PDA

View Full Version : My own Weltanschauung.



Jack
Sunday, September 25th, 2005, 02:51 AM
This is where the past twelve months or so of philosophising have got me.

Fans of Deleuze will understand quite well why I use the term 'machine' ;) Actually, a lot of my outlook is based on Deleuze's work in A Thousand Plateaus. Perhaps not the way he would look at it though.

Knowledge is a product of man's compressing the forms of change which he connects with - perception is essentially a form of connection between one stream of becoming and another, and the conversion of one stream (the history meta-machine) into a form connectable with the thought-strata. Thought is one strata of becoming, connected with the bio-chemical strata of physical being. The machine of man - man as a machine, a map of connections between the thought strata and bio-chemical strata - is a machine spawned and immersed in history, the meta-machine of time and space. The man-machine is a feedback system, one which feeds off the environment in order to expand itself. This man-machine's motive power I term the self will. It's 'objective' - this is in fact a false term, because objective implies that once achieved, the process stops (there is no stopping) - is to expand itself. Because the man-machine arises out of the bio-chemical strata, the primary concern of the man-machine is to preserve its own origins in the bio-chemical strata - its own genes. If this were not so - well, the dead stay dead, they do not live on, the very fact we exist is proof that the man-machine is concerned primarily with its own genes.

The memory-machine is coextensive with the thought machine. Whereas the thought machine is concerned with the constant assemblege of sense perceptions into objects - cognition - the memory-machine is concerned with recognition, the perception-recording and conception-comparison process. The memory machine produces the 'narrative', the recorded story of the assembled man-machine. As with all affects of the self-will, the important are sensed the most readily, the less important, with more effort, and the irrelevant, not at all. It is the process of adaption - the connection of the man-machine with the environment and the configuration of the man-machine by the self-will to the most advantageous position in relation to the environment - that allows any form of self-identity to be created and employed.

However, in order to survive, man has to percieve in terms of categories - that of logic, aesthetics, economics and politics. Logic, the distinction between true and false, is highly important because it is the root of the others, deals with the comprehension and organisation of objects with regard to man-machine generated goals. Aesthetics, the distinction between the beautiful and the repulsive, is important because it is the category which judges intensive experience - what affects should be encouraged to repeat again, and what should not. What should be repeated is that which enhances the man-machine, what should not is that which degenerates the man-machine. Economics, the distinction between the useful and the useless, is especially important, given that when combined with logic, allows man to generate technology, which is the logic of technique - the enhancement of power of the man-machine. Politics is knife edge of the man-machine - it is the field in which one determines the friend from the enemy - the friend being one who enhances the man-machine, the enemy whose functioning threatens to destroy, not merely degenerate, the man-machine.

Man's mind is a calculating machine, driven by the self-will, it is a partial object that is a part of - not a master of - the man-machine. It is intimately connected with, and a derivative of, the bio-chemical machine, in that the bio-chemical machine operates even at the level of perception and conception - the thought-machine does not care which minute shade of brown the tree is, but more to the point whether the tree is adequately grown or not. Where the thought-machine does care, it is to an end which ultimately serves to expand the man-machine. Economy - the gradiation of percieved and then concieved objects along the line of useful and useless - is entirely relevant.

The man-machine is entirely a product of history - the connection and disconnection of various processes across the various stratum of existence. Quite possibly one of the most important of these stratum is the socio-political machine - the connections between various man-machines, which serve to transform each man-machine participant. In time, various connections between each man-machine are coded, i.e. rendered permanent as rituals, as a direct product of these configurations being the most capable for sustaining their members. Where various codes meet, a position is formed. A position is a virtual (i.e. conceptual but equally real) man-machine, composite formed of content from various categories (kinds of knowledge) which relate the man-machine both to other man-machines in the social machine, and to the environment, the term used to cover all that is not part of the men-machines (a false term, considering it has no metaphysical basis, only an epistemological basis, especially considering the man-machine is one part of the history meta-machine).

The social-machine is transformed into a strata of its own at the point where positions are coded, but the social machine is not the political-machine - the political-machine comes into its own at the point where two social-machines compete in the territorialising process (territorialising explained as the claiming and colonising of earth), where the social-machine itself takes on a political turn. Politics consists of two elements: that of being activity in relation to power, and that this power be used to advance one at the expense of the other - potentially, to be used to the destruction of what opposes one. Different positions in the configurations of social machines possess different degrees of power - it is this social-machine which Foucault simply terms 'Power'. One position within a social machine has the power to mobilise that social machine for war - in doing so, it reveals a subtle event that, at that moment, is in the process of occuring - a political double articulation.

The social-machine on whom war is waged, by its own processes, has violated the power of the chief enforcer (that position defined by the capacity of the enforcement of codes) to the extent which it is more beneficial to assemble the political-war-machine than to simply not tolerate the costs involved in doing so. The directive which mobilises and transforms the social-machine into the political-war-machine has several effects - it marks what is tolerated, it marks the punishment, and if the politico-war-machine is not itself destroyed, it reinforces both the power of the socio-politico-war-machine and that of the position of the chief enforcer. Provided the politico-war machine does not break down in the process of destroying the enemy social-machine, the social machine breaks itself in two: the chief enforcer and the war-machine is transformed into the permanent entity known as the 'State', the permanent political machine, and the rest of the social machine remains as it was.

At the point where the socio-politico-war-machine evolves into the State and civil society (for civil society is what the state-machine is), the enforcer gains new power: the capacity to overcode - and becomes the sovereign. The coding power of customs (i.e. interrelations between different positions, e.g. mother, father, children, priest, chieftain, etc.) is now supplemented by the power of the sovereign, which applies regardless of position: this capacity, overcoding, is legislation. It is legislation via which the State operates which, with the coding power of position, forms the identity of the social-machine. The sovereign defines, using the influence of coded positions, the three primary 'others' which are employed to form the identity of the social-machine which is then inculcated into the men-machines that operate within it. Against these others - the criminal, the insane, and the outsider - the State mobilises the power of tradition, history, custom, position, and reinforces its 'other', thus reinforcing its own created position of 'the citizen', the position capable of doubling with all other positions within the social-machine. The position of 'the citizen' is the opposite of all that threatens the power of the State - it is ethical, sane, and familiar.

What, then, constitutes the ethical? The social-machine is effectively parasitised by the State - it is the State which doubles over the coding power that constitutes the social-machine, reinforcing the ossifying effect the state-machine's positions have on the free-form transformation that would otherwise occur between man-machines, asides from the bluntly obvious fact that without an 'inside' to divide from the 'outside' the State would be an entirely meaningless organisation, and would simply be the new nucleus for a social-machine. The position of the ethical citizen, then, is one which enhances the power of both the State and the social-machine of which it is a parasite. The ethical, sane, familiar citizen, is the citizen which fits in, does not diminish the mass-power of the State-social meta-machine, but enhances it, and abides by the logic which underpins the authority and power of the State. This is the position the State creates and encourages, but positions are not eternal, and neither is the authority of the sovereign.

The event of Revolution, the creation, mobilisation and transformation of the social-political-war-machine against the social-State meta-machine, is possible if several factors are realised: if the power of the logic of the State-machine is dissolved, if the State is indifferent or directly impeding the self-wills of the men-machines, and if the various interrelations can be coded into a position capable of welding a war machine together and directing it against the State. :)

Jack
Thursday, September 29th, 2005, 02:38 AM
*sigh*

Almost everyone of note has read the post and no one responds. Not even for clarification. Or why I spent so much time trying to figure all this out. Oh well.

overture
Monday, January 23rd, 2006, 12:32 PM
Hi I am nobody of note but I'll reply. (I suspect most people just read a little bit of your posts and abandoned; not because of it's faults but because it really is a chore wading through someone elses Weltanschauung, especially if it is of sufficient complexity to limit simple response.


I found you pov interesting. My disagrement would be, first of all, your conception of "man machine" as entirely a product of history. This amounts to standard empiricism doesn't it?

Jack
Monday, January 23rd, 2006, 04:01 PM
Hi I am nobody of note but I'll reply.

Fame and intelligent rarely correlate :)


(I suspect most people just read a little bit of your posts and abandoned; not because of it's faults but because it really is a chore wading through someone elses Weltanschauung, especially if it is of sufficient complexity to limit simple response.

Sure.


I found you pov interesting. My disagrement would be, first of all, your conception of "man machine" as entirely a product of history. This amounts to standard empiricism doesn't it?

Not necessarily. Basically, with more experience and time, man not only expands his self (e.g. his power, his knowledge, his skill, his section of the gene pool) but also his self changes (e.g. he becomes other than what he was). The concept of the man machine was something I developed to connect these two ideas together - so it can be made understood that man isn't simply selfish (or egoistic) but his 'self' changes also. This entire process of becoming is history, and man is a part of that. I hope I've helped to clarify, and thanks for asking :thumbup

TeutonicMensch
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 03:29 AM
I enjoyed reading this post, and have to say that I agree in many areas, but at the same time, take note on some areas.

I believe one could say at their most basic level, man is a machine, and all of what you have already stated.

Now, I believe that the lack of response to this post is due to the fact that regardless of the merit of your perceptions recorded herein, they do not really say much. They don't point out where man has faltered, nor how he can become. All it says is that this is this, and that that. There is nothing inspiring herein. Now, that is not to say your writing here is not good, nor useful, simply put, not many would find reason to respond to it, be that they agree or not.

What I would like to say as regarding particulars, is that, I agree, yes, we are everything that you've stated, at our most basic levels. But, we've created, or been programmed with little things that override a lot of our most basic ideals, and truthful perceptions.

Ask yourself, as you look around, how many people, after they've grown from childhood, actually grow. Beyond what due to outside and natural influence dictates. How many people truly seek their own growth, and I do not mean simply in saying it.

People could say Religion is the embodiment of people's will to something more. I personally think it is in that Religion - or rather Belief - can temporarily satiate one's thirst for growth, without actually bringing about many true changes.

So, as regards the fact that you've obviously a keen mind, I would ask this. Please, take these, your perceptions and ideas, and make use of them. Find some way to help us as people connect with our eternal yearning and open up some hidden doorway, or at least find out where that doorway is. Knowledge is not enough, practical application of Knowledge breeds Wisdom. Wisdom is Key.

As a closing comment, I would once again like to state that I truly do appreciate that you've written this, and appreciate it in of itself.

Wir bist die Treue
-James

Jack
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 10:06 AM
I enjoyed reading this post, and have to say that I agree in many areas, but at the same time, take note on some areas.

I believe one could say at their most basic level, man is a machine, and all of what you have already stated.
Sure.

Now, I believe that the lack of response to this post is due to the fact that regardless of the merit of your perceptions recorded herein, they do not really say much. They don't point out where man has faltered, nor how he can become. All it says is that this is this, and that that. There is nothing inspiring herein. Now, that is not to say your writing here is not good, nor useful, simply put, not many would find reason to respond to it, be that they agree or not.
I agree. I've been working on descriptive, rather than prescriptive, ideas. In a sense the world-outlook I've put forward is similar to Marxism: in that it is descriptive, yet when applied to reality, it leads to conclusions of practical importance.

What I would like to say as regarding particulars, is that, I agree, yes, we are everything that you've stated, at our most basic levels. But, we've created, or been programmed with little things that override a lot of our most basic ideals, and truthful perceptions.
Of course, I agree. Hence the idea of 'coded' rituals and relationships, which belong to a particular position. The basic problem is when coded rituals and attitudes are uprooted from their particular point position in the social-political machine, and either adopted generally, or there is a distortion of the entire socio-political machine, that life begins to malfunction. To illustrate: the idea of liberty in the United States was perfectly functional, indeed, desirable, given its relation to an Anglocentric, ethnocultural, explicitly racial Republic. Outside of this, the idea of liberty has resulted in the self-dissolution of the ethnic-political-social-racial machine that codeveloped with the idea.

Ask yourself, as you look around, how many people, after they've grown from childhood, actually grow. Beyond what due to outside and natural influence dictates. How many people truly seek their own growth, and I do not mean simply in saying it.
Most people are not particularly self-critical, i.e. of complex development.

People could say Religion is the embodiment of people's will to something more. I personally think it is in that Religion - or rather Belief - can temporarily satiate one's thirst for growth, without actually bringing about many true changes.
Religion largely serves two purposes. As a teleological goal (i.e. becoming one with God, going to heaven, becoming more good, etc.) it can provision an ethical foundation and guide for the functioning of a social-political machine. In doing so, it facilitates the efficiency and effectiveness of the man-machine and the social-machine he is a part of. Happiness is the side effect of functioning well. Deprived of this purpose, religion becomes something akin to either masturbation or pornography, in that one may be happy but self-enhancement doesn't follow. An example of this may well be New Age 'religion' and 'mysticism'.

So, as regards the fact that you've obviously a keen mind, I would ask this. Please, take these, your perceptions and ideas, and make use of them. Find some way to help us as people connect with our eternal yearning and open up some hidden doorway, or at least find out where that doorway is. Knowledge is not enough, practical application of Knowledge breeds Wisdom. Wisdom is Key.
I intend to. What is contained in the original post is basically a framework. Hence it is overwhelmingly theory, but it is application to reality which would render it useful, similar to pythagoras' theorem, a^2 + b^2 = c^2. In itself, that function is rather useless. Fill it with information, and its utility may become apparent.

As a closing comment, I would once again like to state that I truly do appreciate that you've written this, and appreciate it in of itself.
Wir bist die Treue
-James
You're welcome. Later tonight, if I have time, I might make a post in this thread demonstrating how it may prove to help understand an event (the event I intend on using would be the current Iraq insurrection). Thanks for the response :thumbup

Moody
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 06:37 PM
I must say that I find Postmodernists such as Deleuze & Foucault entirely negative. While they certainly develop certain critical aspects of Nietzscheanism [the relativistic], they ignore the all-important affirmative aspects.
They are also, unlike Nietzsche, difficult to read due to their obsessive use of jargon.

I feel that your own piece falls into this trap with its almost maniacal use [misuse?] of the word 'machine'.
I get the feeling that the same points could have been made much simpler & more directly & in many fewer words.

Personally, I am not over-fond of the over-extended use of the term 'machine' here.
Such usage tends to rob the term of meaning after a while and appears oddly redundant as category after category is tacked onto '-machine'.

The term 'machine' essentially means 'a device' of some kind. If we insert that into all the places where '-machine' is used, we see that the metaphor becomes mightily stretched to the point of absurdity;


(the history meta-device)
- man as a device,
The man-device
The memory-device is coextensive with
the thought device.
Man's mind is a calculating device, is intimately connected with, and a derivative of,
the bio-chemical device,
the socio-political device-
the political-device -
the political-war-device
the socio-politico-war-device
the social-State meta-device,

And so on.

I'm sorry, but I find this kind of repeated straining after neologisms to be a form of obfuscation.