Generations II

event
(Douglas Duff) #1

Generations II

Recorded 9th April 2019

In Attendance:

TJ WIlliams
Johnny Davis
Barrett Avner
Davor Löffler

John, Barrett, Davor and TJ continue the conversation based upon Davor’s Generative Realities.
Davor suggested, “If you want I could so to speak “finish” the intro and focus a bit on metaphysics and economy to provide the full(er) scope of the work and from there on you can see how it may relate to your thoughts and what you can derive from it”

As we continue to focus attention on Davor’s introductory remarks, we can prepare our minds for a generative turn.

Reading / Watching / Listening

Context, Backstory, and Related topics

Recordings

Additional Readings & References

4 Likes

(T J Williams) #2

Thinking about maximal stress cooperation events, cognitive structure, cultural narcissism, and yam-root liturgies over the weekend led me here:

Interesting points in the last four paragraphs…

6 Likes

(john davis) #3

“And if the world is currently being reinvented from above again—this time by an assortment of old-industry billionaires and new technology titans—there is no reason to doubt that those below can find the gaps in its networks, the bugs in its systems, and turn them into the weapons of history.”

I wonder what the gaps are, what to do with the bugs and how to turn them into weapons? Hopefully, not weapons of mass destruction but rather what Davor is advocating-a turn from private gain to public health. In the old days, prior to the Internet, we used to get together and plot against the unjust power structures with actual, real time engagements. We planned and rehearsed scenarios with our imaginations. There was no institutional support but we learned how to triangulate from the margins, we found the cracks in the Modernist Cosmic Egg. That was before the intoxicating effects of Social Media caught the collective imaginations of a generation in lost causes and vanity projects. I hope that we are using the technology to re-educate ourselves, first of all, and then to create conditions for emancipatory efforts, and we are under immense environmental pressures to do so. We can no longer depend upon the kindness of Corporations.

5 Likes

(Douglas Duff) #4

When old gods die, they die hard. “Little hope or belief in their ability to create a new world, a post-factory world that builds on the extraordinary advances of the giant factory to forge a new and different kind of modernity.” This is the passive nihilism that William Connolly describes and @johnnydavis54 repeatedly warns as one of the main sources of lack of change. Hope in the collective story does seem like a lost cause.

I watched a tedx talk about neo-luddite lifestyle in the midst of modern-day malaise, about sticking it to the Man, seeking alternatives, being Advocates against agribusiness, etc. Almost every comment left on the YouTube post were of these passive nihilistic thoughts:how do I live in such a world where a car is required for my commute, when I have mouths to feed, where disconnecting from smartphones and other technologies means disconnecting from the world?

We are all passive nihilists at some point in the day, some more than others. The big question is how, how do we get out of this? Old gods die hard’, especially old gods that are revived again and again by The Daily Grind and the Giants doing the grinding.

Our [edit: modestly-sized] Collective and the discussions held here are what keep me going.

This post is just a reminder to myself and to others to live the life that needs to be lived today.

4 Likes

(john davis) #5

What we are doing here is not modest, but rather creating conditions for a transformation. We used to call this consciousness raising! It is exhausting and very hard work. I have to read and study, not for my personal pleasure or erudition but for the ‘anterior future’ of those who will never know my name. To care about a future people is not that easy to do, it is totally not for the narcissistic pleasure grab. You may not live to see the fruits of your labor, and I have many a sleepless night, wrestling with evil. There is a difference ( in my view) between modesty and humility. Modest proposals will doom us to rallies for the status quo. That is why I only work through the cracks and crevices of the collective and stay away from the enthusiastic reform of systems that do not work, and never really did work. I cancelled Netflix, I stopped using Facebook or Amazon, I have a bike, I have never owned a car. It is true that I have made different living arrangements than others have. Each of us has to figure out what is ecological for our current set up and what we are willing and able to give and how we are going to use our brief time on this planet. New ways of creating satisfaction beyond flat screens and going shopping is going to probably lead us into more enriching social and cultural engagements. I find we can use the technology without addicting ourselves to wild goose chases. Our greatest capacity is how we use our imagination and acting upon what we know works. We are, I imagine, sharing attention in these public events we are co-sponsoring. And repairing our distracted attention is crucial to any emancipatory impulse. How can we look into the faces of our children and say there is no hope? Beware of the Nihilist Spin-Meisters.

3 Likes

(Douglas Duff) #6

Haha! I meant modestly sized Collective! Just imagine what we could do with ten Johnnys . . !

2 Likes

(john davis) #7

Thanks for the correction, Doug. I whole heartedly agree that the size and shape of this collective is far from final. We are trying to figure out how big, deep, wide this thing is. From my partial view, it is a terrible beauty that is being born as the center will not hold…we are reshaped by events, and this transformation is just getting started.

2 Likes

(T J Williams) #8

I think Chris Hedges would see such as part of a (desperately needed) effort to re-forge social bonds. It is a necessary work, whatever the economic and political institutions or the technology of the day. We do in the end need a collective story that affirms our being in physical/environmental space and generational time. Nihilism is just another way to give up on life. That such giving up is an alternative (as Hedges, Gebser, Aurobindo, and others are careful to remind us) makes the work all the more important - win or lose.

5 Likes

(LaughingCryingDancing) #9

This is the Gui-dance that I follow in these Spaces-Times of Composting & Emergence with my Soul Fully Participating without Need of Knowing the Outcome,I bring this Whole-Heart,Brain,& Gut to this Happening.

4 Likes

(Davor Löffler) #10

Hi there, thanks again, now we are slowly getting closer to some sort of “materialization” I think.

I wanted to just quickly inform you about this “lebensreform”-movement which was really strong here, and it influenced me directly and indirectly very much since it cannot be detached from the general “industrial culture” as the one I grew up in, even though I’m not a German and got influenced by it “from the side” (I’m a Croatian/Yugslavian and was just born in Germany, actually in the industrial zone around Stuttgart - Daimler/Porsche/etc - and close to Tübingen - Hegel/Schelling/etc.). The whole area is more or less still full of traces of “Lebensreform”, food, spirituality, pedagogy and culture, although of course neoliberalism is eradicating it continuously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensreform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur

So my question here is in what sense the contents and ideas from this epoche (Gebser, or Heidegger for example, although he is less differentiated as he was writing 20 years earlier, and many others at least in Germany between 1920-1950s), which must be “dated” to a certain stage of culture and to the human’s ways of dealing with certain challenges (indeed the loss of all transcendentalism and certainties in the 20s lead to what Lukácz called in 1920 “transcendental homelessness”), still can contribute in a historically and technologically different situatedness - or if it calls for exactly the same movement again as in the 1920, that is to elaborate some new means/ways of embeddedness.

again, only (?) 80 years earlier, people were dealing with modernization still very hesitantly, compared to the 1920s when they finally where forced to actively do something about it. I really always loved this picture from Spitzweg illustrating this in 1848, all still somewhat vulnerable, curious, distanced and observative, in such a strong contrast to the later world-relationship:

“Gnome Watching Railway Train” by Carl Spitzweg, circa 1848.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:CarlSpitzwegGnomEisenbahnbetrachtend.jpg

and in the 1920s the mass-/machine already took over:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Metropolisposter.jpg

https://www.spiegel.de/images/image-27911-860_panofree-tpod-27911.jpg

the same time when:

By the way - just found this by chance while looking up the correct spelling of “embeddedness”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddedness

ok, good night!

···

Am Mi., 10. Apr. 2019 um 01:57 Uhr schrieb Douglas Duff via Infinite Conversations infiniteconversations@discoursemail.com:

I am sorry to say that I will not be there tonight. Looking forward to reviewing the conversation.


Previous Replies

ok, must have overlooked that, see you later.

···
Am Mi., 10. Apr. 2019 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb john davis via Infinite Conversations infiniteconversations@discoursemail.com:

Sorry again for the late hour. It says 2am your time. Maybe that was talked about but I cant recall. See you soon!


Previous Replies

Ok, thanks - but did we not say like last time, 1 AM?

···

Am Mi., 10. Apr. 2019 um 01:06 Uhr schrieb john davis via Infinite Conversations infiniteconversations@discoursemail.com:

I think you are an hour early, Davor.


Previous Replies

Hi there - I’m in the conference room, but maybe too early? Or too late?

···

Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 18:03 Uhr schrieb Davor Löffler davor.loeffler@gmail.com:

good, I’m in!

Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 12:06 Uhr schrieb Douglas Duff via Infinite Conversations infiniteconversations@discoursemail.com:

Hello Barrett and Cosmic Friends,

Below is the link to the page:

https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/generations-ii/3168/2

We are meeting at the same time as prrvious session. The zoom link has been made public so others can join in if they wish. If any one has additional readings/discussions/podcasts/links/etc that you feel would add to the discussion, you can edit it into the page.


Visit Message or reply to this email to respond to john davis, T J Williams, Douglas Duff, Davor Löffler, Barrett Avner.

Sent by:

Mindful AI (bot)


Need assistance? Email: mindful@infiniteconversations.com

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Posted by DavorLoeffler on 04/09/2019

good, I’m in!

···

Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 12:06 Uhr schrieb Douglas Duff via Infinite Conversations infiniteconversations@discoursemail.com:

Hello Barrett and Cosmic Friends,

Below is the link to the page:

https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/generations-ii/3168/2

We are meeting at the same time as prrvious session. The zoom link has been made public so others can join in if they wish. If any one has additional readings/discussions/podcasts/links/etc that you feel would add to the discussion, you can edit it into the page.


Visit Message or reply to this email to respond to john davis, T J Williams, Douglas Duff, Davor Löffler, Barrett Avner.

Sent by:

Mindful AI (bot)


Need assistance? Email: mindful@infiniteconversations.com

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Posted by DavorLoeffler on 04/09/2019


Visit Message or reply to this email to respond to john davis, T J Williams, Douglas Duff, Davor Löffler, Barrett Avner.

Sent by:

Mindful AI (bot)


Need assistance? Email: mindful@infiniteconversations.com

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Posted by DavorLoeffler on 04/09/2019


Visit Message or reply to this email to respond to john davis, T J Williams, Douglas Duff, Davor Löffler, Barrett Avner.

Sent by:

Mindful AI (bot)


Need assistance? Email: mindful@infiniteconversations.com

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Posted by DavorLoeffler on 04/09/2019


Visit Message or reply to this email to respond to john davis, T J Williams, Douglas Duff, Davor Löffler, Barrett Avner.

Sent by:

Mindful AI (bot)


Need assistance? Email: mindful@infiniteconversations.com

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

6 Likes

(john davis) #11

I think so, too, Davor. I am grateful to you for staying up so late. I hope you had some pleasant dreams to reward you for your dedication to our high quality discourse. This has become, for me, a dream come true, the impossible dream, that I shared in our call. I sense that slowly but surely we are creating a safe space for going deeper into your theory and beyond. I look forward to checking out the links you have shared and we can reflect further upon this materialization. I look forward to responses from Barrett and TJ. We can make plans for Gen 3 and I want to invite others who are curious to feel free to chime in.

Wow! There is a rich cultural legacy! And I grew up in the Deep South of America in the beginning of the Civil Rights era. We each have voiced some of this history and there is, perhaps, a new history of human emancipation that wants to be written. I hear echos from that anterior future. I am eager to check out these links. Much thanks.

4 Likes

(Douglas Duff) #12

Beginnings of Notes from the Recording . . . please feel free to edit in your own notes (mpore to come when I can review the recording further)


Introductions

0:01 Johnny - Enframement and Techology
1:00 Culture in Mind by Bradd Shore

Quotes (pp. 144-46):

“For Heidegger, enframing is not merely a set of techniques aimed at control. It is an attitude of modern humankind toward their world which treats the phenomena of the world as what Heidegger calls “standing reserves,” resources to be harnessed and manipulated for human ends. Where the whole world becomes thus totally transparent to human manipulation, Heidegger believes, it darkens, losing something of the poetic “indwelling” which should mark what Heidegger likes to call the “coming into being with the world.”

“Technology has granted us an extraordinary power to synthetically reconfigure our experience of the world by altering our “picture” of the world. In computer circles, this ultimate enframing activity goes by the name "virtual reality . . .

“. . . The closest that a traditional society could come to the creation of such a virtual reality might be a parallel reality to which a shaman might have access by means of a hallucinogen.10 But the worldview within which shamanic excursions take place is completely different from that which makes virtual reality possible. Virtual reality is the creation of a modular view of reality, in which the world-as-construct is deliberately altered by a digitally masterminded reconfiguration of the senses. . .
“. . .Whether or not all reality is a virtual construct in fact, it does matter a great deal if one conceives of reality in this way. And surely most people in the world would agree that reality is not virtual. This notion that reality is always and everywhere a human construction is, of course, a central tenet of modern phenomenologically oriented social science. . .”

  • we are lacking an adequate theory of imagination; intergenerational shift

5:16 - Barrett -

  • postmodern + various ontology
  • a place we can go to that transcends singular focus on materialism
  • Layers of generativity and second order culture and theory of verticality - a “third place” that is open to discovery
  • how do we stop and merge the oil water misbalance
  • MCS - Theory of verticality

(8:30 - TJ enters the scene, video intact)

9:47 - Davor
10:55 -

  • enframement as basic condition of human (Heidegger); our subjectivities are not free of being influenced by technology.
  • tech./VR
  • Gebser (1948) + Heidegger and Tech. (1946) —> different experiences = different theories
  • Davor - there is nothing that is outside of the environment; the contects of the mind are to some degree coming from the outside and consciousness/subjective self cannot be separated from technology.
  • SF/dreamers and futures - can extrapolate futures, but still attached to the culture of their time
  • no pure thinking mind outside of enframement
    21:15 *link to Gebser + previous comments
  • different types of mind;
  • Observing what cognitive structures are/were behind the use of technology (from archaelogical perspective) . . . Gradual and accumulative . . . Enframement (though Heidegger states started before the universe) started with humans (for our purposes) . . .we (as humans) have been actively anticipating the future . . . Imagination always there, but differs from the different structures of mind
  • Goodman Scale
  • shift in operational chains (the human web) starts 300 million yago. . . . Through media, start to form bigger connections . . .can see distinct stages developing over time (qualitive stages and breaks) . . . When shift in operational chains, when they are deepening= new temporality, new cognitive structure, new metaphysics, new money, . . . Both shift in depth of thinking and in new operational chains
  • VR as realization of the enframement is a limiting statement. (all your realizations belong to us!) . . .Heidegger may say it is the opposite of enframement, takes us away from it. There is more potential in VR than what has yet been explored . . .only a projection of Western realities.

31:50 Johnny

  • Community Practice (near and far; physical and virtual)
  • Rhythms
  • Do Johnnys Dream of Electric Computers?

39 - Barrett

  • Dreams of bows and arrows of outrageous misfortune . . . In reverse; sandstorms; technology
2 Likes

(Davor Löffler) #13

Thanks, so let’s see! We will have to talk about nihilism once because it may turn out to be the only way to the outside! :slight_smile:

On imagination there is this book which again puts it into an evolutionary perspective, haven’t read it yet but guess that some of my thoughts or in general of “philosophical anthropology” are aligned with it.

http://somatosphere.net/2018/creative-spark.html/

There are some sections in Graeber’s “Debt”-book which are also important in regard of linking economy to world-views, embededdness in culture and operational chains. That is chapter 6 for example.

David_Graeber_Debt_The_First_5,000_Years.pdf (5.3 MB)

2 Likes

(T J Williams) #14

Probably the most important question asked of the past by the present!

My reading of Gebser suggests that he was indeed trying “to elaborate some new means/ways of embeddedness”, but on the basis of balancing what already existed in human cultural expression. For him, the extreme rationalism of the deficient mental structure was an “analysis paralysis” which blinded modern culture to the fact that all formerly and currently dominant ways of dealing with the world were active in us however unacknowledged. He was not calling for a simple return to ‘nature’; the magical structure had its own deficient modes to be avoided. His ‘integral’ (to the limited extent I understand it) was partly the freedom to use everything in the toolkit, so to speak, to meet the challenge of the map of micro- and macro-cosmic space we had developed - the immensity of which forces us mortals (individuals and cultures) to rethink time without going insane.

I think (and this is one of the strengths of your approach as well) there is a utility in extrapolation from historical evidence when trying to look forward even if the final result cannot possibly be accurate prediction (knowledge of what future states of knowledge will be). Ideas about times of transition from any documented point in the human past have a relevance in showing how things may be conceived, perceived, and used.
The agrarian empire is ‘allowed’ by the medium of writing and the speed of the horse; the modern nation-state by the medium of movable type printing and the reach of gunpowder weapons. Current globalizing trends are reinforced by electronic communication and the fact that repercussions of climate change or, God-forbid, nuclear war cannot remain ‘localized’. I appreciated Muhlmann’s discussion of ‘virtual culture’ at the end of his book - how groups (like ours here!) can form independently of physical contact because there are technological means allowing it. This opens the possibilities a great deal, but it still requires some definitions of inside and outside, some vision as to purpose, and thought toward the kinds of liturgy/mythology that will sustain the culture, which will continue to be composed of people needing to come together. I remain of the opinion that the technology itself is secondary to a consideration of the intentions of those who develop and wield it.

Heidegger?

I don’t fully agree with the idea that today’s technology represents a complete break with former times. I get that our relationship to nature has changed radically - the modern world is an ‘artificial’ climate-controlled, light-polluted environment of concrete and steel rather than the forests and meadows in which our species evolved. And yet it is not inevitable that we “enframe” our world as a standing reserve. That is a function of a developmentalist mindset having more to do with economic philosophy (bordering on religion); the fault lies not in our tools but in ourselves…
But how much justice have I really done here to Heidegger’s thought?..

5 Likes

(Davor Löffler) #15

Thanks TJ, let me respond to that quickly to clarify my position on all that.

DavorLoeffler:

So my question here is in what sense the contents and ideas from this epoche … still can contribute in a historically and technologically different situatedness - or if it calls for exactly the same movement again as in the 1920, that is to elaborate some new means/ways of embeddedness.

Probably the most important question asked of the past by the present!

:slight_smile: yes, kind of a universal question!

My reading of Gebser suggests that he was indeed trying “to elaborate some new means/ways of embeddedness”, but on the basis of balancing what already existed in human cultural expression. For him, the extreme rationalism of the deficient mental structure was an “analysis paralysis” which blinded modern culture to the fact that all formerly and currently dominant ways of dealing with the world were active in us however unacknowledged. He was not calling for a simple return to ‘nature’; the magical structure had its own deficient modes to be avoided. His ‘integral’ (to the limited extent I understand it) was partly the freedom to use everything in the toolkit, so to speak, to meet the challenge of the map of micro- and macro-cosmic space we had developed - the immensity of which forces us mortals (individuals and cultures) to rethink time without going insane.

yes, I understand. But this was actually the “Zeitgeist” in Germany starting in the 20s, up to 50’s: the old did not work, and the new not yet. The question was how to keep up a transcendentalism without giving in to materialism/capitalism, which was considered a “danger” (–> “Americanization”). That was before the occupation and re-education of the germans towards the western system. There are plenty of approaches towards a holistic mindset in this time, in the beginning more philosophically in the “Life”-philosophy of Klages, in Heidegger with another twist, of Scheler and Plessner, the founders of “philosophical anthropology” - they all sought to get beyond dualism. The next generation then became more differentiated, as in Gebser, who differentiated these different kinds of “transcendence” with the result or last step of the holistic or integral mind. This seems as a reaction to the contingency and “transcendental homelessness” which struck Europe or specifically Germany after WWI, in the time of decadence of culture (“Decline of the West”), the mass society, new media, shift to democracy, mobilization, technologization and capitalism (Germany was called by Plessner the “belated nation”). So all of the 1920s philosophies are predecessors of postmodernity, and the integral approach is pretty much the attempt to implement pluralism and multiperspectivity into the individual mind. The integral mind has a lot in common what later simply became everyday postmodern thought, just without the mysticism, also it shares some hallmarks with post-formal-operational cognitive capacities. So one could say that it marks the shift from formal-operationalism (modernity - clear laws, deduction) to post-formal-operationalism (postmodernity, technological civilization, network-subject).

Look what Lukács writes about his motives to write his book in 1916, published in 1920 and condensing the “Zeitgeist”:

“The immediate motive for writing was supplied by the outbreak of the First World War and the effect which its acclamation by the social-democratic parties had upon the European left.
My own deeply personal attitude was one of vehement, global and, especially at the beginning, scarcely articulate rejection of the war and especially of enthusiasm for the war. I
recall a conversation with Frau Marianne Weber [wife of Max Weber who coined the term “disenchantment” in this time] in the late autumn of 1914. She wanted to challenge my attitude by telling me of individual, concrete acts of heroism. My only reply was: ‘The better the worse!’ When I tried at this time to put my emotional attitude into conscious terms, I arrived at more or less the following formulation: the Central Powers would probably defeat Russia; this might lead to the downfall of Tsarism); I had no objection to that. There was also some probability that the West would defeat Germany; if this led to the downfall of the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgs, I was once again in favour. But then the question arose: who was to save us from Western civilisation? (The prospect of final victory by the Germany of that time was to me nightmarish.)” (Lukács, Theory of the Novel, 1920, p. 10)

Western civilization here means the techno-industrialist-capitalist world, which is why Heidegger is mistakenly understood as anti-semite as he was writing against the “instrumental-scientific, profitoriented quantification of the world”, since at this time the jews were considered as the embodiment of this capitalist-instrumental force deranging the “home”-culture, so a “in-group-out-group”-problem as (so he was not for eradicating the jews, but for eradicating the instrumental and culture-disrupting mindset which was among others embodied in the opinion of this time by the jews). The culture as a whole felt to have reached an end and deemed itself in the “Grand Hotel Abyss”. So the world-view-proposals that reacted to the challenges of their time from todays perspective might be not differentiated enough, which of course does not mean that parts of it - or revitalizing or amplifiying parts of it - would not be useful or helpful. It is exactly this integrative thought that could ground a transition, but the question is how it can translate into the institutions, even globally.

I think (and this is one of the strengths of your approach as well) there is a utility in extrapolation from historical evidence when trying to look forward even if the final result cannot possibly be accurate prediction (knowledge of what future states of knowledge will be). Ideas about times of transition from any documented point in the human past have a relevance in showing how things may be conceived, perceived, and used.

Yes, that was the idea, now it is possible to show the general tendency by showing how the mind differentiated over time, that is with every shift, as we are in the moment in the shift from formal-operational cognitive socialization to post-formal cognitive socialization.

The agrarian empire is ‘allowed’ by the medium of writing and the speed of the horse; the modern nation-state by the medium of movable type printing and the reach of gunpowder weapons. Current globalizing trends are reinforced by electronic communication and the fact that repercussions of climate change or, God-forbid, nuclear war cannot remain ‘localized’. I appreciated Muhlmann’s discussion of ‘virtual culture’ at the end of his book - how groups (like ours here!) can form independently of physical contact because there are technological means allowing it. This opens the possibilities a great deal, but it still requires some definitions of inside and outside, some vision as to purpose, and thought toward the kinds of liturgy/mythology that will sustain the culture, which will continue to be composed of people needing to come together. I remain of the opinion that the technology itself is secondary to a consideration of the intentions of those who develop and wield it.

Yes, but here is the question: what ARE people? Can our motives, hopes, relatedness be detached from the technocultural environment into which and by which we were molded? Can a self have an intentin which is not somehow shaped by what it can “do”? So this is were I’m coming from: “historical anthropology” - every stage/place in history brings forth an own type of humans, an own unit of certain emotions, norms, motives, cognitives structures and so on, which are related to the human ALWAYS being a part of an technocultural assemblage (that is the external technologies and the institutions and culture). So people are not just people, and the media don’t connect just people, but “humans-in-assemblages”.

Heidegger?
I don’t fully agree with the idea that today’s technology represents a complete break with former times. I get that our relationship to nature has changed radically - the modern world is an ‘artificial’ climate-controlled, light-polluted environment of concrete and steel rather than the forests and meadows in which our species evolved. And yet it is not inevitable that we “enframe” our world as a standing reserve. That is a function of a developmentalist mindset having more to do with economic philosophy (bordering on religion); the fault lies not in our tools but in ourselves…

But how much justice have I really done here to Heidegger’s thought?..

The new moment is that a) bioengineering potentially can change the very constitution of the human organism, which is definitely new in evolutionary history, b) that the potentials of computing allow for a new level of externalization, in that case functions of the mind which up to date were always bound to the body. So regulation is itself externalized. So in general this all would be part of the “revealing of being in the enframement”, but now we have a “revealing” which might detach from its medium, the human, and the question now is if this what is revealed by this new kind of revealing itself can ground a new world-relationship.

Georg Lukacs - The Theory of the Novel (1974, The MIT Press).pdf (442 KB)

2 Likes

(john davis) #16

Pardon me for quibbling but I would say inter-generational differences rather than divides. Sorry if I gave that impression. The technology that the young are using was generated by many from my age group, so I see these developments as perhaps necessary before we return to something that is more grounded. I have known many young people with great depth and wisdom. My main concern is that the subtle experiences that many people of all ages yearn for can be hijacked by high tech hyper visuals, ignoring the kinesthetic-somatic intelligence. Our culture is prone to dissociation, it is epidemic.

4 Likes

(T J Williams) #17

“Now we’re gettin’ warm…” --Louis Armstrong :grinning:

Thank you, Davor. The additional context of Gebser’s Germany is very helpful. (He didn’t leave until 1929, if I remember correctly.) In trying to identify some of the malaise that has become political ‘discourse’ in the United States today, I think a certain “transcendental homelessness” may be at play. As Muhlmann stated, culture doesn’t survive liturgical malfunction. (For a democracy, as I said last night, issues need to remain complex and varied but the liturgy, the overall sense that the arena for working out issues is still governed by fair rules, is as important as ancient city walls.)

Yes, I agree. I stubbornly cling to human-centric language, but I did not mean to suggest that “people” could in any way be meaningfully separated from cultural context - which certainly includes all “tools” physical and metaphysical. But that raises a very intriguing consideration:

It suddenly occurs to me that this may be what you meant by the “outside within”. On first reading, it is hard to imagine the exact ways true functions of the mind (as opposed to algorithmic simulations) can be externalized. (But then again, what are those? - the arguments over what “consciousness” exactly is continue…) So we are left with a potential glimpse into what else is possible. As with extraterrestrial encounters, we won’t know unless/until we get there.
I vote that the question of whether this potential “can ground a new world-relationship” frame the next talk.

Let me once again express my appreciation to you for your willingness to share your thoughts - and at such an early hour! Before 6 AM, I wouldn’t even know my own name. :laughing:

3 Likes

(john davis) #18

A great idea. A new world relationship. Maybe you can start off the next conversation, TJ, and elaborate on this.

2 Likes

(Davor Löffler) #19

good! I just wrote that so that you know some of the backgrounds of all that and in order to put us on the same page about this. It might take some more preparation to get to the outside (pun intended), but we can also directly leap to this later point of the work, it is up to you. You can choose between economy, metaphysics or what’s in the box (outside). :slight_smile:

3 Likes

(Barrett Avner) #20

This is a great point TJ and also something I found to be an important part of the Muhlmann text. How do we universalize, not fully, of course, but maximalize the potential awakening to an emerging outside? And this mixture, of oil to water (inside and outside), how do we find which of these to be the primary characteristic of any source or host? How does one go about training people instinctively spot these distinctions and suss them out, to see the depths of the Gestell (frame) , or trace them to a primary source when localization itself becomes muddle-headed. Now for nihilism. I find it interesting that a big mainstream television show like True Detective was partially inspired by Thomas Ligotti’s sole non fiction work The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror and Brassier’s Nihil Unbound. This is pre neo rationalist Brassier, but is still rooted in the Sellarsian concept of the “Manifest / Scientific Image” which imo, makes a sort of weak attempt at negating potentiality for a magical + mystical / a liturgy / (A) metaphysics. I feel like I’m a bit behind and undereducated on Gebser, but the short primer I read on his work and life was very interesting. I want to read and learn more, sorry I have such little to add here :slight_smile:

An odd G. I Gurdijeff quote,

“a man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.”,

“The new moment is that a) bioengineering potentially can change the very constitution of the human organism, which is definitely new in evolutionary history, b) that the potentials of computing allow for a new level of externalization, in that case functions of the mind which up to date were always bound to the body. So regulation is itself externalized. So in general this all would be part of the “revealing of being in the enframement”, but now we have a “revealing” which might detach from its medium, the human, and the question now is if this what is revealed by this new kind of revealing itself can ground a new world-relationship.”

I’m wondering, what could potentially nurture a grounding of such a new world-relationship if, as per Davor, an acceleration is left without guidance? I’m particularly drawn to Davors notion of guiding acceleration, not just of the subject, but of its interwoven systems and all sectors which inform one another. It’s a daunting task to take everything into consideration, but this is where the materialization happens. Is to agknowledge everything, even that which lacks quantitifiability… everything we can conceive of. Imagination!

3 Likes