[...] promises, like all humanisms, human unity, a real togetherness of nature beneath the merely verbal icing of culture
in the (rhetoric of persuasion by) patriline [/ patrilineal naming] of sociobiology --> [the “ultimate message” of sociobiology in] (Planet of The Apes, Terminator,) Star Trek:
•a doctrine of necessary biological determinism of all the chief forms of domination which are especially driven by the motors of ruthless competition and dominance
•(the identification of) the proper expert
•cracking the code of nature's secret voice
•*knowing how to read the word, how to access the value of the coin ==gives==> the power of determination to those who use those tools*
***(?how and which objects of knowledge become/are) a tool in the search for the self --> ending regularly in the discovery of the totalitarian object: nature, gene, word

@Nicolas {(the question of) sulf-fulfillment made possible by revealing the common coin, the medium of exchange, the equivalent that defines reality, the generator of meaning}

skin-encapsulated egos
(epidermis)

code-gene-coin-word

(in Barash's evolutionary biology:) parental investment <--> cost-benefit analysis

(capillarity of power relations)

the import of the questions

****
the rhetoric of expert --> the expert touching the elephant -->{"the experts, then, were assembled to mediate and interpret the marital squabble between scince and humanism and to show their higher unity. and they spoke--individually, authoratively, joined in debate by the power of editors and panel moderators--in the rhetoric to which we have his version of the history of science adopted, so that the legitimate lineage could be established.”


logic of __[domination, determinism, , ,] embeded in (fashioning) the tool of __[word, , ,]


red-baiting: those who oppose the truth of a selfish world are self-deceiving MArxists


setting the original terms of discourse <-- dont't!

rhetorical inheritance (<-- my research)


somatize our oppression. @Hoda

“what we must begin to give voice to as scientists and feminists is that there is no such thing, or place, as underneath it all.” (Leigh Star)
(@apass) locus for research: us who speak to each other is the changing, moving, complex web of our interactions, in light of the language, power structures, natural environments (internal and external), and beliefs that weave it in time


@Marialena, (strategies emerging from/for) ...feminists to begin with the heritage of names in a patriarchal voice


Museum of Comparative Zoology


* facts are theory laden --> theories are value laden --> values are history laden *

•animal model research is full of illogical shoddy evidence and special pleading (Lila Leibowitz & Ruth Bleier)
•relations of aggression and gender (Freda Salzman)
•similarities in sociobiology and biosociology (Marian Lowe & Ruth Habbard)
•lateralization in neurophysiology (Leigh Star)
•medicalization of moral-political issues through transsexual surgery (Janice Raymond)

•**everything is a cultural institution** (animal studies applied to humans, science is a cultural institution)
•upright stance and times of divergence between ape and hominid lines have been arenas of mortal combat in evolutionary theory more than once


how science becomes official

“evidence becomes a hero of mine”

the heavy hero's burden of telling the hard truth --> a story sold well in iran's intellectualism
(i have become interested instead in extended bibliographies, *to see our alternatives*)


خیس خیس

language plays a major role in generating reality --> what plays major role in generating reality and legitimator of new realities in iran?

research question of storytelling:
***what are the rules of interpretation that make any story unequivocally readable?


(Haraway shows) the epistemological and political problems of humanism and realism latent (or patent) in feminism


two things i am teaching myself (since 3 or 4 years):
1- how to hold someone else's speech --> دیگری چه گفت؟
2- how to sustain a discussion --> چطور بحث را عوض نکردن؟


...................................

*bad geography: insult, tohin, similar to trauma, they don't have an concret external object (yet they create them), it is a register of an event, affectual implosion of a percept
insult dones't exist out there, (tohin kardan vojud khareji nadarad), it is in the inside --> is that why tasavof works and labors with insult?

...................................

(also in apass, dancers and choreographers, are the children of modernism art of De Kooning) reaching inward to find within the body that sublime thing (Deleuze calls) the *figural* [=/= (iranian miniature's) sublimity of the infinite (<-- Aela testing this, under ‘mysticism'~-> state of constant openness ==> transformative relation between self and other)]

we can trace the (seductive power of) fana فنا in contemporary media art (Hoda's sublime digital-rhythmic embodiments? --> transcendental desires remain questionable)

doctrine of the minimal: smallest unit is the atom or point =/=
doctrine of Zaher/Baten: smallest unit is the fold*** ==> zoomorphic writing, infinitesimal

(mysticism:) a system of measurement based (not on the point, rather) on the fold

Star Trek --> extensive universe of the infinite =/=
tasavof --> intensive universe of the infinitesimal

apotropaic, turning away evil ~=
memory sticks, ward off the fear of data loss

...the letter ceases to be a *figure* and becomes a *field*

...................................

#comparative reading of Hedayat's The Benedictions (Afringan آفرینگان) and Sohrevardi's ghorbat gharbia (رساله غربةالغربیة)

...................................

@Ali's knowledge is like ‘face recognition’ (~ cannot say how he cognizes a “know” yet he does)
Ali: daneshe hozuri + politics (which is a secular knowedge, Sachlich, based on scales, measures, and divisions)
*intellect (? can never be merely:)
non-propositional knowledge ~= daneshe hozuri دانش حضوری
~-> the idea of non-mediation and direct awareness ~-> internal memory (~->? belief)
=/= descriptive knowledge, propositional knowledge, knowledge of propositions (“know-that”) ~-> explicit knowing <-- why am i practicing this? (i say things like “this is this...”) and yet not transfering without the ‘knowing subject’ (depending on close interaction, shared understanding, trust, and even love. in combination with my performances that are like that, thinking on the fly =/= storage and retrieval of conceptual knowledge) [in ajayeb.net i pretend i am coding articulated knowledge in explicit aggregation and appropriable without the ‘knowing subject’ but it is not. it is also part of something personal, distributive, and contextual], [my education in setar was tacit and cognitive apprenticeship, situated cognition,]
=/= “know-how”, procedural knowledge, tacit --> embodied characteristic of the expert who acts without explicitly reflecting on conditions of its involvement (body's nervous system + endocrine system دستگاه درون‌ریز)
“know-who” (knowledge of networks)


(Gibson's) affordance --> relational account of perception (=/= encoding of environmental features into the perceiver's mind), preconditions for activity

(effects =/=) effectivity: abilities that determines what one could do and the interactions that could take place

‘perceived affordance’: perception of an object's utility =/= object's itself

affordance <--?--> mental representations (models, schemata, etc.)

...................................

#idea for a performance for ghorbat gharbia
one performer eyes closed in a room or laboratory research lab speaking the text while engaging through touch (throwing, fixing, putting, dropping) with the different optics and technologies, objects and positioned tools in the room (color, catapult, optical systems, laser, array of transparencies and opacities, etc.)
performer: Sina
director: Foad

...................................

(prehistoric)
your mother: violence
your father: tool
==> human

...................................

Geroulanos on emergence of an atheism disengaged from humanism during the second quarter of the 20th century

1925 to 1950

...in nonsecular horizon of existence and thought
conceptual reorganization of human in atheism

(19th century was marked by) “death of god” = man after the era of catastrophe : the age of World War I, the rise of Nazism, Stalinism, World War II, and the immediate postwar period

(philosophical and political) centrality of man = a conception dating to Descartes and proceeding through the tradition of natural law, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and nineteenth-century liberalism and Marxism

rejection of central premises of post-Enlightenment, liberal, and socialist European thought

(how?) approach anew the codes addressing human life and significance

new nonhumanist atheism came to be expressed at different times in existentialist, hyper-ethical, or cynical terms, in nondoctrinaire socialist, reactionary, ultramodernist, or even downright antipolitical principles

(shift away from classical atheism and humanism <==) three movements:
1. an *atheism that would not be humanist* : an atheism mistrustful of secular دنيوى, egalitarian تساوى, and transformative commitments
2. a *negative philosophical anthropology*
3. *critiques of humanism*


(1)
(traditionally) atheism = secularism + humanism
absence of god in 19th century thinkers Feuerbach, Comte, Marx, Proudhon:
--> possibility of a good life and proper society
•Feuerbach's anthropotheism: “god = projection of human nature onto the heavens,” nothing more than man's representation of his own essence --> the task of the modern era was the realization and humanization of god : (transformation and dissolution of) theology --into--> anthropology
•Comte: positivist project for science and knowledge --> religion of humanity, explicitly religious atheism
•Proudhon: humanisme

{liberalism: humanism, and idealism had become moral and political expectations of the secular education projects}--> [*]humanism: what could reach, reveal, and cultivate the *proper and ethical* humanum of man ==> [*]man: irreducible, perfectible bearer and guarantor of dignity, equality, and freedom

Levinas's ‘an atheism that is not humanist’: the exaltation of an obedience and a faithfulness that are not obedience or faithfulness to anyone

opening up an apocalyptic imagination
destroying the cultural optimism that had marked the turn of the twentieth century

ground for ethics, knowledge, and hope

(Kojeve, Bataille, reconceiving) atheism: a way out of any and all ideological systems
theological questions + mistrust of political hopes
to replace god with a political messianism, nation or state,
“disenchantment of the world = death knell for man” (?)

nonhumanist atheism: determined opposition to foundational concepts of man, knowledge, and truth (=/= critically rethinking problems of anthropotheism, of transcendence, of finitude)

critique of idealism = critique of transcendence
1920s: atheist humanism = idealist arguments about the capacity of the human mind (to transcend and objectively pattern the things that compose the world around it)

might and violence of ideologies relied on definitions of humanity (that made this violence not only plausible and rational, but almost necessary --> communism and colonialism)

Sartre's postwar minimal humanist commitment --> “existentialism = humanism”
-call or claim to failure of foundations and of man's status in the universe ultimately called up a new ethical command --> call for man to decide and to commit politically (--> atheism + political humanisms + old metaphysical commitment)

atheist political theology
Kojeve, Bataille, Sartre, Koyre, Heidegger, Adorno
mysticism of progress, self-perfection, and history
their anti-utopian and antiprogressivist claims and that found expression in: Blanchot (The Most High), Bataille (Summa Atheologica), Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus), Beckett (Endgame)
figuration of finitude
critique of dreams of transparency
replace transcendence with excess or escape (<-- mystical background...)
=/= un-self-conscious humanist mysticism

secular interwar Europe's raising the human subject to all-powerful status ==> techno-scientific apocalypse --> waste of hope in the self and in the rhetoric of equality and humanism


(2)
philosophical antihumanism
human in suspension and deny that it owns or controls his own specificity and particularity

--> negative theology
denial to man of positive knowledge of divine nature
withdrawal from the possibility of first defining what is specifically human
=/= world deemed anthropocentric and subjectivist
•*reformulates the question of man, locating him in conceptual systems led by notions, such as Being, reality, society, or language* (--> to define him “negatively”)
•problematization of human subjectivity

--> modern determinations of “the human”
(Diderot in Encyclopedie:) “man: a sensing, reflecting, thinking being, which freely traverses the surface of the earth, which appears at the head of all other animals over which it reigns, which lives in society, which has invented the sciences and the arts, which has its own notions of good and evil, which gives itself masters, which makes its own laws, etc.”
•anthropocentrism of modern thought (Diderot --> “why do we not introduce man into our work the way he is placed in the universe? why do we not make him a common center?”)
•(18th and 19th century) offering a hierarchy and linking the human to a privileged one among them--to reason, understanding, sensation, the passions, consciousness, the intellect

he can no longer claim to be capable of scientifically understanding the entire world

(Kant in Logic, @apass, three core questions guiding his critical project:)
•what do i know?
•what may i hope for?
•what ought i do?
•what is man?

}--> [*]humanism: mobilization of a foundationalist concept of man

=/= tradition of identifying man with a certain feature, aspect, or property that embodies or expresses his nature
=/= the Platonic-christian idea that man possesses an eternal soul
=/= Feuerbachian-Marxist approach that sees Man as his own goal
=/= the idea of a human nature that is given, foundational, single, or readily available

“death of man”
Heidegger's Letter on Humanism
Kojeve's second note on “the end of history”
Althusser
Foucault's concluding chapter to The Order of Things
Derrida's The Ends of Man

(existentialist entrapment of man in his world, #alienation)

(in Being and Time) Heidegger's Dasein ==>
•stripping man's shared element down to its being-there
•subsumes and displaces the humanity of man
•rejection of the I as an absolute, independent subject that approaches a world largely separate from it
--> from ontic determination --to--> ontico-ontological determination [of human]
*the humanity of Dasein remains and must be understood as derivative of both its ontic and ontological status

metaphysical presupposition (that he cannot claim to be capable of fully describing or understanding natur) -->
(human approached and understood only in terms of) *results* or *side-effects* (of language, existence, history, phenomena):
•in phenomena: man finds himself thrown in the world of phenomena and life; he is not grounded in some transcendental fashion (Heidegger, Kojeve, Malraux, Sartre, Beaufret)
•in language: he is an interpreter of signs and symbols that form part of greater systems independent of his individual will
•in history: he is constructed and operates within cultural, religious, and philosophical limits imposed on him
•
[and] these systems are not consequences of man's creative activity, desire, or will
they are domains in which he finds himself
}--> *the human in man comes to mean less and less* ==> *we can only know what his approach to others (and other things) can reveal*



emergence of the new nonhumanist atheism + the negative philosophical anthropology --> French antihumanism's assault on:
•contemporary humanisms
•the legacies and utopian hopes of the Enlightenment
•liberal-bourgeois thinking grounded in human rights and individual autonomy
•Marxist humanism with its critique of liberalism and its expectations of a superior
humanity
•(human perfection & social harmony)


(Geroulanos's account of primary constellations of) humanism:
•christian humanism
•Renaissance educational humanism (founded on a return to ancient Greek models)
•Humboldt's reconceptualization of Renaissance humanism (in 19th century Germany)
•Enlightenment humanism (from Montesquieu through Rousseau and Condorcet)
•19th century liberal humanism (frequently based on natural law, autonomy over one's own body and mind, and human rights)
•socialist humanisms (with its commitment to contractarian social theory)

Encyclopedie's attack on theological knowledge

19th century construction of modern humanism (sociopolitical goals of a “human nature”) --> left-leaning, often democratic, (but certainly) utopian sociopolitical mentality

[*]ideology: a thinking that does not critique, nor even think its provenance from and proper relation to reality --Nancy--> humanism = the machine par excellence through which a community produces meaning for itself, “the system that produces meaning” ==> “we” (community's raison d'etre)
--> [humanism is] arbitrary, auto-productive, and all but tautological


{every political/philosophical movement:
1. rejected bourgeois humanism as insufficient, egotistical, and corrupt
2. claimed for itself a privileged access to the dignity of man
}--Geroulanos--> structure of a *rejection of mainstream thought and policy* for not taking into account (and hence devaluing) the goals of one's anthropo-theologico-political commitment

wreckage of WWII ==> man could not find meaning either in faith or in his own knowledge and construction of the world

_...dive into the depths of human solitude and suffering


(like existentialism and the Western Marxist tradition,) human rights came to operate as a “humanism from below” =/= generic and top-down humanisms (~ monopoly of violence that states held over their individual subjects)

(Geroulanos not arguing that antihumanism was the driving force or the secret heart of intellectual movements and philosophies, nor claiming that it was a single movement, concept, idea, or trend; rather) antihumanism is what emerged from, shaped, and configured a major matrix of concerns


problem with secular humanist utopias --> forging of a ‘new man’ through the mobilization of a specific a priori definition of man required (both):
•man's divinization خداسازى
•man's purge پاکسازى

essentialist definitions of man ==> biologistic, scientistic, political, religious, moralist projects ==>
•lay claim on universality
•prioritize themselves over any such universality

ideologies continue to disguise a *politics of the will* as a universalism

antihumanism = antiredemptive, antimoralist, antimessianist worldview

+ proliferation of tropes --> dooming contemporary man to an existence without meaning or future:
•last man (Nietzsche, Camus, Blanchot)
•death of Man (Malraux, Kojeve, Blanchot, Foucault)
•devirilization of man (Kojeve, Bataille, Queneau)
•terror (Marlaux, Bataille, Kojeve, Merleau-Ponty)
•

Kojeve and Jean Wahl --> antifoundational realism --> new anthropology

antihumanism
a precondition of thought
a fluid matrix of ideas
a philosophical attitude

...................................

Malraux's (literary-metaphysical pursuits [echoes Nietzsche + intellectual Left]) heritage to us (to artists): the alternative to bourgeois individualism [can be achieved] through commitment to a justice based on a quasi-Marxist notion of human dignity --> the *uprooted, cultured, and powerless individual* who struggled against the nation-driven, science-executed destruction wrought by (arid and morally bankrupt) modern warfare [---> go to forensic architecture, apass] --> (the idea that death of man can be averted through) ***a recognition of the heroism of the resistance*** + turn to human creativity

how i have used a non-western voice (“i am from outside the west”) to provide for myself an escape from political categorization + claiming the knowledge of an insider and enjoying the analytical clarity of distance --> i make claims both *expertise in* and cool-headed *distance from* the essence of europe

(technique of) epistolary exchange


(to think of Kantian cosmopolitanism a) a genuine model for commitment =/= outdated illusion

...................................

research method (a heritage of surrealism:) exquisite corpse technique --> (unpredictable and) innocent inventiveness

...................................

for Sohrevardi and Avicenna: nature = chah چاه shahr gheyravan (material of nature/world: ghir قیر) --> zolmatkade ظلمت کده 

#comparative reading of stranded
ghorbat gharbia --> Crusoe

•daryaye sabz دریای سبز  (green sea) = donyaye mahsusat دنیای محسوسات (phenomenological world)
•دایه daye = nafse nabati (vegetal self)- khahar sister = alame made عالم ماده (hayula هیولا) --> (you should) wrap it in azab عذاب
•woman = shahvani شهوانی carnal, pas-mandani پسماندنی (the one who stays, Lot's wife leaving the catastrophic city ~= mashmul-e azab مشمول عذاب) =/= salek سالک wonderer==> ba shahvat nemitavan soluk kard =/= queer mysticism
•maghak مغاک ghaar chah قعر چاه (where abe hayat is آب حیات =/= abe heyvan آب حیوان) = riazat ریاضت

from the spiritual point of view we are always at the bottom of the pit




rigid bodies
http://download.autodesk.com/global/docs/maya2014/en_us/index.html?=contextId=BULLETNODES
A rigid body is a polygonal or NURBS surface converted to an unyielding shape. Unlike conventional surfaces, rigid bodies collide rather than pass through each other during animation. To animate rigid body motion, you use fields, keys, expressions, rigid body constraints, or collisions with particles.
Maya has two kinds of rigid bodies--active and passive. An active rigid body reacts to dynamics--fields, collisions, and springs--not to keys. A passive rigid body can have active rigid bodies collide with it. You can key its Translate and Rotate attributes, but dynamics have no effect on it.



notes on The Rigid Bodies / (metaphysics of 3D)
the simulacrum / ideal / image --> Plato
mystic geometry --> Pythagoras (--> mathematization of the real, real ‘is’ math)
}--> what does it mean to perform 3D for these two thinkers?

fire simulation in Maya <--> cotton touching fire in Islamic philosophy

(<)>  -->{
() manifest image --> shader/topology/raytracing
<> underlying (scientific?) image --> C++ / physics engine / object oriented programming

the mode of production in current 3D-biz creates a sort of cultural collateral or collateral culture (term by Lazzarato). 3D practices are arising as series of activities, not recognized as “work,” rather involved in defining and fixing artistic/cultural standards, tastes, norms, and strategically public opinion.
“is this real or fake?” (you have to click)
--> when the productive mediation is smashed to pieces and replaced by this question.
either it is ‘made’ or ‘real’
[structural imposibility, a double bind, ...]
}--> the image-warrior who violently asks us to choose between the visible and the invisible
( <-)--?--(-> )

...................................

the notion of “general purpose toolkit”
synthesis, patches,
environment --> media
interface --> physical
dataflow programming, rapid prototyping, indeterministic machine paradigms,
one-dimensional array of values
telemetry (duri-sanj دوری سنج)

...................................

an evangelist builds a monument
softimage monument
virtual?



movement and stillness in houdini?
who the 3d software, as an ontological device to recreate and study and understand being, is devided or made-up? the presebce of the notion of movement in it and essence. what is movement and apparition?
[we can have a workshop that teaches houdini just through movement. or a non-movement approuch to 3D making.]


nonrepresentational maya
epistemology and cognitive approuch to space and matter

ontology of matter in maya

worlding in autodesk industry (look at the trailers, tutorials, and so on.)
historical view?


i see maya and other 3D apps as visualization technologies enlisted as metaphors by Haraway and as languages that actively intertwine in the production of literary value


friction, forms of masks (shaders?), and play, and the dance of Dis-tanz
the separations and partings
nearness


transforming and transformative agencies

...................................

“matter refers to the materiality/materialization of phenomena” (Barad)
-let's look at my 3D-related practices again and investigate their ontological implications and rework how matter is defined, [matter, force, interdependency, appearance,,, phenomena, meaning,] Delanda-[intensification, articulation, flow-of,]


...................................

#Femke workshop: on rigging and skinning, writing stories cultivating creation and creatures before their enrollment in George Lucas film, speculating on the inorganic skeletal animacies

...................................

(Brey > Ihde:) [technology:] a special class of artifacts (for example telescopes, probes, hearing aids, etc) that are capable of engaging in ‘symbiotic’ relationships with the human body. [...] means through which the environment is experienced and acted on.


essential ambiguity of technology / of material human-technology relations

hermeneutic fluency (and the special enigma) of the connection between text and world

*bird's-eye=?/!~navigational~/?=.'<-phenomenological
[...in front of the open (blank) page (of the book) (we teach children to take the) position of the industrialist, the urban planner, or the Cartesian philosopher --> outside the page is outside and inside the page is inside ]@Eunkyung's scriptural enterprise --> Derridean proper space of writing
-the panopticon as observing instrument for human sciences is embeded in the page of the book we open. part of this tradition =/= first person shooter

(Ihde on) game-bodies: (on multistability -->) ‘modes of navigation’ [macro phenomenological conditions, modeling observational possibilities, ]:
[1]- third person (pretended) overhead view looking down a map-like world and plotting your course, one says “I go to X.” he calls it “the reading position” (usually a western navigator) --> using instrumental mediations to translate this (overhead) position, star patterns are with the north star
[2]- first person shooter, take your body as stable position, one says: “X is coming to me.” (usually a south pacific navigator) --> reading phenomena as instruments, dynamic motion of star patterns are without the north star
[3]-



every major culture/civilization watches the *movements of heaven*
technologies of temporality, lunar calendars (mostly migratory or non-agricultural people who were into smaller cycles) and solar calendars (people who were into lager cycles), knowledge of repeated patterns of environmental phenomena
from stonehenge [= stabilizer of perception, #stone telling the movement of heavens;] to chip (, devices to record cycles) --> the technoscience has changed (phenomenologically merely) in scale
[*] science is always science-mediated-through-instrument [--> regarding ajayeb: #model is the principal instrument of (modern) science.]---> am I in which model-shift? (how? and why?):
•idealized models [~-> my “art"] (<--)to--> heuristic models [~-> my lectures] ?
•computational models [~-> my CG period] (<--)to--> phenomenological models [~-> my ajayeb] ?
•fantasy models [~-> my ?] (<--)to--> theoretical models ?
•representational models [~= my images?] (<--)to--> epistemological models ?
[*]

...................................

like the blind man's cane or probe, means through which the environment is perceived and acted on, how is the 3D computer simulations an embodiment relation? what are the (dis)embodied habituations of the hacker? ==> philosophy of action : how 3D work as an (dis)embodied artifact change our relation to the world? or, which world is experienced as perceived through embodied artifact of the 3D?
•representations of the location
•question of orientation
--> epistemological studies of scientific instrumentation

(Feenberg, passivity missing in Ihde)
(my own interest in shyness and the) passive dimensions of body--lived experience of being the object of action***

Feenberg (reflecting on medical situations forward:) we live our body not only as actors in the world, but also as beings who invite action on our bodies by others
dependent body --> highly technologized experience

instrumentalized status of modernism, in which the ‘dependent body’ belongs to childhood
purified “humans” : the subject distinguished from its instrumentalities

sex: construction of the dependent subjectivized bodies
(Sartre & Merleau-Ponty:) person becomes a thing in the world of the other

lived-body =/= body [--> also the concern of Irigaray and Butler]
(this is Husserl's Körper and Leib)
~ machine-infused neuro-physical body
◦kinaesthetic sensations
◦presentational sensations
◦“internal” perception
◦“subject” -body
◦organ of perception / organ of action /
--> (identity of the ego -->) the (existentialist visualist and strange) idea of: “I am my body"--body in terms of “I can” ==> self-movement
(intra-action =/= that sensations are freestanding complexes and internally differentiated entities that can be identified and studied “before” the action)
*perception (is an act:) “animating” the data of sensation (?)

the extended body signifies itself through [=/= acts through] the technical mediation

the impersonal and atomizing (commonplace) associations with the notion of disembodiment --> the idea that in online involvement relations are abridged and trivialized, that there is a lack of commitment and risk, and moral engagement is impossible, and so on.

*what would be a situated account of the (lived-)body in CG?

“the ringing of the cell phone that embarrasses us in the middle of a lecture” --> extended body

plasticity and polymorphism of our bodies (online) [Ihde]

programmers working in other programmers’ works (--not imaginative engagement with the other, rather) --through--> interfaces and folds in interpretation {tutorial voices, screen videos, scripts, help files, layers of codes and tools on each other, nested folders on one's own computer, named categories by oneself, horde of text files and renders, etc}--> these are (en-/de-)crypting extended bodies constructed of language
subjectively constructed phenomenon of the communed fold interpreted : the 3D computer programm
(=/= romantic refusal of all mediation)

-what is the nature of the technology involved in CG?

•what is the source of the somatic sense of place, if not the body (since Greeks) and animality (since Deleuze + Guattari), in the case of CG? --?-->{the way a good farmer will pick up soil and feel the dirt in his hands}
(Greek word) ‘soma’ refers to a corpse (in Homer,) not a living body (--> #lived-body)
Neither the living body as an entity nor the Mind as an entity had a name.
for Aristotle, ‘thinking’ part of the soul, had an existence from any connection to the body.
“to experience the world is the very nature of body inside out.” (Christian Hubert > John Schumacher)


a community whose members are aware of each others’ passive presence is different forms
(active =/= present)

these are issues of social subject in a technically mediated world

to look at CG embodiment relations:
•fold (Ihde)
•skill (Merleau-Ponty)
•theory of affordance (Gibson)
•intra-action (Barad)
•detour (Latour)

(Merleau-Ponty's) ‘body schema’ : space of the body = 'space of situation,’ orientation towards possible (not only existing) tasks ==> aspects of the external/virtual world
body understood in terms of their ability to enter into one's projects =/= spatial location
[what is the body schema of the hacker in CG? (an external world where there is no near or far.) what is experienced as their Gestalt? which grasp is automatically localized? what are their phantom limbs? ==> body immediately known to self]


(body as the) system of possible actions, a virtual body with its phenomenal “place” defined by its task and situation. “My body is wherever there is something to be done.”

kinaestheses, proprioception,

...................................

what ‘play’ does to ‘ego’?

...................................

([is for Lilia (? like Wittgenstein) all ‘certainties'] grounded in the) certainty of the body
{pain <--> certainty}--> trauma + memory

...................................

(Christian Hubert > ) Rudofsky “unfashionable human body” (#veil)

Thomas Friedman “The Golden Straitjacket”
•political-economic garment of globalization era --> Straitjacket
(Cold War era:)
•Mao --> suit
•Nehru --> jacket
•Russian --> fur
•
•Islam --> hejab

(Tasavof-->{for which the body does not remain concrete and material, and soul is ambiguous and polymorphic}, Pythagorean:) veli: soul can clothe itself in different bodies =/= (Aristotle:) soul is the form of a particular living body { soul = organization of the body }--> “..there seems to be no case in which the soul can act or be acted on without involving the body” =/= (Descartes:) soul = enlightened machine (~=? proper organization of the brain)


***The body is a special image --> body image

body, the priveleged image, the world of consiousness (through self-reference), the brain's primary frame of reference [-constructed with libidinal intensity? --> a map of narcissistic investment] (=/= body without organs)
•condition of the subject's access to spatiality (of the [numero-computationally?] built environment)
•anatomy is always “imaginary anatomy”
•the (body-)ego is a formation of body image through primary narcissim (in terms of Oedipus complex)
•body image also incorporate external objects (implements and instruments --> intimate, vital, even libidinally cathected parts of the body) ~--> the “detachable” parts of the body: urine, faeces, saliva, sperm, blood, vomit, hair, nails, skin--all retain something of the cathexis and value of a body

-for Bergson: an image that one know from within by affections, rather than from without by perceptions: body }==> “my body” is the center of actions ==births==> representation
-for Whitehead: “self-knowledge of our bodily event” ==> (organic) conception of nature
-masculinity: body subordinate to the mind ~=>{ body: site for feminist critique
-for contemporary feminism (Grosz): body is neither a biological nor a sociological category, but rather a point of overlap between physical, symbolic, and material conditions

the ideological representations of a “real” precultural body
[--> idealized in terms of abstract geometry, rendered primal in primates,,,]

“The theory of the body is already a theory of perception.” Merleau-Ponty

(in his studies on body, Christian Hubert quotes John Schumacher quoting) James Gibson: “The optical information to specify the self, including the head, body, arms, and hands, accompanies the optical information to specify the environment. The two sources of information coexist. The one could not exist without the other. When a man sees the world, he sees his nose at the same time; or rather, the world and his nose are both specified and his awareness can shift....The supposedly separate realms of the subjective and objective are actually only poles of attention.” (The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception)


sensuality is co-making


rituals and technologies are links between bodies and societies
(social) techniques for the inscription of locality into bodies
technology as an exteriorization of the functions of the body?

CG stands for:
•computer graphics
•computer games
•creature generator
•categorial grammar --> “==>”, “=/=”, etc
•conceptual graphs --> graph-based knowledge representation and reasoning model
•computational geometry --> geo-info-sys design
•*computational gesture* --> extracorporeal material culture
•
•(complete governance, chaotic God, commanding general, common ground, center of gravity,)
•

the well-equipped invalid (--> embodiment, Virilio)

(Foucault's radical exploration of:) body = (subject to the effects of) rhetoric of technical reason
techniques of punishment (, a “political technology”) : “an art of unbearable sensations” --to--> “an economy of suspended rights”

Deleuze and Guattari: “We know nothing about a body until we know what it can do, in other words, what its affects are, how they can or cannot enter into composition with other affects, with the affects of another body...” (what are the affects of the CG bodies?)
-for them the “body” is a discontinuous and non-totalized series of processes, organs, flows, energies, corporeal substances and incorporeal events, intensities and durations, a surface of intensities: *pure simulacra without originals*


erotogenic zones, sexuality, Freud, auto-erotic internalization, clinamen

(the formally female cyborg / techno-monster of the Ghost in the Shell:) the (masculinist) fantasy of leaving the body behind and reconstituting it as a a technical object under human control as both a desire for perfect knowledge and total power and at the same time as a way of escape... [Christian Hubert] #Haraway
•the question of the “soul” is read as the question of (certain technology of) power over bodiess

(traits of) cyborg:
1. boundary transgression
2. the recognition and re-scripting of myth
3. simulations of identity
4. coalitions of affinity


reembodiment of intelligence


Hubert > Serres: “My body (I cannot help it) is not plunged into a single, specified space. It works in Euclidean space, but it only works there. It sees in a projective space; it touches, caresses, and feels in a topological space; it suffers in another; hears and communicates in a third; and so forth, as far as one wishes to go. Euclidean space was chosen in our work-oriented cultures because it is the space of work--of the mason, the surveyor, or the architect. [...] My body lives in as many spaces as the society, the group, or the collectivity have formed: the Euclidean house, the street and its network, the open and closed garden, the church or the enclosed spaces of the sacred, the school and its spatial varieties containing fixed points, and the complex ensemble of flow-charts, those of language, of the factory, of the family, of the political party, and so forth. Consequently my body is not plunged into one space but into the intersection or the junctions of this multiplicity.” (Hermes, pp 44-45) (@Aela)

...................................

(feminist open-source --✕-->?) I am actually coming from a masculinist closed-source culture-thing, that is to say, my background is in masculinist black-boxed concepts of being and beyond, that means i have a different relationship with interference and parasitism
•how and when a concept becomes black-boxed? by which processes?
@Sven: what matters is the input/output, stimulus/response [--> “black-box of the beyond” (#zolmat writing)] --> transfer characteristics, data-flow, the ontology of the “internal working” : “open” exchanges inforamtion about its interactions }--> open-source is part of the tradition of anthropocene system thinking: network synthesis, system engineering, theory of the organism, evolutionary theory, thermodynamics, and world system perspective

...................................

what are the nodes of energy in interdigitalities intra-actions in human-machine relations?

***we are belonging to a set of cultures that regularly believes in the idiom of: organism =/= technology
--> this little ontological dichotomous device is doing serious worldings, making and destroying worlds

technologies of descriptive practices
technology is descriptive practice
technology: anything describable as a technology --> idiom اصطلاح

...................................

[title]
age of stone, and stories for computers

...................................

(#workshop in Stuttgart 11.04.2017 with Femke http://pad.constantvzw.org/p/possiblebodies.rigging)
provisional sketch for a workshop on “Rigging,” notes and nodes


on the notion and practice of Rig in CG
(CG as in “computational gesture”)

[title]
on Rigging and skinning: stories for cultivating creation and creatures of the industrial empire.
a practice in: rhetoric of technical reasoning in inorganic skeletal animacies.


•I begin with the position that believes in the essential ambiguity of technology
•let's look at some terms and notions and the ways they are enacted, practiced, and embodied, and to practice some hermeneutic fluency in phenomenological conditions in what we call character animation


KEYWORDS: soft bodies, skin, skinnig, Rig, Rigging, unwrapping, fold, CG, animation, locomotion, kinectics, skeleton, mechanics, interface, technology,


...................................

Rigs are about:
-ways of arranging space, time and matter : like a sentence, that sticks words sequentially together in a certain way. Rig would be a way those elements are attached to one another in time and space.
[*] --> one-dimenisional skeletal Rigs are generally intereseting for my research, because of the specific sequential order that many forms of culture take. (for example, “tradition” is from that famility of Rigs, a string of things in a particular order and not another. [---> go to totem columns]. “language” is another one.)
◦what are the degrees of flexibilty, stretch and tention between the nodes in a Rig?
◦what a substitution in a string-Rig might change the ways that being is animated, and therefore change the meaning?
-that means: change the Rig, and you will change the ways space and time are arranged
-that means: thinking about Rigs is like thinking about the language, or better: ontological commitments embedded in language. and since we are interested in materiality [that means: material human-technology relations], i would ask: what are the material objects that this language commits us to? to be more exact: what are the material objects that the language-Rig commits the CG-hacker to?
-ontological assumptions embeded in any “device” (English grammar, CG Rigs, architect's tools, a definition in language, etc.)
-Rigs are clever technological provisional constructions, (always) setup for a specific naturalization.
-Rigs articulate animacies, that is to say: they are almost linguistic structures that shape or determine our animations
-Rigs do consequential work
-how elements are arranged together, how they are composed, how they are brought into relation in the space of a field, narrative, text, environment, etc

whenever you give a definition (a metaphor, a concept) and work with it, and find yourself committed to certain findings, tracings and meanings because of that: you are working with a Rig. that is to say: Rigs are definitional structures, not arguments themselves, but their conditions.
then the question would be: when do you know that it is time to dismantle a Rig? how to recognize, learn to reuse or repurpose old Rigs?

in CG the business of Rigging and Rig-making is handed to the engineering talent and point of view, it has made a pure technical problem.



skeletal, it's all about the ‘arm’
http://www.toxik.sk/img/maya2011_ya.jpg
an arm is a spaciotemporal particularity
the organisms that crafted in their bodies the subphylum vertebrata, a terrestrial technology for moving the flesh.
the images we make are made in the image of the one-with-arms

mechanical
bipedal
facial
quadrupedal
many arms and legs
spinal
surficial
hair
feather

rain Rig by محمد عبدالله
eqFUnFPcuwg

an Optimus Prime transformation Rig by Eske Yoshinob
VDrAzeNS2pk?t=28

(strictly) possible tranformational arrangements

how a being is Rigged into transformational particularities
in this sense, the question of the Rig is ontoloical, specially in a world populated by devices and techniques, interfaces and folds upon folds, constructions that do things for another constructions, Rigs that translate

kinematic equations, inverse kinematics, the math of it is called the Jacobian inverse technique
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Arc-welding.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Modele_cinematique_corps_humain.svg
“In robotics, inverse kinematics makes use of the kinematics equations to determine the joint parameters that provide a desired position for each of the robot's end-effectors. Specification of the movement of a robot so that its end-effectors achieve the desired tasks is known as motion planning.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_kinematics
{\frac  {\partial p_{i}}{\partial x_{k}}}\approx {\frac  {p_{i}(x_{{0,k}}+h)-p_{i}(x_{0})}{h}}

...................................

Maya's interfacial iconograhies

...................................

how do we animate quadrupeds, invertebrates, phyla, rotifera (wheel-animals), and so on; for each a mathematics must be invented in order and terms of digital computationality.

“anatomy” is always “imaginary anatomy” (in CG, comtemporary dance, medicine, love, etc.)



a skin has to deal with:
“Global Stiffness Structural Optimization”



Rig talks to mesh, telling it how to move, how to be.
how we evolved from jelly to skelletal? something tense, intensified in space, some flesh attached to it. how the concrete mineral came back to assert itself in the terms of bones of the organism?
(a mesh is a matrix of points in which the neighboring points only matter to eachother. mesh is the result of the study of topology in mathematical notions of space and structure, with demands of an industry interested in the representation of surface. mesh is interested by creatures that have a skin, and have stakes in tactility?)
Rig is that constructed logic or grammar that allows mesh deformation in one way and not another. made of enfolded layers of code and constraint


story of the bone
the flow of matter and energy, flow of intensification between sortal processes, organisms, and minerals.


this is about how matter is defined, in everyday CG work


how certain kinetic skeletal rigs naturalize the relationships between volume and surface and skeleton --> which is always symbolic

...................................

notes by other participants of the workshop:
http://pad.constantvzw.org/p/possiblebodies.sina.workshop

some post-workshop notes:

questions of:
•causality: how Rig-thinking can help to have a better understanding of causal relationships between the ‘moved’ and ‘mover’?
•control: how can we have a more interesting ontology of constraints that allows more interesting articulations of control---(that one-way flow of influence between the soft and the rigid)?
•process and becoming: how the technological nature of the Rig and its relations with the image of the organism in CG can be Rigged for a different articulation of the lived-body? and to which extend the Rig can be helpfull to think about the becoming of the beings-of-the-CG (that means: hacker + 3D model)?
•identity: How within an industry such as Pixar, deeply invested in what is a feeling and affectious living characher, a whole new set of technologies and ontologies must be made and destroyed, learned and unlearned, for a different question of identity: what is a living thing? how Rig matter in a world that is made of Rigs that make Rigs for beings to articulate themselves in, through, and with them? inventing and being invented by them
•model: animation = life; asking what brings us to life, makes us alive? (what we animate and what animates us)
•reading and space of the text: the practice we did with pop-up-book making, a joint page of a book when opened wide, the meaning and influence of the reading animates itself like a Rig, coming into movement, flow and inflow as the result of the muscular skeletal gesture of a “reader” who has two hands: mechanical animacies of the act of reading set in time and space by the “writer”
•which rigs rig rigs? (with Strathernian rhetorics) ---- Rig-making practices are ontological technological choreographies that (in the case of CG) make mesh matter*-----they are involved in ‘making mesh flesh’


[14.05.2017]

...................................

rig: a higher-level description of the motion of t[...]