|
PatrickCroninThirdPaper 11 - 09 Jul 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | * [Redo in progress. I'm redoing this essay over the next two days. I wrote the first draft in a hurry at the end of the semester with very little time, and I'm not happy with it. In the past I've done my work on a word processor and then imported it into the wiki all at once. This time I'm going to try working mostly on the wiki, so it may look a little ragged.] | | | The Key to All Mythologies -- A Confession of Delusions of Grandeur
"You don't have to change the world." -- Eben during one of our last classes
The Dream | |
<
< | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He dissolved the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic instance of a spontaneous movement by a group of people, but more mundane examples exist. Take the daily work of the entertainment industry, exemplified by the life and death of Michael Jackson. Or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In each of these cases its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people came to Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. They gather simply to see and hear about "The King of Pop". These people see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson. They're moved by him for whatever reason. | >
> | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He dissolved the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic movement by a group of people, but more mundane examples exist. Take the substance of the entertainment industry, exemplified by the life and death of Michael Jackson. In both these examples its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people watched Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. These people see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson. They're moved by him, but it would be hard to explain why. | | | | |
<
< | In each of these examples, there are also people that, while they don't participate in collective desires, know how to control them. They destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). | >
> | In each of these examples there are other people that, while they don't participate in collective desires, know how to control them. They destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). | | | | |
<
< | Think of the power I would have if I could understand how mobs worked! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires and inhibitions -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once intensely personal and collective. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world. | >
> | Think of the power I would have if I could understand how mobs worked! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires and inhibitions -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once intensely personal and collective. If I could understand how this process worked, then I could change the world. | | | Black Holes | |
<
< | Something basic to human nature is happening here -- some herd-mentality that lies dormant in everyone. In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?". I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. The idea is, since this is something so basic, then I simply need to get a handle on it and then I can wield it. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world. | >
> | Something basic to human nature is happening here -- some herd-mentality that lies dormant in everyone. In searching for the mechanism to explain collective desire, I've been drawn to what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?". I studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. The idea is that since this herd-behavior is so fundamental, I simply need to get a handle on it and then the steps I need to take to harness it will fall into place naturally. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world. | | | | |
<
< | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that his theory is a variation of an old theory I adopted in high-school: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. | >
> | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that his theory is a variation of an old theory I adopted in high-school: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) there must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. | | | | |
<
< | But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they say they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | >
> | But looking at what these theories actually do, rather than what they say they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), it becomes clear that Grand-Unified-Theories that try to reduce the world to one fundamental process, be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | | | Other People
The desire to change the world, all by myself that is, is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. | |
<
< | So how to think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean to not have to change the world all on your own? Let me start by rethinking the phenomenon I was trying to understand in the first place. The spontaneous desire formed in crowds is first of all a desire to be with other people, and to feel that other people exist. It is also the desire to feel the inherent power that is present in a mass of people. So I don't have to change the world, but the world still needs to be changed -- and it is only going to be changed by a lot of people. The task then, is to participate in a movement, rather than to control one. | >
> | So how to think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean to not have to change the world all on your own? Let me start by rethinking the phenomenon I was trying to understand in the first place. The spontaneous desire formed in crowds is first of all a desire to be with other people and to feel that other people exist. It is also the desire to feel the inherent power that is present in a mass of people. So I don't have to change the world, but the world still needs to be changed -- and it is only going to be changed by a lot of people. The task then, is to participate in a movement, rather than to control one. | | |
--PatrickCronin |
|
|
PatrickCroninThirdPaper 10 - 09 Jul 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
| | | The Dream | |
<
< | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He accomplished this dissolving the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic instance of a spontaneous movement by a group of people, but less dramatic and more examples exist. Take the entertainment industry, epitomized by the life and death of Michael Jackson. Or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In each of these cases its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people came to Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. They gather simply to see and hear about "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. | >
> | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He dissolved the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic instance of a spontaneous movement by a group of people, but more mundane examples exist. Take the daily work of the entertainment industry, exemplified by the life and death of Michael Jackson. Or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In each of these cases its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people came to Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. They gather simply to see and hear about "The King of Pop". These people see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson. They're moved by him for whatever reason. | | | In each of these examples, there are also people that, while they don't participate in collective desires, know how to control them. They destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). |
|
|
PatrickCroninThirdPaper 9 - 09 Jul 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
* [Redo in progress. I'm redoing this essay over the next two days. I wrote the first draft in a hurry at the end of the semester with very little time, and I'm not happy with it. In the past I've done my work on a word processor and then imported it into the wiki all at once. This time I'm going to try working mostly on the wiki, so it may look a little ragged.] | |
<
< | The Key to All Mythologies | >
> | The Key to All Mythologies -- A Confession of Delusions of Grandeur | | | "You don't have to change the world." -- Eben during one of our last classes
The Dream | |
<
< | For the last few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up an unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students by dissolving the representative assembly, an action that exposed the divisions in their ranks as they were forced to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! A less dramatic but more omnipresent example of the group-wide production of desire is the music and film industries. | >
> | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He accomplished this dissolving the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic instance of a spontaneous movement by a group of people, but less dramatic and more examples exist. Take the entertainment industry, epitomized by the life and death of Michael Jackson. Or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In each of these cases its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people came to Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. They gather simply to see and hear about "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. | | | | |
<
< | I'm interested in spontaneous desires that form in large groups of people. The two examples I mentioned above illustrate what I mean by the vague term "desire". In each case the crowd wants a nebulous constellation of things. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Michael Jackson is a good example of collective desire captured by the entertainment industry. Millions and millions of people came to his memorial service on the 7th, and new channels spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. What content can we give the desire to see "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason.
There are also people that, while they can't create collective desires, can destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). | >
> | In each of these examples, there are also people that, while they don't participate in collective desires, know how to control them. They destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). | | | Think of the power I would have if I could understand how mobs worked! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires and inhibitions -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once intensely personal and collective. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world.
Black Holes | |
<
< | In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" -- kind of a really big version of What's the Matter with Kansas?. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world. | >
> | Something basic to human nature is happening here -- some herd-mentality that lies dormant in everyone. In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?". I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. The idea is, since this is something so basic, then I simply need to get a handle on it and then I can wield it. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world.
I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that his theory is a variation of an old theory I adopted in high-school: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. | | | | |
<
< | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that I recognize this implicit theory as a disguised version of an old high school theory I had. I thought that it stood to reason that: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they claim they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | >
> | But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they say they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | | | Other People | |
<
< | Linked to the grand-unified theory mentality is the desire to change the world -- by myself that is. This idea is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. And yet the world still needs to be changed. | >
> | The desire to change the world, all by myself that is, is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. | | | | |
<
< | So how do you think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean not to have to change the world all on your own? Well, the world seems more child-like. The unexpected can happen again. It's OK to desire without worrying about what evil forces are creating or exploiting that desire. There are things that I do not know, and that's OK. There's a freedom to try things without completely understanding them yet. Most importantly though, there are other people. If the world is going to change, then they will only be changed by the combined efforts of lot of people. | >
> | So how to think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean to not have to change the world all on your own? Let me start by rethinking the phenomenon I was trying to understand in the first place. The spontaneous desire formed in crowds is first of all a desire to be with other people, and to feel that other people exist. It is also the desire to feel the inherent power that is present in a mass of people. So I don't have to change the world, but the world still needs to be changed -- and it is only going to be changed by a lot of people. The task then, is to participate in a movement, rather than to control one. | | |
--PatrickCronin |
|
|
PatrickCroninThirdPaper 8 - 08 Jul 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
| | | The Dream | |
<
< | I’ve been chasing a dream for the last few years. I've been obsessed with how mobs work. Think of the power I would have if I could get my hands on that piece of knowledge! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once an intensely personal and collective. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where then Prime-Minister Pompidou broke up an coalition of worker's unions and bourgeois students by dissolving the representative assembly, which reminded the members of the coalition of their differences as they were forced to chose representatives. Now there's someone who knew how collectives behaved and how to control them! On a slower and more omnipresent plane, there's the entertainment industry that creates and profits from collective desires through movies and music. | >
> | For the last few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up an unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students by dissolving the representative assembly, an action that exposed the divisions in their ranks as they were forced to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! A less dramatic but more omnipresent example of the group-wide production of desire is the music and film industries. | | | | |
<
< | I understand that there is are a number of differences between these two examples, but nevertheless they are both comprised of two elements: 1) There is a spontaneous desire by a large group of people. Its hard to get more specific than "desire", because in each case the what the crowd wants is a nebulous constellation of things. In the case of 1968, no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't return to work and school after the government gave into what it thought their demands were. For example, one piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." In the case of the entertainment industry, take Michael Jackson. Millions and millions of people came to his memorial service on the 7th, and new channels spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. 2) There are people or organizations that can't create the mass movement, but they can destroy it or shape it so that it becomes profitable for them. They use the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement in the case of May 1968, or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association in the case of Pepsi or MTV. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world and usher in a new age where people's desires where no longer exploited or destroyed. | >
> | I'm interested in spontaneous desires that form in large groups of people. The two examples I mentioned above illustrate what I mean by the vague term "desire". In each case the crowd wants a nebulous constellation of things. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Michael Jackson is a good example of collective desire captured by the entertainment industry. Millions and millions of people came to his memorial service on the 7th, and new channels spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. What content can we give the desire to see "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. | | | | |
<
< | Black Holes | >
> | There are also people that, while they can't create collective desires, can destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson).
Think of the power I would have if I could understand how mobs worked! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires and inhibitions -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once intensely personal and collective. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world. | | | | |
<
< | In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've searched for authors that I thought attempted to create what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" -- kind of a really big version of What's the Matter with Kansas?. But after slogging through Anti-Oedipus and studying parts of Thousand Plateaus, as the authors recommend, and reading more understandable commentators and scholars, I must confess that I'm none the wiser, at least as far as having a clear and practical sense of how collective movements work. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises that there is a rational explanation for everything, and that to get to the bottom of something intellectually is discover your own power to act. So if I could get to the bottom of this problem, then I would know what I needed to do in order to change the world! And yet, here I am and I don't feel that my power to act has increased to the level that would change the world. | >
> | Black Holes | | | | |
<
< | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for that lever that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. The assumption was that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would both free me from the grasp of collective desires and those that exploit them, and allow me to act. I'm embarrassed to say that this implicit theory is a version of a naive belief that I've held for years. When I was younger, I thought that it stood to reason that: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. But if I look at what this theory actually does in the world, rather than what it says it could do, then I see that all grand-unified theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes that suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | >
> | In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" -- kind of a really big version of What's the Matter with Kansas?. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world. | | | | |
<
< | Thought and Other People | >
> | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that I recognize this implicit theory as a disguised version of an old high school theory I had. I thought that it stood to reason that: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they claim they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | | | | |
<
< | Linked to the grand-unified theory mentality is the requirement that I change the world. The idea that I have to “change the world” is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. And yet the world still needs to be changed in many respects. | >
> | Other People | | | | |
<
< | When I remove the desire for a grand-unified-theory and the commandment that I change the world by myself, I'm left with a more child-like world where the unexpected can happen again, and where it's OK to desire without worrying about what evil forces are creating or exploiting that desire. There are things that I do not know, and that's OK. There's a freedom to try things without completely understanding them yet. And most importantly, there are other people. If there are things in the world that are going to be changed, then they will only be changed by a lot of people. Barack Obama rode into office on the collective desire of a lot of people -- not his Columbia or Harvard degree or even his status as President of the Harvard Law Review. | >
> | Linked to the grand-unified theory mentality is the desire to change the world -- by myself that is. This idea is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. And yet the world still needs to be changed. | | | | |
<
< | So where does thought fit into this? What does intelligence look like when its not in the service of a Grand-Unified Theory? Well, to take the example of GUT thought that I started with -- the problem of collective desires -- instead of trying to master it with knowledge, we need to do it. The result of such thought wouldn't be a book that explained everything once and for all, but rather an unending discussion among people that engages collective desires rather than seeking to explain them away or study them "objectively". This is just a speculation right now. | >
> | So how do you think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean not to have to change the world all on your own? Well, the world seems more child-like. The unexpected can happen again. It's OK to desire without worrying about what evil forces are creating or exploiting that desire. There are things that I do not know, and that's OK. There's a freedom to try things without completely understanding them yet. Most importantly though, there are other people. If the world is going to change, then they will only be changed by the combined efforts of lot of people. | | |
--PatrickCronin |
|
|
PatrickCroninThirdPaper 7 - 08 Jul 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
| | | The Dream | |
<
< | I’ve been chasing a dream for the last few years. I've been obsessed with the question of how mobs work. I would have so much power if I could get my hands on that piece of knowledge. There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires -- something like a more detailed understanding of Freud's super-ego that is at once an intensely personal and collective entity. If I could understand how groups of people created collective desires, then I could act intelligently in collective movements. I would be like an ant in Arnold's anthill that understood how it all actually worked. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where Pompidou broke up an coalition of worker's unions and bourgeois students by dissolving the representative assembly, which reminded the members of the coalition of their differences by forcing them to chose representatives. Now there's someone who knew how collectives behaved and how to control them! On a slower and more repetitive plane, there's the entertainment industry that creates and profits from collective desires through movies and music. If I could understand how collectives behaved, I could change the world for better or worse. | >
> | I’ve been chasing a dream for the last few years. I've been obsessed with how mobs work. Think of the power I would have if I could get my hands on that piece of knowledge! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once an intensely personal and collective. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where then Prime-Minister Pompidou broke up an coalition of worker's unions and bourgeois students by dissolving the representative assembly, which reminded the members of the coalition of their differences as they were forced to chose representatives. Now there's someone who knew how collectives behaved and how to control them! On a slower and more omnipresent plane, there's the entertainment industry that creates and profits from collective desires through movies and music. | | | | |
<
< | Black Holes and Other People | >
> | I understand that there is are a number of differences between these two examples, but nevertheless they are both comprised of two elements: 1) There is a spontaneous desire by a large group of people. Its hard to get more specific than "desire", because in each case the what the crowd wants is a nebulous constellation of things. In the case of 1968, no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't return to work and school after the government gave into what it thought their demands were. For example, one piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." In the case of the entertainment industry, take Michael Jackson. Millions and millions of people came to his memorial service on the 7th, and new channels spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. 2) There are people or organizations that can't create the mass movement, but they can destroy it or shape it so that it becomes profitable for them. They use the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement in the case of May 1968, or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association in the case of Pepsi or MTV. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world and usher in a new age where people's desires where no longer exploited or destroyed. | | | | |
<
< | I've been drawn to authors that attempt to create what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" through a materialist philosophy of just about everything. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises that there is a rational explanation for everything. I realize that I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading them -- looking for that lever that will allow me to move the world. In any case, now I feel like someone who's tried to lift way too much without training. My new thesis is that grand-unified theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – are actually black holes that suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | >
> | Black Holes | | | | |
<
< | Linked to the idea that there is a grand-unified theory of any discipline is the notion that if you just knew it, you could change the world. As if there were one switch that you could push that would subvert the entire world order. The idea that I have to “change the world” is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. | >
> | In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've searched for authors that I thought attempted to create what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" -- kind of a really big version of What's the Matter with Kansas?. But after slogging through Anti-Oedipus and studying parts of Thousand Plateaus, as the authors recommend, and reading more understandable commentators and scholars, I must confess that I'm none the wiser, at least as far as having a clear and practical sense of how collective movements work. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises that there is a rational explanation for everything, and that to get to the bottom of something intellectually is discover your own power to act. So if I could get to the bottom of this problem, then I would know what I needed to do in order to change the world! And yet, here I am and I don't feel that my power to act has increased to the level that would change the world. | | | | |
<
< | What Remains of Thought | >
> | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for that lever that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. The assumption was that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would both free me from the grasp of collective desires and those that exploit them, and allow me to act. I'm embarrassed to say that this implicit theory is a version of a naive belief that I've held for years. When I was younger, I thought that it stood to reason that: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. But if I look at what this theory actually does in the world, rather than what it says it could do, then I see that all grand-unified theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes that suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. | | | | |
<
< | So I need to relax and learn to play well with others. | >
> | Thought and Other People | | | | |
>
> | Linked to the grand-unified theory mentality is the requirement that I change the world. The idea that I have to “change the world” is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. And yet the world still needs to be changed in many respects.
When I remove the desire for a grand-unified-theory and the commandment that I change the world by myself, I'm left with a more child-like world where the unexpected can happen again, and where it's OK to desire without worrying about what evil forces are creating or exploiting that desire. There are things that I do not know, and that's OK. There's a freedom to try things without completely understanding them yet. And most importantly, there are other people. If there are things in the world that are going to be changed, then they will only be changed by a lot of people. Barack Obama rode into office on the collective desire of a lot of people -- not his Columbia or Harvard degree or even his status as President of the Harvard Law Review.
So where does thought fit into this? What does intelligence look like when its not in the service of a Grand-Unified Theory? Well, to take the example of GUT thought that I started with -- the problem of collective desires -- instead of trying to master it with knowledge, we need to do it. The result of such thought wouldn't be a book that explained everything once and for all, but rather an unending discussion among people that engages collective desires rather than seeking to explain them away or study them "objectively". This is just a speculation right now. | | | | |
<
< | Of course, I don’t need to give up on thought either. Simply belonging to a group that claims to like justice doesn’t necessarily make justice happen. Labeling what I do or what I want to do “public interest” doesn’t make it good either. | | | --PatrickCronin | | | Patrick - I too think that there is much to learn here. I think that the turn away from 'grand theories of everything' is very productive. A rejection of grand unifying theories is one of the underpinnings of the Pragmatism movement itself, which formed the foundation of much of the early reading this semester. If you are looking for curious pieces on group thinking and how it gets manipulated, I would recommend Bill Wasik's article describing how and why he invented flash mobs. There is a link here but Harpers charges for content so I would go to a library and get the March 2006 issue; the article is short. The world is changed by small courageous acts, not by grand unified theories.
--AndrewCase, 8 July 2009 | |
>
> | Thanks for the support. Anja, I'm not sure how we can maintain our ability to act intelligently in groups. There's probably not a simply answer. But I don't think the answer is to completely forgo group thinking. I just don't think that that is something we can do. I think that we are inevitably part of a social body, and if we cut ourselves off from it in the name of reason or intelligence we will die. So the answer must lie within the group itself. Perhaps the distinction is between good and bad group thinking. I wonder what kind of horrible but subtle change in the way those farmers communicated caused them to kill their neighbors.
Andrew, I'll take a look at that article. Just looked at Wikipedia on Flash Mobs. Looks interesting.
--PatrickCronin, 8 July 2009 |
|
|