false coin

two sides of the same false coin ness

from david graeber‘s theory of value..

adding upon re re re reading it.. esp p 257

257: perspectives: from meaning to desire 

hope this means.. let go of defn ness and listen deeper .. for itch ness

the appeal of market based ideologies is not that difficult to understand.. they draw on a picture of human nature/motivation that lies deeply rooted in the religious tradition of the west.. and that in our market based society seems endlessly confirmed by everyday experiences.. 

everyday experiences in sea world

we are unique individuals who have unlimited desires; since there is no natural cutoff point at which anyone will have enough power/money/pleasure/possessions, and since resources are scarce, this means we will always be in at least tacit competitions.. 


actually not.. we can go all in .. ie: beyond finite set of choices/desires.. sans competition/scarcity.. et al .. all about getting back/to grokking the enough ness of an undisturbed ecosystem

market principles can then be balanced, as need be, by their opposite: family values, altruistic charity, selfless devotion to a faith or cause.. all principles that are, as it were, brought into being as complements to the pure psychology of ‘rational, self interested calculation’.. these are as mauss reminds us really just two sides of the same false coin.. 

two sides of the same false coin

aka: whalespeak (we have no idea what legit free people are like)


same song.. perpetuating tragedy of the non common et al

the key move, one might say, the most important ideological work in all this is done by extracting all the more fundamental questions of desire from society (having thinking based on humans are simply people who’s desires are insatiable), so that it is possible to conceive of happiness largely as one’s relations with objects (or at best, people on treats like objects): …..and it is of course exactly this extraction that allows promoters of the market to claim to be acting in the name of human freedom, as simply opening the way for individuals to make up their own minds about what they want from life without anyone noticing that most of the individuals in question spend the vast majority of their waking hours running around at someone else’s beck and call. it’s a pretty neat trick if you think about it.

yeah.. that’s like voice ness and our need for a means to undo that hierarchical listening

much of the power of market theory stems from its very simplicity.. it does contain w/in it a theory of human nature, a theory of desire, pleasure, freedom, and even, in  its won way a theory of society.. the fact that in all these areas the argument is so simplistic as to be full of holes is, for ideological purposes, of almost no significance, particularly if no one is proposing a more coherent alternative.

rather than managing/enclosing desires.. listen deeper to legit/maté needs/desires/itch-in-the-soul

what we need is an alt org’d around legit needs

p. 258 – in fact it often seems that all the other side has to offer.. is a collection of *scattered insights that it is impossible to make a coherent argument out of them.. on problem i ran into while writing book.. **lack of a theoretical language w which to talk about desire.. 

*yeah that

**yeah that.. so idiosyncratic jargonitch-in-the-soul; .. as theoretical/legit language/communication (at least a jump start back to the natural ways/means)

but also language as control/enclosure et al

why no alt

surely there must be some alts

legit different experiment

ie: a nother way

self enclosing system of signs

language as control/enclosure

levi strauss: ‘what fascinates us is always that which radically excludes us in the name of its internal logic or perfection.. a math formula, a paranoiac system, a concrete jungle, a useless object or again a smooth body.. w/o orifices, double and redoubled by a mirror, ..’

this is not perhaps a theory of desire so much as a theory of frustrated desire..

like unwanted stress et al.. from living in sea world

it was largely in reaction to this sort of autoerotic model that deleuze proposed we look instead to the polymorphous perversity of the infant; for him, desire becomes a kind of universal primordial force of production flowing in all directions between bodies and between bodies and the world..t

not yet scrambled ness.. graeber care/free law.. 1 yr to be 5.. 1 yr to try commons.. et al

what we call ‘reality’ is really its side effect..

really sea world 

… this isn’t really a theory of desire at all – it’s more a declaration of why one isn’t necessary..t

to michel’s question (is graeber saying no theory of value?) and graeber values law and intellect ness et al

why no need

p. 259 – one of the key arguments of this book has been that what we call “structure” is not a set of static forms or principles but way in which changes – or in the case of social structure, action – is patterned; it consists, as piaget (or turner) would put it, of the invariable principles that regulate a system of transformations. as such, it is a notoriously elusive thing.

the critical thing is that whatever it is, it can on some level be said to contain everything.

fractal thinking ness .. and one ness –interconnected..ness.

gillis on small scale – getting at all the scales.. that deep

then in notes at end of book

268: 12 – false insofar as those who have this partial consciousness do not recognize its partiality.. t

part\ial ness is killing us all.. for (blank)’s sake

taleb center of problem law

false coin ness