Dead and Mostly Dead

At the gym yesterday morning I saw on Fox News and CNN that Lindsey Graham had died. Good riddance. He was bloodthirsty monster and the Senate, not to mention the world generally, is a better place without him actively trying to get children murdered in it.  

However, what I couldn't help but notice was that in the 10 minutes or so of coverage that I watched there was nothing about Mitch McConnell. Now, since yesterday morning a hilarious proof-of-life photo showing McConnell with that day's newspaper positioned under hand while his wife seemed to be helping him stay upright has been released. So the speculation that he had died back on June 14th has been addressed. 

Still, it is insane to me that the media coverage of Lindsey Graham's death minimally danced around there being questions about Mitch McConnell. And that for all the talk of him taking calls and discussing Senate business with leadership and one MAGA troll from CNN none of their stories could be verified. They didn't release a video of him picking up a newspaper, reading, and turning to discuss the news with his wife or a staffer. Nope, a still photo of him with a prop newspaper positioned under his hand so it could be identified. For nearly a month the corporate media gave him a pass and did no reporting, except to note that there were questions. Useless.

CBS News 

 

Keep it Real Spooky

Beyond Folk Marxism: Mind, Metaphysics, and Spooky Materialism | Salva☭e

China Miéville’s prose is a specific kind of joy: dense, academic, fascinating, and incredibly enriching. But if you're not in the mood for it and -- like me -- need to be willing to do some look-ups while reading, I can see it being off-putting. No shame ... I found myself looking up tout court, au fond, au fait as I was reading -- not to mention the actual philosophical terms. (Could he have just used the word "simply" instead of tout court? Maybe. Probably? But some measure of richness and nuance would've been lost.)

So, if you aren't eager to read Miéville's prose to begin with, why read his essay and the responses to it at all? What are the stakes here? I'm not convinced they're as high as all involved seem to think, but I was intrigued enough to do the reading anyways.

The concluding paragraphs read:

[O]ne thing is undeniable. Once you’ve argued your way out of an ontologically materialist universe, of the many varieties of metaphysical idealism on offer, theism is probably not the most unlikely.

Of course, it also raises its own manifold problems, not least that of theodicy – evil. But of all Richard’s ‘alarming things’ perhaps the most so is that theism also, in fact, solves an awful lot of problems ...

are you going to figure if that's where all this is going, why bother? Because theism is a dead-end and no amount of poking at materialist, dualist, and idealist answers to questions about what consciousness even is are going lead us to appeal to the divine. Asserted undeniability of theism's greater than least unlikeliness notwithstanding.

My hot take: Miéville isn't trying to sneak spirituality or a "ghost in the machine" back into left-wing thought -- but I do think he's being a bit of a provocateur and deliberately inviting speculation that this feint towards theism is a precursor to a reactionary turn. What I haven't got a bead on is how that move advances his diagnosing of a profound theoretical failure that directly leads to deep political frustrations. 

I was looking for Miéville while dismantling the watery weak emergence metaphor as sufficient basis for understanding consciousness to theorize some kind Weird Emergence strong enough give Marxists an actionable understanding of consciousness. Not a project I'm capable of taking on. Just a blogger here who took some 100s and 200s level philosophy classes decades ago. Fluss and Frim have an informed, thoughtful response that advances the discussion in ways I'm not equipped to, so I recommend taking in both sides of the exchange of ideas as well as Breht and Alyson's discussion on Rev Left / Red Menace. (Finding the youtube link for this post and letting it start playing, I realize what I called "my hot take," may actually have been implanted by Alyson in her prefatory remarks when I first listened and decided to check out the essay. Ah well, everything's a remix anyways.)