Reynolds on planet-mu

[mixed_biscuits]

well, those "messy subjective feelings" come first, e.g. outrage motivates people to act - the rationality to acheive a result comes later. its not always wrong-headed to be ruled by the heart.

Well, quite - without subjective emotions, you might rationally disagree with the idea of someone being put to death, but would you really give a shit if they were? There would be no shit to give, after all.

This is why Star Trek's Data is such a ridiculous character - even he/it obviously gets pissed off when people fail to follow his 'emotionless' rationality.

 

[gek-opel]

ok, i've been thinking about this quite a bit (yes, its a slooow time at work)

i sometimes feel a bit out of my depth debating this stuff when it edges into theory but i find the idea bizarre and rather difficult to get my head around - maybe some clairification?

i don't find the notion of moving beyond pleasure, pain and especially empathy very appealing.

we are not just animals and our rationality can move us beyond animal concerns in some extreme ways (what other animal commits suicide, for instance?) but i feel that a grand project such as the one you describe could end up leading to the gas chamber. i feel everything we do has to be underpinned by our humanity, of which pleasure and pain are of the utmost import, whether or not these things are exploited by those who want to make money.

connecting with others has to be at the heart of what we do, its how we evolved into this animal that is able to discover how the universe began. i think moving beyond that will allow us to do terrible things, way beyond the worst of capitalism. i don't care enough for rationality to sacrifice everything else for these mental castles in the air. yes, i appreciate that terrible things have already been carried out, but also there is much to celebrate in equal measures - but maybe not the big things, the small connections, the communities we can't help forming. in some ways i see the personal as more important than what we can achieve politically.

i've probably wildly misinterpreted what you said, but what the hell.

Reason is the only thing which lets us escape the pleasure principle and its manifold traps, along with the obverse the human-as-animal. The project for a new human or the human as the disappearance of man (as anthropological self-understanding) or as project or as opening is THE politically progressive outlook- the only one that is capable of saying that we can be more than merely our present being. The view you have outlined is reactionary (though understandable) and leads to nothing but the nihilism of the personal, the very thing which destroys every attempt to build something beyond merely our selves. The fear which has underlined our political history since the 80s at least is that of the terror and the gas chamber, but it leads us headlong into no worse horrors.

 

[gek-opel]

ok, i've been thinking about this quite a bit (yes, its a slooow time at work)

i sometimes feel a bit out of my depth debating this stuff when it edges into theory but i find the idea bizarre and rather difficult to get my head around - maybe some clairification?

i don't find the notion of moving beyond pleasure, pain and especially empathy very appealing.

we are not just animals and our rationality can move us beyond animal concerns in some extreme ways (what other animal commits suicide, for instance?) but i feel that a grand project such as the one you describe could end up leading to the gas chamber. i feel everything we do has to be underpinned by our humanity, of which pleasure and pain are of the utmost import, whether or not these things are exploited by those who want to make money.

connecting with others has to be at the heart of what we do, its how we evolved into this animal that is able to discover how the universe began. i think moving beyond that will allow us to do terrible things, way beyond the worst of capitalism. i don't care enough for rationality to sacrifice everything else for these mental castles in the air. yes, i appreciate that terrible things have already been carried out, but also there is much to celebrate in equal measures - but maybe not the big things, the small connections, the communities we can't help forming. in some ways i see the personal as more important than what we can achieve politically.

i've probably wildly misinterpreted what you said, but what the hell.

Reason is the only thing which lets us escape the pleasure principle and its manifold traps, along with the obverse the human-as-animal. The project for a new human or the human as the disappearance of man (as anthropological self-understanding) or as project or as opening is THE politically progressive outlook- the only one that is capable of saying that we can be more than merely our present being. The view you have outlined is reactionary (though understandable) and leads to nothing but the nihilism of the personal, the very thing which destroys every attempt to build something beyond merely our selves. The fear which has underlined our political history since the 80s at least is that of the terror and the gas chamber, but it leads us headlong into no worse horrors.

 

[IdleRich]

"A cross between the two positions actually. The chemical reactions which create the sensation of pleasure existed before, quite obviously. However, the interpretative basis upon which these bare electrochemical impulses are presented to consciousness are going to be heavily socially mediated, (specifically within consumer capitalism)."

As a matter of interest, to when do you date the beginning of (consumer) capitalism? I realise it's presumably not an exact moment but roughly when do you feel it began to exist, took control etc?

"what other animal commits suicide, for instance?"

Swans apparently.

 

[gek-opel]

As a matter of interest, to when do you date the beginning of (consumer) capitalism? I realise it's presumably not an exact moment but roughly when do you feel it began to exist, took control etc?

I don't know- you can trace the emergence of consumer products back to the Edwardian era can't you, maybe a little earlier. Then there was the emergence of the science of marketing with Eddie Bernays in the 1920s or so, and then a series of further extensions until the whole system was in place.

 

[IdleRich]

"I don't know- you can trace the emergence of consumer products back to the Edwardian era can't you, maybe a little earlier. Then there was the emergence of the science of marketing with Eddie Bernays in the 1920s or so, and then a series of further extensions until the whole system was in place."

OK then, as recent as that. So you would say that when an ancient Greek writes a poem about pleasure or a feudal peasant (or Lord for that matter) takes pleasure in something, the thing they describe or experience is very different from what I might understand it to mean now? And that new thing is intrinsically linked to consumption, because everything under capitalism is?

 

[gek-opel]

Their notion of what it meant was yes. And what it's place within their society was distinct. Consumerism is on the one hand an economic system designed to bolster ever expanding production of excess goods and services. On the other it is a form of relation between human beings and each other and the world, mediated via the identity-conveying properties of products. ON the one hand pleasure operates as part of the mechanism. On the other it is a product on sale itself.

 

[swears]

Well, quite - without subjective emotions, you might rationally disagree with the idea of someone being put to death, but would you really give a shit if they were? There would be no shit to give, after all.

This is why Star Trek's Data is such a ridiculous character - even he/it obviously gets pissed off when people fail to follow his 'emotionless' rationality.

I am not suggesting that we all become emotionless robots, just that in order to honestly care about an issue you should have some understanding of what you're actually caring about in the first place. We should think about the way we feel and if it makes sense or is just some mindless reaction. Putting feelings before reason is especially dangerous in politics, remember all those speeches Blair gave where he'd just rattle off lists of words like "community, prosperity, freedom, security..." ad nauseum rather than take any sort of ideological stand that could be analysed? The problem there is politics that appeals to the heart rather than the head.

 

[IdleRich]

"And what it's place within their society was distinct."

?

ON the one hand pleasure operates as part of the mechanism.

I don't really see how it is any more a part of the mechanism of consumerism than it is part of any other mechanism.

"On the other it is a product on sale itself."

But wasn't that the case in Ancient Greece (always I mean)?

 

[bassnation]

I am not suggesting that we all become emotionless robots, just that in order to honestly care about an issue you should have some understanding of what you're actually caring about in the first place. We should think about the way we feel and if it makes sense or is just some mindless reaction. Putting feelings before reason is especially dangerous in politics, remember all those speeches Blair gave where he'd just rattle off lists of words like "community, prosperity, freedom, security..." ad nauseum rather than take any sort of ideological stand that could be analysed? The problem there is politics that appeals to the heart rather than the head.

well, i agree in some ways - was always horrified when american courts brought in the victims families to make an emotional plea prior to sentencing. yes, sometimes its best not let the heart rule the head, but you can go way too far in the other direction - and i feel the kind of voluntary emotional autism and rejection of community that gek suggests for the post-human will do that.

 

[noel emits]

I don't really see how it is any more a part of the mechanism of consumerism than it is part of any other mechanism.

Think of the rats with electrodes on their pleasure centres that keep pressing the button until they die. They have no other concerns. 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. Combine this with effective psychological marketing techniques and the use of manufactured fear and you have a very effective control mechanism that allows the machine to perpetuate itself.

 

[IdleRich]

"Think of the rats with electrodes on their pleasure centres that keep pressing the button until they die. They have no other concerns. 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. Combine this with effective psychological marketing techniques and the use of manufactured fear and you have a very effective control mechanism that allows the machine to perpetuate itself."

But how does this differ from the bread and circuses of Ancient Rome? In what sense is that specific to capitalist consumerism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

But how does this differ from the bread and circuses of Ancient Rome?

Bread, circuses and temples, I would say.

 

[gek-opel]

Think of the rats with electrodes on their pleasure centres that keep pressing the button until they die. They have no other concerns. 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. Combine this with effective psychological marketing techniques and the use of manufactured fear and you have a very effective control mechanism that allows the machine to perpetuate itself.

I would add the manufactured empathy-porn of the metaphysics of pity too... pleasure, fear, and competitive almost oppressive mediatised pseudo-empathy are the toolkit of the modern society.

 

[bassnation]

I would add the manufactured empathy-porn of the metaphysics of pity too... pleasure, fear, and competitive almost oppressive mediatised pseudo-empathy are the toolkit of the modern society.

i pity you for thinking that.

but seriously, c'mon: caring for others is A Bad Thing? we have a name for people who don't feel any empathy for others: sociopathic. and it certainly isn't a compliment. and what, cos people aren't manning the barriers for some sixth form imaginary marxist revolution, any feelings or pleasure they might have are nothing more than capitalist constructs like rats in a cage? laughable. this is why there will never be a revolution, certainly not in the terms you want. stalinism of the soul, what a hideous dystopian prospect.

jeez, life is not so bleak, you know? i've been through hell last year, things i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, but life - even under capitalism - is not that bad that i want to purge my own emotions (although there have been times when i wished i could).

 

[IdleRich]

Originally Posted by noel emits
"Think of the rats with electrodes on their pleasure centres that keep pressing the button until they die. They have no other concerns. 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. Combine this with effective psychological marketing techniques and the use of manufactured fear and you have a very effective control mechanism that allows the machine to perpetuate itself."

Originally posted by Gek-Opel
"I would add the manufactured empathy-porn of the metaphysics of pity too... pleasure, fear, and competitive almost oppressive mediatised pseudo-empathy are the toolkit of the modern society."

But still, how does that differ from the bread and circuses of Rome (except arguably as a matter of degree which is surely not what you're saying)?

 

[gek-opel]

i pity you for thinking that.

but seriously, c'mon: caring for others is A Bad Thing? we have a name for people who don't feel any empathy for others: sociopathic. and it certainly isn't a compliment. and what, cos people aren't manning the barriers for some sixth form imaginary marxist revolution, any feelings or pleasure they might have are nothing more than capitalist constructs like rats in a cage? laughable. this is why there will never be a revolution, certainly not in the terms you want. stalinism of the soul, what a hideous dystopian prospect.

jeez, life is not so bleak, you know? I've been through hell last year, things i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, but life - even under capitalism - is not that bad that i want to purge my own emotions (although there have been times when i wished i could).

A "Satanism of the soul" is a fantastic term, cheers!

No what I am referring to is a certain kind of spectacle, a relation mediated through images, based on aggressively regulating social norms via the exploitation of another basic human trait (along with fear and desire for physical pleasure) --- the pity-pornography of Madeleine McCann (at least initially anyway) and the endless mass-media charidddeee events. An obscene manipulation of empathy which emerged to operate on a specific small scale, now taken into totally different realms where, I contend, it is fundamentally no longer an appropriate response. The sinister side to all this comes in that the desire for a quick solution via mediatised empathy generated by obscene pity porn, coupled with the almost 19th c idea of "being seen to be virtuous" leads to all the issues I have outlined before relating to charity and the media and the inability to reach long term solutions to any problems of this sort.

And anyway, I'm not in any sense a straight-up Communist. Everyone here must no this by now!?

 

[gek-opel]

But still, how does that differ from the bread and circuses of Rome (except arguably as a matter of degree which is surely not what you're saying)?

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.

 

[Mr. Tea]

A "Satanism of the soul" is a fantastic term, cheers!

No, not Satanism, Stalinism.

Not that that's a whole lot better!

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.

 

[noel emits]

But still, how does that differ from the bread and circuses of Rome (except arguably as a matter of degree which is surely not what you're saying)?

Not so much a matter of degree as a matter of order. But yes, maybe not fundamentally different. That certainly doesn't make it OK. What's different about the current spectacle and consumer / mediatised system is just how pervasive, multifaceted and effective it is. Not only does it attract astronomical amounts of money and work as an effective control system but it actually uses the attention, pleasure, fear and emotional involvement to further itself. It intends to hijack your very will and imagination.