On Dec 1, 2:29 pm, r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rome is Burning! > Pay particular attention to the second paragraph. > > Narcissistic culture > > Main article: The Culture of Narcissism > Historian and social critic Christopher Lasch described this topic in > his book, "The Culture of Narcissism",[3] published in 1979. He > defines a narcissistic culture as one in which every activity and > relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols > of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet > covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only > exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and > religion lose their liberating power. > > In such a society of constant competition, there can be no allies, and > little transparency. The threats to acquisitions of social symbols are > so numerous, varied and frequently incomprehensible, that > defensiveness, as well as competitiveness, becomes a way of life. Any > real sense of community is undermined -- or even destroyed -- to be > replaced by virtual equivalents that strive, unsuccessfully, to > synthesize a sense of community. It can mean also many other things. > > Contrary to Lasch, Bernard Stiegler argues in his book, Aimer, > s’aimer, nous aimer: Du 11 septembre au 21 avril, that consumer > capitalism is in fact destructive of what he calls primordial > narcissism, without which it is not possible to extend love to others. > > -food for thought-
Off-topic post, defer. I'll take the summary to be true to Lasch's original. He states, "it is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society". But liberalism serves a consumer society to a large, large extent. He states, "...and religion lose their liberating power." But religion has no liberating power. The second sentence in the second paragraph presumably states, "The threats [in such a society]...". If so, it states, In a society of constant competition, competitiveness becomes a way of life; which is trivial. "The threats to acquisitions of social symbols are so numerous, varied and frequently incomprehensible, that defensiveness, as well as competitiveness, becomes a way of life." Is the following also true? That is, the same of goods in general? The threats to acquisitions of goods (presumably durable goods) are so numerous, varied and frequently incomprehensible, that defensiveness, as well as competitiveness, becomes a way of life. If not, then define social symbols as distinct from goods, specifically that the threats to their acquisitions are more numerous, varied, and incomprehensible; or conclude the original is false, or that defensiveness and competitiveness aren't bad. Not to mention, you have to contrive the definitions in order to have defensive( x ) and competitive( x ) both true. Reminds me of Foucault... in the bad way. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
