Thursday, November 14, 2019
On Water
Water, that great equalizing and dissolving force, can at the same time be essential and detrimental. As it pervades all life, it is needed by life. But then as it dissolves and breaks everything down and incorporates everything into it, it succeeds at eroding those passes at continuity such as housing and walking paths. What one needs must also be held at remove.
But then to act too strongly to protect against water, say to lay down a suffocating cover of concrete to ensure that nothing breaks down, is to deny the percolation of water into the ground where it is needed, or otherwise, the water moves somewhere else, where it eventually gathers strength and floods and overwhelms.
So nothing can really be absolutely dominated or subsumed. What is to be influenced must also influence in turn.
But then to act too strongly to protect against water, say to lay down a suffocating cover of concrete to ensure that nothing breaks down, is to deny the percolation of water into the ground where it is needed, or otherwise, the water moves somewhere else, where it eventually gathers strength and floods and overwhelms.
So nothing can really be absolutely dominated or subsumed. What is to be influenced must also influence in turn.
The Economy of Ideas
One thing that I've noticed about the dynamic ideas - within my own self at least - is that their structure and expression is highly sensitive to environment and activity. If I'm engaged in intense physical work, the ideas are formed out of direct experiences - whether through physical experiences or sensory perceptions - which are initially formed as impressions, which can then be elaborated upon when I have settled down.
Settling down for a longer period of time, the ideas begin to crop up and become much more self-referential. They are evoked suddenly and explosively, oftentimes through received symbols that are transmitted through media and reading and writing. And they build upon each other, ever taller into abstraction, as there is more energy available for them.
What is left after these processes is then stored and accumulated, which is used in subsequent processes later on. And it all steadily accumulates and mutates.
Settling down for a longer period of time, the ideas begin to crop up and become much more self-referential. They are evoked suddenly and explosively, oftentimes through received symbols that are transmitted through media and reading and writing. And they build upon each other, ever taller into abstraction, as there is more energy available for them.
What is left after these processes is then stored and accumulated, which is used in subsequent processes later on. And it all steadily accumulates and mutates.
Mimetic Squeeze
Monopolization and industry concentration have powerful mimetic effects, which aren't only born out of pure mimicry, but also out of necessity. When one corporation concentrates and vies for monopoly in a given industry or market, it leads to a sense of panic and urgency within competing organizations, because the monopolizing entity is going for everything, which implies the death of its competitors.
And monopolization implies the re-coupling of corporate entities spanning multiple industries, so the patterns of monopoly eventually spread across all industries. Capital is constantly attempting to resituate itself so as to maximize the rate of profit - which functionally accrues to a minority of controllers - which necessitates minimizing the flow of costs to the body: labor, infrastructure, and resource inputs, say.
So as currency flows continue to constrict - and losing rivals are destroyed and/or subsumed - the remaining surviving smaller businesses also have to move to sap more resources in the ways that they can, or else constrict their own operations and costs. So there is a relentless and broad-based squeeze that advances the body politic to crisis.
At the same time as the rule of law is corrupted by the economic and political concentration, there is also a growing perception that anything goes, as long as one is powerful enough, a perception that reaches down into even the common citizen. Who knows what dormant schemes are now on their way to spawning and hatching out?
One could imagine that buried underneath that complex of imperial desires for conquest is the desire for that arch-monopolist, the leviathan government to put an end to the whole struggle altogether, historically with anti-trust measures and the like.
But the arch-monopolist itself must be remonopolized by the lobbies of anti-monopoly. Monopoly cannot be solved by substitution: it must be destroyed by those whose associations are agreed upon and situated to prevent further monopoly. Though of course this isn't always true. Sometimes it takes a king or a dictator. More broadly, a bad state of affairs must be replaced with a different state of affairs, which then persists for some time.
Underneath the process of monopolization is the desire for control. It was partially the hubris of rich reactionaries who didn't want to be subjected to government control that advanced us to this new era of monopolization, but it is always much more complicated.
Because the forces of financialization - through their processes of wealth concentration and sequestration - also threaten connected economic actors and introduce further chaos which produces further desires for control. And these are forces which were broadly welcomed across the Western political spectrum - that part of the spectrum with power at least - across the last 4 decades at least.
There are numerous other interconnected crises - some of them economic, some environmental, and still others political and social - which introduce greater levels of instability into this process, which evoke the desire to control, which leads to greater instability, and so on.
And this tendency, unfortunately for all of us, is built into the general nature of capital, which through massive and historical processes of social and political succession, is here to stay, at least until it triggers another successive stage. At this time, it is apparent that a profoundly destructive stage is much more likely.
And monopolization implies the re-coupling of corporate entities spanning multiple industries, so the patterns of monopoly eventually spread across all industries. Capital is constantly attempting to resituate itself so as to maximize the rate of profit - which functionally accrues to a minority of controllers - which necessitates minimizing the flow of costs to the body: labor, infrastructure, and resource inputs, say.
So as currency flows continue to constrict - and losing rivals are destroyed and/or subsumed - the remaining surviving smaller businesses also have to move to sap more resources in the ways that they can, or else constrict their own operations and costs. So there is a relentless and broad-based squeeze that advances the body politic to crisis.
At the same time as the rule of law is corrupted by the economic and political concentration, there is also a growing perception that anything goes, as long as one is powerful enough, a perception that reaches down into even the common citizen. Who knows what dormant schemes are now on their way to spawning and hatching out?
One could imagine that buried underneath that complex of imperial desires for conquest is the desire for that arch-monopolist, the leviathan government to put an end to the whole struggle altogether, historically with anti-trust measures and the like.
But the arch-monopolist itself must be remonopolized by the lobbies of anti-monopoly. Monopoly cannot be solved by substitution: it must be destroyed by those whose associations are agreed upon and situated to prevent further monopoly. Though of course this isn't always true. Sometimes it takes a king or a dictator. More broadly, a bad state of affairs must be replaced with a different state of affairs, which then persists for some time.
Underneath the process of monopolization is the desire for control. It was partially the hubris of rich reactionaries who didn't want to be subjected to government control that advanced us to this new era of monopolization, but it is always much more complicated.
Because the forces of financialization - through their processes of wealth concentration and sequestration - also threaten connected economic actors and introduce further chaos which produces further desires for control. And these are forces which were broadly welcomed across the Western political spectrum - that part of the spectrum with power at least - across the last 4 decades at least.
There are numerous other interconnected crises - some of them economic, some environmental, and still others political and social - which introduce greater levels of instability into this process, which evoke the desire to control, which leads to greater instability, and so on.
And this tendency, unfortunately for all of us, is built into the general nature of capital, which through massive and historical processes of social and political succession, is here to stay, at least until it triggers another successive stage. At this time, it is apparent that a profoundly destructive stage is much more likely.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Impeach
One of the arguments that keeps coming up about the impeachment hearings - at least in liberal circles - is that the process of the hearings, if nothing else, will at least serve to raise important questions about our political economy and world politics. It will open up a dialogue, as they say.
But this argument, besides being naive, is a mark of profound self-absorption. It is already the case that every crushing and impossible debt, every failed institution or community in the face of extreme weather, or any other aspect of political and economic injustice is enough to raise all kinds of questions and evoke all sorts of dialogue from and between affected individuals.
But why would the impeachment hearings suddenly make a difference significant enough to address the profundity of the problems we face?
One only has to listen to the initial hour of the public impeachment hearings to grasp what has been apparent throughout the entire process: it is just another echo - albeit a highly distinguished and formalized one - of a largely self-referential and theatrical operation of a political system that has long since been decoupled from the systems it governs.
The witnesses yammer on, carefully reconstructing and airing the binary products of political manufacture, while recalling endless streams of conversation and system processes which only concern them and their class, while the listener sits, head-cocked and ears perked up, but eyes glazing, straining to comprehend in vain. There is no truth here. Nor is there dialogue, only a series of monologues bursting forth like spears from a phalanx.
This effect was built into the structure of the hearings from the very beginning, thanks to the selectiveness and constraint with which the threat of impeachment was raised. Up until now, the structure of the economy was fine, the self dealing was fine as long as it wasn't too loud or gaudy, the cascading failures to deal with numerous environmental disasters were fine, the refugee crisis and profoundly cruel way of dealing with it was fine, the financial cannibalization was fine, and so on and so forth, because it was all continuous across the functioning of both parties for decades.
But now Trump threatens Biden politically in an open and un-coded way and my my now the gloves are off! Now the cherished sensibilities of the established political class are the precious thing being sullied; nevermind the growing rivers of blood and ash sullying everyone else.
Now, it wasn't my intent to echo Republican talking points about theatrics either, which themselves are theatrical expressions embedded in the same carefully constructed political dreamworld. It is self-evident that this is all theater, but theater is not categorically bad in and of itself.
No, there is good theater and bad theater. Theater is an expression of the workings, activity, and efficaciousness of the people and institutions producing it. Good theater can change the way people think and feel about each other and their worlds. It can matter. Bad theater is boring and irrelevant, or offensive depending on who is witnessing. It is usually this way because the people producing bad theater don't care much more about anything but themselves and what rotten fiefdoms they can cobble together in the service of their own provincial interests.
This is a function of the health of the institutions they are part of, a health which acts on them and sets them into unfortunate trajectories (if the health is bad), which also act on the institutions in turn. And for this reason the avenues of right action left open to us as a society will not involve our political institutions in their currently constituted form.
But this argument, besides being naive, is a mark of profound self-absorption. It is already the case that every crushing and impossible debt, every failed institution or community in the face of extreme weather, or any other aspect of political and economic injustice is enough to raise all kinds of questions and evoke all sorts of dialogue from and between affected individuals.
But why would the impeachment hearings suddenly make a difference significant enough to address the profundity of the problems we face?
One only has to listen to the initial hour of the public impeachment hearings to grasp what has been apparent throughout the entire process: it is just another echo - albeit a highly distinguished and formalized one - of a largely self-referential and theatrical operation of a political system that has long since been decoupled from the systems it governs.
The witnesses yammer on, carefully reconstructing and airing the binary products of political manufacture, while recalling endless streams of conversation and system processes which only concern them and their class, while the listener sits, head-cocked and ears perked up, but eyes glazing, straining to comprehend in vain. There is no truth here. Nor is there dialogue, only a series of monologues bursting forth like spears from a phalanx.
This effect was built into the structure of the hearings from the very beginning, thanks to the selectiveness and constraint with which the threat of impeachment was raised. Up until now, the structure of the economy was fine, the self dealing was fine as long as it wasn't too loud or gaudy, the cascading failures to deal with numerous environmental disasters were fine, the refugee crisis and profoundly cruel way of dealing with it was fine, the financial cannibalization was fine, and so on and so forth, because it was all continuous across the functioning of both parties for decades.
But now Trump threatens Biden politically in an open and un-coded way and my my now the gloves are off! Now the cherished sensibilities of the established political class are the precious thing being sullied; nevermind the growing rivers of blood and ash sullying everyone else.
Now, it wasn't my intent to echo Republican talking points about theatrics either, which themselves are theatrical expressions embedded in the same carefully constructed political dreamworld. It is self-evident that this is all theater, but theater is not categorically bad in and of itself.
No, there is good theater and bad theater. Theater is an expression of the workings, activity, and efficaciousness of the people and institutions producing it. Good theater can change the way people think and feel about each other and their worlds. It can matter. Bad theater is boring and irrelevant, or offensive depending on who is witnessing. It is usually this way because the people producing bad theater don't care much more about anything but themselves and what rotten fiefdoms they can cobble together in the service of their own provincial interests.
This is a function of the health of the institutions they are part of, a health which acts on them and sets them into unfortunate trajectories (if the health is bad), which also act on the institutions in turn. And for this reason the avenues of right action left open to us as a society will not involve our political institutions in their currently constituted form.
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
A Quick Update
It has been some time since a posting, but here are a couple now. Life circumstances have changed again, as they do around here, so the content and frequency of the content will change too. For the better? I don't know, but difference can always be counted on. More to come.
Politic
A modern industrial society, with its modern complexity, requires in turn a modern politics which reduces and compresses that complexity to manage it.
And so archetypes are put forward to direct and channel the political energy. The brokerage of images - images embodied in individuals - as a historical and social mode of politicking is furthered as a mechanism to make this process possible.
Archetypes do have to be made though, and today they are manufactured. And the brokerage itself must pass through a mode of manufacture too. And even the mode of manufacture itself has to exist within a social and historical reality.
So we get left with a largely binary set of images - which are both crude and refined in their own ways - which do nothing to describe reality, other than to ritualistically function to keep the industrial society in motion.
And as the processes of industry break down and tumble apart, so too do the political machines, and the crude images crash against each other as their crude and simplistic barriers meet together violently.
And so archetypes are put forward to direct and channel the political energy. The brokerage of images - images embodied in individuals - as a historical and social mode of politicking is furthered as a mechanism to make this process possible.
Archetypes do have to be made though, and today they are manufactured. And the brokerage itself must pass through a mode of manufacture too. And even the mode of manufacture itself has to exist within a social and historical reality.
So we get left with a largely binary set of images - which are both crude and refined in their own ways - which do nothing to describe reality, other than to ritualistically function to keep the industrial society in motion.
And as the processes of industry break down and tumble apart, so too do the political machines, and the crude images crash against each other as their crude and simplistic barriers meet together violently.
The Human Element
Many analyses of the environment and climate spheres tend to be kept separate - and held up as distinct and delineated objects - from analyses of political and economic spheres, though of course there are always accompanying commentaries that make note of crossover effects that one sphere might have on the other. There are plenty of excellent analyses to go around which deliberately make use of multiple spheres to build a holistic case, though these analyses do tend to be shoved to the margins by those dominant institutions of information dissemination which those analyses threaten.
Nevertheless, less plentiful is an appreciation of really how explosive the human element tends to be within this greater metabolism, all of which make for a holistic object of study. Say, we look upon the growing storms and wildfires with trepidation on the one hand, and then upon the frothing global trade and nationalism with lamentation on the other, but then never the twain shall meet, at least in the public eye.
Yes, we're trained to look out upon an object and cast judgment on it, or else switch gears and turn the perception inward within a stream of introspection, both processes of which are very useful in different situations and yield their respective fruits. But to synthesize the two? We don't seem to be as good at that, at least collectively.
Which is just as well, and seems to be a common condition of modern conscious existence. After all, how many can withstand the intense feelings of vertigo, upon becoming alarmed at the increasingly kinetic and turbulent biosphere, and then looking inward to find that explosiveness mirrored in one's own self and society? This is an explosiveness which is ready to burst forth from the mere necessity of motion, where everywhere solutions to problems stand poised to beget yet more problems.
This may seem an esoteric line of inquiry, but energy itself does seem ever more esoteric the more one stares it in the face, which becomes mind-melting. The simplistic metaphor of a dying fire - deprived of its fuel, heat, and/or oxygen - is dashed to pieces upon application to a human organism deprived of food and water, which in its advanced state, becomes ever more explosive and dynamic.
Like the locust, which, finding itself in drought, is moved to frenzy in a consuming cloud which tears across the landscape, the advanced human organism, in a state of deprivation, is spurred into monopoly, war, and total control.
We are left with a choice of actions in which the consequences of each are not significantly different. To avoid turning our gazes inward, it is necessary to continue along the same pathways, the same ruts, marshaling conventional methods, such as current technological fixes to current technological problems, which draw in a whole different set of resources to substitute for the resources being depleted, which at the current scale, sets into motion the same patterns of depletion and turbulence that the previous patterns effected.
Otherwise, to turn the gaze inward is to come up against one's - and others' - own explosive nature. One is moved to change one's nature internally only through dramatic constraint, change, or trauma, all of which tend to originate from external sources.
One's nature can be changed externally from the influence of others, though this outside influence more than often fosters resent. Witness the political directive to "change your life" and save the world. Well who is beckoning this change? Are these beckoners changing every aspects of their own lives, are just the parts that are convenient and have a favorable image?
And then there is the problem of the global elite, whose very natures and existence are predicated on the image of total power and control. And so the inward-facing appeal to change their lives, and give up some control and power is actually an absolute threat to their control and power, which is met with the thirst for more control and power, which increases the need for them to change. Now they exist as the mortal enemy of all of humanity, including themselves, which requires a marshaling of comparable amounts of energy and resources to vanquish them, which produces a turbulence - both internal and external to the human organism - which we are trying to avoid.
At the end of this analysis, the human element itself takes hold in the consciousness as a fearsome and dynamic force, its presence front and center, and even those terrifying environmental storms and fires take a back seat. This is the storm and fire par excellence.
Its modern form, which in its material expansion and global breadth, and its cultural atomization and resent, is poised to explode upon being antagonized, and is currently in a historical state of explosion in response to historical antagonisms, and then as it explodes it continues to antagonize itself and its own environment. This is a mechanism which is more fearsome than the atom bomb itself, which was merely birthed by it.
Is a life of peace and dignity possible in the face of such a state of affairs? Well of course. But first this is a vision which must be seen and felt.
Nevertheless, less plentiful is an appreciation of really how explosive the human element tends to be within this greater metabolism, all of which make for a holistic object of study. Say, we look upon the growing storms and wildfires with trepidation on the one hand, and then upon the frothing global trade and nationalism with lamentation on the other, but then never the twain shall meet, at least in the public eye.
Yes, we're trained to look out upon an object and cast judgment on it, or else switch gears and turn the perception inward within a stream of introspection, both processes of which are very useful in different situations and yield their respective fruits. But to synthesize the two? We don't seem to be as good at that, at least collectively.
Which is just as well, and seems to be a common condition of modern conscious existence. After all, how many can withstand the intense feelings of vertigo, upon becoming alarmed at the increasingly kinetic and turbulent biosphere, and then looking inward to find that explosiveness mirrored in one's own self and society? This is an explosiveness which is ready to burst forth from the mere necessity of motion, where everywhere solutions to problems stand poised to beget yet more problems.
This may seem an esoteric line of inquiry, but energy itself does seem ever more esoteric the more one stares it in the face, which becomes mind-melting. The simplistic metaphor of a dying fire - deprived of its fuel, heat, and/or oxygen - is dashed to pieces upon application to a human organism deprived of food and water, which in its advanced state, becomes ever more explosive and dynamic.
Like the locust, which, finding itself in drought, is moved to frenzy in a consuming cloud which tears across the landscape, the advanced human organism, in a state of deprivation, is spurred into monopoly, war, and total control.
We are left with a choice of actions in which the consequences of each are not significantly different. To avoid turning our gazes inward, it is necessary to continue along the same pathways, the same ruts, marshaling conventional methods, such as current technological fixes to current technological problems, which draw in a whole different set of resources to substitute for the resources being depleted, which at the current scale, sets into motion the same patterns of depletion and turbulence that the previous patterns effected.
Otherwise, to turn the gaze inward is to come up against one's - and others' - own explosive nature. One is moved to change one's nature internally only through dramatic constraint, change, or trauma, all of which tend to originate from external sources.
One's nature can be changed externally from the influence of others, though this outside influence more than often fosters resent. Witness the political directive to "change your life" and save the world. Well who is beckoning this change? Are these beckoners changing every aspects of their own lives, are just the parts that are convenient and have a favorable image?
And then there is the problem of the global elite, whose very natures and existence are predicated on the image of total power and control. And so the inward-facing appeal to change their lives, and give up some control and power is actually an absolute threat to their control and power, which is met with the thirst for more control and power, which increases the need for them to change. Now they exist as the mortal enemy of all of humanity, including themselves, which requires a marshaling of comparable amounts of energy and resources to vanquish them, which produces a turbulence - both internal and external to the human organism - which we are trying to avoid.
At the end of this analysis, the human element itself takes hold in the consciousness as a fearsome and dynamic force, its presence front and center, and even those terrifying environmental storms and fires take a back seat. This is the storm and fire par excellence.
Its modern form, which in its material expansion and global breadth, and its cultural atomization and resent, is poised to explode upon being antagonized, and is currently in a historical state of explosion in response to historical antagonisms, and then as it explodes it continues to antagonize itself and its own environment. This is a mechanism which is more fearsome than the atom bomb itself, which was merely birthed by it.
Is a life of peace and dignity possible in the face of such a state of affairs? Well of course. But first this is a vision which must be seen and felt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)