luka

Well-known member
Staff member
suspendedreason mentioned him. sounds cool but i can't be bothered reading theory to tell the truth. it's too difficult.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
can imagine Craner nodding sagely to this bit
"My idol is Keith Richards, the Rolling Stones rhythm guitarist who made menacing music out of the Dionysian darkness never seen by society-obsessed Foucault. The thunderous power chords of hard rock smash the dreary little world of French theory.”
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
"An American psychedelic criticism would see through and disrupt while also intensifying and enhancing. "
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Ardkore fits only too well the model of terminal culture that Paul Virilio prophesies in The Aesthetics Of Disappearance: “a switch from the extensive time of history to the intensive time of momentariness without history”. This emergent anti-culture of instantaneity will be inhabited by a new breed of schizophrenic subject, whose ego is “made up of a series of little deaths and partial identities”.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Wait really? That's so surprising. SR's so pragmatic, Barthes is so irrationally sensual.
Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text is probably my favoritest

a joy to read, broken up in nice little aphoristic short sections, a mind rearranger for me aged whenever it was (21?)

The Lover's Discourse also by Roland is wonderful - similar style and structure - but less applicable to other things as so focused on romantic love
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
It often seems to happen that there are two superposed models each of which captures and explains some important properties of the system under consideration, but no synthesis or overarching meta-model seems to be available. The classic structure/agency dichotomy is actually a good example of this. You can take a strategic, agent-centred view of a situation - here are the agents, their interests, their strategies, and the resulting stand-offs and equilibria - or you can take a structural view in which agents simply fill out roles prescribed by structural positions, and both will to some degree enable you to navigate what’s going on, but attempts at synthesis tend to come up short simply because they’re fundamentally incompatible language games - there’s no overarching protocol for translating between frames of reference. So you can aim at a better version of either type of model, but the real of the situation - to be all Lacanian about it - is to be found in that impasse.
Thank you, well-worded, tying things together. Do we know of attempts to establish any such "protocol for translating frames of reference"?

Part of the reason I'm interested in "reality tunnels" and ideological transformations, mapping how one value-framework can transform into another, and if there is anything we can do to steer it, or at least influence it. We do this anyway, but perhaps not as deliberately and intricately as we can/should be.

The value-framework I'm talking about is the complete set of meanings that one holds about their world, the index of their particular lens. How can we guide the development of our lens? Is it a plastic lens - it must be, but is it plastic in the hands of our will? Is it elastic - can it be transformed into a new form and then return it its prior form?

Not sure how much of this would require quantizing ideology along metrics - an effort that, in any case, seems next to impossible. But would it even be helpful? Can ideology be demystified without being reduced to low-resolution categories?

I feel like "structural" is generally used to mean "connected" - unless we enter the area of theory, in which it takes on a more complex meaning, no? People seem to use "structural" to describe interrelated phenomena that appear to have some rhyme and reason in their connections.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I think so too - at the very least, it's a step forward, no?

The reflexivity of the agent allows it to realize the role it plays, as a part, in the system/machine/structure. Until it is able to reflect as such, the agent is like how our computers are now: only able to execute hardwired commands? A system of reflexive parts can operate much for effectively, if with greater risk, than a system of non-reflexive parts"

This "realization" is necessarily turbulent, it seems, seeing as it is sort of an individuational phase shift. That is, a process of qualitative transformation, even transcendence?

In order for a part to become reflexive, it needs to realize that which it is a part of? It doesn't consider itself a part of anything until this realization occurs - it doesn't even consider itself at all, perhaps?

Is this the stage when the child sees its reflection, and realizes that it is part of a collection of things like it? And it begins to act accordingly?

Perhaps reflexivity is a criterion for the agent. That is, until it (the part) becomes reflexive, it is not yet an agent.

I'd imagine this sort of thing is programmable, and I'd imagine it already has been programmed (Generative Adversarial Networks?), but perhaps there are critical aspects yet undiscovered.

A bit hasty, but food for thought.
 
Top