Not the Negation of Science

My love affair with Kevin Kelly continues; his recent post on the non-death of theory is definitely worth a read. Kelly responds to Chris Anderson's recent article on The Death of Theory, in which Anderson argues that massive, computational approaches to problem solving are replacing traditional, hypothesis-driven, science. Kelly laments that Anderson attempted to negate theory rather than promote an additional method for problem-solving. Here's the highlight:

My guess is that this emerging method will be one additional tool in the evolution of the scientific method. It will not replace any current methods (sorry, no end of science!) but will compliment established theory-driven science. Let's call this data intensive approach to problem solving Correlative Analytics. I think Chris squander a unique opportunity by titling his thesis "The End of Theory" because this is a negation, the absence of something. Rather it is the beginning of something, and this is when you have a chance to accelerate that birth by giving it a positive name. A non-negative name will also help clarify the thesis. I am suggesting Correlative Analytics rather than No Theory because I am not entirely sure that these correlative systems are model-free. I think there is an emergent, unconscious, implicit model embedded in the system that generates answers. If none of the English speakers working on Google's Chinese Room have a theory of Chinese, we can still think of the Room as having a theory. The model may be beyond the perception and understanding of the creators of the system, and since it works it is not worth trying to uncover it. But it may still be there. It just operates at a level we don't have access to.

Sure, I've been spending too much time lately writing on Levinas' concept of absolute alterity (d'Autrui). But I am repeatedly blown away at how often the writing of the Web 2.0 crowd echoes the sentiments of postmodern metaphysicians. Fucking awesome.

So Long, Thanks for All the Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tits

As an undergrad, I majored in British literature. I was particularly attracted to the 18th century satirists; Jonathan Swift quickly became my favorite.

Also, in college, I delved deeper into stand-up comedy. During this exploration, I first discovered George Carlin. If I were to ever believe in reincarnation, Swift to Carlin is clearly evidence. Both used a keen intellect coupled with a penchant for vituperate satire to radically push the boundaries of their day. Shit yeah, Carlin would have ate a baby. And Swift certainly would have seen aids as a solution to the human disease. Both, too, had moments of touching humanism- a reminder of that unspeakable similarity that underwrites our existences.

Carlin: "why is it, when you're driving, everyone goin' slower than you is an idiot? And everyone goin' faster than you is a maniac"

Responsibility for others

Normally I let Mrxk deal with this kind of stuff. He's good at it. Witty. Poignant. Firm. But I guess, since he hasn't hit this one yet, I'll take it.

So, if you're reading this, you probably know I'm writing a dissertation on Levinas. And, likely, you know that Levinas' theory is about respecting and maintaining an other (person)'s response-ability at all costs. Short version: rather than try to synthesize the differences between me and another, I should let those differences put my own fundamental assumptions into question. And, always, I should respect their response. But there are times that try my patience. Like this: http://barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/

.

Sigh. O.k., a quick taste. You really should just search the blog for a bit. Here's a snippet in which the author makes a correlation between Obama's rise to power and a contemporary influx in natural disasters:

For everyone stammering to rebuttal this argument, slow down, take a breath. I realize there has been all sort of crazy weather throughout history, volcanoes, earthquakes, huge world wars. I get your argument. I am just saying this weather phenomenon is really lining up with the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. If everyone could list the different current weather events, and wars or rumors of wars going on that would be a good start. Please counter this argument as much as you want, I am just exploring the idea I have heard people talking about.

What is interesting to me here is that the writer calls for agonism. That's good. But...

Levinas himself commented in an interview (its in God Who Comes to Mind) that our utter responsibility to an other's alterity should only be interrupted when that other threatens the alterity of a third party. Now, there is no absolute scale upon which to measure violence: is it more violent to interrupt the other I face or to allow him / her to totalize, assimilate, silence or "murder" (in Levinasian discourse) a third. But, even in the absence of an absolute scale, I feel pretty safe calling this into question.

On a less philosophical (dissertation-sounding) note, its crap like this that keeps me from considering getting Rowan baptized. Ever.

Embracing Error

I found Tim Barker's "Error, the Unforeseen, and the Emergent The Error and Interactive Media Art" on work/space. In Barker, I hear what Lanham would refer to as a strong defense for rhetoric: one that recognizes probability not as a lack of certainty but as the possibility of potential. Given my dissertation focuses on public appreciation of the integral role risk must play in our emerging communication networks (a sentiment echoed in Levinas' description of the subject frightfully aware of its contingent dependence on others), I particularly liked this passage:

Any system that seeks the actualisation of unforeseen potential is also a system that has the capacity to become errant. Rather than thinking of the error as something to fear or avoid, we can think of an error as something that brings with it the capacity for the new and the unforeseen (perhaps it is this link to the unforeseen that is precisely the reason that we fear the errant).

Barker connects these ideas to Deleuze, but I think we can also productively connect them to Levinas-Derrida in their opposition to the metaphysics of presence and certainty. Here's a follow-up:

If a system runs through its process without the potential for error it is essentially closed. It does not allow the potentiality of the emergent or the unforeseen. It is only through allowing the capacity for potential errors that we may provide the opportunity to think the unthought, to become-other, and to hence initiate further unforeseen becomings in the virtual (Rodowick 201).

I'm learning to embrace the productive mess.

RSA, Seattle, and a Video

Back from RSA, which I admit I didn't get to attend as much as I would have liked. On the grad student budget, I spent one day seeing Seattle (very cool city, reminds me of Harvard Square) and another doing the conference. I missed a few great panels, so I'll probably try to contact a few people with emails...

If you have a few minutes, Alisa Miller's recent TED talk is worth a view. This will be a great teaching tool. A few years back, a few friends and I came up with a Powerpoint to question the objectivity of empirical evidence. My portion focused on the various maps of red and blue america (some maps charting electoral votes, others calibrated to population density, etc). The various maps of the video remind us that, though a picture has a 1,000 words, it, still, doesn't tell the whole story.

Bit o' Levinas

From "The Thinking of Being and the Question of the Other" in Of God Who Comes to Mind:

We have asked whether the Other--who refuses identification, that is, thematization and hypostasis, but whom the philosophy of the tradition attempted to recover in the patience of the concept through the methodology of history as self-consciousness--must not be understood wholly as otherwise, in a putting in question of thought by the Infinite which thought could not contain; in the awakening. This is a putting in question and an awakening which are reversed into the ethics of responsibility for the other; an incessant putting in question of the quietude of the identity of the Same. It is a susception more passive than any passivity, yet an incessant awakening, a waking up in the midst of awakening that, without this, would become a "mood," a state of wakefulness, or wakefulness as a state. A thought more thoughtful than the thought of being, a sobering up that philosophy attempts to say; that is, which it attempts to communicate, and this, if only in a language that ceaselessly unsays itself, a language that insinuates.

The strong above is perhaps the most concise definition of postmodern metaphysics that I have encountered. I am currently working to equate the encounter with the screen as both an encounter with another(s) (other "sames" made other by their digital response-ability) and an encounter with the Face of the Other (Infinity). The screen can be passive in its presenting infinity, in its resistance to be said as any one identity. Of course, we also experience it as active: as comments, responses, mail, spam, as the presence of others (whose responses often question the primacy of my own thought).

This essay, "The Thinking of Being" is my favorite Levinas I have read. It is short (a mere ten pages), but outlines many of Levinas' key concerns. If you've always wanted to know why Derrida considers indeterminacy such a big deal, read this essay (specifically page 116!)

Sports Things that Bug Me

These things have been bugging me the past few weeks:

1. Kevin Garnett Shooting Jump Shots. Before I saw him play regularly, I used to think that Garnett was a better player than Tim Duncan. My argument went, if you surrounded Garnett with the talent Duncan worked with, he'd have just as many rings. Well, 12 playoff games later I'm ready to amend this thought. While Garnett is a much better defensive player, I think his lack of college experience hurt his offensive development. He just doesn't play like the physically imposing player he could be. When Duncan gets the ball in the post, he's going to the rim. Garnett is happy to settle for a fade away, or he'll pass it out of the post. Take the ball to the damn hoop. Seriously. Argh.

2. Complaints Regarding Manny's High Five. If I hear one more sports journalist / media personality complain about how all athletes are overpaid and greedy and then bash Ramirez for actually having fun and playing the game like a game I'm going to go something something. Manny enjoys baseball. I enjoy watching Manny play baseball. He among the three best righthanded hitters of his generation (Pujols, A-Rod), and the three of them likely comprise the three best righthanders ever playing together at one time. Is he a space cadet? Yeah, a little. But in an age of self-importance and self-promotion, many is a breathe of fresh air.

3. Obsessive Coverage of 'Spygate'. O.k., I'll probably be a bit of a homer here. But anyone who thinks the Patriots are the only team in professional football to utilize videotape beyond the written letter of the rules: you are crazy. I am not suggesting that every coach uses tape- I would bet 100$ that straight arrow Tony Dungy has never taped a TV program for fear he might be breaking copyright law. The reason Goddell and the NFL wants this to go away: they don't want the equivalent of a steroid controversy haunting their sport. Spying has been a part of football since the early 60's, when Hank Stram thought every team was sending agents to observe practices. Don't get me wrong: spying is against the rules, the Pats deserved to be punished. But please don't insinuate that the Pats are the only ones abusing the film room.

4. NCAA rules against playoff but adds two additional bowl games combined with OJ Mayo takes money. Maybe OJ didn't take money (innocent until proven guilty), but he should have. If the NCAA and USC are marketing Mayo to get more money, then he should be getting paid. Millions? No. But players should be able to accept up to 40,000 dollars (completely arbitrary number) from third parties every year. I am not suggesting teams or the NCAA pay athletes. But holding to the mantra of strict amateurism amounts to an unfair indentured service in an age when schools are using their athletic programs to build dorms, labs, and parking garages. Again: if the teams and league makes profit from the players, then the players should be able to make profit from the players. On a related point: wtf. wtf. wtf. Just give us one more bowl game. It will not diminish the ratings or prestige of the other bowls. Take the five top bowls- make one of them the "championship game." I realize that games are stretched out one a night to increase ratings. Fine. Start them a bit earlier, play two on one night, and you can have your championship game without adding an extra time to the schedule.