Societal agents' aspirations, plus their aptitudes and skills combine to form
their adaptation to the market, to the field of production, if
not cultural production.
With down-classing of occupations in France in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for the sons and daughters of polytechnichiens to live at a lower economic standard.
Given a lower standard of living, the rigor and demand on the job, of skills, requires that workers know more. Increasingly specialized, the new, particular knowledges are reflected in the division of labor, an intensification of professional practice, team work, and the inability of the metaphor of progress in the economy to gain ground.
With down-classing of occupations in France in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for the sons and daughters of polytechnichiens to live at a lower economic standard.
Given a lower standard of living, the rigor and demand on the job, of skills, requires that workers know more. Increasingly specialized, the new, particular knowledges are reflected in the division of labor, an intensification of professional practice, team work, and the inability of the metaphor of progress in the economy to gain ground.
Nordau is concerned in page 150 to remove the role of mysticism in human events.
By dispensing with spirit, and focusing on purely mechanical laws’Äìthe
law of causality, Nordau configures the raison de ˆtre of the human
organism in the rather Hobbesian desire inscribed in motion.
Not speaking of motion, but of cause and effect, Nordau argues that humans are eudemonists or pursuers of happiness. Desire in 19th Century psychology is thus a mixture of Lamarck, Darwin, and John Stuart Mill. The organism is a desiring machine indebted to history, to the past, the reservoir of judgments on the future, on the effect of causality.
Not speaking of motion, but of cause and effect, Nordau argues that humans are eudemonists or pursuers of happiness. Desire in 19th Century psychology is thus a mixture of Lamarck, Darwin, and John Stuart Mill. The organism is a desiring machine indebted to history, to the past, the reservoir of judgments on the future, on the effect of causality.
... forces and the environment (less the sphere of evolution, the the noosphere,
and more the non-psychic, material set of conditions) presuppose
causes; class position, which varies according to levels of figurative
and actual capital, and the stratification of the job market, corresponding
to the space between the pinnacle and depth of class position,
presuppose effects. That is, while class position is linked organically
as well as vocation is linked to environmental factors, effects,
which do not inherit the tutelage of evolutionary discourse, are
tied solely to economic discourse, and it is here that this discourse
shadows its links to the organic forces. For mysticism in the working
and petit-bourgeois class realms is a rarity except with artists
or aesthetes, their brand of art production being the only domain
for mysticism in the market economy of major post industrial societies
save the new age industries. But mysticism, in this sense of the
late 20th century neo-symbolists, while connected to philosophical and religious discourse and the discourse of thought, is mainly an
effect in the barrage of effects linking the demands for art separate
from social life, as the substantial but less structural modes
of production, the simulation of a Rossettian or Mallarmaean correspondence
for instance, painting or writing, or writing about painting to
achieve a linguistic union to the supernatural, which sustains,
as organic forces are only infinite causes attached to each other,
the relationship of effects to effects. In the economic sphere
there are primarily effects and mysticism is part of this economic
sphere.
Thus, mysticism is like discourses linked organically in that it is part of the economic sphere, but mysticism is isolated from the organically and environmentally linked discourses within the economic sphere, whereas discourses linked organically obey the logic of the forces that convert organic forces into effects within the economic sphere. 'This' is a cause of 'this cause(a)' and 'this cause(a)' is a cause of 'this cause(b)' and so on, this cause(n). 'This' is an effect of 'this effect(a)' and 'this effect(a)' is an effect of 'this effect(b)' and so on, this effect(n). Structuring mechanisms convert causes to effects without continuity, also separating causes and effects, so that mysticism borders a structural discourse such as science, philosophy, or the social sciences which are organically linked in signature. Therefore mysticism perceives an image of a rise in organic particularity in neighboring organic effects but is disassociated from the evolutionary heritage of these effects (so that the job market for artists with mystical inclinations is not linked to the possibility of man's natural eudemonic habitation). Thus, along with organically linked effects, and causes, effects show culture and nature as extremely problematized; the organic can be natural as well as structural even though the evolutionary heritage converts to the cultural, and evolutionary heritage is not necessarily natural--one must ask if history is natural, but more fundamentally ask if evolution itself is natural, since it converts to civilization and culture. And the visibility of this conversion process is high in terms of manufacturing the apparently separate spheres of causes and effects as well as providing some connection (though without being continuous or merged) through this process; mysticsim, since it is not linked organically, is a lacunae in the sphere of effects.
This relationship of effects to causes and the relationship of mysticism to effects is illustrated in the diagram...
Thus, mysticism is like discourses linked organically in that it is part of the economic sphere, but mysticism is isolated from the organically and environmentally linked discourses within the economic sphere, whereas discourses linked organically obey the logic of the forces that convert organic forces into effects within the economic sphere. 'This' is a cause of 'this cause(a)' and 'this cause(a)' is a cause of 'this cause(b)' and so on, this cause(n). 'This' is an effect of 'this effect(a)' and 'this effect(a)' is an effect of 'this effect(b)' and so on, this effect(n). Structuring mechanisms convert causes to effects without continuity, also separating causes and effects, so that mysticism borders a structural discourse such as science, philosophy, or the social sciences which are organically linked in signature. Therefore mysticism perceives an image of a rise in organic particularity in neighboring organic effects but is disassociated from the evolutionary heritage of these effects (so that the job market for artists with mystical inclinations is not linked to the possibility of man's natural eudemonic habitation). Thus, along with organically linked effects, and causes, effects show culture and nature as extremely problematized; the organic can be natural as well as structural even though the evolutionary heritage converts to the cultural, and evolutionary heritage is not necessarily natural--one must ask if history is natural, but more fundamentally ask if evolution itself is natural, since it converts to civilization and culture. And the visibility of this conversion process is high in terms of manufacturing the apparently separate spheres of causes and effects as well as providing some connection (though without being continuous or merged) through this process; mysticsim, since it is not linked organically, is a lacunae in the sphere of effects.
This relationship of effects to causes and the relationship of mysticism to effects is illustrated in the diagram...
