I’m going to follow up here on the notion of the “grammatical stack,” or the imperative to “line up” the speech forms (ostensive>imperative>interrogative>declarative>imperative>ostensive) so as to approximate maximum internal referentiality across the speech forms. In other words, the imperatives you follow should map onto the ostensive field they emerge from and serve the preservation of that field; those imperatives should be “prolongable” into the questions which flow exhaustively into your sentences and discourse, and your declaratives should “give off” imperatives that guide other centers in the identification of new ostensives that reconfigure the ostensive field around the anomaly that originally broached linguistic presence, initiating the sequence. I will call this moral practice (and should be replacing the concept of moral practice with) “stacking,” so as to include grammatical stacking in the broader practice of data exchange and the conversion of users into interfaces.
“Nor is there a set of social goods that can be divided like a pie into more even slices”
Yes, but we still have money which is ultimately abstracted from the sacrificial scene and Big Scene politics seems to be ever more focussed on the question of how much money to create and distribute to promote consumption-work. At the same time we have more and more people believing in an alternative “money” that does not come from a sovereign or chartered banks. How might this play out in the rectification of names? Will we need some new kind of social credit?
It does seem to me that we will need to think in terms of phasing out money because it can only be a way for competing ruling interests to use fiat money to advance their own interests. The transition would be to organizing society as "teams," and teams within teams, so the equivalent of "social credit" would be "playing" on the team you want rather than a less preferred one.
Not exactly a gift exchange, since that would allow things to depend on decisions about reciprocity between individual units. I thought about more in terms of a circulating system of "subscriptions," with the details worked out between units but ultimately supervised and authorized by the central authority
“Nor is there a set of social goods that can be divided like a pie into more even slices”
Yes, but we still have money which is ultimately abstracted from the sacrificial scene and Big Scene politics seems to be ever more focussed on the question of how much money to create and distribute to promote consumption-work. At the same time we have more and more people believing in an alternative “money” that does not come from a sovereign or chartered banks. How might this play out in the rectification of names? Will we need some new kind of social credit?
It does seem to me that we will need to think in terms of phasing out money because it can only be a way for competing ruling interests to use fiat money to advance their own interests. The transition would be to organizing society as "teams," and teams within teams, so the equivalent of "social credit" would be "playing" on the team you want rather than a less preferred one.
Yes, I vaguely remember a post on this from some time ago. Was the accounting among teams for inputs and consumables a form of gift exchange?
Not exactly a gift exchange, since that would allow things to depend on decisions about reciprocity between individual units. I thought about more in terms of a circulating system of "subscriptions," with the details worked out between units but ultimately supervised and authorized by the central authority
Thanks, you’ve given me the word to find it: http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2019/02/can-networks-crowd-out-markets/