Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Dak
mentat
Land linked a thing about the "City State Redux" as I like to think of it.
http://www.xenosystems.net/free-cities/
I'm less excited about this than I used to be, but I'm pretty resigned to it as future-as-the-past.
http://www.xenosystems.net/free-cities/
I'm less excited about this than I used to be, but I'm pretty resigned to it as future-as-the-past.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Sounds like a practical example of Deleuzian "line of flight," which he and Guattari go over in A Thousand Plateaus. The more I read Land, the more I think his work is basically a heavily conservative rendering of Deleuzian philosophy.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, yeah sure.
Actually, I think Land has a bit of the old conservatism about him, pre-Marxian conservatism. Then again, he's also managed to merge it somehow with a post-Marxist antihumanist bent, so I really have no idea what to think about him.
I also am beginning to reconsider exactly how "Marxist" Deleuze really was. Anti-Oedipus is definitely quasi-Marxist, but his later work - especially A Thousand Plateaus - strikes me as far less so.
Actually, I think Land has a bit of the old conservatism about him, pre-Marxian conservatism. Then again, he's also managed to merge it somehow with a post-Marxist antihumanist bent, so I really have no idea what to think about him.
I also am beginning to reconsider exactly how "Marxist" Deleuze really was. Anti-Oedipus is definitely quasi-Marxist, but his later work - especially A Thousand Plateaus - strikes me as far less so.
Dak
mentat
Well Carlyle is a popular source for Yarvin and I don't see anything from Land where he rejects the Carlylian? aspects of Yarvin's writings. Carlyle barely predates Marx.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
This isn't related to anything going on in here but did you guys ever read the Sam Harris / Noam Chomsky emails?
it's hilarious. Chomsky makes that smug dope look so bad. Harris published his beating
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
it's hilarious. Chomsky makes that smug dope look so bad. Harris published his beating
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
Dak
mentat
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I would tip the scale slightly in favour of Sam Harris, simply because he's willing to say things that piss people off. I like that.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ha, that's funny, I tend to lean the other way.
Overall, it's a pointless exchange. Chomsky is a stubborn old mule at this point, and Harris comes off as a tool for trying to start a substantive debate via email (in this case, both scholars are distinctive enough to secure easy publication - they could have simply had it out in/on more vetted media platforms). To be entirely honest, I almost feel as though Harris looked at the Chomsky/Foucault debate and thought "I should have one of these."
It's also funny to me, personally, because accusations of "misreading" happen all the time - in fact, they're necessary for substantive debate to occur (for a really good example of a substantive exchange over misreading, see Foucault and Derrida's debate over Foucault's work on madness - beginning with the mammoth History of Madness, then Derrida's "Cogito and the History of Madness," and finally Foucault's response, "My Body, This Paper, This Fire"). When an intelligent person like Chomsky purportedly "misreads" someone else's work (which I think he's done more than once), that misreading is culturally important. Unfortunately, this sorry excuse for a debate gets hung up entirely on the positivistic egos of two intellectual superstars. It was doomed from the get-go.
If I have to choose though, I prefer Chomsky. I admit to being mostly unfamiliar with Harris's work, but what I have read (or read about) looks more like rationalization than critical thinking.
Overall, it's a pointless exchange. Chomsky is a stubborn old mule at this point, and Harris comes off as a tool for trying to start a substantive debate via email (in this case, both scholars are distinctive enough to secure easy publication - they could have simply had it out in/on more vetted media platforms). To be entirely honest, I almost feel as though Harris looked at the Chomsky/Foucault debate and thought "I should have one of these."
It's also funny to me, personally, because accusations of "misreading" happen all the time - in fact, they're necessary for substantive debate to occur (for a really good example of a substantive exchange over misreading, see Foucault and Derrida's debate over Foucault's work on madness - beginning with the mammoth History of Madness, then Derrida's "Cogito and the History of Madness," and finally Foucault's response, "My Body, This Paper, This Fire"). When an intelligent person like Chomsky purportedly "misreads" someone else's work (which I think he's done more than once), that misreading is culturally important. Unfortunately, this sorry excuse for a debate gets hung up entirely on the positivistic egos of two intellectual superstars. It was doomed from the get-go.
If I have to choose though, I prefer Chomsky. I admit to being mostly unfamiliar with Harris's work, but what I have read (or read about) looks more like rationalization than critical thinking.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
http://qz.com/709541/amazon-is-just...-and-theyre-already-making-a-huge-difference/
I almost put this in the Mort thread. All those complaints about Amazon's poor employee (contract/temp) treatment are beginning to be responded to. Soon no human will need to worry about mistreatment in an Amazon warehouse. The question is: Who will be buying, and with what?
I almost put this in the Mort thread. All those complaints about Amazon's poor employee (contract/temp) treatment are beginning to be responded to. Soon no human will need to worry about mistreatment in an Amazon warehouse. The question is: Who will be buying, and with what?
Dak
mentat
I'm so sick of the opposing echo chambers on gun control. The gun control side is just simply either fundamentally flawed in their presuppositions, or ignorant of the existing situation, at every turn. OTOH we have "gun-nuts" acting like everyone is in constant imminent danger without a 1000 firearms and a billion rounds inside their heavily fortified house with underground bunker. And I have to see the leftoid ignorance and fearmongering and rightist fearmongering every time one of these majorly politicized/media-hyped incidents happens.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I used to shoot guns in my younger life. My father and brother owned guns. I've fired handguns, rifles, and shotguns. I owned my own semi-automatic rifle (a Ruger) as well as a bolt-action. I used to read magazines and books on firearms.
At this point in my life, I see absolutely no need for semi-automatic weapons beyond some fantasy scenario in which we're invaded, or in which our big evil government turns on us (ridiculous, I maintain). Bolt- and pump-action weapons, and handguns, are perfectly adequate for home protection. That's my opinion.
As far as all the rhetorical backwash about liberals not knowing the proper terminology for guns (an assault rifle is fully automatic, not semi-auto. etc. etc.), I completely agree - the left propagandizes the firearm debate. But I don't think it changes much, since I'd probably agree even if they called it semi-automatic.
Gun control is a relentlessly politicized debate, so much so that I really can't stand to argue about it. I find issues like this to be far more concerning and scientific:
http://gizmodo.com/coral-reefs-in-florida-are-starting-to-permanently-diss-1774427441
At this point in my life, I see absolutely no need for semi-automatic weapons beyond some fantasy scenario in which we're invaded, or in which our big evil government turns on us (ridiculous, I maintain). Bolt- and pump-action weapons, and handguns, are perfectly adequate for home protection. That's my opinion.
As far as all the rhetorical backwash about liberals not knowing the proper terminology for guns (an assault rifle is fully automatic, not semi-auto. etc. etc.), I completely agree - the left propagandizes the firearm debate. But I don't think it changes much, since I'd probably agree even if they called it semi-automatic.
Gun control is a relentlessly politicized debate, so much so that I really can't stand to argue about it. I find issues like this to be far more concerning and scientific:
http://gizmodo.com/coral-reefs-in-florida-are-starting-to-permanently-diss-1774427441
Dak
mentat
Since you said handguns I assume you meant no need for semiautomatic rifles*. Unless you only meant revolvers. I don't see "needing" them to even be a relevant factor. If things were restricted based on need almost nothing would be legal.
Yeah I think the whole temperature focus distracts from more easily provable and proven issues. Thank you Al Gore Hockeystick Charts. I've long said that carbon emissions aren't nearly as concerning as pollution broadly defined, and plastics. Unfortunately, energy is an absolute requirement for anything remotely close to our current standard of living. Unless some radical breakthrough materializes, we will have to embrace nuclear power if we wish to move away from carbon based fuel sources. Even doing so, this does little to combat broad pollution.
Yeah I think the whole temperature focus distracts from more easily provable and proven issues. Thank you Al Gore Hockeystick Charts. I've long said that carbon emissions aren't nearly as concerning as pollution broadly defined, and plastics. Unfortunately, energy is an absolute requirement for anything remotely close to our current standard of living. Unless some radical breakthrough materializes, we will have to embrace nuclear power if we wish to move away from carbon based fuel sources. Even doing so, this does little to combat broad pollution.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yeah, I only meant semi-automatic rifles. There are significant ballistic differences between rifles and handguns, and the effects they have on tissue.
As far as global warming goes, a lot of people will begin to care a hell of a lot more when the fishing industry collapses.
As far as global warming goes, a lot of people will begin to care a hell of a lot more when the fishing industry collapses.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
I have no idea. I didn't mean that people would begin taking action or anything like that - only that they would see the state of things and go "oh shit."
At that point, action will be too late anyway; and honestly, it probably already is. We're already counteracting the consequences rather than looking at truly preventative measures. From my perspective, I think it's crucial to target the mentality of skepticism surrounding global warming; undermining that would at least do something to promote social action. Of course, so many people are absolute dullards when it comes to this issue that they refuse to listen to even the simplest explanations for the mechanics behind climate change (which really are not that complicated). Which is why I would then encourage regulatory political measures, which only adds more fuel to the rhetorical shitstorm.
At that point, action will be too late anyway; and honestly, it probably already is. We're already counteracting the consequences rather than looking at truly preventative measures. From my perspective, I think it's crucial to target the mentality of skepticism surrounding global warming; undermining that would at least do something to promote social action. Of course, so many people are absolute dullards when it comes to this issue that they refuse to listen to even the simplest explanations for the mechanics behind climate change (which really are not that complicated). Which is why I would then encourage regulatory political measures, which only adds more fuel to the rhetorical shitstorm.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
I'm skeptical about planetary warming. I'm not skeptical about any other number of environmental impacts.
People are self interested creatures, and that extends to scientists, "intellectuals", and politicians. It makes perfect sense for Joe Six Pack to notice that almost none of the standard environmental moralizers are "practicing what they preach", and that "solutions" put forward are nearly always politically/economically targeted in such a way so as to not hurt those in power. If things were really so serious, wouldn't the people claiming it is serious be acting differently? This is the thought process. Now, it could be incorrect - the self interest of those moralizers and those with hands on levers of power may simply also be seeking to achieve change while offloading any ill-effects - thus not really changing much of anything substantial in environmental terms, while wreaking havoc on Joe Six Pack and family.
This kind of leads into a bit of criticism on your blogpost about the relationship between MARs ("Middle American Radicals") and "intellectuals". I don't know what "intellectual" means. It has become another term effectively synonymous with "they". Something that your observations overlook regarding the antagonism between the MARs and what I will specify as beltway elites/Ivy Leaguers, is that MARs rightfully recognize that to even say that those Ivy Leaguers et al don't have their "best interests at heart" would be a massive understatement. There is a mutual disdain, and it now approaches a fever pitch because of a combination of forces putting extreme pressure on MARs - forces created by policies championed by those elites and Ivy Leaguers. The economics of Empire involves siphoning wealth from the hinterlands to the Capitol(s), and for the United States, the hinterlands includes the South practically from coast to coast, as well as the northern middle. Which is where most Trump support is. Although Trump is extremely "big city", he talks like them (and I mean in the way that he talks, not the words themselves)when he says the things they want to here . He presents himself believably as someone on their side. There is a reason Cruz failed most miserably in trying to capture the "anti-establishment" anger: He's 100% establishment (Ivy League? Check. Lawyer/Politician? Check), and nothing about his career or how he presents himself suggested otherwise. MARs are no longer interested in platitudes and fuzzy ideas which prove to be a cover for the politician to fuck them over once in office. There's a chance Trump might still fuck them over, but everyone else was a sure bet.
People are self interested creatures, and that extends to scientists, "intellectuals", and politicians. It makes perfect sense for Joe Six Pack to notice that almost none of the standard environmental moralizers are "practicing what they preach", and that "solutions" put forward are nearly always politically/economically targeted in such a way so as to not hurt those in power. If things were really so serious, wouldn't the people claiming it is serious be acting differently? This is the thought process. Now, it could be incorrect - the self interest of those moralizers and those with hands on levers of power may simply also be seeking to achieve change while offloading any ill-effects - thus not really changing much of anything substantial in environmental terms, while wreaking havoc on Joe Six Pack and family.
This kind of leads into a bit of criticism on your blogpost about the relationship between MARs ("Middle American Radicals") and "intellectuals". I don't know what "intellectual" means. It has become another term effectively synonymous with "they". Something that your observations overlook regarding the antagonism between the MARs and what I will specify as beltway elites/Ivy Leaguers, is that MARs rightfully recognize that to even say that those Ivy Leaguers et al don't have their "best interests at heart" would be a massive understatement. There is a mutual disdain, and it now approaches a fever pitch because of a combination of forces putting extreme pressure on MARs - forces created by policies championed by those elites and Ivy Leaguers. The economics of Empire involves siphoning wealth from the hinterlands to the Capitol(s), and for the United States, the hinterlands includes the South practically from coast to coast, as well as the northern middle. Which is where most Trump support is. Although Trump is extremely "big city", he talks like them (and I mean in the way that he talks, not the words themselves)when he says the things they want to here . He presents himself believably as someone on their side. There is a reason Cruz failed most miserably in trying to capture the "anti-establishment" anger: He's 100% establishment (Ivy League? Check. Lawyer/Politician? Check), and nothing about his career or how he presents himself suggested otherwise. MARs are no longer interested in platitudes and fuzzy ideas which prove to be a cover for the politician to fuck them over once in office. There's a chance Trump might still fuck them over, but everyone else was a sure bet.
Einherjar86
Active Member
There's more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was hundreds of years ago. That means there's more infrared radiation, which means more heat.
By "intellectuals" I didn't necessarily mean Ivy-Leaguers. Cruz is an Ivy-League man, as you point out, and he's far from intellectual. Someone like Friedrich Hayek, on the other hand, is an intellectual. I consider it something having less to do with credentials and more to do with the complexity of thought reflected in one's speech or writings.
I disagree on your comment about intellectuals not having in mind the best interests of those you're calling the MARs. If we're talking about something like, say, global warming, then they most certainly have everyone's best interests in mind. It might not look that way, however, to a MARs who cannot perceive the effects of global warming outside his living room window (and who is told by people like Cruz that it's all a myth).
You're absolutely right that scientists are individuals and therefore self-interested. But it is absolutely possible for someone who's self-interested to still publish findings without warping them to fit a political agenda. In the sciences, studies on global warming have been carried out across the institutional field, meaning they've been confirmed by the big wigs as well as the small-timers. This is evidence that stacks up to more than political agendas.
I agree that Cruz lost in part because he couldn't speak in the vernacular of common sense - he speaks like a politician, rhetorically polished. But he also lost because he represented a version of firebrand fundamentalism that, while many of those who support Trump might sympathize, or even say they identify, with, it's beyond their immediate concerns as far as the current presidential race goes. Trump can fumble through Bible verses like an idiot, and that's good enough for them.
This is the really sad thing. People want a president basically as dumb as they are (to put it in crude terms). I want a president smarter than I am. This time around, I don't think I'll get that at all. But I firmly believe I got it when Obama was elected (personal opinion).
