Reynolds on planet-mu

[noel emits]

Edit: Gek, the Maddie/Bono/Geldof/willsomebodypleasethinkofthechildren??? thing you mention is indeed obscene, but I think it's only fair to point out that this phenomenon is merely a corrupted and commercially exploited mutation of a perfectly reasonable (and, indeed, wholly necessary) emotional response, viz. empathy.

Yes, although really who's to say why / how we have such emotional responses? They are indeed exploited though. To what ends and just how obscene the intention is probably goes further than we are usually willing to acknowledge.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, although really who's to say why / how we have such emotional responses?

Evolution, innit. Humans are semi-social animals (i.e. more social than eagles, less so than ants) so any strain of proto-human that evolved to have no empathy whatsoever would very rapidly wipe itself out. Just as an aggression-free society would be wiped out by its aggressive neighbours: hence the human aggression/empathy equilibrium.

 

[gek-opel]

Edit: Gek, the Maddie/Bono/Geldof/willsomebodypleasethinkofthechildren??? thing you mention is indeed obscene, but I think it's only fair to point out that this phenomenon is merely a corrupted and commercially exploited mutation of a perfectly reasonable (and, indeed, wholly necessary) emotional response, viz. empathy. As someone (Noel?) said above, a person entirely lacking in empathy is, quite rightly, regarded as psychopathological.

Right, but this is why it might be interesting to posit the sociopath as a theoretically virtuous figure. Perhaps!

 

[IdleRich]

"Cos in consumerism you have an unending expansion of services and goods offered on the market. And also a sense of individualism which is totally alien to the Roman experience. Coupled with the idea of the atomised individual as "self-made artwork" to be constructed as an identity mediated by products."

Although this lack of individualism prior to the twentieth century is such a commonly repeated idea how can you be so sure of it? I always feel that too much is made of this, people have always been individuals at some level, they knew it was them that was hungry or who was in pain. I think that this is another exaggeration that is used in arguments like this, even if there was a difference between the individualism of Rome and present day it's surely, once again, merely a difference in degree. I don't see it in pre-twentieth century literature say. Where is the evidence for this?
Anyway, what I'm saying is, the thing that Noel Emits said

"Keep offering people access to reliable (consumable) doses of pleasure and they are less likely to think about their lives and the world in broader terms"

was equally as true of Ancient Rome as it is of today's society. But you are saying that pleasure was different then and not necessarily something that ought to be avoided as it could only serve the status quo - in other words there was still room for innocent or even positive pleasure. OK, the way the pleasure giving items are supplied now has become more sophisticated but how can you be so sure that a line has been crossed which means that there is somehow no way in which pleasure can occur without being co-opted? When was this line crossed?

 

[noel emits]

Although this lack of individualism prior to the twentieth century is such a commonly repeated idea how can you be so sure of it? I always feel that too much is made of this, people have always been individuals at some level, they knew it was them that was hungry or who was in pain. I think that this is another exaggeration that is used in arguments like this, even if there was a difference between the individualism of Rome and present day it's surely, once again, merely a difference in degree. I don't see it in pre-twentieth century literature say. Where is the evidence for this?
Anyway, what I'm saying is, the thing that Noel Emits said

I don't see individualism as a problem per se. The idea that you can buy the right stuff to make you a proper and unique being is clearly totally wrong and twisted though, for most, and yet the notion is promoted as a pervasive and sometimes even overt belief or attitude. It's yet another way that a human's imagination and will can be subverted.

 

[noel emits]

was equally as true of Ancient Rome as it is of today's society. But you are saying that pleasure was different then and not necessarily something that ought to be avoided as it could only serve the status quo - in other words there was still room for innocent or even positive pleasure. OK, the way the pleasure giving items are supplied now has become more sophisticated but how can you be so sure that a line has been crossed which means that there is somehow no way in which pleasure can occur without being co-opted? When was this line crossed?

I don't think it's true that pleasure can not occur without being co-opted. I also don't think pleasure is to be avoided. Not sure such a line has been crossed, again it's perhaps a matter of degree and order. 'Leasure' has been more successfully and pervasively co-opted. Awareness is what's needed that mindlessly consuming 'pleasure' might not be in your best interests just because you consider it 'your right', and 'everything is shit anyway'.

 

[gek-opel]

Although this lack of individualism prior to the twentieth century is such a commonly repeated idea how can you be so sure of it? I always feel that too much is made of this, people have always been individuals at some level, they knew it was them that was hungry or who was in pain. I think that this is another exaggeration that is used in arguments like this, even if there was a difference between the individualism of Rome and present day it's surely, once again, merely a difference in degree. I don't see it in pre-twentieth century literature say. Where is the evidence for this?
Anyway, what I'm saying is, the thing that Noel Emits said


was equally as true of Ancient Rome as it is of today's society. But you are saying that pleasure was different then and not necessarily something that ought to be avoided as it could only serve the status quo - in other words there was still room for innocent or even positive pleasure. OK, the way the pleasure giving items are supplied now has become more sophisticated but how can you be so sure that a line has been crossed which means that there is somehow no way in which pleasure can occur without being co-opted? When was this line crossed?

To point one- you are engaging in what is known as "presentism"- the mapping of today's consciousness/problematics onto those of the past. Inevitable, perhaps, but definitely to be resisted. I think the artifacts that civilizations have left us tell us enough to allow the conclusion that subjective experience was distinct to that which we have today.

To point two- there are jouissances to be had outside of the co-opted system. But these are entirely "enjoyments" outside of the pleasure principle, or at least at a number of orders of interpretation removed from the seductively apparently immediate (just fun innit) -- tho inevitably and paradoxically heavily mediated -- pleasures of consumerism...

 

[Mr. Tea]

To point one- you are engaging in what is known as "presentism"- the mapping of today's consciousness/problematics onto those of the past. Inevitable, perhaps, but definitely to be resisted. I think the artifacts that civilizations have left us tell us enough to allow the conclusion that subjective experience was distinct to that which we have today.

You know, I'm really not sure about this. Of course the whole "people long ago were just like us - see, they cooked and made things and went to the toilet just like us!" has become a very overused cliché of the pop-archaeology TV programme, but even so, I don't think 'human nature' (to whatever extent this can be disentangled from culture) has changed within historical times. And I don't see why difference between historically separated cultures should be any greater than those between geographically separate ones: I mean, I think the culture of (say) modern Britain could well be considered to be more similar to that of ancient Rome (to the extent that we can reconstruct it and 'imagine' it) than to the cultures of very primitive tribal groups extant today.

 

[gek-opel]

You know, I'm really not sure about this. Of course the whole "people long ago were just like us - see, they cooked and made things and went to the toilet just like us!" has become a very overused cliché of the pop-archaeology TV programme, but even so, I don't think 'human nature' (to whatever extent this can be disentangled from culture) has changed within historical times. And I don't see why difference between historically separated cultures should be any greater than those between geographically separate ones: I mean, I think the culture of (say) modern Britain could well be considered to be more similar to that of ancient Rome (to the extent that we can reconstruct it and 'imagine' it) than to the cultures of very primitive tribal groups extant today.

Arrrgh. Where to start man! With "man" of course. Human nature is never a simple uncontested term- indeed one could probably map the alterations in human self-understanding via the different interpretations of "human nature" across historical epochs... Inevitably there is a biological form we call homo sapiens, and a set of neuro-chemical reactions which occur under certain stimuli which remain the same over time. But the experience, the phenomenology of the human must alter as our understanding of the world and ourselves shifts in time. This has a feedback effect on how the experience itself is positioned within ourselves (and a feedback effect on the neurological circuits themselves)

Its like drugs- if you take an E knowing its a drug which will give you a certain experience, then you will interpret the same chemical shift in a very different way to that situation where you unknowingly spiked with the same drug!

 

[IdleRich]

"I don't think it's true that pleasure can not occur without being co-opted. I also don't think pleasure is to be avoided. Not sure such a line has been crossed, again it's perhaps a matter of degree and order. 'Leasure' has been more successfully and pervasively co-opted. Awareness is what's needed that mindlessly consuming 'pleasure' might not be in your best interests just because you consider it 'your right', and 'everything is shit anyway'."

Sorry yeah, I was disagreeing with Gek-Opel not you (although I thought you were agreeing with him in the rat example thing).

"I don't see individualism as a problem per se. The idea that you can buy the right stuff to make you a proper and unique being is clearly totally wrong and twisted though, for most, and yet the notion is promoted as a pervasive and sometimes even overt belief or attitude. It's yet another way that a human's imagination and will can be subverted."

Again, I agree with your view, not that of Gek.

"To point one- you are engaging in what is known as "presentism"- the mapping of today's consciousness/problematics onto those of the past. Inevitable, perhaps, but definitely to be resisted. I think the artifacts that civilizations have left us tell us enough to allow the conclusion that subjective experience was distinct to that which we have today."

No, not at all. I'm saying that there is room for debate and I certainly accept that today's consciousness is probably very different to that of the past - however, it is a huge step to go from recognising that to stating (with no argument whatsoever) that the ancient Romans had no individualism. I want the reasons why you think this, it's not nearly enough to say, it was probably different from today it must have been different in this way. Which artifacts tell us that subjective experience was distinct? For me "artifacts" such as the novels of George Elliot or Austen or earlier ones such as those by Madame Delafayette or Cervantes or whatever (all pre-capitalism by your time-scale) seem to show an incredibly similar view of subjective experience that resonates with most people today (hence the interminable adaptations I suppose).

"To point two- there are jouissances to be had outside of the co-opted system. But these are entirely "enjoyments" outside of the pleasure principle, or at least at a number of orders of interpretation removed from the seductively apparently immediate (just fun innit) -- tho inevitably and paradoxically heavily mediated -- pleasures of consumerism..."

OK, what do you mean "enjoyments outside of the pleasure principle"? Perhaps when you describe them you are simply describing something that I see as pleasure and we are not exactly in disagreement - or perhaps not.

 

[gek-opel]

Ultimately they would probably correspond to things that you thought of pleasurable, maybe. I mean there are different ways of thinking about them...

either-
(a) pathological- masochistic, the perverse perhaps. or
(b) second or third order pleasures- self-mediated, like reading an extremely difficult book.

However, both can probably be reduced to the same thing, essentially a self-mediated pleasure. But if they result in the same chemical reaction in the brain as a straight-up buzz (orgasm, drug high, the pleasure of laughing at a joke etc) then how are they any different? And, neither of the exampes I give escapes co-option within consumerism. They are merely sold as "elite" products for the cognoscenti, ironically conveying an ever more subtle sense of product-derived identity. Hmm.

 

[noel emits]

It's maybe only tangentially related but can anyone call to mind the name of that theory that in ancient times people heard their own internal dialogue as the voice of god?

I always thought that theory was the product of modern arrogance and a rather prejudiced appraisal of our ancestors mind-set, but it's got a cool name and is relevant to a discussion of changing subjectivity.

 

[IdleRich]

"It's maybe only tangentially related but can anyone call to mind the name of that theory that in ancient times people heard their own internal dialogue as the voice of god?"

Dunno what it's called but I've definitely heard it said.

"Ultimately they would probably correspond to things that you thought of pleasurable, maybe. I mean there are different ways of thinking about them...
either-
(a) pathological- masochistic, the perverse perhaps. or
(b) second or third order pleasures- self-mediated, like reading an extremely difficult book.
However, both can probably be reduced to the same thing, essentially a self-mediated pleasure. But if they result in the same chemical reaction in the brain as a straight-up buzz (orgasm, drug high, the pleasure of laughing at a joke etc) then how are they any different? And, neither of the exampes I give escapes co-option within consumerism. They are merely sold as "elite" products for the cognoscenti, ironically conveying an ever more subtle sense of product-derived identity. Hmm."

I guess what I was thinking was that there might be a way to enjoy a particular thing (orgasm or drug high say) in a way that wasn't co-opted by consumerism. I mean, surely just looking for different, more esoteric pleasures isn't the answer?

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's maybe only tangentially related but can anyone call to mind the name of that theory that in ancient times people heard their own internal dialogue as the voice of god?

I always thought that theory was the product of modern arrogance and a rather prejudiced appraisal of our ancestors mind-set, but it's got a cool name and is relevant to a discussion of changing subjectivity.

Psycho-rhetorical entheogenesis.

(I just made it up, but I think it sounds cool. Any takers?)

 

[noel emits]

Psycho-rhetorical entheogenesis.

I thought that was a comment on my post.

No it's the ____ Voice, I think.

 

[gek-opel]

I guess what I was thinking was that there might be a way to enjoy a particular thing (orgasm or drug high say) in a way that wasn't co-opted by consumerism. I mean, surely just looking for different, more esoteric pleasures isn't the answer?

I agree. But as we concluded waaay upthread, context is all. Whether one can manufacture a new context then is the question to be addressed (presuming that we reject the mystical-religious along with the banalization of consumerism).

I mean one approach is to reach a self-consciousness of the consumerist dimension, and to enjoy THAT rather than the pleasure itself. But this is little better than a sort of ironic-perverse response that merely serves to perpetuate The Situation.

 

[IdleRich]

"I agree. But as we concluded waaay upthread, context is all. Whether one can manufacture a new context then is the question to be addressed (presuming that we reject the mystical-religious along with the banalization of consumerism)."

Well, I reckon I missed that bit but sounds reasonable to a certain extent. What counts as a new context though? Can a new mini-context not exist within capitalism? I think, no I'm sure, that it can and I reckon that people are effectively creating mini-contexts all the time. Quite possibly it's necessary to recognise the "consumerist dimension" to do this but that doesn't mean that you have to take pleasure in that itself. I think that realising that something has been co-opted or is being used to sell you something is surely the first step towards fortifying yourself against that and finding a new way to enjoy something. I often hear people saying something like "yes, I recognise that that song is being used to sell soap but it happens to be a song I like and as I am not going to buy that soap and it has no effect on me I would rather see that advert and enjoy the song than another advert" but I'm not sure that I find that very satisfying myself.

"Psycho-rhetorical entheogenesis.
(I just made it up, but I think it sounds cool. Any takers?)"

Sounds good enough to me.

 

[noel emits]

One thing re: 'rave's inherent conservatism and limitations - I've often wondered about that sample that's in a few old tunes 'can't beat the system, go with the flow' - what's that all about? Obviously it's an injunction to dance but there's a weird defeatist Zen overtone to it. Strange thing to be used repeatedly in a culture anyway. It's in 'Keep The Fire Burning' though and that's a great track, as is Criminal Minds' 'Baptised By Dub'.

But a lot of 'dance music' just baffles me as far as how anyone could think it was good E music. One of the best E/music experiences I can recall was coming up to the sound of Neu!'s Fur Immer. Actually I think really abrasive stuff can work very well with that particular drug. How did people get the idea that some certain sounds are good for the drug rush? The usual ones never really work for me, in fact they often serve to imply a limitation of the experience. 'Psychedelic' music is usually the most tedious thing you can listen to on acid, whereas pop music can be utterly wonderful.

 

[gek-opel]

One thing re: 'rave's inherent conservatism and limitations - I've often wondered about that sample that's in a few old tunes 'can't beat the system, go with the flow' - what's that all about? Obviously it's an injunction to dance but there's a weird defeatist Zen overtone to it. Strange thing to be used repeatedly in a culture anyway. It's in 'Keep The Fire Burning' though and that's a great track, as is Criminal Minds' 'Baptised By Dub'.

But a lot of 'dance music' just baffles me as far as how anyone could think it was good E music. One of the best E/music experiences I can recall was coming up to the sound of Neu!'s Fur Immer. Actually I think really abrasive stuff can work very well with that particular drug. How did people get the idea that some certain sounds are good for the drug rush? The usual ones never really work for me, in fact they often serve to imply a limitation of the experience. 'Psychedelic' music is usually the most tedious thing you can listen to on acid, whereas pop music can be utterly wonderful.

Classical music! Brahms (who I hate usually).

 

[Mr. Tea]

But a lot of 'dance music' just baffles me as far as how anyone could think it was good E music. One of the best E/music experiences I can recall was coming up to the sound of Neu!'s Fur Immer. Actually I think really abrasive stuff can work very well with that particular drug. How did people get the idea that some certain sounds are good for the drug rush? The usual ones never really work for me, in fact they often serve to imply a limitation of the experience. 'Psychedelic' music is usually the most tedious thing you can listen to on acid, whereas pop music can be utterly wonderful.

Haha, yeah, totally. I often find that the more serotonergically loved-up I get, the more hideously abrasive, industrial and inhuman I like the music. I've been known to describe the sort of stuff I like to dance to as "music that sounds like robots are about to come down from outer space and start raping everyone with lasers". Which sounds a bit embarrassing said sober, but is the best way I could think to put it at the time.