Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Especially since people involved in such risky enterprises might never actually meet one another, this seems to characterize the situation fairly well.

Not only this, but we are actually at the point where not only do people involved not meet each other, due to the replacement of human traders with computer algorithms, often people aren't even doing the transactions either. It's algorithm on algorithm war.

 

[Matt]

The DOW is on a 10 day win streak. This hasn't happened in 16 years.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

You Are An Anarchist. The Question Is: How Often?

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/you-are-an-anarchist-the-question-is-how-often#axzz2NXPKRWHJ

A heart larger than life - Zizek on Chavez

http://blogdaboitempo.com.br/2013/03/11/a-heart-larger-than-life/

 

[Dak]

@Matthis: The Fed is engaged in QE-Infinity. That's never happened before.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

This is interesting. I feel the same way this guy does. I really wish I could just drink or eat something once a day and feel fine.

This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rob-rhinehart-no-longer-requires-food

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Very cool, I share his sentiment. I stopped eating breakfast a while back, maybe 8 months ago, and switched to protein shakes mixe with whole milk and supplemented with powered breakfast mix and raw egg. It takes me a few minutes to throw together when I'm not in a hurry, a little over a minute if I am, and it keeps me full longer than breakfast did before.

 

[Dak]

Eggs, chicken, and protein shakes are a large portion of my diet.

 

[Einherjar86]

A heart larger than life - Zizek on Chavez

http://blogdaboitempo.com.br/2013/03/11/a-heart-larger-than-life/

That's actually a pretty sober take on Chavez, especially coming from Žižek. He gets a bit idealistic at the end (come on; "Maybe Chavez really died of having too big a heart"?), but overall I think he makes some decent points. It's fair to consider the possibility that Chavez envisioned a political mode that was incompatible with globalism.

I also personally believe that a leader in that position can entirely believe the views he espouses (that's bait for Dak ).

 

[Dak]

That article was probably bait for me. I'm not sure if I feel like responding again given Chavez has his own thread and I already responded in that. He made the country poorer and the poor stayed poor. IF he had a big heart, he was a classic case of "some of the worst things done are with the best of intentions".

 

[Dak]

http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-14/flying-drone-gets-terrifying-eagle-claw-carry-victims

Oh yay.

 

[Einherjar86]

"In other news, Americans have been complaining about mechanical birds swooping out of the sky and snatching their Big Macs out of their hands.

When questioned about the matter, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it was part of an initiative, inspired by Michelle Obama, to improve American eating habits."

Another blog post; this time on Tom McCarthy's novel Remainder.

 

[Dak]

Sad but possibly not far fetched.

Also still mulling on your "self, or the lack thereof" position.

Anyway, on an even more material note:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/030713_Scientists-Officially-Link-Processed-Foods-To-Autoimmune-Disease.shtml

If there is no self, what we eat is even more important than previously believed.

 

[Einherjar86]

What's sad about it?

Also, for those interested, the whole thing is now posted on YouTube:

Chomsky and Foucault:

 

[Dak]

What's sad about it?

Also, for those interested, the whole thing is now posted on YouTube:

Chomsky and Foucault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TUD4gfvtDY

Sad re: robotic gubmint pterodactyl's nabbing big macs.

Edit: Not knowing French, I'm going to have to wait on the subtitles to be completed to get 100% value from that yt video.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah, gotcha.

Damn, Chomsky talks in English and I thought I remembered subtitles for Foucault. That's lame.

 

[monoxide_child]

the 50th annaversary of JFK's death is this year

and Dallas City Council/6th Floor Museum are really making a big deal about it

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

This man is fun to listen to. Just as a quick sample listen from 6:50 (or the beginning) - 11:45

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Synopsis of the main point - http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm



and just for a laugh

 

[Dak]

TAOM: How and Why to become a Lifelong Learner

 

[Einherjar86]

That article's great; and if only people took advantage of the world of information at their fingertips. Or their local library, for that matter.

If you don't mind, I want to move this from the "What are you doing..." thread:

But he still ultimately believes in, essentially, an "objective price", one heavily dependent on what it takes to make/extract/etc something. You might call this the "supply side value theory". What this fails to address is that no matter how difficult something is to create or obtain, if no one wants it it has little to no value. To create or obtain it would be a waste of time and other resources since it would create no new wealth.

What would you say to the suggestion that Marx doesn't believe in "objective prices," but that he sees the politico-economic system as operating as though an objective price existed? That is, part of his critique of the political economy requires that he work according to some complexly derived theory of objective value because that is how the system he's critiquing operates.

I think it's easy to see Marx's work as supporting a theory of objective value, but I actually think he merely adopts this stance because it's necessary in order to talk about a system that operates as though this objective value actually existed. In adopting the stance, I believe that he eventually undermines it. He lets us know from the beginning that his theory of value is determined by an abstraction: it doesn't actually exist. It merely appears as an effect of the political economy.