Asking AI to Explain Interstitial Sociology

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

1. Interstitial spaces are where the most interesting things are happening.

2. Interstitial spaces are not ‘in between’ but rather they are ‘between and beyond’. Interstitial spaces can be found in the cracks of the official order, but they can also be found in the cracks of the unofficial order.

3. Interstitial spaces are where we find the most interesting people. Interstitial sociology is not just about ‘the margins’ but also about ‘the mavericks’, ‘the rule breakers’, ‘the innovators’, ‘the rebels’ and ‘the outsiders’.

4. Interstitial spaces are not just about the people who are in them. Interstitial spaces are also about the people who are not in them. They are about the people who are not there and the people who are not allowed to be there. Interstitial spaces are about the people who are excluded and the people who are invisible.

5. Interstitial sociology is not just about the present but also about the past. Interstitial spaces have a history and this history has been forgotten or erased from official memory.

 

Given these assumptions, we can compare interstitial sociology to the study of interstices in metallic crystalline lattices, where lattice regions are strained by the presence of interstitial atoms. In these cases, interstitial atoms bridge the gap between the metal atoms and thus play a crucial role in the formation of a metal solid.

In many ways, this is what interstitial sociology is about: it is about bridging the gap between the official and unofficial, the mainstream and the margins, the center and the periphery, the ruled and the rulers. It is about finding ways to bridge these gaps. It is about forging new connections, creating a new solid. It is about building bridges between people both through the study of this interstitial space, but also through the practice itself of finding new ways to connect with all those who have been left out and excluded, who have been forgotten and erased.

Through the interstitial, we can cross boundaries, cut across borders and make a bridge through the fascinating land that lies in between. Through the interstitial, we can forge new solidarities and empower new forms of resistance. Through the interstitial, we can create new solidarities and find new forms of solidarity. Through the interstitial, we can build new possibilities for a more just, egalitarian and liberated world. Through the interstitial, we learn how to build bridges into the future.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Post-Foucauldianism and Fisting

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

Is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the “expansion of a concept?” The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body. No wonder Foucault, Deleuze’s Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence.

– Slavoj Zizek

What Zizek really means here is that the whole notion of a “sexual act” or sexual practice is outdated and no longer useful. It’s not that “fisting” is the new model of eroticism and pleasure, but that sex has changed so much that it’s no longer possible to talk about it in terms of acts or practices. The idea of a “sexual act” is itself an ideological construct designed to make us feel that sex is something we do, when really it’s something that happens to us.

Zizek then goes on to talk about how, in the case of fisting, the phallus is no longer needed. He says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” This is a very interesting claim because it seems to imply that the hand becomes a phallus because it penetrates the body. Is this really what Zizek means? I think not. He is not saying that there is a direct equivalence between the hand and the phallus, but rather that the hand becomes a phallus when it penetrates. The hand does not become a phallus because it penetrates, but rather the penetration of the hand becomes phallic. The hand is not a phallus, but it is the penetration that becomes phallic. This is why Zizek says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” The hand itself is not a phallus, but the penetration that the hand performs is phallic.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Universe 25

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

The biggest problems with John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment is that the mice are not isolated from each other, and the population grows exponentially.

There is no way to know if the population of mice in Universe 25 would eventually reach a stable equilibrium.

However, if we assume that Universe 25 does in fact reach a stable equilibrium, we can then compare it to the real world and see if the two systems are similar.

The two biggest differences between Universe 25 and the real world are that in Universe 25, there is no natural selection, and there is no death.

In the real world, most of the mice in a population will die before they reach the age of two.

This is because there are predators in the real world, and because many mice will die from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, predators are not a factor, and there is no death from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, the mice live in a completely sterile environment.

In the real world, mice live in an environment that is full of bacteria and viruses.

These bacteria and viruses will cause many mice to die from disease.

In Universe 25, there is no natural selection.

In the real world, mice that are better able to escape predators or find food will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

Mice with less ability will be more likely to die before they have a chance to reproduce.

In Universe 25, mice reproduce as soon as they reach sexual maturity.

In the real world, mice usually do not reproduce until they are about a year old.

In Universe 25, all of the mice are identical.

In the real world, mice have different characteristics that make them more or less likely to survive and reproduce.

 

Many armchair academics are tempted to apply the “lessons” of John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment to human social structures and behavior, but they are in fact completely different. The Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment, with a welldefined goal and parameters, and the subjects were rats. Humans are not rats and human social structures are not the same as those of Universe 25.

The Universe 25 experiment is also often cited as an example of the dangers of Social Darwinism, if the experiment is assumed to have developed as predicted by thatphilosophy.” However, since the social behavior of rats and humans are not the same process any lessons at all about human beings can be drawn from the experiment.

An additional problem for many armchair philosophers is their understanding ofSocial Darwinism.” The social policies adopted by the Nazis actually predate Social Darwinism by quite a bit, as does eugenics the science of improving the human stock through selective breeding and purification. Eugenics has been practiced for centuries, as people have always tried to control the genetic makeup of their offspring. The Spartans (as well as many other ancient cultures) wiped out theweaker members of their society so as to improve the overall species even though it was called by different names, it was the same process.

Darwinism and eugenics (again, the scientific improvement of the human species through selective breeding and purification) have been grouped together in recent years but have nothing to do with each other. Darwinism is both a philosophy and a science. It‘s fundamental tenet is that life evolves through natural selection of the fittest. This is not a guarantee of improvement. In fact, the history of evolution suggests quite the opposite: throughout natural selection the weak often die while the strong survive.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why eugenicists and other fascists like to pretend mice behavior can teach us about human behavior, particularly when it comes to what they see as the radical notion that meeting the basic needs of individuals is actually a good thing. That is, they believe it to be wrong, not just ineffective. But human beings aren‘t mice and mice behavior isn‘t a useful model for human behavior.

The Universe 25 experiment is often cited by both the left and the right, but they use it to support different positions. The left uses it to support the idea that social structures are important and that we need to be concerned about the quality of life of all people. The right uses it to support the idea that social structures are irrelevant and that it‘s all about the individual.

There are some interesting lessons to be learned from the Universe 25 experiment, but they have little to do with human beings and everything to do with rats. The most important lesson is that when you control for all outside influences, rats will do what they are genetically programmed to do. They are not capable of any other behavior. The second lesson is that the Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment in which the environment was completely controlled and all other variables were eliminated. This is not how real life works and should not be confused with reality.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: The Economy is Great, But For Who?

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

If one person says “the economy is going great! We created 5 million jobs this year.” And someone responds, “I have three of them and I still can’t pay my rent.” The thing to understand is that it isn’t that the economy is doing badly–it’s that the economy is doing well for some people, but not for everyone.

Economists like to focus on median income, rather than average income. Average income is just what most people make–it doesn’t tell you if they’re doing better than they used to, or if the economy is getting better for most people. Median income is the income that’s right in the middle of all incomes. If you take all the incomes and put them in order from smallest to largest, median income is the one right in the middle.

So if the economy is doing well, you’d expect median income to go up. But it hasn’t. Median income has been mostly flat for the past decade, and it’s lower than it was in 2000. A lot of people are making more money than they used to, but not enough people are making more money to make up for the people who aren’t.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: When I Was Your Age

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When an old person argues, “When I was your age, I had a house, a wife, a career, and two kids.” And a young person responds, ‘daddy doesn’t know the irreducible ontological incompleteness of the reality.” What the young person means is that if they want to be happy, they must shift their paradigms, and shift the paradigms of their whole intelligible world, and start over again.

The question is what the young person will choose to do. If they choose to start over, they will be happy. If they choose to stay with what used to work, they will not have a choice about that, because they will feel unhappy whether or not they admit it to themselves.