Thanks to the recent political developments, the present referent of the nomination “scientist” is no longer “a person that’s historically recognized as a scientist through his/her scientific contributions” but the actual concrete movement that’s organized around #ScienceMarch #BilimYürüyüşü who vocally demands that “Evidence Based Peer-Reviewed Information” (EBPRI) indisputably establishes facts by getting perceived as the self-evident state of affairs.
Topology is the turning-into-itself of spatiality.
But the restrictions that topology articulates are not spatial restrictions.
Topology articulates combinatorial restrictions over spatiality.
In general topology indicates the restricted state of the spatial in face of the combinatorial. [*]
Topology, in this sense, is a ‘tautology’. [■]
Their advertisement is addressed to the control group that shall enable them to conduct experiments to obtain a series of confirmations for the possible paternal metaphors that probably have been being proposed for the proper replacement of the Freudian superego.
In other words, they are looking for Einziger Zug, the unary trait, the single stroke.
“What are the signs of anxiety?”
An apology, a confession, a self-criticism.
“What is the likelihood?”
They are looking for a reality principle.
I wonder if they are social psychologists.
(Boston Red Line)
January 14th 2017, Somerville Public Library (Turkish)
This morning, I wrote this short text About my situation to read here in the first Boston Lacan Study Group meeting of 2017. I will also send it as an e-mail afterwards.
I’m going to make the briefest and most abstract comment about what I went through: I’m just going to state the three criteria that weren’t met by my university group and conclude with a quote on Lacan.
Those who think that they write using other people’s blood really write using their own shit. Those who think that they themselves are exempt from the arrow of time, that they are the directors and correctors of the arrow of time are in vain. Orient the arrow of time onto them and they shall humble. Show them their own blood and they will stop shitting on your face. They are the sick fruits of a sick tree. They think they carry the seeds but they are only the dirt around the seeds. They are the wastefulness that pretends to be an abundance. Stand your ground and their pretension shall quickly melt and pass like clouds and soon the sun will shine on the seeds of time.
I did an e-mail submission before the announced “deadline“. According to the e-mail server logs of alternatifbilisim.org, 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.
In order to celebrate my first seven months as a postdoc researcher in Northeastern University in Boston  wherein I had moved seven months ago when I had left İstanbul, Turkey, I hereby launch a new e-mail service called VNIS, which means Visual Noninformative Indication Service. (Click here for the Turkish version)
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”.
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
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”
In Boston, there’s a famous flow of people called the Orange line. It comes from Forest Hills and it’s well-known among white people for its black people.
_ _ _ At where’s called a State, some part of this flow splits to join another flow called the Blue line that is headed for Wonderland. Said that, it’s probably a minority of people on the Blue line that actually reaches Wonderland.
_ _ _ In fact, it’s also likely a minority of the Orange line people that actually comes from Forest Hills. It’s reasonable to say that it’s a much smaller minority that does both. So neither origins nor destinations can be held as representative of these flows.
_ _ _ But something can be found at the State where they intersect. What or who? The reason to write this post, namely, the card-carrying human kindness seeker.
So who is the card-carrying human kindness seeker? It’s a young man that may be still standing at the State, carrying a card that says “SEEKING HUMAN KINDNESS”.
_ _ _ Besides the card, he is carrying a plastic glass that seems to be empty. He is probably still carrying the card and the empty plastic glass.
_ _ _ He is likely a student, even if he is not one still, because people are not born as human kindness seekers, they are taught to do that.
_ _ _ It is also likely that his plastic glass is empty, even if it is not still empty, because ~seeking~ identifies with a State of emptiness, or maybe it’s the other way around, I cannot be sure.
And what about the audience of the card-carrying human kindness seeker?
_ _ _ Most of them did not come from Forest Hills and most of them will not reach Wonderland. Still less of them do both. It’s simple multiplication.
_ _ _ It can be a bit confusing when multiplications are reductive. But that’s how we perceive the passing time. That’s also how the card-carrying human kindness seeker perceives the passing time. People come and go. Reductions multiply.
_ _ _ But what is being reduced? What is there being multiply reduced? The flow.
But what is a flow to be reduced? The flow itself is a reduction of other flows.
_ _ _ At each intersection, some flow cuts another flow. When such an intersection subsists, it’s called a State.
_ _ _ These intersecting flows are occasionally called nature. But it’s the humankind that calls them nature. It’s the humankindness that calls them nature.
_ _ _ It’s the humankindness that is seeking itself in these flows, that calls them nature.
_ _ _ These flows, a so-called nature, a second nature.