June 24, 2005
question on control
is what we seek to control ourselves or our environment?
Posted by Sam on
07:06 PM
|
Comments (2)
June 23, 2005
control: addendum
think about how different this notion of control is from Dr. Phil's. Phil fails to draw any distinction between the different forms of control. For him, it is all about program and resolution. Self-programming is his art.
Therefore, his only critique of pathology is that it is a "love of chaos." Echoes of the homosexual panic of Dr. Drew (of the late MTV show Loveline). On the contrary, for people who have no mode of investing long-term control of their lives, fucking these mechanisms up is the form in which they exert control over their own lives.
Phil's line on children is typical: they have "a desire for predictable consequences." Their desire for self-control is meshed seamlessly with a dictum that they be controlled. Deluze and Guatarri take this delusion one step further: the masses, they claim, "desire to be oppressed."
Negotiating between the levels of control, minimizing coercion and maximizing freedom, these are tricky issues. For different people, different understandings; different exchanges will be made. For this reason, the basics must be laid out carefully.
Posted by Sam on
08:32 PM
|
Comments (0)
comfort and security 2: control
control: how far will people go to exert control over their own lives? to almost any length. many seemingly pathological, self-destructive behaviors make perfect sense when you consider how important a sense of self-control is to the human brain. Anorexia, drug use, self-injury -- these are all tools used to maintain control over how we feel.
I have been going through an intermission where I have lost control of a number of aspects of my life. Not for very long, or of too many pieces at the same time, but repeatedly, suddenly, in unanticipated bursts. My computer broke, the landlord took away our roof access, I had to take the cart out to Queens to get it re-licensed -- to name the few. Every week has had its little surprises, and it's been a little traumatic around the edges.
If comfort and security are near-term goals of organization, the long-term objective is control.
I hesitate to say "self"-control, because the meaning does not extend very well to groups, nor is it very precise, but some specification is needed. Being controlled is a very different feeling from exerting control over oneself. The matter is further confused by the equation of being controlled with being jerked around in a chaotic fashion. In fact, one might be controlled so subtly one would not even notice...
For a long time, I rejected the notion of "self-control" for this exact reason -- that it seemed in most cases, to be informed by an overriding obedience. The "self" part of it was merely an addendum, to quash your own instinctive rebellion at being controlled. It seemed to be largely an addendum to social control, a handle by which the individual could easily be gripped and moved here or there. At the same time, it limited the notion of control to the self, and deadened social responsiveness. In short, the "control" offered by self-control was always short term and limited, while the "self" streched long. Truly a twilight theory (so it seemed to me).
Besides, I was reading a lot of Deluze, Guatarri, and Negri, who all over-emphasize the amount of social control under capitalism (culminating in Hardt and Negri's summation of the current political order as "the right of the police"). Negri, particularly, seems quite blind to the anarchy of capitalism. The control is miniscule, the anarchy, massive.
Politically, too, this approach is not viable. To push for less control at the lowest levels of society -- typified by Negri's demand for the "social salary" -- while ignoring changes at the highest levels is foolish. They argue that capital will simply be forced to adjust, to change the social organization at the highest level and motivations at the lowest. But the opposite is also possible -- that capital will simply allow crisis to overtake the lowest levels. What happens in this case? The populace will beg for a re-instatement of the old social order, which at least functioned...
What is needed is a new form of social organization, which is to say a new form of control.
Posted by Sam on
08:25 PM
|
Comments (5)
June 22, 2005
Strong vs. weak
In the first instance, strength is dominant. This means: the strong can impose on the weak.
This is a dialectical encounter, so does not leave the strong unchanged. Suppression or nurturance, the relation will, in the final instance, play out on the strong as well as on the weak. The duality of the encounter is irreduceable.
Neither can the relation between strong and weak be determined from without. There is no referee, and to speak of one, or as if there is one, dodges the question. Any referee would only be the representative of a yet stronger force, re-posing the dynamic on a new field.
It is impossible to hide from this fact - the only way to defeat the injustice of the strong is with a greater strength.
------
Let me point out a few consequences of confusion on this basic point.
1. Over-emphasis on the final instance, in which strength and weakness are completely entwined, and strength has lost it's advantage. The monastic ponderations of academe can wander the pathways of the secret strength of weakness for a lifetime and never chart a fraction of it's intracacies. They think this is "doing politics" -- do you?
2. A shade more sympathetic, there is the impasse in the post-modern politics of difference. If there is no recognition of where one person or group is strong and another is weak, if we are all just "differently strong," there can be no real recognition of difference, or organizational cooperation.
3. Now, kids, here's the real kicker -- if we want to get our boots on the ground, in terms of organizing, don't underestimate the power of the protective instinct. People will do a great deal more to protect others than they will to protect themselves. This is the real secret -- strength exists to serve weakness. It is through this recognition that strength is well built and proficiently mobilized.
Posted by Sam on
04:09 AM
|
Comments (1)
June 16, 2005
TECHNOLOGY 2 :from 102 square inches to 358 square inches in 2 easy steps
after I had the steam table, increasing the grill area became a priority.
Posted by Sam on
09:03 PM
|
Comments (0)
June 13, 2005
this is really a pity
I noticed that the mixtape section of Kim's video was gone -- here's why:
Kim's Employees Arrested
Damn the music monopoly sucks.
To clarify: the "pirated" CDs are mixtapes, put together by artists and producers outside of the regular music production companies. They use uncleared samples and beats that appear on other albums, (and are usually sold at a lower price), but they are also a source of a lot of original material, more raw, remixed, altered, etc. I've been enjoying Kim's section a great deal over the last 7 to 8 months since I discovered it. The "pirated" DVDs are concert and rare footage that has no official distribution. Kim's sells legit versions of all the regular albums they carry. They were apparently under the impression that there would not be strict enforcement of the law for otherwise unavailable, but culturally important, CDs and DVDs. More's the shame -- I hope the employees don't get it too bad, and that Kim's will not be fined to death.
another take on the incident
Posted by Sam on
07:11 PM
|
Comments (0)
