I'm doing my best to catch up on Substack--this is the problem with subscribing to all of the interesting work of even just a few people--but I wanted to let you know that I really appreciated this article and look forward to reading part two. (I also enjoyed your discussion with Tamsin Haggis; much of my thinking is along similar lines, it would appear.)
I've long had my qualms with DeCarte's famous quote and what you share of his philosophy only reinforces my skepticism. There's a lot I find fault with starting with some of his basic premises; I don't subscribe to the idea of humanity being separate from nature, for example, though I believe that's where we've brought ourselves (or tried to) as a species in many respects. Tim Ingold seems an interesting think and I find my own thinking more in agreement with his (so far), but I'm otherwise unfamiliar with his work, so thanks for sharing this.
As always, thanks for your work. All the best to you in your endeavors!
Hi there! Thanks so much. I have a soft spot for Descartes because of his performative writing: a lot of his interests stem from fascinating inquiry around perception (optics) and this nagging voice in our mind telling us things. I’m mostly aphantasic (I can’t conjure images in my mind, I mostly don’t visualise) so I’m fascinated by all these things. However he curtails all these wonderful musings with principles and reason and god etc. in such a way that he totally annihilates them. He is the definition of “science has biases”! But I have to say that Part II is out already…
I shouldn't be too hard on ol' Rene, I suppose. (I should give his work a closer reading, I must confess.) I admire the inquiry even if don't agree with all of his ideas or conclusions. As you rightly point out, how we perceive things is fascinating and, in reference to aphantasia, it's easy to forget how very differently we can perceive things and that too is fascinating! (I'm by contrast a very visual thinker; even when I write, I'm thinking about what I write visually as much as the actual words by which I hope to express what my mind is conjuring.)
And yes, I'm aware Part II is out, so I look forward to reading it. :^) As I mentioned, I'm doing my best to catch up; I am woefully behind on my Substack reading, which--to be fair--has had to be put aside when the needs of daily life take priority.
This is going to be an interesting series to write because I have some instincts regarding both the “scientific” anxiety of Descartes and Tim Ingold’s insatisfaction with our notion of knowledge as data that I haven’t been able to formulate. But I feel much closer to the latter than to Descartes for sure. It’s his method in writing that I find so interesting: the body of the philosopher being present (even if to be appallingly negated!).
The texts will be here for you. I’m not paywalling anything. You’re absolutely right in prioritizing a good balance between reading and the rest of life.
Hi again. I see part three has come out and will put a priority on reading part two in the meantime. I should have read part two already but ... then my son and I ended up with the flu last week. *sigh* C'est la vie!
Hi Daniel, I saw it on your last post, which I started to listen to but then I didn’t have time. Working too much. But I’ll get to it. Lovely music, fire, and voice! So sorry you got the flu. One of my kids got it too and it was a nightmare. But I’m glad you’re back on your feet. There’s plenty of time to catch up. Texts are going nowhere.
Crivvens, I'm not used to thinking about this stuff, I tend to avoid it. You're stretching my brain, and I'm not familiar with Ingold. This seems odd, though;
'There is an inner place where the self lives as the container of false informations and sensations, potentially. This resonates with Ingold’s description of the self as “an inner intelligence to which only I have immediate access”, turning us all into I’s. It is separate from the world “out there”, receiving and assessing information from the body.'
This position seems a strangely at odds with so much contemporary thought over the last few decades which sees humans as open systems, partly and dynamically being created anew by multiple flows of culture, conditioning, any number of social or societal flows, while at the same time continually producing its own 'sense of self' that's emergent and to some extent provisional. And, which emerges out of the cellular reality of the body, which is not a closed system, and which affects the sense of self directly... I may not have grasped your point though, as I'm unfamiliar with this territory.
Haha! For someone who doesn’t think of these things you’re quite articulate. You stretch my brain too, and what a wonderful feeling. Yes to everything you say, thus my introduction about nuance. Even Descartes, as an early demonstrator of existential consciousness is more interesting than just the proponent of duality of mind and body through science.
But to your point, Ingold is opposing knowledge as we’ve established in modern times, as a separation between humans and non-humans, and as an accumulation of data which doesn’t really apply to us (thus the difficulty in accepting Covid, climate change etc). I have a sense that the soul, as immersed in the world is more akin to an open and immanent (rather than transcendant) subject from what I read so far. But you’lll have to wait for the follow-up!
Ps: as I was writing, I was thinking about your text opposing Asian notions of art to our illusionist Renaissance sensibility…
I have to admit to having thought a great deal about conceptualising the human as a dynamic system, not cut off from the world around them, with an emergent sense of self rather than a self. The link I can't make is to Western philosophers, can't tell you how many histories of Western philosophy I started and gave up within a few pages. My view of the human is a composite of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy and complex adaptive systems theory, worked out to critique learning research in adult education, of all things.... The soul is another interesting one. I think I think of the soul as the wisdom of the cells, a deep layer of bodily protection which tries to guide us towards flourishing rather than what our minds think or our desires want. Eg, stop scrolling and go to bed now please. Or, stop hammering yourself as an academic and go back to art (ahem...).
Interesting, your view of the soul as the "wisdom of cells". It relates to another philosopher called Rosi Braidotti who talks about the self-organisation of organisms. Tim Ingold is a really interesting author who, unlike more traditional anthropology or philosophy, tries to steer away from Cartesian notions of human supremacy (read males) over "nature". Even the concept of nature is criticised in current Anthropology by people like Philippe Descola or Eduardo Kohn who spent a great deal of time absorbing indigenous philosophies, and who therefore recognise in the notion of nature an inherent separation between "us" humans and "them" the rest of living, mineral etc beings and things. I guess I'm quite touched by Buddhism as well, particularly Tibetan, but I was also surprised to see a lot of adoration for hierarchies. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have quite fascinating and terrifying notions of society, gender and class at least in the manifestations I encountered. We're all fallible!
I guess what Tim Ingold is trying to say here is how new technologies are confusing knowledge and the self with wisdom and connection. I'm really interested in the potential of AI as an opportunity to think about what creativity, art, humans, and work really are. So far, I haven't seen anything close to it. Just panic and confusion which are understandable since AI techs want AI's to do thing humans need to do, rather than making it do what humans do not like to do.
Yes, self-organisation is a feature of complex adaptive systems.... I like that idea of not accepting the term 'nature', when people talk to me about 'connecting' to nature I always want to scream, 'but you are nature!!!' Re Buddhism and Hinduism, I think we have to distinguish between these two as social and cultural systems of organisation, practice etc, and the different philosophies within these larger structures. I'm influenced by Buddhist psychology and by the different schools of Hindu philosophy, rather than by Buddhism or Hinduism in their larger senses. Both contain any number of what we might call contradictory strands. For example, the Buddhist thought that has made its way over here is a particular and decontextualised strand of its psychology, whereas in the larger context in say, Sri Lanka, or Burma, or Tibet, actual Buddhist practices may include worshipping various spirits of place, gods of mountain ranges etc.
Tim Ingold on new technologies sounds very interesting. And your comment on AI being an opportunity for us to think about what we actually are, as opposed to what it is, if I understand you correctly?
Hello Joana!
I'm doing my best to catch up on Substack--this is the problem with subscribing to all of the interesting work of even just a few people--but I wanted to let you know that I really appreciated this article and look forward to reading part two. (I also enjoyed your discussion with Tamsin Haggis; much of my thinking is along similar lines, it would appear.)
I've long had my qualms with DeCarte's famous quote and what you share of his philosophy only reinforces my skepticism. There's a lot I find fault with starting with some of his basic premises; I don't subscribe to the idea of humanity being separate from nature, for example, though I believe that's where we've brought ourselves (or tried to) as a species in many respects. Tim Ingold seems an interesting think and I find my own thinking more in agreement with his (so far), but I'm otherwise unfamiliar with his work, so thanks for sharing this.
As always, thanks for your work. All the best to you in your endeavors!
Hi there! Thanks so much. I have a soft spot for Descartes because of his performative writing: a lot of his interests stem from fascinating inquiry around perception (optics) and this nagging voice in our mind telling us things. I’m mostly aphantasic (I can’t conjure images in my mind, I mostly don’t visualise) so I’m fascinated by all these things. However he curtails all these wonderful musings with principles and reason and god etc. in such a way that he totally annihilates them. He is the definition of “science has biases”! But I have to say that Part II is out already…
I shouldn't be too hard on ol' Rene, I suppose. (I should give his work a closer reading, I must confess.) I admire the inquiry even if don't agree with all of his ideas or conclusions. As you rightly point out, how we perceive things is fascinating and, in reference to aphantasia, it's easy to forget how very differently we can perceive things and that too is fascinating! (I'm by contrast a very visual thinker; even when I write, I'm thinking about what I write visually as much as the actual words by which I hope to express what my mind is conjuring.)
And yes, I'm aware Part II is out, so I look forward to reading it. :^) As I mentioned, I'm doing my best to catch up; I am woefully behind on my Substack reading, which--to be fair--has had to be put aside when the needs of daily life take priority.
This is going to be an interesting series to write because I have some instincts regarding both the “scientific” anxiety of Descartes and Tim Ingold’s insatisfaction with our notion of knowledge as data that I haven’t been able to formulate. But I feel much closer to the latter than to Descartes for sure. It’s his method in writing that I find so interesting: the body of the philosopher being present (even if to be appallingly negated!).
The texts will be here for you. I’m not paywalling anything. You’re absolutely right in prioritizing a good balance between reading and the rest of life.
Hi again. I see part three has come out and will put a priority on reading part two in the meantime. I should have read part two already but ... then my son and I ended up with the flu last week. *sigh* C'est la vie!
Hi Daniel, I saw it on your last post, which I started to listen to but then I didn’t have time. Working too much. But I’ll get to it. Lovely music, fire, and voice! So sorry you got the flu. One of my kids got it too and it was a nightmare. But I’m glad you’re back on your feet. There’s plenty of time to catch up. Texts are going nowhere.
Crivvens, I'm not used to thinking about this stuff, I tend to avoid it. You're stretching my brain, and I'm not familiar with Ingold. This seems odd, though;
'There is an inner place where the self lives as the container of false informations and sensations, potentially. This resonates with Ingold’s description of the self as “an inner intelligence to which only I have immediate access”, turning us all into I’s. It is separate from the world “out there”, receiving and assessing information from the body.'
This position seems a strangely at odds with so much contemporary thought over the last few decades which sees humans as open systems, partly and dynamically being created anew by multiple flows of culture, conditioning, any number of social or societal flows, while at the same time continually producing its own 'sense of self' that's emergent and to some extent provisional. And, which emerges out of the cellular reality of the body, which is not a closed system, and which affects the sense of self directly... I may not have grasped your point though, as I'm unfamiliar with this territory.
Haha! For someone who doesn’t think of these things you’re quite articulate. You stretch my brain too, and what a wonderful feeling. Yes to everything you say, thus my introduction about nuance. Even Descartes, as an early demonstrator of existential consciousness is more interesting than just the proponent of duality of mind and body through science.
But to your point, Ingold is opposing knowledge as we’ve established in modern times, as a separation between humans and non-humans, and as an accumulation of data which doesn’t really apply to us (thus the difficulty in accepting Covid, climate change etc). I have a sense that the soul, as immersed in the world is more akin to an open and immanent (rather than transcendant) subject from what I read so far. But you’lll have to wait for the follow-up!
Ps: as I was writing, I was thinking about your text opposing Asian notions of art to our illusionist Renaissance sensibility…
I have to admit to having thought a great deal about conceptualising the human as a dynamic system, not cut off from the world around them, with an emergent sense of self rather than a self. The link I can't make is to Western philosophers, can't tell you how many histories of Western philosophy I started and gave up within a few pages. My view of the human is a composite of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy and complex adaptive systems theory, worked out to critique learning research in adult education, of all things.... The soul is another interesting one. I think I think of the soul as the wisdom of the cells, a deep layer of bodily protection which tries to guide us towards flourishing rather than what our minds think or our desires want. Eg, stop scrolling and go to bed now please. Or, stop hammering yourself as an academic and go back to art (ahem...).
Interesting, your view of the soul as the "wisdom of cells". It relates to another philosopher called Rosi Braidotti who talks about the self-organisation of organisms. Tim Ingold is a really interesting author who, unlike more traditional anthropology or philosophy, tries to steer away from Cartesian notions of human supremacy (read males) over "nature". Even the concept of nature is criticised in current Anthropology by people like Philippe Descola or Eduardo Kohn who spent a great deal of time absorbing indigenous philosophies, and who therefore recognise in the notion of nature an inherent separation between "us" humans and "them" the rest of living, mineral etc beings and things. I guess I'm quite touched by Buddhism as well, particularly Tibetan, but I was also surprised to see a lot of adoration for hierarchies. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have quite fascinating and terrifying notions of society, gender and class at least in the manifestations I encountered. We're all fallible!
I guess what Tim Ingold is trying to say here is how new technologies are confusing knowledge and the self with wisdom and connection. I'm really interested in the potential of AI as an opportunity to think about what creativity, art, humans, and work really are. So far, I haven't seen anything close to it. Just panic and confusion which are understandable since AI techs want AI's to do thing humans need to do, rather than making it do what humans do not like to do.
Yes, self-organisation is a feature of complex adaptive systems.... I like that idea of not accepting the term 'nature', when people talk to me about 'connecting' to nature I always want to scream, 'but you are nature!!!' Re Buddhism and Hinduism, I think we have to distinguish between these two as social and cultural systems of organisation, practice etc, and the different philosophies within these larger structures. I'm influenced by Buddhist psychology and by the different schools of Hindu philosophy, rather than by Buddhism or Hinduism in their larger senses. Both contain any number of what we might call contradictory strands. For example, the Buddhist thought that has made its way over here is a particular and decontextualised strand of its psychology, whereas in the larger context in say, Sri Lanka, or Burma, or Tibet, actual Buddhist practices may include worshipping various spirits of place, gods of mountain ranges etc.
Tim Ingold on new technologies sounds very interesting. And your comment on AI being an opportunity for us to think about what we actually are, as opposed to what it is, if I understand you correctly?
Just wrote a long reply and it vanished. I'll try again tomorrow!
Oh nooooo