Bruno Latour - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T12:31:20Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/bruno-latour?feed=yes&xn_auth=noFrom Footnotes2Plato FB post:…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-08-11:5301756:Comment:767592019-08-11T15:36:21.055ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>From Footnotes2Plato…</p>
<p>From Footnotes2Plato <a href="https://www.facebook.com/footnotes2plato/posts/2581945318504329?__xts__[0]=68.ARChRnKuSrstgJeZNmtpOH74ljY__NhpB9IegRM7kxaKu8RKI-XSEmusap8xn4r68MdDDPMWmWvC8p17xelxlzFHk4_RCtfEfwZzfgl2kFliQH96HA-2z8pSVUPA9qORE_lTd4UfBZMMZHVJXr23-F3IJ0qxBjFu8bAkwBHC3bHNGXfmb5jG9SlRBXTXCZg5j7bpFj2b8wKACDJMi9v-81kSdfXwILyvnWjT6y6XpTU7EuBpvtXOvMrZ-Fu2R9UOfB1tzUoNZkAYHYJwitLXxaBV2W2ws_Ro-w4gqonXy2Vj14c3oe_vIbepS-uoi8KQFzupK2LPNlsu_ceont2tOBl4iQ&__tn__=-R" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FB post</a>:</p>
<p>"I'm participating in a reading group with about 40 other scholars focusing on Bruno Latour's recently published book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns (2013). This week it is my turn to comment on Ch. 4, which is titled "Learning to Make Room." I'm going to cross-post my comments here, as well as on <a href="https://footnotes2plato.com/2013/10/11/reflections-on-bruno-latours-an-inquiry-into-modes-of-existence-ch-4-learning-to-make-room/?fbclid=IwAR35nHnaGt5wsqReEiZYQCrjt2q-U22bikAulVI23hSjgFDQ5qf3UXp4d68" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the blog</a> we've set up for the reading group."</p> I read Conway's analysis of t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-02:5301756:Comment:569982014-07-02T18:08:33.770ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I read Conway's analysis of the <a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/introduction-chapter-1-a-few-criticisms/#more-54" target="_blank">Intro and chapter 1</a>, along with the voluminous commentary. It is making a point I recently made <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks-bruce-alderman?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57151" target="_self">elsewhere</a>, that this thing called modernity is a western affair. The initial post challenges that it…</p>
<p>I read Conway's analysis of the <a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/introduction-chapter-1-a-few-criticisms/#more-54" target="_blank">Intro and chapter 1</a>, along with the voluminous commentary. It is making a point I recently made <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks-bruce-alderman?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57151" target="_self">elsewhere</a>, that this thing called modernity is a western affair. The initial post challenges that it is 'western' in that others from other parts of the world are modern too. But only in so far as they have been educated in western institutions, implying that if left to their own cultural devices they would not be 'modern.' Thus it's a matter of class; the elite class gets a western education and enters modernity.</p>
<p>Conway accepts per Latour that it's possible for "Chinese or Indian scientists and engineers have different concepts of science, objectivity and progress than European ones." But Conway says that Latour doesn't prove it, merely asserts it. Conway seems to be arguing that there is a universalism to modernity, yet per about this appears to come about by the west's influence on other cultures and not vice-versa. Conway does pay lip service to the latter idea in that non-Europeans "have, in one way or another, contributed to those institutions broadly claimed to be ‘European.’" But like his criticism of Latour he doesn't say in what ways they have contributed to the notions of modernity.</p>
<p>I'm left with still wondering about how this thing called modernity might be, per Latour, more a western cultural artifact along with all its inherent assumptions. And if you don't accept them you aren't modern. And even worse, primitive.</p> The links in my post just abo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-02:5301756:Comment:571602014-07-02T16:35:17.129ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>The links in my post just above are from this research group discussion. I lost track of the discussion (and also set his book aside while working on other things), so thank you for the reminder. I will dip back in.</p>
<p>The links in my post just above are from this research group discussion. I lost track of the discussion (and also set his book aside while working on other things), so thank you for the reminder. I will dip back in.</p> Here's the link to the AIME r…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-02:5301756:Comment:571592014-07-02T16:17:59.823ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Here</a>'s the link to the AIME research group, who is doing summary analyses of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=7eu9AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=latour+modes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Iy-0U_PyNtCYyATat4KgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=latour%20modes&f=false" target="_blank">Latour's recent book</a>. To date they're up to chapter 10. <a href="http://www.modesofexistence.org/" target="_blank">Here…</a></p>
<p><a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Here</a>'s the link to the AIME research group, who is doing summary analyses of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=7eu9AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=latour+modes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Iy-0U_PyNtCYyATat4KgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=latour%20modes&f=false" target="_blank">Latour's recent book</a>. To date they're up to chapter 10. <a href="http://www.modesofexistence.org/" target="_blank">Here</a> is Latour's website for an ongoing inquiry. At the last link one can participate in the investigation and access the book by joining the site.</p> From the summary of chapter 2…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-23:5301756:Comment:531122013-11-23T00:01:05.335ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>From the summary of chapter 2:</p>
<p>"As in the introduction and first chapter, Latour touches on a lot of issues in the second chapter, and a lot of questions and possible criticisms still remain. We should bear in mind that we’re still early in the book, and Latour is imagining a reader who is patient and kind, demanding a final reckoning only at the end of the inquiry, not 'after only a few pages.'"</p>
<p>I see what you mean by it being 'dense.' Fortunately you, unlike me, are patient…</p>
<p>From the summary of chapter 2:</p>
<p>"As in the introduction and first chapter, Latour touches on a lot of issues in the second chapter, and a lot of questions and possible criticisms still remain. We should bear in mind that we’re still early in the book, and Latour is imagining a reader who is patient and kind, demanding a final reckoning only at the end of the inquiry, not 'after only a few pages.'"</p>
<p>I see what you mean by it being 'dense.' Fortunately you, unlike me, are patient and kind. So I'll look for your continued responses rather than wade into this morass.</p> Yes, by domain, he means the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-22:5301756:Comment:531092013-11-22T17:24:27.037ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Yes, by domain, he means the modernist classification of distinct disciplines (law, science, religion, etc), the clear boundaries of which Wilber carries forward and represents with his quadrant model. He argues that, while in theory domains are distinct and the boundaries are firm, in practice boundaries are crossed all the time...which leads him to the concept of networks (meaning networks of association among discontinuous elements which establish continuities and generate knowledge,…</p>
<p>Yes, by domain, he means the modernist classification of distinct disciplines (law, science, religion, etc), the clear boundaries of which Wilber carries forward and represents with his quadrant model. He argues that, while in theory domains are distinct and the boundaries are firm, in practice boundaries are crossed all the time...which leads him to the concept of networks (meaning networks of association among discontinuous elements which establish continuities and generate knowledge, products, etc.) But he also notices that, although the notion of network is partially illuminating, it isn't enough by itself to help identify what is unique to different networks -- it doesn't illuminate the unique values, for instance, that generators of various networks hold as precious or important. So, he introduces the notion of prepositions [PRE] as modes or "interpretive keys." But he doesn't intend modes to be understood strictly epistemologically; modes are also ontological. </p>
<p>I haven't seen any reference to image schemata (yet), but I will let you know if I do.</p>
<p>These summaries of his chapters might be helpful (more helpful than what I've written above) to get an idea of what he is talking about:</p>
<p><a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/summary-of-introduction-chapter-1/#more-51" target="_blank">Chapter 1</a> (dealing mostly with networks)</p>
<p><a href="http://aimegroup.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/collecting-documents-for-the-inquiry-summary-of-chapter-2/#more-57" target="_blank">Chapter 2</a> (introducing prepositions)</p> I need some help understandin…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-22:5301756:Comment:528782013-11-22T16:17:52.099ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I need some help understanding what you're reading. It appears by 'domains' he means categories like science, law, religion? And domains are continually being crossed to generate knowledge in a particular domain. So instead of domain he uses 'network,' which displays such domain crossings. And yet a network, like a domain, still has its own 'mode' or enacted paradigm as in kennilingus. So what crosses and/or connects the modes? I recall earlier in the thread that he's supposed to have two…</p>
<p>I need some help understanding what you're reading. It appears by 'domains' he means categories like science, law, religion? And domains are continually being crossed to generate knowledge in a particular domain. So instead of domain he uses 'network,' which displays such domain crossings. And yet a network, like a domain, still has its own 'mode' or enacted paradigm as in kennilingus. So what crosses and/or connects the modes? I recall earlier in the thread that he's supposed to have two modes that do this? Or do 'prepositions' accomplish that, also discussed earlier?</p>
<p>Does he have any concept for image schemata, which I've suggested earlier are cross-domain and/or cross-network connectors. And that they are the precursors of linguistic prepositions, or that which pre-positions prepositions.</p> Not anymore!tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-21:5301756:Comment:528762013-11-21T19:45:14.611ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Not anymore!</p>
<p>Not anymore!</p> Am I the only one who mentall…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-21:5301756:Comment:530292013-11-21T19:44:21.446ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Am I the only one who mentally pronounces "Bruno Latour" according to the rhythm of the Beastie Boy's "Johnny Ryall..."?</p>
<p>Am I the only one who mentally pronounces "Bruno Latour" according to the rhythm of the Beastie Boy's "Johnny Ryall..."?</p> I'm reading, and enjoying, An…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-11-21:5301756:Comment:530272013-11-21T17:51:58.109ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I'm reading, and enjoying, <em>An Inquiry into Modes of Existence</em>. It's dense, so it may take me some time to digest it and provide an initial response; for now, here's something I wrote elsewhere to describe Latour's modes of veridiction, as well as an excerpt from the chapter I am currently reading (which provides another take on OOO's concept of withdrawal).…</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm reading, and enjoying, <em>An Inquiry into Modes of Existence</em>. It's dense, so it may take me some time to digest it and provide an initial response; for now, here's something I wrote elsewhere to describe Latour's modes of veridiction, as well as an excerpt from the chapter I am currently reading (which provides another take on OOO's concept of withdrawal).</p>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000000; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: left; color: #333333; line-height: 14px; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Latour's notion of modes of veridiction is similar to Wilber's (Habermasian) concept of domain-related validity claims. Where Latour differs is that he doesn't believe the concept of domain is that viable, anymore, and that we have to look to networks instead -- since in the practice of science, or law, or religion, we almost never remain within one domain to produce scientific or religious knowledge; we regularly cross "domains," networking discontinuities in unique ways, and this crossing isn't incidental to, but is essential to, the work that we call scientific, legal, religious, etc. (This is something many Integralists already recognize, of course; we regularly acknowledge that, while we tend to associate a discipline with a particular quadrant, the practitioners of a discipline frequently work in multiple quadrants to accomplish their discipline's ends.) Latour takes this concept further, using the concept of network to trace out the complex crossings involved. He brings in the concept of preposition to describe differences among networks: different networks function in different modes. He recognizes about 15 or so modes at this time, each of which has its own unique aims, values, products or enactments, etc.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></p>
<blockquote><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000000; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; border-collapse: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><strong>Latour:</strong> </span> The ethnologist finds something almost comic in the endless complaint invented by CRITIQUE: "Since we accede to known things by way of a path, this means that these things are inaccessible and unknowable in themselves." She would like to answer back: "But what are you complaining about, since you have access to them?" "Yes," they keep on whining, "but that means that we don't grasp them 'in themselves': we don't see them as they would be without us." "Well, but since you want to approach them, if you want them to be as they are 'without you,' then why not simply stop trying to reach them?" More whining: "Because then we'd have no hope of knowing them." An exasperated sigh from the ethnologist: "It's almost as though you were congratulating yourselves that there is a path to Mount Aiguille, but then complaining that it has allowed you to climb up there..." Critique behaves like blase' tourists who would like to reach the most virgin territories without difficulty, but only if they don't come across any other tourists.</p>
<p>On reflection, our ethnologist understands that this inconsistency on the part of Critique is symptomatic of an entirely different phenomenon: the notion of "known thing" does not in fact exhaust what can be said about the world. Not at all because scientists are "limited" in their knowledge of things that would remain unknowable, since they accede to them quite well and know them admirably, but because the expression "objective knowledge" (provided that it is materialized) designates a progression, an access route, a movement that will cross paths with other types of movements to which it cannot be reduced and that it cannot reduce, either. This impression that there is always something <em>more</em> that what is known in the thing known does not refer at all to the unknowable (the complaint of Critique is in no way justified) but to the <em>presence of other modes</em> whose equal dignity EPISTEMOLOGY, despite all its efforts, has never allowed to be recognized. Knowledge can grasp everything, go everywhere, but in its own mode. It is not a DOMAIN, whose expansion has to be limited or authorized. It is a network that traces its own particular trajectory, alongside other, differently qualified trajectories, which it never ceases to crisscross.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>