Thanks for the quick response.
But, just so I have the facts straight: Agamben used the term/image first and Han picked it up and took it further? Is that correct?
YIt is unclear from the writing in Vita Activa, as no footnote is provided in that chapter. Han later references the book (provided below), so we would have to look into that work to know for sure.
“Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998)”
I would assume what you say above is true, yet we all know where assumptions take us…
OK, I’m now thoroughly confused.
Who wrote Vita Activa?
Is the Muselmann reference from that work?
Is the logic of your last statement this: assumptions can be very misleading; you can only assume what I said in my original response is true; hence, what I said may be what is misleading?
I would really like to just sort this out.
Sorry…working from a phone; attempts at correct parentheses and italics can be lost on the thumbs…”Vita Activa” is a chapter in The Burnout Society by Han. The controversial word is from the chapter. We cannot assume from the writing by Han whether it was his own use or a direct reference from Agamben’s work.
(Was hoping to contribute to the conversation…looks like it’s been a distraction…yet another one 
)
2 Likes
Thank you very kindly. This is very helpful.
I think I now know who said what, It is also helpful to know that Han may be building on Agamben’s work. (I did a quick internet search and found that he, too, has a penchant for using German words, even though he’s writing most often in Italian.)
Phones are – in my (perhaps limited) estimation – more trouble than they are worth. Nevertheless, we must always make do with what we have. I apologize if I am inflicting pain on your thumbs or any other part of your body. That was not my intent; I have a terrible (perhaps just personal) problem with confusion.
You have, as far as I’m concerned, made a worthy contribution to the conversation. I think there is a lot to think about in all that you referenced. Some of it was more directly related to the issue, and, in this particular aspect, some of the thoughts were more inclined to lead me, at least, away from the issue. But, and I can’t emphasize this enough: that, too, is worthwhile. I, for example, on the basis of the quotation (and clarification) you provided, was able to place both Han’s and Agamben’s “contributions” into a clearer assessment of the issue. I think I now see the underlying intent, which is not all that misplaced, but …
In any case, I know two individuals whom I don’t necessarily have to add to my reading list.
2 Likes
Thank you to everyone for a great conversation today. It was the best I’ve had so far regarding the film, so thank you for making it happen.
In light of that, I just wanted to pepper this page with some links, as below, in regards to three of the big themes that came up during our conversation.
The first is about the origins of the “information overload” propaganda strategy and “fake news” phenomenon that came up towards the end of our conversation. Two films come to mind for this that I think are really helpful. The first one is a short film (5 minutes) by Adam Curtis that looks at the work of Vladislav Surkov, who is a key figure behind the modern “Russian” propaganda model. It gives a great insight into how far this tactic has come in the last decade or so. The film can be found here.
The second, is a film called Merchants of Doubt, which chronicles how the methods that the tobacco industry used to confuse the public have pretty much directly transposed to obfuscating the drivers of anthropogenic climate change, to much the same success in public discourse and consciousness, etc.
Susan Greenfield’s work also came up a lot, which is great, because it’s amazing. And so if anyone wants to spend an hour just with her, there is a great talk she does called The Future of The Brain which I thoroughly recommended. That talk for me was a big inspiration for the film.
I also want to mention the work of Lewis Mumford again, because I think it too is absolutely brilliant and prescient like never before. His essay Democratic and Authoritarian Technics from 1964 can be found here.
Thank you yet again for today.
Wishing you all the very best.
Jore
5 Likes
Thanks so much, Jore! I really enjoyed that conversation, and thanks to your film for stimulating it.
That Vladislav Surkov is quite a character—conceptual art turned into “non-linear warfare.” Only the Russian imagination, I want to say, could have dreamt of such a thing. One has to admire the literary brilliance.
Thanks for the other links, too. I’m quite interested Susan Greenfield, who seems to be a much more sensitive kind of neuroscientist than I’m used to encountering. She really seems to be paying attention to the quality of individual experience as much as the mechanics of the brain. Mumford also strikes me as a reliable source in these times of obfuscation and diversion.
Do come back, and let us know when you have new work you’d like to share, or if you ever need to bounce around ideas. Cheers.
5 Likes
He simply gave a notion and a garment to what, say, the CIA (particularly their role in color revolutions), neoliberal economists (cf. Mont Pelerin Society and the family tree of “think tanks” they organized to push their message and to counter what was then mainstream economic theory), and others (e.g. Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard) have been doing for decades. And when the theater of the absurd that led to the annihilation of Libya and Iraq is looked at for what it is, I would say our young Mr. Surkov was insightful enough to see that he could perhaps take it to a new level, but one thing he did do was to formulate this in such a way that we can begin even talking about it. We should probably thank him for that.
Great little film.
4 Likes
Good points, Ed. Everything has roots.
Such as “maskirovka”…
Agreed. I may be wrong but I seem to remember it as an excerpt from HyperNormalisation, which is another documentary well worth the time.
4 Likes
An excerpt from, or incorporated into, I believe. Yes, I suppose le DISINFORMAZION is nothing new, and I certainly don’t mean to pick on the Russians. Ed was right during the call to point out the CIA’s similar tactics, which of course extends to the Chinese, et al. Yet there is something about the Russian style, the bleak chic or nihilistic genius, which impresses uniquely. This is spoken for well in US film and spy dramas, and in our secret love affair for all things Russian, which is why Trump’s admiration for Putin is somehow OK with so many otherwise red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans.
Back to the film, I just want to add that I think our talk ended on a deep question. We didn’t put it this way, but it seems to me the question we (humans) must face has to do with how we handle the relationship between the VIRTUAL and the REAL. @Jore made a strong case for the living in a REAL which is grounded in ecological reality.
@johnnydavis54 meanwhile spoke about re-awakening the 4th dimension (aka the imaginal realm), which gets flattened in the physicalist 3D paradigm and totally smooshed in the flatland of 2D screen culture. Yet I don’t interpret John to be saying that 4D is contrary to ecology—rather it’s inclusive of it, and can work with 3D reality, and maybe even translate into 2D, as we are attempting in these conversations.
And I think one can balance the tantric / nondual / techgnostic FEED THE BEAST type approach with with a critical stance that makes wise personal choices and supports sane policies. For example, we may eventually treat our tech much like we would powerful drugs, with warning stickers and hopefully sensible safeguards against misuse. But some will opt to go all in to the cybersphere, becoming immersed in virtual worlds, etc., with perhaps even whole networks dedicated to alternate “forked” realities. This is what I was trying to get at with the idea about worlds diverging (which @patanswer rightly noted is Sloterdijk’s concept of foam.)
Of course, the “base level” reality is still there, right? Not everyone necessarily thinks so…
Incidentally, I think Musk’s view is probably not too different than Jude Currivan’s that what we experience as reality is a really a cosmic hologram. Do these views become attractive precisely when the “real” Real comes to crisis? Can we embrace the creativity of the virtual, without losing touch with our natural ground?
4 Likes
So, my question is: if our experience of reality is a hologram or holographic, is it virtual or real?
3 Likes
Thanks Marco for making this clearer. I have viewed the video this afternoon and am very pleased that we are bringing our attention to how we are using our attention. I sense that the slow mind after viewing the video can enter into the 4D zone and play with the themes and motifs that our fast minds have generated through the effective use of the technology. I imagine that there is a lot we can do to refine our attention and explore the spectrum f consciousness and that the 2d screen doesn’t present overwhelming obstacles to our ongoing embodiment and collective re-education. We can perhaps co-create conditions for many unique ways of refining our meta-attentional capacities. I think this performance was excellent and thank everyone for taking up this supreme challenge.
3 Likes
It is both virtual and real, at the same time, depending upon who and from where the observing happens. We are trans-temporal and historical egos but the personal pronoun I is not necessarily attached to the physical ego. The ’ I’ is free to serve different masters. 3D realities can be know from 4D spaces and there is no reason why we can’t coordinate these activities more adroitly than we have… All magicians have tried to stabilize access to 4D space. Who is zooming who? The screen through which I see God is the same screen through which God sees me. How does the Mind filter itself? Through attention. We have access to the para brain (4D and 5D) and we are not constrained by biological brain except during a few hours in the day time. Most of us are in fantasy land most of the time. At night we roam around the Cosmos quite freely but we often forget this in the morning and for good reasons. Amnesia is a blessing sometimes but it depends on what we are amnesiac about. I think the tragedy of the commons is that we think we are stuck in this flatland and we fight over it. It is a glorious opportunity to know ourselves as a distinct historical configuration but there are more things going on than will ever meet the eye. We are translating and mapping at the same time. The green of the tree enters my eye on a wave of light and then is translated and this mapping action is I believe very connected to our intentions and motivations. Virtual or real? Who is asking that question?
4 Likes
I will attempt to re-frame the question: Is the planet Earth real or virtual?
The notion of an Anthropocene suggests that the real Earth has been virtualized. It existed in a different state—it’s own symbiopoetic regime, so to speak—before humans showed up with their technology. We’re the scenius of the planet now.
The notion of the Cthulhucene, by contrast, suggest a revenge of the Real upon the agents of virtualization, for their hubris. Thus earthquakes, floods, rising seas—superstorms and mass migrations. We have awakened the monster! Run for the hills!
Who survives on a dead planet? Only the scavengers, the furtive decomposers, the earthworms…perhaps even the bookworms? Is it our job to prepare the soil for Life to come? Does the Real need saving? The energy industry is fracking Boulder County open space (near the part of the Earth where I live) over the will of (most of) the people here. That’s real enough. Our conversations are real, too. Screen culture is real. Yet this morning I let my daughter Beatrice tell me about her dreams—spotted and polka-dotted magical scenes, with rainbows, cats and dogs, eyeballs, stars. That was real for me.
I do feel it is urgent that we cultivate new visions for life on Earth. Jore mentioned a book (by John Michael Greer) called The Ecotechnic Future. That might be one way to go. We might also view technology as a medium for magic and myth, as Erik Davis does in Techgnosis. The idea of decentralized net/meshworks with distributed computing, collective governance, and alternative currencies also strikes as quite promising, as we’ve discussed.
Now what if we mix these ingredients (with various others) into some sort of 7-dimensional psychedelic cocktail? We could even give this drink a name: The Concrete Utopia. 
I think we’ve found the star of our Cosmos Happy Hour menu. 
Shall we mix some up and pour libations? Will it quench our thirst? For tomorrow we die…
3 Likes
A father who listens to his daughter’s dreams will be creating conditions for human transformation.
And her dreams are real for you, Marco. And because reality is more than meets the eye, Beatrice will be able to translate adequately between levels of reality. Children who are sponsored in translating from the Imaginal become more ethical than those children who are prevented from doing so. They dont hurt others because they can use their imaginations to register the pain of the other. Children who cant access the imaginal become violent. I have noticed this tendency in adults as well.
" What," I asked the angelic form floating in the white light," is our relationship to Earth?"
" We are para to the Earth." He replied.
And now that I am on my computer, I watch the images on my screen, feel my hands make motions on the keyboard, and struggle with words and meanings, and I am open to doubt what I believe, because it is more fun that way. I see no point in trying to make up my mind about everything.
Which is more real? My Angel, or Beatrice’s magical dreamscapes, or this image captured from the Hubble Telescope? And how do you know that? What’s the difference if there is any? All are images.
4 Likes
Much better than algoritho-virtualoso coffee! I’ll have mine with extra concrete, please.
This guy has been on my radar ever since listening to him on KMO’s (previously) stellar podcast “C-Realm” (C stands for consciousness…I say previously, for now it is a recording from a radio show that he leads in Vermont, losing some of the natural vibe he had when not set to time-constraints…still has good shows on occasion). I am sure one of you have Greer’s Collected Works upon your bookshelf…
Davis, in the chapter “the path is the network” of mentioned Techgnosis mentions Pierre Levy’s concept of
cosmopedia
A dynamic and kaleidoscopic space of knowledge that provides new ways of understanding the world and of being in the world. In this cosmic and cinematic encyclopedia, the collective knowledge of the thinking community, a category which must include machines as well, becomes materialized “in an immense multidimensional electronic image, perpetually metamorphosing, bustling with the rhythm of quasi-animate inventions and discoveries.” In contrast to the fragmented hypertext that defines what Levy calls “commodity space,” the cosmopedia will provide “a new kind of simplicity,” a simplicity that arises from the principles of organization native to knowledge space: the fold, the pattern, the resonating crystal. The chaos may unfold a cosmos after all.
Davis mentions in the next paragraph (p. 390) a favorite of mine, Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game (written 75 years ago!), a stellar novel that integrates or “mashes-up” knowledge (mathematical, musical, historical, poetic…essentially covering the gamut of “intellectual” history) within the Game
Davis providing an example
We are told that an individual game might begin with an astronomical configuration, or the theme of a Bach fugue, or a sentence out of Leibniz or the Upanishads. Players would then use allusions, intuitive leaps, and formal correspondences in order to develop their chosen theme through kindred concepts, while also juxtaposing themes with contrary images or equations in order to weave a kind of cognitive counterpoint. One could imagine playing links between Indra’s net and the monadology, for example, and then introducing the Borg as an ironic twist.
I see this as the path @achronon meant for the “feed the beast” to map out (which don’t-mind-if-I-do walk down that path myself…even if it turns out to be a plank). A week before the Jordan Brown Cafe, I had recorded a spontaneous video loosely explaining my version of “the Intellectual Dark Web”, as coined by Eric Weinstein, attempting to connect his idea with the "elder sponsoring"writing I am attempting. The video does not fully cover what you all discussed in the Cafe, but perhaps is my input to the conversation (Ed: I mention Harris; just bypass that “red circle” and insert your own).
I imagine this dark web as, not necessarily solely intellectual, but as including more elements of the practical, the spiritual, eventually jumping into the realm of localized/collective politics, decentralized “net/meshworks,” inter-generational spiritual communities (perhaps staring “geekily” into the screen while collectively meditating), sharing not only the intellectual flavors of the intelligentsia, but the interpersonal connection that is missing to some degree in nearly each of our lives.
“I’ll have another, please, with extra dimensions this round…”
3 Likes
I am curious about the relationship between the Dark Web and the Slower/Faster Mind we have been exploring in the last few cafes. I know I am in the dark more often than in the light but when we slow down we notice at the border between dark and light that color arises. Goethe noticed this a long time ago.
You had behind you, Doug, a white board and was in a light filled space talking about the web of darkness. It was kind of pleasant seeing you in all of that Light. I also saw you from the waist up. You are not just a talking head, you are a talking torso.
At the library today I became fascinated by Steiner’s blackboard drawings which I share below. I believe these drawings capture some of the qualities of his famous lectures. We do not have any videos or podcasts of him but we can get a felt sense of what he called “pictorial thinking”. Watching him lecture most have been like entering the 4th dimension.
I think those of us brought up on power point have missed out on something very important which I hope to bring back…the quick sketch…the doodle,the mind map…made up of words… gestures…on the back of a cocktail napkin…at the cafe between worlds…
And God told me to go back to Earth and create a living arrangement but He didnt give me an algorithm. All you need for a vision is a box of crayons or colored chalk and a tempo rhythm …
4 Likes
In my own future projection, as portrayed in my SF saga, I have given a relatively minor role to immersive technologies. My projected future is dominated by a combination of nanotech and biotech, but only in specific ways by information tech. I have been thinking about why I did this, given how important this is to today’s society. I think it is because I feel that we will saturate quickly on the virtual and want to reclaim the physical. Many years ago I became quite obsessed with the virtual. I spent almost a year spending hundreds of hours as an avatar moving around in the virtual world of Second Life, and I actually developed several research projects out of that experience. However, even when I was doing it, I was aware of the tension between the real (the physical, the embodied) and the virtual, and a kind of personal yearning to get “back” to the body. This eventually led to a complete transformation of my own research towards embodied initiatives. I also drew on the presence of “embodied feelings” within my virtual world experience to explore the relationship between the two. I think the virtual-in-relation-to-the-real is here to stay, but I have doubts that it will dominate the human spirit for long. I think people go through phases, and that eventually they will grow tired of the “addiction” and want to recover other modes of functioning. I may be overly optimistic (it is one of my failings), but I think the answer to Marco’s question is that the Earth is real, but it may incorporate some virtual elements. I don’t think that in the long term is will become primarily virtual. My two cents…
5 Likes
As an old work colleague from Iowa was fond of saying, even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes.
I think you should refer to and quote whomever you think is helping you clarify what you feel you want to say. I don’t know of anyone with whom I agree 100% 100% of the time. A person’s underlying assumptions and presuppositions limit where they can go with their thought. This is not to say that within those limits they have nothing of value to say, but they will always paint themselves into the same corners as long as those foundations don’t change. That these foundations can and do change is why we encourage debate, discussion, and intellectual wrestling with one another as a more active means of learning.
Being critical does not mean rejection in toto, it means challenging errors of logic and perhaps also highlighting those assumptions and presuppositions that lead to certain conclusions that are presented more like “truth” than, well, conclusions. I have long thought that this is how this whole engagement-of-ideas thing was supposed to work. In these very divisive deficient-mental times, that is sometimes very difficult to do without – as the examples in the “dark web” article you referenced illustrate – significant negative consequences.
You see, I find the use of the term “dark web” in this very context questionable, if not misleading. My understanding of the concept has been that this is the part of the internet that doesn’t want to be found. This is that part used primarily by drug and weapons dealers, sexual predators and child pornographers, extremists of all ilks, that is, entities who thrive best in the least light. These are folks who use a number of techniques and who go to great efforts to make sure they are not found out by the “wrong” people.
By contrast, the Rogans, the Petersons, and the Harris’ want exposure, they want to be found, they want as much light as possible, and that “light” is measured these days by clicks and shares. Granted, the “place” where their presentations (and interviews and discussions) take place is not the up-until-now, traditional (regardless of how short) venues for such interactions and exchanges. That has in fact changed, but describing it as “dark” is not the best image that I can think of.
Due to physical and fiscal constraints, in Gutenberg’s day, not everyone could have a printing press, so a different method of publishing (that is, making public) of one’s work developed. We have different means today and the barriers to entry to “making public” have put that act within the reach of many, at least anyone who can get to and knows someone else with an internet connection and the simplest of tools (now available on any smart phone) .
You do observe correctly, however, that this is in part what I meant with my feeding-the-beast comment. What I’m also advocating is the proliferation of other tools and techniques as well, for example, encryption for closed-group or personal communication. Back in the olden days, if someone (say, a spy or the police or the “authorities”, in the broadest sense of the words, or a company or the competition) wanted access to information that was traveling from Point A to Point B, they had to intercept the letter, surreptitiously unseal and open it, read/copy (by hand) the contents, reseal it unobtrusively and send it further on its way. In other words, it took time and effort to get to the content. Why do we think that this is no longer necessary? Because we think we have nothing to hide? Jore’s film made clear that what may appear to be harmless now might not necessarily be harmless later, depending on who wants to use that content for what. Consequently, part of “feeding the beast” involves making the unauthorized invest time and effort in getting to that content. What we do in public is by its very nature there for all to see (and hear and experience, etc.), and what we do privately is restricted. It’s that simple. To characterize this harmless, normal, everyday, unquestionable activity as perhaps “dark” (because bad people also use the technique for bad things) is questionable. Unnecessary and potentially harmful associations get established that aren’t in anyone’s (other than the powerful’s) interests.
Does this mean, then, that I think Mr. Weinstein is full of it? Not at all. He merely coined a phrase that nobody really needs, and it doesn’t surprise me that someone else who probably thought it was cute or interesting or snazzy or eye/ear-catching or whatever picked it up and spreads it further, but it eventually will just get in the way, and divert time and attention and energy from the more necessary discussions to other issues that shouldn’t be issues at all.
I couldn’t agree with you all more that we need to do more of what we can do – online if necessary – to promote and further the positive vibes that we’re all feeling and radiating. Like @johnnydavis54, I may be in the dark most of the time, but what I’m doing is consciously searching for more light.
3 Likes
Thanks for this, Geoffrey. I liked the shift in focus from virtual/real to virtual/physical. I’m not completely certain that this was the intent of @madrush’s original comment, but it is a worthy, and I also think, necessary distinction to add to the discussion.
As usual, @johnnydavis54, picked up on the ambivalence of my somewhat facetious question, for in the end it’s all real, but not everything that is real is embodied and not everything that is virtual is disembodied. That’s a whole different discussion.
Your comments, however, refocus on what I believe to be a very essential element of all this. Yes (just to pick up on an example you mention), we can roam intensively in Second Life, but at some point, it just doesn’t do it for me anymore … “reclaiming the physical” is an excellent way to put it.
4 Likes