Steve & Yo's-

Yes and yes.  Similarly in a range of ethnicities: name-constructions such as "Peterson" implying or directly meaning "Peter's son" (and in some parts of Northern Europe at least, similarly for "daughter") or a geographic origin (last name prefixes that mean "from" or "of" referring to a city or a family or clan: common all over Europe), or including both the mother's family name and the father's family name (common in Central America).

All of these are deeply meaningful in establishing that one is related to others and connected to a wider web.  But today those social relations are strung across countries, continents, and the globe, where solidarity and mutual support can be difficult at best. 

To be clear:  I don't want to throw away all of those babies with the surveillance-dystopia bathwater.  In many ways I'm very square and very traditional.  But the future we face is one where we are f-o-o-d for the oligarchy, and social relations are subordinated to economic relations, unless we make a concerted effort to overturn the economic relations and assert the primacy of the social relations. 

Now something just occurred to me, and the following may be in the "not even wrong" category, but none the less I'd be interested in what you have to say about this:

The Jewish people were until recently a complete diaspora, "strung across countries, continents, and the globe" at times when there were effectively no rapid communications as there are today.  Yet somehow the Jewish community on a global scale managed a degree of resilience that is truly amazing, including during the Holocaust. 

We can learn from that. 

Somewhere in that history are important lessons that we can apply in our present struggle with an oligarchy that is downright benign in comparison to the types and degrees of oppression and existential threats faced by the Jews throughout history. 

Is this something that can be taught and learned, or is it only something that can be inherited over the course of generations of history?  And if the former, then how can we begin to understand the lessons?

I'll be AFK until this evening but I'll pick up the thread then.

-G.


=====

On 13-05-04-Sat 10:04 AM, Steve Berl wrote:

Seems to me that traditional Jewish convey family connections, and geography. So until very recent times in history, to my Jewish ancestors, I would be Steve, son of Lou (and Benay added in more modern times), from New York. It helps to identify just which Steve you are talking about when gossiping about Steve, and just what social connections there might be between Steve and other people. So the name evokes questions like, Oh, your from New York, do you know xxxx? Or Lou is your father. Are you related to my 3rd cousin Fred, who has a brother name Lou?

Humans are social animals and our social connections are important. You are you because of some combination of what you do, who you know, and who you are related to. Encoding some of that information in the name has been a convenience developed over the past 10,000 or so years, and we should consider carefully whether you are ready to throw it away.

-steve

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:07 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net> wrote:

Aestetix & Yo's-

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.

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. 

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.   

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. 

Some day perhaps we'll have to guess at John Smith's gender.  That would be progress.

-G.





On 13-05-03-Fri 11:30 PM, aestetix wrote:

You've opened a can of worms here :)

Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately, I
have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing. Feel
free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as important
as free speech).

I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power, are
rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully)
obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is
fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are drive,
charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important, control.

IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language, as
shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain
various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is to
try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of
familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like
setting markers around, and using the markers to control the direction
of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary and
concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the
ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit
damn" slurs.

Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings, and
one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all can
guess where I'm going with this one ;)

Hail Eris,
aestetix

PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon.

On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:


> 2)  Where the power is, and where it isn't.

> Now we come to the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat.

> For this, credit also goes to a good friend of mine who I won't
> name here, but who's welcome to name him/herself if s/he so
> chooses: s/he got me thinking down this trail a few months ago.

> The proletariat is the working class: basically defined as people
> who have full-time jobs or at least jobs that provide sufficient
> income for the core necessities (shelter, clothing, food,
> transportation, sanitation, communication), but who have little or
> no ownership stake. This includes people who are in business for
> themselves, but earning a working class income: they own their
> employment, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as
> that of a wage-worker.

> The lumpenproletariat is the level below that: basically defined
> as people whose employment is marginal at best, and whose access to
> the basic necessities is frequently interrupted in some way.  The
> unemployed, homeless, couch-surfers (another form of
> homelessness), people who live at the margins of the law in order
> to survive, and people who earn their livings on criminal activity.
> This also includes wage-workers whose wage income is not sufficient
> to provide their basic necessities from month to month: they have
> jobs, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as that of
> someone who's marginally employed at best.

> Decades ago, the Bay Area left/radical community made the deadly
> strategic error of embracing the (essentially Maoist) analysis that
> the lumpenproletariat is the revolutionary class.  This error
> continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block tactics,
> which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and provoking
> police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution.

> The very same tactic in more obviously violent form pops up in the
> ideology of the extreme right: such as the Hutaree, a group that
> was busted by the FBI for planning to shoot a bunch of cops and
> then set off bombs at their funerals, in the attempt to provoke
> martial law and thereby set off a "revolution" from the extreme
> right.

> But here's the nexus of the problem:

> To the oligarchy, the lumpenproletariat is disposable: their roles
> in production and consumption are so minimal that they can be
> totally disregarded.  They have NO power.  N-O power.  As
> individuals or as any kind of collectivity or class.

> When a social movement identifies with the lumpenproletariat
> and/or attempts to organize the lumpenproletariat, the movement
> effectively short-circuits its efforts into something that is
> inherently doomed to failure.  They may as well be trying to
> organize the squirrels on the Cal Berkeley campus to strike for
> better teaching-assistant salaries. How seriously do you think the
> UC Regents would take the threat of a squirrel strike?

> The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce and
> consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is also
> the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way.

> The power of the proletariat takes two forms:

> One, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's engines of
> production: by going on strike (which translates to the power of
> collective bargaining), by going into business for themselves, and
> by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as
> cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate capital
> to labor.

> Two, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's
> consumption matrix: by boycotts (consumer strikes), by
> anti-materialist or "simple living" principles that reduce
> consumption levels (the equivalent of consumer general strikes), by
> shifting their consumption to alternative institutions such as
> coops, credit unions, and small local producers (e.g. buying
> veggies at the farmers' market rather than Safeway), and very
> importantly for _us_ as hackers/makers/etc., the power to build
> for our own use.

> This is real power.  It's the power that makes the oligarchs quake
> in their boots and have nightmares.  And it's the power that gives
> the oligarchs strong incentive to keep us distracted, digressed,
> and disempowered by wasting our time trying to organize a squirrel
> strike.

> -G.

> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
> mailing list sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

>

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

--
-steve

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss