Announcing: The Brilliant Podcast

  • Posted on: 13 October 2015
  • By: aragorn

From The Brilliant

You are the brilliant. You imagine the world you'd like and make furtive gestures towards it. In this world, one of grayness and monotones, you stand out as a splash of impossible color.

We'd like to believe we are story tellers, telling your stories, stories that don't end in glorious victory but with real live people confronted with unforseen consequences and fairy tales that don't involve simple endings.

The brilliant is a new podcast that uses a conversation to do the telling. Currently that conversation included Aragorn! and Bellamy. Our frustrated sound engineer is Roy Burton. Join us in the magical world where the brilliant are all around us.

We have posted our first five episodes already!

Episode One – Projectuality
Episode Two – Imagination
Episode Three – Principles
Episode Four – Critique
Episode Five – Conflict I

category: 

Comments

You have "Episode Two" posted twice. ;)

thanks. :)

its a nice project...in a NPR anarchist american life reflections with an edge kind of way---- but perhaps sort out the technical errors first--- and then record and post multiple episodes?

yum!

the friendly dialogue is a good format for exploring the complex issues. i am looking forward to listening to the further episodes.

i hope there will be more from bellamy re the 'relational' view (of Stirner et al) reconciled with aragorn's seemingly 'literal' view of 'relations' in conventional terms of 'relations among things' rather than relations as the basis of things.

the discussion on free-will, freedom and projectuality provided a missed opportunity for reconciling it with Nietzschean 'amor fati', also touched on, which is its antithesis (the references to anarchist library materials on projectuality were appreciated).

this ambiguity in interpreting 'the relational' crops up in the landstreicher's projectual life as well. more discussions on this, i hope.

landstreicher leans on dora marsden who totally misinterprets nietzsche and landstreicher follows suit, as he writes the following in his review of "Max Stirner’s Dialectical Egoism", by John Welsh;

"Welsh is able to delve into the nature of Stirner’s critique of modernity by contrasting it with that of Nietzsche. The chapter devoted to this comparison and contrast is one of the strongest parts of the book. I have tended, in the past, to read Nietzsche through Stirner. In other words, I tried to interpret Nietzsche’s ideas in terms of Stirner’s project. Inevitably, I found Nietzsche to be full of contradictions. In time, as I read more and more of Nietzsche’s work, I realized that I was not reading it correctly when I read it through Stirner, but I didn’t grasp exactly where the problem lay. Welsh makes it very clear that Nietzsche was, in fact, what Stirner called a “pious atheist.” Like Feuerbach, Nietzsche has no interest in eradicating the sacred by taking his world as his own; he merely wants to replace god — and the human essence — with the “overhuman” (Welsh’s accurate translation of “Übermensch”). This is still an ideal placed above you and me, a higher value to which we are to sacrifice ourselves. Thus, despite Nietzsche’s analysis of morality as a historical and social product, he remains a moralist, through and through. Whereas Stirner sees self-enjoyment as the most sensible activity of each of us, Nietzsche promotes “master morality” and asceticism in the name of the overhuman and the will to power. This is the basis of his warrior ideal. In Stirner’s perspective, each of us, in her or his uniqueness in the moment, is complete, is perfect. For Nietzsche, we are all incomplete, mere bridges to something greater than us. Thus, he sacrifices the here and now to a future and perceives us as mere means to a higher end. This is religious and moral thinking." -- Wolfi Landstreicher

landstreicher misses nietzsche by a country mile. he reduces nietzsche's poetic intent to literality.

nietzsche's uebermensch was emerson's over-soul; Brahman = Atman, where Atman must conquer his 'self' in order to unleash his authentic self or uebermensch.

"within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal One. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul." -- Emerson

As Nietzsche says in speaking about the uebermensch as realized in Goethe [he also puts 'amor fati' into context];

"A spirit thus emancipated stands in the midst of the universe with a joyful and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only what is separate and individual may be rejected, that in the totality everything is redeemed and affirmed - he no longer denies . . . But such a faith is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name Dionysius." -- Nietzsche

So, both Stirner and Nietzsche rejected the subject-verb-predicate view of man. Nietzsche called it a 'great stupidity' and Stirner described it as a 'spook', and Derrida elaborated on that with the view that there is nothing outside of relational context; i.e. man is the relational unum at the same time as he is a uniquely situated relational form within the transforming relational continuum. As Schroedinger put it, we are Brahman at the same time as Atman.

The uebermensch is the man that is able to get in touch with his Brahman aspect, to 'become one with everything' in Buddhist terms. It is available to us here and now [Landstreicher's interpretation of sacrificing the present to the future is ridiculous] Goethe was one who Nietzsche figured was particularly capable of getting in touch with his uebermensch.

Landstreicher's interpretation of 'uebermensch' is literal and confused;

"... the “overhuman” (Welsh’s accurate translation of “Übermensch”). This is still an ideal placed above you and me, a higher value to which we are to sacrifice ourselves. Thus, despite Nietzsche’s analysis of morality as a historical and social product, he remains a moralist, through and through. . . . For Nietzsche, we are all incomplete, mere bridges to something greater than us. Thus, he sacrifices the here and now to a future and perceives us as mere means to a higher end. This is religious and moral thinking"

landstreicher's literal interpretation of the uebermensch explains the linearity of his 'a projectual life'.

bellamy and aragorn are providing traction in a very congenial siskel and ebert review form, for us to reflect on modern anarchist thinking, so this note is, on a first priority, very appreciative of their project.

The episodes so far have been totally cool. The music choices get me in just the right head to think about Aragorn and Bellamy's perspectives. Aragorn has managed to piss me off with his comments at least 3 or 4 times now ...in a way that I can't remember someone doing since hanging out with Travis (who let me put stuff on Inconsiderate Audio). I'm also a big fan of exploring concepts like this show is doing.

Hopefully this thing lasts a while

Very cool to randomly hear agents of oblivion on one if the episodes. One of the most underrated albums of all time.

I was most pleased to hear Submission Hold in... ep 6, I think

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
s
B
t
N
w
e
5
Enter the code without spaces.