Thank you for that. I also think of D&G's discussion of axiomatics in light of
that famed creature, the body without organs. How can we connect the axiomatic
to Luhmann's systems, or to the self-regulating entities of autopoiesis,
especially as regards (non)-grounding, points of entry, and the selfhood that
somehow results from the web, network, tissue or other organizational schema of
the system proper?
For Eve, it was always a question of Silvan Tomkins and his take on what we are
to do with emotions like, her favorite, "Shame," within AI or the cybernetic.
For Tomkins, interest is the key--a word reverberating with our discussions
about capital and its construction (or, pace Nick, thereness), at least
metaphorically--as it is impossible to generate a truly independent thought
system/mentality/cogito without first getting this thinking computer to care (a
sort of application of Sorge to the servo-mechanistic).
*******************************************
Michael Angelo Tata, PhD 347.776.1931-USA
http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:04:26 -0400
> From: davinheck...@gmail.com
> To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Rock Theory
>
> I suppose it is good to remind ourselves in these situations that we
> can take nothing for granted, except for those things which we
> ourselves grant. I can't help but think about Sedgwick's
> "Axiomatic"... RIP.
>
> Davin
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Nicholas Ruiz III
> <edi...@intertheory.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...and to complicate matters further..there is the physiological
> > 'transduction' of sensory phenomena into neurotransmissions understood by
> > the central nervous system...! Abstraction par excellence! Narrative side
> > effects occur in this process as well, limiting what we perceive to be the
> > real...many physicists revel in the work of elucidation of such a
> > 'cognitive' dissonance... :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:34:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Rock Theory
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
