Saying this as the least wise, most angry member of MeFi: I think it boils down to dehumanization and abstraction, both being different facets of the same state of mind. I truly believe wisdom is ultimately the state of mind that does not focus on one’s self to the exclusion of all else.
When we learn to understand other viewpoints, to understand other people, to break down in our own minds the tyranny of distance and disconnect… we begin to be wise in the ways of our fellow human creature. We no longer see everyone else automatons operating in our own personal theatrical production, but understand- and this is not to say without judgment or consequence- why people act the way they do and the unique yet common reasons why they are the way they are, and why we all are the way we are. Understanding our roles as chemical neural baths that operate with a conscious mind deluded into thinking its reactive patterns are in fact always “free will” opens the mind to understanding that often we are as simplistic as other animals, and you would no more beat a dog for acting like a dog as you would a human acting like a human.
Similarly, this dehumanization of other lives can only happen by abstraction, when we say so shortsightedly that “this person is an idiot making bad choices”, when we fail to see that they, like us, have had years of life to build upon- an often crooked and unstable foundation! Our own painful experiences therefore are a way of grounding us, and reminding us of our shared fragilities. When I was 14, I thought the libertarian hardline of an Ayn Rand made perfect sense in the Plato’s cave I called an adolescent bedroom. By the time I was 21 and homeless, I so much better understood how foolish I really was…
The epitome of ending one’s own tendencies of dehumanization would be the christ-like or buddhist openness, where one can see the lives of others as equally as one’s own, and places no inherent value to life or judgment in the choices of others. Of course, if you ever achieve this state, as history has repeatedly shown, you will be most certainly killed by everyone else, because apparently no one likes a show off. :)
— hincandenza answering abstract questions on metafilter
I avoid attachment in irritating ways that don’t actually involve physical separation. This might be why I hung out with those where attachments formed would be easily reversed. Sometimes it’s impossible, and makes me thirsty as they say and it captures me. Maybe for too long. Maybe for 9 years, like it had once. I realized that when a glimpse is there, I’m all too willing to hook my tendrils in. I am as easy as a fish. Shine your keys at me and I’ll bite. It feels so much like you’re actually seen and heard, when all it is is a hook inside. What’s happening is that I’m all too willing to fuse and empty of my gut, for the delusion of having found fulfillment through being caught.
going through my notebook. confusing things
403 BCE Human, earthly unity losing its hold— tendency toward abstraction, not ritual. partaking in movement of ox is related to heavens. the human and divine realms are where abstractions gain power
We have no problem in this country rewarding individuals of color momentarily as a way never to address structural cannibalistic inequalities that are faced by the communities these people come out of. …I am representative of a structural exclusion that room is made for “ones” so that room does not have to be made for the “manies”.
Agile monkey: Software development company or pilates studio?
"The basic error of the translator is that he preserves the state in which his own language happens to be instead of allowing his language to be powerfully affected by the foreign tongue." — Rudolf Pannwitz
"Translation…is midway between poetry and theory. Its work is less sharply defined than either of these, but it leaves no less of a mark on history" — The Task of the Translator, Benjamin
They really aren’t related at all, actually.
Capital is value that appears to create more value (“self-valorizing value”). Money is converted into commodities, then the commodities are converted back into money - more money than was originally embodied in them (M-C-M+). To use the previous example: A guy opens up a Starbucks franchise. He converts $10,000 into commodities - the storefront, the coffee machines, and of course the labor of workers. All of these things are combined (by labor) into coffee and resold, i.e. reconverted into money. But now, there’s $30,000 of value instead of $10,000. Though it appears as though this value just sprang from nowhere, or that the previous $10,000 just created another $20,000 by itself, the value came from the labor of workers - as all value does. The thing is, the value of labor-power is lower than the value of things it produces. I get paid $10/hr to produce $100 of coffee in that same hour. That’s where the new value came from - the unpaid labor (surplus labor) of the worker.
Did you mean the difference between a wage and a labor voucher?
As mentioned, the value of labor-power is less than the value of what it produces. Where I produce $100/hr, I get paid $10/hr. This is how the capitalist wage system operates: a person produces more value than they receive in their wage. That’s where profit comes from.
Money is a representation of value, but value is determined by the amount of labor-time expended on an object - the more labor-time, the more value. So value does have a basis in time. If money was measured in time, that would mean value is measured in time, too - which would be correct, because time is value. If a wage was directly equivalent to the amount of labor-time expended by a worker, surplus value (that unpaid labor) could not be extracted. Without surplus value, there is no capital. Without capital, there is no capitalism. So the labor-voucher is an attempt to remunerate the worker with the full value of what they produced - if you made $100 of coffee, you get $100.