Participation in Hull Universities current conference on Subjectivity, and a conversation I struck up, lead me to this personal query on politics. This query was foundered on a comment, made in response to parts of my theory on the subject of utopia, and my perception of it… “To live in a world but not of it” I queried, and the like.. This resulting question was asked of me.. “so, would that lead to political laziness?”
I was then in conversation with Dr Mike Wheeler who had agreed with me, that wether one’s perception of the world was good or bad simply depended on one’s levels of ‘acceptance’ of the world, certainly with regards to whether Utopias exist. Dr Wheeler has written on Heidegger for the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Heideggers ‘In Being and Time’ is now on my reading list as a hot topic, as I persue the more fundamental aspects of human interaction with the world, to highlight and enforce my arguments further.
And so, a great question Dr Wheeler raised, upon reflection, my response, backed up by recent research of Professor Stephen Duncombes philosophy within Open Utopia.org :
“How do we conduct successful politics in the absence of ‘a grande narrative”?..
Research is suggesting an ever prevailing absence of a ‘realistic’ grand narrative, convincingly so. It is within the acknowledgement of the absence of such narratives I aim some of the more heavy weight queries within my search for the art of utopia. So, to find such relevant research proves positive to my arguments, the art of utopia must navigate the seas of knowing, but not exclusively of knowledge itself (in this I mean to acknowledge knowledge as merely one form of systematic information, to live in a world but not of it, not exclusively literally that is). The philosophy of utopia must be foundered in a certain traversing of literal and non literal information. Logic versus imagination if you like. The tried and tested, the imagined and as yet uncontested. Otherwise, to act continually and purely on the tried and tested alone, we are rendered stagnant, dead. This is certainly the information system (pretext) on how politics has been based to date?
(Do I suggest a new word into my new edition dictionary: Protext… sort of relevant, fictional fun at the least. ‘To be pro literate’ To advocate holistic use of language).
I was just considering this rather tricky political question as it has now become a serious point for me to address.
My initial logic would be that the said politic would have to be subject to ongoing, entirely open, critical debate and review, never static or concluding. Organic.
Political conduct based on a total/ partial rejection of truth? Well… I remembered that old quote: “Live in the world but not of it” Which I thought was Huxley.. Googled, brought me some fairly relevant info, which, for now will suffice to make my point:
The subjectivity conference continues tomorrow, watch this ‘space’..