Logic of identity

[bob scheetz]

Matt writes:
> To go back to the Boss. When you listen to the River, sure it evokes
> solidarity. But isn't the point that young Joe Hill is in the dumps
because
> there ain't been much work for the Jonestown Company? If there was more
work
> then Joe could buy his missus and child a present (get her mother off her
> back), put some new tyres on the car, shout a round of drinks for his
mates.
>
> So is the issue this or is it:
>
> >...and
> >thence that makers have a morally imperative claim to dispose the >polis,
>
> sure in an ideal world I can't argue with this.

Matt,
the persona in the ballad  is a typical example of stunted consciousness.
the "river"  is eros, not purification and spiritual restoration.  he's
lamenting the loss of adolescent sexuality and the burden of family.
Emfatically, no joe hill; and tom joad is springsteen's omaj to mature prole
consciousness.
But apropos this habit of yerz, tendentious reading to the prejudice of
worker consciousness, in any case the bell-curve determines the vastestness
of the distribution will be pavlovian to institutionalized authority
(...company, gov't, church, union, media),  so there's no trick to finding
stunted, debased, false consciousness among workers equal with the
parasitical rich/poor and lackey classes.  It's the marginal effect that's
futural, no?
 but you know all this from marcuse.  just baiting us? ...maybe you shoulda
been a irish lawyer, matt, ...no scruples, and that lip, ...youda made
millions

> ----------------
> [you write]
>
>
> I only do critical philosophy in the conviction that it is connected to
> actual life. The theory/praxis distinction is absurd IMO. The ontological
> illusion of pure theory, as JH succinctly stated in 1965, a re-affirmation
> of Horkheimer's distinction between Critical Theory & traditional theory.
So
>
> >sometimes feel you're
> >being a stickler for the narrowest reifications, religion, prole class,
> >movement, etc.,
>
> I just don't acknowledge a unique philosophical realm of discourse in
which
> narrow reifications et al get disqualified.

 you know from evolution and maturation theory, or it could be marxian
"uneven development," that all the historical stages of a specimen are
generally present simultaneously; so that you're always able to instance for
example peasant superstitious, warrior hierarchic, businessman meretricious,
..., forms of religion in any modern society, ...along with athiesm and
avant-garde forms verging toward buddhism/hinduism like thomas merton, or
marxism, etc.  but, basically i hear you simply uncritically replicating the
establishment practice of giving the patent exclusively to supporters,
...and then accusing "bloody religion" globally of "inversion."

> And there is no denying the inevitability of its inversion either (corny
as
> it may sound, and there you go, caste loyalty):

> OK, a riddle for the credentialed. To feed me and my children whilst I get
> through my studies I run a little recycled clothes shop in my hometown. My
> take home pay is about (US)$6000 p.a. I drive a (US)$250 car (which I
love,
> of course).
>
> Now out of bad socialist conscience I can't charge what the clothes are
> really worth because I get a lot of people in here who, for want of a
better
> phrase, aren't rich eg. single mums, unemployed kids, students etc. So I
> give a discount, give clothes away blah blah blah. My bad socialist
> conscience makes me feel mean to deny people with whom I share my
community
> the opportunity to wear fashionable clothes. It does a lot for a persons
> self esteem to look good. To me in a very small way that's how I express
> solidarity. If I charged what I could I might add 25% to my take home and
> I/family could enjoy an improved standard of live. Anyway enough of my
> nauseous spiel for self-sanctification. I hope the reification isn't too
> narrow for you because it gets worse.
>
> The other day someone stole something from my shoppe. My desire for
revenge
> arose from seeing this act of stealing as class treachery. I knew who it
was
> and how to get them. Given some harder heads around the place forgive me
my
> bad socialist conscience and I probably could have had them done over.
> Instead I turned to the state, and its civil army. Given you have the
credo,
> what would you have done, in a philosophical sense, of course?
Re-education?

very amusing.  but the casus has nothing to do with the ltov (labor theory
of value) and rather more as you indicate with petit bourgeois amour propre
(having disqualified xian charity for yourself), so i really think you
should leave socialism out of it. Still for me personally, i'd say the
bicycle thief's world is more livable than the pawnbroker's.

...philosophically speaking.

bob