empowering capitalism itself.
I like how at one point you inverse the question: the difficulty the "invisible committee" was having was how to impose capitalism on the world, not how to produce a revolution in a capitalist world.
16:00 the problem with this argument is that it infringes too much on the idealism of the public sphere.... which is why I need gabriel rockhill to complete his critique against hannah arendt ... the problem is that if you get too far into the destruction of the idealism of the "public sphere" you end up reducing everything to a kind of economics naturalized from the backdoor.... that is, without the ideal of the possibility of a public sphere, all we have is the nightmare of capitalist and commodified human social relationships.
Even public spheres are points of struggle + conflict between people who want free speech + thought vs. government direct attacks & establishing pro gov. falsely independent versions of free speech under. + limited by, capitalism.
It’s ironic to me that almost all of Rockhill’s books cost close to $100 retail in hardcover. Not exactly proletarian labor class friendly pricing there, comrade!
Thinking about this for a little, I am struck by how it not really possible to built traction upon gabriel rockhill's work. intellectual history is all a history of relatively well-to-do people who are able to write and participate equally in their sociality.. what I'm trying to say is that, prof rockhill's position is almost untenable in itself, unless he is able to build a following, and his own school. I really need him to do a critique of both Zizek and Arendt because both those people are, very possibly so, people who rose from the ashes and onto the platform through sheer wealth of intellectual prowess. I have noticed how systems of affirmative action, for example, come out and socially reproduce themselves; so it is not so much exact 'puppeteers' but perhaps ideologies themselves can have a life of their own, and a socially reproducing narrative, which is what neoliberalism does. I would say that the only real critique i have of rockhill comes from "hayek" in that perhaps the system of neoliberalism produces a "culture atmosphere" so that not only is it the case that... as you gave an example... people who are put into certain positions based on what they say, think they are doing it out of their own merit.... so lets play devil's advocate one more time because it also paints the picture in the inverse: perhaps it is the case that EVEN THEIR "bosses" or those puppet masters who make that final decision, or these badly put 'want to be invisible puppeteers of history' are put there because of a narrowminded system of value estimation and truth verification known as "the market" or "the marketplace of ideas" : since the marketplace of ideas is likely to reward those ideas which validate most thoroughly the market, which ironically comes to the fore or comes to the end when it comes to the final contradiction when it comes to individual vs collective problematics since Plato, a problem of the mind and brain, of personal and public health and education... that is whether the market can impede into the church and other sectors of life, and the political could fully colonize the personal. that is, it is an 'ontological religiosity' that is spurred and spurred by capitalist ritual and it's priests, rather than any full-scale assault on our minds. let's see how neurolink will up the ante. So finally, in 2007, Rockhill & J. Ponce de León will need to create their own tradition, one which sidelines capital. :)
great stuff! i am working with the intellectual history of intelligence agencies in the post-world war 2 era to present and Dr. Rockhill is extremely on point here.
The absolutely brilliant Gabriel Rockhill!
If the powers in control keep wide-held beliefs and popular ideologies going, I don't know how the population could be reached by a radical or leftist view. For example, many run-of- the -mill suburban , middle class US citizens smugly think that they are in a social-economic position due to their merit.. and likewise, that the poor people in the ghetto are there because they inherently deserve it. This is the structure of foreclosure in a way, at least it has the effect of the said suburban person from looking up any facts, or experiencing any real life poor people first hand. They love to believe also that they are such benefactors of society... Being the people who paternalistically donate money to the advancement of bougiouse culture. Classism......it's an ideology which holds a tremendous collective power in favour of the ruling elites and of empowering capitalism itself.
I like how at one point you inverse the question: the difficulty the "invisible committee" was having was how to impose capitalism on the world, not how to produce a revolution in a capitalist world.
Absolutely love this!
16:00 the problem with this argument is that it infringes too much on the idealism of the public sphere.... which is why I need gabriel rockhill to complete his critique against hannah arendt ... the problem is that if you get too far into the destruction of the idealism of the "public sphere" you end up reducing everything to a kind of economics naturalized from the backdoor.... that is, without the ideal of the possibility of a public sphere, all we have is the nightmare of capitalist and commodified human social relationships.
Even public spheres are points of
struggle + conflict between people who
want free speech + thought vs. government direct attacks & establishing pro gov. falsely independent
versions of free speech under. + limited by, capitalism.
@@tymanung6382 i ultimately disagree but i love your understanding here.
Ya if i say any of this stuff to my doctor I'll get locked in a psych ward (again) but I actually have a history degree
12:00 the American psychological association is so evil ... not to mention psychiatry
1:38:24 Who’s that name? Cast Royalus?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis
Yeah, Cornelius Castoriadis.
It’s ironic to me that almost all of Rockhill’s books cost close to $100 retail in hardcover. Not exactly proletarian labor class friendly pricing there, comrade!
Rockhill is not in control of pricing structure of academic publishers...it's a systemic issue
❤❤
This man just never shits up!! Let the woman speak
😂
It’s a question and answer format shuthead. How about a critique of the substance.
Thinking about this for a little, I am struck by how it not really possible to built traction upon gabriel rockhill's work. intellectual history is all a history of relatively well-to-do people who are able to write and participate equally in their sociality.. what I'm trying to say is that, prof rockhill's position is almost untenable in itself, unless he is able to build a following, and his own school.
I really need him to do a critique of both Zizek and Arendt because both those people are, very possibly so, people who rose from the ashes and onto the platform through sheer wealth of intellectual prowess.
I have noticed how systems of affirmative action, for example, come out and socially reproduce themselves; so it is not so much exact 'puppeteers' but perhaps ideologies themselves can have a life of their own, and a socially reproducing narrative, which is what neoliberalism does.
I would say that the only real critique i have of rockhill comes from "hayek" in that perhaps the system of neoliberalism produces a "culture atmosphere" so that not only is it the case that...
as you gave an example... people who are put into certain positions based on what they say, think they are doing it out of their own merit....
so lets play devil's advocate one more time because it also paints the picture in the inverse:
perhaps it is the case that EVEN THEIR "bosses" or those puppet masters who make that final decision, or these badly put 'want to be invisible puppeteers of history' are put there because of a narrowminded system of value estimation and truth verification known as "the market" or "the marketplace of ideas" : since the marketplace of ideas is likely to reward those ideas which validate most thoroughly the market, which ironically comes to the fore or comes to the end when it comes to the final contradiction when it comes to individual vs collective problematics since Plato, a problem of the mind and brain, of personal and public health and education... that is whether the market can impede into the church and other sectors of life, and the political could fully colonize the personal.
that is, it is an 'ontological religiosity' that is spurred and spurred by capitalist ritual and it's priests, rather than any full-scale assault on our minds.
let's see how neurolink will up the ante.
So finally, in 2007, Rockhill & J. Ponce de León will need to create their own tradition, one which sidelines capital. :)