Thank you for this! Thinking about the question of quantitative/qualitative in relation to capital reminded me of Brian Massumi´s 99 theses for the reevaluation of value, really worth checking out in the context of this conversation!
I think we could talk about your podcast’s icon as an intensive experience that springs the mind off its hinges like a yoyo, asking are we simply jack in the boxes…
Had never heard of Accelerationism, but surprised that David didn't draw what seems an obvious parallel -- the Futurist movement, which was a precursor to and definitely an enabler of Italian Fascism. Futurist art was all about acceleration.
Have you both explore samsara philosophy (buddhism and jainism) understanding of intensity. Just explore that escipally ancient nalanda university mahanaya thinkers .
I think Ellie has a point when she says that intensity can be measured. Take Marx's concepts of absolute and relative surplus value: Absolute surplus value is obtained by extending working time. Relative surplus value is obtained by intensifying the labour process. This intensification can be measured by the number of items produced within a time unit, say an hour. By intensifying the labour process you basically increase the measurable number of items produced.
The Romantic movement, particularly in its German, very philosophical version, could be seen as an attempt to reconcile the intellectual and emotional spheres. Perhaps frequently misunderstood as giving primacy to feeling, when in fact the goal was to attain some sort of equilibrium. Romanticism is often associated with, still embodies, this notion of intensity.
I get a laugh at myself when the next statement I make will sound similar to Vizzini from *The Princess Bride* : Ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons. These philosophers were not morons, nor were Marx and Engels, but I don't agree with the teleological perspective that communism is (arguably, according to the latter two) an inevitability. While it is arguable that a form of democratic socialism would be preferable and not overly optimistic to realize relative to whatever stage of capitalism is confronting us, I question whether this general form of social being is the logical/intuitive result of an expansive proletariat driven to an extreme of material austerity. While a mass of unrest could very well lead to popular revolution (in some way, shape or form), why communism as opposed to another socio-economic system unless the proletariat (assuming the sheer number of people could overpower the wealth, labor and technology of the ruling class and the bourgeoise that side with them) recognizes this as the way beyond history? While these questions and possible answers are all old hat, the concepts of intensity and ethics, all in concert with time/duration as discussed here do provide possibilities that (perhaps) avoid eschatological inevitabilities that may (?) be accelerated (that term here was a new one on me, though the general concept in leftist circles wasn't) and avoid right wing dystopian outcomes. I am unfamiliar with Tristan Garcia, but an ethics of intensity as discussed here sounds promising and I was very glad for the introduction. I tend to think that Foucault's archaeology of discourse and Gadmer's positions (if tweaked) on human limitation and prejudice/pre-judgment would make odd bedfellows toward a dialectical materialist ethics that could be recognized within unrest, but to quote someone in the podcast, "that is above my pay grade." Thank you for the excellent podcasting. Its magnitude is its qualities.
I've always been unambiguously intense, and was never alone in this assessment. But, I think it's important to point out that intense people don't seek this out. Quite the contrary. They have too much of it already. I define this psychological intensity as high degrees of both mental and emotional energy, don't know if it's their fraught co-existence, or whether it's rather a matter of the one leading to the other. Thinking obviously will engender emotion. This might suffice, or it could be a matter of thought triggering a particularly sensitive body. I don't know. In any case, the inclination towards skydiving, bungee jumping or "amusement rides" is so foreign to me as to be completely incomprehensible.
I really like this podcast and listen to every episode. That being said every time David and Ellie say the phrase, “Late stage capitalism” like it’s some predictable phenomenon, I cringe a little bit. Otherwise this was a very interesting episode.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm glad I wandered over here.
You two do a great job of exemplifying academia’s lack of intensity.
This the most interesting episode that I've heard, incredibly rich. I'll be listening a second time.
Thank you for this! Thinking about the question of quantitative/qualitative in relation to capital reminded me of Brian Massumi´s 99 theses for the reevaluation of value, really worth checking out in the context of this conversation!
This was great. Thanks so much!
I think we could talk about your podcast’s icon as an intensive experience that springs the mind off its hinges like a yoyo, asking are we simply jack in the boxes…
Had never heard of Accelerationism, but surprised that David didn't draw what seems an obvious parallel -- the Futurist movement, which was a precursor to and definitely an enabler of Italian Fascism. Futurist art was all about acceleration.
Have you both explore samsara philosophy (buddhism and jainism) understanding of intensity. Just explore that escipally ancient nalanda university mahanaya thinkers .
I think Ellie has a point when she says that intensity can be measured.
Take Marx's concepts of absolute and relative surplus value:
Absolute surplus value is obtained by extending working time. Relative surplus value is obtained by intensifying the labour process. This intensification can be measured by the number of items produced within a time unit, say an hour. By intensifying the labour process you basically increase the measurable number of items produced.
The Romantic movement, particularly in its German, very philosophical version, could be seen as an attempt to reconcile the intellectual and emotional spheres. Perhaps frequently misunderstood as giving primacy to feeling, when in fact the goal was to attain some sort of equilibrium. Romanticism is often associated with, still embodies, this notion of intensity.
I get a laugh at myself when the next statement I make will sound similar to Vizzini from *The Princess Bride* : Ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons.
These philosophers were not morons, nor were Marx and Engels, but I don't agree with the teleological perspective that communism is (arguably, according to the latter two) an inevitability. While it is arguable that a form of democratic socialism would be preferable and not overly optimistic to realize relative to whatever stage of capitalism is confronting us, I question whether this general form of social being is the logical/intuitive result of an expansive proletariat driven to an extreme of material austerity. While a mass of unrest could very well lead to popular revolution (in some way, shape or form), why communism as opposed to another socio-economic system unless the proletariat (assuming the sheer number of people could overpower the wealth, labor and technology of the ruling class and the bourgeoise that side with them) recognizes this as the way beyond history? While these questions and possible answers are all old hat, the concepts of intensity and ethics, all in concert with time/duration as discussed here do provide possibilities that (perhaps) avoid eschatological inevitabilities that may (?) be accelerated (that term here was a new one on me, though the general concept in leftist circles wasn't) and avoid right wing dystopian outcomes. I am unfamiliar with Tristan Garcia, but an ethics of intensity as discussed here sounds promising and I was very glad for the introduction. I tend to think that Foucault's archaeology of discourse and Gadmer's positions (if tweaked) on human limitation and prejudice/pre-judgment would make odd bedfellows toward a dialectical materialist ethics that could be recognized within unrest, but to quote someone in the podcast, "that is above my pay grade."
Thank you for the excellent podcasting. Its magnitude is its qualities.
I've always been unambiguously intense, and was never alone in this assessment. But, I think it's important to point out that intense people don't seek this out. Quite the contrary. They have too much of it already. I define this psychological intensity as high degrees of both mental and emotional energy, don't know if it's their fraught co-existence, or whether it's rather a matter of the one leading to the other. Thinking obviously will engender emotion. This might suffice, or it could be a matter of thought triggering a particularly sensitive body. I don't know. In any case, the inclination towards skydiving, bungee jumping or "amusement rides" is so foreign to me as to be completely incomprehensible.
Is Ellie trying to bring up David’s skydiving activity for memory as an intense evocation of affect
She wants David to jump in rather than out and into affect
David "Peña Guzmán"... is this guy from the Dominican Republic?
He is Mexican.
❤
I really like this podcast and listen to every episode. That being said every time David and Ellie say the phrase, “Late stage capitalism” like it’s some predictable phenomenon, I cringe a little bit. Otherwise this was a very interesting episode.