Humans Begin Invading Asgard!

Hans-Georg Moeller: Religion and the Masses' Opiums

On Profilicity: The Secular Individual's Opium (...or better, Digital Ecstasy):

...Curating Our 'True' Online Self-Profiles with Profilicity  @@

...and altering the structures and flows of repression and desire within ourselves

Pondering the Post-Modern Self: On Cracking the Code!

...Where not even the real You can live up to Your Online Profile (the Advert for You the "Product"), because it's more real than real!  It's HYPER-real!

We're ALL Becoming Visceral!

Somehow, I don't think that this was what Nietzsche was going for when he described the emergence of UberMensch or  a 'G-d that could Dance'!  It's more like the post-Last Man!

The Late-Capitalist Discourse has progressed from issuing an imperative "injunction to Enjoy" to an imperative "injunction to experience perpetual Ecstasy"!

No wonder we're all so FOMO!  No wonder so many wish we could Sever our real Working Selves from Our Hyper-real Non-Working Lives

No Wonder Our Real Working Selves Burn-Out Supporting Our Non-Working Hyper-real Lives!

One of Elvira's Forbidden Stories...

...and an excerpt from the Jowett summary of  Plato's "Cratylus":

“Well, but I have just given up Protagoras, and I should be inconsistent in going to learn of him.” Then if you reject him you may learn of the poets, and in particular of Homer, who distinguishes the names given by Gods and men to the same things, as in the verse about the river God who fought with Hephaestus, “whom the Gods call Xanthus, and men call Scamander;” or in the lines in which he mentions the bird which the Gods call “Chalcis,” and men “Cymindis;” or the hill which men call “Batieia,” and the Gods “Myrinna’s Tomb.” Here is an important lesson; for the Gods must of course be right in their use of names. And this is not the only truth about philology which may be learnt from Homer. Does he not say that Hector’s son had two names—

“Hector called him Scamandrius, but the others Astyanax”?

Now, if the men called him Astyanax, is it not probable that the other name was conferred by the women? And which are more likely to be right—the wiser or the less wise, the men or the women? Homer evidently agreed with the men: and of the name given by them he offers an explanation;—the boy was called Astyanax (“king of the city”), because his father saved the city. The names Astyanax and Hector, moreover, are really the same,—the one means a king, and the other is “a holder or possessor.” For as the lion’s whelp may be called a lion, or the horse’s foal a foal, so the son of a king may be called a king. But if the horse had produced a calf, then that would be called a calf. Whether the syllables of a name are the same or not makes no difference, provided the meaning is retained. For example; the names of letters, whether vowels or consonants, do not correspond to their sounds, with the exception of epsilon, upsilon, omicron, omega. The name Beta has three letters added to the sound—and yet this does not alter the sense of the word, or prevent the whole name having the value which the legislator intended. And the same may be said of a king and the son of a king, who like other animals resemble each other in the course of nature; the words by which they are signified may be disguised, and yet amid differences of sound the etymologist may recognise the same notion, just as the physician recognises the power of the same drugs under different disguises of colour and smell. Hector and Astyanax have only one letter alike, but they have the same meaning; and Agis (leader) is altogether different in sound from Polemarchus (chief in war), or Eupolemus (good warrior); but the two words present the same idea of leader or general, like the words Iatrocles and Acesimbrotus, which equally denote a physician. The son succeeds the father as the foal succeeds the horse, but when, out of the course of nature, a prodigy occurs, and the offspring no longer resembles the parent, then the names no longer agree.

On the Death of "The Capitalist Discourse" Under "Late Capitalism"

....more on Capitalism's Tale of Unrequited Desire from the Physician

ps - the video author says that there are 2 sides in the battle.  There are WAY MORE than two.  She also doesn't seem to realize the nature of the "lawless" advancement of technology, that Technology typically precedes the Legal System and opens up new frontiers to be subsequently codified.  Law is a "lagging" indicator of social "progress".  And the division of labour long ago created a division of learning.  What else are college degree's and commercial/ professional licenses?  The question is more one of Intellectual Property and Proprietary Practices.

On Felix Guattari's "Cinema of Desire"

How do we Control and Contextualize Desire?

Selected video excerpt (starting @ 7:40)

:...Guattari believes that in order to understand a history of Desire one also has to understand a history of repression, because repression is necessary in order to structure desire into specific organizations. This is what he believes Cinema's main function is to be, to organize desire through structures of repression, created and mass produced through images. By mass producing these images that construct systems of representation and repression, machines can organize the desires of an entire Society.

So what are the consequences of mass producing these representations like a printer? Guattari believes that the production of representations through these Cinemas is a function that is both a consequence and a means to maintain power in societies. Think about in the example of Plato's Cave, the people looking at the Shadows are completely subject to what representations they produce. This controls their behavior, activities and actions, and most importantly, keeps them in the cave continuing to watch the machine that produces the representations in the shadows.

Guattari cites Oswald Ducrot pointing out that language is not just a means of communication, but also a means of executing power. But how can words have such strong power? Guattari didn't think that words themselves were what had power over material things. That would be kind of like saying if you said words, then you could materialize anything, and obviously, this is not how the real world works. Rather he believed that the words were part of a larger machine that produced many other things that altogether produced a structure that directs flows of power. That is, it isn't language that writes out the law, but rather law is what assembles the language. Instead of saying things and having them materialize into Power, the speech is part of a larger system in which parts that are spoken and parts that have no signifying components all work together to organize power. So since everything we understand is organized and arranged by these structures of power, where things like language are a result of its' actions rather than the reason for it, this means that reality and pleasure can't just be understood in a broad sense, because both our understanding of reality and pleasure are both structured by these organizations of power.

Instead, Guattari states that we have to analyze what he calls "a principle of dominant reality" and "a principle of licit pleasure." The dominant reality organizes everything we understand into a particular paradigm. And licit pleasure is what kinds of pleasure we are allowed to extract from that kind of reality. Desire is forced through these structures created, between this dominant reality and incit pleasures through various authoritarian forces in our lives, ranging from schools, to the workplace, hospitals, and Guattari's emphasis (of course), the movies.

Now remember what I said about how these structures repress desire so that it's shoved into the proper places? It's through this intense repression that desire is forced into an obsession with the boundary between what is allowed, and what is taboo. It keeps hyper-fixating on things that disgust it, but it can't look away, because it continues to extract pleasure from its boundaries by identifying these new kinds of pleasures and subjecting it back to the dominant reality in a manner similar to asceticism and other self- denialist practices. This way, all these new experiences are submitted to the codes of the dominant reality. This is how Guattari believed what he called "Capitalist Eros" worked.

Ah, great, now he's dropping another term, "Capitalist Eros." It might help us to better understand what Capitalist Eros means in the context of psychoanalysis. See, according to Freudian Theory there are these things called drives, which can be kind of thought of as a general tendency for desire to go in One Direction or another. Eros is another name for the "Life Drive", which is associated with a desire for constructive activity such as socialization or reproduction. Its' counterpart is Thanatos, the "Death Drive", which is associated with desire for self-destruction, such as risky behavior.

Capitalist Eros then is the Eros that is applied to the economy, a libidinal economy where we can analyze the transactions of Desire within the context of Capitalist mechanisms. Essentially Guattari is explaining how Capitalism desires to reproduce itself. See, you can't just make people go to work for you to build a massive Society by telling them to do so, nobody's going to do that willingly. So what do you do? You make them want to work for you!

Desire is always trying to escape this repression, so Society needs to continue to adapt to capture these escapes through new, more detailed repressions. This means that in order for Capitalism to reproduce itself, it needs to reproduce the Capitalist Subject in the heart of every person. To make each and every one of us the ideal agent that so many Capitalist economists speak of.

To do this, Capitalism reproduces models of organizing our desire, constructing relations to how we want to position ourselves in society, what we want to consume, and how we want to love. These models are launched into viral circulation through media. Guattari states, "Capitalist Eros launches these models in the same way the automobile industry launches a new line of cars. And the essential function being embedded in every subjectivity? In order to love something, you must own it. The fundamental equation is, 'enjoyment equals possession'." This limits the way that people can express their desire through pleasure, by conceptualizing it through the hierarchy produced by ownership, and a love for productivity for the sake of productivity.

Essentially capitalism doesn't want workers to think they're workers. It wants workers to think that they're little individualist Bourgeoisie, too. It wants them to think that every little interaction is a transaction to extract value in, to screw someone else over. Instead of valuing the work of a trade, such as one that may have been passed down generation to generation, laborers are deterritorialized. Having their subject broken apart so that they are reterritorialized into a new form. They become a commodity directed by their careers, and the continuous development of Technology, on the automation of work. The relationship that workers have to labor adapts and evolves to adapt to the continuous leaks of Desire, by breaking apart the laborer into a multiplicity of new pressures, directed by their relations to production and reproduction. As a result a lot of emphasis is placed on how subjectivity is shaped to various social relations, such as those to work, school, play, and love. This way, Capitalism can produce subjectivities that direct and control the development of all facets of life. Specifically, Guattari emphasizes that Capitalism migrates subjectivities that are grounded in material circumstances towards more abstract, artificial forms. Which I suspect might be because of the continuous increased alienation produced by this continuous deterritorialization between the modes of production and consumption.

This brings us back to the discussion of Cinema. Remember how Guattari said that there were a bunch of different kinds of Cinema? Well all sorts of types of Cinema produced by different kinds of media and social interactions like television, the movies, the press, and now video games and social media act as physical machines that mass-produce subjectivity through each and every consumer collectively producing a dominant reality. Media isn't just a means to communicate, to Guattari they are instruments of power. This can be clearly seen in the current postmodern era where the influence of repressive semiotic regimes, such as reactionary meme culture, Mass micro advertising campaigns with Precision targeting, and the propaganda embedded in video games and movies of the 2000s and 2010s on the internet influences the flows of modern politics, perhaps too too frightening of an extent.

And because these machines direct the flows of power, they direct libido, or the directional flows of Desire. Media in information influences what we want to be, and exists as a mean to assert power. Not just from the raw profits of mass media, but more importantly, through the production of the mass-produced models of subjectivity.

Back when Guattari wrote this, and even now 50 years later in the postmodern era, Media acts as a repressive Force embedding the right ways to enjoy pleasure. It normalizes certain ways of life and makes us collectively think, "this is the way to live". When it's mass-produced in big studios funded with millions of dollars, mass-produced images really can't afford to risk revolutionary imagery that would dismantle its own sources of power. However, Technologies were being introduced in the 1960s that completely changed this situation. The Super8 camera was a consumer grade video camera that could be used to film short movies. Typically used for home video Guattari marks that it has fantastic potential to portray political messages. Instead of forcing a political message into a block of text which may be hard to convey, it can convey ideas much more precisely and directly, through non-linguistic relations displayed on the screen. Being produced on such a small scale allows for micropolitical narratives to be produced and potentially become viral. Something that grows even more possible within the era of social media.

In the current Day, cell phone footage has remarkably important political implications, such as when police brutality is captured on camera. To counteract this deterritorialized media, the State reacts by trying to suppress the recording of such incidents, whether legally or Not, by the officers trying to force people to delete the evidence to maintain media narratives. However, as with any repressive cop there are still means of Escape. When a cell phone camera is carefully propped to look like it is not conspicuously recording, as if one is playing a video game, it may not attract the attention of police officers who may otherwise request to delete it. As a result, the way that we understand the real world is not etched in stone. It can be changed.

And reality is not just a universality, but is situated in a time place and social awareness. This means that, as Guattari puts it, the order of the real has nothing to do with Destiny, one can change it. We are not beholden to one particular way of observing reality.

To demonstrate his point, he is interested in analyzing the structure of three signifying systems systems that organize the order of the real. These are totalitarian systems, psychoanalysis, and structuralism. These systems in particular are chosen because Guattari believes that they are sequential developments of each other, with each being a more deterritorialized form than the last.

What do I mean by this? Well first, let's look at totalitarian systems. These are systems where you have a strict relationship with an authoritarian figure, such as a God, the church, or the State. What's important here is that power is focused around a particularly centralizing Force. This creates a specific signifying regime that focuses around that specific figure, where all of reality converges around it like a giant black hole, and all desire must try to be captured within its' structural boundaries.

However Guattari believed that at the time of his own writing, this isn't how the libidinal economy of the world actually worked anymore. It had developed past this point. Instead, it worked more around a flexible network of signifying nodes, like what we see in psychoanalysis. In psychoanalysis, these nodes are the mother, the father, and the child. The relationships between these three construct all possible relations through the development of the Oedipus complex, which Freudian psychoanalysis believe produces a wide range of neurosis and sexual deviancy. Essentially all relations are now reduced to the relationships, between the self and the family.

The example that Guattari uses is the "Little Hans Case" that Freud brings up. Little Hans was a little boy who was afraid of horses. His dad, who was a fan of Freud's theories, discussed with Freud what could possibly be the issue.

Hmmm, so uh how do I explain this without being demonetized?

Okay, basically Freud concluded that the reason why Hans was scared of horses is because the horse represented Hans's father. "Why" you might ask? Well, because Hans secretly wanted to sleep with his mother but he was afraid of being castrated by his father. As a result, he was scared of the horse because the horse has a huge ..., just like his dad, and appeared to have a mustache, just like his dad. So clearly, the solution was to make Hans have a big ... and sleep with his mother, so that he could just be like his dad and resolve the Oedipus complex.

Yes, I am serious. I am not making this [ __ ] up. I know it's extremely weird.

Guattari, like many of you watching this, objects to this conclusion. He points out the Absurd conclusion is a result of trying to force the situation into the perspective of the Oedipus complex, which clearly favors the interpretation of the father who was already biased towards Freud's theories. What about the experiences of the mother and the child? The mother's narratives are completely submitted to the father's interpretation of the situation, a clear assertion of phallocratic power. And the child is assigned a narrative about wanting to sleep with his mother and kill his father just to make sense of his fear of horses in the context of the Oedipus complex.

Guattari argues that it's not something fundamental to the structure of psychoanalysis that creates the Oedipus complex, but rather social and historical factors that lead to the production of the complex. And he emphasizes how it is produced this way to create artificial consistency in the concept of the family within capitalism. the Screwed Up thing is is because the edus complex our relationship with childhood is completely different than in more traditional Societies. in the past children were essentially free to do whatever they wanted until social initiation. however the reinforcement of the edus complex socially means that child are being initiated at birth, with having every aspect of the child and mother's development under close surveillance through psychology, education, and other social apparatuses. Everything about growing up is now under an analytic microscope.

The Oedipus complex is pervasive, but Guattari points out that all the details are too static to really capture everything. So Capitalism must keep going and continue to deterritorialize the model. This time, instead of having relations between static objects, the development is more towards an abstract relation of "signs" found in structuralist analysis, such as those seen in the work of Guattari's former teacher, Jacques Lacan, whom I will admit, I'm still quite challenged by.

Now, some of you might be thinking, "Lacan, that guy? Isn't he that guy who said something about the Tourist being like a neurotic or something?"

Well yes, but no, but yes, but actually no. See Lacan was complicated as a theorist, but the problem with his work, according to Guattari, wasn't necessarily that he used mathematical terms wrong. In fact, it really doesn't make much of a difference because Guattari is more interested in the very concept of trying to represent the world through an abstract signifying regime.

This approach to analysis broke apart the symbols in psychoanalysis even further to attempt to be complete abstractions that relate to each other based on completely artificial forms. Structuralism thought it was creating a generic language to be able to analyze anything. But according to it, really only moved psychoanalysis from the couch to the screen in the form of film analysis. He doesn't really discuss an indepth criticism of Structuralism here, he's already written enough on that elsewhere, but he does remind everyone of how natural codes can't be reduced to these Structuralist forms. As any geneticist will tell you, genetic code is definitely not like a language. In fact, natural codes also come embedded with parts that are not signified at all, which Guattari calls asignifying, such as visual spatial relationships in art, auditory relations in music, speech, and sound, and the complex logical relations expressed in mathematics, where relationships extend beyond abstract objects.

Another example that he uses to critique this Structuralism, is that there are pre- signifying semiologies, such as pre-Capital societies and the subjectivity of insane people and children, who do not necessarily organize themselves around language-based relationships but can construct meaningful relationships through everything from their bodily movements to sound, gesture, and dance. In comparison, Capitalist expression is reduced into acceptable outputs expressed by dominant meanings. A psychotic person moving their body erratically is not seen as an expression of Desire, but as a threat that needs to be suppressed by the police.

Structuralist analysis pretends to be neutral in its' analysis, but it's very privileging of linguistic objects limits any ability to do so, by again subjecting all activity into a particular Paradigm of relationships.

Currently, the machines of Cinema are used to reinforce the current dominant reality of Capitalism and a cult of possession. In this state they aren't capable of producing much outside of continuing to replicate the dominant reality. However, the power of Cinema is not based merely on the fact that is repeating this dominant reality, but really, that the various aspects of the film such as the framing, actors, camera lenses, and every other choice made in pre-production, production, and post-production, all come together and produce special kinds of Semiotic machines without having a language in particular at all. Instead of being like a language, it is the barrage of sensory experiences produced by the particular arrangement of complex components interacting with each other that ultimately produces the experience of watching a film, and what kind of influence it is capable of producing in the viewer. Cinema in particular, beyond just Languages by itself, has a unique ability to continuously evolve new forms of expression which allows it to adapt to the continuous deterritorialization of pleasure in societies, as mentioned earlier.

Capitalism is able to use these developments to capture and develop evenfurther, more refined and calculated cinematic machines to continue consumer engagement, such as the development of mass-produced media in the 2010s about various minorities. While the production of these films did give employment to minorities and secured both useful roles on their resumés and access to higher classes in society, they exist ultimately to reinforce the dominant reality is a Capitalism, allowing only for the most minimally subversive critiques.

For a particularly in-depth example, Erudite Critic released an excellent video titled, "Why Pixar's Elemental gets Racism Wrong", where they explain how Elemental's exploration of racism can never go beyond a surface level analysis. Where the impact of colonialism and immigration are never truly analyzed in a material context. It's not through the script of the film that produces these repeated constructs, but rather relationships between the characters, their designs, and the way that the art is designed to reinforce symbols seen in real life, correlated with various racial themes.

To better understand what capacities are possible, Guattari cites the film critic Christian Mintz, who states:

"The breadth of the semiotic fabric is a consequence of two distinct causes whose effects are cumulative. On one hand, Cinema encompasses a code language in the Talkies, whose presence itself would be enough to authorize semantic information in the most varied type. Second, other elements of the filmic text, for example, images are themselves languages, whose matter of content has no precise boundaries."

What's important here too, is that film can express content in all sorts of ways beyond just language. With specific examples he cites here, as such as the tonal quality of speech, Instruments, music and Melody, painting and scene construction, the highlights and shadows of black and white photography, and the movements and gestures of the human body.

Guattari then turns to semiotician Umberto Ecco, who points out that Cinema could not be reduced to a system of double articulation, a binary split. See, Cinema doesn't produce meaning because the intersection of two binary axis' between syntax and grammar, and paradigms and representations. Rather, the complex semiotic relationships are produced secondarily, by the processes that produce the film itself. To Guattari, the reason why silent films may feel like they can express a wide range of Desire is not because they are capable of less expression, but because their expression is not modeled into a structure of dominant significations yet.

Think about how as both movies and video games gained more technological power, more Fidelity in their graphics and special effects, that they were able to more cleanly and accurately produce the Capitalist representations, to produce its' dominant reality. Which may be why many in-game developers and film directors deliberately try to use alternative means of expression, especially reaching out to more primitive imagery and user interface design.

Likewise, the mass distribution molecularization of Cinema in the form of Television, a development rapidly accelerating in the time of this piece's writing, subjected cinematic images to the formula of commercial film. Here Guattari makes an interesting point through all of this regarding the freedom of expression. To Guattari, the freedom of speech that Libertarians advocate so heavily for is missing a big part of the equation. After all, just freely opening the gates means that one will continue to repeat the same repressions that they were taught previously, merely deterritorialized and unconscious. Rather, he believes that what is more important is what redirection of flows of desire in the libidinal economy of Cinema can produce.

Look at an example like South Park. South Park became popular because of its raw obscenity and offensiveness, something that audiences have never seen before and desired for desperately. But is South Park's commentary on society really truly subversive? In most cases it appears to reinforce the liberal centralist "we're all stupid" mentality, and resorts to falling back to the status quo. Rarely does South Park actually make commentary that challenges its' audience to produce new lines of thinking+.

The development of the Capitalist Eros and its' influences on the libidinal economy, the bubbling new Pleasures that form on the border of dominant representations in licit pleasure is key to understanding the core problem Guattari is trying to get at. How this Eros creates new forms of pleasure to continue to capture all desire within its boundaries. It tries to codify all desires into abstract forms that can be controlled through binary Flows. In This sense, Desiring production can't be separated from social production, because capitalism will try to convert free roaming desire back into its' paradigms to extract free work and possible Surplus Value. Repeating a politics that both re encloses on itself, reinforcing the position of the self in the relation to hierarchies, as well as repeating an attitude of acceptance of the status quo that somehow these developments are destined and natural.

But desire, unlike Eros, is not structured by codes and laws. Remember, desire is like the state of the game before it's converted into all those structuralist paradigms that determine where the desire ends up. It exists before it's cut and divided up by structures of sex, the family, and Society. It just wants to do what it wants to do, and desire comes first. All structures that are seemingly imposed by it are a product of Desiring production, similar to how when you start a video game abstract structures in memory form representing different aspects of the game. Desire exists before love, psychology, language, and even the laws of nature as we understand them. Guattari then points to children and psychotic people to demonstrate how desire can look without being heavily codified by Society yet, the free association with any kind of love with any other kind of love. Completely unbound by the relationship between the Sexes, or family. Guattari States: 

"It does not respect the ritual games of the war between the Sexes. It is not sexual, it is transsexual."

He doesn't mean that all love is transgender. Rather, he means something more broad. All love goes beyond the Sexes. That love can be something that goes beyond CIS heteronormative expectations like what you see in a Disney movie.

Guattari continues, "Nothing essential leads to the subjugation of the child, the woman, or the homosexual." In a word, it is not centered on dominant significations and values. It participates in open, as signifying semiotics available for better or worse. Nothing depends here on Destiny, but on Collective Arrangements in action.

In conclusion, Cinema has the power to repress desire, to reinforce the Capitalist Eros and libidinal economy. Or, it has the power to potentially liberate it. This Liberation goes beyond just allowing for the offensive. It's about a deliberate influence on the flows of Desire through Cinema, whether it be at the movies, or nowadays in video games, or on social media. There is no real structure that separates social and sexual themes. There is no politics without eroticism, or the other way around, it's all interconnected. Cinema is always political, because whenever it produces and analyzes the figure of a man, woman, child, animal, or any other subject, it produces a set of relations that carry out political implications with it. Something particularly obvious in racist propaganda films, such as "a Birth of a Nation". Repression in films is not about trying to suppress erotic or offensive imagery, but rather repressing images that challenge the status quo of the production of Capitalist Eros.

Guattari wraps it all up with the following:

"In every production, in every sequence, in every frame, a choice is made between a conservative economy of desire and a revolutionary breakthrough. The more a film is conceived and produced according to the relations of production or modeled on capitalist Enterprise, the more chance there is of participating in the libidinal economy of the system. Yet no Theory can furnish the keys to a correct orientation in this domain. One can make a film having life in a Convent as its theme that puts the Revolutionary libido in motion. One can make a film in defense of Revolution that is fascist from the point of view of the economy of desire. In The Last Resort, what will be determinant in the political and aesthetic plane is not the words and the contents of ideas, but essentially asignifying messages that escape dominant semiology."

Rewritten as "The Lion King" and released in 1994...

What's Buried UNDER the Pyramids at Giza?

 ...Beats me!

Quantum Chewiness: Does Quantum Entropy Explain Gravity?

Grab a Bowl of Popcorn, or some Euclidean Instantons to find out!

I wonder if they sell Foamy Cubits in this Theatre's concession stand?

Quantum Genesis: One (or Two) More of Many?

Are Euclidean Instantons the "Big Pop"?

In Medias Res! The Deleuzian Universe!

The Physics Community Reacts to Kumar's Proposal...