"Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard

"Power itself has for along time produced nothing but the signs of its resemblance. And at the same time, another figure of power comes into play: that of a collective demand for signs of power - a holy union that is reconstructed around its disappearance. The whole world adheres to it more or less in terror of the collapse of the political. And in the end the game of power becomes nothing but the critical obsession with power-obsession with its death, obsession with its survival, which increases as it disappears. When it has totally disappeared, we will logically be under the total hallucination of power - a haunting memory that is already in evidence everywhere, expressing at once the compulsion to get rid of it (no one wants it anymore, everyone unloads it on everyone else) and the panicked nostalgia over its loss. The melancholy of societies without power: this has already stirred up fascism, that overdoes of a strong referential in a society that cannot terminate its mourning" p. 23

"...power is in essence no longer present except to conceal that there is no more power." p.26

"2008: The gate begins to open; transformation accelerates."

I know three in a row might be excessive but I couldn't pass up this opportunity. Jenny just got her most recent (unrequested) "Wise Woman Center Gazette" a newsletter run by herbal wise woman/forest goddess, Susun Weed. This was the headliner.




"I've always believed that global warming is Mother Nature's hot flash. Menopause is transformation, and we are just beginning our wild ride. The gate begins to open.

When kundalini energies rise up the spine, the body feels like it is on fire. This stunning, searing spiritual energy pushes open the gates of consciousness at the top of the head. (Represented by the halo.) It is thought that this process will be completed in a planetary sense around 2012, the end of the Mayan calender.

Nature's menopause is carrying each one of us into spiraling vortexes of energy. As my mentor Elizabeth Kubler Ross was fond of telling us: "In the tumbler of life you have two choices -- Be broken to bits. Or be polished."

We dedicate 2008 to polishing until we gleam! Our beloved Z Budapest returns to rub us into luminescence; the gracious White-feather also returns to buff our luster; Marie Summerwood shines us into chants; and we will explode with fourth of July orgasms and laugh with the baby goats. Do join us."

Democracy, Authority, Narcissism: From Agamben to Stiegler

Democracy, Authority, Narcissism: From Agamben to Stiegler
from Contretemps, an online journal of philosophy.

In this exciting essay, which draws on the work of Agamben, Freud, Heidegger and Stiegler, Daniel Ross attempts to uncover a technological movement which he argues should be understood as having its own evolution independent of those who are presumed to control it (that is, use it as a means to their purportedly self-determined ends). What is suggested is the reversal of our common understanding regarding the relation of the human to its tool. He argues that given the nature and direction of technology, we should reassess ‘democracy’ as a concept in crisis. On the horizon he sees a destruction of the distinction between law and life, and the loss of our collective and individual individuation (perhaps akin in spirit to the ambition of National Socialism though certainly more invidious). I highly recommend reading through this relatively short essay (11 pages) if not just for the excellent background knowledge it provides on the work of these important thinkers.

Daniel Ross is an Australian philosopher and film-maker.

American Astronaut

Just finished watching this Cory McAbee film again and it remains my favorite in respected genre of Sci-fi western musicals. It aims at the goofy-profound which seems appropriate to its subject matter: the sexual solipsism of American masculinity. This particular scene shows the moment of contact with the women of Venus - the first tangible encounter following the single celled 'real live girl' in a box and the boy 'who actually saw a woman's breast!'

First Post: Why Linux Doesn't Spread

A good essay from a psychologist's point of view on the conflict between what is best for people and what people want... as it relates to Linux. It's complete with an analogy to Tom Sawyer and the phrase "dog's bollocks", so what more do you want?

http://blog.anamazingmind.com/2008/02/why-linux-doesnt-spread-curse-of-being.html

Class Structure

I think there is a lot of truth to this:

It is sufficient to argue that the class structure constitutes the central mechanism by which various sorts of resources are appropriated and distributed, therefore determining the underlying capacities to act of various social actors. Class structures are the central determinant of social power. Consequently, they may determine what kinds of social changes are possible, even if they do not functionally determine the specific form of every institution of the society.

- Erik Olin Wright, Classes : p. (31-32)
(You can read the book in PDF form here: link)

Further Notes on “The Desire of Philosophy”: Hermeneutic Philosophy, Analytic Philosophy, or Postmodern Philosophy? No, Thanks!

To continue the reading of Badiou’s “The Desire of Philosophy and the Contemporary World” in relation to the question of the future of philosophy, we must outline and interrogate the dominant modes of philosophy today (hermeneutics, analytical, and postmodern), in order to come to a point of caesura, or a point of interruption of these, and create a future for philosophy, without limits, unbound. We would, of course, err in assuming that any one thinker belongs to any one of these particular orientations, completely disjointed from another; nevertheless, in interrogating them we can locate the crucial points where they meet. This crossroads, if you will, between the three orientations marks the fundamental obstacle which any new philosophy must radically dismantle, overcome, and continue on, elsewhere, indefinitely.

The vicissitudes of philosophy today

Badiou outlines two common tendencies in these three orientations. It is notorious that these three orientations fail to adequately overcome the counter-facts (maybe naming them countering facts is a better expression, or, even better, concrete obstacles) of the world as it is, and, hence, are unable to step off their merry-go-round, repeating the same experiments over-and-over and falling into the traps of sophistry, nihilism, and obscurantism. What marks the contemporaneity of these three orientations are: the theme of the end and the predominance of the question of language.

The End. For all of these philosophies share the negative theme of the end of metaphysics, and some even go so far as to posit the end of philosophy itself (and, along with it, the end of history, the end of politics, etc.). In other words, what all three orientations share is a negation of thinking universality itself, a giving up on the desire(s) of philosophy to a limited domain of particular relativisms. Giving up on truth(s) we are drowned in the sea of the plurality of meaning. And so it is that these philosophies have given in to the obstacles countering the desires of philosophy. A sense of closure, finitude, and completeness mark these three orientations, and, along with them, a lack of hope for the future of philosophy. What does this or that mean? is the only fathomable questions these philosophers can pose in their relentless declaration of ends, while the question of truth is judged dead and sent to the gallows.

The Question of Language. Language today is the predominant positive field of inquiry in all three orientations, whether they be in the domain of speech acts, linguistic rules, or the fragmentation of discourses. Zizzy notes contra Russell that he doesn’t think that we can transcend the limits of language. The absence of metaphysics, then in these philosophies becomes a kind of linguistic anthropology. Linguistic anthropology, or, the logic of the finite human animal in relation to the limits of its language(s), where language is the transcendental term, and, yet, which cannot itself be transcended.

Logical Revolt

Badiou proposes two ideas, which are the names of starting points, for a new style of philosophy without ends and without obscuring thought by the question of language:

1. “Language is not the absolute horizon of thought. The great linguistic turn of philosophy, or the absorption of philosophy into the meditation on language, must be reversed. In the Cratylus, which is concerned with language from beginning to end, Plato says, “We philosophers do not take as our point of departure words, but things.””

Which is to say, to begin to think from the things themselves, and not from the words which we have attributed to those things. Thinking must not be limited to the language of its inscription. The fact, without being a fact, that there are things in the world which do not (yet) have names is enough to warrant the dismissal of the language rules and games we’ve created for ourselves. There are things in the world which words cannot describe. Any poet worthy of the name knows this very well. So, we must begin again from the things without words, from the unnamebale things which (are non)exist(ant), but which are not limited to their inscription in the closed domain of language, even if language is the necessary means by which we must interrogate the things. Of course, we cannot simply do away with language, but we cannot place limits upon language to express in a new style the thinking that philosophy is; philosophy is transmissible through language, it is address through language. On a side note, does not this excerpt from Plato indicate, precisely, his materialist thinking contrary to all those who wish limit him to being the philosopher of the Idea?

2. “The singular and irreducible role of philosophy is to establish a fixed point within a discourse, a point of interruption, a point of discontinuity, an unconditional point. Our world is marked by its speed…Speed is the mask of inconsistency. Philosophy must propose a retardation process. It must construct a time for thought, which, in the face of the injunction to speed, will constitute a time of its own. This thinking, slow and consequently rebellious, is alone capable of establishing the fixed point, whatever it may be, whatever its name may be, which we need in order to sustain the desire of philosophy.”

It is to bring truth back into the praxis of thinking. Why is it that we scour at such a word as “truth”? Truth has nothing to do with the facts. Let the truth be told, no. Truths are not fixed, nor simply defined. Truths cannot be looked up in a dictionary nor in an encyclopedia. Truths are not simply the opposite of the lie. We are assaulted on a continuous basis every short and fleeting moment we yield to, without actually yielding, since we are rather trapped in, the violent discourses of mass communication. The first step, therefore, must be to radically distantiate from these discourses, to not let the speed of information, and the fetish of the cut-and-flash, shock-and-awe, of your preferred daily news show, distract from the desire of philosophy. To relax for more than just a second and think.

---

And Badiou’s objective, of course, is nothing short of the unconditional foundation of a new doctrine of the subject upon the ruins of metaphysics and its criticism, coinciding with the positive demands that the world is asking of philosophy. Philosophy must not continue falling; it must, demands the world, “get up and walk”.

Notes on the Desire of Philosophy and the Contemporary World

I shamelessly copied this photo and text from a shameless copied photo and text from a shameless blogger of another shameless blog:

"Philosophy has been defined as “an unusually obstinate attempt to think clearly”; I should define it rather an “an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously”. The philosopher’s temperament is rare, because it has to combine two somewhat conflicting characteristics: on the one hand a strong desire to believe some general proposition about the universe or human life; on the other hand, inability to believe contentedly except on what appear to be intellectual grounds. The more profound the philosopher, the more intricate and subtle must his fallacies be in order to produce in him the desired state of intellectual acquiescence. That is why philosophy is obscure." - Bertrand Russell

The Desire of Philosophy and the Contemporary World

Alain Badiou’s essay “The Desire of Philosophy and the Contemporary World” – translated as the first chapter of a collection of his writings, in English, Infinite Thought, from the French by Oliver Feltham and Justin Clemens – is an infinitely demanding, yet clear and consise, if, nonetheless, rigorous and unforgiving, address to contemporary philosophy and to the world; it may be read as a response to the plea not simply from one of the founders of empiricism and logical positivism, but from the world, and for logic, or, if you prefer, for a clear thinking. But what is a philosophical address? And to whom is philosophy addressed to? The philosophical address is an address to all, or, better, it is address to nobody in particular, devoid of any specific address, to the void that it itself is.[1] Here I will give a summary of the first part of this essay, and if you so desire to read further you can do so.

What is the future of philosophy? We can only speculate; but, to address what philosophy can think, here and now, we must first consider what philosophy wants, or, rather, what is wanted of philosophy, what the world demands of philosophy, today, in our contemporary multiplicity of situations. The first step in the procedure, for thinking which desires logical consistency, must, henceforth, be a declaration of axioms, from which one can logically proceed, must decide upon what is and what takes place. What does philosophy desire? What are its axioms? For Badiou, the desire of philosophy is four-fold:

1. Revolt : “there is no philosophy without the discontent of thinking in its confrontation with the world as it is”; i.e., it is the world which takes place, and we must ourselves assume full responsibility for the consequences of revolt: logical, destructive, negative, creative, subtractive.

2. Logic: “a belief in the power of argument and reason”; i.e., it proceeds from a fidelity to axioms and seeks verification through deduction, consistency, and the most devoted rigour.

3. Universality: “philosophy addresses all humans as thinking beings since it supposes that all humans think”; i.e., presupposing the “equaliy of intelligence”[2] and the void of the address itself, in order to verify what is valid for all thinking.

4. Taking Risks: “thinking is always a decision which supports independent points of view”; i.e., it must reach a point whereby it makes a decision to continue to follow through on specific position(s), even if the choice is not absolutely clear from the very beginning; but, the decision must not, nevertheless, be forced (especially when we encounter a false choice between a synthesis of two disjunctive positions (the case of State representational-parliamentary democratic politics today)), without an ethic of patience and persistence: in other words, thought is a slow and difficult process, yet it must continue; a forcing of a decision, then, is of the highest risk.

Denying the possibility of the four dimensions of the desire of philosophy, in the world as it is, today, are four counter-facts (i.e., facts which run against and pose as obstacles to the commitment to these desires of philosophy – remember Lacan’s ethical injunction: “do not compromise/give up on your desire!” –so as to, perhaps, extend our discussion of information served to us, shrink-wrapped and on a hot plate, and the facts, headed to the wikis), which Badiou names, but doesn’t name them as such (i.e., as counter-facts):

1. Freedom: because we live in a world that is free, a commercialized world, we no longer have the necessity to revolt. After all, who needs to revolt when we can shop online, travel to exotic lands, and have all our basic necessities for basic human survival a few steps away?

We clearly see what kind of world this is. It is, of course, the “Western” world, the “free world” where the market and the superego reign supreme, where everyone has their human rights and humanely gives them to those who have none: enjoy, be happy, healthy, and fit for the world of goods! No need for despair , because we have none, we are free as the stars in the sky! Of mechandise, sales, and profits; goods, commodities, and fetishes. And, of course, it is important to underscore in this beligerency of freedom the primary contraction between the world as such, and the world as it really is.

2. Communication: illogical; the reign of information and the renaissance of the encyclopedia – to quote at length, because this concerns some of the questions we are posing here on this Great Machine:

“Communication transmits a universe made up of disconnected images, remarks, statements, and commentaries, whose accepted principle is incoherence. Day after day communication undoes all relations and all principles, in an untenable juxtaposition that dissolves every relation that it sweeps along in its flow. And what is perhaps even more distressing is that mass communication presents the world to us as a spectacle devoid of memory, a spectacle in which new images and new remarks cover, erase and consign to oblivion the images and remarks that have just been shown and said. The logic which is specifically undone here is the logic of time.”

The world of news, opinions, and polls. The world of votes, conferences on anything and everything that can inform, debates, interviews, debates, interviews, and oh so many more debates, blogs, wikis of vast amounts of edited and unedited information, of Hollywood stardom, reality television, and commercial sales, music videos and YouTube for the kiddies and Reader’s Digest and National Geographic for the elders, Al Jazeera for some, Fox News for others, and Democracy Now! for the free. The world as it is everywhere, flowing freely across airways, and regurgitated from space, the world where it really is as it takes place, floating in space without logic, nor any trace of the past, nor time to think, and the speed of waves and frequiencies.

3. Fragmentation: via abstract economic and technological configurations, a multiplicity of forms of production, monetary distribution, a seemingly limitless diversification and the specialization of particular functions. No validity anywhere.

4. Calculation: a world full of probability theorists, statistics junkies, and risk management and insurance brokers, the probability of a terrorist attack (red-orange-yellow-green), what is the probability that my apartment will burn down? What is the probability that I will get in a car accident?

We must refuse to be objects of this calculative eruditism. Calculation is needed only in so far and ever because we are insecure, hence calculate and calculate, secure, secure, secure, so long as you are happy and free, the world will remain the same and we can die in peace.

---

[1] See Badiou’s “What is a Philosophical Institution? Or: Address, Transmission, Inscription” in The Praxis of Alain Badiou, Paul Ashton, A.J. Bartlett, and Justin Clemens, ed., Open Access publication.

[2] Badiou doesn’t explicity state this anywhere in his work, although he does take equality as an axiomatic condition necessary for any form of militant, emancipatory politics. It is, rather, a position taken by an early 19^th century exiled schoolmaster, Joseph Jacotot, whose verifaction of this principle in the concrete, experimental situation of the classroom, does away with reducing “intelligence” to the capacity or ability of cognitive faculties, the distinctions of social class, or any other predicate for that matter, one has - “has” here inherently implying possession - to think. See Jacques Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation, Kristin Ross, trans., Stanford UP, 1991. See also, if you read French, Sylvain Lazarus’ L’Anthropologie du nom, Seuil, 1996, the first statement of which is: “Les gens pensent.” (“People think.”)

On a lighter note: Science

I've been learning all kinds of amazing science facts lately from a British series called "Look Around You." Check it. This one's about water.

Rawls - Samuel Freeman

Relentless, eh? : (a little more Rawls)

Andrew and I were chatting tonight about critical thinking in our contemporary (American) political society. Can the bombardment of conditioning we constantly endure lead to a lack of critical thinking or at least impair this skill? (from early school, to media (especially television) or advertising, to journalism, to even the particular focus (or field) of training in the university itself)

Are we trained to be unable to distinguish propaganda from journalism or framing from fact?

I, personally, think that its a constant struggle to combat the constant bombardment of said conditioning and attempt to (and of often fail to) critique or transcend it. Often we cannot, as its hard to even detect.

Well this becomes more interesting to me while thinking about Rawls. Let me give you a passage from this fantastic Samuel Freeman book and then we can entertain the plausibility of Rawls' idealistic concept of the human agent, and the components needed to participate in his political game.

"The two moral powers of free and equal persons are, first, a capacity to be "reasonable," which is a moral capacity for justice - the power to understand, apply, and cooperate with others on terms of cooperation that are fair ; second is the capacity to be "rational," to have a rational conception of the good - the power to form, revise, and to rationally pursue a coherent conception of values, as based in a view of what gives life and its pursuits their meaning. The capacities to be reasonable and rational Rawls regards as the primary capacities... that form "the bases of equality," or the features of humans by virtue of which they warrant being treated as equals and respected as subjects justice.

By contrast with utilitarians, Rawls does not see the capacity for pleasure and pain, or the capacity for desire, as the primary feature of beings by virtue of which they deserve special moral consideration. Animals other than humans have the capacities for pleasure and pain, and this is morally significant in our treatment of them. Still, Rawls endorses the common-sense view that humans as a species deserve an exceptional kind of moral consideration, above and beyond that which we owe to other animals; for humans, unlike other species, have the moral powers to be reasonable and rational and other power necessary for practical reasoning. This is what primarily distinguishes humans as the primary subjects of justice."

To me, I read this and start thinking that perhaps attacks on the ability of people to utilize critical thinking (rational or reasonable abilities as Rawls defines them above) are attacks on equality, justice, and perhaps attempts to relegate certain humans into the 'social' position of animals. This provides us with a weighty lens to critique the social institutions that repress learning a scientific, or critical, (or however you would define it) approach to information.

Perhaps this then suggests that the social or political institutions that encourage irrationality (a dangerous term i know) are assaulting what makes us 'human' and 'equal,' and thus are assaults on the fundamental virtues of a democratic liberal society. (in my mind I often focus on religion as one of the primary culprits)

I guess Al Gore just wrote a book about this, but I feel like I'm beginning to really grasp the significance of this argument. "The assault on reason" really seems to undermine the extolled values of our political system subversively, and tricks us into the pragmatic condoning of a exploitative political apparatus, that marginalizes us individually and deceives about its actual nature.

So then - perhaps - this is a call to arms!

The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory --Marilyn Frye

Frye cites some fascinating evidence here which seems to demonstrate that the way in which we perceive the world can affect the way the world is apart from our perception. This isn't a metaphysical claim but a natural account of how we wield and respond to power on a subtle and often unconscious level. Sorry that the excerpt ended up so long, but I have to agree with Chomsky that concision is quite often a vice - especially when challenging the common sense: "the beauty of [concision] is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts"



------- Marilyn Frye's The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory. pages 67-9

How one sees another and how one expects the other to behave are in tight interdependence, and how one expects another to behave is a large factor in determining how the other does behave. Naomi Weisstein, in “Psychology Constructs the Female,” reviewed experiments which show dramatically that this is true.

For instance, in one experiment subjects were to assign numbers to pictures of men’s faces, with high numbers representing the subject’s judgment that the man in the picture was a successful person, and low numbers representing the subject’s judgment that the man in the picture was an unsuccessful person. One group of experimenters was told that the subjects tended to rate the faces high; another group of experimenters was told that the subjects tended to rate the faces low. Each group of experimenters was instructed to follow precisely the same procedure: they were required to read to subjects a set of instructions and to say nothing else. For the 375 subjects run, the results shows clearly that those subjects who performed the task with experimenters who expected high ratings gave high ratings, and those subjects who performed the task with experimenters who expected low ratings gave low ratings.

When experimenters think the rats they are working with were bred for high intelligence, the rats they are working with learn faster; when the experimenters think their rats were bred for low intelligence, the rats learn less well. And children believed by their teachers to have high IQs show dramatic increases in their IQs. Weisstein concludes: “The concreteness of the changed conditions produced by expectations is a fact, a reality…. In some extremely important ways people are what you expect them to be, or at least they behave as you expect them to behave.”

The experiments only boldly outline something we well know from experience. Women experience the coerciveness of this kind of “influence” when men perversely impose sexual meanings on our every movement. We know the palpable pressure of a man’s reduction of our objection to an occasion for our instruction. Women do not so often experience ourselves imposing expectations on situations and making them stick, but some of the most awesome stories of women’s successful resistance to male violence involve a woman’s expecting the male assailant into the position of a little boy in the power of his mother. The power of expectations is enormous; it should be engaged and responded to attentively and with care. The arrogant perceiver engages it with the same unconsciousness with which he engages his muscles when he writes his name.

--------------

This has many applications (via Hegel, Marx and Foucault if philosophy's your game) though maybe it’s not as important to go into them here. Something I'd like to suggest is that perhaps one of the greater benefits of this power might come from self-consciously employing it within: adopting a positive/enabling attitude towards oneself. Though this seems pretty common-sensical I think we're regularly encouraged to do the opposite. For instance, if we view our emotions as barbarous (Modernity) or our sensuality, pride & self-love as evil (Christianity) doesn't it seem that we might become more likely to meet those expectations? (I wonder if this might be the case, at least in part, for the pedophile priest, sworn to celibacy). Nietzsche notes: “Christianity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degenerated -- into a vice.”

From Bertrand Russell Essay - 'A Plea for Clear Thinking'

The first paragraph of the essay-

"Words have two functions: on the one hand to state facts, and on the other to evoke emotions. The latter is their older function, and is performed among animals by cries which antedate language. One of the most important elements in the transition from barbarism to civilization is the increasing use of words to indicate rather than to excite, but in politics little has been done in this direction. If I say the area of Hungary is so many square kilometers, I am making a purely informative statement, but when I say that the area of the U.S.S.R. is one sixth of the land surface of the globe, my statement is mainly emotional."

For additional paragraphs please consult the various Russell volumes floating around this friend group for the essay entitled: "A Plea for Clear Thinking."

Jean-Jacques avec Pere Diddy

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – On Representatives (The Social Contract, Book III, Chapter 15), my emphases

“Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; it consists essentially in the general will, and the will does not admit of being represented: either it is the same or it is different; there is no middle ground. The deputies of the people therefore are not and cannot be its representatives, they are merely its agents; they cannot conclude anything definitively. Any law which the People has not ratified in person is null; it is not a law. The English people thinks it is free; it is greatly mistaken, it is free only during the election of Members of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved, it is nothing. The use it makes of its freedom during the brief moments it has it fully warrants its losing it.”

native sons

i'm reading a book by gregory mann called native sons: west african veterans and france in the twentieth century which describes the recruitment of colonial soldiers to fight for france in europe (wwi and wii), africa (often against rebelling french colonial solders) or in this case, vietnam. this picture from the book shows soldiers of the french union (which was the constitutional name given to overseas france after wwii) praying together at the airport in hanoi before flying into saigon, taken july 5, 1952.

©ecpad/france/raymond varoqui
taken from page 159 of gregory mann's native sons

John Rawls- Justice as Fairness

Regardless of what one thinks of his method or philosophy, I think his goal and cynical idealism is admirable and inspiring.

In Part V we consider whether a well-ordered democratic society is possible, and if so, how its possibility is consistent with human nature and the requirements of workable political institutions. We try to show that the well-ordered society of justice as fairness is indeed possible according to our nature and those requirements.

This endeavor belongs to political philosophy as reconciliation; for seeing that the conditions of a social world at least allow for that possibility affects our view of the world itself and our attitude toward it. No longer need it seem hopelessly hostile, a world in which the will to dominate and oppressive cruelties, abetted by prejudice and folly, must inevitably prevail. None of this may ease our loss, situated as we may be in a corrupt society. But we may reflect that the world is not in itself inhospitable to political justice and its good. Our social world might have been different and there is hope for those at another time and place.

(Justice as Fairness, p. 38)

Months Later...Daniel Dennett

So here's the most intriguing quote from "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett, which I am currently slogging through. I apologize for the length, but I want to give some context.

Intentionality is the philosopher's technical term for this meaning: it is the "aboutness" that can relate one than to another--a name to its bearer, an alarm call to the danger that triggered it, a word to its referent, a thought to its object...Intentionality is widely regarded by philosophers as the mark of the mental. Where does intentionality come from? It comes from minds, of course.

But that idea, perfectly good in its own way, becomes a source of mystery and confusion when it is used as a metaphysical principle, rather than a fact of recent natural history. Aristotle called God the Unmoved Mover, the source of all motion in the universe, and Locke's version of Aristotelian doctrine, as we have seen, identifies this God as Mind, turning the Unmoved Mover into the Unmeant Meaner, the source of all Intentionality. Locke took himself to be proving deductively what the tradition already took to be obvious: original intentionality springs from the Mind of God; we are God's creatures, and derive our intentionality from Him.

Darwin turned this doctrine upside down: intentionality doesn't come from on high; it percolates up from below, from the initially mindless and pointless algorithmic processes that gradually acquire meaning and intelligence as they develop. And, perfectly following the pattern of all Darwinian thinking, we see that the first meaning is not full-fledged meaning; it certainly fails to manifest all the "essential" properties of real meaning (whatever you take those properties to be). It is mere quasi-meaning, or semi-semantics. It is what John Searle has disparaged as mere "as if intentionality" as opposed to what he calls "Original Intentionality." But you have to start somewhere, and the fact that the first step in the right direction is just barely discernible as a step towards meaning at all is just what we should expect.

This passage is fantastic to me. I really enjoy how he puts Darwinian thought into a very rough lineage of Western philosophy, giving it just enough background to really show how much has changed since this idea. And the fact that he clearly believes there is meaning and value in life warms my heart. Sure, ultimately there's no meaning in the universe, but meaning has been created, through a gradual and algorithmic process. Fantastic.

Discuss in the comments section! I'd love to respond!