Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
Hi Everyone. I know this thread is closed, but I wrote this for Furtherfield for Turing's birthday - contains links to Homay's work and other articles. Forgot to tell everyone on here! [http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/why-arent-we-reading-turing] many thanks Rob On 16 Jun 2012, at 09:07, shu lea cheang wrote: > hi, all > > first i take a bow for much support of my work on this list. > a quick note to say, if you need to teach BRANDON, please write to guggenheim > (or me) > to obtain the password for the website, if somehow they still have not got it > back online by this fall. > a recent interview at Rhizome about this work > http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/may/10/shu-lea-cheang-on-brandon/ > > I have been reading all the post with great interest...but was caught between > macbeth and kurosawa with Moving Forest 2012 in london. to be launched june > 22 with 12 day prelude, 12 hour performance and a CODA.http://movingforest.net > I have also invited Zach and Micha to participate in the project. (and yes, > all of you can join) > question: where/who are the queers in the insurgency? > > ah, sorry for the diversion... > > indeed, my entry here follows Zach's question, > " how Turing's scientific and computational research could be infused with > his erotic desires. " > and jacob and homay's research notes. > Speaking of non-human and turing machine, check back on Blade Runner's turing > test. > "Is this testing whether i am a replicant or a lesbian? Mr. Deckard" > Much cross references can be made here. > My own I.K.U. movie which picks up where Blade Runner left us in the elevator, > cast a transsexual to play Deckard in fully expressed (not repressed) xxx > desire. > UKI as I.K.U. sequel dumps defunct (machine/code) replicants admist code > hackers > I have been very interested in the parallel development of code/body viral > writing. > > do want to add on to Zach's virus book list also > Jussi Parrika 's 'Digital Contagions" > and Matthew Fuller's interview with JP > http://www.spc.org/fuller/interviews/jussi-parikka-interview-on-digital-contagions/ > > thanks all > quite notes for now > > sl > > > > > > ___ > empyre forum > [email protected] > http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
hi, all first i take a bow for much support of my work on this list. a quick note to say, if you need to teach BRANDON, please write to guggenheim (or me) to obtain the password for the website, if somehow they still have not got it back online by this fall. a recent interview at Rhizome about this work http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/may/10/shu-lea-cheang-on-brandon/ I have been reading all the post with great interest...but was caught between macbeth and kurosawa with Moving Forest 2012 in london. to be launched june 22 with 12 day prelude, 12 hour performance and a CODA. http://movingforest.net I have also invited Zach and Micha to participate in the project. (and yes, all of you can join) question: where/who are the queers in the insurgency? ah, sorry for the diversion... indeed, my entry here follows Zach's question, " how Turing's scientific and computational research could be infused with his erotic desires. " and jacob and homay's research notes. Speaking of non-human and turing machine, check back on Blade Runner's turing test. "Is this testing whether i am a replicant or a lesbian? Mr. Deckard" Much cross references can be made here. My own I.K.U. movie which picks up where Blade Runner left us in the elevator, cast a transsexual to play Deckard in fully expressed (not repressed) xxx desire. UKI as I.K.U. sequel dumps defunct (machine/code) replicants admist code hackers I have been very interested in the parallel development of code/body viral writing. do want to add on to Zach's virus book list also Jussi Parrika 's 'Digital Contagions" and Matthew Fuller's interview with JP http://www.spc.org/fuller/interviews/jussi-parikka-interview-on-digital-contagions/ thanks all quite notes for now sl ___ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
Thanks, everyone, for the Turing-related ideas and links. Here are a few replies... to Zach’s question: “in your article you attempt to work through how Turing’s scientific and computational research could be infused with his erotic desires. Could you say more about this? and maybe how turing helps you investigate how queer desire can shape or affect computation?” I’d be happy to. My take on Turing draws on Jean Laplanche’s theory of the enigmatic sigifier to think about Turing’s queer relationship to enigmas, which, in the early phases of his career, in the work on the Entsheidungsproblem and cryptoanalaysis, takes the form of a quest for a transparent form of communication. At this stage of this thinking (which Rob rightly calls philosophical), it’s as if he’s searching for a a way to eliminate ambiguity and misunderstanding from interactions, be they oral, epistolary, pictural, or algorithmic; human to human, human to machine, unsuspecting German to covert British, etc. Initially he searches for this clarity in the language of mathematics, logic, and computing. Later, though, he makes an about-face, no longer yearning for a machine-like clarity in human communications, but instead wondering whether a machine could ever communicate as sloppily as a human. His operating definition of machine intelligence has less to do with logical processes than with what, in my reading, I call “sociability” (in the sense offered by Georg Simmel). The Turing test is really a sociability test: can the machine jest, flirt, be vague, show curiosity? This is what it means to pass as human, astonishing for a thinker who devoted his life to the study math and science rather than, say, Victorian literature. How is all of this queer? The fact that the Turing test is inspired by a gender guessing game is relevant, but there's more to it than that. As Hodges’ meticulous biography makes clear, Turing was frank to a fault at times about his sexuality; he propositioned colleagues, and, horrifyingly, outed himself to the police during the investigation that resulted in his arrest for gross indecency. He had a fraught and fascinating relationship to the demand to keep his sexuality a secret, pressed on him by the restrictions of his era, place, and class, and likewise the necessity to pursue romantic and erotic relations through direct yet highly codified exchanges. I've struggled with this project because in some ways it relies on strategies of psychobiography that I find problematic and limiting. My solution has been to focus on how Turing approaches the intersubjective (the exchange of messages, protocols for communication, and so on), rather than to select a biographical event or feature of identity and attempt to link it directly to an element of Turing’s thought in a one-to-one correspondence. The key to Turing isn't his sexuality as such, his "gayness"; rather, it's the way he handled, processed, and sublimated all the strange conditions and restrictions on his erotic life and ways of communicating about it. to Rob on Turing: “A lot of popular literature (Martin Davis for instance) likes to separate the decision problem from Turing's later work on machinic intelligence (the Turing test is about the interrogator failing to decide on an input query!) and his forays into morphogenesis - but I don't think this can be done” Yes! This is related to what I’m trying to get at above, and well put. to Jacob on Turing and Wittgenstein: “I would argue that they are in fact both describing the same thing, and both examining that which lies beyond the limits of procedural knowledge, something that I think can be usefully figured as a queer gesture given the subsequent development of computing technology.” Yes – I agree that the Turing vs. Wittengenstein debate is in some ways a canard, and would say that Turing’s later work, the work in AI, is focused on this question of the limits of procedural knowledge (how do you create a procedure for flirtation or curiosity? It’s probably not impossible, but certainly more difficult than creating a procedure for, say, playing chess). to Rob on computer weirdness: “It seems to me that human rationality is usually pitted in contrast with machines which are viewed either as; dumb surface tools reduced to the depths of human communication - or - artificial systems which (may) have the capacity for sentience - or - material based historical notation devices. Why aren't they just looked as what they are and all the weirdness they contain? Computers are weird, endearing, at times even psychotic: they have a hard time with ambiguity and ambivalence, which is understandable. Queer relationships have historically had to withstand a greater amount of both these things; queer subjects accordingly have perhaps been compelled to develop a greater capacity for (or resistance to) them. All best and thanks again, Homay
Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
Thanks so much for your response Rob! I'm very excited about your work and I think you're working in a very similar space to the discussion we've been having. In fact it seems very related to the recent work I've been doing on Turing's uncomputability as a kind of queer externality. Your discussion of uncomputability between formal systems such as language is precisely what interests me. I've recently written a long history of queer computing for Rhizome that should be published in September, but Zach, Micha, Pinar and I are also presenting a series of panels this year on this very topic. My contribution is an analysis of the interaction that takes place between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Alan Turing in the Spring of 1939 at Cambridge, when Turing attends a course Wittgenstein is teaching on the foundations of mathematics. While the two of them seem incapable of agreeing on the question of limits of mathematics as a system of logic (that is, the Entscheidungsproblem), they are both actually making a similar point. Wittgenstein wants to describe the way in which mathematics is constructed within language and is therefore burdened by the same kinds of paradoxes that are of interest to formal logic (the liar's paradox, zeno's paradoxes, etc.), while Turing wants to argue that the material nature of mathematical application (the building of bridges, etc.) would suggest that mathematics is capable of describing true things about the world, despite the fact that there are limits to such descriptions, such as uncomputable processes. I would argue that they are in fact both describing the same thing, and both examining that which lies beyond the limits of procedural knowledge, something that I think can be usefully figured as a queer gesture given the subsequent development of computing technology. While not central to the argument, it is also interesting that both these men are proto-queer figures. Your discussion of "weird machines" also prompted me to think of Michael Mateas' entry in Matthew Fuller's "Software Studies" lexicon on "Weird Languages", that is the unique and playful languages programmers use "to explore and exploit the play that is possible in programming language design" (267). It seems a very similar practice, and it seems to walk that same line of a kind of productive breaking or disruption that serves both as play and parody and as critique. It's true that this is where these liminal technical objects emerge from, though of course they might then be redeployed as we've seen with the recent state sponsored "cyberterrorism" of Stuxnet and Flame. Nonetheless I'm reminded of Haraway's categorization of cyborgs - and all computing technology - as the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism that we might make unfaithful to their troubled origins, only here it is quite the opposite, a reintegration of these in-between objects into a new kind of productive militarism. (You'll have to forgive the dated references, I'm teaching an intro to gender studies course this summer and it tends to bleed through.) I agree with your contention that we can't separate the early Turing from the later work. And I would also argue that we can't isolate his contributions to a kind of queer philosophy to his work in the Turing Test, interesting though it may be. I look forward to reading the PDF you send, and I'll respond again when I've had the chance to give it some thought. - Jacob On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Rob Jackson wrote: > Hey all, > > I'm really sorry if I'm slightly hijacking the thread here, but I too have > been working > with Turing in my thesis on the non-human formalisation of computability > theory. I > would be extremely interested to hear more from Homay's article on this (I > consider myself as > a bit of layman when it comes to queer theory, so please put up with my > ignorance!) I really, really > would love to hear these positions. > > I work in the digital aesthetics, SR/OOO and computer science, so this > thread is like a candy shop > for me. In fact my thesis (should I ever get it finished) is about how > issues like the uncomputable, undecidability and other > unsolvable problems factor into aesthetic works, and how it does so > implicitly or explicitly. My contribution > (or intervention as one would put it) is to suggest that undecidability - or > Turing's formulation of the decision problem - is > more general than is usually advertised in computer science. It occurs not > just between humans aping for knowledge from some > homogenous totality that is 'computation', but is everpresent in-between > formal language systems themselves. It is not just the case that > human knowledge has little complete mastery of computation; even computable > systems have no mastery over other computable systems > such is the complexity of them. Networks do not operate as fluid modes of > informal flux; they are creaky and impure formal systems, comprised > of modular compo
Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
Hey all, I'm really sorry if I'm slightly hijacking the thread here, but I too have been working with Turing in my thesis on the non-human formalisation of computability theory. I would be extremely interested to hear more from Homay's article on this (I consider myself as a bit of layman when it comes to queer theory, so please put up with my ignorance!) I really, really would love to hear these positions. I work in the digital aesthetics, SR/OOO and computer science, so this thread is like a candy shop for me. In fact my thesis (should I ever get it finished) is about how issues like the uncomputable, undecidability and other unsolvable problems factor into aesthetic works, and how it does so implicitly or explicitly. My contribution (or intervention as one would put it) is to suggest that undecidability - or Turing's formulation of the decision problem - is more general than is usually advertised in computer science. It occurs not just between humans aping for knowledge from some homogenous totality that is 'computation', but is everpresent in-between formal language systems themselves. It is not just the case that human knowledge has little complete mastery of computation; even computable systems have no mastery over other computable systems such is the complexity of them. Networks do not operate as fluid modes of informal flux; they are creaky and impure formal systems, comprised of modular compositions, operatively rubbing against others. Uncomputability in-between formal systems of an equivalent language is the reason as to why glitches and especially viruses occur - its linked to what the exploit programmer Halvar Flake recently called the "weird machine" - A weird machine is the unexpected state of a computing system which was not expected nor intended by the original author, but is nonetheless algorithmically recognisable in the formal language. If a language is shown to be undecidable, its permanently ambiguous, and thus it will always recognise something it can never expect/compute. I have more detailed thoughts regarding this in a recent talk for those interested: [http://robertjackson.info/index/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/particmaterial.pdf] It seems to me that human rationality is usually pitted in contrast with machines which are viewed either as; dumb surface tools reduced to the depths of human communication - or - artificial systems which (may) have the capacity for sentience - or - material based historical notation devices. Why aren't they just looked as what they are and all the weirdness they contain? We shouldn't be too quick to align some previous philosophical system or political agenda and use it to dissect something or other - I think it's much more fruitful (and dare I say more honest) to build a philosophical system from the weirdness of things and systems. I read Turing along these lines; a great philosopher, not just a great mathematician and engineer, A lot of popular literature (Martin Davis for instance) likes to separate the decision problem from Turing's later work on machinic intelligence (the Turing test is about the interrogator failing to decide on an input query!) and his forays into morphogenesis - but I don't think this can be done - I think the surprising irreducible quality of machines emerges throughout the Turing corpus. I don't really have an opinion regarding the links between Turing's sexuality and his work, but I do find it interesting that Turing's original formulation of the Turing test, was an interrogator trying to decide which messages were from a man or a woman (and then you substitute the man for the machine leaving the undecidable choice between a machine and a woman). I'll stop - wrote too much again - sorry thanks for hosting this important thread - look forward to the contributing debate. best Rob I think the important element here, especially when one is talking about viruses, glitches On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:14, micha cárdenas wrote: > Here's one of those videos we're submitting to MIX that is part of Shu > Lea Cheang's viral code spam performance: > > https://vimeo.com/37978993 > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Zach Blas wrote: >> hi all-- >> >> i’ve also been busy with micha putting together a curated set of >> videos for mix nyc, a queer experimental video festival. >> >> since this week is broadly on the topic of computation and the >> nonhuman in queer media art & theory--and since it’s the last day on >> this topic, i’d really like to bring in jacob and homay. while >> michael, jack, and ian have really heated up the discussions on sr and >> ooo, homay and jacob have different approaches to these topics that >> i’d like to not let get completely side-lined. >> >> jacob, micha and i for awhile have been interested in viruses. i was >> thinking about viruses in relation to your work on uncomputability. in >> the exploit, galloway and thacker talk about viruses
Re: [-empyre-] to jacob & homay
Here's one of those videos we're submitting to MIX that is part of Shu Lea Cheang's viral code spam performance: https://vimeo.com/37978993 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Zach Blas wrote: > hi all-- > > i’ve also been busy with micha putting together a curated set of > videos for mix nyc, a queer experimental video festival. > > since this week is broadly on the topic of computation and the > nonhuman in queer media art & theory--and since it’s the last day on > this topic, i’d really like to bring in jacob and homay. while > michael, jack, and ian have really heated up the discussions on sr and > ooo, homay and jacob have different approaches to these topics that > i’d like to not let get completely side-lined. > > jacob, micha and i for awhile have been interested in viruses. i was > thinking about viruses in relation to your work on uncomputability. in > the exploit, galloway and thacker talk about viruses as illegible and > incalculable. the virus also shows up in shu lea cheang’s new work > UKI, which she refers to as a live viral code spam performance. > http://www.u-k-i.co/index-project.html i’m also thinking about ricardo > dominguez and the electronic disturbance theater and how they’ve > conceptualized some of their work as viruses infecting capital and > dominant systems of power. i wonder if you have any thoughts on the > virus. perhaps it can be paired with the glitch. but the nonhuman in > queerness could also be approached through nonhuman things that have > strongly impacted queerness, and the virus would certainly be one of > those things. there’s a new issue of women studies quarterly on the > viral. maybe some people are addressing these questions in there? i’m > asking these questions and bringing up the virus because i’m curious > about building the repertoire of queer tech logics you’ve discussed > through and beyond failure and the glitch. > > homay, micha shared your work on turing with me. and i remember in > your article you attempt to work through how Turing’s scientific and > computational research could be infused with his erotic desires. could > you say more about this? and maybe how turing helps you investigate > how queer desire can shape or affect computation? > > -- > zach blas > artist & phd candidate > literature, information science + information studies, visual studies > duke university > www.zachblas.info > ___ > empyre forum > [email protected] > http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- micha cárdenas PhD Student, Media Arts and Practice, University of Southern California Provost Fellow, University of Southern California New Directions Scholar, USC Center for Feminist Research MFA, Visual Arts, University of California, San Diego Author, The Transreal: Political Aesthetics of Crossing Realities, http://amzn.to/x8iJcY blog: http://transreal.org ___ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
