Back to the question of pedagogical practices as currency, posing the problem of “units” of learning. Money is a bet on the future; more precisely, it is a partitioning and parceling out of the imperative of the center, what in capitalism takes the form of discounting against expected future earnings. Money assumes the continuity of the world and then relies on that assumption to introduce discontinuities that the holder of money will be likelier than others to receive a return on. Orderly succession lies in the background of money—if anyone could seize power at any time then it would be impossible to rely on money—it wouldn’t work. The outside spread relies upon the continuity of power, to serve as debt forgiving and collecting agency; the outside spread is product of central power, so as to enable central power itself, or that imperial power best positioned to instigate and control discontinuities across the world, to bet on futures itself, on itself as future. So, the default mode is singularized succession, transmitted vertically and horizontally, with government debt introduced so as to fund and hold in reserve outside options, at home and abroad. The thinking of singularized succession, then, must involve thinking the abolition of money; discontinuities, on the terms of singularized succession, are initiated and monitored by the occupant of the center for the purpose of creating pedagogical platforms (mimological impressments) that replenish the centered ordinality. Thinking the abolition of money means thinking the retraction of the system of betting on the future into the accumulation of centered capacities not so much to control or predict the future as to staff it. I’ve come back a few times to the problem of the two centers, i.e., the center as generative origin continued through the occupied social center, on the one hand, and the center as anything upon which joint attention is exercised and which therefore sustains the most trivial conversation, communities large and small, scientific inquiry, and pretty much everything. The conclusion I’ve reached is that the “centripetal” centers, with the emergence of imperial systems, draw our attention away from the social center towards samples, ultimately samples of scenes iterating the originary scene, and we serve the center and donate our resentments to it through the curation of those samples as data that, I can now say, would be suitable for data exchanges in the juridical field. So, you make your actions such as clarify the imperative of the center by obeying the best version of the commands issued within your team; you make your speech free of slander, fraud and incitement so it would be of value in any proceeding; and so on. The next move, then, is to say these samples are units of currency, abolishing money from within, insofar as each of them represents a pedagogical increment; you learn and you teach how to fill the imperative gap, you learn and you teach how to scour your discourse for inclinations to indulge the “evil tongue,” and these learnings and teachings are idioms that have their value in the conversions in the actions and speech of others that only make sense by reference to them. An idiom marks, commemorates, a scene of learning, and insofar as that scene of learning is transferable it is transmitted to other scenes, infiltrating and converting them.
Learncoin
Learncoin
Learncoin
Back to the question of pedagogical practices as currency, posing the problem of “units” of learning. Money is a bet on the future; more precisely, it is a partitioning and parceling out of the imperative of the center, what in capitalism takes the form of discounting against expected future earnings. Money assumes the continuity of the world and then relies on that assumption to introduce discontinuities that the holder of money will be likelier than others to receive a return on. Orderly succession lies in the background of money—if anyone could seize power at any time then it would be impossible to rely on money—it wouldn’t work. The outside spread relies upon the continuity of power, to serve as debt forgiving and collecting agency; the outside spread is product of central power, so as to enable central power itself, or that imperial power best positioned to instigate and control discontinuities across the world, to bet on futures itself, on itself as future. So, the default mode is singularized succession, transmitted vertically and horizontally, with government debt introduced so as to fund and hold in reserve outside options, at home and abroad. The thinking of singularized succession, then, must involve thinking the abolition of money; discontinuities, on the terms of singularized succession, are initiated and monitored by the occupant of the center for the purpose of creating pedagogical platforms (mimological impressments) that replenish the centered ordinality. Thinking the abolition of money means thinking the retraction of the system of betting on the future into the accumulation of centered capacities not so much to control or predict the future as to staff it. I’ve come back a few times to the problem of the two centers, i.e., the center as generative origin continued through the occupied social center, on the one hand, and the center as anything upon which joint attention is exercised and which therefore sustains the most trivial conversation, communities large and small, scientific inquiry, and pretty much everything. The conclusion I’ve reached is that the “centripetal” centers, with the emergence of imperial systems, draw our attention away from the social center towards samples, ultimately samples of scenes iterating the originary scene, and we serve the center and donate our resentments to it through the curation of those samples as data that, I can now say, would be suitable for data exchanges in the juridical field. So, you make your actions such as clarify the imperative of the center by obeying the best version of the commands issued within your team; you make your speech free of slander, fraud and incitement so it would be of value in any proceeding; and so on. The next move, then, is to say these samples are units of currency, abolishing money from within, insofar as each of them represents a pedagogical increment; you learn and you teach how to fill the imperative gap, you learn and you teach how to scour your discourse for inclinations to indulge the “evil tongue,” and these learnings and teachings are idioms that have their value in the conversions in the actions and speech of others that only make sense by reference to them. An idiom marks, commemorates, a scene of learning, and insofar as that scene of learning is transferable it is transmitted to other scenes, infiltrating and converting them.