The inability to acknowledge a proven fact, as translated into an appeal to an authority to “unfortunately” disregard some person (me, in this case)

4+ years ago, I had submitted the abstract “Gameplay is politics” (the first chapter of Dialectics of Game Design) to the 4th ICTs and Society meeting that was to take place in Uppsala, Sweden.

I did an e-mail submission before the announced “deadline“. According to the e-mail server logs of, the submission was technically successful.

However, for some unknown reason, my submission had not landed into the organizer’s (Marisol Sandoval) inbox (“junk”? “spam”? classification?)

As a result, she was unable to acknowledge my submission, eventhough I was able to prove by the server logs that it indeed took place.

This inability to acknowledge a proven fact led the organizer Marisol Sandoval to appeal to the authority of the “main organizer” Christian Fuchs.

She encrypted her appeal to him in the notion of a “slot” that was “unfortunately already filled.”

I had written the e-mail below to inform the organizing board members about the incident.

They did not respond.

The name of the meeting they organize, “ICTs and Society” means:

“Information and Communication Technologies and Society.”

Işık Barış Fidaner

PS: I had written another very short text at the time about the four kinds of discrimination mentioned in the e-mail (informal discrimination, physical discrimination, formal discrimination, electronic discrimination) that just makes their distinction and does not elaborate much about their specifics.


Significance Test: Discourse and Perception

7 May 2012

Perhaps one could adopt a significance test to pass beyond the paradigm of counting by fingers / measuring by rulers (that is, the commodity abstraction):

— Viewed from which of its aspects is the situation we have found ourselves in or the event we are experiencing more significantly (more extraordinarily, more extremely) visible?

— How can we emphasize / represent these aspects and how do we express / nominate this significance?

This is what Žižek calls “looking awry / parallax view”.

Statistical significance


In case you ask about how to do it:

At first, one needs to distinguish the addressee’s discourse and the perception that is pursued:
— Discourse is a more or less organized toolkit comprised of sentences and symbols.
— Perception means in which manners one speaks in which places. So it’s a perspective that finds new grounds within any context of speech. It’s a “significance” that the totality of the constituents in the environment express.

— The discourse one uses can never express the totality of the present perception. As the communication environments are altered, the perception is constantly renewed, and the discourse remains lacking.

— In order to open a discourse that has been closed & congealed,
1- One conceives the speaker’s discourse and perception separately
2- One forms a sentence that the perception certainly affirms, but the discourse is unable to prove (Gödel sentence).
3- The discourse will have to negate such sentences, but since the perception will weigh more heavily, a resolution & opening will take place within the discourse. It will have to update itself in a way to affirm these new sentences.

— If there are counter-perceptions that the perception has been excluding, these will be indirectly included in the discourse. They can be detected in the manner of speaking, in the examples presented, in the jokes etc. This exclusion and the indirect inclusion, being a constant source of pleasure, also covers up the abovementioned lacking of discourse by giving it an appearance of completeness.

— In order to relate the present perception with the counter-perceptions that are being excluded,
1- One conceives the speaker’s discourse and perception. One predicts the counter-perception by examining the excesses in the discourse.
2- One asks a question from within the present discourse, by relying on the present perception, but one whose answer will trigger the counter-perception.
3- The counter-perception instantly finds the answer. But this answer is not reflected into the discourse since it is being excluded. The finding of the answer is observed through the indirect effects on the discourse: Changes in the manner of speaking and the changes in mood, new examples and new jokes that emerge, etc. Even as the answer remains unsaid, the question has played its part: Since the exclusion that was protecting the perception has been debased, the perception will have to be formed from scratch.

Işık Barış Fidaner


I don’t care

— But take an instance we are being watched.

— Yeah but, I don’t care– if you’re watched, you know what I mean? I– Here I preach arrogance. So what? Let the big Other watch me, maybe he will learn something and be less stupid, you know. This is not my problem, you know. Like, you know when we were those half-dissidents, no? And a guy, when we had some committee for human rights, blah blah, a guy–

— Or they change your behavior, being watched…

— No, no, no nono, no no… You know, I learned through friends that some secret policemen were really mad at me because I told a horrible story then, it’s one of– I told them, and it’s true, you know I read a history of United States in 19th century where I was told that racism was so strong in the old south, anti-black racism, that when you have in New Orleans, before civil war, brothels, whorehouses, prostitution houses, the white customer was making love to a white prostitute and if a black guy entered the room, ringing rings whatever, they didn’t stop making love, it was like… They didn’t consider a black person entering, a human gaze which puts you to shame, it’s like a dog, a bird, you don’t care, you go on making love. And I told them, this was horrible what they did, the way they treated blacks there, but we should treat secret policemen… Secret policemen should be treated like black servants, you know. You don’t care. And this is where they feel most horrified, you know, when they learn that you don’t care.


~~~ Being in default ~~~

Moreover, see how the subject situates himself in what I might call the suspension of the articulation of the dream. The subject himself, as he situates himself, as he assumes himself, knows as one might say, because the other does not know, the subjective position of the other. And here of ***being in default*** as one might say. That he is dead, of course, is a statement that after all cannot touch him. Every symbolic expression like this one, of the being dead, makes him subsist, preserves him when all is said and done. It is precisely indeed the paradox of this symbolic position: the fact is that there is no being to being, no affirmation of the being dead which in a certain fashion does not immortalise him. And this indeed is what is in question in the dream. But this subjective position of the being who is ***in default***, this subjective lesser value, is not directed at the fact that he is dead, it is essentially directed at the fact that he is the one who does not know. This is how the subject situates himself before the other. In addition this sort of protection exercised with respect to the other which means that not only does he not know, but that at the limit I would say that he must not be told that, is something which is always found more or less at the root of every communication between people, what one can and what one cannot let him know. Here is something whose incidence you should always weigh every time you are dealing with an analytic discourse. There was some talk last night about those who could not speak, express themselves, about the obstacles, about the resistances that are properly speaking involved in discourse. This dimension is essential to relate this dream to another dream which is borrowed from the last page of Trotsky’s Journal at the end of his stay in France at the beginning of the last war I think. It is a particularly moving dream. It is at the moment when, perhaps for the first time, Trotsky begins to experience in himself the first intimations of some diminution of the vital energy which was so inexhaustible in this man. And he sees appearing in a dream his companion Lenin, who congratulates him on his good health, and on his indomitable character. And the other, in a fashion which takes its value from this ambiguity that there always exists in dialogue, gives him to understand that perhaps this time there is something in him which is not now at the same level that his old companion had always known. But what he thinks about is how to spare this old companion who emerges in this way in such a significant fashion at a critical, decisive moment of his vital evolution. And wanting to recall something which precisely referred to the moment when even he, Lenin, had slackened in his efforts, he says, to indicate to him the moment when he died: the time when you were very very ill. As if a precise formulation of what was in question would by its very breath, dissipate the shade before whom Trotsky, in his dream at this decisive moment of his existence, maintains himself.

Lacan’s Seminar Book 6: Desire & its interpretation





Digital transference: Energy and Entropy

Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to write this post quickly and then go to the supermarket. What I will tell are the thoughts that emerged today on my way to the Boston Lacan Study Group (BSLG) meeting on Lacan’s 8th seminar book: Transference, class 12. There was no reason to bring these thoughts up during the meeting, for even without a big Other, we had other things to discuss, which is good.


Let me introduce you to my phone which is not really a phone because it is without a SIM card (without a micro-SIM card to be exact, since I have a SIM card that inhabits my other phone that is really a phone), but this is not the issue now. Continue reading “Digital transference: Energy and Entropy”

Counting Qualia — Işık Barış Fidaner

counting-qualia-kapakLast version: 7 September 2016

(67 pages — PDFLaTeX)


— Why N-1 in standard deviation?

— Conditional Counting of Qualia

— Qualia is uncertainty, uncertainty is conditional counting

— objet petit a = “less than zero” = “less than the empty set”

— Virtuality is what is left behind by conditional subtraction

— encapsulation is relativity

— relativity?

— I am white

— Postmodern Alienation Model

— Bibliography