6 Symposium: Speculations on Anonymous Materials - Reza Negarestani
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 січ 2014
- Symposium: Speculations on Anonymous Materials
Participants: Maurizio Ferraris, Markus Gabriel, Iain Hamilton Grant, Robin Mackay, Reza Negarestani
The Speculations on Anonymous Materials symposium brings together different approaches in philosophy, which in their own way all aim to go beyond modern and postmodern thinking. The symposium is based on the following hypothesis: The fundamental technological, scientific and socio-political changes at the beginning of the 21st century have caused sharp caesuras in both philosophy and art.
The exhibition Speculations on Anonymous Materials presents artistic practices that yet have to claim a place in art history and art theory -- just as the philosophical approaches brought together in this symposium cannot be grasped as a single homogenous movement.
This merging of art and philosophy is grounded on the methodological assumption that contemporary art and speculative philosophy, perhaps without yet being aware of the fact and despite their different modes of existence, are driven by a common interest. The symposium's quest for a new terminology and a new grammar of thinking about contemporary art will focus on new meanings of materiality, matter and materialism.
Conceived by Armen Avanessian, Tom Lamberty, Susanne Pfeffer, Nina Tabassomi
Summary @41:40
There are some plainly trollish comments and some genuine puzzled sentiments here. There is no point to respond to the trollish comments. For the puzzled ones: In the past decade or so, Reza has been trying to synthesize various elements of dynamic system analysis, naturalized phenomenology and conceptual engineering (late Carnap) to provide a picture of our technical and practical concepts which are at once informed by our novel inferences (like Peirce's method of abduction), our capacity to make concepts by intervening or manipulating things (philosophy of engineering from Archimedes to people like Hans Vaihinger and beyond) and the capacity to make evermore suitable concepts adequate for describing what is we are doing when we are doing something, successful or not, from a practical point of view. The point in this lecture which tends to get lost but is further developed in his other papers and talks is that concepts such as materiality, system, whole, part and scale should be understood in terms of triangulations between (1) our manipulative inferences (the reference to Peirce) where theoretical and practical commitments overlap and play with each other, (2) discovering a class of novel phenomena not by mere theoretical reasoning but by practical encounters / experience of the target phenomenon, (3) the enlightenment impulse to refine our concepts, moving in the Carnap sense of explication, from vague or otherwise clunky concepts to more exact concepts.
My take on what he's saying: we understand something by manipulating it (behaviors/sets of behaviors which are function), and we form hypotheses based on what will happen as a result of the manipulation. We take the result to tell us something about the pre-manipulated object. That theoretically enables us to dive to a deeper level of the pre-manipulated object to examine that next level. Hence all of our mental frameworks are built upon actions which don't necessarily speak to qualities which are invariate; we make the assumption that they do, which most of the time holds true. Philosophy works in the same way.
What do you think about these changes to your second to last sentence:
"Hence all of our formal frameworks refer to events whereupon a material is manipulated but which don't necessarily refer to that material's invariant qualities; we make the assumption that they do, which most of the time holds true."
why is The Making of Jackass 3D a related video?
@SeeSeeTeeVee good answer
@SeeSeeTeeVee LOL i know
Answer: from 18:13 to 19:05
He's basically saying that we impose teleology ourselves, and that nothing in nature can be understood beyond this imposition? Hannah Arendt has signaled this pathway I think, in the field of ethics.
@SeeSeeTeeVee I'd say perhaps so, because she acknowledges that it is 'above' or 'beyond' the natural.
Well, obviously morality doesn't exist without people to impose it.
And Husserl and Heidegger's phenomenology
I have no job. No education. I want all of these functions for my own life, and you took those prospects from me the moment you pretended to grasp my brain as an child.
So enjoy your success. You deserve it.
whats going on here
بهترین دوست من در دبیرستان توحید یک شیراز ...همیشه موفق و خوشبخت باشی رفیق
انگار همشهری هم هست عجب
can someone spell the name of the chinese philosopher mentioned at 12:00 xiang xi li?
Xiong Shili
very interesting. also.. it sounds like a "fu_ _ around and find out" methodology. it is the longest explanation of w.s.burroughs' cutup method i have ever heard.
You can say fuck on the internet
I like words. Do you? Well, hopefully your brain is okay, because I have a harder time with words, given the fact that doctors have been experimenting on my brain, through the word, and before I had reached puberty.
Keep up the great work! No problem!
I love you
I hate you, not really. I'm completely Indifferent to your existence.
Oh, btw… can I get an invite to any events on this? I am dying to do something, but I can’t control my own nervous system. It hurts.
YOLO, am Right? Was there an I in that question?
The comments on this page are really weird.
Ye true. i didnt even see the video its like i searched this on youtube only to end up in this weird comments section.
Me reading comment section: 14:51
I’ve been trying to understand this guy for almost a year now. I don’t think he’s pretentious or anything but I can just never really figure out wtf he’s saying are there any good UA-cam videos out there or soemthing
I think it's too much fluff with him.
This may sound strange, but many of his ideas stem from theoretical computer science, specifically in relation to programming semantics, category theory and the like. If you're willing, look up "track B" theoretical CS and take a step into the ensuing rabbit hole.
Make notes of all the speech, and read slowly, it makes sense to me, he is explaining a transdisciplinary methodology, Deleuze and Guattari applies this synthetic operators and construct an skizo methodology. Reza and the speculative realists are their orphans.
An understanding of teleology is a good foundation of what he's talking about
Now obviously I’m joking. Cosmically.
All the best.
Love this comment section
I have a few questions to ask. I’m bored and my brain hurts all day everyday, so I like to keep my brain focused on learning to try and distract myself from the pain.
Feel free to liberate me. Thanks.
unification between biology and physics - Quantum mechanics..? (biophysics)
Duong Nguyen cybernetics
Negarestani is not r/acc neither l/acc. He is compatible with both in part.
Didn't he once say in a rant that "everything except for communism must perish"?
This doesn't really make sense to me. Being able to explain doesn't require a hands on approach or control over the phenomena, only a skill in being able to articulate it's functions and reactions. For instance, I have no control over the Sun nor a mountain, yet I can explain to someone that the light from the sun will be blocked by a mountain, therefore casting a shadow. I did not move the mountain nor the sun. The only "control" I have over these things is waiting for the sun to rise, but to say I controlled time would be presumptuous and silly. Am I oversimplifying it?
I think that what he was trting to say is that by only knowing that the light from the sun will be blocked by a mountain, you're not explaining the phenomena, you're just describing it, because you're making axiomatic assumptions about the constitution of the sun, the light or the mountain. This might bring problems regarding optimization as these assumptions might interfere between one another when talking about the strata or scale they are, which are discontinous from one to the other. Therefore, manipulating the material, gives you instatnly what you're looking for, optimizing problem solving. For instance, if you want to know how temperatures are afected by the lack of sunlight at a certain time of the day on one of the mountain's sides, you don't need to know the molecular composition of the sun.
Then , he is philosophizing hard science?
Nope. Not me.
Oops, I meant “prophet.”
English please??
Because I’ve got nothing. I know nothing. It’s too much. It’s all too much.
Art approaches materiality differently from engineering.No?
+Sara engineering looks at the practical application of the material, whereas art looks at the formal aspects - aesthetic political
actually, both are a speculation of claims sorted for to best fit and complete a task in a way which takes function implementation, takes contractual implications, take on the context of which they are embedded, and embraces sustainability with in its form. both also have a function.
@@wesleygryziak1690yes yet, if you from the lense of market and capitalism, you have not time to be speciliazed in both so that's why for any finished product in the market you need engineers and artist to collaborate and focus on their own light that they are casting.
I don’t know. I’m crazy. Just do as you please. You people at least appear to be nice. I trust. Even though your concepts are ruining my life because they have resulted in so much damage being done to my brain by the pharmaceutical industry, I hope that my brain can somehow adapt to its defunct matter and be of service.
You guessed wrong.
But I imagine (and I have to take a leap of faith here when I think of doctors) that you all mean well. Probably not though.
RGH SIU though
GREAT POINT!
Is the hate for Reza here coming from strict Hegelians or from Analytical philosophers? I wanted to be sure because some called his works reactionary naive realism. Is that take coming from Hegelians or the chicago boys?
It's coming from pseuds from /lit/
id guess both
"..Is the hate for Reza .. Hegelians .. Analytical .."
You are giving people WAY too much credit.
Make notes of all the speech, and read slowly, it makes sense to me, he is explaining a transdisciplinary methodology, Deleuze and Guattari applies these synthetic operators and construct an skizo methodology. Reza and the speculative realists are their orphans. Come on, make your own living hypotesis, play with those abstract machines kiddo!
You simply took advantage of your power. As you say, you manipulate.
Anyone spot a point here?
Plenty
What da?
Ignorance & Idiocy: how to discern when the Ghost is malfunctioning & the Machine does not understand.
It must be nice to fulfill prophecies when you are otherwise ignorant of your own field.
You saved me by tossing me into oblivion. Your pharmaceutical drugs are the cause of my poor fitness. I, the speaking soul, the holy of holies, want you to know that you have failed to live up to your expectations.
You didn’t even scratch the surface of my truth.
I’m so uncertain about this guy. I want to believe he means well. I really do. I just can’t. He is too ignorant, which makes him evil.
Ignorant of what
Hi language.
Brain hurts.
By you, I mean the guy who pretends to know that I am knowable, and therefore worthy of being drugged with pharmaceuticals before I reach puberty. My life has been a disaster. It is a disaster. But go ahead and keep pretending. I won’t fight, I’ll cooperate. I’ll be nice. But I just want you to know that you still don’t know me, and you never will, good sir…
Peak larping right here
As what?
@@aboxintheblack9530 philosophers... I guess😬
It's amazing this talent to talk for so long without saying anything apart from "look I am putting sentences together which sound cool", pity there aren't that many vacancies nowadays for alchemists and astrologists
Its okay to admit when you don't understand something. I'm sure you're aware of the necessity for certain methods of communication to be implemented in order to more accurately represent slighlty more complex concepts than can be articulated in colloquial everyday speech.
@@adwinmadwin3991 haha sentence go "brrt"
Sounds like you are promulgating an ethics, which seems contrary to what you claim to be aiming at. I don’t know. It’s as if you aren’t making any sense. But who knows.
Nananannsnrnensnannanans
What the fuck is going on here?
I can look intelligent when I want to btw. I can shape shift and shit like an unethical fool too.
Keep up the good work. Maybe I’ll stand on the sidelines. I don’t know. It’s not so fun. I just wish I could have grown up with a normal brain, without having people apply their contracts to my holy of holies before I was beyond puberty… Feels, ethically speaking, like a crime.
Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop
By far your best comment
He needs far more artwork to cover for his uncommitted crimes, mind you. Someone let this guy know he needs to be careful.
u ok dave
@@joyusachoobarb don't think so
A certain form of nonsense
Well, good thing he went extempore so that we could all listen in stuperously somnolent _awe_ as he rattled off a bunch of faux-systematic nonsense and bottom-shelf Deleuzian metaphors w/o substantive content. He has very good English though: credit where credit's due.
ALERT, ALERT! DO NOT BE SCARED AWAY FROM CRITICAL THINKING BY THE AFOREMENTIONED SHITPOST. TRY YOUR HAND AT IT FIRST.
+Ayotomiwa Ogunsemowo Really? Listen up, his whole concept of 'systems' isn't just ignorant (he fails to grasp the extents of physical laws into biological systems) but also it isn't 'critical' at all like you're trying to claim. It's what is known as 'negativist'. A cornerstone of all post-structuralist, nihilistic justification. And a favorite among those who make it their mission in life to hide behind such derridean drivel when called to account for their hateful, anti-occidental virtue signalling.
ALERT, ALERT! WE DID AND FOUND IT TO BE SELF-JUSTIFYING, POMPOUSITY FAR WORSE THAN ANY SHITPOSTING IMAGINABLE.
How does fail to grasp said 'extents of laws'? And what laws? Biological systems are not just simply materialistic, so what physical laws can extend into, say, the psychological, or religious? for example?
He is an engineer by training, mind you. Say what you will about third rate deleuzian academics and media studies hipster types, but Reza is not one of them.