Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:53 pm guilt by accusation is a beautiful thing
"I saw you with the devil!!"
1861
-Imp
Postcards:
Re: Postcards:
Re: Postcards:
Dear diary moment 10/7/2018:
Had a thought last night. Or, rather, it was fusion of thoughts I have had before. I have pointed out before that a lot of this comes out people expecting way too much from our political system. As anyone who has taken a poly-sci 101 class knows, politics is the art of mediating between a very diverse multiplicity of interests. Therefore, a perfect (or better said: working (democracy consists of a situation in which everyone is happy with some things while being unhappy about others. And the only thing that would disrupt this are utopian notions about what would be perfect if only such and such weren’t in the way. And by this understanding, we can now see how Trump and his followers are basically utopians –that is despite the dystopia we see coming out their belief systems.
And this becomes all too clear when you compare my model of lowered expectations to the element of utopianism demonstrated by Trump and his followers and the authoritarian dynamic that emerges from it. As I have said before: it always starts with these appeals to self indulgence (even if it comes at the expense of others (and always ends with all this talk about what you must sacrifice for the higher good. In other words: what starts with an experience of perfect satisfaction always ends with an experience of perfect misery.
In other words, in order to fix this, we have got to deal with this demand for perfect satisfaction as concerns government. We have got be analytic and see it for what it is and see our own ideas about the perfect society as nothing more than ideas –that is in comparison to democracy which is the only political and social system we really need.
Had a thought last night. Or, rather, it was fusion of thoughts I have had before. I have pointed out before that a lot of this comes out people expecting way too much from our political system. As anyone who has taken a poly-sci 101 class knows, politics is the art of mediating between a very diverse multiplicity of interests. Therefore, a perfect (or better said: working (democracy consists of a situation in which everyone is happy with some things while being unhappy about others. And the only thing that would disrupt this are utopian notions about what would be perfect if only such and such weren’t in the way. And by this understanding, we can now see how Trump and his followers are basically utopians –that is despite the dystopia we see coming out their belief systems.
And this becomes all too clear when you compare my model of lowered expectations to the element of utopianism demonstrated by Trump and his followers and the authoritarian dynamic that emerges from it. As I have said before: it always starts with these appeals to self indulgence (even if it comes at the expense of others (and always ends with all this talk about what you must sacrifice for the higher good. In other words: what starts with an experience of perfect satisfaction always ends with an experience of perfect misery.
In other words, in order to fix this, we have got to deal with this demand for perfect satisfaction as concerns government. We have got be analytic and see it for what it is and see our own ideas about the perfect society as nothing more than ideas –that is in comparison to democracy which is the only political and social system we really need.
Re: Postcards:
Reference: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Ethpols ... 847478785/
“D Edward Tarkington I may need to refresh my idea of Utopian.
While your view makes sense to me to a point there is still a disconnection in my mind.
In my mind to be Utopian in any sense, disregarding the fact that I disbelieve in both personal and collective utopias, requires some thought and planning. For instance we don't say kids are Utopian because they may want to eat candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We may consider that foolish or inexperienced or something else but I've never heard it described as Utopian.
I think in the same way i think the majority of hateful, violent, bigoted (and on and on) people do not think things out. I think they compartmentalize so much that they fail to achieve any type of possible reality.
For instance if you want the government to create and maintain a social safety net for you but do not want the government to have the resources or the laborers it needs to do so, nor do you want anyone to contribute to it. In my mind that is similar to the kid wanting candy 24/7.
So in other words I don’t feel they have thought out their positions enough to know what they truly want.”
First of all, Sitty, I apologize for posting what we already know: your post. I do this for two reasons –especially when it comes to someone not familiar with my methods of madness. For one, it makes it lot of easier (through copy and paste –that is on a Word document (to wind through, point and reference to, and comment on various points you have made. (You’ll see what I mean in the following.) Plus that, it allows me to groom it for cross pollination.
That said, I once again am empathetic with your argument when you say:
“D Edward Tarkington I may need to refresh my idea of Utopian.
While your view makes sense to me to a point there is still a disconnection in my mind.”
I am asking a lot when it comes to asking you to take on a broader understanding of the term “Utopian” as compared to how we normally think of it. This why I actually think (in the context of the general understanding (the normal logic (of the term (you make a good argument when you say:
“For instance we don't say kids are Utopian because they may want to eat candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We may consider that foolish or inexperienced or something else but I've never heard it described as Utopian.”
That, going by the framing you are working from, is a good argument. Where I am departing from you (that is from the framework I am working from (is the recognition that those children are actually acting in the capacity of Utopians to the extent that they are imagining a perfect world, one, BTW, that certain adults are always standing in the way of. And I would segue this into the argument that we are all basically Utopians in that we all have these ideas about what the perfect world would look like. However, if we’re realistic, we also recognize that there is a big difference between the world as we would like it to be and the world that we can hope for. And this is the distinction between the Utopian and the democrat. The democrat recognizes (as any Poly Scy 101 class will tell you (that politics is the art of mediating between diverse interests. Therefore, the optimal situation would be one in which everyone has things they can appreciate while still having issues. The Utopian, on the other hand, seeks perfect satisfaction (even if it comes at the misery of the other), and can only result in a situation that goes from perfect satisfaction (generally at the expense of the other (to perfect misery when all those appeals to self indulgence turn into a lot of talk about what you must sacrifice for the sake of the higher principle that bought you that self indulgence in the first place.
And there is more to say about this, Sitty. For instance, we can see the same Utopian dynamic at work in addicts who will turn to ill for the higher principle of that first high. But my window has run out. My main point for now is that for all the libertarian and FreeMarketFundamentalist claims and criticisms of socialists being Utopians, and dismissing them based on that (on being too idealistic), they (and I include Ayn Rand’s nonsense in this (are no less so.
“D Edward Tarkington I may need to refresh my idea of Utopian.
While your view makes sense to me to a point there is still a disconnection in my mind.
In my mind to be Utopian in any sense, disregarding the fact that I disbelieve in both personal and collective utopias, requires some thought and planning. For instance we don't say kids are Utopian because they may want to eat candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We may consider that foolish or inexperienced or something else but I've never heard it described as Utopian.
I think in the same way i think the majority of hateful, violent, bigoted (and on and on) people do not think things out. I think they compartmentalize so much that they fail to achieve any type of possible reality.
For instance if you want the government to create and maintain a social safety net for you but do not want the government to have the resources or the laborers it needs to do so, nor do you want anyone to contribute to it. In my mind that is similar to the kid wanting candy 24/7.
So in other words I don’t feel they have thought out their positions enough to know what they truly want.”
First of all, Sitty, I apologize for posting what we already know: your post. I do this for two reasons –especially when it comes to someone not familiar with my methods of madness. For one, it makes it lot of easier (through copy and paste –that is on a Word document (to wind through, point and reference to, and comment on various points you have made. (You’ll see what I mean in the following.) Plus that, it allows me to groom it for cross pollination.
That said, I once again am empathetic with your argument when you say:
“D Edward Tarkington I may need to refresh my idea of Utopian.
While your view makes sense to me to a point there is still a disconnection in my mind.”
I am asking a lot when it comes to asking you to take on a broader understanding of the term “Utopian” as compared to how we normally think of it. This why I actually think (in the context of the general understanding (the normal logic (of the term (you make a good argument when you say:
“For instance we don't say kids are Utopian because they may want to eat candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We may consider that foolish or inexperienced or something else but I've never heard it described as Utopian.”
That, going by the framing you are working from, is a good argument. Where I am departing from you (that is from the framework I am working from (is the recognition that those children are actually acting in the capacity of Utopians to the extent that they are imagining a perfect world, one, BTW, that certain adults are always standing in the way of. And I would segue this into the argument that we are all basically Utopians in that we all have these ideas about what the perfect world would look like. However, if we’re realistic, we also recognize that there is a big difference between the world as we would like it to be and the world that we can hope for. And this is the distinction between the Utopian and the democrat. The democrat recognizes (as any Poly Scy 101 class will tell you (that politics is the art of mediating between diverse interests. Therefore, the optimal situation would be one in which everyone has things they can appreciate while still having issues. The Utopian, on the other hand, seeks perfect satisfaction (even if it comes at the misery of the other), and can only result in a situation that goes from perfect satisfaction (generally at the expense of the other (to perfect misery when all those appeals to self indulgence turn into a lot of talk about what you must sacrifice for the sake of the higher principle that bought you that self indulgence in the first place.
And there is more to say about this, Sitty. For instance, we can see the same Utopian dynamic at work in addicts who will turn to ill for the higher principle of that first high. But my window has run out. My main point for now is that for all the libertarian and FreeMarketFundamentalist claims and criticisms of socialists being Utopians, and dismissing them based on that (on being too idealistic), they (and I include Ayn Rand’s nonsense in this (are no less so.
Re: Postcards:
Dear Diary moment 10/25/2018: As Kyle from South Park would put it: I had a thought today:
I now see the importance of Deleuze and Guatarri’s rhizomatic model (as compared to the arborescent (in terms more entwined with my own model of the Metaphysics of Efficiency as compared to the traditional Metaphysics of Power: that which leads to a Culture of More –which I will connect to Trump later.
If you think about it, the Metaphysics of Power is always dependent on arborescent models: tree-like models with an original cause at the bottom of it all. For instance: the recent issue of a disturbing number of young African American men being shot by cops under precarious circumstances. The left, of course, will designate the root cause to the prejudice of policemen. The right, of course, will delegate the root cause to the criminal nature of young African American men in the inner cities.
And this is the Metaphysics of Power at work: two sides attempting to offer a solution to some mythical original cause propped up by the traditional arborescent model. But let’s look at it from a more rhizomatic perspective. Let’s look at it from the perspective of a complex feedback loop between the desperation that might emerge in the inner cities, the desperate acts members of that environment might engage in, the fear that might provoke in those trying to enforce law in such an environment, and, yes, any prejudices those experiences with desperate members of that environment might reinforce.
My main point here is we can see how the Metaphysics of Power (the authoritarian mindset (would tend towards an arborescent model with some imagined “root cause”. We see it all over Trump with all his Gordian Knot solutions. It’s always a matter of clear-cut villains at the root of it: too much regulation, too many taxes, Obamacare, too much government, immigrants, etc., etc.. And I realize I have mentioned several causes which would seem to contradict my point. But Trump, due to the arborescent model he is working from, sees every issue as something like a different tree that he has gained special access to the root cause of. This is why he (as well as his followers are (is completely incapable of grasping any issue in its true complexity.
I now see the importance of Deleuze and Guatarri’s rhizomatic model (as compared to the arborescent (in terms more entwined with my own model of the Metaphysics of Efficiency as compared to the traditional Metaphysics of Power: that which leads to a Culture of More –which I will connect to Trump later.
If you think about it, the Metaphysics of Power is always dependent on arborescent models: tree-like models with an original cause at the bottom of it all. For instance: the recent issue of a disturbing number of young African American men being shot by cops under precarious circumstances. The left, of course, will designate the root cause to the prejudice of policemen. The right, of course, will delegate the root cause to the criminal nature of young African American men in the inner cities.
And this is the Metaphysics of Power at work: two sides attempting to offer a solution to some mythical original cause propped up by the traditional arborescent model. But let’s look at it from a more rhizomatic perspective. Let’s look at it from the perspective of a complex feedback loop between the desperation that might emerge in the inner cities, the desperate acts members of that environment might engage in, the fear that might provoke in those trying to enforce law in such an environment, and, yes, any prejudices those experiences with desperate members of that environment might reinforce.
My main point here is we can see how the Metaphysics of Power (the authoritarian mindset (would tend towards an arborescent model with some imagined “root cause”. We see it all over Trump with all his Gordian Knot solutions. It’s always a matter of clear-cut villains at the root of it: too much regulation, too many taxes, Obamacare, too much government, immigrants, etc., etc.. And I realize I have mentioned several causes which would seem to contradict my point. But Trump, due to the arborescent model he is working from, sees every issue as something like a different tree that he has gained special access to the root cause of. This is why he (as well as his followers are (is completely incapable of grasping any issue in its true complexity.
Re: Postcards:
“Indeed, incessant cycles of deterritorialization and reterritorialization through axiomatization constitute one of the fundamental rhythms of capitalist society as a whole - what Marx referred to as the "constant revolutionizing of the means of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions [that] distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones"46: capital is extracted from one locale (the rust belt, the United States) and re-invested somewhere else (the south, the Pacific rim); labor skills corresponding to certain means of production are, for a time, fostered and well paid, only to become worthless a few years later when new means of production prevail; consumer preferences are first programmed by advertising to value one set of goods, only to be deprogrammed so as to consider them "out of fashion," and reprogrammed by another advertising campaign to value a "new" set of goods. The terms deterritorialization and reterritorialization thus presuppose and reinforce the notice of a "common essence...of desire and labor," referring without distinction to the detachment and reattachment of the energies of "production in general" (including "consumption") to objects of investment of all kinds, whether conventionally considered "psychological" or "economic." “ -Holland, Eugene W.. Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (p. 20). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Unfortunately, guys, this is going to be a bit wordy (the very thing I tend to complain about the French being –so call me hypocrite if you will (as there is a lot to quote and a lot to say here. But if it’s any consolation, much of it will be Holland’s writing.
That said, we can easily see here how Capitalism (by the model of D & G( can lead to the very right-wing nonsense we are dealing with now: this constant state of change that many people would prefer not to be involved in, people who might choose to capture everything into a paranoid center. We can even see why such people might resist the D & G agenda of accelerating that dynamic until we somehow break through it to the other side. Hence: their orientation towards reterritorialization: a hopefully permanent one in their minds. And this is implicit in Holland’s next point:
“Closely linked with deterritorialization and reterritorialization are the parallel terms "decoding" and "recoding," which bear on representations rather than on concrete objects. Decoding, it is important to note, does not refer to the process of translating a secret meaning or message into clearer form: on the contrary, it refers to a process of dis-investing given meanings altogether, to a process of "uncoding," if you like: the destabilization and ultimately the elimination of established codes that confer fixed meaning.”
This is what Trump and his followers don’t get: it is profit seeking behaviors that is taking the meaning (the certainty (from their lives. They would rather focus on the shiny objects (who wants to be a millionaire? (that Capitalism (via media (flashes in front of them and blame everything on those who fail to meet the criteria of ideal producer/consumers: immigrants, welfare queens, gays, minorities, government even, the people you see on shows like COPS, etc., etc…….
Capitalism rewards identity (as is all too obvious in TV ads). Becoming is always suspect until it can be conscripted into the producer/consumer agenda: the Platonic realm of ideal forms according to corporate owned media.
Unfortunately, guys, this is going to be a bit wordy (the very thing I tend to complain about the French being –so call me hypocrite if you will (as there is a lot to quote and a lot to say here. But if it’s any consolation, much of it will be Holland’s writing.
That said, we can easily see here how Capitalism (by the model of D & G( can lead to the very right-wing nonsense we are dealing with now: this constant state of change that many people would prefer not to be involved in, people who might choose to capture everything into a paranoid center. We can even see why such people might resist the D & G agenda of accelerating that dynamic until we somehow break through it to the other side. Hence: their orientation towards reterritorialization: a hopefully permanent one in their minds. And this is implicit in Holland’s next point:
“Closely linked with deterritorialization and reterritorialization are the parallel terms "decoding" and "recoding," which bear on representations rather than on concrete objects. Decoding, it is important to note, does not refer to the process of translating a secret meaning or message into clearer form: on the contrary, it refers to a process of dis-investing given meanings altogether, to a process of "uncoding," if you like: the destabilization and ultimately the elimination of established codes that confer fixed meaning.”
This is what Trump and his followers don’t get: it is profit seeking behaviors that is taking the meaning (the certainty (from their lives. They would rather focus on the shiny objects (who wants to be a millionaire? (that Capitalism (via media (flashes in front of them and blame everything on those who fail to meet the criteria of ideal producer/consumers: immigrants, welfare queens, gays, minorities, government even, the people you see on shows like COPS, etc., etc…….
Capitalism rewards identity (as is all too obvious in TV ads). Becoming is always suspect until it can be conscripted into the producer/consumer agenda: the Platonic realm of ideal forms according to corporate owned media.
Re: Postcards:
Today, I want to mainly work in the overlaps one finds among various philosophers, the primary territory, I believe, we all tend to work in having chosen to pursue such a thing.
“The law tells us: You shall not marry your mother, and you shall not kill your father. And...docile subjects say to [them]selves: so that's what I wanted!” –quote from Anti-Oedipus
“Such is the ruse of the law prohibiting incest (and perhaps of law in general): it presents desire with a falsified image of what desire "wants" in the very act of prohibiting it. Desire is thereby trapped in a first paralogism, a classic double-bind that Deleuze and Guattari call the "paralogism of displacement": docile subjects supposedly discover what they desire at the same time that they discover they cannot have it.” -Holland, Eugene W.. Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (p. 37). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
This, of course, is also a major issue with Žižek as well. And what I’m reminded of is Sartre’s Vertigo of the Possible: that which is not so much a fear of falling into the abyss as throwing one’s self in. And it is important note in the context of D & G’s rejection of Freud’s Oedipus Complex and the way it channels desire as compared to simply describing it. And we can get a sense of this when we consider Freud’s concept of Wish Fulfillment as concerns dream psychology. Under the Freud regime, it was generally assumed that if you dreamed about yourself committing some weird or odious act, it meant that you had some subconscious desire to do so. But Sartre’s Vertigo offers an alternative. What it tells us is that if you find yourself dreaming about an act like blowing up a church or killing a baby or kicking puppies or even find yourself naked in a tub with your mother, all it really constitutes is the mind recognizing that the possibility exists. And in defense of that, I would note how in such dreams we find ourselves in a state of panic wondering why we would do such things. And we see a similar dynamic at work in D & G’s attack on the Oedipus in that it creates the possibility (the vertigo even (of killing one’s father in order to sleep with one’s mother –that which is then translated to the model of a fragmented self (which is actually our natural/schizo state (that can only be put back together by re-establishing our relationship with a father figure such as the psychiatrist. Think ego psychology. Think Dr. Phil.
Another overlap I would like to approach here has to do with the binary of the neurotic (that which puts its emphasis on anti-production (and the pervert: that which puts its emphasis on hyper-production. It seems to me that we can see an overlap between the neurotic and Carl Jung’s malady of the extrovert, what he referred to as the hysteric. In that case, the subconscious (always working to counter the conscious subject (attempts to overwhelm the subject which is always focused on the world of objects. In other words, much like the neurotic, the hysteric is always engaging in an extreme form of anti-production.
“The law tells us: You shall not marry your mother, and you shall not kill your father. And...docile subjects say to [them]selves: so that's what I wanted!” –quote from Anti-Oedipus
“Such is the ruse of the law prohibiting incest (and perhaps of law in general): it presents desire with a falsified image of what desire "wants" in the very act of prohibiting it. Desire is thereby trapped in a first paralogism, a classic double-bind that Deleuze and Guattari call the "paralogism of displacement": docile subjects supposedly discover what they desire at the same time that they discover they cannot have it.” -Holland, Eugene W.. Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (p. 37). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
This, of course, is also a major issue with Žižek as well. And what I’m reminded of is Sartre’s Vertigo of the Possible: that which is not so much a fear of falling into the abyss as throwing one’s self in. And it is important note in the context of D & G’s rejection of Freud’s Oedipus Complex and the way it channels desire as compared to simply describing it. And we can get a sense of this when we consider Freud’s concept of Wish Fulfillment as concerns dream psychology. Under the Freud regime, it was generally assumed that if you dreamed about yourself committing some weird or odious act, it meant that you had some subconscious desire to do so. But Sartre’s Vertigo offers an alternative. What it tells us is that if you find yourself dreaming about an act like blowing up a church or killing a baby or kicking puppies or even find yourself naked in a tub with your mother, all it really constitutes is the mind recognizing that the possibility exists. And in defense of that, I would note how in such dreams we find ourselves in a state of panic wondering why we would do such things. And we see a similar dynamic at work in D & G’s attack on the Oedipus in that it creates the possibility (the vertigo even (of killing one’s father in order to sleep with one’s mother –that which is then translated to the model of a fragmented self (which is actually our natural/schizo state (that can only be put back together by re-establishing our relationship with a father figure such as the psychiatrist. Think ego psychology. Think Dr. Phil.
Another overlap I would like to approach here has to do with the binary of the neurotic (that which puts its emphasis on anti-production (and the pervert: that which puts its emphasis on hyper-production. It seems to me that we can see an overlap between the neurotic and Carl Jung’s malady of the extrovert, what he referred to as the hysteric. In that case, the subconscious (always working to counter the conscious subject (attempts to overwhelm the subject which is always focused on the world of objects. In other words, much like the neurotic, the hysteric is always engaging in an extreme form of anti-production.
Re: Postcards:
Dear Diary Moment 11/29/2018:
While reading Eugene Holland’s secondary text on the Anti-Oedipus, and going through the part about the relationship between the savage, the despotic, and Capitalism, I found myself asking the same old questions:
How deep do I really need to go into such theory? How important is an expert understanding of it to my process?
Not that I would abandon it. I’ve found too much I can use in it. (Especially the rhizomatic aspect: perhaps the source of a D & G auto-critique (And D & G do encourage us to not ask what it means but, rather, what it does. And I’m perfectly capable of writing about and describing what it does, but in a very blue-collarized way –one that might even be considered naïve by some of Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guatarri (more passionate devotees. But for me, this is mainly the input/output dynamic of taking in a lot of different information from a lot of different sources, letting it churn in my mind, and seeing what it can produce in the form of writing (or art (or poetry (or just whatever. I’m just not sure this requires that I put all my energy into it when there are other things I’m interested in doing.
That said, one of the things my filters are starting to pick up in Holland’s book is the transformation as concerns the Oedipal between the savage, the despotic, and the capitalist is how it went from a system of horizontal exchange in more savage systems (their BwO (or socious (being the earth (to the vertical power structure of despot who was basically given a free-pass on the incest taboo since he was basically father, mother, brother, and sister (as well as friend (to all his sovereign. So it stands to reason how he might find himself at some paranoid center since he had open access to any woman under his command. It would stand to reason that, eventually, other men would seek to overthrow him. And given the genealogy involved, it would stand to reason that Capitalism would establish the Oedipal dynamic in which the metaphorical son (or son’s (overthrows the father figure to achieve the potential mother.
The thing to note here is how the incest taboo, in savage societies, was mainly an issue of encouraging exchange with others outside of the immediate family structure.
While reading Eugene Holland’s secondary text on the Anti-Oedipus, and going through the part about the relationship between the savage, the despotic, and Capitalism, I found myself asking the same old questions:
How deep do I really need to go into such theory? How important is an expert understanding of it to my process?
Not that I would abandon it. I’ve found too much I can use in it. (Especially the rhizomatic aspect: perhaps the source of a D & G auto-critique (And D & G do encourage us to not ask what it means but, rather, what it does. And I’m perfectly capable of writing about and describing what it does, but in a very blue-collarized way –one that might even be considered naïve by some of Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guatarri (more passionate devotees. But for me, this is mainly the input/output dynamic of taking in a lot of different information from a lot of different sources, letting it churn in my mind, and seeing what it can produce in the form of writing (or art (or poetry (or just whatever. I’m just not sure this requires that I put all my energy into it when there are other things I’m interested in doing.
That said, one of the things my filters are starting to pick up in Holland’s book is the transformation as concerns the Oedipal between the savage, the despotic, and the capitalist is how it went from a system of horizontal exchange in more savage systems (their BwO (or socious (being the earth (to the vertical power structure of despot who was basically given a free-pass on the incest taboo since he was basically father, mother, brother, and sister (as well as friend (to all his sovereign. So it stands to reason how he might find himself at some paranoid center since he had open access to any woman under his command. It would stand to reason that, eventually, other men would seek to overthrow him. And given the genealogy involved, it would stand to reason that Capitalism would establish the Oedipal dynamic in which the metaphorical son (or son’s (overthrows the father figure to achieve the potential mother.
The thing to note here is how the incest taboo, in savage societies, was mainly an issue of encouraging exchange with others outside of the immediate family structure.
Re: Postcards:
“The connective synthesis concerns instincts and drives, and the ways they endow objects with value or erotic charge; roughly speaking, it translates Freud's notion of libidinal investment or cathexis and the functions he assigns to Eros or the life instinct. The disjunctive synthesis involves the functioning of pleasure, memory, and signs in the psyche, along with what Freud called the death instinct, or Thanatos. The conjunctive synthesis, finally, is about the formation of subjectivity.” -Holland, Eugene W.. Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (p. 25). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Today I want to take a more personal approach to the model described above (D&G’s syntheses of the unconscious: connection, disjunction, and connection (through an old and trusted riff of my own. And I am doing so in preparation for an article I would like to write for a UK magazine I’ve allied (or rather affiliated (myself with: Philosophy Now. So any input (whether it succeeds or fails (would be appreciated. Consider the sentence:
At what point are you in this sentence right now?
Now think about your experience of reading that sentence. First there was the connective synthesis of connecting one word to the other –all of them partial objects that somehow related to the object that followed and somehow connected. But it wasn’t long before the disjunction kicked in of not having the full meaning of the sentence until you reached the end. On top of that, there was the disjunction of discovering a question which you couldn’t answer while it was being asked which, technically, means you never really answered the question. As Deleuze put it in Difference and Repetition: you were dealing with a past present that was never really there.
But, finally, you reached the end of the sentence and experienced the conjunction (this kind of collapsing on itself (of getting the meaning of the sentence. The problem, however, is that you were never really there to answer the question as it was asked.
Now we can translate this to the point Holland (via D&G (was trying make as concerns the subject (that which occurs after the fact): that it is always the aftereffect of the syntheses of the subconscious but is always naturally prone to claim all processes (all syntheses that led to conjunction (were the results of its own efforts. And it’s easy to see the problems this could lead to.
Today I want to take a more personal approach to the model described above (D&G’s syntheses of the unconscious: connection, disjunction, and connection (through an old and trusted riff of my own. And I am doing so in preparation for an article I would like to write for a UK magazine I’ve allied (or rather affiliated (myself with: Philosophy Now. So any input (whether it succeeds or fails (would be appreciated. Consider the sentence:
At what point are you in this sentence right now?
Now think about your experience of reading that sentence. First there was the connective synthesis of connecting one word to the other –all of them partial objects that somehow related to the object that followed and somehow connected. But it wasn’t long before the disjunction kicked in of not having the full meaning of the sentence until you reached the end. On top of that, there was the disjunction of discovering a question which you couldn’t answer while it was being asked which, technically, means you never really answered the question. As Deleuze put it in Difference and Repetition: you were dealing with a past present that was never really there.
But, finally, you reached the end of the sentence and experienced the conjunction (this kind of collapsing on itself (of getting the meaning of the sentence. The problem, however, is that you were never really there to answer the question as it was asked.
Now we can translate this to the point Holland (via D&G (was trying make as concerns the subject (that which occurs after the fact): that it is always the aftereffect of the syntheses of the subconscious but is always naturally prone to claim all processes (all syntheses that led to conjunction (were the results of its own efforts. And it’s easy to see the problems this could lead to.
Re: Postcards:
“Such delegation explains why the family can appear to be a microcosm when really it is not; why familially constructed subjects often seem, on the one hand, so ill-suited to the specific content-requirements of social-production at any given moment of its development; why, on the other hand, the family's degree of abstraction as an apparently separate reproductive institution produces subjects perfectly suited formally to a system of social-production in constant flux. For what they learn in the nuclear family is simply to submit, as good docile subjects, to prohibitive authority - the father, the boss, capital in general - and relinquish until later, as good ascetic subjects, their access to the objects of desire and their objective being - the mother, the goods they produce, the natural environment as a whole. But that is all they need to learn: the content-requirements of social-production, as capitalism "continually revolutionizes the means of production," change too fast for the family to play much of a role in job training, for example, just as fashion and life-style fads change too fast for parents to play an adequate role in consumer training. What the Oedipal family-machine produces is just enough: obedient ascetic subjects programmed to accept the mediation of capital between their productive life-activity and their own enjoyment of it, who will work for an internalized prohibitive authority and defer gratification until the day they die, the day after retiring. Far from being autonomous, much less originary, fundamental, or universal, the Oedipus complex of the nuclear family appears as though it had been "fabricated to meet the requirements of...[the capitalist] social formation" (101/120), from which it in fact derives by delegation.47 And to challenge or rebel against such Oedipally constituted authority would amount to committing incest! The Oedipal machine, to the extent that it works, effectively straight-jackets desire.” -Holland, Eugene W.. Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (pp. 55-56). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
And to go straight to the source itself:
“From the very beginning of this study, we have maintained both that social-production and desiring-production are one and the same, and that they have differing regimes, with the result that a social form of production exercises an essential repression of desiring-production, and also that desiring-production - "real" desire - is potentially capable of demolishing the social form. (116/138)” –Ibid: quote from the Anti-Oedipus
I know this is a lot. And if it is any consolation: the bulk of it is Holland’s writing and not mine. But it gets at the heart of what the Anti-Oedipus is about; all else is just elaboration and articulation. At the same time, I should admit that there is a little (maybe a lot of (confirmation bias at work here in that it confirms some of my initial instincts about the book and overlaps with one of my main concerns about Capitalism: what I refer to as the tyranny of the functional. And much of what follows will be framed in terms of that tyranny.
I would first note a point made elsewhere in Holland’s book: that, under the Oedipus, the nuclear family provides a kind of elementary preparation for functioning in a Capitalist society (very much like the 3 R’s in American primary education: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic): a prohibited in the form of the incest taboo (the mother (and a prohibitor: the paternal father figure –that is against a desire that probably wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the prohibition in the first place.
What this creates is a situation that (at a more nominal/blue collar level (Capitalism engages on a regular basis: of creating a situation that serves its purposes at the expense of others while wiping its hands clean of it. And the way it does this (via psychoanalysis (is by separating desiring production from social production via the nuclear family; by making it seem as if what we are and do is purely the result of our individual circumstance within the family; our individual psyches. It is as if Capitalism is saying (via, once again, psychoanalyses: that if there is a problem, it is not Capitalism that needs to be reformed, it is you.
And nowhere is this clearer than in Ego Psychology in which the assumption is that if you are having problems, it is due to a fractured ego that can be put back together if you submit to a paternal guru type. And that is when we are, by nature, fractured selves. Think Dr. Phil here: the epitome of Ego Psychology and the tyranny of the functional. And is not Dr. Phil not the very kind of psychologist that Guatarri was seeking to undermine when he allied himself w/ Deleuze?
And to go straight to the source itself:
“From the very beginning of this study, we have maintained both that social-production and desiring-production are one and the same, and that they have differing regimes, with the result that a social form of production exercises an essential repression of desiring-production, and also that desiring-production - "real" desire - is potentially capable of demolishing the social form. (116/138)” –Ibid: quote from the Anti-Oedipus
I know this is a lot. And if it is any consolation: the bulk of it is Holland’s writing and not mine. But it gets at the heart of what the Anti-Oedipus is about; all else is just elaboration and articulation. At the same time, I should admit that there is a little (maybe a lot of (confirmation bias at work here in that it confirms some of my initial instincts about the book and overlaps with one of my main concerns about Capitalism: what I refer to as the tyranny of the functional. And much of what follows will be framed in terms of that tyranny.
I would first note a point made elsewhere in Holland’s book: that, under the Oedipus, the nuclear family provides a kind of elementary preparation for functioning in a Capitalist society (very much like the 3 R’s in American primary education: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic): a prohibited in the form of the incest taboo (the mother (and a prohibitor: the paternal father figure –that is against a desire that probably wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the prohibition in the first place.
What this creates is a situation that (at a more nominal/blue collar level (Capitalism engages on a regular basis: of creating a situation that serves its purposes at the expense of others while wiping its hands clean of it. And the way it does this (via psychoanalysis (is by separating desiring production from social production via the nuclear family; by making it seem as if what we are and do is purely the result of our individual circumstance within the family; our individual psyches. It is as if Capitalism is saying (via, once again, psychoanalyses: that if there is a problem, it is not Capitalism that needs to be reformed, it is you.
And nowhere is this clearer than in Ego Psychology in which the assumption is that if you are having problems, it is due to a fractured ego that can be put back together if you submit to a paternal guru type. And that is when we are, by nature, fractured selves. Think Dr. Phil here: the epitome of Ego Psychology and the tyranny of the functional. And is not Dr. Phil not the very kind of psychologist that Guatarri was seeking to undermine when he allied himself w/ Deleuze?
Re: Postcards:
Dear diary moment 12/9/2018:
Today I want to focus on the “New Earth” agenda of the Anti-Oedipus: this perpetually deterritorialized state in which the socious is brought more in line with the deteritorialized state of the unconscious: the BwO. First of all, I would note how it seems to cycle back to the savage state in which the earth-based socious and BwO are so closely bound that is hardly worth talking about desiring production as distinct from social production. The primary difference between the two, however, is that the New Earth socious would lack the codes and mores that the savage milieu was dependent upon. It, as compared to the savage, would be a complete unleashing of desiring production. And I would note here how D&G’s agenda retains an element of “the noble savage” that has been put into question by more contemporary thinkers as Steven Pinker.
(And I would also note how this pretty much confirms (that is to confirm the confirmation bias at work on my part (what I’ve always suspected about Deleuze: that the creative act was never that far from the back of his mind.)
But what I mainly want to point to is the overlap between D & G’s Utopian vision and that of other thinkers. Most notable here is Marx’s vision of a society in which an individual could be a fisherman in the morning, a musician by noon, and an artist by night. And I would note, here, the Maslowian concept of the hierarchy of needs that comfortably overlaps with D & G’s unleashing of desiring production. And I would also note here how Capitalism (as D & G suggest (has made this possible via technology: for instance, how computer/digital technology has made it easier to make movies or songs or graphic art. Think sampling here.
And to push the issue even further (that is at the risk of gerrymandering), we can even see this unleashing of desiring production in Rorty’s argument that we need to quit worrying so much about what constitutes a given discipline: science, art, philosophy, etc., etc. (quit recoding and reterritorializing (and let our acts be the “unforced flowers of society”.
Once again: the creative act never seems that far from Deleuze’s mind. But then, it never seems that far from Guatarri’s, Marx’s, Rorty’s, or even Maslow’s either. And I suspect this is because we are talking about creative people that basically wanted to spread the joy.
Today I want to focus on the “New Earth” agenda of the Anti-Oedipus: this perpetually deterritorialized state in which the socious is brought more in line with the deteritorialized state of the unconscious: the BwO. First of all, I would note how it seems to cycle back to the savage state in which the earth-based socious and BwO are so closely bound that is hardly worth talking about desiring production as distinct from social production. The primary difference between the two, however, is that the New Earth socious would lack the codes and mores that the savage milieu was dependent upon. It, as compared to the savage, would be a complete unleashing of desiring production. And I would note here how D&G’s agenda retains an element of “the noble savage” that has been put into question by more contemporary thinkers as Steven Pinker.
(And I would also note how this pretty much confirms (that is to confirm the confirmation bias at work on my part (what I’ve always suspected about Deleuze: that the creative act was never that far from the back of his mind.)
But what I mainly want to point to is the overlap between D & G’s Utopian vision and that of other thinkers. Most notable here is Marx’s vision of a society in which an individual could be a fisherman in the morning, a musician by noon, and an artist by night. And I would note, here, the Maslowian concept of the hierarchy of needs that comfortably overlaps with D & G’s unleashing of desiring production. And I would also note here how Capitalism (as D & G suggest (has made this possible via technology: for instance, how computer/digital technology has made it easier to make movies or songs or graphic art. Think sampling here.
And to push the issue even further (that is at the risk of gerrymandering), we can even see this unleashing of desiring production in Rorty’s argument that we need to quit worrying so much about what constitutes a given discipline: science, art, philosophy, etc., etc. (quit recoding and reterritorializing (and let our acts be the “unforced flowers of society”.
Once again: the creative act never seems that far from Deleuze’s mind. But then, it never seems that far from Guatarri’s, Marx’s, Rorty’s, or even Maslow’s either. And I suspect this is because we are talking about creative people that basically wanted to spread the joy.
Re: Postcards:
One of the grievances I’ve developed with MSNBC (call it a lover’s quarrel (is their tendency to refer to FOX News as “state TV”. This, of course, is a reference to Orwell’s 1984. And it is inaccurate –or, rather, partially so. It’s only (and in a conditional way (“state TV” when Republicans are in control. And it is only so within the framework of what the republican platform represents: a complete submission to Capitalist values and almost religious faith in the market. In fact, if FOX News is anything, it is anti-government or state. The truth is that what FOX News is actually playing lip service to are corporate values.
Now some may protest that issues such as immigration, PC issues, or abortion are hardly corporate concerns. And, to some extent, they would be right to the extent that profit seeking behaviors are generally indifferent to such issues. But at the same time, these issues do serve their interests either indirectly through misdirect or in more direct ways as I will describe below. The misdirect, of course, is that as long as a group of intellectual hicks keep voting republican because they’re pissed off about immigration, PC culture, or even abortion, or even being picked on white guys (that is when most of the rich are white guys), that can do no other than serve the interests of the rich and the emerging oligarchy they are participating in –that is with outright contempt for the masses including those who support the republican platform. And this is what republican drones don’t get: while they are focusing on the failures of government (while they are engaging in all this talk about “liberty”), they are surrendering their selves to the very thing that lies at the source of pretty much all their problems: profit seeking behaviors. On top of that, they are attacking and undermining the one institution they have available to them to act as check and balance to corporate power: a government that could (should we make it happen (act in its proper capacity and facilitate a fair (mind you not an equal (distribution of power.
The direct way in which corporate interests profit from republican issues (mainly immigration and abortion (is that an expanding economy (that which profits them as investors (is an expanding population. Capitalism rides on constant expansion. So we hardly need reflect and elaborate on the very real impact this could have on our environment and LIMITED natural resources. Hence: the republican (as well as FOX News (tendency towards denial when it comes to such issues. On top of that, we get so-called "enlightened entrepreneurs" who will address these issues no further than will hurt their profits while making it seem like the market is the only solution we really need.
And this is my issue with MSNBC. By calling FOX News “state TV”, they simply reinforce an outdated notion of what an oppressive society might look like and therefore add to the smokescreen for an emerging oligarchy.
Now some may protest that issues such as immigration, PC issues, or abortion are hardly corporate concerns. And, to some extent, they would be right to the extent that profit seeking behaviors are generally indifferent to such issues. But at the same time, these issues do serve their interests either indirectly through misdirect or in more direct ways as I will describe below. The misdirect, of course, is that as long as a group of intellectual hicks keep voting republican because they’re pissed off about immigration, PC culture, or even abortion, or even being picked on white guys (that is when most of the rich are white guys), that can do no other than serve the interests of the rich and the emerging oligarchy they are participating in –that is with outright contempt for the masses including those who support the republican platform. And this is what republican drones don’t get: while they are focusing on the failures of government (while they are engaging in all this talk about “liberty”), they are surrendering their selves to the very thing that lies at the source of pretty much all their problems: profit seeking behaviors. On top of that, they are attacking and undermining the one institution they have available to them to act as check and balance to corporate power: a government that could (should we make it happen (act in its proper capacity and facilitate a fair (mind you not an equal (distribution of power.
The direct way in which corporate interests profit from republican issues (mainly immigration and abortion (is that an expanding economy (that which profits them as investors (is an expanding population. Capitalism rides on constant expansion. So we hardly need reflect and elaborate on the very real impact this could have on our environment and LIMITED natural resources. Hence: the republican (as well as FOX News (tendency towards denial when it comes to such issues. On top of that, we get so-called "enlightened entrepreneurs" who will address these issues no further than will hurt their profits while making it seem like the market is the only solution we really need.
And this is my issue with MSNBC. By calling FOX News “state TV”, they simply reinforce an outdated notion of what an oppressive society might look like and therefore add to the smokescreen for an emerging oligarchy.
Re: Postcards:
“There are many other examples, but I’ll end on that one, because it encapsulates the rhetorical sleight-of-hand so many on the right use to establish the myth of “political correctness.” They conflate being challenged with being censored.
It’s an argument that really should be self-refuting. If the conservative right to free speech depends on not being challenged, then, by logic, it requires ending the liberal right to free speech. After all, what are liberals doing when they challenge Trump, if not using their free speech to counter his?” -Marcotte, Amanda. Troll Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set On Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself (Kindle Locations 211-215). Hot Books. Kindle Edition.
First of all guys, I cannot praise this book enough and highly recommend it to all my progressive allies. Granted, there is a bit of confirmation bias at work in that it confirms a lot of connections I have been making –most notably the connection between red pill and incel (involuntarily celibate (movements -in a very Naomi Klein style. Because of it I stand on Marcotte’s, much as I do Naomi Klein’s and Nicole Blackmun’s (a respected poet), shoulders.
And excuse me for mansplaining here, but what this comes down to is the right always entering the discourse at a disadvantage. Imagine a discourse between three people: the first one argues that in order for us to have a just society we have to take care of the needs of the least fortunate among us; the second one says “true”, but let’s not forget the beneficial aspects of the market and the justice of merit; then the third one says “Yeah: but what’s in it for me?” The problem for the rightwing mentality of the third person is that they are in a discourse that naturally assumes a criterion of what will work for all parties involved. Therefore, their argument is condemned right from the start.
Therefore, they have to resort to the dirty logic described above. And who would be most likely to resort to such cheap tactics than sexually frustrated white males who (rather than take the time to their selves to improve their selves in ways that might make them more attractive to a prospective mate (serve as prime recruiting ground for SDPs (Social Dominator Personalities (in the form of the alt-right and neo-Nazi’s? As I have said for some time now: I don’t think it’s just jobs that they’re scared of immigrants taking.
What this comes out of is what will statistically happen: by 2043 whites will be a minority. But it won’t happen like these twerps imagine it. It won’t be them meekly huddling together while all these minorities surround them looking for revenge. And I would note here the element of guilt at work. What it will actually look like is a change in the way family get-togethers look like. It will be mixed race couples producing mixed race children. It will be a nation of mutts that, yes, will hang onto their heritages for the sake of nostalgia, but still be a nation of mutts.
It’s an argument that really should be self-refuting. If the conservative right to free speech depends on not being challenged, then, by logic, it requires ending the liberal right to free speech. After all, what are liberals doing when they challenge Trump, if not using their free speech to counter his?” -Marcotte, Amanda. Troll Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set On Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself (Kindle Locations 211-215). Hot Books. Kindle Edition.
First of all guys, I cannot praise this book enough and highly recommend it to all my progressive allies. Granted, there is a bit of confirmation bias at work in that it confirms a lot of connections I have been making –most notably the connection between red pill and incel (involuntarily celibate (movements -in a very Naomi Klein style. Because of it I stand on Marcotte’s, much as I do Naomi Klein’s and Nicole Blackmun’s (a respected poet), shoulders.
And excuse me for mansplaining here, but what this comes down to is the right always entering the discourse at a disadvantage. Imagine a discourse between three people: the first one argues that in order for us to have a just society we have to take care of the needs of the least fortunate among us; the second one says “true”, but let’s not forget the beneficial aspects of the market and the justice of merit; then the third one says “Yeah: but what’s in it for me?” The problem for the rightwing mentality of the third person is that they are in a discourse that naturally assumes a criterion of what will work for all parties involved. Therefore, their argument is condemned right from the start.
Therefore, they have to resort to the dirty logic described above. And who would be most likely to resort to such cheap tactics than sexually frustrated white males who (rather than take the time to their selves to improve their selves in ways that might make them more attractive to a prospective mate (serve as prime recruiting ground for SDPs (Social Dominator Personalities (in the form of the alt-right and neo-Nazi’s? As I have said for some time now: I don’t think it’s just jobs that they’re scared of immigrants taking.
What this comes out of is what will statistically happen: by 2043 whites will be a minority. But it won’t happen like these twerps imagine it. It won’t be them meekly huddling together while all these minorities surround them looking for revenge. And I would note here the element of guilt at work. What it will actually look like is a change in the way family get-togethers look like. It will be mixed race couples producing mixed race children. It will be a nation of mutts that, yes, will hang onto their heritages for the sake of nostalgia, but still be a nation of mutts.
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4360
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Postcards:
first: you start with an assumption of what (universal) justice is...d63 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:03 pm ...
And excuse me for mansplaining here, but what this comes down to is the right always entering the discourse at a disadvantage. Imagine a discourse between three people: the first one argues that in order for us to have a just society we have to take care of the needs of the least fortunate among us; the second one says “true”, but let’s not forget the beneficial aspects of the market and the justice of merit; then the third one says “Yeah: but what’s in it for me?” The problem for the rightwing mentality of the third person is that they are in a discourse that naturally assumes a criterion of what will work for all parties involved. Therefore, their argument is condemned right from the start....
second: one third is condemned before they begin...
how progressive
-Imp
Re: Postcards:
You're hardly interesting to me Impenitent..... More of a cliche really.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:11 pmfirst: you start with an assumption of what (universal) justice is...d63 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:03 pm ...
And excuse me for mansplaining here, but what this comes down to is the right always entering the discourse at a disadvantage. Imagine a discourse between three people: the first one argues that in order for us to have a just society we have to take care of the needs of the least fortunate among us; the second one says “true”, but let’s not forget the beneficial aspects of the market and the justice of merit; then the third one says “Yeah: but what’s in it for me?” The problem for the rightwing mentality of the third person is that they are in a discourse that naturally assumes a criterion of what will work for all parties involved. Therefore, their argument is condemned right from the start....
second: one third is condemned before they begin...
how progressive
-Imp
Re: Postcards:
Dear Diary Moment 1/22/2019:
Today (on HBO (I watched the movie Brexit: a dramatization of the processes that went on behind Brexit. (And I’m quite sure my jam-mates David John and Christopher Vaughn will take an interest: how I tag ya, bro's.) I would first say that it is a movie that I would recommend to my American Jam-mates as well as those across the pond. And I say this because it did a good job of describing a dynamic that was as well at work in the election of Trump. And I think, as the movie pointed out, this can be traced to the influence of the Australian Robert Mercer who put a lot of money into both movements.
But what really interested me about it was the extent to which computer technology and algorithms were used to manipulate the voter base. Now this would seem strange to me and most of the people I interact with on this board since most of us are intellectually and creatively curious enough to inoculate ourselves by seeking information outside of the mainstream. But what the movie crystallized for me was that while there are people like us who are committed to our agenda and people on the right committed to theirs enough to seek information (think: FOX News), there is always a group of people in the middle dealing with the day to day that don’t have the time to seek out the information that we do. They’re like windsocks going where the wind blows them and perfectly susceptible to the algorithms that experts have learned to manipulate.
(And I would also note how the guy trying to keep Britain in the EU found himself overwhelmed by complete nonsense (feelings over facts (much as Churchill did when Hitler was on the move.)
And such is the situation in America as well.
Today (on HBO (I watched the movie Brexit: a dramatization of the processes that went on behind Brexit. (And I’m quite sure my jam-mates David John and Christopher Vaughn will take an interest: how I tag ya, bro's.) I would first say that it is a movie that I would recommend to my American Jam-mates as well as those across the pond. And I say this because it did a good job of describing a dynamic that was as well at work in the election of Trump. And I think, as the movie pointed out, this can be traced to the influence of the Australian Robert Mercer who put a lot of money into both movements.
But what really interested me about it was the extent to which computer technology and algorithms were used to manipulate the voter base. Now this would seem strange to me and most of the people I interact with on this board since most of us are intellectually and creatively curious enough to inoculate ourselves by seeking information outside of the mainstream. But what the movie crystallized for me was that while there are people like us who are committed to our agenda and people on the right committed to theirs enough to seek information (think: FOX News), there is always a group of people in the middle dealing with the day to day that don’t have the time to seek out the information that we do. They’re like windsocks going where the wind blows them and perfectly susceptible to the algorithms that experts have learned to manipulate.
(And I would also note how the guy trying to keep Britain in the EU found himself overwhelmed by complete nonsense (feelings over facts (much as Churchill did when Hitler was on the move.)
And such is the situation in America as well.