h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
This is a sandwich board type sign. It is cut to resemble a
ladder. The wearable sandwich board ladders are
stackable, therefore the wearers can form a structure by
climbing the ladders and interlocking them accordingly.
Base sandwich board ladders are mounted on bicycles the
on. Each political slogan of the rally is
in text on each rung, the opposite of the slogans are the
instructions for forming the sign board leviathan that is
opposed to the leviathan its slogans are against. However
is not against itself, but a leviathan of less literal
O No vertical integration
O No social stratification
O No inequality of positions
O No structural functionalism
O No stable social structures
O No social climbers
O No superior oversight / supervision
This ultimate ironic semiotic social machine forms a literal
several stories high and a base impressively wide, that
destroy reifications with dialectical power that literally
opposes symbolic formations by manifesting the ideals of
symbolic leviathan in a material formation of a literal one.
The dialectical conflict is simple. Symbolic leviathan that
the sign boards oppose is ideal, while the signboards
represent material leviathan that opposes the ideals of
the symbolic. Therfore, when the police try to stop
Sandwich Board Leviathan they oppose the literal
material manifestation of the establishment leviathan's
values, ideals, and memetics. The literal material of the
signboard leviathan and the symbolic material of the
police forces engage in an ideological battle manifest in
the material domain. Ironically the ideals that the
sandwich board leviathan opposes become the very
demands of the police of the protesters to disband their
The British Bee-Hive
A leviathan of sorts. [calum, Jan 30 2014]
Christopher Hitchens on Ayn Rand
[RayfordSteele, Jan 30 2014]
||I knew this was an rcarty idea as soon as I stopped
||The actual leviathan wouldn't need to oppose this. They could just wait for its components to get bored and hungry. Then it would collapse, from insufficient structural functionalism.
||Ultimately it's a comment on leviathans and how conflicts
between political bodies can have ironic manidfestations.
In Marxism two leviathans the bourgeoisie and proletariate
are conflicting elements of the same system. Therfore
capitalism, but more specifically capital, is ultimately
ironic. In a similar semiotic sense the conflict between
these two leviathans are ideally contiguous, but
fundamentally opposed in the degree to which the
leviathans are materialy manifest.
||Presumably the sandwich-board carriers
would be required to be nasty, brutish, and
||Big words camouflage that this is a stacking
sandwich board idea. A message-bearing sandwich
board ideally is worn by a person. If produced
correctly one could stack these atop one wearer,
who would peer out from between the rungs of the
second one. A tall stack could also be climbed by a
small clown child. Various messages intentional and
hilariously unintentional could be formed by
stacking and rearranging sandwich boards from
various wearers. Top riders would joust with one
another. It would be a fine circus act!
||I want one now and if I can't have one I am going to scream and scream until I make myself sick.
||Yes well the big words are really to highlight an ironic
conflict where the protestors create a demonstration of
leviathan that can be opposed materially. Really it's all
about leviathan. Just how antiausterity protestors are
austere, and proausterity establishment is lavish the
conflict between the two exhibits an inherent
contradiction. Just as the demonstrators in this idea
oppose what they embody, the establishment also
absurdly opposes what they embody.
||It's a tricky idea but it essentially is a statement of
dialectical materialism which is fundamentally ironic.
Just as the dialectics of socrates threatened social
order, and Eiron the greek comdey character prevailed
despite adversity the material and historical realm of
symbolic semiotic conflict is rich in irony.
||8thof7 alludes to thomas hobbes who inspires this idea.
Of course in a prior discussioon with calum it was
revealed that in a leviathan people are expected to act
memetically rather than with their own reason, which is
reserved for a state of nature. But for survival in society
everyone should follow a covenant or the will of the
soverign and leave thinking for oneselves to the wild
because it creates disorder. This departs from ayn rand
also a favorite of mine for basically commanding
bipartisanism to this day using powerful satire. She
argued that everyone using their own reason rather than
the collective will results in certain 'objective'
guidelines. A major discrepancy between the two
political philosophers if I can be terse and I can because
this is halfbakery. I disagree wiith both thinkers despite
the contradiction concluding everyone should use their
own reason, and that can result in a decision to support
the collective but not necessarily.
||Anyway this will be my last dialectics semioticcs idea, as I
want to focus my efforts more on bumfinger and related.
||I despise Ayn Rand more than 8th despises cats.
||Why? Her Corporation was highly successful.
||I did enjoy their 'million random digits' publication,
much better than Atlas Shrugged in terms of
character development. But oddly it reminds me so
much of the Federal Reserve under Greenspan, also a
||// I despise Ayn Rand more than 8th despises
||That's seriously harsh, [Ray]
||Ayn Rand is an importat writer. Publishing her work on
Objectivism around '38, and the time of the Holocaust.
It wasn't until the '50s when McCarthy started targetting
communists. Rand's theory is essentially individual
liberty causes collectivism to breakdown. Communism is
that collective action causes bourgeoise liberty to break
down. Rands work is liberal, probably one reason
RayfordSteele dislikes it. However, on one level it is
anticommunist, likely why the republicans like it.
However the question is if it is a right or left liberal
work. The content is right liberal, about industrialist
heroes and self interest, and conservative values. But
the FORM is dialectical, satirical combination of right
content with the left framework of Marx' historical
materialism popular amongst eastern jews at the time.
In this manner the work is an implosive satire, to appeal
to the revolutionary ethos of liberals, in the scheme of
historical materialism. Does it argue that liberalism
ultimatelt causes collectivism to break down? It
predicts the COLD WAR between communist collectivism
and liberalism of western states. Say what you will
about Ayn Rands childrens books. However it doesn't
allude to an ultimate lliberal victory, but a perpetual
source of conflict. Conservatives like hobbes are
collectivist, meaning the community takes priority over
individual freedom, and also anti social change and thus
antirevolutionary. Although Rand could appeal to
conservative values of economic liberalism.
||[rcarty] is as correct as [RayfordSteele]. I'd like to think Ms.
Rand would agree.
||Go ahead and think it, then. After all, it's not
like the NSA can monitor your thoughts
||Calum's link to an image of Victorian social structure is
sort of a compound eye view of the superorganism. The
bee produces infrastructure analogous to the mode of
its subjectivity - the compound eye. A hive with
numerous compound subjectivities can form a
superorganism. The infrastructure works in unision with
subjectivites. Hobbes argues for subjective alignment
with the superorganism and its infrastructure. Rand
argues for radical infrastructural change but 'objective'
subjective alignment in the formation of an
anticollective collective. That Rand desires radical
infrastructural change, the image of social order, and
subjective disintegration from the leviathan but offers
another image of social order 'objectivism' and uses her
work to justify her work should raise eyebrows. Her work
is admittedly satirical because it's dialectical in nature,
means to create breakdown in form through internal
disharmony. Socrates demonstrated it by showing
speakers contradicted themselves. Rand asserted that
the individual should
produce radical devices that subvert social order. Irony is
such a device to the collective, much as Swifts Modest
Proposal, or 1984 by George Orwell. To expect
objectivism is not a radical liberal device of historical
materialism confines discourse and thus the image of
social structure that can be apprehended - the image of
social structure that can be apprehended is the
leviathan that the people who apprehend it form.
||I wonder where Carl got his idea about Leviathans
||Carl Schmitt is definitely inspired by Hobbes. As nazis
are considered communitarians, where individual
freedoms are sacrificed for the collective, Schmitt was
attracted to the antiliberalism, the fascist collectivism,
and Hitler's role as sovereign of the nazis. Can Hobbes
also be considered part of a nazi ideology? In some
respects hobbes outlines nazi communitarian
sovereignty in his work although from a safe distance of
hundreds of years. That Rand's work was so clearly
opposed to collectivism even before the full extent of
fascism was realized makes her work heroic.
||The implosive sign spectacle and the reification of
analogousness and the synthesis of behaviour in the
epistemically constructed leviathan. That's what I want to
rename this idea. Although I didn't put enough implosive
sign spectacle into this idea.
||I think the sandwich board - or perhaps better
still, the stepladder - leviathan neatly encapsulates
the British (and I mean English) attitude to class,
social climbing and knowing one's place. In the
stepladder leviathan (a huge swaying, tottering
mass looking something like what would happen if
the greysuited masses schlepping across
windswept Canary Wharf one pre-bonus morning
were suddenly and likely inexplicably possessed by
the homeless spirits of a Pentecostal cheerleading
team, each etiolated drone dreaming without joy
of one day clambering up and over the weaker, to
some unsteady apex near only the seventeenth
storey of One Canada Square) but yes in the
stepladder leviathan the the constituent members
are afforded by the very structure itself the
opportunity to climb
unhindered up a few rungs on their own
stepladder, and to
regard this meagre ascent as justifying their
sneering attitude to those towards the base of
this economic pyramid, when in fact all that it
entitles them to do is to consider their good
fortune to be placed by nothing more than the
random action of the universe in a mid-tier
position with a relatively strong stepladder. Of
course, this is me just explaining the joke, nae
doot, but recognising this has never stopped me
in the past.