Rage and the $100/month food budget

Are we really arguing on the basis of an either/or here? Either material conditions or narrativization of material conditions? I think a more interesting direction of argument is how precisely this feedback loop functions.

edit: I misplaced a critical "or" but I have fixed it

constant escape said:

Are we really arguing on the basis of an either/or here? Either material conditions or narrativization or material conditions? I think a more interesting direction of argument is how precisely this feedback loop functions.

Click to expand...

exactly! thats my confusion!

linebaugh said:

An interesting move of gus's is that when pressed he will always say something perfectly reasonable and measured but the second the heat is off he starts asking questions about the rate of black crime

Click to expand...

It's his go to play, his signature move. It's like Iversons crossover

That's Gus, grinning as he hits it. "Every time baby! Smooth as silk"

And I do think that the narrativization of a particular set of circumstances is predicated upon the existence of said set of circumstances. Or at least the probability that the conditions upon which the proposed narrative is built is a believable set of conditions. Always wiggle room here.

luka said:

That's Gus, grinning as it hits it. "Every time baby! Smooth as silk"

Click to expand...

"Swish."

suspended said:

All I mean by "narrative" is the complex set of personal and cultural conditions that lead you to interpret/conceptualize your objective material situation in a specific way.

Click to expand...

Heres a thought. Maybe you may suffer emotionally due to hardships that you experience directly, but the attribution of blame is largely handled by what narrative you subscribe to. And sometimes it registers as obvious, which is perhaps just the marker of an effective narrative.

The conclusions one comes to about why they are in their particular material conditions is based on information provided by other humans, which just adds a whole other prism layer of unpredictability and complexity. If experience-based conclusions are direct, conclusions based on testimonies are indirect, perhaps by many degrees.

constant escape said:

I think a more interesting direction of argument is how precisely this feedback loop functions.

Click to expand...

This is the quintessential Stan move though. He says this, and then he never explains how it functions.

Never ending set of promises. Endless deferral

But there is something to be said for the relativity of pathos here, if you'll indulge this promisingly lofty aside. If your material conditions are adequate to keep physiological harm at bay, than its not unreasonable to ascribe at least some portion of your emotional suffering to the understanding you develop about your situation based on information provided by other humans.

But why is your situation solely predicated on material conditions what about if you was nonced as a kid?

What about if you was nonced as a kid?

I ask a third time - WHAT IF YOU WAS NONCED,

AS A KID?

What I mean is, there's loads of different factors which contribute to how well you handle stress etc

In addition to narrative story tell to self story-
Eg if you was nonced as a kid

version said:

"Is it possible that we could maybe come up with an ideas matrix to kickstart a move to implement some sort of techno-fascist nesting program within both the progressive left and small family restauraunts, perhaps coupled with a Dengist approach to small-scale farming and something akin to a xerox of a cognitive map?"

Click to expand...

this is bullying and i wont stand for it

luka said:

Never ending set of promises. Endless deferral

Click to expand...

While there is something to be said for the this endless deferral (as I have mentioned to you, in terms of an endless series of checkpoints), I will gladly oblige in this situation. That said, in my mind, I was already fleshing this out in the previous two three posts.

The information you derive from experience is physiological, emotional, whatnot. But the important point is that it is based on unmediated and unrefracted experience.

The information you derive from, say, watching the news or talking about politics with other humans is not direct, it is mediated by some number of cogito-prisms that, based on how they interpret and how they articulate (two layers), effect the information they receive in some way.

This mediated, indirect information can be thought of as folding over upon and complimenting the information you would receive directly from experience. Perhaps this indirect information enriches, suppresses, distracts, highlights, juxtaposes, clarifies etc the infinite number of possible conclusions that can be derived from direct experience. To say that there is an infinite number is not to say that all possibilities are on the table. There are degrees of infinity. You can have an infinite number of possibilities even under certain parameters.

So the information derived from experience is to be categorically distinguished from the information derived from narratives or any other such indirect source. But this is still all the map, not the territory.

Too basic

linebaugh said:

this is bullying and i wont stand for it

Click to expand...

It's not bullying if it's funny