h a l f b a k e r y
Why on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
This dialectical social object is also a physical machine. The
polarization of society around this object does work, just as
electrical polarization of the fields creates power. The object
displays arguments for collectivism and anti-collectivism. The
ironic implosion of the mass when the Idea
self-aware of ironic collective anti-collectivism is the thesis.
The antithesis inherent absurdity conflict produces democracy
powered by polarity as anticollectivists collectivize until
breakdown and collectivists which is the entire social of
including ironic anticollectivists, collectivize individuated
collectives until breakdown. The thesis is therefore the
object of sociology the entire social mass, and the antithesis is
rejection of the idea of this collective, therefore the synthesis
ironic implosion IS the bipartisan phenomena observed.
materialism is the applied social phenomenology built into the
design of these bracelets that when pulled away from the social
idea machine outlined here, generate
electricity that display messages for less collectivism when more
are connected and more collectivism when less are connected.
'Collectivism is a potential energy but the kinetic impetus of
anticollective energy equate to two mass values. The
anticollective energy of straining the social bond through
separation is the low battery warning indicating that each's own
message producing bracelet object is not gaining power from
collective. Message to rejoin increases as power produced from
pulling away to disconnect recoil motor copper coil generator
potential energy mass. Because anticollective kinetic energy
powers the collective of these social media user devices, that
ultimately represent the vast store of potential power, the
conflict is a productive one.
The recoil motors that connect the devices are dual data and
power cables that are now standard, but power cables in a dual
sense that is not. This analogy encompasses all facets of
anticollectivist dialectics, including power impetus of individual
economic behaviour, collectivists however can work in conflicted
unison until breakdown event occurs.
Reading Notes on Capitalism and Schizophrenia
There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a process of that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together. Producing- machines, desiring-machines everywhere, schizophrenic machines, all of species life [la vie gÃÆÃâÃâ Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ©nÃÆÃâÃâ Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ©rique]: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any meaning whatsoever" (p. 2). Literary interpretation, like a materialist psychiatry and probably all other disciplines, should involve revealing the desiring-machines at work and putting them to use productively. This is a way to conceive of an immanent literary criticism, an interpretation that remains immanent to the text in the sense that it takes up the very desiring-machines that the text creates and sets them up to work. "no desiring-machine can be posed without demolishing entire social sectors .... desire is revolutionary in its essence ... and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised" (p. 116 mid-top). ""From the beginning of this study we have maintained both that social production and desiring-production are one and the same, and that they have differing rÃ©gimes, with the result that a social form of production exercises an essential repression of desiring-production, and also that desiring-production--a "real" desire--is potentially capable of demolishing the social form" (p. 116 bot). There is a lot to understand in that sentence. First of all, how are social production and desiring-production the same thing but belonging to different rÃ©gimes. This question of rÃ©gime is one we will have to confront seriously before too long, but I don't think we have the tools to do so yet. The second part of the sentence is equally difficult: repression involves the dominance of the social form over desiring-production and inversely the liberation of desiring-production from that repression destroys the social form, that is, it is revolution." [rcarty, Nov 07 2013]
||You had us at "collective" ... [+]
||The earthed side is usually considered the
||It is 'the potential energy. Constant kinesis, pulling the
power cable is required. It is more rationally an individual
undertaking when each person works separately. Potential
energy is not a guarantee of any energy, but possibly vast
||Lots of noise in this one.
||I mean the idea is just the effect of a possible potential of
absolute noise upon my subject, that it's noisy should be
||This would have been much more interesting if, as
the title implied, it had been about a ferrous (iron)
dielectric (an insulator.)
||That might cause confusion between
dielectric material and dialectic materialism,
which could be a good thing, a bad thing, or
||Probaby if I had more knowledge of electronics I could
make the analogy more clear, but that's another thesis-
antithesis irony that there is some level of internal
inconsistency that causes the whole system to breakdown.
Thesis is the actual social object to be described, the
result is inherently antithetical because of its ironic or
inequivalent nature to the object.
||Reconsidering these matters again, it seems a lot
to say that the invention is a power-data cable that is
as a recoil motor to power a generator to charge a
in a device. This is used to network ' the social idea
machinne' Connecting to the collective is a large
potential source. But so is pulling your own powercord
||But the powerful action is the strain the device
produces by communicating the battery statuses which
would put the user in productive fluxuation between
connecting and disconnecting. The collective is draining
battery so disconnect, your battery is full so reconnect.
||That near perpetual productive fluxuation between
collectivism, or all potential working and notworking in
unison, and individualism working alone, is inherently
productive. Think of a person with this power cable
attached moving away and towards the mass without
disconnecting. But this sort of position is tenuous so
specialization in one field , either colllectivism or
anticollectivism, produces a dialectic. This is
analogically electrical because some difference in
polarity is used to produce power.
||From the Oxford Dictionary of Physics:
"dielectric: a nonconductor of electric charge in which an applied electic field causes a *displacement of charge but not a flow of charge. Electrons within the atoms of a dielectric are, on average, displaced by an applied field with repsect to the nucleus, giving rise to a dipole that has an elcgtric moment in the direction fo the field. The resulting stress within the dielectric is known as the electric polarization (P) and is defined by <equation> where D is the displacement , E is the elctric field strength, and eo is the electric constant. The dielectric constant in now called the relative * permittivity. the dielecgtric strength is the maximum potential gradient that can be applied to a material without causing it ot break doen it is usally expressed in volts per millimeter. see also capacitor. "
||This coincides with my own interpretation of dialectical materialism, that is to be interpreted by the materiality of the age. At one time allopathic bleedings, and contemporaneously electroconvulsive therapy. The idea is the dielectric material is 'dialectically', or dielectrically charged, in this case with irony, and the material has a certain dielectric strength or irony tolerance, that it can withstand until breakdown. The invention is a physical invention that produces power with the constant 'revolution' created by inducing polarity.
||// The invention is a physical invention that produces power with the constant 'revolution' created by inducing polarity. //
||Presumably following the left-hand motor rule, then ?
||The left hand motor rule is the current flow is moving in
the direction of the thumb on the left hand. I'm not so
sure about how deep the analogy is, but I would think
the majority current moves towards the left because
society stratifies disproportionately. But I'm not so sure
about the analogy., because Rands thesis only polarizes ,
doesn't produce current.
If you read Ayn Rand's "anthem" which is basically her
satirical manifesto set in a collectivist dystopia, the
protagonist invents an electrical object which is
by the collective's scholars because it is a radical
technology that will undermine collectivism. Ayn Rand's
objectivism is such a device, but being "dialectical
materialism" it actually undermines functionalism of the
social system as a whole, and seeks to create struggles
against an exploitative system in the manner of
communism. So while Marx' manifesto seeks to
overcome alienation of the social by forming a
revolutionary collective of workers against alienation,
Rand's objectivism seeks to overcome alienation of
individuals by the collective by forming a revolutionary
collective against collectives. However the difference is
'the collective' is the society. Sociology both studies
reified collectives, stable social groups like outlaw bikers
or police organizations, and diffuse collectives by
compiling data, for example people in a social class
determined by income 0-20000 dollars / year. Or the
society as a mass, in this case a dialectical society in a
two party system where the material social mass is
polarized between collectivism, or socialism, and
anticollectivism or fascism.
||Regarding rayfordsteele's comment, anarchists unite,
anarchists are in flux between autonomy and solidarity.
Rand is an autonomist so if the work is dialectical
materialism she is also in solidarity with social revolution
which makes her an anarchist.
||[rc], and I say this with the utmost respect, and I must admit, a fair bit of concern and apprehension - these posts are starting to trend towards something that I could easily imagine becoming word salad in the near future.
||Is everything okay with you mate? If you're just taking a brief vacation into weirdsville then okay, just keep a hold of your map and remember the safewords.
||I'm being serious by the way - are you doing allright?
||Yeah I'm alright but maybe I should put away my copy of
Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Deleuze and Guatarri
||Maybe give that text a go and then reread this idea and it
might make sense to you.
||Now as I was saying, anarchists are autonomists because
they resist social integration, and functionalist social
order. However they advocate solidarity usually in the
formation of mobs, which are low integration social forms.
Unlike police if you care to contrast a riot control phalanx
with a riotous mob of G20 demonstrators.
||Maybe just drink some tea and watch 'The Simpsons'...
||I'm not having a nervous mental and emotional
breakdown. I wrote an idea on a topic that I'm packed to
the gills about.
||But this 'bodily regulation' advice I'm getting really
clashes with my foucaudian beliefs. It reminds me of an
argument I had with a sexy blonde conservative masters
student who disagreed that universities cause mental
illness by melting down students with stress, and
discourses that sound insane to outsiders, resulting in
massive disparity between mentally insane failures and
high functioning graduates Her typical functionalist
answer was students have to learn time management
and coping skills, etc. I told her that was all behavioural
control regime for health epistem, and she said I had to
learn how to take breaks from reading so I wouldn't go
cuckoo. But she was identifying things that offended
her ethos, she was a health sciences student, as crazy.
So that's my point, just because something seems to be
the result of less 'control' or 'discipline" doesn't mean its
mentally ill, because contemporary health epistem is all
about increased control for bodily regulation.
Connecting an important institution to the body, the
institution that teaches medicine, and using extreme
stress to impose health regime, as a form of
functionalism, is downright nefarious considering the
direction 20th century discourses on adaptation (
ideological adaptation to capitalism) and fitness went in
the late 1930s to 1945.
||// I wrote an idea on a topic that I'm packed to the gills