 | Fiction’s about what it is to be a fucking human being. If you operate, which most of us do, from the premise that there are things about the contemporary U.S. that make it distinctively hard to be a real human being, then maybe half of fiction’s job is to dramatize what it is that makes it tough. The other half is to dramatize the fact that we still “are” human beings, now. Or can be. This isn’t that it’s fiction’s duty to edify or teach, or to make us good little Christians or Republicans; I’m not trying to line up behind Tolstoy or Gardner. I just think that fiction that isn’t exploring what it means to be human today isn’t art. |
✖ Via “An Interview With David Foster Wallace” by Larry McCaffery, Review of Contemporary Fiction, 13.2, Summer 1993, 127–150. [PDF] |
• Sep 13, 2010 link notes tagged:
art
novel
book
author
Foster Wallace
contemporary
modernity
United-States
America
human
becoming
interview
suicide
 | ―What is a philosopher?
—That is perhaps an anachronistic question. But I will give a modern response. In the past one might have said it is a man who stands in wonder; today I would say, borrowing words from Georges Bataille, it is someone who is afraid. |
✖ Via The Infinite Conversation by Maurice Blanchot, trans. Susan Hanson, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 49. Here’s the original French version: ―Qu’est-ce qu’un philosophe? ―Voilà une question anachronique, peut-être. Mais j’y ferai une réponse moderne. Jadis l’on disait : c’est un homme qui s’étonne; aujourd’hui, je dirai, empruntant ce mot à Georges Bataille : c’est quelqu’un qui a peur. (L’entretien infini, éd. Gallimard, Paris, p. 70) |
• Sep 05, 2010 link notes reblogged from georgesbataille [via] tagged:
art
book
author
Blanchot
Bataille
philosophy
wonder
fear
anguish
philosopher
 | Our purpose is to find out whether innocence, the moment it becomes involved in action, can avoid committing murder. We can only act in terms of our own time, among the people who surround us. We shall know nothing until we know whether we have the right to kill our fellow men, or the right to let them be killed. In that every action today leads to murder, direct or indirect, we cannot act until we know whether or why we have the right to kill. |
✖ Via The Rebel. An Essay on Man in Revolt by Albert Camus, tr. by Anthony Bower, “Introduction” (L’Homme révolté, Gallimard, Paris, 1951, p. 14). An electronic version of this English translation can be found over at Radical eBook Archive (along with many others). |
• Aug 30, 2010 link notes tagged:
art
book
essay
author
philosophy
modernity
revolution
murder
innocence
Camus
 | Humans like to believe they control the tools they use, even if Socrates, Marshall McLuhan and Ivan Illich are among those who have argued that often they do not. From the alphabet to clocks and printing, every major new technology has profoundly altered the way in which humans think. The digital gadgets on which we now depend, Mr Carr explains, have already begun rewiring our brains. |
✖ Via The Economist: “Fast forward. Fear of a fried future” book review for Nicholas Carr’s essay The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember, Norton, 2010, 276 pages An excerpt from this book was published in Wired magazine back in May: There’s nothing wrong with absorbing information quickly and in bits and pieces. We’ve always skimmed newspapers more than we’ve read them, and we routinely run our eyes over books and magazines to get the gist of a piece of writing and decide whether it warrants more thorough reading. The ability to scan and browse is as important as the ability to read deeply and think attentively. The problem is that skimming is becoming our dominant mode of thought. Once a means to an end, a way to identify information for further study, it’s becoming an end in itself—our preferred method of both learning and analysis. (Wired: “The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains” by Nicholas Carr, May 24th, 2010) About Nicholas Carr: Nicholas Carr writes on the social, economic, and business implications of technology. He is the author of the 2008 Wall Street Journal bestseller The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, which is “widely considered to be the most influential book so far on the cloud computing movement,” according the Christian Science Monitor. His earlier book, Does IT Matter?, published in 2004, “lays out the simple truths of the economics of information technology in a lucid way, with cogent examples and clear analysis,” said the New York Times. He is working on a new book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, which will be published in 2010. Carr’s books have been translated into more than a dozen languages. (Bio) Three things: 1) It’s yet another good reason to try and differentiate between information and knowledge (one could say that information is to knowledge what grapes are to wine : its raw material); 2) It would be a mistake to think that gadgets or the Internet are changing our brain configuration. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s an incomplete statement. What then, should one ask, caused the gadgets to change? What caused the Internet? 3) The form of this post can be understand as an illustration of what the content of the post is about. |
• Aug 25, 2010 link notes tagged:
technology
communication
gadget
Internet
epistemology
order
medium
media
tool
McLuhan
apparatus
brain
knowledge
information
determinism
cause
effect
book
author
 | When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society [1] places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live — forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence — knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains. |
✖ Via Condition of the Working Class in England, by Frederick Engels, ch. VII: “Results”, 1845First published in Leipzig in 1845. The English edition (authorised by Engels) was published in 1887 in New York and in London in 1891. Source: Panther Edition, 1969, from text provided by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Moscow. Transcribed by Tim Delaney in 1998. (more) A similar (not identical) argument motivates various “murder by proxy” theories regarding mass murders. See for example Going Postal by Mark Ames (2005) and the documentary Murder by Proxy. How America Went Postal. |
• Aug 22, 2010 link notes tagged:
communication
society
community
murder
mass murder
killer
murderer
killing spree
proxy
murder by proxy
blame
bias
determinism
book
author
responsability
representation