The Double Hermeneutic (notes on the BIP).

[P3nT4gR4m]

P3nT: Proving the infinite number of monkeys theory since 1969

[Cain]

For those that haven't read it,
The Art of Memetics agrees with Cain about the individual being an elusive character. We exist as parts of social networks, and we're just one node in a larger structure.

AoM posits that these nodes have relationships to themselves, and certain nodes are more influential than other nodes. Some nodes have more freedom than other nodes. This largely has to do with the nodal inter-relationships. Most of the book is about how one node can affect a change in the entire network.

AoM also posits that all networks act on the same principles. They say that (moving from small to large) individuals, corporations, governments, and religions are nearly identical except for the scale. The  processes which made the Church accept that the world was round, the processes that made US citizens choose Obama over McCain, are also operating inside your head. They're exactly the same processes, just on a different scale. One influential node pushes against other influential nodes, and they continue, until over time the entire network has been influenced by the individual.

Under this model, there's no room for bedtime stories like free will. And only a little room for the individual.

I mostly agree with this, but find it too structuralist.  There is no room for dissent except via competing memes, and I don't find that convincing.  I'm not sure if resistance-as-an-attribute-of-power is the ONE TRUE ANSWER, but I think it does explain a lot, even if it requires more work.  I would agree that free will, in a sense, probably does not exist (at least as imagined) but that resistance, as a sub-individual element, could operate in a way that some people would consider comparable.

[Cain]

While making the flowchart I came across something interesting.

Society defines social deviancy (as in "stepping beyond the boundaries of society")as "wrong" and often "insane". Even you said that people who deviate too much in their internal model of How Things Are can look insane, assuming that they aren't batshit bonkers already.

The only definition I can think of for individual, though, is "social deviant, not insane." And "not insane" applies both to the perception others have of the individual and to the fact of his psychological state.

Thus, I gave up on the flowchart. So much for that.

I'm not sure if you people keep a "dictionary" of concepts you've discovered. If you do, though, perhaps you could show me it -- it would probably make my time here easier, since I wouldn't be reinventing the wheel.

Yeah, its hard to draw the point.  I drew heavily upon Foucault and Lacan in writing this, and both have worked on mental illness in one way or another (Lacan was a psychotherapist and Foucault did a famous study on the history of madness).  It is hard to draw the line between socially constructed madness and biological, because of course pretty much everyone lives in society, but I would suggest actual madness, beyond social deviancy, would have to include a strong biological or chemical component.  There are likely other caveats too, but I'm not an expert in this field, so I won't speculate on things I have no expertise in.

I don't keep a dictionary, though the BIP Wiki that was linked can be useful, but I do keep a notebook at this link http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18624.0 where I store quotes from other works that I find interesting or useful (Note: this does not necessarily mean I agree with them, they may just be an exceptionally clear exposition of a particular point of view that I can easily remember or use).  That is probably as good a guide as any to my mental map at the moment, though it does need updating.

[Cain]

Do you have any idea how disturbing this is?
To think of something for some days, then try to write some of the thoughts and questions and ponderings down, end up just sitting with the pen in your hand because you can't really get to anything, then finally give up and just go open the laptop to try to think of something else for a while - and here it is, written by someone else at PDdotfuckingcom. And this just keeps happening.

As of now, I don't really have anything groundbreaking to say on the subject, but anyway.
This free will you mentioned - did you mean a core of some kind, like something in us even deeper than the social and physical limitations, ideals and things we are constructed of? A soul or something? (Blah. And I guess that's not relevant, as it can't really be proved that it exists, nor that it doesn't, but well.)

The resistance then. As the bricks in each person are arranged very differently, making it impossible for governments and suchlikes to shape everyone in the same pattern without causing different reactions, the people will not do as the government tells them because, well, the bricks the government is trying to feed them are in conflict with the other bricks. Uh, I don't know if I'm making any sense now, or if I'm just stating the obvious, or whatever
But moar thinking shall occur, and I might write some more sense-making stuff later, or then just keep lurking. (Cramulus is my excuse for not being able to make sense, as I've been spreading Easter eggs all over the town today and am dead tired at the moment. Fuck this, it's not even Easter yet! But come on, Spiderman eggs. Filled with red-blue-silver glitter. They deserved it.)

Also, the kind wish for a concept dictionary, seconded.

We're fucking awesome like that.  Our memesphere is getting more powerful, too.

Yes, that is kind of what I meant.  An autonomously operating individual who exists outside of the various cultural programming, events and social imprints left on us throughout life.  We have more basic instincts (such as those for food, shelter and reproduction) and we can acquire more and more nuanced and complex worldviews, but I don't think we can operate without that sort of framework, and that this will always colour how we think about things.  I don't subscribe to crass determinism (I still think that viewpoint is crap), I just think that since the individual is made up of so many parts and pieces that can influence decision making, free will in the sense of autonomous will is wishful thinking.  Its...a complex topic though, and I don't think I can really do it justice.  I think there is something similar to free will, but the situations under which where it can be used are very bounded and context dependent.  I may post on that later, but I can never come to a really satisfactory conclusion about the subject, so I tend not to dwell on it much.

Well, that is the Art of Memetics suggestion as to why people don't all act the same or immediately fall in line with whatever memeplex is in power at the time.  But as I mentioned in my response to Cram, I think the idea of conflicting memes is too simplistic, on its own.  Although I don't think leaders are necessarily clever enough to create a totally coherent system and cut off other memes from getting to peope, I still think people have a capacity for resistance simply by doing other than is expected of them.  Every suggestion to do something one way leaves open the implication it could be done in another way, or not at all.  The operation of power actually leaves itself open to being subverted, in this sense.  And since power is what constitutes social networks, at least according to the Foucaultian theory of it, that means every social arrangement has the capacity for resistance.  Foucault also seemed to be suggesting each "individual" had the capacity for it in his final works as well, in which he studied the "self-discipline" ethos of the Greeks, but I haven't read that in depth yet.

[Cain]

I get the impression that the part you are missing is due, in part, to the overwhelming complexity of the human psyche. Society may well be contained therein but it, or aspects of it, may, equally well, be in conflict with large portions of the individual psychological construct.

A lot of who we are, as you so rightly point out, is taught through social conditioning but our inherent problem solving and pattern matching mechanisms may well formulate independent models which run counter to these principles and, at that point, there is the possibility of rebellion.

For example - a baby will not be taught what it can and can't eat by conditioning alone, a fact which any parent will attest to. Instead the little fucker will attempt to put in it's mouth anything that looks as if it has the slightest possibility of fitting there. It's only by trying something and, either liking or hating the taste that it will make it's decision and no amount of coaxing and cajoling will change it's mind about the issue.

Society, try as it may to enforce it's own agenda, will always be fighting a hard battle for dominion. TFYS is part of our basic programming and it's only by continued and concentrated force of effort that they can beat that shit out of you.

True, I am trying to reduce an especially complex thing here, the relationship between individual and society and how those two interact, and I have probably overlooked some things.

It could be that individual programming conflicts with wider programming, but to be honest, I rarely see that as being the case.  Society has a remarkable ability for assimilating supposedly dangerous and subversive elements (such as Communist organizations, or punk rock) and reducing its effectiveness, integrating it into the overall pattern of control.

Time and time again I come back to the idea that the only thing that this allows for is the shaking up of the current diagram of power relations, and the only way that is possible is that if there is something unique to power itself that makes it vulnerable.

I don't think the baby example is especially good, since eating is a wired in, instictive response, as is much of what babies doo.  Overthrowing unjust rulers, however, is not biologically programmed, as sad as that is.  I think you are right in saying that there will be some contradictory programming at the personal level, in comparison to the societal level, but too much of that tends to take us into "noble savage" style territory, which makes me suspicious, since Rousseau was an idealistic twerp, and Anarchists will start wetting themselves with glee.  I also think this ties in with my replies to Cram and Herbertina, too.

[Tempest Virago]

I don't subscribe to crass determinism (I still think that viewpoint is crap), I just think that since the individual is made up of so many parts and pieces that can influence decision making, free will in the sense of autonomous will is wishful thinking.  Its...a complex topic though, and I don't think I can really do it justice.  I think there is something similar to free will, but the situations under which where it can be used are very bounded and context dependent.  I may post on that later, but I can never come to a really satisfactory conclusion about the subject, so I tend not to dwell on it much.

This is basically how I feel about free will. I have very mixed feelings on the subject, though.

I get the impression that the part you are missing is due, in part, to the overwhelming complexity of the human psyche. Society may well be contained therein but it, or aspects of it, may, equally well, be in conflict with large portions of the individual psychological construct.

A lot of who we are, as you so rightly point out, is taught through social conditioning but our inherent problem solving and pattern matching mechanisms may well formulate independent models which run counter to these principles and, at that point, there is the possibility of rebellion.

For example - a baby will not be taught what it can and can't eat by conditioning alone, a fact which any parent will attest to. Instead the little fucker will attempt to put in it's mouth anything that looks as if it has the slightest possibility of fitting there. It's only by trying something and, either liking or hating the taste that it will make it's decision and no amount of coaxing and cajoling will change it's mind about the issue.

Society, try as it may to enforce it's own agenda, will always be fighting a hard battle for dominion. TFYS is part of our basic programming and it's only by continued and concentrated force of effort that they can beat that shit out of you.

True, I am trying to reduce an especially complex thing here, the relationship between individual and society and how those two interact, and I have probably overlooked some things.

It could be that individual programming conflicts with wider programming, but to be honest, I rarely see that as being the case.  Society has a remarkable ability for assimilating supposedly dangerous and subversive elements (such as Communist organizations, or punk rock) and reducing its effectiveness, integrating it into the overall pattern of control.

Time and time again I come back to the idea that the only thing that this allows for is the shaking up of the current diagram of power relations, and the only way that is possible is that if there is something unique to power itself that makes it vulnerable.

I don't think the baby example is especially good, since eating is a wired in, instictive response, as is much of what babies doo.  Overthrowing unjust rulers, however, is not biologically programmed, as sad as that is.  I think you are right in saying that there will be some contradictory programming at the personal level, in comparison to the societal level, but too much of that tends to take us into "noble savage" style territory, which makes me suspicious, since Rousseau was an idealistic twerp, and Anarchists will start wetting themselves with glee.  I also think this ties in with my replies to Cram and Herbertina, too.

In the sense that people have a wired-in need to make things better for themselves and, more importantly, their children and childrens' children, couldn't you argue that overthrowing unjust rulers is wired in? Or am I reaching?

[Cain]

I think that may be reaching, yes. But then, I am a fan of Charles Tilly, and he has some ideas on sociology which I am trying to follow in developing these ideas.  Those are that there are some very bad Victorian habits in social thinking which should be avoided.

The argument of this book is that we need to rid ourselves of what Tilly calls eight 'pernicious postulates' of nineteenth-century sociological thought. These false principles include beliefs that: (1) there are distinct, autonomous societies; (2) social behaviour results from individual mental states; (3) social change is a coherent social phenomenon; (4) large-scale social changes occur in a series of stages; (5) differentiation leads to advancement as well as to (6) disorder; (7) disorder and 'deviant behaviour' result from rapid social change; and ( conflict precipitated by constituted authorities is legitimate, while conflict precipitated by individuals is illegitimate.

The idea that some form of social justice would arise from the need to secure ones family, unless they were directly under threat, seems a little hard to believe, unless we factor in opposing memes and/or resistance.  I don't think its a built in facet of human nature.

[Tempest Virago]

I think that may be reaching, yes. But then, I am a fan of Charles Tilly, and he has some ideas on sociology which I am trying to follow in developing these ideas.  Those are that there are some very bad Victorian habits in social thinking which should be avoided.

The argument of this book is that we need to rid ourselves of what Tilly calls eight 'pernicious postulates' of nineteenth-century sociological thought. These false principles include beliefs that: (1) there are distinct, autonomous societies; (2) social behaviour results from individual mental states; (3) social change is a coherent social phenomenon; (4) large-scale social changes occur in a series of stages; (5) differentiation leads to advancement as well as to (6) disorder; (7) disorder and 'deviant behaviour' result from rapid social change; and ( conflict precipitated by constituted authorities is legitimate, while conflict precipitated by individuals is illegitimate.

The idea that some form of social justice would arise from the need to secure ones family, unless they were directly under threat, seems a little hard to believe, unless we factor in opposing memes and/or resistance.  I don't think its a built in facet of human nature.

Yeah, you're probably right. It's a nice thought, though.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Time and time again I come back to the idea that the only thing that this allows for is the shaking up of the current diagram of power relations, and the only way that is possible is that if there is something unique to power itself that makes it vulnerable.

Here's a thought - perhaps power, by it's very nature, is highly unstable. People try to use it, gain it, hold on to it and contain it and it always seems to end up in a huge big splodey.

[Honey]

Interesting thought about the Victorians?  In the US, much of the right wing rhetoric spouted seems to be either a direct or indirect descendant of the murkiness of Victorian systems of thought? 

[hunter s.durden]

I want to play, but I can't find my ball.

What's the point here? I liked the OP and some of the ideas bouncing around in here, but I think I'm lost as to what exactly people are talking about. Maybe I'm snagged on one of the sociology terms.

What I'm lacking is a question to debate. This or that? What makes stuff happen?

Someone catch me up, please.

[LMNO]

Hunter,

If I may be so bold, I would summarize Cain's OP as such:

We carry the entire structure of our society and culture inside our heads, which partly shapes the kind of person we are; however, there is something inside ourselves that tries to subvert and change this structure, in varying degrees and with varying success.


As far as I can tell, this thread is currently in the process of figuring out what that "something inside" is, why it's there in the first place, how it works, and how to use it.


NOTE: If  I have gotten any of the above wrong, I apologize, and retract everything.  Please let me know.

[hunter s.durden]

That's what I was thinking, but I didn't want to sit here and write a bunch of shit only to be bombarded with "WTF are you babbling about, this thread is about Hitler!"

I've had a thought along the same lines that I call "Small Things." Small Things (ST) is the thought that a huge shaper is neither Nature nor Nurture, but Small Things we see along the way. Some might consider these ST to be Nurture, but I don't. I consider Nurture to be intentional, ST unintentional.

Example: Biologically I have an IQ of 130, with an aptitude for math and science. My father, a physicist, and my mother, a pediatrician, always pushed me to get high grades. So why am I a pro football player. When I was 8 I saw a game of football on the TV in a hospital waiting room, and the idea that I could have that fame and glory forever drove me into the life of a football star.

Basically I'm not sure we can ever see the lines of deviance, as our world has a lot to offer our crazy brains.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

At  the same time, our ability to resist must in some way be connected to power.  It needs power, in the sense that without power, without something acting on us, we cannot resist.  It may even be a form of power itself, situated at the individual level.  There are ways of resisting involving groups, of course, but they require power relations to coordinate, there are power relations inherent in the fact they can communicate and discuss at all. 

The structures were constructed initially through resistance to earlier structures, no? The complexity of structures is partly due to bifurcating due to disagreements between large groups and forming alliances or links when there is a compatibility that can be taken advantage of -- anarchists, capitalists, and communists against facism for instance, or discordians, pastafarians, and subgenii versus scientologists. A simpler structure would not fare well against complex threats, and speciation means more than simply a greater likelyhook of survival for the individual or small group. If astrophysicists work with psychokinetic mysticists to avert a giant meteor, the dolphins and ants benefit too.

Perhaps we're focusing on the wrong end a bit. There is such a great variety that obviously the end of resistance is significantly more popular. Resistance to resistance -- reactionism or neophobia -- is kind of necessary in order to prevent shit from moving too fast; a fast car without breaks isn't fun to drive, since you can't get it home without ramming into some shit along the way.

Just a braindump.