Rhizomes (w/ beer and shooters....

Philosophy Forums The Sandbox
61

Rhizome 1/6/15
in which I throw down my intellectual mac for one Deborah Gibson by flirting/responding to her responses to rhizome 1/3/15: facebook.com/groups/6757450 … up_comment
(type 1/3/15 into search:

“I KNEW you were flirting with me!”

Yes, but I flirt primarily for the sake of art. The male obsession with winning over a woman, perhaps more than anything, has been a primary driver of our cultural evolution. Still, knowing you primarily for your mind (AHH!!! AHH!!! AHH!!! Flirt alert! Flirt alert! (you warrant being treated like a peer as well:

“Thinking about complexity: “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.” (Attributed on Facebook to Albert Einstein). Whether it is Einstein or not, it is a proposition to consider one’s life by.”

Truly words of wisdom, whoever said it. One of things that has always haunted my process (being as focused on thinkers like Deleuze and Zizek as I am (is the sense that you have to weary of theoretical over-reach. This is not to take the position satirized by Barthes in Mythologies:

“I do not understand, therefore, you are ignorant!”

But you have to look at the imperative inherently involved in theory: that of selling itself as well as trying to explain how “things hang together.” And it’s kind of hard to sell saying the same old thing. This, naturally, would tend to compel theorists towards intellectual constructions that are more subtle and complex than they really need to be.

This is not to say that such theories should be automatically rejected. How could you if you don’t understand them or, at the very least, empathize with them? At the same time, you sometimes have to defer to Ockham’s Razor (that is without having any real commitment to it. This is because while there is a trickledown effect between theory and normal human reality and action, there is also a kind of disconnect. I’m working here with the popular notion that theory tends to follow praxis or as I like to say it:

“Ideologies do nothing; people, on the other hand, do.”

To refer it back to your point: we are sometimes susceptible to complexity for what, ultimately, serves as little more than a surface effect.

“Life (politically and economically driven) seems to have become horribly complex and there is some sense in which even dissent becomes built into and absorbed by capitalist interests thus increasing the need for complex thinking just to maintain a dissenting position.”

How could I not flirt with you when we are so like minded? To further your point, we need only look at the function that such people as Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Bill Maher serve within Capitalist hegemony. First I would point out that there is no question in my mind concerning the intellectual integrity of all three. Given some of the profound points they add to the discourse, it is clear that they are sincere in their dissent. The problem is not with them. The problem lies in the fallback they provide in terms of the Capitalist system. If we, under the Capitalist system we work under, were to make the claim that we are not as free as we’re told we are, the defenders of Capitalism can always say:

“How can you say that? I mean look at the anti-Capitalist points that Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Bill Maher are making.”

What this argument fails to recognize is that free expression is only a means to an end: that of actually changing things. And that is what makes Capitalism such a diabolical form of oppression in that it is an autocratic power system that has gotten so confident in itself that it can easily tolerate dissent with no fear of being overthrown.

I mean it: be afraid; be very afraid.

62

Rhizome 1/7/15
in which I breakdown and respond to a response by my respected peer, Ginkgo (reference: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi … 0&start=15
First:

“I think Wittgenstein was unfortunately shelved in favour of the analytic school associated with people such as Frege and Kripke. Having said that I agree there needs to be a synthesis and this is why I found your post on Bergson most interesting. However. the problem still remains that a teleological approach to science is still not acceptable. Fortunately, I think this is about to change for the better and we can thank people such as Bergson and Heidegger for at least getting us to think critically about an objective world existing out there and all modern philosophical problems can be solved by throwing a reference at it.

From Bergson’s point of view there are still problems with the idea of a vital component responsible for creative evolution. Problems from the physicalists point of view, rather than from a philosophical point of view. Perhaps we could replace Bergson’s “creative force” with proto-consciousness (for the want of a better word at this stage). Just to appease the scientifically minded.

I don’t know if you are interested in going down this path but if you are let me know.”

“I think Wittgenstein was unfortunately shelved in favour of the analytic school associated with people such as Frege and Kripke.”

To Frege and Kripke, I would add Russell and Whitehead back in their Principia Mathematica days. And my guess is that the reason Wittgenstein was shelved is because he turned against the agenda he started with in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. (And we should also consider the doxa (the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (in using such latinate terms.) At the same time, it was this turn on his part that has earned him some bank among more continental thinkers such as Rorty and Layotard. And I’m not altogether unsympathetic with the agenda of the analytics. I, myself, often wish I would have had time to dig a little deeper into mathematics as an influence (a kind of anchor (on my own sensibility. And I suppose Wittgenstein’s main offense was that, in his later writings, he recognized that there was any reason (via language games (to talk about anything remotely metaphysical. Which brings us to your next point:

“Having said that I agree there needs to be a synthesis and this is why I found your post on Bergson most interesting. However. the problem still remains that a teleological approach to science is still not acceptable. Fortunately, I think this is about to change for the better and we can thank people such as Bergson and Heidegger for at least getting us to think critically about an objective world existing out there and all modern philosophical problems can be solved by throwing a reference at it.”

What might be at work here is a humanist egoism that fears the possibility of an intellect beyond its own. And as both Rorty and Deleuze have pointed to, it has been this subject/object dichotomy that correlates to a master/slave one that has haunted our cultural evolution for some time now. Science, as Heidegger suggests, has always been about (because of our being in the world (the technological attitude of seeing nature as there for our use. So it would be a little hard to go from that to a teleological perspective that sees us as being there for the use of some higher intellect or system that we didn’t create.

“From Bergson’s point of view there are still problems with the idea of a vital component responsible for creative evolution. Problems from the physicalists point of view, rather than from a philosophical point of view. Perhaps we could replace Bergson’s “creative force” with proto-consciousness (for the want of a better word at this stage). Just to appease the scientifically minded.”

That might not be a bad choice given that what we experience as consciousness (unless you take the substance dualism position: the ghost in the machine of Descartes (had to evolve from simpler experiences of consciousness. I would note here David Chalmers’ assertion concerning panpsychism or Carmilla Martin’s concession, in the Philosophy Now podcast Free Will and the Brain (philosophynow.org/podcasts/Free … _the_Brain), that there may well be traces of consciousness in individual cells or atoms -I can’t remember which: which goes towards the anthropic (or teleological (principle we seem to be playing with here. I would also note Douglas Hofstadter’s point in I am a Strange Loop that it is not an issue of whether an organic thing is conscious or not, but more a matter of the symbolic systems through which they project into the world.

“I don’t know if you are interested in going down this path but if you are let me know.”

I am interested in any path the rhizomes take me –regardless of who (myself or any participants (influence that path. Rhizomes are always dependent on the Deleuzian roll of the dice: chancing.

That said, I hope to carry points made here back to my discourse with my son on points made in Terrence McKenna’s Food of the Gods: rhizome 1/5/2015.

63

Rhizome 1/9/15
in which, for the first time (finally!, I explore/exploit the literary potential of the rhizome (writing (or any art for that matter (being a kind of bricolage of rhizomes:

It’s all gone wrong! The experiment has gone terribly wrong. Rhizomes (everywhere (within rhizomes) connecting with other rhizomes. I can no longer stop them. They make me write them down.

(And what did Twain say about exclamation marks? That they’re like laughing at your own joke?

(See what I mean? My mind wanders and I hear voices. Or am I only reading them? Speech? Writing? What was Derrida’s point? I can no longer tell the difference. It’s all so connected…. so complex.
*
Rhizome 2 (the rhizome within (but equal to (there are no hierarchies in the vast fractal/particle-like rhizomatic complex (the rhizome in which I address a point made by Bergson that there is no intrinsic reason that evolution should have moved from simple forms to complex systems:

[Attn: Deborah Gibson, William Tarkington, Ginkgo]

In the beginning, there was nothing. But nothing could not stay nothing forever. There must have been some intrinsic element of nothing that had to be something. As Leibniz rightly asks:

“Why all this rather than nothing?”

And perhaps Sartre gives us an answer in Being and Nothingness when he points out that a pure nothingness would nihilate itself. Hence: his point that nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being like a worm. And we have to give this some consideration given that the very fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that we are (when we could very well not be (as we are out the thousand other things we could be. And even from an analytic perspective: the very fact (and, once again, may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that a thing is implies that it could not be: the nothingness coiled in the heart of being like a worm.

So imagine nothingness suddenly becoming something. Wouldn’t the primary attractor at work be a gravitation from the simplicity of nothingness to the complexity of Being? Or am I too deeply immersed (as if it were a kind of doxa (in the commonly accepted notion of the big bang and an expanding universe?

I apologize for the quasi-religious implications of what I am getting at here. (Or am I only apologizing for violating the doxa: the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues of scientific rationality?) But we have to consider the possibility that we (all perceiving things( are an expression of that nothingness becoming something (the eyes and ears of god: the anthropic principle (and are the main clue as to what it was that drove Bergson’s creative evolution towards complexity.

We might even say that this model underlies and defines the process we are engaged in here (the boards (discourse (the rhizomes that are continually moving towards complexity (while seeking to simplify (Frost’s momentary stay against confusion: re- and de-territorialization. It might even explain the literary breakdown above.

Anyway: reference: facebook.com/groups/675745095875295/

64

Rhizome 1/11/15:

My daily routine (on workdays: my bad faith: my Einstein’s Wardrobe:

9:50 pm: wake up and go to work.

10:30 pm to 7:00 am: work which involves various subroutines. For instance, in the shift overlaps (10:30 to 11:00 pm and 6:30 am to 7:00 am) I try to get some reading in. This can vary from what I am currently reading at home or the newspaper. While actually working, and driving from building to building of the campus I work on, I sneak in a cigarette and some time to listen to my audiobooks.

7:00 am: I work out for 30 to 40 minutes and on days when I’m doing cardiovascular exercises, I try to sneak in even more time for audiobooks: my way of breaking away from the abstraction I’m immersed in when I’m dealing with philosophy, of adding a little meat to the bone.

After showering and getting dressed for the next day of work: my work uniform: my Einstein’s Wardrobe (this varies on Monday morning (my Friday: which I will explain later (I can usually expect to get home by 9:00 am (the daily meditation which is most relevant for our purposes (at which point I set up my gym bag for the next day then start reading whatever book I am focused on.

(The routine here has changed recently in that whereas I use to commit to reading a book all the way through, I now break it down (dependent on how it is sectioned to about a 100 pages or less. I figure that until I have mined the first part of a book for everything I can get out of it (have understood it as well as I can (there is always that ceiling of understanding with a book of philosophy (there is no point in going further.)

The important thing to understand here is that the meditation is one of working with the sections the author has laid out for me. This bookmark must always end at the beginning of the next section to be read. And whether I am getting anything out of it or not, I will push on until it does. In the time allowed, on a good day, I get about 20 pages of reading in dependent on how the sections are divided. And given the fatigue that nightshift leads to, at some point in it (usually after I have smoked a cigarette and had a cup of coffee (I take out 15 to 30 minutes to engage in a relaxation exercise that will hopefully give me a couple of twilight dreams and take the edge off. After that, I squeeze in all the petty and mundane matters I can before it’s time to go to the “library”.

11:30: library time: usually before this, I will have gone to the store (a Bag and Save (where I will buy whatever my ex or I need for supper and, in the process, get 11$ cash (8.75 for a mini of Busch Lite and a shot combining Jager and Rumple and 2$ + tip (what is called a Dead Nazi or what I like to call a Dirty White Boy because of the modernist aesthetic of it (when its poured right: that jazzy layered look it has when the Jager is at the top and the Rumple at the bottom. And the bartenders (or “librarians” (knowing me as they do, this is usually being poured the minute I walk in the door.

This is time delegated to the second bookmark I always have in a book: the study point. My library time is about to going to some previously read point in a book and reading it as slowly as I need to (with no concern of getting to the end of a section (and taking notes and thinking about what my next rhizome will be. But as one my librarians calls it: one and done: and I’m usually getting home by 12:30pm.

(Now I generally listen to audiobooks when I’m driving (except when someone else is in the car. But before and after the library, it’s music. At this point, I’m hoping to find something I want to add to the rhapsody playlist I generally listen to when I get home and start writing my rhizomes.)

12:30 pm: Before I get home, I always stop at the same shop where the clerks know me. I always grab a 40 ounce and when I approach the counter, I get the usual question: “And a shooter?” The shooter consists of an airplane bottle of preferably Swarzhaug or Jager if that is not available. When I get home, I grab a certain size glass and a shot glass which I put a cube of ice in. This splits what I have brought home into 3 which is important to what I do here. I then get on the computer, open up Rhapsody, add whatever song I have decided to my playlist, and start the music. I then go to Word which holds the rhizome from the previous day, cut (alt + x on Word (and paste it (alt + v (on to my message board posts: at 1027 pages as of today.

This point is one of those flexible moments I have included in this. I will either go on Facebook or other boards that happen to be hot with responses (points I can bounce off of (and see what others are responding to; or I will do as I did today (when I’m clear on what I’m going to do (and just write it out on Word. Either way, whether I look at it before or when I’m cross pollinating throughout the boards I frequent, I get the opportunity to see what my jam-mates are doing and get a sense of what I may be doing tomorrow.

Now the first 2 beers and shots are committed to writing the text. But by the time I’m coming to the third, it’s my cue to start winding down since I like to use the last ones to tighten, tweak, and tinker and decide which boards it’s appropriate to post it on. The finishing touches.

2:30 pm: By then, I want to be working on getting something to eat and watching about an hour of my favorite TV shows on Demand or on Netflix. And true to my nature, I prefer to binge watch so I don’t have to waste any time deciding what it is I want to watch or whether I actually can. That way, the other shows I like to watch can accumulate so I can binge watch them as well.

3:30 pm: By then I try to be going to sleep so I can start the cycle all over again: lay down with my French Bulldog: Overman: or Ovy for short.

It’s strange; I know. But it’s productive. It’s the process I could gladly work my way to my deathbed with.

Of course, my three grand-daughters (my 3 thieves (can wreck it pretty easily. They’re nagging at me to watch a movie at this very moment.

65

Rhizome 1/12/15:
referring to rhizome 1/11/15 ([facebook.com/d63tark(search](https://www.facebook.com/d63tark(search): rhizome 1/12/15 (

Thanks for the likes Ashley (the perpetual surprise that will follow me to my deathbed, Genie (the closest thing to a significant other my life can afford, and Cameron (my old friend. But I believe this rhizome (my routine (can (given its attempt at literature (reach into a revisionary rhizome that is a little more detached: that is by taking out a lot of the I’s.

For instance, the phrase:

“7:00 am: I work out for 30 to 40 minutes and on days when I’m doing cardiovascular exercises, I try to sneak in even more time for audiobooks: my way of breaking away from the abstraction I’m immersed in when I’m dealing with philosophy, of adding a little meat to the bone.”

Could be revised to:

“7:00 am: work out for 30 to 40 minutes and, on days when doing cardiovascular exercises, try to sneak in even more time for audiobooks: a way of breaking away from the abstraction I’m immersed in when dealing with philosophy, of adding a little meat to the bone.”

In this one, the “I” just kind of sneaks in there in the form of “I’m”. The idea is to make it seem almost robot-like while equally human. Thinking about it now, I clearly stole it from Hugh Grant’s monologue at the beginning of About a Boy when he described his day in terms of ½ hours. But I want it to sound more like a monologue Jesse Eisenberg would engage in: that which gives you the sense of a body just doing its thing so the mind can do its.

That said, I want to respond (break down in ways I can respond to right now (given the impasses my new routine has come up against (and as many admins know about me: I don’t work well with making decisions (just fair warning in case I end up telling some of you that I love you (to points made by my partner in crime: Ginkgo (forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi … 20&t=14370:

First of all, brother/sister (your gender really doesn’t matter to me right now (thanks for sticking around. But let’s get to it:

“I have a problem with Sartre and the way he distinguishes "being-in-itself’ and “being-for-itself” My understanding is that “being-in-itself” refers to inanimate objects in the world that lack consciousness. Obviously, this would include objects such as rocks, chairs and computers. But would this also include such things as trees, protozoans and perhaps worms? Give the fact that humans can become a “being-in-itself” through bad faith, it seems likely simple organisms accomplish the same thing by lacking any sort of faith.”

You’re pretty much close to the pitcher’s mound of the ballpark. But it, as I see it, describes more of a spectrum than 2 distinct categories. To give you an example: if you go back to Sartre’s Transcendence of the Ego, you get a sense of the complex interaction between our being-in-itself as objects in space and time and our being-for-itself as things that can think about themselves: respectively: the distinction between non-reflective and reflective consciousness.

Say you are walking down the street to catch a bus. But as you are approaching the bus stop, the bus pulls up and leaves without you. Your response, without thinking about it, is to start running and trying to flag it down. At this point you are in a state of non-reflective consciousness in that you are purely your responses to your environment. You are as close to being-in-itself as you can possibly be. Finally, you give in to yourself as an object in space (having run out of breath (and think:

“Fuck!!! I just missed the bus!”

At this point, you have become reflective-consciousness or being-for-itself.

And it is this aspect of our experience that blurs the line of consciousness between us and every other living thing down to trees (much less worms. You have to put in mind here that we basically evolved from things like worms which may well be a higher form of consciousness than say bacteria: which we can still reasonably argue to be conscious.

In one of those spontaneous profound moments that sometimes happen, you have allowed me to connect Sartre’s point to that of Douglas Hofstadter’s (someone, I think, that works in your neck of the woods (point in I am a Strange Loop that it is not so much an issue of whether a thing is conscious or not (that would be a matter of projecting into or being in the world (it is, rather, a matter of projecting (being in the world: Dasein (through a given symbolic matrix or filter with various levels of sophistication. In this sense, a tree or a plant (from the perspective of the perceiving thing (could be said to have being for itself as well being in itself.

I would, once again, offer points made in a To the Best of Our Knowledge episode: The Secret Life of Plants (ttbook.org/book/secret-language-plants.

Back in the early 90’s, I did some acid with some friends and we got into a debate about whether an ant might have consciousness. I. instinctively, argued that they did. It wasn’t until after that that I backed it with the realization that the clue lied in how an ant will respond to possible harm. If an ant were purely mechanical, with no consciousness whatsoever, it would only react to possible harm to it when it was directly touched: such as sticking a pin in it. But ants respond to threats that get nowhere near their physical nervous system.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re just one step towards (away from nothingness (that which allows us to philosophize: consciousness as we experience it.

66

Rhizome 1/13/15:

It’s not so much having gone so far down a path that you feel incapable of knowing of what it takes to be a normal human being; it’s the solipsistic experience of feeling like other people are.
*
“Moravec’s paradox is the discovery by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources. The principle was articulated by Hans Moravec (whence the name) and others in the 1980s.” –reference: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi … 0&start=30

To respond in a Grant Bartley kind of way:

“Well now: that’s interesting.”

Actually, Ginkgo: as counter intuitive as that sounds, you have to look at the simple formulas of logic:

A=B
B=C
Therefore: A=C

At the same time, having experienced consciousness as we have, you can’t help but feel there is a little existential overflow involved in it: what Lacan referred to as the Real. Still, you make a provocative point that I hope to explore further (w/ you if you happen to stick with me. I would also post, for the sake of the boards I cross pollinate on, your further point:

“Encoded in the large, highly evolved sensory and motor portions of the human brain is a billion years of experience about the nature of the world and how to survive in it. The deliberate process we call reasoning is, I believe, the thinnest veneer of human thought, effective only because it is supported by this much older and much powerful, though usually unconscious, sensorimotor knowledge. We are all prodigious olympians in perceptual and motor areas, so good that we make the difficult look easy. Abstract thought, though, is a new trick, perhaps less than 100 thousand years old. We have not yet mastered it. It is not all that intrinsically difficult; it just seems so when we do it.[47]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition”
*
“You do not seem to need a lot of time to get ready for work. Same with me.

What kind of car do you drive? Which show are you watching now? Do you like people prying into your affairs? What’s your favorite soup? Why?” –reference: humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop … 2380#p2380 in reference to rhizome 1/11/15

Just going to break this down question by question, Perseus.

(And FC and Iona: I really want to get to your points. But this is low hanging fruit (no insult to you Perseus (which is what I need for tonight.)

“You do not seem to need a lot of time to get ready for work. Same with me.”

That is one of the advantages of having an Einstein’s Wardrobe –in more ways than one. What I didn’t point out explicitly in my description was that during the workweek I always stay in uniform. The main difference between on the clock and off of it is how I wear it. On the clock, everything is tucked in and I have all the cheese: my key ring, pager, radio, pocket protector with pens and small screwdrivers, a hot stick, and a small notebook. Off shift, the shirt is unbuttoned and draped over a tee-shirt in the summer or a tee-shirt and thermal in the winter and the cheese is in my backpack. During the summer, I prefer to wear flip-flops with my uniform since they are as close to wearing shorts as my veiny legs will allow me. And trust me: the world is much better off without having to look at the busted veins on my legs.

But one of the main advantages of having a uniform through the workweek, as you suggest, is that it does take a lot less time to get ready for work.

“What kind of car do you drive?”

A 2014 Chevy Spark. The first one I bought, 2 summers ago, was Jalapeño Green –and may have been the first one registered in the state of Nebraska. It was actually a kind of loud color (in daylight (that looked kind of slick and jazzy under streetlights at night. I called it my mean green jazz machine. But it got totaled last summer by a Mexican kid that was paying more attention to his seniorita than the red light he was running through. But I guess you gotta love love. I ended up with a denim blue one I call John Lee because it’s blue like John Lee Hooker and its headlights make it look like a Korean kid that’s up to mischief.

The thing is that I recently found out that it has been declared the ugliest car in America. But I expected this. After I bought mine, I started seeing them all over the place –in all kinds of different colors. They got popular. So it was only a matter of time before a bunch of cynical and contrarian hipsters attempted to build their sense of self worth through the negativity of putting themselves above the common crowd by knocking something that was getting popular. I’m still waiting for some hipster comedian to start a rant with:

“What’s up with all these Sparks running around?”

And I especially expect them to zero in on the Jalapeno Green ones. The thing is I didn’t buy it to be cool. I bought it to be practical and socially responsible in the face of a world (under Capitalism (that is looking at self destructing through man-made global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. And I couldn’t find a good used small car. I even hope, one day, to buy a Smart Car as ridiculous as they look.

“Which show are you watching now?”

Right now, I am binge watching 30 Rock. I think there is a kind of genius about Tina Fey: as was demonstrated in her SNL portrayal of Sarah Palin. And this finds expression in the chemistry between her and Alec Baldwin -added to by Alec Baldwin’s ability to parody (in a way that stands up to Stephen Colbert’s (the right-wing sensibility.

“Do you like people prying into your affairs?”

Only when I have the control of publicly announcing them.

“What’s your favorite soup?”

Vegetable with a beef or baloney sandwich.

"Why?”

Because they go good together.

67

Rhizome 1/14/15
in which a I pick through and bounce off of points made by Iona and FC concerning rhizome1/3/15: humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop … 7&start=10:

“The logic of self-valuing explains the gravitation of simple to complex. Complexity is many things including a more refined sort of energy consumption and use as well as a higher threshold of responsiveness (adaptation, and "consciousness); what these mean is complex life will tend more to force less complex life to conform to its own structure, actions, consequences, values than will simple to complex.”

Okay, Iona! But first you have to explain how self valuing works in the context of basic matter. How, for instance, does self valuing, as the basic force (much like Nietzsche’s Will to Power (you seem to be describing it as, work in the context of a rock hurling through space after the Big Bang. As FC explains:

“Darwin himself realized very well and explicitly so that evolution does not explain the cause of evolution at all.”

It just seems to me that most of the explanations we have for why basic systems gravitated to more complex ones always comes “after the fact.” The very use of the word “logic” suggests that to me. So I’m still with Bergson even though I agree with the possibility you suggest in:

“There need not be any overarching telos or universal goal other than the inner essential telos of every structure and material in existence, namely to hold that which it is as a standard for its actions, interactions and interpretations–to self-value. That is basic and naturally (non-mysteriously, non-“metaphysically”, non-“teleologically”) yields a gradual and eventual increase in complexities of organizations of material, again when given the opportunity to do so.”

This, of course, will consist in digging into the underlying forces of consciousness which, unfortunately, having to work through consciousness, leaves us vulnerable to “after the fact” impulses such as the Anthropic Principle. Still we have to keep trying. And I think FC, if I understand him right, makes a worthy attempt with:

“When you have a number of different entities trying to sustain themselves in the present of each other, complexity is the way in which this process is allowed. I can be very simple sitting by myself under a fruit tree, but once there are ten people and one fruit tree, I become complicated, and so do the others and a complex dynamic is formed, a system dependent on a certain value that captures different and differing selfvaluings.”

But we would still have to explain this in the context of a group of rocks. We could, since we are talking about basic forces (physics (gerrymander this by appealing to the attraction of bodies. It just doesn’t seem very satisfactory. And I would note here that FC’s analogy involves bodies in which we can assume life forces at work –that which is after the fact. We still have to explain how we might get from a group of rocks to the scenario FC describes, and it will likely involve basic physical forces that:

“….truly demands Einsteinean discipline to grasp.”

It may well be as you say:

“Matter/evolution is an ongoing process toward “truth”. What is truth? Truth is depth.”
*
“Yet it is a dance around shifting middles, because complex matter is also more vulnerable (has or tends to have further requirements to continue existing) and is more rare than the simpler materials. “

As I like to say:

“The odds of a system failing seem to grow proportionally to their complexity and sophistication.”

But this, once again, is an after the fact observation propped up by personal experiences with technology and the human propensity towards mental breakdown.
*
“On the whole the confusion is due to the notion that being is static, passive, just there. From that notion it is inconceivable how the universe would get more complex.”

Hence: Deleuze’s emphasis on Becoming rather than Being. But still, as much as I would love to defer to Deleuze’s authority on the matter, it is still an after the fact observation. We clearly have our work cut out for us.

That said, FC, I want to read you’re your essay. But if you look at my routine in rhizome 1/11/15, you will see why it would be pointless until I take some time out and focus specifically on it. But I’m about to finish with the book I’m on: Eric Mathew’s 20th Century French Philosophy. It wouldn’t hurt to take out time from my books for a 10 hour run with it: make it my next project.

68

Deleted pending permission of the author.

69

Rhizome 1/16/15-B
Response to FC’s essay on Value Ontology (humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop … 3&start=10:

Read through your essay twice today and thought it was pretty good. I would first admit that physics (much like mathematics (is not my strong suit. But your explanation of them was accessible enough that I have something to work with here. And even if it is your interpretation of them, in this case I have to defer to your authority on the scientific details. Also, to give this rhizome some context on other boards, I have posted it as another rhizome giving you credit. Even corrected some of the minor typos you made -I am clearly sick with composition. If that is a problem, please let me know immediately and I will delete them. And put in mind here that I am primarily (in a rather chance way (bouncing off of my interpretation of what you’re saying.

That said, my initial instincts on it, even before I had read all the way through, was that we might be able to gain a lot of headway in our question (why the move from simple to complex systems such as consciousness? (by moving from the more molar assertions of Bergson and a group of rocks sitting together (by shifting, as you have done, to the more molecular level of atoms. There, it would seem, the influence of forces on a given body would be significantly more significant.

And I would also point out that after all this time, I finally have a fuller understanding of the terms Value Ontology:

“This idea has been developed under then name value-ontology. The reason for this is that the concept value, as in valuing/estimating/selecting, describes most accurately what is generally occurring in a context including at once the (sub)atomic, organic and moral-cultural levels.”

And Self Valuing:

"This way of thinking prompts an interpretation of being or the universe as consisting of beings, subjects. Atoms belong to this category as humans do, so when I say subject, I do not necessarily mean a conscious entity, but simply something that behaves on behalf of itself. The structure of a subject is understood as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the character or nature of this subject. This assimilating is an active selecting, a ”valuing”, a value-attributing. This valuing requires a standard, a ground- or fundamental value. This ground value is the “self” of the entity. This ground-value/self is constantly established by a fundamental mechanism that keeps itself in existence by restricting its interactions with the outside world to the type that keeps its selection-standard continuous. This consistent selectivity is the ground of the tendency of things to continue existing as themselves. "

That said, the one thing I have extracted from the issue and our discourse (my exploration (that still works for me is the recognition that whatever assertion we make on the issue (that of how we moved from basic systems to the complexity of consciousness (we still face the almost paradoxal obstacle of looking at it after the fact through the filter of the complexity of consciousness itself. This, I will admit, is a gut instinct that I hope to articulate on in further rhizomes –and that may well be wrong. But I would note here how many times you skirt the possibility of anthropomorphic folly:

“There is something highly peculiar about the behavior of every atom as well as every living being. “

“Instead of understanding such phenomena in terms of forces, I could simply observe that an atom has the tendency to stay in existence. Much force is required to split the atom – to neutralize the atoms tendency to continue existing as itself. Equally, a lot of force is required to neutralize the tendency of a human being to continue existing as itself. We can observe that a human and an atom share this quality: they tend to use all the force they have at their disposal to keep themselves in existence.”

And most notably:

“This way of thinking prompts an interpretation of being or the universe as consisting of beings, subjects. Atoms belong to this category as humans do, so when I say subject, I do not necessarily mean a conscious entity, but simply something that behaves on behalf of itself. “

Now granted you, in a good show of craft and foresight, attempt to pre-empt the accusation you saw coming. But when it comes to atoms, or any inanimate object, can we safely use such terms as “itself”? And while I also have an issue with the argument of Anthropomorphic Fallacy when it comes to living things (that is since it comes across as a kind of solipsism that allows us (gives us an alibi (for killing living things, there is a big difference between applying it to that and applying it to inanimate objects –even down to the atom. And I point this out not to dispel the argument (since I could actually use a lot of it –to be explained later (I point it out to express what I see coming. In a sense, it gravitates towards the same problem I saw with (in terms of consciousness, the hardcore materialist’s appeal to functionalism: the idea that what we experience as consciousness is merely the result of a complex of sensors in our physiological makeup. But going by this reasoning, we would have to finally admit that a thermostat does, in fact, have consciousness.

Still, you made some good moves here –some/many of which I can use. And that may present another problem for you (and even Iona (depending on your intent (in that I could easily see myself assimilating a lot of this into my own offerings including the possibility that the gravitation from simplicity to complexity may be the result of a flight from nothingness to becoming (the better term for the more static one: Being, and the possibility that we have reached a major evolutionary milestone in needing (because of our possible self destruction through man-made climate change and enslavement due to the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global Capitalism (to move from the competitive model (that in which our higher cognitive functions are held in the service of our baser impulses: self valuing (and the cooperative one in which our baser impulses see it their best interest to act in tandem with their higher cognitive functions. And I could easily spice it up with some of Bergson’s elan vitale….

But I’ve ran out my window which leaves open the possibility of addressing my issue with the term “self-valuing” in tomorrow’s rhizome.

That said, FC, taking time out to focus on your essay has been useful and productive: the very criteria by which I judge the worth of what the other has done. As you say:

“In a very simple phrase: Existence is open-ended and necessary. “

Thanks for making mine seem a little more open-ended and necessary. Tomorrow, Brother!!!

70

Rhizome 1/18/15:

“There is, in education, a notion of a ‘threshold concept’, whereby knowledge is troublesome for some, perhaps many, people. The threshold being a doorway that has to be stepped or pushed through. The acceptance of something new is transformative and transformation can be really, really painful. I don’t have a reference to hand but Habermas has something to say about this.” -Deborah Gibson (philosophy of pragmatism: facebook.com/groups/1385673 … p_activity.

Your point concerning the threshold, Deborah, makes me think of what I call the creative hymen. For me, it is an experience of coming up against an elastic barrier and ramming into it. Of course, the barrier only stretches with you and increases in resistance until you can go no further, then whips you back. You can almost imagine, from the other side, the ghostly apparition as the barrier forms against your struggling face. But as you keep pushing against it, the barrier weakens, giving in more and more with each push until, eventually, you break through. And, for a moment, there is an experience of triumph and relief -a sense of getting further than you ever have before. For a moment. Then all that fades and you find yourself in another space with another barrier to break through. It’s very much like Camus’ vision of Sisyphus.

I would also note here the experience I often get when reading a particular philosopher or writer: that of feeling like I’ve come up against a ceiling (a threshold (the sense that you’ve gone as far you can with them at that moment in your process. It’s as if we engage with a thinker or writer through the individual filters we have developed to that point through our other studies. And once we have reached that threshold, we have one of two choices. We can either keep plugging away at it (the creative hymen (or we can break away to other things and hopefully develop our filters enough to be able to come back to it and raise that ceiling a little bit more.

Throughout my creative process, I have learned that there are 3 approaches we can take to it (or any act for that matter: swoop, bash, and bleed. Swooping is when we fumble around until we fall upon discrete units that give us pleasure until we accumulate enough to put together a full work. This, for instance, is how the poets generally work. They sit around (or go for walks (and accumulate lines that give them pleasure: that they find themselves wanting to repeat. Eventually, lines start to attach to other lines (much like rhizomes (until a poem is formed. Bashing is pretty much what we do here: sit down in front of a blank space and fill it with whatever comes to mind. This is the approach of The Jam. (This, of course, tends to also involve an element of swooping in that we tend to work on the fly by turning to those creative units we have on hand.) Bleeding is when we squeeze it out creative unit by creative unit. In the case of writing, this would mean writing it word by word. Flaubert, as I understand it, was a good example of this. Or as one writer wrote in their journal (I believe it was Hemingway:

“Had a good day today: wrote a sentence.”

(But this conflicts with another story I heard about Hemmingway that he committed to writing 500 words a day which likely gave him plenty of time for drinking. Maybe it was Fitzgerald.)

The median approach is to use all three even if each individual has a lean to any one of them. I, myself by nature, lean towards swooping since I started out as a musician then moved (in a not so linear way (on to poetry. This was why, when I took a creative writing class at UNO, the transition from writing poetry to writing fiction was so difficult for me. I wanted it to work like writing music or poetry where I could use the swoop method of accumulating creative units I enjoyed until it came together and finished off with a click. It wasn’t until I tried writing fiction on my own that I realized how important bashing (what writers call free-writing (was to the process. That feeling of completeness I got from poetry and music was to come from the editing and revision process.

But to bring this back to my discourse with Deborah Gibson and Steven Orsolini’s OP:

“If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything. It is open to everything. In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few.” Suzuki-roshi

:I personally think the best route to take is a combination of the strain (once again: the creative hymen (and Steven Orsolini’s more zen-like approach. Basically: a combination of swoop, bash, and bleed. On one hand, if you put too much emphasis on the strain, the result can feel overworked and heavy-handed. And you can lose the benefit of those surprise moments that can spin off from the momentum created by looser approaches. This is why I talk so much about “the jam” on these boards. (We’re just workshopping here people! Settle down.) On the other hand, if you become too dependent on improvisation, you can fall into a rut you can never just jam your way out of. On the latter, I’m thinking of Ted Nugent’s (yes, I am that old (short lived musical success. You can see it as well in a lot of the Beat Writers which, while immediate in their appeal (and culturally persistent in the sense of what they represented -think Grateful Dead here, can leave you wanting for something a little more cooked.

Anyway: if there is anything I feel confident in philosophizing about, it is the creative process. I can feel this rhizome reaching out its tendrils as I write. The feelers are quaking with joy:

It’s all gone wrong!!! The experiment has gone catastrophically wrong.

71

Rhizome 1/19/15:

One could easily imagine a darker version of Jame’s Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” in which the main character, a frustrated individual (much like Mitty (turns to fantasies that are not so upbeat: like a murder/suicide. Now first of all: don’t worry. I don’t like guns and am even uncomfortable with the idea of killing insects. Unfortunately, household pests are a territorial dispute and getting drunk and trying to negotiate with them doesn’t work. Believe me, I know. Plus that, I’m pretty much as I always have been: a pussy. But if there is any hope of writing anything remotely authentic in this day and age, you have to be brutally honest and face aspects of yourself you might not like. And if I were to write it, I would end every fantasy sequence with the main character returning to reality and sincerely (with full malice (saying what they would say to their victim.

(But then: he was a quiet man, right?)

Anyway:

“You have an experience or obtain new information and come to a conclusion about life or the world or yourself. You believe you’ve learned something, gained knowledge. Sometime later, you have a new experience or obtain new information which compels you to rethink what you thought you knew previously. As a result, you know differently now than you knew before. Live long enough and pay close enough attention and you realize there is probably no end to the on-going revision of your knowledge and beliefs. A meta-awareness of the provisional nature of all knowledge and belief develops–one ceases to take any particular thought or conclusion too seriously. It’s all stream of consciousness in a relatively mysterious life process, clouds passing by in an empty blue sky.” -Steve Orslini: facebook.com/groups/1385673 … 655027206/

I would especially note the point: “A meta-awareness of the provisional nature of all knowledge and belief develops–one ceases to take any particular thought or conclusion too seriously." On one hand, the ego can be a prime player in one’s drive for knowledge. On the other, it can get in the way. I think here of Picasso’s point that taste is the enemy of art. Now I get what he means. He is pointing to the sense of Play involved in the creative act. However, Picasso was a visual artist and not one to articulate on the meaning of words. It seems to me that art, by definition, is a social phenomenon and therefore a matter of taste. And the social sphere, of course, is the primary playground of the ego. What I think he was actually referring to was the creative act. In that context, taste does in fact become an obstacle in that it can shut down the flow of energy needed to productively engage in the creative act: that of getting beyond one’s self.

The thing is, Steve, given that the obtaining of understanding is a creative act (I mean what is philosophy if not a creative engagement with reality? (it seems to me that the same principle applies to knowledge (or understanding (or wisdom as well. As I like to say: if you’re afraid of getting something wrong, you’re not likely to get anything right.

And if you’re not having fun, what’s the fucking point? Right?

(For me, it’s the subtle and ethereal fireworks of a piece of prose expanding throughout the various centers within and around it.)

I would also note the role difference and repetition plays in it -which is why I think that in the case of Deleuze, no matter what he was writing about, the creative process was never that far from his mind. In fact, his claim that his book named after this duality was the first in which he struck out on his own (even though he had written several books prior that were studies of specific writers while being interlaced with his own additions and departures (a philosophical buggering as he called it (may well have been a case of a present self (the one that always drew back to and kept developing the import of the creative process (projecting itself onto a past self. In this sense, Difference and Repetition may have served as a self fulfilling prophecy in that the views explored (w/ Guattarri (in What is Philosophy seem to be the result of Deleuze, throughout his career, returning to the creative process (repeating (and developing it: repeating difference and becoming.

But then this may well be a case of me projecting my process onto Deleuze. (And hopefully this will explain a lot for those who know me on these boards.) I tend to repeat a lot of things mainly out the hope of getting beyond myself as I am at any given point. This is because difference and repetition has been essential to my process as a creatively and intellectually curious individual. (Why? Well: to become.) For instance, one of things I use to do when writing poetry was repeat the lines that I had come up with that gave me pleasure. It was almost like some religious ritual or the kinds of repetitions primal tribes will engage in. And I would do so until the momentum of it produced other lines that eventually attached themselves to the lines I was already repeating. These constellations, in turn, were repeated. Eventually, this would result in a poem. This was the result of my having started out as a musician writing songs which basically followed the same process but with the added aspect of musical riffs or chord progressions I found pleasant. The words usually followed the music which is why I always found it strange when other musicians talked about writing their lyrics first. It just made no sense. So you can see why the progression (the difference and repetition (from music to poetry was so easy for me: there was a kind of continuity about it….

But getting back to the point: the main reason I repeat things on the boards is that it gives me something to do until I get beyond myself: I find inspiration: difference: becoming. There is always a better way of saying a thing (or of doing it which is why my rhizomes have gone through the transformations in approach that they have. And I believe this is the process that Deleuze was following is which why I’m so drawn to him.

Or maybe I’m just reading myself into him. But then who doesn’t? Name one book by any writer on Deleuze that is not taking out of him what they can use to make their selves better writers or philosophers. In a sense, Deleuze has made himself like any other thing in reality: something to write about and interpret in one’s own way. Which brings us back to Steven’s point:

“A meta-awareness of the provisional nature of all knowledge and belief develops–one ceases to take any particular thought or conclusion too seriously."

Also, for bibliographic purposes (or shits and giggles (this is a continuation of points made in rhizome 1/18/15: facebook.com/groups/675745095875295/

Also also: just ran this rhizome out. In the next one (whether I actually write about it or not (I go back to the first section of Jame’s William’s book on The Logic of Sense. I really want to push deeper into that.

I am confident that Deleuze would agree w/ me: it’s not so much a matter of being right as it is being beautiful.

72

Rhizome 1/21/15
in which I respond in a relatively more sober and authentically honest way to Deborah’s post on the issue of porn:

“Am I disappointed in you? I would have had to have had some expectations of you in the first place in order to feel disappointment deeply … my first response was laughter, not that you use porn, but that would want me to know that you do, and that you clearly need me to give you one (a response, that is).”

Actually, I was mainly being facetious and perhaps a little obnoxious. Maybe a little like Diogenes masturbating in the public square to make a point. But you make an interesting point that I will definitely have to explore. I can’t, given our relationship so far, pass it off as just being drunk. And I’m sure it has something to do with your academic credentials. It may have been that I was offering it as a kind of experiment (prodding you (just to see how you would respond. And I have to say: the results were impressive.

“Images of the acts of sex and their use in sexual self-stimulation are, in my opinion, but tools in meeting the ever-demanding physical body. It’s ‘normal’ (I saw a youtube vid of a cute little dolphin masturbating with the wide open mouth of a dead fish, ditto a wild primate slapping the monkey recently, if proof were needed of the normality of pleasurable stimulation). The mental body plays it’s part in these demands (and meeting them) and can feel as satisfied as the physical, except it doesn’t always. For me there is always that push-pull (again) between object and subject. “

I only recently started watching porn again. Up until then I had thought of it in terms described by an old friend: a little like watching a man cook a steak because you’re hungry. And I would note here the main distinction between humans and other animals in that, as far as we know, humans are the only species capable of fantasizing. And for me (as I will try to elaborate on (that creates a significant opportunity for Jouissance (that push/ pull between subjects and objects (for humans –especially males. It may well be this lack of capacity for fantasy that makes a dolphin more likely to stick his thing in the mouth of a dead fish and a human male more likely to turn to porn –even become addicted to it.

“Porn, of necessity/inherently, creates objects out of its subjects. As soon as we see an/other as an object, we can make of her/him/it what we will and use it according to our needs/wants/desires.
You know this any way.

My objection to the use of the object in porn is the human being who, for pay, becomes that object hour after wearying hour, fucking and being fucked, beyond pleasure … and they are the ones who choose to engage in the porn industry contractually. There are many more who do not and can not. The capitalist expectations of such a profitable business lead, as do all rabid pursuits of profit over ethics (apologies for rabid rant language), to oppressive and suppressive behaviour ultimately.
This seems to me to be so at odds with pleasure and comfort.
Sleep well….”

I would first point to the more superficial/political implications involved here in that many of the women involved tend to have Eastern European accents, which says something about the Eastern European economy and the desperation it is creating -that is we both having the issues with Capitalism that we do.

But to get to the deeper, more philosophical, issue of objectification, we should look at the way that porn (given that it happens mainly through the camera (must externalize those internal experiences we have with sex (those moments of fluidity that make sex the profound experience it is (in ways that ultimately feel (as you point out (unsatisfying –that is in the hope that fantasy will fill in the absences. It is always a matter of offering a signifier in place of the signified. Take, for instance, the money shot: the obligatory scene in which the male climaxes all over the face of the female. While it works to bring the preceding to its ultimate end, it always seems like an anti-climax in that it never stands up to the actual experience (the fluidity (of climaxing inside the other.

I would also note the porn convention of slapping the female on the butt. Once again: an attempt to externalize for the camera (objectify as you put it (the internal push/pull experience of Jouissance. And you can see the same attempt at work in stripper bars where the dancer will take the patrons belt and spank them with it. Except, in that situation, the power relationship is significantly changed.

Ultimately, fantasy proves far more satisfying in that it can better address those internal experiences one might have in real sex –or “making love” if you will. And this is why porn tends to work best with the sound up since the signifier of the woman’s response (the moaning and groaning (is as close to the fantasies (that which comes close to the external experiences (a man might have as porn gets. It is the one thing that the camera can accurately and satisfactorily signify since, in real sex, that behavior is an objective experience for the male.

That said, it may well be this push/pull Jouissance between fantasy, the reality of porn, and the reality of sex that lies at the bottom of any addiction to porn. As is often the case with Jouissance, it may well be the unsatisfactory nature of porn (much like any addiction such as gambling (that keeps the individual coming back.

If anything, I’m hoping that the semiology (the relationship between its signs, signifiers, and signifieds (of porn may be an issue for further exploration.

73

ILP will always be my launchpad.

74

Rhizome 1/22/15:

When one has a routine (an Einstein’s wardrobe (every day is a repetition. You can almost feel the loop: felt it today as I walked into the Tobacco Hut to buy my 40 ounce and shooter. But such repetitions, by their very nature (the fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that they are always carried out at a different point in time (produces difference. And creative curiosity can only amplify it.
*
Reading James Williams’ critical introduction and guide to Deleuze’s Logic of Sense, I’m starting to feel like I’m also getting a technical manual to the Rhizome’s. And in my defense, I actually started the rhizomes before I got the book and was mainly working with my instincts (supplemented with my readings of Deleuze (concerning the rhizome which was the first concept (attributed to his work with Guattarri (that drew me to him. And I would attribute this to 2 things. First of all, I believe that there exists a kind of osmosis between reader and writer in that sometimes, even when the reader does not consciously understand what they are reading, there is still information slipping through, instinctive reactions to it that are later confirmed by either later readings of the text or interpretations offered by the secondary text.

Secondly, I would point to something I read about Lacan: that in order to understand him, you had to go into it already understanding him without having articulated him to the extent that he had. In other words, you would have to go into it with a common sensibility. And it is that common sensibility that draws us in to a certain philosopher or artist or writer or scientist or famous person for that matter. What is always being sold is a sensibility. What an individual produces are mainly sales pitches for that sensibility.
*
Anyway, Williams points to 4 things concerning how to read Logic of Sense: Order and Series, Series within Series, Humor, and Multidimensional Sentences (all of which I hope to get to in the context of the rhizomes (but then if I don’t, there is always the next one: the next rhizome (now let me check my notes:

Order and Series:

“At this stage, all that needs to be stressed is that the readers can bring their own elements to Deleuze’s series in order to move among them.” –James Williams, Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense: a critical introduction and guide, pg. 15

I would first point out that the main point of this section is that Logic of Sense (consisting of series as compared to chapters (invites us to read them out of order. It’s pretty much like (books… way too many books…. here it is! (Brian Mussumi points out in the intro to a Thousand Plateaus: it should be jumped around on until one finds certain riffs that sticks with them then work from there. However, the main difference (as well as the connection (between Deleuze’s series and my rhizomes is that I give you no choice. Outside of ILP (viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249 (my primary launch pad, I tend to randomly post my rhizomes on whatever board I feel them most appropriate for. Beyond that, it is the mission of the reader (should they choose to take it (to trace the serial aspect back to its sources and (via the above quote: bring their own elements into it.

The main thing I want to point to here is that Deleuze’s use of a series (that which foreshadowed his turn to (w/ Guattarri (the rhizome is almost interchangeable with my use of the rhizome. I would offer as evidence:

Series within Series:

“Every portion matter can be thought of as a garden full of plants, or as a pond full of fish. But every branch of the plant, every part of the animal, and every drop of its vital fluids, is another such garden, or another such pond” –Leibniz

Now going back to Williams’ book:

“In his Difference and Repetition and later texts such as The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, Deleuze describes his internal connection as the folding of ideas and things within one another.”

Or as I like to put it:

The enfolded (enfolding within) enfolded.

(It’s right: the logic: I thought about it hard.)

Humor:

I refuse to be taken seriously!

Multidimensional Sentences:

Now this I always feel like I (and the rhizomes (must be falling short on since, given the spontaneous nature of it, I never have that much time to put that much work into a sentence. I can only hope that it happens through the seemingly mystical power of spontaneity or the process of repeating certain phrases and making them different until I happen to stumble upon such a thing.

But the point is not that I am somehow Deleuze’s equal. I simply don’t have the time and resources he had. It’s to show that, through the rhizomes, with the limited time and resources I have (and through a common sensibility (I have the blessing of being able to approach what he had. It’s why the rhizomes won’t let me go. And I think he would have appreciated that.

75

Rhizome 1/23/15:
an continuation of my discourse with Deborah on porn.

“I would first point to the more superficial/political implications here in that many of the women involved in porn tend to have Eastern European accents, which says something about the Eastern European economy and the desperation it is creating -that is we both having the issues with Capitalism that we do.”

76

Rhizome 1/23/15:
an continuation of my discourse with Deborah on porn.

“I would first point to the more superficial/political implications here in that many of the women involved in porn tend to have Eastern European accents, which says something about the Eastern European economy and the desperation it is creating -that is we both having the issues with Capitalism that we do.”

77

Rhizome 1/24/15:

D.constructive punctuation study for future use:

That which is: the thing we know to be) and that which isn’t: the thing that could be but isn’t):

I like the backward push of this one-way parenthesis in the face of the forward flow of the sentence.
*
“You refer to porn in film/video/moving form. Does the same hold true for written porn and still images? There, the mind supplies the absent sounds maybe, the imagination working harder to fill the sensual holes.” Deborah: response to rhizome 1/21/15: facebook.com/groups/675745095875295/

Here we might refer to McLuhan’s distinction between Hot and Cold media. It seems to me that porn in film/video/moving form would be a hot media in that it doesn’t ask the user to do a lot of work. In fact, it insists on doing all the work for you through its heavy-handed attempts to objectify what would be, in reality (real sex: subjective experiences. Once again: the money shot and the slap on the ass. There is almost a kind of physical overcompensation about it in the way it attempts to translate the actual subjective signified into the objective signifier.

Written porn, on the other hand, tells us a lot about what a cold medium writing is and the understanding you must come to in order to write. If I understand the process right, it is primarily about writing a script for the reader’s imagination. Or as my creative writing teacher pointed out: most of the flaws in writing come from a lack of faith in the reader. The other thing he pointed out (closely connected (was that you can improve your writing a great deal by taking out a lot of the adverbs and adjectives. For instance, compare:

“He walked angrily down the street.”

to:

“He stomped down the street.”

While the first one explains; the second one shows. But even at that, we still have to admit that the phrase “He walked angrily down the street” is opportunity for a lot more participation than a video of a man stomping down the street. This is because it allows the imagination to do its work.

So yeah, written porn is different in that it allows the imagination to participate and can better deal and resonate with the subjective experiences of real sex –even if your average porn writer would opt for the former phrase over the latter.

“A recurring thought I have had is that of physiology, male and female, and its influence on the way we relate to the world, to each other and to the self. This in relation to a sense of interiority … is it different for men and for women?” –Deborah: ibid

It’s pretty much the same question we face with anyone (male or female:

If you and I are looking at this post (or even a tree (at any given point in time (even if it is at the same time (would we be experiencing the exact same thing? And given the discourse that got us here, we have to even ask if male and female, because of their physiology, actually experience sexual pleasure the same. One would assume, because of the common biological mechanisms involved, we would. But we are still physically different. So who knows?

But you bring in the issue of how we relate to the world. That brings in psychology and, in turn, sociology. And evolutionary psychology has had a lot to say about that. For instance, the main thing that distinguishes men and women in sexual politics is that while men produce sperm like your average factory, women are always dealing with having one egg at any given time which makes women a little more protective and discretionary. This has been the primary source of a lot of frustration for a lot of men in the face of the evolutionary power (as genetic gatekeepers (that women have been given.

But my window is running out and I really want, Deborah Gibson, to go into this further on top of responding to your response to 1/23/15:

“Western capitalism and the cult/contradiction of cooperative, (hierarchical) individualism has ensnared many a (disenchanted communist) libertarian, politically, socially and culturally. Streets that are proverbially paved with gold lead to back streets whose denizens are attempting to earn enough to spend in utopia … either on their backs or other people’s backs. The intensity of shortages, of ‘not enough’, of recession is visited upon the most vulnerable first … “

At this point, I have to do it for future reference so I don’t forget what I’m trying to get back to.

78

Rhizome 1/26/15:

“ ‘Philosophers, who place a supremely high value on intellectual horsepower, come out on the bottom of the gender and racial equality totem pole. Philosophy has historically had one of the worst gender imbalances in the academy, and lately it’s been plagued by a host of scandals that point to the need for reform. Why is a discipline that purports to be so committed to critical thought so backwards in this regard?’ Becca Rothfield commenting in Hyperallergic on findings published in ‘Science’.

Am I the only woman (at the moment) engaging in discussion in this group? This is not a rhetorical question, nor is it a criticism, more of an open invitation to consider openly causes and consequences.

One of the consequences I can see is that of pragmatism becoming unpragmatic, philosophically and practically. As to causes … physiological: cunt hormones versus cock hormones? Sociological: children versus work? Intellectual: multitasking versus focus?
Invitation sent …

Never mistake a woman for someone who can’t piss up walls … be assured the physical and mental athleticism involved in this feat is good practice for philosophy.” –Deborah, facebook.com/groups/1385673 … ment_reply

I would first note, Deborah, the irony involved in that philosophy has always been championed as one of the most enlightened (the love of wisdom as I recall (of disciplines. But then I am only articulating on the point you (via Rothchild (are trying to make.

That said, I must confess that I am a bit complicit in this in that the focus of my readings tend to be white males: mainly dead ones (Deleuze and Rorty (except for Zizek who, as far I know is still alive (although I worry about the way he tends to sweat during lectures. Clearly, cultural studies are not my strong point. And if it is any consolation, neither are mathematics or science. But in my defense, this is not just a matter of what I am drawn to (what I tend to give priority (but a matter of the time I have to do this as well. I really do hope to get to some of the work done by women (such as Lucy Iriguay, Julia Kristeva, or Melanie Klein, (and minorities: especially Cornell West: he just seems like a brother who, at any moment, could explode and sunshine and rainbows would splatter all over the room. And it is all fuel for the fire.

(But make no mistake about it, Naomi Klein (along with Barbra Ehrenreich (is a gonna happen. And soon. When it comes to social criticism, both women can stand up (and kick ass (to anything white males have done.)

But the main point I came here to make is there is a kind of operationalism at work here. If you look at the underlying mechanics (the infrastructure (of our cultural history, you might see that the main appeal of white male thinkers is their capacity for abstraction: that which we experience as depth or the profound. And the reason that white males have been able to master this is because they, since the beginning of our cultural history, have had the luxury of doing so –and I have to note Deleuze here despite his opposing agenda. Women and minorities, on the other hand, are stuck (to this day (with the more practical matter of achieving equality.

Baby steps, Deborah (and I realize this seems a little obtuse (maybe even obnoxious for me to say to you: but the more enlightened among us are making progress, despite the resistance of trolls like Mark and Adrian.

But there are so many potential rhizomes within this one. I look forward to it.

79

Rhizome 1/28/15:

“Deleuze’s assault on common and good sense should not be confused with an assault on the everyday; rather, his thought frees the everyday from the grip of layer upon layer of common and good sense. My refusal to lose ‘experience’ is part of a political position, in terms of a commitment to bring philosophy to bear on life as accessibly as possible and with as much flexibility and care as possible. There is no doubt that this could fail badly and that it excludes equally, or perhaps more, valid approaches to the explanation of Deleuze. Nonetheless, I would not want his see his work become the claimed property of intellectual or social elites, or a self-selecting margin, or a revolutionary cadre. These should not themselves be excluded, but Deleuze’s sensitive and open philosophy should accompany and shape many of “us”, through our thoughts, and our political actions, rather than remain in the possession of a few protectors.” –James Williams, Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense: a Critical Introduction and Guide, pg. 39

Whenever I approach a philosopher like Deleuze, it’s never about knowing him or her concept by concept. I have no designs on being the ultimate authority on any great mind, or anything for that matter. It is, as much as anything, about feeling them (much as I would a poet (a shared sensibility (about finding what I can use to further my own process. As I have said repeatedly, I would far rather think of myself as a writer writing about his experiences with philosophy than a philosopher which requires that certain steps be taken, certain books be read and understood in depth. I simply haven’t the time for that. The best I can hope for is to respectably participate in the same discourse great minds have –much as great minds like Deleuze and Rorty encourage me to do.

And this is why it makes no sense to me to turn the boards into a pissing contest, to treat it as if it is some kind of competition in which we are comparing the size of our dicks: our intellectual and creative (mainly through wit –the clever response (prowess, that is when all we should really be concerned with is participating in the discourse: the jam.
*
The main reason I didn’t include Zizek (the third in the triad of philosophers I’m mainly influenced by (is that, as much as I admire him, you get the feeling from him that he wants to establish some kind of authority over most people by establishing the true message of popular culture. As he likes to quote from The X Files: the truth is out there. At the same time, he shows his humility by actually referring to popular culture and bringing the common man into the discourse.

This, as I see it, results from an imperative inherent in his clear distaste for Capitalism –something I’m not totally unsympathetic with. As someone who champions the communist solution, as compared to my more incremental social democrat one, he has to believe in some kind of ultimate truth. And his arguments for left-wing complicity (his recognition, for instance, that Starbucks is a way of consuming social conscience (are not altogether unconvincing.

Plus that, I think he uses the same “repeat myself until I get beyond myself” approach that I do.

80

Rhizome 1/29/15:

Song added to mix: Yoshinonori Sunahara’s New World Break (Exo Mix)

Author: James Williams
Book: Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense
Section (starting at page 29: Unfolding the Circle of the Proposition: Denotation, Manifestation, Signification, and Sense

In today’s study at the “library”, I found myself getting a little closer to the Deleuzian sense of “sense”. (And did I just engage in a Deleuzian pun there or what?) But I should start with the growing recognition that with any term you encounter with Deleuze, you will ultimately have to approach it from different angles in order to truly understand it. But then that’s what philosophy is really about, isn’t it? Getting at those understandings that work outside of the capacity of language? The Lacanian Real? That which always transcends the language we use to describe it?

Still, one of the reasons that we have science is because we have to work our way from isolated systems to the whole. It’s all our minds can handle. And we may be able to get at Deleuze’s sense of sense by taking the post and not-post structuralist approach of looking at language and how we extract meaning from it and start with the breakdown of the science of linguistics: Denotation, Manifestation, and Signification. These, however, fail to satisfy Deleuze as an explanation. In order for them to work, they would have to form a circle: a non-linear feedback system (perhaps a disjunctive synthesis (in which the three are interdependent and play off of each other. As Williams puts it:

“Put simply, this means that neither the reference of language (denotation), nor its situation in relation to a speaker or point of writing (manifestation), nor its meaning as decipherable through the position of words in relation to one another (signification) are sufficient bases for understanding how language works.”

In other words, we can’t settle for the dialectical breakdown that the scientific approach offers us without considering the interdependence of the three. And it is the transcendent effect of the three that gets us at Deleuze’s sense of sense. For instance: if I say, as I often do on these boards:

“Love ya, man!”

How would you extract meaning from that? You could take the denotative route of taking me at my word, in which case you would have to depend on signification. But that would put you reading more into it than it really means. The only real way to go about it is turn to manifestation and say:

“D’s clearly drunk again and having a good time.”

Or as William’s writes:

“In other words, there can be no full reference without a manifestation because the set of beliefs and desires associated with the denotation require a manifestation….”

Now the thing that struck me here is that me saying “Love ya, man!” is not that different than any proposition that an analytic could make. Those who cling to the scientific approach may think they’re above their beliefs and desires; but manifestation is always a factor. You still have to look at the sense of sense: for instance, the obvious desire for order involved in the analytic sensibility. This is because no matter how hard we try to get above subconscious factors, we are always beholden to them: the very subconscious factors that hard core materialists insist control us.

But what goes deeper to the heart of the analytic approach is the way the logical fallacy of the ad hominem approach is given license. It is not enough to look what an individual is saying. We have to look at why they are saying it.
*
Final thought: it’s always a matter of going somewhere.