bernard stiegler
adding page because of michel bauwens here [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1977222475110080914]:
The only philosopher that truly understood P2P and the Commons, in my view (feel free to suggest others):
(he asked to meet me whenever I passed through Paris and we had long conversations, once or twice a year before his death)
* An interview with Bernard Stiegler:
https://nextsee.org/en-memoire-de-bernard-stiegler-interview/
“Bernard Stiegler is undoubtedly the philosopher who best identified and conceptualized what characterizes our era, translating it into new concepts and actions, into profound, living, mobilizing actions. He paved a path and extremely promising ideas in our rapidly changing world. Far ahead of his time, he influenced numerous currents of thought, to which several authors featured in this issue of Alters Média paid tribute.”
notes/quotes from article linked [https://nextsee.org/en-memoire-de-bernard-stiegler-interview/]:
In memory of Bernard Stiegler, interview!
November 1, 2020
.. Bernard Stiegler is certainly the philosopher who was best able to identify and think about what characterizes our era, to translate it into new concepts and actions, into profound, lively, mobilizing actions. He paved a path and extremely promising ideas in our rapidly changing world.
..But this crisis is only a reflection and indicator of a deeper crisis: it has been widely noted that Covid is revealing many hidden aspects or trends in our society. What has this crisis taught you?
This crisis, astounding in its sheer complexity, has taken us from surprise to surprise,..we were surprised and took the time to measure the gravity of this hyper-event, obviously linked to the hyper-networked nature of our world and unbridled globalization: networked by transport, of course, which represents the connection of more than 4 billion human beings, and this in less than ten years.
virus noticings ness..
What worried us most about this extraordinary event was the discredit that has now affected science, after having affected economics and politics, as I analyzed in my book “Disbelief and Discredit “… It is very serious, fraught with dramatic consequences.
science scientifically et al
I was shocked and frightened by the dogmatism of certain positions taken by scientists, sometimes renowned ones: some asserting that we were right to confine, others that we were wrong, without any scientific discussion taking place. However, no one will ever know whether we were right or wrong to confine. The scientific certainty that governed us from the 17th to the 20th century no longer exists! We have entered a period of extreme uncertainty, through the concatenation of a multitude of crises, the mosdiverse, of all kinds. No calculation could have predicted the COVID crisis! The discredit brought to science is of course also the Lancet scandal: this way of publishing, based on calculations based on unverified data, this blindness to calculation, is frightening.
or just realizing that everything has always been uncertain.. that our dogmatic assumption ness.. our scientific certainty.. has never been legit
In your latest book, Bifurquer , you explore in depth a key theme of current globalization: the question of the local, which you closely link to the question of entropy and anthropy. Why does this topic of locality seem central to you at the moment?
This question of locality is at the heart of the problems of our time! We have been working on this theme within the International Collective for two years, linking industrial economics, political economy, science, law, and technology.
The problem with the biosphere is that it is exposed to a very dangerous increase in entropy. It massively destroys biodiversity, degrades health, destroys social systems…
Now, life, as we have known at least since 1944 thanks to Schrödinger, is that which has the local capacity to defer entropy by differentiating itself in space, that is to say by organizing itself. The living, because it locally “complexifies” the world, locally decreases entropy (which seems to contradict the second principle of thermodynamics, but we know that in fact, at the level of the global system, entropy increases). The reduction of entropy exists, but can only be carried out, in principle, at the local level. Entropy can only be deferred.
i don’t think we have any of the entropy ness right.. my gut resonates more with carhart-harris entropy law et al
Thus, the biodiversity of the intestinal flora is destroyed by current food standardization, causing digestive system problems. For example, we work with sheep farmers to advocate for the production of raw milk cheese as well as culinary practices that maintain intestinal biodiversity, crucial for the immune system, which is vital for resisting viral attacks. These local practices strengthen immune biodiversity; each microbiome is local.
gut et al
For two centuries, with the development of industrial capitalism, the rate of increase in entropy has continued to grow: climate change and the loss of biodiversity are now established phenomena. Industrial capitalism is based on Newtonian epistemology (a conception of science) which must be overcome! It is therefore necessary to create a new industrial economy, capable of creating negentropy, by designing all types of knowledge (know-how, savoir-vivre, theoretical or technical knowledge, etc.) on the basis of a new epistemology .
oi.. rather.. let’s let go of having to know things.. graeber can’t know law et al
We must provoke a discussion about entropy, at the level of economic and political leaders, even though they avoid this question of entropy, which is a form of denial. The capacity of living things to defer entropy is improbable and cannot be reduced to physics. As for humans who produce knowledge, sources of negentropy, we must defend its diversity, its noodiversity ( noos , in Greek, is knowledge).
to me.. humans who produce knowledge is what’s disturbing the dance.. entropy is part of the dance
We urgently need to produce a new rationality, otherwise we will face extreme violence, from individuals as well as states.
We are currently destroying this neodiversity, this diversity of knowledge, just as we are destroying biodiversity. And this is provoking anger (among young people with what we call the Greta Thunberg generation, or with the yellow vests, and in various countries around the world) and it is only just beginning: we urgently need to produce a new rationality, otherwise we will face extreme violence, from individuals as well as states.
since forever.. nothing new here..
What theoretical and practical effort do you call for to produce this new rationality?
Our proposal is to develop what we call contributory research.
oi.. gray research law et al
This new rationality will not be created by decree, but by “diagonal” dynamics, crossing the bottom up and the top down , through dialogue and negotiation! We rely for this on laboratory territories: the first of these is in Seine-Saint-Denis. But new ones are being created:
oi
- With a whole set of islands where we work to reconcile human beings with all other types of living things (sheep, cows, bacteria, etc.) in conjunction with dairy industry (Croatia, Corsica); we seek to connect and reinvent the practices of fishing, livestock farming and tourism (in the Galapagos) around communities of discovery (“noetic tourism” as opposed to current tourist pollution);
- With the State of Geneva, in the suburbs of Milan, in the Amazon with anti-Bolsonaro communities, in Siberia…
What is interesting is the dialogue, the confrontation between these very diverse localities, for the development of new modes of economies and businesses ; .This also invites us to reflect on what responsible economies of scale are.
But we must be precise: in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion , Bergson makes a theory of the local, by opposing the local that closes itself, the identity opposed to the outside world, to the local of an open society. It is only on this condition, of openness and exchange between scales, by returning to “gentle commerce” (commerce taken in the broad sense of exchange) that negentropy is constructed.
oi
In 2018, you founded the International Collective. You’re expanding your thinking on the local by developing, following Marcel Mauss’s insight, this notion of the International.
How do you envision this International? And what about the transition between the International you’re seeking to build and the global organization of nations (the UN)?Einstein, like Bergson and Mauss, was very interested in the birth of the League of Nations. Marcel Mauss also outlined this idea in his work The Nation . He emphasized that nations should not be diluted in internationalism, at the risk that a negation of nations would lead to the exacerbation of nationalism . We do not see this International precisely, but it is close to their vision.
..we must recognize that the universal is not the enemy of the diverse. The universal is only expressed in diversity . Otherwise, we are in the calculation, a simple abstract logic, which is necessary but never sufficient: it is in the name of the universal that many populations have been exterminated!
We are legalists and we want to rely on the legitimacy of the United Nations and respect its institutions. It is not a question of discrediting them, but of transforming them in the face of the risk that they will self-destruct. Every organization produces entropy, which can indeed cause its death.
oh my
Could this International also be that of the economy and the practices of the world of economics?
This is exactly what we want to create by bringing together the players in the economy: investors, shareholders, managers, employees, customers, etc.
Our goal is not to create isolated territories, “Indian reserves.” In this field of economics, the International must be a space for experimentation and criticism, which produces exemplary work and brings together the economic, political, and legal worlds. There is no miracle solution; we must work, produce knowledge, and not be afraid of the controversies of debate and life! We only know 10% of what the future may hold, but we must know that we do not know.
oi
You’ve worked on the risks associated with social media and major platforms. How can we rethink digital technology to address these risks?
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..
*Digital is an environment that makes a contributory economy possible, and it even has a central place..
*oh my.. mufleh humanity law et al
We are working to develop other types of social networks which, unlike the previous ones, provide users with the opportunity to build themselves.
need 1st/most: means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
After Kant, we know that human beings use their intuition, understanding, imagination, and reason to know, practice, and judge. The computer relies on exceptional analytical abilities (calculation abilities), but only on them. However, negentropy is not predictable or calculable. Relying solely on calculation to combat entropy is not only impossible but also generates the opposite effect: multiplying it.
nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem.. so we keep thinking we know and judging/calculating/predicting.. et al
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
again.. ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
again.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness
July 3, 2020
Interview by Didier Racine
from wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Stiegler]:
Bernard Stiegler (French: [bɛʁnaʁ stiɡlɛʁ]; 1 April 1952 – 5 August 2020) was a French philosopher. He was head of the Institut de recherche et d’innovation (IRI), which he founded in 2006 at the Centre Georges-Pompidou. He was also founder of the political and cultural group Ars Industrialis in 2005. In 2010, he established the philosophy school, pharmakon.fr, held at Épineuil-le-Fleuriel. He co-founded Collectif Internation, a group of “politicised researchers” in 2018. His best known work is Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus.
Stiegler has been described as “one of the most influential European philosophers of the 21st century” and an important theorist of the effects of digital technology.
we need tech as it could be.. all else is a cancerous distraction
Between 1978 and 1983 Stiegler was incarcerated for armed robbery, first at the Prison Saint-Michel in Toulouse, and then at the Centre de détention in Muret. It was during this period that he became interested in philosophy, ..He recounts his transformation in prison in his book, ..included in the 2009 volume Acting Out).
On 18 September 2010 Stiegler opened his own philosophy school (called pharmakon.fr) in the small French town of Épineuil-le-Fleuriel, in the department of Cher across multiple disciplines. The school ran a public course for people in the region, a seminar for doctoral students and junior researchers conducted by videoconference, and a summer academy that involves activists, researchers, artists, writers and both groups as well as interested inhabitants from the surrounding area. At a philosophical level, the school was engaged in research, critique and analysis in line with Stiegler’s pharmacological approach
Stiegler died by suicide on 5 August 2020. Stiegler is survived by his wife, Caroline Stiegler, and four children.
Stiegler’s work is influenced by, among others, Sigmund Freud, André Leroi-Gourhan, Gilbert Simondon, Friedrich Nietzsche, Paul Valéry, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Karl Marx, Gilles Deleuze, Donald Winnicott, Georges Bataille, and Jacques Derrida.
friedrich nietzsche.. martin heidegger.. karl marx.. gilles deleuze..
Key themes are technology, time, individuation, consumerism, consumer capitalism, technological convergence, digitization, Americanization, education and the future of politics and human society.
Stiegler was a prolific author of books, articles and interviews, with his first book being published in 1994. His works include several ongoing series of books:
- The Technics and Time series outlines the heart of Stiegler’s philosophical project, and in particular his theses that the role of technics has been repressed throughout the history of philosophy, and that technics, as organised inorganic matter, and as essentially a form of memory, is constitutive of human temporality.
- De la misère symbolique (2 vols.). This series is concerned in particular with the ways in which cultural, symbolic and informational technologies have become a means of industrialising the formation of desire in the service of production, with destructive consequences for psychic and collective individuation.
- The Disbelief and Discredit series is concerned with the way in which the industrial organisation of production and then consumption has had destructive consequences for the modes of life of human beings, in particular with the way in which the loss of savoir-faire and savoir-vivre (that is, the loss of the knowledge of how to do and how to live), has resulted in what Stiegler calls “generalised proletarianisation.”
- Constituer l’Europe (2 vols.). In this series Stiegler is concerned with the effects of the destruction of psychic and collective individuation on Europe. He argues for the necessity of inaugurating a new individuation process at the continental level, itself embedded in an individuation process operating at a global level. At stake, he says, is the creation of a new European “motive” which will enable the reinvention of industrial civilisation.
______
______
______
______
______
______
_______
be you. 