Thanks to Undine, we have a way for everyone to help with my strike: click on the links to my Blog Supporters! This will help remind my advertisers that I do have readers. I need the revenue because I work at a public university in Bobby Jindal’s state.
In gratitude I will post some notes toward a post, inspired in reading Luis Villoro, Retos de la sociedad por venir.
Because I am on strike, I will not organize or explain them. But because you are helping me with the strike, I am typing up some notes I took in the margins of the Times-Picayune.
+ Villoro 130: To be “on the left” is not to subscribe to a particular set of ideas but to have an “actitud vital” of “disruption” and a practice of questioning. A transformative practice.
+ Me: Yes, a critical consciousness. Part of being an intellectual. But both academia and Reeducation are on the right in Villoro’s description, then — they are about reiterating and/or becoming a reiteration of the dominant establishment, and not about the “comportamiento emancipador” to which Villoro refers as a Left behavior and attitude.
+ Me: That could mean I am not so mean, so criminal, so deserving of insults, or so mentally ill as I am often accused of being. It could just mean that my views on matters are more challenging than people are comfortable with. This is very interesting.
+ Villoro 132: To be on the left is not a theory, it is a moral posture. This bears thinking about. He also suggests somewhere in the same essay that to be Left or not is also a choice about whether one is going to do anything or not, sacrifice anything or not (and for what).
+ Me: All right, then Socrates was right and it is more therapeutic to read philosophy than it is to do many other things. I see what I got from Reeducation and it was essentially a right wing prescription. It was not all right to be: (a) intellectual – critical; (b) urban; (c) questioning (you were supposed to be conformist and what Villoro calls “reiterative/reiterating”; (d) to know how to solve problems / have a can-do attitude; (e) and of course, it was not all right to be “scientific,” or to think objectively and independently in any way.
We know the things listed in the last paragraph and I have listed them before in this blog, but every time I read anything interesting I have them come to me as a revelation again. I should paint a canvas of them and hang it in my doorway.
+ Villoro 141: On Nietzche’s will to power. Is power always the oppressive power over others … or does Nietzche really mean here THE POWER TO EXIST? This part of the essay bears rereading.
+ Me: I have already figured out that Reeducation’s main message was that one had no right to exist. What it said was that one must give up all power. And one of my main disagreements with academia is with the idea that one should be able to function perfectly IN AN ABUSIVE SITUATION, as though it were a supportive one, or that one should repress oneself in all areas of life except in one’s specialty, wherein one must be most original.
I do not understand at all how one can put so much energy to repression of 90% of one’s self and expect this NOT to affect the other 10% (not to mention how that use of energy would cut into research time and focus).
But I am still on strike. Click on my Blog Supporters! When I get paid we will have Reading for Pleasure Wednesdays again, and wear white on Fridays. On the weekends, we will sing.