I had to get the book, it is a sort of meditation on the nature of the relational space. It focuses on therapy, but this would be so relevant for those of us who consider that the marriage is the therapy.
Been posting a few items about books here. Very casual. Hardly posted a thing this year, and see post on Evernote below re that. Feel some motivation coming on.
The motivation is to post book covers and snippets because I am loving my ebooks – have for years. I don’t really want the paper books anymore. But I miss the affordance of the stacks of books lying around unread. They are now just a line of links on a screen and sometimes I can’t even recall why I have the book sample or who recommended it. There are so many samples, just a list! So I’ll post unread books here, awaiting reviews.
Once paper books are read they can go on a shelf somewhere. Even the pile in the garage. I can look at them when I tidy up, and think, oh yes I remember that.
OK, so there is a purpose for the blog, to notice what I have in my ebook library in some sort of meaningful way. So out with Evernote for books – and onto the blog with them. Expect more flimsy post with cover pictures.
I will update posts too, I often do that here, they need edits and additions as they go up very rough.
I tried Goodreads for this purpose, however for some reason I am more attracted to my own blog, at least first. Social media can come later, if at all.
There is already plenty here in the blog to stir reminiscences. There are references to books back to 1999. As I went back to look I found a dead link to this item
Malcolm Gladwell on Blockbusters and books. Collaborative filtering!
Just six authors–John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, and Danielle Steel–account for sixty-three of the books on the list. In a world more dependent on collaborative filtering, Grisham, Clancy, King, and Steel would still sell a lot of books. But you’d expect to see many more books like “Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood”–many more new writers–make their way onto the best- seller list. And the gap between the very best selling books and those in the middle would narrow. Collaborative filtering, Hagel says, “favors the smaller, the more talented, more quality products that may have a hard time getting visibility because they are not particularly good at marketing.”
It seems he was wrong though.
Must revisit, interesting. What has happened 15 years later to those lists?
I used to write more in this blog than I do now. I always said I was just writing for myself, that it was a sort of note taking.
I have become an avid user of Evernote – and it is all private. Notes to myself. This has taken the driving force out of my motivation, which, I’m sorry to say, dear reader, was not to inform or please you but more about me.
Of course blogging has lost its pride of place as a form of communication with the advent of social media. I don’t do much of that, but some, and that will have had an impact as well.
The other thing that never worked well in this blog is that I am a multiple personality. I have six.
Which one is writing this blog? The psychophile, the technophile… those two do ok here, after all the blog is on the cusp of these two interests, but I also do art, and I am a bushwalker and then there is a passion for specifically psychodrama and imago. And movies and books! And I used to be a communist so there is that whole interest in politics. I use the tag World for that.
No unified focus. Does that matter?
My Evernote account is more than capable of containing wild diversity. Tags.
There are tags here too. And “notebooks” This one has the notebook Journal. And a bunch of tags, but who would ever use them? I do, Psyberspace is a resource with all my ramblings for a couple of decades.
It occurred to me that before Imago therapists came up with the idea of the relationship paradigm there were earlier attempts at the formulation.
I’ve mentioned Moreno and ‘tele’, Martin Buber and I-Thou today it occurred to me that Jung also had a concept for something similar: participation mystique. [Turns out I’ve written on this earlier in this post.]
Sure enough, I’m not the first to notice this.
Bridge to Unity – By MD Wilford W. Spradlin, Susan Renee Amazon
The connection between I-Thou and participation mystique is mentioned at least twice in this novel. I’ve also found thesis and other comments I’ll add in later posts.
I’ve been using Pocketcasts on the iPhone. The first one I’ve liked in all these years. The iTunes one never satisfied and the way I used to do it – was clumsy. But it worked and was essentially what I did on the Palm.
I’m reading the CBZ file in Comic zeal on the iPad. Nice. I’m about 50 pages into the 250.
Finding the free graphic novel, is interesting as it sort of ties in with his other themes. It is si-fi and the links back to the science are fascinating. I learned about Roger Penrose who I’d never heard of. There is a big debate obviously about consciousness, but from the wikipedia article I tend to go with Penrose. Thee is something weird about consciousness. I have an instinctive disdain for the value of neuroscience for psychotherapy – not for neuroscience but for the value people see in it for psychotherapy. However quantum science could change everything once we get the hang of it.
Its well done, a big collaborative production – with an interesting Kick-starter project for volume two.
Penrose has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor’s New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose proposes the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing’s halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic. (E.g., imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. The system’s state is ON if a given Turing machine halts, and OFF if the Turing machine does not halt, then the system’s state is completely determined by the Turing machine, however there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)
Amy Goodman from Democracy Now hosts this debate between Julian Assange and Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek — From the Troxy Theatre in London, July 2 2011. Also streaming in HQ from Democracy Now for those with faster lines. Brilliant debate!
I wish I’d got hold of this a year ago when it came out, but it is worth watching any time!
“Capitalism will have trouble with intellectual property” – Slavoj Žižek In the Amy Goodman interview with Julian Assange
I’ve come away thinking that if property is theft then intellectual property is the most obscene form of theft, as it steals from us what is most human, our creativity and spontaneity.
Are we in an information age, or is this still the industrial age where the workers will create socialism? What is Slavoj Žižek saying here? If capitalism can’t cope with intellectual property then it can’t cope because of some new relationship of production?
If that is the case who is the new revolutionary class? Is it still the industrial proletariat?
What clout does any other class have?
Or is it that as the information sector becomes the most consumed sector of the total produce – eg Amazon can afford not to make a profit on hardware as it sells intellectual property – as does Google – then these companies – like newspaper and music companies will falter as consumers protest about the punishments metered out to people who share!
Not only that but people who create – lets not call it property but intellectual goods and services – are the most advanced producers of social production (recall Marx ‘s point that the contradiction in capitalism is that production is social and ownership is private). Look at the credits in a movie, while that creation is tied to hardware there is a way to pay the creators and for the middle men to cream most of that off. Even solitary creation like a novel or science is mostly people standing on the shoulders of giants. All creation is a mash up.
Capitalism inhibits creation.
Capitalism inhibits sharing.
Capitalism inhibits the distribution of culture.
But information, creation that is not thwarted by capitalism has already been co-opted by capitalism.
The potentially revolutionary class then is the creators, and that is all of us. As Clay Shirkey put it so beautifully following Marshall McLuhan The fundamental shift in the electronic world is that consumers become creators. Just pressing a Like button is on the lowest end of the spectrum of creativity, with great art and science at the other end, but it is on the continuum! There is a qualitative shift that was made with the Internet.
Perhaps the early slogan – Information wants to be free – is a forerunner of a class of creators becoming a class that is conscious. Releasing information is a crime, Bradley Manning, Kim Dotcom, the latter has become a local hero, because he is fighting the superpower and exposing New Zealand’s subservience.
For people to move fully into a world where information is the dominant item of consumption, and we are probably a long way off that, then a new relationship of production is called for. New relationships of creation. New ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Think of what that might mean, no copyright, new forms of socialized payment for creativity, no advertising to pay for content. Most of all education, news and culture in the hands of the creators would change everything. Intelligence in the CIA sense would be free, releasing information would be heroic. Secreting publicly beneficial information wld be a crime.
Where does the money come from to pay for all this…
Wait… Money is information, it is currently owned by the ruling class, they create laws (also information) to control all information, about the flow of money, and the creation of money,
This does require a new relationship for the means of production of physical goods. The same dynamics apply, (material) goods too want to be free, and goods too are created by the very people who use them (could the but afford them) Its is not about the nature of the goods we are dealing with here. It is labour power, let think of it all as creativity power. Imagine the force of an alliance of all people who create, but who do not own or share equitably in what they create.
Marx said little about the future – but he did say we could all have the leisure to be philosophers. Sounds like he had an inkling there of the implications of his perspective related to creating ideas.