здесь будут рандомные несистематизированные инсайты по поводу и без, схваченные (prehended) в затяжном прыжке ̶и̶з̶ ̶п̶и̶з̶д̶ы̶ ̶в̶ ̶м̶о̶г̶и̶л̶у̶ через пространство-время
❤🔥1
If plants wither and die and animals fail to reproduce, man will sicken and die and fail to maintain his kind. As individuals we cannot afford to leave our destiny in the hands of scientists, engineers, technologists, and politicians who have forgotten or who never knew these simple truths. In our modern world we have botanists who study plants and zoologists who study animals, but most of them are specialists who do not deal with the ramifications of their limited knowledge. We need biologists today who respect the fragile web of life and who can broaden their knowledge to include the nature of man and his relation to the biological and physical worlds. We need biologists who can tell us what we can and must do to survive, and what we cannot and must not do ifwe hope to maintain and improve the quality of life during the next three decades.
As a cancer specialist, I was naturally impressed with N. J. Berrill's statement, which has been repeated in various forms by others without citation since the publication of his Man's Emerging Mind in 1955 [1, p. 210]. He observed that "so far as the rest of nature is concerned, we are like a cancer whose strange ceUs multiply without restraint, ruthlessly demanding the nourishment that all of the body has need of. The analogy is not farfetched for cancer cells no more than whole organisms know when to stop multiplying, and sooner or later the body of the community is starved of support and dies." In other words, we can ask the question, is it man's fate to be to the living earth what cancer is to man?
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/405198
As a cancer specialist, I was naturally impressed with N. J. Berrill's statement, which has been repeated in various forms by others without citation since the publication of his Man's Emerging Mind in 1955 [1, p. 210]. He observed that "so far as the rest of nature is concerned, we are like a cancer whose strange ceUs multiply without restraint, ruthlessly demanding the nourishment that all of the body has need of. The analogy is not farfetched for cancer cells no more than whole organisms know when to stop multiplying, and sooner or later the body of the community is starved of support and dies." In other words, we can ask the question, is it man's fate to be to the living earth what cancer is to man?
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/405198
muse.jhu.edu
Project MUSE - Bioethics, the Science of Survival
оттуда же:
We are programmed to respond in a variable way to a certain range of environmental contingencies. As men we are built not to respond in the best possible way to any possible environment but to respond in a satisfactory way to the environment in which we evolved to Homo sapiens. It is my contention that this included the preservation of a built-in tendency toward irrational or erratic behavior; if the unplanned or irrational behavior led to desirable results, man would then learn to repeat this behavior. Thus we are not robots but are capable oflearning by unplanned experience (i.e., by hindsight) in addition to learning by planned experience (e.g., from traditions in the cultural heritage). Informationgathering capacity in single cells can be passed to the progeny by means of DNA and possibly unknown mechanisms. Information-gathering capacity in man is replicated and passed through the germ line in a similar way, and, in addition, information is replicated in the culture by word of mouth, by recorded language and symbols, and by example.
[cf. с идеей generative entrenchments у Уимсатта в его инженерной эпистемологии: структуры опыта застывают и становятся парадигмами // +++ очередная попытка кибернетического прочтения человеческого-слишком-человеческого (слегка запоздало - это уже 1970-й)]
Man undoubtedly has a higher capacity for storing abstract information than any other form oflife, but this fact is inevitably accompanied by man's greater tendency to introduce error or deliberate variance into his memory bank than any other form oflife, and hence his greater opportunity to introduce novelty into his life. This set of opinions is highly relevant to the ancient problem of determinism versus free will. Because man can make mistakes or deliberately introduce novelty into his life and in either case learn by hindsight, his behavior can never be automated; he is less determined by fate and has more opportunity to depart from the established norm. To this extent he has more opportunity for the exercise of individual free will than other life forms.
We are programmed to respond in a variable way to a certain range of environmental contingencies. As men we are built not to respond in the best possible way to any possible environment but to respond in a satisfactory way to the environment in which we evolved to Homo sapiens. It is my contention that this included the preservation of a built-in tendency toward irrational or erratic behavior; if the unplanned or irrational behavior led to desirable results, man would then learn to repeat this behavior. Thus we are not robots but are capable oflearning by unplanned experience (i.e., by hindsight) in addition to learning by planned experience (e.g., from traditions in the cultural heritage). Informationgathering capacity in single cells can be passed to the progeny by means of DNA and possibly unknown mechanisms. Information-gathering capacity in man is replicated and passed through the germ line in a similar way, and, in addition, information is replicated in the culture by word of mouth, by recorded language and symbols, and by example.
[cf. с идеей generative entrenchments у Уимсатта в его инженерной эпистемологии: структуры опыта застывают и становятся парадигмами // +++ очередная попытка кибернетического прочтения человеческого-слишком-человеческого (слегка запоздало - это уже 1970-й)]
Man undoubtedly has a higher capacity for storing abstract information than any other form oflife, but this fact is inevitably accompanied by man's greater tendency to introduce error or deliberate variance into his memory bank than any other form oflife, and hence his greater opportunity to introduce novelty into his life. This set of opinions is highly relevant to the ancient problem of determinism versus free will. Because man can make mistakes or deliberately introduce novelty into his life and in either case learn by hindsight, his behavior can never be automated; he is less determined by fate and has more opportunity to depart from the established norm. To this extent he has more opportunity for the exercise of individual free will than other life forms.
philpapers.org
Jeffrey C. Schank & William C. Wimsatt, Generative Entrenchment and Evolution - PhilPapers
The generative entrenchment of an entity is a measure of how much of the generated structure or activity of a complex system depends upon the presence or activity of that entity. ...
Юджин Такер о неоднозначности тела в биотехнологиях и регенеративной медицине:
Thus, in response to modern medicine’s “technological” approach to the body (either through medical hardware or the mechanistic view of transplantation), regenerative medicine attempts to facilitate a view of the biomedical body that is essentially self-healing (Wade, 2000). On the one hand, it would seem that this more “natural” approach to medical therapeutics only requires a minimum of technical enframing, the right type of environment in which the self-healing body may emerge; the question here is less about technology and more about context. Yet on the other hand, we might also question this surreptitious disappearance of technology, in which it appears that cells and tissues will automatically regenerate themselves in an analogous fashion to minor skin cuts, for example. Where is the technology in regenerative medicine? Is it to be found in various laboratory tools? Is it to be located not in “gadgets” or hardware, but in techniques, processes, or actions? It is this transformation of what we mean by technology that regenerative medicine is, on one level, engaging with.
For instance, a stem cell “discovered” in the body might be taken as naturally occurring, while stem cells derived through therapeutic cloning might be taken as technological or artificial. While never totally questioning the boundary between bodies and technologies, regenerative medicine does create a zone of ambiguity by defining the biological body as both fully natural (preexisting medicine and science, operating independently, self-regulating and self-producing), as well as fully amenable to biomedical augmentation, enhancement, improvement, and design. As an organic system that is both natural and open to technical improvement, the body of regenerative medicine invites a certain type of intervention in the body’s “natural” operations, interventions that supposedly do not alter the ontological status of the biological body as natural.
To put it another way, the body of regenerative medicine is both the resource and object of technical action. In a kind of feedback loop, regenerative medicine takes “technology” to reside in the biological itself; the “tools” which regenerative medicine uses are not external prosthetic devices or mechanical organs, but rather the very processes of cellular regeneration and differentiation themselves. By focusing on certain cellular processes that occur to a limited degree in the body, regenerative medicine creates novel conditions in which these natural, biological processes are foregrounded. Such an assumption at once takes the body as something that is lived (individual subjects are always embodied and specific), and also as an object that is composed of a universal set of parts (“off the shelf organs”). This body is still totally “biological,” fully organic, “vital” through and through; but in its new, technically optimized context, it also acquires a new range of capacities. This is not (only) a body that has been medically healed, but is a body that has been upgraded using its “original” design principles.
https://sci-hub.do/10.1023/a%3A1016898419264
Thus, in response to modern medicine’s “technological” approach to the body (either through medical hardware or the mechanistic view of transplantation), regenerative medicine attempts to facilitate a view of the biomedical body that is essentially self-healing (Wade, 2000). On the one hand, it would seem that this more “natural” approach to medical therapeutics only requires a minimum of technical enframing, the right type of environment in which the self-healing body may emerge; the question here is less about technology and more about context. Yet on the other hand, we might also question this surreptitious disappearance of technology, in which it appears that cells and tissues will automatically regenerate themselves in an analogous fashion to minor skin cuts, for example. Where is the technology in regenerative medicine? Is it to be found in various laboratory tools? Is it to be located not in “gadgets” or hardware, but in techniques, processes, or actions? It is this transformation of what we mean by technology that regenerative medicine is, on one level, engaging with.
For instance, a stem cell “discovered” in the body might be taken as naturally occurring, while stem cells derived through therapeutic cloning might be taken as technological or artificial. While never totally questioning the boundary between bodies and technologies, regenerative medicine does create a zone of ambiguity by defining the biological body as both fully natural (preexisting medicine and science, operating independently, self-regulating and self-producing), as well as fully amenable to biomedical augmentation, enhancement, improvement, and design. As an organic system that is both natural and open to technical improvement, the body of regenerative medicine invites a certain type of intervention in the body’s “natural” operations, interventions that supposedly do not alter the ontological status of the biological body as natural.
To put it another way, the body of regenerative medicine is both the resource and object of technical action. In a kind of feedback loop, regenerative medicine takes “technology” to reside in the biological itself; the “tools” which regenerative medicine uses are not external prosthetic devices or mechanical organs, but rather the very processes of cellular regeneration and differentiation themselves. By focusing on certain cellular processes that occur to a limited degree in the body, regenerative medicine creates novel conditions in which these natural, biological processes are foregrounded. Such an assumption at once takes the body as something that is lived (individual subjects are always embodied and specific), and also as an object that is composed of a universal set of parts (“off the shelf organs”). This body is still totally “biological,” fully organic, “vital” through and through; but in its new, technically optimized context, it also acquires a new range of capacities. This is not (only) a body that has been medically healed, but is a body that has been upgraded using its “original” design principles.
https://sci-hub.do/10.1023/a%3A1016898419264
оттуда же:
The body of regenerative medicine is in many ways a highly insular body, both in its technical configurations and in its ideology. Technically, this body is a dream of the autonomous, totally self-sufficient biological system, which, by using its own regenerative properties, is able to regulate itself regardless of any environment—a biological monad, the body existing in a kind of vacuum. Ideologically, this is supported by the far-reaching desires embedded in regenerative medicine research. From the claims for a future of increased longevity (by Geron Corporation) to the promises of a niche-marketed medical future (by Human Genome Sciences), regenerative medicine is largely concerned with insuring the body’s protection from the dangers of certain contingencies that threaten the well-begin of the body. When we speak of “bodily contingency” here, we are talking about a set of complex factors that both negatively and positively define what it means for us to exist as bodies: environmental specificities, disease, injury, aging, lifestyle, and mortality itself. Those contingencies, which often enframe the body as a set of limitations, are, ironically, the very things which define the biological body as a body. Put simply, the body can be thought of as a kind of membrane, constituted by sets of constraints, limitations, specificities. But these contingencies, these elements that define the body by constraining it, also define the flexibility and mobility that the body anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, and neurologically has. Bodily contingencies are difficult to deal with for obvious reasons, but at the same time, it is equally difficult to imagine where the line between the eradication of disease and the engineering of cellular immortality should be drawn.
The body of regenerative medicine is in many ways a highly insular body, both in its technical configurations and in its ideology. Technically, this body is a dream of the autonomous, totally self-sufficient biological system, which, by using its own regenerative properties, is able to regulate itself regardless of any environment—a biological monad, the body existing in a kind of vacuum. Ideologically, this is supported by the far-reaching desires embedded in regenerative medicine research. From the claims for a future of increased longevity (by Geron Corporation) to the promises of a niche-marketed medical future (by Human Genome Sciences), regenerative medicine is largely concerned with insuring the body’s protection from the dangers of certain contingencies that threaten the well-begin of the body. When we speak of “bodily contingency” here, we are talking about a set of complex factors that both negatively and positively define what it means for us to exist as bodies: environmental specificities, disease, injury, aging, lifestyle, and mortality itself. Those contingencies, which often enframe the body as a set of limitations, are, ironically, the very things which define the biological body as a body. Put simply, the body can be thought of as a kind of membrane, constituted by sets of constraints, limitations, specificities. But these contingencies, these elements that define the body by constraining it, also define the flexibility and mobility that the body anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, and neurologically has. Bodily contingencies are difficult to deal with for obvious reasons, but at the same time, it is equally difficult to imagine where the line between the eradication of disease and the engineering of cellular immortality should be drawn.
еще Такера:
For regenerative medicine, as for modern molecular genetics, the body is first and foremost the product of the causal dynamics of its genome, genes, or DNA. Despite shifts away from reductionist approaches in molecular biology, this “central dogma” still holds, as is clear from the investment (both figurative and economic) by biotech companies in gene targets, gene therapeutics, and drug development (Brown, 2000). Curiously, the manner in which regenerative medicine has chosen to enable to the body to operate in a preventive, regenerative way (capable of responding any external influence, be it disease or injury) is not to study the relationships between body and context but to focus solely on the capacity to enable the body to “regrow” itself on the cellular level. The dangers in the general de emphasis on environment and context is that the body is viewed in a cellular vacuum, which takes all external context as homogeneous, and which, as a result offers one universal response (the genetic triggering of cellular specialization and replication).
In many ways, to posit an immortal biology is somewhat of an oxymoron, just as a vision of our bodies-in-bubbles denies the very thing that makes bodies what they are: a constant negotiation between an interior and an exterior. While no one will counter the efforts to understand and treat diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, regenerative medicine treads a difficult bioethical line in setting its sights on the biological basis of aging, for instance. That line becomes more blurred as research shifts from working through the body (where a certain concept of medical therapy and healing is still at work), to a kind of lateral transcendence (in which biotechnology is used to escape from the body). In this sense, to posit a body “cured” of all its contingencies is something like wanting to privilege the senses through massive sensory isolation, or sensory deprivation.
For regenerative medicine, as for modern molecular genetics, the body is first and foremost the product of the causal dynamics of its genome, genes, or DNA. Despite shifts away from reductionist approaches in molecular biology, this “central dogma” still holds, as is clear from the investment (both figurative and economic) by biotech companies in gene targets, gene therapeutics, and drug development (Brown, 2000). Curiously, the manner in which regenerative medicine has chosen to enable to the body to operate in a preventive, regenerative way (capable of responding any external influence, be it disease or injury) is not to study the relationships between body and context but to focus solely on the capacity to enable the body to “regrow” itself on the cellular level. The dangers in the general de emphasis on environment and context is that the body is viewed in a cellular vacuum, which takes all external context as homogeneous, and which, as a result offers one universal response (the genetic triggering of cellular specialization and replication).
In many ways, to posit an immortal biology is somewhat of an oxymoron, just as a vision of our bodies-in-bubbles denies the very thing that makes bodies what they are: a constant negotiation between an interior and an exterior. While no one will counter the efforts to understand and treat diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, regenerative medicine treads a difficult bioethical line in setting its sights on the biological basis of aging, for instance. That line becomes more blurred as research shifts from working through the body (where a certain concept of medical therapy and healing is still at work), to a kind of lateral transcendence (in which biotechnology is used to escape from the body). In this sense, to posit a body “cured” of all its contingencies is something like wanting to privilege the senses through massive sensory isolation, or sensory deprivation.
Forwarded from neuro beast
To put it bluntly—because this need is blunt as it gets—we must have our asses cleaned after we shit and pee. Or we have others' fingers inserted into our rectums to assist shitting. Or we have tubes of plastic inserted inside us to assist peeing or we have re-routed anuses and pissers so we do it all into bags attached to our bodies. These blunt, crude realities. Our daily lives. . .. The difference between those of us who need attendants and those who don't is the difference between those who know privacy and those who don't.
продолжаю лениво читать Такера, вот о теле в биотехнологиях и смежных индустриях:
biotech has no body-anxiety; in fact, it is based on a deep investiture and revaluation of the body as a materiality, and one that can be understood and controlled through information. Biomedical science frames this as the recuperated, healthy, homeostatic body—a return to its state of health. But the process is less a circle than a kind of spiral—the body returning to itself is fundamentally different from itself, because it has been significantly retranslated through genetics, gene therapy, stem cell engineering, and so forth. The upward part of this spiral is a self-sufficient, autonomous, immortal body—the dream of the liberal-humanist subject as black box. The downward part of the spiral is the expendable, unstable body—the fears of the loss of autonomy associated with differentiation, otherness, and expendability. Biotech is, above all, a discourse of production and materialization with respect to the scientific body.
на самом деле нечто подобное я рассказываю студентам-медикам, когда пытаюсь использовать различие "манифестного" и "научного" образа человека в мире по Селларсу (или, по Хайдеггеру, "мира" и "картины мира" - размеченной воплощенной деятельностью реальности и ее тотальной научной абстракции) ---- и ведь действительно странно, что, начинаясь как труд по преодолению несовершенств человеческого тела, биомедицина и сопряженные с ней технологии в итоге тяготеют к технически индуцированной неуязвимости и бессмертию, т.е., проще говоря, от снижения боли к лишению чувственности - от уязвимого живого тела к абстракции, принципиально неспособной ощущать
biotech has no body-anxiety; in fact, it is based on a deep investiture and revaluation of the body as a materiality, and one that can be understood and controlled through information. Biomedical science frames this as the recuperated, healthy, homeostatic body—a return to its state of health. But the process is less a circle than a kind of spiral—the body returning to itself is fundamentally different from itself, because it has been significantly retranslated through genetics, gene therapy, stem cell engineering, and so forth. The upward part of this spiral is a self-sufficient, autonomous, immortal body—the dream of the liberal-humanist subject as black box. The downward part of the spiral is the expendable, unstable body—the fears of the loss of autonomy associated with differentiation, otherness, and expendability. Biotech is, above all, a discourse of production and materialization with respect to the scientific body.
на самом деле нечто подобное я рассказываю студентам-медикам, когда пытаюсь использовать различие "манифестного" и "научного" образа человека в мире по Селларсу (или, по Хайдеггеру, "мира" и "картины мира" - размеченной воплощенной деятельностью реальности и ее тотальной научной абстракции) ---- и ведь действительно странно, что, начинаясь как труд по преодолению несовершенств человеческого тела, биомедицина и сопряженные с ней технологии в итоге тяготеют к технически индуцированной неуязвимости и бессмертию, т.е., проще говоря, от снижения боли к лишению чувственности - от уязвимого живого тела к абстракции, принципиально неспособной ощущать
Forwarded from Красная ласточка
Радостная новость! На нашем сайте появился весь зин «Вчера я впервые увидел когерентное облако и дал ему имя».
Это коллективная работа художников, поэтов и теоретиков. Каждому из авторов, участвовавших в сборке зина, был задан вопрос: «Что из того, что раньше казалось Вам разрозненным, сегодня кажется чем-то целостным?» В издании собраны поэтические и аналитические тексты, фотографии, схемы, коллажи, представляющие собой ответы на этот вопрос. Зин как проект призван пересобрать нодовый (узловой) принцип организации целого и понять, как он может развертываться на территории книги.
В зине можно найти работы следующих авторов:
Галина Добруник, Егор Рогалев, Евгения Суслова, Александр Кочарян, Анна Родионова, Егор Цветков, Ирина Борисова, Александр Судаев, Сабина Бусарева, Абрам Ребров, Мария Волкова, Дарья Пасичник, Ирина Миронова, Александр Дарин, Дмитрий Степанов, Максим Мирошниченко, Дарья Стефанешина, Сэди Плант (в переводе Лики Каревой и Йожи Столет), Александр Гэллуэй (в переводе Ирины Мироновой), Катрин Малабу (в переводе Ирины Мироновой), Томас Метцингер (в переводе Евгении Сусловой).
Зин вышел в 2019 году в виде конструктора — подвижной сборки листов. Теперь мы выкладываем его в полном объеме в виде pdf-файла. Приятного путешествия между узлами и связями!
Это коллективная работа художников, поэтов и теоретиков. Каждому из авторов, участвовавших в сборке зина, был задан вопрос: «Что из того, что раньше казалось Вам разрозненным, сегодня кажется чем-то целостным?» В издании собраны поэтические и аналитические тексты, фотографии, схемы, коллажи, представляющие собой ответы на этот вопрос. Зин как проект призван пересобрать нодовый (узловой) принцип организации целого и понять, как он может развертываться на территории книги.
В зине можно найти работы следующих авторов:
Галина Добруник, Егор Рогалев, Евгения Суслова, Александр Кочарян, Анна Родионова, Егор Цветков, Ирина Борисова, Александр Судаев, Сабина Бусарева, Абрам Ребров, Мария Волкова, Дарья Пасичник, Ирина Миронова, Александр Дарин, Дмитрий Степанов, Максим Мирошниченко, Дарья Стефанешина, Сэди Плант (в переводе Лики Каревой и Йожи Столет), Александр Гэллуэй (в переводе Ирины Мироновой), Катрин Малабу (в переводе Ирины Мироновой), Томас Метцингер (в переводе Евгении Сусловой).
Зин вышел в 2019 году в виде конструктора — подвижной сборки листов. Теперь мы выкладываем его в полном объеме в виде pdf-файла. Приятного путешествия между узлами и связями!
НЕВЫНОСИМАЯ ПРЕСНОСТЬ БЫТИЯ
адаптируюсь к жизни без вкуса и обоняния - как известно, ковид поражает нервную систему, вызывая аносмию, не связанную с насморком или заложенностью носа. Недавно наткнулся на паранаучную телегу про ольфакторный тренинг и крепко задумался о вероятности на всю жизнь остаться в мире без запахов и вкусов. Лора Маркс как-то вбросила несколько (впрочем, не шибко интересных) заходов о том, как запах может стать триггером для культурной сигнификации, какие сложные психоэмоциональные, социальные, биополитические etc. эффекты способен спровоцировать попавший не в ту ноздрю ̶ш̶п̶е̶к̶ запах (в статье она рассказывает об аромате духов своей матери и о том, почему отношения запаха и источника не тождественны таковым между объектом и его изображением, звуком и его источником и т.д.).
Итак, плоть мира вполне может оказаться пресной ----- [ ͇х͇у͇е͇в͇ы͇е͇ ͇н͇о͇в͇о͇с͇т͇и͇ ͇д͇л͇я͇ ͇ф͇е͇т͇и͇ш͇и͇с͇т͇о͇в͇ ͇и͇ ͇г͇у͇р͇м͇а͇н͇о͇в͇] представьте, как это изменит, например, прием пищи, убив целый пласт культуры - или как изменится наше отношение к сексу, когда желаемое тело не будет пахнуть или иметь вкус ----
а пока вы думаете об ужасах нашего постковидного мира, я буду наслаждаться фантомными вкусами и запахами, поступающими откуда-то из глубины черепа, ведь, как заметил когда-то Маклюэн, при сенсорной депривации субъект начинает интенсивно галлюцинировать, достигая гипнотического состояния, возмещающего перцептивный вакуум.
адаптируюсь к жизни без вкуса и обоняния - как известно, ковид поражает нервную систему, вызывая аносмию, не связанную с насморком или заложенностью носа. Недавно наткнулся на паранаучную телегу про ольфакторный тренинг и крепко задумался о вероятности на всю жизнь остаться в мире без запахов и вкусов. Лора Маркс как-то вбросила несколько (впрочем, не шибко интересных) заходов о том, как запах может стать триггером для культурной сигнификации, какие сложные психоэмоциональные, социальные, биополитические etc. эффекты способен спровоцировать попавший не в ту ноздрю ̶ш̶п̶е̶к̶ запах (в статье она рассказывает об аромате духов своей матери и о том, почему отношения запаха и источника не тождественны таковым между объектом и его изображением, звуком и его источником и т.д.).
Итак, плоть мира вполне может оказаться пресной ----- [ ͇х͇у͇е͇в͇ы͇е͇ ͇н͇о͇в͇о͇с͇т͇и͇ ͇д͇л͇я͇ ͇ф͇е͇т͇и͇ш͇и͇с͇т͇о͇в͇ ͇и͇ ͇г͇у͇р͇м͇а͇н͇о͇в͇] представьте, как это изменит, например, прием пищи, убив целый пласт культуры - или как изменится наше отношение к сексу, когда желаемое тело не будет пахнуть или иметь вкус ----
а пока вы думаете об ужасах нашего постковидного мира, я буду наслаждаться фантомными вкусами и запахами, поступающими откуда-то из глубины черепа, ведь, как заметил когда-то Маклюэн, при сенсорной депривации субъект начинает интенсивно галлюцинировать, достигая гипнотического состояния, возмещающего перцептивный вакуум.
немного ленивого карантинного чтения: "Бесконечная шутка" и королева воинов против бумажных медиа
[саундтрек: Bruno Duplant - La Nuit Inquiète (Falt, 2021)]
[саундтрек: Bruno Duplant - La Nuit Inquiète (Falt, 2021)]
Лора Маркс о говне и воображаемом кино (очень в духе артхауса Джеймса О. Инканденцы из сами знаете какой книги)
свет.pdf
1.1 MB
после просмотра 8-й серии 3-го сезона "Твин Пикса" обнаружил себя в странном предпсихотическом состоянии - когда история про вишневый пирог и чертовски хороший кофе оборачивается пиздецовым субатомарным видеоартом про древнее хтоническое зло etc etc. Утихомирил свои аффекты, когда набросал новый короткий текст с реферансами к некоторым предыдущим - в частности, к серии, которая скоро выйдет в "Тетради в линейку", на этот раз даже с иллюстрацией - без единого слова о пирогах и кофе, зато с тайными военными конфликтами абстракций
Forwarded from Красная ласточка
На сигме появился материал, который Красная ласточка подготовила совместно с Транслитом — дискуссия из двадцать третьего номера журнала, посвященного «материальным культурам авангарда». Этот текст создан на основе диалога, возникшего между секцией медиа-археологии письма и секцией, посвященной феноменологии когнитивных технологий в поэзии. В дискуссии участвовали: Павел Арсеньев, Ирина Миронова, Максим Мирошниченко, Анна Родионова, Никита Сунгатов, Евгения Суслова.
https://syg.ma/@nikita-sunghatov/miedia-arkhieo-loghiia-pisma-vs-fienomienologhiia-koghnitivnykh-tiekhnologhii
https://syg.ma/@nikita-sunghatov/miedia-arkhieo-loghiia-pisma-vs-fienomienologhiia-koghnitivnykh-tiekhnologhii
syg.ma
Медиа (архео)логия письма vs. феноменология когнитивных технологий
Дискуссия из #23 [Транслит] с участием П. Арсеньева, И. Мироновой, М. Мирошниченко, А. Родионовой, Е. Сусловой и Н. Сунгатова
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PoudPCevN0&feature=emb_title
Сегодня узнал, что за соблюдением самоизоляции в Москве следят около 100 тысяч камер с системами распознавания лиц - система работает отлаженно и даже приносит пользу нашей Родине. В общем, как всегда, мы обгоняем весь мир по репрессивной дигитализации и установлению surveillance society - и все ради здоровья, безопасности и благополучия. Между тем, если хочется, чтобы было как в ̶е̶б̶е̶й̶ш̶е̶м̶ ̶д̶и̶д̶а̶к̶т̶и̶ч̶е̶с̶к̶о̶м̶ ̶в̶и̶д̶е̶л̶ф̶а̶й̶л̶е̶ фильме Хито Штейерль, то можно сделать тактический макияж, надеть балаклаву/БДСМ-маску пса - или надеть на голову мини-проектор, который будет проецировать фейковое лицо, у которого будет еще и активная мимика, как это сделали активисты из Гонконга. Интересно, насколько это удобно и эргономично - надо бы когда-нибудь обзавестись
Сегодня узнал, что за соблюдением самоизоляции в Москве следят около 100 тысяч камер с системами распознавания лиц - система работает отлаженно и даже приносит пользу нашей Родине. В общем, как всегда, мы обгоняем весь мир по репрессивной дигитализации и установлению surveillance society - и все ради здоровья, безопасности и благополучия. Между тем, если хочется, чтобы было как в ̶е̶б̶е̶й̶ш̶е̶м̶ ̶д̶и̶д̶а̶к̶т̶и̶ч̶е̶с̶к̶о̶м̶ ̶в̶и̶д̶е̶л̶ф̶а̶й̶л̶е̶ фильме Хито Штейерль, то можно сделать тактический макияж, надеть балаклаву/БДСМ-маску пса - или надеть на голову мини-проектор, который будет проецировать фейковое лицо, у которого будет еще и активная мимика, как это сделали активисты из Гонконга. Интересно, насколько это удобно и эргономично - надо бы когда-нибудь обзавестись
YouTube
wearable face projector
Using this face projector enables you to change your face within seconds. A small beamer maps an image of a different face over your own and gives you a new appearance. See more information about this project on www.jingcailiu.com
Гэллоуэй и Такер кое о чем догадывались аж в 2003:
The mere existence of medical surveillance is not problematic in itself. Certainly, were it not for the WHO’s efforts, the SARS epidemic may have been worse. The key issue lies in the relationship between disease, code, and war. Military battles are becoming increasingly virtual, with a panoply of computer-based and information-driven weaponry. And the idea of disease as-war has a long history. However, it is foreseeable that the issue of what constitutes “health data” may become a point of some controversy. Concerns over public health will be the Trojan horse for a new era of increased medical surveillance and with it a new militarization of medicine. The institutions of medical surveillance will be almost indistinguishable from national security initiatives and will have shared goals and techniques. While the WHO utilized medical data from patients infected with SARS around the world, it is foreseeable that health data may soon be required in advance from both infected and non infected organisms. We are already witnessing this in the areas of genetic screening, genetic counseling, and DNA fingerprinting.
Imagine a video game simulation like the popular SimCity in which the player develops, builds, and manages a city. But imagine that, instead of managing a whole city, the goal is to manage the medical health of the city’s inhabitants; instead of being the “mayor” of SimCity, the player is an official CDC “virus hunter.” The goal of the game is to watch for potential disease outbreaks, and also manage the health of the population on a regular basis (including hospital funding, emergency services, research centers). This would help illustrate the future of the network model of public health, itself already fully digitized, online, and multiplayer.
In the informatic mode, disease, like disorder, is always virtual. It creates a virtual state of permanent emergency wherein infection is always kept just out of reach. But the state of permanent emergency can only be propped up by means of better and better medical surveillance systems.
The mere existence of medical surveillance is not problematic in itself. Certainly, were it not for the WHO’s efforts, the SARS epidemic may have been worse. The key issue lies in the relationship between disease, code, and war. Military battles are becoming increasingly virtual, with a panoply of computer-based and information-driven weaponry. And the idea of disease as-war has a long history. However, it is foreseeable that the issue of what constitutes “health data” may become a point of some controversy. Concerns over public health will be the Trojan horse for a new era of increased medical surveillance and with it a new militarization of medicine. The institutions of medical surveillance will be almost indistinguishable from national security initiatives and will have shared goals and techniques. While the WHO utilized medical data from patients infected with SARS around the world, it is foreseeable that health data may soon be required in advance from both infected and non infected organisms. We are already witnessing this in the areas of genetic screening, genetic counseling, and DNA fingerprinting.
Imagine a video game simulation like the popular SimCity in which the player develops, builds, and manages a city. But imagine that, instead of managing a whole city, the goal is to manage the medical health of the city’s inhabitants; instead of being the “mayor” of SimCity, the player is an official CDC “virus hunter.” The goal of the game is to watch for potential disease outbreaks, and also manage the health of the population on a regular basis (including hospital funding, emergency services, research centers). This would help illustrate the future of the network model of public health, itself already fully digitized, online, and multiplayer.
In the informatic mode, disease, like disorder, is always virtual. It creates a virtual state of permanent emergency wherein infection is always kept just out of reach. But the state of permanent emergency can only be propped up by means of better and better medical surveillance systems.
Forwarded from Журнал НОЖ
Зоозащитники требуют прекратить дойку психоделических жаб
Вместо этого юзерам предлагают перейти на синтетические аналоги веществ, выделяемых железами амфибий.
https://knife.media/stop-milking-toads/
Вместо этого юзерам предлагают перейти на синтетические аналоги веществ, выделяемых железами амфибий.
https://knife.media/stop-milking-toads/
наконец вышел новый текст о том, как так вышло, что биоэтика из неантропоцентрической науки выживания превратилась в сервильную ерунду про комплаенс, #лучшедома и прочую милую людоедскую биополитику