Joaquín Robles López - Sobre Apariencia y Verdad en la IA: de Platón a Bueno

Viendo el mundo con la mente

 Viendo el mundo con la mente (Un retropost de 2011 —o de 1711): https://www.academia.edu/52555514/

Gustavo Bueno, Estroma

Retropost, 2014:

 
Nada es tan sólido como parece, ni la materia ni el mundo.

Comencemos con un vídeo de Gustavo Bueno, uno de los pocos intelectuales españoles que hacen un uso ejemplar de Internet y en concreto de YouTube:

 


Estos estromas de Gustavo Bueno, aunque puedan parecer un tanto vaporosos o generalistas, son un concepto útil para pensar la naturaleza vaporosa (o virtual, como me gusta decir a veces) de la realidad en general. Estos conceptos de la escuela materialista de Oviedo debería conjuntarse, explicarse y repensarse comparándolos con los frames o marcos de referencia teorizados por Erving Goffman. Cada objeto, cada unidad de la realidad (física o interaccional) y cada una de sus partes puede entenderse como un estroma o un marco, una unidad acotada que permite determinadas posibilidades de acción o invita determinada interacción en torno a ella; la realidad es la compleja estructuración de estos objetos cognitivos y estas subestructuras de percepción y acción.

También pueden relacionarse los estromas y los con las teorías psicológicas y sociológicas constructivistas, por ejemplo las enseñanas sobre la construcción social de la realidad de Berger y Luckmann, y de Schütz; y más modernamente con la psicología y lingüística cognitivistas que nos hablan del lenguaje como un factor primordial de construcción de la realidad virtual en la que habitamos. En cierto modo el aspecto lingüístico de esta teoría venía anticipado por algunos aspectos de la (por otra parte tendenciosa) teoría de Sapir y Whorf, pero un enfoque menos gramaticalista y más ideológico se lo daba Stuart Chase en The Tyranny of Words. Chase era, por su parte, en sociología y en economía, un seguidor de Thorstein Veblen, y también a Veblen podemos ascribirle una importante teoría del simbolismo social, de la virtualidad de lo real, y de la teatralidad en la vida social.

 Otras piezas invisibles o impalpables de construcción y organización de la realidad, aparte de estromas y marcos, o no tan aparte porque se superponen e interseccionan con ellos, son las ideas (platónicas o carnales), las palabras, y los memes. Que, según Dennett, incluirían a ambas categorías. Puede verse aquí a Dennett explicando su versión de la realidad (sus propios estromas) en esta conferencia sobre los memes considerados como virus mentales peligrosamente infecciosos. En cuanto al lenguaje y las palabras, y las Ideas, pusimos unas palabras sobre ellas aquí—en La caverna del Cerebro: El lenguaje como realidad virtual.

En suma, que estromas, memes, ideas, palabras y marcos son los elementos de construcción de la realidad humana en que vivimos, mundos no meramente físicos sino informacionales—mundos culturales, mentales e interaccionales, mundos de expectativas, percepciones y convenciones, que pueden construirse, desconstruirse, explorarse y cambiarse con palabras como éstas. Algunas de sus piezas se pueden mover con la mente, y su estructura cambia en cierta medida cuando la descubrimos y describimos. Construir y reconstruir estos mapas mentales del mundo, mapas que coinciden con el territorio, es lo que llamamos aprender, y comprender la realidad. Comprender la realidad es, también, redefinirla y construirla.

Mover cosas con la mente

—oOo—

Definition of Cultural Materialism

 

From Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare

 

 

                Cultural materialism:

 

            vii      “a combination of historical context, theoretical method, political commitment and textual analysis offers the strongest challenge [in the field of literary criticism] and has already contributed substantial work. 

 

    - Historical context undermines the transcendent significance traditionally accorded to the literary text and allows us to recover its histories; 

 

    - theoretical method detaches the text from immanent criticism which seeks only to reproduce it in its own terms; 

 

    - socialist and feminist commitment confronts the conservative categories in which most criticism has hitherto been conducted; 

 

    - textual analysis locates the critique of traditional approaches where it cannot be ignored. 

 

    We call this ‘cultural materialism’.

             

                ‘Culture’ is to be taken in the wider sociological sense, not the narrower evaluative one, which is just “one set of signifying practices among others”.

     

            ‘Materialism’ “insists that culture does not (canot transcend the material forces and relations of production. Culture is not simply a reflection of the economic and political system, but nor can it be independent of it. Cultural materialism therefore situates the implication of literary texts in history. 

 

        A play by Shakespeare is related to the contexts of its production—to the economic and political system of Elizabethan and Jacobean England and to the particular institutions of cultural production (the court, patronage, theatre, education, the church). 

 

        Moreover, the relevant history is not just that of four hundred years ago, for culture is made continuously and Shakespeare’s text is reconstructed, reappraised, reassigned all the time through diverse institutions in specific contexts. 

 

        What the plays signify, how they signify, depends on the cultural field in which they are situated. That is why this book discusses also the institutions through which Shakespeare is reproduced and through which interventions may be made in the present.”

 

            Finally, cultural materialism is not politically neutral—any cultural practice has a political significance, and cultural materialism is commited to the transformation of the social order.

 

 Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. 2nd ed. (Cornell Paperbacks). Ithaca (NY): Cornell UP, 1994.

 

 

—oOo— 

Las Tesmoforias y el teatro del género

 

Los sofistas del presente

Gustavo Bueno, 'Estroma'

Performativity and Abjection

From the Introduction to Judith Butler's Bodies That Matter (p. 14-16):

... the symbolic law in Lacan can be subject to the same kind of critique that Nietzsche formulated of the notion of God: the power attributed to this prior and ideal power is derived and deflected from the attribution itself. It is this insight into the illegitimacy of the symbolic law of sex that is dramatized to a certain degree in the contemporary film Paris Is Burning: the ideal that is mirrored depends on that very mirroring to be sustained as an ideal. And though the symbolic appears to be a force that cannot be contravened without psychosis, the symbolic ought to be rethought as a series of normativizing injunctions that secure the borders of sex through the threat of psychosis, abjection, psychic unlivability. And further, that this "law" can only remain a law to the extent that it compels the differentiated citations and approximations called "feminine" and "masculine." The presumption that the symbolic law of sex enjoys a separable ontology prior and autonomous to its assumption is contravened by the notion that the citation of a law is the very mechanism of its production and articulation. What is "forced" by the symbolic, then, is a citation of its law that reiterates and consolidates the ruse of its own force. What would it mean to "cite" the law to produce it differently, to "cite" the law in order to reiterate and coopt its power, to expose the heterosexual matrix and to displace the effect of its necessity?

The process of that sedimentation or what we might call materialization will be a kind of citationality, the acquisition of being through the citing of power, a citing that establishes an originary complicity with power in the formation of the "I." 

In this sense, the agency denoted by the performativity of "sex" will be directly counter to any notion of a voluntarist subject who existes quite apart from the regulatory norms whih she/he opposes. The paradox of subjectivation (assujetissement) is preciesely that the subject who would resist such norms is itslef enaled, if not produced, by such norms. Although this constitutive constraint does not foreclose the possibility of agency, it does locate agency as a reiterative or rearticulatory practice, immanent to power, and not a relation of external opposition to power. 

As a result of this reformulation of performativity, (a) gender performativity cannot be theorized apart from the forcible and reiterative practice of regulatory sexual regimes; (b) the account of agency conditioned by those very regimes of discourse/power cannot be conflated with voluntarism or individualism, much less with consumerism, and in no way presupposes a choosing subject; (c) the regime of heterosexuality operates to circumscribe and contour the "materiality" of sex, and that "materiality" is formed and sustained through a materialization of regulatory norms that are in part those of heterosexual hegemony; (d) the materialization of norms requires those identificatory processes by which norms are assumed or appropriated, and these identifications precede and enable the formation of a subject, but are not, strictly speaking, performed by a subject; and (e) the limits of constructivism are exposed at those boundaries of bodily life where abjected or delegitimated bodies fail to count as "bodies." If the materiality of sex is demarcated in discourse, then this demarcation will produce a domain of excluded and delegitimated "sex." Hence, it will be as important to think about how and to what end bodies are constructed as it is will be to think about how and to what end bodies are not constructed and, further, to ask after how bodies which fail to materialize provide the necessary "outside," if not the necessary support for the bodies which, in materializing the norm, qualify as bodies that matter.

How, then, can one think thorugh the matter of bodies as a kind of materialization governed by regulatory norms in order to ascertain the workings of heterosexual hegemony in the formation of what qualifies as a viable body? How does that materialization of the norm in bodily formation produce a domain of abjected bodies, a field of deformation, which, in failing to qualify as the fully human, fortifies those regulatory norms? What challenge does that excluded and abjected realm produce to a symbolic hegemony that might force a radical rearticulation of what qualifies as bodies that matter, whays of living that count as "life," lives worth protecting, lives worth saving, lives worth grieving?

[Note: Whatever the implications of her argument, its scope is restricted in Judith Butler's book Bodies that Matter to issues of 'gender bending', transsexuality, intersecuality, etc.— NOT to issues like abortion or animalism which might lead to alternative reflections on which bodies matter, which bodies are abjected, etc.]

 

Denying the Ungrieved, and the Unborn, a Life

—and even a mention

—oOo—

Filosofía de la literatura

Ruiz de Vergara, Ekaitz, Pedro Santana and Marcelino Suárez. "Filosofía de la Literatura." Video debate. YouTube (fgbuenotv) 3 July 2020.*

         https://youtu.be/NgiUvu2COVc

         2020