Horizons of the Human
Featured Image: ‘Annihilation’ Jef Vandemeer, Image: Lorenzo Ceccotti
Reflections: Cave of Forgotten Dreams
Are cave paintings necessarily art? It could just be a record of the animals they killed or domesticate, and there was no other medium of recording? However, looking at the wall usage with contrast, and the walls physical combinations, it could have been art.
The film draws a parallel between Homo Sapien and Homo Spiritualis — If we were to believe in spirits, then for a smaller population of Man eras ago, would spirits have a greater influence on Man then?
Reflections: The Mastery of Non-Mastery
Sooner or later we will become immune to violence and tragedy — I agree because people react when terrorism strikes Paris, by getting on social media campaigns, art works, changing display pictures. Do they realize the daily peril in Syria or is that a given?
The author noted a lot of “techniques of the body” — of how men and women have changed the way the dress, sleep, accessorize with war-ready weapons and instruments. He also noticed “eating on the floor with legs bent flat like the bread” that seemed painful to him, but actually, it isn’t for mainly eastern cultures. For example, I am from India, and squatting on the floor with bent flat legs is just a norm since childhood. It’s just that sole-English speaking cultures or European cultures may not be acquainted with that style. With the author mentioning that there was no provision for the call for prayer, care for health, with the irony that the health workers heavily smoked, it is clear that the focus is only on basic survival from the war.
It’s interesting to note how the cell phone infrastructure with Turkcell is perfectly in place with even fights uploaded on Youtube. Also, despite the fact that the traditional Islamic culture here in Syria has taken a back seat in the fight for basic survival, it was strange that the author noticed men and women still having separate groups, and more so, the men were trying to mingle with women in this fight and trying to look in terms of the women’s perception. “We feel stronger with them. … They are no longer slaves to men.” which again, historically, is going away from the culture of traditional orthodox Islamic nations. However, the “normal” people that he met, were still following patriarchal patterns, far away from the anarchism and feminism of these guerilla groups.
To make a point on the democratic state of things — Although there is an irony with a new state being formed within the forces who do not want a Syrian state, I am in total agreement that with the rise of feminism and anarchism, across the world, leaders must always be considered as “first among equals”. Without this, I believe, we as a civilization will only revolve within our own opinions and debates and never arrive at a decision, right or wrong.
This is reiterated everywhere across the author’s article “Even feminized anarchists need or create a leader of (anti) heroic proportions” where Ocalan is idolized and the movement has gained speed with him, with his arrest, whatever he stands for and whatever he has died/is dying for.
When we read or reflect on articles that concern global phenomenon, foreign policy, war, or anything that concerns multiple cultures or countries, it is important that one must be exposed to the media and articles of the cultures of all the involved countries. This I say because the author mentions Robert Fisks “martyrs”. The quotes are just because the West is uncomfortable with it, whereas the Kurds would be totally fine. Who is to say which country is on the right side when all are involved in this war’s mess? Therefore, as the world is growing smaller with advanced transport, communication, and especially social media, we need to design better education around the consumption of media. Truth should be a collective gathering and not the stronger side overpowering the rest.
Reflecting on the idea of ‘mastery over non-mastery’, it’s ironical, that US and Turkey together are helping overthrow the Kurdish forces that are empowered by feminist guerilla forces, while the USA, trying to be the “problem-solver” here, recently lost a chance a history to have a woman leader, not just because she is was a woman, but was she really that corrupt or incompetent as compared to the one now leading the country?
As a final comment, is Barrack Obama a perfect example of Mastery of Non-Mastery?
I disagree with how the author has depicted Xenofeminism being anti-naturalist. Yes, I agree that making “norms” is not the way to go. None of us have the right to dictate how queer, trans, pregnant-women, etc ought to behave or to choose. They have a choice and we need to give them the freedom of choice of living their own lives. However, these sections of society are natural, and so are the other “majority” too, and so are feminists and xenofeminists. We cannot be anti-naturalist because we are part of that nature.
To reiterate, my disagreement is with the definition or the portrayal of XF. For example, “Black lives matter” is a good campaign and I support it. However, it is of grave importance to note, that this caption, definition or slogan is very contextual. It is dangerous to use this without context, with a new demography or where you might have people with other colored skin. In a general context, I find this slogan in itself, racist and short-lived, because all are believers in life, and a poorly designed campaign can cause more harm than good, in the long run, and in the wrong context.
I stand in total agreement with the author in point 3. However, is XF a rationalism? Sure it is, but isn’t everything else too? White supremacy is also a form of rationalism, just that unfortunately, it doesn’t surpass the comprehension capabilities of a section of society. I also agree on point 4, “Rationalism must itself be a feminist”. However, the point 4, seems to have underlying connotations as if the patriarchal society is a creation of the male gender alone or continues to be so. I think not. I’m sure and I hope it’s not out of the ordinary to note, that both genders are and were responsible for carrying out the mission to “maintain” a patriarchal society. Therefore, I find it ironical that Xenofeminism, according to the author, is gender-abolitionist.
Now, if we need to get feminism into our governments, politics, and systems, how do we define this goal? If the Parliament or a Congress is filled with the most efficient people, the right ones for the job, as per how the electorate has chosen, and… they are all feminists, but they also all happen to be men. So, will the media and the general public understand that this is normal and equality shall prevail or does this become a wrong choice by the electorate? What if we have an equal representation of men and woman, but none are feminists? I believe in the debate of XF, if we want to rethink “the norms” then we ought to draw the line between equality and token-representation.
“There is nothing, we claim, that cannot be studied scientifically and manipulated technologically.” In my comprehensible capabilities, I fully agree to this today and heavily endorse this, however, this was surely not the case before this millennium or even most recently, and I wonder if this will hold in future.
I would agree with the author’s definition of XF as “a language that seizes its own methods as materials to be reworked and incrementally bootstraps itself into existence” mainly because it defined itself with a dynamicity to redefine itself, which I think is the need of the hour and for the future. Flexible thought must be encouraged. Having said that, “If nature is unjust, change nature”? We are better off adapting to nature than going against it because we are nature.
Reflections: ‘The Accursed Share’
I am terribly puzzled by the author’s analogy of “find in it this affirmation: that the sexual act is in time what the tiger is in space.” The author seems very concerned with the society resisting or being more critical of change and hence is giving an elaborate preface to give the critics a context in which they need to judge the book. I feel, that I would reflect much better on the thoughts on the preface had I had some experience in reading other books on economics.
However, I see that the author is trying to draw a scientific connection between the energies of the earth and the general “established” principles of economy. I also found a confusion where the author says that “man’s denial of ‘useless consumption’, does not alter the global movement of energy in the least”. How so? Depleting natural resources, destroying ecosystems? Global warming? Doesn’t this alter energy flow?
I am curious and worried after going through this reading, have we as the world redefined and are ever redefining our definitions of the economy and economic sciences? I say this because the economy, the systems of transport, communication, financial transactions are unrecognizably different than when I learned basic economics in school, 20 years ago.
Reflections: ‘Corpus Atomicus’
It was hard to comprehend this article without the actual lecture, however, I tried to draw a pattern on where the Professor was leading me to think. I understand that we need to sometimes question the basis of ourselves, and take into account the very basic building blocks that make ‘us’ and ‘our world’.
I recently watched the movie ‘Life’ starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson. Even though it was a movie placed in recent future with advanced technologies, the incidents that took place in space, led me to question my own humanity and existence. It was a thrilling feeling.
I do have assumptions built around my world and although I travel a lot and strive hard to keep an open mind, I feel it is only human to have some degree of assumption. Not all assumption is bad, and some may even guide us to learn more. However, it is, but when we design, that unlearning becomes important, not just about subjects or processes, but questioning the very fabric of already existing assumptions.
Reflections: ‘Sand County Almanac’
It was interesting to read these excerpts. I have always defined design as “form of order” because I’m a firm believer in “Order is Heaven’s first law”, a quote from Alexander Pope that I hold dear. Atheist or not, if you do believe in the God or science of creation, that process did follow a design and order and still continues to do so. When this order is disturbed, we have fresh processes generated like global warming for example, which again is designed to function in a certain way, because the previous function was disturbed.
I always give the example of honey bees. Simple, small, insignificant but beautiful looking creatures, actually hold so much importance in nature beyond our assumptions. I also strongly agree with the author’s statement that man is not a “conqueror of the land — but just a plain member and citizen of it.” This, I believe is the crux of the problem the earth is facing today, where we have leaders or powerful nations who ignore responsibility. It’s threatening and disappointing.
Reflections: Outing A.I.: Beyond the Turing Test
“We are missing the real point of what it means to live and think with an AI” — well, yes… not everything is going to be so pleasant like in the movie “Her”.
The fact that we are referring to AI already and continue to call it a “super-intelligence” is the actual threat that we are already creating ourselves, that in our daily discourse, we look at it in a way that it is mightier and smarter than us. If Man has a more powerful brain than the other animals, and we believe ‘we rule the world’, then what stops a “super-intelligence” from doing the same to us? An intelligence that we created!
As much as I liked reading about the author’s inputs on the Turing test, I am shocked, that he did not mention CAPTCHA. That was the easiest concept for an average internet citizen today, to understand the differentiation between a human and robot.
“We need a popular culture of A.I. that is less parochial and narcissistic, one that is based on more than simply looking for a machine version of our own reflection.” Doesn’t this still hold enough danger to overthrow our control of earth?
Summary and Conclusion
I believe it is a human tendency to put a face to things. No one saw Jesus Christ, but we have a face or at least now a symbol. Hitler’s Nazi symbol of the Swastika, unfortunately, still lives on in certain pockets. The caveman has left art and symbols from 30,000 years ago of what they believed in, as much as a bison with a naked woman. Ocalan, a name we do not normally find in the news, main stream media or social media, still continues to prevail as an integral part of the Kurdish forces, dead or alive. Looking into the future, will humans still identify with a symbol or a leader? May be not, but I believe surely they will, with an ideology, a theory, a process. Not having this, will take away one essence of humanity.
Speaking of Xenofeminism, I find that contradictory to all the other articles here in this series. To be human, to be anthoprocene, to be part of nature, to view non-living systems as part of nature… and XF defines itself against it?
I interpret “Horizon of the Human” in a positive and negative way, as to what are the limits of being human? How many mountains can we scale? How many planets can we land on or harness? How many earthly problems can we eradicate? On the darker side, where and when will we stop being human? When will cannibalism be a norm and how do we design a civilization around that?
How would I imagine the world after the disappearance of Man? It’s not hard to imagine this. The world was a better place before we ‘ruled’. And finally, I want to end with this episode of the classic and epic ‘Small Wonder’.
