tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571055663184272276.post4995797804742877399..comments2023-07-09T07:45:50.552-07:00Comments on Socialism and/or barbarism: A Pervert's Guide to Provocative AgentsECWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142600295759704786noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571055663184272276.post-35030104695866419612013-07-24T07:52:43.995-07:002013-07-24T07:52:43.995-07:00for the google result image with "agent provo...for the google result image with "agent provocateur" it is normal to find lingerie pic because AGENT PROVOCATEUR is a lingerie brand. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571055663184272276.post-87947397650503987842011-11-06T20:54:43.423-08:002011-11-06T20:54:43.423-08:00True enough, we have all (most of us) been there. ...True enough, we have all (most of us) been there. <br />This sounds to me to be yet another reason not to do things in groups larger than your circle of close friends, or family, or spontaneous gaggle of like-minded strangers & acquaintances. <br />But then I have always been suspicious of large groups of people. And my very small experience of groups that prioritize consensus has been somewhere between boredom, impatience, and the revulsion for totalitarianism. I realize that this stance toward groups trying to make change is not really helpful. <br />How about this: a creative idea for action occurs to you, you talk it over with some close friends and seek their help, they either to agree to help or give you good reasons why it is a bad idea, and the action either happens or it doesn't. <br />And otherwise, as a mode of living, either ignore, live outside of, or parasitize large powerful groups.<br />- A mostly unformed idea.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04849047893375514085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571055663184272276.post-40222955768018505642011-11-05T13:28:58.946-07:002011-11-05T13:28:58.946-07:00"God i'm sounding either like a confsed T..."God i'm sounding either like a confsed Tory or sub-Zizek"<br /><br />We've all been there, in our darkest moments...David K Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10756535951359716522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571055663184272276.post-43689014179596697862011-11-05T03:52:23.877-07:002011-11-05T03:52:23.877-07:00Re: the idea that for a protest to be legitimate t...Re: the idea that for a protest to be legitimate the media and other critics know how it should be played.<br /><br />I want to share a discourse game I played (its actually quite familiar), with regard to how 'we' play the game. The question of participation. One that I think has relevance to Occupy's methods, as much as I support the fact that they are doing 'something'.<br /><br />I have been doing a fiar bit of training in mental health, receiving and giving.<br />When giving training one idea that we are 'taught' to do is in order to get people to feel like they are participating we do 'groundrules' and come to a consensus.<br /><br />However over yars of this i have noticed something. The rules rarely vary. Hardly ever does someone drop in a clanger. We already know what goes in and what doesn't. <br /><br />This rule is invariable whether I am giving the training or receiving it.<br /><br />So one day with some fellow charity workers I tried playng a game. It's a simple game best known as 'Chinese Whispers'. (CAVEAT: I know some people object to the name but the importance here is the cultural significance of this name for it as a childhood game).<br /><br />So i played it once using a random word (I had no idea how this would work but it did ultimately work as I suspected it would). As expected the word had changed by the end.<br /><br />Then I played it again, this time the word was 'Chinese Whispers' itself. And yes the word(s) made it to the end of the line unadulterated.<br /><br />There's an interesting book 'Participation: The New Tyranny' http://www.amazon.co.uk/Participation-New-Tyranny-Bill-Cooke/dp/1856497941<br /><br />There's something that concerns me.<br /><br />As do questions like 'how exactly does consensus allow difference?<br /><br />In German the term 'Vestehen' means more literally 'mutual understanding' and so can allow respect for difference. <br /><br />But I still have the nagging feeling that consensus politics is still an unexpurgated form of Christian alienated need for reassurance.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with reassurance it allows us to feel politically secure, but I'm concerned with it as a means without any other guiding idea.<br /><br />It's still the Berlinian negative freedom, without a positive freedom, running the paradox to exclude positive freedom is a leviathanesque positive freedom that negates all others.<br /><br />There is the issue that tolerance of the tolerant is easy. Intolerance of the intolerant may leave us blind but is human. And a demand that we be tolerant of the intolerant is not only asking the superhuman but raises questions on an anabaptist scale of an authoritarian refusal that is intolerant (see again above) of intolerance.<br /><br />Without difference there is no contradiction. A sterilsation of the possibility of dialectics.<br /><br />God i'm sounding either like a confsed Tory or sub-Zizek<br /><br />I know i'm sniping from the sidelines I am concerned<br /><br />Schizo StrollerSchizo Strollerhttp://www.schizostroller.comnoreply@blogger.com