Having awkward social skills can stifle your growth like the two lines attached by the smallest angle. As they grow, the two points at the other end separate more and more. From what I gathered, what ties men and women together (as in a marriage or friendship) is sex. The the evolutionary psychology literature, sex is a natural and desirable thing that it reinforces social bonds between pair. So, putting 2 and 2 together, we have on one side of the argument, sex as a natural binding agent. And on the other, the guiding force that points the way for life to continue. I’d point to the studies that show how Individuals that have recreational sex the most are much more cohesive. This is true with the animal kingdom as well. Chemically, the oxytocin produced at the very end of the hormonal cascade ensures that pair-bonding. So, as social primates, sex is crucial in that it connects two people together.
In a perfect world, competition and jealousy wouldn’t be an issue. This is why a dominance hierarchy is built to mitigate that risk and organize who has access to sex. The anomaly comes at the dialectical call for more sex after a trust was breached (infidelity). This means that adversity carries within itself its own solution because the destructive forces that weakens social cohesion calls for the forces to strengthens it. Sex. This is a dialectical nightmare which says that the less trust there is, the more sex is needed to reintroduce that trust back into the relationship. It goes on and on until something knocks it off balance.
The 2nd argument says that sex determines our free will in a way that it will guide us like a shepherd herding its sheep. The way sex has it’s hooks on us it that we desire it. But this desire is a displaced represented. Society has conspired the most against sex. The greatest epiphanies happen at the intersections between contradiction. These anomalies contain the problem and solution all at once. So when we say that we are shy to individual we are sexually attracted to, what do we do. Do we let it call upon us. Do we let the event teach us? Do we ground ourselves under that dirt that we are all apart of?
What do we hear when it comes to sexual strategy. For men, it is that we must not place such a heavy emphasis on it. If one does, the he is preoccupied with it. And thus, that man will never get sex. From how we encounter sex after it has been displaced by society is that we must repress it. In a liberated nation, this is a big problem. Now, the greatest argument against sex is mannerisms. The less preoccupied we are with it, the more it comes to us, naturally. This means lie is turned into manners. Those who turn life into manners will be culled out of the genetic pool.
Remember that our first case is that sex is what connects men and women together to procreate. This force is the will-to-life as Schopenhauer would put it. What an intreging light this event would be if we were to place an emphasis on shyness. Shyness leans against life… what’s real… what everyone wants… what keeps us together. What does this mean then when the shy individual wants it, but is impelled to not participate in it? How sanctified sex is under the shy individual? So much so that he or she will stray away from it? Instead, we have entrusted sex under the cold hands of the empirical researcher. We can only go in two directions which is nature or nurture. Shyness is a lesser cousin of introversion. Fully diagnosable and treatable, introversion has enchanted society as a whole. Introversion is the last of the astrological/ spiritual studies of man.
What has happened to introversion? Has it become a commodity? A social commodity? A way for people to retrate back to their holes when they are tired of the constant demands of society? Notice how everyone from ambiverts to extroverts say things like, “I love to be around people when I get to know them… but I’m an introvert.” They are not introverts. They are soft spoken people. What is introversion without the scientific context of research? Without the very field out of which it came to be known as introversion. But introversion existed before the scientific context formed into Introversion. It was called shyness.
Shy from life
Shyness is a such an interesting cousin to introversion. What does it mean to shy away from an essential component of life? It puts that ‘component’ into light. Because that which was essential to life is now put into question. There it lies in front of the shy person. Shyness gives some ground to the components of life, and the elements around it. Sure, it doesn’t amount to much but it does give it a foundation to present itself.
It is now read to be sacrificed in the homogenous plane of space. The shy person rejects participation to it or experiences coyness. It is an inconvenience to the productive elements set up by participators to have other resist the homogenous productive elements. The solution was to get thinkers like Carl Junt to “cure” or at least give it a category in the scientific investigation of personality. Introversion can be managed and controlled. It can be improved upon and turned on and off like a light switch. Many might fall in the trap of a utilitarian explanation of “what wrong with that?” And yes, there’s something wrong if we decided the setting of where we put our productive elements to exist. We have chosen it to be the homogenous, horizontal axis that allows for transaction to smoothly glide through the procedural steps. My friends, we grow on a heterogenous plane. And this plane ascends towards a vertical axis… an asymptote. So why wouldn’t we shy away from a slippery, opaque, and demanding area of life that assimilates into the very forces of nature.
Confidence vs. hubris
When we confuse confidence/ competence with hubris, we are actually confusing the space in we desire to reside. When we ask the question, “how do I become confident,” we are actually asking a different question. This question can not be spoken because we participate (or want to participate) in a space that requires either confedence or hubris. If we desire to reside in homogeneous space, we want to be confident. When we want to become hubris, we must shy away from the homogeneous elements that keep us paired with flows of production/ money/ status. That’s why overconfidence is a misnomer. You can not be overly confident. You can only be hubris.
Here we come to the crushing pressure of introverts to be extraverts. Were you even surprised? Shyness is just a symptom, a mere gesture in our world. It’s okay to be shy, just be shy on the right things. The only weapon we have is becoming hubris. Confidence is the easy route, whether it to be to follow one’s dreams, to achieve a great feats, to be more than what you are… This is the mid-way point. Of course do those things. Everyone can be confident, but not everyone can be hubris. More confidence is still confidence. Hubris is more than overly confident. It requires an escape, a line-of-flight.
There are curious similarities between Bataille’s formation of the General Economy and Deleuze’s territorial representation that comes from the historical movement of the Barbaric to the imperial. This “progressive” movement requires an overcoding in the heterogenous direction. For Deleuze and Guatarri, Capitalism presents a downward direction back towards the Barbaric. The “upward” movement is a leap from to the voice from graphism.” The “leap” upward is the impiralist formation overimposing a “system of writing” (p.202) to the antiquated graphism – hieroglyphics. For D&G, this movement isn’t necessary liberating. Writing doesn’t become more complicated neither. The upward movement is repressive and transcending. It is repressive towards the affective use of the senses.
For Bataille, the homogeneous elements are the productive, day to day operation needed for the heterogenous to develop. What I see is D&G’s disjunctive synthesis as ‘already there.’ They play with the understanding of “developed” as in finished, achieved, or “now I can really work on myself.” The imperial formation is headed towards a developed status but only with the homogenous formation in place. And what better way to maintain the productive economy but with the previous barbaric formation. Imposed onto it, is another coded intensity that is directed away from the mouth and into the eye.
The reason why it’s repressive is because one requires the use of “extrapolation.” The disjunctive synthesis has to inscript or record the excluded and representational with some form of connective synthesis. This is essentially distribution. Yes, what pairs value to object (i.e. money with product), is not the same that distributes them. Here, we must use the paralogisms presented us by Deleuze and Guattari. The paralogisms (of fallacy) of the connective synthesis is whether we use complete, detachable objects or partial, detached objects. One of them requires extrapolation, transcendence and attend to the Oedipal concerns imposed by social repression. The other is immanent, non-representational, and attend to our desires.
Does money lose it’s ambiguous status or does it win unambiguous. THis is the question that D&G poses as a question and Bataille sort of answers it. The Productive economy, being horizontal, can jump to another horizontal chain by extrapolation. This is what Deleuze and Guratrri would call illegitimate use of the connective synthesis because now the subject which was built out of the same productive chains. The “developed” chain is what would be refer to as the heterogenous movement of the upward direction but whereas Bataille would see it as vertical, it could start our horizontal. It isn’t until growth become depended on the productive elements on the homogenous chian that it starts to compound on itself. This is how subjects end up taking credit for productive codes and attributing them for themselves.
What Deleuze and Guatarri differ is the formation of the sovereign. The sovereign for D&G forces codes into a new kind of space when they extrapolate. The notion of capitalism that it brings out the competitive drives is somewhat true. This is before capitalism reterritorializes developed codes back to their productive ones. It is capitalism itself that subjects must compete with. This was brought about by the sovereign forcing productive codes into a competitive space. Bataille has a similar view of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice where quotes see’s Marx. Subjects compete with themselves as a kind of “measuring-up” as described by Nietzsche. This is because codes (productive codes) can compare values, that is, objects come to a partial and detached with each codes they are assigned. Money looses ambiguous statues. But the sovereign invented a new kind of spaces that forces productive codes to non-comparable spaces. This is when codes must now compete with themselves instead of assigning equal and comparative value.
All that I’ve described is the upward movement. This is the productive surface cross-pollinating with the developed, disjunctive surface that transcends itself as a complete object.
The discharged ex-NAVY SEAL and a gambling addict Dan Bilzerian became the role model to every young boy with a social media account. Dan claims that he made his fortune by two lucky poker bets but his critics point out to the inherited wealth given to him by his parents. The main talking points for Dan are no different than any celebrity millionaire who spends his time and money consuming luxury and indulging in excess. Dan represents a different generational shift towards being a “responsible” consumer and “living your best authentic life.” The difference is that he lives in a 56 million dollar mansion with his yachts, an open gym visible on his roof along with infinity pools, fountains, ATVs, guns, weed, money, and tons of women. In the LondonReal interview with Brian Rose, Dan explains how being the 1% of the 1% of men who sleeps with the most beautiful models is not at all that great. Brian asks Dan how he keeps all those women happy. ‘That is actually the most difficult piece of this,” says Dan says nonchalantly. “You got to sleep with all these girls and if you don’t, they get upset. There’s definitely a big sexual obligation to that.”
It would probably be an Incel who would mock at the sheer absurdity of Dan’s lifestyle… Oh! What a burden it is to have all these beautiful models wanting sex from you all the time. How hard you’re life must be to *** constantly. Oh, the burden! Dan states somewhere that he has sex at least twice a day. That’s 14 times a week, 56 times a month, 672 a year. At least!
Success gurus and PUA grifters would say that Dan’s strategy for attracting women is simply set up. Dan doesn’t use “game,” that is, he doesn’t exert his character in any way to attract women. He doesn’t bother to inconvenience himself for the sake of getting laid. Instead, he tells his followers to simply be the only choice that women have left. In the PUA culture, this is known as “logistical game.” Of course, one cannot overlook his $56 million dollar mansion that brings in celebrities, athletes, and influencers from all over the world.
When we think of expenditure we must think about expenditure without reserve (Bataille, The Accursed Share, 21). The element that gives human life comes the energy of the sun that produces excess heat. Sexual reproduction consists of taking that energy from the sun, converting it in bodily fluids in the form of bile, and extracting it with a mixture of little swimmers injected from the male testis. The average count of sperm coming out of the seminiferous tubules is about 500 million per ejaculation.
The Second Culling of the Species
What is being said more and more is that boys are falling off the exponential curve of available females. Many in the Manosphere worry that competition is becoming monopolized by the 1% of alpha males. More men under 30 are resorting to a scarcity strategy for attracting females. We may very well be entering into a second culling of the species. Hypergamy is essentially sexual selection on steroids. It’s the primary contributor to the relatively quick success that the species had compared to our primate cousins.
Sigmund Freud in his Civilisation and its Discontents postulated that it was “raising himself off the ground.. of an upright gait” that contributed to the loss of the sense of smell (Freud, 54). Because the nose was elevated higher from the ground, the parasympathetic energy reserved for the olfactory nerves went instead to the eye.
The menstrual process produced an effect on the male… was taken over by visual excitations which, in contrast to the intermittent olfactory stimuli, were able to maintain a permanent effect.
Females went through a phase in their evolution that allowed them to conceal their estrus. The concealed estrus was used as a paternal confusion machine. This meant that more and more pre-human females could strategize their ovulatory cycle to get impregnated by the male they wanted to but still get the provision from a provider male (Fürtbauer et al. 2011). It just made it that much easier to keep the process away from the conscious male. It was self-consciousness of the male triggered by their genetic information vanishing from the evolutionary gene pool (retroactively). His ancestral “ghosts” live within both males and families but it’s the animus male that carries the for-warning from the non-existing male genes that mistook their consciousness as no big deal. The eye that looks ahead symbolize the blessing of foresight but also the burden self-consciousness. The eye is also curse. It symbolizes one doing the watching, but also one being watched as well.
Many speculate that “race” was in fact the consequence of women needing their offspring to look like their tribe. The tribe’s homogeneity kept the offspring of a non-pair-bonding male similar enough so the pair-bonding male couldn’t tell the difference. But at the same time, the species also need to carry enough genetic diversity in the genetic stock for evolution to keep the human the apex predator. An intriguing theory could be made that sexual arousal for women is not whether to cheat or not. But it’s a kind of scrutiny that women possess; should she give up the pressures to keep up with the homogeneity of the tribe or to indulge in the genetic variation of the species. Their pair-bonding partner can always threaten to withhold provisions and protections if he ever doubts his child is not his. Primatologists like Jane Goodall observed that wars between Chimpanzee tribes were the result of scarce fertile females. Even though the non-pair-bonding partner is the seed provider (alpha male), beta males are still an apex predator. A disowned female (and her child) could still be at risk if the pair-bonded male discovered his infant looked a little more like us, and less like him.
Today, we have the hindsight of millions of years of evolution that tells us more than half of all males that existed never passed on their genetic code. This means that the species was made possible by “cuckolded” males but never contributed to the genetic stock. A vast sacrifice of pair-bonding males essentially protected, provisioned, and rationed their resources to offspring of non-pair-bonding males which lead to more promiscuity, (which lead to more sacrifice – which then leads to hyper promiscuity/ hypergamy). The sacrifices of pair-bonded males essentially exist external of the genetic stock as they were left out of the genetic stock. It is no coincidence the “cuck” meme is prevalent in the Second Great Culling of the Species. At a meta-level, we are self-conscious of our self-consciousness.
The typical office job is the memetic equivalent of a primate male being careless of leaving his dwelling for a potential alpha male to come in an make a genetic exchange with someone’s wife. It dawned on me that installing “smart” home security cameras indoors may not be intended for intruders looking to break into someone’s home from the outside. Self-consciousness may probably be the success the species needed to look ahead, and strategies one’s success one genetic passing at a time.
Expenditure as a zero-sum game
As for expenditure without reserve, masturbating seems like an asymmetrical paradox. On one side of the gender spectrum, men waste billions of sperm through their lifetimes through self-pleasure. Whereas women could enjoy orgasm without waste. The central thought revolves around enjoyment and how to maximize it. Many religions found it useful to affirm life without resorting to enjoyment. Enjoyment can not happen without the expense and sacrifice of the other. Which is why sacrifice is needed in order to enjoy life. If the symmetry was perfect, we would have an economic system like the system we today. Everybody contributes a few hours of their day to so that someone else in their after-hours could enjoy life out of theirs. This happens until they trade places and reciprocal exchange could be made. What seems odd to me is that the white-collar worker go to work at the same hour of each day, they go to lunch at around the same hour of every day as well. Much of the “work” is being done to people who are also working. The B2B industry is done to contribute as much empowerment to businesses that could leverage their final product to B2C companies that offer service to people who are in their “after-hours.” The ideal retirement is a pension where all leverages of industry flow to the retirees.
Stimulating the economy
There’s essentially a self-stimulation of two industries that are comparably male and female, B2B and B2C of which produce the infrastructure needed to take care of the next generation. If we build houses, highways, and rockets to Mars at all is because parents who are finished procreating are left to pander meaning and ideology to the next generation that ensures the survival of the species. Which is why expenditure-without-reserve causes so many adult anxieties. Influences like Dan Bilzerian throws an existential light into the anal reality in that we are simply a “glorified anus.” The anus is what grounds us and puts us into the process. The invention of fire wasn’t revolutionary at all. The invention of fire simply allowed us to extrapolate our guts out to the external world. Our limited reserved energy for digesting were freed up to build tall skyscrapers and elevate highways.
The fly-wheel is the business of business. Cooked meat started a fly-wheel the will never stop. Reserved energy needed to digest uncooked meat could now be re-allocated elsewhere like in the brain. More brainpower stimulated multiple fly-wheels. One fly-wheel is a bigger brain which leads to infants getting stuck in the birthing canal, this leads to infants being born prematurely at around 9 months, this leads to more parental investment to care for an extremely delicate child, which leads to higher social intelligence which leads to an even bigger brain. A continuation of the fly-wheel is done digitally carried by our legacy. We are mother nature selecting which ads to watch on Facebook or which males get selected to pass on to our genetic legacy.
The new threats to humanity
The artificial womb will suffer the same treatment as the sex doll industry. The new threat is not sexier women, but artificial ones. As soon as an artificial womb is sold commercially, it will be either banned or regulated. Western countries like the United States lead the ingenuity and innovation of sex dolls into robots. The legislature passed that limited which sex dolls could be sold and the banning of sex doll brothels. Soon, Japanese companies overtook the industry making realistic robots that moved and talk. What seems to happen is that the culling is accelerating. More and more males are going to prefer to marry anime waifus while the top 20% of males are left with even more women than they could ever keep track of. It seems like the states is becoming more and more hostel towards men not because they are evil but because that’s how it’s always been. Evolution is ruthless and doesn’t care about creates more absurdities. This is how the species thrive.
Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share, An Essay on General Economy. Urzone Inc, Zone Books 1998 New York Vol. 1
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents. Translated by James Strachey. W.W. Norton & Co. New York, 1961.
This is the classic public freak-out scenario of the customer-worker confrontation. The immediate intuition of a public freakout is that it’s a socially acceptable way to purge frustrations out into an open, public space. What isn’t so obvious are the ways psychic repression reinvests itself back into the social fabric caused by conditioning global figures i.e. bosses, fathers, presidents, and even us. In the freakout scene, the cashier register mediates the flows of money coming in and flows of product coming out. To obtain a product, it must have an assigned price to exchange it with an equal amount of cash value. The same commercial transaction follows the pattern that psychic repression conditions lack for the product to be desired for and then purchased. For example, once the transaction is aggreged upon, there’s an obligation to exchange the product for money. This means that a customer makes an offer from their end, but from the service worker’s end, the dynamic becomes forceful because now the worker must match the value of the money with the desired-object. At the same time, another surface develops that exchange words with affects called the developed surface. In developed economies, final products can inflate their value by jumping that productive – developed chasm. A relationship between both surfaces permits someone to use a forceful push-or-pull by comparing codes between surfaces instead of on their surfaces. The difference is that the productive surface can exchange words (insults) even though their codes are meant to compare and exchange value with product, and the developed surface can exchange product as well (like we’ve seen in the example of the hyperinflated product) even though their codes are meant to exchange words with affects. The key to understanding this is that developed codes can only compare codes with their productive ones because the developed surface formed in non-comparative spaces. This allows the developed surface to from codes continuously by compounding onto its surface its own formation (since the labor of workers maintains productive codes to create developed nations in the first place). Incredibly developed codes can never be reached at the productive level unless codes are forced into non-comparative spaces (spoiler alert, it is done immanently). Since all encodings in comparative spaces will evenly exhaust themselves, a surplus is necessary to carry out an immanent layer that will appropriate this first layer, but it must take all the credit for the codes…. Even the labor force, for itself. All this means is that service will always fail to measure up to the inflated price of the product-service. This is the feeling of being shortchanged from a service that falls short from expectations. Why can’t we simply say that emotions got out of hand? Why can’t we say that the customer was in a hurry and the coffee took 1 minute later than expected.? Why we have to over-analyze this situation. These explanations are totally fine. The central question is: in what order do we place psychic repression and social repression? Does social repression come first and then psychic repression? If it does, then any condition from bipolar, unstable emotions or autism must always pass through a social structure for him to be oppressed and erupt emotions from it.
When a customer insults a service worker, it is seen as a complaint because the service was substandard. When a service worker insults a customer, it’s a retaliation for the negative affects that the insulted is attempting to hold on to for dear life. The entire overall value that is waged conflict over is called the product-service value. And this is used to make up for the difference of being shortchanged on behalf of the customer. If you’ve been paying attention, the value must be paid in overcoded productive codes. That is why affects must not only be purged, but purged in negative terms (triggered, resentful, rage, vengeance). An insult is an attempt for service workers to purge additional affects in order to match developed codes which will never be reached. But a successful insult can only occur if the worker voluntarily purges additional investments to hyper inflate the product-service that fell short. in developed economies, individuals are given the freedom to grow or develop and so the worker must voluntarily give up his posture or his composure by experiencing an involuntary lapse of the will. So, the desire to attain revenge on behalf of the shortchanged customer was precisely the inability to attain revenge from a sovereign individual. Likewise, service workers are prohibited to lash out even if insulted for a minor inconvenience. The difference is that the forceful productive retaliation must happen involuntarily for it to return by an offer only which is why one quickly learns that the one who instigates a fight by force is typically the loser. Developed surfaces must become reterritorialized and encoded with new codes but in order to bring them back to the original aggressor the overcodes must remain in productive surfaces paradoxically bellow the sovereign individual. Because both the aggressor and worker participate in flows of growth the sovereign must be suspended in a double bind. The longer they stay there, the more overpriced the product-serve will return. The aggressor can not affirm it in retail value just like how the final products are sold to in retail value. This is essentially shortselling life-force and the psychic consequences is that paranoid individuals experiences breakdown in public from losing life-force (autonomy) by the same momentum that allows them be grow to be sovereign in society.
Fascistic insults: To be in the right, one must be in the wrong
For the insult to work, the aggressor must place the individual into a limbo of voluntary and involuntary purging of the paranoiac instincts (investments). An insult is the purest form of offer. The offer is deterritorialized space for the victims to purge their investments. The problem is that both customers and workers participate in inflows of growth. The purging must happen voluntarily in developed surfaces but also involuntarily in the deterritorialzed surface that was given. The feeling of enjoyment one gets from watching the victim suffer a loss is when the victim suffers a lapse of judgment and retaliates at his aggressor. It’s as if the victim was given a space where they become winners at first but space acts like a collector that demands its debt to be paid by force. So, the aggressor co-ops the operation by almost removing his agency to force a retaliation and using the immanant space to his advantage by ensnaring the purging individual. An argument is not two people pulling to ropes. It’s four ropes with 2 surfaces and 2 subjects pushing and pulling distances and displacements.ts.
In a forensic investigation, interrogators use mental exhaustion to get suspects to confess. Lying takes a considerable amount of effort and it can only be sustained for a while. Interrogators use this strategy to get the suspects to surrender their front. In order to deal with lying, interrogators would place a suspect in a position where they allow him or her to relax. Then, they would speak as if they were friends in order to build rapport in a non-threatening way. Causal conversation induces mirror neurons to fire, thus, build a sense of security around them. But all of a sudden, interrogators would switch up to induce mental fatigue and apply pressure to the suspect’s sense of security. Once a threat is detected, the suspect’s awareness goes off like an alarm. This on and off repeats until the suspect lets his guard down completely.
Societies of Control
We live in ways in which we are constantly exposed to mental fatigue. Societies of control offer rest from all this mental exhaustion. However, humans are skeptical about letting their guard down. So, societies of control make the relaxation worth any resistance to surrender. But they must also convince people to accept their own oppression. It would seem that society primes individuals to the “requirements” needed to undertake. It seems that the same ticket that offers the anxieties and neurosis is also the cure.
The human body has a limit to the trauma it can take. But the mental world gets stretched and pulled beyond its limits. Most people think of the unconscious or couscous world is an infinite, world without boundaries. That’s because the mental, infinite world is invisible.
Enjoyment as a case against life
There’s a type of individual that must account for all the expenses that incur around his surroundings. He is capable of storing up the expenses that others spend as enjoyment. And this individual places himself in between the flow of codes that inscribes when every transaction takes place. And so, he must account for all transactions by remembering levels of enjoyment. This takes a toll on his mental strength and will begin to feel resentful from observing others enjoying life. He is the accountant type where he accounts for all the costs in life. If life seems a bit wrong, it because he hasn’t undertaken the right sacrifices in life. This accountant walks barefoot with shards of glass everywhere. He must walk carefully or else he could slip. If he slips, he could slice his foot with a shard of glass. If blood gushes out from his wound, then individuals will collect his blood and infuse his blood as life-force.
The poetic side of Deleuze gives us a picture of a world that is fragmented and partialized. The disjunctive world is partialized with partial objects. Every time the accountant must walk through time, he must walk through fragmented partial objects “forced to communicated with non-communicative vessels.” Every drop of blood gets siphoned-in by others who desire to enjoy life. No one will give up their life-force and societies of control are developed to be libertarian. This means individuals are given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to donate life-force. This means that cruelty is creative more than ever. Language can get a victim trapped in limbo. So people walk around without a “feeling” subject. They are only seeing, hearing, or smelling subjects.
The application to mental exhaustion is a little different in a society of control. Many thinkers come to the conclusion that the comforts of life are arranged into the circuit as a way to make people desire them. But Deleuze convinces us that there’s a little more nuance than that. Desiring-machines aren’t placed within us because of malicious intent. They are taken before the formation of the “real.” Within the circuit, desiring-production works by desiring-machines constantly breaking down. This breaking down places us in a suspension of voluntary and involuntary purging of instincts: anger, rage, vengeance, competitive drives that capitalism brings out of paranoid individuals. Desiring produces weather or not people places the “real” out of the immanent realm of production. The “impossible real” is non-representable, which means that the real is constantly produced by desiring-production. But the social formation can globalize people to condition us to produce desires that are superimposed.
Insults occur everywhere but non has the distasteful tone of a freakout than in service level jobs. An insult happens when the victim is placed in a double bind. There is a curious fascism that is counter produced after instructing the victim to be grateful. For what. Grateful for having his feelings hurt because it placing the victim at a better position than before. The victim becomes hyper aware of getting insulted. He notices that it is not by force, but by his own choice. An insult is an offer. And The victim is offered deterritorialized space in order to purge his paranoiac investments (that is outburst outrage or freak-outs that is commonly observed after the victim experiences a momentary lapse of the will). He may have lost composure of himself or his emotions got the better of him after solidifying his reality that he has accepted the gift by his own will. The victim is split into two subjects. But this is because space is split into two surfaces… one of which is the productive surface and the other is the developed surface. At the productive surface, he is given this gift that must forcefully return. But at another surface, the victim is not a victim but is given empowerment to walk away. The double-bind then, is to have the victim suspended in voluntary and involuntary indecisiveness of the will. At the same time. How? Appropriation.
It is the value of emotional labor can be set arbitrarily to match with the value of service. At one end emotional labor encodes into the finished product and the other end a customer demands the product in developed codes. The difference is measured up displaced by money.
We live in developed nations where intermediary processes are outsourced to developing nations. The products are produced in developing nations where comparative spaces creates a frictionless and smooth flow of productive codes. Capitalism continuously deterritorializes codes and reterritorializes them making it difficult to place someone in a double bind. A forceful attempt can make someone seem as an instigator or a perpetrator of a conflict.
The retail value pays for the costs of productive codes to remain in place. The customer demands the same frictionless transaction in their social transactions. The employee is placed in territorialized surfaces to be intermediary of the flows of production and the flows of consumption. Therefore the employee is paid for his service in emotional labor.
How does the gift return? Why even accept the gift if it will only return to the detriment of the recipient? It will only hurt the victim if the intensity returns overcoded. This is why insults do occur to get revenge on the other person, they happen because space itself places someone antipositional to it. People want to live in non-comparative spaces that developed economies demand intensities to be resolved in the social realm. And in order for the subject to exists in society, they must pay its debts in developed codes. Productive codes extinguishes itself into its own surface, that’s why nomadic cultures moved to another location after the codes transferred into developed codes. Which means that nomads never reached “developed” because they purged their paranoiac instincts from within the psychic realm.
For developed countries to keep up with social reality, they must produce service economies that develop codes by placing social repression primary and psychic repression secondary. And this maintains the current structure of developed economies. The production of psychic reality is elevated to the realm of transcendence and thus removing it from the immanent sphere of production. This doesn’t mean that the “impossible real” stops producing. On the contrary, it is contentedly producing new realities, but developed codes must appropriate itself in productive codes in order for capitalism to miraculate
On occasion people will speak to somebody in a distasteful tone that insinuates conflict. One such tone is achieved by speaking condescending. The condescending speaker speaks as if he’s coming from a higher place. The listener refuses to accept his position as lower, thus brewing up conflict. Speaking in a patronizing manner is another example. A patronizing tone puts the listener above the speaker for the purpose of ensnaring them as soon as it is convenient. As soon as space collects its debts, the patronizing speaker betrays his listener to space. His subject is left feeling shortchanged.
We owe our existence to space. Space demands to be given what is worth. Enjoyment incurs benefits but it also incurs debts. These expenses incur in the virtual field, but they are immediately accrued as soon as enjoyment is affirmed. This means that a “winner” and a “loser” is automatically chosen in the actual field. The winner enjoys life, and the loser pays for it. It also makes enjoyment a case against life. It makes the one who witnesses somebody else enjoying life to take it away for himself. In order for the exchange to happen, a gift of space is given as a form of ensnarement. Speech can betray subjects by ensnaring them to space. Then the subject can pay for the enjoyment of the other. This can happen in two ways
with an offer
What is an offer? An offer is a gift where the receiver has the option to accept it or not. When the gift is accepted, it registers onto a surface fromed by its own intensity. It is an immanent surface that forms in order to in-script all those exchanges. The layer (or surface) homogenizes these exchanges as comparative codes. Transactions flows smoothly because they are comparative with one another. When codes move fast, effortless, and frictionless, it is productive. The nomadic movement describes the first productive codes coming out from paranoiac investments from within the nomadic subject.
Nomadism first laid out developing territories from productive codes. A successful territory means that intensities within the nomad found closure by exhausting it. This means that development in nomadism never went past beyond closure. Developments ended as soon as the exchanged inscribed itself as a surface. This was the entire operation, to build a territory and then to abandon it for another. This is what it means for codes to be productive; value is exchanged with an equal and matched intensity found along the surface. Then, they move towards its own end because it exhausts itself into its own surface. This is how nomads territorialized one society after another before migrating to another. The surface (space) demands all costs because it was accrued for in the virtual field
The intensities from the natural, raw Earth must to return back to the Earth eventually. Nomads used productive codes to territorialize their land from raw resources. They knew that one day, the Earth will come and claim its debts. Death was imminent. When tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes, they forced their productive codes into developed codes. This is called growth. Growth takes on the movement by appropriation. Productive codes no longer wish to vanish into its own surface which means that the despotic machine must create a new surface that falls back to the original one and it must perpetually grow off of paranoiac investment.
Tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes by force. The despot forced productive codes into developed codes because they wanted to purge paranoiac investments out into the social field rather than have them exhausted back into the original body of the Earth. So, once in the social field, these investments continued to grow. Once developed, growth codes grew off of their own growth. Whenever someone insults somebody else, the intensity first travels in the nomadic kind. Then, is returns in the despotic kind. For someone to enjoy life, they must first take it from someone else. But capitalism forces codes to return to their original state. They must pay for enjoying life off of their expense. The offender must do this before capitalistic forces reterritorializes developed codes back into productive codes. Otherwise there won’t be an offence. He will come off too forceful, brutish, and cranky “old Mr. Stingy.”
The despotic machine forces comparative (homogenous) spaces into non-comparative (heterogeneous) spaces. This causes developed codes to all back to their original productive codes. Ironically, non-comparative spaces make codes compare with one another. But the developed surface is a quasi-cause because when developed codes fall back to their original surface, they appropriated productive ones. In other words, the despot takes the comparative codes and forces them to be non-comparative so that his victims can exists in both surfaces. The operation can now proceed as an insult by forcing paranoiac investments to be willed out from the victim by his own voluntary will. In capitalistic spaces, the despot can lose the operation if he undershoots his attack. Capitalism reterritorializes all codes back to productive codes. Before this happens, the investor must set up his pre-insult as a gift that travels in one surface and returns at another. All while standing in at the same surface as the victim but speaking to him as above him or below him. This is the tone that comes out as condescendingly or patronizing. The patronizing tone is the investor offering deterritorialized space while the condescending is receiving the gift back. He receives it back because the developed codes are already over-coded. It is often the case that the person who insults first or brutally over attacks his victim is the loser. This happens because capitalistic spaces muted the reterritorializing attempted from the offender to by getting there first.
The paradox is observed when a one receives the gift of knowledge. The learner is better off than before because he can now grow in a developed economy. Afterall, one must be in the wrong before being in the right. The goal is to shortchange the victim before capitalism returns developed codes back to productive ones thereby effectuating a Sadomasochistic relationship. When the insulter turns his victim into a masochist, the flow stops because the insulter now becomes a sadist. Both purges paranoiac investments into each other. To form human currency, it happens by placing the victim into a double bind. The gift of knowledge i not free. A common phrase uttered in altercations is “I want to teach you a lesson.” Once returned, the gift contains overcoded intensities that can be purged by watching his victim in misery. Thus, an insult has occurred
What does it mean when a county has a developed economy? Do developing economies fall under the appropriate mark? Developed nations often spend more than they can earn. It faces a paradox. It is the social formation that paranoiac forces must represent as the case against life. But it is enjoyment itself that is the case against life. And people fight to attain enjoyment even if it’s from other. All trauma, all dissatisfactions, all depression is conditioned under the eye of developed nations. This is why insults are the purest form of offers. It allows one to stand with the victim in growing or developed codes, all while speaking in productive language. This forces everyone to be a salesman by selling deterritorialized space in order to purge paranoiac investments into he social field. Failure to do so will involve the social formation as the reason to complain about life. The terror of capitalistic space befalls on the subject who failed to wholesale deterritorialized space before capitalism deterritorialized non-comparative codes back to their productive codes. If individual within capitalistic spaces refuses to be in the business of wholesaling life-force, the individual must will himself out of a will-to-will. He keeps falling behind productive spaces. The vary own social formation becomes the reason to blame the individual for his own lack of success. Because every code must be intermediated by the social formation, all psychic repression becomes secondary. This means that oppression only exists within himself.
The double-bind works because the capitalistic space demands the victim has a choice. The problem comes when the despotic machine gives no choice but forces the gift to return. The solution is the have the gift return by productive codes. So he places the individual above him through condescending language. He gifts the gift through those measures, the individual is forced to give it back involuntarily because he was placed anti-positioned to space thorugh condescending language. But the victim also has choice in developed codes. The measure of one’s adultness by maintaining compose. It is giving oneself to emotion that the composure is lost. This is how the victim becomes trapped in the double-bind. If the victim gives into this emotional and “snap” back at his aggressor, he voluntarily returns the gift. But it would’ve return though the despotic machine nonetheless. But the still has the option to not return; This would make to difference.
Betraying your audience doesn’t mean switching sides. It doesn’t mean going from the left to the right, to the right to the left. No. In fact your audience demands respect. Respect comes after challenging their assumptions. This requires a lot of trust and courage. Trust happens after complete disclosure with the words you utter. Because you are the expert, trust must be the bond that will challenge people’s assumptions and maintain full confedence with you. Expert speech is the worst way to betray your audience. Expert speech discloses the matter of the issues despite remaining concealed for their protection. Just because you switch political sides, or agree with the other side, doesn’t mean you’re betraying them. Let language betray. Humans can not unless they deliberately want to.
Space disappears between two people the closer they get. The transferring of costs and debts must happen responsibly between space. In society, we obligate each other by nominal contracts, because we live in a society that interconnect. We disembody as we speak with words and speech. Once we leave the voice box, it is like an arrow that has left it’s bow. It seems people would like to retract their words once it left their voice box. Or they would like to correct their speech. But the message has been sent even before one has spoken. When others realize that we are simply vibrations that gets forcefully pushed out of lungs of air, they begin to play with the space around us. It is space that makes the rules of the omnidirectional vectors of sound waves. The other person then picks up these airwaves as signals. But the space that was offered so that sound waves could travel has been positioned to us. We could be placed under antiposition where the intensity of the message has been diluted or amplyfied depending on the code they territorialized space with.
So, if our voice carries ourselves in bits and pieces, where does this trust comes in? If we think about how the space traveled between the ears of two subjects, space connects us virtually. Technology closes the gaps between distances. We place trust in each other because we know we don’t know everything there is to know to survive. The betrayer is the one who holds space hostage. Through language, the betrayer can cause us to “fall into space” that was concealed. What I’m describing is NOT some psychological ensnarement but rather, a failure to disclose competence. Confidence is the ability to be honest about it.
Bracing is understood psychological. Revenge positions lack as reasons to attaining it. And when one finally attains it, they don’t desire revenge anymore. Desire immediately dissipates after the brace. The final efforts was all in vain! Although this is perfectly sound, the implication says that there’s an immediate winner and an immediate looser. Here is where things get interesting. Aristotle said that subjects do not win or lose a debate. It is the argument itself ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ the debates for them. There’s a sense of predestination. Or atleast a virtual field that immediately assigns an expense to a previous benefit unpaid. It’s easy to see why we become unfaithful to this deity.
This is one of the most devastating ways live and think. It impedes our ability to be honest. It hinders self-critique. It’s entirely dialectical because it makes hypocrisy the greatest virtue of human achievement. It isn’t useful to look at bracing from within a debate. A debate appropriates the very issue at hand into a metanarrative. Debates are useless unless talking about the debate itself.
The growing-adult braces
Bracing is what a psychological barrier is to what flight-and-fight is. One immediately abandons the altercation. Silence is an example of evacuating. The adult claims to be above it, using the guise of responsibility to abandon the “spirit of the game.” What does it mean to abandon the “spirit of the game?” The social formation produces growing-adults to grow… and negate a negation. What do they negate? Desire itself. Then, they are instructed to place desire as primary.
Desire perpetually leaves the thing or object that desire attaches to. When we force desire to be primary, we have an entire social structure to use it as an injection to the economy. Why would anyone sign up for asceticism? It is the belief is that once is desire negated, it immediately returns but without the sin. In other words, they want revenge but the Christian God is ever-knowing and ever-present. However, desire has already arrived negated to the adult. This already positions the adult into brace under an encounter (the hypocrite). Meaning the intent was to reject (or give away) desirous-revenge. Bracing allows one to anticipate the desirous-revenge return to him but at the level adjusted for sin.
Why is memory so powerful? When we watch an altercation, we often seek out the finishing blow to conclude. We look for the way the conclusion leaves the Other in a state of thoughtful retaliation. It is the moment when we can see the light leave the enemy’s eyes! The moment when the ego has confirmed revenge! The sweet taste of victory served on a dish that gives that extra punch! Adults forbid revenge. But this means that revenge is forbidden for them. One can handle revenge as long as they don’t affirm it. The Christian God is always watching. One’s opponent braces for the Other to brace for the desirous-revenge. Memory serves reminds one that arguments are reciprocal and attached into desiring-production.
Desiring-production follows the psychological realm of utility and Truth. It superficially explains the reasons for revenge as the desire to prove one is right. Why? Because the production-of-the-real leaves one to follow the logic that the role of the species was to survive, build, eat, reproduce. BOOM…the present. Then, the soul takes on from there. In modernity, violence has a symbolic face lift. The soul wears it like a shield. What powers capitalism is consumption. The soul consumes Vital Potentia. Desiring-machines produce the real. Which then gifts desirous-revenge into a fuel. The adult claims ‘win’ with symbolic victory. By disengaging, they betray life to the will-to-nothingness.
The “Last-man” braces life
This is what Nietzsche warned about the complete management of the world. Life-force, or the vital potentia, would be harvested and syphoned-in. The “last-man,” would “suck” and betray life by nihilism. By having bracing being built into capitalism, all we can brace for is bracing itself.