…and the winner is…

After reviewing the results of our reading survey, those apparent areas/authors of greatest interest are:

  1. Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker: The Exploit: A Theory of Networks 
    1. with Alexander Galloway’s The Interface Effect in a close second.
  2. Jacques Ranciere: The Future of the Image
  3. …and Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality

Antonio Caronia’s The Cyborg and Didi Huberman’s Confronting Images: Questioning the ends of a certain history of art also ranked highly, but had a higher level of disinterest (i.e. people’s desire to read these texts were polarized). [1]

As Galloway is by far the easiest to read of the three thinkers presented, I think he is a good place to start/trial run the group reading dynamic. Beyond that, I propose we move into the Whitehead, which I imagine will be the most intense and then finish with the Ranciere (given remaining time on hand).

Since both of the proposed Galloway texts received high levels of interest, I suggest that we read them both – with individuals choosing which texts and which sections of which texts they would prefer to read. Towards this end, I have created a poll where individuals can sign up for whichever sections they would prefer to read. This way, we can make sure that the majority of the texts are covered, but also we can see who else is reading the same portion of the text as ourselves…. and thus who we can speak to about the content.

I have broken up The Exploit into relatively few sections because it is (by design) written for content skimming.  Thus, I think more conceptual ground can be covered more quickly.  Also, I have not included the introduction/prologue or conclusion sections for either text as I believe in at least skimming the introductions and conclusions of all texts anyway.  In both, these sections are relatively short.  The following section contains the Table of Contents for both texts so that you can decide what you would like to read.

[1]  Personally, I will be reading The Cyborg, so if anyone would like to personally join me in that endeavor… we can have coffee.

The Exploit
On Reading This Book vii
Prolegomenon: “We’re Tired of Trees” 1
Provisional Response 1: Political Atomism (the Nietzschean Argument)—Provisional Response 2: Unilateralism versus Multilateralism (the Foucauldian Argument)—Provisional Response 3: Ubiquity and Universality (the Determinist
Argument)—Provisional Response 4: Occultism and Cryptography (the Nominalist Argument)

Part I. Nodes 23
Technology (or Theory)—Theory (or Technology)—Protocol in Computer Networks—Protocol in Biological Networks—An Encoded Life—Toward a Political Ontology of Networks— The Defacement of Enmity—Biopolitics and Protocol—Life – Resistance—The Exploit—Counterprotocol

Part II. Edges 103
The Datum of Cura I—The Datum of Cura II—Sovereignty and Biology I—Sovereignty and Biology II—Abandoning the Body Politic—The Ghost in the Network—Birth of the Algorithm—Political Animals—Sovereignty and the State of Emergency—
Fork Bomb I—Epidemic and Endemic—Network Being—Good Viruses (SimSARS I)—Medical Surveillance (SimSARS II)—Feedback versus Interaction I—Feedback versus Interaction II—Rhetorics of Freedom—A Google Search for My Body—Divine Metabolism—Fork Bomb II—The Paranormal and the Pathological I—The Paranormal and the Pathological II—Universals of Identification—RFC001b: BmTP—Fork Bomb III— Unknown Unknowns—Codification, Not Reification—Contents Tactics of Nonexistence—Disappearance; or, I’ve Seen It All Before—Stop Motion—Pure Metal—The Hypertrophy of Matter (Four Definitions and One Axiom)—The User and the Programmer—Fork Bomb IV—Interface—There Is No Content—Trash, Junk, Spam

Coda: Bits and Atoms 149
Appendix: Notes for a Liberated Computer Language 159

The Interface Effect
Introduction: The Computer as a Mode of Mediation 1
1 The Unworkable Interface 25
2 Software and Ideology 54
3 Are Some Things Unrepresentable? 78
4 Disingenuous Informatics 101
Postscript: We Are the Gold Farmers

Fall 2015: New Group, New Goals, New Perspectives – notes from the first meeting

The following text  is from the notes that I took during our first session:

Administrative:

Meeting Time: Thursday evening… I will use the following poll to decide on the final time.

Meeting Location: We did not decide whether we would prefer to meet in the University or outside: Please answer this poll to make that decision.

Content: 

During this first session, we discussed how the reading group (at least in this term) will attempt to guide researchers by engineering collaborative readings of fundamental, seminal, or radical texts that might provide novel perspectives on or collisions with our various areas of research. Towards this end, we each presented our research area and some readings that we were already interested in.  The following is a list of those research areas as I notated them.  **I am not providing the names of the researchers as A. I did not actually get everyone’s names into my notes and B. I do not want to inaccurately represent any of your research areas — considering that these summaries are based on the quick notes I took and my own ability to synthesize and summarize those impressions.

  • Landscape in virtual (specifically video game) environments.  Interested in the permanence of, extension of, or reflection of socio-political tropes as visually manifested through the construction of landscapes (specifically non-urban?) within video game settings.  Related to traditions of landscape painting and the social/political ideas which are revealed within art historical paintings. While I am not sure of this as a research objective, it seems to me that this research area is also open to an analysis of current ideologies as they are similarly reflected in these current landscapes.
  • User-Centric Systems – Interested in the development of interfaces which are focused on user requirements.  Such interfaces might utilize brain scanners and might employ 3D environments.  Also interested in 3D printing as a possible outcome of such an interactive system.
  • Character Tropes as apparent in Poetry — specifically e-literature. Possible combinations of Media Theory and Social Theory.
  • Socially Engaged Art Practice as realized (specifically) on digital platforms.  Wants to look at Vital Phenomena and their relationship to meme development. Reflects online community construction and online social experience.  Personally, I immediately think of Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics and Claire Bishop’s critique thereof.  Furthermore, I consider Bourriaud’s (perceived) hostility towards digital practices.  Due to the interest expressed in “vital phenomena,” I think this research may also benefit from the consideration of emergence, autopoiesis and systems theory. **of course, that is just what my notes say.
  • Death in Gaming and the Art of Failure. This research in interested in the role that difficulty as well as death play in the creation of specific artistic experiences within the video gameplay experience.
  • Selfies! …. and possibly phenomenology? My excitement about selfies negated my ability to take more detailed notes of the exact intended approach to selfies expressed here.  (oops! Sorry!!!)
  • Media Art in East Asia – specifically the politics of media art in the region, the potentials and the potential ramifications of media art practice as carried out in the region. The role of media art in political activity in east asia. <– also interested in phenomenological approaches.
  • Ludology and Musicology – specifically, this research is interested in the ludic properties of live music performance, play (ludic) and play (instrumental). The role of ludic play in the act of performance.  (also “liveness,” but I think not in terms of non-human agency — i.e. the a-“live”-ness of the non-human actors — but instead the act of playing — in real time — as in live performance).
  • Politics and Art specifically from the perspectives of theories on new media art and cognitive capitalism.
  • Cultural Sociology: enacting cultural studies through (new) materialism and emergence philosophies. (also new media theory)
  •  Cyborgology based framework for contemporary art analysis, understanding the artist and the viewer as cyborg – in terms of our ongoing relationship to technologies. How do the particularities of our current technologies inform artistic practice (medium, form, theme, and structure)?

WHEW!!! What a fantastic series of research areas we present!! Despite this seemingly broad landscape, we noted the following areas of inquiry (or perspectives of inquiry) which seemed to permeate our various research questions — or had the potential to interestingly inform our various questions: **these categories are loose (at best) with probably a lot of cross over between them…

  • Critical Theory / Political Theory
  • Phenomenology
  • Network/Complex Systems/Cybernetics (Information) Theory
  • Philosophy of Art

As such, I have identified the following philosophers/texts which might be of interest.  Some of these texts may be overly basic and thus lend the potential for reading secondary texts which build on or respond to the primary text. This list is the result of our first meeting as well as discussions I have had with members around and outside of our actual session.  Please fill out the survey to indicate your level of interest in any of these writers.  Please also note that the survey gives you the option to vote for an author (but not the texts I selected) or to indicate that you would like to explore secondary readings related to the suggested text.  In either case, please fill out the question comment section to indicate your suggested texts.  Finally, if there are authors or texts which are not in the survey and which you would like to read — please add them in the comments to this post.

READING LIST SURVEY

– November 26 –

The Cosmopolitical Proposal (Stengers)

unnamed

The two readings selected for this session on Stengers both explore her notion of cosmopolitics. The first reading provides an overview of her cosmopolitical proposal, published in Latour and Weibel’s Making Things Public exhibition catalogue. The second reading is an excerpt from the English version of Cosmopolitics II, it provides a more in depth look at her ideas on emergence within her cosmopolitical proposal. The original French version of Cosmopolitics was published in seven volumes, the first English translation splits these seven volumes across two books—the reading is from Book II, Volume six (Artifice: The Faces of Emergence). Stengers’ work on Cosmopolitics is an expansion of her earlier research on the philosophy of science and the Science Wars, such as her book The Invention of Modern Science

In her Cosmopolitical Proposal Stengers uses the term politics in an expanded sense, whereby politics goes beyond interactions that only occur between humans. This expanded definition is part of her construction of the world(s) as emergent, and hence able to be composed. She refutes any claims to a “common” world, and instead asks how do we wish to live? She uses the other component of the term cosmopolitics—cosmos—to mean “the unknown constituted by these multiple divergent worlds and to the articulation of which they could eventually be capable” (Stengers 2005 p. 995).  Stengers strongly emphasises that her version of the cosmpolitical does not bare any connection with Kant’s idea of cosmopolitanism. She states:

“The cosmos, as I hope to explain it, bears little relation to the world in which citizens of antiquity asserted themselves everywhere on their home ground or to an Earth finally united, in which everyone is a citizen. On the other hand, the cosmopolitical proposal may well have affinities with a conceptual character that philosopher Gilles Deleuze allowed to exist with a force that struck me: the idiot” (Stengers 2005 p. 994).

Stengers’ aim is to challenge the claims to universality that Science (capital S) makes, she wants to make space for other discourses and practices that Science refutes through its sole claims to objective “truth.”  Central to the Cosmopolitical Proposal is her argument that scientific knowledge needs to be understood as embedded in specific socio-material practices. She hence describes her approach as a constructivist philosophy as she contends that truths are not discovered, but emerge and are produced through practices. Her constructivist stance is not to be confused with social constructivism, which upholds binaries between fact and fiction, truth and myth. Rather than assessing the truth status of entities Stengers is interested in exploring the differences between things that arise in specific practices.

Questions

  • What are the distinct differences between Stengers’ cosmopolitics and Kant’s cosmopolitanism?

  • Is her use of Dostoyevsky’s “The idiot” a useful metaphor for slowing down thought and challenging “amalgamations” such as universality, rationality and liberty?

  • How does Stengers avoid critique (Kantian transcendental critique), yet still discuss the meaning and boundaries of practices (immanent critique, embedded in practices)?

  • What are the vulnerabilities / limits of her Cosmopolitical Proposal?

Readings

Isabelle Stengers, ‘The Cosmopolitical Proposal’ in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour, Peter Weibel (2005) (pdf)

Isabelle Stengers, “Book VI: Life and Artifice: the Faces of Emergence”. In Cosmopolitics II, translated by Robert Bononno, Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2011, pp. 207-234 (Ch. 13 & 14).

Meeting Venue/Time
room M6040, Creative Media Centre
6.00pm on Wednesday, 26th November
Facilitator: Susie Pratt
Image: Artist’s impression of the ‘singing comet’ 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NavCam
click here to hear the comet singing.

– November 12 –

Technical Mentality (Simondon) & Informational Ontology (Iliadis)

EE-foster-frequencies EE-foster-frequencies2

 

Technical Mentality: Unlike much of our previous reading, in “Technical Mentality” Simondon is concerned with axiology (value) as opposed to ontology (being).  He wants to investigate a specific type of thinking, which he refers to as “technical mentality.” Simondon believes “technical mentality” to be within a formative stage. He warns that certain trends within its formation might lend themselves to a lopsided/unbalanced view which would cause the overall logic of the “technical mentality” to come into question.  Simondon sees value in the “technical mentality” and wants to discuss these inherent concerns in order to prove the methodology’s coherence and positivism.  As such, Simondon seeks to validate the mode of thinking and place it within a realm of philosophical consideration.

Possible discussion questions: 

  • How does Simondon define the “technical mentality,” and how does he place this mentality in relation to cybernetics and cartesian mechanism.
  • What are the two main postulates of the “technical mentality” and can they (how can they) be applied to technology today? What are the difficulties in such application?
  • How does Simondon define alienation in terms of labor? What is the role of “information” for Simondon in the process of production, and how are information and energy divorced in the rise of the technical object/ensemble?
  • How does Simondon propose an overcoming of this alienation? …and is that what has occurred in the modern day?
  • From where is obsolescence derived in the technical object, and how does that factor into our understanding of “planned obsolescence” now.  Is “what technology wants” in opposition to what the technology of capitalism wants?
  • What, for Simondon represents an ideally engineered technical object?

Informational Ontology: By Andrew Iliadis, “Informational Ontology” is a defense and application of Simondon’s ontology to current philosophic practice.  He argues that there is room for Simondon in the current discourse and that within Simondon’s concept of individuation is an ideal point of reference for philosophers of information.  Iliadis begins his discussion with a brief biography of Simondon, in order to contextualize Simondon’s ontology.  Furthering this contextualization, Iliadis then discusses cybernetic theory.  He introduces the ‘Mathematical Theory of Communication’ as the basis for cybernetics theory, but argues that the original cyberneticists recognized the limitations within such a communications-focused perspective.  Iliadis then proposes Simondon’s informational ontology as an extension of MTC that allows for the interrogation of the code of the information transmitted as well as the transmission (communication, message, etc…) itself.  Iliadis summarizes this point by using Floridi’s 3-part distinction of discourse about information: “information as reality, for reality, and about reality.” While cybernetics (at the time of Simondon) was primarily able to discuss information “about” or “for” reality, it is within Simondon’s theory of individuation that Iliadis feels a discussion of information “as” reality is possible.

Possible Discussion Questions

  • What is information? How does Iliadis define information and how does he relate Simondon’s definition of information?
  • How does this definition differ from that of the cyberneticists? how is it the same?
  • What is the role of the meta-stable state in a theory of information?  How does this relate to the work of Marshall McLuhan? Is that problematic?
  • What is the relationship between meta-stability, transduction, and concretization — particularly in terms of information?
  • Can Simondon’s theory of information be called “algorithmic?” Why/How? Why not/How not?
  • What is the role of “process”/relations for Simondon and how does this differ from a cybernetic (at that time) understanding of information?
  • In what way might Simondon allow us to overcome the “subject-object” deadlock?

Overall Discussion Questions: 

  • What of Simondon’s philosophy must we ignore, or grapple with in order to apply Simondon currently?
  • Do philosophers using Simondon, such as Deleuze or Iliadis address these issues? …or do they seem to ignore them?
  • What aspects of Simondon are ignored by those philosophers which rely on him heavily, and which are not?
  • Is it possible to accept portions of Simondon’s mechanology without accepting the entirety of his ontology? If there are problems with doing this, where are they?
  • What (insight) does Simondon lend to a discussion of technology that is not available in other sources, whether or not they are drawing from Simondon?

Readings: 

Gilbert Simondon, Technical Mentality,” translated by Arne De Boever, Parrhesia, 2009/7, pp. 17-27. (pdf)

Andrew Iliadis, “Informational Ontology: The Meaning of Gilbert Simondon’s Concept of Individuation,” communication +1, vol.2/2013, article 5. (pdf)

(optional)

Gilles Deleuze, “Review of Gilbert Simondon’s L’individuet sa genèse physico-biologique” (1966), translated by Ivan Ramirez, Pli, 2001/12, pp. 43-49. (pdf)

Meeting venue/time:
room M6040, Creative Media Centre
6:00pm on Wednesday, 12 November
Facilitator: Minka Stoyanova

– October 29 –

On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects, Part 1, Ch.2 (Simondon)

Daehyun Kim "Bright Darkness" 2010

Daehyun Kim “Bright Darkness” 2010

The second chapter of Simondon’s “On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects” is primarily about the relation between technical elements, objects and ensembles. The difference how each of them relates to an environment.

The adaptation-concretization process is one which causes the birth of an environment rather than being the result of an already established environment. It is caused by an environment which had merely virtual existence before the invention.[…] It could be said that concretizing invention brings into being a technogeographic environment (in this case, oil and water in turbulence) which is a condition upon which the possible functioning of the technical object depends. (48)

Thus created associated milieu is a virtual field of potentiality, which informs the process of invention of technical systems. Via recurrent causality the environment and the technical object constantly exchange information and energy and this process leads to higher level of self-organization of technics (what Simondon calls ‘technical individual’).

Only technical individuals have associated milieu. Technical elements, on the other hand, are distinguished by their technicality. Technicality signifies a degree of concretization and is for technical elements what associated milieu is for technical individuals. Elements can transmit their technicality into the future, “just like seeds that carry along the properties of a species and are to remake the new individuals” (63). Neither technical individuals nor technical ensembles last, since they are dynamic systems formed in close exchange with their environment. What is preserved from one stage of technical evolution to the next is the elements, that is, certain tools and manufactured objects. Interesting is the dynamic of participation of human inventors and users of machines in the process of technical concretization — from artisans and bearers of tools to organizers of the relationships between technical stages (elements, individuals, ensembles).

Readings:

Chapter 2 (pp. 44-70) from: Gilbert Simondon, On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects (1958), translated by Ninian Mellamphy, University of Western Ontario: 1980.

(optional)

Simon Mills, “Concrete Software: Simondon’s mechanology and the techno-social,” The Fiberculture Journal, 2011/18, FCJ-127 (URL)

Meeting venue/time:
room M6040, Creative Media Centre
5:30pm on Wednesday, 29th October
Facilitator: Olaf Hochherz

 

– October 15 –

On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects, Part 1, Ch.1 (Simondon)

 EE-Cyborgs-vs-Humans

We continue our discussions of Simondon’s ontogenesis by focusing on the individuating process of technology (what Simondon calls “concretisation of the technical object”). In two consecutive sessions we will read Part I, the only excerpt in English, of his doctoral dissertation “On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects”. The French edition (1958) is in three parts, corresponding to three modes of existence of the technical object: its intrinsic structure and evolution (Part I); the dynamic human-machine relationship and related concepts such as information, progress and automation (Part II); and more general philosophy of technicity (Part III).

“On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects” radically repositions human-machine relationship. According to Simondon, machines have been misunderstood as objects deprived from intrinsic meaning and value, which has lead to their alienation and opposition to human culture. Thus, culture maintains two contradictory beliefs about technical objects:

On the one hand, it treats them as pure and simple assemblies of material that are quite without true meaning and that only provide utility. On the other hand, it assumes that these objects are also robots, and that they harbor intentions hostile to man… (14).

Simondon argues that in order to understand machines and their relationship with humans we need to study the mode of existence proper to technicity, that is, to study the ontogenesis of technics. By rethinking concepts like automatism and innovation and introducing the notion of “margin of indetermination“, Simondon reveals that the mode of existence of technics is closer to the mode of existence of living beings rather than to the mode of existence of physical beings. In other words, technology has the ability to individuate by exchanging information with its environment. As a result, the technical object evolves from technical elements (tools) to technical individuals (machines) to technical ensembles (networks).

Reading:

Introduction and Chapter 1 (pages 11-43) from: Gilbert Simondon, On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects (1958), translated by Ninian Mellamphy, University of Western Ontario: 1980.

Chapter One of On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects presents the intrinsic principles, rhythms, and conditions according to which technics evolves from abstract to concrete technical objects.

Meeting venue/time:
room M6040, Creative Media Centre
5:30pm on Wednesday, 15th October
Facilitator: Nevena Ivanova

– September 30 –

“The Position of the Problem of Ontogenesis” (Gilbert Simondon)

Stunning Macro Photographs of Insects

 

In a series of readings EERG will engage with the ideas and influence of Gilbert Simondon (1924 – 1989). Only a handful of Simondon’s works have been translated into English, despite his influence on Twentieth Century philosophy. His oeuvre consists of three major publications: his short doctoral dissertation Du mode d’existence des objets techniques [On the mode of existence of technical objects] published in French in 1958; and his long doctoral dissertation L’individuation à la lumière des notions de Forme et d’Information [Individuation in the Light of the Notions of Form and Information], published as two separate books divided in time by 25 years – L’individu et sa genèse physico-biologique [The Individual and Its Physico-Biological Genesis, 1964];  and L’individuation psychique et collective [Individuation Psychic and Collective, 1989].

“The Position of the Problem of Ontogenesis” constitutes the first part of Simondon’s introduction to L’individuation psychique et collective, as translated by Gregory Flanders, and published in Parrhesia Journal in 2009. It introduces a process of ontogenesis, which radically transforms metaphysical concepts such as matter, form, relation, information, individual and becoming. Simondon begins with a critique of atomist substantialism and hylomorphic doctrine which places the principle of individuation (atom, matter/form) anterior to the individuating procedure, “one that may be used to explain, produce, and conduct this individuation” (Simondon, 2009, p. 4). “Anything that can serve as the basis for a relation is already of the same mode of being as the individual, whether it be an atom, an external and indivisible particle, prima materia or form” (Simondon, 2009, p. 4). In this way, the individual is presupposed in advance of the individuating operation. According to Simondon, the individuating principle needs to be generic—emergent with the individuating being. In other words the individual itself is co-existent with its process of individuation.

The individual would then be grasped as a relative reality, a certain phase of being that supposes a preindividual reality, and that, even after individuation, does not exist on its own, because individuation does not exhaust with one stroke the potentials of preindividual reality (Simondon, 2009, p. 5).

Further in the text Simondon discusses the three regimes of individuation – physical, biological and collective, but goes into detail only at the psycho-social level (the collective individuation). However, the excerpt will allow for a general overview of his ideas, their use as methodology and their possible connection to other fundamental notions in contemporary philosophy, such as: potentiality, virtuality and multiplicity (Deleuze), emergence and complexity (Stengers), modes of existence (Latour), originary technicity (Stiegler) and new materialism’s re-conceptualization of materiality.

In addition to the primary reading, attached is a glossary on Simondon’s key concepts to help facilitate our understanding.

Simondon, G. (2009). The position of the problem of ontogenesis. Parrhesia, 7, 4–16.

Meeting venue/time:
room M6040, Creative Media Centre
5:30pm on Tuesday, Sept.30th
Facilitator: Nevena Ivanova