h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Newton is commonly depicted to have been sitting under an apple tree and struck in the head by a falling apple when he realized there was something funny going on.
That falling apple he surmised was caused by the effects of gravity. As a result a new law could be created 1. Do not sit under apple
trees. Breaking this law is said to have force and effect of its own.
Similarly with other things such as driving a car, breaking laws such as running stop signs, or not following other discursive regulations for driving, result in a natural force and effect. When nondiscursive action such as sitting under an apple tree, meets discursive action, such as an apple falling by the law of gravity a kind of natural law enforcement has occured.
This natural law enforcement is again simulated by humans who do and don't follow discursive laws. Police who are discursively regulated by the power of law, exert force on those who are not discursively regulated and vice versa.
To some extent this process is about the regulation of efficiencies, ones where it is more efficient to break the law, and the law acts as a measure to produce as much "heat" as possible to ensure paths of criminal least resistance are not often taken, for example killing someone instead of making amends which is often more difficult.
Needless to say, this sort of system has become very complex as it has developed since the dawn of civilization approximately ten thousand or more years ago. There is so much discursive regulation by now in the form of information, and infrastructure that again efficiency demands that subjects faced with large amounts of complex rational discursion choose the most efficient path to remain rational. One implication of this is to entirely adopt any rational ethos unquestioningly, questioning or critical thought is a form of resistance and thus waste heat, so too is argument, or friction and conflict between people.
The major implication of this is that in an industrialized society oriented towards efficiency , based on information and knowledge production, and a multitude of people in positions of discursive regulation and realignment, that the laws of thermodynamics actually begin to confine and restrict freedom even on the level of cognitive functioning and behaviour.
One of the most obvious areas is in the sleep wake feeding cycle that produces a lot of heat when disrupted.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So, we should go back to a dictatorship to clean out
the cobwebs every so often? |
|
| |
Actually I would suggest some serious sitting under apple trees. |
|
| |
And maybe some generous speculation about how you might already be living in a dictatorship. |
|
| |
Raise your hand if you thought discursive meant no swearing. |
|
| |
I thought it meant no writing with curly cues on letters. |
|
| |
Also the removal of massives from the paths of intelligent people. |
|
| |
Also the removal of massives that place massives in the paths of intelligent people. |
|
| |
All the "heat" captured by this idea is usually dissipated in houses of legislature. |
|
| |
I'd say that houses of legislature are organized by the same discursive laws that see the electorate following predefined discursive ideologies. |
|
| |
That's enough hullabaloo to float a Hullaballoon... |
|
| |
I don't think so. Most people just want to live their day to day lives, the political system is designed to be efficient as well, so all debate takes place within very narrowly defined discursive boundaries, liberal conservative etc. none of which were originally conceived by any members of the electorate, so they just file into whatever category is easiest for them based on a number of factors, or not have an opinion or vote at all which is an oft taken course. |
|
| |
Most people have only a couple short decades of traumatic formative existence (welcome to the existence!) to take a crash course in thousands of years of complex human knowledge, and then start involving themselves in the affairs of the state! That much knowledge needs efficient ways to deal with it. But beyond that people will mostly ignore most of it and take whatever required to seem intelligent and rational. There's an implicit efficient nihilism when faced with human history. |
|
| |
I strongly recommend going out more often. |
|
| |
Another attempt at rational alignment. |
|
| |
Send me out into that mass where my will is subject to the thermodynamics of many. |
|
| |
// killing someone instead of making amends which is often more difficult. // |
|
| |
No it's not. It's an observable social fact. Your thermodynamics is disturbed, because there is some little poo smell there to poke at. |
|
| |
The dissonance is disturbing in your own discursive system; you will always act towards trying to point out deviance and bring about some sort of rational alignment, because thats how your discursive system is structured. |
|
| |
Notice how bad poo smell and social expectation brings about action based on a dissonance. But your nose can get pointed so high that poo smell can be your own interpretation, because that's how happy-good you're being at making good happy. It makes you happy to do good, because happy is that freudian thing. |
|
| |
You voiced disturbing, but it was a purposeful action, and you likely destroyed its meaning by becoming happy by it, and at the same time .... informed the ... James Joyce and George Orwell best friends for life, suprising bed fellows. |
|
| |
Everyone should spend some time putting words on a line. |
|
| |
In the absence of external pressures, do you, personally, find killing easier than making amends? |
|
| |
The master solipsist or the institutionalized man? |
|
| |