On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:
> martin hardie wrote:
> > Thomas
> >
> > have you read this?
> > http://www.n5m.org/n5m2/media/texts/deleuze.htm
>
> A quick preliminary note:
>
> a) I forgot (and henceforth will skip, because it's apparent anyway)
> the signature I once meant to stick to on this list: "Amateur". For
> example, the previous poster mentioned the applicability of Foucault's
> reading of confessional practices against social networks and that
> was something I could have thought of but didn't. And, (amateur,
> remember?) -- I'm not to up on the "governmentality" stuff. My
> reading is not nearly as complete as most contributors here.
I cannot resist quoting from Minima Moralia:
The son of well-to-do parents who, whether out of talent or weakness,
chooses a so-called intellectual occupation as an artist or scholar,
has special difficulties with those who bear the distasteful title of
colleagues. It is not merely that his independence is envied, that the
seriousness of his intentions is doubted and that he is presumed to
be a secret envoy of the established powers. Such mistrust is borne
out of resentment, yet would usually find its confirmation. However
the actual resistances lie elsewhere. The occupation with intellectual
[*geistigen*] things has meanwhile become "practical," a business
with a strict division of labor, with branches and *numerus clausus*
[Latin: restricted entry]. Those who are materially independent, who
choose out of repugnance towards the shame of earning money, are
not inclined to recognize this. For this he is punished. He is no
"professional" [in English in original], ranks in the hierarchy of
competitors as a dilettante, regardless of how much he knows about
his subject, and must, if he wishes to pursue a career, display
a professional tunnel vision even narrower than that of the most
narrow-minded expert. The suspension of the division of labor to
which he is driven, and which the economic state of affairs allows
him, within certain limits, to realize, is considered especially
scandalous: this betrays the aversion to sanction the hustle and
bustle dictated by society, and high and mighty competence does not
permit such idiosyncrasies. The departmentalization of the Spirit
[*Geist*] is a means of abolishing such there, where it is not ex
officio or contractually obligated. It does its work all the more
surely, as those who continually reject the division of labor --
if only in the sense that they enjoy their work -- reveal, by this
selfsame measure, their vulnerabilities, which are inseparable from
the moments of their superiority. Thus is the social order [*Ordnung*]
assured: this one must play along, because one could not otherwise
live, and that one, who could indeed live, is kept outside, because
they don't want to play along. It is as if the class which the
independent intellectual deserted from revenges itself, by forcibly
pushing through its demands precisely where the deserter sought
refuge.
> (It is eerie, to me, how Foucault's analytic techniques that I've seen
> so often resonate with my software engineer's perspective on complex
> dynamic systems. I don't know how to articulate that resonance well,
> though.)
>
> (I may come back with a comment on that link, depending on how the
> deeper readings go.)
You'll want to read some Virilio & Baudrillard... Actually I first
became interested in Foucault as a documentator of the crystallization
of the human species, of a phase-transition into eusociality, of a
meta-state transition in social evolution--if you catch my drift.
> martin hardie wrote:
> > Thomas
> >
> > have you read this?
> > http://www.n5m.org/n5m2/media/texts/deleuze.htm
>
> A quick preliminary note:
>
> a) I forgot (and henceforth will skip, because it's apparent anyway)
> the signature I once meant to stick to on this list: "Amateur". For
> example, the previous poster mentioned the applicability of Foucault's
> reading of confessional practices against social networks and that
> was something I could have thought of but didn't. And, (amateur,
> remember?) -- I'm not to up on the "governmentality" stuff. My
> reading is not nearly as complete as most contributors here.
I cannot resist quoting from Minima Moralia:
The son of well-to-do parents who, whether out of talent or weakness,
chooses a so-called intellectual occupation as an artist or scholar,
has special difficulties with those who bear the distasteful title of
colleagues. It is not merely that his independence is envied, that the
seriousness of his intentions is doubted and that he is presumed to
be a secret envoy of the established powers. Such mistrust is borne
out of resentment, yet would usually find its confirmation. However
the actual resistances lie elsewhere. The occupation with intellectual
[*geistigen*] things has meanwhile become "practical," a business
with a strict division of labor, with branches and *numerus clausus*
[Latin: restricted entry]. Those who are materially independent, who
choose out of repugnance towards the shame of earning money, are
not inclined to recognize this. For this he is punished. He is no
"professional" [in English in original], ranks in the hierarchy of
competitors as a dilettante, regardless of how much he knows about
his subject, and must, if he wishes to pursue a career, display
a professional tunnel vision even narrower than that of the most
narrow-minded expert. The suspension of the division of labor to
which he is driven, and which the economic state of affairs allows
him, within certain limits, to realize, is considered especially
scandalous: this betrays the aversion to sanction the hustle and
bustle dictated by society, and high and mighty competence does not
permit such idiosyncrasies. The departmentalization of the Spirit
[*Geist*] is a means of abolishing such there, where it is not ex
officio or contractually obligated. It does its work all the more
surely, as those who continually reject the division of labor --
if only in the sense that they enjoy their work -- reveal, by this
selfsame measure, their vulnerabilities, which are inseparable from
the moments of their superiority. Thus is the social order [*Ordnung*]
assured: this one must play along, because one could not otherwise
live, and that one, who could indeed live, is kept outside, because
they don't want to play along. It is as if the class which the
independent intellectual deserted from revenges itself, by forcibly
pushing through its demands precisely where the deserter sought
refuge.
> (It is eerie, to me, how Foucault's analytic techniques that I've seen
> so often resonate with my software engineer's perspective on complex
> dynamic systems. I don't know how to articulate that resonance well,
> though.)
>
> (I may come back with a comment on that link, depending on how the
> deeper readings go.)
You'll want to read some Virilio & Baudrillard... Actually I first
became interested in Foucault as a documentator of the crystallization
of the human species, of a phase-transition into eusociality, of a
meta-state transition in social evolution--if you catch my drift.