Small footnote, though may have assumed your readers knew: Paul de Man: notorious fascist collaborator and anti-semite.
I look forward to reading your thoughtful text more carefully. Keith > On Feb 1, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Max Herman via nettime-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why vote? > > Why take any democratic action at all, by speech or act, in 2024 when US > democracy is weak, compromised, corroded, and under imminent threat from > autocracy yet again, perhaps to be defeated for good soon like the Roman > republic or Weimar Germany, abolished for a significant period of time and > replaced by brutal, toxic, unimpeded despotism? > > "Vote" is from the PIE root *wegwh- meaning to vow, speak solemnly, promise, > and pledge. Why speak or promise regarding democracy, the system and process > of voting and constitutions, when even in the best of times they are so > imperfect in their results and uncertain in their timing? Many have said for > decades in the US and Europe, courtesy of say Paul de Man, that the > Enlightenment was a sham, that there are no such things as rights, or voting, > or laws, or constitutions, or equality, or communication, much less reason. > Even peace, they say, is a lie meant only to cover up war and what they call > the real truth: violence is everything. They've said it and written it so > many times they can't turn back to where those democratic, constitutional, > Enlightenment things matter, or can matter, even in a modified form or hybrid > context; yet these same experts complain the loudest of their loss. > > Susan Neiman's new argument about the left, as director of the > Adorno-influenced Einstein Forum, blames Foucault and Schmitt. Others > farther right blame Machiavelli and "verità effetuale," the much earlier > sharp turn away from ethical network fabrics to personal instrumental power > as the true science of man, and of man's might making right, circa 1500 in > the capital of Tuscany. Others blame the universe, DNA, or the other party's > donors or base. Whatever the cause, the defense of constitutional democracy > is wobbly at the start of the third millennium. Why? Some say it's loss of > Aristotle, hence loss of Virtue. (Jeffrey Rosen's forthcoming book about the > Framers will concentrate on Virtue, and how their theory of happiness was not > the gratification of appetite but ethical self-respect – Doing the Right > Thing.) This means Machiavelli, and the loss means loss of Dante. > > Is Machiavelli all modernity is? Or is there another modernity, perhaps > hidden, but just as real and present as the anti-Enlightenment with its > weeping and gnashing of teeth, sexy-beast business, and pseudo-ethical > currency? > > Let us consider the possibility that there is; and let us consider, as if > defining a variable in algebra, its chief architect, author, and engineer to > be Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolò Machiavelli's colleague, 17 years his elder, > who may have seen through his junior compatriot's brave shell to the harm > that would accrue and may even have set out a different plan, a different > path which many even without knowing they were have followed fairly well. > > What is Leonardo's philosophy? Not "verità effetuale," the control of > nature, but "esperienza," the experience of nature by both observation and > experiment, not as an instrument of control but rather as a finding or > sensing of place, a bodily adaptation or bridge to learning, harmony, and > that life-world where the most promising possibilities of all life have been > achieved sustainably. To help imagine this algebra, think of the Mona Lisa as > a simple allegory like the bridge, garment, Experience hypothesis, ML = (E x > f) / (b + g), a portrait of secular science and art depicted with its > attributes of mirror, inhabitation, technological inheritance, and the > indicative gesture which moves through every synapse cellular or otherwise. > Call this a detective story, historical surrealism, a thought experiment, > isomorphic iconography, horsefeathers if you wish, or prescribed space for > the absurd, but thinking of it for real works fine too. > > How could such an alternative root system, even if it exists, and even if we > can discover and connect to it, help? Can it help us resume helpful or > desirable actions, even in the tainted realm of politics, and what is worse, > democratic ones? Could it change our way of doing art and science, culture, > for the better and more adaptive? Maybe it can; and there is no way to > change any process without accounting for its before and after as well as its > during. > > In this state of open question, Olga Tokarczuk's 2019 Nobel speech offers one > way to proceed. She begins with the image of a "tender narrator," like > Experience, something everyone has, but has uniquely. "Ognosia" is her later > coinage for a new kind of narrative weft native to networks but not merely > the instrumental control of them – verità effetuale – found in > personality-management cults like neo-tsarism and capitalism with communist > characteristics, but a "loose, organic network structure," biological and > human as well as instrumental in just proportion i.e. where needed and proper > and not where not, sustainably adaptive, and alert to Leonardo's arch claim > that "every instrument requires to be made by experience." Protecting the > matrices of all life, you could say, from destruction by Machiavelli's new > prince in order to achieve sustainability. Or read her novel Flights. Or, > Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, in which each chapter and the > book itself begin with a quote from Blake; which is All Religions are One, > which is 1788, which is The Federalist no. 85, which is Ognosia -> plenitude > -> bridge -> welding -> etc. > > However: the Nobel speech says we do not yet have a language for this new > network literature which is not oppression. How can we find it, choose it, > declare it, and persevere in our pledge? Roots are indispensable but help is > also often found in branches. (Foucault's crypto-Freudianism does not > suffice, per Neiman, only helping de Man, thus neither does the Anti-Oedipus, > unfortunately for us; and even the alt right tout their post-Enlightenment > chops.) Branches require meditation, the same as roots do, so we cannot > ignore meditation as if it wasn't real science and as necessary for health as > food, water, exercise, and sleep. > > - Wolfgang Leidhold – The History of Experience > - Pamela H. Smith – The Business of Alchemy, and The Body of the Artisan, > and From Lived Experience to the Written Word > - Machiavelli in Wootton, Mansfield > - Anil Seth – Being You > - John Dewey – Art as Experience > - Edmund Husserl – Experience and Judgment > - Nina Witoszek – novelist and multi-disciplinary scholar (including of > Renaissance eco-humanism) at Oslo University > > You might even task your AI-GPT to write about the history past present and > future of experientia for you, if that is your field; maybe it can persuade > you where these books and I cannot. > > Due to the network fabric inherent in Leonardo's model, which is to say, the > model which reflects biological reality on the planet and not just > Bernaysesque advertisement by trauma-tweak for industries of pretend control, > it may require today's network artists, authors, theorists, and practitioners > to unveil the allegory necessary for departure from Machiavelli's path of > continuous harm and constitutional decline. Those who favor destruction of > democracy, or think it can't rebound without much more damage first, or who > make money off such things as Foucault's conservatism or comparable > anti-democracy technics, will definitely want to stick with Machiavelli. > There's no guarantee at all that humans will achieve anything close to a > sustainable technology system that doesn't kill off all biological life on > earth, and some people hate anything that isn't guaranteed. However, there > is also no guarantee that we won't, and some people like what isn't > guaranteed just fine. > > It's up to each one of us whether to believe it, or believe it's possible, > and if we do that, to decide to take it or not, but either way it is > LEONARDO'S ANTIDOTE. > > > Max Herman > February, 2024 > ExperienceDemocracy2024.org > > > +++ > > > Bonus material for February: > > > Excerpted from 2022 MS, Commedia Leonardi Vici, Book III: River and Bridge, > Chapter IX; prefatory canzone plus fragment of accompanying essay (full MS > available free in PDF format on request): > > > > There’s a word for passing in zen, forgotten now, > > Yugen? No, passing’s aware, bittersweet. > > Yugen means ghost, the careful hidden feet > > Of what you cannot see, no matter how. > > A bridge fords rivers with its stony prow > > Unmoving, centuries past and hands compete > > For what the crossings’ ethos may secrete. > > The wheel of angels turning never bow > > To just one place or anything that’s still. > > Amid Parisian quintessential weight > > “De l’eau ancien” departing in a breath > > The portrait I have flown to see – fulfill – > > May not be anything, much less a gate > > Of diastole emerging out of death. > > > +++ > > > > What I thought originally might be an “L” at the end of several of > Leonardo’s Paris manuscripts (like M) is now, I see, a “Q” matching the > symbol for quintessence. Whether to care I cannot decide. This essence is > however clearly fabric-like and tangent to the bridges we engineer. For > example, think in terms of landscape – bridge – garment – sitter. Cusanus > wrote of many things Leonardo also did: “the earth is a star like other > stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles > fixed.” He invented pulse-checking by use of klepsydra; he acknowledged the > consent of the governed; he respected “the coincidence of opposites” and how > “figures may be deformed and transformed” i.e. geometric morphism. All of > this or most was before Leonardo was born. Of experiment, Cusanus wrote: “A > conjecture is a positive assertion in alterity that uses truth as a > participator.” > > What Jung called “the bridge of the spirit,” about ten artists and > scientists who survived over the morass of history’s ignorance, reflects the > “extraordinary overtones” Mazzotta knew Dante ascribed to the word > esperienza. And exactly when art and science began to emerge as peers equal > to church and state their suppression also emerged, from Archimedes’ death to > the alleged poisoning of Mirandola by the restored Medici. How could one > clearly or loudly say we should follow Esperienza, experience and experiment, > as teacher, guide, and maestra in such hostile terrain? Doing so caused > ethical dissonance for those who viewed science and art as threats to church > and state, tempting death. > > Leonardo thought money mostly waste, for fillers-up of privies > thinking luxury made them more acceptable to divinity. Real value accrued in > things of the spirit, in works of art and science which did not “die with the > worker.” Our transformation to valuing art and science as equal peers of > state and church is not complete and won’t be so even after we name the > bridge-garment-experience allegory of La Joconde. Yet with unveiling the > destination will be possible, and without it hopeless. Gödel and Habermas > knew modernity’s incomplete. Cusanus also discussed the harrowing of hell, > tour of afterworld, descensus as a process of intellect, the inner bridge. > > Under a view of the universe as metamorphoses everything has a > before, during, and after. The bridge in the Mona Lisa is not alone; it > emerges out of nature, crosses a river, and then becomes the garment. It > points, the bridge, to related ideas elsewhere in Leonardo’s writing but is > also a pure form operating within the composition’s geometric and color > transformations. When it becomes the garment, which is also ethics, we feel > it as a worn fabric as closely as can be. Like ancient Greek sculpture, the > fabric articulates the primary joints and posture of the figure; we become > and experience the allegory immediately. > > I cannot experience this for you visually, verbally, > analytically, or physically. All I can do is point to it. I almost always > feel I must do more than this but thankfully not quite always. > > Bensimon in describing Bosch says “consciousness links together > the heterogeneity of life’s events through ceaseless circular movement” then > quotes Cusanus: “Movement (‘the connexion between form and matter’) is > compared to ‘an intermediate spirit’ called ‘atropos, clotho, and lachesis.’” > Leonardo calls Esperienza “the interpreter between nature and the human > race” and Cassirer says “A glance at the early passages of the Idiota will > show just how close Leonardo was to Cusanus in the formulation and foundation > of his methodological principles.” Capra wrote “meaning is experience of a > context.” > > Campbell states clearly the danger of repression which attended > certain explicit statements in Giorgione’s studiolo same as in the > coffeehouses of 1750. One must temper one’s ambitions. Further, since all > ethics is choice each person can only do their own and even that not all the > time. Rapidly running out of time in this book perhaps pointing quietly, > like La Gioconda to her garment, is the best kind of bridge. Yet absent > persecution ought we fawn over secrecy? If yes how much? Naming Esperienza > constricts the painting no more and no less than does naming Apelles’ > Calumny. Remember not a single scholar in the last five centuries has > proposed this title, not a single one in all this time, bridge and garment > aside! > > Conservative and progressive, experimental and orthodox, both > must settle downward into the portrait’s reality, its “necessità.” > > Decretals certainly will occupy the most of us, and often > perhaps like gossip that’s completely OK. But it’s not always. There’s an > opposite to the little dram of eale, and unless you want the latter’s results > you must seek out the former by choice. History has both but it sometimes > seems like more of the eale than the other. Transitology, or the study of > how nations move from one kind of government to another, is a term I learned > lately. Perhaps authoritarian states can somehow embrace democratization as > a win-win, prudent yet noble too? That’s like a dream come true. They view > democracy as a trick though, a ruse, and monarchy (or more monarchic > monarchy) as simple defense, honesty, and love. Other things can be learned > too though. > > > +++ > > > https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/critically-cringe-on-susan-neimans-left-is-not-woke/ > > https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2018/tokarczuk/lecture/ > > https://wordswithoutborders.org/read/article/2022-06/ognosia-olga-tokarczuk-jennifer-croft/ > > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Religions_are_One > > https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85 > > https://wolfgang-leidhold.com/ > > https://scienceandsociety.columbia.edu/directory/pamela-h-smith > > https://books.google.com/books/about/Power_Pleasure_and_Profit.html?id=QIZuDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description > (Wootton) > > https://thegreatthinkers.org/machiavelli/multimedia/machiavellis-verita-effetuale/ > (Mansfield) > > https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/aug/25/being-you-by-professor-anil-seth-review-the-exhilarating-new-science-of-consciousness > > > Mazzotta, G. (1993). Dante’s Vision and the Circle of Knowledge. Princeton > University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7zvmzw > > > Bensimon, M. (1972). The Significance of Eye Imagery in the Renaissance from > Bosch to Montaigne. Yale French Studies, 47, 266–290. > https://doi.org/10.2307/2929415 > > > Capra, Fritjof. Learning from Leonardo. 2013, San Francisco, > Berrett-Koehler. > > > Campbell, S. J., & Giorgione. (2003). Giorgione’s “Tempest,” “Studiolo” > Culture, and the Renaissance Lucretius. Renaissance Quarterly, 56(2), > 299–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/1261849 > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > > -- > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: https://www.nettime.org > # contact: [email protected] -- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: https://www.nettime.org # contact: [email protected]
