New Knowledge

What you don’t understand is that the consciousness gained from discovering an entire set of knowledge –a whole realm of previously unfathomable information—will, when discovered and conveyed for the first time, elicit a skeptical response, which is demonstrative of the hold that older ways of thinking have had on our consciousness before acquiring that newfound knowledge.

Circularity

Basically, the entire cognizable universe*,** is a collection of shared experiences where different conscious people engage in actions that open another set of experiences for them at the moment of perception.

Related to Bubble Universe idea here.

(1)Each action is part of a larger set of like actions performed by indiiduals of that set.
(2) There is a larger set of actions that enclose the Set in (1) and any one individual of Set (1) that can entertain actions outside of their set, transcend the limits of the set and become the next iteration of the Set (1)--that is, Set (1) is advanced when someone in the set goes beyond the Set (1).

*
** - By universe I don't mean a cosmological idea, I simply mean in a set theory (referent frame) modality.

History of the Design of Objects

Sitting on a bench in the only bathroom at work, I began to freely associate points of reference around me to capture the meaning of the streaming internal dialogue into a concrete form. I noticed the recycle sign of the steel

1', 2', and 3' Representations

There are primary, secondary, and tertiary representations of objects.

1': "I'm sitting across the street in a coffee shop and watching a man running across the street quickly from another man..."

2': "I'm watching a movie on the big screen of a man running across the street from another man..."

3': "I'm sitting in a classroom and a man is talking to the class--'I remember sitting in a coffee shop and watching a man running across the street quickly from another man.'"

4'(?): People sitting around a computer screen reading a blog about a person who talking about representation.

The "Longview"

This refers to the ability of a person to consider the time-consequences of their situation. For instance, if a person is able to understand the historicity of their actions as a narrative, then they understand the "longview."

This term is different from one's "worldview" which addresses the perceptions one possesses at any given moment in time.

Surfaces

A common thread throughout these posts has been an affinity to the "surface" aspects of objects around us. Before continuing (and annoying many of you) please allow me to restate what has been clear in these posts. You must imagine yourself as viewing yourself viewing objects around you--and, in this same example, the realm of discussion (the "discourse") that is the basis of investigation, is the set of identifiable objects (i.e., discernable bodies and surfaces in proximal space) near you.

In a simple sense, we can "map" a graph of the discourse and, in this way, create a "skeletal" representation of the ties between resident objects within a frame of discourse.

The "meat on the bones" of this "skeleton" is simply the multiplicity of references that are projected by resident objects within that particular discourse "onto" other identifiable resident objects.

For example, imagine a game of jacks, where there are jacks and a bouncing ball. The "discourse" is the grand scope vantage point from whence comes the "originating interpretation" (i.e., the object that instantiates the discourse) -- in this case, the person who "owns" the jacks and the ball and has a hand to create play with the jacks-ball. The "skeleton" is an imaginary linkage that touches each object in the jacks-ball set, inclusing the table and hand and air/space. The "meat-on-the-bones" is the percetive set of interpretations that reside around each object--for instance, "the manner in which the ball views the jacks below it as it is released from a hand above the whole game."

One might comment that these are absurd propositions--to anthropomophize a ball as though it had a sense of sight and intelligent perception. However, I would argue that the premise of this Surface article rests on an ecological idea of co-habitation.

All objects share a codependence with one another, independent of their "intelligence" or other human traits. The meaningfulness of such an inquiry is to reckon the anchors from which more critical investigation may begin.

Object-Centered Interactions

Object-Centered Interactions

Presumably, there exists a mode of interpretation to those objects around the person making the observation of the situation that would be consistent. That modality would have the effect of allowing any discourses to be identified and categorized, in addition to the ostensible effect of understanding the process and functionalities inherent therein.

In other words, there is a manner of identifying, classifying, and reacting to both a person close to you and to the imagined fictions of objects around you, like, for instance, a corporation.

The key questions in this discourse are: what is a unifying characteristic of this inquiry? What kinds of assumptions are made? Can we relate a “person”-object to a “thing”-object such that the conclusions of that relation make conclusions that are greater than individual analysis to the respective object?

On Eliteness

The reason why an idea can be classified as elite is
Because the
Idea’s object makes a direct reference to
Knowledge that encompasses other
Non-idea objects that don’t make the same reference(s)
But are still dependent upon them.

IN OTHER WORDS,
If one object is dependent upon another object for meaning, then the latter object claims knowledge to a higher order Object that is not directly linked to the former but for the latter.

Eliteness is the exclusive claim to privileged knowledge.

The Photographer: A book

Photographer: A book

About a stock photo essayist who much decide how to classify situations in such a manner as to assure that the scene depicted best represents the class of situations to which it belongs.

In one chapter, there's along narrative about how queer stock photos might run against the individuality of being gay, about how the ideas of gayness can be commodified. For example, what is represented by a B/W photo of an older white man is loving gazing at his younger black lover sitting on a porch-- the photo was of an older man whose only daughter's life was saved by the fireman in front of him.

Boundaries

Boundaries: When drawing distinctions between possible set of action between actors, the formation of boundaries and, by extension, hierarchies develop--

For example:

A --> B (A can do something to B)

BUT: C -\-> B (C can't do the same thing to B)

Thus, A has certain actions/behaviors that can exist--

Question: Does "C"-type action have some exclusivity that is independent of "A"-type bahvaior?

Answer: Yes. A and C have different types of behavior that can be shared with B. That is-- the A&B behavior set and the B&C behavior set are unique.

The uniqueness of the behavior is differentiated and placed in a hierarchy when placed in a domain that holds differential value with respect to A-B or B-C bonds.
______________________________
{_____________________________}
{____A=B bonds are____________}
{_________preferred to________} Environment "A" preference
{____________B-C bonding______}
{_____________________________}
Fig A: Environment "A" that prefers A-B bonding

There exists some social forces that place pressure on the formation and valuation of bonding for A-B.

Perhaps the value of a bond is related to how much easier it is to sustain that bond independent of the structure that supports it--I.e., if it is a bond that has power outside its preferred environment, then that bond has more "value".

------------
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN:

Within a situation, there will always be someone who has a closer relationship with someone else than you do. With respect to the limited set of activities that you can't perform that the other person can, that other person holds more value to any third party outside that situation, because only that other person holds access to a set of activities that you cannot allow access to.

Pragmatic-Functionalist Ideas

Pragmatic sociology is the study of background processes that are used by actors to exert power over one another and to exercise power to do something. These non-public processes contrain the choices that people make--they control the manner in which the affected actor constructs their perception of how the world works.

For example, it's advantageous for older, more mature employers to use the services of younger, less experienced workers because the younger employer will still have (due to the lack of counterexamples in life) a contiguous, whole view of the stuctures around them, such as:

(1) the consideration of superiors in balancing financial goals of a company and the life-quality in local work situations;

(2) the importance of your tasks in relation to the larger-scale goals of a company;

(3) integration of people and the community [i.e., how people can separate their work from their life*];

(4) a positive correlation between competence and placement in a corporate structure;

(5) a positive correlation between achievement and meaningful intention.

The older employer knows that it's difficult to find people that have wholly compact, constitutional views of their relation to the larger structures around them. It's important for the employer to make sure that there is an appearance of differentiation to preserve a division of labor. That is,

"I'm completely serious, you can't imagine how difficult it is to work up here. Down there, you have less to lose than I do. You're responsible for your crew, and i'm responsible for a division. I affect thousands of people (and you don't)".

As long as workers believe that they can never attain certain levels of accomplishment, or that they do not have similar traits that, but for exterior controls around them without which they could have achieved the same, the division of labor and experience in a dominance hierarchy within a work setting will always be preserved.
____________

[*] They can't. In our late-capitalist society, sociopolitical structures rekon valuation upon the production of goods and services--whether those G&S be in the form of a product on an assembly line, or the consulation of a psychologist, or a sex-chat line, or the kind action of a table waiter. Homeless, undervalued-people are marginalized because they are not seen as productive. In a liberal sense, they have rights as humans, but so do cats and dogs...

Transaction: A Movie

Transaction.

A story of a discourse between two parties--
Close shots between two parties and the secret life behind the public scenes.

Shot#1: At a large conference table room--business meeting.
Shot#2: In bed
Shot#3: Before abortion / before execution
Shot#4: Stranger in the street--A Man walking with coffee in his hand talking to people at random.
Shot#5 Teaching a class about relationships. (meta)

Glen Campbell's "Galveston" & Plasticity

In "Galveston", Glen Campbell tells the tale of a soldier who longs for his girl and his home. Amidst the dramatic string overtones and relaxing country-western inspiried ditties in the background, one can hear the pre-polyester zeitgeist of a new early 70s consumerism, a change in structural linkages to pre-stagflation symbologies. The canned spring sections and changing harmonies and "Dallas"-esque horn sectionals are enough to make a quick association with pre-fabricated, manufactured consumer electronics like transistor radios and CB transmissions--a la "Smokey and the Bear".

In finishing his story there continues strings repeating the chantable melody, until the song fades out. Obviously, there's a sense of continuousness, a sense of permanence in the ending. No resolution, except that the singing voice has resolved into silence. The melody will continue until no one can hear, and nothing will change in the soldier's life for he has been quieted by the machinery of war around him.

3 Different Gazes

(1) Post-action: In "Three Kings" the result of having an M16 round enter a stomach. There's a long scene that follows the bullet entering the target body.

(2) During: In "Matrix" the shooters projectile is shown as it travels *to* its object. No emphasis is made on the consequence of the round, nor on how the round is engaged.

(3) Ante-action: ?

How Typologies Constrain Relationships

By introducing a typological structure onto a relationship--that is, labeling the identity of a person, reducing a person's predicable actions within a circumstance, characterizing someone's intentions, etc.--the relationship will shape itself around the structure.

By labeling any relationship as "something", the contrains inherent to that "something" will define the boundaries (limits of interaction) and modalities (functional processes that can cause an outcome) therein.

For instance, if you believe that someone holds a hierarchical dominance over you in some regard to how you perform a task, then it's likelier than not that you would defer control over your own performances in favor of the dominant actor--simply because you believe that, ultimately, the task, in the set of all possible performances of that task, would be better performed by the dominant actor. I.e., playing a round of golf with Tiger Woods and actually listening and obeying his commentary about your particular shoulder position (which anyone could have told you), and somehow believing that this insight is "unique" or "special".

Deference should only be given to someone if:

(1) they can create or modify a field object in such a way that you could not--of course, given the same structural circumstances (i.e., class, family, material influences)--
(2) within the same time, manner, and space allowed.

Finally: For any writer who does not like another writer's work, one question to ask the former is whether they could have "done a better job given the circumstances" of the latter.

A Private Story

A private story.

The narrative is comprised of linked self-dialogue (projected onto an imaginary audience that listens in) about the character's relation to the people around them in the scenario they find themselves. The character's flaws are revealed and their own shortcoming amplified.

For example, a blond, trim runner in the rain whose own dislikes of other non-fit people are brought out as she describes (running in a soggy park) the merits of her own worldview, the fitness of her body and the importance of health in happiness. Or, a tall handsome executive who drinks his coffee on a plane and makes commentary about time-management, all the while looking at his new $5,000 watch. Or, a Honduranian maid, who in broken english addresses the audience about how difficult it was for her daughter to get an Anglo date because of the superficial value of trends in the US. Or, a gay man coming home to his apartment from a late night at a lover's place, describing the biases of certain types of older jewish men in the back of a taxi.

Silly thoughts

Thinking about ontological argument.

By imagining that which is not cogizable or translatable as containing the aspects of godliness, we necessarily create these aspects (requiring them to exist) and, by extension, become the god-figure ourselves. However, since only god can do this and since an obvious non-god has created this extension (and we are imperfect), then such extensions are not valid, even within the contraints of human logic. Surely god is more perfect than human.

The ontological argument cannot stand because it requires human cognition of types of ideas that a beyond its ability to create, and even if humans were able to, any such ideal extension is still, at its core, a human construct.

Also: any time that a human tries to talk about a god-figure, they recreate another realm of reality(*). Humans cannot speak of thoughts outside their congnition. Ideas (expressions of "reality") can only show the limits of interpretation, not explain or describe the reality outside of these boundaries/limits of interpretation.

(*) I can describe a universe where "god" exists, but this description still is a subset of my own "reality" here.

Web Interface and Usability

Usability, in my humble opinion, is a functional representation of certain assumptions made about the structure of problems. More concretely, usability is the embodiment of what kind of choices humans think they have with the interface of abstract automata like computers and non-discrete modeling machines.

When i was younger i used to enjoy playing Battleship and imagining how funny it was to use grids to identify position of ships. Latitude and longitude are convenient in GPS tracking, but really the Battleship idea and GPS are representative models of linear 2x2 structures that are mapped onto our 3D world. Mercator projections aside, we aren't flatlanders and there are serious implications on how we relate to one another, how we cognize representative forms around us everyday. Map relations cannot functionalize "real" world relations.

I'm passionate about design's place in deconstructive sociologies that try to dissassociate an object to a name, where intangible ideas aren't shoehorned into words that cannot even begin to describe the totality of the object in question, and, more importantly, the power inplications for categorization and marginalization--how people are distinguished based upon a larger structural assumption that belies how people "use"/"interface" things.

Translatability

Situations are translatable and can be scaled-up, with the flux of scaling being the extent to which the subset situation is encompassed by another super-situation in the latter's power to effect the former.

In other words, there exists a commonality of experience in interfacing with local resident structures. A main differential of experience is the extent to which one has power to effect the other that is not reciprocal.

For example, the situation of typing on a keyboard has relations to playing the marimba, or working on the control panel of a 747, or laying tile. The differences/relations of these situations are that the tile might be bought for a pilot who likes to play the piano. Or, a marimba player who has a brother who works as a mechanic on 747s and is the middle of a bathroom tile project.

The permutations of texts is confined by the power relations of the subset. The associative manner in which texts are piecemealed together is indicia of their power relations to one another.

How Ideas Can Be Funny

In essence, because we can encapsulate the entire representative form of an object as it appears to us, and in turn, manupilate the extensions of that object-idea, then there is allowed the capacity to show the negation of that same idea-object and create/reveal juxtapositions that, for some people, hold comedic effect.

Put another way, if we "know" what something "is", then the opposite is gained as a facet knowledge which creates juxtaposition, opposition, and, for some, irony. Irony is the beginning of comedy.

Defining "something" will always hold concurrent not-"something", and hold juxtaposition potential, which is the beginning of irony, and through interpretation, comedy.

Traditional Gender Structural Arrangements

Women can take a structural arrangement, an artifice that controls the flow of information to and from the subject and referent, and then fill in the interface with their own personal nudges, such that it appears that they are “warmer” in their interaction.

Men take a structural artifice and engage within the confines of the interface such that their contribution is how they engage the perceived structural qualities of the interface. They do not value and find irrelevant, within the context that the artifice is interacted, personal differentialization.

The difference between the two sexes is that women do not put much emphasis on the mechanisms that control the structural qualities the arrangement.

For example:

In a business negotiation, there are constraints upon what actions parties may engage in (i.e., their posture) relative to the situation. In a buying process, capital constraint require that negotiations benefit the other party at the expense of one.

Women can understand this process, but would find value in intangible, non-fungible items like “satisfaction,” “betterness,” or “performance” Men would find this information “irrelevant” to the situation, due to the unquantifiability of the information, and would rather focus on factors like “ “, “ “, and “ “.

Rate of Aesthetic Decay

As the association(s) between object and mode of representation become(s) harder to achor in a language that can decribe the intention of the artist, the types of artistic forms that remain as a "viable" process/procedure to encapsulate the original work will decrease. Perhaps, process and procedure, the relics of a past time, will not be used.

A dependance upon reconstructions from older "templates" will be needed to make room for the late modern artist to remain viable, to continue to have a space within which to "create" art. Eventually, however, "Art" will meet its end with the dissolution of the linkage between referent and objectifier.

Any type of projection and description using stock ideas and collections of collected objects cannot fit within this statement. They are "postmodern" in the sense that these chaotic-mosaic-works still draw meaning from the referent and objectifier. The end of "Art" means to not be able to describe any type of object, remain in a kind of sublime/ephemeral noosphere.

Destruction of Narrative Texts

With the destruction of standard narrative texts(*, #), there has been a shift to texts that still hold up the old structures and don't completely wipe out the power-relations required for the text to be identitified.(**)

IN OTHER WORDS, as we enter a more fragmented world, types of standard narrative structures to describe situations(^), or classes of those situations(^^), will be replaced by the "interchangeable parts" of textual objects (***).

That is, late modernist demands of stability with language--despite weakening of definitions, grounded base cases, and organization/classification--promote the inevitable utility of object-oriented texts.

Object oriented textualities are interchangable in their consequences and can be piecemealed together, such that a story can simulate the textualities of prior textual canons, but still fragment their relation to the non-object-oriented referent.

______________
(*) i.e.,the story of the woman who works very hard in her new country, and through the thick and thin of it, she manages to keep her faith in herself, her God, and, most importantly, her children, who will always remember the sacrifices made on their behalf
(**) People who can recognize these types of "stories" give power to the people who create those stories.
(#) "Standard" texts can be "classical" in the sense that they have claims of legitimacy and historicity. Standard textualities as used here are simply those that are interpretable as being regular, functional, and linear in their meanings and constructions.
(^) The immigrant mother: a progressivist story
(^^) The working mother who betters herself
(***) i.e., the mom who--because she felt hungry at the train station while trying to find work--decided to get a candy bar (which she chose because of the simple lettering and colors), and slips on a wet marble step, hitting her head; she begins to convulse upon choking on bits of chocolate nougat that dribble from her swollen, bleeding lips--but all she thinks about is her God as she imagines her children watching on, lowering their heads before her open casket.

Defining "...of death!"

This cute tag line is added to any object in order to accentuate any situation by adding an extra layer of the potentiality of death, fully realizing that there is no manner in which the target of the tag has such potency in common interpretations of the object--

For example:

sheep (object 1): cute and fluffy.
sheep "...of death" (object 2): cute, fluffy, and deadly.

The apparent juxtaposition of experiences that could result from entertaining the notion of the potentiality of death is where the "...of death!" tag line is comico-serious.

While there are instances where sheep have been involved in deadly tragedies; by and large, sheep are imagined jumping over wood for sleep, much to the chagrin of insomniacs.

Object and History: Continued

Continued from Object, History, and Power

Anyone who controls the generalization of particular classes of objects--i.e., the superset of diminutive objects (objects contained within the definition of the superior) that are related to one another through that superset--holds control over how the class history of subsets of objects is created--Or, put another way, the existentialization of relations of how particular classes of objects develop in relation to other classes of objects.

For example, we can generalize types of chairs. But now imagine that we take a superset of types of objects that the human body touches as part of its "natural" set. Included in this superset are: (1) Hands: gloves (2) Feet: socks (3) Head: hat. Of course, there is a continuing chain of material sets that logically encompass one another. If we examine the history of how gloves became to be (i.e., from the first primative mitten to more sopisticated apparati) in relation to the history of the shoe (i.e., from stock of tree bark to space-age polymer design), we can understand how the human body has played a part in the background, been at the root of the development of newer types of design, function, and form objects that interact with it. The obvious reveals itself: These objects "protect" the body from its "natural", non-covered state.

I believe that ultimately there exists a uniting set, a category of types of objects that relate to the body. What is the superset of that? Perhaps its a cognitive set of objects.

Why Power Matters

Power--as the controlling attribute of any situation because of its relation to the flux of the creation, the existentialization, of experience--would not want itself to receive attention, because, in so identifying and categorizing the contours of how it works and its manifestation, power loses its control and sustainability for the actor who benefits from its exercise.

Power requires that there be a stable interpretation between two actors.

That is, the power discourse is really how the subordinate actor can even begin to have experience to engage with the superordinate. The framework that describes the power relationship between two actors necessarily is imbalanced and includes functional behavior that the subordinate cannot perform (as opposed to the performability of the superordinate). "It's good to be king."

Power and Design

The only people that have control, or the power to control, are those who construct the shape of representative forms in the situational context of everyday life. Design is subtle enough to infuse itself in the mundane aspects of functional asthetics.

Functional Consequences of Capitalism

Because capital trade necessarily requires commodification and a mode of distribution, capital trade is more effectively done (without intragenerational seepage and loss of message/signal) by functional processes that can balance, manipulate, and negate propositions declared by the actors at the situational level.

That is, functionalization in cultural process/procedure should be preferred when dealing in situations where there is an exchange of capital information. For example, in establishing whether or not to discriminate based upon our experience we must hold some type of checklist as to what would typify the situation in question--Holding a checklist and mechanically making comparisions requires a functional discourse.

Controverted Universals

(1) There is no truth in the universe (including this one).
(2) All perceptable ideas are constructions from a common shared interpretation, based upon signs and symbols.
(3) There is nothing, no truth independent of our constructions, behind the signed artifice that is therein constructed.
(4) Any attempts to go beyond the limits of interpretation and signification have no translatable meaning, and thus have no potential for existentialization. I.e., we can never taste anything intellectually which cannot be perceived through cognition.
(5) The manner of the construction, i.e., the signed artifice herein described, is the only thing that can be described: substance/procedure, structure/agency, power/knowledge, form/function.
(6) All interpretations are localized situations that hold greater translatability to a shared, common repeated set of experiences. That is, all situations belong to a class of such situations that delimit the nature of the experience by being so defined.

How to Succeed in Academia...

(1) Find two fields that are more or less divergent
(2) Contradict both fields simultaneously using a common, agreed-upon language between the two
(3) Define new terms to explain this new synthesis
(4) Construct a meta-language for these definitions.
(5) Work on creating your own "knowledge"/"framworks"/"paradigms"
(6) Make people believe that their own creations can be encompassed by yours.
(7) Use their enthusiasm to convince others that you are a source of knowledge
(8) Allow others to define you structures. When there are questions of original meaning, always answer ambiguously and without any means of contradicting yourself.
(9) When everyone accepts your views, take your own field and blend it with another field and go back to (2)

Hegel, Kuhn, and Foucault.

Music: Genre Idea

A new music similar to Ellen Zwilich's quotations, except that there is a variance in the style employed. I.e., there's no continuity from a waltz to jazz to serialism to Bergian to neo-Romantic, etc. This would sound as a mess, the arrangements would be difficult.

The line would be linear, sound like an atonal progression but have elements of harmonic continuity.

Story: Fonts

Idea: Fonts
 
A story told in different fonts to reflect a different perspective (experience set) in a story.   Example:
 
>"Hello."
>"What do you want?"
>"Nothing."
 
That over time--fonts are imbedded into the original fonts of the changed characters,  our experience is built into our conversations.
 

Identity: Associative Symbologies

Each one of us has a set of symbol spaces that we CALL when projecting --> i.e., advertising symbols on/from out bodies.

[a dashed bubble containing a cloud with an arrow, labeled "1", pointed to by a circle, labeled A] this points, labeled by "2" and labeled with "projects", to [a dashed bubble containing the words "cognizable universe"]

The disjunctive between our projection and those around us not "getting it" leads to anomie-deviance-formation, possibly.

Associative symbologies. Form when constructing identity trying to form new, distict attributes. What is the desire, motivation that causes this to happen?

The Postmodern Cook

Traditionally, the cook addresses the audience and makes observations about the skill with which they cook, whether making a particular addition of spice, or a cooking technique.

The postmodern cook makes references to what is expected of how they ought to act in a certain circumstance ("At THIS point, let ME add some mace to the pie filling...HA HA") and expresses outward the idea that they understand this expected behavior, but because they have awareness of the expectation, that they refuse to act in that manner and they choose to exert their autonomy.

COOK: "And before adding the glaze, I want to to acknowledge that you don't know how to cook and you're getting ideas from a television image of me actually doing something I love, you pathetic loser..."

AUDIENCE: [cheers]

Loren's Si-Fi Story

A Si-Fi Narrative:

About a future society that understands the differences that produce reality (i.e., the set of empirical devices that produce the interpretable realm of things within our comprehension) Somehow, through the use of a new type of psychotometic drug agent that affects perception allows this to happen. Basic idea perhaps from KANT?

They create a space using available technology to change the reference reality. I.e., they have technology to change the frame set in that space such that a person would experience things not outside that special created space.

There is a study of the types of social interactions that exist within that space.

* How are social interactions different from those outside the space, the ones that we can interpret with the facilities that are not created for use inside that space?
* How do we interpret the interactions inside the space with our own faculties?
* What do the particularities of interaction inside that space say about our own interactions here outside?

Discursive and Recursive Spaces

Trying to find a structural difference between the types of views, the agent's viewpoint/perspective, that is revealed in proximal-space analysis (e.g., what i can see using eye faculties and assumed consequences of perception). Logical conclusions and associations shift in either case.

Discursive space is unilaterally functional in mapping. Object A -> Object B
Recursive space is bilaterally functional in mapping.
Object A <-> Object B [...] <-> ObjectSet N.

Imagine a dark wood grain table in a coffeeshop. I am speaking with a friend who mentions that she enjoys speaking with me: From a discursive, I'm simultanteously constructing interpretations, withholding evidence, discussing internal ideas with myself, parsing through the stream of uttereances and tying to speech evocations that go with her words, etc. The discursion is standard functional input and output relations.

From a recursive view, I'm simultantously trying to understand how the coaster underneath my warm cup of coffee perceives the two of us conversing. That is, extending my own interpretations and running multiple processes of "the set of objects around me and how they perceive/'discursivize' my discussion with her."

Scale and Object

Imagine a new couple, Ben and Farby, having a pleasant conversation in their nice two-bedroom home located in a new affluent subdivision. The flat, hollow tones of their voices belie what seems to be the perfect relationship. Recently, their intimacy has taken on mechanical, almost plastic nature. One can tell this in the deliberate movements of their caresses, their embraces. As they lovingly gaze to one another, however, they feel happy for having met one another, for having had a chance to comfort one another. They look forward to spending many years together.

Now imagine a large 100ft man ripping the roof open and reaching in with his gargantuan hands, taking a very still Ben, who has apparently frozen in fear.

(1) The first paragraph is the object of the Ben and Farby having a conversation, unbothered in their home.
(2) The second paragraph extends the object to include the fantastic Borgesian proposition that we had been imagining a scene between Ken and Barbie in a dollhouse.

Black Object/Symbologies

Ghettoized American blacks use and transfer objects and sets of objects (i.e., symbologies) in a manner that lends its ease for several reasons.

(1) In their construction of oppositional cultures, they have also constructed a concurrent language structure that is unlike conventional English structures. See Emily Bender's vernalcular studies.
(2) This structure allows for ease in classification and manipulation of objects, more so than the description constraints of standardized formal English. That is, the standard order of subject-verb agreement, basic gramatical rules/syntactic usages, referential context.
(3) Such a freedom of language allows for a different description of resident situations relative to standardized English.
(4) The construction, shape, and intention of discursive spaces is different.

There is a component/compartmental character to the ways in which ghettoized blacks speak and describe objects around them... There is a deconstruction of dominant, resident non-black symbologies.

Defining "Whatever..."

To Whatever [something, an object]: The usage of “whatever” to evoke an affected disinterest, or some sort of proposition that the objects in front of them have no import, that the ideas presented before them have no lasting significance. That they are smart enough to know and observe this (and that the creator of those insignificant objects doesn’t get that—he doesn’t “get it”)…

There are several good reasons why “whatevering something” is an alluring posture when engaging a discourse:

(1) you control the limits and value of the objects (i.e., the set of objects that are “whatevered” have been neutered from their significance by you).
(2) Such control places one in a position of power relative to people who adhere to belief and value in the set of non-whatevered objects. There is a power dialectic.
Ironic distance: The power dialectic in action. The power dialectic shoved into discourse to gain an advantage;
(3) A convenient means of answering the dialectic’s call for submission without claiming anything is true or valid.
(4) Some type of localized opposition.

The ultimate truth of whatever is that there does exist a structure in our hypermodern society with some semblance of power over that person based upon her instantiation within a discourse. These powers over her are many and include the obvious (i.e., that there are basic inequalities attached to her phenotypic (hair-skin-racial characteristics), sociometric (group networking), psychosexual (gender based pathology), agentic (individuated choices) presentations everyday)

hypermodern: a social structure that believes itself to be postmodern, but is actually a late structural-functional exercise with some postmodern adjustments.

Whatevering does not eliminate the basic power structure that is resident within the folds of the discourse into which it is applied.

Christianity and Faith

After debating for hours and hours, discussing the basic implications of particular interpretations of the life of people such as Jesus and the meaning of god in a Christian bible, the most fundamental truth remains.

That is, that, like other unknowable things in the universe, we ultimately profess a faith of belief to whatever structure and set of underlying principles to describe that unknowable universe. It is for that reason that Christianity is inherently an illogical and faith-derived construction. Of course, this faith applies to other structures, such as science. (Of course, this interpretation applies to these words, but i'm willing to bet that most literate english speakers believe that these words are what i believe)

It is silly to involve the hermeneutics of scripture in the same breadth as the assertion that an indefinable structure, such as that which is reached at the end of a Christian discussion (above), is also a necessary part of Christianity. (viz., on one hand, we believe that the scriptures can be logically parsed and evaluated VERSUS, on the other hand, that ultimately we must only have faith in the fundamental truth of Christianity for it have any validity).

The most basic underlying belief that must be accepted by all good christians is that Jesus was "magically" resurrected. ("Christian: Damn it, you ingrate. Jesus died on the cross at Cavalry so that you would be free of sin. He died for you so that you would be saved!! Al: What in the hell are you talking about? Are you shrooming?? Christian: One day you will believe before God our father Al: You don't say?)

Put another way, Christianity must be consistent through and through (which it ultimately can’t be) if we are to put a rational label upon the whole endeavor. Conversely, Science isn’t rational either in its premises, though there seem to be consistent premises throughout. Ultimately, I can’t prove that the ball in the example will not someday not fall back to earth for some untestable reason outside of our current perception (i.e., I can’t disprove the notion that there is some force that is acting upon things in our perceptible universe that effects everything (viz., the Cartesian demiurge devil, the “Brain in a vat” (BIV) theories)

A good thing about science is the empiricism that guarantees (aka gives a consistent methodology to explain why this ball does what it does up to a definable, finite limit) that a ball, when thrown up, will inevitably come back to earth. We certainly hope that this consistent behavior occurs each and everytime.


I remember studying biochemistry, reading sections explaining such arcane phenomena as ribosomal construction of certain types of virus proteins, and getting to a point where the author began to explain that the reasons why this process occurs are “unknown.” Finally!! I was elated that the great progression of science halted at the steps of uncertainty and had the courage to announce its ignorance (though presumably with research into the subject this ignorance would be eliminated).

The most important scientists are the ones who understand the basic scientific contract that must be made with faith (as in the Christian example above)—i.e., that we are ultimately at the beckon of an unknowable universe, made up of our constructions (using our senses and mind), that answer to no one, not even the human race. We are left in a position to not have any absolute ground upon which to stand upon, only ground that is footed upon the earth of human made construction.

Defining Awareness

Related to Meta-relations and Object Construction.

Awareness is the metarelational consciousness in action. The persona that is the interpreter of objects in the realm of metarelational things. (i.e., A teacher to her metaphysical students: "Put on your metarelational cap, please, and join us in interpreting the structures around you.")

Self-Help books:
M. Scott Peck and his “awareness” really stand for the same thing as this metarelational construct herein described.

Voice Techniques:
Hal and Sidra Stone's "Theory of Energetics" and the creation of people-objects within the context of presenting yourself to the universe. Metarelational.

“I Get It…”
The idea that through the use of psychotropic drugs that one can achieve a state of experience that makes that person comprehend the world in a completely different and quite possibly "superior" mode of interpretation. The idea that there is some common sense interpretation, mode of living, that, if everyone engaged in, the "world would be a better place..." That there is a shared understanding, that there is a common interpretable universe underneath the constructed exterior projections.

Defining Contradiction

Contradiction is actually the construction of ideas from the lack of total information about the subject.

If we had a total understanding of the subject, all possible constructions that are resident within the folds of the thing under review, we could understand how the subject is built.

Defining Limits of Discourse

Related to Aggregation and Objectification.

How to define the limits of discourse:

When aggregating from the functional utility relations within a structure, we can define the limits of the discourse in general:

For example,
The limits of sitting in front of the computer and typing. By taking the production of information and transcription into a form for interpretation by a reader and aggregating into the CLASS of such productions/transcriptions, we can say that the limit of this production/description discourse is simply that, the productions and dissemination of information. The utility function of a situation at the substructural level (perhaps the local level) is from the perspective of the subject making the observation. Compare Derrida and the subject-centered view of the universe in western society.

In the aggregation, within the class would be:
• mothers who pray silently at night (day’s information and relation to GOD),
• TV broadcasts that no observes late at night (World information—news and the distribution to the public),
• park activities as observed by squirrels (Observing hunted status—evolutionarily constructed relations and dissemination to each other for protection),
• Fisherman activities late at night transcribing the mornings’ haul (capitalist reporting within a business for economic accountability), etc.

Arenas and Discursive Spaces

The universe is an ever expanding sphere of interactions/crossing over into new demarcated bubble territory. (I.e., as we are introduced to other new people we are expanding our possible set of interactive spaces.) In western traditions we are moving about the possible arenas within which we have dominion and control of objects.

The highest type of bubble is the one that encompasses all the surfaces around us all the time. One possible construction sphere of demarcation within this large bubble is the subsurface volume within which we can construct and manipulate objects. That is, there are a multitude of sub-bubbles (localized interactions and place--immediate friends, family, and structure you physically interact with and believe exist because of immediate contact) that delimit our movement throughout the larger overarching bubble (largescale projection of our place in the world--those ideas about abstract structures that envelope our localized perceptions)

The manner in which this imaginary bubble affixes to the objects is really what we perceive as beinghood of that object, the existentialization of a particular object. The embodiment of things limits the types of bubbles that we can have. I.e., think of an imaginary bubble that coats all objects around you. The limits on that coating is the extent to which you perceive the things around you phenomenologically.

Playing with Words and Sentences

Related to Sign and Object Construction.

An example: "Why don’t you go ______ yourself."

The “____” can be filled by a litany of possible “curse” words, but really the structure and context-usage of this expression reveals the “real” possible answers.

Other non-textual messages:

“Why don’t you go HUG yourself” (the juxtaposition of the ‘fuck-you’ of the anticipated sentence coupled with the “fuzzy-cute” idea of “giving a hug” to someone [i.e., as through a hug has lost its validity as a form of ‘real’ relational expression—viz. contrast with a hyperhappy family : “let’s all give a group hug!!”])

“Why don’t you go TASTE yourself?” (The contrast between “how can I taste myself?” [i.e., or the private and public manner of engaging in ‘self-tasting’] versus other possible means [i.e., cannibalism, deviant sexuality: blood rituals or cutting/mutiliation] of conveying the idea of to perform a tasting act)

Three T-shirts for Review

Think of several t-shirts:

An athletic, bulky black man wearing a solid white t-shirt reading in bold black letters: “I am white trash”

A thin, willowy, white woman wearing a solid black t-shirt reading in bold white letters: “I am a nigger”

A small white pet poodle wearing a knit shirt reading: “I am not a terrorist.”

On Parody

Sitting in a classroom:

The professor peered into the dazed audience, half-asleep, each with their own thoughts. No one was following the lecture. Explaining parity of bits and streams on the chalkboard, the professor continued on, hopelessly coasting to the end of his overwrought lecture. I looked up to the old ceiling and exclaimed to myself, in the softly-lit room, “This is a parody.”

Killing: A Presentation

Killing: A presentation

People in a room talking about killing a person—

• Slide-presentation
• Pictures

Juxtaposition:
Between the private killing act and the production of killing knowledge—
(comapare with programming about killing equipment)

Aggregation Yields Objectification: Examples/Applications

Another example:

Two people walk into an office with a camera that is more or less similar, i.e., the camera is functional and takes a picture with similar accuracy and they have the same precision if the camera is used in the same way. Both cameras are of a Polaroid type that yield an instant picture that can be held in the hand.

The two separately step into the office and take a picture.

When taking both pictures into my hand I notice some similarities, i.e., that the office more or less “looks” the same, and that the pictures though from a different angle reveal there to be a distinct office somewhere in the world.

Explanation: The office is the original space, the original thing, the original interpretation.

The two people are different people interpreting. The camera is the sense(in a Kantian sense) of the human faculty—synthetic processes of interpretation. Holding the pictures in each hand, I now possess the set of interpretations (the META of offices that have been objectified as a picture).

From this control of the META of offices, I can inject my own objects into the set frame of office-objects. I can imagine that there is a fichus tree (when from plainly examinging the picture that there is not), but only from my other interactions with the class of other office (and office-like attributes) can I even believe that fichus tree is an appropriate addition to the META of offices.

In this regard, then, I believe that the fichus tree is an appropriate addition or subtraction to the META of offices.

Another person holding the pictures in the hands wants to add a “magic fountain” which holds precious water that has properties of youth and rejuvenation. Of course, this sort of fountain is not in all my experience in the set of offices, however,

ONCE THE ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION HAS BECOME AN OBJECT AND PLACED INTO THE SET OF OBJECTS, THEN IT IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED AND SUBTRACTED WITH OTHER OBJECTS BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE I don't know the extent to which there is accountability to the original producer of the knowledge set.

So, the office-object is now a place where there is a mythical fountain that has “magical” powers. This magic fountain is entirely appropriate into the METASET of offices.

Aggregation Yields Objectification: Trade

If things are in a state of objectification, then as objects they can be traded for other objects within the market of tradable objects.

Taking our office example:

Then we have the idea of an office (all the trappings of that office)—the fichus tree, the Highlights magazine, the silly sailing picture on the wall, the light mauve carpet, the wooden coffee table—an that idea can be added or subtracted with other like objects not within our original interpretation, and in so adding and subtracting we are constructing or deconstructing a structure that was resident (as an essence) within our original impressions.

(1) Look around and notice office space using our interpretations
(2) Think about the set of offices like that one you interpret
(3) Only the remembrances of the original interpretation remains and we are left with an idea-representation of the original interpretation,
(4) From this idea-representation (the set of original-representations) we can add or subtract other objects as we see them.
(5) The manner in which we add or subtract says something about how the idea is constructed, and
(6) By extension says how something in the “real world” works.

Aggregation Yields Objectification: Deconstruction

The META of the Office Situation situation is the set of situations that exist.

From this meta understanding is the power to understand interpretations of the situation.

Also the power of object construction: i.e., if we take the metaset of a situation, then, in its construction, we can TRADE objects within it…

THIS IS DECONSTRUCTION…

Aggregation Yields Objectification: Intro

Objects aggregate adiobatically: adiobatically (within a closed system), aggregate (creating the class of this thing), object (a thing)…

Within a closed system, we aggregate into a set of object-things from objects.

Example:

Sitting in an office. Our closed system is the symbolic space that we are constantly interpreting and making sense out of, i.e., all the interpretable things around us. Then, we aggregate by asking, “what about the set of:

symbolic space[s] that we are constantly interepreting and making
sense out of, i.e., all the interpretable things around us…

that exist at this same moment outside our symbolic space…”

Then in trying to construct a new space for aggregation we objectify the:

symbolic space that we are constantly interepreting and making
sense out of, i.e., all the interpretable things around us…

And in so doing, we create a new structure from which we can construct objects:

i.e., there exists a set of symbolic space[s] that we are constantly interpreting and making sense out of, i.e., all the interpretable things around us… from which we can extend to other objects…

Chocolust: A Book

Chocolust:

A story about an addiction from different perspectives. Addiction turns from simple food, dietary to some kind of psychosexual deviance.

White fat women and their cats. How do they transfix on an object of food, chocolate and translate that into other facets of their lives. Obsessive/compulsive tendencies among bored classes of people.

Semiotart: A Book

Semiotart:

A woman addicted to the superficial trade of symbols as somekind of truth inherent in the interactions she engages everyday.

As though there is some kind of extractable (organic) truth resident with the piecemeal constructions of synthetic, material things that are bought.

The tart idea is that she engages in an orgasmic relations with the object of affection and pays money for it.

Semiotartlet. A play on the idea, a subsequent book.

Positional Advantages

The arrogance of admission

When the bastion holders realize the power incumbent with their position, that is, the power to let people into an experience (e.g., admission to select clubs, admission to ideas in a department/specialty store), they have more power than the people who wish admittance into the structure. Because:

(1) they understand the rules for gaining admittance; and
(2) they selectively choose which interpretations are valid

The bastion holders at some point in their experience in that position must understand how important they are in the construction of power/knowledge (its protection, and the entrance of the next adherents).

Definition of Art

Art is a still frame simulation of life.

Art uses the same language constraints that we use to interpret life in general in everyday situations, but Art is constrained to the boundaries of the aesthetic into which it was conceived.

ALSO: Life has an aesthetic, but limited to the uncertainties of interpretation. Not everyone has the same interpretation (due to different background experiences, which are due to chance to a certain extent) of the same situation; thus, the life aesthetic is not rational.

Art is a rational extension of the subconscious mind.

Art is a violence imposed upon the observer to submit to the transmissions that emanate (outside of experience) from the artwork to the observer.

Art is the purest form of objectification and deobjectification that is possible.

Recursion and the "Meta"

Second Order relations and Similarities to Other Contexts:
The use of “Meta”:

That in all these writings the use of “meta”, as in meta-relational, really means a second order state of things, of interpretations. A second order relation is one which calls itself. It's a thing about that same thing. More modern literature and comedy use such advanced devices Think david foster wallace and Seinfeld (who capitalized on this type of juxtaposition, and made it interpretable by many who don’t know or don't care to know his subtle influences).

Efficiency of Objectification

Objectifying: as a means of advancing and being able to implement structural changes quickly.

If you can objectify things, then you have the ability to adapt to changes—shifts in valuation—better than non-objectifiers.

Advantages of Objectification:

• Can relate class objects—equivalence
• Can make predictions from initial data relatively easier
• Abstract person: engaged in matarelational activities—managing objects as your productive force
• Instead of producing objects (machine)
• Functional
(A -> B)
|
C

You deal with Bubbles---
|A |
---
->
---
|B |
---

Arenas/object:

• Ease of Explanation (function)
• Can be freer – autonomous

Disadvantage of Objectification:

• Can’t relate to the true nature of a person
• Typification of people in general
• Linearization of relations

Classification, Trade, and Categories

Objectification: How an idea is created into an object of tradable valuation—

The object process for creating classes of objects—demiurge—equivalence classes— Foucault—Epistome (i.e., within the historical narrative, the types of consistent shapes/patterns that have been created through material forces) An extension of Foucault

For example,

The class of eating utensils (fork, knife, spoon): used to put food into ones mouth for feeding.

VERSUS

The class of garden-ranching equipment (fork, axe, shovel): used to put refuse-material-supplies from one place to another.

QUESTION: How does one understand the process of creating these associations between the eating utensil and ranch equipment—in other words, how does the relation between one class of object gain significance with respect to another??

ANSWER: Only through the relational pictures of “mouth-eat” as juxtaposed with “hands/equipment-movement” can the classes be compared.

The way in which people objectifying a thing can create a means of comparing objects via a scheme of classification.

In(Ex)clusion and Aggregation

Patterns of inclusion and exclusion:

By being able to exclude someone from a group, there exists an existentialization effect, i.e., that the exclusive object has meaning in the larger frame.

The exclusion of a thing from a group creates a power distribution and calls larger structures for its validity.

Example:

• A blonde white woman does not let a larger black man sit next to her in a public space.

• The localized exclusion event calls larger structural inequities/and stratification because were these not existent, then that local event would loose its validity, power, relevance.

• The white woman is probably cognizant of this event. (its larger frame would be that there is a national set of family conversations—a class of them—that train blonde white women how to react in public situations) For the black man, the localized event might also have institutional relevance (i.e., the set of conversations with parents about the topic of racial exclusion)

• Nometic (class aggregation)

• Ideometic (existential/local events)

Classification and Mapping

Classification theory in practice:

Metal dinnerware in a cafeteria: When picking up a bunch of eating utensils---you notice that there is a shiny screwdriver along with the forks. You use the screwdiver to poke your meal, as though it were a tine of a fork.

Actualization: that there exists silverware in a cafeteria
Potentiality: using the utensils to eat a meal/or utensils are used to eat a meal

Mapping: In deciding the “proper” use of utensils, we assign potential values. A screwdriver IS NOT a standard utensil, thus while eating with the screwdriver we are cognizant of the awkwardness of the action, only to the extent that we believe that this is NOT possible or does not fit the definition of eating properly with the "right" utensils.

Object Mapping/Interpretation

Mapping:

The process of mapping from one set of objects to another is “interpretation.” In constructing an interpretation of objects, i.e., trying to understand how the object fits in our universe, we naturally construct potentialities of the object by its placement into some final reference category.

Existentialization --> mapping --> potentialiality
is:

(1) creating an object.
(2) Understanding its equivalence class of other similar objects
(3) Using some interpretive process to assign its final meaning within the discourse (some kind of process to assign value/to categorize/to classify)
(4) Moving to another range of potential – placing in a field of other similar objects that have have similar potentials

Object Cartesian Graphs

Descartes/Coordinate Geometry and Aristotle

Actualization:
(X-frame/ domain in mathematics)

When we create a set of objects—existentialize a set of things—we actualize something. The domain of objects is a set of things under scrutiny.

Potentiality:
(Y-frame/ range in mathematics)

There exists a potential range for objects. Only those objects that don’t have potential, i.e., cannot be mapped from the domain are ‘perfect’. The x-axis is perfect because it has zero potential.

Television Discourses

The “US vs YOU dichotomy in television broadcasts”

Because of the structure of the tv watching interaction (i.e., a person looks at a material box showing transmitted signals and the person can’t interact [i.e., talk back to tv objects in a discourse—“closed discourse”]), the objects within the tv acknowledge that there is an US vs. You dichotomy in tv theme contexts that are simulations of real person to person discourse (i.e., news anchors/comedians/documentary broadcasts).

Possibly, the nature of the person-object interaction will control the manner in which the simulations are projected back to the person interpreting the simulations.

Examples: (1) I am the object that (2) watches simulated TV objects that (3) watch other simulated TV objects.

Imagine a bare, theater stage with a TV in the center:

* A TV show where a man watches a TV show on a TV set...

* A TV show where People are watching a TV set that is OFF.

* Watching a TV broadcast of a man yelling at a TV set that is OFF.

* Watching a TV broadcast of a man yelling at a TV set that is not there.

* Watching a TV broadcast of a man yelling at a TV set is that not there and is OFF.

(ETC…)

Object, Value, and Agreement

The value of a thing is the extent to which people believe what an object purports to be. (i.e., if a thing is called x (from one perspective) and x’ (from another), and then aggregating to make a multitude of other interpretations—the one that more people agree upon).

The agreement has to be the extent to which someone would die to vouch for that interpretation-belief. (TEXT: “A man is segregated from his family who are before a firing squad. Someone shows the man an apple and is told, ‘is this an apple? if it is not and you are wrong, then your family is executed.’ To which he easily responds, ‘It is an apple, I am right, and my family isn’t executed.’”)

Repeat this apple-execution experiment, and there will be commonalities in the answers of people consistent with what a thing purports to be. Then: an apple is totally an ‘apple” if and only if everyone says the same thing all the time for a given question about whether or not an object is an apple (i.e., there does not exist the chance for alternate interpretations, ever.)

Of course, this nullification of differential interpretations does not happen often (if ever…) I seriously doubt is all people at all times would call an apple an apple. In one instance it could be an unknown vegetable, etc, or sometype of bomb or explosive. Etc.

Defining Structure

In order to understand the structure, you must be able to understand:

• the process that constructs it (function)
• The pieces that fit into it (object)
• The relations between the pieces (exchange?)
• The way it breaks (language)

This mode of thinking is functional in nature.

A process would be one that existed from the beginning of the inquiry. The pieces are identifiable and reducible into objects. Relations are made at the meta-relational level

Breaking is dependent on the language given. Breaking would also involve postmodern interpretations.

Metarelationality and Object Construction

How the object world is created:

When shifting from speaking with a thing to speaking of a thing then that is the switch from interaction into a mode of objectification.

For example,
“How are you doing?”
The “you” in this sentence is interactional and there is some avenue for the thing being spoken with to create itself, to define who they are. There is room for self-realization in the thing spoken to.

“I am telling you that you need to go home.”

The first “you” relates to the objectification of the conversation such that the actor speaking understands that (1) the speech act is occurring and that (2) there is something that needs to occur (as in the second “you”). You cannot question that there is a higher order relation that is occurring (i.e., that there is a process “I AM TELLING YOU “ which is occurring within which “you need to go home”)

At that point the meta-relational answer would be to make the remark that you do not need to be “told” as the sentence suggests.

Meta-relational language: In the objectification of things there is a new use of language that occurs.

This meta-relational language serves to be able to speak of objects and transfer information about (or of an object) from one place to another.

This shift from an interactional language to an objectification language occurs with the actor who makes the choices.

Meta-relational language is powerful: Meta-relational language is more powerful than interactional language because meta-relational language can encompass a multitude of contexts and still keep its meaning.

One can negate an experience at the interactional level via meta-relational language and thus control interactional meaning (and by extension, control whether a thing exists or not).

Blacks and Meta-relational Language:

American black cultural symbologies utilize a discourse that places a heavy burden upon the use and trading of information which are embodied as objects.

The objectification of interaction (e.g., such as rapping about “playing someone”, or “about youngsters”) is a convenient manner of trading in experience(s) that are shared and have a wide meaning. By standardizing the meanings of “playing someone,” for instance, the black actor is able to control whether or not an experience qualifies as being of the class of “playing someone”

Capitalism and Meta-relational Language:

In one respect, such meta-relational language has an important function in creating a differential valuation structure for objects.

Because objects can be traded (using such a meta-relational artifice), objects can be classified and, in turn, can be “traded in” or “traded out” of use. Usage is the true statement of an object’s value, according to this perspective. Similarly, how often an object is used is the definite measure of how valuable the object is. (Because objects come into existence when someone uses them.)

Objects that aren’t used, also don’t have a life to them. We cannot speak of an object until it is “in use,” thus, an object can’t even be traded (or have a value) if not being used.

“Archaic” objects have no manner of expression, and thus can never be used, and thus can never have any value.

Meta-relational Language and Classes:

Meta-relational language is delimited by whether or not an object belongs to the class of objects described therein. That is, if an object can behave and has the same attributes as another relational objects (maybe even from a different contexts) then the object forms a class with that other object.

Fundamental Definitions III

Organization: Systematizing/codifying one perspective.

Rules/regulations: Idealized/linear relationships between an individual and a structure. Managing movement, management of relationships of power.

Context: Uniting theme. Frame of reference that thing.

Decontextualization: Deconstructing the object from its theme. Destroying a "total meaning."

Deconstruction: Delinearizing an object from its meaning . “Decentering” an object. “Freeing" an object from its language representation.

Dialectic: [ a thing + (not) a thing ] Differential of meaning & meaninglessness. Hegelian dialectic applied in object constructs and interpretations.

“Total meaning”: The sum total of all possible (cognizable) representations within a language.

Fundamental Definitions II

STRUCTURE is a relational artifice created to demonstrate or show distinctions between the place and position of localized objects.

LOCALIZED means resident within the confines of subset of a larger encompassing superset. The localized arena has no influence to other arenas nearby.

OBJECT is a representational symbol, created through an accepted and widely-acknowledged methodology of naming and pointing (i.e., spoken language, written language, etc.) which exists in large scale structures propagating those methods (i.e., schools, churches, media, etc.), that has value in relation to other created objects.

ARENA is a spatial-cognitive space existing within the structural confines of a thought. (i.e., how I conceive of the space in a urinal, how I conceive of the space in a cavern, or the proximal interactional space [extended to encompass interpretational surroundings])

Fundamental Definitions I

Class: similar objects equivalent.

Object: a body within an equivalence class.

Objectification: Making the relational structure between bodies abstract.

Abstraction: Making the relational basis of bodies objectified, based upon a mathematical superstructure.

Networks: The objectified ties between objects – how objects are translatable to a dynamic of exchange.

Body: An instance of mass. Adiobatic systems of aggregate atomic bodies.

Reality: The contradiction between full objectification and the natural realization of bodies -- The “natural” state of bodies versus their “idealized” abstraction (i.e., without the “totality of representation”)

Representation: Dependent upon the language symbols that form the description of the “natural object” . Symbols that attempt to describe the “Thing-in-itself.”

Natural: Before representation.

Opportunity and Capital

Making sense of the inequities that abound based on the appropriation of the capital within any structure that one is placed inside with the given set of circumstances that that have encountered.

Trying to make the most of the opportunities that abound in the existent stream of conversation and people that are inside the stream of thoughts within the daily lives of people.

Making sure that all the things that can be arranged can be made cleaner to make sure that structure-things make more than what they have.

Having to make adjustments with the body because of inequities of the material/capital forces that construct the person. How do people draw the line between decency and humanity? Is being decent the same thing hand and hand?

Public/Private Intimacies

Issue of intimacy:

Have an intimate person within your private scope (assuming that you’d allow someone to actually know you entirely within that arena—there are people who even with intimates aren’t allowing them entrance) allows you to test the interaction within a public and private space.

Examples:

Object: Body
(1) have had wonderful sex (PRIVATE)
(1a) going to a dinner with your boss 3 hours afterward (PUBLIC)

Object: Hand
(2) having a meeting with others where you give a presentation and laser pointer to point out stuff (PUBLIC)
(2a) afterward, using your hand to spank your partner. (PRIVATE)

Object: Bowel/behind
(3) using the restroom and being constipated (PRIVATE)
(3a) then, sitting on a park bench beside another person who is complaining to his wife (privately) about his fiber intake (PUBLIC)

Object: Look/Torso
(4) Looking at yourself in the mirror when contemplating things (PRIVATE)
(4a) Making sure that your friend looks good for her own presentations (PUBLIC)

Object: Thought
(5) Standing by a copier machine, imagining sleeping with your boss. (PRIVATE)
(5a) Talking to a friend about how good of a negotiator your boss is while looking at him/her doing their work. (PUBLIC)

The referent frame is related to the context of the action in question.
In one instance the situation might be public and in another it might be public. The convergence of private body-space and public persona

A. being by-yourself with no other partner for discourse is one sure sign that the situation is private.
B. With another partner, it is private if you would be embarrassed to have another person with that information .
C. It is public if no one has a vested interest in trying to keep the symbolic contruct alive, within the boundaries that are established for it.
D. It is public if there is more than 2 people is more than likely the truth.
E. Public broadcasts: if the information is transmitted without regard to who listens, then it is public.

Defining Life as an Interface

Life is a collection of people interfacing with one another. People from one experience to another: One idea to another

Sharing experience and reinterpreting the experience as it happens and then trying to remember it. One experience from one state of time to another state of time. Trying to understand the reason (impetius) for making choices and then trying to follow the choices to their eventual (anticipatable ) conclusions.

One sphere to another:

The beginning of life is understanding that the flow of time has as a consequence the creation of spheres of experience. They are spheres because they are bounded.

Each person has this sphere in any given context, i.e., there are different spheres in different contexts.

When interfacing with another person, the sphere comes into contact with other spheres. Then the sphere is changed in the process, it becomes larger, changes shape.

Defining Agency Graphically

Each agent in interpreting the structure around him, simultaneously creates the structure – he is at once, part of something and he creates its existence –

[GRID of MAN in BOX ]
isPartOf( )

[GRID of MAN in BOX and an ARROW projected to a BLANK BOX to RIGHT]
butNotReally ( )

[GRID of a MAN in BOX and another GRID BOX in checkered PATTERN overlayed]
There is something that exists (possibly changing the structure)

AGENCY:

An agent is the basis of realizing the true structure within which he exists—
Limits to this include
(1) physical—with death that perspective changes;
(2) with perception change (i.e., psychotropic drugs) there is a different perspective
(3) existence of others: the structure changes with didactic interaction.


[GRID of a WOMAN in BOX]

She is the basis of a structure that creates its own limitations.

[GRID of a WOMAN in BOX with arrow to a CLOUD that points to another WOMAN that is not in a GRID]

Institutional Differentiation

• Structural divisions between the access to shared resources.

• The inequity of having equal access to in-groups that control the distribution of resources.

• Trying to understand the dynamics of access to shared resources.

• The institutional culture that develops when there is a stagnant body (the existent structure) and there is a transition to another state.

• The total representation of a system at one frame of time and then the introduction of an individual in making their contribution to the organization.

• The institutional structure in controlling the agent’s actions

• The institutional systems that cause an actor to behave differently

• How the actor perceives this change and what they do about it inside/outside the structure.

Racial Group Privileges Compared

If the privileged groups have access to other submissive subgroups that would like to be like them, then the subordinate group has more mobility than equally situated subordinate groups.

The idea is sets of one another... how one set can do something the other can't. That's the measure of powerlessness and subordination.

(1) a white woman
(2) can have relations with a
(3) black man
(4) easier than
(5) a black man
(6) can with
(7) a white woman

========
(1) a white group
(2) can have relations with a
(3) non-white group
(4) easier than
(5) the converse

========
(1) a white group can utilize resources
(2) easier than a
(3) non-white group
(4) can

Foucault: Pieces

Foucalt and the Body (5): Pieces

• In constructing the discourse—making an association between an object and its textual subject (creating the space to enable this – a first person creates—defines the situation)
• The linkage between a process and its cause – causality in the structural universe
• How do we destroy the body?
• Is a body created to be a body?
• Is embodiness a quality linked to language—
• “Wholeness” in context
• Creating encompassing characteristics (creating encompassing structure)

“I”{ Q1—Q2 }
“We”{ Q1<- ->Q2 }
“You”{ Q2->Q1 }

• Note: the braces are actually a dotted line surrounding the objects in circle fashion.

Foucault: Bodies

• Object bodies can be destroyed, i.e., a physical body has a nature which is born to decay.
• In utilizing the social structure around themselves, an object embraces a set of representational processes/indentification that are not their own, as the body can’t proceed outside the structure.
• Structure constrains the possible expressions of texistence each body potentially can manifest.
• No body can fully appropriate its own existence, not its own physical manifestation

Foucault: Structure

• Structure has a form that is cognizable and identifiable – which is not absolute & is immutable
• The body in interfacing with the surrounding resident structure creates the space to define itself. A body realizes its potential meaning by such interfacing
• Embedded within the social structure (relations between other bodies) are processes & mechanisms that typify and characterize object relations.
• From the perspective of social structure, physical bodies are objects

Foucault: Existence

Foucault and the Body (1) : Existence

• Each person in their existence necessarily has a physical body that has some cognizance
• There exists a structure outside the experience of the body
• This structure has a basis/meaning that is not fully cognizable by any one body
• In constructing its own meaning, the body has no reference other than the structure residing outside of it.
• However, the body is in-itself a thing, not able to conceive itself “fully” without the structure, into which it has arisen in its physical existence.

Defining Comedy

Comedy is differential contextual juxtaposition.

COMEDY AS THE CREATION OF SYMBOLIC SPACE WITHIN WHICH TO VIEW AN OBJECT FROM DIFFERENT, CONTRADICTORY ANGLES. An object has light shined on it from a different angles, and takes a life of it own.

The comedy discourse creates a parallax view within which these contradictions can take a life of their own.

Computers and Reality

Union between “Reality” and “Thought”

Hardware is the physical embodiment of some tangible component that executes its operations based on electric processes.

Mathematical thinking informs the computer, because the computer was designed from mathematics.

There exists a thought machine that can do what a computer can do, and there exists the physical embodiment of that thought. The thought machine is infinitely more powerful than the physical, material one.

A computer grounds thought into representational forms.

The proof that 1 + 1 = 2 lies in the physical applications that can be constructed from those premises.

Homeschooling Movement

The home schooling movement was started as a reaction to the perceived degradation of schools that were accepting blacks, minorities, into the schooling system. As there were more demands placed on the public schools to remediate students suffering from years of institutional racism (trying to catch up with white privileged peers in the 1960s-early 70s) there were definitely budget problems, expanding classrooms, teacher bases, etc.

Private schools and homeschools were premised on keeping that quality education in tact (the privileged type before integration).

These people achieved success and did very well.

As the schooling continued to face problems with funding and problems trying to resocialize students. (and there were curricular, institutional problems with how this new multicultural groups ought to be taught. And other issues with discrimination training, and a general change in the social institution acceptance of racism and sexism in general), schools lost money 1980s.

Race instruction, I.e., MLK day, Cesar Chavez, multicultural ay-all the facets of diversity indoctrination became the focus of debates. Early 1980s

New generation of parents that saw their children not receiving the level of education decided to pull out their children. Without the multicultural instruction there’s a whole new generation of kids homeschooled that didn’t receive the multicultural instruction from primary white parents and this will carry forth in other mixed contexts. The children know to be polite and not call someone a crude name—these are all sociocultural fruit of propaganda movements in mass media and exterior social control agents—but they don’t want to be near them. Or with them. They are not like us.

For this reason, the propagation of racism, the kind that will continue to propagate the divide in all aspects of socialization, will live through the homeschooling. A family can control the type and means of the discourse.

The home schooling movement harkens back to the elite aristocratic ideals of education, for the propagation of status and standing in an elitehood. That we can have the autonomy to decide what we believe, the freedoms of liberty. Homeschooling also allows someone to avoid being forced to experience another type of person, the proximal interaction that forges new interpretations.

A Recursive Joke

Recursion is someone talking to another person about recursion:

Two fold (from person #1)
(a) he is in a context with another speaking about the thought of speaking to someone about recursion; (meta)
(b) he is speaking to someone about recursion

(from person #1)

(c) they observe him in a context speak about recursion
(d) they interpret his thought about a person speaking about recursion. (meta)

Language, Power, and Exchange: A Book

“Language, Power, and Exchange”

About the relationship of language to construction of ideas within a body of knowledge and the micro-exchanges that are utilized to perpetuate (i.e., embody) to boundaries of the discourse.

< Explanation-in-Review: about how a person speaking to another person by engaging in an exchange at a local/small level really is adding/subtracting/performing operations that mutate a larger latent body of idea-knowledges in the aggregate>

How the structure and content (form and content) of language give the user a signal power over another power receiver in the exchange of an idea.

I.e.,

A thought is conceived
The thought is formulated in a language
The language exists in the receptor
The receptor receives a thought-message
The message affects the receiver

Elites, Politics, and Regulation

What is the goal?

Of those in power, to maintain the status quo, the current state of affairs, and protect this by adapting to new approaches that challenge “established” knowledge.

How do they regulate this?

Through the system of social and economic capitalism. By regulating the modes of exchange, in both interpersonal (i.e, the symbols of self-actualization) and metapersonal realms (i.e., art and science), they (the elites) can maintain a direct connection to those that would believe the world as the elites perceive it.

Why should anyone follow this worldview?

It should be followed because it is the path of least resistance, so to speak. People in socializing have no foothold onto any social fabric, so they grab whatever strand is the most convenient, a strand that has been in place for all to grab. Very convenient, indeed.

Are elites malicious in their intent?

No. Elites have no ill-will to those that ascribe to their beliefs. As a matter of fact, they would like to believe that their long-traditional thoughts and actions have some greater relation to truth. A truth that supersedes any other mode of interpreting the natural world.

Do non-elites know that they are being manipulated?

Yes. Cognizant non-elites have every reason to suspect that the world around them is not a natural one. However, I would add that the challenge to discover this truth requires jettisoning attachments to systems that define relationships of power (which could conceivably include destroying boundaries, authority, and knowledge). Non-elites can gain, however, from submitting to the overarching pull of an elite worldview; that is, they can impose their own reconstructed elite view on others. Most all non-elites want to preserve their own state of self-preservation.

“Reconstructed elite view?” What does that mean?

A reconstructed elite view is just that. A reconstituted state of interaction (which owes heavily to another superior worldview) that uses localized symbols around the actor to impose on another localized subordinate actor. Elites are the most privileged because no one (except elites) has access to their view. No non-elite can question elite truth because the structures for questioning don't exist.

What, then, about political process and modern body politics?

Well, such an elite/non-elite arrangement transcends mere power relations that are governed by codified laws, and goes straight to the spirit of citizenship and sovereignty that underlie modern political systems. Elites have every reason to ignore visible channels that expose the arbitrary nature of their power arrangements and decisions, because such a hidden artifice can keep its constituent processes intact and enable it to function regularly.

"Regularly"?

That some group of people would want their means of asserting self-realization via their perceptible universe to be supplanted by those of another because that group would then need to adapt less-to-newer modes of epistemology and, in turn, question their own truthhood, is patently absurd if that process of questioning is based upon the ideas that are to be supplanted with newer streams of information. It's really a question of consistency.

What you are saying is that if a system is to regulate smoothly, then no one outside of that system can perceive it? That doesn’t make sense.

I don’t say that it can’t be perceived. Such an arrangement must be intractable (i.e., perceptible) by non-elites to function appropriately. What I’m saying is that its process and intention can’t be fully perceived by non-elites without acknowledging the strictures that enable its prominence in the carnival of other interpretable modes and ways of interacting with the natural world. A system's essence can't be conceived—and the process for such a conception isn't available to those who are regulated ("non-elites")—because they don't form the group of people who constructed that system ("elites") and they can't access that system's formative symbols/structures ("Epistemes").

Is this a question of motivation?

Elites have every intention of assuring that they win the “battle of ideas” because then they don’t have to make changes to their own systems, and possibly incur capital costs and losses in so doing.

Love and Power

Love is an imagined codependency—“sacrifice” for something better. Or a better way of living.

The embodiment of power is creating the impression of superiority—enforcing regulations by force that somehow harm the body—the physical pain/harm effects the body’s constructive process. That use of force affects the actor-- that power is related to how people choose to empower themselves. I.e., fight the process that danger and harm others. That people should realize the harm in asserting power over another.

Corporate Medicine

The institutionalization of a field like medicine means a union of two great ideas. The corporate culture can realize itself in any field space, especially where people will pay to have their bodies “healed”. The wish to be disease-free means giving the individual power over you—since you yourself cannot specialize in the body of knowledge.

The are given capital to compensate for physically putting their bodies in medical work for you. You as the patient pay for the “medical cost” The cost of one body going to medical schools as opposed to any others that the student could have done.

Object, History, and Power

The idea of a union is that you need someone else to reinforce the validity – existence of your worldview. A partner helps to hold together the consistency – structure of consciousness. Construction of “rational boxes” makes a theory sound-> a system that can replicate itself.

Power is the ability to objectify another field object.

Every phenomenological object is an artifact in a related chain of historical processes that yielded that object. Every body of objects has a set of knowledge of the totality of expression for that object – a language of creation that touches the object.

For example, a particular office chair has a style that may be congruent with other examples of chairs. The office chair holds a history or an understanding of how an office chair “works”—that there can exist a way of understanding the full potential of any object, realizational knowledge. More about this here.

Subset Control

To manipulate the ideas that necessarily (logically) encompass a whole set of peripheral ideas means to control all the subset of ideas, not in their entirely, just to manipulate a part of all of them. You can affect everything (change everything) by change something which represents the object metarelationally, i.e., something that represents it on a higher level of language and thought.

On the Playground

In the distance I saw several basketball courts lined up in a public space. Children were playing together, and I immediately tried to understand the significance of these “pods” of civilization away from anyone else.

(1) within these spaces of interaction, children were living everyday life.
(2) Even though no one was around, and they were in the context of school, they constructed their own society whose duration lasted the time of the interaction (probably 1 hr)
(3) The meaning that was constructed was a “fuzzy” bubble, think quantum cloud.
(4) Within this cloud all the possible language construction (the possible permutations within the discursive) existed for any actor to express.
(5) However, there are boundaries within this cloud that limited the expression of those language possibilities.
(6) The shape of the cloud is normative influences, conformal (through teaching, learning, modeling, mimicking, discovery, power). Think like the shape of dxy, dxz electron cloud mathematically conceptualized as the partial differential of spins.
(7) Aggregating this cloud of space into a greater societal context make the micro world connected with the macro level processes that look down.

Female Private Maintenance

Women and intercourse, invasion of the body space. Psychological implications for pleasure pain (girlhood to womanhood and the pain that must be endured during loss of “virginity”) and the language of love, as a power discourse (i.e, "rape sex"—the act of sex in any context with a woman is rape, a woman must allow her body to tune into itself for pleasure and not utility as in everyday “sanitary” life).

The embeddedness of woman to nature--daily female activities during menses, the cleaning and sanitation of natural processes. Private maintenance. How a woman understands her situation as constantly bleeding, the possibility of birthing and the creation of a “burden.”

Private maintenance: how a woman consciously feels a man would think in her place. The inconvenience and shame (in a Judeo-Christian religio-structure.) The shibboleth…

Interaction and discourse and the entrance into conscious space (the invasion of the body)

Music, Production, and Technology

The idea of the big music star is rooted in a tradition of the past. Before, when musical creation equipment, recorders, synths, mixing capabilities were too expensive to own individually, there was a concentration of means of musical production in the hands of those organizations that already owned and possessed institutional power within the music industry (i.e., big record companies, radio, promotional).

With the advent of miniaturization we have many creative people making their own music.

Today, I think that there’s a bunch of untalented “stars” who have very talented producers and mixers that have access to musical equipment that far supersedes the past.

There exists many unknown people creating music that varied in its appeal, very specialized and localized. But in all cases accessible by a public that looks out for those avenues. The mainstream days of music production and understanding should be over within a generation or two. Perhaps in migration to the internet or more diverse media that aren’t so hegemonic in its content.

Defining Semiotics and Power

Semiotics studies the interaction and sociation of signs to objects
The construction of objects as they relate to external signs. Semiotics and sign theory, the manifestation of signed ideas.

Semiotics underlies all the social sciences.

Power is the “energy” of social science as Bertrand Russell says,
Then semiotics is “power physics”. The study of the direction of signs and attachments to objects helps uncover the relations of power.

Semiotics is (through sociosemiotics) related to more fundamental philosophical constructions.

Power(energy)+(matter)
-> Semiotics
-> Social
-> (Natural Philosophy -> Non-Social)
-> Thought-Consciousness (“I am”)

Signs and Object Creation

The categorization of any object in the interpretation of external (sensory) images outside the physical realm and domain of connection (as through the intimate bodily contact)--- possibly, phenomenological construction--- is what constitutes the creation of “objects,” as an intellectual signed artifice.

When one creates the “idea” of “God,” then god exists.

When one creates the “object” of [_______] then signed-[______] exists and has real-world implications.

By being able to be interpreted, then the object has “objectivity”

The cohesiveness and connection (relatedness) of a form, as interpreted through our senses, is what creates objects.

Semiotics: the correlation between a form and the life of its own. (I.e, when a thing is “objectified” how the new object moves about on its own, accumulating “experience”)

Blacks and Deconstruction

Because blacks have a history of deconstruction through the intrusion of slave oppressors into their lives (or the immediate callable memory from which they gain their identity)--Through the prohibition on their body choices (ie, sexual partners and places of worship, thought, commerce)--They oppose dominant forms around them

They “gain” control of their own constitution by reconstructing themselves into disparate social contexts.

In so doing, they gain object power (microsocial—psychosocial), free to chose (and manipulate) the social discourse as it unfolds.

Ethics, Existence, and Logic

The question of right and wrong has clouded over more important considerations like the creation of being and non-being.

Namely, whoever controls the ability to be, i.e, the ability to express one’s self and interpret the universe (or contruct and shape ideas), then in turn has control over the outcomes of thought. That is, the idea or force that controls the shape of production of ideas, in turn has the ability to put into existence and take out of existence things, objects, ideas, etc.

Control the growing “forums”, spheres of thought that grow and change and form through/from the actor, is the ultimate reality of perceptible universe.

Right and wrong (ethics) is a subset of being, thought, and in turn is merely a result of constraints on that thought.

We must always presume that an agenda is being proposed and take the proposition against a “reasonable explanation”

Thus, there is no defense of logic, as it stands to cloud over the issue.

The traditional embodiment of logic is rooted in the perfection of mathematics, i.e, the perfection of 1 and 0. Dichotomies result from this parallel thinking, and logic is merely a representation of “if not, then..”

When that logic is applied to more abstract and intangible ideas such as ethics and morals, then we encounter entire indefensible conclusions—we must submit to a particular mode of thinking (because we have conceded a particular logical framework which constructs our thoughts).

Logic does not stand as a defense of immorality or irrationality, it merely bullies itself into the lives of that which is intrinsically (to the human who is incablable of interpreting and incomprehensible universe) unknowable.

The only benefit of logic is to continually be divisible by itself.
That is, the logic has a definitive and definable beginning, which should be extended into all other thought offpring.

The artifice of logic is well-grounded in the grammar of mathematics, and as such it is repeatable. Empiricism owes a lot to the idea of repeatability. The universe does reveal itself in the equations (mathematical) that are “proved”.

The concept of putting something into existence (thinking of a number) and then taking that number out of existence (subtracting the number), gives complete control of the mathematics user to fashion a “rational” system that is repeatable.

However, does there exist another system of creation and destruction that might put into the user’s hand a means to control the universe, i.e, a system that allows the user a means to assert some order, or simbalence of order, upon the truly unknowable (perceivable and unperceivable) around him?

At least within the perceptible universe, utilizing contructions which spring from the abilities of the human brain, there should exist other cognizable systems—other than the “perfection” of math and, in turn, a logical construction.

The Perversity of Public Spaces

The perversity of it all...

The manner in which people in public situations address and recognize one another. The manner in which people try to resolve the contradictions of being and not being in a social situation. The manner in which people address and acknowledge one another.

How difficult it is to transcend the initial impression of race and the initial impression. How things and relations systems have transformed within the past 20-40 years.

The creation of a person in the context of a public situation. The creation of a person in the small enclosed context of a social shopping situation. How people behave in the limited non-public spheres of shopping.

The transition from public to private takes place in a mercantile setting.

Going from public out in the area with people and then enclosing yourself as a private citizen of your own world. The created experience within you. How the person tries to comprehend those objects around them.

Scaling up the Universe

When reviewing the actor in a universe, the change from the actor to the surrounding.

BUT the viewer isn’t present in the theater of discourse.

Actually, the scaling is from the actor’s point of view. Moving from the conscious understanding on a close small scale region surrounding him to the larger outside areas surfaces exterior, peripheral to him.

Micro-Macro theory.

Zooming the lens from the actor outward:

(1) we are moving at the same rate to focus on him;
(2) then, as we move outward we lose focus and the surroundings become apparent, or begin to take some recognizable form; and
(3) we completely lose focus of the actor and instead only recognize larger structures into which fits that actor, as a discrete finite point (were he to be found and/or identified).

The actor is the beginning and end of the reference frame.

The concept of the “lens”, the observer, as having the power to make note of semiotic patterns.

The Power Dialectic Explained

It makes more economic sense to continue being “one way” instead of always “switching” your perspective—contiguous transactions between actors more easily allow for flow of culture capital and, in turn, exercise of the power dialectic.

That is, by reducing the impediments of culture capital to realize its own existence (and further propagate itself in a system of actors) cultural systems with culture capital entrench themselves, at the cost of crushing opposing voices and opinions—the destruction of rebellion against the seize-hold of those who benefit from conformity and norm-obedience.

The “power dialectic” is the microsocial interaction that occurs when actors jostle for footing in a confrontational way that involves the shifting of culture capital resources. Think Foucalt. Think of the addition of oil and vinegar.

The dialectic presumes that a compromise cannot occur, and that co-habitation cannot withstand the natural truth of limited resources, especially those that demark capital supplies. That there is also a limit on social and culture capital resources—that there is a limitation on love and boundries on realities of everyday.

If the power dialectic could not exist on a daily basis, then the prospect of violence as a means of exercising freedom would be a very viable alternative.

Freedom is not being oppressed.

Questioning your Class Advantage

In order to fully enjoy the privileges of your class power, you must be willing to forgo the impulses to challenge or question their basis.

You must conform to the norms that were in place before you, lest you devote your time and effort to creating new modes of living.

Within the framework of normative standards, one can lodge a fight against the hegemonic forces that drive the contours of the actor. One can undermine the truths evident in normative action by reinterpreting normative action, and showing contradictions.

Modes are large scale social frameworks, like a “lifestyle”.

The fight to challenge the conformational forces that drive normative thought can be done on a daily basis in microinteraction, i.e., the way one reacts to another—by challenging the stereotypes-biases-impressions of the other for your given “public interpretation”.

“public interpretation” is the totality of understanding that attaches to a person, a label that could be put upon their future contextual action, i.e, how they woul react in a given situation—like the intial first “public interpretation” impression.

The Memetic of Powerlessness

A client is slighted by a vendor and complains that he’s getting bad service—that he doesn’t have the money of the big guys but that he’s still a client. “The ones with the least amount of money complain the most about what they don’t have … so, quit the whining and continue on with your worthless life.”]

On Elitehood

Proposition: Elites invent newer ideas that (1) are superior (2) to lower classes and (3) benefit everyone.

“Elites invent newer ideas”

why would they want to create new ideas if they must rely on the old ones to maintain their dominance? that is the answer.
The boredom of the same (within each of us is a nature that seeks new thoughts and experiences---thus propelling the elite individual) and that there are lots of repetitions in maintaining an oppression. That is, through the maintence of this oppression lies the spark of another way of living.
The desire for freedom from a constant mode of life.

The same for subordinate classes, but the luxury of experimentation and failure cancel all but the most lucky and well-supported, thus the elites are able to engage in a life of discovery that is well-maintained. The subordinate classes must contend with their oppression, stifling the invention of thought.

That is part of the dominance that elites carry, not only do they make ways for new thought, but their dominance is at the expense of lower classes who could develop new ways to overcome their situation, i.e., the lower classes to invent a rebellion from upper classes.

“are superior”

[still need to continue]

It's All Very Interesting

“It’s all very interesting”

Streams of, threads of, constructed ideas, thought
All the sets (clusters of) ideas

Texts traveling from one place to another
The stream of consciousness in one set (sphere of to another)
The forms and movement of one idea to the next

The ideas that are created when one form meets the other
The total set of ideas at a gap junction meeting.