One great reason not to have a TV is that you don't get sucked in to rubbernecking ideologyvision, I mean the news. It's come to my attention that CNN et al. are doing their usual thing, which they call "objectivity." In other words there are "two sides" to the Egypt revolution, two "opinions" about what it is.
This is infuriating. As in the global warming debate, naive default empiricism cancels out anything threatening, life-changing or just plain correct. There are not two sides in the revolution. There is the revolution, and those who are opposing it. There are not two sides in global warming. There is global warming, and those who oppose policies that address it.
In both cases what we have is a news coverage version of correlationism. Real reality is inaccessible, and all we can do is debate the validity of different modes of access to it. Crap!
In both cases, we have fascinating and unusual entities, both hyperobjects: a massively distributed revolution without a leader, coordinated by Twitter and Facebook; and a massively distributed system of weather change coordinated by derivatives of local human actions such as a burning fossil fuels.
Do we get to understand these things when we attend to a debate about different sides? No, we get to misunderstand and remain blind.
Now do you see why OOO is the first truly new philosophical view? And why it's incredibly important, politically?
Home »
» Egypt and Journalistic "Objectivity": TV Correlationism