Social cognition is a captivating issue, one embedded in the cultural tapestry, fabric if you will, of our evolving society. The following is a brief outline of my groundbreaking work. In short, I have figured it out. What you ask? That is precisely the question. When we pull on the outer threads of this tapestry, we may well tempt the fates that weave the stories. Thus the central tenant of my thesis is to name the unnamed. Unmask the phantom, the eight hundred pound gorilla that has kept us from peering into the place of man.
Before it is possible to name this “beast” it is essential to uncover the nature of a peculiar effect, or more correctly affect. As Shrodenginger demonstrated in his simplistic calculations, the is of identity is no longer sufficient cause to categorize the ought of the social organism. In one swift movement of a pen he forever shattered our Kantian illusions of social semblance.
Here, luckily, we can turn to the insightful work of David Absalom, his neo-postfuturist paradigms give us a new means to problemitize our standard ‘space, place’ dichotomy. In short, using his critical studies approach I have deduced what I refer to as “The Liminality Affect”
Allow me to digress into explaining the nature of this affect. I assure you that while it is rather complex it is not beyond the comprehension of your average intellectual. Please, as I describe the latticework of interconnections involved in this thesis, follow along on the concept map on the following page.
As many recent sociologists have noted the study of society begins in the study of cultural forms, I call them cultural products But as I have noted previously, and has been widely accepted, the semiotics of cultural products is squarely based in four functions, The intertextual, the hypertextual, the transtextual and the supertextual. All of these relationships follow the structualist impulse, namely tying pieces of substance, of essence, to cognitive activities. As an aside, it is fascinating that the harmony of the four Aristotelian causes is reiterated here.
With this established it is quite plausible, if not absolutely necessary to see how these signs and signifiers project on to the signified, namely the conception of metaphor. Metaphor, as I see it, is the thread, which hems the pants of our society. With out it our cuffs would drag on the ground and look none too civil.
Now I understand this is a lot to take in. It is probably worth rereading the previous paragraphs several times before we continue. However, we have yet to arrive at our desired Affect, namely the Liminality Affect. So I must press on. Moving to the bottom right of the diagram you will see what I refer to as the tie fighter effect, named thus because of its appearance, looking much like a tiefighter. Yet the name has a deeper significance. For the Social Construct is in effect the lace, which crochets its four constituent parts together. As you can see Race, Place, Space, and Interface interact in mutual connectivity with the social construct in effect becoming the social construct.
As you can now see, quite clearly, these are the particles that make up the chemicals, which make up the elements of our society. It is as a polymer, of earth fire wind and water that we have communed with the ultimate liminality of our universe. How fascinating that this alchemical explanation, which failed in the natural sciences should ultimately be the saving grace here in the social sciences.
Now that we have covered that it is possible to move on to the task at hand, to demonstrate the proof of the existence of a ‘figure’, in effect the affect becomes the slide rule which allows for the justification to enter in to the high temple. Where, we can now tear the curtain in two and recognize our place with in the fabric of this social organism.
As before it is crucial that you follow along in the diagram. For language often fails us inn these matters, and when one is attempting to map a seven dimensional theory with pen and paper it is essential that he take everything he has to do so as carefully and clearly as possible.
We begin in the upper right hand corner, what is the nature of the cognitive? A question that has plagued theorists from the dawn of thought. As Edward Anthony’s work with the indigenous of Polynesia has demonstrated, as counterintuitive as it may seem, thought is diametrically opposed to the notion of culture. The two converge in a flash, at the dawn of the Paleolithic, in what can only be explained in terms of the either or of space and place. These concepts, or more clearly, precepts become the building blocks for the metaphoric tower of bable, which has become known as discourse studies.
The platonic form, which constitutes our metaverse, has, in recent years, been encapsulated in a microverse, namely the Internet. As an outgrowth of the tecnoscientific culture of “emergence” which has come to the foreground in the later twentieth century we now have the tool kit to piece together the substrata of our civilization, and thus all civilization. When you consider the actions of Dinobot, who produced the machinama “Druid Revelation” it becomes obvious that the call form the forum, demands a quorum to innervate all.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, and the other side of our chart, the Zapatistas are struggling under the weight of the failures of social control, social justice and the nature of the corporate hierarchy. All of this points to only one truth, that there is no “way of being in the world” in effect, or affect, we have disreputed the nature of discourse studies at their kirkergardian roots.
It becomes so painfully obvious, when we consider the actions of dinobot in conjunction with the advent of techno in a world where the daily injustices faced and perpetrated by and on the Zapatistas that the Kirkegaradian notion of a way of being in the world has been perverted in the Nietzchian farce. We are no longer “poets of our own lives” we are ruled by the social forces which function as the hydra, fortuitously foretold in the revelation of john. Don’t confuse what I propose, I have not, come to Jesus, but instead he as come to me. I am a witness for the nature, power and glory of my own thoughts, and their stunning clarity and brilliance demand a higher being, or entity, namely, myself.