Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

To approach things directly sounds as though we approach them immediately, or as unmediated. If that's the case, then your comment has two consequences: we can never approach an object in an unmediated fashion (we will always travel via Y and Z), and thus can never actually "achieve" the object in an immediate sense.

On the topic, here's a fantastic quote from Niklas Luhmann about the paradox of knowing and unknowing, i.e. of observing the world in the first place. I'm sharing it because it demonstrates how logic is always only predicated upon arbitrary rules that allow it to proceed from a certain point and thus avoid contradicting itself. Logic, in other words, is always only applicable within given contexts. There is no universal logic. Meaning only emerges, in fact, between a necessary dialectical convolution of reason (which can only ever be internal, i.e. contextual) and mystery (which reason expels to somewhere beyond its frame):

When observers (we, at the moment) continue to look for an ultimate reality, a concluding formula, a final identity, they will find the paradox. Such a paradox is not simply a logical contradiction (A is non-A) but a foundational statement: The world is observable because it is unobservable. Nothing can be observed (not even the "nothing") without drawing a distinction, but this operation remains indistinguishable. It can be distinguished, but only by another operation. It crosses the boundary between the unmarked and the marked space, a boundary that does not exist before and comes into being (if being is the right word) only by crossing it. Or to say it in Derrida's style, the condition of its possibility is its impossibility.

Obviously, this makes no sense. It makes meaning. It makes no common sense; it uses the meaning of "para-doxon" to transgress the boundaries of common sense to reflect what it means to use meaning as a medium.

 

[Dak]

That is ruminate worthy input, but I meant in a more concrete way for now. The easiest example is "profit". To pursue profit directly is the most sure way to not achieve it in the long term. Relationships, promotions, and other things also work somewhat in this manner.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is ruminate worthy input, but I meant in a more concrete way for now. The easiest example is "profit". To pursue profit directly is the most sure way to not achieve it in the long term. Relationships, promotions, and other things also work somewhat in this manner.

This doesn't strike me as very compatible with Grant's original line of questioning, or as very philosophical in a serious sense.

The non-direct path to things such as profit and/or relationships, promotions, etc. have less to do with an abstract logic of internal systems and more to do with societal convention and expectations.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is no such thing as the "outside."

Nick Land and many conservative philosophers (and I consider Land moderately, if not considerably, conservative) like to insist on the positive existence of binaries that subsist beyond our mediation (i.e. observation). Of these, perhaps the most important is that of the "outside" versus the "inside"; in other words, the notion of escape, or exit, is possible because there exists an extra-cultural space wherein we can definitively divest ourselves of the horrors of the past (racism, misogyny, imperialism, colonialism, etc.).

The more I seriously think about this - and I mean think, not read what others have written - the more I'm convinced that the "outside" is an illusion, an ideal; just as utopia cannot be an actuality but only a process, the notion of "exit" or "escape" can never be completed. It will always and forever be a process.

This may seem as though I'm resisting progress or development of any kind; but what I would insist upon is that escape, or exit, or progress - indeed, any kind of motion that involves the reflexive sublimation of prior contradictions - can only be conceived of as dialectical. Land despises dialectics because he believes it results in the destruction of motion: a stasis. This is untrue. Dialectics are the purest form of motion; an eternal oscillation whose y-axis increases with the length of its arc.

The notion of exit or escape is necessarily inconceivable because it requires the abandonment of a previous cultural unconscious. This is a subtle appeal to transcendence, and is entirely idealistic. The truth is that human progress can only happen dialectically because we are in constant reflexive communication with the symbolic remnants/remainders of our history: race, gender, sexuality. These moments remain impactful today not because propaganda machines force-feed them down people's throats, but because they are part of our history. Their prior existence has shaped material conditions of existence that, in turn, shape the way we live today. Every breath we take inhales the echoes of slavery.

The realization of the West has to be that there is no such thing as forgetting, or overcoming, or transcending racism. The realization must be that racism is a component of Western existence just like early hominids are a component of modern homo sapiens. The only way we can ever hope to progress is through synthesizing this earlier horrendous phenomenon with our current state.

As it stands, our record for admitting guilt isn't looking very good.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hey Dak, I'm curious, what do you think about the whole Sterling thing?

 

[Dak]

Well I'm not familiar with the legal structure of the NBA, but if it's much like the NFL then I assume you can get booted out just like you get voted in. I think Sterling has a right to his opinions, but so do the other owners and the league commissioner etc. If they don't want to associate with him: LA Clippers for sale.

That said, I would imagine that if it weren't someone already so relatively disliked, he probably would have had a chance to apologize/recant.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hm yea well said. I do think there is a major privacy issue here though.

I find it confusing that people can be "outraged" and surprised by an 80 year old man being a racist but 200 black people being killed in inner cities over the weekend is a cultural problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

The true outrage is that his comment not only expresses a form of white racism, but it also illuminates the class division built into racism: a rich white man lording over black athletes whilst secretly believing that whites shouldn't be seen with blacks.

The entire thing is outrageous because it's so ridiculous.

As far as blacks being killed in inner cities goes, it's attitudes like Sterling's that, over the centuries of America's existence, have contributed to the socioeconomic plight of blacks. The popular white illusion is that our mentality has little to nothing to do with the black experience in America.

 

[Dak]

Yeah ridiculous is the right word. Would Sterling have consented to being seen with blacks if they won an NBA title for him? I say he would have been given a chance to recant if he were, say, Mark Cuban or someone, but maybe not - given the nature of the racial disparity of the owner and player makeups.

As far as the inner city killings go, it is not nearly so much attitudes of the Sterlings of America that have contributed to that situation as it is all the "do-gooder" closet racists. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell may not be on common ground on a lot with Clarence Thomas, but that is one thing they can all agree on, and so can I.

Edit: @Jimmy re: Privacy - I don't know how the recordings were acquired, but that is really only a concern for legal proceedings afaiac. It's not like the NSA whisked him off to Guantanamo for his browser history.

 

[Einherjar86]

I read somewhere that he actually consented to the recording. The honest question has to be: is what we say to each other in some moderately isolated space actually private? Private spaces are shot through with holes and permeated by multiple subjectivities, so much so that it's becoming increasingly difficult to even conceive of a truly private space.

 

[Dak]

There is an old truism about "two can keep a secret if one of them is dead". Once you utter something you should not be surprised if it becomes common knowledge.

Like I said, privacy is really only a concern to me for legal considerations, and essentially just is another (ever weakening) bulwark vs being treated (ever more) like an animal by the human farmers.

 

[Einherjar86]

Legally speaking, of course, there is nothing ontological or metaphysically absolute about privacy; it's a concern for how we define privacy epistemologically. Nothing more.

And if we accept those parameters, then privacy becomes a matter of politics and public (i.e. common) concern; quite the ironic twist.

 

[Dak]

Legally speaking, of course, there is nothing ontological or metaphysically absolute about privacy; it's a concern for how we define privacy epistemologically. Nothing more.

And if we accept those parameters, then privacy becomes a matter of politics and public (i.e. common) concern; quite the ironic twist.

Well nothing is absolute legally of course. Legally, or legality, can change over night.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/This-Town-Needs-A-Better-Class-Of-Racist/361443/

On the subject of racism: This article would have obliterated all records for journalistic irony if only it had been written by a white man. As it stands it is still pretty close. I am betting the author is hoping no one actually clicks on his links - particularly those by Williams, Sowell, and West - and just take his word for it (as well as hopefully assume they are all white). Finally, the author is completely blind to the most elegant variety of racism - his own. Copped from paternalistic, control hungry "progressive" whites, he "Uncle Toms so well" as West would say. It is a most elegant racism that does the most racially targeted damage under the banner of a helpful hand.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well nothing is absolute legally of course. Legally, or legality, can change over night.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/This-Town-Needs-A-Better-Class-Of-Racist/361443/

On the subject of racism: This article would have obliterated all records for journalistic irony if only it had been written by a white man. As it stands it is still pretty close. I am betting the author is hoping no one actually clicks on his links - particularly those by Williams, Sowell, and West - and just take his word for it (as well as hopefully assume they are all white). Finally, the author is completely blind to the most elegant variety of racism - his own. Copped from paternalistic, control hungry "progressive" whites, he "Uncle Toms so well" as West would say. It is a most elegant racism that does the most racially targeted damage under the banner of a helpful hand.

I love Ta-Nehisi Coates; and I am betting he hopes his readers do follow his links. He didn't have to provide links. I personally find him to be a precise and penetrating writer. And everything I have to say about racism and his article would merely reiterate points I've already made in the past.

 

[Dak]

I love Ta-Nehisi Coates; and I am betting he hopes his readers do follow his links. He didn't have to provide links.

How many people click on links though? He could merely provide them to make it appear he did due diligence, and assume the choir he preaches to (if they did click them) would already know that any negative treatment of the state creation of black ghettos et al is merely "wishing for the chains of slavery" or whatever - or at least take it from him that that is what is really meant.

Conflating Williams and Sowell with Bachmann and Santorum is either ignorant or intentionally misleading, so he doesn't get off clean either way.

I personally find him to be a precise and penetrating writer.

I wouldn't know that from this piece. Maybe he does better work on subjects not so close to political home.

 

[Einherjar86]

Conflating Williams and Sowell with Bachmann and Santorum is either ignorant or intentionally misleading, so he doesn't get off clean either way.

I think it's a fine comparison. None of them make explicitly racist claims, which is exactly what he's talking about. Whether or not Santorum and Bachmann harbor secret racist notions is irrelevant. He's claiming that they all make claims to the same politico-economic theories (religion aside, political issues aside, the economics of Bachmann and Santorum still proclaims to be very similar to that of Sowell).

All four of them pursue an economically "neutral" position, assuming their ideas are not racially influenced and do not have a racial impact. This, of course, is a fantasy; which is what Coates is saying.

 

[Dak]

I think it's a fine comparison. None of them make explicitly racist claims, which is exactly what he's talking about. Whether or not Santorum and Bachmann harbor secret racist notions is irrelevant. He's claiming that they all make claims to the same politico-economic theories (religion aside, political issues aside, the economics of Bachmann and Santorum still proclaims to be very similar to that of Sowell).

All four of them pursue an economically "neutral" position, assuming their ideas are not racially influenced and do not have a racial impact. This, of course, is a fantasy; which is what Coates is saying.

But this is not the case, and the articles specifically referenced bear this out. To begin with, Sowell and Williams have a very specifically racially based message:

Williams: The State Against Blacks

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598

'The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family.'
-----
During his junior year at California State College in Los Angeles, Mr. Williams switched his major from sociology to economics after reading W.E.B. Du Bois's "Black Reconstruction in America," a Marxist take on the South's transformation after the Civil War that will never be confused with "The Wealth of Nations." Even so, the book taught him that "black people cannot make great progress until they understand the economic system, until they know something about economics."

Sowell :A painful anniversary

For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly."

That is completely false and misleading.

The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s.

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.

Contrast with the link to Bachmann and Santorum:

CNN: GOP Candidates caught in slavery controversy

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/11/gop-candidates-caught-in-slavery-controversy/

A spokesman for former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told CNN Monday he was "pleased" to sign the pledge, but agreed with the Leader's decision to remove the language about slavery.

"Senator Santorum was pleased to sign the Iowa Family Leader's pledge because he is committed to standing up for traditional marriage. The bigger question here is why aren't more Republicans having the courage to stand up for the institution of marriage and signing this pledge," Virginia Davis said in an email. "With that said, Senator Santorum believed it was the right thing for the Iowa Family Leader to remove the language from the preamble to the pledge about slavery."

Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart, who confirmed the Minnesota congresswoman signed the pledge, said Sunday "In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."

The passage causing the stir read, "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

To begin with, both Bachmann and Santorum are buffoons and the whole slavery thing, of one sort or another, is an afterthought to these privileged people concerned with making a statement about gay marriage. However, this statement clearly does not condone slavery, but point out a significant failing of the US in the time since. So is this claim true? That is never addressed (no surprise), but instead is completely twisted to it's opposite (somehow?). Why this particular statement was troublesome says less about the known problems of Bachmann and Santorum than the cognitive dissonance of those who refuse to recognize their own handiwork. This is the reason for the conflation, and where Williams and Sowell have done such an excellent job of specifically charting and explicating the damage done (and arguably intentionally) to blacks all in the name of "helping" them - the outing of these wolves in sheep clothing so odious to the wolves. The Sterlings of the world aren't the pressing problem: you know what you are getting with them, and they are a dying breed. It's the people who shake your hand and stab you in the gut that are the danger (whether intentionally or unintentionally), and there is no shortage of this sort.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm going to circumvent all that with one simple fact: if you ask Bachmann and Santorum to cite economic theory that they support, they will cite Sowell. That's the complementarity between them.

 

[Dak]

Well I don't completely approve of Sowell: He is pretty much the successor to Friedman of/at the Chicago School - a monetarist.They basically believe in a free market in everything but money (kind of the most important thing). However, Sowell is a reasonably good economist. Both Bachmann and Santorum wouldn't know economics if it had gay sex in front of them and Santorum'd all over the place.

You may as well call someone a Nazi if they admire the prowess of Rommel.

 

[Einherjar86]

He's exactly the kind of "good economist" that conservatives appeal to, even if they don't understand the nuances of the theory.