david on fight club
gathering quotes for nika from david on fight club topics (to put here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qUEJxWryILwa_XvhmgmKnry0XkFOzGIQCxIiPecOJCQ/edit)
Why do we live by the rules described by Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, even though most of us don’t even know who these long-dead men are?
Why do we believe that the state is necessary and that without it, there would be a war of all against all?
Where did the notion of private property come from?
from Manners, Deference, and Private Property in Early Modern Europe – 1997 – Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History Volume 39, Issue 4, pp. 694–728 DOI: 10.1017/S0010417500020867
In fact, I would argue that while joking bodies are necessarily one with the world (one is almost tempted to say “nature”) and made up from the same sort of materials, the body in avoidance is constructed out of something completely different. It is constructed of property. Now, I realize that this is a somewhat daring assertion. Not least, because what is considered property in the first place can vary a great deal from culture to culture. But I think one can make out an elementary logic in the idea of property that can be said to be more or less constant. Interestingly enough, that logic is very similar to the logic of avoidance.
Far from having a right to exclude others from their property, these people are themselves forbidden to touch the things they are said to own.. Even in English, a number of words used to imply ownership have a similar sort of reciprocity, including the most obviously possessive pronouns: One can say either “my secretary” or “my boss”. The English word property itself has two meanings: that which I own, that is, some thing which takes on its identity from me and that which makes something what it is and gives it its identity (“it is a property of fire to be hot”).
One is ultimately left with the view of the world one still finds in economics text books, which takes it for granted that human beings are bounded, autonomous beings whose identity is determined by what they possess and whose mutual intercourse is assumed to consist primarily of exchanging such possessions with one another according to the principles of rational calculation. It is a view of human society which has formed the backbone of most subsequent social theory, which as developed either on its basis or in reaction to it. It is also based on a way of imagining that the human person is in almost every way analogous to how the person is imagined in avoidance.
manners, defer, private property – (not sure if i got all i wanted to.. stopping to see what she wants first)
from Debt: The First 5,000 Years Kindle Edition – Melville House (July 12, 2011) – 544 pages
the one thing that all these misconceptions have in common, we will find, is that they tend to reduce all human relations to exchange.
marsh exchange law et al
this leads to another question.. if not exchange.. then what?
(will address in ch 5) – origins of money to demo how the very principle of exchange emerged largely as an effect of violence.. t
‘the very principle of exchange emerged largely as an effect of violence – –‘
the real origins of money are to be found in crime and recompense, war and slavery, honor, debt, and redemption..
Why do we think human nature has been defined once and for all?