Who Should Work for Utopia?

If you have any two real entities, then at a certain point you can imagine the unity, or centering, or even ‘non-duality’ between them. This is often done in the unity of Soul and World scenarios in philosophy. When we do this with the two economic classes posited by Marxism, ie Proletariat and Bourgeoisie, we come to the unity or centering signified by the concept Utopia. 


                                       Utopia (Sign)
Proletariat(thing)———————————Bourgeoisie (thing)

Now let us suppose that, with real political progress, this unity is ‘realized.’ That is, we come to make it a reality the unity or non-duality between the two aforementioned economic classes—the two classes ‘intermingle’ in reality, let's suppose. This unity is not an absolute unity however, for the very sign we first posited, namely “Utopia,” remains in the schema. Of course, we cannot even imagine the unity between that sign Utopia and an actually existing thing in reality called Utopia. The difference between them—as the difference between any sign and any thing—is absolute and unbridgeable.


                                      Y (sign)
Utopia (thing)——————————————Utopia (sign) 

Now, we have two irreconcilable terms: the sign Utopia and the thing Utopia. Granted, we can at least imagine a sign that represents that difference, if not their unity. Call this sign Y. Now, since the sign Utopia is by definition a sign, and Y is by definition a sign, we can realize [or at least imagine/conceive] the unity or centering between the two signs, while all the while the actually existing Utopia remains always untouched. 

                                    Z (sign)
Utopia (sign)———————————————Y (Sign) 

We can represent the difference between that sign and utopia  the thing with a new sign, as seen below. Again, the sign Z and the sign A can be combined in a new sign, B. And so on ad infinitum. 


A (Sign)
Z (sign)—————————————————-Utopia (thing) 


This leaves the following problem: the thing Utopia, it seems, is not a vital term in this schema by any means, whereas the realm of signs is endlessly proliferating. The sign Utopia is  also quickly rendered not important. What this means is that a transcendental reality, where Utopia the thing combines with Utopia the sign, is not logically possible. All this is to say that to posit a sign like Utopia to facilitate the combination of two economic classes seems to be quite problematic. Actually existing economic classes only cause an endless proliferation of signs as an origin, that is, as something that does not recur or repeat again and again in newer forms. Will this mean that real Utopia will be historical and thus fleeting, even as it is 'always there'? 

Moreover, since the signs that are obtained subsequently upon the combination of the two economic classes are endless, they are absolutely arbitrary. This means any arbitrary pair of things in reality can facilitate this process where we realize their centering. But after that, things-based reality itself drops away as a concern. From this point of view, at least, there is no reason to take two economic classes as the point of departure at all. 

So, is it a meaningful enough venture to strive for Utopia? What makes Utopia distinct such that we can be satisfied ending at it and not be disappointed at the impossibility of realizing the transcendental non-duality between thing and sign? Is this disappointment what comes the moments after we are able to realize Utopia? And what if this disappointment is so great that we regret the realization of Utopia in the first place? Only for those who have faith and resolution that actual Utopia's significance transcends the disappointment of the non-unity of thing and sign is it ever a worthwhile project. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is the Locus of Ash: A New Concept of the Other and the Illusion of Becoming

     Philosophers and various intellectuals have used the term “the other” in various ways. It seems that most of the time they have some entity distinct from “the self” in mind when they think of something as “the other.” For some, there is a ‘racial other,’ for others there is a ‘sexual other,' both of which are usually other persons, other selves. I use “the other” here in a different, more philosophical way such that those previous usages will come to be seen as denoting what can be called ‘anothers.’      For me, the other is not the distinct entity from the self. To put it generally, ‘that’ is not an other to ‘this.’ Rather, ‘that' is 'another,' if it is to be considered distinct. What I am proposing is a thorough re-thinking of the way we envision inter-entity dynamics, so that we have self, other and an other, and not just self and other. But more importantly, I am proposing that we use the term 'the other' to denote something more pr...
Read more

The Role of Innocence in Politics

In life, one ought to choose a framework of action that allows one to revel in the victories therein and also genuinely feel the sting of losses. One ought not to choose a framework of action where one transcends the losses and victories, where all narrative tracks and events are rendered meaningless. This applies also to politics, where people transcend their political duties, roles and actions all too often, and moreover do not feel accountable when they win or lose, despite the wider consequences to society of that.  Now what causes the meaningless transcendence I am thinking of here? The cause is not a particularly intense victory or a particularly stinging defeat. These only compel actors to act even better, even stronger and in even more effective ways towards bringing about future victories. What causes meaningless transcendence is the understanding or foresight of the rules of the game. When this happens, one transcends something that seemed as meaningful as even one...
Read more

How Did ‘Development Discourse’ Originate in Remote Places Before Development Projects Took Place There?

  There are still places in the world that are so remote that they lack primary schools and health facilities, but they have what can be called actors knowledgeable about 'development discourse.' We cannot say for certain that development discourse, by which I mean the series of arguments in support for specific projects of development, entered those places entirely from an external source like a more modern city or university. For example, the human character trope of a ‘development enthusiast’ in the village meeting is something that is all too common, and for all intents and purposes, seems to have organically and internally emerged from the village setting itself. How is this arising of the development enthusiast to be explained generally? How come development discourse came to 'undeveloped' places before actual projects of development—such as good schools and hospitals—did? This question is interesting because it points to the emergence of a sophisticated idea or...
Read more