Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2564009

You may or may not be interested in this Pat.

Yeah, that's interesting. Probably won't impact my research at all, but it's still neat to see people from different fields looking at fiction for evidence.

Isnt Game of Thrones fantasy based on Medieval England? So of course it would apply to those things?

A Song of Ice and Fire is a modern rendition of an already romanticized vision of Medieval Europe. Martin is working partially from the romance tradition, which, while it was the literature of the Middle Ages, does not accurately portray the Middle Ages. It is a romantic, idyllic vision of the Medieval world.

Martin takes the clothing of that tradition and spatters a little bit of blood on it; and for this, we call him a more "realistic" fantasy writer. The truth is, he is still beholden to a very romantic view of the whole epic fantasy tradition. However, he modernizes the language and the diegetic relations (i.e. the relations between characters and events within the story), and thus turns the content of the story into one that is marginally applicable to our society today.

As it is a contemporary portrayal of pseudo-Medieval life, filtered through the lens of epic fantasy (which is a modern subgenre), I think it's a relevant text for looking at these economic aspects. I'm not sure I would call it "brilliant" though.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist

Interesting read. His knowledge of Marx is much more complete than his knowledge of "vulgar economists" though. He also implicitly defends a sort of not knowing what to do by condemning SJWs and neoliberals. The most striking section was this:

Because he was working with what he had. Between a ltov and blank slate theory that's what you get. Unquanitifiable and fluctuating differences in ability and preferences (the latter being subjective value theory) explain the unquantifiable aspect that makes capitalism work.

The author doesn't seem to agree with you; he has his own answer:

Did he not have the intellectual tools to realise that capitalist dynamics spring from the unquantifiable part of human labour; ie from a variable that can never be well-defined mathematically? Of course he did, since he forged these tools! No, the reason for his error is a little more sinister: just like the vulgar economists that he so brilliantly admonished (and who continue to dominate the departments of economics today), he coveted the power that mathematical “proof” afforded him.

Why did Marx not recognise that no truth about capitalism can ever spring out of any mathematical model?
If I am right, Marx knew what he was doing. He understood, or had the capacity to know, that a comprehensive theory of value cannot be accommodated within a mathematical model of a dynamic capitalist economy. He was, I have no doubt, aware that a proper economic theory must respect the idea that the rules of the undetermined are themselves undetermined. In economic terms this meant a recognition that the market power, and thus the profitability, of capitalists was not necessarily reducible to their capacity to extract labour from employees; that some capitalists can extract more from a given pool of labour or from a given community of consumers for reasons that are external to Marx’s own theory.

Alas, that recognition would be tantamount to accepting that his “laws” were not immutable. He would have to concede to competing voices in the trades union movement that his theory was indeterminate and, therefore, that his pronouncements could not be uniquely and unambiguously correct. That they were permanently provisional. This determination to have the complete, closed story, or model, the final word, is something I cannot forgive Marx for. It proved, after all, responsible for a great deal of error and, more significantly, authoritarianism.

The author suggests that Marx wasn't "deluded" at all.

 

[Dak]

I didn't say he was deluded.

In economic terms this meant a recognition that the market power, and thus the profitability, of capitalists was not necessarily reducible to their capacity to extract labour from employees; that some capitalists can extract more from a given pool of labour or from a given community of consumers for reasons that are external to Marx’s own theory.

Subjective differences are that thing that is external to Marx's theory, and his determination for the "closed story" (for Marx is telling a story) is Varoufakis' point of departure.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, but you responded to Varoufakis's remark as though you accepted the premise that Marx was deluded. That was his first question, after all.

 

[Einherjar86]

Subjective differences are that thing that is external to Marx's theory, and his determination for the "closed story" (for Marx is telling a story) is Varoufakis' point of departure.

I feel as though subjective differences are external to any economic theory, even the most basically market-driven theory, even microeconomics. Individual preference cannot be theorized into a coherent system; or, rather, that system wouldn't be economics - it would be psychology.

Soviet communism (i.e. socialism) failed because of atrocious missteps in management and gross political criminality; and by "failed" in this sense, I mean that it failed only according to 20th-century standards. To move the discussion into more recent history, we have argued a lot about the futility and catastrophic trajectory of this country's contemporary economic situation. Individual preference, it seems to me, is a fine way to critique homogenization and institutionalization, but it doesn't lead to any advanced organized program of economics.

All this is a long way of saying that I don't think individual preference, or subjective value, is a necessary component of a successful economy. Our criteria for successful economies simply haven't caught up with that possibility yet:

In respect to the initial formulation of a question along the rough lines “How is suspension of consequences possible?” there are only three basic options:

(1) It’s not. All deferral of consequences is illusion. The reality is something akin to instant karma. (There’s something about this line of thinking I respect, but I’ve no idea how it could be coherently put together, and then knitted with explanatory plausibility to evident historical fact.)

(2) It’s complicated.

(3) That old problem is over. Haven’t you heard of the Death of Reality? Postmodernism, bitchez. (This is Derrida and Baudrillard — smart, terminally decadent, and radically inconsistent with NRx. It’s also the implicit principle of post-liberal macro-economics.)

I think it's telling that Land assumes "reality" is a fixed thing.

 

[Dak]

I feel as though subjective differences are external to any economic theory, even the most basically market-driven theory, even microeconomics. Individual preference cannot be theorized into a coherent system; or, rather, that system wouldn't be economics - it would be psychology.

I think the most important contribution of Austrian economics is to base economics on psychology, in the sense that the subject is necessary for both psychology and economy. That is exactly what Varoufakis is pointing out as necessary without putting it in that language.

Soviet communism (i.e. socialism) failed because of atrocious missteps in management and gross political criminality; and by "failed" in this sense, I mean that it failed only according to 20th-century standards. To move the discussion into more recent history, we have argued a lot about the futility and catastrophic trajectory of this country's contemporary economic situation. Individual preference, it seems to me, is a fine way to critique homogenization and institutionalization, but it doesn't lead to any advanced organized program of economics.

2 issues here. First, Soviet/Chinese communism failed by all measures which relate to quality of life (sufficient food, etc), which is failing regardless of era. They did also technologically, if that's what you meant.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean an "advanced organized program".

All this is a long way of saying that I don't think individual preference, or subjective value, is a necessary component of a successful economy. Our criteria for successful economies simply haven't caught up with that possibility yet:

If you take the subject out, "success" is meaningless.

I think it's telling that Land assumes "reality" is a fixed thing.

Reality, or the subject? Really, or relatively? Evolution does not proceed fast enough for any policy changes to ever need even the discussion of adjustment in recognition of the biologically based organization of the subject. However, amalgamation with machines may or may not require such discussion through that potentially accelerative interaction. I'm guessing Land is banking on failure of AI and/or the subject merely being augmented rather than fundamentally changed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Austrian economics may have introduced psychology, but it's by no means necessary for a successful economy.

"Success" doesn't need a subject in order to be functionally applicable. We could say that that the platypus has adapted successfully to its environment; but that doesn't make the platypus a subject (in our sense of the word).

And finally, reality. I'm with Philip K. Dick:

I have never had too high a regard for what is generally called "reality." Reality, to me, is not so much something that you perceive, but something you make.

The "you" in that statement should be taken in the plural.

 

[Dak]

Austrian economics may have introduced psychology, but it's by no means necessary for a successful economy.

"Success" doesn't need a subject in order to be functionally applicable. We could say that that the platypus has adapted successfully to its environment; but that doesn't make the platypus a subject (in our sense of the word).

But that isn't political economy. Inter-platypus interaction is limited. If we all just sort of did our own thing we could adapt to our environment in very limited ways. I wouldn't call burrows and rooting, possibly the occasional meat feast from a snare "successful". After all, any animal can do that.

And finally, reality. I'm with Philip K. Dick:

While there's an element of truth in this when understood a particular way, I don't think that that truth is what is intended, and that what is meant falls as flat on its face as blank slatism ever did.

 

[Einherjar86]

But that isn't political economy. Inter-platypus interaction is limited. If we all just sort of did our own thing we could adapt to our environment in very limited ways. I wouldn't call burrows and rooting, possibly the occasional meat feast from a snare "successful". After all, any animal can do that.

Even an elephant?

My point is that different scenarios dictate different definitions of success, and there are socioeconomic scenarios in which success can be achieved without a subject.

An economy could conceivably be deemed successful on a national scale while being unsuccessful according to numerous individuals.

While there's an element of truth in this when understood a particular way, I don't think that that truth is what is intended, and that what is meant falls as flat on its face as blank slatism ever did.

That what truth is what who intends, and what meaning falls on its face? Vague comment.

 

[Dak]

An economy could conceivably be deemed successful on a national scale while being unsuccessful according to numerous individuals.

Of course it could. The Soviets were damn proud of Sputnik and their nukes even while those working at nuke facilities depended on stoves for heat and the plebes lived in lines for basic necessities. Success! Until it fell apart.

That what truth is what who intends, and what meaning falls on its face? Vague comment.

It is true that we have some measure of input into our immediate social reality. But the success of the input depends on our accurate assessment of the limitations. If I think pixie dust gets shit done my ability to actually affect my "reality" is severely hampered.

 

[Dak]

My metaphysics class is, so far, tediously boring garbage.

 

[Dak]

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/fat-sick-blame-grandparents-bad-habits/

Well well.

Until very recently, “transgenerational inheritance” was a concept typically banned from all polite geneticists’ conversations. But then doubts began to creep in when scientists performed experiments and observed the various nifty tricks and speed with which various bacteria adapted to new environments.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've been doing some reading on epigenetics. I'm still skeptical, but it looks like I may have to revise some of my positions. It will be interesting to see what research demonstrates over the next few decades.

Anyhoo, meditations on oil and horror (probably up Jimmy's alley )

http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2015/03/petropolitics-dark-matter-of-modernity.html

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

That's funny I was just working on some material about not wanting to be buried because I don't want to be something else's energy years from now heh

Anyway, I just read through the beginning...fuck man I'm still getting over the shit you told me about objective horror/the jagged edge defined as horrid. I can't grasp language and metaphysics this way.

I noticed you pulled out some quotes from TD that I totally forgot about - “Pipeline covering up this coast like a jigsaw. Place is going to be under water within 30 years” / “had a real good time after Katrina.”

Did you rewatch the season? If so, any new insights? details maybe?

 

[Einherjar86]

I have watched it through a second time, with a friend of mine actually. I can't say I experienced any epiphanies or sudden insights or anything like that. I did catch an interesting detail though [spoilers for those who haven't watched]; we catch a couple names of the prison guards during the episode when the convict that Cohle gets to confess - the guy who tells Cohle that they never caught the killer - kills himself in his cell. One of the guards' names is Childress, which means he's related to the killer. [end spoilers]

Other than that, nothing major. I'm collating evidence and details. I don't expect any major thesis to come out of this show, since I think it's mainly just engorging and excreting an amalgam of dark speculative matter from weird/horror philosophy. If anything, this show can only really be discussed intelligently in light of contemporary philosophy and the supernatural tradition in literary history. There is definitely something to be said for it though, since it makes the fantastical horror of weird fiction more palpable and palatable for an audience that may not take to that genre of fiction.

I circle back around to True Detective at the end of the blog post. There are a few points there that may or may not be insightful.

 

[rms]

Ein, you're a fantastic writer man. Really enjoying reading this piece, but have you thought about changing your color scheme? I have black and white lines all across my vision as though i'm looking at an optical illusion haha

 

[Einherjar86]

Many thanks! I have tried multiple times to change the color; you're not the first to ask. However, I like having some kind of background, and none of them seem to let me use a full white background and black text; the best I can get is a gray background, and that makes black text even worse. So the best option seems to be white lettering on a dark background.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

My metaphysics class is, so far, tediously boring garbage.

What specifically bothers you about it?

 

[Dak]

What specifically bothers you about it?

Because metaphysics is 99% bullshit. Even the teacher said as much. Just like most everything else. Growing up is accepting that.

I remember Pat showing irritation about me liking "Mike" in BB. I've thought about why I liked Mike and I think I've come to a determination. Because the character displayed, to large degree, an understanding of what was BS, and what isn't, and I believe I'm starting to come to terms with the same thing. And before someone asks, no, "hired killing" isn't even remotely what I am talking about. The whole focus on "narrative" is the goddamn problem (sorry Pat, I know that's your field). For the last week+ and for the undetermined future I'm on lurk mode on the internet in general, much less/more these boards. If either of you guys want to talk to me you can talk directly. Pat already has my hangout info and Jimmy you can get it from Pat if you want to do so.

Edit: Zeph: Feel free to indulge in your most X-treme elitest sympathies.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ignoring narrative is like ignoring context. Do that, and no one will never know what you're talking about.

 

[Dak]

Ignoring narrative is like ignoring context. Do that, and no one will never know what you're talking about.

No one knows what anyone is talking about because they are wrapped up in their own personal narratives. My current hypothesis is that the extent to which we become NPCs is directly proportional to the extent we believe ourselves to be the hero of an epic which no one else can see.

Mike is not a hero in an imaginary epic. White and Saul are. Social media allows these delusions to balloon.

Here's an article I thought you guys would like:

The End of the Future

The conclusion is sound, but it's amusing how he manages to avoid mentioning Nixon shock (decoupling the dollar, not the subsequent price increases), although he does allude to the issue by calling out Keynesianism/macroecon policy, which can be summed up with these gems:

Leverage is not a substitute for scientific progress.
....

our policy leaders.....have adopted a cargo-cult mentality

Wages are stagnate, energy skyrocketed, and bubbles have been blown time and again for ever more marginal returns because the money is coming off the press (figuratively now) faster than at a Hasbro factory.

The conclusion (last two paragraphs) of the article hits hard and true, and you can subtract the qualifier "aged" and "1960s" from "hippies" and it is still true.