Reflections prior to Theme 2

The concept of enlightenment, and the first sentence that is read tells us that in the widest sense, enlightenment is the advance of thought. Seems like we can find a lot of social criticism in the text as well. Early in the chapter he says that enlightenment has always regarded the projection of subjective onto nature, what does it mean? It actually reads 'anthropomorphism', which essentially is humanized un-human entities/organisms.

An interesting comparison that the writer makes in the text is how the relation enlightenment has to things is as the dictator to humans. 'He knows them to the extent that he can manipulate them." says a lot. 

One sentence in particular is making me scratch my head;

'Mythology itself set in motion the endless process of enlightenment by which, with ineluctable necessity; every definite theoretical view is subjected to the annihilating criticism that it is only a belief, until even the concepts of mind, truth, and, indeed, enlightenment itself have been reduced to animistic magic."

A thesis is that mythology is enlightenment, and also, taken from above, that enlightenment reverts back to mythology.

Many times the writer compares the similarity of enlightenment and myths, and, for example, how they both must atone for something that has happened, but a part from this it feels like there is going on so much in the text that it's hard to get a grip of what the point is. Maybe the writer just compares enlightenment to different things, like comparing it to liberalism or art. Also, the text brings up how workers in todays society are harnessed in the same collective, and that it's the logical consequence of the industrial society, so social criticism.

The transformation of the superstructure takes place far more slowly than that of the substructure. 
Superstructure is, according to Marx, a social creation. The 'Base' refers to the forces and relations of production, while superstructure refers to all other aspects of society. Substructure is, according to the link, economic activity that is designed for either capitalism or socialism, and for each one of them it says that it promotes either personal accumulation- or a socially equitable distribution of wealth.

What he talks a lot about in the text is the reproduction of the work of art, and how mechanical reproduction represents something new. A common theme in the text is to compare different kinds of art, namely painting still pictures, moving pictures, and real-time acting on stage. So for example the mechanical reproduction of acting of stage would be catching it on film, and the text compares the authenticity of the mechanical one compared to the 'authentic', real-life one. A real-life actor identifies himself with his role while the film actor is composed of may, separate performances. An example is the authentic- or 'real' way an actor can react to a door-knock. If recorded in a studio, the director could essentially get the right reaction by not forewarning the actor, and there can be many times that the actor will be at the studio. By this he means hat art has 'left the realm of "beautiful semplance"...'.

Now I don't know if we were supposed to reflect upon the questions that was said to be prepared for the seminar or just to have them as maybe guidelines as to what we could reflect upon, but I had not much time to read the texts properly since I had to go to a world cup in trampoline, in Spain, early on Wednesday. I also find it hard to get the whole picture of the texts. So I rather try to find meaning int certain segments.