Autor: zenvampires

Veröffentlicht am

Of randomness. And improvisations. In the music.

On randomness. And improvisations. In the music.

Text by Zenvampires Collective
Pics by DALL•E

We wrote about this before. Here. The idea of the random depends on the idea of the order of what we perceive as reality. But since our perception of music is largely based on harmony (but also on what we are used to hearing, i.e. our aesthetic upbringing), it is perhaps easier to find an “order” in music.

Adding to this by chance… yes… can lead to better results than, for example, in mathematics (even if we can speak of orders and harmonies there, too). 

Aleatoric music can therefore sound disturbing. But only if our order does not coincide with the order of chance. In other words, when our idea of, let’s say, reality does not match the musician’s. When we hear… unusual sounds, we may find the piece of music disturbing. Like when we turn on a radio and then quickly turn it off. 

We recently attended an improvised music festival. Interestingly, the same question arises here. Of course I can sit in the audience and listen to the improvised music with interest. Even if it disturbs me in some way, I listen because I don’t want to be considered uneducated. There are also group effects. Maybe I’m the only one who thinks the music is bad. And I start to question myself. 

The question that arises for me is what inspired the artist to improvise. Is his inspiration (the music to Ascenseur pour l’échafaud is quite acceptable, even if it is largely improvised) compatible with my order, my reality? Or are there small inconsistencies? 

Because that’s the point. Not only in the music we hear, but nevertheless. About different realities. Maybe we don’t have to go as far as Viveiros de Castro, who said that we will never understand the other. But maybe it’s true. And we will never understand each other.

Veröffentlicht am

Wars

Wars

Text by Zenvampires
Pics by Copilot

Basically, we were hoping that we would never have to write articles like this again. We actually had something else prepared for yesterday (today). But then it didn’t seem appropriate.

1. The Information

As we have already written here, the war is about banning our free speech. But it is more than that. On this past anniversary. Someone once said that the most interesting thing about war is information. On the other hand, we humans tend to follow simple (sometimes not so simple, but emotionally very obvious) descriptions of new experiences. Interestingly, we also tend to take sides without remembering the context of the outbreak. 

2. Contexts

It would be too easy to say that this creates simpler descriptions. We create ones that we are convinced are better for us. In one conflict or another. Since truth is always what we imagine it to be, our beliefs appear to be true. Contexts are no longer perceived. And some then show what…. ?

3. The Information

This is not about reassembling information. Nor is it about setting things right. Others are responsible for that. It’s perhaps more about ending heated debates (it’s amazing that we debate about right and wrong instead of finding out about the fate of the abductees). To go through the whole story again and make sure that we know what happened a year ago. And if this story started a year ago or not. Or maybe thousands of years ago. Like all wars. 

Veröffentlicht am

Turn on the radio

Turn on the radio

Turn on the radio and quickly turn it off again.
On the one hand, it sounds like an experiment. Perhaps a way of playing the Fluxus movement. Like aleatoric music that selects sounds at random. Maybe that’s what it is.
On the other hand, this experiment can elude our expectations, i.e. our idea of the previous world. Turning the radio on and off after we have heard the first tone is something unusual.
It was Paul Watzlawick who said (I’ll abbreviate it here) that we have a certain idea of reality and subordinate reality to this idea.
So a Zen exercise? That’s what it looks like. But perhaps also fun. Which is boring. We turned the radio on and off. Very quickly.

0:00 / 0:00
Turn Off The Radio

By the way. Tomorrow (23.09.2024) from 17:00 you can watch a program on aleatoric music here (external link). The program will also feature tracks by a member of the Zenvampire Collective. Have fun

Veröffentlicht am

Malta24

Koniec lata

O ile dobrze sobie przypominam. to właśnie Rorty pisał o różnicy i powtórzeniu. Z tym że właśnie te małe przesunięcia, drobne różnice były ważne. Przesunięcia owe, różnice między powtórzeniami są nie tylko poststrukturalistyczną zabawą, przeklętym postmodernizmem. Są jednocześnie dyskursem z fenomenem strukturalistycznym, w którym podobieństwa były ważne. Ale w przesunięciach nie chodzi o różnice. A właśnie o co? O przesunięcia… O to, że jedno lato nie jest jak inne. I że każdy festiwal, nawet ten powracający, nie jest jak inny. Malta zawsze wyróżniała się tymi przesunięciami. I zawsze była ciekawa. Nie tylko dla poststrukturalistów. Program tutaj (external link): https://malta-festival.pl/

Veröffentlicht am

Android Dialogues

Android Dialogues

Philip K. Dick wondered if androids dream of sheep. We don’t know. But we know what they talk about. And when they talk, we just listen. And we’re afraid. Like taking a step into the clouds.
Androids wrote the track. They helped master it. And maybe they’re listening to it. Or it’s not made for humans, it’s just part of the android metaphysics. Or maybe the Zenvampires Collective are just androids. But too many questions. Here’s the track.

 

0:00 / 0:00
Android Dialogues
Veröffentlicht am

Metaphysics in Motion

Metaphysics in Motion

My point is not to defend metaphysics. It is not about whether it is useful to describe the world (well, it seems useful to me only in some posthumanist concepts, because it helps to question the limits of being human and to open new perspectives). Nor do I care about Paola-Ludovica Coriando’s question. Paola-Ludovica Coriando is a philosopher concerned with the future of metaphysics. But her question, of whether metaphysics is still relevant in a postmodern world, remains unanswered here. For this is not about the future, but about perspective. And a question.

1. The Perspective

Perspective is often deceptive. The funny thing is that when we study the source texts, we pay no attention to our perspective or the perspective of the time. It is a rather banal anthropological relativist position. But the devil is in the details. And precisely in the examination of what I personally understand by “being”. With the background of one God (and not several deities) and with the burden of Kant. Kant’s influence on metaphysics was enormous, as he explored the limits of the human mind and the conditions of the possibility of knowledge. His critique of traditional metaphysics led to a new way of thinking about being.

2. The postmodern era

Because that’s what we’re talking about. Maybe I’m reading Aristotle wrong (is it possible to read a book wrong? I learned from Derrida that you can read a book in different ways, that not only the reading itself but the reader can change the perspective), but here I find moving motifs. Derrida’s concept of deconstruction shows that texts can have many meanings, depending on the reader’s perspective. And here the question arises whether I want to “detach” myself from metaphysics or not. Rather, whether it describes the world for me, or whether I feel Aristotle aesthetically (and perhaps that is the only perspective we can take).

3. Idealism

And there we have the culprit. Perhaps. Kant turned metaphysics into a museum. Each concept has been neatly assigned a place. But thoughts are not buildings. They cannot serve well as a museum. Thoughts are tools. Hegel used dialectics to move thoughts, but he also succeeded in erecting an immovable statue, perhaps because of his style or because of the time or culture in which he lived. Kant’s systematic approach to metaphysics has often been perceived as rigid and inflexible. Hegel’s dialectic, on the other hand, was intended to bring movement and development to the world of thought but was often criticized for being complex and difficult to access.

Veröffentlicht am

Monochrome metaphysics

Monochrome metaphysics

When I think about the passage of time, the process of time, I have to think about Aristotle. Maybe Heraclitus. And the fact that we live in the here and now. Here we pause for a moment in the ephemeral. And invite you on a journey into summer. 

All pics ©by Zenvampires

Veröffentlicht am

Shit Happens Day and Night

Shit Happens Day and Night

Text ©by Marek Gajdziński
Pics by Copilot

“Listen to this,” she says, reading from the magazine she has been reading for the last hour or so. “Can Never go hand in hand with Always? Never, says Never. Always, says Always.”

She looks at him. He shows no interest. Instead, he continues reading a newspaper he has been reading for the last hour or so.

“Have you heard me?”

“Yes, I’ve heard you. What about it?”

“This was what they call flash literature or something, a short story called ‘Never Says Never, Always Says Always’.”

“Indeed, a very short one.”

“But don’t you think this funny?”

“I may think it stupid, if you really insist on my opinion.”

“Well then, hear this. The story was submitted to the editor of a certain literary magazine by a writer from Argentina. On the same day the editor received a very similar contribution from another writer from Iceland. This other story is tilted ‘Never Says Always, Always Says Never’ and reads: Can Never go hand in hand with Always? Never, says Always. Always, says Never.”

She looks at him. Again, he shows no interest.

 

“Have you heard me?”

“Yes, I’ve heard you.”

“And what do you say to this? Don’t you think this is, you know…”

“That’s the end?”

“Yes.”

“Well, then,” he stops reading what he has been reading and looks up at her, “I say there’s nothing to it”.

“What do you mean?”

“I mean this shit happens day and night, and will, till hell freezes over”.

He goes back to his newspaper. She looks at him as if she wanted to say something but finally decides otherwise and focuses on her magazine. They are both reading for some time. The silence grows.

Then he puts down the newspaper, gets up and leaves the room, heading for a bathroom or kitchen, who knows. While passing through the corridor, he suddenly freezes in an awkward position. He utters some hardly distinguishable sounds that may form a female name, or a part of it, “Barb”, or something. The woman hears the call and answers while reading on:

“Yes, David?”

He collapses to the floor. There he rests supine, undisturbed, unable and unwilling to produce any more sounds, his chest motionless for the first time in his life.

Veröffentlicht am

You are still there

You are still there after the rain

What is the movie about? There is the classical way of film criticism. It consists of counting the minutes, and the subjects that take up the most time in a movie are the subjects of the movie. I think in this case it would be trees. A movie about trees? But that answers the question. The movie is slow. And maybe we would say, well, yes, Asian cinema is slow per se. But that’s not the point here. It’s also compelling. In the discussion after the screening, we also talked about the fact that the movie had scary parts.

    1. the Boredom

But that’s not what I felt at all. It’s more the way time passes. And anyway, what is time? “The only thing that promises time is a clock” or something like that. One of the lines in the movie. And in general. Sentences. The movie, which shows trees, rain, and the sky, lives from the sentences that are spoken. Even if you’re not allowed to speak. Or are allowed to sit with their backs to each other.

2. philosophy

“To look at art is also to enjoy the space, the air, not just the picture”. Another sentence from the film. But there are many more. And the heat and boredom suddenly become a reflection of life. And about the world. And also about philosophy. And also about philosophy. And it doesn’t matter which. Because it’s about thinking and not about following a direction.

3. plot

What is the movie about? Well. I don’t know. Maybe the heat of summer in Japan. About the old woman and the little girl and all the trees I saw. Or maybe it’s about something else. All I know is that the movie captivated me. And I will think about it for a long time.

They are still there after the rain
By Pan Junhua

2022

 

Veröffentlicht am

The Convergence of Thought: Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence in Contemporary Discourse

It’s true. Today’s article was written by our favorite AI. But instead of asking it more questions about itself, we looked at the influence of AI on the topic of phenomenology.
The views offered by an AI are not really original. On the other hand, they are the collected views of humanity (since the AI is fed with knowledge from the Internet).
And maybe that’s why it’s interesting to think about how humanity itself thinks about the changes in phenomenology regarding AI.

The Convergence of Thought: Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence in Contemporary Discourse

Propmts ©by Zenvampires
Text by Copilot
Pic ©by Zenvampires Collective

Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence

Phenomenology, a philosophical movement founded in the 20th century by Edmund Husserl, has always grappled with the experience of consciousness and the perception of the world. With the advent of technology, and particularly artificial intelligence (AI), the question arises as to how this discipline can contribute to the interpretation and understanding of this new reality.

Phenomenology emphasizes subjective experience and the meanings we assign to the world. In the context of AI, this raises interesting questions. Can an AI have a phenomenological experience? Can it assign or interpret meanings? Most would argue that this is not the case, as AI, no matter how advanced it may be, is still a product of human construction and programming. It can process data and recognize patterns, but it does not “experience” the world in the same way a human being does.

Postphenomenology and Technology

Postphenomenology, an evolution of phenomenology, offers a useful perspective on the relationship between humans and technology. It views technology not as a neutral tool, but as something that shapes and changes our perception of the world and our interaction with it. In the context of AI, this means that we should not only think about what AI can or cannot do, but also how its existence and use changes our experience of the world.

The Kyoto School and Artificial Intelligence

The Kyoto School, a philosophical movement in Japan, offers another, but complementary perspective. It emphasizes interpersonal connectedness and the importance of context, prompting us to think about the social and cultural impacts of AI. How does AI change our relationships with others? How does it influence our society and culture?

Conclusion

Phenomenology, postphenomenology, and the Kyoto School offer valuable insights into understanding AI. They remind us that technology cannot be viewed in isolation, but is always in relation to us and the world. They challenge us to think about the impacts of AI on our experience, our relationships, and our society. And they invite us to reflect not only on what AI is, but also on what it could be and what it should be.

Cookie Consent mit Real Cookie Banner