This is an intersting thought.... How does a person abstract themselves? The process of cognition itself is a process of abstraction...a move from the perception of primary phenomena to a restructuring of the present through narrative representation. This is where, I think, the identity of the individual is felt most concretely.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Michael Angelo Tata, PhD <mt...@ipublishingllc.com> wrote: > Yes--it seems that dematerialization and thoughtlessness go together. > Whether we are talking about money, capital, or arms. Perhaps to be > thoughtful, we need to de-distance ourselves from concrete entities become > abstractions: the thing may need to re-appear after all in order for there > to be an ethics. > > ******************************************* > Michael Angelo Tata, PhD 347.776.1931-USA > http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/ > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:04:58 -0400 >> From: davinheck...@gmail.com >> To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] headline: human interaction reaches junk status! >> >> I think you are right to suggest that I am downgrading human >> interaction to junk status. And I cannot say that it was necessarily >> ever different. But I still want to the kind of person who does not >> always act like an idiot and who is willing to make changes to build a >> world that is different. >> >> I don't know that junk status is absolute. If somebody wants to make >> an argument in favor of one way of doing something over another, then, >> my judgment is wrong precisely because I have claimed that everything >> is so "thoughtless." If someone says, "No, Davin. You are wrong. I >> am not as thoughtless as you think." And if they can articulate this >> thought, it would be hard for me to insist otherwise. But, if people >> don't care to explore the space of their consciousness (and better >> yet, share it), instead preferring to ride on cruise control, then in >> that particular case, they have been thoughtless. And, of course, >> nobody should have to prove they are thoughtful to me.... but they >> should try to prove it to themselves from time to time, the more the >> better. >> >> While I am sure that people have always been pretty thoughtless, it >> strikes me as particularly true in our age of relentless busyness. I >> am particularly taken by Virilio's arguments about speed and >> cybernetics, particularly the notion that acceleration leads to >> decreased capacity to respond responsibly, so judgment is increasingly >> embodied in formulas and cybernetic systems. When we killed each >> other with rocks, you had to look at the person you were going to >> crush before you crushed them. Today, when you kill someone at >> supersonic speed, you just plug in some coordinates, and the machine >> does the rest. Or, you can just kill through default by destroying >> infrastructure and imposing embargoes. This is thoughtlessness on an >> ultimate scale. >> >> I'm plenty thoughtless myself. And I feel like I should be more >> thoughtful. And when I try to be thoughtful, it is usually fairly >> exhausting and often frustrating. But, on the other hand, it's also >> very rewarding in its own way. It's usually accompanied by some >> feeling of guilt, possibly some immediate changes in my behavior, and >> eventually a sense that I tried to do something other than what I >> would have done had I not been mindful. It's a modest reward, and >> maybe it is an impossible way to change anything in all but the most >> minute ways, but I would like to believe that if enough people even >> devoted a modest slice of each day (5 minutes) to something as simple >> as studying and reflecting upon some injustice that they themselves >> have inflicted upon another, either through action or omission, >> directly or indirectly, that the world we would create would be much >> more ethical. (Jeez! I guess I am becoming a whacko.) >> >> Peace! >> Davin >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Nicholas Ruiz III >> <edi...@intertheory.org> wrote: >> > >> > Indeed, the consumer society has been rotten forever...but at least we >> > can switch the channel from the wedding planners to the forensic >> > pathologists...sounds like you're downgrading human interaction to junk >> > status...but we might ask...when was it different? When was the way we >> > were...'here'...I'm just curious to know... :-) >> > >> > NRIII >> > >> > Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D >> > Editor, Kritikos >> > http://intertheory.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: davin heckman <davinheck...@gmail.com> >> > To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> >> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 10:32:43 PM >> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6 >> > >> > I think this might be why gift giving can be so subversive, because if >> > we were to resign ourselves, say, to viewing the cash nexus as the >> > only medium for exchange... gift giving implies that the cash nexus >> > is incomplete or insufficient. >> > >> > If you give a gift (say, you give someone a copy of your favorite >> > book) and it returns to you with an expected equivalent compensation >> > from the recipient ($27.95), then this is a business transaction. If >> > the gift returns to you in all of the various ways that gifts can... >> > you strengthen a bond of friendship, you feel a little bit better, >> > maybe even you hope that someday someone will give you a gift (maybe a >> > mix tape or their favorite music or a copy of THEIR favorite book), or >> > whatever... it cheapens the whole idea of economics by suggesting >> > that something else matters more. Say you are a jerk and you neglect >> > to say "thank you" for a gift, this implies that the money or the time >> > spent is not an issue.... it's a fundamental "lack of respect" or >> > something social that you have screwed up. It's not fraud, theft, or >> > a crime against property.... it is an offense against a human being, >> > it hurts people's feelings, it disrupts the social order, it is >> > inconsiderate, etc. Or, the giver might not even mind. In any case, >> > at the very most it allows capitalism a role in human relations, but >> > it is not the dominant role. >> > >> > On the other hand, there are a great many "human" situations which >> > require gift giving, but which have been fairly formalized and are >> > being turned into transactions. Weddings, for instance. The >> > historical role of wedding gifts was to help the new couple establish >> > a home. To help streamline this process for the benefit of guests, >> > people started creating registries. And today, people.... even those >> > who already have a home together... just request a bunch of new stuff >> > that they didn't get around to buying yet.... and they hope that in >> > exchange for a superfluous ceremony, you will buy them a specific set >> > of dishes which is nicer than the decent set they already own. I am >> > looking forward to the day when all weddings will be handled by >> > paypal.... you can pay money in small denominations to see virtual >> > images of what the wedding would look like if it were to take place, >> > and even pay extra to be in the wedding party. The money could even >> > be placed in escrow in case of divorce. And then, after five years of >> > virtually wedded bliss, you can take the money out of the escrow >> > account and have a live action ceremony. I know I am being cynical >> > about these things. And the truth is, I actually like weddings a >> > great deal. But I am a sentimental person, so I am suspicious about >> > those things which turn the objects of my sentiment into commodities. >> > It's not the couples that upset me... it's this whole industry which >> > says, "OK, now, you are supposed to act like this. He is supposed to >> > act this way. She is supposed to be like such and such." (I even >> > went to a wedding where we had to take all kinds of pictures of things >> > that didn't happen during the wedding. Like walking down a flight of >> > stairs and pretending that we were waving to people that weren't >> > there, over and over again, and lots of people yelling about how to >> > look comfortable and pleased. It was surreal. Think of mushrooms in >> > painful shoes, and that about is what it was like.) But to bring it >> > back to gift giving, here you have the market trying to turn weddings >> > into cash by selling it as a particular type of reality show. >> > >> > Sorry to ramble. Good thing there are no page limits. >> > >> > Peace! >> > Davin >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Cinzia Cremona >> > <cinziacrem...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>>As for reciprocity, for Derrida, there is a fundamental dissymetry >> >>> between >> >>> myself and the Other, as well as among myself and the "other >others" >> >>> with >> >>> whom I share social concourse: the gift I am expected to hand over to >> >>> the >> >>> deity is one which will not be reciprocated, but >refused, causing me >> >>> to be >> >>> remunerated in a posthumous order where spirirual riches accumulate, >> >>> but >> >>> only if I forget. With DNA in the place >of the Other, does this >> >>> dissymetry >> >>> remain, or is the playng field leveled? >> >> >> >>>For Derrida, to give is to forget that one has given: but can we forget >> >>> our >> >>> investments? >> >> >> >> I am glad I haven't missed this latest discussion, although it is hard >> >> to >> >> find the time to follow the conversation as it deserves. >> >> >> >> In relation to the passage above, I was thinking about Derrida's >> >> contretemps >> >> - when I give, I do not forget my gift, but I do not know when I will >> >> see >> >> what the return might be ... or from what direction it might come. How >> >> about >> >> reading dissymetry and lack of reciprocity as a possible wider form of >> >> circulation of capital, and of a larger variety of forms of capital? >> >> The >> >> gifts I receive might not be comparable to the gifts I have given in >> >> terms >> >> of a certain value system, but I might still depend on them, or they >> >> might >> >> be priceless from a different perspective. Also, I find it quite >> >> plausible >> >> to expect gifts from those I have not given to, and have no intention >> >> or >> >> capacity to give to. >> >> -- >> >> Cinzia >> >> >> >> Visions in the Nunnery >> >> 22 to 31 May 2009 >> >> openvisions.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> empyre forum >> >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > empyre forum >> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > empyre forum >> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> empyre forum >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > ________________________________ > Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out. > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre > _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
