Notes 11/08/2012

• It seems like people are saying "social media has changed everything!" but just uttering that statement meaninglessly. From my perspective what's changed is the way people greet each other: when you could potentially look at a person's photos, status, and profile updates, it takes away some of the authenticity of asking "how are you?" or "what's up these days?" I predict that more and more, people will choose to hang out with or date people they already 'know' online, once the person has already represented themselves to you. I've also heard people talk about almost entirely text-based relationship they've been in. But either we insist that this is only a partial picture of ourselves, or we concede that complex/creative arrangement of code is equivalent to our experience. Maybe what we need to do is connect with each other on an affective/experiential level and not confuse that with the bits of information we can associate with ourselves.
• My task for myself: try to convert chronic stress into acute stress and affect in the face of an inability to fully control the circumstances I live under. There are things that are not only out of my control in a generic sense, but actively limit or models my potential. Some of the habits, coping mechanisms, moods/tendencies, and practical knowledge needed to succeed can only come from a healthy environment in early years and as you're growing up. Because the relationship with parents is a contract, where you are grateful what they give you (for the most part) and agree to take their intentions toward you at face value, it's sometimes hard to admit your parents' weaknesses (and their effect) without endangering the relationship. There is only so much you can do as a parent, and everyone has limits, but the authority and dependence of the relationship prevents some of recurring issues from being resolved, such as self-defeating lifestyles and attitudes.
• The anarchist idea of "the smith" may be just as interesting as the idea of "singularities" in post-structuralism: according to Day, in Gramsci is Dead (2005), the smith is a social actor that is open to creativity and improvisation based on affinities with others. The smith's identity is not determined, like the citizen or the subject, but it is not free-floating and nihilistic like "the nomad" (autonomist, post-anarchist idea) (pg. 126). What I find compelling about it is that it is a way of being made possible, but not determined by, multiple and overlapping communities: the smith can hop between communities or belong to more than one at one time. A lot like Hardt and Negri's idea of "the multitude," and the idea of singularity, this leaves room for everyone's uniqueness without becoming an ideology of individualism, plus, it critiques the view that community, or what is common, requires some sort of collective whole based on unified morality. The energy and ability of the smith thrives on the presence of others who are not defined by abstract categories, and Day argues that it is the key actor in "structural renewal." You don't need to isolate yourself from other people and get depressed to be part of radical change.
• It's arrogant to assume that others should immediately care about your shit, especially when you can only recognize a small part of others' experience yourself. It shows a lack of life experience that you desperately want to hang on to a connection that is strained. Why assume our interests and needs must be compatible?