Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/02/us/lord-of-the-flies-baltimore/index.html

I'm really surprised CNN published this conservative/sexist/racist drivel.

 

[Einherjar86]

Its current use has zero change from prior use. The argument form for pretty much every single one of these linguistic gerrymanders is as follows:

Premises:
x negatively refers to y
z is doing y
Anything negative in relation to z is racist/sexist/etc.

Conclusion
x is racist/sexist/etc.

This is absurd. "zippitydooda" instead of "thug" behavior is still racist via this argument form, which is why it is the same form every time.

The reason this doesn't hold is because you can't apply logic to it. You're exactly right about the logic of the equation; but you're entirely wrong about the racism of the comment.

Meaning doesn't follow lines of logic and quantities like mathematical values do. The word has changed since its original use, which was in reference to individuals from an entirely different country (India). Since its inception it has connoted a difference in power relations, but these relations have taken many different forms and have appeared in various socio-historical conditions. You can't say that the word has had "zero change." There isn't even any way to argue this point because it's simply obvious that it has changed, that it has come to signify various criminal factions within a set of power relations. Furthermore, there has been a racial component to it since the nineteenth century; but the racial dynamics associated with it have shifted dramatically over the course of history.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be able to say "thug"; I'm of the opinion that it's far too soon and too ambiguous to assign that word any kind of qualitative historical value that grounds a certain taboo restriction (as is the case with "my pals"). I do believe, however, that assuming "thug" to be an innocent term is an assumption born of willful ignorance.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/02/us/lord-of-the-flies-baltimore/index.html

I'm really surprised CNN published this conservative/sexist/racist drivel.

Actually, CNN was one of the first to jump on the "thug" bandwagon after the mayor used it in her address. CNN and FOX have been about on par with their ridiculous patriarchal accusations against the rioters.

 

[Dak]

The word has changed since its original use, which was in reference to individuals from an entirely different country (India). Since its inception it has connoted a difference in power relations, but these relations have taken many different forms and have appeared in various socio-historical conditions.

"A difference in power relations." :Spin:

You can't say that the word has had "zero change."

Not zero change from day 1. I meant that thug has had zero change from prior to the Baltimore riots.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be able to say "thug"; I'm of the opinion that it's far too soon and too ambiguous to assign that word any kind of qualitative historical value that grounds a certain taboo restriction (as is the case with "my pals"). I do believe, however, that assuming "thug" to be an innocent term is an assumption born of willful ignorance.

It isn't "innocent". It is definitely negative, and it is an unfortunate fact that proportionately, US urban blacks are worthy of the label more so than their peers. But this doesn't then make it racist.

Actually, CNN was one of the first to jump on the "thug" bandwagon after the mayor used it in her address. CNN and FOX have been about on par with their ridiculous patriarchal accusations against the rioters.

I don't find the general accusations ridiculous at all: Economic and social disadvantages leading to acting out in anti-social ways. This is one of those neat situations where the progressive narrative finds itself eating the familiar flesh of its own tail.

 

[Einherjar86]

"A difference in power relations." :Spin:

Explain to us how this isn't a factor.

Not zero change from day 1. I meant that thug has had zero change from prior to the Baltimore riots.

...and it has been a topic of racial discussion since before the Baltimore riots.

It isn't "innocent". It is definitely negative, and it is an unfortunate fact that proportionately, US urban blacks are worthy of the label more so than their peers. But this doesn't then make it racist.

Sure it is; but I'm not accusing you of being racist. I'm just saying that race is a part of language. Without language, no identity; without identity, no race.

I don't find the general accusations ridiculous at all: Economic and social disadvantages leading to acting out in anti-social ways. This is one of those neat situations where the progressive narrative finds itself eating the familiar flesh of its own tail.

I think it's one of those neat situations where the conservative narrative finds itself scrambling to make sense of how the great enemy - "liberal media" - was throwing around the word "thug" just as much as its arch nemesis, FOX.

And these looters aren't acting out in anti-social ways. They're actually acting in remarkably social ways, just not the kind of social that you like.

 

[Dak]

Explain to us how this isn't a factor.

There are always "differences in power relations". Sometimes the thug is on top, sometimes the thug isn't. I think there's a couple of aphorisms to this effect. It doesn't matter how much more power CVS has if it can't stop some hooligans from setting a few stores on fire.

This was the principle behind American Independence btw. Excluding conspiracy theory explanations, the only reason the colonies were able to secede was because England was unable or unwilling for a variety of reasons to bring its superior power to bear.

...and it has been a topic of racial discussion since before the Baltimore riots.

Sure it is; but I'm not accusing you of being racist. I'm just saying that race is a part of language. Without language, no identity; without identity, no race.

If thug referred to say, having a 'fro and wearing JNCOs, then this would be racist (which is admittedly how some old whites use it). But that isn't the usage of Obama and Rawlings-Blake.

I think it's one of those neat situations where the conservative narrative finds itself scrambling to make sense of how the great enemy - "liberal media" - was throwing around the word "thug" just as much as its arch nemesis, FOX.

And these looters aren't acting out in anti-social ways. They're actually acting in remarkably social ways, just not the kind of social that you like.

FOX is pretty leftwing, they just hide it under conservakin memes. But "where are the dads?" has been a point of intersection between progressives and "true" conservatives for a while, even while a vocal fringe of progressivism denied that having men around makes a difference. It is due to the fact that the vocal fringe has gained in volume if not in number in the last ten years that a pretty "progressive" article by even standards of ~15 years ago is now dismissively derided as "patriarchal."

 

[Einherjar86]

It's always great when I can respond to your rejoinders quickly. Of course, that doesn't mean my answers will convince you - namely because I view institutions such as "power" and "racism" very differently than you do.

There are always "differences in power relations". Sometimes the thug is on top, sometimes the thug isn't. I think there's a couple of aphorisms to this effect. It doesn't matter how much more power CVS has if it can't stop some hooligans from setting a few stores on fire.

But that's just it! "A few stores"... There is absolutely no shift in power relations here, not in a complex sense - you won't ever acknowledge this, so I don't know why I bother; but if you actually read your Foucault closely, then you'll see that some hooligans burning down one CVS doesn't amount to a change in power relations.

The point is that burning down a few stores isn't going to do much to that abstract entity that is CVS. You say that CVS's power doesn't stop those stores from being burned down, and you're correct; but the more important point that you're ignoring is that "CVS" doesn't care. Or, perhaps more appropriately: it doesn't matter. Now, if every CVS, or even fifty percent of all CVS stores, was attacked simultaneously, then that would be something to sweat over; but it also wouldn't be mere hooliganism anymore...

If thug referred to say, having a 'fro and wearing JNCOs, then this would be racist (which is admittedly how some old whites use it). But that isn't the usage of Obama and Rawlings-Blake.

That isn't the intended use. But no matter how hard you try, you'll never stop words from dragging connotations and cultural dynamics along with them, and these aggregate, compile, collect, coagulate... you can't get rid of them by trying to appeal to some outdated brand of analytic, positivist logic - that "words mean one thing and one thing only."

FOX is pretty leftwing, they just hide it under conservakin memes. But "where are the dads?" has been a point of intersection between progressives and "true" conservatives for a while, even while a vocal fringe of progressivism denied that having men around makes a difference. It is due to the fact that the vocal fringe has gained in volume if not in number in the last ten years that a pretty "progressive" article by even standards of ~15 years ago is now dismissively derided as "patriarchal."

You keep confusing critique with dismissal. Maybe in pop-culture liberal circles and politics this is the case; but when I call something patriarchal I'm not dismissing it. I'm directly addressing it as an issue.

FOX isn't left-wing. FOX is down the center and fluctuates according to capital interests - same with CNN, same with CSNBC. Anchors may grandstand and proselytize, but that doesn't make a network either progressive or conservative.

 

[Dak]

But that's just it! "A few stores"... There is absolutely no shift in power relations here, not in a complex sense - you won't ever acknowledge this, so I don't know why I bother; but if you actually read your Foucault closely, then you'll see that some hooligans burning down one CVS doesn't amount to a change in power relations.

Power with respect to the individuals at a given point in time goes different ways and cannot always be measured in terms of money. Otherwise no multibillion dollar corporation or government would bother listening to loudmouths. But power relations aren't so stark or stable as that.

The point is that burning down a few stores isn't going to do much to that abstract entity that is CVS. You say that CVS's power doesn't stop those stores from being burned down, and you're correct; but the more important point that you're ignoring is that "CVS" doesn't care. Or, perhaps more appropriately: it doesn't matter. Now, if every CVS, or even fifty percent of all CVS stores, was attacked simultaneously, then that would be something to sweat over; but it also wouldn't be mere hooliganism anymore...

It does matter the closer to the scene you get, and conversely, the farther you get, the less power is available. Now obviously, nothing matters to "CVS" qua CVS. But the store manager cares very much about his or her paycheck/source, and lacks any power to protect it. A lack of intersection in power and care is definitely a sort of powerlessness.

That isn't the intended use. But no matter how hard you try, you'll never stop words from dragging connotations and cultural dynamics along with them, and these aggregate, compile, collect, coagulate... you can't get rid of them by trying to appeal to some outdated brand of analytic, positivist logic - that "words mean one thing and one thing only."

No matter how hard we try, we can't prevent the outragemill from doing its thing. But we can refuse to acquiesce. Someone is always going to get butthurt about shit, but that's no reason in itself to give a shit, contrary to now popular assertion.

You keep confusing critique with dismissal. Maybe in pop-culture liberal circles and politics this is the case; but when I call something patriarchal I'm not dismissing it. I'm directly addressing it as an issue.

Patriarchy is an issue like hygiene is an issue. The answer to OCD handwashing is not to say "fuck cleanliness".

I left out a response earlier to the arsonists et al engaging in "social behavior". Ok, sure, I can dispense with psych-lingo. Anti-civilization then.

 

[Einherjar86]

Power with respect to the individuals at a given point in time goes different ways and cannot always be measured in terms of money. Otherwise no multibillion dollar corporation or government would bother listening to loudmouths. But power relations aren't so stark or stable as that.

When you contrast the black demographic of Baltimore with the politico-financial organization of CVS, the power relation is pretty fucking evident and stable.

It does matter the closer to the scene you get, and conversely, the farther you get, the less power is available. Now obviously, nothing matters to "CVS" qua CVS. But the store manager cares very much about his or her paycheck/source, and lacks any power to protect it. A lack of intersection in power and care is definitely a sort of powerlessness.

Of course it matters to the store owner! But the store owner isn't CVS; CVS doesn't care about the looters ransacking one store, and it doesn't care about the storeowner losing money.

Furthermore, the store owner isn't the target of the looters ransacking his place. CVS is the target; the storeowner is an unfortunate bystander. There is nothing righteous or proud about this scenario. It simply is what it is. The looters aren't thinking to themselves "fuck this storeowner!" They're thinking, "fuck CVS!" It just so happens that their actions mean little in the grand scheme of things. So, once again... power. In this case, it does have to do with money.

No matter how hard we try, we can't prevent the outragemill from doing its thing. But we can refuse to acquiesce. Someone is always going to get butthurt about shit, but that's no reason in itself to give a shit, contrary to now popular assertion.

Sure, fine. I'm not demanding that you give a shit. I'm only explaining to you it has nothing to do with the misplaced begrudgings of the "outrage mill." It has to do with language itself.

Patriarchy is an issue like hygiene is an issue. The answer to OCD handwashing is not to say "fuck cleanliness".

I'm not saying "fuck cleanliness." I'm asking how we treat the disorder. And in this case, there certainly is a disorder.

Picking up with your metaphor, we also don't look at the symptoms of OCD and say "What an immature and selfish thing to do, to go obsessively washing oneself every five minutes." We think "This is an effect of a larger problem and should be treated as such."

I left out a response earlier to the arsonists et al engaging in "social behavior". Ok, sure, I can dispense with psych-lingo. Anti-civilization then.

Civilization has its discontents. Individualism works great until those at the bottom of the food chain begin asking "But why can't I be an individual too?"

 

[Dak]

When you contrast the black demographic of Baltimore with the politico-financial organization of CVS, the power relation is pretty fucking evident and stable.

I was reading an article a few days ago about Baltimore's "black flight" problem. It wasn't always this bad. But CVS hasn't existed near as long in Baltimore as a black demographic has, and unless Baltimore itself ceases to be, the black demographic will probably outlast CVS also.

Of course it matters to the store owner! But the store owner isn't CVS; CVS doesn't care about the looters ransacking one store, and it doesn't care about the storeowner losing money.

Furthermore, the store owner isn't the target of the looters ransacking his place. CVS is the target; the storeowner is an unfortunate bystander. There is nothing righteous or proud about this scenario. It simply is what it is. The looters aren't thinking to themselves "fuck this storeowner!" They're thinking, "fuck CVS!" It just so happens that their actions mean little in the grand scheme of things. So, once again... power. In this case, it does have to do with money.

I said store manager. CVS owns the stores. I also doubt CVS was a particularly specific target. It was probably one of the nicer looking things in the area, and what's the point of vandalizing something that has already been torn up in times past?

But going back to power difference: The residents have the power to get rid of CVS. CVS is rebuilding, but if you read between the lines it is due to the lack of competition in the area. Obviously all these other major retailers aren't powerful enough to go into inner Baltimore.

I'm not saying "fuck cleanliness." I'm asking how we treat the disorder. And in this case, there certainly is a disorder.

Picking up with your metaphor, we also don't look at the symptoms of OCD and say "What an immature and selfish thing to do, to go obsessively washing oneself every five minutes." We think "This is an effect of a larger problem and should be treated as such."

Well I'm impressed you aren't advocating throwing out patriarchy outright.

Civilization has its discontents. Individualism works great until those at the bottom of the food chain begin asking "But why can't I be an individual too?"

Because becoming involves more than a Netflix subscription and a blunt. I know that sort of generalizing drives you crazy, but I repeatedly read sob stories about "good honest people just trying to get by" that look like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unlike-sen-ernst-for-hardees-workers-its-not-a-parable-its-a-job/2015/03/14/c7a5fd5e-c6ac-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

All they want is to leave Creston. Everything to make that happen keeps falling through.

One morning, Trina sits on the mattress watching Jeff get ready for his shift. He’s 19 and dark-eyed. She’s wearing a T-shirt and basketball shorts, sipping through the straw of a Hardee’s cup on the nightstand. A plug-in Scentsy pot has tipped over on the rug, drenching every molecule of air with Aussie Plum.

Jeff goes to the chair for his uniform, giving it a shake.
Buttoning it on, he sits back down on the mattress next to Trina, who nuzzles him.

Working part time at Hardee’s, they each earn between $140 and $170 a week. The plan is always to save money, and within five days the money is always gone. DVDs, cigarettes, HDMI cables, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, cherry Pepsi — Wal-Mart and Casey’s convenience store get most of their paycheck, while $250 goes for rent each month.

“Now that I’m 18, I should probably be working a different job,” Trina says. “I don’t feel like $7.50 is enough for me to get an apartment or a house or go to college, which I’m supposed to be doing.”

At 15, Trina was sent to a juvenile detention facility for what she describes as a *methamphetamine-fueled car-stealing spree. “I was young and stupid then,” she says. She met Jeff a year ago, and not long after that she started at Hardee’s, ordering non-slip footwear from a catalogue called “Shoes For Crews.”

Trina’s mom works at Iowa Select Farms taking care of sows and piglets. “She cleans the pens, and she pressure-washes them with a hose,” Trina says. “She makes good bank — $28,000 a year.”

Working as a sow technician is not Trina’s idea of dreaming big; leaving Iowa is. The other night, Jeff was talking to his mom, who said there was more opportunity for him out there in California.

[Photo gallery: Working hard to make it in a small town]

“I would go,” Trina says, “straight out there, right now.”

But they can’t get to California until Jeff fixes his truck, and that takes money. California also takes money, he tells Trina. At least in Creston, he could imagine buying his own house in five years.

Sitting on the mattress, Jeff picks at his new tattoo. For $200, he had the yin and yang symbol put on his arm to match his state of mind. “You wake up in the day and you fall asleep at night,” he says. “You can’t tell what the next day will be like, so you can’t make plans. So I just live day by day.”

Yeah Jeff, you obviously fucking do. Cry me a damn river. But sure, this story is supposed to elicit that response to cover for all the folks *really* trying. Folks I've never met. All the stories, all the anecdotes, look like Jeff.

Later on:

Customers are looking up at the menu, and cars are in the drive-through. “Can I interest you in a grilled cheese breakfast sandwich?” Emily says into her headset. The store phone is ringing. It’s Trina, who can’t make it in.

Honestly the only cry-me story I buy is going to jail for drugs but on the same token, on a repeatx18 or whatever charge, a fail to formulate a change of discern is obvious. I find speed limits, particularly on interstates, unjust also. But I don't speed and then complain about the fines.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just going to address the central comment of that entire post.

You need to understand that I'm not advocating riots; nor was MLK when he said that rioting was the language of the unheard. I'm saying that rioting is a symptom of something larger that needs to be addressed, and that the blame cannot end with the rioters themselves. It is possible to contextualize rioting as a structural effect while admitting that the rioters should be held socially responsible; we just can't lay the entirety of responsibility at their feet. Much of it also lies elsewhere.

 

[Dak]

It is possible to contextualize rioting as a structural effect while admitting that the rioters should be held socially responsible; we just can't lay the entirety of responsibility at their feet. Much of it also lies elsewhere.

Well i think that is agreeable, but I don't see the "much of it" being in terms of racism qua racism, or capitalism qua capitalism, etc.

In similar or the same analysis in looking at differences in where children grew up and economic mobility, recent immigrants were discounted as they are basically always upwardly mobile, despite generally zero economic/social power. This is an indictment on the homegrown welfare cases, regardless of race.

Why can the first or second generation mestizo etc rise above but the 3rd-4th generation welfarite can't? If we must dispense with nature as an area of critique (and I think it might be - over time), the progressive problem is only intensified in critiquing nurture. I rewrote my paper on Nietzsche focusing on becoming, but to become one must first recognize what one be and what one can or should be.

 

[Einherjar86]

In similar or the same analysis in looking at differences in where children grew up and economic mobility, recent immigrants were discounted as they are basically always upwardly mobile, despite generally zero economic/social power. This is an indictment on the homegrown welfare cases, regardless of race.

Why can the first or second generation mestizo etc rise above but the 3rd-4th generation welfarite can't? If we must dispense with nature as an area of critique (and I think it might be - over time), the progressive problem is only intensified in critiquing nurture. I rewrote my paper on Nietzsche focusing on becoming, but to become one must first recognize what one be and what one can or should be.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making, but I think it's imperative to acknowledge that the conditions of assimilation were drastically different for blacks than they were for Jewish or Irish immigrants.

I agree that welfare only perpetuates the problem. I can't recall if I've said this here or not, but the amount of money delegated for welfare is a very specific structural effect; by which I mean that the amount isn't decided on by any one person but is an epiphenomenon generated by a larger, more complex system. And this amount serves a very distinct purpose: to provide just enough for those on welfare to survive (for the most part) while preventing them from achieving any real mobility. Some might find success, from time to time. But many who draw welfare aren't simply spending it on iPhones or televisions; they're using it to buy food for elderly parents/grandparents, or they're using it to feed children. All of these details cannot be reduced to the bad choices of those on welfare; their behavior is a reflection of the values and directives they receive from American culture at large.

The issue in this country is that those in poverty, a demographic that includes large numbers of African Americans, witness a dramatic contradiction between what they think they should be and what they can be.

If anything, I advocate increasing welfare and implementing a more organized and surveyed form of collection and distribution; but that will take even more money and obviously will never happen with the current cultural mindset of most Americans, including those on welfare. There is such hatred and antagonism toward the white "majority" that even a more effective system of distribution won't do much at this point to change people's attitudes. Basically, we've backed ourselves into a corner and when change comes it will be explosive and violent, and will most likely be out of our hands.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is well-said. Needless to say, I like Brassier. I see this as a pretty logical uncoupling of self and action:

Autonomy is badly misconstrued when it is castigated as an individualistic or libertarian fetish. Autonomy understood as a self-determining act is the destitution of selfhood and the subjectivation of the rule. The “oneself” that subjects itself to the rule is the anonymous agent of the act. To be subjected is to act in conformity with a rule that applies indiscriminately to anyone and everyone. One does not bind one’s self to the rule; the subject is the act’s acting upon itself, its self-determination. The act is the only subject. It remains faceless. But it can only be triggered under very specific circumstances. Acknowledgement of the rule generates the condition for deviating from or failing to act in accordance with the rule that constitutes subjectivity. This acknowledgement is triggered by the relevant recognitional mechanism; it requires no appeal to the awareness of a conscious self.

The entire piece is here: http://www.mattin.org/essays/unfree_improvisation-compulsive_freedom.html

 

[Dak]

There is such hatred and antagonism toward the white "majority" that even a more effective system of distribution won't do much at this point to change people's attitudes. Basically, we've backed ourselves into a corner and when change comes it will be explosive and violent, and will most likely be out of our hands.

The very term "distribution" in this context is worthy of similar antagonism. I'll be and have been a critic of how land is locked up in large swaths by government directly and what isn't locked up is essentially loaned out at exorbitant cost both up front, per month, and per year. Distribution of anything other than dirt isn't even remotely approaching something that could be construed as a "fair share".

Much of the hatred from minorities is not specific to minorities but is broadly shared by low SES families and is limited to the sort of anger a child displays when they can't have cake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But this is significantly the fault of dogooders and once a person, just as a child, reaches a certain point, it is indeed true that all that one can do is hand over more cake (not possible nor any better) or wait for the inevitable explosion. The dogooders, the low SES, and most everyone else will probably suffer.

A broad denial of the pain necessary for actual progress on both an individual and civilizational level (hattip to Nietzsche) will not end well.

re: Brassier. I don't see that he is doing anything other than rehashing philosophical criticism of Kantian autonomy, which I find to be rather pointless at this juncture, given the hard science that is calling it into question.

 

[Einherjar86]

re: Brassier. I don't see that he is doing anything other than rehashing philosophical criticism of Kantian autonomy, which I find to be rather pointless at this juncture, given the hard science that is calling it into question.

That's just it. Science is calling it into question. It's only appropriate that we update our philosophy to go along with it.

 

[Dak]

That's just it. Science is calling it into question. It's only appropriate that we update our philosophy to go along with it.

Well the thing is that I think that attacking Kantian autonomy as the only autonomy is short-sighted, and I specifically argued (in my $ winning paper) for an apophatic understanding of autonomy in relation to heteronomy, and in Nietzschean understanding of strength of will(s) rather than this "rational control" of the will that Brassier is going after.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well the thing is that I think that attacking Kantian autonomy as the only autonomy is short-sighted, and I specifically argued (in my $ winning paper) for an apophatic understanding of autonomy in relation to heteronomy, and in Nietzschean understanding of strength of will(s) rather than this "rational control" of the will that Brassier is going after.

First, clarifications.

I don't think Brassier is attacking Kantian autonomy specifically, but a range of autonomies derived from a certain philosophical rationalism, such as Descartes and Kant. As he says, he's targeting the "fetishized" notions of autonomy. This clearly tells us that Kantian autonomy isn't the "only" autonomy; but it is certainly an exemplar as far as Brassier (and any respectable philosopher) is concerned.

I'm not sure where you're getting "rational control" from, or why you're quoting it.

Second, definitions.

I have little knowledge of what an "apophatic" autonomy would look like, as I'm unfamiliar with your paper (which you can email to me if you want, seeing as I'm not done with final papers and final grades). I'm familiar with negative theology, but not negative autonomy. In negative theology, God is construed as "Nothing," because God transcends being. Analogously, I'm assuming that in a negative autonomy, autonomy is nothing in any ontological sense because it does not partake of being but is rather of Nietzschean becoming (this is all based on the conversation we had and my very simple and limited effort to set negative autonomy parallel to negative theology).

Autonomy, in a moral and individual sense, is defined as structure being given from within: that which is determined by a moral agent consequently subsists as the justification for its own absolute givenness (of course, ideally there should be some correspondence between what an individual judges to be morally or aesthetically pleasing and what is, "objectively," morally and aesthetically pleasing).

In other words, autonomy is not only freedom from the wills of others, but also an intrinsic power, or capacity, to justify one's own actions from within.

Third, interventions.

Brassier resists the term "autonomy" because he sees the notion of self-determination as being at odds with some fundamental aspects of human behavior and the relationship between action and some kind of interior specter that we might call "intention" or "cause." He would not align autonomy with Nietzschean becoming because, as autonomy is defined, it requires some kind of preexisting agent or cause to set it in motion. Human subjects are not in control of becoming, but are determined by becoming (this informs his intervention into the notion of "free improvisation").

In a way, I could see this as a kind of negative autonomy, but I'm sure it doesn't jive with what you have argued. "Inverse autonomy" would work better for what I'm describing; rather than autonomous drive, or will, giving rise to action/becoming, it is only action/becoming that determines the specter of a purported subject-who-determines. The phenomenon is retroactive. What we perceive as the effect actually precedes what we perceive as the cause. We do not possess autonomy, but exhibit something more like automatism with a delayed consciousness that, through a neurobiological sleight of hand, retroactively pitches an autonomy back into the past.

 

[Dak]

First, clarifications.

I don't think Brassier is attacking Kantian autonomy specifically, but a range of autonomies derived from a certain philosophical rationalism, such as Descartes and Kant. As he says, he's targeting the "fetishized" notions of autonomy. This clearly tells us that Kantian autonomy isn't the "only" autonomy; but it is certainly an exemplar as far as Brassier (and any respectable philosopher) is concerned.

I'm not sure where you're getting "rational control" from, or why you're quoting it.

Second, definitions.

I have little knowledge of what an "apophatic" autonomy would look like, as I'm unfamiliar with your paper (which you can email to me if you want, seeing as I'm not done with final papers and final grades). I'm familiar with negative theology, but not negative autonomy. In negative theology, God is construed as "Nothing," because God transcends being. Analogously, I'm assuming that in a negative autonomy, autonomy is nothing in any ontological sense because it does not partake of being but is rather of Nietzschean becoming (this is all based on the conversation we had and my very simple and limited effort to set negative autonomy parallel to negative theology).

Autonomy, in a moral and individual sense, is defined as structure being given from within: that which is determined by a moral agent consequently subsists as the justification for its own absolute givenness (of course, ideally there should be some correspondence between what an individual judges to be morally or aesthetically pleasing and what is, "objectively," morally and aesthetically pleasing).

In other words, autonomy is not only freedom from the wills of others, but also an intrinsic power, or capacity, to justify one's own actions from within.

This is sort of close. I understood apophatic to be merely negative defining in the sense of "what it is not". So, autonomy as understood as not heteronomy. Of course this also includes a lack of metaphysical realness.

Third, interventions.

Brassier resists the term "autonomy" because he sees the notion of self-determination as being at odds with some fundamental aspects of human behavior and the relationship between action and some kind of interior specter that we might call "intention" or "cause." He would not align autonomy with Nietzschean becoming because, as autonomy is defined, it requires some kind of preexisting agent or cause to set it in motion. Human subjects are not in control of becoming, but are determined by becoming (this informs his intervention into the notion of "free improvisation").

In a way, I could see this as a kind of negative autonomy, but I'm sure it doesn't jive with what you have argued. "Inverse autonomy" would work better for what I'm describing; rather than autonomous drive, or will, giving rise to action/becoming, it is only action/becoming that determines the specter of a purported subject-who-determines. The phenomenon is retroactive. What we perceive as the effect actually precedes what we perceive as the cause. We do not possess autonomy, but exhibit something more like automatism with a delayed consciousness that, through a neurobiological sleight of hand, retroactively pitches an autonomy back into the past.

This perspective seems to lean heavily on a particular interpretation of the Libet experiments, and there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the study and/or that particular interpretation.

I'm much more interested in "pressures", or those things Nietzsche might refer to as the various "wills". Gut biome, diet, environment, etc. In this sense, there is no rational control of the singular will (this is the Kantian source of autonomy) that transcends the physical struggle via reason. Instead, the subject identifies/creates values and subsequently either intentionally or unintentionally an end or ends. This is the process of becoming, and takes into account the pressures on the subject.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is sort of close. I understood apophatic to be merely negative defining in the sense of "what it is not". So, autonomy as understood as not heteronomy. Of course this also includes a lack of metaphysical realness.

Okay; although the question of interiority and exteriority still looms large, especially today. It's no longer sufficient to claim that the human ends at the boundaries of the naturalist manifest image of the body.

By the way, "not done" should read "now done"; I'm now done with final grades.

This perspective seems to lean heavily on a particular interpretation of the Libet experiments, and there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the study and/or that particular interpretation.

I'm much more interested in "pressures", or those things Nietzsche might refer to as the various "wills". Gut biome, diet, environment, etc. In this sense, there is no rational control of the singular will (this is the Kantian source of autonomy) that transcends the physical struggle via reason. Instead, the subject identifies/creates values and subsequently either intentionally or unintentionally an end or ends. This is the process of becoming, and takes into account the pressures on the subject.

I see. And I'm also less interested in whether or not brain activity and motor skills preclude the notion of free will and much more interested in what this means for how we define things like free will, consciousness, autonomy, simulation, etc.

As I sit and type, I feel as though I am free to pick up my cup of coffee and take a sip. So, to my mind, free will certainly exists within a given spectrum, and to the extent that my body exists in relation to whatever I consider to be my "mind." But I also think that the experience of free will introduces similarities to something like simulation, and that discussion of free will often partakes of language and evidence that suggests something like simulation (i.e. "I feel as though," "It appears to me," "It would seem that," etc.).

Seeing as the brain parses information from the world (whether this be information on objects that are decidedly not of my body, or information about my body itself), it acts as a kind of simulation device. It organizes information in a way that is palatable to us. Free will, in my opinion, derives from this organization of the world. So, it isn't that I think the Libet experiments disprove free will, but that they displace free will.

It occurs to me that I'm working within flexible definitions of both free will and autonomy, but I think that once we define these things it becomes clear that such definitions never hold. They merely suffice for starting a discussion. The primary issue with free will, in my opinion, is how to frame it. As I began, I can say that I experience free will in picking up my coffee cup; but the key word here is "experience." This frames the example. We might be able to expand upon this in some way, but the displacement of frame will inevitably constitute a shift in definition.

Of course, questions of framing imply questions of representation; and literature has always been concerned with the question of representation.

 

[Dak]

I got a chuckle out of this quote from Obama:

"They [FoxNews] will find folks who make me mad. I don't know where they find them, 'I don't want to work, I just want a free Obama phone' and that becomes an entire narrative."

It is hard for strivers to understand that these people exist but there are a lot of them. Many of them don't mind having jobs though, as long as they don't have to work at them and don't get too many hours so they lose those benefits. Have had many coworkers like that. It's only gotten worse now with smartphones to provide constant amusement concomitant with employer fear of firing people because Racism!