Non-Philosophy and Speculative Posthumanism

from:

Oraxiom Journal Logo

Non-Philosophy and Speculative Posthumanism – Bogna M. Konior in Conversation with David Roden

As David Roden writes, “a biomorphic posthumanism is no longer about the human relation to the future… It is the insurgency of an Outside… We have no transcendental access to this ‘doll space’ prior to making it.” Similarly, as Katerina Kolozova de-scribes Laruelle’s position, “how something appears cannot be philosophically predetermined. Reality dictates how we will think and develop entirely new concepts and programmes about what is going on.”

In this conversation, David Roden and Bogna Konior discuss the possi-ble intersections between non-philosophy and speculative posthumanism, tackling a variety of topics, including transcendental computers, hu-man agency in relation to modern technology, the body, biomorphism, and pain, dark phenomenology, and how both non-philosophy and Roden’s work diverge from other contemporary approaches to posthumanism.

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW: HERE

3 responses to “Non-Philosophy and Speculative Posthumanism

  1. thanks for the link David is right that this is about the limits of knowledge and that there are no Imperatives to be discovered outside of the all too human exchanges/considerations.

    • And knowledge as such is just a useful fiction that hominids perform in order to navigate consequential situations. I think we both agree that unknowing, negative capability, post-nihilist praxis, non-standard intellectualization, etc, etc, are all just so many gestures towards the practical efficacy of moving through the mangle of things with an epistemic humility that orients us towards a kind of hardcore (zero-point) Real.

      After that, its more about how to assemble appropriate techne and co-construct adaptive niches. *post-conventional development*

      There are layers to this game. We can’t just explain away or ignore the psychological determination effected by ‘THEORY’. Mark Fisher comments: “Althusser’s conception of the individual subject as a product of ideology is far more scientific than buffoon empiricism’s unthinking dissemination of the concepts of persons and things.”

      • it fits his noir/weird sensibility but David’s calling his phenomenology “dark” is often
        misleading in the way that physics has fucked up by calling the gaps in their models “dark” matter/energy, it marks a limit/lacunae and not some dark art of knowing or some mysterious something behind the scenes. In some ways it’s not that complicated the truth is that we don’t really know what we’re doing and so we are just making it up as we go but that’s not something most folks seem to grasp. The hagiography around Mark after his death is puzzling he was an entertaining grumpy pop culture critic well suited to that time in the blogosphere but not really a serious student of science or markets or the like, here’s his old mate and more careful cultural critic: https://soundcloud.com/suite-212/the-suite-212-sessions-no-3-owen-hatherley
        cheers

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s