Quite brilliant Ash. Our cats merely hunt each other most of the time. The male appears to be the bozo of the pair in this, yet the much bigger female may be lured to his ground. In the garden he is the superior mouser and territory defender, often dropping from height onto other cats larger than he. She is an appalling bully of smaller, female cats. Both, in their own ways, worm their wiles on our affections and clearly regard me as the butler. The notion of deriving great profit from dramaturgy often crops up in here. Typical would be a swipe from Chris on the variety of protest industries. He is right, of course. Yet something is so grimly wrong that almost all on politics is said in the graffiti that emblazons 'BECAUSE WE'RE WORTHLESS'.
Peace indeed. Neil On 21 Jan, 05:32, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Archytas, > > I have a narrative clip for you that came to mind while reading your > post. Some more noise for your signal, eh. > > In error we expect to find an overt move to signify the presence of > manipulation all the while avoiding the horrifying truth that our > behavior sustains, and empowers it. The nature of masterful maneuver: > to know the opponent, his ways, predicting and set the trap before he > decides to walk into it. > > I remember watching our cat learn to hunt chipmunks. How she worked > haphazardly at first, applying hammerlike moves with no hope beside > sheer luck of catching him. Days went on and I noticed she began to > predict her prey's attempts at escape, his behavioral characteristics, > and adapt contingency experiments on the poor creature. I think it was > this that wore him down, the little chipmunk would be overcome and in > fear made his final flawed move. She was there waiting for it. I have > little doubt the entire battle occured on the field of minds, the > chipmunk knew everything necessary to wait, evade, and dart about much > faster than our cat and did so for some time. > > Bred into the public discourse, I think, is an instinct to flinch at > the worst possible moments. We are undone by the most vulgar > influences rather than facing the challenge of unknowns. My opinion is > that the mob rule is the equivalent of a chipmunk behaving like a > ball, not even putting up a fight. What, 'better to have [hoped] and > lost?' > > I know this is an absurd allegory, but when I consider behaviourism > and how people operate within tolerance ranges how easy it could be > with the right means, motive and opportunity to just push the right > buttons and let predictability fall in place. By this I invoke no 'Big > Brother' icon, but that doesn't make me cringe from the idea that our > stage is set on a broad range of contingencies from which some derive > great profit in conducting dramaturgy. > > The idea that as a recurring theme, we are either giving or being > taken from is the disturbing part. > > ...but you had to mention 'absurd'... > > Peace, > Ash > > On Jan 10, 9:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I wish, in many ways, that I was still footling about with lasers in a > > laboratory, only having to give any concern to public argument over > > delayed trains and the continued failure of my rugby league team. One > > can do something rather similar in my subject, which is broadly about > > how organisation comes about and develops, ending up in esoteric > > arguments in 'good sense' whilst despising 'common sense' (these are > > Gramscian terms). Science has no truck with common sense and academe > > in general regards it as a theatre of the absurd. One can reverse the > > gaze, and we often hear phrases like, 'he's bright, but has no common > > sense'. > > Some way into academic views, one can find the notion of 'paradigm', > > that knowledge is always expressed in generic terms of reference and > > one must understand the root metaphors or ways of life involved. > > Science can be viewed as just such a form of life. People doing this > > neglect many of the difficult questions this raises, such as whether > > you'd ask a bunch of physicists to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate, > > or a grannies' knitting club. Complex ideas of human understanding > > are involved here, but it is too easy to lapse into a form of > > knowledge deconstruction that denies evidence entirely. > > > Philosophy can seem to quickly unhinge everything, but this is > > generally a case of a little knowledge being a very dangerous thing. > > Absurdity might be a place to understand how weak our arguments often > > are. How did the Chinese rationalise 'foot-binding', the British > > 'witch-burning' (we hung most of them really) and so on? Currently, > > in the UK we hear our politicians saying we must find ways to > > encourage the best people into politics, the absurdity being that > > these politicians are clearly not the best people at all, looking like > > a bunch of money-grubbing scum to many of us. > > > My thesis is that argument is dangerous to power, and that as power > > cannot do away with argument (as it uses a form of it), it ensures > > control of it. We are encouraged to forget this through control > > measures that are 'hidden' as manners. The abstract argument from > > here is very complex, but there are some practical events in history > > that can help to make them specific. Even these take considerable > > space to detail. At bottom in this, power clearly hides evidence from > > us to prevent proper argumentation. > > > Theory aside (plenty is written if anyone wants to venture into the > > field), I wonder what role our more emotional appreciation might play > > in changing current politics? I, for instance, would rather watch a > > Sartre play (an agony) than our current mainstream current affairs and > > news - at least Sartre had some ludic intent to provoke, the latter > > now merely soap opera of 'happy shiny news for happy shiny people'. > > Even satire programmes are almost unwatchable because we know the > > jokes are the same as ever and part of business-as-usual. Everything, > > in some sense, becomes a niche-industry, including protest. Even 'The > > Graduate' has become true, with a real life 'Mrs. Robinson', perhaps > > even more added irony in that it has taken place in Northern Ireland, > > a last bastion in bigoted morality. > > > Many radical studies of Soviet Paradise noted the theatre of the > > absurd, not just in show-trials, but in a gloying kitsch; Arendt noted > > the banality of Nazi evil. I partly read Bellow's 'The Dean's > > December' in Bucharest before the wall came down - his point being > > that the moral climate was freezing in East and West. I didn't agree > > then - we were free of some of the brutalities here. Now I believe we > > are going backwards, and faster than we know. Politics as we have it > > is absurd - they like it that way and much as in the soviets this may > > be how they maintain their terror. > > > One classic move in the media is to stick a microphone in front of Joe > > Public, which seems to me to resemble monkeys, typewriters and > > Shakespeare. He gets 15 seconds of fame saying something bland, and > > they claim balance as the rest of the air-time is given to the very > > people who have been failing us for 20 years and more.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
