Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The fuss over Survival International’s “uncontacted tribes” (see my earlier piece) hasn’t ceased — the Huffington Post and others continue to spread the original news largely uncritically. (William at the excellent Integral Options Cafe shared that news, but has now kindly amended his post in response to my own comment regarding it.)

Now Greg Downey at Neuroanthropology has stepped in to clarify things in much greater detail than I could possibly have done. His ‘The last free people on the planet’ is a very well balanced and informative summary which, while it raises the question of what it means to be “free” and especially “last,” renders the issue much more understandable.

Continue Reading »

Jussi Parikka at Machinology is reporting on media theorist Mark Hansen’s move from a focus on media objects to a Whiteheadian focus on media processes.

A few quotes:

“Well known are the Whitehead writings of Massumi and Manning in Montreal, and of course the recent Whitehead writings of Steven Shaviro, the debates around object oriented philosophy that take a lot aboard from Whitehead, and naturally the ideas of such pioneers as Isabelle Stengers and Bruno Latour. So Hansen as well has joined this crew enthusiastic about the superject instead of subject, and the distributed field of prehensions instead of the primacy of the human body and sensory system as the focal point in aesthetics.” [. . .]

“When Shaviro asked the question of how would contemporary cultural theory look like if we had focused more on Whitehead, instead of Heidegger as the 20th century philosopher, Hansen seems to ask: how could we bend Whitehead into a media theorist? [. . .] For Hansen, the key point is how Whitehead’s perspective affords us to think about nonperceptual sensation. It gives agency to the environment instead of the focal subject effected and affected by that environment, and offers the perspective of the superject for media theory: how the individual is the end result of the environmental datum prehended by this focal point.”

While I deal more with cinema and less with trans-media networks (etc.), my use of Whitehead in Ecologies of the Moving Image is very consistent with this shift. Glad to be sharing this train with so much respectable company.

The “integralists” have waded into the climate change debate with an impressive looking article entitled An Ontology of Climate Change: Integral Pluralism and the Enactment of Multiple Objects (click for an excerpt). It’s by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, one half of the duo that authored the mammoth Integral Ecology. (The other half is Heideggerian-turned-Wilberian ecophilosopher Michael Zimmerman, author of what for a time had been the best overview of radical ecophilosophy available.)

I’ve ordered a copy of the paper and will have more to say once I’ve read it. But I like the way Esbjorn-Hargens weaves in a number of strands of post-constructivist thought, including the actor-network/cosmopolitical approaches of Latour, Law, and Mol, and the enactive cognitivism of Varela and Thompson. His notion of climate change as a “multiple object” would appear to suggest a resonance with object-oriented ontology. This bodes well for ecophilosophical dialogue with a school (“integral philosophy”) that has remained a bit aloof from others, mainly because of the baggage accrued to its founder, Ken Wilber. I’m looking forward to that dialogue.

That reminds me: I once suggested a group cross-blog read of Integral Ecology. If anyone else is interested, chime in. I won’t lead it, due to other commitments, but I’d happily participate. There are copies on Amazon for around $20.

My thoughts on the “affective contagion” of revolutionary events such as those in Tehran a year and a half ago, or those currently happening in Cairo, have always been somewhat undertheorized. Posthegemony‘s Jon Beasley-Murray points to an exhilarating piece written by his UBC colleague Gastón Gordillo on Resonance and the Egyptian Revolution that is helpful for thinking these things through.

Gordillo begins:

“What has coalesced as a powerful, unstoppable force on the streets of Egypt is resonance: the assertive collective empathy created by multitudes fighting for the control of space. Resonance is an intensely bodily, spatial, political affair, materialized in the masses of bodies coming together in the streets of Egyptian cities in the past thirteen days, clashing with the police, temporarily dispersed by teargas and bullets, and regrouping again like an relentless swarm to reclaim the streets, push the police back, and saturate space with a collective effervescence. Resonance is what gives life to this human rhizome and the source of its power. Continue Reading »

25 random things

A couple of off-line conversations about the inspirational power of music and of SF (science/speculative fiction) have gotten me to dig up this old Facebook piece and to share it here. See bottom for details.

I dedicate it to Little Rinpoche.

1. My best friend in kindergarten used to mix up mind and matter; he would say “It doesn’t mind” and “I don’t matter.” Somehow that’s stuck with me. I think he was on to something.

2. My first radio was in the shape of a little soccer ball and played a very tinny version of Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition” when my cousin and I turned it on for the first time. We danced to it until it broke.

3. I joined the Columbia Music Club in seventh grade and promptly ordered some Black Sabbath albums. The name sounded cool. My intuition was right: I loved ’em, and would go around playing (electric) mouth guitar in middle school.

4. I was a plump little kid until I went to boarding school in Rome for a year at age 12. While there (my parents hoped I would grow up to be a Ukrainian Catholic priest), I got good at foosball and billiards and got turned on to Jethro Tull and Amon Duul II. I was a sucker for dramatic electric guitar openings and unusual chord changes. “Sitting on a park bench/Eyeing little girls with bad intent/Aqualung.” Some days we walked in the fields outside the city and wondered about the used condoms; other days we went into town and saw graffiti saying “Fuori Americani!”  I was glad to be Canadian.

Continue Reading »

Thanks to the “Jungles” segment of BBC’s Human Planet series, Survival International’s photos of an “uncontacted tribe” in the Amazon are making the rounds once again — see Environmental Graffiti’s “Images of the Last Uncontacted Tribe on Earth“, Ron Burnett’s “Never Before Seen Footage of an Amazonian Tribe,” and MSNBC’s PhotoBlog. The rhetoric here — “last uncontacted tribe on Earth,” “never before seen footage”, etc. (Burnett should know better!) — sounds as if it’s right out of a nineteenth century circus sideshow.

Continue Reading »

Egypt & everywhere

With too little time to follow the events in Egypt closely, I can’t add much to what other blogs and news sources are saying except to point to a few sources I’ve been finding useful, and to connect them up to some themes and discussions this blog has featured.

Uprisings, revolutions, and sudden political realignments are perfect subjects for process-relational philosophical reflection. Their causes are always somewhat mysterious; historians may reconstruct the events that led up to them, and may come up with theories to account for them, but these almost always remain highly contestable. They are moments when suddenly much more is at stake than is normally the case.

Continue Reading »

From “Naming Your Child: Guidance for Vermont Birth Certificates”, published by the Vermont Department of Health, 2009:

2) The name should use only letters, and should not include numbers (numeric characters) in it. As with other alphabets, if you want to include a number in your child’s name, you should spell it out in letters. For example, use Numerouno or Childnumbereight, but not Roger47 or 101110.

5) The name should not contain any handwritten notes, comments, or drawings. Federal and states agencies are not able to accommodate unique drawings or other symbols or pictures [….].

6) The name does not include titles. By definition, a title is not a name. You may use a word that is used as a title (e.g., King, Queen, Count, Duke) as one of you child’s names. For example, Duke (first name) Jones (last name). Similarly, an academic honorific title (e.g. PhD, MA) after the last Name is not a part of the name. However, you may name your child Thomas Jonesphd.

7) The name may use any English word. […] You may use trademarked names (e.g., IBM), diseases (e.g., Anthrax), obscenities, etc., but we highly recommend against it.”

So, “Count Anthrax Raskolnikof-PhD” is okay (hyphens are allowed), though the Dept. of Health recommends against it.

Emergence

a new fold in the fabric of things, a novel bifurcation opening onto potentials of experience heretofore unexperienced. the many become one and are increased by one.

zoryán 1 23 11

It’s probably inappropriate to review a book about four films when one has only seen one, and by far the shortest (it’s a music video), of the four. So this isn’t a review so much as an appreciation of Steven Shaviro’s Post-Cinematic Affect, along with some half-digested notes I made while reading it, but which I haven’t been able to synthesize into what would constitute a proper review. Due to time constraints (which will continue for a while), I’ll share them as is. (I would also recommend Chris Vitale’s response to the book.)

I’ve been a fan of Shaviro’s work since a web search for “Dhalgren” led me directly to Shaviro, who it turned out was a fan of the book by Samuel Delany that was formative in my early intellectual development. I was 13 at the time I read Dhalgren, and I hadn’t read anything quite like it until then (or much like it since). I had come across Shaviro’s writings earlier, but I’ve followed them more diligently — and been inspired by his writing on science fiction, films, music, politics and culture over the years (his Stranded in the Jungle provides a great snapshot of how widely his tastes range) — since chancing onto his site. His turn to Alfred North Whitehead in the book Without Criteria accompanied a move in my own thinking toward Whitehead’s process-relational understanding of the universe. Since then, Shaviro and I have found ourselves on the same side of the process-objects debates that have been staged here and on other blogs.

Post-Cinematic Affect is a short work. Much of it appeared as an extra-length article in Film-Philosophy, and most of the rest is readable here and there online, but I would urge you to buy the book to support Zero Books’ laudable effort to make philosophy affordable. Its shortness, however, and the small sampling of films it discusses, belies a depth of argumentation that generates rich insights on media, capitalism, affect, allure, celebrity culture, and much more. Continue Reading »

William Connolly’s A World of Becoming arrived in the mail yesterday. It looks wonderful, and only two chapters appear to include material that has been previously published in any form (both very recent), which means this is all quite new. If I had the time and the energy, I would try to organize a cross-blog reading group or something of the sort, as was done with the book that serves as its “companion piece” (of a sort), Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter. (On that reading group, see here and follow the links.)

Just as Bennett had included her own “credo” in the latter part of her book, Connolly includes something like that in his “Postlude”:

Do you know what the world is to me?

A colossus of diverse energies, without beginning or end, with each flowing over, through, and around others, generating new currents and eddies.

A play of waves, forces, and perceptions on different scales of complexity, endurance, and time, with some swelling as others subside, with perhaps long cycles of repetition, but none that simply repeats those preceding.

[. . .]

The longest index entries include the names Nietzsche, Whitehead, Deleuze, Charles Taylor, Bergson, Merleau-Ponty, Hegel, and the terms time, process, becoming, capitalism, force-field, God, faith, perception, agency, human predicament, and of course immanence. I will have more thoughts on it as I read it (informed no doubt by the anticipated objections of the objectologists, which I have internalized by now), but I have little doubt that it will be a significant contribution to process-relational theory as this blog has defined it.

See the Connolly tag for previous mentions of his work here.

End of an ear…

I’ve added a menu of links to some of the key posts on this blog in process-relational theory: see “P-R Theory 101” in the right-hand column (scroll down). This is a somewhat random sample, and readers with the patience for it can find much more by following other links and tags on this blog. A more systematic and refined exposition will come in time.

As a final comment on OOO (because I too am tired of that discussion), I’ll just say that readers interested in the objects-processes/relations debate can revisit my review of Harman’s Prince of Networks, which launched (as far as I can tell) a long series of back-and-forth exchanges on that topic more than 16 months ago, to see to what extent the questions posed there have been answered. That review begins here and ends here; my questions/objections come mostly in the latter segment. With that I’m signing off from that particular debate on this blog.

By the way, the title of this post isn’t a misspelling; it’s the name of Robert Wyatt’s first solo album after he left The Soft Machine. It’s a good one (as are the Softs‘ first four, up until Wyatt left).

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar