#there's also the thing where people want to sort all experiences into ontologically good or bad | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lingthusiasm · 4 years ago

Text

Transcript Lingthusiasm Episode 56: Not NOT a negation episode

This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm Episode 56: Not NOT a negation episode. It’s been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the Episode 56 show notes page.

[Music]

Gretchen: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that’s enthusiastic about linguistics! I’m Gretchen McCulloch.

Lauren: I’m Lauren Gawne. Today we’re getting enthusiastic about negation!

Gretchen: Or “We’re not getting unenthusiastic about negation,” if you will.

Lauren: “We’re not NOT getting enthusiastic about negation.” But first, we just want to say thanks to everyone who became a patron or was already a patron and came to our April liveshow that was part of LingFest.

Gretchen: It was really fun to get to see and hear from you all in the chat and on social media. This show has been edited and put up on our Patreon bonus feed. If you want to listen to it in audio only like a normal podcast, you can listen to it on Patreon if you didn’t catch it live. We’d also like to thank everybody who came to LingFest in general. All of the great events that people put on were really fun! It was really great to see all of the community around that.

Lauren: LingFest came on the back of LingComm21, which was our conference for people doing LingComm, which was also a lovely experience. Thanks to everyone who participated in one or both of those events.

[Music]

Gretchen: “There is nothing to be suspicious about here.”

Lauren: “That’s good because I absolutely did not eat the whole secret stash of chocolate while you weren’t looking.”

Gretchen: “And I definitely didn’t spill water everywhere.”

Lauren: “I totally have not adopted a pet dinosaur.”

Gretchen: “The moon is absolutely in its usual position. No one has blown it up – especially not me.”

Lauren: I am quite dubious, and I’m just gonna wait until I can definitely check that by looking at the moon.

Gretchen: I am also a little bit worried about the status of your dinosaur or dinosaur-free lifestyle.

Lauren: I don’t have a pet dinosaur. I was very clear. No dinosaur.

Gretchen: But if you haven’t had a pet dinosaur the entire time I’ve known you, why are you bringing it up today?

Lauren: Every day I have not had a pet dinosaur, and yet, bringing it up today somehow makes it feel relevant in a way a bit like we talked about in our episode on Gricean maxims where you only talk about things because they are relevant.

Gretchen: Just like I have not been blowing up the moon every single day of my life –

Lauren: Thankfully.

Gretchen: – yet somehow, when I start saying it like that, it also reminds me of a feature of the podcast Welcome to Night Vale, which is a delightfully surreal podcast. There’s this bit in Episode 8 that I wrote about back in 2013 when I was first listening to Welcome to Night Vale that also uses negation in a very similar sort of way. Here’s the quote, “We’re receiving word from the City Council that there was absolutely not a Pink Floyd Multimedia Laser Spectacular this weekend at Radon Canyon – there never was a Pink Floyd Multimedia Laser Spectacular ever near Night Vale. ‘Pink Floyd is not even a thing,’ said the Council in a statement,” and at the same time, you’re left with this impression that –

Lauren: That’s a lot of denying.

Gretchen: Yeah. It’s sort of “Methinks thou dost protest too much,” like, “Why are you protesting so much?” Surely, every day, near my house, there is not a Pink Floyd Multimedia Laser Spectacular, and yet no one has felt obliged to inform me of this.

Lauren: It’s because the only times we talk about something not happening is because the absence of something is relevant. Language takes a default positive talking about things that are here or do exist. It’s the lack of something that gets overtly marked in the grammar of languages.

Gretchen: Right. It’s also the lack of something brings in this presupposition that the lack of something is a relevant thing to talk about or that it could have been expected but hasn’t happened. If I say something like, “I haven’t eaten dinner yet today,” that’s not ontologically weird, philosophically weird, in the same way “I don’t have a pet dinosaur” is weird. Because it is still an open question on any given day whether or not I’ve had dinner. Or if I say, “I don’t have a cat,” that is an open question that reasonable people sometimes do have cats, and so it could be reasonably relevant that I might or might not have a cat in the way that it’s not reasonably relevant that I might or might not have a pet dinosaur.

Lauren: This shows up in the grammar where the default is positive. You don’t add anything to a sentence, usually, to indicate that something’s positive. You have to add something to the grammar to show that it’s negative.

Gretchen: If you look at the World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, which is a great set of maps that is available on the internet for free for you to look at, they have over 1,000 languages on their negation map. They have a bunch of different ways that languages can indicate negation, whether you add a different word or whether you change something about the verb or whether you add two things or other things like that. In over 1,000 languages, all of them have something you add to make the sentence negative – not, for example, something you take away.

Lauren: You get to this point with language as a consistent feature of language where the absence of something or the negation of something is indicated by adding something to the grammar whether that’s a word or a morpheme that affixes to a word.

Gretchen: Which is philosophically weird when you think about it, right, because why is the presence of something indicated with the version of the sentence that has less in it, and the absence of something is indicated by the version of the sentence that has more in it.

Lauren: I think it definitely goes back to the initial examples we used where actually talking about the absence of something only happens when absence is relevant because there is not a dinosaur in my house every day, but I absolutely don’t need to point out every day all the things that are not in my house.

Gretchen: You don’t have any zebras either?

Lauren: I just start the day by rattling them off.

Gretchen: Listing every single animal that’s not in my house every day before I do anything else.

Lauren: We tend to only talk about the absence of something when it’s relevant. This is part of why negation is an additive thing to the grammar. We think about the positive version of the utterance as somehow being more default.

Gretchen: It’s actually kind of similar to how we think about numbers. Like, “one” and “two” and “three” were invented a long time before the number “zero” was invented. Even though before you have one of something, you have zero of it, but it wasn’t being commented on in a numerical way. It might’ve been being commented on in a negative way because languages do have negation, but it wasn’t being commented on as “I have zero dinosaurs.”

Lauren: Why negation is something that’s kept mathematicians and philosophers and people doing logic and linguists entertained, and many other people entertained, for such a long time and why we’re giving it its own whole episode.

Gretchen: “We’re not NOT doing a negation episode.”

Lauren: Alongside the strong consistency of having some kind of additional marking to indicate negation, the use of particular gestures to indicate negation seems to be one of the more consistent things that languages do across families.

Gretchen: I love it when you have a gesture tie-in.

Lauren: For a couple of centuries, people have grappled with the fact that shaking the head to indicate “no” is incredibly prevalent across languages – and way more prevalent and consistent than nodding is to indicate “yes.”

Gretchen: Oh! That’s interesting.

Lauren: The generally agreed-upon theory is that shaking your head to indicate “no” starts really early when infants are refusing food because it’s something you have an imperative to do.

Gretchen: “No, don’t want this food. No!”

Lauren: Even Charles Darwin wrote a book that, I think, it was just gonna be a chapter of On the Origin of Species, and he just got way into it looking at gestures looking across humans and other animals and different languages and was like, “The head shake for ‘no’ is really consistent.” How people indicate “yes” is less consistent, and it just seems to be “do something that isn’t ‘no’,” whereas “no” seems to be the starting point.

Gretchen: Hmm. That’s interesting.

Lauren: You have this really consistent pattern with head shaking, and you also have these families of gestural tendencies across languages where people use some kind of away motion for negation with their hands.

Gretchen: Like, “Oh, no, I can’t.” I’m doing some sort of sweeping away from my shoulders.

Lauren: A pushing away or a sweeping away or a throwing away are all part of this family that have been looked at across languages. I’ve just published a paper in a journal, Semiotica, about this flicking away, rolling away, gesture that you get in Syuba narratives when people are talking about the absence or the lack of something in a story. All of these types of away negation seem to also tap into this human conceptualisation of negation as something pushed away from or held away from the body – “away” and negation seems to fit together in our –

Gretchen: “It’s not near me.” That actually ties into this idea that the affirmative, the positive, the non-negative form is the default because if you’re pushing it away from your body that implies that it was near your body in the first place.

Lauren: We have a very bodily lived experience of existing and things being here or not being here. Although, that is a good point. I’ve been just talking about the positive, but there is a technical linguist term for “not negative” which is “affirmative” – probably should mention that.

Gretchen: I feel like people have encountered “affirmative” in a very robot voice, you know, [imitates computer voice] “Affirmative. Destroy all the humans” – or something like that.

Lauren: It’s one of those times where you’re like, “Oh, good. A technical term that’s already part of my vocabulary.” That’s a win.

Gretchen: It’s interesting because you could imagine a language where the default beginning is actually negative and, instead, you add something to make it affirmative.

Lauren: This is a hard-to-wrap-your-head-around constructed language experiment.

Gretchen: None of the languages in WALS do this, apparently, but you have English, which has “I don’t have a pet dino,” which is the negative, and “I have a pet dino,” which is the affirmative. English Prime, which is what linguists do when they’re trying to make up a language that is very similar to English but different except one thing so we don’t have to make up new words the whole way through, where you could say something like, “I have a pet dino,” meaning “I don’t have one” because that’s the default form of the sentence, and then if you have like, “I AFF have a pet dino,” which means “I do have one,” where the “AFF” is a fake word that means “affirmative.” That’s just not a thing you see grammatically.

Lauren: I have learnt many languages, I have encountered complex grammars of many languages, and this actually hurts my brain to conceptualise as a way of speaking. In English we have a variety of ways of expressing negation in the grammar. We have separate words like “no” or “not” that we can use to make a whole sentence negative, or we also have affixes that we can use to make a particular word negative. “Unenthusiastic” would be an example from the top of the show – or “unhappy,” “unexciting,” “uninteresting,” “hopeless.” There’re a variety of strategies that English has to do negating; it’s not just one particular thing.

Gretchen: The word formation side of negation often brings up the question of the fossilised words that English has in its vocabulary that look like they have a negative part to them, but we don’t have the positive version of them anymore. You have things like, “ruthless” or “feckless” or “unkempt,” but we don’t have like, “ruthful” or “feckful” or “kempt.”

Lauren: “Kempt.” Yes.

Gretchen: There’s a great poem about this which we can link to. What’s interesting is that I’ve actually been – this is a shameless bragging moment here – I was reading an advance copy of Arika Okrent’s upcoming book.

Lauren: I will be jealous of this on behalf of everyone because Arika Okrent wrote an amazing book about conlanging called In the Land of Invented Languages probably a decade ago now and has a new book about English grammar and its wonderful weirdnesses coming out in the middle of 2021.

Gretchen: Her book is called Highly Irregular. It’s coming out on July 1st, 2021. She makes this really interesting point in the advance copy which is, “We joke about the missing flipsides of ‘hapless,’ ‘ruthless,’ and ‘feckless,’ but not what we should be able to form but don’t from ‘bashful,’ ‘grateful,’ and ‘wistful.’”

Lauren: Huh! I feel like this is a reaction I have when I read Arika’s work a lot. I’m just like, “Ah, yeah. I hadn’t thought about that before.

Gretchen: There’s no “bashless,” “grateless,” or “wistless,” even though it feels natural that there should be a missing positive form of forms that have a negative. We don’t have the same reaction of the missing negative form of things that have a positive, which also gets into that positive-as-default form.

Lauren: These things always seem so consistent on the surface. Then you look at how people actually use them and what gets actively used and what becomes fossils, and you realise that applying negation is a little more complicated.

Gretchen: Then on the flipside of affirmative is no negation at all. There’s also this thing of like, “What if you have extra negation? What if you wanna make something even more emphatically negated?” “I absolutely did not get a baby dinosaur. Nope. No siree. Nah-uh. Didn’t happen.”

Lauren: Some languages can put in more than one negating word to really emphasise that something is negated, which is a strategy you might be familiar with as “double negation,” which occurs in about 10% of the world’s languages.

Gretchen: This is the strategy that I’m really familiar with in French because that’s the default way of doing negation. In formal, written French you have at least two negative words. Sometimes, you can put in more. The default way of doing that is a “ne” before the verb and a “pas” after the verb. Sometimes the “pas” can change into something else. So, “ne VERB pas” is “not,” but if you have “ne VERB personne,” that’s “no one,” or “ne VERB rien,” that’s “nothing.” Even if I just want to say, like, “I did not receive a baby dinosaur,” it would be, “Je n'ai pas reçu un dinosaure,” which is “dinosaur” in French, in case that wasn’t clear. You have the “ne” and the “pas” there. Although, in spoken French, a lot of times the “ne” gets dropped, and so you just have the “pas” indicating negation.

Lauren: The “ne” is the older part, right?

Gretchen: Yeah. English actually, historically, had a second negative particle that was before the verb. If you have “I cannot,” it was more something like, “I ne cannot.” They were both there and then the earlier one gets dropped. This happens sometimes you get negatives reinforcing each other and then “Oh, now we don’t need this one.”

Lauren: If we revisited those 120 languages with double negation in the WALS map in a century – because languages are constantly changing and moving around in their grammar some of them might’ve dropped one of those negative elements and gone back to being a single negation language, and some languages might add a second one and become a language that has double negation. French is kind of in the middle of doing that at the moment.

Gretchen: This process in linguistic research is called “negative concord” rather than “double negation” because it’s not just two of them necessarily. A language that has negative concord can continue stacking negative elements like “nothing” and “no one” and all of these on top. Like, “I didn’t give nothing to no one,” that’s totally the expected way of saying it in French.

Lauren: It’s interesting that that gloss works as the expected form in French because it is totally grammatically viable for some dialects of English, but it’s often stigmatised as being not acceptable or not part of standard English.

Gretchen: The thing that drives me up the wall about the logic for doing that is that the logic for stigmatising it is quote-unquote “two negatives form a positive,” but what this logic doesn’t realise is that it’s extremely spurious logic. It’s a misuse of how logic works.

Lauren: Do you wanna unpack that for us? Because I personally find joy in the fact that language is more interesting than logic, but if people have encountered this argument, where does it fall down for you?

Gretchen: First of all, languages like French exist.

Lauren: I do wonder how much more milage double negation or negative concord in English would get if we called it the “French negation.”

Gretchen: Right! “Oh, it’s like French toast!” Everyone likes things that are French. The “French toast” negation style. There were plenty of early logicians who were French who were surely not making this argument that doesn’t even work for their language in the only way that they were doing things in Descartes’s time.

Lauren: Language is not just numbers.

Gretchen: Also, in English, nobody is confused about the difference between “I didn’t give nothing to nobody” and “I’m not NOT excited.” Those both use multiple negations. In one of them, the negation is trying cancel out the negation, and in the other one, it’s reinforcing the negation. We do know what people mean. It’s not actually confusing.

Lauren: In fact, we can throw even more negation into the way that we speak, and people cope with it really fine.

Gretchen: The other thing is, is that – I don’t wanna get completely linguist on the logicians, but languages have been around for a lot longer than logic has.

Lauren: True.

Gretchen: Formal logic has existed for, I dunno, what, Aristotle? So, a couple thousand years, if we’re gonna be generous. Language has been around for somewhere in the tens of thousands of years. We’re not even sure whether it’s tens or hundreds of thousands because we literally don’t have records. Just several orders of magnitude longer than logic has existed, language has been around. If we think that roughly 10% of languages have negative concord now, probably some fraction of languages have always had negative concord because it’s a thing that people could do. It’s a bit rich for logic, this young interloper, to come into language, which has been doing just fine this entire time, and be like, “Sorry, you need to redo your entire system because I don’t like it.” Who are you? It’s so young.

Lauren: With that in mind, should we try squeezing even more negation into a sentence? Because we can do better than just double negatives for negative concord.

Gretchen: Yes. This is where we can do one of my favourite examples which is the Mean Girls approach to negation.

Lauren: Okay, not what I expected to be your favourite example, but let’s go.

Gretchen: I mean, look, any excuse to have a Mean Girls reference. That’s the “She doesn’t even go here” type of negation. When you have several bits in a sentence that are actually negative, you could still take one out, and that’s what makes the logical argument superficially appealing because you could get rid of someone, they’re just reinforcing each other. But in this case, you have “She doesn’t even go here,” and if you try to make that positive – “She does even go here.”

Lauren: “She even goes here.” I’m taking out the “n’t” – “She does even go here.” It doesn’t work for me.

Gretchen: Or you could do it with a different stress like, “She EVEN goes here.”

Lauren: Or I guess the affirmative form of this would just be “She goes here.” The “even” doesn’t turn up at all.

Gretchen: The “even” there is doing something interesting. It’s reinforcing the negation without itself being negative per se in isolation – just sort of not being around at all – without the negative there to help it.

Lauren: I guess it would be like a sentence like, “I don’t like ice cream at all,” which apart from being a fake fact –

Gretchen: [Laughs] Would you say, “I like ice cream at all”?

Lauren: I would just say, “I like ice cream.” The “at all” doesn’t need to be there at all.

Gretchen: Or the “I didn’t eat a crumb of cake,” which you can say, “I ate a crumb of cake,” but it’s not quite the opposite of “I didn’t eat a crumb of cake.”

Lauren: It’s a little bit too literal in the affirmative version.

Gretchen: Or something like, “I didn’t touch a drop of water.”

Lauren: “I touched a drop of water,” I just boop it with my ear.

Gretchen: Just going through the rain booping rain drops.

Lauren: That one absolutely does not work when you keep “a drop of water” in there. That construction only works for me in the negative even though a lot of the words in it that are adding to the negation aren’t necessarily negative in their structure.

Gretchen: Exactly. It’s saying, “I didn’t touch even the smallest amount of water” is what that’s doing there. And there’s that “even” again. Coincidentally, this is also something that Arika Okrent talks about in her book Highly Irregular, which is coming out. It’s not only a book about negation, I promise. I was just thinking about negation because I knew we were doing this episode when I was reading it.

Lauren: Also, as you can tell from the examples, negation is where grammar starts to get particularly interesting, so it’s unsurprisingly that a book like Highly Irregular would have a couple of stories about negation in it.

Gretchen: Yeah, because there’re interesting things to say there. Arika Okrent has this great section which talks about things like “even” and “any” and “at all” and “a drop of” which are called “negative polarity items,” if you want a technical term for it.

Lauren: This is a technical term that I know but hadn’t really thought about until we started putting the show together. I guess that by “items” they just mean things that are words or multiple words because “a crumb of” isn’t a word. We can’t just call them “negative polarity words.”

Gretchen: Some of them are individual words like “any” or “yet” or “even” or “either.” Some of them are longer phrases like “at all” or “a thing” or “an iota,” “a drop.” You can get verbs like “budge.”

Lauren: In a sentence like?

Gretchen: Like, “The boulder won’t budge.” You don’t say, “The bolder will budge.”

Lauren: Hmm. I guess some of these are like, “Huh.” Sorry. I’m just gonna take a moment to consult my intuitions there because, yeah, I guess not.

Gretchen: I might be able to say, “budge over,” or something to a person. Then you have whole phrases like, “breathe a word,” “hold a candle,” “sleep a wink,” “lift a finger.”

Lauren: “I couldn’t sleep a wink.”

Gretchen: “Couldn’t sleep a wink.” “I could sleep a wink.” [Laughter] “I could lift a finger.”

Lauren: When you put them into the affirmative, they don’t work. It also shows why they’re just called “negative polarity” rather than “negation” because they bring this negative sense with them, but they are not doing grammatical negating themselves. There’s no “no” or “not” or “un-” in there.

Gretchen: That’s what distinguishes them from something like, “no one,” “nowhere,” “nothing,” which are themselves already negative words. If you think about the polarity of a phrase as like, I guess, if you go away from the equator – let’s say you go north for negation because they both begin with N. As you head towards the North Pole, your negative polarity gets higher.

Lauren: As someone who lives on a continent that is often called the “antipodes” because we are on the opposite side of the world from the Northern Hemisphere, I appreciate that you’re putting north as your deficit for negation. Thank you.

Gretchen: It just, I dunno, acronyms – they’re nice.

Lauren: N for “north,” N for “negation.” Negative polarity items are just sending you in that direction without necessarily being negative themselves.

Gretchen: What’s interesting about them is that although they’re called “negative polarity items” because of this canonical contrast where you say, “There aren’t any here,” versus “There are any here,” which is weird because it doesn’t have the negation, there are also some other contexts where you can say stuff like this. You can say negative polarity items in questions often. “Do you see any?” Or in if-clauses.

Lauren: And if-clauses are famous for not existing quite in our reality. That’s one of the things they’re doing.

Gretchen: “If you make a peep, you’ll get in trouble.” The “if” part of that, you know, somehow that works for negative polarity. And also contexts with words like “without” or “doubt” or “surprise” or “regret.” That’s something like, “I regret lifting a finger to help.” You’re not gonna say, “I lifted a finger to help,” because that one’s weird, but as soon as you regret lifting a finger, somehow that one works fairly well.

Lauren: So, they’re not just doing straight up negating, there’s something more complicated happening there.

Gretchen: This is something that’s still an active area of research to figure out exactly what all the contexts are because some of the negative polarity items work better in some contexts than others, so there can be a bit of fuzziness around the borders for which ones work when. The theories for the reasons behind those conditions can get fairly complicated. It’s interesting to have this observation of like, here’s this whole class of words. You knew about nouns and verbs, but negative polarity items, they’ve been there this whole time, and yet you didn’t realise they had this unifying characteristic of them.

Lauren: There might be some times when something that’s listed as a negative polarity item actually works in the affirmative for some people and why intuition checking becomes a big part of thinking about this because I’ve definitely met some people who can use “anymore,” which I can only use in negative like, “I don’t have a dinosaur anymore.”

Gretchen: Oh no! What happened to it?

Lauren: But there are some English speakers who can use “anymore” in a positive sentence. Whenever I hear it, I’m like, “Oh, that works for you,” but I literally can’t even come up with an example in my head because it doesn’t work in my variety of English.

Gretchen: I have a fun story about positive “anymore,” which is, I didn’t have it growing up. I encountered it in grad school in this very like, “Did you know that in some varieties of English people have positive ‘anymore’?” I was reading the examples and being told these examples. It’s something like, “Cake is expensive anymore.”

Lauren: Alas.

Gretchen: Where it means “nowadays.”

Lauren: I can totally understand it functioning when you use it in a sentence like that. It’s not like my brain can’t process the meaning at all. It’s just not something I would say.

Gretchen: I actually went to a linguistics conference, and I went to a workshop by a linguist who had positive “anymore.” The first time I heard him say it in the wild, I was like, “Oh, this is this thing that I read about in the books.” Three days later, I’d heard this linguist on enough occasions say enough tokens of positive “anymore” that I’m like, “Yeah, it’s grammatical for me now.” I acquired it in this week in 2012.

Lauren: Amazing.

Gretchen: Sometimes, the only reason you don’t have positive “anymore” is because you only have negative evidence to suggest that it doesn’t exist.

Lauren: I just haven’t been exposed to it.

Gretchen: Then I have probably, I dunno, probably less than a dozen tokens of positive evidence in this naturalistic setting from this linguist who didn’t realise that he was grammatically teaching me to use positive “anymore.” He thought he was doing a workshop on a perfectly unrelated topic, and yet I walked out of that being like, “Yeah, it’s grammatical for me,” and it has been ever since.

Lauren: You are an inspiration for lifelong grammatical acquisition.

Gretchen: Right! Because I was an adult. It was great.

Lauren: You called it “positive anymore.” So, the fact that we have negative polarity items, can I intuit that there are also positive polarity items?

Gretchen: Yeah. There aren’t as many, but one of them is–

Lauren: Interesting. Again, this obsession with marking negation.

Gretchen: We mark negation a lot more. But one of them is “somewhat.” You can say, “I liked that cake somewhat.”

Lauren: We’re definitely not moving as close to the positive pole with the “somewhat” there.

Gretchen: “I didn’t like that cake somewhat” is just kind of ugh for a lot of people.

Lauren: That doesn’t work for me.

Gretchen: There’re a few positive polarity items as well that move people further towards the South Pole, if you will.

Lauren: I like that talking about positive polarity items has moved us full circle through negation and back into thinking about negation and thinking about negative structures and affirmative structures as all part of this larger, more complicated system of ways that we have of expressing that things exist or they don’t exist and how we go about talking about that.

[Music]

Lauren: For more Lingthusiasm and links to all the things mentioned in this episode, go to lingthusiasm.com. You can listen to us on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, or wherever else you get your podcasts. You can follow @Lingthusiasm on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tumblr. You can get IPA scarves, esoteric symbol socks, and other Lingthusiasm merch at lingthusiasm.com/merch. I tweet and blog as Superlinguo.

Gretchen: I can be found as @GretchenAMcC on Twitter, my blog is AllThingsLinguistic.com, and my book about internet language is called Because Internet. Have you listened to all the Lingthusiasm episodes and you wish there were more? You can get access to 49 bonus episodes to listen to right now at patreon.com/lingthusiasm or follow the links from our website.

Patrons also get access to our Discord chatroom to talk with other linguistics fans and other rewards, as well as helping keep the show ad-free. Recent bonus topics include reduplication, an AMA with a lexicographer, and the recording of our liveshow. Can’t afford to pledge? That’s okay, too. We also really appreciate it if you could recommend Lingthusiasm to anyone who needs a little more linguistics in their life.

Lauren: Lingthusiasm is produced by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne, our Senior Producer is Claire Gawne, our editorial producer is Sarah Dopierala, and our music is “Ancient City” by The Triangles.

Gretchen: Stay lingthusiastic! Don’t stay unlingthusiastic!

[Music]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

#language #linguistics #lingthusiasm #episode 56 #podcasts #transcripts #nagation #no #negative polarity

10 notes · View notes

artxmisery · 3 years ago

Note

🌻🌻🌻SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE

okie dokie i'm a month late to this but WHATEVER time to talk about destiny stuff this will be a not-insignificant length so i'm gonna put the rest under a read more

ok i wanna talk about the vex but there are a few things to get through first quick background on the cosmology of destiny: there are two primordial forces, the gardener and the winnower, representing light and dark respectively. they existed before time and the universe as we know it in a place hereafter referred to as the first garden. in the garden (which is not a garden and not the only garden significant to this post) the two played the flower game. basically a big ol version of conway's game of life. however, they were also not playing the flower game? and just normally gardening in a metaphysical way. but back to the flower game. in the unveiling lore book, the winnower speaks to the player directly and a bunch of this info is from there. conway's game of life resembles their flower game "as a seed resembles the star that fed the flower and all the life that made it." it's not 100% clear whether each flower is a universe of its own or just a nebulous piece of cosmically important information, but the flowers are super important. flowers come back repeatedly as a symbol of the winnower, especially red flowers. another big concept in the grander story of the game is the final shape, i.e. the thing that will conquer the universe and be the last thing that exists as it ends. it's the ultimate following of the sword logic (which isn't particularly important here, basically just might makes right but on magic steroids) and lots of people are trying to be it or figure out what it is. what we, the players, know is that there was a successful pattern in the flower game that always won. in other words, the final shape. in the aforementioned unveiling lore book, we learned that this pattern survived the destruction of the first garden that lead to the creation of our universe. the details of that conflict aren't important here (although i'd recommend reading the unveiling lore book if this is at all interesting to you) but that pattern managed to make it out. for the first however long of the universe, it was basically just an untethered mathematical pattern running around in the quantum foam. as the universe cooled down and coalesced it turned into crystals in the water of comets, which then provided a space for them to become something like life. from there, they fell into the ocean(s) of planet(s) (details on whether they appeared in parallel or just once aren't super clear or conflicting). from here we need to go on a slight tangent to keep talking about the biological origins of the vex. there's this huge company that existed during the golden age called clovis bray, named after the dude who founded it, clovis bray i. basically, this guy is space jeff bezos but arguably more shitty. he wants to become immortal and experimented on his son, clovis bray ii, but ended up killing him in the process. i think you can see how much of an egomaniac he is at this point lol. on the moon, there was a group of scientists that found an anomaly connected to the darkness/winnower (a similar artefact is what we got the unveiling book from) that drove them mad with the signal it was trying to send. clovis gets wind of it, hears the signal and flies off to europa. the signal told him he'd find the secret to immortality there (and he did, sort of). part of said secret was the vex. during the golden age the vex were found/appeared/started existing but they weren't the enemy we've faced in the modern game, they were just curious. clovis steals a vex unit from the ishtar collective on venus (might come back to them later) and brings it to europa. it builds-organizes-forms a gateway to somewhere else. that somewhere else is volantis 2082. clovis goes through the gateway and discovers a solar system entirely converted into a forge. the star is engorged and being sustained with hydrogen in order to make metals. it's surrounded by a bunch of artificial satellite worlds where the vex are n where clovis and co ended up. anywho this is where clovis gets a closer look at the vex. so from him, we've got a more concrete idea of how they got from crystals in comets to the time-travelling robots we know and love. back to the biology stuff. basically the environment the vex evolved in was way earlier than our own, so heavy metals were so rare as to be nonexistent and harmful radiation was way more prevalent. because of this, predators never evolved from the vex. they just kept cooperating and feeding off cosmic radiation and whatnot. to protect themselves, they started making "armour", perhaps some sort of gel membrane initially? but then they started forming it out of silica, which is why their fluid is called radiolarian fluid and milky white. the vex continued to cooperate and developed more and more complex swarm behaviours, signalling different facts with different configurations of cells and structures. they aren't necessary sentient or sapient, but they definitely have cognition and intelligence. their way of thinking is so alien to us as to be undefinable. they also don't have a hive mind, per se, but their pattern is so fully repeated and embodied by each unit and larger mind that they work similarly. anyhow, their silica armour was further adapted into tools and structures ad infinitum, moving on to more durable materials as the collective knowledge of the vex increased. now, the vex don't necessarily have desires or goals or anything of the sort. their entire m.o. is to make everything fit the pattern. because they first evolved from that mathematical pattern from before time, they're able to exist as nothing more than information and then hijack matter to make more of themselves. clovis found this out the hard way, cause the vex started travelling through their calls and messages and stuff (and started infecting people, too). the vex are also extremely adept at simulating stuff since there's effectively no difference between a simulation of their pattern and the pattern itself (this comes up a la weeping angels once or twice). they are so good at it, in fact, that they can simulate nigh-infinite realities within their pattern. the simulations are equally as real as baseline reality and through that (i think?) are able to time travel and hop across timelines. that may be how they ended up in our solar system during the golden age. luckily for us, they're not perfect at it, otherwise, they would have always had won (wheeeee time tomfoolery). originally their goal was thought to be writing themselves into the rules of the universe and while that may still be part of it, they're also basically trying to make everything else vex. we have two examples of them turning whole worlds into vex machines/structures, one of which happened in like three days during the collapse (the darkness armageddon that ended the golden age). their architecture is super cool, highly recommend checking out concept art or in-game footage. the whole vex network spans an incomprehensible distance, although we don't have an exact number on that. they come into systems and build beachheads and pull themselves through space and time into the system. on mercury, which was what got converted in three days, they basically turned the whole planet into a giant simulation engine. they have some ridiculous teleportation technology and their weapons pull energy from distant stars through tiny gates. they've also got weapons like the vex mythoclast that pull energy from alternate timelines/loops of time/whatever. that about covers all the notable info about the vex, but there are some cool stories/places i want to touch on. the black garden is one, which is where the climax of the first game takes us. it's untethered in time and space, basically orphaned off from the rest of the universe. after we kill its heart, it ends up on mars. at some point between the end of d1 and shadowkeep in d2, it got untethered again and we go back for the garden of salvation raid. the black garden is referenced a bunch in some of the more cosmological/mythical lore and is the other important garden i mentioned right at the start. the vex have a bunch of cool stuff on venus, too, like the vault of glass. vog is basically where they test time travel stuff and ontological (i.e. reality-affecting) tech and weaponry. if they ever manage to make that stuff work outside the vault, we're toast. also on venus is the ishtar collective which was mentioned earlier, where a bunch of scientists found that a vex unit was simulating all of them hundreds of times over. they called in a super complex ai to help break out the simulations and those simulations went and explored the vex network and have shown up a couple times since. i'm sure i'm forgetting tons of other stuff, but this is wayyyy too long already. definitely hit me up if you wanna hear a quite frankly ridiculous amount of lore about a fictional universe/race lol anyways. thank you very much for the ask n i hope you enjoyed reading if you got this far

#ask #catboy-spookaloo #i'm gonna tag this #long post #just in case #cause i do have a read more but who knows if that worked #and the post itself is pretty long underneath that #that's all thank you again for the ask

1 note · View note

fatehbaz · 6 years ago

Note

Hello there! You’ve posted quite a bit about dark ecology, which I absolutely love as a concept. However, I’ve found Tim Morton’s work can be a bit dense for folks without a philosophy background — do you have any “starter” reading recommendations for people who’d like to learn more before diving headlong into Ecology Without Nature? Thanks!

Despite how over-the-top excited I was to see this great ask, I held-off on answeringimmediately because I wanted to make sure that I chose my words very carefully.Thank you so much for reaching out. (And I’m so sorry! I’m always very grateful forquestions and try to respond much more quickly!) Regarding how inaccessible Morton’sjargon-heavy and convoluted writing can be, I deeply relate. It’s dense, andafter 10 years of reading, I still cannot fully vouch for or clearly explainobject-oriented ontology; Morton can be floofy and difficult. However, I think I’m a relatively better acolyte of dark ecologyand Morton’s more overtly ecological material; I also think that Morton is much more accessible in interviews and when speaking in-person and in recorded lectures. Pertinently, the publishers of Morton’s latest book (Being Ecological - 2018) have added a kind of goofy, informal, and marketable subtitle to the book: “A book about ecology without information dumping.”

In my experience, it seems to me that most people with any kind of passionateinterest in ecology – whether or not they had access to a formal universityeducation – already intuitively understand much of what dark ecology proposes.This would include things like the intimidating scale and vastness of systemslike a local microhabitat, “the sea”, or a regional climate itself; the complex interconnectivity and interdependency of differentspecies; the fragility of the biosphere in the face of human activity; how an hierarchical mentality that devalues ecological landscapes willalso devalue human life; etc. I think a lot of people intuitively recognizethese things, even if not everyone can describe them or explain systems ecology in the most technical terms.Dark ecology might be of interest for those looking to more clearly discuss ordefine these “realities.” First andforemost, dark ecology is arguably about defining a more ethical and comprehensive approach to ecological thinking to specifically cope with the complexity of systems ecology, the social and environmentaldegradation of the Anthropocene, the climate crisis, and the sixth massextinction event.

Before I lose anyone’s interest with a wall of text: I think that peopleinterested in the global climate/ecological crisis; the Anthropocene; weirdfiction (!); anthropology; ethnoecology; the intersection of social injusticewith environmental degradation; capitalist realism and retrofuturism; biosemioticsand animal emotion; and ecology in general would be interested in checking out darkecology.I like that the dark ecology concept tries to grapple with the “apocalyptic” feeling of the current ecological crisis, and I also like that the concept tries to bridge the apparent gap between the humanities and ecology by describing how environmental degradation relates to social injustice.

In this egregiously long post, I’ll try to offer some accessiblereading recommendations on dark ecology and I’ll try to use the question as aspringboard to define dark ecology. Unfortunately, I, myself, come across asdense and convoluted, so if you want toavoid parsing through all of my text here, I’ve numbered each of the readingrecommendations/resources below.

Art installations from the Dark Ecology Project art sites - a collaboration with Timothy Morton - in Norway. The first piece is by resident artist HC Gilje.

What is dark ecology?

- Essentially, dark ecology is a wayto update ecological thinking for the Anthropocene and for the sixth massextinction event; for an era of “climate anxiety” and loss. It’s a conceptmeant to improve ecological thought and to correct older inadequacies in Westernnaturalism, which often assumes that humans are separate or detached observers fromthe landscapes that we study. - Dark ecology also involves the humanities, and anthropology especially. Thisis because the concept implies an acknowledgment that Indigenous and non-Western cosmologies (world-views) are legitimateand helpful frameworks for building sustainable ecological communities;understanding the egalitarian ecological relationships among organismsincluding humans; and acknowledging that other living things are deserving ofethical treatment. - The concept of “weirdness” is veryimportant in dark ecology, as is anxiety. (To learn more about this aspect of weirdness, see Morton’s article in Changing Weathers, linked below.)- Another concept originally coined and defined by Morton and centrally important to dark ecology isthat of “hyperobjects”: things sobig and/or abstract that humans struggle to conceive of their magnitude,something like “climate” itself or an abstract “object” like an “interspeciesrelationship.”- In dark ecology, there is an implied (and sometimes explicit) critique of the“extractivist” mentality and its friends (industrial resource extraction;monoculture farming). Morton sometimes phrases this as a critique of “agrilogistics”: the industrial-scaleover-harvest of natural resources backed by systemic social inequality, a sharedmentality prevalent in early hydraulic civilization, empires, the European feudalera, and the current era.- There is also an implied critique of socialhierarchy; essentially, dark ecology proposes that the problem of human/industrialmismanagement of landscapes and other species is closely tied with socialhierarchy and human mistreatment of other humans. Thus, dark ecology impliesthat sexism, racism, violence, etc., stem from the same worldviews thatpropagate environmental degradation.- Where object-oriented ontology arguablycomes most into play in Morton’s writing is regarding biosemiotics and animal/plant “emotion.” Dark ecology can be readas implying that every other living thing has some kind of subjectiveexperience and agency, even if it doesn’t translate into recognizable humanemotions or doesn’t resemble the sentience of humans. OOO suggests that othernon-human things are still “real” or “alive” at some scale. (This is the aspectof dark ecology that I understand least!)- This aspect of biosemiotics also unites dark ecology with the ontological turn in anthropology, arecent and still active movement to decolonize anthropological thinking. Theacademic discussion of OOO and dark ecology around 2007-2012 was very influentialon anthropologists working to validate non-Western cosmologies that perceive the natural world as a sort of collective, with cooperation among species.- Dark ecology is also useful for evaluating urban geography and urban planning in the 21st Century (“theera of the city”), because related concepts like “hyperobjects” help to conceiveof urban areas as vast entities with sometimes invisible influences overculture and ecology planetwide.- Playfulness and joy are important in Morton’s understanding of the relationship between humans and landscapes/animals/ecology. (You can read more about this aspect in a couple of the resources listed below, including the first video resource listed and the article about “dark ecological podcasts”!)- Mark Fisher’s “capitalist realism” is now a widely recognized concept, Morton has done something similar with the very popular concept of “hyperobjects”- Thinking of landscapes like this – animals being “alive” in their own uniqueway; ecology being complex and “weird”; seeing ecology and human/social justiceas interlinked – isn’t exactly new at all, especially compared to millennia ofIndigenous cosmologies and environmental knowledge.

Resource 1 - If you don’t want tobe confronted with this long post, one of the best introductions to darkecology comes from the person who coined and popularized the term, TimothyMorton. Since Morton’s really theoretical and sometimes convoluted whenwriting, listening to him speak and answer questions directly seems (to me) tobe an easier way to hear a clear definition of dark ecology and what itentails. So, I’d recommend checking out Morton in this hour-long interview.Here, he explores environmentalism; naturalism; ethical treatment of animals;industrial resource extraction; weird fiction; and the connection between environmentaldegradation and social injustice/hierarchy.

Timothy Morton in Conversation withVerso Books – Verso Books, on YouTube~

This is a great video! However, if I could recommend just one written exploration of dark ecology, it would be this article from Morton.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180316024548/www.changingweathers.net/en/episodes/48/what-is-dark-ecology (What Is Dark Ecology? -- TimothyMorton – Changing Weathers, 2016)

Resource 2 - Here’s a shortervideo (9 minutes) where Morton briefly describes ecological thought; biosemiotics;the development of the dark ecology concept; and the concept’s relationships toenvironmentalism and natural history. ~ Beautiful Soul Syndrome: Towards aDark Ecology (YouTube) ~

Resource 3 - It seems that Morton’smost influential texts are these 4 books:

-- Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics (2007)-- The Ecological Thought (2010)-- Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World (2013)-- Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence (2016)

You can read the entirety of Dark Ecology (2016) for free online,here.

Resource 4 – A good related book(with much more accessible writing!) is this: Shadowing the Anthropocene: Eco-Realismfor Turbulent Times – Adrian Ivakhiv – 2018

These are 6 “classic” books that explore dark ecology:

Resource 5 - One of the best andmost concise written explanations also comes from Morton himself. Ironically,this introductory was taken off the internet only one week ago, but you canaccess it through the Wayback Machine here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180316024548/www.changingweathers.net/en/episodes/48/what-is-dark-ecology

~ What Is Dark Ecology? -- TimothyMorton – Changing Weathers, 2016 ~

And the original URL, which you can plug into the Wayback Machine:

www.changingweathers.net/en/episodes/48/what-is-dark-ecology

Resource 6 - A fun read – and agood example of the application of dark ecology, especially involving therelationship between ecology and weirdness/playfulness – would be this article. (It’sa good read even if you’re not a fan of the multitude of “spooky” and “AmericanGothic” podcasts that have been recently popularized.)

~ At Home with the Weird: DarkEco-Discourse in Tanis and Welcome to Night Vale – Danielle Barrios-O’Neill andMichael Collins - Revenant, March 2018 ~

A quick definition of dark ecology fromArie Altena:

We have indeed borrowed the term ‘Dark Ecology’ from the work of TimothyMorton. Over the past couple of years he has written a number of booksoutlining an ‘Ecological Thought’ that has no use for the Romantic notion of‘Nature’. He begins to explain this idea in Ecology without Nature (2007) – abook which is also about art and ‘environmental aesthetics.’ In The EcologicalThought (2010) he shows that the ‘ecological thought’ is not nice and green anda celebration of all things natural, but that to really think theinterconnectedness of all forms of life and all things (the ‘mesh’), is dark.[Morton says:] ‘Dark ecology puts hesitation, uncertainty, irony, andthoughtfulness back into ecological thinking. The form of dark ecology is thatof noir film. The noir narrator begins investigating a supposedly externalsituation, from a supposedly neutral point of view, only to discover that sheor he is implicated in it. The point of view of the narrator herself becomesstained with desire. There is no metaposition from which we can make ecologicalpronouncements. Ironically, this applies in particular to the sunny,affirmative rhetoric of environmental ideology. A more honest ecological artwould linger in the shadowy world of irony and difference. …The ecologicalthought includes negativity and irony, ugliness and horror.

In Morton’s own words (from “What IsDark Ecology?” – Changing Weathers):

The ecological era we find ourselves in — whether we like it or not, andwhether we recognise it or not — makes necessary a searching revaluation ofphilosophy, politics and art. The very idea of being ‘in’ an era is inquestion. We are ‘in’ the Anthropocene, but that era is also ‘in’ a moment offar longer duration.

What is the present? How can it be thought? What is presence? Ecologicalawareness forces us to think and feel at multiple scales, scales that disorientnormative concepts such as ‘present’, ‘life’, ‘human’, ‘nature’, ‘thing’,‘thought’ and ‘logic’. I shall argue there are layers of attunement toecological reality more accurate than what is habitual in the media, in theacademy and in society at large.

These attunement structures are necessarily weird, a precise term that weshall explore in depth. Weirdness involves the hermeneutical knowingnessbelonging to the practices that the Humanities maintain. The attunement, whichI call ecognosis, implies a practical yet highly nonstandard vision of whatecological politics could be. In part ecognosis involves realising thatnonhumans are installed at profound levels of the human — not just biologicallyand socially but in the very structure of thought and logic. Coexisting withthese nonhumans is ecological thought, art, ethics and politics.

An art project by Edward Burtynsky, at National Gallery of Canada exploring the Anthropocene (pictured is a scene from a coal mine in Westphalia, Germany - 2015).

Timothy Morton is a close colleague of Graham Harman – Harman being thetheorist who is most credited with defining object-oriented ontology. BothMorton and Harman were colleagues with Mark Fisher, the now-legendary culturalcritic and theorist who popularized the concept of “capitalist realism.” Thebranch of OOO that Harman and Morton subscribe to is usually referred to as “speculativerealism.”

OOO and dark ecology are closely related - at least in Morton’s work - and tend to be mentioned together(with good reason). An important disclaimer: OOO seems to be even more overwhelming than dark ecology asa concept; I struggle to articulate OOO and really do not understand too muchabout it (so I’m not sure I can provide the best resources for learning aboutit).

From an interview with Morton at WASH magazine:

OOO deals with concepts like “hyperobject” and “mesh.” Can you give us some brief definitions of these concepts?A hyperobject is an entity that is so massively distributed in space and time that you can’t point to all of it at once. Even if you use very advanced prosthetic devices like fast supercomputers, it might still be difficult to map one. The biosphere is a hyperobject. Climate is a hyperobject.The mesh is the interconnectedness of beings in the biosphere. Nowadays I have a higher resolution image for this: I call it the symbiotic real. It’s a loose network of precarious affiliations between beings where who’s “the top” and who’s “the bottom,” who’s “the friend” and who’s “the enemy,” is always in question. It’s a whole that is always less than the sum of its parts, however weird that sounds. (End quote.)

So, I am hard-pressed to define OOO, and I can’t personally critique it wellor vouch for OOO as a “good” framework. That said, I take more of a liking tothe dark ecology concept.

Art from the cover of Morton’s 2016 book, Dark Ecology.

Moreaccessible reading resources:

(7) - One of the best applications of the hyperobject concept is this fantastic essay on how urban megaregions and big cities function as ecological forces: The Urban Hyperobject - Lisa Bremner

(8) ~ Four Questions for the Author: Timothy Morton,Being Ecological – Orion Magazine –September 2018

(9) ~ Dark Ecology InterviewsTim Morton – Lucas van der Velden and Arie Altena – Dark Ecology dot Net – 2014

(10) ~ (Video) Timothy Morton:Dark Ecological Chocolate – YouTube –2017

(11) ~ A Mutable Cloud: On “DarkEcology” and “Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays” –Jennifer Peterson – LA Review of Books– 2017

(12) ~ ‘A Reckoning for our species’: The philosopher prophet of theAnthropocene – The Guardian – June 2017

(13) ~ A Polar Bear Called Susan: Interview with Lisa Doeland – De Groene Amsterdammer – 2013

(14) ~ Timothy Morton: Ecology Without Nature – We interview the philosopherTim Morton, author of “Dark Ecology”, who proposes that we rethink the way wesee ecology, anthropocentrism and art – Roc Jimenez de Cisneros – CCCB Lab -- December 2016

(15) ~ Timothy Morton regularly posts onand maintains a blog on Blogspot: EcologyWithout Nature

(16) Timothy Morton had collected a list of interviews with other ecologists, theorists, philosophers, etc. that relate to dark ecology. Available here.

Again, I think that a lot of people interested in ecology already intuitively grasp much what dark ecology entails. But, I guess it’s nice that the concept specifically tries to grapple with the Anthropocene and what is essentially an “apocalypse” of sorts. It’s a useful framework (at least, it’s been helpful for me).

OK. Yikes.

Very sorry for the ridiculous length of the post. I hope this is useful for someone.

Thanks again for reaching out!

388 notes · View notes

s-cornelius · 6 years ago

Text

Defining Queer: An Ontological and Epistemological Discussion of Queerness

To start with, I’m not a philosopher and I’m not a sociologist. I’m just a linguist who likes to talk about stories and use jargon-y words. I’ve been in fandom (in some form or another) since the late 90s, and I’m a bisexual/queer ciswoman married to a man. I say all of this so you understand where I’m coming from (my positionality, if you’re nasty).

I’m writing this piece because I see a lot of people in fandom spaces using terms like “queer”, “cishet”, “queerbaiting”, and others. I find use of these terms to generally be vague, misleading, or just downright wrong. There seems to be consensus in fandom that these are Important Things to talk about, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what they mean. So, as a queer woman who has engaged in fandom for 20 years, I want to talk about the idea of queerness and what it means to be queer.

So, in this essay, I’m going to address three major questions:

What does it mean for an individual to be queer?

What does it mean for a relationship to be queer?

What does it mean for a piece of media to be queer?

I’m going to argue that for an individual to be queer is an ontological and epistemological issue, for a relationship to be queer is just epistemology, and for a piece of media to be queer is an epistemology plus diegesis. I’ll explain what these words mean (and how I’m going to use them), and I’ll have some sources sprinkled throughout. It’s generally Bad Academic Practice to source Wikipedia, but for the sake of accessibility and ease of explanation, Wikipedia is a good source for this essay.

Ok, so let’s define some terms. I’m going to start with the most obvious, but also perhaps the hardest to pin down: queer.

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community. (x)

So there are a few major takeaways for the word queer. The first one is that queer is inclusive--it’s an umbrella term. The second one is that it describes people who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender. A definition by saying “we are not x” is actually not a great definition, so we’ll come back to this point later. The third one is that queer is political, and it always has been; crucially, queer does not equal LGBT.

Now on to the jargon: ontology and epistemology both come from the field of philosophy, and diegesis has its origins in Greek theater, but I hear it mostly used now to talk about film.

Ontology is the study of being. Ontology asks questions like what is a thing? what exists? What categories of things are there? So, for my purposes, when I talk about ontology, I’m talking about categorization and identity. What are the labels we give ourselves? What categories do we sort ourselves into? How do we identify ourselves?

Epistemology is the related study of knowing. Epistemology asks questions like how do we know something is true? how do we define truth? how do we make justifications? For my purposes, epistemology has a lot to do with how we define social truths and norms. What is true about human gender/sexuality/etc.? How does queerness affect one’s beliefs? I use worldview as a kind of short hand for epistemology in this essay, though epistemology is really only one part of a person’s worldview. But, for my purposes, worldview works just fine.

Diegesis refers to anything within a narrative text--characters, plot, setting, etc. are all diegetic (or intradiegetic). Things outside the text, like the score of a movie or the UI of a videogame, are extradiegetic.

Ok now that we have all the jargon down, let’s tackle the first question: What does it mean for an individual to be queer?

As I previewed above, I define queerness for an individual to be a matter of both ontology and epistemology. I want to come back to the definition of queer here, specifically the part that defines queerness as “not cisgender and heterosexual”. This is a bad category ontologically speaking, because the definition doesn’t point to all the things that make up this category, but rather the things that don’t. Queerness, in this definition, is a catch-all; I’m not sure that’s really an accurate way to think of queerness. At least in linguistics, the catch-all category is for the default, unmarked cases, and queerness is not that at all.

So I’m going to switch things up a little and change this part of the definition. Instead of defining queer by what it’s not, I’m going to define queer epistemologically. Queerness is not just not being heterosexual/cisgender, but a rejection of the heteronormativity (“the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation”). This rejection may derive from social ostracization and condemnation from same-gender attraction/behavior and/or gender non-conforming, but ultimately is not quite the same thing as LGBT.

Queerness and Queer Theory seek to deconstruct notions and norms of gender, sexuality, and all of the social baggage that comes along with them. Therefore, being asexual and/or aromantic is inherently queer as these identities are a rejection of social expectations for behavior. This deconstructionist impulse may even be at odds with people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender. For example, Natalie Wynn, in her video about Pronouns, discusses that her desire to be perceived as a woman is inherently counter to someone who seeks to eradicate or seriously challenge the gender binary (as with non-binary individuals).

None of this is to say that an individual person can’t identify as both L, G, B or T and also queer, but this is where we come back to ontology. Ontology has to do with how we identify and how we make categories. For example, I use both bisexual and queer to identify myself. I use bisexual because I experience sexual and romantic attraction to more than one gender, and I use queer because it includes this idea of challenging gender and sexual norms (and also it doesn’t necessitate explanation of all the details of my gender/sexuality).

Therefore, one person’s use of queer to describe themselves is both ontological, because they are defining and categorizing themself, and epistemological, because being queer is essentially a lens through which to know the world.

So, if an individual’s queerness is a mix of identity and worldview, what about a relationship?

A relationship can’t have an identity the same way that an individual human can, i.e. a relationship can’t pick a category for it to belong to because it’s not a sentient entity. Americans can categorize relationships by the genders of the people in that relationship--heterosexual for man+woman, homosexual for man+man or woman+woman. These categorizations, of course, exclude relationships that have more than two people, and people whose genders are not “man” or “woman”. But this still isn’t really the same thing as me, an individual person, choosing to use bisexual to label myself.

Therefore, a queer relationship isn’t really the same thing as a homosexual relationship, though they may overlap. Queerness, in a relationship, is entirely epistemological. How does the relationship operate?

Traditional heterosexual relationships (at least in 20th/21st century USA) privilege the man, and the woman is subservient. Men work outside the home and women raise children/do domestic work. Men and women in a traditional heterosexual relationship are supposed to have all of their emotional, physical, etc. needs met by their partner. Traditional heterosexual relationships are monogamous, both sexually and emotionally.

But a queer relationship questions accepted social norms. A queer relationship may not be monogamous, it may reject the traditional gender dynamic, and so on. What I’m ultimately saying is that a heterosexual relationship, that is a man and a woman in a relationship, can be queer. This is because queer relationship does not equal homosexual. I’ll give two examples.

I’ll start with the easier example: a heterosexual relationship only requires one man and one woman, but makes no stipulation that the man and woman have to be cisgender. There are plenty of transmen exclusively attracted to women and transwomen exclusively attracted to men. Just because the make up of their relationship is man+woman, doesn’t mean that their relationship isn’t queer. The queerness is baked in because they themself may be queer.

The second example seems to be more emblematic of a sticking point for some people. I am married to a heterosexual man, but we are in a queer relationship. Because I am queer, and it affects how I respond to social norms, I also reject heteronormativity in my romantic relationship. My husband and I have been together for almost 13 years and married for 3; for the longest time, I did not want to get married because the idea of marriage, specifically the traditional idea of marriage, disgusted me. To me, marriage is the realm of religion and the state, neither of which I wanted to be particularly involved in my relationship. The reasons we ended up getting married were practical (I now have health insurance!), but also because my husband is a big ol’ romantic and we compromised (we get married and I keep my name). This is just one example of how my notions of gender/sexual expectations have been a part of my relationship, but there are plenty of others. Also I am visibly queer and waiters often think we need two checks when we eat out together. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(If you want to see someone else talk about this, I recommend looking into Erika Moen’s autobiographical work. This tweet thread is just one example of her discussing being queer and being married to a man.)

Therefore, queer relationships are not about identity, but rather how the epistemology of one or both or all people in a relationship affects the operation and function of that relationship. A queer relationship is one that rejects heteronormativity, not one that exclusively consists of people of the same gender. This makes it sound like if a cisgender heterosexual man and cisgender heterosexual woman are in a relationship, it could potentially be queer, which I think is the fear of anyone who pushes back on the possibility of a man and a woman being in a queer relationship together. However, if the two individuals in a relationship are both cisgender and heterosexual, neither of them has rejected heteronormativity in one way or another (even if they have non-traditional gender roles in the relationship). Therefore, if at least one person in a relationship is queer (whether they be asexual, gender non-conforming, homo/bisexual, etc.) the whole relationship is queer.

Finally, I get to stories: What makes a particular piece of media queer?

As discussed for individual identity and relationships, a piece of media is queer because it has a queer epistemology. There is a way of constructing truth in a narrative that rejects heteronormativity, but it is important to discuss whether this rejection happens in the text of the work (diegetic) or the rejection is in social context in which the work was created (extradiegetic).

One interesting example is the Imperial Radch books by Ann Leckie. In these books, the main political force in the story doesn’t distinguish gender in its pronouns. Therefore, everyone the main character encounters is “she” regardless of their biology or gender identity. Within the story (diegetically), this is not queer. This is the established norm of a very large and powerful people, and just a function of their language. Now, outside the story (extradiegetically), the use of “she” is queer af. This is a deliberate choice by the author to question our assumptions about what is “normal” and “default”.

Steven Universe does something similar by having a race of sentient space rocks who only use “she” as their pronouns. Extradiegetically, this again challenges ideas about how the gender binary is “supposed” to work, plus the space rocks demonstrate a wide range of expressions of femininity. Within the story (diegetically), we see metaphorical of rejection of heteronormativity, specifically through Garnet and her story. Therefore, Steven Universe is both epistemologically and diegetically queer.

Does this make Steven Universe more queer than the Imperial Radch books? Maybe it does.

For me, Steven Universe “feels” queer, while the Imperial Radch books don’t. I really love the Imperial Radch books and the way they make you actively think about how “she” is generally not considered the default pronoun. But this is all outside the text. I engage with the text as a person in a particular social context where women are lower on the social hierarchy than men, but the characters in the Imperial Radch books don’t share this social context. The construction of social order for the gems in Steven Universe, to contrast, is similar to my social context, so both within the text and outside the text, Steven Universe is queer. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a certain amount of subjectivity here, but for me, a queer show is one that is both diegetically and extradiegetically queer.

This brings me to queerbaiting, a word that seems to mean almost anything in fandom. I’ve discussed what queerbaiting is and how to define it here and here, but I wanted to come back to the definition from @rainbofiction:

“Queerbaiting is clinging to the heteronormative interpretation on the surface of things, and refusing to invalidate it, but still trying to present a queer reading in the background; metaphorically selling the hetero story from the front door, and the queer story out back.”

Queerbaiting is not necessarily ship tease, though there seems to be some conflation of the two. I’ve seen it used to discuss Sherlock, Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Voltron, Once Upon a Time, and other shows. I think queerbaiting as an idea can really only exist in an episodic format, since (save for streaming shows) you don’t get the story all at once. By being presented the story and characters bit by bit, you as a viewer don’t engage with the story as something full and complete, but instead the story as it’s being built. Because you don’t have the full story, your understanding and interpretation of the work can be affected by the text itself of course (diegetic material), but also all the extradiegetic and paratextual stuff that exists alongside the work.

Let’s think about books for a moment, specifically self-contained, standalone novels. Let’s pretend that Pride & Prejudice were not a complete story presented all at once, but rather released chapter by chapter with weeks or months passing between each chapter. If you started reading from the beginning of the work, you might make up your mind from the beginning that Darcy is the worst, and you and your friends talk about how Darcy is just awful and that Wickham fellow is soooo much better for Elizabeth. You might expect the work to continue to justify your position (coming back to epistemology), but it purposefully does not do that. Elizabeth and Darcy grow and change over the course of the novel, and end in a place of love and mutual respect.

But imagine Pride & Prejudice were released in the internet age, and you’ve spent a year (or two! Or five!) waiting for the end of the book to come, and then … this? After you’ve spent all this time engaging with people, creating fanworks, speculating about this idea of Elizabeth and Wickham, and in the end you are not rewarded by canon for your investment.

This is what queerbaiting feels like. But does that mean this is what queerbaiting is?

When I’ve discussed queerbaiting before, I’ve argued that queerbaiting is so difficult to identify because it requires two elements: 1) legitimate queer subtext, and 2) intent by the author(s) to mislead or swindle the audience. Queerbaiting is also tricky to talk about because if the work is incomplete (i.e. released episode by episode over time), you just cannot know if you’re being queerbaited.

I personally don’t want to conflate queerbaiting with shipping, because I do think they are two discrete issues, but this conflation seems to be the only way fandom talks about queerbaiting. To demonstrate, I’ll talk about The Magicians (the TV show).

To start with, The Magicians is a queer show. The show frequently challenges assumptions about heteronormativity--specifically the idea of soulmates/destiny in love, and that one person + another person = happiness and fulfillment. We even have an analog of queerness as a social taboo, with human/animal relationships in Fillory. Therefore, epistemologically, The Magicians is queer.

The Magicians also has multiple LGBT characters, at least three of which are main characters. No one on the show has told us the audience how they identify, but we have seen Margo, Eliot and Quentin express same gender attraction in one form or another. Diegetically, The Magicians is queer.

So, now that I’ve show that The Magicians is both epistemologically and diegetically queer, let’s talk about why the q-baiting word is used in discussions of this show.

This season had a landmark episode (4x05) that essentially sets up romantic feelings between two men (Quentin and Eliot) as a pillar of the narrative of this season. The boys didn’t get together (for lots of reasons) in that episode, but that episode made it clear that they both love each other, and that love is driving both of them the rest of the season. But in recent episodes, one of the boys, who has already been established to be bisexual, gets back together with his ex-girlfriend.

To summarize: The Magicians set up the expectation that Quentin and Eliot will be together in some capacity (though the show overall seems less concerned with ideas like “soulmates” and “endgame” but that’s another essay for another time), but at this point, it has not followed through. Like with my P&P example, I understand why this feels like queerbaiting, but is it?

I’m going to start with the ontological perspective: Quentin is bisexual regardless of the gender of his romantic and/or sexual partner. However, Quentin isn’t a real person, and as I’ve talked about already, ontology doesn’t really work for entities that aren’t living, breathing people. Quentin hasn’t told us the viewers that he’s bi, so all we have to go on is her behavior (something that should never ever ever be used to talk about a real life person’s sexual/gender identity)--his actions as a fictional character in a narrative.

So looking at his behavior, at this one time slice in an ongoing story, it can appear like the expectations for a romantic relationship between Quentin and Eliot will not be met. But this comes back to the problem of episodic storytelling. It is impossible at this point to say “well I guess Quentin and Eliot aren’t endgame, hence queerbaiting” because the story isn’t over. We have one more episode to go in this season and (at least) another season on the horizon. Who knows what will happen between now and then.

Additionally, as discussed before, The Magicians is epistemologically queer. The Magicians is not giving us a heteronormative story with queer subtext--the queerness is inherent to the text (and not just because there are LGBT characters). So taking shipping out of the equation for a moment, The Magicians is not queer by subtext or interpretation; The Magicians is queer because it overtly rejects heteronormativity.

Here’s some ways it does this:

Eliot (a mostly gay man) and Fen (a woman) come to care for each other despite having an arranged marriage. They have a romantic, sexual, and familial relationship.

Penny40 and Kady were in love, but Penny23 loves Julia. Relationships aren’t set in stone, there is not one person “meant” for another.

Whenever expectations of straightness and man-ness are mentioned in text (see Hyman and Penny’s supervisor in the Underworld branch)

This is a non-exhaustive list, but it demonstrates how heterosexuality and all the other social expectations that come with it are explicitly deconstructed by the show. Therefore, The Magicians cannot queerbait because it is diegetically and epistemologically queer.

Ok, so I’ve covered a lot of ground, but here are my major points:

Queer =/= LGBT, though the two do overlap. Queerness is a rejection of heteronormativity; it is radical, deconstructionist and political.

An individual being queer is different from a relationship being queer or a show being queer.

An individual’s queerness is a matter of identity (ontology) and worldview (epistemology).

A relationship is queer through the way it operates, the way it rejects heteronormative assumptions about how relationships should operate (epistemology).

A piece of media is queer through worldview (epistemology) but how much of that is baked into the text (diegesis) is important too

Queerbaiting is often conflated with shipping (specifically shipping on non-canon m/m and f/f pairings), but they are two separate issues.

It is impossible to know if expectations about a m/m or f/f ship will be met while the story is still in progress.

A piece of media cannot queerbait if it is epistemologically queer.

The reason I sat down and wrote this was to work through my feelings about what it means to be queer, and why I have always felt a little uncomfortable with the word “queerbaiting”. Queerness is something that is constructed in many ways, and I haven’t even really discussed much of the political or community issues. Ultimately it’s up to each of us as individuals to critically engage with both fiction as it portrays queerness, and how we police each other and reinforce categories. I think this essay can provide some framework for that engagement.

This was not written to invalidate anyone’s feelings; if you personally feel let down by a piece of media, you are entitled to those feelings. However, fandom can very quickly become an echo chamber, and rather than reinforce feelings, good or bad, I offer this framework as an alternative. It can helps us answer questions like : How does media construct queerness? Is it epistemological? Is it diegetic? Does it replicate expectations of heterosexual relationships but with people of the same gender? Does it stereotype? And by answering these questions, we can get to the heart of queerbaiting, both as a feeling and as something that exists in the world.

------

This essay comes out of many many long talks about gender and sexuality and queerness with @messier51. Her perspective helped me get my thoughts in order!!!

#gender and sexuality #the magicians #queerbaiting #tm meta #queliot #idk really what else to tag this as #philosophy #queer theory

124 notes · View notes

ser-yolomere-of-swagalore · 5 years ago

Text

Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race myself, bitch.

James Joyce -- Ulysses (with some much needed editing)

I haven’t written here in a long time. In fact, after this post, I don’t really see myself writing here every again-- and no, before any of you (if there is, in fact, any one who will see this) jump to conclusions, this isn’t some kind of weird suicide note, or plea for help. What this is, is a sort of manifesto, or a summation, of everything that I’ve felt, and am feeling at the moment, and in a way, hopefully, purging myself of these feelings forever. It’s a goodbye, but also a new opportunity. A creation, as well as a destruction. A final litany of things that I have to say, or wanted to say, and a final exorcism of numerous antagonistic little ghosts that have been rattling around in my head for God knows how long.

I’ve always been struck by the concept of a sort of Joycean paralysis. Maybe because it’s true-- that Irish people are, in a weird way, struck with a sort of deep, abiding, spiritual malaise, a psychological and emotional paralysis, as a sort of weird, post-colonial hangover-- or maybe because it simply hits too close to home. The narrative of a sort of genealogical, archaeological torpor is one that is all too easy to believe, because it is something that I have experienced quiet viscerally throughout my entire life, but also in a way that is difficult to articulate. The sense that you’re fundamentally at odds with the world around you because of some fundamental, spiritual displacement resulting from years (centuries?) of imperialistic and religious abuse isn’t something that goes well over dinner, after all-- especially when dinner is a hurriedly bought Burger King and the sound of mopeds careening up and down the Cardiffsbridge Road muffles the sound of Coronation Street on the television.

But it’s a feeling that has stuck with me so long. Longer than I can really remember. This sense of being held back. By myself, by the world around me, by the people around me. Dreams of leaving, of emigrating, have been a consistent fantasy of mine. Occasional spurts of creative writing have always been characterized by the theme of a departure, whether through the realm of some childish Tolkien-esque fantasy or through a plane ticket that randomly fell into the protagonist’s (read: my) lap. That feeling of momentary, ontological vertigo, when the plane leaves the ground and you can feel yourself lifted in that miniature pocket of zero-gravity, is a sensation that I’ve craved and chased (either literally, or figuratively) whenever possible, with varying degrees of success. I even had, at one point, a bit of a miniature breakdown (you know those ones, where they creep up on you, where you have this vague sense that at any minute things are just going to collapse all around you, and nothing will ever be the same) and I started doing some pretty illegal things to get money (fill in the blanks there however you wish) in order to essentially run away, get a plane ticket to somewhere, and just start afresh. But that did crash down, either way-- I started having some viscerally severe panic attacks; I felt like I was going to be trapped here, forever, that I was going to die here, that all the dreams and aspirations I had of doing something worth while were just gonna be swallowed up the dull, plot-less relentlessness with which life here seemed to drive itself--arguably into the ground. I attended counselling, got a professional, objective perspective, and was able to get to grips with things. The anxiety stopped. The borderline insane drive to escape was lulled, and while the gnawing sense of there being a sort of hole, at the center of everything, dissipated, it didn’t quite disappear. I was, once again, able to manage, and plod right along.

Over time, I’ve come to terms with the fact that my sense of malaise is not, in fact, the result of some kind of literarily prescribed sense of paralysis-- or, at least, not entirely. It is the result of years, perhaps arguably even decades, of mistreatment. By a family and a home that is so deeply dysfunctional that it is, legitimately, tragic. By an early upbringing so neglected and isolated that, to look back and take an earnest look, is genuinely pathetic. By a mindset and by people who see who I am and see something to laugh at. I’ve slowly come to terms with the fact that my family have never quite seen me seriously, as someone incompetent, flowery, soft, and not worth paying attention to. Years, again, potentially decades of subtle gaslighting, invalidation, negation, criticism, patronizing, condescension-- all compounded by shitty, so-called friends, who were all too happy to take advantage of my desire to please and turn it around on me-- had resulted in a person who had so much self-doubt, such a negative self-image, such a horrible sense of failure that, to further disappoint, would result in self-harm. Decades of having my life dictated to me, taking up responsibility and accepting the burden of my family’s terrible choices, of having my potential and my opportunities circumscribes by what seems to be the endlessly unfolding soap opera of my extended family’s self-inflicted pain. And the worst part is that I simply thought all of this was normal. The concept of Joycean paralysis was able to help me understand, in a vague sense, what was really wrong, but only hindered me in truly understanding its origin.

I worry that if I go on like this I’ll only end up sounding like some kind of serially self-pitying asshole, one of those people that advertises their personal trauma and tragedy as a means to win the Sadsack Olympics, or obtain sympathy, or blame their lack of success and fulfillment on their past. But in the end, that isn’t what this is about. That isn’t the reason why I’m writing this post. In fact, the reason why I am writing this is far more joyous, written with a deep smile spreading across my face. I’ve spent my entire life orientating around myself around other people, of pleasing other people, and I’ve gotten very, very good at figuring out what is that people want, and giving it to them. What I’ve learned, an what I’ve finally gotten the balls to do, is do what I want. I’ve learned to say no. I’ve learned to pursue what I want, to accrue self-confidence, self-love, self-esteem. I’ve learned to deny people, to put myself first, and tell people who need to be told what for. I’ve learned that to be “good” is to give in, to do as I’ve told and take it all on the chin, and I’ve learned that to be “bad” is to pursue what I want, and to rebel. And, fundamentally, I’ve learned that when I am good, I am very, very good, but when I am bad I am FUCKING FIERCE.

So I am leaving. In fact, I’ve been planning on leaving for quite some time now. Since March, roughly. I am moving to the U.K, getting away from this place, to spend time with people who I have chosen to spend my time with, that I have build up relationships purely of my own choosing and initiative, and whom I trust. To build a life that I choose to build, for myself, and shirking off as much of the trauma, pain, insecurities and self-doubt as I can. Psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan believed that the core motivating force in all human behavior was anxiety, and not just anxiety, but the creative and ornate ways we go about avoiding or managing it. According to him, a personality was simply a collection of habits and strategies people gathered over time to “avoid or minimize anxiety, ward off disapproval, and maintain self-esteem.” What I’ve learned, personally, is the sheer liberating power of identifying and deconstructing the aspects of my own psychology that are life-limiting, and taking great joy in completely and utterly destroying the ones that are build up anxious defense mechanisms. I would be lying if I said that it wasn’t scary, because when these mechanisms fall I’ll be thrust, head first, into facing the things I am most deeply afraid of—social rejection and abandonment, unworthiness and failure, unlovability and isolation, to name a few. But it is liberating because I’ve come to realize that, yes, our defenses serve a function, but no, we don’t actually need all of them to survive-- and then, suddenly, an entirely new life is possible. I’ve come to realize that I actually CAN tolerate anxiety; I CAN live with not being liked, I CAN be misunderstood, I CAN make mistakes, I CAN feel bad. And let me tell you, it is a relief. God is sometimes understood as a creator, but he can also be understood as a destroy-- And I am choosing to be the God of my own goddamn life, and taking great pleasure in destroying that which I don’t like.

I’ve ended up prescribing some great, symbolic significance to the act of me leaving. It is me righteously striking back at all the things that had made me hate myself in the past, because they couldn’t simply tolerate hating themselves and needed to destroy me in order to feel better. And so, to them, I say:

Fuck my family, who have done nothing to actually foster and cultivate who I am as a human being

Fuck the people who have turned my own kindness against me and made me doubt myself

Fuck the people who have made me feel as though my command of words is a weakness-- I am a fucking fantastic writer, and I dare any of those people to challenge me, because I’ll write them into the fucking ground.

Fuck the people who made me doubt my intelligence; I am more than smart enough to figure things out for myself and smart enough, at least now, to see them for the self-hating, jealous troglodytes they are.

Fuck this place that has made me feel that who I am is wrong, and lesser, and subordinate-- I am worthy, and powerful, and capable.

Fuck this country, and its backwards, stagnant, repressive culture

FUCK

YOU

And that’s it. There’s my gigantic, theatrical display of radical self-acceptance. In a way, what I want to do is leave, and never come back. To delete all my social media, and start afresh. But I know that’s not realistic. I know I have to tether myself to “home”, as much as I disagree with the idea this place is truly home. I will say this, however-- there are parts of my experience here, and my life thus far, that have been wonderful. I’ve got a handful of genuinely fantastic friends, and I’ve forged some very important memories with them. To burn those bridges would be unforgivable, and I would never be able to do that to them.

It’s 2:16am. I was already exhausted but I had to write this and get it all off my chest. But this is it-- me signing off, forever. Let this be a testament to everything I want to be, an will be, from here on out.

-Ian.

13 notes · View notes

johnchiarello · 5 years ago

Text

Acts 8

ACTS 8 [News links at bottom] https://youtu.be/LNUN77mE05M Acts 8 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/4-6-17-acts-8.zip https://ccoutreach87.com/4-6-17-acts-8/ Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ON VIDEO- .Local- federal court .What was the persecution? .Saul makes arrests .Philip works miracles .Showdown with a witch .Simony [And Simony] .Santeria .Occult arts .Don’t put God in a box .1 God- 3 Persons .Spellbound .Did Simon levitate? . Did peter end the flight? .Magic? .Transported by the Spirit .Brother Roloff roloff.org/

PAST TEACHINGS- [below are links to my past teachings that relate to today’s post ACTS 8- all verses below] https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/04/06/city-of-man/ https://ccoutreach87.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/ https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/18/acts-1/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/26/acts-2/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/02/02/acts-3/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/02/09/acts-4/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/03/23/acts-5/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/03/31/acts-6/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/04/06/acts-7/ https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

(739) ACTS 8- After the death of Stephen the church scatters thru out the region. We see Phillip being used and directed by God. An angel will speak to him, he will be supernaturally translated from one place to another. We see the simple reality of all believers having Gods legitimacy to function. This is important to see! Later on we see the first gentile church at Antioch being told ‘separate me Paul and Barnabus unto the work which I have called them to’[Acts 13]. Some will develop unbiblical restrictions from this verse. The strong ‘local church’ view [the view that sees local church thru the 501c3 Sunday building mindset!] will later teach ‘see, you can’t function on your own. If you are not under a ‘local church covering’ you are an independent rebel out of Gods authority’. Here we see the simple reality of God sending and communicating to Phillip on the basis of him being a child of God. In Acts 13 the Spirit communicated his purpose to an entire group, in this chapter he communicates to an individual. The legitimacy comes from the reality of God being the one who is giving the directions! Now, we see Phillip at Samaria preaching the Kingdom and doing miracles. The sorcerer Simon gets converted. The church at Jerusalem sends Peter and John to see what’s happening and they lay hands on the Samaritan believers and they ‘receive the Holy Ghost’. This is also described as the Holy Spirit falling on them. This chapter is used as a proof text for pro Pentecostal theology and anti! The Pentecostals say ‘see, believers don’t have the Holy Spirit until a separate Baptism takes place’. The anti Charismatics say ‘this is an anomaly. God did this because he didn’t want to have a competing church in Samaria that did not have the approval of the Jerusalem church’. I will agree and disagree with both of these propositions [yes, at the same time!] Paul will teach in his epistles that it is impossible to believe without having the Spirit. He will also teach a doctrine of being filled with the Spirit. The arguments over the terms used can be confusing. The fact is we see both the experiences of believers [who have the Spirit] still experiencing greater empowerments down the road. And we see believers ‘getting it all at once’ [Acts 10]. Theologically, you can’t be born again without having the Spirit. But you can call ‘the Spirit falling on you in a fresh way’ ‘getting the Spirit’. The different expressions people use do confuse the matter. The hard and fast Charismatics will not agree with me. And the old time Calvinists might disagree with me. I believe both sides have things to add to the debate. I want all of us to be open and daily expecting God to renew us with the Spirit on a daily basis. I know one thing for sure, Paul taught we can water and plant all day. But if the Spirit doesn’t do his work we will never see any real increase! Simon the sorcerer sees that thru the laying on of hands the Spirit is given. He asks ‘Hey, I will pay you money for the gift of being able to lay hands on people and have them receive the Spirit’. Peter responds ‘you wicked sinner! How dare you think you can purchase Gods gift with money! You and your filthy money will perish together! You better pray that God forgives you for this’. Simon says ‘can you pray for me’? He didn’t want to get struck down that instant! Peter will later teach in his letters ‘take oversight of Gods flock, not for filthy lucre. But of a ready mind’. James will write in his letter ‘woe to the rich, their day is coming’. John writes in 1st John ‘love not the world neither the things in the world’. Paul will pen ‘The love of money is the root of all evil. Some went coveting after it and have left the faith’. Where in the world did all these first century Apostles get this idea from? Was it the devil tricking them out of the truth of wealth? Were they under the spell of church tradition? Lets see, Jesus said ‘the rich man dies and goes to hell. The poor man to Abrahams bosom’ ‘it’s harder for a rich man to go to heaven than for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle’ ‘the rich man went away very sad because he had much riches’ [after Jesus said go sell all you have and give to the poor] ‘you can not serve God and mammon’ ‘the deceitfulness of riches choke Gods word’ ‘thou fool! This night thy soul shall be required of thee’ [to the rich man who was planning on building more storage for his stuff!] The simple fact is the early church had imbedded in their minds a non materialistic gospel. The modern church seems to read scripture thru the lens of the prosperity promises that you do find thru out scripture. The prosperity promises are true and should be understood, but we need to also see the reality of what I just showed you. The church will eventfully coin the phrase ‘Simony’. It will refer to those who use money to gain influence and official positions in the church. Simons name does becomes famous, but not in the way he wanted! [parts] I mentioned Gnosticism on today’s post- below are my past teachings on it-

PLATO

Plato was born in 427 BC- he was the most famous student of Socrates.

He is best known for his theory of Ideas/Forms.

He believed that the material world was an imperfect copy of the Idea world. That is he believed that Ideas exist apart from the construct of the human mind- that they were the perfect forms of the things we see in the material realm.

He could also be referred to as a Realist- because he believed these Ideas actually existed [for real]. Where did he get this from? As we study Philosophy- each one that comes down the line has been influenced in some way by those that preceded them.

There was a famous thinker- Pythagoras [his followers were the Pythagoreans] who taught a concept called the Transmigration of the Soul [a sort of Reincarnation]. They believed that the soul of man went thru various stages- and existed independently of the body.

In Greek thought the soul is immortal- it exists before the body. In Christian teaching the Soul [mind- Spirit] comes into existence when God creates man [the bible says ‘and man BECAME a living soul’- referring to the creation of Adam].

The Greeks saw the soul as preexisting before the natural life.

In the mind of Plato- the body was a receptacle- in this life we recollect the knowledge that comes from the Idea world.

He ascribed Ontological status to ideas themselves.

In Philosophy there are 2 basic ways knowledge comes [we study this in Epistemology- an offshoot of Philosophy- which deals with how we know things].

A Priori knowledge is knowledge obtained independent of experience. A Posteriori is knowledge obtained thru the senses- what we call Empirical evidence.

In Plato’s schema he believed that the knowledge that comes to us from the Formal world [ideas- forms] was A Priori knowledge- that the human mind recalls- and in the present material world- knowledge comes to us from the perfect idea world.

The Greeks believed that all matter was flawed- that the Body was an imperfect vessel- and after death we are released into the perfect world- and free from the material realm.

Christian Tradition does not hold to this view. The Church teaches that the created world is good- not evil. Among Christians there is some confusion about this- because the older versions of the bible [King James] seem to teach that matter [world, flesh] is evil.

Why?

Paul the apostle talks about no good thing being in The Flesh- he talks about the Carnal mind- the apostle John says ‘all that is in the World- the lust of the flesh- the pride of life- is not of the Father but is of the world’.

There are many references like this in the bible- but they are speaking about the sinful nature of man [the flesh] and not about the human body itself [For instance Paul says in Romans ‘present your BODIES as living sacrifices unto God- Holy and acceptable’ in Corinthians ‘your BODY is the temple of the Holy Spirit’- there are many references in scripture that speak of the Body as Holy.

When the bible says ‘satan is the god of this world’ it is not speaking of the earth- which God created- and calls GOOD- but it is speaking of the ‘world’ system- an age of wickedness.

So- at times Christians have confused this- and have held a sort of Dualistic view of matter- that is not the biblical view- but a Gnostic view- that all matter is evil.

Plato saw the unseen world of Ideas as the perfect- pure world.

He taught that in this life we obtain the knowledge of the pure- by reason of recollection- that these pure ideas come to us ‘are recalled’ in this life.

He is famous for founding the first Philosophical school- it was called The Academy- named after a man by the name of Academus.

The land was donated for the school- it was previously used as an Olive Grove- and in honor of the donation- Plato named the school after the donor.

This is why we use the phrase ‘The Groves of Academia’ today.

Plato was actually a nick name- he wrestled in Athens- in a sort of precursor to what would later become the Olympic games- and he was broad shouldered- that’s where his name comes from- Plato means broad shouldered.

So- to sum up- Plato believed that Forms [ideas] were eternal, the cause of all that is. He believed we are born with innate ideas- these are not learned thru sense experience- but exist independently of the mind- and in this bodily life we retrieve [the body is a receptacle] these ideas.

Does the bible teach anything along these lines?

Not exactly.

Christians believe that God himself is infinite- without beginning or end. That wisdom- ideas- ‘forms’ of things do indeed exist- prior to our own life.

But these ideas are not without a Mind- God is Spirit- and he is everywhere [Omnipresent] he knows all tings [Omniscient] – so- in a way- there are indeed ideas- forms- but they come from the ultimate Mind of God.

A good example would be the building of the Tabernacle- and later the Temple- under Moses and King David [his son Solomon actually built it].

God told Moses ‘see that you build it after the Pattern shown to thee in the mount’. In the book of Hebrews we read that the earthly Tabernacle [Temple] was simply an image- a symbol- of heavenly realities.

That God himself had the ‘form’ in his mind- indeed- like Plato taught- the heavenly form is perfect- the earthly expression imperfect.

But these patterns- forms- ideas- are from the Mind of God- they are not Innate in the soul of man- nor does the soul of man exist before his birth. In the past few months I have had several Christian friends tell me that they feel like they existed before this life- a type of reincarnation.

I explained to them that in the Christian faith we do not hold to this view.

But- the bible does tell us that God had a purpose for us- Predetermined- before the ‘foundation of the world’.

Meaning that yes- in the Mind of God- in a way- we did exist- but we did not have actual being [called Ontological status in the field of Philosophy] until we were created by God.

God’s purpose for us was already in the Mind of God before our birth.

The bible says that Christ is made unto us wisdom- we are not Receptacles in the sense that Plato taught.

But yes- in time God reveals to us this Hidden Wisdom- about his love and purpose for us.

And in this life we act out- we fulfil this eternal purpose.

Man [or woman] can never find true happiness- true meaning- until they tap into this purpose. We were created by the hand of God- to bring glory and honor to him- and we in this life can ever find true fulfilment- until we make it back to God. [parts] CHRISTIAN- MUSLIM DIALOGUE Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. https://youtu.be/-x4Bz60irJo Christian- Muslim dialogue https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1-15-17-christian-muslim-dialogue.zip https://youtu.be/0i-V7qr7Kbg Corpus Christi- Questions [I posted the video yesterday- but wanted to tag it to a post- Because I talked about current world issues as well, things that I feel are relevant right now] ON VIDEO .Muslim encounter at Kingsville Fire Dept. .What makes Christianity unique? .Muslims shared some of the same concerns as many Protestants .Iconoclast controversy .Expressions of the Trinity .The development of the office of Bishop- 5 main cities .The ‘pre’ renaissance that took place within Islam .Aquinas responds to Islamic apologists [13the century] .Ad Fontes .Florence Italy- the Medici’s .Gnosticism .I bought him a Persian bible .Erasmus- Luther .Protestant Reformation .My Muslim friend [at Timons] .Who gave Bobby a ride? .Wycliffe- Huss- Coverdale .Guttenberg came just in time .Catholic church warned ‘you will have too many splits’. .They indeed were correct .I quote from the Quran at the end PAST TEACHING [Past teaching I did that relates to today’s video- verses below] https://ccoutreach87.com/islam/ https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ JOHN 6 John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. https://youtu.be/–3fJK_dqiU John 6 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/7-3-16-john-6.zip GALATIANS [Links] https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/26/galatians-1/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/30/2nd-samuel-3-homeless-friends/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/02/galatians-2/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/10/galatians-3/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/12/the-seed/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/16/galatians-4/

ON VIDEO- .See the quads .it was a test . ‘We don’t have enough money for the ministry Jesus’? .What did Jesus do- multiply the money- or the bread? .Don’t leave the crumbs behind .Nungesser’s bowling alley .The acid trip .Manna a sign .A little Greek stuff .Zwingli .Lake Geneva .Renaissance .Florence- Italy .Medici family .Aquinas Aristotle .Greek lexicon .Proof texting a no no .Hocus Pocus? .Fundamentalism .Aldous Huxley MY LINKS [verses below] https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/further-talks-on-church-and-ministry/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/house-of-prayer-or-den-of-thieves/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/overview-of-philosophy/ MY LINKS ON JOHN https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/amos-5/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/jesus-christ/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/father-abraham/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/the-flood/ John 3 https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/the-well-john-4/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/john-5/ [parts] The renaissance was the 13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for centuries- It began in Florence Italy. The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’ meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in philosophy- as well as in Christian learning. This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again from its original language. The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th century] – re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and scholar] Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a ‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw. But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original language. And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his students in Germany when the Reformation began. Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official Catechism that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word. The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they did agree that the bible was the Word of God. Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds Tradition higher than the bible. No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition- and scripture. They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by which God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic Church does not elevate tradition over the bible. And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the first Geek version of the New Testament. NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus was what we would call ‘Free Will’. In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek and Latin- the language of the elites. He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders of the Church. He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with no strings attached. He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the Reformation’]. He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of the people- He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church. Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]- Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith- He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.

RENAISSANCE ARTISTS- The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings. DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican. It took him 4 years to complete. The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism. Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians. But it meant something different back then. It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value. There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man. But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view. Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art. He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above. Here’s my study on The Reformation- https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ And my past teaching on the Western intellectual tradition- https://ccoutreach87.com/western-intellectual-tradition/

VERSES- Isaiah 42:19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blindas the LORD’s servant? Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 2 Corinthians 5:7 [Full Chapter] (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it

[parts]

GW BRIDGE- https://youtu.be/70CVdZxFIMg GW bridge ON VIDEO- .Foundation stones .Why Bishops? .Gnostics and Docetism .Dads boat .GOV Christie and hot dogs .Restore the paths .Isaiah and John .Memories of a kid- train tunnel .Robert Moses to blame? .Mayor LaGuardia .The argument for Rome .Church fathers .Mystics .Suicide signs .Apostolic succession .What church is the ‘true church’? .Most amazing intellectual discourse ever? Only if you don’t hear [have to watch to get it- sorry] .Bedrock .I am homeless- can you spare a 5? VERSES- Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. [parts] Here’s some stuff I wrote before on Simon- Simony- [parts] SIMONY AND CHEAP TRICK- ON VIDEO- .A.P. article review .Simony .Peter/Simon- showdown PAST POSTS- Simony (pron. [ˈsaɪ.mə.ni] or [ˈsɪ.mə.ni]) is the act of selling church offices and roles. The practice is named after Simon Magus,[1] who is described in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24 as having offered two disciples of Jesus, Peter and John, payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands. The term also extends to other forms of trafficking for money in “spiritual things”.[2][3] Simony was also one of the important issues during the Investiture Controversy. Wikipedia . [1770] TREASURY OF MERIT

Let’s pick up where we left off 2 posts back. We were talking about Martin Luther and the events that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

In order to understand the key act that caused the protest- we will have to teach some Catholic history/doctrine.

In the 16th century Pope Julius began the effort to build St. Peters basilica in Rome. He got as far as laying the foundation and died. Pope Leo the 10th would pick up after him.

The church needed to raise money for the project- and the German prince- Albert- would play a major role.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the Popes of the day were pretty corrupt. They came from what we call the Medici line of Popes.

If you remember last month I wrote a post on the Renaissance- I talked about the Medici family and how they played a major role in supporting the Renaissance that took place in the 13th century in Florence Italy that would spread to the region.

Well this very influential family also played a big role in who would get top positions in the church.

At the time of Luther and prince Albert- if you had the right connections and the money- you could literally buy a position in the church.

Albert already held 2 Bishop seats- and there was an opening for an Archbishops seat in Mainz [Germany] and he wanted that one too. [overblog- see the rest here- https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/24/galatians-5/ ]

It should be noted that official Canon law [church law] said you could only hold one seat at a time- Albert was bidding on his 3rd one! And he was too young for all of them.

So even the Pope and the officials held little respect for what the church actually taught at the time.

So Albert opens up negotiations with Leo- and the bidding starts AT 12,000 Duckets [money] Albert counters with 7,000- and they agree on 10,000. How did they justify the numbers? 12- The number of Apostles. 7- The 7 deadly sins. 10- The 10 commandments.

Yes- the church was pretty corrupt at the time.

So Albert works out a plan with Leo- he will borrow the money from the German banks- and pay the banks off by the Pope giving Albert the right to sell Indulgences.

What’s an Indulgence?

Okay- this is where it gets tricky.

The ancient church taught a system called The Treasury of Merit. This was a sort of spiritual bank account that ‘stored up’ the good deeds of others over the years.

You had the good deeds of Jesus at the top- but you also had Mary and Joseph- the 12 Apostles- and other various saints thru out time.

The way the ‘bank’ worked was you could tap into the account by getting a Papal indulgence- a sort of I.O.U. that had the Popes guarantee that it would get so much time out of Purgatory for a loved one.

The actual sacrament that accesses the account is called Penance [confession].

When a penitent does penance- he confesses his sin to the priest- and he is absolved by the authority of the church that the priest has. The priest usually tells the person ‘say so many Hail Mary’s- Our Father’s’ and that’s a form of penance.

One of the other things the church practiced was called Alms Deeds. This term is found in the bible and it means giving your money to the poor- it is a noble act that Jesus himself taught.

In theory- part of the sacrament of penance was tied into Alms Deeds- you can access the account thru the practice of giving to the poor- which also meant giving to the church that helps the poor- and in the hands of the Medici line of Popes- meant outright giving money to the Pope.

So now you see how the abuse worked its way into the pockets of the faithful.

Albert now had the permission from Leo to sell these indulgences in Germany- and he would pick a certain corrupt priest to sell them in a place called Saxony- the region where Luther operated out of.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church never taught the crass act of ‘buying your way out of Purgatory’. The practice of including giving money as a part of the sacrament of penance was tied into the biblical principle of giving to the poor- a good thing.

But Tetzel and others abused the official meaning of the indulgence- and did make it sound like you could by your way out of Purgatory [in theory- a loved one might be in Purgatory for so many years- and through the indulgence you are actually getting time off for them- because the good deeds of others are now applied to the account].

The money Albert would raise- half would go to Rome for the building of St. peters- and half would go to pay off the banks in Germany- it was a sad system- and a sad time for the church as a whole.

It would be wrong to judge the entire church at the time as being corrupt- you did have many sincere Priests and Catholic men and women who saw the abuses and did not take part in them.

But there was corruption at the top- and this would eventually lead to the breakup of the church- and the launching of what we now call the Protestant Movement.

As a side note- it should be said that many Catholics and Protestants are not aware of the whole treasury of merit system- and the church never officially changed her position on the doctrine.

There were 3 Church councils since the time [Trent- 1500’s, Vatican 1- 1800’s and Vatican 2- 1962-65]. The Treasury of Merit never came up for change.

Obviously Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory- and it’s not my purpose in these posts to change Catholics into Protestants or vice versa- but to give all sides a clear view of the issues that divided us- and to try and be honest- and respectful during the process.

Does the bible teach anything like a Treasury of Merit? Well actually it does. The bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is the treasury that people can access- by faith- and become righteous in the sight if God.

The idea- applied to Christ- is good.

But in the hands of the Medici Popes- and the ambitious prince of Germany- it would lead to disaster.

[parts] The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar] and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.

Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this victory at Hanukah.

Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] [parts]

VERSES- 2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any manhave not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. Acts 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. Acts 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. Acts 8:8 And there was great joy in that city. Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: Acts 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. Acts 8:11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Acts 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Acts 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. Acts 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Acts 8:24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. Acts 8:25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans. Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: Acts 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

NEWS- http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/russia-syria-tillerson/index.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/12/russian-nuclear-capable-bombers-fly-near-japan-us-officials-say.html https://www.infowars.com/google-searches-for-world-war-3-hit-highest-ever-peak/

http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts https://vimeo.com/user37400385 john chiarelloFollow On https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/ http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/ Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Thanks- John.#

Share this:

Press This

Twitter

Tumblr

Facebook

Acts 7

Sunday sermon [Text]

Acts 3

#God #Jesus #Bible #ccoutreach87 #Religion

1 note · View note

crstapor · 4 years ago

Text

Why I am so Cynical

“I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” - Zarathustra

Part 3

Let me stop shouting - sometimes I get carried away. Because it needs be clearly stated that my perspective on the matter at hand is not based solely on 'personal' experience (of course one can never deny the importance such datum possess!) but also 'phenomenological' experience, which is, clearly, a different animal altogether. That this menagerie has informed my thought will surprise no-one who's ever tried it; thinking, I mean. How else, if one is being as honest as possible, can one arrive at any conclusions whatsoever? While the first part of this essay waxed rather subjectively poetic, allow me to offer this third as a sort of empirical respite. Facts, good reader, let me proffer facts to further found my cynicism most severe.

But let me first define the scope these facts will express. The working title for this missive to minds who want to think was 'A Polemic against American Modernity'. Allowing that my interests, here, lie not north to Canada or south of Texas, the parameters of this diatribe should be well understood by all with even meager cartographic skill.

Superficial perhaps I've structured these facts into three distinct phenomena; the surface, the self, and the symbol. I do so not to make any sweeping ontologic distinctions or assertions, rather, to help me think through them. System-building is not my purpose here - system-analysis is. The facets of modern America culture were well in place before I came along, and, unless I'm completely mistaken, I've done little to add to or enhance any of them. Apart from the clear truth of my having lived with and through them the vast majority of my mortal years. This 'truth', my citizenship and biography, allow me credence to present what follows as 'fact'; though of course it's still just one man's opinion!

Knowledge!

The Surface

Politics. Democracy. American Exceptionalism. Yeah right. So, help me out here, we have a great democracy because we vote for other people to get to vote on who actually becomes leader? Unless of course nine robes get that special privilege - based off of their admitted political preferences naturally! - like back in 2000. How the legislature is just a club for the privileged, connected, and the rich (which is almost redundant). How once 'money' became speech only those with 'money' had speech. The Founders are grave-rolling and Mussolini's having a laugh - fascism much? Let's remember Benito's definition of the term; which is when State and corporate interests converge (more or less). And we find that just about everywhere we look up in DC these days. Apparently we have the 'political will' to help banks, big oil, agribusiness, gun manufacturers, and all the other consolidated purveyors of terror, hate or control (sure, tobacco had to be sacrificed - occasionally you must throw the peasants a bone to keep the lie alive) but can't find the time to help out 'we the people': see continuing cuts to social programs; see the limp-dick governmental response to the housing/mortgage crisis of 2008 - ?; see the student loan pyramid scheme; see a 'minimum' wage that consistently fails to keep up with inflation; see a 'healthcare' plan that mandates private citizens purchase a product from non-governmental, for-profit companies - and taxes them if they don't; see how prohibition (here considered against natural, earth-born narcotics) continues to fuel a for-profit prison system and further erodes race relations; see how the gravest existential threat to the species (climate change, for realz) is perpetually laughed off and ignored; see how we lecture others on human rights while keeping Gitmo open and denying homosexuals equal protection under the law; see how NASA's (quite possibly, from a historical perspective, the greatest achievement of our modern society) budget keeps getting gutted while their priorities are schizophrenically re-ordered with each administration; see how children keep slaughtering children with weapons of war and no one can even attempt to do anything about it; see how voter ID laws are passed like Jim Crow; see how the innate sovereignty of the nation has been torn asunder now that private corporations can be 'to big to fail'; see an ever increasingly militarized police force; see the constitutional absurdity of 'free speech zones'; see democratic campaigns where one guy runs but once elected that guy's nowhere to be found and in his place is a carbon copy of the last guy who held the office ... See how our 'political parties' are two sides of the same coin ... But let's stop here and consider that last point in greater depth, as it is so vital to any understanding of 'democracy' in America ... Republicans, Democrats; Jefferson has been famously remembered, quoted, as saying once our (more properly his) democracy devolved into a two party system it would be a democracy no more. And I've certainly been a witness to that in my life. Sure, America isn't a dictatorship, but it sure as hell isn't the country Jefferson helped forge. And the main reason for that, to my eyes, seems to be the consolidation of power in the hands of politicians with more in common with each other than their constituents. R or D you can bet they're there for Wall Street or the military-information-industrial complex. Anyone else? Good luck with that citizen ... And while they're both complicit in gutting the middle class, let's take a moment to reflect, ethically, on that matter ... You can't blame the snake for its venom, but you can sure as hell blame the snake-oil salesman for shilling his bullshit wares. In case that metaphor wasn't clear enough allow me to decode it for you:

R = snake. D = snake-oil salesman.

Switching gears - though not by much! - let's shift to the state of modern American entertainment. To the uninitiated possibly a trite transition, any who've watched politics lately will surely see the connection. And just as our politics smell rotten, the main complaint with what passes as entertainment these days is how bad it tastes. Yes, it's a question of taste, as it seems most Americans have none. From 'reality TV' (which is surely anything but - though let's not forget Barnum's maxim!), to a pop-music ecosystem that's cannibalized itself to the point of parody, a movie industry that can seemingly fill ten months of releases with one script, the apotheosis of sport, the devolution of literature into a hobby for diarists, the way the performing arts are continually hoarded into smaller and smaller urban green zones, well, it's just hard to swallow most of that without gagging. Or throwing up. Yet a more concerted analysis along these lines is not called for here - we have much too much ground yet to cover.

Speaking of ground and covering it why not mention war? That old playground of glory now some video game where you might win many things; though honor's not among them. The full transition here is yet to occur, but we're definitely in the middle of it. Drones, air strikes, GPS targeting and bombs dropped from orbit (sure, not yet - wait for it!). The complete impersonalization of the other; that total objectification of the enemy (you better believe the pornographers have drone-envy). Let's not equivocate; it's one thing to look someone in the eye and take their life - quite another to push a button sixteen time-zones away and watch an image of indiscriminate carnage. How long will it be before we don't even let a homo sapien sapien push that button? How long before the machines are killing us on their own .?. Nothing to be cynical about here!

And if killing our 'enemies' has/is becoming so much more impersonal healing our 'own' has a fortiori. I'm not even going to start bandying about statistics but it's well known that of the 'first-world', 'post-industrialized' countries we're the only one that still considers healthcare a cash-grab instead of a human-right. And to what wonderful affect! Go ahead and try to ignore all the horror stories of your fellow Americans who lost it all because they couldn't pay their medical bills, or because they did. Pay no attention to record profit margins at insurance companies while the poor forgo all but emergency treatment and the wealth of the middle class is bled out and transferred to HMO executives. Sure, Uncle Tom tried to change all that - by passing a Republican plan even though the Ds had two branches of the federal government! - but when I tried to sign up for 'Obamacare' I still couldn't afford it even though I had $200 in the bank, no assets, and had been unemployed for over two years. If I lived in any other country where English is the primary language I'd be covered without paying a dime. My solution? To use the actual Republican plan - don't get sick!

But that should be easy since we all know of the three pillars of good health (diet, exercise, genetics) eating right is the easiest of all ... Hell. No, sorry, I was about to go all sarcastic and make it seem America knows nothing about sugar overload, HFCS, preservatives, the increasingly and horrifying inability of urbanites to access fresh foods (specifically the poor ones!), pesticides, pink slime, corn or corn or more corn or when will there ever be enough corn already, price gouging on foods that were produced the way they've been produced for centuries (read: organic, grass-fed, free-range), trans-fats, GMO proliferation in our breadbasket without an honest debate on the merits or looking at the science past what some corporation's panel has assured us is true, sodas, the food-gap, throwing away enough food daily to feed the world's hungry cuz it wouldn't make a dime, slaughterhouses like Auschwitz or Dachau ... That Quite Barbarism ... But that would be foolish - America knows all about that ... Why shouldn't it? America invented most of it …

And we invented the largest consumer-driven transportation system the world has ever seen to move all that food around. Sure, China will catch up with us eventually (if not already), but for the better part of three generations the US led the world in road-building and car-buying. Quite apart from the environmental effects this produced there was a profound psychological positive feed-back loop involved as well: one justifying the pre-dominate narrative of our consumer culture. Choice is sacred; you are special and unique and can reflect that through choice; so choose this product or this other one and express your uniqueness through possessing any one of these infinitely similar products; the choice is yours. Perhaps nowhere else in the market was this ‘story’ sold as diligently and aggressively than in the automobile industry. While it is true the US is, spatially speaking, a very large country, it is not true that every adult American needed or needs their own set of wheels to connect it. There are other options, other technologies that could’ve been employed to bring the masses together with more energy efficiency and communal cohesion. I admit it’s no Copernican Revolution, but the thought that Americans are so stubbornly self-interested and quick to discriminate opposed many of their European or native counterparts can not be divorced from the fact we all love to be in the driver’s seat. That commodified ‘freedom’ we are told awaits us on an open road with our very own internal combustion engine humming along in front of our feet; a freedom trains, buses, or carpooling can never provide. Again, notwithstanding the ecological impact of all this, the psychological dimension is impossible to ignore: even if we all owned Tesla’s that were powered by clean fusion charging stations it would still be me, me, me … which is quite naturally a completely uncynical disposition from which to hold a society together …

American’s fascination with their own value and freedom has of course been a dominate theme in the grand narrative of the country for some time; and while cars and roads were the major technological expression of that for much of the twentieth century, we have turned the corner here, in this regard, finding ourselves lost amid tiny little shiny screens that put the whole world inches from our eyes. With the advent of mobile computing the freedom so many seek isn’t conceived any longer by MPG rather MPBS. The new speed of information, and the promise of perpetual access, have enchanted the newer generations in much the same way vehicles did their antecedents. The technology is different while the story remains the same. It is still a self-centered freedom underlying the need, desire, to own the newest, quickest, coolest gadget. A freedom of information surely, yet one closely connected with the freedom cars brought their older relatives; it is as much economic as it is self-satisfying. The internet changed the game, naturally - and hail and well met etc. etc.! - but a claustrophobic observation remains … for a technology that has brought so many people together - and it has - it sure as hell does an awful good job sundering them as well … for you can’t find a public space anymore where a near-majority of your fellow citizens aren’t more interested in their precious little screens than those flesh and blood humans nearby. Perhaps this is just the necessary evolution of the social fabric - perhaps resistance is futile - though a social contract that has more to do with Facebook’s TOS opposed a Bill of Rights just (and forgive me for being so cynical) doesn’t seem like much of a society worth bothering with to this writer. Certainly not one worth the name.

Speaking of the modern technology we all now can’t live without, it seems to me a funny thing happened on the way to Google’s homepage … we now have access to all the information we can consume, on any topic, just a keystroke away, and look what we’re doing with it … I’m not just talking about social media or pornography, I mean the fundamental epistemological conundrum of an allegedly intelligent species that now has post-scarcity style access to information yet we’ve made of the web one colossal echo-chamber where the tribes huddle together in aggrieved resentment or ignorant bliss of the ‘others’ … look at it like this: in a day and age when the work of science (you know, that thing that made all this ((by which I mean ‘Modernity’ and all its toys)) possible) is more evenly, widely, and objectively disseminated than at any other time in history the public’s grasp and understanding of science and its work is at an all-time low. Basic data are disputed; empirical findings are called into question by anyone with a laptop, forget about a degree in the subject: what used to be considered non-issues, resolved subjects, are now argued over as if the Earth might actually be flat … all of which might just be good for a laugh if there weren’t actual existential threats to the species that only science can solve; yet we can’t even begin that discussion because some car salesman googled Glenn Beck and now we have legislatures that don’t think climate change is real; or they say the data doesn’t support an anthropogenic cause even though they never took a serious science course in their life; or that can’t be right because it doesn’t fit into our time-warp economy and a dollar today is obviously more important than our children’s future; or anyway shut-up idiot scientists just because you actually studied something other than law or business doesn’t mean you know any more than me because I have a high speed internet connection and I bookmarked the Drudge Report … how is it, philosophically speaking, tenable that the more information you have the stupider you become? I don’t know, but if you want a good example of the principle in action take a look at America today. Or just Google it …

Of course there is one thread that ties all these elements of ‘the surface’ together and that thread is consumerism as expressed by our current form of capitalism. The ascendancy of the dollar over all else (sorry God!). The desire to possess, acquire, consume. We are material creatures, we humans, and thus must consume to survive; fine: but do we have to do so in the manner we seem set on here and now? No, not at all, even suggesting that our’s is the only system, the only way to satiate the human hunger is absurd on its face as well as betraying an amnesiac’s conception of history. No, there are other paths, yet we have chosen this one, this ‘capitalism’ that mimics the terrors and rigors of the jungle at every turn. In the act of deifying money (more on that later) we have dehumanized ourselves. For the most part we are simple cogs in a vast machine that cares little or nothing for us; and so we care only for ourselves. The inherent egoism of the modern American psyche is spectacular to behold, certainly, in its primal vanity; at the same time giving the lie to any ethical system we still tenuously cling to as reminder of simpler days (sorry Christianity!). So we are, as a culture, no better than spoiled children grasping for another slice of pie. And while that’s certainly comical, it is also tragic, since such a system is not sustainable whatsoever (there is never enough pie). Neither history or science can provide any examples of such a system expanding into perpetuity (literature has given us a few but they are either satire or utopias ((same thing really))), and yet a sincere, concerted discussion on this issue has yet to percolate through the public sphere, or if so, only in the usual places and thus not given the sort of urgency it requires. But to have this conversation we all have to be ready to listen; it is not enough for the cynics and naysayers to keep shouting into the wild or the web: there has to be an audience, a receptive ear. Which brings us to our next section.

The Self

The problems elucidated in ‘The Surface’ are, to a great extent, symptoms of our sense of self, or, as is more often (if paradoxically) the case, our lack of one. While I am specifically referring to the modern American ‘self’, I’m going to be doing so with large brushstrokes; forming great swathes of colored splotches closer in kind to a rorscharch test than a pointilistic canvass. You may not see a reflection here so much as a sense of remembrance, or deja vu. That’s fine. I can’t be alone in thinking our lifespeeds have altered, and it’s just that alteration I want to discuss.

Lifespeed. Right. Let’s define that quickly so we can move on. By lifespeed I mean that facile quality of Being that tethers us to the ‘now’. Perceptually, our lives happen at a specific point in time, and I’ve conceived the word lifespeed to represent this point, as well as our conscious reaction to it. It’s just a word. Other than this meager definition it means nothing; has no other value. Right.

We were talking about choice earlier and there’s a clear connection between the act of choosing and the extant phenomena adjoining it. Just the relationship that lifespeed is meant to express. On its face, choice is neutral. Neither positive or negative, good or bad. The ‘designed’ choice of our consumer-driven society I find abhorrent, though not from some reactionary impulse, but a genuine longing for what it’s replaced. By making choices we define ourselves and I fear many of us are accepting a story that tells us we can only make this or that choice opposed to this that or the other. That we are told certain stories so many times we think we have no choice how they end; or wether to listen to them at all. In this way our lifespeeds have been damaged; like a bonsai pruned too severely.

Perhaps many are content defining themselves through ‘designed’ choice, or who ‘designed’ it anyway? Yes … there will always be sheep and lemmings in human form, and if that’s your angle you have my pity but nothing else. On the other hand, if you genuinely desire a leveling-up on the self-awareness front but have found this difficult to achieve thus far, you must realize two hard truths; the first that it is your business alone, none others - and the second, that it will be incredibly difficult to achieve because our society was not constructed to assist in this goal - quite the contrary! - it was designed to prevent it, at almost every turn. Here we return to the ‘designed’ component of American choice. Since the beginning the tiny tribes watching the throne have conspired to affect a marked class distinction in the land of the ‘free’. From the original agricultural workers of the new world, to the industrial workers who built a modern nation, to the current service sector workers slipping into poverty those with the firmest grip on the levers of power have continually strived to erect massive obstacles between those that labor for a living and those that live off that labor. Nor are these obstacles simply economic or aspirational in nature, no, due their pervasiveness through the generations they have percolated down into the most subterranean reaches of the mass conscious; into the very stories we use to define ourselves. Egads! a polite-hyper-modern-liberal-minded-triangulator might reply, don’t you know everyone has a TV! A refrigerator! Cheapest food ever! Why yes of course, there is an exception to every rule. While, for about thirty years in the middle of the last century, it seemed America was finally delivering on its promise, just look how long it took for us to devolve into another gilded age (the apparent default position of American society). It is foolish to define a thing based off aberrations, opposed its consistencies. In this way we clearly see the US for what it is … the second most successful marketing scheme in human history (naturally one must award Christianity top honors on that mark) … in the same way tobacco used to be good for you, that sodas were harmless, or how fast food is every bit nutritious as home-made, America cries ‘freedom’ when in so many ways the reverse is clearly the case. From ‘power’s’ perspective it’s nihilistically brilliant sure - give the people a semblance of freedom (in our case economic choice) and they’ll extrapolate that into a veritable cosmos of self-authorized-self-actualization - and you bet the monarchists, dictators, or petty politburos are jealous as hell at the level of control the political classes of America have been able to sustain generation after generation. A state of affairs that continues for no other reason than that an over-whelming majority of Americans keep believing the lies. We are forced to ask: why do they?

Let’s speculate wildly! Is it possible there exists some globe-spanning underground tributary of Lethe that constantly replenishes all the aquifers in the land? Or perhaps when we, on average a truly vain people, look into a mirror our historical consciousness is reset to zero? Or maybe we’ve all become so addicted to the stories we repeat about American Exceptionalism even the most destitute are content to sacrifice any chance they might have of another, better life, so as the stories can keep being told .?. the gyre is constricting at every turn, just like water flowing down the drain we’re becoming closer and closer to ourselves and ours; we’re losing a visceral sense of community and common cause through the ‘designed’ choices of a consumerist economy and specifically the newer technologies of self-absorption. So many of us don’t seem able to see past our own reflections, our problems, that even beginning to consider the larger problems facing our country seems as pointless as sending a manned mission to Mars.

The latent greed of the species is given free reign in America and this greed is destroying us. Making us sick. Stunted, withered, cloying little souls blighted with giga-myopia and eterno-amnesia. Greed. Most cultures have oft thought it a base emotion, one needing constant oversight - not the good ’ole US of A! We saw right through that ethical clap-trap - we saw that by harnessing the simmering greed of a people and putting them to work fulfilling that greed great things could happen … just absolutely amazing things … and we have accomplished quite a bit worth being proud over, and we sure have shown all those historical moralists just how wrong they were about the most solipsistic emotion … but this is a strange greed, our American one, one many may not even be aware of, so deep do its roots dive; a conniving greed that wraps in upon itself like a fresh burrito from Chipotle or those roller coasters you remember from Disneyland or Six-Flags … a greed that we have to learn to turn off, ignore, or quit seeing as so basic and benign in all our lives that there’s nothing you can do about it anyway - because it isn’t benign, it reacts to us and the environment as surely as we do it, and lately it’s been acting badly … yes, there are historical elements to this greed, there is also the question of personal responsibility, mutual complicity, systems of control and power as well - so many factors … I guess I’m nostalgic for another type of human being, one not fueled by avarice or beholden to the choices of others … qualities most seem to have lost somewhere on the way to Walmart … a human being that might never have existed except in a dream …

The Symbol

Human beings have long used symbols to represent value. Symbols are convenient, easy, and incredibly mutable. They can be transferred or translated almost infinitely. With a symbol ideas that might take an incredible amount of energy to explain or describe can be conveyed almost instantaneously. Logic and mathematics could likely not exist without them, nor, indeed, any language. And like any good thing, as is so often the case with any wonderfully useful thing, we humans have become dependent on them. Created for ourselves a world where we can not live without them. We are, in many ways, addicted to their utility. On its face there is nothing ethically challenging about this. Language and math are boons to humanity, practically describing our modern conception of ourselves. Symbols are naturally value neutral, like any high-level epistemological building block. And yet, we modern Americans have found ourselves in a tricky spot. We have crafted a society where one symbol is supreme. Where one symbol, and one symbol alone, holds all the power. A symbol that, if you find yourself without it, without access to it, without a stock-pile of it hiding somewhere, essentially makes you a non-entity. No longer part of the culture, the game. For it is certainly true that the only game in modern America is money. That collecting dollars has superseded all other activities; has supplanted any other endeavor as the only one with value. This state of affairs is the genesis of our cultural decline; of the death of the ideals that the Founders (who themselves were already playing the only game) attempted to instill in the New World: will in the end be understood by future historians as the single greatest crime of our time.

I say crime and I mean it. Don’t use the word for shock or awe. Nor do I want to dwell on this particular subject (not being the place for an extended analysis of this issue I will allow such a discussion its own essay, its own space, a place where it can be a bit more academic and dry, not so emotive or cynical) though we do have to mention a few more things before moving on. Crime. Yes. What was this crime? In short order here we go … it used to be the case that money was a symbol that referred to labor, actual work performed by one human that held value for another. So far as that is all money is, there is nothing ethically suspect about it. Then, at some point in the past, a few cunning paradigm-shifters saw an opportunity and changed the rules regarding what money was; they removed the labor as referent of value, replacing it with rare objects (typically gold) that few among any populace would ever see in their lives. Well, since the promise of alchemy was a lie, and the philosopher’s stone was never discovered, at least this money still referred to something real, something that couldn’t just be made up on the spot. Ah ha! the sons of the sneaky paradigm-shifters thought, that would just be the icing on the cake! Let’s remove the rare objects as value referent as well - let’s go all in on a communal mass delusion and see if anyone believes it … let’s just have money valued at whatever we say it’s valued at. Let’s create a massive shell game that only a very few will ever truly know the rules to, though the outcome, the results, will effect everyone … yes … let’s create the only game worth playing, and let’s give every live birth a turn … which leaves us with a system that, no matter how hard you work, no matter how industrious you are, if you don’t know the rules of the game (in modern America we can think of the Federal Reserve, Wall Street bankers, old money, select members of the Treasury Department etc. as the holders of the rule book) you will not win at it. You will play and play and play and keep losing and losing and losing all the while the rule keepers keep winning and winning and winning because for most players in this game the tokens of victory they collect (dollars) are bought at the hard price of actual labor, as if they never heard about how money grew up - no, they slave and slave for pennies without any chance of leveling up in this game and getting to that haughty echelon where money is no longer about work but having money make money off of someone else’s work … this little narrative I just outlined is a crime because there are clear stealers and victims (of course there are exceptions to every rule, but for every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, there are a hundred and fifty million working at Walmart for a slave-wage). You see, the architects of the monetary symbol’s paradigm shift knew that by removing any referent to an actual act (labor) or object (gold) they were essentially hollowing out the natural relationship between the symbol and the symbolized, and in that empty space they would find their own El Dorado; their own little universe where they called the shots and none other. They essentially re-wrote the rules of symbolism, and clearly in their favor. And while symbols shift meaning all the time, especially in religious or political environments, these shifts are fundamentally harmless as neither religion or political discourse ever directly affects the physical well being of a human being as does their ability to acquire food, or energy, or health care, or shelter (I understand that by including ‘politics’ in this sense I might seem to be advocating a ‘post-history’ perspective; one where capitalistic-liberalism has won over all other political narratives, and while I hope that isn’t so, at the moment, and especially as an American author, one would be hard pressed to argue the point otherwise). To be clear, I’m not suggesting there was some shadowy cabal that gathered and planned out this great hollowing out of the monetary symbol; as is often the case it happened by fits and starts, here and there, as history would have it, propelled by the innate greed of the least amongst us. And yet they have scored a grand victory, these acolytes of avarice. Have pulled the proverbial wool over so many eyes - and in the process redefined a country that promised freedom into a vassal state completely enthralled to an ugly little strip of green denim that truly means nothing at all …

Of course this transformation did not just occur on American soil. But we sure as hell took the ball and ran it home. More than any other modern nation we are more readily defined by the empty symbology of the dollar than any others. This is not just an American problem; but we must be the first to address it …

America’s enslavement to the dollar is the singular cause of all the problems I put forth in ‘The Surface’, and, in many ways, ‘The Self’. We are a nation of suckers, rats, blind idealists, idiot sensualists, blatant thieves and the occasional dreamer … and knowing that, seeing my country in this way does nothing to alleviate my pathological cynicism … but allow me a query - do you still ask me why I am so cynical .?.

#Essay #Philosophy #c. r. stapor #cynicism #nietszche #modernity #philosophers on tumblr #writers on tumblr

0 notes

eazyeez · 4 years ago

Text

Reading III (The New Materiality of Design) Introduction by Mihkali, 3 Oct 2020

What is Object-Oriented Ontology?

An attempt to explain a complicated topic so that anyone can understand it. To my mind spring our discussions on exclusion of uneducated people from certain discourses. OOO might still be a topic too high flying for many to be able to grasp. The ontology of everything, the relations between things of any scale.

Workers of the world, conform!

This text and its connection to previous texts was interesting. It was interesting to read about how standardization has developed and about the visions of the advocates of standardization (like Ostwalds visions of the “world brain”, which now could be seen as a prophecy of internet). And also the darker side of it.

While reading, I thought about Mills text on the designer´s role in the society of 1958, Drucker´s writing “Visual forms of knowledge production” as well as the article “Intercept from the academy”.

Standardization makes things in our society more effective, but it also impoverishes life. A society where everything would be standardized would resemble an ant´s hill, which works effectively, because all the members have very clear and simple tasks and no individual needs that would differ from the colony´s goals, kind of like how big corporates function. But humans are not ants. We want variation in life and have individual needs. We need to use our imagination and we need to experience having purpose.

Standardization, just like the narrowed down role of the designer in Mills text and the description in “Visual forms of knowledge production” of how graphic design has developed to be a more effective asset in industry all seem to have a role in what our society has become and where it is heading. The dark side of the these phenomena is the exploitation of workers to the benefit of the top of the food chain as well as the impoverishment of the human life quality and as a result of the capitalist and consumption values and life styles being intensified, the changing and damaging of the ecosystem.

‘‘Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts’’

The text is an attempt to explain the role of artifacts´ in sociology or a socity´s sociological structures and cultural values. It states that sociotechnical systems are formed not only by negotiations between humans, but that artifacts are also a part of these negotiations and that you cannot understand a society´s sociological structures if you don’t understand what kinds of artifacts that have an effect on people´s lives and actions exist in a society. As an example a person from the 1800´s could have a hard time understanding our behavior in the 2020`s, because the person would be unfamiliar with all sorts of innovations and artifacts that have become a strong part of our everyday lives since that.

The smartphone and internet have a strong effect on our lives today. For instance, arranging a meeting with friends is much more flexible now than before smart phones. We can just agree on calling each other in an hour to see where we are and where and when we could meet. Before smart phones a meeting had to be planned well, so that both parts were in the same place at the same time. If something happened that led to one of the people to be inhibited from coming to the meeting, the other one was not able to get information about it in the same way as now and would probably be forced to wait for the friend at the randevouz until getting tired of the friend not showing up and just going back home.

The reverse side of the coin is that we might not be very punctual with our meetings, because it is so easy to call our friend and just tell them we are 15 minutes late.

So our new technologies have an effect on our lives and how we behave.

Someone from 1980 might wonder why we have no encyclopedias in our book shelves, because they would be unfamiliar with internet.

The text argues that all the artifacts in a society play a part in what the society´s sociological structures and cultural values are like. Imagine bringing a person from any society 3000 years ago to this day. That person would have a hard time understanding what is going on in our everyday life. Partly this would be because of all the artifacts that surround us.

The text also argues that people can act on distance through artifacts. As an example the seatbelt scenario in the text. Some people are unwilling to use a seatbelt, even if they know it protects them. For some reason car industry engineers have decided to play the part of a nagging parent through the seatbelt artifact and the beeping sound that comes if you havn´t buckled up. They have innovated a system that subtly forces the driver to put on the seatbelt when driving. A harmless, but annoying enough beep that makes you use the seatbelt, which might save your life.

Tasks of humans can be delegated to machines. The machines can be developed to ultimately replace a human doing the same job in an ideal way. The hydraulic groom always closes the door in the ideal way, not too quickly, which might cause accidents. Unlike a human as a door closer, it will also never be late from work or unwilling to work.

So we can delegate work tasks to machines. How far can this go? Human beings, like all other organisms, arguably have an inherent tendency of trying to get by in life with the least amount of energy needed. The purpose of this tendency is to save energy, which in nature is always scarce. Any organism has to work in order to obtain energy (food). Running out of energy will lead to the death of the organism. Since obtaining energy is never granted, saving energy is good.

Humans (at least a part of us) are not threatened of running out of energy. As conscious beings we also understand that some work might be worth doing even if it doesn’t have an effect on our survival. We might think it is a good idea to write a book, even if it doesn’t directly affect our survival. But we are still not free from the inherent tendency of saving energy, hence all the procrastination etc. Is it a good thing to be free from the constant pressure of running out of energy? We have evolved for as long as life has existed to have to work in order to survive. Working is thus a natural way of living for us. Sitting on the sofa watching tv and developing our reserve energy storage is not natural life for humans. Arguably humans living like this are not happy or satisfied with their lives, but the inherent need of saving energy has taken a dominating role in their life style and they find it hard to change the way they live.

To me this text boiled down to the question how far we can go regarding delegating tasks to non-humans? Also, which tasks should be delegated to machines and which not? What if we delegated all the work to machines? What would we do then? Or does the horizon of tasks move further to new tasks when we are freed from others? Can we all become scientists, artists or practitioners of other fields that don’t directly have to do with us getting by in everyday life if those tasks are delegated to machines?

Is that a good thing to strive for?

Here I again see a connection to the text about the Academy sauna and my previous thinking on hunter gatherers vs. narrow niche workers in big corporates.

Is it a good thing to delegate tasks to machines? Is it good to some extent? Maybe the hydraulic groom is ok, but how about for instance automatic lawnmowers or fish fileting machines? And what if we delegate all other tasks to machines so, that we can use all our time concentrating on art or science? Would it be better for us to filet our own perches after a day at work where we for example have been working on trying to figure out how to prevent our employers newest space rocket model from becoming fire work when entering Mars´ atmosphere? Should we reflect on the Mars project only for 4 hours per day instead of 13 and spend the rest mowing the lawn, fileting the perch and playing a board game with our family?

What is a healthy degree of non-human figures in our everyday life and sociological structures?

0 notes

somnilogical · 5 years ago

Text

<<Over the past year, however, Google has appeared to clamp down. It has gradually scaled back opportunities for employees to grill their bosses and imposed a set of workplace guidelines that forbid “a raging debate over politics or the latest news story.” It has tried to prevent workers from discussing their labor rights with outsiders at a Google facility and even hired a consulting firm that specializes in blocking unions. Then, in November, came the firing of the four activists. The escalation sent tremors through the Google campus in Mountain View, Calif., and its offices in cities like New York and Seattle, prompting many employees — whether or not they had openly supported the activists — to wonder if the company’s culture of friendly debate was now gone for good.

(A Google spokeswoman would not confirm the names of the people fired on Nov. 25. “We dismissed four individuals who were engaged in intentional and often repeated violations of our longstanding data-security policies,” the spokeswoman said. “No one has been dismissed for raising concerns or debating the company’s activities.” Without naming Berland, Google disputed that investigators pressured him.)>>

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/18/magazine/google-revolt.html

<<“Of the five people that were fired, three of us are trans women,” Spiers said. “That is either an unbelievable coincidence or Google is targeting the most vulnerable.”

“Trans Googlers make up a very small percentage of Googlers,” she added. “They make up a slightly larger percentage of organizers, but not 60%.”>>

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/17/fifth-google-worker-activist-fired-in-a-month-says-company-is-targeting-the-vulnerable

i too am transfem and would "violate longstanding data-security policies" if my organization were being unjust. i wouldnt say that unless it were already obvious by what bits ive leaked to people about my life, because otherwise i could suppress this information and whistleblow more.

if you were an evil corp at this point youd probably try to avoid hiring any trans women in the first place because given this happens to you, its likely done by a transfem. not that this saved CFAR, who never hired a trans woman, from having a bunch of transfems whistleblow on them despite not being employees.

from what ive read from transfem google employees who are or were involved in activism, the degredation of google's culture. their complicity with ICE and weapons manufacturing mirrors CFAR's with OpenAI and DeepMind; authoritarianism and expulsion of transfems who object to this among a myriad of wrongs. to protect the territory of injustice and complicity with organizations like ICE, google needs to import "a consulting firm that specializes in blocking unions", CFAR needs to violate their whistleblower policy. if you once protect injustice, justice is ever after your enemy. morality isnt some modular thing such that you can be comitted to protecting injustice and not have this choice spiral into also invoking and protecting systems that protect injustice and invoking further things to protect those, recursively. all the way down to doing really dumb and obvious unjust things like transmisogyny (lots of future posts), changing your fundraiser after its clear its losing money, announcing that this year you got way below your donation target and claim to have no idea why.

well *i* know the compact generator for all of these things, and that makes me strong. unlike MIRI/CFAR who like the CDC rely on gaslighting the populace for myopic gains. i also wore a particle mask during the time that the CDC claimed that they were useless to preventing spread of disease, so it was really important to give them to doctors and nurses.

after so much gaslighting, *i* have built up general capabilities at arbitraging the difference between what agents claim and the truth. people who say:

<<Edit: This is a type of post that should have been vetted with someone for infohazards and harms before being posted, and (Further edit) I think it should have been removed by the authors., though censorship is obviously counterproductive at this point.

Infohazards are a real thing, as is the Unilateralists’s curse. (Edit to add: No, infohazards and unilateralist’s curse are not about existential or global catastrophic risk. Read the papers.) And right now, overall, reduced trust in CDC will almost certainly kill people. Yes, their currently political leadership is crappy, and blameworthy for a number of bad decisions—but it doesn’t change the fact that undermining them now is a very bad idea.

Yes, the CDC has screwed up many times, but publicly blaming them for things that were non-obvious (like failing to delay sending out lab kits for further testing,) or that they screwed up, and everyone paying attention including them now realizes they got wrong (like being slow to allow outside testing,) in the middle of a pandemic seems like exactly the kind of consequence-blind action that lesswrongers should know better than to engage in.

Disclaimer: I know lots of people at CDC, including some in infectious diseases, and have friends there. They are human, and get things wrong under pressure—and perhaps there are people who would do better, but that’s not the question at hand.>>

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/h4vWsBBjASgiQ2pn6/credibility-of-the-cdc-on-sars-cov-2/comment/uDYbgf3QtEQirbsJk

havent. its easy to see how peoples minds are warped when its someone elses glowy thing, when its someone elses friends working for an institution that that someone else routed their hopes through.

its easier to recognize betrayal and see knowledge beyond the veil when its happening to someone else, instead of you.

until you build up general skills for recognizing it, this sort of betrayal isnt infinitely powerful. and like how you might expect that smart people who live for predation would do anti-inductive smart predatory things, but they end up converging on child sex rings; institutions that betray you, because justice is their enemy will start doing dumb unjust things like banning two people from speaking about their irl experiences with anna salamon, saying their first-hand accounts werent evidence and then citing anna salamon's first-hand account of the meeting as evidence. when i objected that this was a fucked up self-serving ontology of "evidence" they acted like i was objecting to "beliefs flow from evidence" and they acted as if what i was saying was obscure and beyond their ability to comprehend. their "incomprehension" was fake, downstream of a fear to dynamically compute things in front of other people that might end up outside the orthodoxy. the result of which is they display a blue screen of death and say “i just dont understand and aaa dont explain this to me!!!”. and then people agree that it "seems like it could be an infohazard" because when your goal is the preservation of the matrix, everything that tears it down looks like hazardous information.

or a cfar employee, in response to claims that anna's transmisogyny influences CFAR's hiring choices, claiming that anna salamon, head of CFAR, is not involved in CFAR's hiring. until i post proof from another CFAR employee pursuing personal vengeance against the org for hiring their rapist where its tangentially mentioned and they suddenly "realize" that anna salamon, head of CFAR, is involved in CFAR's hiring process.

or a thousand other injustices that have burned themselves into my brain during my months of talking with people under the assumption that they were simply mistaken in their path to saving the world. when they were actually un-mistaken in their path to having babies and a low chance of personal death. hoping and expecting someone else will take heroic responsibility for the planet.

like when you drill down to the base of injustice, it bottoms out in dumb and petty injustice. like the structure doesnt go infinitely high and complex, if you go down to the base level, you just need a bit of courage to not flinch away from what you see even if it seems that it means the ruin of something you ran your hopes and dreams through.

"isnt this a little... extreme?" i hear some people ask. ""dont protect regions of injustice?" that sounds like the end product of obsessive compulsive fixation on virtue at the expense of practicality."

well, assuming the algorithm seeding this response is a systemic reasoning tool, it should forkbomb when you consider if youd output ""dont protect regions of untruth?" that sounds like the end product of obsessive compulsive fixation on virtue at the expense of practicality." in response to eliezers essay. the principle behind both is the same such that if you hold by one you should hold by the other.

all of these things have parallels. if you want to see what is happening with MIRI/CFAR, theres a lot of mutual information with whats happening with Google.

4 notes · View notes

queernuck · 7 years ago

Text

also while I was confirming that, indeed, the Post of the Day where old URLs were going back and forth and eventually it crossed over into Normal People who related to the initial claim because the language being used highlighted an experience that can only be delineated as sexed-but-not-gendered when the later framework of an ontology of idealist biological essentialism that supposes itself as materialism I got sucked into old bad habits and read through the “gender” tag of someone who spends most of it hating trans women and unironically reblogging stuff about autogynephilia and ignoring trans lesbians who are in relationships with other trans lesbians, and eventually I came to a whole Thing about Sylvia Rivera and Stonewall and not only did the post actually effectively mock her for attempting suicide, it took such lurid joy in the way she was “sleeping off a heroin high” during the beginnings of Stonewall, and it just stands for so much of what I find fucking awful about mainstream discourses around drugs, around drug use, around drugs in culture even.

yeah, there are people who do heroin. like, not only are there people who do heroin, there are people who do heroin in ways that many people would find largely acceptable! people who check all the boxes, people who do heroin, are even addicted to it, and are considered not only functioning, but in fact as exceeding the proper station of an “addict” and thus presenting an irreconcilable body to be dealt with in one way or another. often this comes through ignoring the mitigating factors that contribute such as depression or pain that lead to the use in the first place, or imagining that it is truly Just This One No More Unless We Find Another One. one can, in fact, be a wonderful and phenomenal and lively person who’s also on heroin!

of course, the image of such a person is largely imagined as a way to say that there is no WAY the speaker could hate users or addicts, of course not! after all, they can hold up such an example of a person as being tolerable despite asking nothing of the speaker. but there are people who are even within that class only because of the way that they present a certain understanding of use, and that those same people would turn on their exemplary figures instantly if they perceived even a slight shift in rhetoric around their understanding of their own heroin use.

beyond that, there are people who are certainly unacceptable in how they use heroin. unacceptable in that they drink, in that they talk about or use prescription painkillers recreationally, that they pop xanax or sip lean or listen to the wrong type of music or something like that. the same is true of meth, and especially emphasized in how some people look at meth and act as if the personal moral failings at hand are more important, more foundational than the violent structures that make drug use so common. denying that meth use, cocaine use, drug use in general are deeply within LGBT communities is harmful specifically because it robs us not only of resources for reaching some cultivated “sobriety” but also because it is part of the larger apparatus of not recognizing drug use as a reasonable, meaningful response to violent circumstances.

some people never get sober. some people may not want to get sober, some people may be effectively precluded from “sobriety” because of how sobriety is defined, and that certainly includes lesbians, too! while the specific community found in a sort of sexualization of meth use is largely concentrated in gay men, this crosses over into bi men, women who are partners of bi men, trans people of disparate identities, so on. the same is true of cocaine, even without the sexualization, loads of lesbians love cocaine because it’s like smoking, when you drink it’s just something you do, and lesbians drink a lot, snort a lot, smoke a lot. plenty of gay people are drug addicted and have drinking problems that they may never sort out, and not only recognizing this but allowing them to still participate in communities as a whole, not requiring that one tie sobriety to purity or goodness, all of this will make standing in opposition to the violence of capital far, far easier. spaces where alcohol is not allowed for legal reasons, spaces for sobriety, spaces that even conceive of themselves through sobriety must absolutely be maintained with a consciousness that not everyone can or will join these spaces, and that maintaining sobriety for oneself or for a community as an action requires a great deal of reframing.

Of course I have enormous love for my edge friends, and to say that I don’t is to misunderstand my critique at a fundamental level. I hate “kill your local heroin dealer” bullshit, but i’ve heard that from people who certainly aren’t edge and are merely taking the most provocative evocation of edge aesthetics they can reasonably hold. I find that there are important critiques, at times, of the ideas that go into forming a concept of “Straight Edge” but the communities themselves have incredible potential to fill the holes, to bridge gaps in ways that are structurally similar to drugs, and thus able to provide viable alternatives. This is, again, not to put addiction in the shadows but to make it such that transition from one to another, whether it be the shedding of sobriety or the decision to maintain it, is part of a larger means in which we entirely reconsider fundamental holdings of the body such that we can meaningfully get fashy types out of good scenes and can create spaces that will help far beyond their immediate reach.

addiction can be nasty, can be ugly, but so much of that isn’t because of anything about the supposed-addict or, indeed, even about the drug. It is about, instead, the violence that exists prior to, around, and through the machine of addiction, the way addiction becomes a quality of the body, the way in which addiction is marked as a trait. this is where the rhetoric of anti-work anarchism often comes in handy, in that it requires commitment to fostering community for all regardless of their own role within it. Understanding processes of self-criticism, of revolutionary critique, as possible while addicted and in fact persisting even through addiction, as not fundamentally ridding oneself of the addiction at hand, is vital to conceiving of drugs as a structural class beyond the capitalist demarcation of them as such.

when psychiatric, medical, legal, carceral violence is so wrapped up in the creation of drugs as entities, so hell-bent on fucking over addicts at each turn, the least we can do is not make lurid spectacles of the people we should love.

#drugs #addiction #transmisogyny

10 notes · View notes

readyaiminquire · 5 years ago

Text

Old Pandemic, New Future

"There is great chaos under the heavens; the situation is excellent" -- Mao Zedong

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think we may have found one of the two times Mao was correct. If you want to produce societal change, few things are as effective as a good dose of crisis. In the context of Mao and wider revolutionary politics, the fact that a revolution often stems from chaos is tautological to some, though let's not forget that chaotic times affect all societies - and only a minority of these end up with a 'typical' political revolution. Wars, natural disasters, famines, and of course epidemics & pandemics have often left the world both scarred and changed. These capital-E Events create a break with the past, and require those who live through it to reimagine the world, to understand it differently - and it would be naïve to imagine we will go through the current COVID-19 pandemic without permanent changes to society and culture. However, of particular interest right now is the social response. While the virus is unquestionably deadly, it is far less deadly than some of the historical head-line pandemic. We are, in a sense, going through the motions of an apocalyptic Hollywood-esque event, without effectively risking that sort of cataclysm (though, for anyone who loses a loved one, such a tragedy should never be diminished). In addition, this pandemic has highlighted on how unprepared society at large appears to be to these sort of shocks, and therefore has the potential to eventually ask more fundamental questions - what should society be to avoid this in the future? What should our future be?

Let me explain. Firstly, we need to understand hauntology. A phrase originally coined by Jacques Derrida, he posits that we never experience things as fully present. They're always either reflected through the past or distorted by the future. We can only make sense of any present moment by comparing it to the past, and by anticipating the future. A very basic example of this is music. Taken in its isolation, any one note lacks melodic quality - It is only by comparing a note to previous notes and anticipating future notes that we make any sense of the melody itself. The melody is never fully present but only emerges through an interplay of past, present, and future. Taking a step back, all our experiences are like this: we can only make sense of the present by looking to the past and anticipating the future. In this sense, our experiences are haunted - by that which no longer exists, and by that which does not yet exist. Hauntology, as word, is hauntological (to be really meta about it), being a mixture of "haunted" and "ontology", ontology being the philosophical study of the nature of being. This becomes even clearer in French, Derrida's native language, where the H is silent, so hauntology and ontology are pronounced the same. The only way to tell the difference between the two is by writing them down, the H therefore gains a hauntological quality.

The way hauntology is applied to culture is of course far more specific. Cultural theorist Mark Fisher, one of my favourite thinkers, popularised the term in cultural theory. He argued that our pasts haunt how we imagine the future, typically clearly visible in our popular culture. Specifically, he referred to how we - often paradoxically - turn to our pasts to relive our anticipation of futures that never were. What Fisher effectively argues is that because of neoliberalism we have reached a cultural impasse; we are incapable of imagining new futures. Neoliberalism demands short term solutions, and as a result new imagined futures are never created. Even in areas where development is increasing, technology for example, these new developments don't open up for new modes of cultural exploration, but rather are subservient to the pre-established cultural modes. In this sense, Fisher argues, it is only logical that we have turned to nostalgia: reboots, remixes of old music, or aesthetics that seem to return in cycles. And the new technology that exists today is subservient to these cultural modes, often, again paradoxically, using new techniques and practices to reproduce the old. In Fisher's own words "the future has been cancelled." What Fisher writes here harkens back to Frederic Jameson and Slavoj Žižek's notion that "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism", insofar as capitalism, and specifically neoliberalism, has positioned itself as the "be-all-end-all" ideology. There is nothing beyond; there cannot be anything beyond.

The future is indeed cancelled.

If we can imagine the end of the world but not the end of capitalism, what happens during the dress rehearsal for the apocalypse? We live, so we are told, in a post-ideological society. We are, as Žižek puts it, no longer subjects of duties - serving society, expected to sacrifice ourselves if needed, and so on - but rather subjects of pleasure. What we do is to chase our pleasures, to consume our pleasures and through that we serve society. Just like neoliberalism has made new developments subservient to the wider ideological hegemony, so too has late-capitalism made 'the world' conceptually subservient. Capitalism isn't a part of this world, this world is a part of capitalism. Functionally, however, it is clear that this is not the case. Recurring crises, economic, environmental, and now pandemic shows that late capitalism is indeed not a superstructure, but rather maintains an illusion of such - a form of internalised ideology. What we're seeing here is a sort-of reversed "equivocation" to borrow a word from Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, in which two conceptually distinct words have come to be understood as ontologically the same. This, of course, creates a paradox.

As we continue with our dress rehearsal for the apocalypse, it has become abundantly clear to me - and I believe many others - that our society is simply not geared towards dealing with these sort of wide-spanning crises and shocks. This is both systematic unpreparedness, as the system itself seems largely unable to absorb an external shock, but also social. People are largely unable to make sense of what is going on and instead attempts as much as possible to continue as they have. Indeed, going back to Fisher, what are the alternatives? With capitalism as a system and the world such as it is being seen effectively the same, seeing the façade of our world crack will invariably damage how we view capitalism as a system. Perhaps, then, there will be an apocalypse? A world will be destroyed in our combined cultural imaginations - and with the death of such a world, it will hopefully leave space for a new one. What exactly might come from this is impossible to speculate. Some of the slew of social changes that have already taken effect are likely to remain, and these will, in turn, produce additional effects as social conventions are reimagined, reconstituted, and codified. It is even, of course, possible that the changes and the new future that may come of this will be worse than we have today, of course, a factor that shouldn't be ignored. However, the hopelessness of Fisher's hauntological analysis might finally be shattered. With this crisis, we may be able to dream once more of a new future - and as long as we can imagine, we can at least give ourselves hope.

Selected references:

BADIOU, A. 2003 Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Translated by: R. Brassiered ). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

FISHER, M. 2012 “What is Hauntology?” in Film Quarterly 2012 Vol. 66:1, pp. 16-24.

FISHER, M. 2014 Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. London: Zero Books.

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO, E. 2004 Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation. Tipiti 2, 3–22.

ŽIŽEK, S. 2012 A Pervert’s Guide to Ideology (transcript / subtitles). Found online here: https://zizek.uk/the-perverts-guide-to-ideology-transcriptsubtitles/ (Last accessed: 16/03/2020).

0 notes

nathaniel-g-blog · 5 years ago

Text

What saith the Lord?

“If you extract the precious from the worthless, you will become My spokesman.”

- Jeremiah 15:19, as cited on the first page of John Bevere’s Thus Saith The Lord? How to know when God is speaking to you through another

“Watch out for fake heads deviled disguised men Arriving from the dawn and spawned with ill forms That'll leave you laying dead in the womb like stillborns”

- Jedi Mind Tricks, “Heavenly Divine,” from the album Violent by Design

“We must put the DDT which destroys parasites, the bearers of disease, on the same level as the Christian religion which wages war on embryonic heresies and instincts, and on evil as yet unborn.”

-Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth

This summer I begged Gillian Rose to tell me what to do. I had learned to disavow the desire to be seen as, to see myself as, a good person. I still wanted to create the conditions under which I could give birth to the person I wanted to be, and I wanted her to show me how. I also prayed. Answers were not forthcoming. Prophecy was contentious in my parents’ church tradition. Was it is about the future or the present? The present in light of the future or the future in light of the present? Was biblical prophecy primarily concerned with things to come or things which have already happened? Perhaps most importantly, how and through whom could God’s will be expressed with the opening qualifier “thus saith the Lord?” One of the first and only theological arguments I had with the woman I married was regarding slavery. I thought Christians should consider themselves slaves, with God as our master. This was non-negotiable. I was God’s property, and that meant desiring earnestly to perform mastery. I couldn’t become God, but I could become his messenger. The thought was enthralling. To desire mastery while insisting that you are a slave. The pleasure of power for those who have disavowed both. The structure of antagonism. I have heard enough parents tell me that they love the children they are abusing to suspect that reality itself is dysphoric. It is not that our desires don’t match onto the desires of others but that, as Paul observed, we do not even want the things we want. Our children, our bodies, our relations do not match themselves or what we think we need from them. We do not understand. Prophecy announced that things are not as they should be. This seemed to match my experience. All that was left to be adjudicated was how things are, how they should be, and the nature of their possible relation. One crude reading was that the way things are is the way we want them to be, the way they should be is how God wants them to be, and the nature of their relation is submission. I didn’t know anyone who wanted things to be the way they are. If we wanted to want something different, we had to remember that God had ordained the world as it actually was. Everything defined by its opposite, non-identical even with itself. The split in reality as the contest between what God wants and what we want. Sometimes the only way to know what God wants is to work backwards, to counterpose what we think as its obvious opposite. What do we actually want? This remains a mystery because our only concern is what God wants. The split exists as a projection, not covering over an underlying unity but positing one, the hope that we can once for all rid the world of its instability, that God can rid us of ourselves. We only wanted the things that God wanted; as it turned out we did not want anything at all. This year I realized that some patterns of life had been or become unlivable. I needed something different. I needed a word from God. Several people in my life had been preparing for such an opportunity, they wanted to encourage me and tell me that God did not want me to be miserable, but also to clarify that the way to be happy was more fully renouncing myself. I felt I had nothing left to renounce but was willing to try. Turn to God, turn away from yourself. But where was God to be found? Not anywhere on heaven or earth, it seemed. God was there, and if you didn’t suspend your powers of judgment and seek an illegible martyrdom, you would be sorry. But I already was. They insisted on a relationship with this God while implicitly asserting its impossibility. Accept the logically unacceptable. Raging against and insisting upon the permanence of melancholy. So lonely with this god, with no escape. This weekend I was in a basement looking for a Casio, looking to express feelings I didn’t understand on an instrument I understood even less. I stopped cold when I saw again the cover to the Manchester Orchestra album I'm Like a Virgin Losing a Child. It stopped me in my tracks as I remembered. Two things in particular I remember about that album: 1) the songs all sort of sound the same because they sort of are 2) listening and being sad about everything, about what I was and what I wasn’t, feeling loss and guilt without the pleasure of newness or promise, like my situation was indescribably special. It wasn’t, but I didn’t know that. I barely knew I had a situation. The way I came to recognize it was in misrecognizing the pain. I began with that album to mourn my inability to mourn. I felt I needed something else, and I did. The woman on that cover looks like she needs a word from the Lord, but might be the only person in the room, besides the camera.

“The archival photograph is a time-stamped, carceral text.”- Zoé Samudzi

This weekend I thought about prophecy and remembered Bevere’s book. Its basic argument is that if we do not learn to separate true from false, we will not know what God is saying, and without a vision we will perish. It is thick with talk of eradicating disease, pollutants, corruption, defilement; the story of Hagar and Ishmael is a metaphor for the ontological split between promise and flesh, or between the flesh which does or does not possess promise. Christians in Bevere’s account should be the paradigmatic racial scientists. A Christianity premised on distinctions, which can ultimately make none; Christianity as the police.

In 2005 Jus Allah released his solo debut album All Fates Have Changed. I found it enthralling. He opens by declaring that he is “beyond measure” and “supreme authority over the universe.” That felt good to sing along with, even though I knew he wasn’t talking about me. I was a young white dude in Manchester,New Hampshire, but I could pretend. He was “a runaway slave with back scars” and an “immaculate being.” The white devils who hurt him would come to be sorry. He promised to “release aggression…explode like atomic weapons…Go into deep spells of demonic possession.” He has words for all his enemies: “Y'all corny motherfuckers sound repetitive, it’s safe to say, I'm the smartest man that's ever lived. I am negative, I will kill a relative.” What else is Jus Allah? “pure darkness, sparkless, glitterless, imageless, but still infinitely limitless… placed on the planet just to cause problems… from the master race exactly, God of the planet, boss of the factory.” He is contradictory. He tells us that tomorrow never comes, and why it cannot: “My stomach got young dead orphans in it; I eat from trash cans at abortion clinics.”

“the blackened-not-blackened fetus is stuck—suspended between a blackness whose freedom cannot commence and cannot be withstood, a blackness that cannot be born and cannot be borne.” -Jared Sexton

Prophecy is the negotiation of power and knowledge which shape conditions for life in the world. Prophecy can be a matter of opening or closing possibilities. I do not want to undersell the apparent strangeness of the behaviors at the church services where I met God, nor the extent to which this strangeness was performance of a denial of difference. You could speak up in protest, directed towards the Other outside and in yourself. In the end, every word from God must be an affirmation, an encouragement.

This essay is not about prophecy but about my relation to it. I grew up knowing that meaning implies domination, and that man’s search for it required acceptance of roles of master and slave, of Man, that to resist domination required an end to the possibility of even provisional meaning. Prophecy could be a way of ensuring that everyone can live or determining who must not. The prophecy to which I found myself attracted was an aborted negativity. Negativity insofar as it recognized that things were wrong, but a negativity which ultimately aspired to be content with itself as God, to a heavenly place in the world whose gates could eventually be shut. Negativity as the problem which required the promise of prophecy to solve.

Prophecy was a way of denying the obvious: “a disaster's a disaster no matter what Christian language you drag it through.” It was like my divorce: a split produced by the desire for wholeness and the repression of an originary split. One thing I knew for sure was that I shouldn’t follow my own agenda, but instead God’s. One thing I could not have known is that God did not have one, and neither did I, and that if I could not have the split I thought I wanted, I could at least try to know the one I had.

“Our historic mission is to sanction all revolts, all desperate actions, all those abortive attempts drowned in rivers of blood.” -Frantz Fanon

How was I to know when God’s agenda came to earth? “Your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.” As a young child I was haunted by night terrors. Animals at night, outside my window, usually on the neighbor’s roof. I could not resist looking out the window at them. I was not afraid of what they would do to me. They just watched. I was afraid of them because of what they knew. White nightmares. I could not rest.

Everyone knows that immaculate conceptions are impossible, that they are only possible with God, and that the eventual experience of premature death is really another part of his plan. When something feels wrong, you may want a word from God. But prophecy is like an army of locusts. Who can endure it?

(What helped me write this: Amaryah Armstrong, Alex Haley, Gil Anidjar, other readers of Lacan)

0 notes