Culture: Monument
Sandwich Board Leviathan   (+3, -2)  [vote for, against]
The sign board displays message on rungs, the opposite forms the antileviathan.

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 wearers sit on. Each political slogan of the rally is written 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 it is not against itself, but a leviathan of less literal meaning. It reads:

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 leviathan several stories high and a base impressively wide, that can destroy reifications with dialectical power that literally opposes symbolic formations by manifesting the ideals of the 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 monolith.
-- rcarty, Jan 29 2014

The British Bee-Hive http://polarbearsta...ritish-beehive.html
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 understanding it.
-- RayfordSteele, Jan 29 2014

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.
-- pertinax, Jan 29 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Jan 29 2014

Presumably the sandwich-board carriers would be required to be nasty, brutish, and short ?
-- 8th of 7, Jan 29 2014

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!
-- bungston, Jan 29 2014

I want one now and if I can't have one I am going to scream and scream until I make myself sick.
-- bhumphrys, Jan 29 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Jan 29 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Jan 29 2014

Anyway this will be my last dialectics semioticcs idea, as I want to focus my efforts more on bumfinger and related.
-- rcarty, Jan 29 2014

I despise Ayn Rand more than 8th despises cats.
-- RayfordSteele, Jan 29 2014

Why? Her Corporation was highly successful.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 29 2014

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 Rand fan.
-- RayfordSteele, Jan 30 2014

// I despise Ayn Rand more than 8th despises cats //

That's seriously harsh, [Ray] …
-- 8th of 7, Jan 30 2014

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, Feb 01 2014

[rcarty] is as correct as [RayfordSteele]. I'd like to think Ms. Rand would agree.
-- Alterother, Feb 01 2014

Go ahead and think it, then. After all, it's not like the NSA can monitor your thoughts … yet.
-- 8th of 7, Feb 01 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Feb 01 2014

I wonder where Carl got his idea about Leviathans from.
-- pashute, Feb 02 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Feb 02 2014

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.
-- rcarty, Feb 03 2014

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.
-- calum, Mar 03 2014

More's the pity ...
-- 8th of 7, Mar 03 2014

random, halfbakery