Gramsci and idealism

[SanteriSatama]

Yeah, I think so. Another way of putting my argument would be that we cannot philosophize from the perspective of non-humans any more than we can explain the experience of color to a blind person in a way that makes them experience it.

Perhaps we don't so much philosophize from perspectives, but in the relations between various perspectives. Dialogue is a joint effort and means meaning shifting between perspectives. A Living Logos!

[Lou Gold]

I believe this more recent talk by Jeremy Narby is much more relevant to the topic being discussed. I hope you'll give it a full contemplation.

[Lou Gold]

Another way of putting my argument would be that we cannot philosophize from the perspective of non-humans any more than we can explain the experience of color to a blind person in a way that makes them experience it.

However, the question may be "Who is the blind one and blind to what?" Check out the Narby Ayahuasca talk. I appreciate Santeri's comment: Perhaps we don't so much philosophize from perspectives, but in the relations between various perspectives. Dialogue is a joint effort and means meaning shifting between perspectives. A Living Logos! Narby suggests something similar between scientists and shamans.

[AshvinP]

Another way of putting my argument would be that we cannot philosophize from the perspective of non-humans any more than we can explain the experience of color to a blind person in a way that makes them experience it.

However, the question may be "Who is the blind one and blind to what?" Check out the Narby Ayahuasca talk. I appreciate Santeri's comment: Perhaps we don't so much philosophize from perspectives, but in the relations between various perspectives. Dialogue is a joint effort and means meaning shifting between perspectives. A Living Logos! Narby suggests something similar between scientists and shamans.

I think you are both completely missing my point now. I am talking about analytical philosophy of the sort Gramsci was engaged in. I am actually curious to know if anyone has ever philosophized from a primarily non-human perspective in that manner.

[SanteriSatama]

I think you are both completely missing my point now. I am talking about analytical philosophy of the sort Gramsci was engaged in. I am actually curious to know if anyone has ever philosophized from a primarily non-human perspective in that manner.

Gramsci analytical philosopher? "Cultural hegemony by ideological possession" as a primary mechanism of class society power hierarchy maintaining it's status quo sounds quite continental to me. And I don't think Gramsci would claim to be free of the ideological possessions of the Eurocentric cultural hegemony he (self-)criticizes. Zizek etc. continue to struggle with very similar notions of ideological possession and seek liberatory philosophizing.

What sort of perspective is Ayahuasca possession? We don't need to build a big theory to agree that in many psychotropic experiences human perspective is far from dominant, while the spiritual perspective, if such term sounds agreeable, engages and teaches deep philosophizing, wisdom seeking and wisdom learning. Deep truths, such as "All is Valuable", can emerge in crystallized linguistic forms.

Also Greek philosophy can hardly be understood in separation from Mysteries of Eleusis.

Still not sure if this addresses your point in any way. There's still loads of mutually unclarified presuppositions behind what "primarily non-human perspective" could mean.

[AshvinP]

I think you are both completely missing my point now. I am talking about analytical philosophy of the sort Gramsci was engaged in. I am actually curious to know if anyone has ever philosophized from a primarily non-human perspective in that manner.

Gramsci analytical philosopher? "Cultural hegemony by ideological possession" as a primary mechanism of class society power hierarchy maintaining it's status quo sounds quite continental to me. And I don't think Gramsci would claim to be free of the ideological possessions of the Eurocentric cultural hegemony he (self-)criticizes. Zizek etc. continue to struggle with very similar notions of ideological possession and seek liberatory philosophizing.

What sort of perspective is Ayahuasca possession? We don't need to build a big theory to agree that in many psychotropic experiences human perspective is far from dominant, while the spiritual perspective, if such term sounds agreeable, engages and teaches deep philosophizing, wisdom seeking and wisdom learning. Deep truths, such as "All is Valuable", can emerge in crystallized linguistic forms.

Also Greek philosophy can hardly be understood in separation from Mysteries of Eleusis.

Still not sure if this addresses your point in any way. There's still loads of mutually unclarified presuppositions behind what "primarily non-human perspective" could mean.

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts. We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality. What is true of us now is even more true of ancient philosophers who barely even had a personal perspective, let alone one that could be freely integrated with non-human ones. Maybe that's not what Gramsci was saying, but that's how I understood him and that's what I also believe to be true. Nothing is set in stone, so these things can change, but I see no indications humanity is at that stage of spiritual development yet.

[SanteriSatama]

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts.

We could as well say that all the concepts we are expressing here are Spirit concepts. Or concepts in M@L.

We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality.

Peter Jordan's evolutionary psychology would push the start much much further to lobster etc. etc. perspectives...

[Lou Gold]

Another way of putting my argument would be that we cannot philosophize from the perspective of non-humans any more than we can explain the experience of color to a blind person in a way that makes them experience it.

However, the question may be "Who is the blind one and blind to what?" Check out the Narby Ayahuasca talk. I appreciate Santeri's comment: Perhaps we don't so much philosophize from perspectives, but in the relations between various perspectives. Dialogue is a joint effort and means meaning shifting between perspectives. A Living Logos! Narby suggests something similar between scientists and shamans.

I think you are both completely missing my point now. I am talking about analytical philosophy of the sort Gramsci was engaged in. I am actually curious to know if anyone has ever philosophized from a primarily non-human perspective in that manner.

Actually, I'm not disputing your point Santeri. As I wrote in another context, I see philosophy as an artifact of a certain kind of civilization, not uniquely European but born of separation. I don't think this philosophising and analysis is only about Europeans. I see it (along with the Axial Age) as born out of scarcity conscious civilization, which occurred in several locations abot the same time when sedentary populations expanded to the point of tipping the biome from a previous abundance (that allowed permanent settlement) to a new scarcity for people who had lost hunter gatherer social structure and skills. Next step was walled cities and warfare between the 'civilized' and the 'barbarians' in out-of-balance biomes full of suffering and generated religions that focused on liberation from suffering. I think the terra-preta sedentary populations of Amazonian found a way to be 'civilized' and promote abundance but we know very little about their ways, When the first Spanish conquistador came down the Amazon his journal reported seeing house-to-house settlement for 20 miles along the river. The secret was they improved the soil. Perhaps they were a truly humble humus-based civilization that triggered abundance rather than scarcity. Down and dirty was their way. They didn't philosophize. They realized.

[Lou Gold]

I think you are both completely missing my point now. I am talking about analytical philosophy of the sort Gramsci was engaged in. I am actually curious to know if anyone has ever philosophized from a primarily non-human perspective in that manner.

Gramsci analytical philosopher? "Cultural hegemony by ideological possession" as a primary mechanism of class society power hierarchy maintaining it's status quo sounds quite continental to me. And I don't think Gramsci would claim to be free of the ideological possessions of the Eurocentric cultural hegemony he (self-)criticizes. Zizek etc. continue to struggle with very similar notions of ideological possession and seek liberatory philosophizing.

What sort of perspective is Ayahuasca possession? We don't need to build a big theory to agree that in many psychotropic experiences human perspective is far from dominant, while the spiritual perspective, if such term sounds agreeable, engages and teaches deep philosophizing, wisdom seeking and wisdom learning. Deep truths, such as "All is Valuable", can emerge in crystallized linguistic forms.

Also Greek philosophy can hardly be understood in separation from Mysteries of Eleusis.

Still not sure if this addresses your point in any way. There's still loads of mutually unclarified presuppositions behind what "primarily non-human perspective" could mean.

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts. We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality. What is true of us now is even more true of ancient philosophers who barely even had a personal perspective, let alone one that could be freely integrated with non-human ones. Maybe that's not what Gramsci was saying, but that's how I understood him and that's what I also believe to be true. Nothing is set in stone, so these things can change, but I see no indications humanity is at that stage of spiritual development yet.

Ashvin, here is a thought experiment: Consider the statement, "I need to experience more nature." Did it trigger thoughts of a walk in the woods or of deep breathing? I'll bet it was the former even though, in fact, deep breathing is just as much an experience of nature. My point is that the word 'human' for you implies separation from nature and this is simply not true for all cultural mindsets. For myself, personally, becoming both more animal and more human are deeper plunges into nature.

[SanteriSatama]

I see it (along with the Axial Age) as born out of scarcity conscious civilization, which occurred in several locations abot the same time when sedentary populations expanded to the point of tipping the biome from a previous abundance (that allowed permanent settlement) to a new scarcity for people who had lost hunter gatherer social structure and skills.

From wiki article on Axial age:
Anthropologist David Graeber has pointed out that "the core period of Jasper's Axial age [...] corresponds almost exactly to the period in which coinage was invented. What's more, the three parts of the world where coins were first invented were also the very parts of the world where those sages lived; in fact, they became the epicenters of Axial Age religious and philosophical creativity."[25] Drawing on the work of classicist Richard Seaford and literary theorist Marc Shell on the relation between coinage and early Greek thought, Graeber argues that an understanding of the rise of markets is necessary to grasp the context in which the religious and philosophical insights of the Axial age arose. The ultimate effect of the introduction of coinage was, he argues, an "ideal division of spheres of human activity that endures to this day: on the one hand the market, on the other, religion".[26]