Log in

05 July 2007 @ 11:56 pm
an (im)possible lack of "proper" verbage.  
when dealing across fields, i believe that it is important both, to not centralize epistemes in order to maintain the originary and effective use of such epistemes as well as to select for epistemes which are useful across the field. this may be a little like forensics, special effects engineering or general contracting, where we have various tools available, and it's up to us to use or misuse what we have appropriate to a context.

what follows is a bit of meandering between disciplines as i look at various selections available. let's start with words, and how words are only partial formations rather than events within a vaccum. after all, if words were vaccum packaged, we would not be able to mix words together to get any kind of surplus poetic affect.

words are my enemies. suchly, as hammer and anvil time to make them do my bidding. what makes it an art is the selection and formation of partial movements. words are always partial creatures. it is not complete. no art is complete. anything you do movements, or sounds -- originate from a process of selection and reification. the silence the void, aspects of what you could stand, or pose, moves you could make but don't. the art comes in when you need to combine several possible maneuvers into a coherent totality. for instance, a punch is a fist. but the entire body, with the back into it, legs splayed or twisted appropriately -- it is all the entire body becoming-punch, becoming-fist. the finesse is like tennis. the godly stance. you are where you are not mostly, so your opponent can never catch you off guard. of course the human way would be to put them off balance so that they can never strike where you don't want them to. always c.y.a., cover your ass. words are a way of covering something, but attacking something too. if you watch enough mythbusters you'll come to understand the scientific method in the same way that computer programs operate with the slinkymathic. all details which do not add to the desired movement either need to be eliminated or refocused so that they blend into the background noise. what comes out of an experiment is a desired effect. you want to create a specific kind of movement; interface with the world only on a tip of a pinprick. the focus of musashi's sword is but another way of investing chidori, or rasengen. a way of manevuering chakra, or if you like, attention. all of technology pretty much does the same thing. what makes dumb solid-mass technology different from bio-technology is a reduced/recursive scale by which biology works. with dumb solid-mass technology, the smaller scale is still randomly homologonous, such as sheet metal for the side of your car. or a simple rubber hose. our attention and our hands are simply not equiped to deal mass on a smaller scale. what makes art too; is the focus of attention. mynuclearsheep (he is so modest, not at all electric) has a way of focusing within a frame. somehow it is the frame he plays with that re-engineers how we see when he photographs. draws attention to the non-personal but microsopic aspects of what he notices. it is like poetry to take words and make them focus, align attention to a new chemistry. while you could argue that painters do the same thing; at some abstract level the media no longer matters. it is defamiliarization, de/re-territorialization. while the earth is a given piece of land, multiple territories exist overlayed, each one different. the species which co-exist each have a different way of putting the territory together. what makes a business model for a particular market economy also makes a territory for a species of a particular niche. but on another level, the various pieces of one's media really do matter, because they constitute internally for a business or species, the microscopic movements which organize the internal libdinous metabolisms of those businesses/animals. the difference between solid-mass machines and biomechanics is also reflected between businesses and animals. take business for example.

business is an infinitely simpler creature, usually presented as a central kind of movement -- say an economic short-circuit, a conduit by which money can flow by transforming itself into material goods and back again into money though product/services. the examination of how people came to possess the creative insight which formulates such businesses can be seen in shows like "big idea with donny deustch", or in magazines like "fast company". yet rather than understanding a particular business by how it entropically expliots its niche (which in a completely absurd reduction animals and plants do as well, as they actively metabolise what they are "designed" to do) we can grasp a business in terms of its growth potiential by its niche. equally as in "fast money with dylan ratiagan" the analysis rate companies according to how a business's nich fits within a larger economy. the two views coexist similiarly to d&g's micro and molar perspectives in the same way that individuals are fractal pieces of the society they live in.

i don't really have much in the way of a language to focus attention to these various aspects, so i borrowed a little from continential philosophy. but even with post-structural aspects available, with this you can begin to understand, is a completely different break from semiotics and critical theory. any kind of ideology is out the window, and in fact the larger implication is that any kind of coherency of a world view is also distingerated. the obsession of meaning in these disciplines obscurates these fundamental movements by binding such movements as non-related particular motions within a given larger scale of ideological implication. what we lose sight of, is how on multiple plateaus, the same meta-events keep happening over and over. now, while we exist as biologically dependant creatures, being human does not necessarily mean that we are limited to a platform of celluar limitation... although it does in some sense, mean exactly that. being human though, does not equate with being a subject. our focus is not primarily with a territory extracted of the earth, its material features mainly being temperate, matter and organic compounds. our focus too, is on a scale of our complete making. it is on the level of what we can loosely call "meaning" which we recieve/create that forces much of our behavior. we are really living on completely different levels, simultaneously. i scratch my butt and i think about what to get my coworker for her birthday. i need to get lunch and i need to get an oil change for my car. what makes us subjects is not biological. cognitive psychology can attest to that. but what makes us subjects does block our ability largely, to see what happens beyond the focuses of our making, whether it be personal or of a group. critical theory and philosophy are two kinds of "pure" and formal modes by which we can isolate the basic tenants of these subjective territories. but they are also kinds of activities much like activisim and political bantering which CAN defocus our attention to makeshift phantasies which have little with effecting the motions we desire in the external world, even if we believe in "progress".

the best example i can think of is democracy. democracy is a peculiar political system, because it locates its activities within a dialectic of values... making it a kind of perfect vehicle, in theory, for political reality. yet it is that strength which also calls forth its weakness as a social centralisation. (the difference between social and political, i tenatively suggest is that social covers all aspects of human existence.) for example, the failure of democracy in this regard is what makes it so appealing as a people's political metabolism. the very fact that it must metabolize on the level of meaning and compromise between people's desires makes it a candidate for distilling focused social energy to reify non-meaning goals. speeches can be powerful because they can reshape "a" world we live in as citizens and subjects. but they are also energy draining exactly because they do not directly reshape "the" world we live in as biological and material agents. for this reason, libertarians and laise faire political-economists are correct in understanding that market forces are a more viable and effective way in shaping a world in which we exist. but the failure of such a motive stems directly from its strength. the concentration of material and economic energy does not directly translate into a political re-tooling, just as a political maneuver may not effect economic alliances. we go too far see-sawing one way or the other. for this reason slavoj zizek in "ticklish subject: the absent centre of political ontology" writes about the phantasy of a unified political-economy. there is no unification; although zizek in "ticklish subject" presents this from the point of view of marxists who heavily rely on material causes for political affects and lacanian psychoanalysis as the horizon of subjective infinitude. hence, his subtext about an "absent centre [for] political ontology". in both approaches, subjectivity remains a hard kernel about which we can not permeate, to enter or to leave. as such, both approaches are hardly an effective means by which he can address a political territory since we can never make the jump to grasp a political ontology; the dream remains something we can only demand (hence, zizek's political authoritianism)-- although he does well to analogize subjectivity of a person with that of a political-culture. indeed, their symptoms differ, for zizek, only in scale. but again we deal with ideology and meaning. really, very different from the likes of delanda, and d&g -- although foucault makes an effort to get beyond meaning, though his territory still is that of a kind of negative semiology.