Is the "facticity of meaning" you are finding in Malabou's writing a candidate?met wrote:Well, my guess - even if it's mostly just from personal experience and reflection - is that there's some OTHER, critical aspect of human life and intelligence that could (perhaps) be best described as transpersonal, relational, entangled and/or collective ...or something like that? This is currently barely inscribed At ALL in Western models of "intelligence", which tend to over-individuate 'the individual mind'' into 'the individual brain' mostly for ideological reasons while tending to overlook all the subtler clues about interconnections?
Since we're going sci-fi, I'll posit that the super-AI entities will read - and take seriously - the wisdom traditions of our culture, and then far exceed our "collective" strength. Of course, being evil, they will use it to dominate usmet wrote:(Like, you know, the problem is the Western insistence on mega-strong individual identities and impermeable ego boundaries that goes all the way back to the Roman Empire?) Its a deeply-set bias, too, especially among the class and mindsets of the Westerners who mostly do cognitive and neuroscience, so it might be awhile, if ever, before "the science" can properly integrate that into its models. So this, in the worse case scenario, might even give us a fighting chance against the upcoming super-AI'd warrior class, after all, even if it does turn out that they really do wanna fight and dominate us, instead of merely pondering the possibilities of their existence vs their non-existence.
Yeah....well.....I guess it's mainstream now to ponder that reality isn't as well grounded in tangible, discrete matter like we would have hoped. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/met wrote:Btw, perhaps that "magical" thing could be a quantum factor? I dunno ... (I did put a note about the physicist Wolfgang Pauling's influence on CG Jung on that other thread too, for Mag).
This...? http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia ... tanglement (or the Buzz Feed versionif you prefer)met wrote:Anyway, now I need a romantic-sounding, sappy quote? ....how 'bout Derrida at (perhaps) his sappiest?.... I
The difference that lies at the heart of the “I” is the difference between me and an “intruder,” the other of me in me, “the heart of the other”: “touching, in any case, touches the heart and on the heart, but inasmuch as it is always the heart of the other.” For that reason, “no one should ever be able to say ‘my heart,’ my own heart.… There would be nothing and there would no longer be any question without this originary exappropriation and without a certain ‘stolen heart.’”
[/quote]met wrote:Okay, now maybe we'll all have to learn more about Jung, for a start....
Indeed. Seems like a worthy thing to do.