Is this where we always have to start?: Random Flow

... what is the intention

top pass, to tell the truth

to construct the optimum

All different aims

Here is where we start

The topic concerns the emergence of harmony

Not from any force or direction on the part of an individual actor

But on the dynamics of the whole system

As such awareness of such harmony is enabled by openness to all the

Dimensions of activity of the system

All the dimensions

Not just the textual

Not just the physical

Not just the esoteric

All the dimensions

How are thes dimensions of the system 

All of them

bought into awareness?

This is the question

For the unfolding harmony

is understood to occur as a product of 

not a 'product' of in the sense of the lingusitic turn

but a product of the whole system , 

all of the dimensions

all of them

Where are they..

These dimensions

perhaps we can make alist

....

The physical?

The mental  (category stystems)?

The thermodynamic?

The capital?

The ideological?

The ....soul

yet some of these dimensions restrict awareness?

Turning on themselves

So how are we to identify the difference

Between the opening and the closure

Of the appreciative space

Of appreciative judgement

What are the essentially liberating dimensions?

Of the soul subject

We are the whole system

Not just  pawns in a game...

We are the whole system...

Dont turn away

And in our acceptance inside and out

Of ourselves, all the dimensions of ourselves

We enable the transitional leap

The interdimensional

Interpositional leap

This inclusive necessity

Cast out by the evaluative mind

Souly concerned with distinction

And comparative value

IS yet the  very source  of the structure

The very structure the mind

seeks to protect...

And as I evaluate my  flow

mindless quality stoccato 

thought radience

burrows the earths open arms

for the  juice  of the one secret

it had lost...

Subject positions in Capitalist Free Market

The forces of production and reproduction and the free market tend to bias subject positions towards

Objectification - Reducing intepretation to off-the-shelf prescription
Constructed Complexity: denying simple solutions and replacing them with complex constructions that frequently breakdown (c.f history of car internal combustion engine v electric): (Random expressive flow v multitude of complex formulas)
Binary Opposition: Oppositions need controls and lawyers etc.. more profit...

The Segmented Self

The 'rational self' is segmented by the vast power of the market, into false oppositional subject postions...
Our inherent freedom of identification and movement is veiled by the 'self' the naming and numbering.
Are there open Experimental?/'Appreciative Modes'  beyond the automatic and the un-reflexive critical?

Why Inter-Position

The post-structural opening of the "text"as explained by  Barthes(Mythologies) offers the potential choice of ubiquitous quality. (Inclusive Value)

ie the post-structural open 'text' offers all, its open fractal self-similar wholeness offering emergent quality?

(This could be called the 'UnionBodyStream' - (SubjectProcess)?)

What happens to this potential space?

The application of the mind to the void of potential places a distinction, a boundary and a separation?
(Luhmann, Spencer-Brown)

Our UnionBodyStream divided as entity or process, Void Light becomes light wave and particle, White Light and Black Light?

The forces of distinction enable the forces of construction/production/reproduction?
(Material: Mechanical, Electronic,  & Textual)

Those who are paid to measure and exclude must, for reason of pragmatics, close each 'text'  to enable comparison (whole value >comparative value(Marx))
Does the critic take only that which allows criticism, projecting negative value?

Those who believe they benefit exclusively from construction, though the  capital metric project negative value/quality on the open text of nature?

Imposing  a default negative subject position on the background 'noise' ('entropy')?

Is there a 2nd order inclusive quality beyond the autopoetic closure?

Can this constructed 'default' be transformed'/bracketed to reveal a space of potential emergence?

Are some 'texts' more open than others, is there a level of vagueness that enables projection, (Messy/Experimental Texts texts (Denzin) (Could this be close to the layered textured projection surfaces of nature forest and clouds)

Are these more open to negative construction?


Is the naturally emergent Bee  inter-positioned as Threat/Noise and lost potentially to the "War Machine"? Not the Deleuzian verison (1) but the version that neatly divides an ever  increasing  complexity of academic textual and constructivist production from an overly simplistic normalised  segmented popular self  driven by the  emotive symbolism of marketing and freudian theory? (News International etc).

Where is the bridge between the two?

1. In Deleuzian theory, is the alternative to the state? Deleuze and Guattari argue for a type of assemblage (social group or cluster of relations) which they refer to as the ‘war-machine’, though with the proviso that certain kinds of ‘war-machines’ can also be captured and used by states. This should not be considered a militarist theory, and the term ‘war-machine’ is in many respects misleading. It is used because Deleuze and Guattari derive their theory from Pierre Clastres’ theory of the role of ritualised (often non-lethal) warfare among indigenous groups. Paul Patton has suggested that the war-machine would be better called a metamorphosis-machine, others have used the term ‘difference engine’, a machine of differentiation, and there is a lot of overlap with the idea of autonomous groups or movements in how the war-machine is theorised. We should also remember that ‘machine’ in Deleuze and Guattari simply refers to a combination of forces or elements; it does not have overtones of instrumentalism or of mindless mechanisms – a social group, an ecosystem, a knight on horseback are all ‘machines’. The term ‘war-machine’ has the unfortunate connotations of brutal military machinery and of uncontrollable militarist apparatuses such as NATO, which operate with a machine-like rigidity and inhumanity (c.f. the phrase ‘military-industrial complex’)


http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/features/ideas/in-theory-deleuze-war-machine/


This is another example of inter-position as the language lends itself to easy caracature in the symbolic image based marketing realm.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom. Oakland: AK Press, 2005. p.11

Bookchin's argument is that what has often been described as "primitive" societies are best thought of as "organic" societies. People within them have differentiated roles as do the cells of a body, but this differentiation is largely reversible. Coordination between the cells is not organized by some "center" but through a network of feedback (cybernetic) processes. Particularly important are organisms' ability to evolve as well as reproduce. But simply saying that the process is "autopoietic" is to evade the task of identifying the multiple and mutually reinforcing cybernetic processes that are at work.

Yet Bookchin's claim, which appears to be thoroughly documented, is that the evolution of organic societies into our current, vastly destructive, hierarchical societies - over millennia - has also taken place through some ... (almost cancerous?) ... unstoppable autopoietic process. If we are to halt this process ... which is about to destroy us as a species, probably carrying the planet as we know it with us, it will be necessary to map and find ways of intervening in the sociocybernetic processes involved. No centralised system-wide, command-and-control oriented, change will suffice. Systems intervention requires complex systems-oriented intervention targeted at nodes in the system, not system-wide change based on "common sense

Modernism/Post Modernist Construction and Emergence

                                                        Emergence


Modernist Reproduction  >    <        Present Ground           >      <   Constructivist  Iteration

                                              Negatively Framed Ground  

Discourse Closure

Can a discourse be closed? Can it exist separate from its environment? if not when does it become a meta narrative?  What is/was Barthes view on this?
Eagleton in "What is Ideology" states that Lacalle and Mouffe's version of discourse does not have a boundary....? Is this possible? Eagleton doesn't think so... I don't know...

The "text"

In post-structuralism (Derrida) 'text' has come to be considered a term for all phenomena that can be classified. Such openness of interpretation leads to the question, are some texts more open than others?

Are all 'texts' the same? c.f taxonomies of systems

Are they related at other levels? or are they closed from each other (Discourse closure)?

“A system is a family of meaningful relationship among the members acting as a whole.” This is our working definition of General systems. ISSS

Systems can be seen as having different types - Designed Abstract, Designed Physical, Natural
Different levels of complexity. Systems have emergent properties, this does not relate to authoritarian hieracy although it has been used as an excuse

The 'text' is a modernist  invention along with the academy
It has been adapted via "intertextuality" and...

Natural systems exhibit complimentarily, self similarity and and abscense of absolute boundary
Conceptual systems exhibit absolute boundaries and oppositions...