July 9, 2010
"Some values, then, are born current and appear only by soliciting an order of recognition, even if they must await favorable historical conditions to be, in effect, recognized. On the other hand, some values are eternally new, forever untimely, always contemporary with their creation, and these, even when they seem established, apparently assimilated by a society, in fact address themselves to other forces, soliciting from within that society anarchic forces of another nature. Such values alone are trans-historical, supra-historical, and bear witness to a congenial chaos, a creative disorder that is irreducible to any order whatsoever. It is this chaos of which Nietzsche spoke when he said it was not the contrary of the eternal return, but the eternal return in person. The great creations depart from this supra-historical stratum, this ‘untimely’ chaos, at the extreme limit of what is livable."

Gilles Deleuze, On the Will to power and The Eternal Return /via pareidoliac

May 30, 2010
via mthing + touba

via mthing + touba

May 27, 2010
"Facebook’s Vision: “The world would be a better place if people would share more in public.” Exposure > Privacy"

@SocialMedia411

It‘s my vision
A total one
Encompassing
The only one
A world complete
That‘s all my own
Exactly as
As it should be, oh

I lost myself
I lost myself
You can‘t see how
Because I am just a cloud…a cloud.

Everything adds up to a truth
Maybe now, I can know me too
I have you now
Where you should be
You are mine now
But I lost me, I‘m a cloud

###

April 21, 2010
Our kids may care about brands, but do brands really care about kids?

“A website called Dubit Insider has the following message for the nation’s children: “Dubit believes you are the best people to promote brands, products and services – not celebrity endorsed television ads!” How depressing. No wonder I never heard back from Irn Bru, and Greggs the Bakers said I was “too hammy” to play a sausage roll.

I suppose it’s just cold hard economic reality. Dubit, which specialises in getting kids to market to kids, is only paying its school-age “brand ambassadors” £25 a week. I was asking twice that. These rewards, paid in vouchers for the very products they’re peddling, are for mentioning “key campaign messages to friends, both on and offline” about brands such as Fanta, Nintendo, Cheestrings and the new Barbie MP3 player. Crap, basically.

The young recruits are exhorted to be subtle: “Write down the key points in your own words and make sure it doesn’t sound too rehearsed… Don’t start a chat about the project – it’s best to look for natural opportunities to drop it into the conversation.” It’s great to find multinational corporations investing in the future of British espionage.

This is one of those odd news stories where you feel you’re supposed to baulk at the new low that corporations have sunk to but don’t because you’re surprised they’ve only just sunk to it. It’s like when Gregory Peck died and people responded: “I didn’t know he was still alive!” to which you can only answer: “Well, he isn’t.” I assumed companies had been up to this kind of shit for years – it’s rather nice that things weren’t as bad as I thought, even if they were inexorably becoming so.

Public limited companies are amoral. They’re driven purely by their constitutional requirement to turn as large a profit as possible for their shareholders. People can be good or evil, ambitious or lazy, angry or fearful – plcs are none of these things. They unthinkingly, unswervingly, pursue money – that is their programming.

[…] Corporations have no such moral sense.

I’m not an anti-capitalist. I really don’t think this amorality is a problem, as long as it’s understood. If you walk into the lion’s enclosure at a zoo and the lion eats you, it’s your fault. When we expect large companies to act out of motives other than financial self-interest, we only have ourselves to blame.”

via @juspar, who calls this ‘brand ambassadorship’ “spamming”, adding that “viruses and spam are increasingly generalised mechanisms of capitalism.”

March 14, 2010
"The idea that there could exist a state of communication that would allow games of truth to circulate freely, without any constraints or coercive effects, seems utopian to me. This is precisely a failure to see that power relations are not something that is bad in itself, that we have to break free of. I do not think that society can exist without power relations, if by that one means the strategies by which individuals try to direct and control the conduct of others. The problem, then, is not to try to dissolve them in the utopia of completely transparent communication but to acquire the rules of law, the management techniques, and also the morality, the ethos, the practice of the self, that will allow us to play these games of power with as little domination as possible."

— Michel Foucault: ‘The Ethics of the Concern for Self as a Practice of Freedom’ (via fuckyeahphilosophy)

January 15, 2010
DELEUZE AND THE QUESTION OF DESIRE: TOWARD AN IMMANENT THEORY OF ETHICS

“The title of this paper raises two questions, each of which I would like to address in turn. The first question is: What exactly is an immanent ethics (as opposed to an ethics that appeal to transcendence)? The second question is: What is the philosophical question of desire? My ultimate question concerns the link between these two issues: What relation does an immanent ethics have to the question of desire? Historically, the first question is primarily linked with the names of Spinoza and Nietzsche (as well as, as we shall see, Leibniz), since it was Spinoza and Nietzsche who posed the question of an immanent ethics in its most rigorous form. The second question is linked to names like Freud and Lacan, and behind them, to Kant, since it was they who formulated the modern conceptualization of desire in its most acute form—that is, in terms of unconscious desire, desire as unconscious. It was in Anti-Oedipus, published in 1972, that Deleuze (along with Félix Guattari, his co-author) would attempt to formulate his own theory of desire—what he would call a purely immanent theory of desire. In his preface to Anti-Oedipus, Michel Foucault would claim, famously, that “Anti-Oedipus is a book of ethics, the first book of ethics to be written in France in quite a long time”—thereby making explicit the link between the theory of desire developed in Anti-Oedipus with the immanent theory of ethics Deleuze worked out in his monographs on Nietzsche and Spinoza”

via @troyrhoades & @hyblis