Goals as metrification of desires?

Occupied by capitalism? I think I am.
For a while, I have been occupied by the idea of money’s exchange-ability. The numericality of currency, in various forms, which seems to make everything conform to its values, processes, practices, mechanisms, politics and culture.
ie, from the question of people’s choice of university courses based on hoped for specific outcomes which could be converted into jobs – rather than opening up to questions and further inquiries in general and a specific topic in particular. Is this not orienting life on fear for one’s own existence? Or what happens when one expects renumeration for an activity – else they might not do it? (xmass, somehow strangely, is an exception because people seem to do that despite deep anxieties and feelings it doesn’t worth it..)

This sort of turning everything into numerical exchange-ability seem to be one element of capitalism. Another, in my view, is the hold of desires.
Nothing new here? Well.. Lets check, we know adverts, for example, are direct ways in which capitalists attempt to tell people what they ought to get.
I want a green shoe.
I want a drone.
I rather fancy having a holiday in iceland.
I fancy being without adverts.
I want to get a capitalist free life.
I want anarchy.
I just wish for a bottle of spook.
I just want to vote kons.
I will get myself an etc..

Seems to me that such wants, and fancies are goals. They are stuff to get. Stuff to be able to clearly say: I have that, or not. Hence, they are metrifications. They can be expressed by numerical values that can be compared and compartmentalised.

However, goals are not desires. To desire, in my mind, is to practice stuff from the sense of being fascinated. In that way, to be fascinated by, for example, a car, or some lipstick colouring, etc. – is to never be able to actually “get” these. Getting in terms of sensations rather than owning the objects. By desiring a given plant, I open a connection with it. Maybe I will buy a certain plant, maybe not – that is a contingent element in a range of stuff that constitutes the desire. In that sense, a desire is linking with, being with, getting on with, both that specific desire and its processes, as much as elements that come within the desire’s range and evolving sensations.

Achieving a desire is in a way the simple practice of desiring. That is, how I might have a clue whether I desire a person or not – if I want them, then being together feels wrong unless it is in the way I want. When desiring someone, there is no general “way I want” – it is being with them. Sure, there are wants during the time, but they are contingent rather than exact.
That way, its the ability to cultivate, to practice the desire of desitring freely, without fear and sense of imposed limits with – say another person – that is which fulfills that particular desiring. The denial of that ability, when a person tells me they rather I did not desire them, ie I need to have imposed limits, that Hurts!

OK.. Get off the psychobulls.. What are you trying to say?
I think its interesting that even while getting stuff, people feel something “missing”. You got that object you worked hard for – and its not enough. There is a sense of missing?
That is a sense of desire. Perhaps a meta sensation of missing the missing desire. Through the metrification of desire, turning the idea of desiring rather than sensing it, into a goal – having goals became a culture, a desire in itself.

However, I think the energy of capitalism comes from the imagination link of desire. The cultivation of desires as goals. It is not so much controlling desires, but the cultivation of desires. The cultural exachnge ways of what we call “desire”.

Semantics?
Sounds like it, but I think its not.
How?
Lets call desire, shooshyoo. Now what is shooshyoo? That is the sensation of needing to do stuff, that is simultaneously being fulfilled by doing and yet, containing something else which keeps you wondering and evolving whatever you happen to do for practicing the desire.
Now, lets say I am telling a person – or they tell themselves, that they shooshyoo a car. However, to shooshyoo a car, what they do, is setting a goal to get the vehicle. Work. Get the car. Then they feel kind of “soooo.. what’s now??” sort of emptiness.
Am I saying that the empty uselessness sense is because they called something shooshyoo while that thing was goal getting?
No.
Its not the semantic naming. In a sense, what we have is shooshyoo replacing goal. However, perhaps there are certain operations we Need to acknowledge correctly for moving on swiftly. Am suggesting that shooshyoo/desire is one of them.
Why?
Well, lets seem what might happen to the character that just got a car. They feel a bit Meehhh and 😐 despite getting their goal. To “correct” that, they are likely to set another goal called desire – say a new oven.
Now if we take the meta operation, getting a car, then getting an oven, etc. we get something that Looks like desire operation. That points towards a possible emergent quality of desire. Shooshyoo/desire in that sense, describe operations we might do anyway.

If we do it anyway, why acknowledge?

Are you a donkey?

Are you abusing me?

Well.. Human, donkey.. Its all semantics, no?

selling/letting/offering, a bit like an if?

Just bumped into the letting a flat 3mx3m for £255pcm. The surprise in mind was that some might have actually seriously contemplated the idea. ie if there is an offer, maybe someone will inevitably actually take it?

The being an offer, an if flat of 3mx3m in and of itself does not seem like forcing the issue. However, in a violent environment, it does force the issue because the size/price ratio works to increase larger proporties prices and makes it more plausible that a person desperate for a place – might actually contemplate the offer?

In that sense that is not a genuine offer for choice. There is a punishment attached. If you do – or not – get the place, then it will raise other properties prices.

In that sense it can be argued that its a form, an act of an offer rather than a fearless offer..?

an instant bit of ownbit coin coinage?

I think its rather interesting how quick, or better put – the speed of the rhythms – in which stuff is being automated and instantised.. (perhaps enshrined and killed.. some might argue..)

Bitcoin can now be seen as simply a marketing question. You can go to http://coingen.io/ and begin your own.. For a small bitcoiny fee..

Isn’t that kind of quick killing allows fast moving on to, for example, imagining a different exchange generation..?
However, the rhythms’ speed.. Is that innate in the coin exchange practice or some techno imposition that obscures contemplation time – to get much more of elements before they are killed and die..?

workers run factory in greece – Vio.Me

A documentary re workers run factory following the capitalistic take over in greece circa 2011

Its interesting, perhaps wrongly, to watch the links between workers and “organisational helpers”. Might be using the wrong term, but the way “intelectuals” & “workers” operate together, eg here as information facilitators to activities that materialise the information. In my view there might be a certain sensitivity of respect and mutually interlocking activities that seem interesting. Or interesting possible question that could be elaborated…?

This, in my mind, relates to a history of such relationships in terms of the left’s history – eg propagandists/political-commissars & workers, etc. – as well as the more personal element of perceived division between brain/mental & body.. Perhaps its a sign of certain misunderstandings..

against the surplace for our requirements?

The rage in anatolia/turkey/asia-minor’s cities like istanbul seems – from a brighton perspective – to be against the political activities of the regime. These activities raised some people’s ire because they seem to advance a religious – rather than secular agenda and policies – which will arbitrarily benefit the few and fail to take the whole of society into consideration.
The demonstrations against the regime are aping Occupy movements’ tactics, and that, in my mind, sparked a possible link to be made between the pro-social nature of Occupy activities, be them in political capitalist economy context, or its relative in the religious political state.
Religion & numerical-based-exchange economy are both inventions that create and thrive on scarcity. Be it scarcity of numbers to exchange (money), or availability of belief-based-legitimacy – people’s social, cultural and personal requirements are bound to the arbitrariness of religion & capitalism through scarcity invention.

I doubt policies of abundance are in call for as the “answer” for scarcity because this seems to be a naive dialectical knee jerk reaction loop..