Mon, May 30, 2011
Thank you Xarene for a great piece of thought, fascinating and of great interest, I have a few points however:
X: “We exist on two parallel dimensions: one where we still exist within the first machinic phylum, the other where with much struggle we pretend to have moved out of it but in reality we have not, because we consume it”.
W: the only issue I have with this statement concerns the application of causality, namely, the “.. because we consume it”, I do not think that a straightforward causality can be assumed in this respect, consumption here may be a contributing factor but not to my understanding the main culprit. The existence of an ecology of causes applied to multidimensionality needs take into consideration the models with which we operate our worldviews, the old models (so called natural models) are inadequate, there is no doubt about that, however we need be careful when extrapolating into new models, structures of thought that are in themselves problematic, the concept of consumption is one such.
I do not think that we ‘pretend’ to have moved out of it, we simply (or not so simply actually) have no coherent modulation to express the new state of affairs of mind, something which as you know we are trying to remedy with the Polytopia project.
X:” This will be the fourth machinic phylum: the folding of technology and human into each other. This is the point where technology is no longer a prosthetic, where metaphors of architecture as prosthesis for nature or body no longer hold true. This is when, as Arakawa and Gins arrive at, that we become Architectural Bodies, a reconfiguration of the organism-person-surround.
W:” I am definitely on the same page with you here, I would only point out, that the state of affairs of mind when “..metaphors of architecture as prosthesis for nature or body no longer hold true.” Is in itself a realm of enmeshed virtualities for which we have not yet developed a correlated minding state. There is no doubt that the fourth machinic phylum, will eliminate many distinctions, however as long as we do not have metaphors (the descriptive mytho-poetic language) the pace of actuation will be slow and in many respects maybe misdirected or misaligned to that which we truly desire in these embodiments, namely exploding the desire (of the virtual) into immediacy, freedom?
Finally a small question, in the last paragraph in the last sentence you write :”.. with reference to an empirical religion.” Could you please elaborate on that, I fail to see the relevant application of the term religion in this context.
Thanks for a great post