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...

Inclusive Quality

The concept of second order quality relates to comparative value (Marx) which is a consequence of our economic system and the forces of productions influence over our subject position, perception and classification schemes. It could be argued that  historical necessity of maintaining reproduction of goods via the market  has led to a detached system (Habermas) or emergent aspect of capital flows (Massumi) imposing definitions/subject positions on us as neither good enough nor satisfied unless we a consuming and producing to a set rate, (maximum production & consumption would suit GDP and the free market). The automation of production systems could change this but lack of redistribution from those who profit from automation has led to blockage in the potential value of automation for humanity. Instead of helping it has led to inequality and conflict .

Inclusive Quality concerns an active choice to override this programmed  imprinted comparative judgement system, to bracket it out. The choice is to actively appreciate the "background noise" and  that which has been assigned a default "negative comparative value" or 'entropy' , This relates to the work of Illya Priogine on dissipative structures. Also perhaps to that of Macy and Buddhist philosophy

(Relation to  resonance...'2nd o q)

The point is that the  comparative quality optimum should not be set in comparison with and excluded 'other' but be given space to exist alongside it... there in the acceptance of the whole field effect (Massumi) perhaps lies the evolutionary connection.

Randiom Flow:Focus MJi

My idea of fervant candour is to bridge a gap. that gap is in the mind, not exclusively between the legs. The  mind is a platform. It is a carridge and a Juggernaught (Giddens). The vehicle is essentially out of control control system. It is mindless to the extent it has an external measure and control mechanism. The mechanism is the observer. Such observation and contol is the work of the parental aspect. The parental aspect guides the child. Yet the child is being driven off a cliff ecologically through the individual econmic choices of the parents. There are different levels of logic. The logic of economic survial contrasts with our collective survival.
The juggernaught continues on its way. Where are we? are we allowed off for a few days or hours thanks to the juggernaughts own legitimised methods and products. Of course thes never challenge the juggernaught. The effective challenge comes though methods de-legitimised ... these are to be found and explored...they are aspects of our freedom beyond the illluison of 'freedom' projected by the juggernaught.

Grasping at stuff we are told will save us,  you have to doubt it , ths olutions will be more ubiquitous and free they will be obviously overlooked syncs of quality, connections that we thought were gaps, rhythms and sound, simple everyday overlooked motions and movement, some pathway we had not even seen... there in the everyday gloss of mind pattern a gap, a chink of light a slipping of edges there a moments unfurling of a collective emergent form a present ground ... a place in the soul of man we had forgot, the only one moment of unionbodystream reunited in its infinite variety to hold us beyond the knives of the  word game.

Automation Fear and Complexity