Arquivo para a ‘SocioCibercultura’ Categoria
Sociocibercultures and Paradise Lost
22
Feb
The idea of Lost paradise is our Adamic archetype, at least of the Western religions, they came
to relate to religions in the dual relation of modernity, proposed by Kant and consecrated and idolized by Hegel in establishing his “state” ethics in the discussions about family, civil society and the state itself, being included as a greater totality.
It is in this tension that Niklas Luhmann’s communicative dualism fits in, for example, for whom internal communication (in the sociociberculture to the individual), which regulates and restricts it at the same time with the communication to its environment (the socio-cultural environment) is in Luhmann’s text “Soziale Systeme” (1984).
It is, to a certain extent, Sloterdijk’s immunology, by asserting that immune systems are “based on the distinction between self and the alien,” but rejects any idea of a stranger present in religions, which for him “do not exist,” then the mystery of life and of truth are no longer conditions of ‘transcendence’, of possibility of paradise.
It is happy to relate the biological to the social organism and in this sense the biological organism is identified as the one that life defense processes “defend”, and also identifies the growing concentric circles as having a cooperative and convivial dimension.
However, in recognizing the intergenerational symbolic plane in which individual death occurs, in spite of stabilizing the world image in new generations, it is not able to see the solidity and truth present in a life beyond life, in a nature beyond nature, supernatural.
In this plan that I place the noosphere, there is a communication beyond the symbols present in the daily life of the spiritual life and in it perpetuates the “eternal” life, not only between generations, but in the realization in a “noospheric” .
Selfish generations unable to think of the future generation do not destroy nature alone, destroy environmental conditions for the future to take place in the form of full life, make the pessimism of their personal life “to death” (by age) in a false social death.
The lost paradise is the inability to give happiness and peace to future generations, it is to repeat how to make the sick spheres of society “everything will be worse”, and those who were born in a society already in crisis, made by past generations, feel “guilty” of the world today.
The lost paradise is the impossibility of future, true to the individual life of adults who tend to end of life, but false to the body only.
Sociociberculture and noosphere
21
Feb
I was surprised by a site of researchers’ networks (one of these researcher.something)
that was a sociociberculture researcher , and I found an article about the relation between author-reference and Sociociberculture Felix Geyer (presented as honorary chairman of SocioCiberculture Society), I remembered the discussions of Norbert Wiener and his cybernetic systems, in the neopositivism of the Vienna circle and almost gave up on going forward, but then realized that there is a key to the discussion of technology today .
One of the definitions of self-reference (many “social” systems seem to imitate cybernetic systems) given by Geyer is interesting: “The usual examples of self-referential behavior in social science consist of self-fullfiling and self-defeating prophecies”, and this definitely made me interested in the subject.
The author accredited to the subject, establishes a relation between self-reference, alienation and growth of corporate complexity (name of the second topic of his article), where he states: “” Just like many other phenomena that form part of the individual’s continuous interaction loop with the environment, eg perception, self-reference is ultimately action-oriented, “and I have already understood the relation to Luhman’s systems theory, the question of alienation (or to me consciousness), and especially the relationship with constructivism.
The author penetrates this societal complexity through the theories of “unparalleled interpersonal interaction approaching what Buber (1970) called the” I-Tou relationship “or what Maslow (1962) called “B(eing)” as opposed to “From (efficiency need) – cognition,” or what Berne (1964) defined as an “unplayed” interaction.
The logic of self-reference explains the author functions as the Spiral of Reciprocal Perspectives ( (Laing et al, 1966): “I think you think I think …”, etc. This can also be highly engaging but usually in a more antagonistic and alienated way, such as the well-known demonstration of the prisoner’s dilema”, I translated (in portuguese) from the original I think as I search (not I think), for disagreeing with the Cartesian cogito.
The author also focuses, among others, on the fundamental thesis of Luhmann’s systemic theory: “the perceived increase of environmental complexity can only be reduced and made manageable by an increase in internal complexity, which is the result of a chain of self-referential processes “, This is the core of this theory of systems, but Geyer informs that this is only possible by increasing environmental complexity.It is in this line that Geyer uses Ashby’s Law of Requirements Variety (1952, 1956) where greater environmental (objective) complexity means that each constructs its environment with more objects, more attributes and especially more interactions between them.
The sociociberculture, which initially seems to be just another system with explanations of the current culture of object relations, seems to penetrate even in the near future of the Internet of Things (IoT), where the objects themselves interact with each other, from the environmental to the individual plane.
GEYER, F. The march of self-reference, 3rd International Conference on Sociocybernetics, Leon, Mexico, June 25-29, 2001.
Immunology and true ascesis
16
Feb
To understand asceticism as possible, we have to overcome the paradigm of 
“affections and passions” present since the origin of Western civilization, it is an opening in the individualized bubbles in immune systems, but what are the immune systems?
“Immune systems are expectations of damage and violation, somatized or institutionalized, which are based on the distinction between the self and the stranger” (Sloterdijk, 2009, p .709).
It is easy and possible to recognize an immune system by a metaphor of the individual biological organism, this is the new step of Sloterdijk, he sees in his “Spheres” the individual in increasing concentric circles, creating two immune systems, and then in a cooperative perspective and convivial actions.
Human existence and is a social immune system, and according to the German philosopher when it works, legal security, social prevention and feelings of belonging beyond the small circle of the family itself can expand.
“affections and passions” present since the origin of Western civilization, it is an opening in the individualized bubbles in immune systems, but what are the immune systems?“Immune systems are expectations of damage and violation, somatized or institutionalized, which are based on the distinction between the self and the stranger” (Sloterdijk, 2009, p .709).
It is easy and possible to recognize an immune system by a metaphor of the individual biological organism, this is the new step of Sloterdijk, he sees in his “Spheres” the individual in increasing concentric circles, creating two immune systems, and then in a cooperative perspective and convivial actions.
Human existence and is a social immune system, and according to the German philosopher when it works, legal security, social prevention and feelings of belonging beyond the small circle of the family itself can expand.
Thus we have the personal and family circles, both concentric, but which must go beyond the in-itself.
The third, that is why we post on symbolic-ontological evil, we enter into a plan in which the validation of intergenerational norms compensates (and rewards) the certainty of individual death and stabilizes the image of the world, it seems a still individual plan, but it is not, is an asceticism in which we “expurgate” the ontological evil.
Like the biological immune system, both the sympathetic and the symbolic system can go through crises and overcome them (of course they can fail as well), what does this individual death mean? in the case of the two social immunological systems, is collective death and resurrection.
The third, that is why we post on symbolic-ontological evil, we enter into a plan in which the validation of intergenerational norms compensates (and rewards) the certainty of individual death and stabilizes the image of the world, it seems a still individual plan, but it is not, is an asceticism in which we “expurgate” the ontological evil.
Like the biological immune system, both the sympathetic and the symbolic system can go through crises and overcome them (of course they can fail as well), what does this individual death mean? in the case of the two social immunological systems, is collective death and resurrection.
ndividual ascesis and even family if they are not solidary and collective tend to create a “closure” of being, an in-itself (sick).
In the biblical passage of the 40 days of Jesus’ wilderness, if we admit this human as God would not have to do this, he makes his individual death, significant is the passage in Mark 1: 12-13 “… the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness . And he was in the wilderness for forty days, and there he was tempted by Satan.
In the biblical passage of the 40 days of Jesus’ wilderness, if we admit this human as God would not have to do this, he makes his individual death, significant is the passage in Mark 1: 12-13 “… the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness . And he was in the wilderness for forty days, and there he was tempted by Satan.
He lived among the wild animals, and the angels served him”, then began his public life, he would say “collective”.
SLOTERDIJK, P. (2009) Du musst Dein Leben ändern. Über Antropotechnik. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
The antropotechnicaland the ascetic non-spiritual
15
Feb
To define his antropotechnical, Sloterdijk will establish the relation of the relations within the
present religions like the most pure antropotécnicos procedures:
“If we reduce these” religions “to their essential characteristics, there are three basic complexes of which each has a clear relation to the anthropothermic dimension. First, on the dogmatic side: an illusionist exercise club, rigidly organized, whose members in the course of time are being impregnated with the conceptions of the milieu. Then from the psycho-technical side: a training roadmap for exploring all the chances in the survival struggle. We observe, finally, the top of the movement; we can see everything, but no “founder of religion”: in front of us is an unscrupulous, radically ironic, flexible on all sides, business-trainer “(Sloterdijk, 2009, 168).
Seeing also Scientology and the Olympic Movement as religions, he uses the concept of habitus, but criticizes the development made by both Pierre Bourdieu and Marx, solving the problem of how the social base or “infrastructure” would be reflected in “Superstructure” or how the general conception of society is able to penetrate the individual in a lasting way, this is his habitus done as an antropotécnico procedure.
In order to actualize and historicise his concept he resorts to the concept of habitus in Aquinas and hexis in Aristotle, which “… describes a seemingly mechanical process under aspects of the inertia of overcoming to explain the incarnation of the spiritual. They identified man as that animal who can do what he owes, if one cared in time with his abilities “(ibid., p. 289).
According to the author in presenting his own theory of cultural development, humanity itself, despite the fact that we find different customs and traditions in each moment of its history, did not follow the conservative identity script, so this question is false, although it is a reference for many contemporary authors.
The conclusion about this unspraced asceticism is training, letting itself operate: letting yourself be informed, letting yourself be entertained, letting yourself be served, letting yourself be cured, letting yourself be transported, and if this is, for the author, the being-there, its counterposition is not general negativity, but it should be the general epoché, letting itself be empty, there can be the being-there-not-being that could complement itself as onto-antropotechnical, light of the social habitus, re-reading the current anthropothermic conditions and capable of criticizing them, would be a total deflated being, a non-being-there that is also being.
SLOTERDIJK, P. Du musst Dein Leben ändern. Über Antropotechnik. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 2009.
