autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Explain us what you did: how did you manage yourself a way into the Academic Normativity?
OR, you can as well tell us: how did you succeed to transform a content belonging to the realms of Arts, into
the realms of Sciences, and vice-versa? also Conceptual Philosophy transformed into Work of Art, explain how
people can learn in your steps? Are you 'followed' ? Does Philosophy exists at all, in itself ? Or is there only 'non'-philosophy ?
What do you think about that ? If so, do you ever try to help others learn Art, Sciences and Philosophy, outside from academic normative values?
also the space is left for you here, to Create some new Values !
Post Reply
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Post by sylviajenepi »

Hi Mike,

exact quote reconstituted by my superpowers:

»Expérience de pensée:en quoi serait différente de la notre une société
ou l' « l'enaction »(?) aurait réussi à devenir aussie « vraie » que
l'est désormais pour nous le mouvement de la Terre? »

-> « Thought experiment: in what way would be different from our
society, a society where « enaction » (?) would have succeeded in
becoming as « true » than is for us now the « movement of the Earth »

->deepl more correct in reproducing man made translation than google

enaction for Varela: cognition in relation to environment, different to
Descartes where thought is « only » substantive « je suis une chose
pensante »

stengers thought experiment objective is reminding us science is an
enaction, earth movement as studied by Gallileo (reproducible today) is
an enaction: science is no antropological construct or artefact: it has
a condition : some thing resist: an event(s) in universe, which
scientists in action call « truth » it resists to man thinking (/acting
on) the systems of phenomena.

environments: different can be: mankinds eco-system and singularities
eco-system(s) two different environments. mankind=transcendental being »
falsifying adequate functioning of thinking in the singularitie(s) ie
thinkers of science. if science thoughts experiments are/ is founded on
a transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a
power drifting from the « event-truth »: that which resists
man/organisms thinking.

a power which leads the audience led astray: influenced by it in
certain direction away from the truth (adequate potentially to the
singularities as in spinoza's natura-substance-god) ( the original
useful objective of science though!!), it becomes a « truth » that is
autonomous and away from these « events/truths » in the universe which
philosophers of science posit as condition for « objective science »
though..

for instance, singularities (light science thinking or living organisms)
these days get more alerted by a « mini-ice-age » estimated lasting ten
or fifteen years, than by carbon-dioxide warming climate of « mankind
environment » a concept closer to dark science.

regards,

Sylvia

On 27.05.2021 02:20, Mike Lansing wrote:

> Yes, Bains quotes Stengers: Deepl says: Thought experiment: How would a
> society where 'action' has managed to become as 'real' as the movement
> of the Earth is now for us be different from ours?'
>
> Google says: 'Thought experiement: How would we be different from a
> society where 'action' has succeeded in becoming as 'true' as the
> movement of the Earth is now for us?'
>
> French text, 31 Jan 1997: Experience de pensee: en quoi serait
> different la notre societe ou 'l'enaction' aurait reussi a devenir
> aussi 'vrai' que l'est desormais pour nous le movement de la Terre?'
>
> On Wed, 26 May, 2021 at 6:14 PM, .Sylvia_Jenepi.
> <sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz> wrote:
>
> To: mike lansing
>
> Hi, could you reproduce here the stengers text you talk about and your
> impression about it?
>
> (orbital flat surface is down tonight because i am upgrading from PHP
> 7.1 to PHP 7.4 and the PhpBB forum needs an update i try to restablish
> asap)
>
> byebye
>
> S
>
> On 25.05.2021 [1] 23:44, Mike Lansing wrote:
>
>> I will try "deepl" for Stivale's quote of Stengers from the D&G
>> archive, 31 Jan 1997, to see how it goes.
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Post by sylviajenepi »

i am never sure about this concept of « subjectivity » from Guattari

i find this very fuzzy.

singularity as a degree of power in eternity, which can grow, or
dicrease, i dig.

subjectivity to me seem to imply in the root of the word,

a « subjection » to a higher power.

ok, that's possible.

its a substantive, derived from the passive form of an action verb:

to subjugate.

so Guattari implies its affirmative of a power of the entity which is
subjugated,

to « exist » in spite of being subjugated.

Stengers made a criticism of « tolerance » in Cosmopolitics .

its the same approach than Guattari nevertheless:

you keep at bay, at distance (from your own knowledge power of
Philosopher)

the entity, which is allowed to have a « subjectivity ».

this is what Stengers calls in Invention des Sciences Modernes (1995)

: the difference between the second world, of subjectivity, emotion,
existence,

and the third world, of « signifier manipulators » ie. the scientists,
the philosophers, who only have authority of thinking, by engaging in
this « risk »

of belonging to the realm of knowledge. i am questioning this realm, as
a reason: i am questioning the need for an autonomous intelligence (see
previous email)

i think autonomous intelligence is a poison.

we are engaging people in the Navy Space Force who fight with their
lives against the poison of artificial intelligence, which spreads
across galaxies, like mushroom, killing systematically the people of
have generated the possibility of this AI

anyway, the word « subjectivity », in guattari or in stengers, only
drift from this autonomous intelligence, this lack of « nietzscean » if
you want to say, assertion of existence, by intelligence itself: how
intelligence only itself exists and increases its capacity of existance,
as a means to something superior, an « artistic » faculty

autonomous intelligence, mushroom of third world Popper realm, needs to
be supervised by the artistic realm.

by artistic realm i am not intending to say that « the artists » would
have the intelligence of the autonomous intelligence, i am saying that
enaction, the connection of intelligence with the environment of the
singular degree of power who thinks and uses intelligence, should be the
base of the affirmation of the power of the singular, of it belonging
both to the two realms: the environment, and the thinking intelligence:
in this belonging to two realms, the singular gains power to transform
both the environment, and thinking habits, it becomes capable to

take back control of what « subjugates » the entities that guattari and
stengers mistake as « subjectivities » , entities who independently
from any « aesthetical paradigm » learn each from its own constituency
the sovereignty of the « artistic » faculty.

trust the singular entities. do not label them as « subjectivity »
opposed to autonomous knowledge. all entities degrees of power, within
the womb matrix of the universe, learn to appropriate (is this
existential territory?) the boundaries between each other.

regards,

Sylvia

On 28.05.2021 03:12, Mike Lansing wrote:

> Yes, subjectivity is (mostly) removed from science. Lacan says, "I
> truth, lie." Deepl translates as "I am a thinking thing" so people see
> the solar panel, which is a sign of ecological savvy, environmental
> cleanliness, in movement. Their "strive for pure form" (Nick Land, et
> al) becomes satisfied by this moving image (Deleuze, C2). And why not?
> The solar image also satisfies some of the aspects concerned with
> Guattari's three ecologies, and thinking time against the grain
> (L'inconscient machinique), because of the renewability of solar
> energy, Proustian time regained.
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Post by sylviajenepi »

Hi!

the concept of repetition in your example from D&R Deleuze, is not
offering my understanding a proper way to conceive the relation or
comparison between the first water lily, and « all the others ».

i know that Guattari in interview explained how Deleuze idea on D&R was
the treasury hoard out of which he (and deleuze?) hunted to produce the
concepts /creations of ATP.

but Guattari was if we consider evidence, mistaken on ATP: the «
universality of the singular » is not a concept, nature as spinoza
understood it in Ethics books, nature thinks. if teleology : asigning a
goal to nature thoughts, like did Aristotle, was coveted, it is because
the human thinker and his alliance with his society, wanted to be «
close to the gods » and think as « fast », shortest path, and that's why
it became interesting to get « universal ideas ». repetition is a « fast
» word, but its not a concept that nature uses, except in humans. when
human uses the word, the reality of the singular, precisely, escapes
from the comprehension offered by the fast word « universality of the
singular » so much that it is not much less fuzzy and non-describtive
than « generality of the particular ». just more « intellectually »
informed. yes. but not encompassing of the thoughts « immanent » to the
different stratas of nature. because there are different stratas: time
matters with such strata, where exists an entity. but the same entity
exists on a different strata simultaneously, and in this strata, the
entity is affected/active with different entities than she is
affected/active on the strata where there is a matter of time. but with
what happens on the « time » mattered strata, the entity as it is
active/affected in the « etheric », to call it that way, strata, can be
indifferent to it, when simultaneously the entity as it is alive in the
« time mattered » strata, will be hurt or pleased. it seems that the
time mattered strata level contains for the entity, more events, thus
more possibilities, but that considered at the same entity, the etheral
strata is more important for absolute reality of the entity across a
multiplicity of strata.

so if a lily compares itself to the next generation of lily offspring of
the first lily, why to use the word « repetition » instead of « lily as
a specie » ? it is different, but not offering much hope of considering
the singularity as it is existing in different stratas, and in an
absolute reality as a singular lily.

i think this is why Deleuze gave up the use of « repetition » as a
concept, and prefered to consider stratas and crossing the multiplicity
of strata, while considering the differences of population on each
strata, population experienced by the absolute and singular entity,
populations engaging the thinking productivity of each of the entities,
whose thoughts were « activated » by the study of ATP.

On 29.05.2021 03:39, Mike Lansing wrote:

> you wrote: 'if science thoughts/experiments are/is founded on a
> transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a
> power drifting from the "event-truth", that which resists man/organisms
> thinking.'
>
> Deleuze: 'Monet's first water lily which repeats all the others.
> Generality, as generality of the particular, thus stands opposed to
> repetition as universality of the singular.'
> (D&R, p.1)
>
> Guattari: 'As for the mega-enterprises of the second voice/pathway, the
> great collective industrial and scientific adventures, the management
> of the large markets of knowledge, they evidently retain all their
> legitimacy. This, however, is on condition that their purpose, which
> today remains desperately deaf and blind to human truths, be
> redefined....the purpose of the division of labor, like that of
> emancipatory social practices, will have to end up being re-centered on
> a (fundamental right to singularity [italics]), an ethics of finitude
> that is all the more demanding with regard to individuals and social
> entities the less it can found its imperatives on transcendent
> principles....But one should not be deceived: these questions of of the
> production of subjectivity no longer concern a handful of visionaries.
> Look closely at Japan, the model of models for new capitalist
> subjectivities! It has never been emphasized enough that one of the
> essential ingredients of the miracle cocktail that it presents to
> visitors consist in the fact that collective subjectivity, which is
> massively produced there, associates the most 'hi-tech' components with
> archaisms inherited from the depths of the past. There again one finds
> the reterritorializing function of an ambiguous monotheism --
> Shinto-Buddhism, a mixture of animism and universal powers -- which
> contributes to the establishing of a supple formula for
> subjectification, which, it is true, goes well beyond the triadic
> filter of Christian capitalist paths. There's a lot to learn!'
> (Schizo. Cartog. pp. 12-13)
>
> '
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Post by sylviajenepi »

could you i think you like the japanese culture,

could you explain in more detail fashion,

guattari s « collective subjectivity » which is

»massively produced » in Japan?

how can this be?

and how it is or it is not an ethic of finitude?

and to whom is addressed Guattari invocation of an ethic of finitude?

did it help Japan?

( my opinion is in Japan no one gives much fuck about Guattari
invocation of an ethic of finitude)

but autonomous intelligence is present on blogs and facebook of
deleuze-guattari readership, not even talking about the universitarian
litterature about Deleuze, wh

has the function of a model, a cult figure in autonomous intelligence.

so did Guattari invocation of « subjectivity production », and « an
ethic of singularity/finitude », how did it interact within the
autonomous intelligence

« community » on facebook and philosophy books?

my impression: instead of a rhizome inspiring growth of consciousness,

it piloted nothing: the high tech being piloted by a ghost or an african
animist divinity, was only a « inverse rhizome », something to drag down
the intelligence, like heavy weights, creating a microcosmic « tree of
knowledge », very much appended to the « general » tree of knowledge
that i call autonomous intelligence.

the « collective subjectivity » became a lower strata, divided, and the
word divided is important because Deleuze wanted to oppose « dualism »
he found in Descartes and the tree of knowledge of the history of
western philosophy. The collective sets of subjectivities were the lower
strata. the upper strata was the autonomous intelligence atmospheric
continuum that is transversal to facebook accounts blogs and uni campus
litterature, creating thus « subjectivities » piloted by the galaxy of
authors within the autonomous intelligent community . « What could we
do? » seem the main ludicrous question haunting these subjectivities.
The answer is militancy: boycott groups and black lives matter shaking,
financed by Soros from Davos.. the question was never « what about
Guattari, or what about Deleuze » they are fine where i am told they are
at the moment. the question is: how to avoid this dualism between
subjectivities and an atmospheric intelligence, when asking ourselves
the question : « what can i do? » « qu'est-ce que je peux faire, je sais
pas quoi faire » disait Anna Karina in Pierrot le Fou.

i think there is « something » which has become « wrong » in the work of
Deleuze and Guattari. They are dated!

at the same time, precisely, they are « cult figures »: those for whom
they are not « cult figures » their « true » successors are only artists
who have « digested » and « evacuated » their work, subliminated their
concepts. concepts who have lost their quality of « ustenciles for
forging, new totally different, ustenciles » among those artists,
because they have access to « singular intelligence » and hate this
atmospheric galaxy of intellectual autonomy with all their heart. but
the concepts are not « activated » within these successors works/minds.
just words.. « de-terri-torialisat-i-o-n » funny times of the
seventies.. ah what a time.. .

not saying the concepts of deleuze and guattari should be activated, in
artists/singular/universes, because it would be a quick nightmare: this
would make the singularities become part of the massive collective
subjectivity political shake-up existing just a « strata » below the
autonomous tree of knowledge continuous non-sensical activation of these
concepts in the books and facebooks groups.

i think these deleuze and guattari thoughts should be left as they are,

and be brought in the light exterior to this duality which is in my
opinion the consequence of Guattari and Deleuze anchor in a dated planet
Earth.

the new Earth which is happening , when DG only predicted its coming,
the new Earth is now. the autonomous intelligence will shrink in the
subjectivity collective masses, and the hell with them.

regards Sylvia

On 29.05.2021 03:39, Mike Lansing wrote:

> you wrote: 'if science thoughts/experiments are/is founded on a
> transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a
> power drifting from the "event-truth", that which resists man/organisms
> thinking.'
>
> Deleuze: 'Monet's first water lily which repeats all the others.
> Generality, as generality of the particular, thus stands opposed to
> repetition as universality of the singular.'
> (D&R, p.1)
>
> Guattari: 'As for the mega-enterprises of the second voice/pathway, the
> great collective industrial and scientific adventures, the management
> of the large markets of knowledge, they evidently retain all their
> legitimacy. This, however, is on condition that their purpose, which
> today remains desperately deaf and blind to human truths, be
> redefined....the purpose of the division of labor, like that of
> emancipatory social practices, will have to end up being re-centered on
> a (fundamental right to singularity [italics]), an ethics of finitude
> that is all the more demanding with regard to individuals and social
> entities the less it can found its imperatives on transcendent
> principles....But one should not be deceived: these questions of of the
> production of subjectivity no longer concern a handful of visionaries.
> Look closely at Japan, the model of models for new capitalist
> subjectivities! It has never been emphasized enough that one of the
> essential ingredients of the miracle cocktail that it presents to
> visitors consist in the fact that collective subjectivity, which is
> massively produced there, associates the most 'hi-tech' components with
> archaisms inherited from the depths of the past. There again one finds
> the reterritorializing function of an ambiguous monotheism --
> Shinto-Buddhism, a mixture of animism and universal powers -- which
> contributes to the establishing of a supple formula for
> subjectification, which, it is true, goes well beyond the triadic
> filter of Christian capitalist paths. There's a lot to learn!'
> (Schizo. Cartog. pp. 12-13)
>
> On Thu, 27 May, 2021 at 4:29 AM, .Sylvia_Jenepi.
> <sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz> wrote:
>
> To: mike lansing; deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> exact quote reconstituted by my superpowers:
>
> »Expérience de pensée:en quoi serait différente de la notre une société
> ou l' « l'enaction »(?) aurait réussi à devenir aussie « vraie » que
> l'est désormais pour nous le mouvement de la Terre? »
>
> -> « Thought experiment: in what way would be different from our
> society, a society where « enaction » (?) would have succeeded in
> becoming as « true » than is for us now the « movement of the Earth »
>
> ->deepl more correct in reproducing man made translation than google
>
> enaction for Varela: cognition in relation to environment, different to
> Descartes where thought is « only » substantive « je suis une chose
> pensante »
>
> stengers thought experiment objective is reminding us science is an
> enaction, earth movement as studied by Gallileo (reproducible today) is
> an enaction: science is no antropological construct or artefact: it has
> a condition : some thing resist: an event(s) in universe, which
> scientists in action call « truth » it resists to man thinking (/acting
> on) the systems of phenomena.
>
> environments: different can be: mankinds eco-system and singularities
> eco-system(s) two different environments. mankind=transcendental being
> » falsifying adequate functioning of thinking in the singularitie(s) ie
> thinkers of science. if science thoughts experiments are/ is founded on
> a transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a
> power drifting from the « event-truth »: that which resists
> man/organisms thinking.
>
> a power which leads the audience led astray: influenced by it in
> certain direction away from the truth (adequate potentially to the
> singularities as in spinoza's natura-substance-god) ( the original
> useful objective of science though!!), it becomes a « truth » that is
> autonomous and away from these « events/truths » in the universe which
> philosophers of science posit as condition for « objective science »
> though..
>
> for instance, singularities (light science thinking or living
> organisms) these days get more alerted by a « mini-ice-age » estimated
> lasting ten or fifteen years, than by carbon-dioxide warming climate of
> « mankind environment » a concept closer to dark science.
>
> regards,
>
> Sylvia
>
> On 27.05.2021 [1] 02:20, Mike Lansing wrote:
>
> Yes, Bains quotes Stengers: Deepl says: Thought experiment: How would a
> society where 'action' has managed to become as 'real' as the movement
> of the Earth is now for us be different from ours?'
>
> Google says: 'Thought experiement: How would we be different from a
> society where 'action' has succeeded in becoming as 'true' as the
> movement of the Earth is now for us?'
>
> French text, 31 Jan 1997: Experience de pensee: en quoi serait
> different la notre societe ou 'l'enaction' aurait reussi a devenir
> aussi 'vrai' que l'est desormais pour nous le movement de la Terre?'
>
> On Wed, 26 May, 2021 at 6:14 PM, .Sylvia_Jenepi.
> <sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz> wrote:
>
> To: mike lansing
>
> Hi, could you reproduce here the stengers text you talk about and your
> impression about it?
>
> (orbital flat surface is down tonight because i am upgrading from PHP
> 7.1 to PHP 7.4 and the PhpBB forum needs an update i try to restablish
> asap)
>
> byebye
>
> S
>
> On 25.05.2021 [2] 23:44, Mike Lansing wrote:
>
> I will try "deepl" for Stivale's quote of Stengers from the D&G
> archive, 31 Jan 1997, to see how it goes.
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

Re: autonomous intelligence/singular intelligence

Post by sylviajenepi »

hello.
i am meditating on guattari and deleuze (yes, again..)
i wanted to state i set previous talk i did into question.

communist typical autocritique .

i indeed said something like :
deleuze in logic of sense said:
« one same aliquid for what passes by, and
what is said .. »
i said : deleuze after meeting guattari in 1968
gave up the idea of making real the
« Spinoza adequate idea » expressed in the los « same aliquid » statement,
because he wanted to experiment « dividuality » with working with guattari.
i presented hypothesis: ao and 1000 plateaus, are
works of schizophrenia in the sense they are joined thoughts, not thoughts
expressing the holy ghost (cfr DH Lawrence elaborations on the uniqueness of the individual being)
but a cut through the holy ghost.
i said deleuze retrieved his adequate ideas expression after the death of guattari in 1992.


i did not say it like that but i was thinking that way and do no longer think that way.

there might yet be some truth in this theory.

deleuze wanted to « experiment » self expression within a context of dividual thoughts &-creativity, of that i am certain.

but i am now reconsidering: so many « adequate ideas » in what is philosophy.

when so saying i am intending to say:
what is the « proof » that a written work of any philosophy,
is or is not adequate idea?

i do not want to say.
i think truth is something secret.

so it should not be « proovable ».
but my discovery is that an adequate idea does not need to correspond to the statement:
« one same aliquid for what passes by and what is said »

who is to measure « the sameness » of the aliquid, once you consider it is absolutely infinite speed fast, the aliquid.

besides « aliquid » is aswell « quelconque » as in spinoza expression problem:
the affection quelconque determining the mode at the early stage of natural right.

(in opposition to « affection collective » recieved in exchange for giving up the « natural right » to be determined by aliquid / quelconque affections.

)
all this chain of reasoning is bias, unbalanced, and adequate so much only as far as you understand why deleuze wrote that.

But precisely: as soon as you understand the reason, or the secret, why deleuze wrote what is philosophy, with guattari, the bias is revealed and you understand thru or out of adequate ideas, the « concepts » exposed in the writing.

Sylvia ..
Post Reply