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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment