Greetings Economists, On Aug 13, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Sandwichman wrote:
Sandwichman is always seriously funny.
Doyle; Well my suspicion is born out with a direct confession of humor. S writes; Now that, Doyle, is what I would call "un-rooted". We might be able to automate emotion symbols but how does one "automate knowledge"? Doyle; Glad you asked. In assistive technology for disabled people there are some hints. Face based image detectors can detect someone's facial emotional expression (I can cite online references if required but I'm too lazy to do it otherwise), categorize in shared social emotion index, and store the content of the expression for re-use. The society can define a standard emotion structure for society: What works for EVERYONE to be connected to society. So what is generated is not a specific persons emotional response to you but how you connect to 'all'. This is not dissimilar to universal translation machines, or more close to home say IBM's language translators. S writes; a type of insecurity that remains unnameable. Doyle; I would then add here you are making a distinction between language and some sort of cognitive work that is not language. That seems to be the better way to say this. I.e. the important distinction is to delimit what is language and what is other sorts of cognitive work processes. S writes; So, to clarify, the Sandwichman says that the GOP line substitutes an anachronistic and romanticized image of family for the real relationships, which are threatened not by gay marriage but by economic precariousness. That precariousness, in turn, is generated by precisely the structural shift from manufacturing to finance that is upheld in mainstream conventional wisdom as the foundation of a new prosperity -- as the supposed creator of value. (I would argue that a little credit is a good thing, a remedy; too much is a poison. See Derrida's discussion of Plato's pharmakon). Doyle; Well clarification helps here. However, I find Derrida an unwise source of information. Further, what we want is socialist support for all kinds of relationships. Since socialism as often if not always legislated homosexual acts as punishable then there is apparently some sort of issue internal to socialist thinking that does not provide a serious analysis of the work process of intimacy. It is not enough in my view to talk about 'transference', or other psychological jargon unless it is framed by the socialist 'universal' working class boundary. I don't see you as hostile to this, just don't take me seriously in what I'm driving at. So my response, but you write; S writes; So, to return to the money subject line, might not family "values" be understood as a way to conceal the source of anxiety about "value" creation and deflect it in a direction that both intensifies the insecurity and prevents an effective response to it? Doyle; which in effect parallels my contention. That capitalism is exploiting emotion structure to control workers. And therefore we would then offer an emotion structure workers can use. It is more than just recognizing the anger people feel about oppression, it goes to how people 'feel' about their society. We must then be able to distinguish between 'language' and emotion. Distinguish between types of knowledge production to resolve a socialist society. I can of course laugh along with your teasing, but then I have serious things to say also. And you are plenty able to get my points and respond in kind. Which then follows what I think is real value, a conversational exchange of knowledge rather than me just blowing my latest spin on my perspective on socialism. take care, Doyle
