Proof that Neoliberal Midwits Have Conquered Cambridge
Arday wasn't an exceptionally bad DEI Hire. He represented the Norm for all Cambridge hires.
In Jacques Lacan’s theory, the academic discourse—more precisely called the Discourse of the University—is a structural social link where formal knowledge (S₂) takes the position of absolute authority to classify, manage, and regulate society.Introduced in Seminar XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (1969–1970), Lacan's framework of the Four Discourses maps out how language structures human relationships, power, and desire.Key Features of the University Discourse
- The Agent (S₂ - Knowledge): Unlike the Master's discourse where a commanding order drives action, the University discourse puts accumulated knowledge, expertise, and data in charge. It acts as a neutral, bureaucratic machine that organizes everything.
- The Other (a - The Object / Surplus Enjoyment): The knowledge is directed at the object-cause of desire (the remnant or excess), attempting to domesticate, measure, and absorb anything that resists standard categorization.
- The Truth (S₁ - The Master Signifier): Hiding beneath the polite, objective pretense of science and academia is a raw, unexamined master command (S₁). The system only functions because a hidden power or political rule backs it up.
- The Product (- S - The Divided Subject): The ultimate output of this massive categorizing machine is a standardized, split, or alienated human subject who feels reduced to a mere data point or object of study.
Broader Meaning Beyond the ClassroomLacan noted that this discourse is not restricted to literal universities or schools. For instance, he argued that state bureaucracies like the Soviet Union represented the pure reign of the university discourse because they tried to run society entirely through totalizing, expert-driven administrative knowledge. It describes any technocratic system that claims objective neutrality while masking its underlying exercise of power.
Selling the 'Mediocrity" Brand
29 comments:
💩💩💩💩
Yes, that is the value of a neoliberal education today.
The value of neocon and trumpian ideology for certain.
)))))
yo, shithead ;-p
//For instance, he argued that state bureaucracies like the Soviet Union represented the pure reign of the university discourse because they tried to run society entirely through totalizing, expert-driven administrative knowledge
Like know a shit.
Yaaaawn.
Soviet Union was run... on stupidity.
Through controllung NO excess of knowladge or any valuable information would trickle down.
Like even something so innocent as cartoons for children... was deemed as "dangerous ideoligical trespassing".
Yawn.
Another word -- it seems that all your western ideas of a kind "in Siviet Union @as so, so and so..."
is pure shit.
Or even WORSE -- carefully planted by KGB majors disinformation and propaganda.
Which are for you westerners is like European smallpox for Native Americans. ;-p
//Discourse of the University—is a structural social link where formal knowledge (S₂) takes the position of absolute authority to classify, manage, and regulate society.
Yawn.
There is no such thing.
In university(what is your experience of it? personal exp.)
They gave me the knowledge I needed to be considered "competent" and certified the transfer with a diploma and operating license.
But no inner clockwork?
Like you have about military...
How it look like from inside.
What is authotiry of teachers, professors, rectors? ;-)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy to the good than malice because it is a sociological and psychological condition rather than just an intellectual one.
Core Ideas on Stupidity
Worse than Evil: Bonhoeffer argued from a Nazi prison cell that people can protest or fight against explicit evil, and evil eventually destroys itself. In contrast, people are defenseless against stupidity because it rejects reason and facts.
Not a Lack of IQ: Bonhoeffer did not mean low intelligence. Instead, he meant a state where slogans and external social forces take possession of a person, turning them into a "mindless tool" who believes they are righteous.
Connected to Power: Strong surges of political or religious power infect people with stupidity because power demands the surrender of independent critical thinking.
Overcoming It: Arguments and facts cannot change a stupid person. Bonhoeffer believed stupidity can only end through an internal liberation of the person, which usually requires prior external liberation and a return to personal responsibility.
The full text of his famous essay "On Stupidity" from Letters and Papers from Prison
Position.... as the subject supposed to know. As the subject that can convey authority upon you.
What gives a psycho-analyst authority over his patient? The patient believes that the psycho-analyst knows, or can uncover and reveal his malady, and cure him of its' symptoms. Even if the psycho-analyst cannot. Even if his psycho-analyst is a fool.
The same reason we listen to a politician like Trump.
The whole purpose of the Enlightenment was to get people to start relying upon themselves, and not outside "experts" (like priests). To grant themselves, "authority".
Who said?
Yawn
Immanuel Kant? Sapere aude!
The Motto: Kant captured the spirit of self-reliance with the Latin phrase Sapere aude, meaning "Dare to know" or "Have the courage to use your own reason".
Self-Incurred Tutelage: Kant argued that people rely on external authorities—such as priests, physicians, and books—not because they lack intelligence, but because they lack the courage and resolve to think for themselves. It is easier to let others dictate rules, morals, and diets.
The Trap of Guardians: Secular and religious authorities act as "guardians" who maintain power by making independent thought look dangerous and difficult, effectively chaining people in perpetual immaturity.
The Role of Freedom: True self-reliance requires freedom—specifically, the freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Kant famously summarized the balance between civic obedience and intellectual freedom under ruler Frederick the Great with the rule: "Argue as much as you please, but obey!"
He... did not knew that there possible Waterfall of Information
And as such... his argument is... outdated.
Yawn.
PS More in chat ;-(
Mediocrity is your brand, not ours.
His argument covered all the bases (Critique of Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgement)
The "stupidity" was the kitsch ethics of midwits, not the total ineptitude of idiots and morons. In other words, as Lem teaches, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again
- Alexander Pope
Do you think it is *NOT* adopted and not part of a mess we know as Modern Knowladge?
I doubt that you know that speck of Economical Kniwladge
That price on a market (open, free, competitive one) -- ALREADY takes into account ALL information
And yours? Elitism?
One knows what they know. And truth is relative to ones perceptions.
The true middle way allows for the recognition of all possibilities.
It however does not say be quiet when injustice is present.
Ethical Position: Do no harm. Or, harm no sentient being.
Humankind has always fallen short. It appears the 21st century hss simply become more sophisticated in the pursuit of death and destruction.
The west stands at the summit of death and destruction. The American MIC and the Zionist IDF continue to feed the beast.
Expecting any nation to give up their sovereignty and become a puppet of the USA is unethical, impractical, and ends up right where we are today.A perspective shared by millions. And those folks are just as intelligent and well meaning as rightwing folks perceive and believe they are.
Conservatives, re-actionaries, liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, fascists, communists, anarchists... they will be around a very long while. So, either humankind learns to live together with respect for all or, eventually humankind will be the vehicle of its own destruction.
Now ya all have a good day...
You forgot about cannibals.
They also need your "respect for all". ;-p
Progressive cretins vs cannibals -- perfect pairing. :-)))
We're all Colonel Jessup in his world-view Q.
You mean if I protect you, you don't have to obey me (protego ergo obligo)? Even if my protection isn't 'perfect' or my system of justice is at times, unjust? Carl Schmitt
???
Like I care. Yawn.
lol! Are you saying that Dynamic Market Adjusted Pricing (based upon ALL information) is a good thing?
Especially when customer's ability and willingness to pay (Surveillance Pricing) has been a priori gleaned for specific customers based upon total knowledge of a customer's past buying history before setting an instantaneous price for a specific individual?
Traditional dynamic pricing based on broad market forces (like airlines changing ticket costs based on empty seats or Uber charging surge fares during a storm) remains entirely legal. What regulators are fighting is personalized surveillance pricing—using your browsing history, location, inferred income, or device type to charge you more than the person standing next to you.
Because there is no federal ban, individual states have begun taking drastic action:Maryland: Passed the Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, making it the first state to entirely ban grocery stores and food delivery apps from using personal data to dynamically alter food prices. Violators face fines of up to $10,000.
Online technofeudal pricing is NOT a "free" market.
Post a Comment