Rhizome 12/16/14:
Reference: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=185086&p=2514255#p2514255:
“I had a nightmare where I was in a room and had this weird technologically altered voice: much like the devil. I was listening to this technologically altered voice then saw the source of it walk around a corner then towards me…”
“This dream could mean that your technological devices, say, your computer/cellphone are consuming your essence - you are becoming subsumed in the technology, hence why your voice turned technological (with negative/satanic undertones). Instead of people owning their devices, their devices end up owning them.”
“That’s actually a really good point Erik -one I hadn’t thought of. I generally consider these kinds of complex Freudian interpretations as overestimating the cognitive (the connective and metaphorical (the ability to create meaning (prowess of the subconscious. But yours actually works in that it takes into account the pre-lingual intuitions and feelings we tend to have. Thanks for today’s rhizome.”
First of all, it’s refreshing to meet a self proclaimed right-wing libertarian like Erik who doesn’t seem to be working within a kind of tunnelvision. I praise him for his integrity.
That said, I think his point goes to something I recognized in myself via Jung. Contrary to popular notions about the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, it is not about being shy or social in nature, but rather a phenomenological matter of one’s relationship with the world of objects. For the introvert, everything starts in the self and ends in the self. They’re like the packrats of reality in that they tend to go into the world and collect objects (or impressions of them (which they can carry back to their own little holes (their mental labs (and work more comfortably with them. The extrovert, by comparison, works more comfortably in the world of objects.
But in order to truly understand how astute and observant Erik’s interpretation was, we should look at the maladies Jung attributed to each based on their relationship with the subconscious: that which he describes as a counterbalance to our conscious activities.
I would start with the malady that tends to afflict the extreme extrovert that results from the sub consciousness seeking to overwhelm the individual’s fixation on the world of objects. This can result in hysteria which we can see expressed in more fanatical expressions of right-wing views: such as we often see with the Tea Party. That said, I would also note here the lack of that in Erik’s approach given his calm composure throughout our discourse.
But more important to our point here is the malady that tends to haunt me as a devoted introvert. The problem for the introvert is that while they consciously retreat from the world of objects, they are, at a subconscious level, actually drawn to objects. This creates a kind of push-pull relationship with the world of objects that underlies my critical stance with Capitalism.
To give you a for-instance: I love what I’m doing on these boards. It is part of the daily meditation that keeps me centered. And I love approaching an empty space and being able to fill it with words and thoughts. Yet, every time, I wake up from it with this nagging voice that tells me I can’t do it anymore. I actually feel shame. This, in turn, has propped my reservations about the boards when it comes to the instant gratification of instant publication: the addiction involved. Hence, as Erik rightly points to, my reservations about technology and the Capitalism which rides on it.
Anyway, I hope with the next rhizome to get to what Erik has been asking for: the definition of the rhizome and what I’m doing with it –not just for him, but for everyone who has tolerated them on the boards.