Well, at the risk of getting caught up in something I haven’t time for, thanks.
No fun
Aboreal:
another SAT word.
Look, I haven’t got time for a pissing contest. Just have better things to do.
(but I have right-wing friends in the real world:
so if you’re here for a respectful discourse which NO ONE can win if everyone doesn’t:
let’s jam.
otherwise, once again:
I have better things to do.
My apologies for coming off abrasive. I was teasing you, not trying to be malicious.
Anyway:
gotta work to play:
next time…
Perhaps next time, yeah - bring some more liquor.
yeah:
you’re an oddity among other right-wing hecklers I have had
(so you deserve a chance:
as long as you understand (as I have for some time
(that there is little hope of either of us converting the other:
it may well be hard wired into us.
As with my real-world right-wing friend, we keep that in mind,
we’ll get on great together.
You might even prove a major asset to my process.
…and I always do.
I’ll follow your posts and see where I can find something to debate/discuss.
Carry on
I look forward to it: just as long as…
I’ll be respectful.
Rhizome 12/13/14:
First of all, guys: just know that the rhizome’s are an evolving project and that I’m always looking for ways of making sure the reader has to do as little work as possible to understand the context of the post they are reading while trying to keep it as little of an expenditure on their time as possible. And this has especially been an issue concerning the preamble. However, the catch is that while I can provide links for the reader that wants to push into it a little deeper, I cannot entertain the pretense of expecting them to do so. Therefore, I have to provide as much information as possible w/out the longwindedness I often find myself cursing the French for.
That said, I want to push a little further into a discourse brought up in Rhizome 12/12/2014 initiated by a previous rhizome:
“Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.”
:which was followed by a couple of attacks:
“I like bold empirical claims.”
“Wait, what?”
To which I responded with:
“Now I would note here the use of the popular buzzword (which both Deleuze and Rorty are opposed to: empirical. What does that mean? Does it, for instance, mean that the thing we are perceiving has, somehow, more ontological status than the act of perceiving it or how we react to it? And since these 2 goons seems to think in terms of brute facts (or claim to (how does 1 + 1=2 or the fact that water boils 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure tell us anything about how we experience Capitalism?”
What I mainly want to zero in on is the kind of operationalism at work here (very much in the sense defined by Herbert Marcuse (another thinker I need to start dipping into (which can be better understood by the primary point pimped by Foucault: that whenever anyone starts using terms (criteria (such as Reason, Logic, or Empiricism, you have to ask 3 questions:
-
What is the relevant criterion by which an assertion may be deemed reasonable, logical, or empirical?
-
Who has the power to assert that criteria?
and 3. (my latest addition (Is the person who has the power to assert that criteria actually staying within the perimeters of it?
The last deals with the existential issue of the clear distinction between theory and reality rooted in theory (being a product of language (the symbolic order (always falling short of the reality it is trying to describe.
In other words, what my heckler was engaging in was the operationalism of expecting all issues with Capitalism to be addressed by the very criteria (empiricism (that Capitalism (via science and technology (wears as a badge of honor. In other words, unless your issues with Capitalism can be validated in the same way a hypothesis can in a corporate funded university, they cannot be said to fulfill the criteria of “empirical” which my heckler used to undermine my point. And this can only lead to those who have access to corporate funded means of obtaining knowledge assuming they have the right to tell those that don’t what their reality is. Being in the know becomes little more than the privilege of those who have the resources.
And I would also like to point out a rhizome from my respected peer and jam-mate (one Steven Orsolini:
“I don’t think we need a concept of ‘human nature’ to evaluate other people’s actions or hold them accountable. We just need to have a sense of the kind of moral community we want to live in. We can struggle through dialogue for shared understanding of who ‘we’ are and what we will and won’t stand for. The less fixed nature, the more freedom for self-creation. In fact, an appeal to ‘human nature’ is a good way to excuse oneself (and others) for unacceptable behavior.”
:to which I responded:
“Yes, Steve. And don’t you think that Hume’s is-ought disconnect might somehow play a role in your point?”
But I bring that up (being close to the end of my window (as a setup to future rhizomes.
Anyway, despite the perfectly natural human desire to be accepted (to be part of an in-crowd (don’t be BSed by dogma or doxa. Criteria is a choice (a human agreement (not a natural force like the weather.
Can you delineate on how it’s control? What about other economic systems? Are they not control, also?
I think Capitalism is the most natural economical system there is, i.e., the most consistent with the natural world, as I pointed out before.
You a Libertarian Right-winger, Erik? If you are, you are the first that I’ve dealt with that could make their point without being smug or obtuse. But in order for me to respond:
Saying you are right-wing could mean a lot of different things. You could be a christian right-winger for all I know.
That said, you seem like what I have always hoped for: a libertarian I can actually engage in a RESPECTFUL discourse w/: one I’m hoping I can learn to trust.
That said, I will try to fold you into my day to day process (my rhizomes (to the best of my ability. As you may have guessed, it is always a matter of what I come home with to write about w/ a limited window.
And I am always working with a lot of coals in the fire.
Yes, I’m a right-wing libertarian. I was an anarcho-primitivist, at one point.
What about you?
Yes - I can engage in mature, respectful discourse. It was puerile of me to enter this thread the way I did initially. Won’t happen again.
More of a social democrat than a socialist. I don’t think the complete elimination of Capitalism is the answer: it can be a powerful tool. But it is a tool, one among many. My main issue with it is it as a grand narrative that I am automatically beholden to. That feels like slavery to me and why:
Everyday, I wake up on the wrong side of Capitalism.
Anyway, I’ll see what I can do with your rhizomes (how I can connect them with mine (like it would actually take an effort -even look forward to it…
Well, it’s true - if you are on the wrong side of capitalism, it’s def. not a cake-walk to reach the top; competition is intense.
Reminds me of the third installment of the Dark Knight, where the primary villain " Bane " was born into a giant prison constructed like a well. There was a way of reaching the top and getting out, but it’s, more or less, like wining the lottery. The prison/well was meant to be a Marxist allegory for how those born into poverty ( in a bourgeois society ) are pretty much inside of a prison with a way out, but extremely difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to see your definition of rhizome; I’m sure it’s fairly consistent with what I’ve learned, but still - there might be a notable discrepancy.
To me, Rhizome = the opposite of the arboreal, i.e., the stratum. The rhizome is amorphous multiplicity with no periphery. It moves horizontally, yet erratically.
Rhizome 12/14/14:
Previously, on Rhizomes, I have found myself confronted w/ someone, Erik, who claims to be a right-wing libertarian. And I have to take him at his word for this given the sincere and honest effort he has made to make clear he is interested in a respectful, mano-on-mano discourse. And I would be fool to pass up the possibility of engaging in a productive jam (as compared to a pissing contest (with someone of a completely different sensibility than mine. And I switch from the third person perspective I am addressing this in at present to the always volatile 2nd person perspective (that which uses the pronoun “you” (with some anxiety. Still, I think Erik has earned it (especially given that he had no natural obligation to do so (and I can’t help but hope that our discourse will only further my own process. Anyway:
“You a Libertarian Right-winger, Erik? If you are, you are the first that I’ve dealt with that could make their point without being smug or obtuse. “
“Yes, I’m a right-wing libertarian. I was an anarcho-primitivist, at one point.”
“More of a social democrat than a socialist. I don’t think the complete elimination of Capitalism is the answer: it can be a powerful tool. But it is a tool, one among many. My main issue with it is it as a grand narrative that I am automatically beholden to….
…. Everyday, I wake up on the wrong side of Capitalism.”
And now that I’ve drawn out our lines in the sand, I refer to the discourse I want to zero in on:
“Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.”
“Can you delineate on how it’s control? What about other economic systems? Are they not control, also?
I think Capitalism is the most natural economical system there is, i.e., the most consistent with the natural world, as I pointed out before.”
First of all, Erik, I apologize for the above preamble. It is purely a technical matter in that I tend to cross-pollinate among the various boards I post on. That obligates me to provide as much background information as possible in as little space as possible –that is as a convenience to the reader. Plus that, as I pointed out above, I’m always a little wary of engagements in the 2nd person perspective (especially persons of an opposing ideological position (since they can too often degrade into useless statements like:
“You are clearly a moron.”
Or something like:
“That is complete nonsense.”
Which is the equivalent of saying:
“You are clearly a moron.”
You see what I mean? I sometimes use the 3rd person perspective to piss off the person that is pissing me off. But that wasn’t the case with the above.
That said, I will break down your argument and address each issue point by point, and try to get as much as I can in the window I have. First of all:
“Can you delineate on how it’s control?”
First of all, that is a tough question that could well lead to a book (and actually has (and actually occupy a whole philosophical career –in fact, did so for many of the principle players in our culture: Marx for instance. I can only start with the admission that it starts with the feeling that something is wrong in one’s life and that one does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, there are factors outside of one’s individual choices that are contributing to it. From that point on, it is a matter of observing and articulating on what those contributing factors are.
(Now before you react in the way my mental concept of you tells me you will, I would first point out that this is not a shedding of self accountability. It cannot, if it is honest, not take into account one’s own responsibility for one’s situation. At the same time, if you were honest, you would also have to admit that you too start from a position of something being wrong and going on to articulate on the contributing factors. I’m thinking here of the popular buzzphrase: Big Government.
(But what really makes the question difficult (from my perspective (is the subtlety of Capitalism’s variations on previous forms of oppression propped up by its technological prowess: that which has defined the evolution of philosophy since Marx via Modernism on through Post-Modernism. To give you a for-instance:
Note the way that Capitalism has become a new kind of religion. Whereas it use to be:
“Pray hard and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
And both are based on mythologies developed to sustain a system in which the individual must be willing to endure their own hardships for the sake of a higher principle that, ultimately, only serves the purposes of those who are gaining advantage from it.
Unfortunately, me being on my last beer and shot tells me that my window has run out. Tomorrow’s rhizome, hopefully, will be less preamble and more meat.
I actually look forward to this following through. Let’s not fuck it up.
Dude! Actually got mentioned in a letter to the editor on Philosophy Now:
Thanks, brother, for giving me an opportunity I have never had before.
You’re welcome 
I look forward to good discussions.