Toward a Minor Tech:Milne5000 - Revision history

Simoon at 10:25, 22 July 2023

2023-07-22T10:25:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 22 July 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:

	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|~~560px~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]		[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|540px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.

Simoon at 10:22, 22 July 2023

2023-07-22T10:22:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 22 July 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:

	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|~~580px~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]		[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|560px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.

Simoon at 10:21, 22 July 2023

2023-07-22T10:21:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 22 July 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:

	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|~~642px~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]		[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|580px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.

Simoon at 20:26, 21 July 2023

2023-07-21T20:26:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 21 July 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
			'''Alasdair Milne'''
	= Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary =		= Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary =
	~~'''Alasdair Milne'''~~
			<span class="running-header">Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary</span>

	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

Manetta: /* Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary */

2023-07-21T18:35:21Z

Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 21 July 2023
Line 82:		Line 82:

	==Works cited==		==Works cited==
			<div class="workscited">

	Arendt, Hannah. ''The Human Condition''. 2nd ed, University of Chicago Press, 1998.		Arendt, Hannah. ''The Human Condition''. 2nd ed, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Line 134:		Line 135:

	VanRullen, Rufin, and Ryota Kanai. ''Deep Learning and the Global Workspace Theory''. arXiv:2012.10390, arXiv, 19 Feb. 2021. arXiv.org, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.10390.		VanRullen, Rufin, and Ryota Kanai. ''Deep Learning and the Global Workspace Theory''. arXiv:2012.10390, arXiv, 19 Feb. 2021. arXiv.org, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.10390.
			</div>

	[[Category:Toward a Minor Tech]]		[[Category:Toward a Minor Tech]]
	[[Category:5000 words]]		[[Category:5000 words]]

Simoon: /* Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary */

2023-07-17T14:31:46Z

Lurking in the Gap between Philosophy of Mind and the Planetary

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 17 July 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==
	This article outlines an emerging tendency prominent in the theory and practice of the art & technology domain to ‘horseshoe’ the urgencies of planetary-scale technology with questions traditionally associated with the philosophy of mind, conventionally placed at a much lower level-of-analysis. It delineates and problematises this trend in the theoretical plane, before considering the ‘interpersonal’, stemming from the work of Hannah Arendt, as a mediatory level of analysis, and ground from which to reconcile these contemporary concerns. This intervention acts as a methodological clarification. The implications of this shift are explored for the theorisation of ‘minor tech’ projects as scalable systems which originate at the interpersonal, but can leverage change upscale.		This article outlines an emerging tendency prominent in the theory and practice of the art & technology domain to ‘horseshoe’ the urgencies of planetary-scale technology with questions traditionally associated with the philosophy of mind, conventionally placed at a much lower level-of-analysis. It delineates and problematises this trend in the theoretical plane, before considering the ‘interpersonal’, stemming from the work of Hannah Arendt, as a mediatory level of analysis, and ground from which to reconcile these contemporary concerns. This intervention acts as a methodological clarification. The implications of this shift are explored for the theorisation of ‘minor tech’ projects as scalable systems which originate at the interpersonal, but can leverage change upscale.

			<div class="page-break"></div>

	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

Simoon at 14:18, 17 July 2023

2023-07-17T14:18:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 17 July 2023
Line 22:		Line 22:
	This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.		This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.

	[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|~~642px~~\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]		[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|600px\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]

	== The problem ==		== The problem ==

Simoon at 13:39, 7 July 2023

2023-07-07T13:39:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 7 July 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:

	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|~~540px~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]		[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|642px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.
Line 22:		Line 22:
	This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.		This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.

	[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|~~540px~~\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]		[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|642px\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]

	== The problem ==		== The problem ==

Simoon at 13:38, 7 July 2023

2023-07-07T13:38:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 7 July 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:

	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|~~480px~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]		[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|540px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.
Line 22:		Line 22:
	This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.		This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.

	[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|~~480px~~\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]		[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|540px\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]

	== The problem ==		== The problem ==

Simoon at 13:37, 7 July 2023

2023-07-07T13:37:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:37, 7 July 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	== The scalar horseshoe problem ==		== The scalar horseshoe problem ==
	It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:		It might be taken, on the face of it, that discussions of scale presuppose increasingly smaller entities at one end, and increasingly larger entities at the other. Aiming to illustrate a maximally noncontroversial view of this intuitive scalar setup might look like this:
	[[File:AM scale 1.png\|~~none~~\|~~thumb~~\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]
			[[File:AM scale 1.png\|thumb\|480px\|Figure 1 illustrates a maximally noncontroversial view of levels of analysis.]]

	Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.		Here our epistemological categories carve up our world along the intuitive lines of ‘big’ (the planetary) through to ‘small’ (the mind) as we know them from our prima facie human (though not necessarily humanist) standpoint. In order to detect, record, measure, and then talk about ‘bigger’ entities, like the ‘planet’, we need to zoom out, through abstraction, in order to comprehend them. This requires losing some granularity. Some entities are arguably too big to quantify and measure in the first place, only knowable through conceptual abstraction (Morton). In order to make sense of the microscopic, we are required to zoom in, thus foregoing the sense of ‘perspective’ that might show us how things fit together.
Line 21:		Line 22:
	This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.		This tendency is widespread in the context of artistic practice, and particularly amongst those engaged closely with the overlapping posthumanist (Braidotti) and vibrant materialist paradigms (Bennett). For the sake of good-faith engagement with the problem at hand, I will focus on the upstream theoretical sources that engage and sometimes inspire — often through superficial interpretation — such horseshoeing, since they reveal their rationale explicitly, allowing fuller engagement with its core assumptions. This acts as an alternative to targeting specific art practitioners through an interpretation of their work, where these ideas are deployed in embedded and operative contexts. This methodological decision reflects a commitment to take art practice seriously as a contributor to theoretical discourses, while allowing its practitioners the space to engage in speculative thinking, in this way levelling theoretical questions at the appropriate interlocutors.

	[[File:AM scale 2.png\|~~none~~\|~~thumb~~\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]		[[File:AM scale 2.png\|thumb\|480px\|Figure 2 illustrates the warping of the pink arrow from fig.1.]]

	== The problem ==		== The problem ==