Ethics and strategy.

Very brief.

We can interpret the ethical interaction of things in terms of their double identity as actual entities and as the focal points of virtual productions.

Some examples.

entity A is generated continuously by virtual field ~a~
entity B is generated continuously by virtual field ~b~


(This one, influenced by Irigaray and her description of the exploitation and suppression of feminine power.)
*Exploitation: entity A addresses entity B.

entity A negates entity B (think Hegel, master/slave dialectic?)
entity A does not negate virtual field ~b~

hence, A, ~a~, and ~b~ are maintained, while the production of ~b~ is negated continuously. we are left with a perpetual, ghostly "B", constantly negated by A, yet whose conditions of production are maintained so that their power may be siphoned off by A. yet ~b~ is not assimilated by ~a~, being held off by the negation of B by A. Because A negates B, B is not allowed to actualize except as negation and ~b~ is held apart from ~a~. however, over time this breaks down necessarily as ~b~ bleeds into ~a~.

Exploitation functions by alienation and the wilfull refusal of heterogenesis, and hence is unethical.

*Cooperation

entity A is maintained, entity B is maintained, ~a~ and ~b~ swap memes.

Cooperation functions by maintaining some distance between A and B while allowing transmission between ~a~and ~b~, hence allowing overlap and sharing in virtual fields of production of the terms. Distance between A and B allows a safeguard- neither A nor B engages the Other as the Same, i.e. there is no dialectical battle, no negation at the back of difference. Cooperation encourages the mutul actualization of A and B from overlapping and shared field spaces of ~a~ and ~b~ and hence maximizes the procution of difference from a virtual field.

Cooperation function by virtual communication/exchange of particles and by the maximization of heterogenesis, and hence is ethical.


Problem case: ethical warfare.

Another way to state this, how can B resist negation/exploitation by A?

Possibility, absolute negation.

B negates both A and ~a~, incorporating viable residue of each into ~b~.

Ah, better possibility- B negates ~a~, grafts A onto ~b~.

Theft and gift. Resonance with traditional radical critiques (even the simplest, for instance don't focus on punishing criminals, change the conditions that produce criminality*).

Very difficult case. What is more ethical, absolute negation or exploitation? If absolute negation functions by the removal of a section of a virtual field, then it isn't really an alienation, since virtual fields are continuities interwoven by will and desire. There's a deeper cruelty to it, but it's the cruelty of a joyful will I suppose.


*though they don't really do this when they focus entirely on negative factors, socioeconomic factors; also have to focus on positive factors ans the absence of them, the absence of sustainable mythologies and desires.