Recent Posts

In Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightment, Myth and Enlightment are shown to be enmeshed with one another. Mythical stories are transformed, from the perspective of Enlightment, into Allegory, Allegory as the “original history of human subjectivity”. It is the journey of historical subject, from the world of myth towards
“Nothing happens, no-one comes, no-one goes, it’s awful”                                               Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett Thus can be said about history, where things just pass as mere succession of facts. But nothing really happens. For ‘historical materialism’, present is ‘catastrophe’[1]. It is the homogeneous present ridden with ‘status-quo’. Things don’t change;
Theme of nature abounds the film of both Ghatak and Pasolini. History is being temporalized through the passing of nature, yet, this transience comes forth with death and filth. Nature is allegorized as myth. In Ghatak’s Ajantrik , the car is demolished, the only  way for Bimal to get sustenance.
Death overweighs Beckett’s writing. “Beginning is the end, yet we go on”. The characters are devoid of memory, even if they ‘remember’, it ends up in something they are not sanguin. The actors  resemble something like becoming corpse, accompanied by worn out clothes, grey lights or bare face, peeping out
*The following CFP is copied from the ISTC website. ———————————————————————————————- The theme of this year’s conference pertains to affinities and complementarities between systems theory and critical theory for purposes of analyzing modern societies in the twenty-first century as social systems whose stability, functioning and future increasingly is in doubt.  Conventionally,
Art’s primary way of becoming art is to appear more than itself, to say, or show something more. To wrest from it, it’s semblance of more, is to question its contingency on which art is dependent. Whenever  we determine art in terms of semblance we acknowledge it and at the
To continue our conversation from the other day I take it that you subscribe to a form of deontology, or, at the very least, accept the merits of such a perspective within ethics. The way you presented the argument in the specific instance of capital punishment by the state, drew
Skip to toolbar