1. pg 253 "..end up giving both artists and scholars the feeling that they are exploring "the same world", the one right in front of them, which they take to be spectacle seen through a window"
Perhaps one could add that the "window" is the eyes and there is constructed a similar "unique world" on the other side of the eyes, in the skull: the mind.
I have not searched for it so I just make the hypothesis that this must have been a time of a change in education as well: the spectre of the intellectual that can master the encyclopedic knowledge. The man in whose mind (or the company of gentlemen in whose minds) the world can be unified. A world that is safe (because everything can be accounted for: there are no "hidden doors" that enemies can take advantage of but there are "hidden doors" viewed only by the diligent moderns that can provide them the winning leverage relative to their enemies) and saveable (because it can be redesigned with good logistics and achieve a global maximum of "goodness" -this is part of what the [MOR] value is about as far as I understand it)
It sounds a little bit like hijacking the will of God: In an aera where Protestants revolt against Catholicism (and the [MET] power that Catholicism represents for them through the spectre of damnation) they found ways to secure worldly success and self-elect themselves as blessed by God. (God blesses the successful and we found ways to guarantee our success)
(But I am not a modern and also my humanities education is limited. Henry the 8th , Elizabeth, the Dutch all these are important but few have such erudition. What I write is like a child's play with crumbles that fall by his masters' tables. And yet, in some conditions there is no other way to learning for us, no other way to negotiate somehow symmetrically, even if we look like Thersites)
2. I think that the world "perceived AIME-wise" is not parced into pieces, into categories of beings (as I take it to happen in analytic philosophy, the little I know of it). The world is not contemplated visually by a distant observer. The world is discussed, it is taken on, in various ways. This is how I understand that the world is "articulated" (the world here includes consciousness, there is no devide between "the world inside the skull" and "the world out of the skull")
So when we read a lexicon of concepts relevant to AIME (like the relevant column in the inquiry), I think that this is not an inventory of definitions. It is more like genes that are ready to react, whose "information" is partly in themselves but also partly in the context in which they become operative (like Henri Atlan's view of genes , if I get it right)
To me all this is a spiritual call. It is not a suggestion on how to think about reality (as something external). It is the proposal of a different operating system of one's agency and self reflection, of a different way of taking on one's own self. However (comming from my tradition of lives of the saints) there is an empirical problem: this may be good for accademics. Will is work well for the people who survived a terrorist attack, the journalist who is trapped in ISIS territory, the westernized Greek who finds himself trapped in an economy that spirals downwards, the poorly paid worker in a western economy? (I tried to put modern heroes)
3. If I understand well something in art, art objects are more than their constituents, than the prior [TEC] achievement, but it is also something less. The disparate pieces are put into a unified motion which I can perceive because something is found "in me", that vibrates with it in harmony. Something that I did not know till then, which by responding is also externalized (and from my tradition's point of view it is not mine perhaps any longer, it (the relevant ability) is recognised as God's gift to which I participate).
I recognise a beautiful theorem as such because among all the different constraints and difficulties somethind amazingly simple and concrete (and thus "less than expected" in this mess) comes out. [FIC] seems to me as the unexpected balance of multiple deeply relevant constraints (unexpected in its simplicity and also in its resonance with us, which makes us -this I get from the [FIC] account)
It is this I think that makes [FIC]tional work so important for science. There are these different data (the material) and then at some point they can be combined and they can vibrate in me (this vibration is registered by mathematics). But I think Latour is right: in [REF] sense these creatures can now bring back information. This information is new material and it proliferates until there are new [FIC] events. It so happens (why should it really?) that this interplay between [FIC] and [REF] works steadily for some centuries now in the west.
An important issue here is this: [FIC] gives ideas for the building of different [REF] ladders (the same galaxy can now be studied by X spectroscopy and then by gamma-ray spectroscopy and then again by combining the motions of stars in systems that "should come right" when examined by computers that follow the relevant dynamics in simulations) and these ladders are judged for the symmetry ( "the same object" is found in the end of very different ladders). Sometime the proliferation of information that is brought back gives the material for a new [FIC] event in some theorists' table.
And what about [REP]? Are not galaxies part of [REP]? It seems to me that [REP] is the mode of the "common discourse" in communities of discourse. When an entity produced by [FIC] is put in common parlance, when it is discussed in the way "actors" are discussed in everyday gossip then it is naturalized as a [REP] object. It sounds like solipsism but it is a solipsisim without an ego so it is not that claustophobic.
In mathematics we study the most primitive motions in the birth of [FIC] objects (their typology) and the typology of the connections among these motions. Mathematicinas say that magnitude and space are the basic issues of mathematics. (again I am not good here. I am an amateur. I would be much happier if people like David Corfield who has done some ethnographic work with matematicians, if I am right, and Alain Rodin, who has written on modern foundations of mathematics , would be interested to give their take)
I think that there is a weakness in the AIME project with respect to mathematics. I like very muich Terrence Blake comment about the way Badiou put mathematics to work in his philosophy (https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/badiou-and-immortality-literal-exegesis-or-allegorical-hermeneutics/) "a philosophy by means of mathematics".
4. In art we (the audience) should normally (if these were events and objects in real life) intervene, due to sympathy or fear, we should not leave things just go on. Perhaps all art is blasphemous and yet it is not, because "it is not for real" (that guy there is not really dying and I am not just standing and seeing). And yet "we" end up "suffering" "real consequences" (for who we are), in previously unimaginable situations. There is always a gap that we do not trespass (as we should normally do) and this not trespassing allows us to be shifted and be transformed [FIC]tionally.
There is a similarity between experiencing [FIC]tional beings and learning good quality theory. Theory (for example Newtonian mechanics) "stops time", it is an artistic experience. A gap is built that I must not tresspass (I must tie up my intuitions so they do not throw me beyond this gap) but then I can be shifted beyond this gap while thinking theoretically.
Experience (data) augmented with new entities (the conceptual heroes that theories add) becomes the "raw material", which like the bones of Ηezekiel have now flesh and move (but they move through me, through mathematics, perhaps like Homeric poems they have to be taken up by us to survive; if we leave, like all [FIC] objects they disappear).
I am called forth to become worthy of participating in theory (for example in Newtonean mechanics) (that is "to learn")
5. [FIC], [REF], and [REP] are three closely connected modes
Perhaps one could add that the "window" is the eyes and there is constructed a similar "unique world" on the other side of the eyes, in the skull: the mind.
I have not searched for it so I just make the hypothesis that this must have been a time of a change in education as well: the spectre of the intellectual that can master the encyclopedic knowledge. The man in whose mind (or the company of gentlemen in whose minds) the world can be unified. A world that is safe (because everything can be accounted for: there are no "hidden doors" that enemies can take advantage of but there are "hidden doors" viewed only by the diligent moderns that can provide them the winning leverage relative to their enemies) and saveable (because it can be redesigned with good logistics and achieve a global maximum of "goodness" -this is part of what the [MOR] value is about as far as I understand it)
It sounds a little bit like hijacking the will of God: In an aera where Protestants revolt against Catholicism (and the [MET] power that Catholicism represents for them through the spectre of damnation) they found ways to secure worldly success and self-elect themselves as blessed by God. (God blesses the successful and we found ways to guarantee our success)
(But I am not a modern and also my humanities education is limited. Henry the 8th , Elizabeth, the Dutch all these are important but few have such erudition. What I write is like a child's play with crumbles that fall by his masters' tables. And yet, in some conditions there is no other way to learning for us, no other way to negotiate somehow symmetrically, even if we look like Thersites)
2. I think that the world "perceived AIME-wise" is not parced into pieces, into categories of beings (as I take it to happen in analytic philosophy, the little I know of it). The world is not contemplated visually by a distant observer. The world is discussed, it is taken on, in various ways. This is how I understand that the world is "articulated" (the world here includes consciousness, there is no devide between "the world inside the skull" and "the world out of the skull")
So when we read a lexicon of concepts relevant to AIME (like the relevant column in the inquiry), I think that this is not an inventory of definitions. It is more like genes that are ready to react, whose "information" is partly in themselves but also partly in the context in which they become operative (like Henri Atlan's view of genes , if I get it right)
To me all this is a spiritual call. It is not a suggestion on how to think about reality (as something external). It is the proposal of a different operating system of one's agency and self reflection, of a different way of taking on one's own self. However (comming from my tradition of lives of the saints) there is an empirical problem: this may be good for accademics. Will is work well for the people who survived a terrorist attack, the journalist who is trapped in ISIS territory, the westernized Greek who finds himself trapped in an economy that spirals downwards, the poorly paid worker in a western economy? (I tried to put modern heroes)
3. If I understand well something in art, art objects are more than their constituents, than the prior [TEC] achievement, but it is also something less. The disparate pieces are put into a unified motion which I can perceive because something is found "in me", that vibrates with it in harmony. Something that I did not know till then, which by responding is also externalized (and from my tradition's point of view it is not mine perhaps any longer, it (the relevant ability) is recognised as God's gift to which I participate).
I recognise a beautiful theorem as such because among all the different constraints and difficulties somethind amazingly simple and concrete (and thus "less than expected" in this mess) comes out. [FIC] seems to me as the unexpected balance of multiple deeply relevant constraints (unexpected in its simplicity and also in its resonance with us, which makes us -this I get from the [FIC] account)
It is this I think that makes [FIC]tional work so important for science. There are these different data (the material) and then at some point they can be combined and they can vibrate in me (this vibration is registered by mathematics). But I think Latour is right: in [REF] sense these creatures can now bring back information. This information is new material and it proliferates until there are new [FIC] events. It so happens (why should it really?) that this interplay between [FIC] and [REF] works steadily for some centuries now in the west.
An important issue here is this: [FIC] gives ideas for the building of different [REF] ladders (the same galaxy can now be studied by X spectroscopy and then by gamma-ray spectroscopy and then again by combining the motions of stars in systems that "should come right" when examined by computers that follow the relevant dynamics in simulations) and these ladders are judged for the symmetry ( "the same object" is found in the end of very different ladders). Sometime the proliferation of information that is brought back gives the material for a new [FIC] event in some theorists' table.
And what about [REP]? Are not galaxies part of [REP]? It seems to me that [REP] is the mode of the "common discourse" in communities of discourse. When an entity produced by [FIC] is put in common parlance, when it is discussed in the way "actors" are discussed in everyday gossip then it is naturalized as a [REP] object. It sounds like solipsism but it is a solipsisim without an ego so it is not that claustophobic.
In mathematics we study the most primitive motions in the birth of [FIC] objects (their typology) and the typology of the connections among these motions. Mathematicinas say that magnitude and space are the basic issues of mathematics. (again I am not good here. I am an amateur. I would be much happier if people like David Corfield who has done some ethnographic work with matematicians, if I am right, and Alain Rodin, who has written on modern foundations of mathematics , would be interested to give their take)
I think that there is a weakness in the AIME project with respect to mathematics. I like very muich Terrence Blake comment about the way Badiou put mathematics to work in his philosophy (https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/badiou-and-immortality-literal-exegesis-or-allegorical-hermeneutics/) "a philosophy by means of mathematics".
4. In art we (the audience) should normally (if these were events and objects in real life) intervene, due to sympathy or fear, we should not leave things just go on. Perhaps all art is blasphemous and yet it is not, because "it is not for real" (that guy there is not really dying and I am not just standing and seeing). And yet "we" end up "suffering" "real consequences" (for who we are), in previously unimaginable situations. There is always a gap that we do not trespass (as we should normally do) and this not trespassing allows us to be shifted and be transformed [FIC]tionally.
There is a similarity between experiencing [FIC]tional beings and learning good quality theory. Theory (for example Newtonian mechanics) "stops time", it is an artistic experience. A gap is built that I must not tresspass (I must tie up my intuitions so they do not throw me beyond this gap) but then I can be shifted beyond this gap while thinking theoretically.
Experience (data) augmented with new entities (the conceptual heroes that theories add) becomes the "raw material", which like the bones of Ηezekiel have now flesh and move (but they move through me, through mathematics, perhaps like Homeric poems they have to be taken up by us to survive; if we leave, like all [FIC] objects they disappear).
I am called forth to become worthy of participating in theory (for example in Newtonean mechanics) (that is "to learn")
5. [FIC], [REF], and [REP] are three closely connected modes
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου