The Books/Reading Thread

[Einherjar86]

In my opinion, if the author correlates emergence with some kind of ordained metaphysics, then he has misunderstood what emergence is/entails.

The universe may naturally strive toward thermodynamic equilibrium, but this should not be confused with pattern; if anything, absolute equilibrium looks more like randomness than pattern. It is pure chance that certain states of equilibrium happen to achieve evolutionary or chemical success within a given ecosystem/biosphere. Upon the development of more complex lifeforms (a tenuous category, in my opinion) it is possible that institutions of aesthetics, ethics, and survival play a role that cannot be reduced to chance. Tracing matter down to its base dynamics, however, all we find is the continual economic exchange of energy in order to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium. Arguing that the universe gravitates toward some complex divine or metaphysical order flies in the face of thermodynamic physics.

 

[Vimana]

That's something I took with a grain of salt. I believe chaos and order to be a false dichotomy as far as the nature of the universe goes, but the concepts are so useful at our level of understanding that they're hard to break from.

So put in words, I'd say true randomness and true order do not exist, but a degree randomness and order also exist. It depends on the level and frame of reference, but what's the "right" level? Consciousness? Chemistry? Quantum physics? I try to diverge from typical conceptual understanding because it's confining and can create illusions. For example, number theory implies the existence of nothingness, which doesn't actually exist. Empty space isn't empty. Otherwise the Fibonacci sequence couldn't work. It can't start from zero because there is no zero. It has to start from one.

 

[rms]

You should read this article by Mizruchi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-l-mizruchi/brando-v-coppola-debunkin_b_5587675.html

The film actually goes into Brando's expansions on the original script and all that, but just seeing Brando, in person, during the filming makes me believe Coppola more than anything. Showed up like 80 pounds overweight, struggled with the very few lines he was given etc..the film is pretty cool if you ever get a chance to watch it

He also handicapped the production funds because he demanded an outrageous salary for like 3 days of shooting or whatever it was.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry, I haven't seen it, but I've been swayed against it by accusations that it sensationalizes the story and is heavily biased toward Coppola.

Also, did you read the whole article:

This is not to say that Brando was perfect: as he himself acknowledged, he had many flaws. He did not weigh 300 pounds in Apocalypse Now as some rumors suggested, but at 210 pounds he was still 30 pounds overweight, the result of an overeating habit akin to his family's propensity for alcoholism (his parents and sisters were all alcoholics).

Mizruchi doesn't set out to demonize Coppola at all. She's simply interested in salvaging Brando's reputation from unfair treatment by the legacy of a film production that had way more problems than an overpaid actor.

 

[rms]

I didn't before, but just finished. I would have to watch it again after reading this, but it of course is going to be somewhat biased in favor of Coppola because his wife was the one who filmed during the production. From my memory though, I do not think the film painted Coppola in a positive light or anything, just how a film about Vietnam can really resemble it in and how unprepared and naive Coppola was in terms of the production

Weird how the author brings up all these viable primary source documents, but does put any of the exchanges between the two into the article. I also don't think that because he owned several copies/editions of the text that he read it nor that he did before he went and shot for the film. The scapegoat thing is interesting since the documentary film shows Coppola realizing that this beast of a film was out of control in several different ways and never blames Brando for anything except how he mishandled his role and the ending of the film.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll have to watch the movie sometime. She includes quotes and such in her actual book; she probably doesn't in the article because she wants people to buy it. At any rate, I took a seminar with her in which we discussed Brando, and I totally believe her that the quotes/evidence are there.

I'm currently doing research for the class I'll be teaching this fall, which is on society and simulation. I've been looking at different kinds of sources, and stumbled across this quote during my lunch hour. It is fascinating, hilarious, and sounds like it could have been predicted by William Gibson. The quote is from a book called Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games:

Second Life and America's Army are both highly successful games. Recently, however, there have been some troubles in these virtual domains - small disturbances to the commercial economy of the one, to the recruitment lures of the other. The corporate influx to Second Life invited by Linden Labs provoked dissent from players who saw it as a violation of the libertarian ethic that they believed informed 'their' virtual world. On the day that IBM's CEO appeared in-game, the Elf King, monarch of the influential Elf Clan, abdicated in protest. Acts of anticorporate satire, spoof, and sabotage have been rife: a CopyBot program ran amok with intellectual property, cloning copyrighted items in a cornucopian frenzy, and a guerrilla Liberation Army vaporized a Reebok store with nuclear weapons.

Also picked up these from the library:

 

[The Ozzman]

Finished:

Onto:

 

[Einherjar86]

Žižek's doctoral thesis is being published for the first time in English.

Unfortunately, at this point, I can't imagine how it would be worthwhile to read.

 

[unknown]

Just finished reading The Ceremonies by T.E.D. Klein. Absolutely fantastic. Very much recommended for fans of weird fiction. I had to buy my copy (along with a copy of Klein's Dark Gods, a short story collection) off of eBay because he's rather obscure. Dodens told me to check him out, and I read an interview with S.T. Joshi praising him. Having never heard of him, I decided to check him out. The book is very much steeped in pagan rituals and performance, and the protagonist of the story (probably a representation of Klein) is writing his dissertation on Gothic and Weird fiction, so throughout the book frequent mentions are made of various authors and texts. The novel seems to draw heavily upon Arthur Machen's "The White People" as there are a number of allusions and quotes drawn from Machen's work.

Very very good stuff. Now I can move onto Thomas Ligotti's first new collection of fiction in over a decade, The Spectral Link

 

[unknown]

Just finished this:

Being my favorite author, I was super stoked to find out Ligotti was finally coming out with some new fiction. His last collection of new work, My Work is Not Yet Done, came out in the early 2000s. Since then, collections and reprints and nonfiction were printed. All this being said, I thought it was good, but not nearly as good as his previous material. The themes of humanity being a mistake and a fixation on human-like entities (puppets, toys, etc.) are all there, but it's not as bleak as his earlier stuff. Still good but yeah...

that marks three books I've read this summer. That's the most I've read in quite a while

 

[Einherjar86]

I really need to get some Ligotti; there are just other things I keep spending money on instead. Is there one collection in particular you recommend I start with?

Picked up this from Amazon a couple days ago, very excited; I've checked it out from the library before but now I'm eager to have more time with it:

I also recently grabbed this from the library; would recommend for anyone interested in animal rights/studies (in fact, I would just recommend Donna Haraway's work in general):

 

[unknown]

The Shadow at the Bottom of the World would be my recommendation. If you could find a cheap copy of Teatro Grottesco that would be good too

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I read War and Peace about a month back. It's definitely worth the the time it takes to read it.

I've been reading Das Kapital on and off all summer. It's a very philosophical, obviously Hegelian, approach to economics. I used to dismiss the labor theory of value, but, now that I've read Marx himself on the matter and not some critic, I think it really holds up.

I stumbled upon Sartre's Nausea a week ago and it turned out to be my second favorite fiction read of the summer. I probably related to the main character a little more than is healthy.

And I'm going to finish these two before the semester starts:

 

[Einherjar86]

Damn son, that's quite a reading list.

Marx's ideas become far more crystalline as you make your way through the entire volume, in fact. He's definitely not clear from the outset, but there are structural reasons for that. His conception of LTV isn't a premise or a conclusion, but simply a historical condition - something he observes at work in the politico-economic system he takes as his target. So rather than open with a definitive thesis, he chooses to make his way through his argument and let the concept materialize on its own. It's impressive, if not incredibly conducive to actual reading.

 

[Cronopio]

Since you smartasses don't seem to read fiction, I'll have to chip in with this:

Got it for 10 SEK ($1.50) at a thrift store. Has a blurb by Harlan Ellison. Back cover says 'Pynchon crossed with Steinbeck, painted by Dalí'. The prose is very ... rollicking and I'd vouch for the Pynchon comparison so far.

 

[Dak]

Hey Ein, why don'tyou read fiction?


Also, LToV Marx essentially deferred to the current leading economic theory of value and went with it. Inherent flaws in this theory are part of the problem with Marxist economics in general. If the LToV had merit, Marxist arguments would be compelling. However, it hasn't, and so it doesn't.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hey Ein, why don'tyou read fiction?

Haha, fiction is for the birds! For the record, I'm reading David Mitchell's Ghostwritten and have several novels lined up after that. I actually read fiction much slower than I do nonfiction/theory because I put a lot more effort into analyzing fiction for potential future purposes.

Also, LToV Marx essentially deferred to the current leading economic theory of value and went with it. Inherent flaws in this theory are part of the problem with Marxist economics in general. If the LToV had merit, Marxist arguments would be compelling. However, it hasn't, and so it doesn't.

I'm still interested in your take on this. I know you don't have firsthand experience with much beyond The Communist Manifesto, and I'm not trying to dismiss you for that reason; but you always seem to suggest that Marx just took what Smith and Ricardo had done and didn't challenge it in any way. This simply isn't the case; he's interested in why Smith and Ricardo develop the LToV, and why it manifests in economic culture in general. When I say "manifest," I don't mean that it's actually there; I mean he's interested in why major economists perceive value as deriving from labor. There's a reason for this, and Marx hones in on it for his larger argument. This is why, beyond a theory of economics and philosophy, Marx's work functions as an early example of cultural critique. The LToV is a historical condition, not an axiom or presupposition of economic theory (in Marx's eyes).

 

[Dak]

I'm still interested in your take on this. I know you don't have firsthand experience with much beyond The Communist Manifesto, and I'm not trying to dismiss you for that reason; but you always seem to suggest that Marx just took what Smith and Ricardo had done and didn't challenge it in any way. This simply isn't the case; he's interested in why Smith and Ricardo develop the LToV, and why it manifests in economic culture in general. When I say "manifest," I don't mean that it's actually there; I mean he's interested in why major economists perceive value as deriving from labor. There's a reason for this, and Marx hones in on it for his larger argument. This is why, beyond a theory of economics and philosophy, Marx's work functions as an early example of cultural critique. The LToV is a historical condition, not an axiom or presupposition of economic theory (in Marx's eyes).

No, I'll readily admit my knowledge of Marxist economics is second hand, but I don't think it is so particularly nuanced that this is very problematic, and as it rests on the LToV, is flawed from the getgo.

I believe the LToV was arrived at first for the same reasons that mercantilism and "broken window" economics were first, and still pervasive today: It's so "apparent". Particularly as a nation underwent industrialism, you had swarms of relatively evenly low-skilled workers who were divided more or less by hours worked. It would be really easy in that environment, when beginning an inquiry on the value of something, to start with "well how did it come to exist", and rather than go back up the chain of contingency, merely look at the literal production. As nothing comes into being without some measure of human labor (and even raw materials require extraction), and as more valuable raw materials tended to require more labor, it would be easy to determine labor as the value basis. But, as Monsieur Bastiat informs us, there is "the seen and the unseen". Value is subjective, and production is driven by the anticipation and/or fulfillment of subjectively valued wants and needs - which, combined with the wants/needs of potential producers, assign value.

Marxism, as it concerns economic theory, is necessarily dependent on LToV, given the fundamental exploitative (mis)understanding re: "labor v capitol". If labor were the source of value, (and there is no real nuance[skill, ability, invested education, etc] to labor - rather, each man can only labor as long as any other, we all have the same number of hours in a day), then obviously no one could justly receive any more than any other for their labor. Subsequently, it would be easy to charge no one could justly have more than any other. Profits are fundamentally injust as are differing wages, and ownership is thusly a mechanism of injustice. And so communism is born.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

No, I'll readily admit my knowledge of Marxist economics is second hand, but I don't think it is so particularly nuanced that this is very problematic, and as it rests on the LToV, is flawed from the getgo.

I believe the LToV was arrived at first for the same reasons that mercantilism and "broken window" economics were first, and still pervasive today: It's so "apparent". Particularly as a nation underwent industrialism, you had swarms of relatively evenly low-skilled workers who were divided more or less by hours worked. It would be really easy in that environment, when beginning an inquiry on the value of something, to start with "well how did it come to exist", and rather than go back up the chain of contingency, merely look at the literal production. As nothing comes into being without some measure of human labor (and even raw materials require extraction), and as more valuable raw materials tended to require more labor, it would be easy to determine labor as the value basis. But, as Monsieur Bastiat informs us, there is "the seen and the unseen". Value is subjective, and production is driven by the anticipation and/or fulfillment of subjectively valued wants and needs - which, combined with the wants/needs of potential producers, assign value.

Marx doesn't dismiss the points you bring up, he fully acknowledges them. The Marx's labor theory of value isn't what the Austrian's paint it as (I've read enough of Human Action, along with other writings, to understand their assessment of it). Just read the first two hundred pages of Das Kapital. I thought the labor theory of value sounded ridiculous before I read Marx himself on the matter. Also, Marx was well aware of Bastiat; he addresses him at numerous points in Das Kapital, though, of course, unfavorably.

 

[Dak]

Ok. If you insist. I spent the $.99 on Kindle Das Kapital (still so ironic DK costs money while those bourgeois books in the Mises library are free), only to be greeted with the first problem in the 3rd (Kindle) page:

the commodity-form of the product of labor - ; or value-form of the commodity -; is the economic cell form.

To say this isn't a good start is an understatement.