Thought Collectives
2 Followers
Recent papers in Thought Collectives
Od sredine sedamdesetih godina 20. veka, jedna religijska pojava (New Age duhovnost) i jedna politička pojava (neoliberalizam), doživele su istovremen uspon. Oba fenomena su duboko obeležila savremenu kulturu. Izronivši iz kontrakulture... more
Od sredine sedamdesetih godina 20. veka, jedna religijska pojava (New Age duhovnost) i jedna politička pojava (neoliberalizam), doživele su istovremen uspon. Oba fenomena su duboko obeležila savremenu kulturu. Izronivši iz kontrakulture šezdesetih godina, ali sa korenima u mnogo dužim genealogijama zapadnog ezoterizma, New Age duhovnost je već tokom osamdesetih godina prerasla u teško pregledno „spiritualno tržište“. Upletena u različite prakse potrošnje ili ideološke narative, New Age duhovnost je obrađivana od strane broja različitih radova iz ugla njenih veza sa savremenim post-fordističkim ili neoliberalizovanim kapitalizmom, ili njegovim „Novim duhom“. Istraživanja su, mahom, problemu prilazila iz ugla „individualizacije“ religije i njenog pretvaranja u „spiritualnu robu“. U takvom rakursu, New Age je označilac koji se odnosi na svojevrsne prakse duhovne kombinatorike na slobodnom tržištu, u kojima individue, po nahođenju, biraju eklektične sadržaje i prilagođavaju ih potrebama svog sopstva. Ova disertacija, međutim, nastoji da predloži drugačiji program, koji bi New Age duhovnost i neoliberalizam razumeo kao dva vrlo kompleksna „misaona kolektiva“ sa podjednako kompleksnim pogledima na svet. Polazeći od te pretpostavke ona razvija pogled na istorijski „brak“ neoliberalizma i New Age duhovnosti, do koga je došlo već tokom osamdesetih, pitajući se o njegovim istorijskim preduslovima, i o njegovoj ideološkoj ulozi u uspostavljanju politiko-teološke logike Novog duha kapitalizma, tj. današnje hegemone kulture. New Age narativi i neoliberalizam ne samo da su doživeli paralelan uspon, već imaju i istu kulturnu predistoriju, budući da su istovremeno rođeni u međuratno vreme. Oni su stoga obeleženi i sličnim društveno-političkim problemima, i povezani sa sličnim kulturnim tokovima. Zato im je moguće prići iz ugla pojma „elektivnog afiniteta“, koji je uveo Maks Veber a razradio Majkl Levi. Taj koncept postulira mogućnost „uzajamnog privlačenja“ između različitih pojava, koje poseduju sličnosti u strukturi. Te „sličnosti u strukturi“ tj. homologije se, pod odgovarajućima društvenim okolnostima, mogu „aktivirati“ stvarajući uzajamnu atrakciju, pojačanje, čak i mešanje dva ili više fenomena, iz čega može nastati i „nova figura“. Procesi elektivnog afiniteta između neoliberalizma i New Age religije nisu proizveli ravnopravan brak već odnos podređenosti u kome neoliberalizam crpe svoju moć iz bogatstva kulturnih predstava koje je New Age pokret razvijao. Tom politiko-teološkom problemu je potrebno prići iz ugla kritike ideologije (a što ova disertacija i čini, putem teorija Rolana Barta i Frederika Džejmsona), dok politiko-teološko poređenje ovih pojava može reći mnogo toga novog ne samo o ideološkim ulogama New Age narativa u regeneraciji kulturne hegemonije, nakon privremenog poraza progresivnih snaga i prelaska na novi režim akumulacije kapitala s kraja sedamdesetih već i o još uvek zanemarenom problemu politiko-teološke „anatomije“ neoliberalizma, pokazujući, između ostalog, da su neoliberali razvijali svoje oblike spiritualnosti i „kontrakulture“. Malobrojni autori i autorke koji su neoliberalizmu prišli iz politiko-teološkog ugla, poput npr. Adama Kotska, Đorđa Agambena, Dotana Lešema, to su činili (uz izvestan izuzetak Džošue Rejmija) na bazi hrišćanske teologije, a često uz neadekvatan uvid u ideje stvarnih neoliberala. Do toga je došlo zbog akademskog zakašnjenja (jednako ogromnog) u razumevanju istorije i ideacione prirode zapadnog ezoterizma, i neoliberalizma. Nadovezujući se na nove istoriografske razvitke u te dve međusobno veoma udaljene oblasti, ova disertacija teži da ispita koordinate mogućeg novog politiko-teološkog programa, koji bi ih povezao. Ona to čini kroz diskusiju implicitnih ili aktivnih afiniteta koji postoje između neoliberalizma i New Age duhovnosti, koje razume kao dve srodne kritike kulture. Ove kritike kulture su razvile sličan pogled na niz problema, poput ograničenosti ljudske racionalnosti, potrebe za začaravanjem društva ili približavanjem nauke i religije, te srodne oblike anti-kartezijanstva i holizma/emergentizma. Te srodnosti, neoliberalizam i New Age duguju „posrednicima“, zajedničkim problemima (na koje su predlagali homologne odgovore) pa i nekim zajedničkim izvorima – od društveno-materijalne dinamike samog kapitalizma, pa do konkretnih istorijskih fenomena poput kibernetike, ili pak filozofije života (vitalizma). Na bazi ovih srodnosti, New Age i neoliberalizam „slili“ su se u ideološke predstave o rađanju „novog društva“ zasnovane na kibernetičkoj/retikularnoj/informacionoj/mrežnoj paradigmi, u srcu „Novog duha kapitalizma“, kako taj pojam razumeju Lik Boltanski i Ev Šijapelo. Predstave o evoluciji ljudske svesti, na pragu epohalne promene, kao svoj stvarni sadržaj imale su političku dekompoziciju fordističke radničke klase, ali i uspon novog neoliberalizovanog meta-političkog konsenzusa. U tom pogledu, otvaranje zanemarenog problema „javnog značaja“ New Age duhovnosti, koje bi prevazišlo često svođenje njene veze s neoliberalizmom na pitanje individualizma tj. konzumerizma moguće je samo na bazi objašnjenja uloge ovog zamršenog spleta ideoloških narativa u tom epohalnom preokretu. U želji da iz politiko-teološkog ugla da doprinos otvaranju tog problema ovaj rad se pridružuje „trećem talasu“ New Age studija koji New Age religiju, umesto kao trivijalan fenomen, razume kao pojavu koja zavređuje mesto u centru savremenih rasprava o religiji, kulturi i politici.
In 1935 the then unknown Polish doctor and microbiologist Ludwik Fleck (1896-1961) published in German a book in the field of philosophy of science under the long title Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache:... more
In 1935 the then unknown Polish doctor and microbiologist Ludwik Fleck (1896-1961) published in German a book in the field of philosophy of science under the long title Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. It provoked a couple of reviews, but due to historical circumstances – World War II, the Soviet and German occupation of Poland, the Holocaust and Fleck’s deportation to Auschwitz – in the beginning it did not receive a thorough reception. The book was eventually received with great enthusiasm – but only two decades after Fleck had died. In 1979, the University of Chicago Press published an English translation of his book. In the context of the reception of Thomas Kuhn’s pioneering study on scientific revolutions, Fleck was suddenly understood as a previously-unknown forerunner to social constructivist epistemology. The translation of the 150 pages had taken more than five years, and it turned out to be a cumbersome process that occupied several translators and editors. Hints can be found in the preface and introduction of the book where the editors complained about Fleck’s “idiosyncratic” and “complicated” German. Obviously these problems did not foreclose further translations. Meanwhile, Italian (1983), Polish (1986), Spanish (1986), Swedish (1997), Russian (1999), French (2005) and Portuguese (2010) translations of the book have been published with prefaces or afterwords contributed by influential scholars such as Thomas Kuhn, Bruno Latour or Paolo Rossi. Unfortunately, there is still very little knowledge about the initial reception and the process of translating Fleck’s texts, especially in the languages listed above, and in countries outside of Europe and the USA. This is the reason why we would like:
1. to gather an overview of the worldwide reception of Fleck’s concepts, and
2. to discuss problems of translations/editions of his texts.
We would like to address an international public of scholars to compare and correlate the different local receptions. Translators as well as theoreticians of translation are welcome to talk about specific problems of translating the legacy of Ludwik Fleck.
We particularly invite focused presentations about specific moments, authors and institutions to promote Fleck’s thought most prominently. Such focus may also be dedicated to the kind of journal articles on Fleck that were published (medical, philosophical, sociological etc.). Presenters may also highlight important controversies about or around Fleck. Discussions of applications of Fleck's theory in concrete research are welcome, as are arguments about important concepts beyond “thought style and thought collective” adopted from Fleck or yet to be adopted. Also, contributions to (unknown) parts of Fleck’s biography are most appreciated. The conference aims to provide a platform for preparing, sharing, discussing and completing the bibliography of branches of reception concerning languages, nations, etc. Last but not least, a listing of all known translations of Fleck’s own texts is targeted.
Talks on these foci are of priority, but the organizing committee will also consider other presentations related to Fleck.
Our long-term plan is to publish a new collected edition of Fleck’s writings in English in 2019, 40 years after the publication of the first American edition of Fleck’s book.
Confirmed speakers:
● Mauro Condé (UFMG - The Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil),
● Nathalie Jas (INRA - French National Institute for Agronomical Research, France),
● Ilana Löwy (CERMES3 - French Institute of Health and Medical Research and Health Policy, France),
● Georg Otte (UFMG - The Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)
● Stefano Poggi (University of Florence, Italy),
● Wojciech Sady (Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland),
● Hartmut von Sass (director of Ludwik Fleck Centre at Collegium Helveticum at ETHZ/Universität Zürich, Switzerland).
The conference is organized by Project Science Foundation (Fundacja Projekt Nauka, Poland, www.projekt-nauka.com) as a part of the project “Philological analysis of Ludwik Fleck’s Philosophical works and it’s translations in Polish, English and German”. The project is funded by Polish National Science Centre (www.ncn.gov.pl) awarded on the basis of the decision number DEC-2012/06/M/HS2/00313. Project Science Foundation will try to support those admitted presenters, who cannot be reimbursed by their home institutions for travel expenses and accommodation.
Co-organizers:
● Ludwik Fleck Centre (Ludwik Fleck Zentrum) at Collegium Helveticum at University of Zürich and Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETHZ, Switzerland),
● Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Germany),
● Ludwik Fleck Circle (Ludwik Fleck Kreis).
Members of the organizing committee:
● Dr. Paweł Jarnicki, Project Science Foundation and Ludwik Fleck Centre - pawel.jarnicki@projekt-nauka.com.
● Dr. Martina Schlünder, Ludwik Fleck Circle and Max Planck Institute for the History of Science - mschluender@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
● Dr. Ohad Parnes, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science - oparnes@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
● Dr. Rainer Egloff, Ludwik Fleck Centre - egloff@collegium.ethz.ch.
● Sandra Lang, Ludwik Fleck Centre - lang@collegium.ethz.ch.
Important information:
Deadline for abstracts: 2 November, 2015.
Notification of acceptance: 2 December, 2015.
Conference: 10-11.03.2016.
Language of the conference: English.
To submit an abstract, please send 1) your abstract (max. 300-500 words) and 2) a short bio (max. 300 words) to pawel.jarnicki@projekt-nauka.com by 2 November, 2015.
1. to gather an overview of the worldwide reception of Fleck’s concepts, and
2. to discuss problems of translations/editions of his texts.
We would like to address an international public of scholars to compare and correlate the different local receptions. Translators as well as theoreticians of translation are welcome to talk about specific problems of translating the legacy of Ludwik Fleck.
We particularly invite focused presentations about specific moments, authors and institutions to promote Fleck’s thought most prominently. Such focus may also be dedicated to the kind of journal articles on Fleck that were published (medical, philosophical, sociological etc.). Presenters may also highlight important controversies about or around Fleck. Discussions of applications of Fleck's theory in concrete research are welcome, as are arguments about important concepts beyond “thought style and thought collective” adopted from Fleck or yet to be adopted. Also, contributions to (unknown) parts of Fleck’s biography are most appreciated. The conference aims to provide a platform for preparing, sharing, discussing and completing the bibliography of branches of reception concerning languages, nations, etc. Last but not least, a listing of all known translations of Fleck’s own texts is targeted.
Talks on these foci are of priority, but the organizing committee will also consider other presentations related to Fleck.
Our long-term plan is to publish a new collected edition of Fleck’s writings in English in 2019, 40 years after the publication of the first American edition of Fleck’s book.
Confirmed speakers:
● Mauro Condé (UFMG - The Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil),
● Nathalie Jas (INRA - French National Institute for Agronomical Research, France),
● Ilana Löwy (CERMES3 - French Institute of Health and Medical Research and Health Policy, France),
● Georg Otte (UFMG - The Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)
● Stefano Poggi (University of Florence, Italy),
● Wojciech Sady (Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland),
● Hartmut von Sass (director of Ludwik Fleck Centre at Collegium Helveticum at ETHZ/Universität Zürich, Switzerland).
The conference is organized by Project Science Foundation (Fundacja Projekt Nauka, Poland, www.projekt-nauka.com) as a part of the project “Philological analysis of Ludwik Fleck’s Philosophical works and it’s translations in Polish, English and German”. The project is funded by Polish National Science Centre (www.ncn.gov.pl) awarded on the basis of the decision number DEC-2012/06/M/HS2/00313. Project Science Foundation will try to support those admitted presenters, who cannot be reimbursed by their home institutions for travel expenses and accommodation.
Co-organizers:
● Ludwik Fleck Centre (Ludwik Fleck Zentrum) at Collegium Helveticum at University of Zürich and Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETHZ, Switzerland),
● Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Germany),
● Ludwik Fleck Circle (Ludwik Fleck Kreis).
Members of the organizing committee:
● Dr. Paweł Jarnicki, Project Science Foundation and Ludwik Fleck Centre - pawel.jarnicki@projekt-nauka.com.
● Dr. Martina Schlünder, Ludwik Fleck Circle and Max Planck Institute for the History of Science - mschluender@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
● Dr. Ohad Parnes, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science - oparnes@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
● Dr. Rainer Egloff, Ludwik Fleck Centre - egloff@collegium.ethz.ch.
● Sandra Lang, Ludwik Fleck Centre - lang@collegium.ethz.ch.
Important information:
Deadline for abstracts: 2 November, 2015.
Notification of acceptance: 2 December, 2015.
Conference: 10-11.03.2016.
Language of the conference: English.
To submit an abstract, please send 1) your abstract (max. 300-500 words) and 2) a short bio (max. 300 words) to pawel.jarnicki@projekt-nauka.com by 2 November, 2015.
This article discusses the language problems resulting from translations of the bilingual philosophical legacy of Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961). Since Fleck wrote in both Polish and German, some specific problems can be encountered which no... more
This article discusses the language problems resulting from translations of the bilingual philosophical legacy of Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961). Since Fleck wrote in both Polish and German, some specific problems can be encountered which no single source can resolve, as both the Polish and German texts are of equal value and it is impossible to say whether his theory was formulated in one of these languages first. To solve this problem, this article suggests that we assume that the level of equivalency of the original sources is at the level of concepts. The case of ‘communication’ is analysed in detail in accordance with the frequency of certain expressions and the context behind them. Fleck used derivatives of ‘communication’ in Polish only twice, yet in English translations there are 51 uses of it. Most of the uses in the English translations come from the Polish ‘porozumieć’ and the German ‘Verkehr’ –
expressions that have different meanings. The conclusion to this article argues that all of the translations should be revised. Some recommendations are formulated, especially in regard to the krążenie myśli/Denkverkehr/‘circulation of thought’ expressions that differ in lexical meaning but denote the same concept devised by Fleck.
expressions that have different meanings. The conclusion to this article argues that all of the translations should be revised. Some recommendations are formulated, especially in regard to the krążenie myśli/Denkverkehr/‘circulation of thought’ expressions that differ in lexical meaning but denote the same concept devised by Fleck.
Kritičke studije politike, Društvena teorija za kritiku kapitalizma: Analiza kapitalističkog svetskog sistema, Maj 2018.
Since the development of capitalist societies in the early modern period, the question of whether the works of inventors and artists need to be protected by law has been disputed. As we know today, the proponents of such protection have... more
Since the development of capitalist societies in the early modern period, the question of whether the works of inventors and artists need to be protected by law has been disputed. As we know today, the proponents of such protection have won this dispute for now and there is a rigorous, globally connected legal framework in place which protects copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets under the common term of ‘intellectual property’ in almost every part of the world. The common justification for the worldwide legal framework of intellectual property rights is based on two premises. First, that there exists an individual creator of a creative work and that the creative process which brings up the creator’s work is primarily based on individual labour, and therefore the result of this process is to be exclusively attributed to the creator; and second, that without such an exclusive right to exploit and control their works, creators would create less because there would be less monetary incentive to do so, which is bad for society.
In my thesis I will argue that these premises are false because creative processes have to be understood as collective processes, and that even if we believe that private property as such is essential for personal freedom, there is no foundation for the exclusive appropriation of the results of human creativity by individuals. In fact, I will argue that we should abandon the focus on the individual creator altogether and come to a concept whereby not only ideas, but expressions and all the results of creative cultural processes are seen as common goods, accessible by everyone without restrictions. I will argue not only that the concept of an individual creator can be contested, but also that there are few grounds for utilitarian arguments in favour of intellectual property rights even if we still believe in the individual creator.
In my thesis I will argue that these premises are false because creative processes have to be understood as collective processes, and that even if we believe that private property as such is essential for personal freedom, there is no foundation for the exclusive appropriation of the results of human creativity by individuals. In fact, I will argue that we should abandon the focus on the individual creator altogether and come to a concept whereby not only ideas, but expressions and all the results of creative cultural processes are seen as common goods, accessible by everyone without restrictions. I will argue not only that the concept of an individual creator can be contested, but also that there are few grounds for utilitarian arguments in favour of intellectual property rights even if we still believe in the individual creator.
Related Topics