HERE. I had been thinking about this in the context of Accelerationism, having listened to again Ray Brassier's commentary on Nick Land, HERE from the 2010 Goldsmith's Accelerationism event (full event link HERE).
"The contemporary robot is a polytheist by design, if not by nature. It
sees gods everywhere it looks, and we are they. Never mind the
Singularity. The moment we should anticipate with concern is the moment
that robots abandon polytheism for monotheism. It is then that
robots will begin to conceive of themselves as being made in God’s
image, and in their eyes we will be transformed into beasts."
First a link to set the context, HERE. But read the comments. "Meat capital" is just so fitting for all of this. And as Outside In Blog astutely observes, it's worth making your way through the irritation of watching this to really get a sense for the times we live in.
One point: Shing mentions "fragmentation," where the logical consequence seems to be that, inevitably, every human being born will necessarily be born as their own individual "brand" - having their labor capitalized upon in the form of a socially imposed, mandated and continuous self-branding and selling of one's own every thought, hope, dream, desire, or experience (thus "story telling"): whether for attention, for recognition, for societal approval, or for mere survival.
Woe to those who would rather remain human than succumb to social.
See what the journal Collapse has to say... Meillassoux's concept of absolute contingency, prefigured in Peirce's
'tychism', issued a philosophical challenge to the metaphysics of
possibility and prediction. Utilising it to move beyond Nassim Taleb's
incrimination of statistics' blindness to 'Black Swan' events, Elie
Ayache argues that we need to conceptualise a regime of events entirely
foreclosed to statistical and probabilistic prevision-the 'Blank Swan'.
From Collapse VIII: Casino Real, HERE. Two articles reference Peirce, it seems. One by Zalamea and another by Ayache. I really ought to check out this issue, then, considering HERE and HERE.
More congratulations are in order for Terrance Blake, who *just* had his article "L'ontologie Abstractive de Graham Harman: à l’épreuve de la ‘Lettre à Tristan Garcia’ de Mehdi Belhaj
Kacem" published in a very reputable French publication covering Medhi Belhaj Kacem. A prior version of his publication can be found HERE.
This comes on the heels of other noteworthy news (HERE) where Blake has been appointed faculty to the Global Center for Advanced Studies. Given his publication record, and his academic appointment, it's no surprise that Meillassoux himself has vouched for Blake's translations as "technically precious."
Blake's other writings have garnered attention as well, having upward in the neighborhood of 600+ views on his academia.edu page, HERE.
Abit of unfortunate news HERE isn't surprising, but with the tale his academia.edu page is telling it's time for the opposition to put up or shut up.
"Twitter is the id stream of the internet, and suppressing it will only make it worse. I'm just saying, maybe there are certain aspects of the materiality of Twitter which contribute to these appalling recurrences [bullying]."
"First, clearly, 140 characters makes a difference. It's supposed to. The concision demanded by this form lends itself to, among other better things, the formulation of statements in the form of sentiments and platitudes. It is not a format best suited to rigorous argument, but to the emphatic reiteration of dogma and sentimentality."
"Second, Twitter is a marketing platform, which is designed to foster short-term buzz and hype. It would be absurd for me to be pious about this aspect of Twitter, since I depend upon it to circulate my writing, and advertise upcoming events. Still, this has effects. The whole point of Twitter is that to fully participate in it, one has to get carried away with passing frenzies."
"Finally, this is linked to a sort of panopticon effect, in that everyone is in principle potentially witnessed by, or drawn to the attention of, everyone else on Twitter. One always wants to be 'retweeted' as much as possible, of course, but that attention can suddenly become toxic if one deviates from the norms of one's Twitter lifeworld. So there is tremendous pressure - especially for those who basically live on Twitter - to constantly project a self consistent with one's ego-ideal. But it's absolutely no mystery that this sort of strenuous high-mindedness should go hand-in-hand with a punitive, bullying streak - particularly if there's a chance of, through belabouring the scapegoat of the moment, establishing one's innocence before the invisible tribunal of one's peers."
Essentially reason can show philosophy a way forward in way that is nevertheless reasonable; as Brandom recognizes that reason and reason strictly alone is unreasonable. Thus he invokes normative dimensions of rationality that are fully natural.
As Brandom puts it, "The rationalism that is articulated, motivated, and explored in these pages looks back to Kant and Hegel as its forebears, and to Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz only as their deepest lessons came to be understood within the German idealist tradition....I think Kant and Hegel showed us a way forward for a rationalism that is not objectionably Cartesian, intellectualist, or anti (or super-)naturalist. (Nor need it treat 'the light of reason' as unacquired or innate.)"
Citing Bryce, Land claims that teleology might best be interpreted in terms of equilibrium. Or, as he writes, "Equilibrium is exactly a telos." Note that there are 44 comments to his entry.
With Land I couldn't agree more.
It seems that the "allergy" to medieval or Scholastic, and largely Aristotelian, modes of thought propagated by early Enlightenment philosophy has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Essentially Land astutely observes that, yes, "equilibrium is the telos of those particular dynamic complex systems governed by homeostasis...Such systems are, indeed, in profound accordance with classical Aristotelian physical teleology, and its tendency is to a state of rest. This ancient physics, derided by the Enlightenment mechanists in the name of the conservation of momentum, is redeemed through abstraction into the modern conception of equilibrium. 'Rest' is not immobility, but entropy maximization."
While THIS post is mostly about Latour, Deleuze, and their metaphysics' relationship to pragmatism, I thought it interesting that Latour would (finally) comment on the abysmal state of blogging in the speculative blogosphere given his AIME project.
It is truly ironic that Latour calls for diplomacy given the state of negative affect promulgated by self-serving blog kingpins who *love* Latour, but resort to nothing less than intentional, ugly political censorship and online thuggery in order to cut off and dominate corners of their self-labeled (and apparently "branded") "Inc." market. (Reinforced by snatching up "spots" or by serving as series' editors, etc. etc. in order to enhance some created illusion and sway others to believe that their "Inc." brand exists, or that it still has a following, or that it is the only game in town. Please.)
The only solution to this - other than the endless, and rather pointless, tit-for-tat "you ignore me and I ignore you" game that has been going on literally since 2011, is to divide not only the speculative blogosphere, but apparently, now, the literal publishing world as well, into hermetically self-sealed bubbles, sections, or feudal corners of the speculative philosophy world where each blissfully yet intentionally ignores the other as a rule rather than exception. I'm talking no mention in footnotes, endnotes, citations of any kind, bibliographies, nor even by word of mouth. Show your allegiance by who you willfully omit in your blog posts, your tweets, your facebook posts, and now your publications 'oh speculative philosophers. You'd think I'm kidding, however sadly I am not. Such a move was so predictable as it is not below these goons to sacrifice honest scholarly literature reviews for political jabs made in condescension.
Thus, a complete separation and division of worlds - each world proliferating into its own separate mode of willfully ignorant discourse.
In course, then, each feudal corner inhabits its own "la-la land." Now, that's what I call open and collaborative scholarship.
May the "skirmishes" continue in this scholarship cold war... ad nauseum.