Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=0041-475120120001&lang=es vol. 52 num. 1 lang. es <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za <![CDATA[<b>Voorwoord</b>: <b>besinning oor menslike geestelikheid</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100001&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es <![CDATA[<b>Arendt, Stiegler and the life of the mind</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Bernard Stiegler en die ondertekenaars van die Ars Industrialis-manifes verbind hulself tot die bevryding van die menslike gees van die logika van die kapitalisme. Die manifes maak dit duidelik dat die begrip "gees" aan die hand van Hannah Arendt se opvatting van die "lewe van die gees" ("life of the mind") verstaan moet word. Die doel van hierdie artikel is om die opvatting van "gees" wat Stiegler et al. aan Arendt toedig, te bevraagteken. Ek toon eerstens aan dat Stiegler nie erns maak met Arendt se onderskeid tussen gees ("mind") en siel ("psyche"/"soul") nie, waarna ek die drie aspekte van die lewe van die gees wat sy van mekaar onderskei, naamlik denke, wil en oordeel, op 'n sistematiese wyse ondersoek. Hierdie ondersoek lei dan tot die insig dat Arendt, anders as Stiegler, hierdie geestesvermoëns as vrye, self-refleksiewe aktiwiteite van die bewussyn verstaan, en nie as funksies van interne psigiese prosesse of van 'n eksterne ekonomiese- of politieke orde nie. Ek kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat, alhoewel Stiegler se sosiale kritiek ongetwyfeld van waarde is, sy argument in hierdie verband nie berus op 'n begrip van die lewe van die gees wat hy aan Arendt ontleen nie.<hr/>The founding manifesto of Ars Industrialis commits the members of the association to a new "industrial politics of the spirit". The manifesto makes it clear that "spirit" is meant to refer to Hannah Arendt's conception of "mind", and that Ars Industrialis is concerned with the worldwide threat to what Arendt calls "the life of the mind". This threat is formulated in terms of Bernard Stiegler 's philosophy of technology. According to Stiegler, the emergence of new technologies, particularly the digital media, has delivered the spirit over to the oppressive power of global capitalism. These technologies have come to direct and ultimately fabricate human desire, or "libidinal energy", towards consumer products, so as to maintain the capitalist system of production and consumption. Since individuals and groups singularise themselves in and through the working of their libidinal energy, the fabrication of desire by means of technology entails the fabrication of false singularities. The possibilities for individual and social existence are therefore reduced to a limited set of predeterminedpossibilities. However, while technology mediates our co-ordination within global consumer society, Stiegler also considers technology to be the means of our liberation from the capitalist logic of consumption. This liberation would entail the creative design of new techniques for the constitution ofobjects ofdesire that lie outside the demands of the market. In this way, our libidinal energy would be free to manifest itself in new experiences of singularity, and hence new forms of individual and social existence. These new forms of existence would entail a new politics of the spirit that is able to resist the oppressive forces of consumer society. In this article, I take issue with Stiegler 's assumption that such a new politics of the spirit would indeed be the realisation or at least an enhancement of what Arendt understands under "the life of the mind". My claim is that Stiegler 's conception of the life of the spirit - at least as it is presented in the Ars Industrialis manifesto - does not accord with Arendt's conception of the free activity of the mind, and that Stiegler 's vision of political, economic and spiritual liberation cannot be reconciled with either Arendt's view of mindor her conception of political action. I do not deny that there are points of overlap between these two thinkers, nor do I intend to prove Stiegler's entire project wrong. My aim is simply to demonstrate that one of the underlying assumptions of this project - that the new politics of the spirit would entail the liberation of the life of the mind in Arendt's sense - does not hold. To this end, I undertake a systematic inquiry into Arendt 's understanding of the life of the mind. I begin by analysing her distinction between mind and psyche, or soul, which reveals one of the fundamental differences between her work and that of Stiegler. I show that, while Stiegler equates mind with "libidinal energy", Arendt explicitly and consistently distinguishes the free activity of mind from our libidinal life, and criticises attempts to derive the former from the latter. Having set out the differences between Arendt and Stiegler on this point, I then turn to Arendt's treatment of the three mental activities that together constitute the life of the mind, namely thinking, willing and judging. I show that she conceives of each of these as a self-reflexive mental activity that is neither a function of our libidinal life nor of an external political or economic order. In light of this analysis, I argue that Stiegler 's views are clearly opposed to those of Arendt in a number of ways. First, to the extent that Stiegler equates "mind" with the "libidinal energy", he denies Arendt's distinction between mind and psyche. Second, to the extent that he advocates the liberation of the mind from the domination of market forces, he understands the freedom of the mind (or its absence) as a function of economic forces. Finally, he assumes a direct relationship between the activity of mind/ spirit and political action. That is to say, he assumes that the liberation of the mind - understood as libido - would lead to new forms of individual and social existence. Against this, Arendt insists on the distinction between the free activity of the mind and the political freedom that only comes into being in and through collective action. Stated more strongly: she considers political action as free precisely in so far as it is not the necessary outcome of mental operations. I therefore conclude that, while Stiegler's analysis of technology, his critique of the logic of consumption and his call for renewed care for the world should not be discarded out of hand, the conception of the life of the mind that underlies these arguments does not derive from Arendt. <![CDATA[<b>Is science possible in the absence of spirit?</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100003&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es 'n Beskuldiging dat die wetenskap geesloos is, vra opheldering. Dit lei na Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) en sy siening van Cartesianisme (dualisme) wat volgens hom op 'n kategoriefout berus. Dit beteken gees is nie nog 'n ding nie. Op grond van ons alledaagse gebruik van uitings oor geesmodaliteite (waarneem, ken, dink, ens) vind hy dat hulle sinmaking van persone-in-situasie behels, dus op openbare optrede slaan. Dit beteken die beskuldiging geld op een vlak nie - wetenskap is en bly menslike betrokkenheid. Mensdegraderende beskouings oor wetenskapsbeoefening ondersteun deur epistemologiese aanvaardings lei tot 'n wetenskap- en 'n realiteitsiening wat die singewende mens op die agtergrond stoot. Die beskuldiging is geldig waar wetenskap binne so 'n raamwerk beoefen word - en dit kom wyd voor. Hierdie sieninge trek wetenskapsbeoefening skeef en daarom is 'n heroriëntasie nodig ten opsigte van wetenskapsbeeld (veral die beeld van die geestes-wetenskappe), morele verantwoordelikheid van wetenskaplikes en die plek van en deelname aan 'n nimmereindigende, oop diskussie tussen alle vlakke van belanghebbende partye.<hr/>This article is a response to Fanie de Beer 's lament on the absence of spirit (soul) in scientific endeavours which raises questions about meaning and validity. To get clarity on these matters re-visiting the ideas of the Oxfod philosopher, Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976), was deemed necessary. In his main publication, Ryle addresses the problem of the mind (soul/spirit). Mind-talk is part of ordinary discourse and Ryle is interested in the structuring of our thoughts on matters where mind is supposed to play a role. Although Ryle is not a philosopher of science, his ideas impact on science as a way of thinking about the world. He was influenced by Kant 's epistemological views and phenomenology - the idea of a constituted (meaningful) reality. Ryle argues that argumentation, particularly arguments where the reductio ad absurdum may be applied, is the lifeblood of philosophising. Argumentation introduces language with the focus on the use of expressions. Concepts are abstracted from descriptions. Descriptions have logical powers; they have implications, allow certain combinations and not others, allow certain deductions, and so forth. To clarify the mind he looks at the functioning of mental descriptions. Ryle starts from Cartesianism which is unacceptable but well-argued and more or less the "official" view. Here the argument favours the existence of two kinds of reality, namely material and mental. The essential property of the material is extension (spatiality) whereas thinking is associated with the mental. A person is a combination of body and mind. In terms of human behaviour the interaction between the two, which is problematic because of the radical difference between them, has to be explained. The Cartesian solution is that they do interact but only in a tiny gland in the brain, the pineal gland - a flat contradiction. Ryle argues that this contradiction shows that dualism is wrong in principle; it is a category mistake. He explains the nature of a category mistake and why it applies to dualism. He finds that we ordinarily report on and describe the mental lives of others (pains, memories, emotions, etc.) without any problems; we do not need sophisticated tests, special abilities, or experts. We cash in on ordinary usage of expressions. This implies that private experiences, feelings and emotions cannot be part of the meaning of such concepts - mental descriptions describe people acting and reacting in certain situations. Mind-talk is person-talk, the sense we make of a person behaving in certain ways under certain circumstances - that is, the way in which we constitute a whole: person-behaviour-context. If De Beer expects traces of a Cartesian mind/soul/spirit in science, his search is in vain and contributes nothing to science practice. However, the concept "science" implies human endeavour and as such presupposes human involvement. However, scientists and others have preconceived ideas about the nature of science, reality and their interaction and most of these play down human involvement. Such self-understanding needs reorientation and four important areas are discussed briefly: Firstly, an honest critical look at this selfunderstanding by asking the question, What is science about? This will include how reality, knowledge and truth are constituted. The ideal is a selfunderstanding based on reflection instead of tradition. Secondly, a reorientation with reference to morality is necessary. Scientists plead moral immunity on the basis of their factual approach. But science is morally involved all the time. It starts from moral considerations such as the need for insight and knowledge, or to serve the community. Scientific progress and technological advancements change reality and thus the borders of morality; in many cases new moral problems are created. Scientists have to accept moral responsibility for decisions and findings, and be morally alert and participate in moral debates particularly about problems raised by the impact of science on society. Thirdly, the view of science as something on its own, apart from ordinary life and culture is not acceptable. Discussion used to be a part of scientific life, but the discursive context of science practice has almost disappeared. Reorientation seems necessary for science to be integrated with ordinary life and culture, and to benefit from interdisciplinarity and cross-pollination. Open and open-ended discussion will improve understanding, transfer information, open up new possibilities and change the self-understanding of people. Finally, a reorientation with reference to the humanities is necessary. They are needed and they are in crisis but to approach them as on a par with the natural sciences and to apply formulae derived from successes there will not in any way improve the situation. In order for this to happen, they have to be approached with an open mind and the pragmatic and instrumental business atmosphere in academia has to change so that the particular nature of the humanities and their kind of contribution can be appreciated, tolerated and taken care of. <![CDATA[<b>Technology as critical social theory</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100004&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es In hierdie artikel word die belang van tegniek vir 'n aanvaarbare perspektief op die menslike agentskap (en dus ook op die gees van die mens) op 'n beskrywende en kritiese manier aangebied. Die polemiese gebruik van die term "tegnologie" dien as afgrensing teen drie wydverspreide wanopvattings aangaande tegniek: (1) teen die ideologiesgedrewe benaderings tot menslike tegnisiteit, naamlik tegno-pessimisme en tegno-optimisme, (2) teen die foutiewe oortuiging dat behoorlike aandag aan menslike tegnisiteit noodwendig lei tot 'n instrumentale degradering van die mens en (3) teen die oordrewe isolering van menslike tegnisiteit ten opsigte van ander aspekte van menswees, soos die simboliese, sosiale of biologiese aspekte. Dienooreenkomstig word: (1) 'n genuanseerde beeld van menslike tegnisiteit aangebied, (2) aangetoon hoe tegnisiteit wesenlik deel van menslike bestaan is en (3) die verweefdheid van menslike tegnisiteit met ander antropologiese aspekte ondersoek. Uiteindelik word die kritiese potensiaal van 'n nie-teleologiese begrip van die tegnisiteit van menslike aksie gekartografeer ten einde die relevansie van "tegnologie" vir die geesteswetenskappe te demonstreer.<hr/>In this article the significance of technics for an acceptable perspective on human agency is presented in a descriptive and critical manner. The principal descriptive strategy adopted in this study is to approach technicity as an aspect of human agency, rather than to explore technical action in the framework of an action typology. Correspondingly, "technology" is presented as the study of the technicity of human action. In the centre of such a study is an exploration of technicity as major characteristic of the human body, the coinciding use of means and/or the pursuit of different forms of excellence. This polemical use of the term "technology" serves the purpose of opposing three recurrent misconceptions regarding technics: (1) the ideologically driven approaches to human technicity, namely techno-optimism and techno-pessimism, (2) the erroneous conviction that thorough attention to human technicity necessarily implies the instrumental degradation of the human being, and (3) the excessive isolation of human technicity with respect to other aspects of being human. The constructive response to these three critical points, are as follows: first, a nuanced image ofhuman technicity is provided. Bodily technics (techniques du corps) are the growing and evolving series of capabilities that are gradually sedimented in the body of a developing human being. These capacities are acquired under cultural specific regimes of encouragement and sanction. They are also steady dispositions to act in certain ways, when confronted with certain kinds of context, without, however, being determined by these contexts. Furthermore, the bodily technics is the manner in which an agent is acquainted with the world, in the sense of having a non consciousness centred, practical know-how of the world. Second, the particular human character of technicity is studied in three ways. (i) It is demonstrated that there is no disposition to rule following behaviour in human beings that does not stand under the influence of judgement, adaptation to a context and the exercise of capabilities under the restrictions of inabilities. (ii) Subsequently the hermeneutic spiral involved in the technicity of all action is explained. A three-fold meaning is uncovered in the interpretation, which is part of the technicity of action: the technical meaning (in a narrow sense), the meaning of usage and the symbolic meaning. (iii) Finally, the mutual implication of technicity and creativity is explored. It is argued that the technicity of action is to be understood as a non-teleological capacity, before the subsequent teleological capability (usually associated with the instrumental reason in action typologies) is taken into consideration. Drawing from the work of Hans Joas, it is demonstrated that without this teleological capability, the human being would be simply determined in a behaviouristic manner by the forces of the environment, in other words, the teleological capacity (as development of our primordial technicity) creates room for creativity. Furthermore, the capacity for creative intervention in the world presupposes the non-teleological capacity of primordial technicity. Third, the interwovenness of human technicity with other anthropological aspects is examined. Five aspects of human existence are dialectically implicated with human technicity: the biological constitution, the constructed technical system, the acquisition of know-how through socialisation, associative action and the symbolic and linguistic order. The critical potential of a non-teleological notion of the technicity of human action is mapped in the last section in order to demonstrate the relevance of "technology"for the humanities and for the social sciences in particular. Stated negatively, the critical thrust of technology is aimed against the technicist reduction (ie the reduction of human technicity to a specific type of action, which is warped by the teleological prejudices against the nature of human technicity) and against the anti-technical marginalisation of human technicity (ie the attempt to expel technicity from being human or to limit it to certain kinds of action). These two tendencies of misrepresentations of human technical agency usually lead to techno-optimism and techno-pessimism, respectively. Stated positively, technology as critical discourse on human technicity is guided by the desire to gain insight into the full potential for the development of human agency, since this is a condition for the possibility of ethical as well as moral and political excellence. In this sense, technology (in the sense used here) has a critical social scientific ambition. An overview of possible pathologies of techno-pessimism and techno-optimism is plotted in tabular form against the five dialectical relations between human technicity and other aspects of human existence (as referred to above). The underlying structure of the table presents these two categories of practical techno-pathologies in an Aristotelian way as the excesses and deficiencies associated with warped perspectives on human technicity. Furthermore, as in Aristotle 's practical philosophy, the two vices give an indication of the midway between them that is to be pursued in all practical contexts as the way of excellence. This midway ideally recognises the true spirit or humaneness of human technicity, by according to it, its rightful place. One of the characteristics of excellence in human action is the capability to do justice to this spirit of human technicity in the divergent contexts of practice and under different regimes of justification. Here, "doing justice " refers only secondarily to what is done after action, retrospectively by social scientists; primarily it refers to excellence in human practice. <![CDATA[<b><i>"Critique Engagée" -</i></b><b> Literary Criticism that can change the world?</b>: <b>Literary Criticism after Theory</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100005&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Postmodernistiese literatuur en -kritiek het oor die afgelope paar dekades afgereken met die idee van 'n wit, westerse, manlike, monokultuur. Die idees van Derrida en Foucault het deurgesyfer tot op elke vlak van die literatuurkritiek en -studie met 'n gevolglike agterdog jeens algemeengeldende waarheidsaansprake en waardeoordele. Die humanistiese beskouing dat daar universele kwaliteite geld waarvolgens goeie kunswerke die goeie, ware en skone sou bevat, is ondermyn. Elke diskoers is 'n histories-ontstaande verhaal tussen ander verhale - met elk hulle eie kenmerke en wetmatighede en ook hulle eie praktiese magseffekte. In hierdie omstandighede het die taak van literatuurkritiek geword om daarop te wys hoedat alle tekste eintlik verhale is: hoedat terme na mekaar verwys en hulle betekenis verkry van hulle plek in die gestruktureerde geheel. Kritici is dus besig om te "dekonstrueer" ten einde aan te dui hoedat die bepaalde konstruksie uitsluitend is (en dus mag uitoefen). Die dekonstruksie van vooronderstellings en sekerhede versand uiteindelik tot 'n siniese relativisme, 'n ironiese lewenshouding waarin niks meer "werklik" is nie en waarin alles aanvaarbaar is: "anything goes". Die skrywer en kritikus wat hierdie idees onderskryf, raak wel ontslae van 'n uitgediende kultuurideaal, maar is dan self ook irrelevant. In hierdie omstandighede ontstaan die noodsaak vir "betrokke kritiek" - 'n soort kritiek wat (n.a.v. die idee van "betrokke literatuur") 'n aanspraak op die leser maak om volle verantwoordelikheid vir sy/haar eie menswees in die wêreld te aanvaar, 'n evaluerende kritiek wat nie terugkeer na uitgediende humanistiese opvattings nie maar wat wel waarde heg aan letterkunde wat ons belangrikste vrae en diepste emosies onderling deelbaar maak.<hr/>Over the last few decades postmodernist literature and criticism have rejected the idea of a white, western, male monoculture. Elements of Derridean and Foucauldian thought have penetrated to every level of literary criticism, resulting in a characteristic incredulity towards universal truth claims and evaluative judgement. The humanist concepts of universal timeless qualities of the good, the truth and the beautiful inherent in good literature have been undermined. Every discourse is a historically situated narrative amongst other narratives - each with its own characteristics and effects. In these circumstances the task of literary criticism was often reduced to merely showing how each text is merely a narrative and that each word gets its meaning as a result of its place in the structure. Critics are "deconstructing" in order to show how a specific discourse excludes (and thus wields power). The deconstruction of presuppositions and certainties eventually leads to a cynical relativism, an ironic way of living where nothing is real and where "anything goes". The author and critic underwriting these ideas indeed rid us from an obsolete cultural ideal but in the process render themselves irrelevant. In these circumstances, it is argued that there is a need for "engaged criticism": a kind of criticism (deduced from the idea of "littérature engagée") that appeals to the reader to take full responsibility for his/her own being in the world, an evaluative criticism that does not return to superseded humanistic beliefs but that values literature that enables us to share our most important questions and our deepest emotions. <![CDATA[<b>The absent mind in legal science</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100006&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Die reg se omgang met die menslike gees is 'n ongemaklike een. Die artikel toon aan hoedat die omvattende invloed van dualisme en positivisme op die regswetenskap 'n verarmde en reduksionistiese geestesbegrip, oftewel 'n toestand van totale geestesafwesigheid, tot gevolg het. 'n Bespreking van enkele postapartheid-regsbenaderings dui op maniere waarop die reg anders bedink kan word en hoe daar op 'n ander wyse met die reg omgegaan kan word. Deur onder andere benaderings wat "slowness" tot die reg en regsinterpretasie omarm, wat die grondwet as gedenkwaardigheid eerder as monument bedink en wat die oorheersende aard van die reg weier, kan daar 'n gaping vir die afwesige gees geskep word. In navolging van Adriana Cavarero se lees van Penelope, kan 'n stadige ritme van weef en ontrafel die komplekse verhouding tussen die reg en die ideaal, die reg en die gees op die voorgrond bring.<hr/>The law 's reflection of the human mind is an uneasy and conflicting one. By tracing the influence of dualism and positivism on constructions relating to the mind in certain areas of the law, such as criminal law and private law, the article illustrates how, over time, these influences have contributed to a reductionist and impoverished conception of the human mind, culminating in a total absence of the mind in legal thinking generally. The fiction of the individual as an autonomous and rational agent that has dominated legal thinking since the time of the Enlightenment is in conflict with recent cognitive research that emphasises the notion of an embodied mind. However, as the article reveals, this approach, supported by lawyers and cognitive neuroscientists of the Project on the Law and the Mind Sciences of Harvard University, is in factyet another reductionist and dualist one which perceives the brain and the mind as one. The article next turns to a discussion of selected postapartheid legal approaches that point to other ways of thinking and doing law. By relying on approaches that favour "slowness" in respect of legal thinking and interpretation - which perceive the Constitution as memorial instead of monument and which refuse the dominating nature of law - space for the absent and negated mind may open up. Following Adriana Cavarero 's reading of Penelope, the slow rhythm of weaving and unweaving may bring the complex relationship between the law and the ideal, and the law and the mind, to the fore. The type of law and legal approach that may result from this "slowness" and "refusal", as one of the authors argues, is a law of reflection; a law that refuses thoughtless (instrumental) accounts. In the final instance, the article suggests that the mind 's place in the law is not the context of the abstract or ideal, or the material and empirical, but an in-between, liminal space. <![CDATA[<b>Fundamental mass communication research as a precondition for substantiated media criticism</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100007&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Die kernargument in hierdie artikel is dat 'n "nuwe" samelewing en 'n "nuwe" gedigitaliseerde medialandskap tot 'n verlies aan diepgang en intellektuele kwaliteit in die media gelei het. Massakommunikasienavorsing, wat met 'n fokus op die effek, invloed, mag en tegnologie van die media self al hoe meer markgerig geword het, kon nog nie daarin slaag om 'n bydrae tot 'n verbetering in die kwaliteit van die media te lewer nie. Die rede is dat die fokus op die mark ten koste van fundamentele navorsing oor die media as kommunikasie geskied. Slegs deur weer te konsentreer op daardie fundamentele kommunikasiekonstrukte wat in die media werksaam is en wat die media as kommunikasie definieer, sal massakommunikasienavorsing weer 'n bydrae tot die verbetering van mediakwaliteit kan lewer. Die bydrae sou daarin kon setel dat dit mediamakers opnuut bewus maak en bewus hou van die verantwoordelikheid van dit waarmee hulle besig is, naamlik betekenisskepping en betekenisgewing oor die mens en die werklikheid en dat dit op 'n representatiewe, retoriese en dialogiese wyse gedoen word. Teen die agtergrond van hierdie argument word daar in die artikel aandag gegee aan (i) die krisis in die media (as kommunikasie), in die besonder die krisis van die joernalistiek (as die vlagskipgenre van die media), en (ii) die strekking van dekades se mediateoretiese, sosiologiese, politiek-wetenskaplike en kultuurstudiekritiek teen die media. In dié verband word die essensie van Pierre Bourdieu se uitwysing van die strukturele beperkings van die joernalistiek, Kenneth Minogue se uitwysing van die korrupterende instrumente van die joernalistiek en die joernalistiek as ideologie, en Frans Aerts se siening oor die banaliteit van die media, uitgelig. Ten einde die klem terug te plaas op die media as kommunikasie, en as basis vir 'n terugkeer tot meer fundamentele massakommunikasienavorsing, word vier kommunikasiekonstrukte ingelei: betekenisgewing, representasie, retoriek en dialoog.<hr/>The main argument in this article is that the "new" postmodern society and "new" digitised media landscape have contributed to a loss of intellectual depth in the media. Because mass communication research focuses mainly on the impact, effects, functions and power of the media, and in the process has itself become mainly market orientated, there is a lack of fundamental mass communication research focusing on the nature of mass communication as communication As a result mass communication research does not contribute to improving the quality of the media in postmodern society and the new media landscape. To substantiate this argument the following are dealt with in consecutive parts of the article: It is argued that the new digitised media landscape and the "new" hybrid and fragmented postmodern society have contributed to what can often be described as mainly trivial and insignificant media content. This, and especially journalism, is criticised mainly from the perspectives of critical media theory, sociology, political science and cultural studies. The essence of this criticism ranges from criticism against the political economy of the media and the impact thereof on content and form to critique against the superficial, sensationalist, gossip-mongering nature of journalism. This kind of criticism is also related to the criticism of the political-cultural movement Ars Industrialis, in which the focus is on the industrialisation and commercialisation of human experience. It is argued that the media, in providing mainly commercialised representations of reality and human existence, contribute to this condition. After a discussion of the so-called crisis of journalism with reference to inter alia the dubious relationship between journalism and democracy, journalism 's decline of authenticity, the problem of identity, and the problem of objectivity, these matters are further substantiated with a specific consideration of the sociological critique of Pierre Bourdieu, the political critique of Kenneth Minogue and Frans Aerts' cultural criticism. The emphasis is on Bourdieu 's identification of the structural limitations of journalism and the journalistic profession, Minogue 's focus on the corrupting devices and Aerts' views about the banality of journalism. They are in agreement on the lack of intellectual depth as the main reason for the failure of journalism and the media. Having outlined the main criticism against the media, and particularly journalism as the flagship genre of the media, it is concluded that despite the value of the criticism, the criticism itself is often too media deterministic and for that reason often unsubstantiated. It fails to address the fundamental nature of the media as communication. The article concludes with an argument and an indication of how a focus on the basic constructs of the media as communication can contribute to substantiated criticism. The constructs are signification (how the media, through deliberate choices and processes of selection, signify meaning), representation (mediated interpretations of the world and human behaviour), rhetoric (the repetitive treatment of questions related inter alia to identity) and dialogue (through, inter alia, interactivity and intertextuality). Each of these constructs are briefly introduced and it is argued that focusing on them from a multimodal perspective can provide a more grounded description of the media and the nature of media communication in a media sphere. <![CDATA[<b>Can complexity save souls? A theological plea for simplicity</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100008&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Onlangse uitlatings deur sekere kultuurkritici wys op 'n vermeende krisis van die "gees" of "siel" in die hedendaagse samelewing. 'n Gemene deler in hierdie veelkantige kultuurkritiek is dat die mensdom oënskynlik van 'n ryk spirituele erfenis afskeid neem. Dié erfenis word dikwels as 'n pre-kritiese kontraspunt vir die huidige geestesfilosofie ("philosophy of mind") en neuro-wetenskappe gebruik. Dit berus egter op 'n karikatuur, met die gevolg dat die ware kontraspunt moeilik aantoonbaar is. 'n Helder generiese definisie van die siel of gees as bewussyn, intensionaliteit en vryheid kan help om die werklike twispunt tussen tradisionele en fisikalistiese beskouings na vore te bring. Dit blyk dat dit oor vryheid is dat die weë skei. In pogings om in weerstand teen reduksionistiese tendense "die siel te red" word soms van insigte uit die kompleksiteitsdenke gebruik gemaak. Hierdie strategie het tekortkomings met betrekking tot die eksistensiële, eerder as verklarende, vraagstelling oor vryheid, en lewer 'n verarmde weergawe van die belang van vryheid op. ' n Ryker, meer verdedigbare aanpak sou wees om uit die Joods-Christelik-Islamitiese (oftewel Abrahamitiese) tradisie die ideaal van 'n persoonlike God-mens-verhouding, waarin libertariese vryheid veronderstel word, te ontwikkel, en om aan te toon dat die tradisionele leer van Gods eenvoud hierin van groter belang as kompleksiteit is, omdat dit ten diepste Gods radikale vryheid, waarop menslike vryheid berus, vooropstel.<hr/>Recent statements and reflections by public intellectuals like the French based "international association" Ars Industrialis and the American author Marilynne Robinson, point to what they see as a crisis of the "spirit" or "soul" in contemporary society. (For present purposes "spirit" and "soul" are use dinterchangeably.) While the cultural malaise suggested by these thinkers is multifaceted, one common thread is a sense that humankind seems to be taking leave of a rich spiritual heritage. The heritage in question (represented in classic writings like Blaise Pascal's Pensées) functions in much present-day discourse (for instance Gilbert Ryle 's influential The Concept of Mind) as a foil for contrasting pre-modern, presumably pre-critical understandings of spirit to a current neuroscience and philosophy of mind in which various forms of so-called physicalism predominate. However, this contrast is largely based on caricatures of pre-modern thought, as can be shown by an analysis of Pascal 's classic reflections on the soul, which are comparable to those of Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus and other formative Christian thinkers, but in conflict with some Cartesian speculations often wrongly characterised as pre-modern survivals. As a result, the supposed modern-pre-modern contrast is handicapped by a lack of clarity on where the significant points of difference actually emerge. A clear generic concept of "soul" or "spirit" can serve as a means of clarifying the precise point at which dominant contemporary forms of physicalism take leave of traditional beliefs concerning the spirit. A helpful definition would point to consciousness, intentionality and freedom as constituting what is traditionally called soul or spirit. It turns out that the notions of consciousness and intentionality are not seriously under threat, despite what many mistakenly regard as a potential result of physicalist theories like those put forward in Daniel Dennet 's controversial Consciousness Explained. The reason is that any denial of consciousness and intentionality would by its very nature be self-referentially incoherent. The real bone of contention, then, is freedom, the denial of which may, according to some, have far-reaching anthropological consequences. In the resultant quest to "save the soul", theorists like Philip Clayton and Timothy O'Connor draw on insights from complexity thinking, especially theories of emergence, in making a case for a robust concept of freedom understood in either asymptotic or libertarian terms. While such accounts may help strengthen humanist resistance against physicalist reductionism, their value in defending some form of real, meaningful freedom should, for a number of reasons, not be overestimated. The relevance of the humanist quest for a convincing account of freedom has its origin in existential rather than explanatory considerations, so that seeking empirical support for the reality of a kind offreedom suited to particular existential demands runs the risk of ending in category mistakes, thereby actually undermining what it is supposed to strengthen. Moreover, in attempting to escape empiricist criticism, such theories end up giving centre stage to a very limited existential relevance of the freedom defended, mainly with reference to some notion of responsibility and its moral importance. Of more vital importance is a view of life in which the assumption of a particular type of freedom is taken up into a wider account of what makes life meaningful. One such account in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (or "Abrahamic") tradition that requires the assumption of human freedom centres on a matrix of personal relations between God and humans and between humans. It can be argued that, within this language game offaith, the classical doctrine of divine simplicity is more helpful for "saving souls" than are theories of complexity, however valuable and illuminating they may be. The reason is that the simplicitas Dei, as classically understood, is intended above all to secure the radical freedom of God as the basis for human freedom. <![CDATA[<b>The humanities in a soulless institutional environment?</b> <b>Thoughts on the contemporary university and the neglect of its educational function</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100009&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Aan die hedendaagse universiteite het beroepsopleiding toenemend die norm geword. Dit, tesame met die eis om "demokratisering" en "maatskaplike" gelykheid, het die klassieke ideaal van 'n omvattende humanistiese vorming van studente na die agtergrond geskuif. Veral die geesteswetenskappe (in die sin van die humaniora) word nadelig hierdeur beïnvloed. Hierdie tendens moet gestuit word. Dit kan myns insiens slegs gebeur indien universiteite waarlik onbevoogde (outonome) instellings bly. Dit beteken dat universiteite, indien hulle hoegenaamd nog met enige geloofwaardigheid wil aanspraak maak op die titel "universiteit", genoegsame ruimtes moet verskaf vir vrye intellektualiteit - ruimtes waar studente hulleself vryelik aan die dissipline van geleerdheid onderwerp, om geen ander rede nie as die liefde vir 'n (bepaalde) vakgebied wat hulle vir hulle vorming nodig ag. Sulke ruimtes moet eilande van akademiese vryheid wees - gevrywaar van allerlei illusies, onrealistiese verwagtinge en bemoeienisse van drukgroepe, en wars van ideologiese en tegnologiese pretensies. Dosente en studente sou daar byeenkom uitsluitlik om te studeer, om te lees en te skryf, om na mekaar te luister en diskussies te voer in die gees van die ensiklopedie, die algemene vorming. Sodanige ruimtes sal egter slegs in hulle doel slaag vir sover daar streng toelatingsvereistes gestel word.<hr/>Over the past few decades vocational training has increasingly become the norm within our universities. This, together with the demand for democratisation and "social" equality, resulted in the eclipse of the classical ideal of a comprehensive humanist education (Lat. studia humanitatis, German Bildung). This had a particularly detrimental (if not devastating) effect on the teaching of the humanities. Traditionally it was accepted that a thorough schooling in the humanities was only meant for the few. Not everybody was deemed equal to the task - not on grounds of principle, but rather because of circumstance. Factors such as talent, interestedness, intellectual and cultural background, as well as the level of aspiration and commitment together play a decisive role in preparing a person for such a schooling. However, the idea of such an education as the exclusive preserve of the few is now widely rejected as outmoded, too elitist and hence totally unacceptable. Education should be accessible to all "because we are all equal". And if the latter seems not to be the case, everybody can and should be made equal by means of "progressive" and "transformative" education. This is called the "democratisation of the university", but in reality it means a popularisation and even a form of demagoguery by means of which far too high and unrealistic expectations are aroused among our young people. At the root of this levelling process in education, and of the egalitarian dogma in general, lies the fallacy of the zero sum. It rests on the assumption that if something or someone fails, it is the result of another that has succeeded. The other 's success was the cause of my failure. All gains are paid for by the losers. This fallacy plays an important role in supporting many a social reform programme or transformation initiative and the false hopes it arouses. The makers of current higher education policy (also those in university positions) increasingly appeal to didactic principles and practices in order to make young people fit for and amenable to study at a university. Thus they give expression to one of the most persistent superstitions of our time, i.e. the belief that there is a technical solution for each and every conceivable problem. More than ever before people believe that by applying the appropriate didactical techniques, somehow everyone can be successfully schooled. This goes hand in hand with unprecedented forms of coercion and manipulation that are completely at odds with a truly humanist education. Moreover, a humanist education in the traditional sense is regarded as useless and obsolete. Under the influence of the ideology of economic profit-seeking and technical efficiency the emphasis is on knowledge that has practical utility value, and this signifies a shift towards training at the expense of a humanist education - training which is geared towards the mastering of skills that are necessary for one 's job or profession. For this very reason there is a continuous search for new and more efficient teaching methods. In contrast to this, a humanist education requires a kind of initiation which cannot be accomplished merely by means of controlled methodological procedures. Both types of teaching (humanist education and vocational training) have their own merits. They need not compete with one another. However, an alarming tendency exists at universities to become mere training institutions, providers of "high level manpower" that comply with the demands of industry, the business sector and the professions. Thereby universities could find themselves wholly in the grip of economic-technical rationality. This would result in the loss of academic freedom and the rise of "educated philistinism" (Hannah Arendt). The decline of a truly humanist education in our universities must be arrested. To my mind this can only happen insofar as universities succeed in maintaining their autonomy. If our universities wish to do justice to the name "university" in any credible way, they must provide sufficient scope for free intellectual activity, thus allowing students to freely commit themselves to the discipline of scholarship, with no other motive than their love for a specific field of study which they deem important for their own cultivation as human beings. Universities must insist on being islands of academic freedom, safeguarded against all sorts of illusions, unrealistic expectations and interferences of interest groups and lobbies, and averse to any form of ideological and technological expediency. However, the autonomous status of universities can only prevail as long as they maintain strict entrance requirements. <![CDATA[<b>The polemology for the spirit</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100010&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Hierdie artikel is 'n bondige oorsig oor aspekte van die werk van die filosoof, Bernard Stiegler, en die vereniging Ars Industrialis, waarby hy en verskeie kollegas betrokke is. Die vertrekpunt hiervoor is die merkwaardige publikasie deur hulle met die titel: Heropluistering van die wêreld: geestelike waarde teenoor industriële populisme, asook twee Manifeste wat binne die bestek van vyf jaar beslag gekry het as die kern van hulle argumente. Aandag word ook gegee aan die belangrikste publikasies van Stiegler wat min of meer gedurende hierdie tyd die lig gesien het. Sake wat beklemtoon word, is die karakterisering van gees, die identifisering van magte wat die gees aftakel en in die proses die wêreld ontluister, dit wat in die aftakelingsproses alles in die slag bly, die omvang en impak van hierdie magte tot die dimensies van 'n sosiopatologie toe. Die geïmpliseerde aftakeling van die individu tot 'n gedisaffekteerde wese, die aftakeling van die gemeenskap tot 'n volslae verlies van gevoelvolheid, sorgsaamheid en liefde en die aftakeling van kennis en denke tot berekenbare en berekenende middelmatigheid wat uiteindelik lei tot katastrofe, stommiteit en barbaarsheid, is alles sake wat intens geraak word. Hierbenewens word ook aandag gegee aan hoe hierdie sake, volgens Stiegler en sy mede-werkers, deur 'n sekere soort stryd van 'n intellektuele, konseptuele en gevoelvolle aard beveg kan en moet word, met die hulp van institusies en dissiplines naas dié van individue, ten einde 'n sosioterapie te verwesenlik deur die herfundering van menslike gemeenskaplikheid (die ware "ons"-wees) en die stryd teen onkunde wat ook 'n stryd vir intelligensie is, waardeur die herwinning van geestelikheid, die herinvensie van sorgsaamheid en liefde, die heropluistering van die wêreld en die belewenis van synsnabyheid verwesenlik kan word met die hulp van die industriële politiek en tegnologieë van die gees. 'n Soort noötegniek of nöterapie moet in werking tree.<hr/>It was quite an exciting moment to have discovered in the beginning of the 21st century (2006) that there are really still intellectuals with a definite resolve to reinvent human spirituality, against the tremendous animosity against it, as well as mere negligence regarding it, in acknowledging and pursuing this ultimate and unique human characteristic celebrated for many centuries since the early Greek philosophers. The deflation and degradation of the value of the spirit, first by the humiliating experiences people have been submitted to during the world wars, but then also by subsequent developments in human societies called industrial populism not only cause extensive liquidation of human individuals, societies and thinking, but also the liquidation and distortion of all the knowledges human lives depend on, like know-how-to-live (or to know-how-to-be-in-the-world), know-how-to-act and know-how-to-think (including theorising and criticising). First of all, it is considered necessary to give an overview of what human spirituality may indeed entail. In this regard Valéry 's views are taken as a guideline together with the work of Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis. It seems clear according to them that human spirituality constitutes the core of what it means to be human and that all human activities can be seen as manifestations of spirituality either in a negative or in a positive sense. The notion of pharmakon which may mean either poison or medication is used to describe these possible negative or positive outcomes. To work towards the positives in order to achieve a reinvention of spirituality and the re-enchantment of the world, especially in view of the strong and comprehensive impact of degrading, rationalising and deflating factors like world wars and other forms of violence, consumer culture and economic and market forces,together with technical and technological forces, constitute an immense challenge that calls for a struggle. In order to achieve this reinvention and re-enchantment the struggle is a formidable one. The reason is that a comprehensive denigration of the spirit is taking place in contemporary societies for which many powers of a political, social, economic, technical and even cognitive nature are responsible. The powers of the market and of capitalism and of consumption, under the guidance and inspiration of these powers, take over societies and individuals and destroy the love of self, and the love for others, with an effect on community and the notion of the "us" and also on human sensitivity and care. The impact touches the roots of societies to such an extent that it causes symbolic misery that also leads to spiritual misery: a misery that touches all spiritual endeavours and experiences. No wonder socio-pathology is being considered to be the deepest implication of all these and as such constitutes our single most serious problem. Extensive efforts should be mobilised to counter these developments in order to avoid catastrophic, barbaric and beastly dispositions and strategies that may lead to the downfall of the human race. Nothing less than a socio-therapy will suffice. What does such a strategy include? It is more of a process than a piece of ready made medication that has to do with the cultivation of compositional thinking, and loving, and caring of a special nature. Reinventing care, love, knowledge and a well founded society of individuals who excel in their singularity may be significant contributing factors leading towards a process of healing. It must be realised that spirit, digital technics,and technologies of the spirit are of a pharmacological nature. The pharmakon is both poison and remedy. All these matters can be either diabolical or symbolical, that is, destructive or constructive, poisonous or remedial. The embracement of the diabolical will bring about and enhance symbolic misery; the embracement of the symbolic may limit the destructive powers of the diabolical. Should we want to take up the remedy we have to move in the direction of the symbolical. The ultimate objective should be to resist industrial populism in all its manifestations of discredit, disgust, distrust and bad faith that poisons the world, in favour of the value of the spirit that will lead to the re-enchantment of the world and the rediscovery of the fullness and closeness of being. Supporting factors will be the sound foundation of society in a true communal sense and the resistance against ignorance and the illumination of true knowledge and the continuous battle for intelligence against the possibility of the degree zero of thought and the reign of ignorance, with the support of an industrial politics and technology of spirit. A kind of nootechnics or nootherapy must come into play. <![CDATA[<b>'n Manifes vir die internasionale assosiasie <i>Ars Industrialis</i> vir die bevordering van 'n industriële politiek van die gees</b>: <b>Motiewe en dryfvere in die skepping van <i>Ars Industrialis</i></b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100011&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Hierdie artikel is 'n bondige oorsig oor aspekte van die werk van die filosoof, Bernard Stiegler, en die vereniging Ars Industrialis, waarby hy en verskeie kollegas betrokke is. Die vertrekpunt hiervoor is die merkwaardige publikasie deur hulle met die titel: Heropluistering van die wêreld: geestelike waarde teenoor industriële populisme, asook twee Manifeste wat binne die bestek van vyf jaar beslag gekry het as die kern van hulle argumente. Aandag word ook gegee aan die belangrikste publikasies van Stiegler wat min of meer gedurende hierdie tyd die lig gesien het. Sake wat beklemtoon word, is die karakterisering van gees, die identifisering van magte wat die gees aftakel en in die proses die wêreld ontluister, dit wat in die aftakelingsproses alles in die slag bly, die omvang en impak van hierdie magte tot die dimensies van 'n sosiopatologie toe. Die geïmpliseerde aftakeling van die individu tot 'n gedisaffekteerde wese, die aftakeling van die gemeenskap tot 'n volslae verlies van gevoelvolheid, sorgsaamheid en liefde en die aftakeling van kennis en denke tot berekenbare en berekenende middelmatigheid wat uiteindelik lei tot katastrofe, stommiteit en barbaarsheid, is alles sake wat intens geraak word. Hierbenewens word ook aandag gegee aan hoe hierdie sake, volgens Stiegler en sy mede-werkers, deur 'n sekere soort stryd van 'n intellektuele, konseptuele en gevoelvolle aard beveg kan en moet word, met die hulp van institusies en dissiplines naas dié van individue, ten einde 'n sosioterapie te verwesenlik deur die herfundering van menslike gemeenskaplikheid (die ware "ons"-wees) en die stryd teen onkunde wat ook 'n stryd vir intelligensie is, waardeur die herwinning van geestelikheid, die herinvensie van sorgsaamheid en liefde, die heropluistering van die wêreld en die belewenis van synsnabyheid verwesenlik kan word met die hulp van die industriële politiek en tegnologieë van die gees. 'n Soort noötegniek of nöterapie moet in werking tree.<hr/>It was quite an exciting moment to have discovered in the beginning of the 21st century (2006) that there are really still intellectuals with a definite resolve to reinvent human spirituality, against the tremendous animosity against it, as well as mere negligence regarding it, in acknowledging and pursuing this ultimate and unique human characteristic celebrated for many centuries since the early Greek philosophers. The deflation and degradation of the value of the spirit, first by the humiliating experiences people have been submitted to during the world wars, but then also by subsequent developments in human societies called industrial populism not only cause extensive liquidation of human individuals, societies and thinking, but also the liquidation and distortion of all the knowledges human lives depend on, like know-how-to-live (or to know-how-to-be-in-the-world), know-how-to-act and know-how-to-think (including theorising and criticising). First of all, it is considered necessary to give an overview of what human spirituality may indeed entail. In this regard Valéry 's views are taken as a guideline together with the work of Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis. It seems clear according to them that human spirituality constitutes the core of what it means to be human and that all human activities can be seen as manifestations of spirituality either in a negative or in a positive sense. The notion of pharmakon which may mean either poison or medication is used to describe these possible negative or positive outcomes. To work towards the positives in order to achieve a reinvention of spirituality and the re-enchantment of the world, especially in view of the strong and comprehensive impact of degrading, rationalising and deflating factors like world wars and other forms of violence, consumer culture and economic and market forces,together with technical and technological forces, constitute an immense challenge that calls for a struggle. In order to achieve this reinvention and re-enchantment the struggle is a formidable one. The reason is that a comprehensive denigration of the spirit is taking place in contemporary societies for which many powers of a political, social, economic, technical and even cognitive nature are responsible. The powers of the market and of capitalism and of consumption, under the guidance and inspiration of these powers, take over societies and individuals and destroy the love of self, and the love for others, with an effect on community and the notion of the "us" and also on human sensitivity and care. The impact touches the roots of societies to such an extent that it causes symbolic misery that also leads to spiritual misery: a misery that touches all spiritual endeavours and experiences. No wonder socio-pathology is being considered to be the deepest implication of all these and as such constitutes our single most serious problem. Extensive efforts should be mobilised to counter these developments in order to avoid catastrophic, barbaric and beastly dispositions and strategies that may lead to the downfall of the human race. Nothing less than a socio-therapy will suffice. What does such a strategy include? It is more of a process than a piece of ready made medication that has to do with the cultivation of compositional thinking, and loving, and caring of a special nature. Reinventing care, love, knowledge and a well founded society of individuals who excel in their singularity may be significant contributing factors leading towards a process of healing. It must be realised that spirit, digital technics,and technologies of the spirit are of a pharmacological nature. The pharmakon is both poison and remedy. All these matters can be either diabolical or symbolical, that is, destructive or constructive, poisonous or remedial. The embracement of the diabolical will bring about and enhance symbolic misery; the embracement of the symbolic may limit the destructive powers of the diabolical. Should we want to take up the remedy we have to move in the direction of the symbolical. The ultimate objective should be to resist industrial populism in all its manifestations of discredit, disgust, distrust and bad faith that poisons the world, in favour of the value of the spirit that will lead to the re-enchantment of the world and the rediscovery of the fullness and closeness of being. Supporting factors will be the sound foundation of society in a true communal sense and the resistance against ignorance and the illumination of true knowledge and the continuous battle for intelligence against the possibility of the degree zero of thought and the reign of ignorance, with the support of an industrial politics and technology of spirit. A kind of nootechnics or nootherapy must come into play. <![CDATA[<b>Op weg naar de crisis</b> - <b>de Afrikaanse literatuur in Nederland in 2011</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100012&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Hierdie artikel is 'n bondige oorsig oor aspekte van die werk van die filosoof, Bernard Stiegler, en die vereniging Ars Industrialis, waarby hy en verskeie kollegas betrokke is. Die vertrekpunt hiervoor is die merkwaardige publikasie deur hulle met die titel: Heropluistering van die wêreld: geestelike waarde teenoor industriële populisme, asook twee Manifeste wat binne die bestek van vyf jaar beslag gekry het as die kern van hulle argumente. Aandag word ook gegee aan die belangrikste publikasies van Stiegler wat min of meer gedurende hierdie tyd die lig gesien het. Sake wat beklemtoon word, is die karakterisering van gees, die identifisering van magte wat die gees aftakel en in die proses die wêreld ontluister, dit wat in die aftakelingsproses alles in die slag bly, die omvang en impak van hierdie magte tot die dimensies van 'n sosiopatologie toe. Die geïmpliseerde aftakeling van die individu tot 'n gedisaffekteerde wese, die aftakeling van die gemeenskap tot 'n volslae verlies van gevoelvolheid, sorgsaamheid en liefde en die aftakeling van kennis en denke tot berekenbare en berekenende middelmatigheid wat uiteindelik lei tot katastrofe, stommiteit en barbaarsheid, is alles sake wat intens geraak word. Hierbenewens word ook aandag gegee aan hoe hierdie sake, volgens Stiegler en sy mede-werkers, deur 'n sekere soort stryd van 'n intellektuele, konseptuele en gevoelvolle aard beveg kan en moet word, met die hulp van institusies en dissiplines naas dié van individue, ten einde 'n sosioterapie te verwesenlik deur die herfundering van menslike gemeenskaplikheid (die ware "ons"-wees) en die stryd teen onkunde wat ook 'n stryd vir intelligensie is, waardeur die herwinning van geestelikheid, die herinvensie van sorgsaamheid en liefde, die heropluistering van die wêreld en die belewenis van synsnabyheid verwesenlik kan word met die hulp van die industriële politiek en tegnologieë van die gees. 'n Soort noötegniek of nöterapie moet in werking tree.<hr/>It was quite an exciting moment to have discovered in the beginning of the 21st century (2006) that there are really still intellectuals with a definite resolve to reinvent human spirituality, against the tremendous animosity against it, as well as mere negligence regarding it, in acknowledging and pursuing this ultimate and unique human characteristic celebrated for many centuries since the early Greek philosophers. The deflation and degradation of the value of the spirit, first by the humiliating experiences people have been submitted to during the world wars, but then also by subsequent developments in human societies called industrial populism not only cause extensive liquidation of human individuals, societies and thinking, but also the liquidation and distortion of all the knowledges human lives depend on, like know-how-to-live (or to know-how-to-be-in-the-world), know-how-to-act and know-how-to-think (including theorising and criticising). First of all, it is considered necessary to give an overview of what human spirituality may indeed entail. In this regard Valéry 's views are taken as a guideline together with the work of Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis. It seems clear according to them that human spirituality constitutes the core of what it means to be human and that all human activities can be seen as manifestations of spirituality either in a negative or in a positive sense. The notion of pharmakon which may mean either poison or medication is used to describe these possible negative or positive outcomes. To work towards the positives in order to achieve a reinvention of spirituality and the re-enchantment of the world, especially in view of the strong and comprehensive impact of degrading, rationalising and deflating factors like world wars and other forms of violence, consumer culture and economic and market forces,together with technical and technological forces, constitute an immense challenge that calls for a struggle. In order to achieve this reinvention and re-enchantment the struggle is a formidable one. The reason is that a comprehensive denigration of the spirit is taking place in contemporary societies for which many powers of a political, social, economic, technical and even cognitive nature are responsible. The powers of the market and of capitalism and of consumption, under the guidance and inspiration of these powers, take over societies and individuals and destroy the love of self, and the love for others, with an effect on community and the notion of the "us" and also on human sensitivity and care. The impact touches the roots of societies to such an extent that it causes symbolic misery that also leads to spiritual misery: a misery that touches all spiritual endeavours and experiences. No wonder socio-pathology is being considered to be the deepest implication of all these and as such constitutes our single most serious problem. Extensive efforts should be mobilised to counter these developments in order to avoid catastrophic, barbaric and beastly dispositions and strategies that may lead to the downfall of the human race. Nothing less than a socio-therapy will suffice. What does such a strategy include? It is more of a process than a piece of ready made medication that has to do with the cultivation of compositional thinking, and loving, and caring of a special nature. Reinventing care, love, knowledge and a well founded society of individuals who excel in their singularity may be significant contributing factors leading towards a process of healing. It must be realised that spirit, digital technics,and technologies of the spirit are of a pharmacological nature. The pharmakon is both poison and remedy. All these matters can be either diabolical or symbolical, that is, destructive or constructive, poisonous or remedial. The embracement of the diabolical will bring about and enhance symbolic misery; the embracement of the symbolic may limit the destructive powers of the diabolical. Should we want to take up the remedy we have to move in the direction of the symbolical. The ultimate objective should be to resist industrial populism in all its manifestations of discredit, disgust, distrust and bad faith that poisons the world, in favour of the value of the spirit that will lead to the re-enchantment of the world and the rediscovery of the fullness and closeness of being. Supporting factors will be the sound foundation of society in a true communal sense and the resistance against ignorance and the illumination of true knowledge and the continuous battle for intelligence against the possibility of the degree zero of thought and the reign of ignorance, with the support of an industrial politics and technology of spirit. A kind of nootechnics or nootherapy must come into play. <![CDATA[<b><i>Kolonie aan die Kaap; Jan van Riebeeck en die vestiging van die eerste blankes, 1652-1662</i></b>, <b>deur Karel Schoeman</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100013&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Hierdie artikel is 'n bondige oorsig oor aspekte van die werk van die filosoof, Bernard Stiegler, en die vereniging Ars Industrialis, waarby hy en verskeie kollegas betrokke is. Die vertrekpunt hiervoor is die merkwaardige publikasie deur hulle met die titel: Heropluistering van die wêreld: geestelike waarde teenoor industriële populisme, asook twee Manifeste wat binne die bestek van vyf jaar beslag gekry het as die kern van hulle argumente. Aandag word ook gegee aan die belangrikste publikasies van Stiegler wat min of meer gedurende hierdie tyd die lig gesien het. Sake wat beklemtoon word, is die karakterisering van gees, die identifisering van magte wat die gees aftakel en in die proses die wêreld ontluister, dit wat in die aftakelingsproses alles in die slag bly, die omvang en impak van hierdie magte tot die dimensies van 'n sosiopatologie toe. Die geïmpliseerde aftakeling van die individu tot 'n gedisaffekteerde wese, die aftakeling van die gemeenskap tot 'n volslae verlies van gevoelvolheid, sorgsaamheid en liefde en die aftakeling van kennis en denke tot berekenbare en berekenende middelmatigheid wat uiteindelik lei tot katastrofe, stommiteit en barbaarsheid, is alles sake wat intens geraak word. Hierbenewens word ook aandag gegee aan hoe hierdie sake, volgens Stiegler en sy mede-werkers, deur 'n sekere soort stryd van 'n intellektuele, konseptuele en gevoelvolle aard beveg kan en moet word, met die hulp van institusies en dissiplines naas dié van individue, ten einde 'n sosioterapie te verwesenlik deur die herfundering van menslike gemeenskaplikheid (die ware "ons"-wees) en die stryd teen onkunde wat ook 'n stryd vir intelligensie is, waardeur die herwinning van geestelikheid, die herinvensie van sorgsaamheid en liefde, die heropluistering van die wêreld en die belewenis van synsnabyheid verwesenlik kan word met die hulp van die industriële politiek en tegnologieë van die gees. 'n Soort noötegniek of nöterapie moet in werking tree.<hr/>It was quite an exciting moment to have discovered in the beginning of the 21st century (2006) that there are really still intellectuals with a definite resolve to reinvent human spirituality, against the tremendous animosity against it, as well as mere negligence regarding it, in acknowledging and pursuing this ultimate and unique human characteristic celebrated for many centuries since the early Greek philosophers. The deflation and degradation of the value of the spirit, first by the humiliating experiences people have been submitted to during the world wars, but then also by subsequent developments in human societies called industrial populism not only cause extensive liquidation of human individuals, societies and thinking, but also the liquidation and distortion of all the knowledges human lives depend on, like know-how-to-live (or to know-how-to-be-in-the-world), know-how-to-act and know-how-to-think (including theorising and criticising). First of all, it is considered necessary to give an overview of what human spirituality may indeed entail. In this regard Valéry 's views are taken as a guideline together with the work of Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis. It seems clear according to them that human spirituality constitutes the core of what it means to be human and that all human activities can be seen as manifestations of spirituality either in a negative or in a positive sense. The notion of pharmakon which may mean either poison or medication is used to describe these possible negative or positive outcomes. To work towards the positives in order to achieve a reinvention of spirituality and the re-enchantment of the world, especially in view of the strong and comprehensive impact of degrading, rationalising and deflating factors like world wars and other forms of violence, consumer culture and economic and market forces,together with technical and technological forces, constitute an immense challenge that calls for a struggle. In order to achieve this reinvention and re-enchantment the struggle is a formidable one. The reason is that a comprehensive denigration of the spirit is taking place in contemporary societies for which many powers of a political, social, economic, technical and even cognitive nature are responsible. The powers of the market and of capitalism and of consumption, under the guidance and inspiration of these powers, take over societies and individuals and destroy the love of self, and the love for others, with an effect on community and the notion of the "us" and also on human sensitivity and care. The impact touches the roots of societies to such an extent that it causes symbolic misery that also leads to spiritual misery: a misery that touches all spiritual endeavours and experiences. No wonder socio-pathology is being considered to be the deepest implication of all these and as such constitutes our single most serious problem. Extensive efforts should be mobilised to counter these developments in order to avoid catastrophic, barbaric and beastly dispositions and strategies that may lead to the downfall of the human race. Nothing less than a socio-therapy will suffice. What does such a strategy include? It is more of a process than a piece of ready made medication that has to do with the cultivation of compositional thinking, and loving, and caring of a special nature. Reinventing care, love, knowledge and a well founded society of individuals who excel in their singularity may be significant contributing factors leading towards a process of healing. It must be realised that spirit, digital technics,and technologies of the spirit are of a pharmacological nature. The pharmakon is both poison and remedy. All these matters can be either diabolical or symbolical, that is, destructive or constructive, poisonous or remedial. The embracement of the diabolical will bring about and enhance symbolic misery; the embracement of the symbolic may limit the destructive powers of the diabolical. Should we want to take up the remedy we have to move in the direction of the symbolical. The ultimate objective should be to resist industrial populism in all its manifestations of discredit, disgust, distrust and bad faith that poisons the world, in favour of the value of the spirit that will lead to the re-enchantment of the world and the rediscovery of the fullness and closeness of being. Supporting factors will be the sound foundation of society in a true communal sense and the resistance against ignorance and the illumination of true knowledge and the continuous battle for intelligence against the possibility of the degree zero of thought and the reign of ignorance, with the support of an industrial politics and technology of spirit. A kind of nootechnics or nootherapy must come into play. <![CDATA[<b><i>Prophet without honour; F.S. Malan: Afrikaner, South African and Cape liberal</i></b>, <b>deur F.A. Mouton, 2011.</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0041-47512012000100014&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es Hierdie artikel is 'n bondige oorsig oor aspekte van die werk van die filosoof, Bernard Stiegler, en die vereniging Ars Industrialis, waarby hy en verskeie kollegas betrokke is. Die vertrekpunt hiervoor is die merkwaardige publikasie deur hulle met die titel: Heropluistering van die wêreld: geestelike waarde teenoor industriële populisme, asook twee Manifeste wat binne die bestek van vyf jaar beslag gekry het as die kern van hulle argumente. Aandag word ook gegee aan die belangrikste publikasies van Stiegler wat min of meer gedurende hierdie tyd die lig gesien het. Sake wat beklemtoon word, is die karakterisering van gees, die identifisering van magte wat die gees aftakel en in die proses die wêreld ontluister, dit wat in die aftakelingsproses alles in die slag bly, die omvang en impak van hierdie magte tot die dimensies van 'n sosiopatologie toe. Die geïmpliseerde aftakeling van die individu tot 'n gedisaffekteerde wese, die aftakeling van die gemeenskap tot 'n volslae verlies van gevoelvolheid, sorgsaamheid en liefde en die aftakeling van kennis en denke tot berekenbare en berekenende middelmatigheid wat uiteindelik lei tot katastrofe, stommiteit en barbaarsheid, is alles sake wat intens geraak word. Hierbenewens word ook aandag gegee aan hoe hierdie sake, volgens Stiegler en sy mede-werkers, deur 'n sekere soort stryd van 'n intellektuele, konseptuele en gevoelvolle aard beveg kan en moet word, met die hulp van institusies en dissiplines naas dié van individue, ten einde 'n sosioterapie te verwesenlik deur die herfundering van menslike gemeenskaplikheid (die ware "ons"-wees) en die stryd teen onkunde wat ook 'n stryd vir intelligensie is, waardeur die herwinning van geestelikheid, die herinvensie van sorgsaamheid en liefde, die heropluistering van die wêreld en die belewenis van synsnabyheid verwesenlik kan word met die hulp van die industriële politiek en tegnologieë van die gees. 'n Soort noötegniek of nöterapie moet in werking tree.<hr/>It was quite an exciting moment to have discovered in the beginning of the 21st century (2006) that there are really still intellectuals with a definite resolve to reinvent human spirituality, against the tremendous animosity against it, as well as mere negligence regarding it, in acknowledging and pursuing this ultimate and unique human characteristic celebrated for many centuries since the early Greek philosophers. The deflation and degradation of the value of the spirit, first by the humiliating experiences people have been submitted to during the world wars, but then also by subsequent developments in human societies called industrial populism not only cause extensive liquidation of human individuals, societies and thinking, but also the liquidation and distortion of all the knowledges human lives depend on, like know-how-to-live (or to know-how-to-be-in-the-world), know-how-to-act and know-how-to-think (including theorising and criticising). First of all, it is considered necessary to give an overview of what human spirituality may indeed entail. In this regard Valéry 's views are taken as a guideline together with the work of Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis. It seems clear according to them that human spirituality constitutes the core of what it means to be human and that all human activities can be seen as manifestations of spirituality either in a negative or in a positive sense. The notion of pharmakon which may mean either poison or medication is used to describe these possible negative or positive outcomes. To work towards the positives in order to achieve a reinvention of spirituality and the re-enchantment of the world, especially in view of the strong and comprehensive impact of degrading, rationalising and deflating factors like world wars and other forms of violence, consumer culture and economic and market forces,together with technical and technological forces, constitute an immense challenge that calls for a struggle. In order to achieve this reinvention and re-enchantment the struggle is a formidable one. The reason is that a comprehensive denigration of the spirit is taking place in contemporary societies for which many powers of a political, social, economic, technical and even cognitive nature are responsible. The powers of the market and of capitalism and of consumption, under the guidance and inspiration of these powers, take over societies and individuals and destroy the love of self, and the love for others, with an effect on community and the notion of the "us" and also on human sensitivity and care. The impact touches the roots of societies to such an extent that it causes symbolic misery that also leads to spiritual misery: a misery that touches all spiritual endeavours and experiences. No wonder socio-pathology is being considered to be the deepest implication of all these and as such constitutes our single most serious problem. Extensive efforts should be mobilised to counter these developments in order to avoid catastrophic, barbaric and beastly dispositions and strategies that may lead to the downfall of the human race. Nothing less than a socio-therapy will suffice. What does such a strategy include? It is more of a process than a piece of ready made medication that has to do with the cultivation of compositional thinking, and loving, and caring of a special nature. Reinventing care, love, knowledge and a well founded society of individuals who excel in their singularity may be significant contributing factors leading towards a process of healing. It must be realised that spirit, digital technics,and technologies of the spirit are of a pharmacological nature. The pharmakon is both poison and remedy. All these matters can be either diabolical or symbolical, that is, destructive or constructive, poisonous or remedial. The embracement of the diabolical will bring about and enhance symbolic misery; the embracement of the symbolic may limit the destructive powers of the diabolical. Should we want to take up the remedy we have to move in the direction of the symbolical. The ultimate objective should be to resist industrial populism in all its manifestations of discredit, disgust, distrust and bad faith that poisons the world, in favour of the value of the spirit that will lead to the re-enchantment of the world and the rediscovery of the fullness and closeness of being. Supporting factors will be the sound foundation of society in a true communal sense and the resistance against ignorance and the illumination of true knowledge and the continuous battle for intelligence against the possibility of the degree zero of thought and the reign of ignorance, with the support of an industrial politics and technology of spirit. A kind of nootechnics or nootherapy must come into play.