I was thinking of the study of capitalism like the study of the disassembly of an already-invented engine. But there are always limits to the machine as metaphor.
Capitalism, and civilization for that matter, was not invented. It came into being, it emerged, almost with a will of its own, amidst a set of self-reinforcing patterns that were sustained and repeated over a period of time.
And we really only partially understand the very reality that we collectively make. A science of capitalism, or economics, or even political economy, had to develop after the process was already well underway and in motion. Indeed, the understanding developed concurrently with the process itself.
We have competing understandings of the same things, based on our respective social and spatial arrangements. Capital's sycophants, for example, worship it as a deity, as a value-creator that bestows blessings on those fit to receive them. That understanding is conditioned by the deeper need to maintain one's socio-spatial arrangement.
The understanding is bound up with the thing itself. What the hell is it?
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Monday, September 19, 2016
The Extension of Simplification
In many cases that we speak of complexity, we are speaking of a certain array of affairs within our locus of control, or at least our field of perception.
Simplification in this case would have to do with ceding control or attention to external entities, so that they may govern themselves, or at least carry on without you paying conscious attention.
Something becomes more complex when you no longer trust it to function in your favor when your attention drifts from it. And it becomes overly complex when you lack the faculties and energy to attend to all of the points of control or attention.
But when you stop caring about something and trust it to simply nurture you, or not pose a threat, it drifts out of the attention, where it is governed by the realm of reflex. You stop thinking about it. It becomes automatic. It becomes easy. This is all very possible locally, and a wonderful thing.
But this auto-reinforcing volatility that characterizes global capital is by its nature untrustworthy.
Like one watches a calving glacier, one can't look away. It is a spectacular event.
And when you're sitting at the base of the calving glacier, you're compelled to pay attention, to map its every contour, and trace out its path of destruction. Because you're in its path.
Simplification in this case would have to do with ceding control or attention to external entities, so that they may govern themselves, or at least carry on without you paying conscious attention.
Something becomes more complex when you no longer trust it to function in your favor when your attention drifts from it. And it becomes overly complex when you lack the faculties and energy to attend to all of the points of control or attention.
But when you stop caring about something and trust it to simply nurture you, or not pose a threat, it drifts out of the attention, where it is governed by the realm of reflex. You stop thinking about it. It becomes automatic. It becomes easy. This is all very possible locally, and a wonderful thing.
But this auto-reinforcing volatility that characterizes global capital is by its nature untrustworthy.
Like one watches a calving glacier, one can't look away. It is a spectacular event.
And when you're sitting at the base of the calving glacier, you're compelled to pay attention, to map its every contour, and trace out its path of destruction. Because you're in its path.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
The Extension of Complexity
There is a constant concern that modern society is far too complex for our children at this advanced stage of development, leaving the dears strung out and distracted.
But John Dewey was wringing his hands in the late 1800's about the prospect that life was too complex for the children, leaving them distracted and strung out, and that educational concepts needed to be simplified.
Alas, to the common perception, observable reality appears as infinitely complex. The Inupiat look out over the snow and see a vast textural galaxy and endless stories. Amazonian tribes possess dizzying accounts of the forest life. Various indigenous American tribes pass down traditions that map out complex spirit worlds.
So it seems that the complexity comes into play as a limited observer seeks to understand some swathe of the observable universe, so as to navigate, subsist in it, or even manipulate and control it.
This investigation never ends. The inflation theorists look out and find ever-stranger and sophisticated cosmic structures and movements, the further their inquiry pulls back. And the string and quantum theorists, the deeper they focus in, find unfolding landscapes of complexity that baffle and frustrate the understanding.
It is still meaningful to speak of complex societies, as there is an actual material and ideological extension of the administrative and technological structures, owing in part to the force of expansion and mass volume that is to be managed. Complexity, as we often colloquially refer to it, may just be that which lies within our locus of control, and our field of perception.
The tree extends itself in ever more complex networks of foliage above and roots below, so as to capture sunshine, water, and nutrients and maintain itself.
But John Dewey was wringing his hands in the late 1800's about the prospect that life was too complex for the children, leaving them distracted and strung out, and that educational concepts needed to be simplified.
Alas, to the common perception, observable reality appears as infinitely complex. The Inupiat look out over the snow and see a vast textural galaxy and endless stories. Amazonian tribes possess dizzying accounts of the forest life. Various indigenous American tribes pass down traditions that map out complex spirit worlds.
So it seems that the complexity comes into play as a limited observer seeks to understand some swathe of the observable universe, so as to navigate, subsist in it, or even manipulate and control it.
This investigation never ends. The inflation theorists look out and find ever-stranger and sophisticated cosmic structures and movements, the further their inquiry pulls back. And the string and quantum theorists, the deeper they focus in, find unfolding landscapes of complexity that baffle and frustrate the understanding.
It is still meaningful to speak of complex societies, as there is an actual material and ideological extension of the administrative and technological structures, owing in part to the force of expansion and mass volume that is to be managed. Complexity, as we often colloquially refer to it, may just be that which lies within our locus of control, and our field of perception.
The tree extends itself in ever more complex networks of foliage above and roots below, so as to capture sunshine, water, and nutrients and maintain itself.
Give Capitalism a Break
Why a fixation on capitalism now? It does feel a little quaint, a little dated, so to speak, considering the wide scope of inquiry available in the vast, rich intellectual domain that exists thanks to digital culture.
Well, besides the fact that capitalism as a phenomenon takes up such a vivid presence in the radical imagination - like a fire commands attention to the owner of a straw house - capitalism, as a phenomenon of disintegration, makes for a useful skeleton key that can unlock the secrets of civilization, or how a complex society unfolds over time.
Disintegration makes one more intensely aware of the structure that is doing the disintegrating. Or, after an engine has already been invented, and one isn't building it up from scratch, the easiest way to understand how it actually works is to take it apart.
If one understands how things disintegrate, one can begin to understand how things are constructed, and how those things persist. Put everything together and you've got a passable theory of history, if history is to be construed as the movements of complex human civilizations.
Besides all that, it is much easier to understand an age if one is vividly present in it, that is, living through it and observing it in person. Capitalism is one of the central characteristics of our age after all.
The lack of a retrospective vantage point does make for some considerable difficulty. One isn't able to use the long arc of history to situate current events and compare their contours against the general topography of history's procession.
However one is given the advantage of being steeped in the ideological and perceptual landscape of one's time. To truly understand Greek logic and law for example, and how it relates to ancient society, one must have somewhat of a grasp on the Greek conception of time and space, something that is exceedingly difficult, but perhaps doable.
Though as Spengler so perceptively observed, a civilization that gazes over the history of some past or parallel civilization is really re-coding the outside civilization's experiences within the perceiving civilization's ideological and perceptual landscape.
Well, besides the fact that capitalism as a phenomenon takes up such a vivid presence in the radical imagination - like a fire commands attention to the owner of a straw house - capitalism, as a phenomenon of disintegration, makes for a useful skeleton key that can unlock the secrets of civilization, or how a complex society unfolds over time.
Disintegration makes one more intensely aware of the structure that is doing the disintegrating. Or, after an engine has already been invented, and one isn't building it up from scratch, the easiest way to understand how it actually works is to take it apart.
If one understands how things disintegrate, one can begin to understand how things are constructed, and how those things persist. Put everything together and you've got a passable theory of history, if history is to be construed as the movements of complex human civilizations.
Besides all that, it is much easier to understand an age if one is vividly present in it, that is, living through it and observing it in person. Capitalism is one of the central characteristics of our age after all.
The lack of a retrospective vantage point does make for some considerable difficulty. One isn't able to use the long arc of history to situate current events and compare their contours against the general topography of history's procession.
However one is given the advantage of being steeped in the ideological and perceptual landscape of one's time. To truly understand Greek logic and law for example, and how it relates to ancient society, one must have somewhat of a grasp on the Greek conception of time and space, something that is exceedingly difficult, but perhaps doable.
Though as Spengler so perceptively observed, a civilization that gazes over the history of some past or parallel civilization is really re-coding the outside civilization's experiences within the perceiving civilization's ideological and perceptual landscape.
Boil
It is a little curious how many Americans react to what should be relative statements, or statements of opinion or subjective experience. These relative statements are taken as normative statements, and if the listener's opinion or experience varies, the listener gets prickly, as if the person making the statement is moving to encroach upon the listener's position and declare the listener's position invalid.
This reaction exists for good reason. Many people do in fact posit their opinions and subjective experiences as normative markers of the real. And of course the more privileged the individual, the more this is a default position.
So there is this constant boiling action, this constant movement of relative statements, angling for a higher position in the normative hierarchy. A constant leapfrogging. A constant transfer of aggressive energy. Etc.
This reaction exists for good reason. Many people do in fact posit their opinions and subjective experiences as normative markers of the real. And of course the more privileged the individual, the more this is a default position.
So there is this constant boiling action, this constant movement of relative statements, angling for a higher position in the normative hierarchy. A constant leapfrogging. A constant transfer of aggressive energy. Etc.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Chaser
No one wants to be a grump. I certainly don't.
I would much rather be writing of springtime and the joy of sunny afternooons and blooming, buzzing meadows. Of course, this inclination is more likely a response to the winter fixation, and compensation for it, as all of the seasons have their charms, and the totality of the cycles carries its own cosmic beauty.
All of these cycles still exist in some form in the present, and can be observed and enjoyed. However within my own field of vision, these things are fleeting. One must contend with the most prominent features found in one's world.
I suppose we tend to occupy ourselves with the most pressing and significant matters which call the most attention to themselves at the moment. At this moment we are concerned with winters, with contraction and even dissolution. At least a dissolution implies the eventual rebirth of something new.
I would much rather be writing of springtime and the joy of sunny afternooons and blooming, buzzing meadows. Of course, this inclination is more likely a response to the winter fixation, and compensation for it, as all of the seasons have their charms, and the totality of the cycles carries its own cosmic beauty.
All of these cycles still exist in some form in the present, and can be observed and enjoyed. However within my own field of vision, these things are fleeting. One must contend with the most prominent features found in one's world.
I suppose we tend to occupy ourselves with the most pressing and significant matters which call the most attention to themselves at the moment. At this moment we are concerned with winters, with contraction and even dissolution. At least a dissolution implies the eventual rebirth of something new.
A Little Unfair
There may be moments in exercise, or making music, in which I experience the most profound instances of cosmic ecstasy and bliss, but then the moments before the exercise or jamming, I have the strongest resistance not to do that thing, and am filled with dread at the prospect of it, and I must force myself to embark on it.
The same with food, in which I am filled with reluctance to begin chomping down on vegetables, and then end up feeling so much better afterwards.
Just saying, it isn't altogether fair.
Just saying, it isn't altogether fair.
Tear
I take joy in a daily work routine. It feels instinctively good to sit down doing that thing that regularly sustains me, yet that very routine includes doing something that I hate, that in the end is destroying the world I am to subsist in, that is, writing commercially.
I take even more joy in reading, thinking and writing, playing music, meditating, exercising, relating with others outside of the market, none of which is paid, going towards my subsistence in a market society.
A constant contradiction. The jouissance exists in pockets outside of the means of subsistence. And generally speaking, sustaining the environment and one's social relations tends to lie outside the actual means of subsistence within a capitalist economy.
To actually persist with dignity and joy means to commit a little less to the actual capitalist field of subsistence, which sustains me in my current state, as well as those around me. I am slowly torn asunder.
Current state is the key though. There is a tensile regime of living that must be torn through, tearing myself in the process. To become something else.
I take even more joy in reading, thinking and writing, playing music, meditating, exercising, relating with others outside of the market, none of which is paid, going towards my subsistence in a market society.
A constant contradiction. The jouissance exists in pockets outside of the means of subsistence. And generally speaking, sustaining the environment and one's social relations tends to lie outside the actual means of subsistence within a capitalist economy.
To actually persist with dignity and joy means to commit a little less to the actual capitalist field of subsistence, which sustains me in my current state, as well as those around me. I am slowly torn asunder.
Current state is the key though. There is a tensile regime of living that must be torn through, tearing myself in the process. To become something else.
Stand
In these dark times in which all is frustrated yet lumbering on, it may become difficult to justify one's continual standing as oneself, in occupying some position, and not simply lie down and allow oblivion to take over. After all this does appear to be the tendency. It feels quite exhausting to continue to stand. Why bother at all?
There is an old belief - no idea where it comes from at this point - that suggests that in difficult times one has no other choice but to figure one's stance, one's position of strength, and hold it no matter the circumstances. This alone often leads to better outcomes, as in the end one seeks to preserve what one is and what one should be, which implies one's social relations and surroundings as well, and one's stance represents a distillation of this.
One's face, one's visage, appears grim in the winter light, and the harsh arctic blasts wear down warm, generous flesh to bare bone. But one adopts a stance, and continues to stand - perhaps absurdly - because one must. Because one was made to do so.
There is an old belief - no idea where it comes from at this point - that suggests that in difficult times one has no other choice but to figure one's stance, one's position of strength, and hold it no matter the circumstances. This alone often leads to better outcomes, as in the end one seeks to preserve what one is and what one should be, which implies one's social relations and surroundings as well, and one's stance represents a distillation of this.
One's face, one's visage, appears grim in the winter light, and the harsh arctic blasts wear down warm, generous flesh to bare bone. But one adopts a stance, and continues to stand - perhaps absurdly - because one must. Because one was made to do so.
The Tumble
I have several competing self images, or beckoning directions of development. Each new image becomes generated upon the failure of the previous, and then when the new image finally fails, there is a reversion to the previous, in the direction of least resistance. I develop where the energy takes me, where there is opportunity for growth, sort of like walking step by step, or in this case, tumbling. Of course I can do better at explaining this.
First, I am to become the sober writer and philosopher. Well, the academic landscape is fairly horrifying. How is one to subsist in this field, within its pathways, and at the same time maintain a clear mind for sound development? I forego professorship, and try my hand in the private sector. I make peanuts, and remain unhappy. One gains great joy from writing philosophical works, but one is limited to still conventional channels to subsist while producing that special work. One must do academic work, or else write commercially and bide one's time, hoping that the soul is not extinguished in the process. The conventional field is a wasteland, experiencing a gradual process of destruction. To face it with a sober mind is shattering.
Next, I try the intoxicated musician and artist. Why not ride the destruction, as opposed to lamenting it? This proves to be a promising line of development, and good times are had. Yet one must still subsist! Now even the need to engage in ecstatic musical improvisation must be directed to producing a commodity, within conventional channels. This must be done within one's social relations, if one is to improvise, and the social relations are strained and chaotic due to the strained and chaotic environment within which they take place. In other words, one's band mates are domineering, or uncommunicative, or beset with substance abuse; the musical joy becomes elusive.
Aha, so subsistence and social relations are constantly sabotaging one's efforts! One must go further out: attack and reform the channels of convention! I try the political activist. With blooming political consciousness, these channels of convention become the superseding harbingers of misery. They must be changed if one is to continue doing good work, which means integrating with radical communities and developing alternatives. But this takes social relations too, and those relations themselves are steadily corrupting. The political arena is profoundly frustrated and confused, and subsistence while working within the arena becomes continuously more threatened.
I see, so there is a greater problem: that of the field of subsistence itself, and all of the assumptions that go with it. So one is to go off grid, to release one's fetters to the market, and renew one's efforts to develop channels of subsistence and social relations. But I don't have the wealth, and subsistence keeps coming back as an issue.
Well, finally one is to go mystic. Make do with less, shed one's material commitments, purify one's self so as to regenerate sound social relations. Even this process is frustrated, as some crisis or other brings one right back into the material realm.
Each image is shattered, so one goes back to another in order to nurse oneself back to strength, where one is safe and in a solid position.
Where there is an image, I develop part of myself in the direction of the image, which always stays with me, even amidst failure. So each direction of development slowly changes the aggregate of my character; all of it comes with me as I travel, as I tumble, each of my characteristics ground or polished as they are touched upon. This is a process of much pain and frustration, and doubtless many others are caught within similar processes of their own - these processes taking their shapes from the natures of the individuals - affecting each other as they tumble against each other. Hopefully whatever comes out is worthwhile.
One tumbles, and one must hold tight to one's stance, whatever that may look like, and hold tight to others who are maintaining stances of their own, in mutual love and respect, generating those social relations that are to hold under harsh winds, in the hope that one's project isn't deserving of being wiped off the earth entirely.
First, I am to become the sober writer and philosopher. Well, the academic landscape is fairly horrifying. How is one to subsist in this field, within its pathways, and at the same time maintain a clear mind for sound development? I forego professorship, and try my hand in the private sector. I make peanuts, and remain unhappy. One gains great joy from writing philosophical works, but one is limited to still conventional channels to subsist while producing that special work. One must do academic work, or else write commercially and bide one's time, hoping that the soul is not extinguished in the process. The conventional field is a wasteland, experiencing a gradual process of destruction. To face it with a sober mind is shattering.
Next, I try the intoxicated musician and artist. Why not ride the destruction, as opposed to lamenting it? This proves to be a promising line of development, and good times are had. Yet one must still subsist! Now even the need to engage in ecstatic musical improvisation must be directed to producing a commodity, within conventional channels. This must be done within one's social relations, if one is to improvise, and the social relations are strained and chaotic due to the strained and chaotic environment within which they take place. In other words, one's band mates are domineering, or uncommunicative, or beset with substance abuse; the musical joy becomes elusive.
Aha, so subsistence and social relations are constantly sabotaging one's efforts! One must go further out: attack and reform the channels of convention! I try the political activist. With blooming political consciousness, these channels of convention become the superseding harbingers of misery. They must be changed if one is to continue doing good work, which means integrating with radical communities and developing alternatives. But this takes social relations too, and those relations themselves are steadily corrupting. The political arena is profoundly frustrated and confused, and subsistence while working within the arena becomes continuously more threatened.
I see, so there is a greater problem: that of the field of subsistence itself, and all of the assumptions that go with it. So one is to go off grid, to release one's fetters to the market, and renew one's efforts to develop channels of subsistence and social relations. But I don't have the wealth, and subsistence keeps coming back as an issue.
Well, finally one is to go mystic. Make do with less, shed one's material commitments, purify one's self so as to regenerate sound social relations. Even this process is frustrated, as some crisis or other brings one right back into the material realm.
Each image is shattered, so one goes back to another in order to nurse oneself back to strength, where one is safe and in a solid position.
Where there is an image, I develop part of myself in the direction of the image, which always stays with me, even amidst failure. So each direction of development slowly changes the aggregate of my character; all of it comes with me as I travel, as I tumble, each of my characteristics ground or polished as they are touched upon. This is a process of much pain and frustration, and doubtless many others are caught within similar processes of their own - these processes taking their shapes from the natures of the individuals - affecting each other as they tumble against each other. Hopefully whatever comes out is worthwhile.
One tumbles, and one must hold tight to one's stance, whatever that may look like, and hold tight to others who are maintaining stances of their own, in mutual love and respect, generating those social relations that are to hold under harsh winds, in the hope that one's project isn't deserving of being wiped off the earth entirely.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Vegans, Jains, and Power Horror
This one has been on the back-burner for some time. But the subject of veganism and similar dietary and even religious ideologies presents a ripe opportunity to trace the nature of ideology and its vectors of change as it unfolds in space and time.
A common reason given for veganism and vegetarianism is that it is more healthy, which seems to imply that there were health concerns that arose when meat became a regular and abundant part of one's diet, and that perhaps meat production itself became subject to health concerns.
As an ethical philosophy, veganism is partially described as an ideology that "rejects the commodity status of animals", a clear reaction to the ongoing growth and movement of industrial capital. And perhaps not just industrial capital but the machinations of a large and complex resource-intensive culture. We see the emergence of veganism and vegetarianism not just in industrial England, but in ancient Greek culture, ancient Arab culture, and in the form of ahimsa in Hindu and Buddhist cultures.
But if one rejects the commodity status of animals, why not plants? Why not the microbes noted by Jainist philosophy? Why not the commodification of anything at all? Why stop at animals?
Of course one does find radicals in this vein, but the radicalism itself always exists on a spectrum of degree; its intensity and breadth diminishes as the ideology itself spreads, which we'll elaborate on shortly.
More interesting is why a given swathe of life is delineated for protection, and why this delineation manages to hold, and where does it come from in the first place?
After all, many indigenous cultures had no problems consuming animals, and even felt close to these creatures and grateful to them as they did so. There were often strict guidelines for doing so: nothing should be wasted, and the utmost respect should be afforded to the fallen. Health concerns were less apparent, though there were other threats to take account of.
Here in the West, we look on and we are horrified to see the treatment of animals in industrial farms, perhaps as part of a blooming cosmic consciousness in which we become aware once again of the value of other life systems besides our own, a development in consciousness that must situate itself in opposition to a non-reflective imperial consciousness that treats the earth and its inhabitants as mere objects.
Yet more reactions, yes. And the nascent ideology produces reactions of its own as it ages and disperses.
The ideology is birthed and then it disperses as it generalizes to the greater population, increasingly becoming a general instrument for buttressing one's status in certain circles; its meaning and power is diluted.
You do see this regularly at work. All the time you see the more dogmatic vegans sneering down at their fellow meat eaters, tsk-tsking at how barbaric and harmful it is, while disregarding the reality that the benefits they derive from industrial agriculture - no matter how organic or vegan it is - still results in the deaths of animals, and ecosystems for that matter, and that their very lifestyles are often antagonistic to poor communities.
.
Anyway. This is to say that ideologies and their movements live and die. It is the nature of things. This tendency provides the impetus for rebirth, or revitalization, and of course the birth of new ideologies and movements, as the values are modified, inverted, or re-inverted due to the reactions to old values corrupting.
Veganism and its more extreme expressions found in Jainism can be seen as manifestations of a historical feeling, of power vertigo or horror. Participating within a violent empire, one becomes too intense of a presence, and one seeks to diminish oneself, by seeking to preserve those vulnerable forms of life beneath oneself, and horizontal to oneself for that matter, if the ethics are truly to be borne out.
But follow that logic to its conclusion, and suddenly one is faced with annihilation, as is the case with a radicalism without end. One is to protect animals. Well, why not plants? Why not the microbes? Why not the colonies of bacteria one destroys as one washes one's hands? Even the Jains acknowledge for the most part that plant life must be destroyed so that their own lives can continue.
As a living thing, one must carve out a space that demarcates oneself, with respect and compassion for the universe. This realization is what provides the tolerance for other ideologies and movements outside of oneself, so long as those ideologies and movements are just and its members are doing the work. Otherwise one's ideology is instrumentalized to emulate righteousness, and to consolidate one's own power by putting down others who may very well be doing good work themselves.
This then may be a glimpse into the general phenomena of corruption: the increasing diversion of public fruits into private ends, private ends that go beyond the necessities required to sustain the individual.
Taking all of this together, an even more general glimpse into the movement of Western culture is afforded. We see that various radical ideologies are produced as reactions to some symptom of imperial expansion. Are they to acknowledge their own limits, linking up with other radical movements in love and respect, so as to form a mass with the strength to affect systemic and structural change?
Or are the movements more likely to seek expansion out of love of their own power, setting themselves against other movements and dividing externally and internally in turn, doomed to mimic the expanding and dividing empire they are reacting to? In truth we get a constant mixture of these two possibilities, set against constant change over long periods of time. And we are indeed running out of time.
A common reason given for veganism and vegetarianism is that it is more healthy, which seems to imply that there were health concerns that arose when meat became a regular and abundant part of one's diet, and that perhaps meat production itself became subject to health concerns.
As an ethical philosophy, veganism is partially described as an ideology that "rejects the commodity status of animals", a clear reaction to the ongoing growth and movement of industrial capital. And perhaps not just industrial capital but the machinations of a large and complex resource-intensive culture. We see the emergence of veganism and vegetarianism not just in industrial England, but in ancient Greek culture, ancient Arab culture, and in the form of ahimsa in Hindu and Buddhist cultures.
But if one rejects the commodity status of animals, why not plants? Why not the microbes noted by Jainist philosophy? Why not the commodification of anything at all? Why stop at animals?
Of course one does find radicals in this vein, but the radicalism itself always exists on a spectrum of degree; its intensity and breadth diminishes as the ideology itself spreads, which we'll elaborate on shortly.
More interesting is why a given swathe of life is delineated for protection, and why this delineation manages to hold, and where does it come from in the first place?
After all, many indigenous cultures had no problems consuming animals, and even felt close to these creatures and grateful to them as they did so. There were often strict guidelines for doing so: nothing should be wasted, and the utmost respect should be afforded to the fallen. Health concerns were less apparent, though there were other threats to take account of.
Here in the West, we look on and we are horrified to see the treatment of animals in industrial farms, perhaps as part of a blooming cosmic consciousness in which we become aware once again of the value of other life systems besides our own, a development in consciousness that must situate itself in opposition to a non-reflective imperial consciousness that treats the earth and its inhabitants as mere objects.
Yet more reactions, yes. And the nascent ideology produces reactions of its own as it ages and disperses.
The ideology is birthed and then it disperses as it generalizes to the greater population, increasingly becoming a general instrument for buttressing one's status in certain circles; its meaning and power is diluted.
You do see this regularly at work. All the time you see the more dogmatic vegans sneering down at their fellow meat eaters, tsk-tsking at how barbaric and harmful it is, while disregarding the reality that the benefits they derive from industrial agriculture - no matter how organic or vegan it is - still results in the deaths of animals, and ecosystems for that matter, and that their very lifestyles are often antagonistic to poor communities.
.
Anyway. This is to say that ideologies and their movements live and die. It is the nature of things. This tendency provides the impetus for rebirth, or revitalization, and of course the birth of new ideologies and movements, as the values are modified, inverted, or re-inverted due to the reactions to old values corrupting.
Veganism and its more extreme expressions found in Jainism can be seen as manifestations of a historical feeling, of power vertigo or horror. Participating within a violent empire, one becomes too intense of a presence, and one seeks to diminish oneself, by seeking to preserve those vulnerable forms of life beneath oneself, and horizontal to oneself for that matter, if the ethics are truly to be borne out.
But follow that logic to its conclusion, and suddenly one is faced with annihilation, as is the case with a radicalism without end. One is to protect animals. Well, why not plants? Why not the microbes? Why not the colonies of bacteria one destroys as one washes one's hands? Even the Jains acknowledge for the most part that plant life must be destroyed so that their own lives can continue.
As a living thing, one must carve out a space that demarcates oneself, with respect and compassion for the universe. This realization is what provides the tolerance for other ideologies and movements outside of oneself, so long as those ideologies and movements are just and its members are doing the work. Otherwise one's ideology is instrumentalized to emulate righteousness, and to consolidate one's own power by putting down others who may very well be doing good work themselves.
This then may be a glimpse into the general phenomena of corruption: the increasing diversion of public fruits into private ends, private ends that go beyond the necessities required to sustain the individual.
Taking all of this together, an even more general glimpse into the movement of Western culture is afforded. We see that various radical ideologies are produced as reactions to some symptom of imperial expansion. Are they to acknowledge their own limits, linking up with other radical movements in love and respect, so as to form a mass with the strength to affect systemic and structural change?
Or are the movements more likely to seek expansion out of love of their own power, setting themselves against other movements and dividing externally and internally in turn, doomed to mimic the expanding and dividing empire they are reacting to? In truth we get a constant mixture of these two possibilities, set against constant change over long periods of time. And we are indeed running out of time.
Wednesday, September 07, 2016
One's Project
I hadn't given much thought to the way I wanted to put something together until I really started reading Das Kapital.
It isn't that Marx's Capital is the best possible way for constructing an intellectual work, but that the work itself is put together in such a systematic and crystalline fashion.
Starting from the commodity, Marx builds an entire system up from very simple mechanisms. You don't see this type of project a whole lot anymore.
I look at my work and it appears as a confused mess in comparison, but I'm not sure that this is entirely a bad thing. Marx is indeed a tragic figure, as it seems that he did end up producing a private work in social association with other private thinkers.
And the work appears as a great cathedral, or work of production, that had to be produced on the backs of workers and slaves, if one is to trace back all of the various strains of material support.
It is a towering work of one person's thought, so that it takes a rigorous, academic approach to truly understand the nuances of the argument.
One can be right about it. One can be wrong about it. And one has to concentrate a huge amount of energy, of computing power, in a limited number of individuals. It becomes clear why Lenin was so adamant about a vanguard class, and why the practical revolutionary struggles curdled into the Stalinist regime. Stalin was reputed to have impeccable logic.
And this is the issue. The more that one single person strives to understand a greater breadth of existence, the more idiosyncratic and abstract that understanding becomes. Universal truths must be expressed in a private language in this case.
The mystics on the other hand seem to understand quite a bit, and at the same time they are insisting: give it up! Perhaps it is because there is a more even distribution of thought and action.
Hmm, some things to consider. And what am I to do?
It isn't that Marx's Capital is the best possible way for constructing an intellectual work, but that the work itself is put together in such a systematic and crystalline fashion.
Starting from the commodity, Marx builds an entire system up from very simple mechanisms. You don't see this type of project a whole lot anymore.
I look at my work and it appears as a confused mess in comparison, but I'm not sure that this is entirely a bad thing. Marx is indeed a tragic figure, as it seems that he did end up producing a private work in social association with other private thinkers.
And the work appears as a great cathedral, or work of production, that had to be produced on the backs of workers and slaves, if one is to trace back all of the various strains of material support.
It is a towering work of one person's thought, so that it takes a rigorous, academic approach to truly understand the nuances of the argument.
One can be right about it. One can be wrong about it. And one has to concentrate a huge amount of energy, of computing power, in a limited number of individuals. It becomes clear why Lenin was so adamant about a vanguard class, and why the practical revolutionary struggles curdled into the Stalinist regime. Stalin was reputed to have impeccable logic.
And this is the issue. The more that one single person strives to understand a greater breadth of existence, the more idiosyncratic and abstract that understanding becomes. Universal truths must be expressed in a private language in this case.
The mystics on the other hand seem to understand quite a bit, and at the same time they are insisting: give it up! Perhaps it is because there is a more even distribution of thought and action.
Hmm, some things to consider. And what am I to do?
Ecstasy Cont'd
A curious thread, this ecstasy. What is its nature and from where does it come? For now we can't say much on this mystical subject, but we can elaborate on another aspect of its expression.
It does need to be expressed. It occurs within a situation of individuals in a society.
While there is energy to burn, the ecstasy can keep climbing, and it must.
One is in the ecstatic state and it becomes excruciating to back down, or even stagnate.
A blooming flower comes to mind, its unfolding proceeding from the stem in all directions.
This happens everywhere on multiple levels, but here I'm thinking of the big psychedelic music superstars in the 60s and 70s, walking about in public and on stage on heavy psychedelics, in full bloom, their naked selves on display.
This fact is pretty remarkable considering the cultural climate today. If one is to bloom, it is best to do it within a supportive environment, the energy flowing in. Within a hostile environment one is more likely to shrivel, unless one adopts a warlike stance.
The big pop stars today do occasionally wander about in a state of intoxication, but much of the acts are heavily rehearsed and controlled, or else lip syncing is put into use to prevent divergence from the album sound.
You don't generally see the large scale kind of unfolding in which the core comes out, in which the individual is making all sorts of ecstatic gyrations and facial expressions, baring their true selves, which can only emerge out of a deep and generally improvised psychospiritual journey, which must leave expression up to chance amidst the dance between the self and its surroundings.
Today the self exists in a wintry cultural climate, where the blooms are pulled firmly into their protective sheathings, and any kind of expression must be drawn out with vast theatrical and rehearsal machinery. Or else one faces the world honestly with teeth barred, unless one is in a supportive environment, which sometimes has to be created or fought for.
But then one must also ask: what is to bloom, and upon what soil? What is to provide the raw materials for the full flowering on top? Why does one person or group at a certain time get to fully unfurl its petals in rapture, and then at another time shield itself or fight its way through?
It does need to be expressed. It occurs within a situation of individuals in a society.
While there is energy to burn, the ecstasy can keep climbing, and it must.
One is in the ecstatic state and it becomes excruciating to back down, or even stagnate.
A blooming flower comes to mind, its unfolding proceeding from the stem in all directions.
This happens everywhere on multiple levels, but here I'm thinking of the big psychedelic music superstars in the 60s and 70s, walking about in public and on stage on heavy psychedelics, in full bloom, their naked selves on display.
This fact is pretty remarkable considering the cultural climate today. If one is to bloom, it is best to do it within a supportive environment, the energy flowing in. Within a hostile environment one is more likely to shrivel, unless one adopts a warlike stance.
The big pop stars today do occasionally wander about in a state of intoxication, but much of the acts are heavily rehearsed and controlled, or else lip syncing is put into use to prevent divergence from the album sound.
You don't generally see the large scale kind of unfolding in which the core comes out, in which the individual is making all sorts of ecstatic gyrations and facial expressions, baring their true selves, which can only emerge out of a deep and generally improvised psychospiritual journey, which must leave expression up to chance amidst the dance between the self and its surroundings.
Today the self exists in a wintry cultural climate, where the blooms are pulled firmly into their protective sheathings, and any kind of expression must be drawn out with vast theatrical and rehearsal machinery. Or else one faces the world honestly with teeth barred, unless one is in a supportive environment, which sometimes has to be created or fought for.
But then one must also ask: what is to bloom, and upon what soil? What is to provide the raw materials for the full flowering on top? Why does one person or group at a certain time get to fully unfurl its petals in rapture, and then at another time shield itself or fight its way through?
Ecstasy in Production
Social ecstasy may be an obscure and esoteric subject, but as a phenomenon it does exist, and for the time being we can try to trace its contours in video game production.
What does ecstasy in production look like? It might be a little difficult to talk about what is actually happening in the subjective experience of the producers, but one can find markers of its existence upon apprehending the actual work of art. Something feels great in the work, or something is being expressed that suggests that the artist expressing it was clearly experiencing some sort of ecstasy or cosmic vision.
But what I'm interested in at the moment is how this ecstasy becomes possible, and then how is it to ebb and flow given the modalities it arises with?
Something happens over time in the video game industry, which is related to the structure and modality of reproduction of the society that the industry exists in. Large corporate economic structures form around various intellectual and technological properties, and there is a pattern in which original and vital franchises form at a slower rate, and repetitious sequels and spinoffs churn forth in increasingly degraded states. The culture itself calcifies, with a conservative fan base rallying around the hyper-masculine and violent franchises they've been consistently fed all their lives.
Yes, there must be a raw material that fuels the ecstatic vision. For the most part, the mainstream strains of our video game culture has chosen war.
There are common technologies and ideas that are shared socially, which form the soil from which these creative visions spring forth. However over time increasingly idiosyncratic and proprietary developments are fenced off by the conservative and acquisitive corporations, which take less chances as the production process becomes more expensive and intensive, choosing instead to milk the cash cow, the successful franchise that worked.
Where do these successful franchises come from? Maybe someone spots a rare talent, or some team of talents comes together organically before the company's social structures have completely hardened. Maybe there is a trusted talent who has an existing team, and a new idea is developed then? I can't claim to know the interiors of the companies, but there is enough information present to make inferences. From the outside, it helps to reiterate that all these things suffer from diminishing returns, and I given company, the truly inspired pieces become fewer and far between. Restructuring, mergers, various reinvigorations, and the like may complicate things further, but I digress.
A useful contrast lies in the existence of The Valve Corporation, which has put out consistently excellent quality franchises and games - at a reduced frequency - in part because of its free associative organizational structure. Teams are allowed to organically combine and disband depending on what employees are interested in working on. Still there are limits to this as well.
To go further, if one is really looking for something special, in which the writing and the art direction is truly inspired and even ecstatic, one must go to the indie realm, where projects are greatly scaled down and the production process is less intensive. The process may be accessible enough so that a single person with vital ideas and talents may be able to make the entire game, or else a few compatible team members can come together organically.
In the mainstream portion of the industry, to find an instance in which the ideas, the writing, the art, and whatever else are all working together to form a consistently excellent whole is much more rare. Even more rare is to find a game which bucks the most basic conventions of the industry, or even of the greater culture.
The technology itself - the product of the engineer's ecstasy - persists for some time, and can be successfully reproduced if there aren't systemic issues with the organs of production - this is another issue altogether - and so graphics, physics, framerates and all the like are quite consistently spectacular, while the writing and the subject matter is comparatively dull and lifeless. And there are even increasingly glaring problems with the technology itself as time wears on, such as strange or even fatal bugs and flaws, which can probably be traced back to the social structures of production, and even to the surrounding technological infrastructure itself.
This is all getting ahead of another set of questions. Where does the ecstasy go? Who gets to enjoy it? Who gets to do work that they enjoy, and who gets to get respected for that work? Are we huddled breathlessly around the work of janitors who maintain the buildings of production, and the technicians who maintain the computers and other machines of production? No, in this case, the full blooming, and the full social witnessing of the blooming occurs at the levels of cultural work and high technology.
And given the historic concentration of capital and even worker resources, this ecstasy blossoms in limited circles, delineated by class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, age, etc. Yes, in the cultural realm things are changing, sometimes rapidly in some quarters, but there remains a political struggle for participation in a wide swathe of cultural production, a participation which necessarily requires a certain amount of resources and standard of living, all political struggles in their own right.
And further, everyone is still working under the constraints of capital, even the indie workers, who toil under constrained resources.
Now one major question to go back to is this: why is it that when something reaches a certain point of development in this society, its creative spark, or its soul is lost?
One explanation we can point to lies in the structure of the modern corporation itself. It was once built to be formed and then collapsed to administrate large economic projects, but now it is erected and persists for as long as it has the means to accumulate money and capital for its owners, which happen to be a minority resting at the top of the structure.
The ecstasy then is consistently reserved for the businessman, who is permitted by his society to latch on to some cultural phenomenon of interest, establish an economic structure around it, and then exploit it for his ecstasy, his delight in accumulation. This necessarily must order all of the cultural activity underneath it towards this aim, breaking up the connections which are formed in various ecstatic directions, and then reordered to perpetuate and intensify accumulation.
The economic landscape of video game production becomes a sort of great game, in which the executives controlling the economic apparatus hijack the entire field of activity in order to accumulate and consolidate their operations and capital. And well, by now this is an old story to seasoned ears.
What does ecstasy in production look like? It might be a little difficult to talk about what is actually happening in the subjective experience of the producers, but one can find markers of its existence upon apprehending the actual work of art. Something feels great in the work, or something is being expressed that suggests that the artist expressing it was clearly experiencing some sort of ecstasy or cosmic vision.
But what I'm interested in at the moment is how this ecstasy becomes possible, and then how is it to ebb and flow given the modalities it arises with?
Something happens over time in the video game industry, which is related to the structure and modality of reproduction of the society that the industry exists in. Large corporate economic structures form around various intellectual and technological properties, and there is a pattern in which original and vital franchises form at a slower rate, and repetitious sequels and spinoffs churn forth in increasingly degraded states. The culture itself calcifies, with a conservative fan base rallying around the hyper-masculine and violent franchises they've been consistently fed all their lives.
Yes, there must be a raw material that fuels the ecstatic vision. For the most part, the mainstream strains of our video game culture has chosen war.
There are common technologies and ideas that are shared socially, which form the soil from which these creative visions spring forth. However over time increasingly idiosyncratic and proprietary developments are fenced off by the conservative and acquisitive corporations, which take less chances as the production process becomes more expensive and intensive, choosing instead to milk the cash cow, the successful franchise that worked.
Where do these successful franchises come from? Maybe someone spots a rare talent, or some team of talents comes together organically before the company's social structures have completely hardened. Maybe there is a trusted talent who has an existing team, and a new idea is developed then? I can't claim to know the interiors of the companies, but there is enough information present to make inferences. From the outside, it helps to reiterate that all these things suffer from diminishing returns, and I given company, the truly inspired pieces become fewer and far between. Restructuring, mergers, various reinvigorations, and the like may complicate things further, but I digress.
A useful contrast lies in the existence of The Valve Corporation, which has put out consistently excellent quality franchises and games - at a reduced frequency - in part because of its free associative organizational structure. Teams are allowed to organically combine and disband depending on what employees are interested in working on. Still there are limits to this as well.
To go further, if one is really looking for something special, in which the writing and the art direction is truly inspired and even ecstatic, one must go to the indie realm, where projects are greatly scaled down and the production process is less intensive. The process may be accessible enough so that a single person with vital ideas and talents may be able to make the entire game, or else a few compatible team members can come together organically.
In the mainstream portion of the industry, to find an instance in which the ideas, the writing, the art, and whatever else are all working together to form a consistently excellent whole is much more rare. Even more rare is to find a game which bucks the most basic conventions of the industry, or even of the greater culture.
The technology itself - the product of the engineer's ecstasy - persists for some time, and can be successfully reproduced if there aren't systemic issues with the organs of production - this is another issue altogether - and so graphics, physics, framerates and all the like are quite consistently spectacular, while the writing and the subject matter is comparatively dull and lifeless. And there are even increasingly glaring problems with the technology itself as time wears on, such as strange or even fatal bugs and flaws, which can probably be traced back to the social structures of production, and even to the surrounding technological infrastructure itself.
This is all getting ahead of another set of questions. Where does the ecstasy go? Who gets to enjoy it? Who gets to do work that they enjoy, and who gets to get respected for that work? Are we huddled breathlessly around the work of janitors who maintain the buildings of production, and the technicians who maintain the computers and other machines of production? No, in this case, the full blooming, and the full social witnessing of the blooming occurs at the levels of cultural work and high technology.
And given the historic concentration of capital and even worker resources, this ecstasy blossoms in limited circles, delineated by class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, age, etc. Yes, in the cultural realm things are changing, sometimes rapidly in some quarters, but there remains a political struggle for participation in a wide swathe of cultural production, a participation which necessarily requires a certain amount of resources and standard of living, all political struggles in their own right.
And further, everyone is still working under the constraints of capital, even the indie workers, who toil under constrained resources.
Now one major question to go back to is this: why is it that when something reaches a certain point of development in this society, its creative spark, or its soul is lost?
One explanation we can point to lies in the structure of the modern corporation itself. It was once built to be formed and then collapsed to administrate large economic projects, but now it is erected and persists for as long as it has the means to accumulate money and capital for its owners, which happen to be a minority resting at the top of the structure.
The ecstasy then is consistently reserved for the businessman, who is permitted by his society to latch on to some cultural phenomenon of interest, establish an economic structure around it, and then exploit it for his ecstasy, his delight in accumulation. This necessarily must order all of the cultural activity underneath it towards this aim, breaking up the connections which are formed in various ecstatic directions, and then reordered to perpetuate and intensify accumulation.
The economic landscape of video game production becomes a sort of great game, in which the executives controlling the economic apparatus hijack the entire field of activity in order to accumulate and consolidate their operations and capital. And well, by now this is an old story to seasoned ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)