Rhizomes (w/ beer and shooters....

Philosophy Forums The Sandbox
41

Previously in Rhizome 12/14/14:

“Can you delineate on how it’s [Capitalism as I see it] 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.”

“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?”

“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.”

To zero in on the point above, Erik: the very idea that Capitalism must be presented as a kind of religion (the hegemony involved (suggests that it requires an uncritically accepted higher principle in order to sustain it (along with the advantages it means to its benefactors (even among those who for whom it is not working out so well. I would note here, Weber’s point in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (a book I need to tap into BTW (of how much of the discourse surrounding the economy tends to refer to a kind of watered down Calvinism: the notion that one’s standing with God is reflected in their material wealth. This basically serves the purpose of writing off any problem an individual might have with Capitalism as little more than a product of a moral failure on the part of the individual. This strikes me as a form of operationalism in the sense of Marcuse, but which is articulated by Layotard in The Postmodern Condition when he points to the contemporary tendency to win language games not by making a better argument, but rather by controlling the rules of the game. I would note, for instance, the popular tactic on FOX News of referring to anyone who takes issue with their economic situation as little more than “whining”. But, as I pointed out concerning the comparison between Capitalism and religion:

“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.”

And the assumptions that FOX News work from (the Calvinistic mandate (are based on pure mythology which can be shown to be such when you look at the inherent logic or mechanics of Capitalism.

Now the whole thing is propped up on this utopian fantasy of a world where everyone just works a little harder and finds their place in the market. Then, of course, everything will work like a fine tuned machine in which everyone will be happy. But what this fails to recognize is that the success of any act we can engage in in Capitalism is always dependent on the failure of others to do the same. For instance, I took out 5 years from my studies to achieve several certifications that has landed me a job that situates me a lot better than a lot of other people. I can’t complain. But, at the same time, I recognize that the only reason that has value (market value (is because not everyone is willing to commit 9 months of their life to, for instance, study for a 3rd grade engineer’s license.

But let’s suppose, for a moment, that everyone suddenly got a wild hair up their ass and decided to study for a 3rd grade engineer’s license. Now how would that affect me? Well, given the dynamic of supply and demand, it would basically render my license the equivalent of a high school diploma or ass-wipe. It would devalue the effort involved and thereby lower the financial feedback I could expect from it.

Now granted, in the real world, this effect is deferred by the complexity of our economy and the many different kinds of expertise and certification required to keep it running. But that expertise is always only important and of value if it is demanded by multiple people. And you have to ask how many experts this world really needs. In other words, if everyone suddenly got ambitious and took the routes that FOX news suggests they should to solve their personal problems, all that would result is a lot of ambitious and certified people living in the same shit conditions many people do. An increase in supply (even with intellectual capital (does not lead to an increase in demand. It just lowers the value of all efforts.

Anyway, I’m hoping to push deeper into this with a model I’ve been playing w/ lately: the idea of a simple society that consists of several families that address simple needs: one of farmers, one of doctors, one of Carpenters and woodworkers, and one of iron workers. I just think it would be interesting to compare such a society to ours to see what insights we can get from it.

42

This was very well stated, D63. Salient points.

I just made a comment on a thread about the Protestant work-ethic. Work becomes a sort of quasi-religious virtue; Capitalism becomes the new God. I don’t feel like Capitalism is perfect, not at all, but better than the alternatives, in my opinion.

I’d like to see your definition of rhizome.

43

Rhizome 12/16/14:

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=185086&p=2514255#p2514255:

“I had a nightmare where I was in a room and had this weird technologically altered voice: much like the devil. I was listening to this technologically altered voice then saw the source of it walk around a corner then towards me…”

“This dream could mean that your technological devices, say, your computer/cellphone are consuming your essence - you are becoming subsumed in the technology, hence why your voice turned technological (with negative/satanic undertones). Instead of people owning their devices, their devices end up owning them.”

“That’s actually a really good point Erik -one I hadn’t thought of. I generally consider these kinds of complex Freudian interpretations as overestimating the cognitive (the connective and metaphorical (the ability to create meaning (prowess of the subconscious. But yours actually works in that it takes into account the pre-lingual intuitions and feelings we tend to have. Thanks for today’s rhizome.”

First of all, it’s refreshing to meet a self proclaimed right-wing libertarian like Erik who doesn’t seem to be working within a kind of tunnelvision. I praise him for his integrity.

That said, I think his point goes to something I recognized in myself via Jung. Contrary to popular notions about the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, it is not about being shy or social in nature, but rather a phenomenological matter of one’s relationship with the world of objects. For the introvert, everything starts in the self and ends in the self. They’re like the packrats of reality in that they tend to go into the world and collect objects (or impressions of them (which they can carry back to their own little holes (their mental labs (and work more comfortably with them. The extrovert, by comparison, works more comfortably in the world of objects.

But in order to truly understand how astute and observant Erik’s interpretation was, we should look at the maladies Jung attributed to each based on their relationship with the subconscious: that which he describes as a counterbalance to our conscious activities.

I would start with the malady that tends to afflict the extreme extrovert that results from the sub consciousness seeking to overwhelm the individual’s fixation on the world of objects. This can result in hysteria which we can see expressed in more fanatical expressions of right-wing views: such as we often see with the Tea Party. That said, I would also note here the lack of that in Erik’s approach given his calm composure throughout our discourse.

But more important to our point here is the malady that tends to haunt me as a devoted introvert. The problem for the introvert is that while they consciously retreat from the world of objects, they are, at a subconscious level, actually drawn to objects. This creates a kind of push-pull relationship with the world of objects that underlies my critical stance with Capitalism.

To give you a for-instance: I love what I’m doing on these boards. It is part of the daily meditation that keeps me centered. And I love approaching an empty space and being able to fill it with words and thoughts. Yet, every time, I wake up from it with this nagging voice that tells me I can’t do it anymore. I actually feel shame. This, in turn, has propped my reservations about the boards when it comes to the instant gratification of instant publication: the addiction involved. Hence, as Erik rightly points to, my reservations about technology and the Capitalism which rides on it.

Anyway, I hope with the next rhizome to get to what Erik has been asking for: the definition of the rhizome and what I’m doing with it –not just for him, but for everyone who has tolerated them on the boards.

44

Rhizome 12/15/14 (in a different state of mind:

I would consider the Will to Power in terms of the Laws of Thermodynamics:

the way that btus (power (always flow to an area where there are less of them…
that is until both sides of the playground are equal:

the power to affect the other.

Being
(filling in…

a space:

…

…

…

.

45

Rhizome 12/17/14:

Anyway, as requested by Erik, I think it is time to explain the rhizomes. And I would note here that from the beginning, I always thought it best to bury this explanation in the process of rhizomes in that had I of explained it right from the start, that would have suggested that I was establishing a center to a process that must, by definition, have no center.

And it is this process of moving forward with no sense of a center that defines the rhizome. And I would argue it as my particular destiny. When I was young (particularly when I was in a class and taking notes (I had a natural propensity towards placing random dots in any free space in any space I could find and connecting them with lines. And given that, it seems no surprise to me now that I would take to the rhizome like a duck to water even if I didn’t understand the rhizomatic implications (the epistemology (of what I was doing at the time.

Now the best way to explain the rhizomatic is to compare it to its diametric opposite: the arborescent. The arborescent epistemology can be thought of as the tree-like structure of thought represented by the tree-like graphs we use to see in K thru 12 in order to understand the body of knowledge we were dealing with. Think, for instance, of the graphs we used to break down a sentence or the tree given us by Francis Bacon that puts metaphysics at the roots then proceeds to describe the different branches of knowledge that, well, branch off from other branches. The problem with this approach, from a contemporary perspective, is that it tends to lead to a hierarchal approach that works its way up down to the roots of things.

The rhizomatic approach, on the other hand, refers to the roots of grass that have no such hierarchy. They, rather, connect in ways that have no such center. And because of that, there can be no real center: and no guru with access to that center: just processes working together.

However, what I have used to describe the rhizomatic process (as well as my natural propensity to drawing random dots and connecting them with lines (is superficial at best. Rhizomes are not just the discrete points in the network, but the lines between them (the Events as I am gathering from my study of the Logic of Sense (which makes the rhizome (that which enfolds (while enfolded within) the enfolding) more of a wave-function than the particle one described by my natural tendency to draw random dots and connect them.

And, yet again, I have run out my window before I had a chance to say everything I wanted to. I hope tomorrow to describe how all this plays into my rhizomes. To summarize it: it is mainly a technique (my Einstein’s Wardrobe (that spares me the angst of expending energy on deciding what I’m going to do or how I’m going to write.

46

Thanks for the delineation. Your definition corresponds to what I’ve learned about the rhizome, namely that’s it’s amorphous multiplicity without center or periphery - the opposite of the arboreal, or arborescent.

Body without organs next, yeah?

Oh yeah, philosophizing is so much better, when intoxicated :evilfun:

47

Rhizome 12/19/14:

In Philosophy Now (issue 105: philosophynow.org/issues/105/Th … _Mysteries :which many of you (the non-subscribers (won’t be able to access (and, yes, I am pimping the magazine (Toni Vogel Carey, in the article “That Mystery of Mysteries” presents some disturbing statistics concerning the number of people in the world that still buy into the creationist myth:

“• In Great Britain, few besides evangelicals paid attention to creationism before 2002. But by 2006 a BBC poll showed that 4 out of 10 in the UK thought religious alternatives to Darwin’s theory should be taught as science in schools. Only 48% were for the theory of evolution; 39% were for creationism or intelligent design, and 13% were undecided.
• On the Continent too, 40% said they believed in naturalistic evolution and 41% favored ‘theistic evolution’ or recent special creation; 19% were undecided.
• With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, creationist missionaries began founding new societies in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Russia and the Ukraine. In 2006 Poland’s minister of education repudiated the theory of evolution, and his deputy dismissed it as “a lie.”
• In Brazil, by 2004 “the overwhelming majority favored teaching creationism.” And in a strange twist, the aggressiveness of the Protestants there confused and confounded the Catholic majority.
• From the mid-1980s in Turkey, the minister of education wanted to replace evolution-only with a model of teaching both evolution and creation “fairly.” And all public school science teachers there received complimentary copies of Scientific Creationism.
• Not all orthodox Jews accept the idea of evolution, and in 2000 Jewish antievolutionists in Israel and the United States formed the Torah Science Foundation, under the influence of Rabbi Schneerson, who denied that evolution has “a shred of evidence to support it.”
• In Asia, despite very stiff competition Korea has managed to emerge as “the creationist powerhouse.” The British magazine New Scientist was right on the money, it seems, with its 2000 cover story: ‘Start Worrying Now’, because “From Kansas to Korea, Creationism is Flooding the Earth.” “

(And I reprint the above with either much gratitude to Philosophy Now and Carey or with a very sincere apology. I only do so because I feel it to be information important enough to be shared.)

Now what I would especially like to zero in on is:

“In Asia, despite very stiff competition Korea has managed to emerge as “the creationist powerhouse.””

I would also note a recent HBO documentary that describes the tragedy of a young South Korean couple that managed to kill their baby, through neglect, because of their addiction to a video game that they were actually making money off of by selling cyber-tools they had gathered throughout their gaming experience.

Now we might try to pass this off as some kind of peculiarity of South Korean culture. But let’s be honest. We’re all sick with technology and, in the process, have developed a sense of entitlement about it that folds in the face of reality. Take, for instance, recent reports that since the price of gas has gone down, people in America are starting to buy bigger vehicles. I mean how delusional and suggestive of denial is that? All they’re going to do, by raising demand for fossil fuels, is raise the price right back up –put aside the environmental impact. It’s simple economics. And let me tell you from personal experience: the main draw of internet philosophy lies in the instant gratification of instant publication. So while the South Koreans might be a little more prone to that addiction, they may well serve as the extreme that explains the whole. What makes it disturbing is that that extreme addiction is occurring parallel to being a “creationist powerhouse.”

You have to consider how our addiction to the fruits of Capitalism (in the face of our possible annihilation through man-made climate change, the depletion of our natural resources, and the dismantling of our democracies through global Capitalism (could lead to denial that, in turn, could lead to us turning to less than rational explanations of our world.

In other words, the reason so many of us are turning to creationist and other religious mythology may well be that it is the only way we can sustain hope and keep doing what we are (eating our cake and having it too (by denying the consequences of our activities and laying it all on some transcendent and benign father figure.

Basically: religion remains the opiate of the masses. It allows us, like spoiled children, to pray (or beg (to keep our I-pads.

48

Rhizome 12/20/14:

In Rhizome 12/17/14 I gave my interpretation of the Rhizome in its epistemological sense –that is as described by Deleuze w/ and w/out Guattarri:

“Now the best way to explain the rhizomatic is to compare it to its diametric opposite: the arborescent. The arborescent epistemology can be thought of as the tree-like structure of thought represented by the tree-like graphs we use to see in K thru 12 in order to understand the body of knowledge we were dealing with. Think, for instance, of the graphs we used to break down a sentence or the tree given us by Francis Bacon that puts metaphysics at the roots then proceeds to describe the different branches of knowledge that, well, branch off from other branches. The problem with this approach, from a contemporary perspective, is that it tends to lead to a hierarchical approach that works its way up down to the roots of things.

The rhizomatic approach, on the other hand, refers to the roots of grass that have no such hierarchy. They, rather, connect in ways that have no such center. And because of that, there can be no real center: and no guru with access to that center: just processes working together.” - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249&start=25

And I had also suggested that it was a matter of always moving forward with no sense of a center. But now I want to zero in on how this applies to my method (the experiment (on the boards and why I have labeled it “Rhizomes”.

First of all, if I wanted to be a little more formal about it, I would limit myself to bouncing each rhizome off the other by always referring to the previous one and seeing where it takes me from there. And were I to attempt a more finished version of it (something that might be published, I would likely be a little more calculating about it.

But for the purposes of the board, it is a format (my Einstein’s wardrobe (that allows me to work in a way that I’m most comfortable with: point by point, thought by thought, but in a way that allows me to make connections that may or may not work. It’s never a commitment, but rather a jam (fully committed to the Deleuzian synthesis of chancing (that allows me (w/ the help of others: I get by with a little help from my friends (the perfect creative potential of actually getting something right: and in that sense it is not an egalitarian (beautiful soul (approach that considers all ideas equal: beyond the rhizomatic process, there is always the natural selection of ideas by whatever criteria.

By virtue of the serial nature of language, it is a form of montage by allowing me to include whatever happens to be at hand (the quotes from previous rhizomes, from what I’ve read that day, or from what others on the board have said (and, most importantly, to make connections just to see if they work. And it is mainly about making connections as well as disjunctions (the events (in the hope of finding consummation: the process of conceptual play described by Deleuze and Guattarri in What is Philosophy.

(And to my fellow jam-mates: everything I say here is a little like the weather in Nebraska: if you don’t fully agree with anything I am saying, just wait. This is as much about repeating points and finding better ways of making them (think revision (as anything: Difference and Repetition.)

And as I also pointed out, the rhizome is wavelike (as well as particle-like: connecting dots with lines (in that it (that which (enfolded within) enfolds) is fractal in nature. Therefore, within any given rhizome, there are also sub-rhizomes which allows me perfect license for my one way parentheses: the movement of thought (and its digressions (the deferred nature of meaning (the footnotes (that will hopefully (through a process of chancing (work its way back to the original point (or points in the case of what I’m doing here.

At bottom, if there is such a center, the idea is to ride on the inertia created through spontaneous connections throughout everything I and everyone else on the boards (cross pollination: the internet being the ultimate rhizomatic network (are doing and seeing what results. And I invite anyone that wants to (as long they don’t work to stop the flows of energy (to add their own rhizome.

It’s been brought up in my studies of the Deleuze that the French word for experience is the same one for experiment. And it is in this spirit (as an experience and experiment that will lead to yet more experiences (that I continue with the rhizomes.

49

Let’s make philosophy rock-n-roll!!!

50

Rhizome 12/21/14 on the nature of art and beauty (

In reference to the question of the month for Philosophy Now (philosophynow.org/:

I would start with a point made by Albert Camus: that all arguments for beauty are, ultimately, arguments for freedom. And I would argue the reverse to be true: that all arguments for freedom are, ultimately, arguments for beauty. I point this out because I have always thought it a profound way of thinking about it in that beauty (or the pleasure connected to it) would seem to be the only real justification our existence seems to offer. Think about it: we believe in things like higher powers, afterlives, and higher principles; but our point A to point B is pretty much a given. So what better thing could we do with that but find the beauty in it: that which leads to pleasure? At the same time, I bring it up as a preamble (given its loose connection with it) to my own take on art and beauty.

I would start by arguing that art is a tool by which (via brain plasticity) we facilitate our cultural evolution (that which reflects the physiological evolution of the brain) through a kind of bricolage: a process of play in which we randomly juxtapose different elements of our experience and environment until we find patterns that give us pleasure. And anyone who has engaged in the creative act knows this. This gets some validation by the possibility that dreaming is the result of the mind doing a random inventory in which it also juxtaposes one mental element on the other until it too finds patterns that work for it (or resonate in a pragmatic way) and that it would naturally repeat. And note the suggestion by dream science that dreaming may play a vital role in brain plasticity.

And in this context, we can see beauty (as we often experience it) as that which takes us beyond ourselves. True beauty, when we encounter it, is always an experience of being taken beyond any experience we have had before while being rooted in previous experiences: the symbolic order from which art emerges. This is why attempts at beauty that appeal purely to the radical and novel, extreme forms of the avant garde, often fail.

Therefore, I would argue that when we experience beauty, we experience a moment in our evolution as a species. We, as a whole, get beyond ourselves as we were. And by doing so, we find, as Camus suggested, freedom.

51

Rhizome 12/22/14 (in which I respond to a criticism of yesterday’s rhizome and then move on to a point made in the series finale of The Newsroom concerning TlBs: Troll-like Behaviours:

“You and Camus seem to suggest that beauty, and the perception of beauty, is a flight or, at its most benign, a respite from its opposite which might be thought of as ugliness or, at its most benign, a boring nothingness. This kind of defensiveness, even if it takes us beyond ourselves, does not look like freedom to me. I might argue, in this context, that an acceptance of the ‘daily grind’ is more likely to lead to moments that feel like freedom. As a way of life this seems a little sad.” –referring to rhizome 12/21/14: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249&start=25

“I’ll hopefully get to cover this in another rhizome: but you seem to be assuming that the point is complacency with the consolation of beauty. If anything, in the context I have used it in, beauty serves as a reminder that there is always something more than the “daily grind” which, in turn, can actually lead to changing the situation.”
*
There has been some criticism about the series finale of The Newsroom, much of which I assume to be centered on its idealism -that which was leveled against it by real news channels for its condescending tone. But then the same argument could be made by a pedophile against non-pedophiles. I’m just saying….

And I would also point out that no matter what anyone manages to achieve, there is always going to be someone out there that thrives on negativity. I would quote a quote from Ghandi brought to my attention by the editorial in Philosophy Now (issue 105):

“It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by the humiliation of their fellow human beings… “

And I bring this up as a lead-in to my main point. But I would first digress by pointing out that in the last several weeks, I have seen the series finales of several series that I have been watching (in my limited time for TV (and think that The Newsroom (whatever criticism others have had about it (finished off the strongest right along with Steven Colbert in the Colbert Report. As much value (both entertainment and intellectual-wise (as I got out of Sons of Anarchy and White Collar, I got the feeling of weariness: like they had to resort to common motifs in order to just get it over with. Still, the series worked for whatever reason they did and you have to respect them for that. The Newsroom, however, went out as strong (and for a few more reasons than I can cover here) as it came in with Will McAvoy’s tirade on the failures of America.

But I mainly want to focus on the scene with Neal Sampat (McAvoy’s blog writer (which addresses an issue that I have been struggling with since I have been working on the boards: that of the TlB or Troll-like Behavior. He had already addressed the issue in season 2. But in this particular scene, the true subtlety of the problem is approached. It starts with the computer geek (one brought in by the hipster entrepreneur played by B J Novak in a career defining role (sitting around and discussing a blog about the 9 most over-rated movies of all time –that which included highly popular movies and (as Neal pointed out (due to the age of the goon-squad he was confronted with (only went back to the 90’s. What Neal basically saw in them was embarrassment and for good reason. As he pointed out:

“Perhaps the better approach would be the 9 most under-rated movies.”

What mainly embarrassed him was the sight of a group of talented punks (TlBs (using their talent purely for the purpose of stroking their egos as compared to offering something positive to the discourse. What he saw is what we see too often on the boards: those who must build their sense of self worth on negativity –that which we can only see as the strategy of lesser minds that are incapable of, too lazy, or too lacking in courage to develop a more expansive and well rounded understanding.

What makes this important to me is how it recognizes the subtle tactics used by TlBs in that they tend to pass off their destructive and self serving tendencies as a desire to engage in discourse. And they pull it off by never engaging in behaviors that violate the popular doxa (the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (about what constitutes respectful discourse. For instance, if someone sits around and basically heckles everything I do, has nothing to say about it but negative things, with no real positive input, that is acceptable as a long as they don’t state what they are perpetually implying: that I am a moron. But if I turn around and tell them they are basically mediocre morons pumping themselves up at my expense, I get kicked off. And I tell this from experience. Believe me!

But I’ve never held this against the admins (outside of those who did it because they were basically TlBs themselves who fell into the position of admin( because you always have to keep in mind that they are unpaid volunteers who usually have to deal with a high volume of board traffic and, consequently, have little time to actually interpret what is being said or done. They actually have lives and, therefore, little time to consider or look deep into the semiotics of what is being said. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have to focus on more obvious cues: such as when I tell some prick (and let them know, in very clear terms, that they are (to go fuck themselves. The doxa is all they have time to work with. They’re basically volunteer referees with limited time to referee in any deep and articulated sense.

And it is this dynamic that has allowed the TlBs to flourish by not violating the doxa…. although, I have to admit that the TlBs are not as prominent as they use to be. Perhaps the admins and the boards are doing better than I am giving them credit for.

52

OOps!!!

53

:-"

54

:-"

Sorry about that. Mondays are always so volatile for me.

55

Rhizome 12/24/14 (on the evolution of the boards which we can thank the admins for despite the limitations they face:

All you really need to do is look back to the MySpace and Yahoo boards which were basically destroyed by trollers. The pattern was basically some moron (the guru (that had a little intellect coming in and sabotaging the discourse. And it was only a matter of time before their little goon disciples came in and took care of their guru’s light work. And once the opposition was cleared out, all that was left was a cult or circle jerk which its individual members eventually got bored of –that is since there was no one left to bully. This is why neither MySpace or Yahoo is an issue anymore. The trolls turned them into wastelands.

But you have to give the boards we work with a little bit of credit in that they have circumvented this fate.

56

Rhizome 12/28/14 (in which I express some random thoughts then deal with a response by Deborah Gibson concerning the nature of Beauty: First of all:

?: has America become some kind of cult….

That said, in the spirit of the Christmas joy that tends to spontaneously pop up throughout the boards (it was all over my Facebook announcements (I would like to point out that, for me, it is never a matter of authentic “love” or even “like”. Those are just categories that we tend to apply to the various relationships we tend to form in order to get a more fixed and accessible understanding of them. However, I have recently (today at the bar –or as I like to call it: the library (have come to think that it is mainly and always only a matter of liking having certain people in your life: those who seem to justify your point A to point B.

Happy holidays everyone! Love, like, or even hate, I can only hope the best for you.
*
Anyway, I want to respond to a discourse between me and one Deborah Gibson on the nature of Beauty and Art (that which was initiated by rhizome 12/21/14 on: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249&start=25

“Just found this from Mary Oliver: “We need beauty because it makes us ache to be worthy of it.”

What you, Deborah Gibson (as well as Mary Oliver, seem to be getting at is the role played by Lacanian Jouissance in beauty: that kind of mixed push-pull (between pleasure and discomfort (that we tend to experience, at its purest, in sex. To explain: if you think about it, the experience of sex is always one of working towards a threshold that will take you out of a place that you are really enjoying at the time.

And we get a similar experience from the art that we most remember: our personal classics. Hence the “ache” that Mary Oliver describes.

To give you a sense of how Jouissance works in terms of Beauty, I would point to what I think was one of the most beautiful movie endings ever: that of Carroll Ballard’s The Black Stallion. It was as if he basically lobbed it in there. It started with the rhythmic thud of horse hooves on the soft dirt that was just awkward enough, while feeling equally regular, to give one a kind of uncomfortable pleasure (the ach (which slowly intensified as the low hum of a synthesizer worked its way in. It just built in a discomforting way that was so well paced that one could experience it as ecstatic.

At the same time, it was this lightness of touch that led to the disappointment of the money-shot when, towards the end of the race, Ballard broke into the flashback image of the boy riding the black stallion on the beach of the island they were stranded together on. It felt like a fudge. But you can see why Ballard did it in that you have to be sympathetic with his desire to get beyond the “ache”. But even that “disappointment” adds to the residual ache (that sense of remembering by being unfulfilled (that makes it a classic moment for me.

And it is this sense of being brought to the threshold of fulfillment (while never truly reaching it: the ache (that keeps us coming back: that makes it the truest experience we could have of beauty or art –that which we never feel worthy of.

Reference: posting.php?mode=reply&f=25&t=187249#preview

57

Rhizome 12/30/14 in which I offer a conditional defense of religion as an evolutionary development via Eric Mathews’ interpretation of Bergson in Twentieth Century French Philosophy (a really good and accessible survey of the subject for anyone who is interested:

“The beliefs of static religion, fulfilling as they do many of the same functions as instincts, will be based on imagination rather than reason, and will often appear merely absurd and superstitious to rational minds. The faculty of imagination is a faculty of myth-making, rather than of abstract speculation. Human beings have such a faculty, Bergson argues (in line with his ‘creative’ view of evolution), for a purpose: it is there to control the dangers of excessive intellectualism. Intelligence is an evolutionarily useful capacity, but if over-developed, or developed in the wrong way [think evil genius here –my point], it poses a threat to the survival of society, the threat of excessive individualism and atomization, which it is the function of the myths of static religion to avert.” -Twentieth Century French Philosophy, Eric Mathews, pg. 36

Now this, for many if not most of us, would seem a hard pill to swallow. But we have to look at it in terms of Bergson’ concept of creative evolution: that which was adapted by Deleuze in terms of the individual creative act and Rorty in terms of the communal creative act of discourse. We have to consider the possibility that whatever issues we may have with religion (whatever failures and atrocities that have been carried out under its banner (it may have served as an important evolutionary adaption.

We, of course, hold a certain reverence for the intellect. But you have to make an honest assessment of where we would be if everyone chose the path we have. Given the egoism you see all the time on the boards, you have to wonder if a ubiquitous intellectualism might have exterminated us a long time ago.

Anyway, the prep for this rhizome ran out the window for it. I hope to go deeper into this and frame it in the context of my dichotomy between the competitive and cooperative models of evolutionary adaption. As I found out in the prep-work for this, I haven’t fully described it on the rhizomes. And I have come to realize (via the above quote (that religion has (in a rather inconsistent manner (been a major facilitator of the cooperative model which we may have to evolve to (in the sense of evolutionary adaption (if we want to insure our survival given our possible extinction through man-made climate change and/or our enslavement to global Capitalism. At the same time, I hope to show how it is a mixed package in that its myth-making function is showing itself to be our primary obstacle to the changes needed to truly adapt to our present environment.

58

Rhizome 1/2/15
in which I quote and expand upon Eric Mathews’, in 20th Century French Philosophy, on Gabriel Marcel’s concept of secondary reflection:

But first I would explain Marcel’s notion of primary reflection as a contrast: that day to day process (the common and mundane (which the brain (via brain plasticity (deals with, via the interface of the mind, and which includes science, in a more sophisticated manner, in that science is in the business of finding clearly defined solutions to clearly defined problems. As Mathews’ points out:

“Primary reflection works analytically, dividing problems up into their component parts in order to clarify them: [although I (the person writing this rhizome (am not sure that philosophy doesn’t do that as well [because the terms of problem can thus be made clear, the aim is to achieve a solution.”

Mathews’ then goes on to say:

“Secondary reflection, by contrast, requires immersion in the problem as a whole: the problem, in a sense, is oneself, one cannot be detached from it and so cannot in principle see clearly what the issue is. Solutions are not to be expected: but what one can hope for is to recover one’s own sense of inner unity which had been disturbed by the problem.”

He then goes on to quote Marcel:

“Roughly, we can say where primary reflection tends to dissolve the unity of experience which is first put before it, the function of secondary reflection is essentially recuperative: it reconquers that unity.”

And I would note here the similarity between Marcel’s point and Robert Frost’s description of the poem as a momentary stay against confusion. What Mathews, an analytically trained philosopher that happened to love French culture, seems to be getting at is that sense of Play you tend to experience with French philosophy. At the same time, he explains it in very clear terms. He basically goes a long ways towards my take on my process: that of being drawn towards French concepts while being equally drawn to the Anglo-American approach to exposition. However analytic Mathews might be, he seems to sincerely respect the continental approach of philosophy as a creative engagement with reality.

That said, I have noticed (via the index (that Deleuze is not mentioned anywhere in the book. (Rorty, on the other hand, is.) But I can’t help but feel, within the first 100 pages I have been focused on, that what is being described are the ideological overlaps in which Deleuze was working. Mathews’ description of Bergson’s creative evolution was especially helpful to me (Bergson being often mentioned in Deleuze’s writings (in that it seems to be at the heart of Deleuze’s agenda.

I would also note the import of Heidegger’s sense of Dasein (of being in the world (throughout the French approach to philosophy –that is as described by Mathews.

59

Rhizome 1/4/15
In which I, as promised, respond to a couple of points made by Ginkgo about rhizome 1/2/15 ([forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi … &start=15(](http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14370&start=15() and…. well, whatever else I have a window left to do. (I’m kind of fumbling around here.) Anyway:

“But first I would explain Marcel’s notion of primary reflection as a contrast: that day to day process (the common and mundane (which the brain (via brain plasticity (deals with, via the interface of the mind, and which includes science, in a more sophisticated manner, in that science is in the business of finding clearly defined solutions to clearly defined problems. As Mathews’ points out:

“Primary reflection works analytically, dividing problems up into their component parts in order to clarify them: [although I (the person writing this rhizome (am not sure that philosophy doesn’t do that as well [because the terms of problem can thus be made clear, the aim is to achieve a solution.” –my post to which Ginkgo responds:

“Philosophy of language had a privileged place for much of the 20th century and I think this can largely be attributed to Frege. It was somehow thought that the proper study of language would reveal valuable information about the world. The idea being there is a type of causal connection between things out there in the world and the words we use. So, in order to come up with a solution to a problem we simply employ referential realism to solve the problem.”

(And please bare with me as I am negotiating a weird and constantly shifting landscape with the montage style of the rhizomes as you will notice in my sudden shift from a 3rd person perspective to a second person one.)

I would also attribute it to Wittgenstein, Ginkgo, who was likely influenced by Frege. But this is coming from a guy that isn’t as familiar with the analytic tradition as he wishes he was.

But what is interesting to me about your post is that you accurately describe the analytic tradition (at least as I understand it (while not blowing its horn or even attempting to defend the position. There’s almost a kind of hesitation about it. Or maybe I’m just reading that into it given my own continental disposition.

And I am only projecting here, but I attribute that hesitation to the fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that there is something about reality that transcends the language we are using to describe it. In fact, I would argue that it is this disconnect between language and reality that has defined the evolution of our culture: that which has run from the idealized language of a Shakespeare to the raw drone of a Charles Bukowski.

And wouldn’t it be fair to say that when it comes to an overestimation of the power of language, the continentals fare no better in that rather than act like language is a mirror of reality, they simply throw up their hands and act as if language is the only reality that should matter to philosophy. I always liked Umberto Eco’s take on it (and I am paraphrasing from memory here:

“The analytic [much like a science –my point] always works from a clear tradition [a step by step process that always works from the research done before it] while the continental attempts to say the same old things in such a novel way that it seems like they are saying something completely new.”

For myself, I think it is all fuel for the fire. And if I never, in my lifetime, get to some of the more analytic ways of working, it will only be due to a lack of time. This is why I share your hope of a fusion as expressed in your response to:

“Roughly, we can say where primary reflection tends to dissolve the unity of experience which is first put before it, the function of secondary reflection is essentially recuperative: it reconquers that unity.”

with:

“I think some philosophers are starting to take up the challenge of reductionist explanations for philosophy of mind. Some in the field are starting to reject the idea we can reduce meaning to information in order to understand consciousness in casual terms. Rest assured a few physicalists are now treating the problem of “the self” as a legitimate scientific study.”

I would also note here Rorty’s (being an analytically trained philosopher (transition to a more continental perspective while retaining his respect for his mentors (such as Quine and Sellers, Mark C. Taylor (continental by training) and Esa Saarinen’s (analytic by training) collaboration on Imagologies: Media Philosophy (published in 1994), Eric Mathews’ book, and even Michael Dummett who, in The Nature and Future of Philosophy , argues for such a fusion –even though, from what I could decipher from my reading of it, he still seems to lean towards the analytic side of the equation.

But the two sides of the equation do seem to be making peace: a synthesis in the dialectic between nature and civilization that has gone on since humans found it in their interest to organize (something I hope to go into in future rhizomes, BTW. Or maybe I’m just projecting my own process onto the world.

60

Rhizome 1/5/2015
in which I explore (some 20 years later (my thoughts on Terence McKenna’ s Food of the God’s in response to my son, William Tarkington, who I gave the book to (and do it in the context of things I have learned since then:

“Well even if u don’t look at it as though nature intended it to happen. Very good chance it was random. Similar to when the stimulant quality of coca leaves was discovered. Regardless of being intended or not, there is a very good possibility that early beings experience w a transcendental substance contributed to the rapid intellectual evolution (in a sense, complexity) referenced in the book.”

(this is in response to rhizome 1/3/15: https://www.facebook.com/groups/675745095875295/684778178305320/?notif_t=group_comment:
just type rhizome 1/3/15 into search.)

I would first point out, son, that when I was introduced to McKenna in a 1993 Omni interview, he pointed out that when he presented his thoughts, as an ethno-botanist, to one of his peers (or a mentor –I can’t remember which (he was met with derision. And we have to approach McKenna’s rejection among the scientific community with mixed reservation aimed at both McKenna and the scientific community.

On one hand, we have to recognize that he had a very clear agenda (the acceptance of psychedelic-taking behaviors (and that this may have had a negative and unbalanced impact on his argument. For instance, one of the issues I had with Food of the Gods was that he seemed so intent on recognizing and legitimizing the ritual uses of psychedelics that he overcompensated by unthinkingly attacking more socially acceptable drugs. He addressed this to things such as sugar and caffeine. But the main thing I would like to address here is his attack on alcohol which, as much as any psychedelic, serves many ceremonial functions. As I see it, there is every reason to see alcohol as every bit as sacred as psychedelics. There was just no real reason for McKenna’s attack on it.

The other thing we have to be weary of (being, from time to time, psychonauts, as Dr. Leary describes us (is our propensity towards confirmation bias. We want to justify what we do as much and as deeply into our existence as we can. And we will use any data available to us to do so. For instance, back in the 90’s, I heard a lecturer in a telecourse on drugs point out that one of the main reasons that we may have organized into societies is because of our love of beer. When I was auditing an Anthropology class, I eventually asked my teacher about it, he pointed out that, at the time, most of our liquids were being carried around in leather flasks which would have made our alcoholic drinks rancid. In other words, the clay pottery needed to make things work would have developed well after civilization was established. But what really sticks with me is what he explained about the theory: that it was one of those ideas that anthropologists like to play around with –most likely because it would make them seem cool among people that drink.

That said, son, you point towards one of McKenna’s theories that is actually worth considering. The idea was that when pre-hominids moved from swinging in trees and started walking on ground, they may have discovered psilocybin mushrooms. What McKenna was mainly considering was that, according to recent research, man had gone from common monkeys to the complex thinking things we are now in 3 million years which didn’t seem like that much in evolutionary terms. So he proposed the possibility that our sudden discovery of psychedelics may have accelerated the brain’s (via brain plasticity (development that is expressed in what we experience as the mind and its higher functions.

And you have to ask: how is McKenna’s theory anymore speculative than any other theory about what happened with us millions of years ago?

(Anyway, I ran out my window and didn’t get a chance to connect this to my recent explorations. I’m hoping past, present, and future rhizomes will reconnect with this one.

Also, I started scratching at the surface of the book you gave me today. Thanks again. Love ya, man!

Reference: https://www.facebook.com/groups/675745095875295/684778178305320/?notif_t=group_comment