“The concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse. It appears in the process of thinking, therefore, as a process of concentration, as a result, not as a point of departure, even though it is the point of departure in reality and hence also the point of departure for observation [Anschauung] and conception. Along the first path the full conception was evaporated to yield an abstract determination; along the second, the abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought. In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being. For example, the simplest economic category, say e.g. exchange value, presupposes population, moreover a population producing in specific relations; as well as a certain kind of family, or commune, or state, etc. It can never exist other than as an abstract, one-sided relation within an already given, concrete, living whole. As a category, by contrast, exchange value leads an antediluvian existence. Therefore, to the kind of consciousness—and this is characteristic of the philosophical consciousness—for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality, the movement of the categories appears as the real act of production—which only, unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside—whose product is the world; and—but this is again a tautology—this is correct in so far as the concrete totality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking and comprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks and generates itself outside or above observation and conception; a product, rather, of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts. The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way different from the artistic, religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world. The real subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; namely as long as the head’s conduct is merely speculative, merely theoretical. Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.”—Grundrisse, Marx (via vajramrita)
"Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens? This is a question of justice, in the sense of "fairness in distribution" or "what is deserved." An injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly. Another way of considering the principle of justice is that equals ought to be treated equally. However, this statement requires explication. Who is equal and who is unequal? What considerations justify departure from equal distribution? Almost all commentators allow that distinctions based on experience, age, deprivation, competence, merit and position do sometimes constitute criteria justifying differential treatment for certain purposes. It is necessary, then, to explain in what aspects people should be treated equally. There are several widely accepted formulations of just ways to distribute burdens and benefits. Each formulation mentions some relevant property on the basis for which burdens and benefits should be distributed. These formulations are:
To each person an equal share.
To each person according to individual need.
To each person according to individual effort.
To each person according to societal contribution.
fetish (n.) 1610s, fatisso, from Portuguese feitiço ”charm, sorcery,” from Latin facticius ”made by art,” from facere ”to make” (see factitious).
Latin facticius in Spanish has become hechizo ”magic, witchcraft, sorcery.” Probably introduced by Portuguese sailors and traders as a name for charms and talismans worshipped by the inhabitants of the Guinea coast of Africa. Popularized in anthropology by C. de Brosses’ ”Le Culte des Dieux Fétiches” (1760), which influenced the word’s spelling in English (Frenchfétiche, also from the Portuguese word). Figurative sense of “something irrationally revered” is American English, 1837.
Any material image of a religious idea is an idol; a material object in which force is supposed to be concentrated is a Fetish; a material object, or a class of material objects, plants, or animals, which is regarded by man with superstitious respect, and between whom and man there is supposed to exist an invisible but effective force, is a Totem. [J. Fitzgerald Lee, “The Greater Exodus,” London, 1903]
Jennie Jackson and Aula recognized the prescribe
d behavior for dealing with a Troll.
Rusty Martin observed that others might mistakenly think he is a Troll. Who is this ubiquitously recognized, yet reviled figure? The Troll is a master of “identity deception” (Donath 1998). He makes others believe h
e is someone he is not. A Troll attempts to pass as a valid member of the social community and begins to subtly provoke other
members by writing messages that outwardly appear as honest attempts to start conversation but are really designed to “waste a gr
oup’s time by provoking a futile argument” (Herring et al. 2002). Herring et al. further posit that a Troll’s formula for success is to make a show of willingness to engage in legitimate discussion while “refusing to acknowledge” or “willfully misinterpreting another’s point” in order to
The term ‘troll’ comes from a fishing activity, in which the fisherman puts out bait and waits for fish to bite. Likewise, the electronic Troll is a person who posts messages that are designed to
“get a bite” – that is, stir someone to a predictably angry
response. While “troll” is a verb in its original sense, it has been nominalized s a description for the person engaging in the act online, whereas fishing communities prefer “troller.” Herring
et al. (2002) use “troller” to describe the online variety, but this form
appears to be unattested in public use, except once in the alt.troll
FAQ from 1997. Part of this may be due to the other sense of the noun “troll,” a mean, ugly character living under a bridge, which is often spuriously suggested as an etymology for the term.
For the Troll, communicative competence is a key trait. He must be adept at understanding and using the styles of speech a community deems acceptable, so as to not appear as an outsider. The Troll is dangerous precisely because his identity as a Troll and therefore his true motive is not known until it is too late. Donath (1998) considers the
Troll’s actions to be part of a “game” he is constructing and forcing the others to play against their will and without their knowledge. His conversation begins innocently enough; this is how the trap is set. For many Trolls, this trap is for Newbies especially. If the Flamer attacks like a bomber, seeking to harm everyone, the Troll does so like a
sniper, seeking the especially vulnerable Newbies. Because they are less familiar with the community’s standards and practices, Newbies are more likely to fall for a less than perfect performance by a would be Troll. Goffman (1959) notes that, “a single note off-key can disrupt an entire performance.” For this reason, more experienced participants in
the group are likely to “out” the Troll by noticing the “off-key notes” and posting a response to the Troll’s, directly accusing him of being
a Troll. The more competence one has in the register of the community, the easier one will be able to identify a Troll’s deviant behavior. It is advantageous for a Troll to appear to be like any other new participant in the community. If a Troll is considered to be just another Newbie, then his lack of competence may be written off as inexperience instead of insincerity. While this can work to the advantage of a Troll, it can be to the detriment of a Newbie; on occasion, posts from previously unknown participants will be met with accusations of being a Troll
A VISITOR to our planet might be puzzled about the role of computers in our technology. On the one hand, he would read and hear all about wonderful “mechanical brains” baffling their creators with prodigious intellectual performance. And he (or it) would be warned that these machines must be restrained, lest they overwhelm us by might, persuasion, or even by the revelation of truths too terrible to be borne. On the other hand, our visitor would find the machines being denounced on all sides for their slavish obedience, unimaginative literal interpretations, and incapacity for innovation or initiative; in short, for their inhuman dullness.
Our visitor might remain puzzled if he set out to find, and judge for himself, these monsters. For he would find only a few machines mostly general-purpose computers), programmed for the moment to behave according to some specification) doing things that might claim any real intellectual status. Some would be proving mathematical theorems of rather undistinguished character. A few machines might be playing certain games, occasionally defeating their designers. Some might be distinguishing between hand-printed letters. Is this enough to justify so much interest, let alone deep concern? I believe that it is; that we are on the threshold of an era that will be strongly influenced, and quite possibly dominated, by intelligent problem-solving machines. But our purpose is not to guess about what the future may bring; it is only to try to describe and explain what seem now to be our first steps toward the construction of “artificial intelligence.”
The behaviours that make us human are not professional. Honesty, frankness, humour, emotionality, embracing the moment, speaking up for what you believe, affection, sincerity. Quoting extremely offensive trolls. These are all things that will make some people love you and others hate you. When you get more attention, these aspects of your personality fuel the inevitable backlash. As your audience grows, the chance of any given action triggering criticism asymptotically approaches 100%.
“If you want to get better at what you do, and you want to make better things, you are going to have to make your peace with the fact that it’s going to be out there. People are going to think what they think of it, and you have to decide what their response to it has to do with what you decide to do next. I would hope that strangers not liking what you do is not going to stop you from doing things you want in the way that you want.”
- Merlin Mann, Back to Work #149
I’m not entirely in love with the reblog (and the quote post) at the moment - hence a slight lull in Tumblr activity. They feel… noisy and a bit pointless: everyone shouting and shouting about how we ought to go and read some other article, somewhere over there. Shouldn’t we be trying to write the thing worth reading, not just the signpost toward it?
But of course sometimes there are ideas we want to share. In order to make them Minimum Viable Blog Post, there’s one question the blogger can answer, and that’s “Why did I want to share this with you?”
Why did I want to share this with you?
Well, clearly something resonated. It’s a few days after I saved the draft above on Tumblr, and I ended up talking about this on Twitter tonight. This was why I wanted to share this with you - I don’t know what to call it exactly, perhaps -
On Tweeting In Public
U know when you write something weird/speculative & u just wanna caveat yr tweet, “This is for this group of ppl. Rest of you just ignore” 
Even the txtspeak in my last tweet says (to me, at least) that I am addressing a certain community & this isn’t aimed at all. 
Because you can’t address 2400 people in the same way. Cannot be done. Anything interesting you say will inevitably alienate/annoy someone 
My more political followers may call me up on it, this has happened. The marketers just stay hush but the professional consequences worry me 
I don’t want Google+ circles though - or even custom FB friends settings. There’s value to speaking in public that means we take these risks 
But really it’s a desire to be read but not necessarily judged - impossible! 
“I have experimented with @replying people I reasonably suspect will be a mutual follow for the right group.”
This is a good idea - @justinpickard or @jessedarling have 100+ mutual followers to me, but the intersection selects for a much more specific group.
“Context. “This is not the content you’re looking for, but you’re welcome as a guest; know that this is a foreign country of me..”’
No, not not-judged, just judged within the context it’s intended to be read in. But twitter collapses contexts, superlatively.”
Ella got it: you wanna be “judged within the context it’s intended to be read in.” My Tumblr piece used Derrida as a “here be dragons”…
..a lil bit of theory-dropping as if to signal “If this isn’t familiar, realise that what I’m writing isn’t for you.” Theory to alienate :\ [8, 9]
But also for legitimacy, to make it ok (literary) to say the word “phallic” in public. Cos nice marketers probably shouldn’t…
I studied social anthropology. We had lectures on “the deep psychological identification of Balinese men with their cocks” (Clifford Geertz, 1973 p.417) and endonecrophagy (go on, Google it). As a result, there is very little I regard as outside the realm of polite discourse. But I gather YMMV.
Ok, so why do this? Why talk about interesting weird things in public that you’re not sure will always be received quite right? 
As mentioned, a value to speaking in public - namely that of weak links and serendipity 
The Network Shall Provide. The guiding logic of my digital peer group. You get further by entertaining it than by placating institutions.
Unprofessionalism, or People Build Relationships With People (not Marketing Week Retweeting Bots). cc Allen Pike:
"Unprofessionalism: taking my humanity just as seriously as I take my profession. It generates a lot more feedback. I encourage you to try." [14, 15]
Sometimes you’ve gotta experiment in public. Release early, release often. You learn much, much faster. 
Because it might provoke an interesting response 
The principle of idealist aesthetics, purposiveness without purpose, reverses the schema socially adopted by bourgeois art: purposelessness for purposes dictated by the market. In the demand for entertainment and relaxation, purpose has finally consumed the realm of the purposeless. But as the demand for the martketability of art has become total, a shift in the inner economic composition of cultural commodities is becoming apparent. For the use which is made of the work of art in antagonistic society is largely that of confirming the very existence of the useless, which art’s total subsumption under usefulness has abolished. In adapting itself entirely to need, the work of art defrauds human beings in advance of the liberation from the principle of utility which it is supposed to bring about. What might be called use value in the reception of cultural assets is being replaced by exchange value; enjoyment is giving way to being there and being in the know, connoisseurship by enhanced prestige. The consumer becomes the ideology of the amusement industry, whose institutions he or she cannot escape. One has to have seen Mrs. Miniver, just as one must subscribe to Life and Time. Everything is perceived only from the point of view that it can serve as something else, however vaguely that other thing might be envisaged. Everything has value only in so far as it can be exchanged, not in so far as it is something in itself. For consumers the use value of art, its essence, is a fetish, and the fetish—the social valuation which they mistake for the merit of works of art—becomes its only use value, the only quality they enjoy. In this way the commodity character of art disintegrates just as it is fully realized. Art becomes a species of commodity, worked up and adapted to industrial production, saleable and exchangeable; but art as the species of commodity which exists in order to be sold yet not for sale becomes something hypocritically unsaleable as soon as the business transaction is no longer merely its intention but its sole principle. The Toscanini performance on the radio is, in a sense, unsaleable. One listens to it for nothing, and each note of the symphony is accompanied, as it were, by the sublime advertisement that the symphony is not being interrupted by advertisements—“This concert is brought to you as a public service.” The deception takes places indirectly via the profit of all the united automobile and soap manufacturers, on whose payments the stations survive, and, of course, via the increased sales of the electrical industry as the producer of receiver sets.
Horkheimer and Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment
Still, as is the case with every potential reform in academic life, there are perils. The world of knowledge production is a marketplace, but it is a very special marketplace, with its own practices, its own values, and its own rules. A lot has changed in higher education in the last 50 years. What has not changed is the delicate and somewhat paradoxical relation in which the university stands to the general culture. It is important for research and teaching to be relevant, for the university to engage with the public culture and to design its investigative paradigms with actual social and cultural life in view. That is, in fact, what most professors try to do—even when they feel inhibited from saying so by the taboo against instrumentalist and presentist talk. Professors teach what they teach because they believe that it makes a difference. To continue to do this, academic inquiry, at least in some fields, may need to become less exclusionary and more holistic. That may be the road down which the debates I have been describing are taking higher education.
But at the end of this road there is a danger, which is that the culture of the university will become just an echo of the public culture. That would be a catastrophe. It is the academic’s job in a free society to serve the public culture by asking questions the public doesn’t want to ask, investigating subjects it cannot or will not investigate, and accommodating voices it fails or refuses to accommodate. Academics need to look to the world to see what kind of teaching and research needs to be done, and how they might better train and organize themselves to do it. But they need to ignore the world’s demand that they reproduce its self-image.
Their ‘knowing’ is creating, their creating is a legislation, their will to truth is—will to power.
I insist that people should finally stop confounding philosphical laborers, and scientific men generally, with philosophers; precisely at this point we should be strict about giving ‘each his due,’ and not far too much to those and far too little to these.
It may be necessary for the education of a genuine philosopher that he himself has also once stood on all these steps on which his servants, the scientific laborers of philosophy, remain standing—have to—remain standing. Perhaps he himself must have been critic and skeptic and dogmatist and historian and also poet and collector and traveler and solver of riddles and moralist and seer and ‘free spirit’ and almost everything in order to pass through the whole range of human value feelings and to be able to see with many different eyes and consciences, from a height and into every distance, from the depths into every height, from a nook into every expanse. But all these are merely pre-conditions of his task: this task demands something different—it demands that he create values.
Those philosophical laborers after the noble model of Kant and Hegel have to determine and press into formulas, whether in the realm of logic or political (moral) thought or art, some great data of valuations—that is, former positings of values, creations of value which have become dominant and are for a time called ‘truths.’ It is for these investigators to make everything that has happened and has been esteemed so far easy to look over, easy to think over, intelligible and manageable, to abbreviate everything long, even ‘time,’ and to overcome the entire past—an enormous and wonderful task in whose service every subtle pride, every tough will can certainly find satisfaction. Genuine philosophers, however, are commanders and legislators: they say, ‘thus it shall be!’ They first determine the Whither and For What of man, and in so doing have at their disposal the preliminary labor of all philosophical laborers, all who have overcome the past. With a creative hand they reach for the future, and all that is and has been becomes a means for them, an instrument, a hammer. Their ‘knowing’ is creating, their creating is a legislation, their will to truth is—will to power.
Are there such philosophers today? Have there been such philoso phers yet? Must there not be such philosophers?
"It’s like we’ve been flung back in time," he said. "Here we are in the Stone Age, knowing all these great things after centuries of progress but what can we do to make life easier for the Stone Agers? Can we make a refrigerator? Can we even explain how it works? What is electricity? What is light? We experience these things every day of our lives but what good does it do if we find ourselves hurled back in time and we can’t even tell people the basic principles much less actually make something that would improve conditions. Name one thing you could make. Could you make a simple wooden match that you could strike on a rock to make a flame? We think we’re so great and modern. Moon landings, artificial hearts. But what if you were hurled into a time warp and came face to face with the ancient Greeks. The Greeks invented trigonometry. They did autopsies and dissections. What could you tell an ancient Greek that he couldn’t say, ‘Big deal.’ Could you tell him about the atom? Atom is a Greek word. The Greeks knew that the major events in the universe can’t be seen by the eye of man. It’s waves, it’s rays, it’s particles."
"We’re doing all right."
"We’re sitting in this huge moldy room. It’s like we’re flung back."
"We have heat, we have light."
"These are Stone Age things. They had heat and light. They had fire. They rubbed flints together and made sparks. Could you rub flints together? Would you know a flint if you saw one? If a Stoner Ager asked you what a nucleotide is, could you tell him? How do we make carbon paper? What is glass? If you came awake tomorrow in the Middle Ages and there was an epidemic raging, what could you do to stop it, knowing what you do about the progress of medicine and disease? Here it is practically the twenty-first century and you’ve read hundreds of books and magazines and seen a hundred TV shows about science and medicine. Could you tell those people one little crucial thing that might save a million and a half lives?"
“‘Boil your water,’ I’d tell them.”
"Sure. What about ‘Wash behind your ears.’ That’s about as good."
"I still think we’re doing fairly well. There was no warning. We have food, we have radios."
"What is a radio? What is the principle of a radio? Go ahead, explain. You’re sitting in the middle of this circle of people. They use pebble tools. They eat groups. Explain a radio."
"There’s no mystery. Powerful transmitters send signals. They travel through the air, to be picked up by receivers."
"They travel through the air. What, like birds? Why not tell them magic? They travel through the air in magic waves. What is a nucleotide? You don’t know, do you? Yet these are the building blocks of life. What good is knowledge if it just floats in the air? It goes from computer to computer. It changes and grows every second of every day. But nobody actually knows anything."
“All my human relationships have to do with a mask of me and I must perpetually be the victim of living a completely hidden life. I have always been exposed to the cruelest coincidences - or, rather, it is I who have always turned all coincidence into cruelty.”—Friedrich Nietzsche (via silencemadenietzschecry)
“Since beginningless time and into the never-ending future, men have loved women without telling them, and the Lord has loved them without telling, and the void is not the void because there’s nothing to be empty of.”—Jack Kerouac | Tristessa (via fuckyeahexistentialism)