Thank you I spotted this review yesterday https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/23/the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow-review-inequality-is-not-the-price-of-civilisation
and now look forward to the LSE seminars and more! cheers molly Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 9, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ο»ΏSo, basically, magic is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced > technology. I mean, if we can't distinguish the two, then the observation > should cut both ways, right? But Arthur C. Clarke's formulation, "any > sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," is the > only one we ever hear, and that bias makes its function clear: "mystifying" > technology. > > My mentor, the ancient histirian Morton Smith known for his controversial > discovery of an allegedly 'secret' gospel and his popularizing book _Jesus > the Magician_, had a brutally succinct definition of religion: "pretentious > magic." It isn't sufficient, but it's a useful starting point. When you set > aside the magical claims of a religion, you're left with human ~institutions > like (and, like all institutions, also unlike) any other, and you can begin > to analyze them not in terms of (and on the terrain of) their purported > truths but, rather, in terms of of their observable activities, functions, > and effects. As science and tech have become *literally* all-consuming, they > have, ironically, opened up new spaces β and many would say needs β to think > about ~religion and ~magic. We're now seeing more and more that their > seemingly naive wholism maybe wasn't so naive after all. > > In a similar vein, the best definition of I've run across was by Dennis > Flanagan, an editor whose work is known far more than his name: he turned > Scientific American from a mediocre intellectual property into a powerhouse > that was, AFAIK, entirely new: a mass magazine whose mission was to enable > scientists to explain complex research directly to popular audiences. The > impact of SA cannot be overstated, imo. He said: "science is what scientists > do." Far from a tautology, it's a fantastically open-ended formula akin to > Smith's model of religion: an invitation to look at a self-privileging human > institution in terms of its observable activities, functions, and effects β > externalities included. Religion and magic have become, in large part, the > only available ~space for critiques of scientism and its effects. I think for > many the function of the truths religion claims is less that they're true > than that they retain an aura of legitimacy. What other semi-solid ground > could there be for a critique of scientism or technocratic culture? Oh, > right: ππΌ opinion ππΌ. Welcome to QAnon. > > Dispensing with the truth is often the best way to get a little closer to it. > As Lacan put it, more obscurely (but of course!) than either Smith or > Flanagan: "I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there's no > way, to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail. Yet > it's through this very impossibility that the truth holds onto the real." > Most debates about religion 'vs' science boil down to not much more than > partisans claiming their model of truth is sufficient and therefore exclusive > β boundary policing writ large or, less politely mystification. > > Cheers, > Ted > > >> On 9 Dec 2021, at 10:00, mp wrote: >> >>> On 09/12/2021 06:59, Michael Goldhaber wrote: >>> As a one-time theoretical physicist, I find this quote from Gosden to >>> be out-dated, overly reductive, and incorrect, at least as far as >>> the most thoughtful scientists go. >>> >>> Scientific understanding doesnβt βderive from abstraction,β but >>> rather the other way round. It doesnβt separate humans from the world >>> , but rather emphasizes our total embededness in it. It is no >>> coincidence that almost all aspects of the current environmental >>> movement, whether against the destruction of species , the concerns >>> about global warming, the dire effects of plastics, etc., come from >>> scientific observations. Nor is it any coincidence that scientists >>> for the most part are instigators and fervent supporters of that >>> movement. >>> >>> Darwin, after all, is generally considered a scientist, yet the most >>> basic and originally shocking point of evolutionary theory is that we >>> are related to all other living things. Ethologists constantly >>> emphasize how close we are in behavior to other animals , etc., etc., >>> etc. And, by the way, since Einstein physicists have agreed that >>> matter and energy are the same. >> >> That view of science is a central part of Gosden's narrative and >> arguments, he is not in any possible way pushing science down or away. >> Quite the contrary. >> >> "....No choice is needed between magic, science or religion. They each >> stress and develop varied aspects of human action and belief, working >> best when complementary...." (2020: 10) >> >> He is expressly celebrating the advances of science and showing how >> quantum mechanics (appearing on pp: 31, 354, 397, 403, 415, 423, 424), >> plantneurobiology (and intelligence of plants on pp: 32, 420β21, 421, >> 429) ecology, etc. reveal elements of the nature of reality that >> tendentially align with the animist, magical understanding of the world >> (to show science in relation with magic on pp: 1, 4β5, 11β16, 18, 31β3, >> 70, 269, 283, 354, 355β6, 378β80, 412β13, 415, 432). He writes: >> >> "...An exciting new picture is emerging in many areas of the scientific >> world of what it means to be human: to be human is to be connected...." >> (2020: 12) >> >> I don't think he is outdated, he's quite 'avant-gardist' with regards to >> science. >> >> What is meant by "participation" - whether an animist performing magic; >> or a liberation theologist participating in community struggle; or a >> concerned scientist communicating their results about melting glaciers >> to the public - is not about participating, or not, in "the community" >> or in "the public debate" or contributing to enlightening the "public >> imagination". >> >> Think of the term "participation" here rather as a particular mode of >> inquiry, as a methodology involving a particular arrangement of neurons, >> a deliberate and paradigmatically different calibration of the psyche in >> the moment of action. >> >> Magic, like science, can be explained and performed in myriad ways. I >> cannot justly explain it here, just make gestures. Try the book, it is >> very informative. >> >> cheers/ciao/mp >> ============ >> >> PS: - here's a few gestures for what it is worth: >> >> A scientist who, as you say, communicates about "...the destruction of >> species, the concerns about global warming, the dire effects of >> plastics, etc..." is concerned with causes and effects, right? They are >> making an observation of the world through certain methods and they are >> supposed to do their best to remain outside of that method, at a safe >> distance from the observed, to keep the data clean. The "science" is >> supposed to speak for itself, its performance involves aiming for a >> certain degree of objectivity precisely by (attempting to be) keeping >> the performer out of the equation. >> >> Obviously that is a little difficult, which is why what some might call >> pseudo-scientists, such as political ecologists and various flavours of >> anthropologists, have grasped the nettle and declared that their >> methodology is 'participatory action research': they insert themselves >> right into the subject matter in the realisation that they will >> inevitably be part of the equation. The do not pretend to hear the sound >> of a tree falling in a far away forest, they go to it and they hug it, >> to paraphrase an old philosophical chestnut. Yet, what they do is not >> magic, it's just another form of science. Less detached. >> >> Conversely, the scientist cannot really keep themselves out of the >> equation and methodologies are probably rather difficult to design >> entirely without confirmation bias creeping in here and there. But good >> scientists try, and they claim to try, and their results gain value from >> doing so; indeed, their results can be laughed out of the peer-review >> room if they clearly didn't. >> >> Climate scientists might be - and hopefully often are - concerned about >> the environment, but they are in a sense not terribly close to the >> glacier and its outer layer of microbial life forms when they send a >> drone to film its shrinkage and then calculate the shrinking rate >> acceleration. They are engaging through instruments, techniques, >> algorithms, equations, abstractions, etc., that are 'de facto >> distance-makers' between them, the observer, and the observed. >> >> Poetry is perhaps a bit more like magic than science, so when Coleridge >> asked: >> >> "What power divine, Shall henceforth wash the river Rhine?" back in 1828 >> he didn't need objective, detached data. He'd been there, he knew, he'd >> literally smelled it: >> >> "...I counted two and seventy stenches..". >> >> Or: >> >> "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last >> stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money", as they >> said long before Rachel Carson was born... >> >> ...In this game, science is a late-comer, but very welcome [! though the >> drones, the computer modelling, etc., come at a tremendous environmental >> cost to confirm what we already knew?!) >> >> Magic is a way of making meaning and a way of influencing the world that >> is paradigmatically different from science and religion, though there >> are overlaps. In order to understand something that might be alien or >> which we have been schooled to reject, a little suspension of disbelief >> is required. A little engagement is necessary. Gosden's book is helpful >> for that. It is of course fine to reject it out hand, we should each >> freely choose the limits our intellectual horizons, but then the >> conversation just stops. >> >> I'll leave you with another quote: >> >> "...I am sure many readers are rightly sceptical about the existence and >> efficacy of magic. An initial counter to a radical scepticism is that >> magic does not derive from strange whims or deliberate irrationality. >> Much effort has gone into the construction of a mechanistic universe in >> Western thought, in which planets or atoms are moved by forces, and >> living things are characterized by biochemical reactions or sometimes >> the firing of neurons. Equal effort in other cultures has gone into >> denying differences between the animate and the inanimate, the living >> and non-living, the human and non-human. In everyday life in the Western >> world such distinctions also break down, and many of us find ourselves >> talking to the cat or swearing at the printer when it doesn't work. >> Beneath the rationalist rhetoric of our culture exist everyday >> encounters with small forms of magic: numbers and days can be favourable >> or not, black cats cross our paths and sportspeople can take magic >> almost as seriously as their training. Small advantages are sought >> through what we often decry as irrational means, often hard to take >> totally seriously but also difficult to ignore. The broad distinction >> made in Western thought between the categories of nature β where the >> laws of science apply β and culture β where economic, political, >> emotional or aesthetic conditions hold sway β makes no sense to many. >> All modes of life make distinctions between categories of things but >> also posit similarities. Where the lines of difference or connection are >> drawn is variable, but they are always logical and meaningful to those >> drawing the lines..." (2020: 4). >> >> ----- >> --- >> - >> >> PPS: >> >> And for those concerned about other-than-human, as an off-list response >> expressed, that's what it's all about, and I paste from the off-list >> re-response: >> >> Inclusion of the other-than-human is precisely the point Gosden makes >> with references to quantum mechanics, plantneurobiology, ecology, etc.. >> He is a few steps ahead there, as animism of course also involves the >> potential sentience of rocks and rivers and so on. >> >> For instance: >> >> "...An exciting new picture is emerging in many areas of the scientific >> world of what it means to be human: to be human is to be connected. >> Human bodies develop their intelligence with and through artefacts, >> houses or landscapes, which means that our understanding of the world >> grows out of a partnership with things. Without doubt the living world >> constitutes a network of intelligences. Webs of communication, memory >> and action cover the whole globe, as various species of plants and >> animals interact, each in its own way. People are part of such webs. >> Despite some delusions to the contrary, humans are rarely in charge of >> these innumerable connections, especially as we are unaware of most of >> them. Many of us have become existentially lonely by failing to grasp >> how much the living world recognizes, remembers, learns and acts. A >> sense of kinship and connection with the urban and rural landscapes in >> which we live, as well as the plants and animals in those landscapes, >> would help to make us all feel more at home in the world, more willing >> to engage in reciprocal and equal ways with all the things around us..." >> >> "...Humans live in sensate ecologies. The world is encircled by >> connected communities of microbes, insects, plants and animals, each >> making sense of the world in its own way, while also contributing to >> broader flows of materials and information. An explosion of literature >> is occurring that explores the intelligence of many living things, >> taking in everything from plants (especially trees) to octopuses to >> cows. Although such work comes out of the scientific practices of >> ecology, it finds common cause with theological traditions across the >> world, as well as with magical beliefs, helping to give the triple helix >> of human practices new shape and connection..." >> >> "...Much work is being carried out on the intelligence of plants. Plants >> lack central nervous systems but are able to sense their worlds and >> interact with them in subtle and varied ways. Plants produce and >> exchange chemicals to communicate with themselves and with others. >> Plants can sense in many of the same modalities as animals, although >> often without specialized organs of sense. Leaves are sensitive to >> light: a plant will elongate buds, shoots and leaves in areas regularly >> exposed to sunlight and shed those in the shade. Plants require carbon >> dioxide, water and other mineral nutrients that they locate through >> chemical receptors in their roots and leaves. They can distinguish their >> own roots from those of other plants, giving them some sense of self. >> Plants also register gravity: shoots grow up and roots grow down. More >> interestingly and controversially, plants are able to sense sound >> through movements of leaves and hairs. Some species may emit bursts of >> pollen when they feel the buzzing of bees. Chemicals known as volatiles, >> which can have strong smells, attract animals and insects, but their >> presence is sensed by other plants. The best known of these is the smell >> of newly cut grass, which can alert other plants to the danger that >> herbivores are in the vicinity. Plants that have not yet been eaten >> could then produce chemicals that make them less palatable. This works >> less well with lawnmowers..." >> >> "...Many plants, including trees, form alliances with each other. Roots >> strike up alliances with mycorrhizal fungi (Figure 10.4) that benefit >> both parties but that also allow plants to communicate with each other. >> Somewhat inevitably, mycorrhizal networks have been dubbed the Wood-Wide >> Web. Mycorrhizal fungi help trees communicate, move nutrients, and >> supply and move defensive chemicals, enabling individual plants to share >> water and nutrients; in addition, they send chemical messages that allow >> other trees to prepare for fungal attack. Such messages pass most often >> between trees where one is the offspring of the other. A growing >> realization of the importance of these networks and other forms of >> connection is shifting attention away from attempts to understand single >> plants in competition with each other to an emphasis on whole >> communities that cooperate. Vital relationships are also formed between >> plants and insects and other animals β work on cows, for instance, shows >> that they know which plants to eat when sick. The living world is alive >> to the possibilities, threats and capacities of other parts of the >> ecosystem, with an ebb and flow of action and interaction in a sensitive >> and responsive manner. >> >> "...Much could also be said about the intelligence of animals. We have >> all made our own observations of the animals with which we live in close >> proximity. Recent research has shown that cows, for example, have long >> social memories, bearing grudges or forming alliances lasting many >> years, showing complex emotions. They can learn to open gates. Octopuses >> also remember other individuals or situations. They learn by >> observation: after watching other octopuses manipulate coloured objects, >> they can imitate them. They can also learn to transport things like >> coconut shells over distances to construct a shelter. Examples of plant >> and animal memory; unexpected forms of communication; learning novel >> actions; and tool use β our knowledge of all these skills and >> capabilities is now multiplying rapidly as researchers come to realize >> that the living world as a whole is a great mosaic of intelligent forms >> linked through many networks..." >> >> And so on. > <...> > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
