The first stage is a disparate assemblage of heterogeneous elements, ready to be captured by the senses. Most of them will be lost, and the more our perspective is realistic, the more perhaps it will miss new information, or crealia. Crealia could be defined as qualia that have not yet been perceived by a given senser (or perhaps they have been perceived once and forgotten, as suggested by Plato’s theory of reminiscence).

 

Who is this senser? Let’s call it a subjectivity, for lack of a better word for the moment. A sensing in action. The senser is the gentle will to be enriched by crealia, more a goodwill and a form of gratitude and faith than a forceful will. Without this attention to the Creal there is someone else, a more automatic quasi-subject, an existential robot perhaps, or a sleeper. Or a forceful will.

 

The senser uses a sixth sense, which is not a new sense like olfaction or sight, but rather the origin of senses, an infra-sense, which might be the self-awareness of the Creal, and a declaration of love or an act of full recognition from the one to the Creal, each defining each other, since there is no one without the Creal, and no self-consciousness of the Creal without the one, who partly coincides with the senser. It is in this sense that all fully aware subjects are (close to be) one and the same consciousness, as claimed by some oriental spiritualities.

 

The disparate crealia are difficult to “capture” by any subjective point of unity, which is a form of consciousness. Because when a crealia is fully captured — which is very difficult or in fact impossible since interpretation might be a better term than “capture” — it might decohere into realia (this said by analogy with the fascinating narrative of quantum physics).

 

The relation between the Creal and the one is one of definition. It is not that the Creal defines the one, or the one defines the Creal. It is the correlation between both with is defining (as understood, it seems, by phenomenologists like Merleau-Ponty). The relation between the Creal and the One is an avalanche of crealia, a “vacuum fluctuation” (another quantum analogy) that is at the very border or edge of becoming articulated into a structure. This discourse or cosmo-semiotics I call crealectics. Perhaps it never becomes a fully integrated discourse because of what I have taken to calling the effect of supracoalescence, the fact that everything tends to be one without ever becoming totally one, because any coalescence is superseded by another coalescent tendency — in fact many others — before it is realised.

 

In other words, it is not only that crealia become realia — realia also become crealia, since the Creal is always active, and the movement of adunation — we can call it the henologic process — always fails to be complete, otherwise the universe would freeze or disappear.

 

One might say: this is Hegelian dialectics all over again. I don’t feel crealectics fully equates with Hegelian dialectics, although Hegel is admirable and often over-simplified. So perhaps crealectics is somewhat Hegelian: I am currently reading Hegel closely and will come back to the possibility of reading Hegel with less binary glasses (since he claimed himself that no-one understood him, not even perhaps himself, which I think is the real meaning of his last words).

 

The cosmic multiple or Creal is never totally realised if it is infinite probability. Therefore it is never totally one materially, but it is one abstractly. Abstraction is nevertheless a modality of being (this is indeed quite Hegelian). Unity or the One, is never totally attained by any part of the Creal, nor by the Creal in its impossible totality. This creates a dynamic that some current cosmologists call dark energy, and some philosophers recognised as the cosmic creative process (Heraclitus, Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, etc.).

 

As many elements of the Creal emerge from the nihil, many other elements disappear into the void, constantly. I believe that some humans, perhaps many of them, who live their everyday realistic life by closing their senses to the disparation of crealia (preferring the dispair of realia) become so impoverished and socially automatized that they partly disappear into the void. Hence the impression that some of them are zombies if you look around you in the bus or the subway. But often they do not feel like zombies, they feel scattered, fragmented, un-unified, because many of them — all of them — are unconsciously connected to the Creal, via fantasy, desire, admiration, awe, play, caprice, disparation, or just the fact that they are alive. So they can be very easily awaken to the joy of the Creal.

 

On the other hand, one should not underestimate the attraction of One or unification. This is also a factor of superficial distantiation from the Creal in human social entities. However, integration (into an individual role or a group identity) is only a superficial moving away from the Creal, because of the above-mentioned phenomenon of supracoalescence. The more something or someone becomes one, the more it is close to partly explode and dissolve into the Creal again, although there might be a plateau of integrity that appears to be constant for a certain period of time. Nothing remains unified for too long.

 

Let’s come back to the idea of definition. I wrote that the passage from the Creal to the One is one of definition. To define is to unify. The Latin etymology of define seems to indicate that something is achieved, led to a good ending or full realisation. But we have seen that according to the Creal hypothesis and its logically deduced principle of supracoalescence, or overcoalescence, nothing is ever fully achieved, nothing is fully realised, or if it is, it disappears into the Creal again, and it is then de-realised, crealised. This is good news from a psychological point of view: if you let the Creal define you, or more precisely if you let crealectics — the junction between the Creal and the subject — define you, you will simultaneously and actively approach a form of integrity by the subjective exercise of sensing crealia, or even just trying to sense the crealia — which is the exercise of a divine instinct —, but you will also be constantly enriched and rejuvenated by being crealized, touched by the Creal. At a higher level of attention, you might become or at least approach the identity of a pure senser, which is more than a Cartesian subject, because the cogito of the Creal is not about doubt or analytic thought, it is about faith and sensing. However, as with Hegel, one must be careful not to simplify or reduce Descartes. There might be a more oriental — or crealectic — way of reading Descartes’s non-spatial point of cogito.

 

The senser’s attention to the flow of crealia, a form of plural acousmatics — perhaps something that the Pythagoreans were familiar with — is the progressive definition of a personal destiny in the making. A singularity, because one subject is in theory incapable of sensing all the crealia, otherwise this subject will become the Creal itsel, but even the Creal cannot sense itself totally as it is always (re)newing. I don’t sense the crealia that you sense. Therefore, the crealia that one senses define the subjectivity of this one subject, in a manner that is not voluntarist, forceful, or dismissively  affirmative of an abstract unity, but in a receptive and co-creative fashion that is open to a multiversal becoming while alert to the call of One (Self). Such is our divine instinct.

 

 

articulation 

The joints and links of a robot, hence a description of the articulation of a robot gives a description of its configuration.

configuration 

In robotics, the description of the structure of a robot in terms of the type of each joint (i.e. translational or rotational) and the directions of the joint axes. There are five standard robot configurations: articulated (revolute), Cartesian-coordinate, cylindrical-coordinate, SCARA, and spherical-coordinate.

spherical-coordinate robot (polar-coordinate robot, spherical-configuration robot, spherical-polar robot) 

A robot having a rotational joint, joint angle θ1, with a vertical axis above the base frame (i.e. a waist joint), a rotational joint, joint angle θ2, with a horizontal axis at the end of the first link (i.e. a shoulder joint) and a translational joint, joint offset d3, with axis normal to the axis of the shoulder joint. The workspace is thus a hollow sphere centred on the base frame. The diagram shows an idealized spherical coordinate robot.

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 05.16.55

 

 

DIGITAL HERMENEUTICS: AN OUTLINE

Rafael Capurro

Published in AI & Society 2010, 35 (1), 35-42.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to give an outline of digital hermeneutics understood as the encounter between hermeneutics and digital technology, particularly the Internet. In the first part, I want to raise the attention of IT researchers and hermeneuticists to the theoretic and practical relevance of the encounter of their areas of research that are sometimes considered as incompatible to each other. There is still a lot of translation work to be done in order to get these two cultures come closer to and profit from each other. The second part of the paper deals with the foundation of digital hermeneutics on what I call – following Heidegger’s and Vattimo’s paths – digital ontology as opposed to digital metaphysics.

Source: Digital Hhermeneutics

Every morning the Scenopoetes dentirostris, a bird of the Australian rain forests, cuts leaves, makes them fall to the ground, and turns them over so that the paler internal side contrasts with the earth. In this way it constructs a stage for itself like a ready-made; and directly above, on a creeper or branch, while fluffing its feathers beneath its beak to reveal their yellow roots, it sings a complex song made up from its own notes and, at intervals, those of other birds that it imitates; it is a complete artist. This is not a synaesthesia of the flesh but blocs of sensations in the territory—colors, postures, and sounds that sketch out a total work of art. These sonorous blocs are refrains; but there are also refrains of posture and color, and postures and colors are always being introduced into refrains: bowing low, straightening up, dancing in a circle and a line of colors. The whole of the refrain is the being of sensation. Monuments are refrains. In this respect art is continually haunted by the animal. 

DELEUZE AND GUATTARI 1994 –

What Is Philosophy? Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and 

Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press.

p184

It is said that “data” is the most universal and the emptiest concept. But what if the past is data? What can we do about it? What if every past second is a material bit, a semiotic sign, a symbol in a text that needs — or needs not — to be organized as a whole, as a machine, a body, a corpus, a unit that will produce a certain range of effects.

There are many definitions of data. Data is another self-evident concept. I am in an elevator, I am about ten years old. It is early in the morning and I am going to school. Once again, I woke up too early. My brain flashes illogical images of people I know, uncontrolled words, and I feel I need to tame my mind. Why this imperative? Today I would like to imagine the articulation of every second of the past, every bit, into a coherent whole. Everybody understands “the sky is blue”. But how can existential data belonging to the past be understood?

The average comprehensibility of data is by definition questionable. Even if the world is a computer simulation, the feeling of what we call experience cannot be a simple line of code if interpretation and signifier differ. If data amounts to chemical particles, the enigma or singularity of self remains. The fact that we live already in an understanding of data and that the meaning of data is at the same time shrouded in blinding light proves the necessity of asking: what is “being data”? And what about “living in the era of data”? If we could transform a human past into data, how would we interpret and organize it, and who would do it? What would the first second of any existence look like if it could be universalized? An explosion of multiplicity that finds its limit in the emergence of the concept of one? One second. One multiplicity. One sense of feeling and observing around. We are, it seems, born as observers. I remember the first seconds of my daughter, observing around with apprehension and curiosity, her eyes wide open, perhaps the only part of her body that was not still made of folds.

I did not know if I were awake in that elevator, or to be more precise, I knew I was experiencing an intermediate and painful state between dreaming and being awake, because of the obligation to go to school. Hence the disparate mind-pops. Hence the need on the way to school for an imperative, a unifying principle that would organise and filter the uncontrolled data, not only as consciousness but as personality or character. Infinite regression of memories: me thinking of my young self in an elevator thinking of a previous familiar and supposedly anecdotic relation to another human, herself a consciousness filled with memories of memories, unified only in my disunified mind. I had gone on thinking, while I was awake, about what I had just been day-dreaming, and these thoughts could not be defined; it seemed to me that I myself, in that elevator — which was not elevating me but going down —, was not the subject of my life, or more precisely that this subject was not self-evident data, but a question and a challenge.

Regarding, understanding and grasping, choosing, and gaining access to, might appear to be attitudes of inquiry into data, but the acceptation that data is a given, almost imposed by the etymology of the term, can be questioned. Data is construed, it might also be elaborated as we consider it, perhaps — as often noted — invented by the observer. But invented from which material if not another form of data? What is the data of data? The being that has the character of datasein has a relation to the question of life as Creal itself, creation of the real independently of any creator. There seems to be a priority of data, but is it a primordiality? If infinite probability is the prima materia that I call Creal without being able to define it as data would be defined, is this a given matter (data again) or a process of giving (plenteous) meaning (sense creation)?

Can we go beyond impressions that persist or alternatively vanish after we awake, in a state of darkness, perhaps pleasant and restful, perhaps disturbing? I remember a photograph of a young boy socially defined as me at six or seven, siting in a field with a horse in the background. The grass is green, and I am smiling. I have no recollection of the actual day when this image was taken, and since the photograph itself has disappeared, it stands in my mind — and in the mind of a few others — as a bridge between two erased realities. I remember I looked like I was smiling, but I don’t remember how it felt to be smiling when I was six or seven, not even if my appearance of joy was authentic or a practical pose. I don’t remember if I could hear the whistling of trains or the note of a bird in the forest. But I am aware that the photograph, even in my mind, is bordered by rectangular limits, hiding what cannot be seen, what could not be heard. One photo. One moment. One person and one horse. Cuts or folds in the stuff of the Creal, folds — Leibnizian or not — in the prima materia, which appear like reality-cuts. Or cuts and leaps between multiverses that seem like existential folds to an active impression and experience of reality. A science of being (ontology) is a crealectic; it is also a henology, a science of unification.

I have proposed to call anthrobotics the perspective according to which human-machine assemblages are collective bodies that have historically been prior to their parts (see the paper ‘We, Anthrobot’, de Miranda et al, 2016). We are a symbiotic species made of flesh and renewable algorithmic protocols, language being the privileged tool of this dialectic between the anthropic factor and the robotic factor, each pole enabling the other. The anthrobotic ontology — which might bare other names, like cyborg (Haraway, 1984), megamachine (Mumford, 1967), or desiring-machine (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972) — has become aware of itself via the development and realisations of digital languages.

I wish to expand this thesis theoretically. One potential issue with the anthrobotic view as it was presented is that it might be understood as an anthropocentric position, stating that there is a qualitative difference between humans and other living beings and, incidentally, that machines are always and only human made. In fact, I’d like to propose a non-anthropocentric more general theory: anthrobotics as the human aspect of a wider biological and even cosmological tendency. Perhaps I should call this hypothesis the crealectics of proliferation and explosion.

Anthrobotics is the human-machine interaction aspect of a universal worldforming dynamic process. It is a moment of a larger epistemic and ontological sphere dealing with the production of lifeworlds (cosmos, Umwelt) — this calls for a cosmology. This cosmology relies on a non-dualist process philosophy which calls Creal its prima materia (de Miranda, 2008; Aristotle, Physics), defined as a flow of infinite probability and incessant production of alterity. As pure multiplicity, the Creal is never totally One, but it might be strangely attracted by its opposite shadow: the idea of unity. Since this is a non-dualist dynamic ontology —ideas are real, not more real than reality as in Plato but not less real than reality as in nominalism —, the concept of One is a cosmological given rather than a non-existing abstraction. It might work as a physical force.

The Creal is an absolute axiom which can be defined as the ever-going dissemination of difference, of infinite potentiality (Aristotle, Physics; Bergson, 1907; Whitehead, 1929). Conversely, proliferation is the ever-going reproduction or multiplication of a similar bioelectronical form. Biology has shown that a thriving organism is one that proliferates (Darwin). Proliferation is driven towards the production of the one and same. Crealization is driven towards the production of the multiple and the different.

The dialectic of proliferation and crealization, or rather their crealectic, is the metaquestion of several sciences: biology (how do bodies and organisms (re)produce their form?), physics (why are there cosmological mathematical laws?), politics (how do institutions endure?), psychology (how does the self and its self-consciousness emerge?). Recently the interesting biosemiotics perspective, Peirce-related, has proposed to explain this process in terms of production of signs, sign-relations, and interpretations (Peirce, 1892; Sebeok, 1989; Deely, 2001; Hoffmeyer, 2009; Deacon, 2011; Wheeler, 2016). Brier (2013) calls cybersemiotics his promising reconciliation of biosemiotics and cybernetics. It is not clear yet for me how signs are supposed to make structures, in other words how raw data becomes a discourse, and how this discourse functions as an ecosystem.

One way of looking at proliferation and disparation (Deleuze, 1968) is by equating the two terms with the concepts of syntropy (negentropy) and entropy (Schrödinger, 1944; Brillouin, 1953; Albert Szent-Györgyi, 1974). But proliferation is more than syntropy. It is not only the fact that a zone of the creal achieves an integrity-equilibrium but also about the capacity of this entity to expand by persistence of its structure over time, by territorialisation, and/or by reproduction.

“Cybersemiotics constructs a non-reductionist framework in order to integrate third person knowledge from the exact sciences and the life sciences with first person knowledge described as the qualities of feeling in humanities and second person intersubjective knowledge of the partly linguistic communicative interactions, on which the social and cultural aspects of reality are based. The modern view of the universe as made through evolution in irreversible time, forces us to view man as a product of evolution and therefore an observer from inside the universe. This changes the way we conceptualize the problem and the role of consciousness in nature and culture. The theory of evolution forces us to conceive the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities together in one theoretical framework of unrestricted or absolute naturalism, where consciousness as well as culture is part of nature. But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical scientific explanations. The humanities therefore send another insight the opposite way down the evolutionary ladder, with questions like: What is the role of consciousness, signs and meaning in the development of our knowledge about evolution? Phenomenology and hermeneutics show the sciences that their prerequisites are embodied living conscious beings imbued with meaningful language and with a culture. One can see the world view that emerges from the work of the sciences as a reconstruction back into time of our present ecological and evolutionary selfunderstanding as semiotic intersubjective conscious cultural and historical creatures, but unable to handle the aspects of meaning and conscious awareness and therefore leaving it out of the story. Cybersemiotics proposes to solve the dualistic paradox by starting in the middle with semiotic cognition and communication as a basic sort of reality in which all our knowledge is created and then suggests that knowledge develops into four aspects of human reality: Our surrounding nature described by the physical and chemical natural sciences, our corporality described by the life sciences such as biology and medicine, our inner world of subjective experience described by phenomenologically based investigations and our social world described by the social sciences. I call this alternative model to the positivistic hierarchy the cybersemiotic star.”

Read the paper: Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture | CYBERSEMIOTICS

Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, gives a presentation as part of the University of Oregon Conference on Biosemiotics and Culture. This conference, organized by Visiting Professor Wendy Wheeler and Molly Westling, focuses on the cultural dimensions of this new interdisciplinary field that explores meaningful relationships and communication throughout the living world. This communication includes the whole range of behaviors from intracellular code exchanges to interspecies communication and human language and culture. This new field has enormous potential for reintegrating cultural studies with the life sciences and opening new perspectives on the evolution of language and the arts. “Biosemiotics and Culture” will be the first such conference in the United States.

Watch the video here