Roald Hoffman on Curiosity

Our abilities to remain on the move and to embrace fluidity has becomes important qualities that define our lives. We want to be like water, present everywhere and with an ability to shape shift depending that which surrounds us. Our restless search for change is probably one of the aspects that marks our time most. In a text for American Scientist, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and writer of poetry and drama, Roald Hoffman reflects on the nature of curiosity. He starts out by noting that the Latin root of the word ‘interesting’ means being ‘in between’ and moves on to reflect on a liquid metal: “The observer first has to know what is normal, in order to care about what is not. Lithium tetramine (Li(NH3)4) is a bronze-colored metallic liquid (that combination of properties is interesting by itself) that crystallizes into a metallic solid at 89 degrees Kelvin (–184 degrees Celsius). That is a low temperature, but so what? Other elements and molecules solidify at lower temperatures: molecular hydrogen (H2) at 14 degrees Kelvin and helium not at all. But none of these other atoms or molecules is a metal. Li(NH3)4, a liquid and a metal, has a freezing point nearly 150 degrees lower than that of any other liquid metal. How am I to think about the way intermolecular forces (responsible for solidification of all compounds) interweave with the free motion of electrons that is the hallmark of being a metal, to make (Li(NH3)4) melt at such a low temperature?” In other words, what is important here is less which atoms make up the molecule, but rather what holds it together. No, not even that, but what is different about these forces from the other forces. What are the forces that hold us together as human beings and where does the power of the artist fit into this? What should we be in between to be interesting?

Michel Cassé a true inspiration

“…je dirai que la réalité est une convention stupide établie par des êtres sans humour, ni scrupules, et que je réclame pour moi le droit de me contredire, à l’instar du poème moderne.”

"…I would say that reality is an agreement made by stupid people with no sense of humor, no scruples, and I state that I have the right to contradict myself like a modernist poem.”

“…la lumière que l’on a toujours fait figurer, sous l’étendard de la pureté est en fait un agent de désordre : ‘l’ordre se constitue dans se qui brille, car ce qui brille rayonne le désordre. La constitution de la matière requiert par conséquence que la lumière se sépare de l’objet qui s’organise. L’astronome pareillement se dégage de la terre."

"... light that was always used under the banner of purity, is in fact an agent of disorder : order is constituted in that which shines, because that which shines radiates disorder. The constitution of matter therefore requires that the light is separated from the object that it illuminates. The Astronomer similarly distances himself from the earth. "

Michel Cassé, p.14, Le psychanalyste, le physicien et le réel, 1987, Radio France/Éditions Poiesis ISBN 2-905525-06-1

Art and science equality?

"In rough and naïve men, one conviction also predominates in their mores and even in their tastes: they are the best possible. In cultured people there reigns a certain tolerance in this respect: but one holds all the more rigorously to one's own criterion of Good and Evil: according to which one wants to have not only the most refined taste but also the only legitimate one. This is commonly reigning form of barbarism: that one doesn't even realize that morality is a matter of taste."

-Pierre Klossowski

Visible Dialogues

Hello Everyone,

I have been looking at Deleuze's Dialogues II and it is interesting, because it was supposed to be part of a series of interviews, but he refused to be interviewed and looked at a situation of a dialogue instead. Here is what he has to say:

"The art of constructing a problem is very important: you invent a problem, a problem position, before finding a solution. None of this happens in an interview, a conversation, a discussion. Even reflection, whether it's alone, between two or more is not enough. Above all, not reflection. Objections are even worse. every time someone someone puts an objection I want to say 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else'. Objections have never contributed anything. It is the same when I am asked a general question. The aim is not to answer the question, it's to get out, to get out of it."

Per

Is the Brain a Machine?

One of the fundamental questions that Elias and Per have been dealing with in their dialogues, are questions related to the scientific idea of the universe, life and thought-processes that are seen as automations.

The Italian curator Alessandra Sandrolini has found this exciting text on the plasticity of the brain and how that affects our ideas of freedom. It discusses Catherine Malabou's book "What Should We Do with our Brain?" Have a look here:

Here is a quote to wet your intellectual taste buds:

"The lack of a well-articulated consciousness of the plastic brain creates a vacuum that opens the door to ideological infiltration. If you don’t come up with your own narratives and ideas to take charge of your life, others will happily provide ideas and stories for you. In our day, the chief providers of ready-to-use narratives for all areas of human existence are the spin-doctors in personnel departments and counselling companies of corporate capitalism. We witness the rise of a new spirit of capitalism, the soft but unrelenting pressures of globalised economy, the universal demand for adaptability, flexibility, emotional intelligence, creativity, self-motivation, and other ‘new values’ that will further entangle work and life, that will facilitate the near-complete absorption of existence into the corporate culture of the work world."