Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[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.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

You sound almost as if you've taken a personal slight to something, although I'm not sure what or why.

My comment on Breaking Bad had to do with confusion over liking Mike; to be honest, I don't find many people likable on that show, be it Walter, Saul, Mike, or Hank. These just aren't people I would want to be friends with.

As far as people being wrapped up in their own individual narratives, I won't contest that. In fact I would say it's absolutely true, and that it certainly does interfere with communication. I suppose my question would be why you feel that I'm somehow encouraging a blind faith in narrative simply by "focusing" on it. Maintaining a critical attitude, we have to admit that we're all complicit in narrative to some extent; unfortunately, narrative is just a part of complex social life. We narrate constantly, unconsciously or otherwise; even when we attempt to break down narratives we've constructed, we build new ones. Narratives accumulate retroactively. That's just how it is. Ceasing to "focus" on narrative won't make it go away.

My interest is in constantly critiquing narrative, and this means keeping a close on why we construct the narratives we do.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

May I see your blog?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Will the future judge us moral? – Stefan Klein and Stephen Cave – Aeon
In 2115, when our descendants look back at our society, what will they condemn as our greatest moral failing?
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/...ail&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-23fcf5ae3c-68695241

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Common Parasite Could Manipulate Our Behavior
Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite inhabiting the brains of an estimated three billion people, could tweak its host’s behavior http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-manipulate-our-behavior/?WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter

 

[Dak]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/worm-brains

"Muscle memory" might be a real thing. What other memories may reside outside the brain?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0&assetType=opinion

On an unrelated note, this shit is disgusting.