being a refutation of same via the Bakhtinian concept of the Carnivalesque…

A current vogue in OWS ‘scholarship’ has it that it the arc of the OWS cause is sorely needing a specific litany of core demands, i.e., or it risks deconstruction. The agent of such observations is, typically, a well-intentioned Liberal observer—not participant—who is seemingly intent upon conflating Left activism as all of a piece. All too often such observer/adviser figures employ an activist benchmark akin to late sixties/early seventies’ “special interest” politicking, e.g., as seen in opposition to war, Black liberation, feminism, Green activism, etc.

What is ignored in the academic assessment of the current regime—i.e., the era of Late finance capital—is the utterly diffuse havoc being played upon ALL cadres, all organizational fronts, etc., via the class war waged by rentiers, the Fortune 500 CEOs, the banks, etc., against a mutually dissociated collective , i.e., the working class. Further, this oppressive state of financial massacre has as its concomitant effect a dispiriting malaise of anomie, helplessness, depression, etc., all serving to keep any would-be activism by those being preyed upon in abeyance, fragmented, and uninvolved. And this, a reality in Empire for time out of memory.

The unique nature of the current manifestation of investor-class hegemony, however, is seen in the highly accelerated and aggressive nature of the opponents of We, the People. That is, the financial gain for the 1% is so impossibly high that a seduction exists to destroy the 99%, which seduction running rampant and sustained by the state as well as the corporate-owned media.

That is, there exists an abiding moral social pathology which is sustained by denial, distraction (e.g., “entertainment”, consumerism, etc.) and suffering: suffering at the individual, familial and community levels–all occurring simultaneously!

To continue. To argue, then, as non-participant observers have been doing, that what is needed is a “structuring” and specific schedule of demands by OWS—in order to sustain the activism—is to engage in the sort of armchair activism (albeit well-intentioned, of course) that does more harm than is first apparent when reading seemingly innocuous commentary. And, this is so because the OWS cause is a sui generis event, unique for the last century at least, and probably much further back than the activism of the Eugene Debs, Joe Hill, and the Wobblies after WWI. We are often feeling our way forward, creating paths where a moment ago no path existed. It elicits a highly creative spontaneity, an effort borne of humanist genius—borne of a genuine caring for the other. That this essential idea is lost on many is a telling feature of their own impossibly anxious lives.

That is to say, the OWS cause resembles nothing less than the Bakhtinian notion of the Carnivalesque, as seen in the Medieval subverting of the rule of order and control.

This notion of the Carnivalesque is seasonal—it may be lain down but freely reestablished—it has elements of the grotesque, the ludic (i.e., play) and the obviating of the spectator/player dyad: i.e., everyone was invited to play freely–i.e., at a time, place and manner of their choosing—anyone and everyone participated, all may be healed while engaged in a catharsis of sorts, etc. And, in the case of OWS, the Power elite are purposefully made ridiculous by any/all OWS players, in any/all fora and any/all social milieu. And this would occur in, e.g., the confrontation at residences of the hegemonic class (q.v., at Bloomberg’s pied-à-terre) right up to the Internet viral ridiculing of adversaries of the community of We, the People.

To correlate the event of the Carnivalesque to OWS—or, healing via an activist catharsis—the initially playful subverting of the authoritarian regime is a means of overcoming the imposed–and enforced–stasis placed upon the rank and file. It is in this joyous liberation from the conforming regime—the conforming regime of wage slavery, of a lack of affordable housing, of fear of employee collective bargaining, of fear of a police state, of fear of the suppressing of habeas corpus, etc.—that a space of possibility comes to the fore. The ‘serious play’ of the Carnivalesque is the break with socio-politico-economic inertia and the setting into motion a dynamic of collectivized agency for the good of the Commons. This dynamic of serious play occurs at the site of the purloined Commons by the 99% as they, neighbors, meet on the now-level playing field, often for the first time. It is an event at once joyous, heartening and revelatory.

Again, it is a space of moral opportunity manifest where a moment ago no space existed. The invitation for serious play was set forth, the invitation heeded, and the ludic games began. To argue, then, that what is needful is “more structure”, and “more clarification”, etc., is to miss the efficacy of the Left activist moment: what is truly needful now is the serious play of the subverting Carnival to create a space of possibility, to create a healing of those whose rightful legacy is the Commons—long since appropriated from them—and even to invite the oppressor to join in the Carnival, since the social pathology at large has its provenance in their behavior, their state, and their media control.

In lieu of the calling for more specifically delineated agendas and the discrete naming of enemies of We, the People, what is needful is the Menippean satire of the ruling ‘code’. From Wiki:

“Bakhtin treats Menippean satire as one of the classical ‘serio-comic’ genres, alongside Socratic dialogue and other forms that Bakhtin claims are united by a ‘carnival sense of the world’, wherein ‘carnival is the past millennia’s way of sensing the world as one great communal performance’ and is ‘opposed to that one-sided and gloomy official seriousness which is dogmatic and hostile to evolution and change’.”

http://is.gd/mZXwnr

The oppressor is convinced of the salutary nature of his/her behavior (q.v., Goldman-Sachs’ CEO Blankfein claim to be “doing God’s work”). The oppressor perpetuates this behavior via an abiding, radical faith in control, i.e., control in the world at large, the control of those, e.g., not in his social strata. By the ludic games of the Carnivalesque, OWS participants make manifest a new, healed order via a relinquishing of control—e.g., living in tents at Zuccotti, the free sharing of food, clothing, funds, etc., with all, the use of masks, body paint, communal drumming and chanting, the revealing of the ridiculous of the current order, etc. It is this essential inversion of the hegemon’s order that strikes at the heart of the socio-politico-economic malaise.

This all-inclusive, yet seemingly ill-defined, ephemeral subverting of the hegemonic order panicks the academic as it makes anxious the careerist masquerading as fellow traveler. To then suggest an orthodox, ‘politically correct’ agency of opposition (in the interest of the movement “gaining strength”) is to miss completely the genius of the satirical moment, of the lack of subservience to “control”, and the all-inclusive nature of OWS. Those whose lives traffic in control crave control—those who crave control traffic in same. Both perpetuate the dis-ease.

The very first, overwhelmingly needful step is to get the disassociated rank and file involved. And this, OWS is accomplishing, as an ongoing necessity. Many participants view OWS as being a forum for making manifest their suffering—no mean attribute of OWS, as the state/MSM/Wall Street “trifecta of evil” has made eminently clear that individual suffering is utterly meaningless. The maintenance of the investor-class-configured status quo has underwritten every salient narrative here at Empire, all serving to keep any incipient collective action at bay. And the effect has been accomplished to a distressful degree., with the undeniable, yet vital call for healing being paramount. Again, the ongoing necessity of healing-with-activism will occur as the participants are invited to engage the enemy in their own way. That is, OWS has created a space of action for everyone—i.e., not solely “activists”—quote-unquote.

Which is to say, the healing of We, the People, is an open, all-inclusive invitation—an invitation to the dance, as it were. The obsessive-compulsive behavior of the investor class demonstrates a profound need of the healing moment and by the overt, open nature of the Carnivalesque the possibility exists for their participation as well. And this, in contradistinction to the radically exclusive, occult, obscurantist nature of the ruling Power complex here at Empire.

There are several dynamics in play here, which need not be conflated as one needful Left agenda.

As Chomsky notes, there is an abiding disassociation present among the the working class which inertia hinders, at the most essential level, even the possibilty of a nascent Left activism. That is, OWS has inspirited a massive segment of the population to–voila!–get out of the house and become involved!

This fact needs to be valorized as the incipient moment of what may potentially be a coalescing of many seemingly disparate causes: anti-war, universal health care, EFCA and card check, doubling of the minimum wage, worker control of the means of production, etc.

To aver that OWS is remiss, i.e., “they REALLY need to be doing more,” is to overlook the dynamics of Left activism. For example, to argue that “The absence of demands isn’t a strength,” is yet more effluent (institutionalized logorrhea) from anxious careerists who have been found out–i.e., who haven’t been at the barricades. To compensate for this egregious moral lack they cover their—’smell’ via learned disquisition…

In a word: academics are suffering from chronic disconnect, again, all in the service (read: self-service) of their ever-tenuous careers.

OWS has managed to effect an eclectic synthesis of the rank and file to make common cause for change, in toto. To argue that OWS “at this point, really needs to be clearer in just what it is that they are about”–i.e., they need to make specific demands “in order to succeed as a cause”–is at best, misguided conjecture, and at worst, presumption from non-participant mainstays of the status quo–i.e., presumption from just who/what it is that we are opposing.

There are discrete activist organizations in the US, with their coterie attending this or that action. They have, in fact, announced for all the world their specific demands. And, by the way, this ‘clarification’ on their part has not necessarily manifest itself as a catalyst for activism on a broad scale–not to the degree that OWS has accomplished in a brief four months.

The very first, overwhelmingly needful step is to get the disassociated rank and file INVOLVED. And this, OWS is accomplishing, as an ONGOING necessity. Individuals see OWS as being a forum for making manifest their suffering–no mean attribute of OWS, as the state/MSM/Wall Street “trifecta of evil” has made eminently clear that individual suffering is utterly meaningless. This maintenance of the investor-class-configured status quo has underwritten every salient narrative here at Empire, with the insidious–but planned–effect of anomie, disinterest and depression, all serving to keep any incipient collective action at bay. And this effect has been accomplished to a distressful degree. Again, the ongoing necessity of healing-with-activism will occur as the particopants are INVITED to engage the enemy in theoir own way. That is, OWS has created a SPACE OF ACTION for EVERYONE–i.e., not solely “activists”–quote-unquote.

This clearing of a space must not be eclipsed via well-meaning advisors–like you, Ms. Dean.

That is, announcing one’s group as for ‘this’ (but not necessarily for ‘that’)–may in fact be the weakness that your argument seeks to warn us away from. And thank you so much for the warning–you, the academic, in your never-ending quest for self-preservation (q.v., the “publish/perish” dyad), have, indeed, managed to make yourself ‘necessary’. And, ps, mind your business.

Dean Taylor

Global Warming – A Coolist’s View

The article below was received via email from a person who wishes to remain anonymous but who has degrees in the physical sciences

The global warming concept hinges upon the idea that greenhouse gases cause an increase in mean global temperatures. The basis for this concept is that such gases are better radiators than non greenhouse gases and as a result keep the global mean temperatures higher as a result of feeding back radiation to the Earth’s surface. Let us investigate this hypothesis:

First of all we need a model upon which all can agree is a good approximation to the real thing. The model I have chosen is familiar to most engaged in the debate and in my view lies closest to the hearts of the so-called global warmists. In this model we are concerned only with radiation from the sun which interacts thermally with the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. We are not concerned with radiation that is reflected either specularly or diffusely back into the space from which it came. Neither are we concerned about radiation which is absorbed and re-emitted without intermediate thermal processes. Without such processes there can be no warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere so such non thermal interactions can be neglected

Removing such non thermal processes from our model leaves us with this: the Earth’s surface is treated as an approximation to a black-body, it absorbs radiation from the sun, becomes hotter and then re-emits radiation more typically at longer wavelengths. We also have an atmosphere which is composed of two types of gas: greenhouse gases and non greenhouse gases, both of which may or may not absorb and re-emit radiation or receive thermal input via convection and conduction from the Earth’s surface as is their wont. It does not concern us for now as to the nature of these processes.

To further the debate we have the concept propounded by the pro-greenhouse warming lobby that because greenhouse gases are better radiating gases than non greenhouse gases they re-radiate more radiation back to the Earth’s surface than do non greenhouse gases. This leads us to an obvious thought experiment:

We replace all greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with an equal volume of non greenhouse gases. There are then three logical possibilities:

1) Greenhouse gases are less good radiating gases than non greenhouse gases.

2) Greenhouse gases are equally good radiating gases as non greenhouse gases.

3) Greenhouse gases are better radiating gases than non greenhouse gases.

If (1) or (2) are true then the theory of global warming is falsified. If (3) is true then greenhouse gases produce relative global warming. I believe (3) is true.

We now consider the Earth’s radiation budget.

Integrating over a sufficient time period to average out the effects of night and day and the seasons then at equilibrium the average energy received by the Earth in the form of radiant energy from the Sun must equal the average energy lost by the Earth in the form of radiation. This is the only significant form of energy capable of influencing global mean temperatures. I take a warmist’s view here and do not include such effects as the solar wind, the Sun and Earth’s magnetic field coupling lateral flare currents into the oceans, cosmic rays inducing cloud formation or variations in solar energy output or spectrum.

We then consider the Earth’s outgoing energy budget. It has three components: that from greenhouse gases, that from non greenhouse gases and that from the black body Earth itself. We then perform the same thought experiment we performed above, and replace the greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with an equal volume of non-greenhouse gases:

As discussed above, we know that if (1) or (2) are true that the hypothesis of global warming is falsified. If (3) is true then greenhouse gases cause absolute global cooling. This is because they contribute significantly to the Earth’s outgoing radiation budget. If they are removed from the Earth’s atmosphere the amount of energy radiated away into the absolute zero of space goes down and in consequence the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere will rise, I neglect here the 4 degrees Kelvin background radiation left over from the Big Bang. It is thus demonstrated that:

A) Greenhouse gases cause absolute global cooling.

B) In order to believe that greenhouse gases produce relative global warming it is first necessary to believe that greenhouse gases produce absolute global cooling.

At first sight the hypothesis of global warming through feedback radiation is self contradictory. Can we simultaneously have the situation in which greenhouse gases produce both relative warming and absolute cooling of the planet? The answer is yes! This is because the so-called feedback radiation is a negative feedback on the absolute cooling caused by greenhouse gases. This means that the presence of the feedback term in the equation of global cooling reduces the rate at which radiation is lost from the Earth by re-cycling energy back to the Earth’s surface. This amounts simply to an observation that secondary radiators are not 100% efficient. What this means is perhaps better explained with reference to the analogous system of coupled primary and secondary radiators we find under the hood of a typical auto-mobile:

In the Earth model above we treat the Earth’s surface as the primary radiator. We can do this because the amount of radiation fed back to the real primary radiator of the system, the Sun, is negligible. The secondary radiator of our system is the Earth’s atmosphere which is closely thermally coupled to the surface of the Earth by conduction and convection as well as radiation. In our auto-mobile engine analogy the primary radiator is the engine block and head with the secondary radiator being not surprisingly, the radiator! (If you like the engine can be treated as being supplied with both gasoline and air through a pipe so it can be run in vaccuum and thus tighten up the analogy).

We now imagine that our engine and radiator are sitting in an auto-mobile on our collective drive and that the engine has been running for some time and has reached thermal equilibrium with the environment. We lift the hood and examine the engine in operation with reference to a manual: The engine generates heat energy some of which it loses directly to the environment. Most heat energy however is removed from the engine by a water based coolant which is pumped though a series of channels in the block and head then via a radiator hose to the radiator. A second feedback radiator hose returns the cooled water from the radiator to the engine and closes the system loop.

We have just concluded that the engine and cooling system is working satisfactorily when our collective neighbour, a Mr. Gore, drops by and with the skilful use of a thermometer amidst all those moving parts demonstrates that the return hose from the radiator is operating above ambient temperature and is thus maintaining the engine at a higher temperature than it otherwise would be. Mr Gore is completely correct of course; feeding warm water into the auto-mobile engine will maintain it at a higher operating temperature. Mr Gore therefore prevails upon us to disconnect the feedback hose from the radiator to the engine block in order to keep the engine cooler.

Would you take Mr. Gore’s advice? Your answer to this question will not only determine your position in the global warming debate but whether or not you drive to work next week!

The lessons learned above can be reinforced by considering the black-body Earth and atmosphere in a little more detail. Consider a black-body Earth without any atmosphere whatsoever. Without an atmosphere not only will more radiation get through to the Earth’s surface because there are no greenhouse gases to intercept any of this radiation and re-radiate it back out into space without it having first to interact with the Earth’s surface, but there will be no conduction and convection into the non-existent atmosphere to keep the surface cool. The job of re-radiating energy into space will fall squarely on the surface of the black-body Earth itself. Increasing the radiation from a black-body can only be accomplished by increasing its radiative temperature.

If we now add an atmosphere of non-greenhouse gases to our black-body Earth we find that heat energy can leave the surface not just by radiation but by conduction and convection as well. If we also include surface water the latent heat of evaporation of water will contribute to this heat loss mechanism too. The situation is now similar to that of a domestic central heating radiator which loses heat to heat a room mainly by conduction and convection with a small component of radiative loss; the central heating radiator would be better described as a convection heater. Of course if the atmospheric gases did not radiate away any energy into space eventually the Earth’s surface would rise to the temperature it had before we added any atmosphere. However all gases radiate and the non-greenhouse gases do so too. The reason for this is that all accelerating charges radiate and all molecules in the atmosphere accelerate, often negatively, as they constantly collide with each other. The faster the molecules move the more frequent are the collisions, the greater the accelerations and the greater the loss though radiation. The atmosphere can now be seen for what it is, a secondary radiator which by adding to the Earth’s outgoing radiation budget keeps the Earth’s surface cooler. The non-greenhouse gases component of the Earth’s atmosphere are thermally radiating gases. In other words in order to radiate more they must be at a higher temperature, just like the black-body Earth itself.

Finally we add to the Earth’s atmosphere the greenhouse gases. While these gases radiate thermally just like non-greenhouse gases they have a secondary mechanism too based on a form of electronic transition related to quantised states of dipole moments. Greenhouse gases as a result are not only able to radiate much more energy at lower temperature but are also able to pick up thermal energy from both the Earth’s surface and non-greenhouse gases and radiate this energy into space as well. Greenhouse gases thus add very significantly to the Earth’s outgoing energy budget and thus keep the Earth’s surface and atmosphere very much cooler than they would be in the absence of these lower temperature radiating gases.

From consideration of the arguments given above it is very easy to see that the concept of greenhouse gases as a planet warming blanket is completely erroneous. Greenhouse gases are cooling gases, part of a secondary radiator system and in my view the principal mechanism by which the temperatures at the Earth’s surface are kept cool enough for life to exist across the globe.

In the face of such obviousness the real question is why has the concept of greenhouse gas induced global warming has persisted for so long in the face of so much entrenched opposition from global warming sceptics? The answer is perhaps surprising: The global warming debate has three factions which can be loosely described as warmists, luke-warmists and sceptics. These factions however all have one thing in common: they all believe in global warming!

These three groups all believe that warming is produced by greenhouse gases to greater or lesser degrees with the warmists predicting large increases in global mean temperature with increasing man made emissions of carbon dioxide and the sceptics predicting very small increases in global mean temperatures as a result of these same emissions. The global warming debate has been monopolised by these three groups since the inception of the IPCC. It is a one sided debate in which no voices of opposition are heard.

The simple reality is that greenhouse gases cause global cooling and lots of it. It is only by stepping outside the radiative feedback paradigm foisted upon us by warmists and sceptics alike and then viewing the system as a whole using overarching energy arguments

It already is. That’s the science part.

Once you have catered to the basics needs, which is achievable, you need to find something for people to do. Some have a vision of a world where we all tend our garden, being self sufficient and ‘sustainable’. Indeed, many people of the world spend most of their time feeding themselves and are not unhappy to do so. However, while I enjoy gardening I am no more than a fair weather gardener. To produce crops 365 days of the year is boring, hard slog. I could do it if I had to but I wouldn’t be happy. Moreover gardens are part of the unsustainable model for the world. Farms are far more efficient at feeding people and if people are to be truly low carbon they should be living in apartments/flats.

At the moment, many people are employed making stuff for other people. If you want to reduce carbon you have to change that. So what do they do instead? Potentially people could become more cerebral, enjoying learning, reading, writing, etc but is it possible to infuse everyone with that? Or is it as much a part of your DNA, like athletic ability or a good memory. And even if we can engage everyone in low impact pursuits, what does mankind do with its future?

And that brings us to stagnation. We are currently in a golden era of invention and expansion. For some that might be a horror story but it’s actually a rather wonderful chapter in human history. I would not want to live at any earlier time period. I enjoy more freedom, health and entertainment than someone in my position could have dreamt of even 50 years ago. Those riches didn’t come about through utopia, they came about through capitalism. The moment the landowner started giving plots of land to his serfs to keep them from straying, capitalism was born, but the basics were much older. Work hard, and you’ll prosper more than if you don’t. So if we enter an utopian world, what do we work harder for? How do we feed the human need for advancement? We are seeing the effects of that now with poor, bland school systems, churning out unsatisfactory future workers because they have eliminated competition. Craftsmanship, sporting prowess and academic excellence has been ditched in favour of equal opportunities.

Invention and progress are spurred on by reward, even if that reward is the ability to stave off disaster, but there needs to be something to trigger the drive. Something personal and not the remote concept of bettering mankind. We currently feed that spark with consumerism and capitalism. Give everyone the same and what makes someone go that extra mile and invent a new fuel source? What will make them chose genetic medicine rather than poetry? Because while some people are the boffins of your imagination, inventing for the pure pleasure of it, most of them are just like the rest of us, putting the hours in to earn the big paycheque.

You also have to understand the nature of development. Breakthroughs are not linear and not subject to command. Many come about when people are looking for something else. So you shut down an industry that in your utopia is an unnecessary luxury, what if you kill the missing part of the new fuel puzzle? Did you never notice that computer improvements didn’t start accelerating until they had games on them and they became cheap enough to own? Even now, it’s the needs of fancy kids graphics that drives the computer processors, not the office machines running MS Office.

In my utopia we keep moving forward and (if it really is a problem) we solve AGW and maybe learn to be less greedy along the way. In yours, where do we go? What is the future of mankind when there is nothing to strive for but mediocrity?