Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

The "romance" analogy is misleading. You don't need sex in order to survive.

Free association is fine, but my criticism applies to the accumulation of wealth. I agree that it's true that not everyone is driven by economic concerns (in fact, I thought that you would have argued that people are - or should be - driven by economic motivations; but no matter); people are motivated by plenty of different factors.

However, I was talking about the creation of the American political machine. A political machine, any political machine, is the result of economic motivations and drives. This is the paradox of what you're saying. You advocate the absence of regulatory political processes, but the very notion of capital accumulation logically moves toward regulatory political processes. They only come into existence, in fact, because of capital accumulation.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A good piece debunking the Mayan Apocalypse: http://thestory.org/archive/20121211_The_Story_The_End_of_The_World.mp3/view

Also, this made me think of an even wackier conspiracy theory: what if the shadow government/globalists/whatever are promoting this nonsense theory in order to destabilize the public and to frighten them so as to divide and conquer?

I have a baseless paranoia that there will be some kind of hacker attack on that day. My anecdotal evidence is that on Halloween my phone was acting super weird, and one of my hard drives failed.

 

[Zephyrus]

The "romance" analogy is misleading. You don't need sex in order to survive.

Free association is fine, but my criticism applies to the accumulation of wealth. I agree that it's true that not everyone is driven by economic concerns (in fact, I thought that you would have argued that people are - or should be - driven by economic motivations; but no matter); people are motivated by plenty of different factors.

However, I was talking about the creation of the American political machine. A political machine, any political machine, is the result of economic motivations and drives. This is the paradox of what you're saying. You advocate the absence of regulatory political processes, but the very notion of capital accumulation logically moves toward regulatory political processes. They only come into existence, in fact, because of capital accumulation.

As Aristotle said, "man is a politikon zoon," and oikonomia is the management of a household and family, a natural instinct in many non-political animals too. Economics is simply that, writ large. The paterfamilias is the regulator in that economy.

I'm simplifying this far too much for you and Dakryn sparring paragraphs of post-Smithian econo-babble, but it's my view of analogous macrocosms and microcosms that can even be reduced to a single human being (see the correspondence between the constitution of the soul and that of a polis in Plato).

I also didn't read much of the above arguments but felt like interjecting because fuck it.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I have a baseless paranoia that there will be some kind of hacker attack on that day. My anecdotal evidence is that on Halloween my phone was acting super weird, and one of my hard drives failed.

I expect some religious zealots to kill a bunch of random people.

 

[Einherjar86]

As Aristotle said, "man is a politikon zoon," and oikonomia is the management of a household and family, a natural instinct in many non-political animals too. Economics is simply that, writ large. The paterfamilias is the regulator in that economy.

I'm simplifying this far too much for you and Dakryn sparring paragraphs of post-Smithian econo-babble, but it's my view of analogous macrocosms and microcosms that can even be reduced to a single human being (see the correspondence between the constitution of the soul and that of a polis in Plato).

This is a bit too Renaissance for my taste. I think as human beings we're drawn to analogous relationships, but we draw them where they don't necessarily exist. That the antagonisms of a social apparatus can be viewed as parallel to the interior conflicts of an individual is far too reductive and anthropocentric, in my opinion. It's the lingering ghost of New Testament allegory. In Plato's time, the allegorical wasn't even an issue; Greek cosmology simply inhered in the world.

 

[Dak]

The "romance" analogy is misleading. You don't need sex in order to survive.

Free association is fine, but my criticism applies to the accumulation of wealth. I agree that it's true that not everyone is driven by economic concerns (in fact, I thought that you would have argued that people are - or should be - driven by economic motivations; but no matter); people are motivated by plenty of different factors.

I'm not using romance as a parallel of eocnomics (although they are often directly and indirectly intertwined), my point is that it's just another facet of free association, which often leads to dissatisfied people. Dissatisfaction in actions and outcomes we have no say in is part of life.

Complaining that some people will use an accumulation of wealth for bad things is about as bad as blaming a technology for how it's used. It's akin to luddite and gun control arguments. Not to mention, pure accumulation of wealth in and of itself hurts no one.

However, I was talking about the creation of the American political machine. A political machine, any political machine, is the result of economic motivations and drives. This is the paradox of what you're saying. You advocate the absence of regulatory political processes, but the very notion of capital accumulation logically moves toward regulatory political processes. They only come into existence, in fact, because of capital accumulation.

Because the state creators want to accumulate capitol by non market methods, or because people who have wish to use non-market methods to protect previous gains? Either can be correct, and judging from the statements attributed to people like Rockefeller ("Competition is a sin"), no one really likes capitalism. They like it when it's in their interest and don't when it works against their sloth or poor choices. Just like companies asking for bailouts. Trying to explain how everyone would have been better off in the long run had Chrysler and GM been allowed to fail falls on deaf ears. I would reference the TBTF banks but what they were doing wasn't capitalism to start with. Of course, GM and Chrysler had their own ways of benefitting from Govco influence and Pax Americana, but like with the TBTFs, they still needed a bailout to continue. The US is really past the point of needing a bailout itself, but as long as it's the least ugly girl in a room full of woofers, it manages to kick the can of reckoning along a little further.

"My job". "My customers". "My market share". "My girlfriend" (after a breakup) Etc. All these things people don't actually own but seek to establish property rights over. Healthcare for instance. To claim a right to healthcare works itself out to mean doctors are slaves. To lay claim to customers means the same. These protectionist (And of course imperialism is protectionism writ large) mindsets are natural, and wrong. So no, merely looking at the "natural" doesn't always tie in to correct economic viewpoints.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not using romance as a parallel of eocnomics (although they are often directly and indirectly intertwined), my point is that it's just another facet of free association, which often leads to dissatisfied people. Dissatisfaction in actions and outcomes we have no say in is part of life.

Complaining that some people will use an accumulation of wealth for bad things is about as bad as blaming a technology for how it's used. It's akin to luddite and gun control arguments. Not to mention, pure accumulation of wealth in and of itself hurts no one.

Except for those not gettin' any.

Only one thing here:

Because the state creators want to accumulate capitol by non market methods, or because people who have wish to use non-market methods to protect previous gains? Either can be correct, and judging from the statements attributed to people like Rockefeller ("Competition is a sin"), no one really likes capitalism.

On the contrary, they love capitalism. They love that they can spend money in order to ensure that they make more in the future. They love that they can pay others to enforce regulatory measures that see their efforts rewarded. They love that when they have enough money, they can buy elections.

That's what capitalism leads to inevitably; it's what we have now.

 

[Dak]

On the contrary, they love capitalism. They love that they can spend money in order to ensure that they make more in the future. They love that they can pay others to enforce regulatory measures that see their efforts rewarded. They love that when they have enough money, they can buy elections.

That's what capitalism leads to inevitably; it's what we have now.

That's not loving capitalism, that's loving power. You can have power absent capitalism (look at communism). Capitalism just allowed them to seize power, and then they have to ensure those methods they used aren't available to others.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is arbitrary semantics. It is loving capitalism, because capitalism pressured them to achieve that power. These hierarchies and institutions of power are logical outcomes of a capitalist mentality that encourages individuals/enterprises to make money.

Your idealism of capitalism is wonderful, but it accepts only the premises of the experiment and no responsibility for the consequences.

 

[Dak]

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Where our disagreement centers is that you are looking at what amounts to the global takeover of the fascist/national socialist model, and calling it capitalist because it tries to refer to itself in that manner. It's not your fault necessarily for seeing it this way. The adherents of the Chicago School of economics see themselves as "free market capitalists" (Friedmanite monetarists), and yet Austrians and Monetarists disagree vehemently on foundational aspects of the economy.

"Corporatism" is really just a gentler form or rebranding of fascism. Hitler and Mussolini had many fans of their national administration tactics in the West prior to WWII. While the tactics were copied, and so continue to be copied in "emerging economies" like China, the titles were dropped and all was done under the auspices of "capitalism", even though the market does not create/control the medium of exchange or set interest rates, among a multitude of other factors.

As long as we disagree on what constitutes capitalism, we aren't really going to get anywhere. Capitalism is a system of production and trade based on property rights, contracts, and free association. The state destroys both property rights and contracts, and inhibits free association.

Capitalism does not "pressure people to achieve power". Certain people have been driven to power at least as long as recorded history informs us. The methods necessary to achieve it merely change. Since inherited status has fallen as the method to attain/maintain/transfer power, business grafted into the state has been the surest method. Look at all your large corporations, and check into all the copyright protections, tariff protections, government contracts, etc that they benefit from. That is not capitalism.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Where our disagreement centers is that you are looking at what amounts to the global takeover of the fascist/national socialist model, and calling it capitalist because it tries to refer to itself in that manner. It's not your fault necessarily for seeing it this way. The adherents of the Chicago School of economics see themselves as "free market capitalists" (Friedmanite monetarists), and yet Austrians and Monetarists disagree vehemently on foundational aspects of the economy.

"Corporatism" is really just a gentler form or rebranding of fascism. Hitler and Mussolini had many fans of their national administration tactics in the West prior to WWII. While the tactics were copied, and so continue to be copied in "emerging economies" like China, the titles were dropped and all was done under the auspices of "capitalism", even though the market does not create/control the medium of exchange or set interest rates, among a multitude of other factors.

As long as we disagree on what constitutes capitalism, we aren't really going to get anywhere. Capitalism is a system of production and trade based on property rights, contracts, and free association. The state destroys both property rights and contracts, and inhibits free association.

Capitalism does not "pressure people to achieve power". Certain people have been driven to power at least as long as recorded history informs us. The methods necessary to achieve it merely change. Since inherited status has fallen as the method to attain/maintain/transfer power, business grafted into the state has been the surest method. Look at all your large corporations, and check into all the copyright protections, tariff protections, government contracts, etc that they benefit from. That is not capitalism.

Completely disagree with your final paragraph, and if that's the source of our semantic disagreement than perhaps we will never get anywhere (hopefully the love of argument is enough ). You place the blame on certain individuals, which is actually the historically common and "rational" thing to do. This is why our culture looks for scapegoats; the entire system can't be flawed, only individuals operating within it.

This is not to say, however, that individuals are innocent, that Hitler and Mussolini were innocent; but, rather, that the system under which individuals are operating pressure them toward certain ends that might be popularly deemed "ethically reprehensible." They can follow through on these desires, and be blamed for the consequences; or they can repress them, and suffer trauma because of it.

Gilles Deleuze writes in Anti-Oedipus about Wilhelm Reich:

"Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for."

 

[Dak]

Completely disagree with your final paragraph, and if that's the source of our semantic disagreement than perhaps we will never get anywhere (hopefully the love of argument is enough ). You place the blame on certain individuals, which is actually the historically common and "rational" thing to do. This is why our culture looks for scapegoats; the entire system can't be flawed, only individuals operating within it.

Sounds like you disagree with the first sentence of the last paragraph, not the whole paragraph.

I agree here. There is systemic blame as well as individual blame. The difference is how we categorize and recognize the current system. The West (and now exported almost globally to various degrees) is an amalgamation of systems, nearly all of which are poor, yet just less poor than predecessors. AT some point the newness wears off and without war as a distraction, things unwind. Which is why I expect a lot more wars before we have less.

This is not to say, however, that individuals are innocent, that Hitler and Mussolini were innocent; but, rather, that the system under which individuals are operating pressure them toward certain ends that might be popularly deemed "ethically reprehensible." They can follow through on these desires, and be blamed for the consequences; or they can repress them, and suffer trauma because of it.

Not necessarily Mussolini, but Hitler is an interesting study in that what drove his ideology and actions. While the Third Reich was reprehensible, and Hitler was ruthless, I don't see how he or it were any more so than Churchill and Britain.

Fascism (and communism) was presented as the solution for a people suffering. In the face of suffering, a "Moses" archetype offering freedom is usually going to get accepted regardless of the type of proposed solution involved. As you have said many times, we rationalize.

Gilles Deleuze writes in Anti-Oedipus about Wilhelm Reich:

"Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for."

No argument here.


On a different note, reading these two articles, it seems like The Diamond Age is getting closer.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/superhumans-instant-cities/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/world-2030-u-declines-food-water-may-scarce-162757458--politics.html

 

[Einherjar86]

Sounds like you disagree with the first sentence of the last paragraph, not the whole paragraph.

I agree here. There is systemic blame as well as individual blame. The difference is how we categorize and recognize the current system. The West (and now exported almost globally to various degrees) is an amalgamation of systems, nearly all of which are poor, yet just less poor than predecessors. AT some point the newness wears off and without war as a distraction, things unwind. Which is why I expect a lot more wars before we have less.

Good points, and you illuminate the inadequacy of language here, actually. I shouldn't have used the word "blame"; we can't really blame a system in the sense that we can point to it and say "it's its fault." You can't blame a system for functioning in the manner that it functions. Doing so simply allows us to alleviate our own guilt in the situation.

However, we can critique the consequences of certain systematic forms and judge that they may not be best-suited to the human animal. Unfortunately, we have to account for psychic trauma to that pernicious and annoying thing called "consciousness." In this light, not even free markets escape criticism.

Not necessarily Mussolini, but Hitler is an interesting study in that what drove his ideology and actions. While the Third Reich was reprehensible, and Hitler was ruthless, I don't see how he or it were any more so than Churchill and Britain.

Fascism (and communism) was presented as the solution for a people suffering. In the face of suffering, a "Moses" archetype offering freedom is usually going to get accepted regardless of the type of proposed solution involved. As you have said many times, we rationalize.

The difference between fascism and communism being, of course, that the former valorized inequality, while the latter valorized equality.

On a different note, reading these two articles, it seems like The Diamond Age is getting closer.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/superhumans-instant-cities/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/world-2030-u-declines-food-water-may-scarce-162757458--politics.html

Post-humanism may not be as far off as we think.

 

[Dak]

Good points, and you illuminate the inadequacy of language here, actually. I shouldn't have used the word "blame"; we can't really blame a system in the sense that we can point to it and say "it's its fault." You can't blame a system for functioning in the manner that it functions. Doing so simply allows us to alleviate our own guilt in the situation.

However, we can critique the consequences of certain systematic forms and judge that they may not be best-suited to the human animal. Unfortunately, we have to account for psychic trauma to that pernicious and annoying thing called "consciousness." In this light, not even free markets escape criticism.

If by free markets you mean that people will [traumatize] others in the process of association (no different from romantic rejections), then yes.

The difference between fascism and communism being, of course, that the former valorized inequality, while the latter valorized equality.

(c)ommunism may have valorized equality (I don't think it did, but for sake of argument I'll allow it), but Communism only valorized equality via mass graves.

Post-humanism may not be as far off as we think.

Wouldn't that be trans vs post humanism? At any rate, I was looking more at "instant cities", city states replacing nation states (talk about going full circle), nanotech and microbiology, etc. when referencing TDA.

 

[Einherjar86]

If by free markets you mean that people will [traumatize] others in the process of association (no different from romantic rejections), then yes.

Again, romantic associations don't deal in practical matters of life and death.

(c)ommunism may have valorized equality (I don't think it did, but for sake of argument I'll allow it), but Communism only valorized equality via mass graves.

Its ideology did, even if those in charge didn't. It isn't much use in practice, but it's important for studying the two ideologies.

Wouldn't that be trans vs post humanism? At any rate, I was looking more at "instant cities", city states replacing nation states (talk about going full circle), nanotech and microbiology, etc. when referencing TDA.

Transhumanism is more mystical, as I understand it; and still anthropocentric at its heart. Transhumanism has to do with "expanding your mind," transcending the conscious ladder, etc. Post-humanism is the destruction of the anthropic center; the world "after" humans.

In all honesty, for philosophy's sake we need to see our world now as a non-anthropocentric world, even if we occupy a large portion of it. The belief that humans occupy some central role in history is a post-Enlightenment illusion. That's basically the whole argument of John Gray's Straw Dogs; I don't agree with every point he makes, but I do think humans need to radically shift their ontological perspective.

The question the first article you posted raises is: how many parts can we replace before we're no longer "human"?

 

[Dak]

Again, romantic associations don't deal in practical matters of life and death.

I think some people would take offense at the thought that romance is neither practical nor has life and death implications.

Transhumanism is more mystical, as I understand it; and still anthropocentric at its heart. Transhumanism has to do with "expanding your mind," transcending the conscious ladder, etc. Post-humanism is the destruction of the anthropic center; the world "after" humans.

In all honesty, for philosophy's sake we need to see our world now as a non-anthropocentric world, even if we occupy a large portion of it. The belief that humans occupy some central role in history is a post-Enlightenment illusion. That's basically the whole argument of John Gray's Straw Dogs; I don't agree with every point he makes, but I do think humans need to radically shift their ontological perspective.

The question the first article you posted raises is: how many parts can we replace before we're no longer "human"?

I don't think it's actually possible to see things from a non-anthropocentric viewpoint. That would be akin to trying to "creeping up on the thing from behind" to find out what the thing in itself is.

As far as transplants that is a good question, and one I certainly don't have an answer for now.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think some people would take offense at the thought that romance is neither practical nor has life and death implications.

Let them be offended. The fact remains that bartering with someone for food or supplies is very different from a request for love, which itself an interior psychical "exchange" (in quotes because it isn't really an exchange at all). An external body can never give someone love or affection; a subject projects these abstractions onto physical exchanges, but (if Lacan was right), no amount of material interactions can ever logically convince human subjects that other humans love them. This is why love is ultimately a matter of trust; it isn't a material transaction.

Food or supplies, on the other hand, are material.

I don't think it's actually possible to see things from a non-anthropocentric viewpoint. That would be akin to trying to "creeping up on the thing from behind" to find out what the thing in itself is.

It isn't possible for us; but it is possible to identify when and how we project anthropocentric values onto nonhuman objects/situations. The most intellectual position we can occupy is one from where we acknowledge that the logic/reason we find in things is the logic/reason that we have put there.

This isn't to say that there aren't actual things that subsist without our perceiving them; it's merely to acknowledge that objects don't consciously follow the rules, so to speak. Science gets better each day at decentering our knowledge, but it's still important to maintain a position of skepticism.

 

[Dak]

Let them be offended. The fact remains that bartering with someone for food or supplies is very different from a request for love, which itself an interior psychical "exchange" (in quotes because it isn't really an exchange at all). An external body can never give someone love or affection; a subject projects these abstractions onto physical exchanges, but (if Lacan was right), no amount of material interactions can ever logically convince human subjects that other humans love them. This is why love is ultimately a matter of trust; it isn't a material transaction.

Food or supplies, on the other hand, are material.

I agree, but again there is a major difference between disparity vs destitute. Having a mere disparity in material wealth is akin to someone else having the SO that you would have preferred. Love, romance, relationship is an exchange, although not a material one. But that wasn't the reason for my parallel, instead I am looking at facets of free association.

Becoming destitute I believe is tied to the land problem. I believe treating land the same as produced material goods or even harvested raw materials inevitably leads to the situation we see now.

It isn't possible for us; but it is possible to identify when and how we project anthropocentric values onto nonhuman objects/situations. The most intellectual position we can occupy is one from where we acknowledge that the logic/reason we find in things is the logic/reason that we have put there.

This isn't to say that there aren't actual things that subsist without our perceiving them; it's merely to acknowledge that objects don't consciously follow the rules, so to speak. Science gets better each day at decentering our knowledge, but it's still important to maintain a position of skepticism.

I think to state that we have "put" it there is a little lacking. For example: We create the notation called "1", "+", and "2". Now the marks on a page or shown on this website are arbitrary symbology. What they represent is not arbitrary. 1+1=2 no matter what symbology is used to demonstrate what we observe. So while we "put" the symbology there, we did not put what the symbology represents there.

 

[Einherjar86]

True, and mathematics is often touted as the "language of the natural world," etc. that whole tired rant. What mathematics forgets is that objects don't quantify themselves; while mathematics corresponds to an exterior reality, it doesn't find itself there. Mathematics is the human institution of the quantification of reality. It's no coincidence that mathematics likely arose in order to quantify time and objects, coinciding with the beginnings of economic interaction.

Animals don't count or quantify, at least not with numerical symbolism. Animals appropriate the amount required for their survival. Lions don't think: "I'm going to go kill four and three-quarters antelopes; four for the adults, three-quarters for the youngsters." They simply kill what they can, and eat. Mathematics, as a system, corresponds to the external world, but it doesn't reside in it.

 

[Einherjar86]

And this is why I'll never take Freud off my list of people who contributed intellectually to Western thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/30/hero-john-gray-sigmund-freud

Above all, Freud never ceased challenging human illusions. He wanted his work to be accepted, but was not surprised when it was not. Whereas other heroes may imagine they can liberate humankind, Freud neither needed nor offered consolation. That may be why I find him such an inspiring, life-affirming figure.