Today’s CSCL Reading History class started at 11:15 am. The date is Tuesday, April the twenty-eight of two thousand and eleven. The instructor, Ben Fink, writes the program on the white board of the room. The desks in the classroom are assembled in a circle as it always is. Ben takes attendance rather quietly and gives the difficultators the ok to difficultate. Difficultators go up to the front of classroom. Ben looks rather sick or maybe is acting?
Program:
1. Difficultation, Teil Zwei: a man walks into a bar…
2. Fasolt’s negative dialectic: big (Hitler) and little (loneliness)
3. WTF indeed: putting it together
4. Housekeeping: blog posts, final projects, external writings
Class separates to the two groups they were on Tuesday, which were Junker and Hegel.
We will be discussing the dangers of history today, state the difficultators. Go through notes last time and see what we can refute to each other. Ben goes out of room and Mandy goes to the board and writes, “OUCH!” at the end of the first thing on the program. Ben comes back acting rather drunk, holding a brown lunch bag while also carrying big white sheets of paper, which seems to be the class’s works last week. He has on a multi-colored flannel shirt and cap. It is obvious that he’s not in his usual attire.
The difficulation continues. The other group, Junker, speaks with Sophie. Hallie speaks; you’re stuck in one place. History is supposed to progress. You can’t be sovereign under U.S. history. You’re bound by tradition so you can’t change.
Ben speaks up asking what you mean by enlightenment. The class is quiet. Ben talks about the enlightenment.
Ben is playing Nick Lennon? Lindsey plays Adolf Elizabeth Hitler? Lindsey speaks out to Junker and Hegel. She claimed Junker and Hegel as parents. The discussion goes back and forth between the Junker and Hegel group. It was revealed that the difficultators didn’t explain they were in a bar, which made is confusing for the class to interpret the scene that was portrayed.
Ben says let’s condense. Students start moving the desks closer together. We discuss about the difficulation. Ben asks for thumbs up or down on the understanding. I was the only one with a thumbs up and I had to explain to the class why the Junker will side with Hegel more than the emperor. I said that Hegel gave the Junker more freedom than the emperor. I was partially right. Mandy says that everyone is probably really tired from staying up to finish their paper that’s why they are so quiet today. Ben goes on explaining the freedom of space and time like what was discussed on Tuesday. We’re going to break with traditions. If you read the bible in a post historical revolt way, yes it’s good, but it was written back then and doesn’t make sense now. There’s no distinction. We see a lot in the constitution. They say that this constitution is alive and we should be thinking about the law. This is illegitimate. Yes, it’s important but you have to interpret it b/c it was written in a different time. It’s not controlling every aspect of your life. Take the declaration of independence for example. They use the word men a lot, but men back then meant something different to men now. Men don’t mean that for example, Ben and Ahmed are created equal and every lady in the room was not. Men back then meant human kind.
Ben writes on board:
Negative dialectic (Adorno)
thesisantithesissynthesis this is the positive dialectic, which leads to higher freedom.
Adorno though, came up with a negative dialectic.
The thesis and antithesis arrow are facing each other downwards; t=medieval, pre-historical revolt time and A = Hegel/Ranke/historical revolt
This leads to Hitler in the middle where the arrows meet. The t always remain inside of a. Ben says in what way did t + a lead to Hitler? The reference is in Fasolt. The guiding pages are: 28, 31, 42, and 25.
Five minutes pass by. Class comes back at noon to discuss. As long as people had enemies, there was a clear knowledge and purpose for a battle. Once it was destroyed, there was nothing else to fight. At that moment on page 26, history became objective in a novel sense. History doesn’t need to stand for something. It got bureaucratize. We read from course packet page 62; what do you make of this and what does this have to do with that (on the board), which is the negative dialectic?
If you are going to be an individual you have to be separated from the world. Then comes caring and not caring. Ben asks the question, does it speak to you? Do you identify with it? Avoidance of boredom drives our lives; you create things to do to not be bored. This relates to Fukuyama; history is going to be boring and that will be the end of history; maybe we’ll create history again.
Fasolt talks about life after the end of history or historical revolt; the idea that I can listen to something bad and go about my life without giving it much thought; this is the base of this class. It has everything to do with the loneliness. On page five, the distinction between past and present does more than merely set aside a piece of reality for historical inspection. With this, class concludes with a few notes: Ben needs emails before midnight about final projects. Also, put external writing number three into the folder that is laying on the desk for Ben.
Class ends at 12:31 pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment