This dialectical social object is also a physical machine. The polarization of society around this object does work, just as electrical polarization of the fields creates power. The object displays arguments for collectivism and anti-collectivism. The ironic implosion of the mass when the Idea reified objects become self-aware of ironic collective anti-collectivism is the thesis. The antithesis inherent absurdity conflict produces democracy that is powered by polarity as anticollectivists collectivize until breakdown and collectivists which is the entire social of collectives including ironic anticollectivists, collectivize individuated collectives until breakdown. The thesis is therefore the material object of sociology the entire social mass, and the antithesis is the rejection of the idea of this collective, therefore the synthesis of ironic implosion IS the bipartisan phenomena observed.
Dialectical materialism is the applied social phenomenology built into the design of these bracelets that when pulled away from the social idea machine outlined here, generate electricity that display messages for less collectivism when more are connected and more collectivism when less are connected. 'Collectivism is a potential energy but the kinetic impetus of anticollective energy equate to two mass values. The anticollective energy of straining the social bond through inducing separation is the low battery warning indicating that each's own message producing bracelet object is not gaining power from the collective. Message to rejoin increases as power produced from pulling away to disconnect recoil motor copper coil generator from potential energy mass. Because anticollective kinetic energy powers the collective of these social media user devices, that ultimately represent the vast store of potential power, the conflict is a productive one.
The recoil motors that connect the devices are dual data and power cables that are now standard, but power cables in a dual sense that is not. This analogy encompasses all facets of anticollectivist dialectics, including power impetus of individual economic behaviour, collectivists however can work in conflicted unison until breakdown event occurs.-- rcarty, Nov 01 2013 Reading Notes on Capitalism and Schizophrenia http://people.duke....leuze&Guattari.htmlThere is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a process of that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together. Producing- machines, desiring-machines everywhere, schizophrenic machines, all of species life [la vie générique]: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any meaning whatsoever" (p. 2). Literary interpretation, like a materialist psychiatry and probably all other disciplines, should involve revealing the desiring-machines at work and putting them to use productively. This is a way to conceive of an immanent literary criticism, an interpretation that remains immanent to the text in the sense that it takes up the very desiring-machines that the text creates and sets them up to work. "no desiring-machine can be posed without demolishing entire social sectors .... desire is revolutionary in its essence ... and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised" (p. 116 mid-top). ""From the beginning of this study we have maintained both that social production and desiring-production are one and the same, and that they have differing régimes, with the result that a social form of production exercises an essential repression of desiring-production, and also that desiring-production--a "real" desire--is potentially capable of demolishing the social form" (p. 116 bot). There is a lot to understand in that sentence. First of all, how are social production and desiring-production the same thing but belonging to different régimes. This question of régime is one we will have to confront seriously before too long, but I don't think we have the tools to do so yet. The second part of the sentence is equally difficult: repression involves the dominance of the social form over desiring-production and inversely the liberation of desiring-production from that repression destroys the social form, that is, it is revolution." [rcarty, Nov 07 2013] You had us at "collective" ... [+]-- 8th of 7, Nov 01 2013 Which end do you hold?-- pocmloc, Nov 01 2013 The earthed side is usually considered the safe option.-- 8th of 7, Nov 01 2013 It is 'the potential energy. Constant kinesis, pulling the power cable is required. It is more rationally an individual undertaking when each person works separately. Potential energy is not a guarantee of any energy, but possibly vast reserves.-- rcarty, Nov 01 2013 Lots of noise in this one.-- rcarty, Nov 01 2013 This one idea.-- rcarty, Nov 01 2013 I mean the idea is just the effect of a possible potential of absolute noise upon my subject, that it's noisy should be as meaningless.-- rcarty, Nov 01 2013 This would have been much more interesting if, as the title implied, it had been about a ferrous (iron) dielectric (an insulator.)-- csea, Nov 01 2013 That might cause confusion between dielectric material and dialectic materialism, which could be a good thing, a bad thing, or both.-- 8th of 7, Nov 02 2013 Probaby if I had more knowledge of electronics I could make the analogy more clear, but that's another thesis- antithesis irony that there is some level of internal inconsistency that causes the whole system to breakdown. Thesis is the actual social object to be described, the result is inherently antithetical because of its ironic or inequivalent nature to the object.-- rcarty, Nov 02 2013 Reconsidering these matters again, it seems a lot simpler to say that the invention is a power-data cable that is used as a recoil motor to power a generator to charge a battery in a device. This is used to network ' the social idea machinne' Connecting to the collective is a large potential source. But so is pulling your own powercord alone.
But the powerful action is the strain the device produces by communicating the battery statuses which would put the user in productive fluxuation between connecting and disconnecting. The collective is draining battery so disconnect, your battery is full so reconnect.
That near perpetual productive fluxuation between collectivism, or all potential working and notworking in unison, and individualism working alone, is inherently productive. Think of a person with this power cable attached moving away and towards the mass without disconnecting. But this sort of position is tenuous so specialization in one field , either colllectivism or anticollectivism, produces a dialectic. This is analogically electrical because some difference in polarity is used to produce power.-- rcarty, Nov 02 2013 From the Oxford Dictionary of Physics: "dielectric: a nonconductor of electric charge in which an applied electic field causes a *displacement of charge but not a flow of charge. Electrons within the atoms of a dielectric are, on average, displaced by an applied field with repsect to the nucleus, giving rise to a dipole that has an elcgtric moment in the direction fo the field. The resulting stress within the dielectric is known as the electric polarization (P) and is defined by <equation> where D is the displacement , E is the elctric field strength, and eo is the electric constant. The dielectric constant in now called the relative * permittivity. the dielecgtric strength is the maximum potential gradient that can be applied to a material without causing it ot break doen it is usally expressed in volts per millimeter. see also capacitor. "
This coincides with my own interpretation of dialectical materialism, that is to be interpreted by the materiality of the age. At one time allopathic bleedings, and contemporaneously electroconvulsive therapy. The idea is the dielectric material is 'dialectically', or dielectrically charged, in this case with irony, and the material has a certain dielectric strength or irony tolerance, that it can withstand until breakdown. The invention is a physical invention that produces power with the constant 'revolution' created by inducing polarity.-- rcarty, Nov 07 2013 Anarchists, unite!-- RayfordSteele, Nov 07 2013 // The invention is a physical invention that produces power with the constant 'revolution' created by inducing polarity. //
Presumably following the left-hand motor rule, then ?-- 8th of 7, Nov 07 2013 The left hand motor rule is the current flow is moving in the direction of the thumb on the left hand. I'm not so sure about how deep the analogy is, but I would think the majority current moves towards the left because society stratifies disproportionately. But I'm not so sure about the analogy., because Rands thesis only polarizes , doesn't produce current.
If you read Ayn Rand's "anthem" which is basically her satirical manifesto set in a collectivist dystopia, the protagonist invents an electrical object which is rejected by the collective's scholars because it is a radical technology that will undermine collectivism. Ayn Rand's objectivism is such a device, but being "dialectical materialism" it actually undermines functionalism of the social system as a whole, and seeks to create struggles against an exploitative system in the manner of communism. So while Marx' manifesto seeks to overcome alienation of the social by forming a revolutionary collective of workers against alienation, Rand's objectivism seeks to overcome alienation of individuals by the collective by forming a revolutionary collective against collectives. However the difference is 'the collective' is the society. Sociology both studies reified collectives, stable social groups like outlaw bikers or police organizations, and diffuse collectives by compiling data, for example people in a social class determined by income 0-20000 dollars / year. Or the society as a mass, in this case a dialectical society in a two party system where the material social mass is polarized between collectivism, or socialism, and anticollectivism or fascism.
Regarding rayfordsteele's comment, anarchists unite, anarchists are in flux between autonomy and solidarity. Rand is an autonomist so if the work is dialectical materialism she is also in solidarity with social revolution which makes her an anarchist.-- rcarty, Nov 07 2013 [rc], and I say this with the utmost respect, and I must admit, a fair bit of concern and apprehension - these posts are starting to trend towards something that I could easily imagine becoming word salad in the near future.
Is everything okay with you mate? If you're just taking a brief vacation into weirdsville then okay, just keep a hold of your map and remember the safewords.
I'm being serious by the way - are you doing allright?-- Custardguts, Nov 07 2013 Yeah I'm alright but maybe I should put away my copy of Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Deleuze and Guatarri (link)
Maybe give that text a go and then reread this idea and it might make sense to you.-- rcarty, Nov 07 2013 Now as I was saying, anarchists are autonomists because they resist social integration, and functionalist social order. However they advocate solidarity usually in the formation of mobs, which are low integration social forms. Unlike police if you care to contrast a riot control phalanx with a riotous mob of G20 demonstrators.-- rcarty, Nov 07 2013 Maybe just drink some tea and watch 'The Simpsons'...-- Alterother, Nov 07 2013 I'm not having a nervous mental and emotional breakdown. I wrote an idea on a topic that I'm packed to the gills about.
But this 'bodily regulation' advice I'm getting really clashes with my foucaudian beliefs. It reminds me of an argument I had with a sexy blonde conservative masters student who disagreed that universities cause mental illness by melting down students with stress, and discourses that sound insane to outsiders, resulting in massive disparity between mentally insane failures and high functioning graduates Her typical functionalist answer was students have to learn time management and coping skills, etc. I told her that was all behavioural control regime for health epistem, and she said I had to learn how to take breaks from reading so I wouldn't go cuckoo. But she was identifying things that offended her ethos, she was a health sciences student, as crazy. So that's my point, just because something seems to be the result of less 'control' or 'discipline" doesn't mean its unhealthy, mentally ill, because contemporary health epistem is all about increased control for bodily regulation. Connecting an important institution to the body, the institution that teaches medicine, and using extreme stress to impose health regime, as a form of functionalism, is downright nefarious considering the direction 20th century discourses on adaptation ( ideological adaptation to capitalism) and fitness went in the late 1930s to 1945.-- rcarty, Nov 08 2013 // I wrote an idea on a topic that I'm packed to the gills about. //
Fair 'nuff.-- Alterother, Nov 08 2013 random, halfbakery