Much as I

Much as I appreciate... A link will appear.

Discourses - and I wonder about Lacan's formula somewhat more assuredly than I would allow of my own hysteric trajectories - are not The Social Bonds. Each is work, the old double act in equivocation of Marx and Freud on energy, economy. Yeah, yeah. No. I don't know what to say, except something about the social as an ever moving demarcation line.
Life and Death. Analysts talk so certainly that there is universal horizon, or audio range, perhaps a response to a scent - here's thing, they talk in all exclusion of the chemical - of Death, whilst telling us how unique their analysand is. We shan't say anything of a universal receptivity that is Life...

If the Death Drive is a handling of, or footwork, of a particular relation to a common representation. Particular of a personal, even interchangeable, superego. Jouissance is a conformity to a translatable luxury.
The Sinthome is destruction of representation, it's a materialisation. More than a covering by the lamelle (I've forgotten this word) it destroys by exceeding all else? Yet it does this as what the representation excludes?

In Zizek's case, Boris Johnson (a)logic.

I'm still meditating (not literally) on this. The question is what does it mean this body recognition that it is said to be a matter of Life or Death?
Why is it feared as reification of gender binary? Why do the politicised believe that people change society, civilisation apparently, by living in a role that is not different?
Tell me that isn't the Sinthome of theirs, that they are invested in countering change, the big threat to them, their jouissance, by pushing others to distress about, in fact, not changing except in recognition of what always was. The politicised are insisting a lot was only successfully resisted by their making the unchanging, defying all that signifier stuff. Again, no chemistry....

What we have, all told, is that private life (or negative liberty) isn't something affordable by/to most. It is where the fatal dialogue that remains of Boethius cast a shadow enough for a spotlight on the politicians' dialectical torments.
"Private life is a punishment, that's why we resign for personal reasons or family unity"

The Boethius episode is a representation at full force. You won't have to read it because I am. Spoiler: was he executed? And if he was, what was the deal with his sons?
Terrorists are people who didn't get enough art. They need alienation, public, like artists find about their world work.

I don't get what we gain by being deprivated and having to use that to work at the world where we don't have to try rescue everyone alone. To claim ego is about self stuff is a nonsense except un saying you'd need get paid for it if that's what's wanted by so-called social bonds. It's evidently a currency. So back to comparison of Marxian objectivity and Klossowski's voluptous emotion, I guess.

https://youtu.be/y4r2VSDdHvk

SEMF (first few comments fyi)

HiSomeone going on about correspondence (between systems) and normative as matching to reality. I use normative in sarcastic sense, one may say Rylean or TLP overcoming. Normativity just takes what can made to fit with a theory and usually the theory and that use of explanada as explanation keeps it appearing to work.
That's what Boolean does, I don't see that we would fit to a clergyman's attempt, well done of course, to how to think as Biblical exegesis. That some algrebraic moments emerged in the editing and construction to translations is interesting, but humanity probably shouldn't consider it use of thought as summing up to that mereologicality.
This is the problem with trendy talk of plurality in science; it continues openings for the police supported crime as industry, industrial scale crime against humanity and biosphere?
Flack has a good turn around of this with Wheeler's it from bit methodology: you don't need define your terms - supposition of origin, of aim to reduction taken up - to get working on how things work: we won't know ever what got the macaques to this particular coarse graining, we can probably work how coarse grain states have their power (lunkheads using the Macaques as a human practice optimum are not thin on the ground exactly...).

Deutsch, quantum computing shit. Quantum mechanic vibrations, coming at you from every which way, pinch your lips after some hot spice, are going to be that noise. Some chance of getting very far with that as a technology. That's where Wolfram may cut through the noise, but making it is easy. Trying to make not noise is Gernsbackian.
Done for now, more later (or wait as I am for Flack's next paper)

Correction. Was thinking of Bayes. Boole is of course a more interesting person and mathematician. The contension there is with computing, which is important in the context of correspondence. Which is why I was really thinking of Bayes, in the context of normative.
I'm sort of tired. Again.

Representation 1

I note Copjec (Read My Desire) uses the term representation. I'm wondering if what I'm picking up (nothing original from me) as how we can capture representation as this - it would be fungible, as, for instance, eroticism (and what in cynicism?) could be defined beyond Butler's performative among rival theories. I doubts that the performative accounts for anything except some parametering that can't go beyond parametering, is, in this way, a covering of representation (those images do haunt, whatever else) - is the use of the body as if an occupied thing (a'la Descartes and so much more)?
As if we are alien to it and, of course vice versa. Nothing novel. It is easy to forget the body as it is difficult to ignore it.
Butler's latest appears, in interview, to propose the cop problem is that they consider their bodies public property by divine decree. The theological exertions and permutations may have been laid out by Eco, I don't know, as I'm reminded of Catharism among other things.
Because it's not enough to begin taking drives, and/or something we put instinct into shape for or against, something that we made peculiar to choosing to get our own intuition (which we hold heuristically), as these basic clusters of dynamics that are far and wide from our thoughts. They are not neither Real nor real Unconscious. One may say it is all that we could be as Conscious, not much different from abiotic? And this, because taking up the PCE of Wolfram is interesting, would be another covering, culture defeats epigenetics this way I'd claim, of what is working one as a body. Because I've collapsed what is mostly Hume. There's no reason that reason lets us down. There's just nature trying out what it can?

I nearly forgot. Gendering superego, which should have been obvious, as I did, was simply reproducing what is the gendering of nature. Copjec's seeking some change on it. I'm unable to get a reading on it yet, so to speak. It is our lapsus, or only mine?

Laugh

Only saying that you can transplant any damn philosophy (I think, despite the overarching theory, even Plato) onto Wolfram. It's a trivial psychological tick. So if a Kantian says its Kant... oddly Kant sat well with Einstein for some.
I haven't starting barking "it's Derridaen". Forget it. The main point is that there's something more to information, matter making. You could go Heidegger, you couldn't go Lacan? You go Hegel, you couldn't go Foucault? Whatever. It's not so bright to disregard that it doesn't change life questions. It really doesn't unless you want to find a new exclusion policy, if you are a Priti Patel with a thought process fine with genocide or something. Enough.

Have Never Been 2

https://youtu.be/si9iG-093aY

My passing (though it would not pass) attention to Hobbes (albeit I had planned a character for a fiction, for a tv project (the avengers/prisoner with a killer House, I never watched Dexter...)) was started up by this lecture.
I had read essays in German Law Journal on Foucault/Derrida regarding the Sovereign, though I've not gotten to read their works so far. What arrived to me on reading Hobbes - a comparative edition of his works, condensed Leviathan, at this point - was that we should skip Hume as the catalyst to Kant and consider Hobbes, consider Leviathan to be exact.

Latour went on in 2004 to push the thesis of WHNBM, I tried to read it. Then more recently dabbling in an Art project, it looked very sad. In W..M Latour is that newspaper reader, survivor no less, of La Chute. I'd guess FAZ, Liberatione and The Guardian. That is to say I think he his, then, unexceptionally isolated from day-to-day people and the exceptional, the artists. Before I forget, he believes that Kant failed. Supposedly we are engaged in deconstruction of a mere spectre.

Further Latour writes like some pastiche fiction - Henry Fielding does, so don't knock it with the wrong idea - and this kind of automation is exactly what I am attempting to use the term representation for. It exists metaphorically for one, without content, yet hits on itself through art. And we can't get it to a verbalisation, it's not around for psychoanalysis, it simply shapes and I don't know that you should care for what I may add to its description. Though I will be on it.

The best I can do this moment is repeat something, with addition, and evade Latour's feathery boas.

Animals domesticate us. That is resented, we see them as ritualising and, this is something of representing in one dimension (maybe the juvenile?), try that *against* all things animal, against also our own domestication. I mention the juvenile (and mindful I have presented the jesuits already) to suggest that - a philosopher called Fraser brought sunk cost into consideration today - the entire mechanism that permits militarisation is a product of the ritualised processing - quite knowing yet stupified by reifications - of young persons. That cost, against the risks and benefits against militarisation, is ignored. If anything accounts for growing failure against the boots of tech giants, it's there?
The claim I'm constructing is that of how we drop out of modernity - what is better than this as an alternative to "civilisation"? - by losing something of arts. Quite so, IQ is not the first medium of collation to have guided in principle.

Usual apologies. Yes, I could pick out verbatum from Latour. That's for you to do if need be. It's like reading the grease splashes in a chip-shop. I don't write up my actual notes here, I ad-hoc a version certainly less with logics I employ.

Have Never Been 1

Baudrillard may be correct on jesuits. Not only do the (actually past) cities sometimes hold the ancestors - where Nature is commanded from, in the stars - but for at least one nation in Navajo world their God is Dead. They use sane nets. Sein nets, the nets they also always used?
Pre-modern, said Latour getting a seat with anthropologists.

In other words we have often gone premodern. Greaber and Wengrow bring on the democracy from Native Americans, via Jesuits, so later...

This is first comment. Latour is wrong to speculate from S&S on Boyle and Hobbes.
Bruno says there's no context. As if Arts were nowhere - and probably (I don't know) not much in Bacon's Utopia. That's another story, mechanics and consumers.
Though not quite.
The conflict was between Culpepper and the Oxford Surgeons. It's Methodological Presentism.
Latour's allegation that some anglo-saxon technology took Europe is interesting.

What premodern nativism can do is make a point of othering. How much of that was there before when? Patchy, localised weather, until C19th?
What is making the weather fluctuate? Violence. I haven't read Freud's T&T nor Civilis. Discontents for two decades (sorry,)  yet in the notion of ritual violence is the conclusion that rituals make violence. Violence is not a system run by unwittings. Not a system like the military strategy to flatten down any modernity for the enemy.
The ritual is othering. The systems are for rituals - Graeber fluffed it BSjobs, he often missed the schtick, stick, the nervous tick of the common. Wengrow gets it. It's where the violence is.

(it's Bersani territory, the violence. My actual direction is on the psychoanalytic obsession with architectural space. We'll see)

Troubles

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022167817745621

There's a free download (sure link at the authors' tweets at least).

I'm not doing a full-on examination of this, I haven't read through the entirety and don't yet know what are the contents.

Etiology troubles. Are there social conditions that psychologically affect as opposed to material conditions and somatic effects?
To get psychosis as a template - and one that the triggering of can be changed* - does appear to be a root encephalitic moment. So that's material - somatic.
What becomes the content, metonymically expressed, certainly indexes some events. *So this is how the triggering, therefore the role in the persons actions, life, is changeable eg drug use.
The authors have walked right into profiling whilst trying to remove stigma and misdiagnosis. "Schizophrenia" is deployed detrimentally, on a par with demonic possession and the like. I call it dysludia (and I note, of late, that Bion was in similar conceptualising) and it comprises of a wheeling by manic neurosis and depressive psychosis.
We cannot change social casualitisation by dismissing the probable etiology and ever obsessing where either chance alone or suitable psychoanalysis will intervene against fatal consequences that do not need profilng for law enforcement on abusers systemic to so-called institutions.

Below a link will appear that is a superlative in case study. The life of Emil Post, courtesy of Wolfram Project.

https://youtu.be/ultMxODJE7o

Thinking whilst all there isn't

I was reading on Stiegler, I found some Hans Sluga, then John Dupre's Metaphysics of Biology. I gotten distance from what I had set on... and how? Idiot systems for living in the State, comedians sarcasm regurgitated as truth, the usual Britain: infection (every sense) by and of stupidity. I'm not anti-woke, I think Judith Butler gets stuff wrong, so to Sara Ahmed. And when Avital Ronnel is cited as succesful communucation by jargon... I tire.
Males, those at least shaped to being man or boy, learn to be distrustful of praise, of settling for the only different, or extension of old, idea. Honestly. Somehow those in the Critical zone, maybe often women, don't want to distrust?
I remember this was tumbling in my thoughts.
So I'd taken a look at Hobbes (the early and late as presented in a book from 1930 - when, the remark has no guidance to parsing except it may be a judgement on pre-new deal US) and Luhmann before Stiegler jumped up.

Differance. I continue to assert that we do not communicate in any way that fixes a meaning or even a memory of the so-called communication. Differance is that not communicated and, moreover it is all that is excluded, that we hold as a seperation of words or images in a frame with our experienced moment of being communicated to. Differance is that happening because what was there in communication to happen didn't do so.

I don't know. Something stops some of us from thinking differance to the order of things. Instead substance is given to so-called communication which is not that transfer of set information. It is only what is entirely communication, as an exclusion of making differance.

It is, I'm guessing, Butler's perfomativity, Ahmed's abjectionism, Ronnel's suite of neologisms. The expectation of knowing that is not knowing how. Knowing how is(/not) any thing. By taking up differance as an approach (this is of my 4th Wall weapon, though, of course, I don't know even all that...) instead of going through the motions, believing everythings about communication, may be what's missing?

Something is, and Badiou-ing it up is decidedly, objectionably, the wrong way into a judgementally.

This is not a polemic. Only a distribution noted in a process merely theorised.

A lot to be going on with

https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/habermas-adorno-politics

This here because it captures a lot. I disagree, over the implied absolute, on the Cardinal Newman (for starters). We should learn how we are learned of, how one learns. The student is taking up a pursuit of progress, after all. It should not be a procedural installation, a value-setting.