martin scherzinger

martin scherzinger.png

intro’d to Martin here.. first just adding Maurizio.. but then intrigued by all the.. he’s so intellectual.. can’t understand him.. but still bowing to him..but insisting on simpler.. ness.. of Cathy and then of Doc.. thinking: Richard‘s legible ness.. so dipping into Martin a bit..


In just a few! Livestream today’s Databite with Maurizio Ferraris, @ScherzingerM, and @robyncaplan

23 min – i’m going to use this opp to respond to Maurizio’s work.. to see if his paradigm he lays out for us in his manifesto to new realism is useful.. and what are the limits of that paradigm.. rather than simply tell another story in a parallel universe i’m going to try and gage..

for me .. the question concerning the question is also what i think is suggested by what your (M) working with.. this sort of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) of questions that then produce documents which then produce objects to which *one then has to respond in friction.. or something..

*unless we live a nother way.. not reacting .. ie: mech designed to flow w idio ness

24 min – so here.. the question concerning the question is .. you type ‘are wome’ in a spacebar.. and it auto suggests and folds out probabilities what it thinks you might be thinking.. et al.. come up with all articles on women are evil.. and that seems some parallel universe and something you might not have ever been able to tap into partly because you’re locked into the wrong what i call *idiolect (the speech habits peculiar to a particular person).. your **body habits.. your ways of thinking don’t think in terms of being ..are.. you know the ..a r e.. of being of something.. woman clustering an entire gender into a single kind of characteristic.. impossible to think in a post structuralist.. you know.. what have you.. and so one ends up not asking this question

*idio jargon ness


25 min – the same happens when you do… are jews.. or something.. the next thing you get.. vermin (insects..carry disease..people perceived as despicable and as causing problems for the rest of society) like appearances.. all sorts of suggestable links.. and again.. something impossible.. partly because someone is unsubscribed to that mode of typing.. the body habit in some sense is not able.. to produce that fact.. it’s not some nazi cabal in a-chan or 4-chan or ..some mesh network.. it’s actually right there on the surface.. that you can access worlds thru thinking modes or typing modes or .. ways of phrasing questions

so the question concerning the question is in some sense essential.. 

ie: fantasies of genocide: type in ‘what causes hom’ .. and i should have said.. w h a t slash et al… because machines are not thinking in that sense ..they are deeply stupid.. but know everything.. it will auto suggest for you that you might be thinking about homosexuality..

26 min – all you need is the ‘hom’.. and then it will tell you in this box which is meant to be in some ways.. irrefutable… something from the first one which is something like homosexuality caused by dna or whatever.. what’s interesting about that is that.. i’m trying to suggest that the dna argument for some people in this country is.. well that’s great.. you know it wasn’t a choice.. as if.. putting too much sugar in your child’s juice.. being the version of causing homosexuality was some kind of choice.. so the impoverished nature of the debate is just staggering to behold.. it’s as if.. a dominate father or something.. if that’s the problem.. whatever the case might be.. both ..the question itself.. raising the question itself.. harbors a fantasy of genocide and reversibility.. reverse engineering.. take out that x chromosome.. stop putting sugar in the juice.. or what have you

27 min – so the question in some sense like eve biting out of the apple of the knowledge tree.. should not be asked in the first place.. and yet.. when we go onto the algorithm.. it not only suggests.. it’s not only asks the question and gives you lots of valid answers.. but actually suggests the question.. should you do it for heterosexuality.. then it’s sort of .. no question.. because.. you actually have to type out the whole word.. and then when you get the answers the seem to be more balanced and related to the question of homosexuality all over again.. there is no such.. it doesn’t exist on it’s own

so this didn’t work when Doc tried it.. i mean .. we know the algo’s are using idio info from you already.. no? why is he not addressing this..?

so what i’m suggesting is that actually.. the question concerning the question is at bottom what we need to be worried about.. and this production of facts.. or production of what we might call documents.. which we then have to reckon with .. as if they were natural objects.. and i think that’s the lesson i take from your (Maurizio’s) book

unless again.. we design/assume mech (competence w/o comprehension) for idio jargon ness

28 min – so just going over Maurizio’s book again.. very briefly.. there’s this sort of post modern turn which linked knowledge to power.. and had all sorts of liberatory aspirations and so on.. has kind of met its limit in our time.. and so the reign of what one might call irony.. you know .. everything inverted commas (?).. to avoid dogmatism in some sense has turned also to be.. has become.. a metamorphosis with the smallest tilt of logical angle into putting into inverted commas reality itself.. in other words it became a kind of pan constructionist field of play for the humanities.. which is why the humanities in some ways are in a crisis and a little bit culpable (to blame) about what is emerged right now.. we suffer in the face of the notion that facts are not theory laden.. right.. we’ve been teaching that facts are theory laden.. selected/organized/hierarchized.. for decades now.. at least 100 yrs.. and now we need to sort of backtrack from that suddenly.. how come..

29 min – well it’s because the fact.. as real document vs the fact as dogmatism.. this contrast between way the interpretive lies.. has been the false dichotomy that we’ve been dabbling in.. so there’s something deeply difficult going on there for us to unpack here

so on the subject of de objectification.. and here Maurizio points to the close proximity of post modern thought w you know .. sort of.. free reigning mysticism.. as you mentioned benedict the 16th .. of leveraging this logic of anti nemic as it were.. character of all human knowledge which must suggest the resolution in god.. well let me update that for americans.. michael pence redates the origins of the evolutionary story via bone.. by a couple 100 000 yrs.. so evolution must be wrong.. demote to theory and elevate to theory.. and goes unnoticed because we’re so rehearsed in theory.. (from evolution to intelligent design).. and the understanding that all facts are open to interpretation

31 min – and fundamentalism in this particular conjuncture becomes fact.. not in the sense that we now believe in intelligent design.. but it takes on the status of the irrefutable.. it becomes the object that’s unmovable.. in fact the facts get tossed into this sort of blender of relativism.. it’s a fascinating sort of reversal..

so i’m going to try to turn this into a question.. so Maurizio makes a distinction between natural objects.. which is you know.. cholera outbreak..  you know you can’t really interpret that..  then we get social objects and then we get ideal objects.. i’m only going to deal with the first two.. because natural objects.. i think you raise a very powerful way of leveraging a sense of reality that’s indifferent to quotation marking the world.. and there’s a way in which it doesn’t matter if you believe in cholera or not it’s gonna get you.. or hiv or cancer.. or what have you.. and viruses are important because i want to switch to viruses in the sense of the mathematical virus.. the mathematicization of our thinking thru objects..

32 min – so the question is.. if you have exposed the way that natural objects seem to have taken on the character of social objects.. in other words.. nature itself succumbs to the dreamworld of theorizing.. the question becomes.. what are the case when social objects take on the character of natural ones.. and clearly post modernism or pan constructivism.. and so on.. is not really going to help us yet.. but you do deploy Derrida in that moment of the social.. a moderated Derrida..  moderate constructionism.. not that there isn’t anything outside the text.. that there’s nothing outside the social text.. but then we deliver back to Derrida’s paradigm as soon as we’re dealing with the social.. i want to in some ways challenge that too.. not because i’m not Derridian .. but i think this is not the place to go wholesale into Derrida..

33 min – because the problem of post truth in big data.. this is important.. alternative facts yes.. but how they articulate to mathematical systems.. is that they first of all point to social and not natural knowledge.. so solving the relation of epistemology to the natural world is of a different order.. ok.. so thank you for the solution to the natural world.. we’ve got a different problem on our hands here

begs we go ginorm small.. and trust/free people (and trust incrementalness of all the people thinking/comprehending life).. not the driven question

so the clue to the answer might be this (?) moment where you speak of the multiplication of social objects or the increase in realia (objects and material from everyday life).. inflation of documents..  but.. what do we make of that increase… what exactly is going on there… is realia proliferation assisting the false social fact.. if so.. then what reins in the fact.. what brings documentality back into play.. so we must also distinguish different kinds of faux news.. as in fake news.. like that’s just a false birtherism or something.. but true falsehoods are also something to be reckoned with here… so have a truth fact but deeply interwoven with a falsehood.. and then the problem in relation to all these fields.. viral formations..  that function like cancer or cholera.. when a false fact becomes a new friction laden document object to deal with

35 min – and here.. one possible way of rendering this.. which is what i call platonic objects.. that somehow emerge online..  software technologies.. such as midi… when that becomes the dominate representation scheme for music in code.. and it has a hold/grip on the imaginative capacities for decades it has a capacious stability long beyond its origin point on the piano or what have you.. or beat in dutch (?) technologies that are in some ways artifacts of false witness.. they somehow interpolate the human subject in a way that is false.. my colleague.. Alex Galloway.. who speaks of objective oriented programming itself.. has a way of information hiding in obfuscation and so on .. at the very same time that this combination of logic dates and variables and so on.. in fact.. usher in what are called classes and then get categorized into objects that then become more and more opaque and disappear in some ways..

36 min – so these exist apart from traditional artifacts and are in some sense indifferent also to our volitions and cogitations.. in other words we now have social objects that behave like gravity and we must reckon with that.. and that is a sort of side to a greater oppression

37 min – robyn (@robyncaplan: )relationship between post structuralism: truth is socially constructed and everyone has their own sense of reality and it’s violence to not recognize that.. it came from an ethical and solid political perspective.. and how that has been co opted by the right and turned into this post truth discourse..

robyn: Maurizio saying problem is not capitalism but problem is documentality..

graeber f&b same law

38 min – starts q&a

43 min – so the question of financialization.. i think the implications of innovative development and so on.. not capital.. but financialization.. *modes of financialization are deeply deeply in what sense.. but we need to proliferate (reproduce rapidly.).. not just one thing.. this sort of rush to marxism.. analysis.. is just deeply insufficient..

*unless we let go.. and make them deeply deeply irrelevant..

44 min – but let’s just take a few ie’s.. midi.. newer around entrainment.. beat track..  the grant writers are advancing the notion that this is about a neuro genetic disease.. and there’s a kind of disability.. at work in the grant writing.. but the reality is that these software ..executions.. i like that word.. it’s like a virus.. it produces something as it destroys something else.. but they are deeply endowed with market value.. that’s very clear.. spotify for ie..  is very very interested in beat induction technology.. and it is partly bankrolling it.. google is too.. and so on.. so there’s a financial investment in producing this kind of platonic object.. the fact that it’s platonic is the sense that beat track.. deeply euro/industrial.. and so on..

45 min – but that’s not the point.. the issue is.. *how it gets financialized.. so the grant.. which is public/private money might be written up as something to do with health and well being.. but it’s clear where the destination is .. and

the story of technology and its relationship to disabilities and how it gets caught in riptides of capital is probably the most important way in which we could understand technological development

*oy grants.. fuller too much law

but let’s take other sites.. it’s clear that google or something like that is actually actively interested in keeping culture free.. that might seem paradoxical.. it was paradoxical with midi.. it was initially a free kind of app.. well there’s always something.. a price to be paid. . and here you have to think about *feminine technologies and as (adver?) containment technologies and how they are parasites for monetization and how that works..


46 min – and here again we have a deeply paradoxical way in which subjectivation processes affect and so on.. we had somebody speak to that in one of our workshops..  it works .. right.. it’s not the disciplining sort of old model of focault that we sort of comport our bodies in relation to a perceived panopticon..that we somehow get the feeling that we might be being watched.. the gays and so on.. which we’ve endlessly been thematizing.. but in fact.. we know we’re being watched but we behave like we’re not being watched.. in fact.. it’s the great externalization or objectification of the id itself.. it’s in some sense the ballooning of desire and so on.. precisely because of the financial investment in rich data sets.. so this is now a different kind of way in which concept emerges.. in case of beat trackers it has a slightly different character.. but these are financialized concepts.. or one might call them .. ontologies in finance.. or objects in finance.. so *i would not want to de link how it gets financialized.. even when we go straight to the fake.. you know.. macedonian teenagers and so on

*? seems more reason to.. no?

47 min – the paradox for us in the humanities is that the bias over there had very little to do with a commitment.. a political commitment.. but had everything to do with the way one is enjoined by the financialization apparatus.. in other words.. adsense is going to secrete a little of its capital my direction if i make things go this way or that.. again.. deeply paradoxical .. now we’re talking not about eratic ballooning of the id.. but the opposite.. we’re talking about indifference.. but both share the quality of .. if we look at the financialization and what’s going on under the hood.. how does the object oriented algorithm function.. i think we’re onto.. that triad.. is an important aspect.. and *i don’t think we want to eliminate any of those from the analysis..

*ok.. don’t want to de link from the analysis.. but what if analysis at this point is even moot.. because none of us are us..

49 min – robyn: how are we constructing truths/realities thru these languages.. and in what ways might they be limited..

begs hlb via idio jargon

53 min – it’s funny.. i think if things had been able to be *elaborated a little further.. this would have been the crux of the question actually that i wanted to leverage.. which is.. if there is nothing social outside the text.. what kind of social text is mathematics.. what kind of object is this.. and i think it’s again.. quite important because we’ve been dealing with things at what *alex galloway would call the screen layer.. what we don’t do is look so much at the sorting mechanisms.. like under the hood.. that are working this out.. and what i want to suggest for the humanities again.. not only that we need to rethink about how facts are not only theory laden but something else.. but also the neutrality stance..

*feynman’s legible ness

*alex via recent interview of wark

54 min – and i want to suggest as a provisional sort of maneuver that the algorithms are more or less.. a little bit neutral and not in fact these hierarchized zones.. in the same way that the screen layer is hierarchized.. this is important.. this disjunct..discontinuity .. between the one layer and then the layer of code or sorting mechs.. whether it’s a connecting/centroid model..k-clustering .. whatever that might be.. all of those .. are in some sense biased.. but it’s not because there’s white male cyber cowboys or whatever.. they’re biased for reasons that have to do with the way they cluster things.. and that that is in some sense different to the actual results that the user is perceiving.. there’s a sort of what i call an asynchrony or heteromorphology or.. a hetro morphological relationship between the one layer and the other.. its bias as it were.. *the mathematical bias.. if you like.. and i mean..

*if we set tech free.. it’s the bias we need/crave.. as complement/augmentation to us.. ie: non judgmental (in the way we are).. to people/ideas/curiosities/words.. et al

55 min -alex has been trying to work this out.. alex galloway.. by saying that.. by deploying bajour (?) and working with numerosity systems and so on.. that are a disjunct at some level.. and the subject enters at that level of disjuncture.. perhaps that’s the way to go..

i think a simpler thing would just be to register this heteromorphology.. again.. that the bias of the *algorithm is on a different sort to the bias projected on the screen layer and that therefore.. it’s in a transverse relationship to the two.. so now.. you have two things to deal with **when you’re trying to unpack how that false news can travel within a kind of digital architecture.. there’s diff kinds of mathematics for like.. the beat trackers and stuff.. but i don’t want to take up time.. but that would be one way of answering that question as it pertains to this (what’s up on the screen) and so on.. beat trackers have a diff kind of algo and it has to do with ***modeling human perception which is another kind of a problem.. maybe a more cambridge analytica (co for data mining/anal electoral process) type problem.. but that requires a diff gaze into how the mechanics of how the algo work and not one that rushes to the answer that everything is theory laden but doesn’t relinquish it at the same time

*algo ness

**imagine that too as irrelevant.. ie: assuming that data isn’t true/false.. just isn’t even us percolating it

***indeed.. and/or same one

56 min – cathy: i’m cathy.. mathematician.. think about algo’s all the time.. and i have no idea what you guys are talking about

ok.. so the simple point is .. the way a clustering mechanism/algo works is.. i’m trying to suggest.. that it’s not biased in the same way that a piece of fake news is biased.. even if the clustering brought and transmitted a certain viewpoint from one place to another.. that there’s diff modes of selection hierarchizing/organizing.. they’re differently.. they differently articulate to the problem of bias..

57 min – cathy: as a mathematician and a data scientist..  i could inject bias into a graph to make it *much closer to the kind of bias that you’re talking about that i could also write a fake news article about.. right .. **because you can lie with statistics.. i don’t know.. maybe i still don’t quite understand

*which one..? the mech.. i don’t know

**that’s the fake news one.. no..? that’s not the mech doing algo’s.. if i’m understanding right.. distinction is what we’re currently using tech for (cathy’s thinking) and what tech’s potential is (martin/alex’s layer)

yes.. i mean absolutely.. but they don’t always exist in that symbiotic relationship.. so not all stats are going to function equally.. so .. it is now alarming to facebook/google that they were vehicles for fake news.. so now we have little banners warning you and so on.. it was not in some sense.. scripted into the way that clustering algo was designed..

58 min – it in some sense produced.. how should we say it .. technologically determinist unanticipated effects.. and so .. they’re not of the same sort is all that i’m trying to say.. i’m trying to separate the layer of analyzing the modality of an algorithmic working vs the modality of a fact and its relationship to truth

1:00 – q: there is evidence on capital being embedded in the documentality that is feeding this structure.. so could you talk on that.. and why you both keep talking disjunction..

1:04 – i think so the question is about financialization and i think i emphasized deeply how these ontologies are ontologies in finance.. so the implications of the one with the other in various environments.. and it functions differently for diff platforms.. so that i think is crucial.. so i can only agree.. i suppose what i’m trying to suggest is that we keep analytic layers provisionally apart before we bring them together again.. in the sense that if one looks at the way in which financialization mechs work.. distinctly from the effects they have on the social layer.. on the audio/visual screen which is just waiting to be touched like skin and so on.. and they third.. how it functions as a mathematical object..

1:05 – what i’m suggesting is not that either or any of these or that the mathematical object is in some sense not biased.. but that its bias is.. in a transversal relation to the bias that it manages to secrete.. in a sense .. as a conduit or something.. so it’s just important i think.. to keep these layers apart.. before that one may join them with more precision again.. so it’s not.. again back to the other point.. at all to do with algorithms being non biased as such.. but bias of a diff sort.. to the bias that they manage to freight..

freighting bias..

1:06 – robyn: so you both agree algos are capable of having a bias and that we’re in this moment of post truth.. and Maurizio has suggested that these moments arise historically when we basically lose track of lower layer biases.. when we’re unable to look at the dissemination/communication technologies and understand how they’re operating.. and then they become sort of mystified to us.. and religion rises.. and truth sort of becomes less accessible.. and so Martin is saying that this layer of the technology at which post truth is being disseminated/flourishing right now.. is a layer at which we can’t really see the algo bias.. that is not transparent to us anymore.. so i wonder if there’s something going on there.. where we can bring your thoughts together with what Cathy/Cassidy (?) was saying about the deeper biases that just are not obvious to us right now

1:08 – q: on those creating social code/language.. in the bias you’re talking about.. limited number of people.. does that make sense..?

1:11 – goes into ocean and ie: cambridge analytica deciphering what kind of ad would affect you most.. *maybe we need to start thinking id more.. the profiling of gender and so one thru this ocean method is **86% accurate.. so we’ve got to be thinking id.. as well as just performance.. not just the dreamwork of performance but also the narrowing awful work of ontological id

*or neither.. maybe we’re using tech for the wrong thing.. (ie: **accurate to what.. ? not to human nature) .. maybe to Maurizio’s: ‘need a practical reason for web’ is beyond id/performance.. maybe it’s just for 1\listening w/o agenda/judgment  and 2\connecting us per ie: curiosity – aka: eudaimoniative surplus

we have to disengage from thinking performance.. et al.. labels.. et al..


mar 2016 – Algorithms of Musical Time (from Biopower to Neuropower)

general level: talking about informatic culture today.. speculation of how to diagnose what’s going on in informatic culture today..or.. what i more specifically want to look at is the instrumentalization of our non instrumental capacities.. or the financialization/privatization of the (?labidinal) economy.. ie: on time between some sort of spontaneity and some sort of standardization


find/follow Martin:

link twitter

His research includes the examination of links between political economy and digital sound technologies, the poetics of copyright law in an international frame, the relation between aesthetics and censorship, the sensory limits of mass-mediated music, the mathematical geometries of musical time, and the history of sound in philosophy. This work represents an attempt to understand what we might call contemporary “modalities of listening;” that is, the economic, political, metaphysical, and technological determinants of both mediated and (what is perceived as) immediate auditory experience.