Eugene Von Bruenchenhein, A Future Majestic. 1956.
July 24, 2015

Superconversation 52: Michael Ferrer responds to Nikolai Fedorov, “The Museum, its Meaning and Mission”

Day 52: Michael Ferrer responds to Nikolai Fedorov, “The Museum, its Meaning and Mission

“What is left of Fedorov’s program after its patristic cast is demolished? Arguably, the core insights of cosmism survive intact, only cleared of obfuscation. These are: the intuition that science and technology will enable us to direct our own evolution; the recognition that this enablement is itself a feature of the machinery of the universe; and the conviction that this activity should be both the subject and object of our species’ self-education. Fedorov both expands the Museum to encompass all the data of the world, and shrinks it to the size of the individual soul. The cosmist imperative, its cosmopolitan scope, results from this enlistment of human beings by the universe, to consolidate it as a whole through their observation and participation. Human history encodes cosmic history . . . Fedorov’s incipient cosmism, too, expresses both a local and a global trajectory, the rupture of Christian particularism by a scientific universalism that it had, in part, presaged. The role of the Museum in Fedorov’s essay becomes less strained when liberated from the convolution of filial veneration, and its status as an instrument of cultural unification becomes more compelling.”

Join the conversation and respond to Michael Ferrer, or add your own perspective on Fedorov’s piece.

To participate follow the link or register here:

Superconversations is a collaboration between 
e-flux & The New Centre for Research & Practice


For Machine Use Only: A New Publication by &&& / The New Centre

We are excited to announce the release of our publication produced in conjunction with Mohammad Salemy’s installation at the 11th Gwangju Biennale 2016. The book expands on the idea of machinic vision, featuring short texts by a range of thinkers, philosophers and scholars who were asked to contemplate about the possibilities and limitation of a […]

Superconversation 57: Andrey Gorokhov responds to Oleksiy Radynski,“The Arts for the Global Conflict: A 2115 Report”

The joy of time travel isn’t to see how the world or people will look at a very distant point in time, but to find that there some concepts, pictures, artifacts, lifehacks, etc, that derive exclusively from one’s own era. Yet, what’s found is actually brought by the time traveler himself in order to save today’s artifacts and circumstances from decay, or — even better — from critique and close scrutiny . . . the time traveler becomes a smuggler: in order to stop something from being questioned, he smuggles it into the distant future, since no one is yet there to have any doubts about the many issues, ideas and controversies of our highly nontransparent age. It appears therefore, as though the real achievement of the future — its comparative advantage — is the absence of doubts, cognitive disorders, paradoxes and dissonances. There are no double binds in the future! In the future everybody cares for art and artists and we don’t even need to ask ‘why?’ . . . In the future, such questions, as well as many others, no longer exist . . .

Superconversation 56: Jason Adams responds to Jussi Parikka, “The Alchemic Digital, The Planetary Elemental”

Day 56: Jason Adams responds to Jussi Parikka, “The Alchemic Digital, The Planetary Elemental” “. . . it is the planetary computational accoutrement to the economic proper that ensures the just-in-time acquirability of the needed elements, such as the practice of High Frequency Trading (HFT) requires the development of software and hardware through which nanosecond-level […]

Superconversation 58: Mohammad Salemy responds to Aaron Schuster ,“You can’t Ask Everyone to Behave Ethically Just Like That”

Mohammad Salemy outlines some of the main criticisms of Accelerationism today and shares “a few insights (and perhaps critiques) in order to judge this intellectual movement from within its ranks [while providing] constructive insights on how to move forward from here”

Superconversation 54: Dana Kopel responds to Showkat Kathjoo, “The Memory of a Deluge and the Surface of Water”

. . . what to make of objects whose properties and relations are magical, decidedly unreal? Philosophy constitutes itself in opposition to magic; realism and rationality are understood to be incompatible with the inexplicable, unpredictable nature of wish-granting boxes, immortal apples who long for death, and other supernatural phenomena. While OOO and SR point towards a universe in which everything exists, the objects in these stories press further, insisting upon their own agency, centrality and unknowability. They are magic objects; they constitute miniature universes in which the tragedies and commonplaces of the “real” are constantly displaced by the possibility of unexpected transformation . . . [magic objects] offer an escape from the codified, knowable real, but one grounded in the reality of tangible things and the relations between them. They are magic not because of some illusionistic quality—that they are not, or something more than, what they seem—but because they possess supernatural abilities, affective and material capabilities literally beyond nature.