As for discussion on the superorganism and the discussion on gender…
Superorganism: The line of thinking above gives me food for thought, and also makes me smile a little. Without much research on my end on the superorganism, I speak merely from my limited understanding of the concept, but this discussion reminds me of Haraway’s cyborg theory? No? From my perspective, I see us merging with AI before we exist alongside them. I envision our phones being just another part of our brains. Am I on topic on this subject or no?
Gender…. Ahhhhh, wow, there’s so much there! Too much for me to even mention in this post!
While I agree that we all seem to have the feeling that we, as a species, are on the threshold of some kind of significant change, the question does arise as to whether that which comes “beyond” the human is still human or is it something else? What I think I hear Marco saying (and what I also believe) is that that “whatever” is still, in essence, human. Whether we like it or not, the prefix “post-” has something of a separative feel about it even though we don’t quite know how to linguistically express something changing while simultaneously remaining what it is. (This is, by the way, how Henri Bortoft defines life in his The Wholeness of Nature, which we collectively read and discussed in a series of Cafés back in 2021).
Generally speaking, it would seem that we moderns are plagued by two conflicting general understandings of how and where we are as a species. One of these understandings is underpinned by the untenable notion of “progress” in which we today are a more highly evolved form of the species, relegating our forbears to the status of ignorant, barbaric children: we started out as brutes and evolved into civilized creatures and are therefore qualitatively “better” than those who came before us. The other is that in principle (if not in fact) we are really no different today than any who have come before: humans are humans and have always simply been humans, whereby the unspoken assumption is that it’s homo sapiens are the species being referred to, as if the other species of the genus homo can simply be ignored. Both of these “understandings” are, of course, extremely limiting and therefore problematic. It would seem that the truth of the matter is a bit more complex than we might like, but certainly no where near as complicated as we are wont to make it.
(Ferrando, I might add, is perhaps attempting to deal with this situation in her own way. Her first book, Philosophical Posthumanism was written for a reading audience that is still strongly influenced by the progress-based perspective of evolution, whereas the general reading public, to whom I believe The Art of Being Posthuman is addressed, is probably more representative of the other just-stated view of where we are as a species. Without some kind of contextual framework to help us keep the (apparent) contradictions sorted, it is easy to become very confused very quickly.)
One thinker who has provided a useful and manageable framework for such considerations is Jean Gebser. His magnum opus, the Ever-present Origin, which we also communally read and discussed on this platform back in 2016, describes how this change-of-consciousness (that is, our ways of apperceiving the world, or reality, if you will) may have played out over time. He identifies five phases, or structures, as he terms them, of consciousness which have had significant influence on how we understand the world and our place in it.
Gebser’s text is anything but a light read, but as a manner of highly condensed summary of some of the key features of his framework, I can offer what many have found to be something of a helpful introduction to his work (originally composed in response to a couple of sessions I moderated on Gebser at CIIS back in 1996):
This brings me directly to something Alexandros wrote:
Of course, this “oppositional complementarity” is anything but true, but it can also be well understood as a outcome, or expression, of what Gebser calls the Rational structure of consciousness, the current phase of the unfoldment of consciousness we are going through at the moment. It is marked, in large part, by its insistent attempts to reduce analog polarities to binary oppositions, and it does so by the same means that Alexander the Great famously undid the Gordian Knot, namely by hewing them in two, as if this solved (or re-solved) anything. It did nothing of the kind. This structure is the deficient mode of what he terms the Mental structure of consciousness; that is, the linear, perspectival way of experiencing Reality dominant at the current moment. It is certainly arguable that a reasonable degree of logical coherency and consistency, together with accurate analysis and abstraction can result in astute evolutionary advantages, but, around the Renaissance these advantages were absolutized (via a kind of reductio ad absurdum) as the only legitimate way of accessing Reality. We’ve unfortunately spent the better part of the last half-millennium trying to purge the other, necessary, dimensions of consciousness but this has only brought us to the current apparent dead-end in which we find ourselves. It is becoming patently obvious that we’re somehow “stuck”, but are having tremendous difficulty describing what might come next.
This (faulty) kind of (post)modern reasoning is exceedingly widespread and can be found in many (if not most) contemporary “disciplines”/subject-matter fields, asserting that if you’re not one thing, you are automatically and irrevocably its opposite: in economics, for example, it expresses itself as if-you’re-not-a-capitalist-you’re-a-communist (or socialist, perhaps); in politics as if-you’re-not-a-democrat-you’re-an-authoritarian; in philosophy, if-you’re-not-a-realist-you’re-an-idealist; in science, if-you’re-not-a-materialist-you’re-a-new-ager (or the like); in foreign affairs, if-you-think-the-Palestinians-are-getting-a-raw-deal-you’re-anti-Israel, similar to George Bush who famously fell prey to this type of reasoning in his “justification” for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by relying on an if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us line of argumentation.
This is quite obviously a logical short-circuit. However, it is not a way to thinking that is limited to the subject of gender or identity but rather a more general shortcoming of human consciousness which is particularly dominant at the historical juncture at which we currently find ourselves. Gebser further postulates though that we humans find ourselves on the threshold of yet another “mutation” of consciousness (as he terms it), a mutation to the Integral structure, superseding (German: überwinden) this deficient mode in favor of one characterized by more geneally applicable “both-and” (German: sowohl als auch) logics. Such a move would, of course, overcome the erroneous “oppositional complementarity” of which you write, as it would concretize (i.e., bring into manifestation) the dynamic balance inherent in such polarities; that is, not a static “balancing (or, worse, canceling) out” but rather an intensification of functional understanding along all polar continuua. At the same time, though, it is not necessary to postulate a “post-” anything as it is simply an additional facet of our already existant human consciousness … different, but still human (whereby I suspect that certain aspects of non-human consciousness could well be addressed or described in similar ways).
Thank you for the book recommendation, im sure it’s worth reading! Still i remain sceptical about the term “posthuman”, based on my understarding of the “logic of the signifier”. This comes from lacanian theory and generally it means that when we speak, words perform their own workings and operations according to the principles that permeate the Symboliç order, besides and independently from our intentions and what we mean to say. In this case, no matter if Ferrando’s intention is to use “posthuman” to remove dualism and no matter how consistent and agreeable is her argument, the logic of the signifier makes it so that the term imposes a dualism between itself and the human.
This phenomenon, namely the captivity of the human desires and intentions by the Symbolic order which, as i put it somewhere in my book, “operates on the basis of hierarchical classifications, vertical partitions, polarized divisions and symmetrical contrapositions”, is an essential dimmension of the alienation of the human subject according to Lacan, and it has a lot to do with the “confusion of words” that you mention and i agree very much . However, the root of this phenomenon is that for Lacan the Symbolic order is phallic, it operates according to the logic and the modalities of the phallus - which brings us again to the question of gender
im not sure about shape and focus in general, there are so many things to say…and i think that in part this is due to how little has been said about this topic comparing to its significance and complexity. At some point i think it would be good to deal a little bit with the least spoken about and probably the most inconvenient aspect of this discussion, the aspect of sexuality/desire/enjoyment. Lacan will naturally pop up in this and also in the general discussion, but of course there can also be some discussion focused on him.
A relevant question to contemplate would be
“Does the way our sexuality is organized and operates affect our agency at the individual and the collective level?” or else,
“Does the way we think of, practice and fantasize about sex at the conscious and the unconcsious level affect our mind and consciousness, the way we see the world and the way we act in it?”
I’ve started a specific topic to continue the discussion of sex & gender:
I hope you don’t mind, I shared a sample chapter from your book to get us going.
Regarding your comments above,
I think that is a good point. To restate my inquiry, I was asking, “Why should there be men at all”? If the underlying reality is “female,” why would nature produce men? What accounts for the difference?
One the one hand, of course, there is the reproductive function, the role of the sperm or “seed” in sexual reproduction. But I was also referring to the material reality of the human female’s vulnerability during pregnancy, birth, and childrearing. The man must then play the role of “protector” and “provider,” which accounts for the differences in physical strength and propensity to aggression.
Upon further reflection, it seems the man encapsulates the power of death, or the “death drive,” the power to take life and to kill… and of course we would see this as “bad” and “evil.” But what if it is in the service of protecting the female and child (i.e., the furtherance of life) during their phases of vulnerability—if that is at the root of it, however else it might become distorted or sublimated? There would be an aspect of eros, love, or care, even in the death drive. I imagine this is a hard pill to swallow, but I think it may account for the material reality as well as the spiritual pathos we see in men.
“Why should there be men at all”? Well…there aren’t, at least there weren’t for 99% of the human presence on Earth. Check this striking excerpt from Ferrando’s book
“There is no trace of a father figure in any of the Paleolithic periods. The life-creating power seems to have been of the Great Goddess alone - more extensively a life creator than a genetic mother”
Marija Gimbutas, archeologist who excavated numerous prehistoric sites in the geographical area of so-called Old Europe
Needless to say: no father figure means no man-gender. Nature does not produce men. She produces females/humans with the bio-potential for the phallic function=the potential for male reproductive role=the potential for self-negation. The identification and psychosexual fixation with the phallic function, and the constitution of a distinct and dominant human gender based on this function and its self-negating modalities, this is all His-story and patriarchy.
about the “protection” argument: in communal settings, which is the female and more natural way of humans, protection is provided collectively by the community. When the man-protector emerges it is also the time of authority, oppression and subjugation to emerge, these things go together as we can see also nowadays in global politics and the “protecting services” of military, police etc
about “the spiritual pathos we see in men”: This reminded me a lot of something i wrote somewhere just a few days ago:
"One way to put the difference would be like this:
As a man, you can only feel the chaos and the infinite with your mind. That’s why, if you are smart enough and inclined to this, you tend to focus your energies on your mind, unconsciously striving to compensate for your phallic handicap.
But as a woman you feel the chaos and the infinite roaring in your blood and bones - totally different, and much more spiritual".
If we continue with this Posthumanism book, one thought is that we might focus more on the emotional piece… how these mediations effect us emotionally. I feel like Ferrando asks us to do the intellectual inquiry in her first book, “Philosophical Posthumanism,” and in this second book, she’s inviting us to engage with the material on a more personal and emotional level. That might include sharing personal stories, art, poetry that is created as a result of the reading, and veering away from the intellectual discussions. I’m not sure how that would all sit with this group, as I haven’t been able to attend synchronous meetings, and have only very peripherally been involved, so I don’t know the vibe of the group. However, my experience with Ferrando’s “brain,” tells me that she may be asking us to go beyond “intellect” for this book.
I know that’s a different route than this group has been going. And I’ll likely only continue to be peripherally involved, so I’ll leave that decision up to the more regular members of this group. Or maybe we’re moving beyond this book, which is fine too! But thought I’d share my impression on this book and on the author.
perhaps there is a connection between Gebser’s Rational structure of consciousness and Lacan’s Symbolic order, especially if the time period of the Rational structure comes close to the time period of patriarchy. If i get it right, what is is proposed as the next step/mutation is a kind of “relativisation” or “liquidification” of polarities, an approach which gains popularity nowadays epitomized in terms like “spectrum” or “continuum”. One can say that it is a step to the right direction, but in the end it still reduces all possibilities within a mono-dimensional plane of reference still defined by two symmetrical polarized extremes. I am more (together with Ferrando on that, i think) for an alltogether post-dualistic transition to a “One and many” approach. The thing is, this cannot be achieved simply through a noetic act. Thinking creates reality, and nowadays we live in a polarized reality - we stand on dualistic grounds, built on centuries of dualistic thinking and praxis . This is why in my book at some point i say (referring to gender, but it can be more broadly understood) that “the way out of the binary goes through the binary”, and this is why i suggest the Female as the one term and reality that acts as an agent of unity and plurality, while at the same time it is the one pole of an established binary which opposes the man-gender and everything that comes together with his existence and domination
To be clear, @mankinddivine, when you say there are “no men”—you mean metaphysically, or as a psycho-social-cultural construct (aka “symbolic order”)—not in the sense that there were no biological males, or that we might not reconstruct the differing roles of men and women at different times, through an anthropological lens?
and this is the philosophy book that shifted my perception from polarity/complementarity/opposition to difference and multiplicity. Not and easy read by any sense, i post also the wiki registration for some info if someone is interested
