<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Aestetix & Yo's-<br>
<br>
Names are nouns, but I puzzle over the term "proper noun," because a
name is an arbitrary character-string that only appears noun-like
because we say so. A "proper" type of noun should be one with some
degree of linguistic meaning, for example through etymology ("bike"
is a contraction of "bicycle", that has "two things that rotate",
from which we also derive "motorcycle" that is also colloquially a
"bike"), and names should be "improper nouns" because they don't
follow that rule.<br>
<br>
The linguistic meaning of "given names" is limited, though perhaps
sufficient for their historic purposes. Conventionally they convey
gender, which is only useful in remotely assessing whether someone
is a potential sex-partner. By geographic origin they often convey
ethnicity, though this is starting to break down through cultural
mixing (most of us are mutts, with two or more ethnicities in our
families). Sometimes they convey religion, usually by inference
from geographic origin or resemblance to historic names identified
with specific religions. At one time they conveyed occupation, as
with "Baker" and "Smith," though thankfully we have overcome
mandatory hereditary assignment of jobs. <br>
<br>
There was a time when we could infer, for example, that "John Smith"
was almost certainly male, probably Christian ("John" as Biblical
name), and probably an ironworker ("blacksmith"). Bluntly put, this
would tell you whether John Smith was someone you could mate with,
someone with whom that mating would be approved by your own church,
and where he stood in the socio-economic hierarchy. The use of
"Miss" and "Mrs." for women ("Miss Jane Smith") further emphasized
that in a patriarchial culture, males had a prerogative of
ascertaining the eligibility of females as mating partners. <br>
<br>
Today all we can be reasonably sure of is that John Smith is male.
He might be a Buddhist or an atheist by his own choice, and he
probably works at a desk rather than a forge, and his ethnicity
might be a combination of English, French, Kenyan, and Chinese for
all we know. <br>
<br>
Some day perhaps we'll have to guess at John Smith's gender. That
would be progress. <br>
<br>
-G. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 13-05-03-Fri 11:30 PM, aestetix wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">You've opened a can of worms here :)<br>
<br>
Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately,
I<br>
have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing.
Feel<br>
free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as
important<br>
as free speech).<br>
<br>
I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power,
are<br>
rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully)<br>
obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is<br>
fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are
drive,<br>
charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important,
control.<br>
<br>
IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language,
as<br>
shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain<br>
various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is
to<br>
try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of<br>
familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like<br>
setting markers around, and using the markers to control the
direction<br>
of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary
and<br>
concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the<br>
ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit<br>
damn" slurs.<br>
<br>
Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings,
and<br>
one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all
can<br>
guess where I'm going with this one ;)<br>
<br>
Hail Eris,<br>
aestetix<br>
<br>
PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon.<br>
<br>
On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> 2) Where the power is, and where it isn't.<br>
<br>
> Now we come to the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat.<br>
<br>
> For this, credit also goes to a good friend of mine who I
won't<br>
> name here, but who's welcome to name him/herself if s/he so<br>
> chooses: s/he got me thinking down this trail a few months
ago.<br>
<br>
> The proletariat is the working class: basically defined as
people<br>
> who have full-time jobs or at least jobs that provide
sufficient<br>
> income for the core necessities (shelter, clothing, food,<br>
> transportation, sanitation, communication), but who have
little or<br>
> no ownership stake. This includes people who are in business
for<br>
> themselves, but earning a working class income: they own
their<br>
> employment, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level
as<br>
> that of a wage-worker.<br>
<br>
> The lumpenproletariat is the level below that: basically
defined<br>
> as people whose employment is marginal at best, and whose
access to<br>
> the basic necessities is frequently interrupted in some way.
The<br>
> unemployed, homeless, couch-surfers (another form of<br>
> homelessness), people who live at the margins of the law in
order<br>
> to survive, and people who earn their livings on criminal
activity.<br>
> This also includes wage-workers whose wage income is not
sufficient<br>
> to provide their basic necessities from month to month: they
have<br>
> jobs, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as
that of<br>
> someone who's marginally employed at best.<br>
<br>
> Decades ago, the Bay Area left/radical community made the
deadly<br>
> strategic error of embracing the (essentially Maoist)
analysis that<br>
> the lumpenproletariat is the revolutionary class. This error<br>
> continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block
tactics,<br>
> which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and
provoking<br>
> police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution.<br>
<br>
> The very same tactic in more obviously violent form pops up
in the<br>
> ideology of the extreme right: such as the Hutaree, a group
that<br>
> was busted by the FBI for planning to shoot a bunch of cops
and<br>
> then set off bombs at their funerals, in the attempt to
provoke<br>
> martial law and thereby set off a "revolution" from the
extreme<br>
> right.<br>
<br>
> But here's the nexus of the problem:<br>
<br>
> To the oligarchy, the lumpenproletariat is disposable: their
roles<br>
> in production and consumption are so minimal that they can be<br>
> totally disregarded. They have NO power. N-O power. As<br>
> individuals or as any kind of collectivity or class.<br>
<br>
> When a social movement identifies with the lumpenproletariat<br>
> and/or attempts to organize the lumpenproletariat, the
movement<br>
> effectively short-circuits its efforts into something that is<br>
> inherently doomed to failure. They may as well be trying to<br>
> organize the squirrels on the Cal Berkeley campus to strike
for<br>
> better teaching-assistant salaries. How seriously do you
think the<br>
> UC Regents would take the threat of a squirrel strike?<br>
<br>
> The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce
and<br>
> consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is
also<br>
> the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way.<br>
<br>
> The power of the proletariat takes two forms:<br>
<br>
> One, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's
engines of<br>
> production: by going on strike (which translates to the power
of<br>
> collective bargaining), by going into business for
themselves, and<br>
> by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as<br>
> cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate
capital<br>
> to labor.<br>
<br>
> Two, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's<br>
> consumption matrix: by boycotts (consumer strikes), by<br>
> anti-materialist or "simple living" principles that reduce<br>
> consumption levels (the equivalent of consumer general
strikes), by<br>
> shifting their consumption to alternative institutions such
as<br>
> coops, credit unions, and small local producers (e.g. buying<br>
> veggies at the farmers' market rather than Safeway), and very<br>
> importantly for _us_ as hackers/makers/etc., the power to
build<br>
> for our own use.<br>
<br>
> This is real power. It's the power that makes the oligarchs
quake<br>
> in their boots and have nightmares. And it's the power that
gives<br>
> the oligarchs strong incentive to keep us distracted,
digressed,<br>
> and disempowered by wasting our time trying to organize a
squirrel<br>
> strike.<br>
<br>
> -G.<br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss<br>
> mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre;">></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>