Archive

Monthly Archives: September 2013

friend of the blog Andre Ling sends us this report from the Gestes Spéculatifs conference and like all of his postings is well worth checking out.

http://www.ccic-cerisy.asso.fr/gestes13.html

Intra-Being

The second talk on day 6 (and the last of Gestes Spéculatifs) ‘Rêver L’obscure: présence spéculative et politiques de la contraction‘ (‘Dreaming the dark: speculative presence and the politics of contraction‘) was given by Erik Bordeleau. I found this to be an intense and nuanced talk, one that somehow simultaneously resonated for me on an emotional and intellectual level. Of all the talks at GS it was the one that connected with both my inner rage and my awareness of the necessity of engaging with that rage with great caution (rather than emphasising the latter over the former).

In this talk, Erik makes the case for ‘dreaming the dark’ (in French, dark is translated as obscure, which means both dark and obscure) as a speculative gesture that can create a speculative presence that permits the formation of relations (entry into resonance) with the as-yet-unknown…

View original post 1,901 more words

via Brad Younger (go check out his youtube channel)
“Shaun Gallagher argues that the extended mind hypothesis requires an enactive, neo-pragmatic concept of intentionality if it is to develop proper responses to a variety of objections. This enactive concept of intentionality is based on the phenomenological concept of a bodily (motor or operative) intentionality outlined by Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. The connections between this concept and recent embodied approaches to social cognition are explored.”
http://www.ummoss.org/
Whatever quibbles I might have with SG’s take on these matters a fleshing out of neopragmatism with an enactivist neurophenomenology (extended-mind-ing) is the way to go by my measure of things. Once you come to understand language uses as belonging to a family (think rhizome not tree) of the many human-animal actions than you can begin to map out a truly radical behaviorism. http://www.academia.edu/245547/Enactivism_Why_be_Radical

 

“Sociologists say the best way to describe human interaction in society is through the concept of role. In everyday life we play roles as student, teacher, parent, child, male female, employee, manager, etc. Arendt, on the other hand argues that humans have a unique capacity to act, which for her means to begin something new, like Occupy Wall Street, where people abandon their past roles and start over. Sociologists argue that if many humans acted in the way described by Arendt, it would ultimately mean the breakdown of society. Who is right in this argument? How do we decide? Do we use scientific verification procedures? Is this a matter of describing and reporting the facts or of reflexive analysis? Are there any ethical issues involved?”