Workshop: Cybernetic Hypothsis (31 May-1 June, 2016)

In or­der to re­think the con­tem­pora­ry in­tert­wi­ning of sci­en­ti­fic, tech­no­lo­gi­cal, eco­no­mic and po­li­ti­cal con­di­ti­ons, this work­shop fo­cu­ses on Ti­qqun’s “Cy­ber­ne­tic Hy­po­the­sis”. With the in­ten­ti­on of al­lo­wing dis­cus­sion to go bey­ond the his­to­ri­cal event of ‘cy­ber­ne­tics’ bet­ween ’45 and the seven­ties, “ge­ne­ral cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on” (Hörl 2013) will be the work­shop’s con­cep­tu­al star­ting point. This lo­gic is not only bound to a vo­ca­bu­la­ry con­sis­ting of ‘con­trol’, ‘re­gu­la­ti­on’, and ‘stee­ring’. Cy­ber­ne­tics, in fact, has be­co­me a con­tem­pora­ry mode of go­vern­men­ta­li­ty. Star­ting from this point, the work­shop’s main aim is to take a clo­ser look at the re­la­ti­ons­hip of cri­tique, po­li­tics, and tech­no­lo­gy wi­t­hin the lo­gics of cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on. In or­der to ac­cess this ma­ni­fold re­la­ti­ons­hip in par­ti­cu­lar, act and ac­tion are set as the key terms.

Ap­proa­ching cri­tique, the work­shop will not only pay at­ten­ti­on to the ur­gen­cy im­plied by the term cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on, act, and ac­tion ety­mo­lo­gi­cal­ly and se­man­ti­cal­ly. Car­ving out the im­pli­cit ter­mi­no­lo­gi­cal and epis­te­mo­lo­gi­cal pro­xi­mi­ty of cri­tique and cri­sis will also be one of the work­shop’s tasks. Un­der­stan­ding cri­sis in the ori­gi­nal sen­se as a crack, a cut, or a frac­tu­re, the fo­cus will be upon cri­sis’ con­tem­pora­ry mea­ning in terms of a sta­te of per­ma­nence, lin­ked to a go­vern­men­tal me­ans. Here, the sta­tus and the pos­si­bi­li­ty of in­ter­ve­ning with po­li­ti­cal ac­tion will be dis­cus­sed.

Thin­king bey­ond the as­sump­ti­on of a con­stant feed­back loop which ap­pro­pria­tes cri­ti­cal ac­tion, as well as a mere de­mand of an ‘outs­ide’ place of cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on, what nee­ds to be ad­dres­sed is both the pos­si­bi­li­ty of cri­ti­cal acts / ac­tion in ge­ne­ral and the spe­ci­fic stra­te­gies and tac­tics of ac­tion. So, this en­ga­ges the ques­ti­on of how to act and take ac­tion wi­t­hin trans­ver­sal mo­ve­ments of “de- and re­ter­ri­to­ria­liza­t­i­on” bet­ween ma­cro- and mi­cro-struc­tu­res (De­leu­ze/Guat­ta­ri 1993), as well as the ques­ti­on of the ‘po­li­ti­cal dif­fe­rence’ (e.g. Der­ri­da 1991; Mar­chart 2010)

In con­clu­si­on, the work­shop seeks to crys­tal­li­se the par­ti­cu­lar re­la­ti­ons­hip of act and ac­tion with cri­tique, po­li­tics, and tech­no­lo­gy. The in­vi­ted spea­kers are Alex­an­der Gal­lo­way, Orit Hal­pern, Erich Hörl, Bri­an Hol­mes, and Ja­son Moo­re. The two-day event is opened by an eve­ning con­ver­sa­ti­on “World-Eco­lo­gy, Ge­ne­ral Eco­lo­gy, and Cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on” by Erich Hörl and Ja­son Moo­re. Day two is di­vi­ded into three main pa­nels. Each 2-hour-pa­nel is sub­di­vi­ded into a 15 mi­nu­te pre­sen­ta­ti­on, fol­lo­wed by a 10 mi­nu­te re­s­pon­se, as even­tual­ly the dis­cus­sion.

The work­shop is or­ga­nis­ed by the DCRL, ICAM, MECS, and “Tech­no-Eco­lo­gies of Par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on” (part of the DFG-pro­ject Me­dia and Par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on)

Tuesday, 31st of May 2016
Eve­ning Con­ver­sa­ti­on, 6pm – 8pm, at Was­ser­turm

“World-Eco­lo­gy, Ge­ne­ral Eco­lo­gy, and Cy­ber­ne­ti­ciza­t­i­on”,
by Erich Hörl and Ja­son Moo­re

Wednesday, 1st of June 2016
Work­shop, 10pm – 6.30pm, 10am – 12am at Frei­raum

Opening – Erich Hörl
In­tro­duc­to­ry No­tes – Ri­cky Wichum

Pa­nel 1: Cri­tique and Cri­sis
Im­pul­se: Alex­an­der Gal­lo­way; Re­s­pon­se: Ma­thi­as Den­ecke
This pa­nel asks for the po­si­ti­ons and the epis­te­mo­lo­gies for a cri­tique of cy­ber­ne­tics. Here, dif­fe­rent un­der­stan­dings of cy­ber­ne­tics are dis­cus­sed, as well as the pro­xi­mi­ty of cri­tique and cri­sis.

1.30pm – 3.30pm

Pa­nel 2: Tech­no­lo­gy and Po­li­tics
Im­pul­se: Orit Hal­pern; Re­s­pon­se: Yuk Hui.
The se­cond pa­nel deals with the re­la­ti­ons­hip bet­ween tech­no­lo­gy and po­li­tics. The dis­cus­sion will be fo­cu­sed upon the turn from an al­most anti-tech­no­lo­gi­cal at­ti­tu­de towards the pos­si­bi­li­ty of cri­tique via the fi­gu­re of the ha­cker (In­vi­si­ble Com­mit­tee 2015).

4pm – 6pm

Pa­nel 3: Mo­des, Pos­si­bi­li­ties, and Con­di­ti­ons of Act & Ac­tion
Im­pul­se: Bri­an Hol­mes; Re­s­pon­se: Lau­ra Hil­le.
Pa­nel three ad­dres­ses the fi­gu­re of the en­e­my in re­la­ti­on to pos­si­ble mo­des, stra­te­gies, and tac­tics of ac­tion.

Clo­sing State­ments 7pm

Book launch:
“On the Exis­tence of Di­gi­tal Ob­jects” (Yuk Hui), at DCRL, Am San­de 5 Lüne­burg

Sin­ce the work­shop seeks to fa­ci­li­ta­te tho­rough dis­cus­sions, rea­ding Ti­qqun’s “Cy­ber­ne­tic Hy­po­the­sis” (2001) is re­qui­red.

Latest from Blog

Chinese translation of ChatGPT, or the Eschatology of Machines (Voices of Photography, issue 35)

ChatGPT自2022年11月推出以來,便引發了狂熱與恐懼。它對不同語言的語義及語法的嫻熟掌握(但尚未精通內容),令只是期待普通聊天機器人的使用者感到驚訝。有些大學院校立即禁止學生使用ChatGPT來寫論文,因為它的表現優於多數人類學生。報紙上的專欄文章則宣布了教育的終結──不僅因為學生可以用它來做作業,還因為ChatGPT比很多老師能提供更多的資訊。人工智慧似乎已征服了另一個根據古典哲學來定義人性的領域:邏各斯(logos)。恐慌隨著存在領域(existential territory)1的進一步喪失而加劇。當氣候的崩壞和機器人的反叛召喚出了末世,人類歷史的世界末日想像變得更加強烈。 末日對於現代人來說從來都不陌生。事實上,哲學家卡爾.洛維特(Karl Löwith)在1949年出版的《歷史的意義》(Meaning in History)一書即指出,現代歷史哲學──從黑格爾(Hegel)到布克哈特(Burckhardt)──就是末世論的世俗化2。歷史的終極目標便是使超越的變成內在(makes the transcendent immanent),不論是耶穌基督的第二次降臨或只是成為神人(Homo deus)。更廣泛地說,這種對歷史時期的聖經式或亞伯拉罕式想像,為人類的存在提供了許多深刻反思,卻也阻礙了對於我們的未來之理解。 more