(noticing the phenomena of sounds arising from within);
Prelude: I have relocated to a big old house near the beach, with a forest across the road. To honour the occasion, we had a fire ceremony at the beach on the evening of the 12th June. After enjoying the beautiful starlit evening we returned to the house, after I have settled my son I settle into sitting meditation on the mat in front of the altar.
Excerpts from “Who owns the future?” by Jaron Lanier – parts 1-5
“It would be impossible to only use existing terminology to communicate the ideas in this book. The problem is not that there are no relevant, familiar terms, but that all the pre-existing terms have baggage or common uses that are just enough askew from what I need to say that they bring more confusion than clarity. So unfamiliar terms and expressions will appear. An appendix contains a list of some of these terms, along with the pages on which they first appear. Think of it as the high priority index.” p.xiii
I conclude my little contribution to the exploration of Professor Bruno Latour's work with a mind full of pertinent questions to ponder:
Are Latour, and those to whom he addresses his insights through the Gifford lectures, among others, really somewhat pessimistic? or is it just the scope and gravity of the topics under discussion which makes it appear so?
(Bonnitta went some way to explaining this in the last lecture concall dated 09-06-2013).
An experimental course of study I have been participating in for over a year now, has bought to my attention the work of Professor of Philosophy of Sciences and Technology, Bruno Latour. This man has a lot of novel and challenging ways to re-frame the human condition in light of our current (early 21st century) circumstances. Some quotes I excerpted from a keynote he delivered to the International Seminar on Network Theory: Network Multidimensionality in the Digital Age, in 2010, have become a “wake up call” for me;
To believe in the existence either of the individual or of society is simply a way to say that we have been deprived of information on the individuals we started with; that we have little knowledge about their interactions; that we have lost the precis conduits through which what we call the whole actually circulates. In effect we have jettisoned the the goal of understanding what the collective existence is all about.
Instead of THE “individual v’s society” problem, we are now faced with the multiple and fully reversible combinations of highly complex individual constituents and multiple and fully reversible aggregates. The center stage is now occupied by the navigational tools.
When Lippmann said the public is a phantom, this was not a way to say it does not exist, but on the contrary a plea – and a somewhat desparate plea – to make it appear through the intervention of the right tools.
There is work underway here MACOSPOL toward making this possible through sufficient information exchange, not only qualitatively but also quantitativley. And, there is a theme emerging in my awareness of things from what I consider to be a “holistic” or “global” perspective (something which has been the focus of my personal self-development for decades). The theme seems to be:
“Can we please have a conversation that addresses “the TOPIC”; adequately, sufficiently, concisely, accurately, dispassionately, and COHERENTLY.”
Evidence of this can bee seen not only in Latour’s lab’s project but also in developments of a Game of Understanding at this site and in the work of various others who are in pre-alpha development without public documentation available.
I had put notions of the possibility of a sufficiently developed discourse ever emerging, or of being able to apply the type of thinking that takes “everything” in to account, aside for a while. I have been exploring what it actually takes to legitimize such a direction. Now I am back on track with this work and look forward to following developments as they arise.
Recently, a little boy and his mother, who had an unusual relationship according to the custom of the time, were sharing time when they had an interesting conversation.
The little boy lived with his dad, and he saw his mother a lot less than do most little boys he knows. He and his mother loved each other very much, and the little boy knew deep down inside himself that what his mother was doing instead of living with him was important for the world he lived in. She seemed to him a steady connection to the universe he knew to be the inner nature of all things.
He talked to her about things which he could not speak to anyone else about.
