Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:25:55 -0700 From: ".+oot8am wakeup" <dr.crawboney-AT-gmail.com> To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: Re: [D-G] The Anti-Ordipe is so to say "Neurobiology" pur ++++++++++ Hi, the parallels I find between your captioned history of iraq and the issue concerning "agency" of joy/sadness is surprizing. First there is the ethical context to consider "arms and arms" which is literal, then to continue inward inside the mind there is "states and states". There are more, but I cannot get into to it, so now I'll jump in here to the main point: BWO. While I know the BWO to be neuro-material, I must point out that it is not the material which makes up "a brain", but actually a "body", that is the body of combined brains... they are the assembleges of neuro-materials. So instead of looking at an inward psychology, I continue to see the rhyzomatic social character of this assembled BWO to be the main agency of joy/sadness. So when the social skeleton does not move by command of the mind there is a certain sadness felt as if for the loss of limbs. when I ponder: "why would I want to know 'How to fabricate a BWO"? I also look to this same foucault as you suggest, but I hear him shouting loudly that I am reading a 'guide to anti-fascism'. I don't see the BWO serving to better "internal perception" at all - acting like "breaks" for lower neuro-momentum. Instead, it is specifically fabricated to allow for social agency as opposed to conformity. this is how the BWO directly addresses the problem of hegemony and the ability to feel joy w/o participating in the singular grim heirarchy of society's skeleton after it has been cannibalized by order of the megamachine. When you say "it is not so difficult", I begin to watch myself so I don't conflating the terms of depression with sadness and then go equating sadness with non-agency. While it is certain to say this for clinical depression, sadness deserves another category altogether. Then at what point can the finer catagories begin to acknowledge ubergrief? despite what may have been read about areas of the brain that trigger addiction, the brain is not a logicboard where one can find specific areas that correspond to specific functionality. yes, there are certain areas where bottlenecking occurs (typically in the hypocampus) but the brain is a semi-liquid substance, like jello, and its functionality is highly integrated to withstand damage and loss. how easy it is for persuasive theories of T4 receptors to forget. The neuro-mechanisms for broadly defined experiences like "joy" are supercritical and cannot be pushed in like a button b/c it is an assemblege of chemicals that determines its significance, not just one. I refer to the example of dopamine. with many narcotics, once the joy has passed, one is left feeling sadness - no doubt from an internal neuro-chemical over-compensation, & here is a feedback clue. But something additional has happened: the agency of action has been spent internally burning calories on that chemical anemnesis with external causes: addiction. can I speak of cultural addiction yet? The cause of this sadness is much like an alienation of the self which leads to a spiraling chain reaction of symptoms stunting everything from neurogenisis to sense perception to sexual drive etc... this is not joyous. there are many theories on learning that support the general idea of a two-fold process especially in learning birdsongs (and prime numbers too). There is always a first stage of noisy chaotic failure for the young bird that serves as feedback information. This stage establishes a scope/horizon of play that does not result in social agency but only in internal calibration with the projected sounds. The second part of the learning process designates when the birdy can perform his song with controlled variation according to success like an adult. Now, if I am supposed to believe that joy=agency, it would have to be on these kinds of terms, that 2nd stage with the joyous potential for mating perhaps. But its the 1st stage that is so interesting because of the feedback. What is happening? If the feedback sounds ring false, compounding negatively and thereby impressing sadness, then the birdy does not identify and looses agency within that particular scope of noise, hopefully not leading to the repetition of the false song. But if the feedback sounds ring true, compounding positively and thereby impressing joy, then the birdy identifies and gains agency for repeating the song and entering the 2nd stage. The difference between spinoza and the birdy is the agency of feedback as relegated to the 1st stage of learning. Spinoza's ethical model differs greatly, yet it fits very well, providing accurate connectivity between the joy/sadness/agency matrix. So I am willing to accept it for this adolescent stage where agency is a correlation of feedback response and relegated to the internal body - even though I cannot find actual feedback in spinoza's model, it must be a veiled assumption or some strange kind of ideal form of a persistent adolescent psychology. But what about the second stage ,where agency is a correlation of body extension? (ie if joy is experienced, agency is allowed and so the body extends)Here, both the birdy and spinoza experience their joy/sadness when they are subjected to external causes, as when Miss Birdette responds favorably. but unlike the 1st stage, Miss birdette does not exist in mr.birdy's brain, and so his agency is contingent upon those external hierarchies, membership to that BWO, of which mr.birdy is a skeletal child happily moved from above. It doesn't seem to fit so nicely, does it? mainly because it is an adult social situation that extends beyond the solipsisms that the feedback environment provided. The ethics model operates adversely in this circumstance b/c it offers a seat in the skeletal chain that is under the main parental mover. The scope of this agency is limited by a "joy" that can only affirm external "heirarchical movement" but the promises it cannot keep is that agency within a participatory environment. that's why I called it a sabine ethics; it breeds exclusive members. It is also particular to spinoza's lifetime and the historical foundations for capitalist governmental rule that seeks a supporting psycho-social backbone; specifically one where money equals agency. As with the greco concept of "morals", which the "ethics" merely overwrites, the hegemonic bedrock must be laid from the get go. Before it was the triremes that required a skillled democratic body for coordinated movement, but these emerging capitalist experiments in vertical money power needed a horizontal class of man who wasn't only divided from other men, but one who's divided from mature BWO. -cb _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005