some links i just sent to Chaz re: conceptual work tying social and cultural factors to cognitive and biological development. low level but fun for armchair philosophes:

also, here is some lakoff stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakoff
(you won't like his politics but his work on cognition and philosophy is quite good)

http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html

there's also varela, who's done phenomenal work trying to connect mind to embodiment and through that, cultural effects on mind and vice versa:

http://www.enolagaia.com/Varela.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Varela

finally, something quite fascinating. the study of neurogenesis has really taken off under this one professor. basically, neuronal growth is stunted under high and constant stress situations or in the absence of stimulus. fascinating stuff:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/02/the_reinvention_of_the_self.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

MIA has been denied entry to the US.


http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10365550/latest_news_mia_axl_j_lo_and_more

there's also a segment on it today on Democracy Now. craziness.

a question for gautam, at his leisure:

ok, you lived in this burg a good while and you're thrifty. what in austin is fun and cheap? also, is there a centralized place to find out about publci lectures going on at UT? donka baby.

Why Neocon Strategy Fails the Test of Onto-political Reproduction (wooooohhhhh!!!!)

[note: sorry i haven't posted much on this. settling into austin and all and dealing with feeling worthless at 25 been kinda slowin' shit up. though if anyone wants, i do have a livejournal that i post on a good bit, www.livejournal.com/bakunin661 . but i'm going to be better with this one]

here's why neocon policy fails by their own criteria, i.e. ruling the earth.

actually, concretely establishing an empire over the earth is incredibly expensive, and the US doesn't have the manpower or wealth to do it, presuming capitalism.

so american global control over the years isn't based on actual occuption of the world. it's based on the constant possibility, the option of overwhelming force brought upon any particular region or nation.

meaning the US only has global military power so long as it doesn't actually exercise that power. when it occupies it and gets bogged down in any campaign or occupation (and any occupation bogs down), we see exactly what has happened. north korea and iran make overtures of nuclear development, latin america goes red. everyone knows that the US is too busy and already overextended in iraq, so no one is maintaining global hegemony through threat of arms. the empire is fraying like mad.

this is what liberals always more or less understood. not bluffing, just maintaining the constant possibility of overwhelming force. speak softly and carry a big stick.

now, and this is the fun radical part, the part that looks at this strategy in terms of implications: this shows that the metaphysics of this type of policy are all wrong, warped. as a system it is proven weak. why? because it maintains power only as a constant possibility, but any actualization of that power destroys the system and redners the whole framework fragile.

meaning there is a total disconnect between the "steady state" and the "state of exception" to the system. meaning we have a policy metaphysic that is limited, defined by the absence of its actual expression. meaning it's bullshit. meaning empire is a foolish, petty, weak way of relating to or constructing a global system, betrayed by its ridiculous organization of parts and wholes (the whole renders impossible the actual expression of the part, the part when expressed destroys the whole). it is a fragile, sad organization, a primitive thing based upon constant self-negation. it is nihilistic and weak, by necessity, because as a system it destroys itself in expression.