Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[jakethedog]

Well so many people who are part of a culture identify themselves almost as a member of that group, rather than they do as an individual. I know so many people who do this.

Of said groups, the "metalheads" were the only ones who ever were really be able to accept me and, despite being slightly afraid of some of the music at first (and really, just some) I soon became a metalhead. Before this time, I was miserable... I would be lying if I said this music didn't save my life. Despite this, I still think of myself as an individual - though I don't think a lot of people really think this way. I have short hair, don't drink like a fish, make sure to shower regularly, and have a generally cheerful demeanor. To an outsider, you can't tell much about the kind of music I listen to... as a matter of fact, when I tell most people, they get surprised.

Yet so many people, particularly those in the "mainstream" crowd, their entire lives are dictated by what their friends tell them to do. These are the people who are high social monitors, who spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about what other people will think of them, when they could easily be using this mental energy to actually think about something far more constructive (or perhaps not, since most of these people don't tend to be very smart...)

I feel this conversation is completely going in a different direction than it originated, and perhaps I'm driving it that way (in which case, I apologize), but these are things that I think about on a daily basis and never really get to talk about with anyone, seeing most people I know are too caught up in their day-to-day lives to think on this profound of a level.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The question over whether it objectifies women is almost not worth having; of course it objectifies women. The problem is over whether they find it offensive. I'm sure some women do, and some women probably don't. And the ones that do probably despise the ones that don't.

I agree, of course, but I didn't make the claim; Women constantly throw around the word "objectification" like its unique to them.

Offensive? really? that's not a problem. Have a glass of water and continue on your day aka grow the fuck up. People in this country act like there is something in the Constitution that protects them from being offended.

Advertising objectifies everything. It doesn't care about perpetuating rape culture; that isn't something that can be traced intentionally to the advertisement itself. It can, however, be detected. I'm not surprised that a commercial like this throws off such traces. I mean, if you look at the imagery, you can see that it's women in bikinis versus males who are all clothed. There's a clear dynamic.

Right, and I could say this about any group. They're not special.

It doesn't matter whether or not you had anything to do with it. It's the difference between being intentionally guilty and socially responsible, and it doesn't die with the people who perpetuated it, and it particularly doesn't die with the culture that perpetuated it (primarily because the culture that perpetuated it is the culture we still have).

This, again, is a symptom of the individualist ideology, which feels a need to trace every emotional "affect" back to an originary source. So, if a black person claims that there's a racial element to the Trayvon Martin case, then there must be someone who acted in an intentionally racist manner; or, if a woman feels that a commercial perpetuates rape culture, it must be out to intentionally perpetuate that sentiment. The task lies in seeing these as problems of socio-symbolic inscription as opposed to problems of individual agency/intention.

We can't simply move past these problems by claiming that they die with those who more directly perpetuated them (which amounts to brushing them under the rug). The reason is because even while we (i.e. white, middle/lower-middle class, American males) may very be entirely intentionally innocent, we cannot possibly empathize with those on the receiving end of the issue (lower-class blacks, women, etc.). It is extremely easy for us to brush it under the rug, but it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so. They cannot help but feel the bigotry in the occurrence; not because someone is intentionally acting in a bigoted manner, but because bigotry is inscribed into the event.

Of course it matters whether I had something to do with it or not. I mean in some cases that's the difference between being behind bars or not. This is the culture I inherited/ I happened to be born in and I don't feel guilty or responsible, at all, and nobody can reasonably convince me that I should. But this is the thing, I don't have to care or empathize (although I do) with anyone. I owe no group anything, whether it's recognition or care. What some people are doing is trying to force me to think a certain way and/or contribute to their ideology.

The smallest minority is the individual.

 

[jakethedog]

Here's a way to think about it: are you a product of your environment, or is your environment a product of you?

 

[Einherjar86]

I guess that would require a definition of an individual. Normative psychological interpretation would consider the person behind the avatar Einherjar86 an individual of unfractured personality. Despite the wrestling beneath the subconscious surface, I think it's useful enough.

But my original point was that individualism and mysticism aren't your only two options. You want to reduce what speaks me to an individual, but I continually find myself thinking "Well, part of me wants to go out, but part of me wants to be lazy and stay in." You'll probably say something along the lines of the individual making decisions based on reflection; but in these kinds of cases, "I" have no idea what it is that "I" want.

Furthermore, if complex wholes emerge out of simple disparate, interacting individuals, that doesn't make the whole reducible to its individual actors. Saying "but you're an individual, and you just said that!" makes no difference at all.

Offensive? really? that's not a problem. Have a glass of water and continue on your day aka grow the fuck up. People in this country act like there is something in the Constitution that protects them from being offended.

You say this as though you think it's a huge problem; that women get offended too often and/or that it's difficult to speak around them without them getting offended.

Perhaps the problem isn't with women but with the things you're saying.

Of course it matters whether I had something to do with it or not. I mean in some cases that's the difference between being behind bars or not. This is the culture I inherited/ I happened to be born in and I don't feel guilty or responsible, at all, and nobody can reasonably convince me that I should. But this is the thing, I don't have to care or empathize (although I do) with anyone. I owe no group anything, whether it's recognition or care. What some people are doing is trying to force me to think a certain way and/or contribute to their ideology.

The smallest minority is the individual.

And thousands of people will agree with you on this, but I think this is individualistic rhetorical sputter. You do owe something, we all do; the majority simply aren't willing to own up to that fact.

I'm not trying to force a certain ideological outlook on you; I'm saying that you and I both are still a part of the historical ideology that enslaved Africans and slaughtered American natives. Of course we didn't actually do those things, but that does not alleviate us of responsibility. The responsibility may not even be in terms of money or reparations. It may simply be having the stones and the will to avoid racist slurs, to not say offensive things to women (which isn't that hard, let's be totally honest), or to not make assumptions about someone's gender and continue to use descriptives like "gay" to talk about something we think is stupid.

There are many ways to be responsible. You have it pretty easy, dude.

Here's a way to think about it: are you a product of your environment, or is your environment a product of you?

Or both?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

and at the same time I agree with everything you said.:Spin:

 

[Einherjar86]

Ha, well my apologies if I'm missing your point. Or perhaps I'm simply not considering the extent to which they're compatible; but that seems unlikely, for some reason. At any rate, happy hunting.

 

[jakethedog]

Einherjar, you're spot on. It goes without saying that you've had it rough and have dealt with things on the inside quite a bit. Having seen those two completely different cultures I can't even imagine how different it is.

I find it interesting you use the term "mysticism" though. So few people I know have religious beliefs that are really rooted in any spiritual connections, and more believe what they do because they are told do (hence my comment about "are you a product of your environment?) I guess it really depends on your life circumstances, and your desperation for seeking a higher power.

I have sort of a weird background with religion. I was mostly raised by my Irish-Catholic grandparents who believed in God because they were told to. It wasn't that they shoved the religion down our throats, but they wanted us to be raised well. I became involved in the church to please my grandmother. But as I've gotten older, I've learned I have more in common with my father, a free-thinking intellectual atheist who wasn't really "family oriented". (I'll explain more about my family later, when I'm more comfortable on this board... it's a complicated situation.) But being caught between these two cultures really forced me to seek out my own identity. It's something I still struggle with every day, but without a doubt, it's the one thing that makes me who I am.

 

[Einherjar86]

Einherjar, you're spot on. It goes without saying that you've had it rough and have dealt with things on the inside quite a bit. Having seen those two completely different cultures I can't even imagine how different it is.

I appreciate your sentiment here, but I can't attribute my opinions to any history of personal hardship. I'm a white Anglo-American male who grew up in a middle-class home in the suburbs. My parents are business-owners. I hope this doesn't make me come off as phony, but I've been incredibly fortunate in my socio-economic position.

The views I have derive from the things I read; and I read a lot. Most of my opinions resemble what I hope is a slightly refined twist on late historicist/poststructuralist philosophies. I'm heavily skeptical of anything claiming to be normal or traditional (in a positive sense), and more often than not, I think it's possible to take normality and pull the rug out from under its feet. Usually, if you do a little digging, you'll find that the things purported to be normal and anterior, and that give rise to our later conceptualizations, are actually created and shaped by those conceptualizations. So, for example, the liberal humanist/individualist had to come into existence in order for capitalism to exist or be conceived of; but capitalism also, paradoxically, had to exist in order to produce the liberal humanist/individualist.

I had very strong libertarian beliefs in high school and throughout undergrad. It wasn't until my last year of undergrad and a Master's year at University of Chicago that I began to change my tune, and it's been changing ever since. It's another reason why I find it very difficult to consider myself an unfragmented individual.

I find it interesting you use the term "mysticism" though. So few people I know have religious beliefs that are really rooted in any spiritual connections, and more believe what they do because they are told do (hence my comment about "are you a product of your environment?) I guess it really depends on your life circumstances, and your desperation for seeking a higher power.

I think you're referring to my use of mysticism to paint Overwatch's statement in terms of a binary: individualism or mysticism. What I mean by this is that one has to trace every single action and effect back to the original cause, or intention, of an individual. If this can't be done, or one chooses not to do this, we must submit certain effects to an unknown origin or impulse, and this takes us down a mysticist path (in that some energies or effects can only be ascribed to some unknown source).

I don't think we need to choose between one or the other. I think that, in some cases, the apparently "mystical" path is simply just a case of extremely complex systems emerging on a level that we aren't focused on.

I don't believe we can trace even a majority of effects back to individuals because I don't think that individuals know who or what they are half the time. I think that the development of our society and culture has led to something so vastly complex that it cannot possibly be reduced to the intentions of its individual actors (this is something along the lines of emergence theory).

And I think that belief in individualism places extremely rigid parameters around what we can conceive of as "the human," and I personally feel that if we dig deep enough we'll discover that we are, in fact, not at all what we conceive ourselves to be; that we are profoundly inhuman, and that insisting on the manifest image (in Wilfred Sellars's terms) bogs us down in archaic traditions and values.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein, after skimming over our little convo I've realized you made me feel like Billy in Stephan King's Thinner. "Die clean, white man from town. Die clean..."

 

[jakethedog]

Einherjar: I was really confused (and kinda drunk) when I read this, and Jimmy referenced something about being "behind bars" and "the culture he inherited" - and I thought it was you who said it. Was trying to point out that you've seen a lot (assuming you've been to "university", which I guess you haven't.) Complete misunderstanding. My bad.

That said, our middle class backgrounds (despite the fact that we've lost our material wealth, I feel privileged in that I come from an educated family) shouldn't make us feel guilty about who we are. I applied to jobs today and almost hated to identify as "white"... what do all white people have in common anyway, in the fact that we are not black? There's no "white" identity in that there is a distinct African-American experience, built on their shared exploitation by the government. The people I went to high school with were completely unaware of their privilege, making me aware of the subtle racism that still exists. I can only imagine what it would be like in the Rural South or other places.

I also was confused with what you said by "mysticism"... I associated that with "seeing the future" rather than seeking a larger cultural identity. I think this place is the perfect place to do that for me. My best friends from college (one of whom is also a metalhead) are big into philosophy, and all we would do was smoke weed and have philosophical discussions (so I don't regret failing out, I was still using my brain...) In spite of this, we all had our individual qualities, yet were able to unite through our shared interests.

With some people, it's almost like they don't have any "real" qualities other than "the way they were raised". Some people follow a religion because that's what their parents did. Some guys play a sport because their father did. It's not bad to be like your parents, but EVERYONE'S parents are not perfect. I've had a crazy life and at 23 years old, I still don't have this whole "me" thing figured out. My parents are in their 60s and say they don't even know who they are. I don't know, maybe we never really figure it out.

My goal for this upcoming year is to have a life that I can be proud of. Only time will tell...

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein, after skimming over our little convo I've realized you made me feel like Billy in Stephan King's Thinner. "Die clean, white man from town. Die clean..."

That's the motto I live my life by.

Einherjar: I was really confused (and kinda drunk) when I read this, and Jimmy referenced something about being "behind bars" and "the culture he inherited" - and I thought it was you who said it. Was trying to point out that you've seen a lot (assuming you've been to "university", which I guess you haven't.) Complete misunderstanding. My bad.

No worries; but as a final note, I have gone to university. I'm a doctoral candidate now. I just feel that attending university doesn't give you a balanced view of the real world. Inner-city youths don't usually make it to grad school; most who do are intellectually driven students from well-to-do families or parents.

I've definitely been exposed to more in my education than I would have been exposed to in my hometown, though. So, in that regard, I suppose I have seen a good deal, like you said.

That said, our middle class backgrounds (despite the fact that we've lost our material wealth, I feel privileged in that I come from an educated family) shouldn't make us feel guilty about who we are. I applied to jobs today and almost hated to identify as "white"... what do all white people have in common anyway, in the fact that we are not black? There's no "white" identity in that there is a distinct African-American experience, built on their shared exploitation by the government. The people I went to high school with were completely unaware of their privilege, making me aware of the subtle racism that still exists. I can only imagine what it would be like in the Rural South or other places.

I agree that we shouldn't feel guilty. Responsibility and guilt are different things.

I also was confused with what you said by "mysticism"... I associated that with "seeing the future" rather than seeking a larger cultural identity. I think this place is the perfect place to do that for me. My best friends from college (one of whom is also a metalhead) are big into philosophy, and all we would do was smoke weed and have philosophical discussions (so I don't regret failing out, I was still using my brain...) In spite of this, we all had our individual qualities, yet were able to unite through our shared interests.

I usually use the word "mysticism" to describe any idea or theory that must appeal to an unknown in order make sense.

With some people, it's almost like they don't have any "real" qualities other than "the way they were raised". Some people follow a religion because that's what their parents did. Some guys play a sport because their father did. It's not bad to be like your parents, but EVERYONE'S parents are not perfect. I've had a crazy life and at 23 years old, I still don't have this whole "me" thing figured out. My parents are in their 60s and say they don't even know who they are. I don't know, maybe we never really figure it out.

My goal for this upcoming year is to have a life that I can be proud of. Only time will tell...

Well, good luck!

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman, I am Chelsea Manning. I am female

Who woke up this morning, checked the news on their phone, and did a double take when this headline popped up.

 

[Einherjar86]

For me, the revelation was prefaced on the Today Show's opening comments with one of them saying that Manning was releasing a statement that would change the way the world will look at him.

My wife and I looked at each other and said: "Gender change."

 

[Dak]

I thought everyone knew that was coming? He's already either said as much or hinted at it before. It's one of the ad homs that neocons hurl at him: He "only did what he did because he was "gay" (typically unable to distinguish between homosexuality and transgenderism).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

i know a transgender, originally male. i see him once in a while, and it's funny to hear a woman sounding logical.


edit: that's not actually what i mean. something about male mannerisms in a female body can be weird but not altogether unalluring.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

'bout time the US killed some more brown people. It's been a while.

The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-23/pentagon-preparing-cruise-missile-launch-against-syria

Detroit Neighborhoods Take Matters Into Their Own Hands
In the absence of effective government and services, some Detroit neighborhoods are banding together to provide for themselves.

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/30/206884472/detroit-neighborhoods-take-matters-into-their-own-hands

 

[Dak]

Nothing new.

 

[jakethedog]

No worries; but as a final note, I have gone to university. I'm a doctoral candidate now!

Lol, where I come from, we say "university" as a term for "prison" (or maybe that's just my family...?) And that's what I thought because of Jimmy's "behind bars" reference - haha, makes sense that you are a doctoral candidate though. You are clearly very smart and I have to work my absolute hardest to try and think on the same level as you.

I wouldn't be surprised if you knew everything, but for even what you don't know, there must be some unknown "mysticism" out there that represents those answers. Some people act like it's in the Bible/Koran/Torah/(insert religious book here), but I just don't think it's that simple. I've always felt that most people (including myself, at a time) follow their religion for the sole fact that they were told do. And when it comes to finding "myself"... well, I've had a few major setbacks in the last couple days, but I still hope to keep working at it.

I'm just wondering if this whole "Chelsea Manning" thing is only because he doesn't want to go to a male prison. His sentencing was way too harsh, in my opinion, but if that is what he wants, more power to him. It is hard enough to live as a GLBT person in society, let alone a prison (or "university" ) setting.

 

[Einherjar86]

A couple cool tidbits in the back of Peter Watts's Maelstrom:

Those of you who have taken an undergraduate physiology course may remember the power law. It's a surface-area-to-volume relationship that governs living systems from whole food webs right down to the capillaries of shrews - essentially a pattern typical of self-organizing (i.e. biological) systems. As it turns out, the World Wide Web itself appears to be evolving in accordance with this law. Something to think about...

These days it's hardly necessary to cite references on the subject of "artificial life": a web search on the phrase (or on "cellular automata") will demonstrate how massively the field has exploded over the past ten years. That subset of e-life that goes by the name Anemone [i.e. in Watts's book] is admittedly a bit more speculative, and based upon two premises. The first is that simple systems, in aggregate, display emergent behaviors beyond the capability of their individual parts. This is pretty much self-evident within a body - who'd deny that a brain is smarter than an individual neuron, for example? - but the principle extends even to aggregations of completely unconnected individuals. A school of fish or a flock of birds can be thought of, in effect, as a diffuse neural net.

A related premise is that lineages with genetically determined behavior would be able to pass a Turing test if they evolved fast enough. This won't be hard to swallow for anyone familiar with how sophisticated such behavior can be; we do, after all, live in a world where ants practice animal husbandry, birds follow orthodome routes to navigate halfway around the world, and honeybees convey sophisticated travel instructions by wiggling their asses at each other. Skeptics might want to read any of E.O. Wilson's books on socio-biology...

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

wat