Skip to content

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005):

July 4, 2013

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF SELF AND HUMAN CULTURE

(NOTES)

DEFINITIONS

1) POWER:

The possibility of imposing yourself-of being you as the realization of your desires and wants-as YOU perceive them.

2) FRUSTRATION

Being powerless to impose yourself according to your desires and wants-as YOU perceive these desires and wants.

3) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDS AND WANTS:

A difference according to tolerability level of frustration: needs are wants/desires that are more difficult to endure as frustration when not satisfied.

The frustration of unsatisfied wants are more tolerable; unsatisfied needs are more difficult to tolerate-to the point even that the word frustration is not accurate:

Unsatisfied wants=Frustration

Unsatisfied needs=Damage, severe impact on subject.

.

THE SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF NEED:

A)”A Need-to-Know Basis”

Subordinate officer says: I need that information.

Superior: No; you WANT that information, but MY NEEDS as your superior are different-I DON’T NEED YOU to actually have that information.

B) Needs in Consumer Society

The producers and sellers of consumer society operate on a different level of NEED than consumers; but consumer need as perceived by the individual is said and understood to be the impetus of everything. The functional need, then, of the producer as seller is that the consumer perceive as needing exactly that which is produced and offered.

PROBLEM: When consumers do not perceive a personal need or desire for what is offered, and therefore have no inclination to pay for what is produced and put on the market. And this is a problem because of the heavy investments required to develop and produce-manufacture-consumer products of any type, even films and audio-visual products of all kinds-because if a consumer market is not guaranteed, financial loss quickly becomes massive-even in a critical, systemic sense for corporations and for the economy itself.

SOLUTION (Galbraith): A tooth and nail struggle to forge in the mind and physiological being of the consumer as individual as social mass, the need for what is produced by the higher-level, producing component of consumer society-that is to say, the political-financial conglomerate of the techno-military state as an all-pervasive, advertizing state itself.

.

HUMAN REALITY AS A CONTEXT OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT

PART 1

DEFINITIONS

1) SUBJECT:

Perceives wants and needs as different degrees of states of non-satisfaction.

2) OBJECT:

A “de-subjectified subject” from the standpoint of another subject; there exists implicitly two levels of needs and life itself becomes a game of relating these two different levels on through time.

3) DISREGARD FOR OTHERS:

An edifice of Western thought would be required to fully describe an approximate answer or definition to this term or concept.

4)CORPORATLITY

Essential to a having a workable understanding-the starting point of the self, of everything.

Underlying pattern or configuration of how human subjects relate to others-to other subjects.

Physiological and psychological configuration of how individuals relate to what they are not.

Obviously-and most effortlessly-it is possible to relate as a subject by seeing others as only objects-this would seem to be the primary, natural way of seeing those who are not you.

They are an object of your sight-perception-and of your own physiological-psychological projections as part of your very perception of them.

[Elaborate ideas of how human mind projects internal elements (memories, images) onto visually perceived reality-especially when images are somehow open to ambiguity or interpretation-or the visual perception of the human figure in all contexts-as opposed to the perception of inanimate objects.]

But the other is also another-a subject, like you.

Again, corporality returns as concept: the distance as what separates you from others-that separates,-at the highest level as summit of abstraction-you from yourself!

And it is the transgression beyond the physical barriers of the self that all cultures have held as the highest form of supremacy as power-as the power of dreams, narcotics, sex, death and suicide-the power of moving beyond in some way the physical definition of being-and it is the chief characteristic of the omnipotence of any form of divinity, theistic or otherwise.

And implicitly, the body can be tacitly understood as a prison cell, and life, of course, as a cosmic sentence to serve time!

And the spirit of man at the heart of the historical, human experience has always been-paradoxically-the body itself!

Or: the greatest psychological problem of man is in fact our body!

And you are now before the great doors of the true edifice of the philosophical heritage of man-the question that human history has only managed, finally, to formulate:

What really is man?

PART 2

But at the deepest, most unrestrained psychological core of the individual: all else is an object, either through your wants to take and satisfy yourself, or defensively when you see yourself attacked or born down upon by an “a non-subjectified”, unpitying, inhuman force-whether it be nature, an animal or another human being- that is an object in a Golem sense from your instincitive, visceral standpoint precisely because you are treated as an object yourself by it.

And the dichotomy, in this context, is a mutual absence-on both sides-of self, of thinking individuality.

Environmental stability for the individual implies a rising up from this core and primary psychological state into more refined, mediated, subjectified modes of being.

[Maslow-based: Probably originally understood-or studied-from or within contexts of torture.]

Hence more stability implies greater capacity to see others as subjects, not only as objects-because one is able to acquire a more immediate and rational understanding of self; that is, this supposes-inversely and reflexively-a greater sense of self-of self subjectivity because of one’s possibility to perceive the subjectivity of others.

And finally, there is a mutual dignification of both sides of the subject-object thematic argument structure-a context in which subjects relate to others subjects and not to objects.

And when human beings are in fact objects of other human subjects -of their interests and intentions-it is with an understanding-and the restraint this affords-of all our own subjectivity as individuals.

But with regards to dogs: who gives a fuck?

Dogs are all about you, anyway, as living toys to reflect yourself back into.

And some people even use children in the same way.

Just ask a US Army or Disney Corporation psychologist:

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s