I return to the question of what, exactly, is the originary hypothesis, and what kind of discursive (or idiomatic) possibilities it initiates. My longstanding position, while I was working within GA, was that GA (as the disciplinary form of the hypothesis) had to be a transdisciplinary, all-encompassing theory aimed at displacing contenders, on the model of Marxism, psychoanalysis and cybernetics—at any rate, what Foucault called, in “What is an Author,” an “inventor of transdiscursivity.” This position gained zero resonance with GA, of course, which is designed to be a mode of textual appraisal with some of Eric Gans’s (generally unwelcome) counter-resentful politics dropped in on occasion. My thinking about the originary hypothesis has become, if anything, more ambitious, but a transdisciplinary theory involves the kind of explicit metalanguage that should be avoided, as it almost inevitably degenerates into terminological disputes and factionalism. That’s why I’ve moved increasingly toward the more subtle and tacit cybernetics model, without necessarily reducing center study to cybernetics (if anything, I would want to effect the reverse)—it’s true that there have never been, outside of the Communist countries, departments or schools of Marxism or “dialectical materialism,” or of psychoanalysis, but there have certainly been schools of Marxist and psychoanalytic literary criticism, semiotics, cultural theory, etc., while cybernetics never even gets that explicit. It’s more of a rumbling underneath the surface, well suited to its own roots in para-academic conferences, ingenious amateurism, and military and intelligence research.
A.I. assistants are now being developed. Apparently they can be set to roam the internet and like bloodhounds to endlessly search for information you’re interested in without constant attention. The assistant could be programmed to act like a Baleen whale eating data and filtering for connection, leads, idea inventory, etc. I suspect this must be one of the techniques being used by material scientists and pharma companies.
Ha! You can get around the formulaic to some extent by working on you biography. I tell I want evidence based responses using academic articles and to provide citations. Probably other specifiers as well to get me out of the everage type of answers it give to save time and energy. Try playing with that. Give yourself a nickname.
Yes, I first asked Bard for a definition of GA just to have it on hand. Then I asked it to analyze your critique of GA based on the information on GA it came up with. I was just curious what it would come up with. I think I might drop the whole conversation into ChatGBT4 to watch what it comes up with. It’s interesting to play the two AI’s against each other. I’ve been following GA since the early 90’s after reading Girard. I am a little annoyed by Gans political opinions, but I typically read past it because the basic theory is so compelling. Your critique is welcome dialog.
"Pointing to the same thing means pointing to a center and the more precise and differentiated the central thing we point to is to be the more everything else must be held constant and so one redeems to idioms effecting that constancy in presenting to some community the sample."
Sentences like that one suggest to me that emulation of center study practices may still be a long way off!
Comparing Generative Anthropology (GA) and "Infra-Humaning"
Both articles deal with the question of human language and culture's origins, but from different perspectives:
Generative Anthropology (GA):
Originary event: a single point of crisis and symbolic communication emergence.
Mimetic desire: we desire what others desire, potentially leading to conflict.
Language as fundamental in culture's origin, mediating desire and the object.
Ethical implications: recognizing others and deferring violence through symbols.
Interdisciplinary approach.
Strengths: Offers a coherent explanation for language and culture's origins.
Emphasizes the importance of symbolic communication.
Opens new avenues for understanding human society.
Weaknesses: Lack of empirical evidence for the originary event.
Interdisciplinary nature can be challenging in traditional academia.
Risks overgeneralizing from specific contexts.
"Infra-Humaning":
Central argument: Criticizes GA's rigidity and proposes a more dynamic understanding of human communication. Humans constantly "human-humaning" through learning and creating new idioms (ways of using language). No fixed definition of "human," as we continuously expand our possibilities.
Strengths: Challenges and complements GA with a focus on the ongoing process of communication. Emphasizes the fluidity and context-dependence of language.
Provides a fresh perspective on human identity and meaning-making.
Weaknesses: Less structured and theoretically cohesive than GA.
Relies on personal interpretations and metaphors.
Doesn't offer a complete alternative to the originary hypothesis.
Comparing the Criticism:
Logic and consistency: The criticism in "Infra-Humaning" focuses on GA's limitations based on the lack of concrete evidence for the originary event and its potential rigidity. These points are logically presented and consistent with the proposed alternative of constant "human-humaning."
Accuracy: While the criticism touches on valid limitations of GA, it might oversimplify some aspects. For example, GA acknowledges the need for further research and encourages interdisciplinary discussions, not just a fixed interpretation.
Success of the criticism: "Infra-Humaning" offers a thought-provoking critique that pushes GA to refine its claims and embrace a more dynamic view of human communication. However, it doesn't completely dismantle GA's core concepts, suggesting a potential co-existence of both perspectives.
Conclusion: Both GA and "Infra-Humaning" offer valuable insights into the complex question of human language and culture's origins. GA provides a theoretical framework with a specific event as a starting point, while "Infra-Humaning" highlights the ongoing process and context-dependent nature of human communication. Their differences and criticisms encourage a nuanced understanding of these issues, reminding us that there might be multiple facets to this fascinating puzzle.
Supporting him the way his family is supporting him, with love only.
A.I. assistants are now being developed. Apparently they can be set to roam the internet and like bloodhounds to endlessly search for information you’re interested in without constant attention. The assistant could be programmed to act like a Baleen whale eating data and filtering for connection, leads, idea inventory, etc. I suspect this must be one of the techniques being used by material scientists and pharma companies.
Oh, yeah. Massachusetts born Irish/US Kennedy Democrat.
Ha! You can get around the formulaic to some extent by working on you biography. I tell I want evidence based responses using academic articles and to provide citations. Probably other specifiers as well to get me out of the everage type of answers it give to save time and energy. Try playing with that. Give yourself a nickname.
Yes, I first asked Bard for a definition of GA just to have it on hand. Then I asked it to analyze your critique of GA based on the information on GA it came up with. I was just curious what it would come up with. I think I might drop the whole conversation into ChatGBT4 to watch what it comes up with. It’s interesting to play the two AI’s against each other. I’ve been following GA since the early 90’s after reading Girard. I am a little annoyed by Gans political opinions, but I typically read past it because the basic theory is so compelling. Your critique is welcome dialog.
"Pointing to the same thing means pointing to a center and the more precise and differentiated the central thing we point to is to be the more everything else must be held constant and so one redeems to idioms effecting that constancy in presenting to some community the sample."
Sentences like that one suggest to me that emulation of center study practices may still be a long way off!
Bard comments:
Comparing Generative Anthropology (GA) and "Infra-Humaning"
Both articles deal with the question of human language and culture's origins, but from different perspectives:
Generative Anthropology (GA):
Originary event: a single point of crisis and symbolic communication emergence.
Mimetic desire: we desire what others desire, potentially leading to conflict.
Language as fundamental in culture's origin, mediating desire and the object.
Ethical implications: recognizing others and deferring violence through symbols.
Interdisciplinary approach.
Strengths: Offers a coherent explanation for language and culture's origins.
Emphasizes the importance of symbolic communication.
Opens new avenues for understanding human society.
Weaknesses: Lack of empirical evidence for the originary event.
Interdisciplinary nature can be challenging in traditional academia.
Risks overgeneralizing from specific contexts.
"Infra-Humaning":
Central argument: Criticizes GA's rigidity and proposes a more dynamic understanding of human communication. Humans constantly "human-humaning" through learning and creating new idioms (ways of using language). No fixed definition of "human," as we continuously expand our possibilities.
Strengths: Challenges and complements GA with a focus on the ongoing process of communication. Emphasizes the fluidity and context-dependence of language.
Provides a fresh perspective on human identity and meaning-making.
Weaknesses: Less structured and theoretically cohesive than GA.
Relies on personal interpretations and metaphors.
Doesn't offer a complete alternative to the originary hypothesis.
Comparing the Criticism:
Logic and consistency: The criticism in "Infra-Humaning" focuses on GA's limitations based on the lack of concrete evidence for the originary event and its potential rigidity. These points are logically presented and consistent with the proposed alternative of constant "human-humaning."
Accuracy: While the criticism touches on valid limitations of GA, it might oversimplify some aspects. For example, GA acknowledges the need for further research and encourages interdisciplinary discussions, not just a fixed interpretation.
Success of the criticism: "Infra-Humaning" offers a thought-provoking critique that pushes GA to refine its claims and embrace a more dynamic view of human communication. However, it doesn't completely dismantle GA's core concepts, suggesting a potential co-existence of both perspectives.
Conclusion: Both GA and "Infra-Humaning" offer valuable insights into the complex question of human language and culture's origins. GA provides a theoretical framework with a specific event as a starting point, while "Infra-Humaning" highlights the ongoing process and context-dependent nature of human communication. Their differences and criticisms encourage a nuanced understanding of these issues, reminding us that there might be multiple facets to this fascinating puzzle.