Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Does it matter? That isn't the point. All it says is that it's preposterous to call them "free markets."

Well that's attemping, imo, to make a mountain out of not even a mole hill. I can talk about a free market for bread and he/you can respond "the fact that you have to eat (to live) removes the free part!", which is essentially what that quote appears to do. Well fine. Find some other word to indicate the lack of some legal/bureaucratic interference. Free is what we have at the moment. It's always relatively free, and thusly correct, to most alternatives. "Free as can be".

If you asked Baudrillard, I imagine he would say that everything is an example; but for specificity's sake: beauty (and, by connection, beauty products).

The value of beauty is determined entirely within the realm of the signs of beauty; but it is a value that operates objectively in society, and this in turn influences the value of commodities. We have no direct relation to beauty products except through the virtual signs of beauty that operate in the culture/techno-sphere, and we desire beauty products based on what our culture tells us about the value of beauty.

So, the value of beauty and its related commodities is only determined within the network of signs; it has nothing to do with our relationship to the "real" products.

The value of beauty is determined by the signs, or what is beauty is determined by signs? Aesthetics of some sort always hold a certain level of value. The choice of aesthetics depends on a constant market of signals (some internal). To continue with the analogy of value in cosmetics, we have as direct a connection to their value as we have to anything else that provides needs and wants. The value of a tube of lipstick is no less real than the value of the screen displaying this text - not equivalent value obviously, but equally real. It provides some benefit, and that benefit is the source of value.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well that's attemping, imo, to make a mountain out of not even a mole hill. I can talk about a free market for bread and he/you can respond "the fact that you have to eat (to live) removes the free part!", which is essentially what that quote appears to do. Well fine. Find some other word to indicate the lack of some legal/bureaucratic interference. Free is what we have at the moment. It's always relatively free, and thusly correct, to most alternatives. "Free as can be".

I believe in the past you've said that a person is either free, or she is not. "Free as can be" sounds like a contradiction in terms.

The value of beauty is determined by the signs, or what is beauty is determined by signs? Aesthetics of some sort always hold a certain level of value. The choice of aesthetics depends on a constant market of signals (some internal). To continue with the analogy of value in cosmetics, we have as direct a connection to their value as we have to anything else that provides needs and wants. The value of a tube of lipstick is no less real than the value of the screen displaying this text - not equivalent value obviously, but equally real. It provides some benefit, and that benefit is the source of value.

I think that today the value is determined by what our culture tells us the value is; and I don't think that finds its source in the relationship between the commodity and its potential user.

 

[Dak]

I believe in the past you've said that a person is either free, or she is not. "Free as can be" sounds like a contradiction in terms.

If I did, I don't see how an addendum is impossible. Insisting on the impossible impacting terminology renders almost all discussion impossible. We've already been over that though. one is not free to live without air. So should that enter into the definition? If so, then we obviously we need Land or someone to provide us some wordcrafting brilliance.

I think that today the value is determined by what our culture tells us the value is; and I don't think that finds its source in the relationship between the commodity and its potential user.

I assume you would recognize there's a significant amount of value in sending the correct signal. When is this not the case, and how is it not real?

 

[Einherjar86]

If I did, I don't see how an addendum is impossible. Insisting on the impossible impacting terminology renders almost all discussion impossible. We've already been over that though. one is not free to live without air. So should that enter into the definition? If so, then we obviously we need Land or someone to provide us some wordcrafting brilliance.

Or, we can admit that freedom is an illusion; that seems like a viable possibility, and it isn't even frightening (or it shouldn't be). Thus, any institution that justifies its existence by an appeal to providing freedom might simultaneously be revealed as dishonest (in a systematic rather than intentional sense, of course).

I assume you would recognize there's a significant amount of value in sending the correct signal. When is this not the case, and how is it not real?

Signals are more important than the products now. That's the point.

EDIT: Interestingly, while the neoreaction buffs keep touting the "horror" of dark enlightenment and the pain that comes with true knowledge, I find a startlingly obvious hesitation among some of them (including Land) to admit that freedom isn't real. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are "horrified" by the prospect that liberty isn't real.

There's a fascinating little debate going on over at Nick's blog right now on this very point:

http://www.xenosystems.net/premises-of-neoreaction/

Land explicitly writes: "The egalitarianism essential to democratic ideology is incompatible with liberty."

Several other posters are taking issue with this point.

 

[Dak]

Or, we can admit that freedom is an illusion; that seems like a viable possibility, and it isn't even frightening (or it shouldn't be). Thus, any institution that justifies its existence by an appeal to providing freedom might simultaneously be revealed as dishonest (in a systematic rather than intentional sense, of course).

Well freedom does need qualifiers. Welfare offers freedom from work (with tradeoffs), but certainly isn't free, anyway you look at it.

Signals are more important than the products now. That's the point.

Signaling is part of the product. Not just a shirt, but a Gucci. Its importance is dependent on individual necessity. The local "sanitation engineer" on the job would be sending the wrong signal with a Gucci work shirt.

EDIT: Interestingly, while the neoreaction buffs keep touting the "horror" of dark enlightenment and the pain that comes with true knowledge, I find a startlingly obvious hesitation among some of them (including Land) to admit that freedom isn't real. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of them are "horrified" by the prospect that liberty isn't real.

There's a fascinating little debate going on over at Nick's blog right now on this very point:

http://www.xenosystems.net/premises-of-neoreaction/

Land explicitly writes: "The egalitarianism essential to democratic ideology is incompatible with liberty."

Several other posters are taking issue with this point.

More like the VXXC Show.

 

[Einherjar86]

Signaling is part of the product. Not just a shirt, but a Gucci. Its importance is dependent on individual necessity. The local "sanitation engineer" on the job would be sending the wrong signal with a Gucci work shirt.

Not to be crude, but I think this is a naive miscalculation.

The signal, or brand, or "sign," is very separate from the product. The sign tells us nothing about what the product does. It doesn't matter if it's a Gucci shirt or a plain white cotton t-shirt, both perform the same function; but the sign is dissociated from the function. The sign operates on another plane entirely.

The sign operates only in relation to other signs, and people buy Gucci not because it's a shirt, but because it's a Gucci and not Gap. Of course, it still performs its function because how else would others know you have a Gucci shirt, unless they're going through your closet? Still, this has nothing to do with the product itself.

To pick a more appropriate example we could focus on books. Many people buy books by certain authors not to read them, but to put them on their bookshelf. This has nothing to do with the book as a product and everything to do with its sign.

 

[Dak]

Not to be crude, but I think this is a naive miscalculation.

The signal, or brand, or "sign," is very separate from the product. The sign tells us nothing about what the product does. It doesn't matter if it's a Gucci shirt or a plain white cotton t-shirt, both perform the same function; but the sign is dissociated from the function. The sign operates on another plane entirely.

The sign operates only in relation to other signs, and people buy Gucci not because it's a shirt, but because it's a Gucci and not Gap. Of course, it still performs its function because how else would others know you have a Gucci shirt, unless they're going through your closet? Still, this has nothing to do with the product itself.

To pick a more appropriate example we could focus on books. Many people buy books by certain authors not to read them, but to put them on their bookshelf. This has nothing to do with the book as a product and everything to do with its sign.

1. I can accept (at least at face value) this argument that for some people, the thing (itself) is not as important as the signal it sends. 2. I don't find this either A: A new development or B: Problematic.

 

[Einherjar86]

It isn't "problematic"; that implies there's something that needs to be fixed. All I'm saying (and what Baudrillard is saying) is that it has caused a revolution in the conceptualization of value. Value is determined differently today than it was prior to the cybernetic infiltration of brand marketing and informatics.

This is important because what it means is that we can no longer tell "real" needs from "false" needs. In fact, this dichotomy becomes anachronistic. The entire realm of "needs" has been subsumed under the rubric of what our culture tells us is valuable. This is a tautological impasse and it's a very recent phenomenon, and thus worth noting. When we speak of "value," we aren't talking about what we think we're talking about.

 

[Dak]

I don't see that as a new phenomenon, although it may be growing amongst the population. This is a natural progression in line with increasing affluence. It speaks a great deal to the enrichment of technology that in general, those on the lower rungs of the first world have the luxury to be concerned with, and devote resources to, signaling as opposed to being focused solely on dinner.

 

[Einherjar86]

You don't see cybernetics and informatics as new?

And furthermore, to simply reduce this to the "natural progression" of markets and affluence is to completely ignore the interplay of value. Markets revolve around the supposed needs of individuals and the interactions inspired by those needs. Now our "needs" are no longer "natural" (in fact, we might argue that they never were), but are in fact dictated by cultural standards, which are entirely arbitrary.

 

[Einherjar86]

This lecture by Ray Brassier is really great; and clear, as long as you have the time to parse his words. You can tell by his mannerisms that he has a ton of acquired knowledge in his head and that it's difficult for him to communicate it all. Takes a lot of patience.

I particularly like this quote: "It is just as mistaken to construe thoughts as the cause of linguistic behavior as it is to construe molecules as the cause of gas volumes. The connection is one of constitution and not causation."

Prior to this he gives a great explanation of the relationship between thought and language: "Speaking is prior to thinking in the order of knowing, thinking is prior to speaking in the order of being."

That's a great conceptualization, and makes perfect sense to me. He's saying that thought, or the advent of "interior" (i.e. mental) processes, can and does occur prior to linguistic behavior; however, the presence of this primordial thought does not constitute any kind of knowledge on the part of the subject. Knowledge is only achieved through the mediation of thought through linguistic practice, which is necessarily part of shared commonality with other subjects.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

This guy is great

 

[Dak]

You don't see cybernetics and informatics as new?

And furthermore, to simply reduce this to the "natural progression" of markets and affluence is to completely ignore the interplay of value. Markets revolve around the supposed needs of individuals and the interactions inspired by those needs. Now our "needs" are no longer "natural" (in fact, we might argue that they never were), but are in fact dictated by cultural standards, which are entirely arbitrary.

I'm not ignoring that at all. I still distinguish between wants and needs, with the overwhelming majority of things being wants. Needs are the minimum life-sustaining food, clothing, shelter. Everything else is technically gravy. But as these things are taken care of with relatively little thought or effort, our attention is turned towards other things. For nearly the entirety of mankind for nearly the entirety of history, just meeting the life sustaining minimums was beyond the effort of what we now consider a "full time job". As markets and technology have begun to lift more than just kingly circles above this misery, we now have a broad base of people (rather than just royalty and select few others) with the requisite resources to be heavily concerned with the arbitrary "needs" set by cultural standards - standards created due to more resources at non-minimum-living disposal.


@Jimmy: The funny thing, of course, is what happens if his customer base dries up? I wonder how strong the rhetoric is at that point?

 

[Einherjar86]

That whole story just pisses me off. People who use the phrase "freaks, faggots, welfare recipients or the disabled" will earn no respect from me. As far as I'm concerned, they should have the opposing views forced down their throats. I will sit in at that bigot's restaurant and tell him he's a fucking idiot.

EDIT: @ Jimmy

And Dak, I don't see how you've countered my claim.

 

[Dak]

Why should that piss you off? He's minding his own business (literally).

 

[Einherjar86]

The world will be better off when people like him are gone.

 

[Dak]

The world will be better off when people like him are gone.

Only because he is too stupid to practice his customer selection intelligently. He just needs to add bouncers working from an unspoken criteria of eligibility for customers like all the hottest clubs across the world. Just so happens at his place they don't allow gays and foodstamps instead of too many guys (unless it's a gay club/gay night) and the unfashionably dressed (unless it's some bohemian thing where you need to be unfashionably fashionable....guess that is still techniquely fashionable).

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

As far as I'm concerned, they should have the opposing views forced down their throats. I will sit in at that bigot's restaurant and tell him he's a fucking idiot.

and when he simply tells you to get out, what?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll leave. Then I'll come back.

EDIT: here's the deal; he has some right to private ownership of a business to deny certain persons service? Fuck his ass, those persons also have individual rights to be served. The problem with appealing to privacy is that the patrons he's refusing can appeal to that same right.

He's a fucking idiot, and he needs to have his head reattached.

 

[Dak]

So those people not allowed in by bouncers should sue for rights infringement?