The World Of Desire: Lacan Between Evolutionary Biology and Psychoanalytic Theory

2009 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Chiesa
Author(s):  
Oswald J. Schmitz

This chapter discusses the potential of industrial and urban ecology to entwine humans and nature to achieve sustainability in ways that are respectful and ethical to both. Thinking about humans and nature linked as socio-ecological systems means appreciating the growing, inextricable connectedness between global locations where technology is manufactured and used, and locations that physically provide the key elements. An ethical position of environmental stewardship would obligate one to first question whether it is right to protect nature in one location and force resource extraction to be done in other parts of the world. Industrial ecology is an emerging field that enhances society's ability to maintain the functionality of related ecosystems, and is also now toying with using principles of evolutionary biology and resilience. Like industrial ecology, urban ecology is based on systems thinking and include the valuation of ecosystem services, telecoupling of real and virtual resources, and environmental stewardship.


Evolution ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-440
Author(s):  
Richard H. Ree

Author(s):  
Leticia Durand ◽  
Juanita Sundberg

This paper presents a story about a plant – Lacandonia schismatica  – who subverted disciplinary traditions in botany and reconfigured its geopolitical orders of knowledge. To tell this story, we focus on Lacandonia’s plantiness, Lesley Head and colleagues’s (2012) concept to signify each kind of plant’s unique biophysical characteristics, capacities, and potentialities, and through which they co-produce the world. We trace how L. schismatica intervened in, and (re)configured processes of knowledge production, environmental politics, and identity formation in the Lacandon Forest, Chiapas, Mexico, where it was found. Lacandonia’s plantiness came into being through sudden macromutations; this unexpected but viable plant species participated in reviving an old debate in evolutionary biology: macroevolution versus gradualism. We also analyze how Lacandonia’s plantiness compelled shifts in environmental politics in Chiapas and identity formation in Frontera Corozal, the Chol community where L. schismatica was first located. We conclude with a brief reflection on the implications of vegetal ethics for addressing contemporary environmental crises. 


Author(s):  
Natalya N. Rostova ◽  

The article analyzes modern western projects to update anthropology. The projects are united by the idea of the end of human exclusiveness, which is a modern form of the concept of human death. According to idea of the end of human exclusiveness, a person has no ontological privileges in the world, and he must be thought of as a part in the totality of other parts of the whole — nature, space, objects, etc. It is possible to allocate four forms of the realization of this idea: overcoming the oppositions “nature-culture”, “man-animal”, “man-technician”, and “man-objects”. In the article the first form of this idea, projects of anthropology beyond nature and culture, is analyzed. Within the framework of these projects, two tendencies are observed — naturalization of man and anthropomorphization of the world. Both directions are investigated on the example of works, on the one hand, of Jean-Marie Schaeffer, on the other, Philippe Descola and Ernesto B. Viveiros de Castro. Schaeffer’s anthropology becomes anti-anthropology the moment he starts speaking of man in the language of evolutionary biology. Man fits them into an evolutionary process, within which the cause of a person’s actions appears beyond him. The anthropomorphization of the world is based on ethnographic data on the so-called “primitive peoples”. If naturalism concerns the reduction of the anthropological to the biological, then here it is possible to speak of an intellectual forgery. Descola and de Castro identify the ideas of weak philosophy on the bases where the life of the mystery community is constructed. In this case, the mystery is described in social categories, and the exotic content of representations of the studied peoples serves as an argument for the chaotization of our own ideas. The author of the article believes that modern anti-anthropologists are trying to interpret the truly human, contained in mysteries, in terms of the inhuman.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 2-4
Author(s):  
Ragnild Lome ◽  
Johan Fredrikzon ◽  
Jakob Lien ◽  
Solveig Daugaard ◽  
Per Israelson ◽  
...  

It started with curiosity: The name of the French philosopher seemed to pop up here and there, while we were working on dissertations and postdoc-projects. Not just, as we already knew, in the works of the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze, Bernard Stiegler and German media historians like Bernhard Siegert and Erich Hörl, but also in books and articles by John Durham Peters, Elisabeth Grosz and Yuk Hui. Simondon seemed to be relevant when discussing the question of technology in the Anthropocene, digging into neo-cybernetic trends within critical theory, understanding New Materialism and challenging AI-philosophy. What was it about this French philosopher that could inspire so many different thinkers and fields of thoughts? We soon realized that we did not know very many people who had worked with the ideas of Simondon, and thus, set forth to produce some texts on him. With this issue, we do not intend to give a comprehensive introduction to Simondon’s philosophy. What we hope to do, is to offer a handful of reflections upon how to use Simondon today. We do this by publishing an article on the politics of problems in the thinking of Simondon and Gilles Deleuze, written by Stefano Daechsel and a three-part interview on Simondon’s oeuvre with Yale-professors Gary Tomlinson, John Durham Peters and Paul North, conducted by Johan Fredrikzon. In addition, we have pieced together a few editorial texts: An overview of interesting articles and books on Simondon that we came across as we edited this volume, and a brief vocabulary of Simondonian thought. The article and interview provide several answers to the question why Simondon is a relevant thinker today. Gary Tomlinson argues that Simondon offers key insights to evolutionary studies: He is able to bridge the gap between cultural and evolutionary biology. This is due to the Simondonian understanding of culture, Tomlinson argues, as something that arises in evolution and also shapes it. ”We were toolmakers before we were human”, as Tomlinson writes in the article ”Semiotic Epicycles and Emergent Thresholds in Human Evolution” (Glass-bead.org, 2017), which he quotes in the interview. Furthermore, Simondon flirts with what John Durham Peters calls neo-Thomism, a view of the history of technology that is not transcendental, nor teleologically determined or based on an idea of progress, but that is nevertheless intelligible. As John Durham Peters says in his interview: ”Thomism gives you a potential of the world as an intelligible totality, much like James Joyce in Finnegan's Wake: a vision of the world as a knowable whole.” Simondon’s philosophy according to Durham Peters is ”Aristotelian in the sense that nature has a structure which in some ways corresponds to the structure of understanding (…), the processes by which nature works and the processes by which technology works are analogous”. Most importantly, Simondon identifies possible strategies for resistance. Studying technology is necessary for us to act as political individuals, Stefano Daechsel argues in his article on Simondon and Deleuze. ”[T]here is an urgency to Simondon’s call for a technical culture that would foster a ‘genuine awareness of technical realities (…)’, such an awareness of technology ‘possesses political and social value’.” We need to delve into the technical realities, not in order to liberate ourselves from technology, but in order to modify and gain some kind of agency as technological beings. With reference to Robert de Niro’s character in Terry Gilliam’s film Brazil (1985), Paul North also reflects upon the agency of the individual through the figure of the tinkerer: ”The kind of freedom where you can do anything, like ex nihilo creation. Simondon wants nothing to do with that. It is the middle person, the one who can take an invention and actually make it into a form of life, bring it in line with the milieu and allow each to change the other, that is interesting for Simondon.” Toward the end of the interview, North claims philosophy of technology today is looking for new resources in order to comprehend the world we live in. Mazzilli-Daechsel begins his article by stating that we need a way out of our politics of defeatism today. Simondon is a useful source to go to, in both regards. We hope this volume demonstrates that. In addition to the section on Simondon, this issue of Sensorium Journal features two reviews, on the recent complete transcript of the Macy Conferences edited by Claus Pias and two books in the series “Understanding Media Ecology”. We hope you enjoy your reading!


Author(s):  
Anya Plutynski

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. Almost everyone’s life is in some way or other affected by cancer. Yet, when faced with a cancer diagnosis, many of us will confront questions we had never before considered: Is cancer one disease, or many? If many, how many exactly? How is cancer classified? What does it mean, exactly, to say that cancer is “genetic,” or “familial”? What exactly are the causes of cancer, and how do scientists come to know about them? When do we have good reason to believe that this or that is a risk factor for cancer? These questions are (in part) empirical ones; however, they are also (in part) philosophical. That is, they are questions about what and how we come to know. They are about how we define and classify disease, what counts as a “natural” classification, what it means to have good evidence, and how we pick out causes as more or less significant. This book takes a close look at these philosophical questions, by examining the conceptual and methodological challenges that arise in cancer research, in disciplines as diverse as cell and molecular biology, epidemiology, clinical medicine, and evolutionary biology.


Author(s):  
Thomas N. Sherratt ◽  
David M. Wilkinson

An altruistic act is one in which an individual incurs a cost that results in a benefit to others. Giving money or time to those less fortunate than ourselves is one example, as is giving up one’s seat on a bus. At first, one might consider such behaviour hopelessly naive in a world in which natural selection seemingly rewards selfishness in the competitive struggle for existence. As the saying goes, ‘nice guys finish last’. Yet examples of apparent altruism are commonplace. Meerkats will spend hours in the baking sun keeping lookout for predators that might attack their colony mates. Vampire bats will regurgitate blood to feed their starving roost fellows, while baboons will take the time and effort to groom other baboons. Some individuals, such as honeybee workers, forego their own reproduction to help their queen and will even die in her defence. The common gut bacterium Escherichia coli commits suicide when it is infected by a bacteriophage, thereby protecting its clones from being infected. If helping incurs a cost, then surely an individual that accepts a cooperative act yet gives nothing in return would do better than cooperators? What, then, allows these cases of apparent altruism to persist? In his last presidential address to the Royal Society of London in November 2005, Robert M. May argued, ‘The most important unanswered question in evolutionary biology, and more generally in the social sciences, is how cooperative behaviour evolved and can be maintained’. In this chapter, we document a number of examples of cooperation in the natural world and ask how it is maintained despite the obvious evolutionary pressure to ‘cheat’. We will see that, while it is tempting to see societies as some form of higher organism, to fully understand cooperation, it helps to take a more reductionist view of the world, frequently a gene-centred perspective. Indeed, thinking about altruism has led to one of the greatest triumphs of the ‘selfish gene’ approach, namely the theory of kin selection. Ultimately, as the quote from Mandeville indicates, we will see that cooperation frequently arises simply out of pure self-interest—it just so happens that individuals (or, more precisely, genes) in the business of helping themselves sometimes help others.


2018 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco ◽  

For many contemporary Christian theologians, evolutionary biology rules out any account of an Adam and Eve that would explain the origin of our species. In response, I propose that they have uncritically embraced the anti-essentialist presuppositions of the dominant scientific narrative for the origins of our kind. In fact, there are sound and robust reasons to think that human beings share an intrinsic essence that puts them into a natural kind. I also propose that our natural kind can be defined by our developmental capacity for language, which I suggest is needed for abstract thinking. Thus, it is still reasonable to trace the origins of our natural kind to an original individual. He would have been the first anatomically modern human to have evolved this capacity for hierarchical and non-linear language that allowed him to construct an abstract internal map of the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document