[-empyre-] Fwd: agency/materiality/contact
Kriss Ravetto
K.Ravetto at ed.ac.uk
Mon Jul 19 07:03:05 EST 2010
Hi all, thanks again for the conversation.
Kriss
Quoting empyre-request at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au:
> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12 (j.martin.pedersen)
> 2. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a will to
> create / the social beyond the mechanisim? (James Leach)
> 3. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a will to
> create / the social beyond the mechanisim? (Simon Biggs)
> 4. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12 (James Leach)
> 5. Enter your body through your hand (Johannes Birringer)
> 6. Re: Enter your body through your hand (naxsmash)
> 7. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a will to
> create / the social beyond the mechanisim? (Christina Spiesel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:16:56 +0100
> From: "j.martin.pedersen" <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk>
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12
> Message-ID: <4C40F678.4070603 at lancaster.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> hmm... am I just going in circles...
Hi Martin,
Did not mean to send you spinning (or feel like you are replaying some
other conversation), but I really don't get the connection between
subjectivity and dark matter (unless poetic, analogical).
>
> On 16/07/10 14:43, Kriss Ravetto wrote:
>>
>> Martin also seems to agree with you about the human striving, and its
>> connection to agency, yet Martin, your notion of agency seems to involve
>> the will, it is not as autopoetic as James suggests???
I think that Simon uses the term "agency" to precisely avoid using the
term causality, which you are implying here in your use of the term.
(I think Simon has taken the Duhem?Quine thesis to heart, hence his
avoidance of the term "will." Yet, he seems to be returning to the
question of the material trace, rather than just the concept of
"conditions of possibility")...If, I am not mistaken, this is, itself,
a experiment with the conditions of possibility that is meant to leave
traces.
Kriss
>
> I am not sure that my will to the power of (my) agency leaves out any
> autopoietic aspects or dimensions, - that I act out of my own as free as
> possible will, does not mean that I do not act in and with - emergently
> with - other people's wills, expectations (and whatever else flows in
> the real of dark matter); and at any rate my acts - the moment of agency
> - will be beheld by others, in their perception as my acts - even if
> someone thinks that "He did that because his father beats him" or
> "...because he was acting out of fear that his boy friend would
> otherwise be jealous" or whatever it may be, they will still locate and
> accumulate their observations with primary reference to me (in them).
> Even if that "me" is not a stable animal, there is still a centre of
> gravity that friends and family - not to mention enemies - will
> recognise as me - that is, the accumulator of acts, the investor of
> action, the engine of agency, the beast that I feed my daily bread.
>
> I want to have agency, I will act accordingly. Equally, perhaps, the
> actress's act - her agency - is directed by the director and there are
> many overlaps and interactions through which the film emerges, but how
> can they communicate about the acts and the sequence of stages, if not
> by reference to acts of each agent in the production?
>
>> Martin,
>> Your play with words is quite poetic, an example of gathering together
>> ("agency involves ourselves" gray matter or dark matter) or falling
>> apart (the case of wankers, which is just an more exclusive way of
>> saying "agency involves ourselves")?
>
> Did I play
I merely
with words, or was
dark matter
> acting
through
and acting in
my bloody instrument of tissue?
Does it
the unknown and bespeak it
have agency?
or
"me"
it is
is it
not a stable animal
gravity?
gravity
even with fancy terms
highbrow references
feeding
referees
with candy
and wishes
to say yes? No?
(auto-poetic)
and - and it is nice
> to break down all kinds of barriers of this and that kind, but who are
> we - writing these things - if not ourselves? Us agents, feeding
> ourselves brain candy? Does it make sense to not return to ourselves
> upon journeying across boundaries? Do we not need us to act and to have
> a will to say no, and, one wishes more often that it was enticing and
> desirable to do so, to say yes? No?
>
> -martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:01:41 +0100
> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a
> will to create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
> Message-ID: <E653015A-80E5-4195-BB64-EF7643C8D8E8 at abdn.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> On 15 Jul 2010, at 10:47, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
>> As I suggested in my earlier post today, which Kriss picked up on, I am
>> looking at agency and creativity from an autopoietic point of view. I am not
>> seeking to situate agency in the individual but in the collective and,
>> specifically, in the in-between. This could be considered a "gathering",
>> although this suggests a sense of common purpose, individuals recognising
>> they can enhance their capacity to act, to bring themselves and the world
>> into being, through collective action. That isn't what I am trying to get
>> at. Of course, I am wearing my artists hat when I suggest this and am not
>> really equipped to defend what is possibly an indefensible position.
>> Nevertheless, I think it is an interesting line of thought.
>
>
> Yes, this is an interesting line, but the question would become what
> you could mean by agency, if it is an emergent property of
> interactions, and thus located outside individual actors, other than
> a kind of 'social force' - one that is not within any one person's
> control, authorship, and therefore, not really easily covered by
> 'agency' as it is commonly understood.
> I think you might be veering towards some notion of the autopoietic
> as itself as kind of force, the momentum of which bestows form on
> those those things and persons (interactors in your terms I think)
> that partake of it?
> But is there a danger here of mixing a descriptive term with a thing
> that does something? What we call autopoeisis is not a force or
> thing at all, but a way of describing the way certain elements of
> relationships condition one another in an ongoing process that is
> not 'autopoeisis', but people living human lives. The 'danger'
> (well, the line it might take us down) of thinking of 'it' as
> 'something' is that we are not too far here from a much older notion
> of social emergence - Durkheimian notions of the superorganic,
> (society is sui generis, and arises from but then determines social
> interaction). Society for Durkheim certainly did have agency.
>
> James
>
> ___________________________________
> Professor James Leach
> Head of Department, Anthropology
> School of Social Science
> Edward Wright Building,
> University of Aberdeen,
> Aberdeen AB24 3QY
> UK
>
> T: + 44 (0)1224 274354
> E: james.leach at abdn.ac.uk
> W: www.jamesleach.net
> Skype/ichat: jamieleach2
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art
>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>> Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts
>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts
>>
>>
>>> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
>>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:02:33 +0100
>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there
>>> a will to
>>> create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
>>>
>>> But Simon, you also are keen to explore the emergent possibility,
>>> to actually
>>> look at what is made visible in emerging digital networked forms
>>> that is not
>>> visible in previous ways of working?
>>>
>>> What is being gathered? what are the constraints on those
>>> gatherings? and what
>>> is created through them - ie, what changes because of them?
>>
>>
>>
>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
>> number SC009201
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:30:53 +0100
> From: "Simon Biggs" <s.biggs at eca.ac.uk>
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a
> will to create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
> Message-ID: <C86736DD.28DC7%s.biggs at eca.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi James
>
> I guess you are referring to Durkheim's concept of collective conscience. If
> so then I don't have any real problem with this and would consider it as a
> reasonable part of considering how people become socially. I am aware of it
> as a general concept but I am no expert on Durkheim and thus can't comment
> on the nuances of his arguments.
>
> I think I probably do regard the autopoietic as something of a principle
> (not a force). I agree it is descriptive, but it is descriptive of processes
> and interactions. It is not agency but it is a way of conceptualising it. I
> don't want to get into a discussion of how we represent things (the
> autopoietic and that it describes) as that leads us into a semantic trap
> where we are no longer considering our original focus on creativity as
> social ontology.
>
> Discussing the will opens a can of worms. I try to avoid such a term, even
> if that exclusion isn't rigorous.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk simon at littlepig.org.uk
> Skype: simonbiggsuk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>
> Research Professor edinburgh college of art
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
> http://www.elmcip.net/
> Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts
>
>
>> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:01:41 +0100
>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a will to
>> create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 Jul 2010, at 10:47, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>
>>> As I suggested in my earlier post today, which Kriss picked up on, I am
>>> looking at agency and creativity from an autopoietic point of
>>> view. I am not
>>> seeking to situate agency in the individual but in the collective and,
>>> specifically, in the in-between. This could be considered a "gathering",
>>> although this suggests a sense of common purpose, individuals recognising
>>> they can enhance their capacity to act, to bring themselves and the world
>>> into being, through collective action. That isn't what I am trying to get
>>> at. Of course, I am wearing my artists hat when I suggest this and am not
>>> really equipped to defend what is possibly an indefensible position.
>>> Nevertheless, I think it is an interesting line of thought.
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is an interesting line, but the question would become
>> what you could
>> mean by agency, if it is an emergent property of interactions, and thus
>> located outside individual actors, other than a kind of 'social force' - one
>> that is not within any one person's control, authorship, and therefore, not
>> really easily covered by 'agency' as it is commonly understood.
>> I think you might be veering towards some notion of the autopoietic
>> as itself
>> as kind of force, the momentum of which bestows form on those those
>> things and
>> persons (interactors in your terms I think) that partake of it?
>> But is there a danger here of mixing a descriptive term with a
>> thing that does
>> something? What we call autopoeisis is not a force or thing at all,
>> but a way
>> of describing the way certain elements of relationships condition
>> one another
>> in an ongoing process that is not 'autopoeisis', but people living human
>> lives. The 'danger' (well, the line it might take us down) of
>> thinking of 'it'
>> as 'something' is that we are not too far here from a much older notion of
>> social emergence - Durkheimian notions of the superorganic, (society is sui
>> generis, and arises from but then determines social interaction).
>> Society for
>> Durkheim certainly did have agency.
>>
>> James
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> Professor James Leach
>> Head of Department, Anthropology
>> School of Social Science
>> Edward Wright Building,
>> University of Aberdeen,
>> Aberdeen AB24 3QY
>> UK
>>
>> T: + 44 (0)1224 274354
>> E: james.leach at abdn.ac.uk
>> W: www.jamesleach.net
>> Skype/ichat: jamieleach2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art
>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>> Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts
>>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
>>>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:02:33 +0100
>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is
>>>> there a will to
>>>> create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
>>>>
>>>> But Simon, you also are keen to explore the emergent possibility, to
>>>> actually
>>>> look at what is made visible in emerging digital networked forms
>>>> that is not
>>>> visible in previous ways of working?
>>>>
>>>> What is being gathered? what are the constraints on those gatherings? and
>>>> what
>>>> is created through them - ie, what changes because of them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
>>> SC009201
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
> number SC009201
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:05:52 +0100
> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12
> Message-ID: <649E3B0F-9E8C-41F3-8E20-4AF8CB47F209 at abdn.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> my thanks again to all who have posted.
> Kriss
>
>
>> Can
>> we read this striving as life affirming (something someone mentioned
>> before). I see that you are arguing that this striving does not have
>> to be a single concept or image of creation; it can constantly change
>> the nature of the human so that the human can include other things.
>> But can it be indifferent as Simon points out with his gravitational
>> pull toward dark matter?
>
> that was indeed the intent: life affirming as human, whatever that
> is. Clearly for us right now that includes the 'technological' and
> this is an explicit factor, and a problematic one, in its formation,
> because in its use, a divide is continually remade/represented
> between the given and the constructed at the heart of what it is to
> be human. Our 'magic' (to return to that), is in being able to
> change the very conditions of what it is to be human through human
> artifice, but in doing so, we are always pushing at the line between
> what is given (not human construction but definitional of what
> human beings are, and the constructed (also human, but optive,
> choice based and conscious).
Hi James,
Before you take off (have a great trip!), can you tell us about your
experience bringing back people from Papua New Guinea last summer?
You expressed some concern, precisely about their lack of experience
with technology. How do technologies become appropriated into this
striving?
Kriss
>
> What we cannot choose now is whether or not to choose to change our
> conditions of existence. A fine pickle.
>
>>
>> Martin also seems to agree with you about the human striving, and its
>> connection to agency, yet Martin, your notion of agency seems to
>> involve the will, it is not as autopoetic as James suggests???
>>
>> James says: "What is being gathered? what are the constraints on those
>> gatherings? and what is created through them - ie, what changes
>> because of them?"
>>
>> Wouldn't each gathering be specific? And if we were to accept Simon?s
>> definition of process/agency language would fail us, since it would
>> require that we name, situate or objectify something that is always
>> already something else, no? It makes our work more difficult for sure.
>>
>
> Well yes, I am all for the specificity of each form of gathering.
> But also would suggest that we can also find principles at work in
> shaping each that are at least comparable. To identify and describe
> these processes is indeed difficult, but what we have to do (no?)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:43:50 +0100
> From: "Johannes Birringer" <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
> To: <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: [-empyre-] Enter your body through your hand
> Message-ID:
> <EAC72F9387E7374B989038AC85B430A302A3CD19 at UXEXMBU116.academic.windsor>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
Thanks for the reference.
> regarding "striving to be human," which was mentioned repeatedly in
> our discussion,
> i just heard a new film has come out on the life and work of Anna
> Halprin, the dancer,
> it is called BREATH MADE VISIBLE
>
> http://www.breathmadevisible.com/?lang=en
>
> has anyone seen it?
>
>
> Johannes Birringer
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:09:15 -0700
> From: naxsmash <naxsmash at mac.com>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Enter your body through your hand
> Message-ID: <8BD13B9B-8989-4211-9C1A-02E8B586D998 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> she is a pioneer of the notion of 'scoring' . As if to say, ontologies
> are the choreographic relations. relations of
> human and so called non human (landscape) turn into contact touch
> yes.
>
>
> naxsmash
> naxsmash at mac.com
>
>
> christina mcphee
>
> http://christinamcphee.net
> http://naxsmash.net
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> regarding "striving to be human," which was mentioned repeatedly in
>> our discussion,
>> i just heard a new film has come out on the life and work of Anna
>> Halprin, the dancer,
>> it is called BREATH MADE VISIBLE
>>
>> http://www.breathmadevisible.com/?lang=en
>>
>> has anyone seen it?
>>
>>
>> Johannes Birringer
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:00:12 -0400
> From: Christina Spiesel <christina.spiesel at yale.edu>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a
> will to create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
> Message-ID: <4C41E19C.7020407 at yale.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi All,
>
> May I ask: Can we posit creativity as immanent in all social groups?
> What do we do with groups that are very hierarchical or bureaucratic?
How can we assume that hierarchy and bureaucracy are not creative?
Kriss
If there are limits, then maybe we should ask about the conditions
> necessary for a group to act creatively -- or for the immanent
> possibility to get expressed through both group and individual agency?
>
> Also, on another thread -- the degree to which we attribute magic to our
> technology is one measure of how we have lost control of it, imho. That
> it can be wonderful goes without saying, but the more we attribute
> religio-magical properties to it, the less we will assume that we have
> some responsibilities in relation to it.
>
> Christina Spiesel
>
>
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs wrote:
>> Hi James
>>
>> I guess you are referring to Durkheim's concept of collective conscience. If
>> so then I don't have any real problem with this and would consider it as a
>> reasonable part of considering how people become socially. I am aware of it
>> as a general concept but I am no expert on Durkheim and thus can't comment
>> on the nuances of his arguments.
>>
>> I think I probably do regard the autopoietic as something of a principle
>> (not a force). I agree it is descriptive, but it is descriptive of processes
>> and interactions. It is not agency but it is a way of conceptualising it. I
>> don't want to get into a discussion of how we represent things (the
>> autopoietic and that it describes) as that leads us into a semantic trap
>> where we are no longer considering our original focus on creativity as
>> social ontology.
>>
>> Discussing the will opens a can of worms. I try to avoid such a term, even
>> if that exclusion isn't rigorous.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Simon Biggs
>> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk simon at littlepig.org.uk
>> Skype: simonbiggsuk
>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>
>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art
>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>> Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts
>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
>>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:01:41 +0100
>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there
>>> a will to
>>> create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Jul 2010, at 10:47, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I suggested in my earlier post today, which Kriss picked up on, I am
>>>> looking at agency and creativity from an autopoietic point of
>>>> view. I am not
>>>> seeking to situate agency in the individual but in the collective and,
>>>> specifically, in the in-between. This could be considered a "gathering",
>>>> although this suggests a sense of common purpose, individuals recognising
>>>> they can enhance their capacity to act, to bring themselves and the world
>>>> into being, through collective action. That isn't what I am trying to get
>>>> at. Of course, I am wearing my artists hat when I suggest this and am not
>>>> really equipped to defend what is possibly an indefensible position.
>>>> Nevertheless, I think it is an interesting line of thought.
>>>>
>>> Yes, this is an interesting line, but the question would become
>>> what you could
>>> mean by agency, if it is an emergent property of interactions, and thus
>>> located outside individual actors, other than a kind of 'social
>>> force' - one
>>> that is not within any one person's control, authorship, and therefore, not
>>> really easily covered by 'agency' as it is commonly understood.
>>> I think you might be veering towards some notion of the
>>> autopoietic as itself
>>> as kind of force, the momentum of which bestows form on those
>>> those things and
>>> persons (interactors in your terms I think) that partake of it?
>>> But is there a danger here of mixing a descriptive term with a
>>> thing that does
>>> something? What we call autopoeisis is not a force or thing at
>>> all, but a way
>>> of describing the way certain elements of relationships condition
>>> one another
>>> in an ongoing process that is not 'autopoeisis', but people living human
>>> lives. The 'danger' (well, the line it might take us down) of
>>> thinking of 'it'
>>> as 'something' is that we are not too far here from a much older notion of
>>> social emergence - Durkheimian notions of the superorganic, (society is sui
>>> generis, and arises from but then determines social interaction).
>>> Society for
>>> Durkheim certainly did have agency.
James, my Durkheim is rusty, but I thought he had 2 types of society,
organic and mechanistic, isn't agency different for each? The
autopoetic includes more than just the social, unless we agree with
Tarde that everything is potentially social.
Kriss
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> Professor James Leach
>>> Head of Department, Anthropology
>>> School of Social Science
>>> Edward Wright Building,
>>> University of Aberdeen,
>>> Aberdeen AB24 3QY
>>> UK
>>>
>>> T: + 44 (0)1224 274354
>>> E: james.leach at abdn.ac.uk
>>> W: www.jamesleach.net
>>> Skype/ichat: jamieleach2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>>>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>>> Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts
>>>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/film-performance-media-arts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: James Leach <james.leach at abdn.ac.uk>
>>>>> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:02:33 +0100
>>>>> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is
>>>>> there a will to
>>>>> create / the social beyond the mechanisim?
>>>>>
>>>>> But Simon, you also are keen to explore the emergent possibility, to
>>>>> actually
>>>>> look at what is made visible in emerging digital networked forms
>>>>> that is not
>>>>> visible in previous ways of working?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is being gathered? what are the constraints on those gatherings? and
>>>>> what
>>>>> is created through them - ie, what changes because of them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
>>>> SC009201
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
>> number SC009201
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100717/08d30959/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 15
> **************************************
>
>
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the empyre
mailing list