Scenarios and epidemics. Our last seminary

Yesterday we held the first July seminary, one of the latest seminaries of this course. In this time, we

analysed some scenarios gathered from the CDC & ECDC websites, the WHO webpage, and also from the media like The Daily Telegraph or BBC (you can see one of them below). 

Here some notes about this meeting:

-In scenarios, we found a kairos time, a single event.

-Video "life after Armageddon" is a structure in which we can see how "good people" are going to survive after a period of chaos, disorder ...

-Scenarios are stories where it is built and conveys a particular kind of narrative.

-Textual scenarios are outdated, they can not reach everyone. Video-scenarios can, and we could see how these are this scenarios-as-spectacles.

-The logic of the scenarios is a logic of exceptionality, creating zones of indistinction to answer questions about themselves.

-Can the scenario itself be an operator speed?

3 common elements to all scenarios: Picture, speed, future.

Photo Credit: David Dehetre

Our last seminary: Heidegger and the Question Concerning Technology (and others)

Yesterday we held the seminary we announced about Martin Heidegger. It is possible it would be one

of the last readings we make this course because we have to focus on our papers and congress (next post will be about some very good news we have about it!). 

By the way, the last read we will make is about Giorgio Agamben (we will post it soon). 

For this session, we read "The Question Concerning Technology", "Science and Meditation" and "The thing". Here the seminary about Heidegger with the most interesting comments:

Heidegger introduces the difference between the ontic and the ontological (being): between the object and its essence. The true essence of each object is different from the object itself.

Essence of technology -> to become the world existences: What makes the technique is to convert everything that exists in the world in existences. Existences in Spanish means the existence of something, but also the amount of one thing we have stored (stock).

What is relevant is whether, originally, the title was "the question of technique" or "the question after the technique." (In English is the Question Concerning Technology, but in Spanish is more complex to understand this preposition).

At the end of the text, the technique can be a hazard if it becomes all in existences (including ourselves and if we don't make anymore questions), but we can also save us. The questions are necessary because if we fall into the trap that we can control the world and we know everything, we are abandoning our possibility of freedom, and freedom is the existential condition of life itself. Freedom is achieved precisely asking the questions because them give us the possibility to question how things are.

Freedom is the right question for the unveiling. We are free when we asked for the essence of things, not its ontological being. The thingness of the thing is co-link, to join (the pitcher joins the cuaternity itself, as connections heaven and earth, technical and object, etc).

The thingness of the thing is coligar, join (the jar joins the cuaternidad itself, as connections between heaven and earth, technics and object, etc). Interest in the concept of obstancy. This way of being present for the Romans is called obstancy.

About the sentence "The essence of science is that it is the theory of the real" (p. 34):

-Science: Contemporary Science, embedded from poetry and classical Greek art.

-Real: in Greece: The real fills the region of the effective, that which works. Work means doing (by man or nature), but also bring (a presence) and pro-duce. Reality therefore is what brings-there-front (dassein); the reality, that brought-there-before, in un-hidden and remains unconcealed. Later in Rome, the real becomes result (that is, that which precedes a cause that caused this result is reality) that follows from an act: real is what has been achieved (p. 36). It this way, the real is true, sure, what we take for granted; apparently as mere opposition or mere opinion (but still present in some different way than in Greece. This way of being present for the Romans call obstancia).

-Theory: in Greece, to watch the aspect under which the present appears. Through this vision, to stay fit him watching (p. 37), is the respectful attention to the state of unconcealment of the present, the "the look that selther the truth ". In Modernity: It comes from Rome with contemplatio: separate, divide. The theory is an elaboration of the real; but also prevail however what the presence (as theory Science, provokes the real itself in view of its obstancia). It is a represent that makes sure everything real in your prosecutable obstancy (represent = to keep this in any particular way and no other). Therefore, modern science as a theory of reality, it is not obvious.

Gestell in Heidegger structure site, but now is translated as disposition, the same translation of "agencement" in Deleuze. In Bourdieu so does the habit, which is also a translation available. It is what makes the bring-there-before (brought from far away).

The essence is not infinite, is the en-durance (the recurring endure), which remains when we reveal the essence. Each essence reveals something of the hidden. For example, today, what reveals a PC or a Mac? Heidegger focuses on objects that have a very long duration in history (a pitcher, art ...) but not in recent-creation objects.

In Heidegger, we are caught in classical ontology, he tries to break it but he still stayy within it because his question is the classic question of being. However, in other philosophers focus on the becoming or the difference left the classical ontology. In Heidegger, there is always an essence that remains (in the first computer, in a normallaptop and in a brand-new mac. The Rhine river does not change by putting a dam or a mill. Deleuze says that what we call essence is changing, the eternal return never brings to the same (in the line of Heraclitus). The Rhine river changes by putting a dam or a mill.

Photo Credit: Alex Brown

Next POBICS seminary: Martin Heiddeger & techné

Hi everyone! 

POBICS is here again and in this ocassion we want to announce our next seminary. It will take place on April 26th at 12:30 in the Martín-Baró's room (Psychology Faculty, UAB, Barcelona). Keep in mind this date is next week, and not the present one. This is because this week we have to plan and manage the whole of papers we have sent to congress and journals. 

Furthermore, we are still analyzing the focus group we made at the biginning of this year, and this task is quite slow (anyone needs enough time in order to listen, write and link ideas about the people who are talking along 90 minutes). For this reason, we apologize for not hold a open meeting this week.

If you are interested in the Heidegger seminary, remember it is open and free. We will read three chapters of the book "Coferencias y Artículos": 1) "La Pregunta por la Técnica"; 2) "La Cosa" and 3) "Ciencia y Meditación".

(This chapters are a compilation of different conferences and brief articles that Heidegger wrote).

Photo Credit: Nadya Peek

Michel Serres report: The Natural Contract & Atlas

Today we have made our weekly meeting, in this case in order to discuss about two of the most interesting books in the Michel Serres life: The Natural Contract and Atlas. Here the report about the two ones:

THE NATURAL CONTRACT:

Serres: the Mediation' philosopher.

Now that we (humanity) can destroy the world, we have reached a level of the same size as the Earth, then we can look at it face to face (the Anthropocene), and so, we can create a violence with (and no more within) him, so we must create a contract with him.

The Object-world: we have created objects with the size of the world (or even larger), for example, objects like plastic can outlast the lifetime of the world. This would be the maximum violence to the world, and so we should make the peace with him.

Informational Contract should create an informational world, creating peace with the information. This could be a next step after the Natural Contract.

There is a epistemodicea: a work about the relationship between science and law; reason and judgment.

The war pacts struggles in order not to all of us die, one per one till the end. The war is therefore a solution, but what kills us indiscriminate are violence (that is, violence without contract, mere violence). Then, the natural contract, is peace with the world.

Three standard contracts: War, Fortuna and Jupiter.

Hermes (The God of relations) is announcing to us the world as a whole, and he will be replaced by his son, Pan (The God of globalization), the world as a whole. Humanity as a whole, it is the tectonic form that can destroy the world, and it is handled in the information.

We have lost the long term, we have lost the myth, and then we live in the ritual: bureaucracy, administration and pure short term.

The science and law are born at the same time, and born of the limit. This born is placed in Egypt whith the Nile floods that erased the barriers crops. Then, the harpedonaptas used to come ( because they were the experts in law and mathematics) and they restored the crops.

The origin of the word contract is the string. A contract is a way to create strings that bind you with somewhat or something.

ATLAS:

The inclusive / excluded third. This concept was taken later by STS and Agamben (Ban). The "Ors-là" is a shadow that chases the protagonist, where the only way to kill him is to killing oneself. The parasite as a para-site, is next to you. The parasite is the event, that what you do not expect. Who am I? I'm The third. The third included. What is the meaning of this word? I am associated intimately to another and many more. Yes, I am legion: an innumerable set of others. (page 78)

Our construction of the History is a permanent attempt to kill the parasites (in the classical and linear history).

"The "Ors-là" is the third element, the para-site that is always in the relation. And it's not dialectic, but the third exclusided-inclusive".

The Joker, is very important to Serres, it can take on any value (the joker's blanket).

Kineteca: tank movement. Networks are kinetecas for Serres.

Extitution is also a concept appeared in Serres.

Serres, when he is asked about what we can do with an Atlas: "Simulation (or scenarios) links together reason and existence. Simulation says how algorithms and methods are connected through paths or roads". Here are a connection between rationality and existence.

The force is in the fragile: in the details, as well as in the mall or in the weak.

The fold is the element of form, the atom form, his clinamen. The clinamen is the minimum turn, the minimal turn which is necessary to create an inflection in that stream of atoms that is the reality. The difference is what produces a point of reality.

To the small, or within the big: the fold is the connector (clinamen) that would move us form the place and from the space.

Until the fluid has a limit: instead, the wind, has no limits. Have you noticed that our language says that the fragile suppose, because broke, a solid material? How do fluid can not break and lasts longer and better than the rigid? (page 187)

Homothetic, is that which is homogeneous in its parts. The relationship between the global and the local are not homothetic. Because the relationship has to do with the heterogeneous, you do not know how it will be the path between the global and the local: it is uncertain, it can be or not to be ... so it is precarious.

Serres say that mathematics are born in a virtual circuit, on a string. You can not put an exact date. Serres says that Maths born in Mesopotamia, then they go to Egypt, passing through Greece, and return to Egypt, but you can not locate exactly in a historical coordinates.

Formerly, in its origin, the particular adjective, somewhat alchemical, was equivalent to the viscous substance: it was the opossite to the fluid, The origin of the word expresses the result of growth (cresare) of several elements placed together (cum) and then, to lead into another body. It would seem the product of a chemical reaction! In addition, its true meaning brings him about to the dynamics of the mixtures. This growth resembles a sort of extension (page 103)

Photo Credit: David Stanley

New seminary: Geoffroy de Lagasnerie "The Last Lesson Given by Foucault"

As we are announcing along this week, next friday we will hold our first "big seminary" to the 2015-2016 course, and in this opportunity we have chosen this book in order to "close" the Foucault cycle started last year with the Deleuze course about Foucault.

This year, we want to read and to discuss about two main lines after read this book: classics authors from Social Studies of Science and Technology (Latour, Stengers, Woolgar...), and a review about the Michel Serres' work (Le Contrat Naturel, Atlas, Variations sur le Corps).

Having said this, Lagasnerie book is an important chance to understand some other interpretations about Foucault work (different to the deleuzian view, for instance), and also is a good opportunity to link it to current events and ideas we are working. 

In this vein, we think we can learn so much (regardless of whether we agree or not with Lagasnerie) about liberalism using the terms and vocabulary given by Foucault. Undoubtely, it would be an interesting option to add some question to our paper about State of Exception and Capitalism, but to future papers we can discuss it with our current vision and enrich the last one with new ideas. 

Next weekend we will publish the report about this seminary. As always, you are invited and you can tell it to anyone interested in our topics. Meeting we will in the Martín Baro's room, at Social Psychology Department on the Autonomous University of Barcelona (10-23, at 11:00 am). 

Next post we will be about the next EASST Conference which will take place at Barcelona in August-September 2016. POBICS we will participate as organizator and also as a "track" about biorisk and biosurveillance. 

Please,  share this and we would be very happy!

Photo Credit: Thierry Ehrmann 

Summary from our Gabriel Tarde's seminary

Today, we have held the second to last seminary on this 2014/2015 course. We have red two books about Gabriel Tarde, titled "Beliefs, Desires, Societies" and "Social Laws"; two of the basic manuals in order to understand the Tarde's work. We have highlighted two main concepts in their books: the microsociology, and the "public" concept. We also have commented the "Desire" and "Belief" concepts on this author.

Here is the key points and the summary:

• What is Belief in Tarde?
• What is Desire in Tarde?
• The "public" concept vs "multitude"
• Microsociology and ANT

For him, both Belief and Desire can be quantified. In his theory of value, which is based on the belief and desire, he tries to make science of the "individual", categorizing and quantifying the two powers of individuality, although in themselves are more artistic than scientific.

Thanks to Tarde, we can say that in the Social Sciences, it emerged a thing called Psychology, which comes from it the other ones as sociology, anthropology, and so on.

Latour owes much to Tarde. Latour says that to start thinking, it must be placed "in the middle" or center of anything. " Tarde, in this same sense he says: "the only way to clear up some sources of any material, is placed in media res". As the same Latour points out in the preface of the book, ANT is greatly influenced by Tarde's work in its view of whatever kind of sociology (not only human sociologies) as an association of several "micro" elements which constitute the macro-structure or the macro-actant.

How is introduced the novelty in Tarde?: throughout the "personal genius". The personal battle each one: every new idea arises in a private individual mind before the public. Individual is personal, but not singular. How does that monadic individual produces the novelty?

The "minimum measure" on Afternoon is the brain. The novelty comes from the individual, from the small, but is there creation and adaptation at intermediate levels (eg. The level of discourse introduces novelty in the set of discourses that is the next level), or is there creation only in the small level?

Tarde dares to break the distance between the micro / meso / macro. Instead, Moscovici said psychosocial facts by psychosocial facts, maintaining the distances between levels (contrary to Tarde and later, to ANT).

Multitude concept in Tarde and Negri: multitude is an emerging potential of a group. In Tarde, creative uniqueness is in the individual. The forces of beliefs and desires do not exist in Negri (nor other concepts). In this sense, public creation also introduces novelty.

Tarde also does the first attention to technology (before  ANT) through the press, the newspaper ... when he says that through technology is the only way possible to create public.

Desire and belief are the "Konatus" and the "Apetitus" from Leibniz: Belief is the expression of a desire, if you have a desire, belief moves you to do something. Both are inseparable. They are the basic forces within the individual. As we all have beliefs and desires, it is something that goes beyond the individual:

"At the bottom of the internal phenomena," says Tarde, "[There are] three elements, belief, desire and its point of application, the pure feeling." "The first two terms," ​​he continues, "are the constitutive and innate forms or forces of a subject; the molds where it receives the raw material of sensation", Thus, the trials and human actions are rooted in the beliefs and desires that each individual owns in his conscience".

Photo Credit: Flickr, User Eduardo Fonseca Arraes