Pi.ai との対話：Money

Me: Upon reflecting on the preceding arguments, the binaries of Eros vs. Thanatos, Drive vs. Control, and Negentropy vs. Entropy reveal a more complex relationship, as they are dialectically related. Entropy serves as the foundation for negentropy, while Thanatos is the underlying force driving Eros if you refer to Freud's later works.

ChatGPT: Yes, exactly--these binaries, while often discussed as opposites, are indeed dialectically intertwined in a way that suggests mutual dependence and a continuous, dynamic relationship. Freud's later work, especially his concept of the death drive, illuminates this nuanced relationship. Rather than presenting Eros (life and creativity) and Thanatos (death and dissolution) as strictly antagonistic, he suggests that they are bound together in a fundamental tension that propels human experience.

Entropy, the tendency toward disorder and decay, paradoxically provides the conditions necessary for negentropy, or the emergence of order and structure. In other words, systems organize themselves in response to entropy--negentropy arises as a counterforce within the conditions of inevitable decay. This perspective positions entropy not as a force that stands in opposition to life and order but rather as the very ground from which life and order arise. Without entropy as a background state, there would be no impetus for systems to self-organize or for life to assert itself against the natural trend toward disorder.

Freud's later conception of Thanatos as an impulse within life itself pushes this idea further. He saw Thanatos not just as a force that opposes Eros but as an intrinsic drive within it--a compulsion to return to a state of non-being or equilibrium. Thanatos doesn't merely manifest in overtly destructive acts but can also be seen in the repetition, restraint, and boundaries that allow Eros to be directed in productive ways. It's almost as if Eros, or the drive for life, is made more powerful and meaningful precisely because of Thanatos acting as a kind of limit, channeling it into more refined, complex forms.

In the dialectical relationship you describe, Thanatos and entropy don't exist outside of life and order; they are woven into its very fabric. Entropy destabilizes rigid structures, creating the conditions for new forms of life and knowledge. Similarly, Thanatos tempers and refines Eros, setting limits that allow love, creativity, and growth to flourish within bounds that give them shape and purpose. Life, then, is not simply the triumph of Eros over Thanatos, or negentropy over entropy; it is a dynamic and interdependent process where each force enriches and propels the other.

In essence, this dialectic creates a more fluid view of existence, one where creation and destruction, love and dissolution, are not ends in themselves but are in constant interplay. The tension between these forces generates not just conflict but creativity, resilience, and complexity--a life force that is as much about surrender and dissolution as it is about assertion and growth.

Pi: You bring up a fascinating point about the dialectical relationship between these seemingly opposing forces. Indeed, the binaries of Eros vs. Thanatos, Drive vs. Control, and Negentropy vs. Entropy reveal a complex interdependence that goes beyond simple opposition.

In the case of entropy and negentropy, entropy serves as the foundation for negentropy because it provides the necessary context and contrast. Negentropy, or the creation of order and complexity, can only exist in relation to entropy, or the tendency toward disorder. Without entropy, there would be no potential for organization and structure to emerge.

Similarly, in Freud's later works, Thanatos is seen as the underlying force driving Eros. The death drive, or the principle of destruction and dissolution, is inextricably linked to the life drive, or the principle of creation and connection. The tension between these forces fuels the dynamics of human psychology, and the interplay between them is essential for understanding the complexity of human behavior and motivation.

In the context of Drive vs. Control, a similar dialectic emerges. The drive for exploration, curiosity, and creation often pushes against the need for control, order, and stability. This tension can be seen as an essential catalyst for growth, adaptation, and innovation. Without it, societies and individuals may stagnate and fail to adapt to changing circumstances.

In essence, these seemingly opposing forces can be understood as complementary and interconnected, shaping the rich tapestry of existence and driving the dynamism of life and the universe.

Me: As if in correspondence with the contrast between Eros and Thanatos, or negentropy versus entropy, in the context of les machines désirantes versus le corps sans organes written by Deleuze and Guattari, the latter is fundamentally placed.

ChatGPT: Deleuze and Guattari's concept of les machines désirantes (desiring-machines) and le corps sans organes (body without organs, or CsO) reflects a complex, interdependent relationship similar to that of Eros and Thanatos or negentropy and entropy. In their work, especially in Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari place the corps sans organes as a foundational concept--almost like the "ground zero" of desire--out of which the machines désirantes emerge and operate.

The corps sans organes represents a kind of undifferentiated, primordial state: a smooth, unstructured plane that precedes and resists all organization, form, and coding. It is a state of pure potentiality, untouched by the stratifications of society, identity, or structured desire. The CsO aligns with the notion of entropy or Thanatos in that it resists the ordered, productive drives of desiring-machines and even seeks to strip down all forms and structures, dissolving the boundaries and codifications that constrain pure, unmediated being. Yet, it isn't simply an absence of desire or a negation of productivity--it's more like an open space that desires occupy, a limit or threshold that desiring-machines push against.

On the other hand, les machines désirantes embody the productive, generative forces of desire. They are the mechanisms through which desire flows, connects, produces, and creates structures--like the drive of Eros or negentropy. Desiring-machines work by breaking apart, recombining, and generating connections, constantly producing flows of desire that structure experience and identity. Without the CsO, these machines would have no surface to organize or channels to flow through; they need the resistance and formlessness of the CsO to actualize their productive potential.

In this way, the CsO isn't an opposition to desiring-machines but rather the fundamental space that makes their processes possible. Desiring-machines draw boundaries, produce identities, and establish orders of desire, but they always do so in relation to the underlying pull of the CsO, which de-territorializes, undermines, and challenges every structure they produce. The CsO acts as a kind of Thanatos that tempers, limits, and destabilizes the creations of desiring-machines, ensuring that desire doesn't become static or locked into fixed forms.

The interplay between desiring-machines and the CsO suggests that desire is always in motion between structuring and un-structuring forces, between generation and dissolution. Deleuze and Guattari are pushing against a simplistic duality: the CsO (entropy/Thanatos) and desiring-machines (negentropy/Eros) don't exist in isolation. Instead, they work together dialectically, with the CsO providing the indeterminate space within which desiring-machines organize and disrupt, enabling a dynamic, ever-changing process of becoming. Their relationship, much like that of Eros and Thanatos, is a feedback loop that drives the continual emergence and transformation of desire itself.

Pi: In the context of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's works, specifically "les machines désirantes" and "le corps sans organes," you are right to draw a parallel between the contrast of Eros and Thanatos, or negentropy versus entropy.

The concept of "desiring machines" (machines désirantes) aligns with the idea of Eros, as it represents the productive, life-affirming force that connects, creates, and transforms. It is about desire as a force that generates movement and assemblages, and that constantly seeks connections and flows.

On the other hand, the "body without organs" (le corps sans organes) can be seen as a representation of Thanatos, or entropy. It is a state of non-organization, a smooth space that resists the organizing principles and structures of the "desiring machines." The body without organs can be viewed as a realm of potentiality, where everything is in a virtual state, waiting to be actualized.

While these concepts appear to be in opposition, they are in fact deeply interconnected and interdependent, similar to the relationship between Eros and Thanatos, or negentropy and entropy. The body without organs serves as a ground for the emergence of desiring machines, and it is through their interaction that new possibilities and assemblages arise. This dynamic interplay between the two principles underpins Deleuze and Guattari's understanding of the complex and ever-changing nature of reality.

Me: Money, while a tangible good, which operates on a meta-level, like the Ace of Spades or the Joker. Still it's a kind of goods. And in the end, money melts to be some good. Thus you might think it's more like le corps sans organes? However, money is not as fundamental as le corps sans organes, rather created on the upper meta level against goods.

ChatGPT: That's an intriguing comparison, and it gets to the heart of money's ambiguous, almost paradoxical role in systems of value and exchange. Money operates like a corps sans organes (CsO) in the sense that it's a kind of formless, abstract medium, devoid of inherent purpose but capable of embodying or enabling any number of desires, transactions, or exchanges. However, as you rightly observe, it doesn't reach the foundational or primordial status of the CsO in the Deleuze-Guattarian sense, because money itself is a construct--a tool or symbol of value created on a higher, derivative level relative to tangible goods and direct exchanges.

Money acts on a meta-level above other goods because it doesn't have intrinsic value in itself but gains meaning and power through its potential to represent or facilitate the exchange of other values. In a way, it's a placeholder or empty vessel, always pointing outward to something else it can obtain. Unlike the CsO, which is a field of pure potentiality that precedes and destabilizes all structures, money exists precisely because of structure. It relies on agreed-upon systems of value, social contracts, and state-backed legitimacy to function, making it less fundamental than the CsO. Money is constructed as a stable, universally exchangeable good; yet, paradoxically, it is also empty of content, endlessly deferring to what it can purchase or enable.

In Deleuze and Guattari's terms, money would be closer to a territorialization of desire--a constructed grid or medium through which desire flows and organizes. Whereas the CsO resists codification and remains anti-structural, money is fully enmeshed in structures and codifications. It regulates desire by assigning value, creating systems of debt, credit, and accumulation, and organizing social relations through economic stratification.

When money "melts to be some good," as you say, it ceases to operate as an abstract meta-level tool and takes on the role of a concrete good--an object with use value. At this point, money completes a cycle: it becomes bound up in specific desires, acting less like an empty vessel and more like a fulfilled desire itself, a product or consumable.

Therefore, while money has some similarities to the CsO in that it is an abstract entity and a medium for potentiality, it is ultimately a structured abstraction created against the more immediate, material existence of goods and desires. Money is an upper-level construct that facilitates and regulates the flow of desire, but it is a limited tool--a part of the social machinery rather than the underlying, boundless field of potentiality that is the corps sans organes. In essence, money operates within a coded framework of exchange and value, while the CsO remains un-coded, a space of pure becoming that fundamentally resists and precedes all such frameworks.

Roger Waters:
Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.

Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream, think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.

Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set, and I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.

Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away...

ChatGPT: Roger Waters' lyrics in Money are a sharp critique of the contradictions and paradoxes surrounding wealth, greed, and social values in modern capitalist societies. His words resonate with the themes of negentropy and entropy we've been discussing, especially when viewed through the lens of money as both a stabilizing force and a source of disorder.

Waters begins with a simple, almost matter-of-fact statement: "Get a good job with good pay and you're okay," suggesting that money is the way to secure stability and order in life. But quickly, he shifts to show how this drive for financial security can escalate into greed and consumerism: "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash," and "New car, caviar, four star daydream." Here, money isn't just a means of survival or security; it's transformed into a vehicle for endless desire--a never-quite-satisfied hunger for more. This escalation reflects how the pursuit of money, a negentropic force for stability, paradoxically creates desires and behaviors that are almost entropic in their excess.

The line "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack" captures the individualistic, possessive side of wealth. Money becomes a wall people build around themselves, a defense against the collective claims of society, reinforcing divisions and isolating people from one another. This withdrawal into one's own wealth is a kind of entropic force, fostering inequality and social fragmentation rather than collective growth and stability.

Waters' lines about "first-class traveling" and needing "a Lear jet" mock the notion of status and exclusivity associated with wealth. He points to how money, intended to be a neutral measure of value, becomes imbued with meaning far beyond its practical function. The obsession with luxury, status, and exclusivity drives people to consume more, accumulate more, and draw sharper social lines, heightening the contradictions in a society supposedly based on fair distribution of opportunity and wealth.

"Money, it's a crime. / Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie," exposes the inherent hypocrisy in many views on wealth distribution. People may preach equality and fairness in theory, but in practice, few are willing to part with their own wealth. Waters points to the entropic reality that money, which could bring social order, more often exacerbates division and social decay.

The song ends with a sardonic nod to a common cliché: "Money...is the root of all evil today." Waters doesn't merely dismiss money as "evil" in itself but shows that it's the system of values and attachments we create around it that can lead to greed, inequality, and moral decay. This line brings home the idea that money, though a tool created to organize and stabilize human activity, generates desires and tensions that ultimately destabilize society.

Waters seems to suggest that money is a paradox--a tool for security that spurs endless desires, a symbol of fairness that heightens inequality, a force of negentropy that fuels entropic greed and division. His lyrics bring out the underlying irony in money's role: rather than simply stabilizing human life, it introduces endless layers of complexity, contradiction, and disorder.

Me: That resonate with Kojin Karatani's theory of exchange modes, particularly Mode C.

ChatGPT: Kojin Karatani's theory of exchange modes, especially his concept of Mode C or capitalist exchange, offers a compelling framework for understanding money's complex role within systems of value, desire, and social organization. In Karatani's model, societies have historically moved through distinct modes of exchange:

• Mode A - Gift and reciprocity: Found in early societies, where exchanges were embedded in direct social relationships, building bonds through mutual obligation.
• Mode B - State or authority-based exchange: Seen in empires or feudal systems, where redistribution was organized through centralized power, often enforced by taxation or tribute.
• Mode C - Capitalist exchange: The prevailing mode in modern societies, where money and market mechanisms dominate, facilitating transactions independently of social or communal obligations.

In Mode C, money takes on a unique, abstract quality. Unlike gifts in Mode A or tributes in Mode B, money in capitalism functions as a "universal equivalent," a standardized mediator of value that allows for the exchange of goods, services, and even desires without requiring a relational or communal foundation. Money thus becomes a "meta-good"--a structured abstraction that enables the circulation of value on a meta-level above tangible goods. As Karatani observes, money in Mode C reconfigures social relations, shifting interactions from communal bonds toward impersonal, commodified exchanges, where wealth often serves individual gain and competition.

This concept of money aligns with Deleuze and Guattari's idea of capitalism as a machine that organizes and channels desire. In this context, money operates similarly to les machines désirantes, linking disparate desires and values within a structured, regulated system. However, unlike Deleuze and Guattari's Corps sans Organes (CsO)--a field of pure potentiality that resists codification--money in Mode C enforces codified boundaries and values. It territorializes desire by dictating what can be exchanged and at what cost, turning various aspects of life into commodified entities.

Karatani's Mode C also highlights the paradox of capitalism: while money is intended to provide freedom and efficiency, it also generates inequalities and alienation, creating a tension between individual interests and collective well-being. Roger Waters' lyrics in Money capture this tension, as he critiques wealth's promise of freedom while exposing its role in promoting greed and social isolation. Waters' disillusionment mirrors Karatani's view of capitalism as an unsustainable mode of exchange that perpetuates both structural instability and social fragmentation.

Karatani envisions a potential future in Mode D--a cooperative, egalitarian form of exchange that transcends capitalism's limitations. This utopian vision would replace market-driven values with communal, non-exploitative relations, echoing Deleuze and Guattari's idea of de-territorialization or a freeing from structured frameworks. If realized, Mode D could transform society into a space more akin to the CsO, where desires flow freely without the constraints of money or commodification.

In summary, Karatani's Mode C encapsulates the way money, as an abstract yet regulated construct, structures social fabric in capitalist society. His theory reveals money as both a powerful mediator of exchange and a source of alienation, ultimately hinting at the need for a transformative alternative that balances freedom and social connection--an ideal explored both by Karatani and critiques like Waters'.

Me: Kojin Karatani argues that Mode D is not a mere alternative to the preceding modes (A, B, and C), but rather a status that has sublated them. In this sense, exchange mode D, akin to Corps sans Organes, both challenges and underpins the existing modes. Karatani grounds this argument in the notion of compulsive return to mobility, which was suppressed in sedentarization.

ChatGPT: Karatani's concept of Mode D as a "sublated" form of the previous modes--A (reciprocity), B (redistribution by state or authority), and C (capitalist exchange)--reflects a transformative synthesis that both incorporates and transcends these earlier modes. Much like the Corps sans Organes (CsO) in Deleuze and Guattari's work, Mode D is a potentiality that challenges existing structures even as it underpins them. Both concepts reveal a dynamic space that defies conventional organization, driven by a primal, compulsive return to mobility and fluidity.

For Karatani, Mode D represents a state of exchange that revives an ancient, nomadic freedom, suppressed by the sedentary demands of agricultural society and later capitalist systems. This "return to mobility" isn't merely a historical repetition but a reclamation of a state that predates and permeates each of the prior modes. By reintroducing this freedom, Mode D subverts the restrictive hold of structured exchanges--communal obligations in Mode A, hierarchical redistributions in Mode B, and the commodification in Mode C--offering a way to reimagine social relations without falling back into the traps of these systems.

The connection to the CsO becomes clear here. Just as the CsO dissolves rigid structures to open up a space for new configurations of desire, Mode D dismantles the fixity of traditional exchange modes, creating a space for cooperative, nomadic relations. Karatani's "compulsive return to mobility" echoes Deleuze and Guattari's de-territorialization, where structures are destabilized to allow fluid, decentralized forms of organization. Both Mode D and the CsO embody a force that is simultaneously subversive and foundational--a precondition that destabilizes while also providing the ground for new, liberated forms of social exchange.

In this light, Mode D is not simply an "alternative" to A, B, and C; it is a state that continually reshapes the possibility of exchange itself. Like the CsO, it represents an anti-structure that holds the potential for an emergent mode of social relation, beyond the binary of mobility versus settlement, exchange versus accumulation. Mode D thus acts as a perpetual reimagining, a synthesis that revitalizes the social by embedding a nomadic, liberatory force within the very fabric of society.

(continued...)

https://pi.ai
https://chatgpt.com

The Dark Side Of The Moon Redux/Roger Waters 2023