rigorousintuition.ca

dada » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:55 am wrote:I don't take issue with the breakdown of the numbers, it's the simplification of society into purely economic terms. Like we're all just sims with indicators of our financial worrh hovering over our heads.

Come on. It's about power. And who exercises it. With what logic. Which drives. To what end. With what effects. It's about how the "purely economic" (as accounted under capitalist terms at any given time) forcibly reduces anything else to purely economic. Or else it's worthless, and put into the queue for extinction, if it can't find a way to monetize. How this forecloses possibilities for life not measurable in economic terms, including all the good stuff you'd rather be. That's what simplifies society. Identifying it in a comprehensible, catchy way is merely a move to make what is already manifest more observable. And all this you know. I don't usually see you engaging in quite such denial.

.

I'll say it, though I don't think you'll believe me, or understand how I could think it: I'm exactly who I want to be. I know things are terrible, I feel bad for people, compassion for the suffering. But you aren't going to convince me that the power narrative is all that matters. It doesn't jive with my experience of everything.

So it looks like denial from where you're at. I guess I can live with that.

dada » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:33 am wrote:I'll say it, though I don't think you'll believe me, or understand how I could think it: I'm exactly who I want to be. I know things are terrible, I feel bad for people, compassion for the suffering. But you aren't going to convince me that the power narrative is all that matters.

I certainly am not. Since I didn't try, and don't believe it, and it is not what I wrote.

That's fine. I guess I read 'come on, it's about power... you know this, you're engaging in denial' differently than you meant it.

I'm not disputing the reality of the power narrative, I just don't agree with any strategy that engages it on its own terms. I think battles against Capitalism are always lost that way.

Maybe against other destructive ideologies, as well. Anyway, we're on the same side, have pretty much the same destination in mind, I think. Just have different ideas on how to get there. Important questions must be answered. Will work free us all? And how about that society of the spectacle? Also, just what exactly is this 'pursuit of happiness' everyone is on about?

I always read 'pursuit of happiness' as a metaphor

derived from Aristotle and not without its own paradoxes for the ancients, for the framers, and now more so than ever for us

kelley » Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:40 pm wrote:I always read 'pursuit of happiness' as a metaphor

Or marketing. "Property" might not have gone over as well with the landless, the indebted farmer, or the troops.

.

dada » 02 Feb 2021 09:41 wrote:That's fine. I guess I read 'come on, it's about power... you know this, you're engaging in denial' differently than you meant it.

I'm not disputing the reality of the power narrative, I just don't agree with any strategy that engages it on its own terms. I think battles against Capitalism are always lost that way.

Maybe against other destructive ideologies, as well. Anyway, we're on the same side, have pretty much the same destination in mind, I think. Just have different ideas on how to get there. Important questions must be answered. Will work free us all? And how about that society of the spectacle? Also, just what exactly is this 'pursuit of happiness' everyone is on about?

You should have read the words between the ones you quoted in bold.

You'll probably find you agree with them.

That simplification of society into purely economic terms is a way to own the narrative. Its a form of mind control that is used to keep the focus of society on the things that serve that economic narrative's interests. Interests that don't serve you or any of the rest of us in our castles on the hill doing our thing.

"That simplification of society into purely economic terms is a way to own the narrative."

That was my point. The 99 percent slogan is a simplification of society into purely economic terms. By accepting the narrative, it fights on a battlefield chosen by the narrative. If I were Sun Tzu, I'd say that this is the precise moment when a battle is lost, before it even begins.

I read what was in between, even disagreed with part of it. Part about all the good stuff I'd rather be. I am all the good stuff I'd rather be!

But I do understand that not everyone feels this way. It wasn't easy to get here, by any means. Mostly just lucky.

.

And then how is the battle won, in your view?

Speaking only for myself, while I may rail here and elsewhere against many of these acts, I do so primarily in consideration of the impact agendas have on the majority.

While egregious actions against the majority will also impact me personally -- at least in some respects -- my own circumstances are never a driving factor for me.

This is due at least in part because my own philosophy/ personal approach allows me to be -- to this point, at least -- largely unscathed. Relatively speaking, I'm in a 'comfortable' position, though I can't say the same for some of my family, friends, neighbors, co-workers.

It's not about me, at least not as a priority. But it is about the practical consequences of actions/agendas implemented by powerful interests, and the subsequent reactions of the majority when placed in trying* circumstances.


*euphemism
.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 ... explainer/

The battle is won one person at a time.

The question is when we judge wealth, happiness, success, are we judging by Capitalist societies' standards. When I say I'm happy, I'm not talking in that purely economic terms way. I'm financially poor, though not starving or cold. I'm happy for reasons that aren't materialist.

We come back to the society of the spectacle. What kind of society can a collective of fully-mediated individuals have, other than a fully-mediated society. The society is empty, but the image is fabulous. In reality, though, everybody is just chilling out, playing video games. Twitching up a storm, tweeting lunch memes, making a total spectacle of themselves.

"The battle is won one person at a time."

The 1.1 million Soviets who died at Stalingrad just collectively rolled over in their mass graves.

I didn't say it would be easy.

point taken

.

I can certainly appreciate that approach, dada.

And what of those that are responsible for others besides themselves? What of parents that are struggling, or poor, with 1 or more 'dependents'?

I for one can be content in relatively meager circumstances and/or livable space. But I do have dependents, so it can't be just about my preferences or philosophy. Same goes, generally, for those with other considerations besides their own well-being.


Perspectives change* when one is responsible for more than their own livelihoods.


*well, not always. Hence the 'deadbeat' pejorative, among others.



I imagine events over the past ~year would be viewed quite differently when one is only responsible for themselves.

A generalization, of course.