Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmpYnxlEh0c

I watched 5m before my internet janked up. Didn't really motivate me to get another job.

 

[AllShallFall]

If you're a "Juggalo", monoxide, why do you frequent an extreme metal forum?

Good question

 

[Einherjar86]

Finished a bit of pseudo-theoretical rambling today:

http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/2013/05/speculations-on-techno-capital.html

 

[Dak]

Finished a bit of pseudo-theoretical rambling today:

http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/2013/05/speculations-on-techno-capital.html

Well written, and some individually good points, but I disagree with your conclusion (probably no surprise to you). It also reaffirmed my belief that the idea of something being "more than the sum of its parts" as being poorly disguised mysticization of complex phenomena at best, and empty emotional trope at worst.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks.

I can see how the idea of something being more than the sum of its parts sounds mystical, especially since it traces back to the Romantics. I actually think emergence offers a way to demystify the Romantic conception though (which is, coincidentally, what I wrote about in one of my term papers). Emergence offers an explanation of how something comes to be more than the sum of its parts.

This would bring us back to the appearance/essence debate. That is, does emergence just explain how something appears to us (epistemology) or how it actually is (ontology)? This is where I think DeLanda is useful because he offers an explanation that unites both fields. I think that emergence is ontologically tied to the potentiality (or virtuality) of an object's or system's traits. So the epistemological approaches that we come up with for studying objective phenomena can actually help explain its real qualities.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Capitalism’s persistent expansion thus appears not only as an appropriative colonization of ulterior cultural or economic forms; it also appears as a continual self-revision of its own terms and conditions. Following from this assertion, we must conclude that capitalism is always-already not itself. To put it another way: capitalism possesses no essence. Those desirable ideals of individualistic production and accumulation of capital, which are espoused as eternal, appear now as shockingly fragile and historically quarantined conceptions of our organic relationship to the external world; conceptions that will witness their own dismissal in due time.

Could you dive into this broad statement a bit and explain what specifically about capitalism is being redefined during the current expansion of economic activity? Why do you attribute the expansion to the system of capitalism itself, as opposed to the individual players within the system? Personally i don't see the concept itself changing fundamentally, only the applications of it / the opportunities it can exploit.

 

[Dak]

I disagree with the definition of capitalism that Pat uses, but as it is the popular definition that's not really his "fault". I view it strictly from a Human Action perspective, and everything or anything else out side of that, if it becomes divorced from human action, is simply something else, and not an expansion, transformation, or abandonment of humanity by capitalism. I would like to critique the writing further but as well written as it is it deserves time in response I do not have at this moment.

Back to the general line "More than the the sum", I heard this ad nauseum in the Marines, and there it was an emotional based appeal to be sure (the actual phraseology most often used for the Marines was "being a part of something greater than yourself", but when expanded in the various motivational speeches, was more essentially that the Marines became something greater together than just the mere collection of individual Marines).

The cynical part of me was rather unreceptive initially, and the more I have contemplated the concept and read support for it, this conviction only grows more firm. What I see is that artificial limits are created on what counts as "the sum", and then everything outside that is just ignored and voila: There is an excess left over to which this mystic explanation is applied.

 

[Einherjar86]

Could you dive into this broad statement a bit and explain what specifically about capitalism is being redefined during the current expansion of economic activity? Why do you attribute the expansion to the system of capitalism itself, as opposed to the individual players within the system? Personally i don't see the concept itself changing fundamentally, only the applications of it / the opportunities it can exploit.

Great questions. My response to this will actually feed into Dak's critique (which is warranted as well).

I attribute it to the system itself (as opposed to the players) because I don't believe we can actually reduce all the effects and results of global capitalism to its individual players. This is, in my opinion, a lingering element of what I would call the "mythology of the individual." I don't mean to say that I am by any means free of this ideology, or that possessing individual subjectivity doesn't warrant any attention at all. What I do mean to imply is that our obsession with individual responsibility and power creates a tendency to attribute all material forces to individual causes. I don't think this adds up.

This isn't to say that individuals play no part; on the contrary, they play an important role. But the accumulation of capital, the squalor of the Third World, the exponential growth in cybernetics and artificial intelligences, the flux of the market, the abstraction of finance capital, etc. - it becomes impossible to correlate these developments with individual human action on a one-to-one basis.

This is actually the most important aspect of what is being redefined about capitalism: where at one point we may have been able to account for market transactions and behavior through recourse to human action, this is no longer the case. It is redefining itself by putting pressure on human agency. Capitalism, historically speaking (i.e. in terms of human knowledge) is a system that corresponds to human agency and intention.

Richard Powers has a fantastic quote that I believe has some pertinence here:

As with free-falling bodies, it seems apparent that such quickening change, whether evolutionary, cultural, or technical, cannot accelerate indefinitely but must reach some terminal velocity. Call that terminal velocity a trigger point, where the rate of change of the system reaches such a level that the system’s underpinning, its ability to change, is changed. Trigger points come about when the progress of a system becomes so accelerated, its tools become so adept at self-replicating and self-modifying, that it thrusts an awareness of itself onto itself and reaches the terminal velocity of self-reflection.

I disagree with the definition of capitalism that Pat uses, but as it is the popular definition that's not really his "fault". I view it strictly from a Human Action perspective, and everything or anything else out side of that, if it becomes divorced from human action, is simply something else, and not an expansion, transformation, or abandonment of humanity by capitalism. I would like to critique the writing further but as well written as it is it deserves time in response I do not have at this moment.

It definitely is the popular definition, as well as the one that most humanistic-academic criticism uses. That said, I believe it isn't entirely unjustified.

I really strongly oppose the human action perspective, but I would still love to see/read something more on it. If you do something of the sort in the future, definitely let me know. I've read Mises's bits on praxeology as well as some of the other things you've posted, and I can't say I'm convinced. Most of my doubts derive from poststructuralist theoretical models in the vein of Derrida, Foucault, and Baudrillard.

I appreciate the comment on the writing.

Back to the general line "More than the the sum", I heard this ad nauseum in the Marines, and there it was an emotional based appeal to be sure (the actual phraseology most often used for the Marines was "being a part of something greater than yourself", but when expanded in the various motivational speeches, was more essentially that the Marines became something greater together than just the mere collection of individual Marines).

The cynical part of me was rather unreceptive initially, and the more I have contemplated the concept and read support for it, this conviction only grows more firm. What I see is that artificial limits are created on what counts as "the sum", and then everything outside that is just ignored and voila: There is an excess left over to which this mystic explanation is applied.

I don't think my appeal to emergence as an explanation for phenomena becoming more than the sum of their parts has much pathos. If anything, it strikes me as somewhat disheartening. It's a philosophico-scientific argument that only appeals to emergence into order to suggest a theoretical model as to how complex systems can exceed human control. Not much empowering about that.

 

[Dak]

I attribute it to the system itself (as opposed to the players) because I don't believe we can actually reduce all the effects and results of global capitalism to its individual players.
........ it becomes impossible to correlate these developments with individual human action on a one-to-one basis.

To expand on my critique on "greater than the sum", this is a perfect example. Capitalism, or the "market" (using a more Austrian definition of voluntary exchange, production, etc), does absolutely require more than individuals. It requires the materials they interact with. As the materials and resources (including technological possibilities) expand, this does expand the limitations of the possibilities of exchange, production, etc. In other words, the limitations of the market are expanded as much by technology as by human action/interaction. But human interaction/action create technology, so it is still rooted there. So if you wanted to completely limit the factors of the sum as "individuals", then most certainly the market is more than the sum of it's parts. It's just arbitrary and an ultimately useless point. A car is more than the sum of it's engine and drivetrain components, although it most certainly could function to some lesser, basic degree without the rest.

It definitely is the popular definition, as well as the one that most humanistic-academic criticism uses. That said, I believe it isn't entirely unjustified.

I really strongly oppose the human action perspective, but I would still love to see/read something more on it. If you do something of the sort in the future, definitely let me know. I've read Mises's bits on praxeology as well as some of the other things you've posted, and I can't say I'm convinced. Most of my doubts derive from poststructuralist theoretical models in the vein of Derrida, Foucault, and Baudrillard.

Rothbard is more reader friendly than Mises in my opinion, as he is able to lay things out logically and without going down some of the rabbit trails that I think Mises can get off on. He breaks it down almost "Barney style" (obviously not to a childish level though), however his tendency towards a polemical style might be offputting for someone already very opposed to his position. Frankly I don't think you can read mere excerpts from really any various point of view that you disagree with and ever have some sort of shift of understanding, as most theories and ideals are laid out in somewhat a logical manner, and it won't necessarily be intuitive from what totality of prior understanding a snippet of dialogue originates from. I try to keep this in mind when I interact with people on a daily basis that say things that at this point seem like the height (or depth) of ignorance (like a default response to challenges and unpleasantries of "there should be a law against X")

I am sure there are some problems with the details of praxeology itself, even more so probably from Mises than Rothbard, just due to era. I don't think there are any substantial issues that fundamentally alter the truism of individual self interested, subjective valuizing, agency. From my recall of reading, the explanations of economic patterns reinforces the basic concepts of praxeology from an observatory perspective more than merely the theory itself does: As in, looking at my own behavior, and then observing the behaviors of the so very many different people I have been around in my life in all sorts of settings, I see nothing that "models" what I see any better.

I don't think my appeal to emergence as an explanation for phenomena becoming more than the sum of their parts has much pathos. If anything, it strikes me as somewhat disheartening. It's a philosophico-scientific argument that only appeals to emergence into order to suggest a theoretical model as to how complex systems can exceed human control. Not much empowering about that.

No, it's most certainly not an emotional appeal in your usage. I do think it is a mysticization, and mysticization is really handwaving of something that does not want to be addressed at all, or more deeply, for whatever reason.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I attribute it to the system itself (as opposed to the players) because I don't believe we can actually reduce all the effects and results of global capitalism to its individual players. This is, in my opinion, a lingering element of what I would call the "mythology of the individual." I don't mean to say that I am by any means free of this ideology, or that possessing individual subjectivity doesn't warrant any attention at all. What I do mean to imply is that our obsession with individual responsibility and power creates a tendency to attribute all material forces to individual causes. I don't think this adds up.

This isn't to say that individuals play no part; on the contrary, they play an important role. But the accumulation of capital, the squalor of the Third World, the exponential growth in cybernetics and artificial intelligences, the flux of the market, the abstraction of finance capital, etc. - it becomes impossible to correlate these developments with individual human action on a one-to-one basis.

This is actually the most important aspect of what is being redefined about capitalism: where at one point we may have been able to account for market transactions and behavior through recourse to human action, this is no longer the case. It is redefining itself by putting pressure on human agency. Capitalism, historically speaking (i.e. in terms of human knowledge) is a system that corresponds to human agency and intention.

By "individual players" i don't mean people actually, i mean the businesses themselves. Those businesses represent their own interests, independent of the others, and they live and die by the opportunities they are able to exploit. At some point the opportunities will dry up, and there will simply be a handful of institutions of varying levels of benevolence controlling the economy. Because i can imagine such a result to the activities currently comprising capitalism, i don't see a need to redefine the concept in terms of "individual production". It seems only the individuals are being redefined.

 

[Einherjar86]

In this case, I think the nature of the individuals constitutes (to an extent) the nature of the system. Capitalism was traditionally correlated with the power of the individual. As time passed, the individual became (as you claim) the business, or the corporation. This in itself constitutes a moment of evolution for capitalism itself, since its greater motions can no longer be reduced to individuals.

Now, I would argue that we cannot even reduce the motions of capitalism to businesses, and perhaps not even to corporations. Technologies and bubbles of finance capital complicate capitalism's greater fluctuations, and extend beyond corporations and into multinational conglomerates. I think the nature of the "players" influences and alters the nature of the "game," or system. Once individual humans no longer occupy the role of primary actors, the entire system itself undergoes a change.

 

[Einherjar86]

I realize this is fast for me, but since I turned all my term papers in (all As this semester, ) I've have some time to spend reading and thinking about the comments you both have made on my last post. From those ponderings, I realized that I'm coming from a larger presupposition that isn't properly theorized in my last post. So, to stir the pot just a bit more, I've completed another blog post, this one on human consciousness:

http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/

 

[Dak]

Wish this was all last summer when I had more time for responses.

 

[Dak]

This reply to the post isn't going to provide a detailed critique, but I see what appears to me an obviously glaring issue: If individual consciousness is not actual, then there is no convincing argument for any sort of "collective" or "meta" consciousness. What you or I do not have, "we" can not have either. This is the same problem that is run into constantly when the individual is denied on philosophical, political, or economic level. If "we" have "it", then you and I have "it", although maybe to a lesser degree than the combined amount. To say "we" have consciousness without any individual having it, or "real" or "actual" consciousness or any other variant/distinguishing adjective, without each one of us having any, is absurd.

 

[Dak]

I could super simplify my argument against the denial of the individual to this phrase: "Tell me how that works out for you".

There's no personal practical application because you have decided there is no person. Just a blob of organic material with some virtual oddity. May as well go turn yourself into fertilizer. Regardless, everything you do is pointless.......But somehow what WE do is not. In the meantime, the people peddling this nonsense are profiting quite handsomely. But it doesn't matter. Because even if they profit, it's not real. Because they don't exist. We are actually profiting. So when Bill Gates or Vladimir Putin sips a Martini, I do. Because neither of us does, "we" do. It's not even your blog or thoughts, it's "our" blog and thoughts.

All education is immediately invalidated. No individual teacher has anything of value to dispense. You're wasting your time, as are all the authors you quote. Of course if there is no you, you can't waste your time can you?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm awaiting a nice big "you missed the point"

 

[Dak]

The point is a point can neither be made nor received by an individual. But then how by the collective?

 

[Einherjar86]

This reply to the post isn't going to provide a detailed critique, but I see what appears to me an obviously glaring issue: If individual consciousness is not actual, then there is no convincing argument for any sort of "collective" or "meta" consciousness. What you or I do not have, "we" can not have either. This is the same problem that is run into constantly when the individual is denied on philosophical, political, or economic level. If "we" have "it", then you and I have "it", although maybe to a lesser degree than the combined amount. To say "we" have consciousness without any individual having it, or "real" or "actual" consciousness or any other variant/distinguishing adjective, without each one of us having any, is absurd.

Wrong kind of "we." Consciousness isn't collective in the sense that you and I share simultaneous insight, or some mystical form of telekinesis. It's collective in the sense that "you" cannot be reduced to a single individual. Multiple personalities and subjectivities comprise the body that you think is yours. The consciousness of your body is shared my a multiplicity of subjectivities.

Now, there is actually evidence that consciousness can (somehow) be shared beyond the confines of the body. The following is also from Dennett's Consciousness Explained:

[talking about the Chaplin twins] Our view countenances the theoretical possibility not only of MPD but FPD (Fractional Personality Disorder). Could it be? Why not? I'm not for a moment suggesting that these twins were linked by telepathy or ESP or any other sort of occult bonds. I am suggesting that there are plenty of subtle, everyday ways of communicating and coordinating (techniques often highly developed by identical twins, in fact). [...] But in any case, wouldn't there also be two clearly defined individual selves, one for each twin, and responsible for maintaining this curious charade? Perhaps, but what if each of these women had become so selfless (as we do say) in her devotion to the joint cause, that she more or less lost herself (as we also say) in the project?

Incidents like this are rare, but they suggest alternative modes of subjectivity and consciousness.

I could super simplify my argument against the denial of the individual to this phrase: "Tell me how that works out for you".

There's no personal practical application because you have decided there is no person. Just a blob of organic material with some virtual oddity. May as well go turn yourself into fertilizer. Regardless, everything you do is pointless.......But somehow what WE do is not. In the meantime, the people peddling this nonsense are profiting quite handsomely. But it doesn't matter. Because even if they profit, it's not real. Because they don't exist. We are actually profiting. So when Bill Gates or Vladimir Putin sips a Martini, I do. Because neither of us does, "we" do. It's not even your blog or thoughts, it's "our" blog and thoughts.

All education is immediately invalidated. No individual teacher has anything of value to dispense. You're wasting your time, as are all the authors you quote. Of course if there is no you, you can't waste your time can you?

To contribute to this: asking how it works out for "me" isn't even a relevant question.

I don't think it's a waste of time. The text I write isn't mine. The thoughts I think aren't mine. The authors I quote make money off them because we live in a culture entirely founded upon the sacredness of the individual. There's no reason to assume that the individual is eternal and absolute simply because the society we live in rewards the individual. We're products of our environment, and our environment is changing.

I personally find today's technological, scientific, and philosophical developments to be deconstructing the individual. I'm not arguing for political measures toward this, I'm only attempting to identify what I see as a larger cultural tendency. If it proves true, and thus obsolete, so be it.

 

[Dak]

Wrong kind of "we." Consciousness isn't collective in the sense that you and I share simultaneous insight, or some mystical form of telekinesis. It's collective in the sense that "you" cannot be reduced to a single individual. Multiple personalities and subjectivities comprise the body that you think is yours. The consciousness of your body is shared my a multiplicity of subjectivities.
[/quotes]

This goes back to my car analogy and the problem of arbitrary definitions. You presented a compelling argument not long ago to dispel some of my cognitive dissonance regarding materialism and the individual. You are now arguing against what you previously argued for, although I don't think you've made the connection.

Just as we might dissect the individual body all the way down to the cellular level, this doesn't negate the individual. This just gives us a better understanding of the parts. We could, in theory, just handwave everything of practical concern and make a statement like "everything is mostly just carbon (or even more vaguely "matter") so what's the difference?" and be about as un-useful as I consider the attempts to deconstruct the individual in what is little more than abstract.

That individuals do constantly change due to a variety of reasons we do not even fully comprehend or take into account, does not somehow invalidate the individual, anymoreso than our lack of understanding about the physical body negates/ed it.

To argue otherwise is to stray from materialism into esoterism.

Now, there is actually evidence that consciousness can (somehow) be shared beyond the confines of the body. The following is also from Dennett's Consciousness Explained:

Incidents like this are rare, but they suggest alternative modes of subjectivity and consciousness.

So what?

To contribute to this: asking how it works out for "me" isn't even a relevant question.

If the concept didn't self-invalidate, then yes.

I don't think it's a waste of time. The text I write isn't mine. The thoughts I think aren't mine. The authors I quote make money off them because we live in a culture entirely founded upon the sacredness of the individual. There's no reason to assume that the individual is eternal and absolute simply because the society we live in rewards the individual. We're products of our environment, and our environment is changing.

We are partially products of the environment (depending on your definition of environment, maybe totally), but the environment is also partially a product of us. There is no "ceteris paribus" in real life.

I don't see why there is a necessity for the individual to be eternal (IE an eternal "soul") to validate it.

Based on the way this portion is written, I suspect you think my waste of time critique was based on a monetary, or wealth perspective. This is not correct. I mean that if there is no you or me to create , exchange, or receive, then all communication is pointless. "We" already know all, yet none of us know anything. None of us have anything. We have all. Your blog is pointless. Einstein is who gives a shit? Why are we even on this forum?

I personally find today's technological, scientific, and philosophical developments to be deconstructing the individual. I'm not arguing for political measures toward this, I'm only attempting to identify what I see as a larger cultural tendency. If it proves true, and thus obsolete, so be it.

Deconstruction is not the same thing as obsoletion or replacement. So either you need a different word choice or to rethink the ramifications of inquiries and potential discoveries into the way the brain/body/consciousness works. I don't see how discovering that my brain does things faster than I can "consciously" comprehend it somehow makes me obsolete. It's certainly not materialist, whatever it is.

What I see is a constant scrabbling for some new piece of evidence to somehow validate a practically and theoretically invalidated political and social order, with no round hole left unmolested by square pegs.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think much of my argument wasn't clear. My final paragraph in the blog was meant to reinforce that I don't see the individual as currently obsolete. I'll explain more in my responses below.

This goes back to my car analogy and the problem of arbitrary definitions. You presented a compelling argument not long ago to dispel some of my cognitive dissonance regarding materialism and the individual. You are now arguing against what you previously argued for, although I don't think you've made the connection.

But isn't where/how we decide to call someone an individual entirely arbitrary? Modern research forces this arbitrary distinction into our faces, we just don't like to admit it (as I see it).

Just as we might dissect the individual body all the way down to the cellular level, this doesn't negate the individual. This just gives us a better understanding of the parts. We could, in theory, just handwave everything of practical concern and make a statement like "everything is mostly just carbon (or even more vaguely "matter") so what's the difference?" and be about as un-useful as I consider the attempts to deconstruct the individual in what is little more than abstract.

This is the Frankenstein scenario: where/how does the life force, or essence, or humanity of the thing emerge from disparate component parts? We could say that we make a mistake when we dissociate the parts from the whole; but of course, people still fit our definition of "individual" even if lose one of their limbs. Furthermore, if we do grant a separation between parts and whole, then we run into a whole slew of issues regarding our positions in the world. After all, we are only parts in a larger whole; but the health or well-being of the whole of which we are a part, and the health or well-being of the parts that make us up, are all subordinated to the health of well-being of the individual that is us. But where is this individual? How do we arrive at it?

That individuals do constantly change due to a variety of reasons we do not even fully comprehend or take into account, does not somehow invalidate the individual, anymoreso than our lack of understanding about the physical body negates/ed it.

To argue otherwise is to stray from materialism into esoterism.

The way I see it, continuing to promote the individual is the larger form of esotericism. We continue to privilege and elevate an arbitrary construction that has less basis in reality than matter itself. If I had to come up with an analogy, consciousness would be to the fictionality of a narrative as the material world is to the pages of the book in which it is contained. Representing ourselves as individuals means representing our lives as narratives; but this is myth, not reality. This is teleology, eschatology, and mysticism all rolled into one and presented as entirely natural.

We are partially products of the environment (depending on your definition of environment, maybe totally), but the environment is also partially a product of us. There is no "ceteris paribus" in real life.

Of course; just as our language is a product of what we say, what we say is also a product of our language. The individual isn't central anywhere in this scenario.

I don't see why there is a necessity for the individual to be eternal (IE an eternal "soul") to validate it.

Not eternal as in the sense of the soul; eternal as in a grounding concept, a term that always means what we think it means. When Foucault says that "man is coming to an end" (I'm paraphrasing) he's saying that the concept of man is coming to an end; man as a frame of knowledge is coming to an end. We've heard terms like "posthuman" and "transhuman" being used more and more; but it's very likely that when this form of life finally arrives (some would claim it already has), it won't call itself "posthuman" or "transhuman." It will simply call itself "human." This exposes the arbitrariness of the term "human" itself, and reveals that it actually means nothing except what it is currently being used for. Many people today still believe "human" defines some eternal, pristine concept, which is why we have issues of homosexuality, gender issues, racism, etc. These are deviations from the norm.

This extends beyond identity issues and into matter itself. The human always presupposed something eternal, and even the most liberal or enlightened people still presume something ineffable when they say "human." The point of my argument isn't to suggest something ineffable or esoteric about the human, but to reveal that we act this way every day, and to demysticize such action.

My primary authority for this type of argumentation, Manuel DeLanda, provides the best summary:

This led some philosophers to the erroneous conclusion that emergent effects could not be explained, or what amounts to the same thing, that an effect is emergent only for as long as a law from which it can be deduced has not yet been found. This line of thought went on to become a full fledged philosophy in the early twentieth century, a philosophy based on the idea that emergence was intrinsically unexplainable. This first wave of 'emergentist' philosophers were not mystical thinkers but quite the opposite: they wanted to use the concept of emergence to eliminate from biology mystifying entities like a 'life force' or 'élan vital.'

Based on the way this portion is written, I suspect you think my waste of time critique was based on a monetary, or wealth perspective. This is not correct. I mean that if there is no you or me to create , exchange, or receive, then all communication is pointless. "We" already know all, yet none of us know anything. None of us have anything. We have all. Your blog is pointless. Einstein is who gives a shit? Why are we even on this forum?

Again, I'm merely pointing out a direction that I believe society to be heading. Since we are still mired in the mythology of individuality, then of course our communication still occurs and is relevant. This doesn't mean that in years to come communication will occur the same way, or that cultures will be structured similarly, or anything of the sort. You're trying to twist my argument around on what I'm saying to invalidate it, but I'm not claiming that this is how the world "actually is." I'm saying that what we perceive as "actual" (i.e. consciousness) is virtual, and that we naturalize it. This doesn't invalidate any of my argument since all I'm saying is that more and more scientific, technological, and philosophical developments seem to be gesturing toward the obsolescence of the individual.

Deconstruction is not the same thing as obsoletion or replacement. So either you need a different word choice or to rethink the ramifications of inquiries and potential discoveries into the way the brain/body/consciousness works. I don't see how discovering that my brain does things faster than I can "consciously" comprehend it somehow makes me obsolete. It's certainly not materialist, whatever it is.

Deconstruction is a philosophy of displacement and difference. It's totally a philosophy of obsolescence and replacement, repetition and disappearance. The subsequent step is to remove the framework of metaphysics and acknowledge the fluidity of matter beneath.

The discovery that your brain works faster than "you" do doesn't make you obsolete. What will make the individual obsolete is when our culture reaches the point where these recent developments structure its institutions and organizations, so that the individual doesn't occupy the altar at center-stage. I'm not saying the individual is obsolete. The basic functioning of our contemporary culture should be enough to substantiate that. I'm suggesting that our current developments are moving in that direction.

And, finally, going off that last point, this coincides with the argument in my previous blog post that capitalism is actively in a process of becoming something that it is not, thus revealing that is isn't really any specific, pristine thing at all. We've merely reified/hypostatized one version of historical development and claimed it as the natural institutional way of being in the world.