[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

[Mike Lansing]

Johnny wrote: 'because the word perception seems to imply that the mind
suffers.'

According to Hardt and Negri's necessary labor vs surplus labor as
being the pivot of the impossibility of socialism, Bernie Sanders's
socialism, the Impossible Trident

Impossible Trident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trident

Though capitalism's rabidity and bulemia is now attempting to subsume
all social labor.

'the (Transcendental)formal being undoes the sadness of its conatus....'

For perception, note how the middle tine of the trident can both appear
and disappear.

'To free individuals from the concepts imperfectly applied to them, as
Ockham sought to do, requires articulating a prior disunity and
dispersion escaping all identity, from which the simple individual as a
ground for abstraction both appears and disintegrates. It is only
appropriate, even if ironic, that this conclusion -- which dissolves
the christian god as well -- should follow from christian philosophy
itself.'
(Widder N, Genealogies of Difference, p.148)

'so shall we find one single and same order, that is one single
connection of causes....'

On questions of necessary labor....

'Agan, what exists must be separated from the way it is cognized.
Certainly, existence as predicated of god differs from that predicated
of his creatures, for he exists necessarily and they do not: "For that
reason, there is no distinction in god between 'that which is' and
'that in virtue of which it is,' because there is not anything
different from god in virtue of which god is. But in a creature there
is distinction, because that which a creature is and that in virtue of
which a creature is are simply distinct, just as god and a creature are
distinct." This does not, however, establish a real distinction within
either being, as though essence were what the thing is and existence
were that by virtue of which it is. It is thus fallacious to derive the
existence of god from huis essence of god from his essence, for this is
to demonstrate something on the basis of itself. It is also impossible
to establish hierarchy based on the increasing convergence of essence
and existence, since all beings are equal in their dependence on god
for existence.

In these ways Ockham's razor limits the resources reason can rightly
use ro demonstrate the existence of god. Clearly Ockham's criticism of
Scotus seriously distort the latter's understanding of essential order,
consistently treating sequentially ordered causes as essentially
ordered, but they are consistent with the constraints he has developed.
First, the categorical distinctions necessary for establishing such an
order as static are only mental constructions. There can be no real
ordering among the four types of cause, for example, because the
supremacy given to telos rests on the logic that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts, and therefore prior to them, but Ockham
views a whole as nothing more than an aggregate. Similarly, the
argument that an accidental order of causes must refer to a permanent
order because change takes place only in virtue of something unchanging
illicitly invokes a real universal.'
(Widder, op cit pp. 135-6)

"Virtue, I have quit your tyranny."
(Marguerite Porete, burned as a heretic, 1 Jun 1310, Place de greve,
Paris)

<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Dewey Dell [dewey.dell5 at gmail.com]
>Sent: 2/20/2019 3:02:52 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Communism definitions Physics
>
>hello Mike,
>
>
>i am sorry i cannot answer asap with a text from Nick Land on
socialism in
>the USA
>this would deserve some work of research from me.
>
>in the meantime here is the posted text by Andrew Culp on today's Dank
>Deleuze Guattari Facebook Group.
>
><< Many of these writers draw upon the 'empiricism' of a philosopher
>
>whose thought will inform my own, alternative, approach: Gilles
Deleuze.
>
>The exact status of this empiricism is, however, a strong point
>
>of contention within the secondary literature.
>
>By his own definition, Deleuze uses a reworked version of philosophical
>
>empiricism whereby 'empiricism is a philosophy of the imagination and
not
>
> a philosophy of the senses'. Demonstrating the importance of the
>imagination,
>
>he readily draws upon the literary works of the Anglo-American writers
>
>to demonstrate its principles. In his strictly philosophical work,
>
>it appears as the paradoxical formulation of a 'transcendental
empiricism'
>
>as a philosophical alternative to Kant's transcendental idealism,
>
>in which the transcendental field is separated from its empirical
givenness
>
>to bypass the personal, individuated world of the subject.
>
>In the recent secondary literature, many writers have departed
>
>from the object-orientated camp by following Deleuze's claim that
>
>this empiricism 'treats concept as object of an encounter'.
>
>They clarify that Deleuze's empiricism is strictly concerned with
>
>the real conditions of thought and thus fundamentally uninterested
>
>in an empirical tracking of the habits of thought expressed in lived
>experience [vécu].
>
> Taking seriously Deleuze's separation of the transcendental form of
>
>the empirical, these thinkers focus on concepts and not ethnography
>
> or personal reflection ('for the data of empirical lived experience
>
> doesn't inform thought about what it can do'). Shifting the focus
>
> to concepts is part of their wider move to claim that
>
>'there is no "ontology of Deleuze"'.
>
>They appeal to Deleuze and Guattari's suggestion
>
> in the introduction of A Thousand Plateaus to 'overthrow ontology'
>
> by substituting what 'is' for Hume's ongoing series of interacting
>
>exterior relations 'and...and...and...'. The philosophical consequence
>
> of the concept-based approach is an engagement with the outside as a
>
> relative exteriority beyond sensory givens. Interestingly,
>
> this is also how Foucault defines the experience of thought.>>
>
>
> §
>
>
>here comes the definition by wikkipedia / google of surplus labor /
>necessary labor
>
>
>*Surplus labour* (German: Mehrarbeit) is a concept used
>
> by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
>
>It means *labour* performed in excess of the *labour necessary*
>
>to produce the means of livelihood of the *worker* ("*necessary
labour*").
>
>
>
>
> §
>
>
>and here comes SPINOZA's Ethics Book II Prop 7 Scolie (Trad.Génicot)
>
>
>(tease out)(...)
>
><<Par exemple, un cercle existant dans la Nature et l'idée du cercle
>existant,
>
>laquelle est aussi en Dieu, sont une seule et même chose, qui
s'explique
>par des attributs différents; et ainsi,
>
>que nous concevions la Nature soit sous l'attribut de l'Etendue, soit
>
>sous l'attribut de la Pensée, soit sous quelque autre, nous trouverons
un
>seul et
>
>même ordre, autrement dit une seule connexion des causes, c'est-à-dire
les
>mêmes choses
>
>se suivant les unes les autres.(...)>> <<(Et lorsque j'ai dit) que 
>Dieu est
>cause de l'idée, par
>
>exemple du cercle en tant seulement qu'il est chose pensante, et du
cercle
>en tant seulement
>
>qu'il est chose étendue, ce n'est pour aucune
>
>autre raison, sinon que l'être formel de l'idée du cercle ne peut être
perçu
>
>que par un autre mode de penser qui en est comme la cause prochaine,
>celui-ci à
>
>son tour par un autre, et ainsi à l'infini (...)>>
>
>
>>> For instance, a circle existing in Nature, and the idea of the 
>existing
>circle, this idea being as well in God,
>
>are each one single and same thing, explained away by different
attributes;
>and so, whether we conceive Nature either
>
>under the attribute Extension, either under the attribute Thought,
either
>under any other attribute, so shall we find one single
>
>and same order, that is one single connection of causes, that is the
same
>things following up each one another. (...)>>
>
>(And when I say) that God is the cause of the idea, for instance of the
>circle in that it is a thinking thing, and the cause of the circle
>
>in that it is an extended thing, it is for no other reason, if not for
the
>formal being of the idea of the circle not to be otherwise perceived
than by
>
>another mode of thought which is to the circle as a next of kin cause,
the
>latter in turn to be perceived by another next of kin cause, and so ad
>infinitum.(...)>>
>
>
>
>-§- (as well) - § -
>
>
>Eth. Book II Definitions III
>
>
><< - Par idée, j'entends un concept de l'Esprit, que l'Esprit forme 
>parce
>qu'il est une
>
>chose pensante.
>
>
>Je dis concept plutôt que perception, parce que le mot perception
semble
>indiquer que l'Esprit pâtit d'un objet,
>
>tandis que concept semble exprimer une action de l'Esprit. >>
>
>
>>>By idea, I understand a concept of the Mind, that the Mind forms 
>because
>it is a thinking thing.
>
>I say concept rather than perception, because the word perception
seems to
>imply that the Mind suffers
>
>from an object, whereas concept seems to express an action of the 
>Mind.>>
>
>
>
>///
>
>
>Do you mean Mike Lansing in your post today that a worker in USA
>
>or a worker in France have a different surplus labor?
>
>I in any case am not sure of the definition offered by
Google/Wikkypedia
>
>( seek above) because it seems obvious that I work a lot, like at this
>present moment, sending this message,
>
>in a way which could be defined by either definition of necessary
labor or
>
>surplus labor, according to where we cut the Time Line and its
encompassed
>Vision.
>
>Besides something is existing between the recipient(s) of the message
and
>
>the executive producer of the message. This produced thing is both
real and
>behaving and becoming with a neighbor: distance:
>
>the same things (formal being) are to be found in
>
>one single connection of causes. It grows or decreases. As such it is
>perceived within a Ratio by the Mind. We could say that to cut Time
Line is
>trying to tease out a phase (ie. a partial object) instead than
>
>a full concept. Yet Time does not exist. Time is a partial object or
>partial concept. Extension exists but Time does not. The text by these
>secondary Philosophers espousing in Andrew Culp's
>
>vision of transcendental empiricism, this text shows this not: it cuts
out
>a part of reality (ironically
>
>when we find on same Facebook group today Sam Bhag, the correspondent
with
>Andrew Culp, deals with the Winnicott partial objects in Three
Ecology).
>
>But the Vision or Ratio of the Time Line _can_ or _should_ exist.
>
>It is part of Perception. A Perception as Concept, or as Action. A
Sensible
>Intensity that can be approximated
>
>with another according to a certain Ratio. This Ratio belongs to the
>Deleuzo-Foucaldian requisite of concept-based
>
>approach (ie. 'a relative exteriority beyond sensory givens' ) because
the
>sensory given (or the sensory produced, when happily this event
happens)
>
>is always an Intensity, extension being the increase or decrease of a
>formal being. The latter being affected
>
>by positive affections, either sad or happy. So remains the question
of the
>collectivity . This is where Ethics come
>
>involved within the definition of Marx's necessary or surplus labor.
The
>necessary labor requisite comes verified when the sensory comes
produced
>within
>
>a necessary increase of the producers' sensibility. This happens when
the
>(Transcendental) formal being undoes the sadness of the struggle of its
>
>conatus, which can in certain circumstances encompass ignorance of the
>Transcendentality of its Being, or its Self-Re-flexion. When Narcissism
>ends up with The vanishing Illusion of Inertia.
>
>a Space-Time understood by its emotion(s): as surplus affection or
>decreased affection(s) of the commune (notion) shared by channels or
>attributes
>
>of new other Space-Times. (ie Space-Time agents or patients) . The
latter
>can be given with 'conceptual exteriority' only within distance, ie.
>within the Vision of increase or decrease of
>
>interaction(s) taking the shapes, or ratios, of intensities.
>
>
>
> Very Respectuously,
>
>
>Johnny Petterson.
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> 
>wrote:
>
>> We look forward to discourse from Nick Land or these other
>> communist/post-communist philosophers because of the deadly
democratic
>> socialist thrust beginning to gather momentum inside the American
>> rhizome. If Hardt and Negri are correct in stating that the pivot of
>> socialism, the point at which it becomes impossible is necessary
labor
>> vs. surplus labor, then we must tease out differences between UK,
>> France, Venezuela, U.S. from the confusion.
>>
>> 'On a January evening in 1934, approximately 6,000 Chicagoans
gathered
>> in the city's large Coliseum Hall to celebrate and remember Lenin. It
>> was the kind of evening that brought out the complexities of
Communism
>> in the city. "In behalf of the American Communist Party," the main
>> speaker declared, "I say that the one program which will bring unity
to
>> the American people is the program of Lenin." ....In a sense, this
>> occasion honoring Lenin's memory had already begun the work of
unifying
>> American people across the lines of age, sex, ethnicity, and
>> occupation. And yet Communists clearly had their work cut out for
them.
>> American Federation of Labor leaders, the speaker warned the crowd,
>> equated Lenin's program with "a Russian program - not one for the
>> United States."
>> ....
>> What did this diverse grouping of Chicagoans find relevant about
Lenin
>> and the Communist party? How are students of American history
supposed
>> to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory images: one of an
>> organization that celebrated Soviet leaders, co-opted Soviet symbols,
>> and embraced revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology, and on the
other
>> a somewhat popular American social movement comprised of a wide array
>> of otherwise ordinary people?'
>> (Storch R, Red Chicago: American Communism at Its Grassroots,
1928-35)
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org