Kant Get You Out of My Head

Me? I think they spelled Can’t Get You Out of My Head wrong, but what the # do I know anyway.

Can’t Get You Out of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World is a six-part series that explores how modern society has arrived to the strange place it is today. The series traverses themes of love, power, money, the ghosts of empire, the history of China, opium and opioids, the strange roots of modern conspiracy theories, and the history of Artificial Intelligence. Inspired by the 2016 apex of populism—the political ideology which presents The People as morally good, and The Elite as morally bad—the underlying aim of the series is to show why the critics of Donald Trump and Brexit were unable to offer an alternative vision for the future.

Thought I should share the whole beast, but haven't really anything to add. It's that good. Great moment for a more 'esoteric' look inwards, innit?

Have at it?!

Sounds like a song from when I was much younger.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
It's that good.

It is isn't it?

I am savouring it, I've only watch three so far (so I haven't read your link - no spoilers please) but so far, what a beautiful piece of work! Really just astoundingly well constructed and how did he find some of that archive footage?

I will say, so far, that it is, for me, a singular perspective - I do though accept his criticism of my "ilk" on the chin - and I am interested in what he has included, what he hasn't and what he has skimmed across. For example (and again - no spoilers please), he mentions that "some" dischordants worked at Playboy and they devised Operation Mind# - goes into vast detail about Thornley but doesn't even mention (so far) who that someone was at Playboy and how they were more fundamental in the divising and actioning of OM. Maybe he gets to that. That's just one example but possibly the most significant one - because Western art and literature in general seem to be getting circumvented generally and I am hoping he gets to that in a more detailed way in the second half of the series.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

because Western art and literature in general seem to be getting circumvented generally and I am hoping he gets to that in a more detailed way in the second half of the series.

Spoiler-alert. You'll feast on the last part.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Spoiler-alert. You'll feast on the last part.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Spoiler-alert. You'll feast on the last part.

Wow. Just. Wow!

You totally and utterly misled me.



That's "no spoilers" par excellence.

Thanks

I'm not sure how I-player works outside of the UK but I thought it was considerate of the BBC to put on the film Tommorrow Land to offer a little suggestion as to how we go about reimagining our future since Curtis offered zilch in that regard beyond a quote of a concept much misunderstood and overly interpreted.

A bit Disney but I don't mind that from time to time...



Note (TTSA, Delonge et al) that's dreamers not dreamer singular. And we certainly don't need a singularly fearful of the future dreamer to provide a vision of the future without offering solutions for the present. I'd choose to follow the determined stubborness of Greta Thunberg any day of the week over that crock of old has-beens and wanna-bes who only have regurgitant to offer a "new" audience.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Curtis offered zilch in that regard beyond a quote of a concept much misunderstood and overly interpreted.

True, hence the title. Curtis offers clues on how we've got here, an analysis of our western paradigm and it's obsession with individualism, if you will.
I found this interview very helpful to wrap my head around the whole thing:

Chapo UK correspondent Adam Curtis returns to discuss the limits of individualism, goodies and baddies, conspiracies, manipulation, and dancing, all through the themes and characters of his new film series Can’t Get You Out of My Head.

I'd choose to follow the determined stubborness of Greta Thunberg any day of the week over that crock of old has-beens and wanna-bes who only have regurgitant to offer a "new" audience.

Hear, hear! I like the way you coined this, rather following the stubbornness of an absolutely transparent cause than falling back into the same old habits many people seem to "kant get out of their heads".

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm not particularly familiar with Kant - at all if we're being honest - so I wasn't really aware of the what you are referencing.

I've been delving into Curtis' back catalogue when I have had the chance - some I've already seen, others I missed. I'll add the interview you've posted to my list - and find some Immanuel Kant to read too, I suppose.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

It started with stupid wordplay, to be frank. Could be something tho. However, here's a wonky thread on the "limits of enlightenment" along the lines of another reference.

Oh, I thought it was a thread about Immanuel Kant and modern Psychology.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

a reply to: maya27

One could say it is, with the concept of individualism in a spotlight.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

As a consequence of a conversation I have been having with Peeple over on the Cafe thread, I have been reading about the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, which began as a consequence of the emanicipation of European Jewry and the process of self-examination in relation to the wider world that that permitted them to undergo before they were able to individualise and leave the collective. Within a generation of being "free" you have this explosion of talent and ideas breaking new ground which unlike the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, was incredibly self-aware and conscious of consciousness in a way that has transformed the way we think about ourselves, but it meant that they, often as not, had to sacrifice their Jewishness and community to be able to join in. The very basis of this secularising emancipation was on those terms though. In 1791, when France offered Jews citizenship it was in exchange for an oath of loyalty and framed by the distinction that "The Jews must be refused everything as a seperate nation, and be granted everything as individuals." (Marquis de Clermont-Tonnerre, quoted p843 Europe by Norman Davies). By leaving the community those Jews, unlike the Prodigal Son, knew they couldn't go back, that they were considered dead by their community and had to find, as individuals, new bonds. And they did, and that is what led them from stagnation to enlightment.

Soooo...I'm wondering, doesn't it suggest that it is necessary first to have a "darkness" in order to have a bringing of the light, and if so, don't we find ourselves in that same state, of one thing dying and the ashes lying there just waiting for the phoenix to take form and fly? Curtis certainly seems to think that individualism is the "problem" but I am increasingly struggling to agree with his perspective and am wondering if it is his perspective that is actually the problem. Hmmm?

Anyway, all aboard to new paradigm...

‘Our biggest challenge? Lack of imagination’

www.theguardian.com... t-newtab-global-en-GB

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Curtis certainly seems to think that individualism is the "problem" but I am increasingly struggling to agree with his perspective and am wondering if it is his perspective that is actually the problem. Hmmm?

"Everything's for sale except the scale!"

Aiming straight for the core of the positivist mindset, good shot. Which could be the paradigm Adam can't get out of his head, we're well conditioned naked apes after all. And to be fair, you can't really put a price tag on esoteric epiphanies and/ or "restored landscapes of over a million hectares".
Also, if this sort of managed individualism really is the result of psychology and consumerism, then why ask for new utopias if the solution is that obvious? Why are we supposed to add more to the stinking pile when it's foundation seems to need more of a subtracting makeover?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You've got it right there. Adam's head. And that of the commissioning editors at the BBC who have given him such a broad platform to expound how he (and presumably they) got here. And while the spectacle was pleasing, it's pastiche not montage, it is a singular perspective that frankly I don't relate to.

I don't feel helpless.

I read an article relating the ideas of identity developed by Amelie Rorty and applying those to Curtis and his body of work, as well as generally to society as a whole...

Out of this necessity to reconcile the ownership of experience with the capacity for choice arises the level of the individual. Rorty writes:

From the tensions in the definition of the alienable properties of selves, and from the corruptions in societies of selves — the divergence of practice from ideological commitments — comes the invention of individuality. It begins with conscience and ends with consciousness.

Unlike characters and figures, individuals actively resist typing: they represent the universal mind of rational beings, or the unique private voice. Individuals are indivisible entities… Invented as a preserve of integrity, an autonomous ens, an individual transcends and resists what is binding and oppressive in society and does so from an original natural position. Although in its inception, individuality revives the idea of person, the rights of persons are formulated in society, while the rights of individuals are demanded of society. The contrast between the inner and outer person becomes the contrast between the individual and the social mask, between nature and culture.

A society of individuals is quite different from one composed of selves. Individuals contract to assure the basic rights to the development of moral and intellectual gifts, as well as legal protection of self and property. Because a society of individuals is composed of indivisible autonomous units, from whose natures — their minds and conscience — come the principles of justice, their rights are not property; they cannot be exchanged, bartered. Their rights and their qualities are their very essence, inalienable.

www.brainpickings.org...

Again you nail it - "managed individualism" not actual individualism. Curtis and those like him or those he speaks to or for, are stuck on self-hood. There lies the problem, or a problem rather. As you say, we don't need utopian visions, we have information, we have modelling and models, as the article I linked to before said, we just need to do less of the bad stuff and more of the good.

What I think is that Curtis is actually commenting on the decline of his reality, or the realisation of it's lack of sustainability, or his ill-preparedness for the future. I don't know, as I said, I can't relate, but I am done with Curtis and his voice because he hasn' turned that "camera-eye" of his back on himself critically, that's why it is just a navel gazing pastiche of the fear of change while elsewhere the much-disparaged millennials are creating symphonies that are ringing in those changes.

I am in love with the brilliant Michaela Coel at the moment so excuse my taking this opportunity to promote that brilliance but it does fit in the context and with what Rorty had to say.



Coel, the individual, is inalienable. Vulnerable but never helpless. To that I can relate.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I can't relate, but I am done with Curtis and his voice because he hasn' turned that "camera-eye" of his back on himself critically, that's why it is just a navel gazing pastiche of the fear of change while elsewhere the much-disparaged millennials are creating symphonies that are ringing in those changes.

Your reply reminded me of the archetypes from Jung. There's a big shadow of an elephant in the room waiting to be integrated, innit?
However, I'm not sure he isn't reflecting on himself and his circles. And does it really matter when the piece goes a long way to communicate the symptoms? I think it takes a real artist to merely touch on things, leaving people some room to discover more unmapped territories for themselves, just like we did.

Mush love, KG!

It's individualism or collectivism......there is only those two to choose from really.

Find out where you stand by learning about the two ideologies in this interview with G Edward Griffin

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What a history! Psychology moved on. One could simply argue collectivism is part of us via the collective unconsciousness, right?
Welcome to the Kantian aspect of this topic, and thanks for pointing out why this distinction looks a tad silly in hindsight.

Jungian Archetypes: One area of Jungian psychology that can become a bit overwhelming is his use of the archetype model. Drawn from many of Plato’s ideas Jung archetypes are held by the individual and it is their unique experiences and reinforced through the collective unconsciousness that define their archetypes.

Jung and his Individuation Process

a reply to: PublicOpinion
Can you elaborate please?
Because somehow none of that makes sense to me.......which distinction looks silly?

Did you listen to the interview?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Of course I did, which is why I think it provides a good example for the topic. Adam was getting at precisely this form of 'manufactured individualism' in parts of the series. Which goes all the way back to E. Bernays and the birth of PR, at this point I'd have to ask if you watched anything from his new piece. Not that it matters for us, but it helps to know where we're at.

However. Modern psychology generally provides a different approach to the process of individuation, one that relies upon common archetypes which are literally part of a collective experience. Thus the terminology 'collective unconsciousness'.
Which is why it could be easily argued, that there is no such thing as a substantial difference between individuation and collective experiences (at least not in psychology), it's way more complicated than that. And more akin to an entangled web of interdependencies.

In essence, and as we've seen so very often in politics, there is no scientific basis for this allegedly rational distinction between individualism and collectivism. It's snake oil, and in context of this thread it's snake oil for our collective consumerist positivism (CCP), which has to be constantly re-marketed as individual decisions for freedom to make us ignore it's collective fallout, and more importantly, our unfreedom. Or in other words, it's a "tad" silly.