BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Self-affixing...

  
 
6opow
05:38 / 22.07.01
instead of self a fixin'. Labels. Perhaps I never noticed in days gone by, but upon return and review (of sumbunal) of posts the big bit is labels. Of course these are all words that are, in essence, meaningless. Some of the great words being grappled with: gay, feminazi (sp?), capitalism, intellectualism, oh, and always the best "ism"--jism!

Forget and then begin again. No words hang around, they vanish as smoke in sky. Does anyone believe that a word, or some finite set of words captures who and what s/he is (or what some group of people are)? And if so, then take the match and burn the page: begin again. Fresh from the ashes of the womb (fragment (begins)).

Words are tethers to specific instances of generalized structures, or anchors to the generalizations themselves. In the latter the structure is not a particular, but an abstract; thus, the word is certainly not reflective of the thing (or the re), and so, there is not one person who is actually "such and such" (place favorite jism here). In the former, the instance is and the word merely picks out. But again, no set of words can describe what the re is, but merely act as guides and pointers to what the thing might be, or how it is perceived and experienced with reference to some set of rules, or some established structure/institution.

Thus, labels are for suckers, or more accurately, for lickers. Of course, we can get a machine to do it for us, but in some ways we already have: the societal meme machine has us licked (and hooped) from the start. The answer: "...let us shut up, unless we want to pray."

[ 22-07-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
SMS
02:53 / 23.07.01
quote:Does anyone believe that a word, or some finite set of words captures who and what s/he is (or what some group of people are)?

I know one girl who picked up on a sound to associate with herself, which always sounds to me like an abbreviation for "No avail." I always get the feeling that she has unknowingly planted the idea in her mind that she is destined for failure, and I see this often as she seems to have an obsession with the idea of success. Incidentally, she herself reacts strongly against the idea of "labeling."

quote:Thus, labels are for suckers, or more accurately, for lickers. Of course, we can get a machine to do it for us, but in some ways we already have: the societal meme machine has us licked (and hooped) from the start. The answer: "...let us shut up, unless we want to pray."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What memeplex says "shut up unless you want to pray"? I can think of many that say "repeat me and no other." But I think the "only prayer" meme would be highly unsuccessful, especially if you consider prayer to be a personal matter, in which case the meme would have no decent vehicle by which it could transport itself to various minds. There may be exceptions to this, as in the case of monks, who rely upon more vocal, active meme-fountains to espouse (/Christianity, Buddhism, whatever else has monks/) and to thus hold monks in high regard without actually paticipating in their activities.

Or were you personally suggesting that shutting up could reduce the frequency of labelling? And that prayer, being deeply personal, would of course not lead to confusion in the same way as public discourse, and could thus be excluded from the shutting up.
 
 
6opow
07:20 / 28.07.01
Thanks for your response SMatthewStolte.

It is unfortunate that you friend has chosen such a self-defeating phrase to use as a mantra. I'm not a psychologist (hell, I don't even play one on TV), but often an unhealthy obsession with success (however one defines such a notion for him or her self) leads to an unconscious motivation to fail. We think that we know our desires, but we often fear the fulfillment of our desires; thus, we actually work against our selves. Now on to the meat of the matter.

The Love and Rockets quote was used as an answer to the societal meme pool which seeks to define and limit us. Or perhaps more accurately, we attempt to define and limit ourselves through the stock of memes that are available to us through our society (and perhaps I am playing a little loose with the notion of "meme"). It might have been better if I had used something other than a statement which employs the word "prayer." It was not meant to endorse a certain lifestyle (your monastic suggestion), but rather, it was meant to pick out that intimately personal (as you note) activity which seeks to relate the individual with what some call the divine, and others have called the Higher Self, cosmic consciousness, or even entities from other dimensions and aliens from other worlds!

But this last is not so far off the mark. Prayer is a means to open a dialogue with that which is utterly other than us--the absolutely alien. It is the unknown and that which is outside us that we seek to relate to. Yet, if we think about this, our "prayers" seek to open a relationship between the individual, and that which is not the individual (and this latter would be anything that is other than the individual). Thus, what we seek in prayer is the unity of self and other, a merging of the part and the whole. This appears to be another dualistic manifestation, that serves the purpose of existence, which is actually an expression of a singular thing; that is, the self-other dichotomy is necessary for existence, but it collapses to a singularity. In other words, for the divine to exist there has to be a mundane, but the divine and the mundane are the same thing (in a manner similar to how energy and matter--wave and particle--are dualistic manifestations of the same underlying thing).

This is where our labels cause us harm. By placing labels on ourselves and others we take the divinity that is in all things and reduce it to the mundane. Granted, we must use labels in order to have a way of picking out instantiations of our singularity, but we become so attached to the parts, we forget that there is a whole; that is, our labels often come to serve as gulfs of difference: unpassable and insurmountable.

So what I am suggesting is that we take our labels as mere words that do not ever adequately capture what a thing actually is; i.e., that famous line of Korzybski's, "A map is not the territory..." where the maps that we use to navigate are our semantic maps (our labels). If we constrain ourselves to thinking that any external object is limited to some set of listable properties, then we miss out on William Blakes', "eternity in a grain of sand." Which is to say, the habitual use of labels obscures the individual rather than illuminates.

[ 28-07-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
netbanshee
04:41 / 07.08.01
...but try to access new ideas and learn something other than your own current experience by avoiding current langue and the use of semantics with others...its impossible. They all seem to refer to each other and break down at some point. I wonder when the number of ideas to grasp will balance the number of labels available. Or will this just reverse polarity and spin this discussion into the abyss?

eg. however vague...For some reason now, I can't stop saying the word "hot" when referring to something I find interesting (otherwise obscurely know as "that's cool!").

I do see your point though..I think that's why it's sometimes important to mix your own ideas with others who are far outside your contact...hence things like Barbelith. But at the same time, wouldn't you think that a general type of person with similar qualities finds themselves sitting "here" and sharing discussions with each other? And if you were to bring this out in a timeline to a certain degree, do you think we'd all start to come towards a singularity? Then boom..our new label.

I will however will avoid being called a "Barbelither". Labels suck.
 
 
6opow
05:09 / 07.08.01
quote:Originally posted by netbanshee:
...but try to access new ideas and learn something other than your own current experience by avoiding current [langauge] and the use of semantics with others...its impossible. They all seem to refer to each other and break down at some point.

Hmm...impossible? Perhaps, but perhaps, "nothing is true and everything is possible." Mayhaps we can try to discover what we are not seeing in the world by violating our language?

quote:Originally posted by netbanshee:
I wonder when the number of ideas to grasp will balance the number of labels available. Or will this just reverse polarity and spin this discussion into the abyss?

Are you saying that there are currently more ideas than labels or the reverse? (Mmmm...the abyss!)

quote:Originally posted by netbanshee:
But at the same time, wouldn't you think that a general type of person with similar qualities finds themselves sitting "here" and sharing discussions with each other? And if you were to bring this out in a timeline to a certain degree, do you think we'd all start to come towards a singularity? Then boom..our new label.

Hmm...skeptical of the "similar qualities" thing. Though I do not contribute much to "The Conversation" area, I do lurk there. From what I've read there are a wide variety of people using this board. While we all appear to share some interests with someone or other on the board, our qualities certainly are not apt to generalization (although some may share some qualities).

I'm always prodding the singularity, but find it hard to manifest in light of the plurality. Even worse, lately I've been very interested in that which is the singularity and the multitude: I think this grand synthesis is beyond words (and yet appropriately enough, all words).

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
netbanshee
05:48 / 07.08.01
I hear what you're saying...would be great to find out how to break the common rules and barriers that support the current flavors of language and give the whole thing a new spin. Guess that's why cultures (or tribes, if they're still around) that are shut off from media or other influences are so damn interesting. But then again, we have to interpret what we hear and use "our" language to describe their's. Since we're stuck in the loop, it doesn't seem we could unlearn it.

Guess that's also why children seem to be so precious...beyond basic human faculty maybe they have that ability. Problem is, how do you foster it?

Also brings up ideas related to current trends in "net" culture. Since so many people, especially at younger ages, have such a vast array of influences out there, do you think that they will tend to gravitate towards many things (points of view, interests, etc.) or will they find the few things they identify specifically with and close off at the point they are comfortable?
 
 
6opow
06:08 / 07.08.01
There certainly have been people who have tries to break the rules eg. Burroughs and Gyson with the "cut-up" method. Personally, I like to use words (not so much here on the board, but occasionally) to describe things that would not normally be used to describe said things (if that makes any sense). But of course (as you recognize), all this still takes place in the context of our language.

I'm not sure what faculty you are referring to in children?!? Although I do understand what you mean by them being "precious," I am currently thinking that we need way less babies around (but I am talking about this in other places, so I won't go into it here).

As for the last...I'm not sure. It would be nice to see the young'uns develop open minded interests in a wide variety of things, but I fear for their ability to get into one thing deeply; that is, I wonder if the rate of communication and interaction is getting too fast that its negative side is the lack of attention to pursue something in depth: a need to rush off to the "next big thing." I watch some people who surf the web and they are simply gone. Hopping from this to that, playing part of this track, then part of that, etc. So it is not so much that I worry about them closing themselves off, but rather I worry that they will be attracted to surface images and flash, and never become "divers" (so to speak).
 
 
netbanshee
06:21 / 07.08.01
On the kid tip...I was referring to the open-minded, clean slate thing they have going...or in some ways, how geniuses like Tesla, Einstein, or others seemed to access thinking in different ways to arrive at other conclusions, therefore having breakthroughs. Kind of curious whether it was a biological wiring in the brain that made them potentially better at it or was it the interests they had and the environment that the learning occured in (probably both)? And if so, how the hell can we do anything about it, since we're already predisposed? Kind of like the state of things before a singularity expands or after it collapses to one (will we ever know)?
 
 
6opow
06:37 / 07.08.01
Oh, I see...perhaps it was their refusal to accept the traditional or "common sense" interpretation of things, coupled with a desire to pursue things in the way that they felt was required of the situation. It might stem from living life in a playful manner, rather than taking it all too seriously (but that is only a guess). I am more familiar with E than I am with T.

You hit on the "nature vs. nurture" debate here, and as I am prone to do, I think (as you do) it is, "a little from column A, a little from column B." You seem to hint at a sort of determinism with the "predisposed." I don't know how much faith I put in the idea that there are predispositioned factors which govern the individual.

WRT the singularity, I like to think we can rend the veil...but it isn't easy: there's no cosmic Santa waiting to give the gift of divine wisdom, like most things in life, it has to be a struggle.
 
 
Cat Chant
06:48 / 07.08.01
Two quotes & some rambling:

In response to:

quote:Originally posted by the godog:
i.e., that famous line of Korzybski's, "A map is not the territory..." where the maps that we use to navigate are our semantic maps (our labels). If we constrain ourselves to thinking that any external object is limited to some set of listable properties, then we miss out on William Blakes', "eternity in a grain of sand."

I see your Korzybski and raise you a Lyotard (or possibly Baudrillard, I get them confused): "The map precedes the territory".

I think that in attempting to separate word and thing (res) you are paradoxically reifying words - here, as "listable properties". The meaning, effect and range of connotation of a word (or meme) cannot be completely determined: shifts (political and/or aesthetic) take place on the level of words. "Things" (and people, and identities) are uncapturable in words, but words are also uncapturable in things, since in the end they refer to other words.

A bonus quote (this isn't one of the two) from the lovely Derrida: "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte", "there is nothing outside the text.

Second quote(s), also from Derrida, on the relation with the Other you talk about:

quote:When he writes, when he sends, when he makes his (a)way, A is B, finally is no longer totally other than B (finally I don't think so at all, A will have been totally other, but if only he had been totally other, truly totally other, nothing would have happened between them, and we would not be at this pass, sending ourselves their names and their ghosts like ping-pong balls)

and

quote:"If one morning Socrates had spoken for Plato, if to Plato his addressee he had addressed some message, it is also that p. would have had to be able to receive, to await, to desire, in a word to have called in a certain way what S. will have said to him..."

which actually I just think is pretty, but I suppose the point is that *even in prayer* (or the relation you're modelling through "prayer") both the Self and the Other must be brought into communication in a way which entails some measure of sameness, since the absolute Other cannot be perceived let alone spoken to...

Does that answer your question ?
 
 
6opow
07:11 / 07.08.01
I call!

Don't quite see how "the map can precede the teritory." Unless you mean in some sort of "grand design" way...

I agree with you in effect that words are not static, but dynamic, and the meaning etc., is not closed, but open to interpretation. When you say that, "'Things' (and people, and identities) are uncapturable in words..." this is exactly what is was getting at (at least I hope it was?!?). I was poking at the idea that we can say of someone, "Oh, she's an intellectual" and have that actually mean much in the terminal analysis (for she is/was much more than an intellectual). I was trying to point out that there is no need to pigeon hole the Self.

Moreover, I agree with the "sameness" of self and other: there is no absolute other, nor the absolutely alien--other than what we hypostatize (please read the paragraph again). I am saying that Self = Other. Thanks for the quotes though, I think I really will enjoy Derrida...
 
 
grant
15:53 / 07.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:
I call!

Don't quite see how "the map can precede the teritory." Unless you mean in some sort of "grand design" way...

The countries we discover are the ones we expect to, once they're on the official map.
 
 
6opow
20:39 / 08.08.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
The countries we discover are the ones we expect to, once they're on the official map.

Ya' know, I sorta' get what you are saying here. I used to feel (and to an extent, still do) that when we go some place new that the place where we find ourselves pre-existed in manner that yeilds a, "this is where you have to be and what you have to be experiencing here." Like the novelty was arranged for our own benefit--you know, the interconnection of the web, synchronicity. But then there is not really discovery, but only a sort of going through the motions...
 
 
Annunnaki-9
14:31 / 09.08.01
Jimminy crickets, 'dog, Grant. Take a hike in the woods once in a while. If your forest does not exist on the sufferance and convenience of the people nearby, it'll always surprise you.

Weighing in on the topic at hand, aren't we getting dangerously close to the sort of arguements the Sophists and Plato/Socrates went 'round and 'round on? Really, is there any objective reality to any terms at all?

We must use some words in common in order to communicate. Some are easy, like 'dog' for example. I guess that's a noun, so it's easy, you can point to one if the question comes up. But what about labels? How are they different? How about 'dyke?' Some lesbians have embraced the term- or at least-'re-co-opted' it. Can you point to one? I can. Or, let's diffuse some of the potential acrimony. How about 'musician?' Too polite? Lets see... 'Irish.' I'm Irish, though I prefer the term 'celtic-american.' Today, not a problem, but in the old west, it was an insult. 'Squaw' is another. It is well known that placenames all around the US are being changed because that word is considered offensive. I challenge anyone to read any of the old west classics for they way that term is used. Universally (or at least as far as Ive read), it is merely synonymous with 'woman.'
There is no negative connotation involved inherently- though to be sure, there were bad indian women called 'squaw,' just as their good sisters or tribe-mates were also called 'squaw's.'

To take this to a logical extreme, what about any value judgements at all, like the most comprehensive dyad- 'good,' and 'bad.' Are we not to use even these anymore?
 
 
grant
18:38 / 09.08.01
Actually "squaw" was a derogatory term.

A high school in the Carolinas changed their mascot a couple years ago because of an outcry over the true meaning of "squaw".

Here's the NPR story on that controversty.

Here's something from the Idaho Falls Post Register, 10 March 01:
quote:At a rally on the Capitol building's front steps Friday morning, one woman told a story about a little boy calling her grandmother a "squaw" back in the 1940s.

"My grandfather still remembers that," said Jennifer Oatman Brisbois, a member of the Nez Perce Tribe. "The meaning of the word has not changed since my grandfather's time in the early 1940s."

The meaning of the word is what all the fuss is about.

Those at the rally Friday said "squaw" is a derogatory word that identifies female genitalia.

The 10 members of the House State Affairs Committee who voted against the proposal - including Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona - disagreed.

They contend that "squaw" has historically referred to an Indian woman.

But those who attended the rally contend that the disagreement gets to the heart of the problem. Committee members, said Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Member Lori Edmo-Suppah, were reading dictionaries written by and for white people.


Pretty much gets to the heart of the whole labeling thing -- who does the labeling? Who did the labeling? Who's continuing the labeling?


Here's something more on "squaws" and labeling:
quote:The Ethnic NewsWatch
Sho-Ban News
April 5, 2001
SECTION: Vol. 25; No. 14; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 607 words
HEADLINE: ISU panel addresses 'squaw,' mascot issue: Powwow highlight of ISU Native Awareness Week

BYLINE: Edmo-Suppah, Lori
BODY:
ISU panel addresses 'squaw,' mascot issue: Powwow highlight of ISU Native Awareness Week

Language is the way oppression is maintained.

That is Dr. LaNada Boyer's belief as she spoke Monday on a panel discussion titled "Mascot, 'Squaw,' Colonialism, English Only: Institutionalization of Bigotry, Hate, Ignorance & Racism in Idaho" during Idaho State University's Native American Awareness Week.

Along with Dr. Boyer, Dr. Wesley Thomas, an ISU anthropology professor and James Yizar, an assistant dean in ISU's Student Affairs office, were all panelists, while ISU Native student Darrell Shay served as moderator.

Shay said the topic deals with stuff that times turn ugly, "We want to let everyone know how we feel about it."

Boyer, an ISU alumni and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Education, Employment and Training Director, said using Indians as mascots and the term 'squaw' are examples of using the English language through the "muted group theory" - what the dominant society uses to oppress people and control them. It's also used in politics.

She said much of it is taught in education institutions and is where it is being practiced. "It's the place where we need to start the real education. We as Native people, we don't even recognize it's going on."

Boyer said the recent bill defeated in the Idaho Legislature ridding the word squaw from place names in Idaho wasn't strong enough and said it should have also included mascots.

Dr. Thomas agreed that education is the Key to getting people better informed and it needs to addressed at all levels. He said higher education institutions are viable places for eliminating hate, racism and bigotry but it just can't be left to parents to teach what's right, "Children are our best hope," in elementary schools.

Yizar said he absolutely believes squaw should be removed from place names because all he needs is Native American person to say it's wrong and that's good enough for him.

He said dialogues are good communication tools and squaw is also an issue for African American because all kinds of labels can be found in society. He added that it wasn't until African Americans said "hey wait a minute, I'm not happy," concerning the "n" word, and a collective body said the same thing, then a different message was heard. "It's a misrepresentation of who I am," Yizar said.

Shay said the negative perceptions have to changes but it's not an instant process. "We need to show respect and make sure we walk the talk."

ISU student Emma George said squaw is a misconception and a "very derogatory word." "It's very hurtful and I can say it's wrong," she said. "It's not just a Native American issue but a society issue.

RoseAnn Abrahamson said the effort to remove the negative words needs to be on going and be persistent with the legislation. "It's time to changes and like Rosa Parks, we must march and fight on," she said.
 
 
netbanshee
19:03 / 09.08.01
Reminds me of George Carlin's ol' standup routine where we tries to justify the words "fuck", "nigger", and any other word that's carries a whole lot of issues and connotations with it.

Now if people really want to get up in arms about the association with word and meaning, they should try to have some manifesto or dictionary component to them..relating also to the history of it and where it may be going. Funny how word associations change over time and with people.

Not that I think the above concept is valid or will ever do any good...I still think some people may want it regardless. Open up a Foundation for Real Meaning and gas everyone who disagrees with their word fascism. Seems to be the problem with spectacle, since people take "words" so fucking seriously, just like t.v. Can't get past the fact that it just something that's there and to take it for what it's worth (which in most cases isn't anything).
 
 
Mordant Carnival
19:26 / 09.08.01
More labels. I must have more labels! An infinite array of labels, pasted hither and yon, until my memetic selfplex resembles the bastard offspring of a Koch curve and a formula one racing car. Only then will I be truly happy or truly safe.
 
 
6opow
19:52 / 09.08.01
Aha! Choosing the flip side of negation, hmm? A drive to positive infinity instead of a shedding to nothing. I have a feeling that both end up at the same place...anything to anyone and nothing to nobody. Devour or regurgitate: are we swallowing our tail in an attempt to capture a dynamic infinity, or does our tail give rise to the mouth which spewed it forth from an eternal static. "0 + 2 = 1"
 
 
Mordant Carnival
20:31 / 09.08.01
That's the one, dude. An infinte variety of shade becoming all colours and none; an infinite variety of atomic notions becoming all concepts and none.

I must have it all.
 
 
6opow
20:39 / 09.08.01
But in the moment of clarity, wrapped in stillness, which breaks through the barriers of a busy mind accompanied with busy bodies bustling through space, shattering the notions of self and other, and yeilding up the formulation that nothing = everything, do we not have it all already?
 
 
Annunnaki-9
12:45 / 10.08.01
Grant, I'm aware that the word 'squaw' has certainly come to mean something derogatory- as you quote, at least sonce 1940 (re: the Nez Pierce). The historical texts I'm talking about are from the nineteenth century. There, the word is used synonymously with 'indian woman.' Yes, the authors were anglos (mostly), but many were married to indian woman, who they called 'squaw.' I do believe that above somewhere the fact that the meaning of words does change through time has been mentioned.

Incidently, 'nigger' was also a frontier term used by white men to describe themselves. Fur trappers used it, early traders. It seems to have died out before the Civil War.

So, I still want to know how/what you all feel about the broadest possible value-judgements of all. Can we employ the words 'good' or 'bad' at all anymore?
 
  
Add Your Reply