Re: [-empyre-] bloggers [can] shrink systemic scarring

At 03:54 AM 18/06/2005, HW wrote lots of stuff, some of which i intend 2 respond 2, most of which i want to examine in terms of discourse variation + as an eg of how the potential of blogging can offer potential alternatives 2 argumentative/proof-based [mono]logging:

1. i wrote:
 #blogs *can* [ad nauseam] present as less intrinsically reliant on
fiscal or hierarchical reward-systems [ie such as
newscasting/journalism] + projecting information outside of a
framework formulated within these rigid economic dependencies [ie
having the opportunity (with)in blogdom 2 present ur take thru an
individualised opinion filter as opposed 2 a primarily
monetary_inflected 1]. of course, the risks for those still even
partially centred within a systemic reality should be acknowledged
when Blogging_Against/Outside_The_Machine [eg being dooced ].

2. HW responded:
First, I don't get the opposition:
from my perspective there is no
"outside the system".

this is the 1st instance of wot i perceive as a type of basic HW/mez_method of discourse_ variation. ie 4rm the get-go of ur reply, HM, it seems [+ i may be way off base here] as if u r intent on parsing my post as if it is intended argument + as such it follows a reasoned, logical [read: socratic/scientific/deductive-based reasoning/method based] structure. i didn't intend my post to b interpreted as such, which alone doesn't guarantee that can't b, obviously. what i am basing my indicators-that-my-posting-indeed-may-not-intentionally-argumentative-as-such r various language markers/signifiers that demarcate variations in the henry/mez streams of discourse:

-my discourse structure potentially could b perceived as being riddled with sound_bite-ish [though i tend 2 view it as succinct] philosophical/scientific blather, + unsubstantiated conjecture [according 2 established rational mechanisms of validation/proof]. i prefer 2 labour under the delusion that it also displays ephemeral thinking/questioning, unfolding conceptual allure thru suggestion rather than instruction, abstract engagement + open inflection [lots of "can"/"may"/'"seems"].

-ur [HW's] position seem 2 immerge quite strongly from a different orientation - preferring logical structures, deduction based on reasoning, examination of discourse elements through the use of introspection/personal experience + statistics, + conclusive/instructive & potentially didactic statements 2 prove ur overarching position?

An eg from ur post:
"There is only The System, as there is only one world we live in: this one." without [hopefully] turning this into Reasoning 101, i've posited the above in order 2 high-light 2 things:

1. the difficulties + delicious engagement possibilities of this basic communication/discourse variance. i myself find the lure of my ego voice fairly demanding - ie falling back in2 manifestations of argument + proof building; responding 2 each of ur logical assertions with a counterpoint, intellectually jousting within-deductive-parameters + deriving insight/[and possibly]insult from this. i actually started a response that did just this: countering basic flaws + indicating inference holes. then i went "woah - power structures any1? ego intervention, hello!?" so trashed it immediately. i'm quite likely [unfortunately] as a scientifically/intellectually trained boffin 2 respond in this very light: indeed, i do fall splat-bang in2 it occasionally [d'oh!]. wot i would rather attempt, tho, is the utilisation of modalities that somehow reflect the medium + encourage a type of openness, rather than reduce the multilogue [as this is a forum in which multilogging seems desirable] 2 parameters that seem [probably unconsciously] exclusionary?

i suspect my dislike of reasoning didactically may stem from a nagging suspicion that it could actually emulate + ultimately allow for [in a substantially incremental sense] the perpetuation of, as HM puts it, the "rapacious global industrialism which developed in concert with and as a method of survival for, the rapid expansion of human population in the 20th century".

ie, i view the way in which this type of discourse is constructed [via reasoned proof] as aping the very mechanisms that, in my view, act to maintain/perpetuate global levels of exclusion, hierarchy, discrimination + domination.

which brings me 2 my 2nd [equally rambling] point:
2. the position that blogging cannot reflect or assist in establishing cultural or societal change/variance seems [2 me] an illustration of hierarchy based on this reasoning dependency quagmire.... by posturing that action is the only realistic avenue of change ["concrete activities by people"], this seems 2 then deny or invalidate any other type of resistance, questioning, or practice that may not be as overt or discernable in nature.

in my holistic/rhizomatic/jigsaw formulation of wot can constitute a type of resistance 2 overarching ideologically-defined systems, a devotee's flickr pictures of movies stars mite indicate some time of action of their own - the ability, on the most micro-of lvls, 2 organise, activate, or initialise some type of learning/cogitation/motivation [in contrast 2 overt in-ur-face-quantifiable activist Stimulus-Object-Response type].....i'd much prefer 2 absorb the twittering cutsie output of a blogger who devotes their time 2 documenting their luv of kittens than cringe at ppl convinced that they cannot make a discernable difference unless they perform "concrete activities" who may also feel compelled 2 display [thru polarisations/rhetoric such as "if your not with us ur against us"] an orientation advocating apathy + helpless due 2 binary oppositions trotted out by ppl intent on saving them from their capitalistic servitude via an internalised dominator mimicking....


with anti-apathy-r[easoning l]ust, mez [s.vee.m]



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.