User Profile

Eigentlich ein langes Essay, in der Stanislaw Lem, eine Menschheitsgeschichte schreibt, bzw. die Menschheitsgeschichte von einem überklugen Wesen erzählen lässt. Es geht viel um Arroganz, Selbst-Inthronisierung und - ich nenne es mal - kybernetisches Denken. Es ist interessant zu lesen, aber man merkt auch, dass es 50 Jahre alt ist und die geschilderten Ideen weniger stark überraschend wirken. Stanislaw Lem war im besten Sinne seiner Zeit voraus.

How outer worlds match inner worlds in the night. Nice read, but no must-read.

The best part of the book is the preface. Heather Dundas writes how she heard an anecdote about Foucault and an LSD trip, found it so implausible that she tried to convict the anecdote of lying, and in the process surprisingly proved the existence of the LSD trip. The rest of the book is the story of a self-described disciple (!) who invites Foucault to a local college. So much status play, references, intellectual babble, show who you know, written in a gonzo style. If you're not impressed by it, it's quite funny. Foucault chops wood to demonstrate his ordinarity. When Foucault talks about attractive boys, one feels different in view of the accusations against Foucault. The book is a perfect example of hagiography and in this sense is recommended.

All: The Plot, the writing, the characters are very generic. The Shadowrunners stumble from question (Whodunnit?) to problem (who is after us?) to question. The magic is way too powerful. But somehow, it was kinda fun to read. As a sidenote: I was tricked, Berlin doesn't play a role!

Actually, the book has no real plot. On the basis of two persons, the book presents psychological trauma caused by climate change and how a high bureaucrat tries to convince other executives to act. Interspersed are short essays. Admittedly, I skipped about a third of the book due to repetition. I would have liked more plot. In the end, there is hope that somehow it will work out, but many sacrifices must be made along the way. What is problematic about the book is that while societies or masses are subjects, they are somehow very manipulated, reactive, history is written by the elite, which takes away a lot agency.

Obviously, the public is interested in what the 10,000 researching physicists are doing: the image of a black hole, Higgs boson, etc. This book explains what physicists have been up to for the last 100 years and how our everyday understanding is being overturned as a result. To illustrate this, the author uses the history of physical thinking in antiquity and from modern times onwards. I highly enjoyed enjoyed reading the book and learned a great deal. It cured my anger about "emanzipatorische Wissenschaftskritik", which was just a "mutual admiration sub reddit" in my opinion.

German anarchism may have been out of the spotlight compared to other European nations, but after reading this book, I discovered the reason: it seems all the German anarchists emigrated to New York. It's a fun and interesting read and highlights the fact that social spaces are crucial for any radical movement to 'take root'."

I was quite intrigued by the title. However, the book is mainly about how to justify to work in a local council as anarchist. To achieve that, the author dives deep in anarchist history and theory. The actual work the author in the council does, does not play a big role. I think, that would be the interesting point: Is a single council member able to achieve anarchist goals? The examples he gives are...dull, he was able to help (!) in establishing a community center. Good Sir, for that, we don't no council!