Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes XX - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: /* "Freedom and Technology" (4) */

2019-12-14T03:13:48Z

"Freedom and Technology" (4)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 14 December 2019
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Point 4), certainly there is the freedom of women, children and the working-calss, but it is quite true that they are only freedoms. It is not a satisfactory answer. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		Point 4), certainly there is the freedom of women, children and the working-calss, but it is quite true that they are only freedoms. It is not a satisfactory answer. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== "Freedom and Technology" (4) ==		== "Freedom and Technology" (12) ==
	{{Page \|n°=14}} P. read Hegel (Phenomenology) and half of Lukacs and he could now easily write the Marx.		{{Page \|n°=14}} P. read Hegel (Phenomenology) and half of Lukacs and he could now easily write the Marx.

Santiago Pinault: /* Comments on my "Not by Organization Alone" Draft #2 */

2019-04-28T10:02:01Z

Comments on my "Not by Organization Alone" Draft #2

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:02, 28 April 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:

	== Comments on my "Not by Organization Alone" Draft #2 ==		== Comments on my "Not by Organization Alone" Draft #2 ==
	{{Page \|n°=2}} In part III, there valuable new formulations that shouldn't get lost and on some points the formulations are clearer and simpler.		{{Page \|n°=2}}<ref>See also [[Not by Organization Alone]]</ref> In part III, there valuable new formulations that shouldn't get lost and on some points the formulations are clearer and simpler.

	There are two questions involved, to show that Whyte and Dudintsev deal with the same problem… […] {{Page \|n°=3}} {{Page \|n°=4}} …		There are two questions involved, to show that Whyte and Dudintsev deal with the same problem… […] {{Page \|n°=3}} {{Page \|n°=4}} …

Santiago Pinault: /* 1984 - A discussion - Excerpt From “Fighting Words”, C.B.C. */

2019-04-04T17:45:30Z

1984 - A discussion - Excerpt From “Fighting Words”, C.B.C.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 4 April 2019
Line 112:		Line 112:
	Howe: Whether you can know about the future or not, I think Mr. Polanyi makes a very grave error here. I mean, Stalin's book and Hitler's book, those so to speak are the patients while Orwell tried to function as a doctor. Orwell tried to diagnose the malady and was violently opposed to the malady, to that I really don't see how you can put these two together, except insofar as they are absolutely in clash and contradiction to one another.		Howe: Whether you can know about the future or not, I think Mr. Polanyi makes a very grave error here. I mean, Stalin's book and Hitler's book, those so to speak are the patients while Orwell tried to function as a doctor. Orwell tried to diagnose the malady and was violently opposed to the malady, to that I really don't see how you can put these two together, except insofar as they are absolutely in clash and contradiction to one another.

	Polanyi: Well, I am really taking my stand on the ~~effect~~. And I should say that if today we considerably can say any shred of confidence in the world would be today a boon. Anything, rational basis of hope in the residual strength of human nature would be a hope. Now if anybody actually tried to argue that out of the world because he overdid his negative utopia, he simply overdid the case, it was his work which convinced millions of people that is really possible to do anything to human beings.		Polanyi: Well, I am really taking my stand on the effects. And I should say that if today we considerably can say any shred of confidence in the world would be today a boon. Anything, rational basis of hope in the residual strength of human nature would be a hope. Now if anybody actually tried to argue that out of the world because he overdid his negative utopia, he simply overdid the case, it was his work which convinced millions of people that is really possible to do anything to human beings.

	{{Page \|n°=21}} Howe: It's a very hard to argue effects of a book, but it's much easier to argue the meaning of a book, and the		{{Page \|n°=21}} Howe: It's a very hard to argue effects of a book, but it's much easier to argue the meaning of a book, and the

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2019-04-02T12:27:11Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 2 April 2019
Line 155:		Line 155:

	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Date''': February 15, 1958 (Interview)<br />		'''Date''': February 15, [[1958]] (Interview)<br />
	'''KPA''': [[45/16]]		'''KPA''': [[45/16]]

	== Editor's Notes ==		== Editor's Notes ==
	<references />		<references />

Santiago Pinault: /* "Freedom and Technology" (4) */

2019-04-02T12:26:36Z

"Freedom and Technology" (4)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 2 April 2019
Line 49:		Line 49:

	== "Freedom and Technology" (4) ==		== "Freedom and Technology" (4) ==
	P. read Hegel (Phenomenology) and half of Lukacs and he could now easily write the Marx.		{{Page \|n°=14}} P. read Hegel (Phenomenology) and half of Lukacs and he could now easily write the Marx.

	The real difficulty is then the Shaw. “Back to Methuselah” etc. proves that Shaw was the only thinker who starts from the reality of society and the individual who doesn't feel this limitation is funny.		The real difficulty is then the Shaw. “Back to Methuselah” etc. proves that Shaw was the only thinker who starts from the reality of society and the individual who doesn't feel this limitation is funny.

Santiago Pinault at 12:17, 2 April 2019

2019-04-02T12:17:26Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault: /* Appendix */

2018-11-24T01:34:51Z

Appendix

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 == Appendix ==
-=== 1984 - A discussion ===
+=== 1984 - A discussion - Excerpt From “Fighting Words”, C.B.C. ===
-Excerpt From “Fighting Words”, C.B.C. - TV. Feb 16, 1958.
+{{Page |n°=17}}
 PARTICIPANTS: HANNAH ARENDT<br />
 IRVING HOWE<br />
@@ Line 53: / Line 52: @@
 […]
 Polanyi: Well, I think it's a utopia, a negative utopia of terrific consequences and I should like to say that in my lifetime I would range three books together, that is <u>Mein Kampf</u>, Stalin's <u>History of the Communist Party of Russia</u> falsified history for a long time to come and Orwell's 1984.
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Howe: Why this conjunction, Dr. Polanyi?
-Polanyi: For the following reason. If today, we are fairly all agreed, well we are well on the way to a return to sanity, and all good wishes in this regard, well if there is one obstacle which is a literary obstacle, one which
+Polanyi: For the following reason. If today, we are fairly all agreed, well we are well on the way to a return to sanity, and all good wishes in this regard, well if there is one obstacle which is a literary obstacle, one which comes from a book, then I should say that the consequences of <u>1984</u> have not yet been fully realized.
-[[#mw-page-base|↑]]
+Arendt: I think there is no rational way to stalk about the future because the future is that thing which we all don't know. I think the real merit of <u>1984</u> is, hat it brought out in extreme form, certain tendencies, and not even tendencies but things which really existed already, put it into a fictional framework to think about that an talk of the future, to think that this is something which is going to happen in 1984. This I think is the one great… the one… disadvantage of the whole book. I would have wanted Orwell to write exactly the same thing but without 1984.
-=== Excerpt from "Fighting Words", C.B.C. - TV. February 16, 1958 ===
+Polanyi: Well I think that you shouldn't say this, because one of the strong points in your book which I have just reread is that a disastrous idea has been implanted by the totalitarians, and it is that everything is possible, meaning, there's no limit to the distortion of man. But the person who actually drove this thought home, was Orwell through <u>1984</u>.
-November 2, 1957
 [[#mw-page-base|↑]]

Santiago Pinault: /* 1984 - A discussion */

2018-11-24T00:31:17Z

1984 - A discussion

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 == Appendix ==
 === 1984 - A discussion ===
 [[#mw-page-base|↑]]

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2018-04-08T21:35:03Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 8 April 2018
Line 50:		Line 50:
	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Date''': February 15, 1958 (Interview)<br />		'''Date''': February 15, 1958 (Interview)<br />
	'''KPA''': 45/16		'''KPA''': [[45/16]]

	== Editor's Notes ==		== Editor's Notes ==
	<references />		<references />

Santiago Pinault: /* "Freedom and Technology" (4) */

2017-08-14T10:31:46Z

"Freedom and Technology" (4)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 14 August 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:

	== "Freedom and Technology" (4) ==		== "Freedom and Technology" (4) ==
	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		P. read Hegel (Phenomenology) and half of Lukacs and he could now easily write the Marx.

			The real difficulty is then the Shaw. “Back to Methuselah” etc. proves that Shaw was the only thinker who starts from the reality of society and the individual who doesn't feel this limitation is funny.

			On existentialism P. doesn't know where to put his foot. He read Camus (also a recent story in Partisan Review) and he is a tremendous writer. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Comments of Adam's Review of ''Trade and Market'' ==		== Comments of Adam's Review of ''Trade and Market'' ==