From Communicable Matter to Incommunicable “Stuff”: Extreme Combinatorics and the Return of Ineffability

Chapter
Part of the Comparative Philosophy of Religion book series (COPR, volume 1)

Abstract

Since Kant, there has been an intense debate around the question of the location of the sublime: Is it in the object or in the subject? In this essay, I tackle what I see as a fast-growing, indeed ubiquitous, socio-cultural phenomenon, namely, the imagistic, linguistic, and ontological inability to configure the rising tide of confounding “objects,” leading to the vacuous usage of the non-descriptor “stuff.” Today, I argue, the viewer is deliberately presented with experiences, “entities,” that are not only without a concept but without the possibility of a concept, thus producing a failure of intuition—that is, not a soaring ascent into comprehension, but a bewildering descent, into ineffability. I will examine this cognitive and emotional impasse from the perspective of ineffability’s dark side. By this I mean its fall from Neoplatonic awe at radiant unity into the current shambling inexpressibility. Focusing on a handful of telling cases—both particular and exemplary—ranging from the invasion of the unexamined digital absolute, to terrifying transplant surgeries, to extreme scientific experimentation and its uptake by BioArt, I ask, What does it mean when we completely sever action from reflection and judgment? If the object world is now permeated by the IT and media world, does the “scientization of art” inherit not only science’s undoubted wonders but also its ethical ambiguities, the violence of its experimentation, the opacity of its aims, its indifference to social or cultural impact when personal promotionalism is at stake, and its inscrutable darkness or incommunicability?

Notes

Acknowledgements

I want to thank the wonderful librarians at the Aram Public Library, Delavan, Wisconsin for the help they extended to me while a hermit in a summer cabin in the woods.

References

  1. Anker, Suzanne, and Sabine Flach, eds. 2015. Naturally hypernatural. Special issue, Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture 33.Google Scholar
  2. Berthet, Dominique. 2015. Une esthetique du trouble. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  3. Bright, Richard, ed. 2015, June 13. BioMedArt. Special issue, Interalia magazine.Google Scholar
  4. Bull, Michael, and John P. Mitchell, eds. 2015. Ritual, performance and the senses. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, Anthony. 1986. A clockwork orange. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, Lewis. 1946. Alice in wonderland and through the looking glass. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Catts, Oron, and Ionat Zurr. 2000. Tissue culture and art(ificial) wombs. In Next sex: Sex in the age of its procreative superfluousness = Sex im Zeitalter seiner reproduktionstechnischen Überflüssigkeit, ed. Ars Electronica, Gerfried Stocker, and Christine Schöpf, 252–253. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Colapinto, John. 2015. Lighting the brain. The New Yorker, May 18.Google Scholar
  9. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1983. In Biographia literaria, or, biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions, ed. James Engall and W.J. Bate, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coyne, Jerry. 2015. Faith vs. fact: Why science and religion are incompatible. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  11. Domingos, Pedro. 2015. The master algorithm. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas-Fairhurst, Robert. 2015. The story of Alice. Belknap: New York.Google Scholar
  13. Genachowski, Julius and Robert M. McDowell. 2015, July 28. How to feed a data-hungry public. Wall Street journal.Google Scholar
  14. Heller, Nathan. 2015, September 14. High score. The New Yorker.Google Scholar
  15. Jefferies, Liam. 2015. Greetings. Curatorial resource for upstart media bliss. www.crumbweb.org. Accessed 10 Mar 2015.
  16. Jurgensen, John. 2015, June 12. How many TV shows can your brain handle. Wall Street journal.Google Scholar
  17. Khatchadourian, Raffi. 2015, May 18. World without end. The New Yorker.Google Scholar
  18. Laplantine, Francois, and David Howes. 2015. Pains and pleasures of the binary: The dichotomy of meaning and the sensible. Chapter 3 in The life of the senses: Introduction to a modal anthropology. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Levi, Primo. 2015, June 8 and 15. Quaestio de centauris. The New Yorker.Google Scholar
  20. McFadden, Johnjoe, and Jim Al-Khalili. 2015. Life on the edge: The coming of age of quantum biology. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  21. Mordvintsev, Alexander, Christopher Olah, and Mike Tyka. Inceptionism: Going deeper into neural networks. Google research blog. http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html. Accessed 17 June 2015.
  22. Murdoch, Iris. 1988. The book and the brotherhood. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  23. Neidich, Warren, and Barry Schwabsky. 2015. Enstranging objects, announcement, Saas Fee Summer Institute of Art.Google Scholar
  24. Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1944. The children of light and the children of darkness: A vindication of democracy and a critique of its traditional defense. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donnell, James J. 2015. Ways of knowing. Chapter 6 in Pagans: The end of traditional religion and the rise of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  26. Peponis, John, Sonit Bafna, Saleem Mokbel Dahabreh, and Fehmi Dogan. 2015. Configurational meaning and conceptual shifts in design. The Journal of Architecture 20 (2): 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roget’s international thesaurus. 1967. 3rd ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
  28. Salter, Christopher. 2015. Alien agency: Experimental encounters with art in the making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schwarzel, Erich. 2015. Why 3-D printers scare hollywood. Wall Street Journal, July 21.Google Scholar
  30. Stafford, Barbara Maria. 1991. Body criticism: Imaging the unseen in enlightenment art and medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2001. The magic of amorous attractions. Chapter 3 in Visual analogy: Consciousness as the art of connecting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2007. Compressive compositions: Emblem, symbol, symbiogenesis. Chapter 2 in Echo objects: The cognitive work of images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2016. Seizing attention: Devices and desires. Art history 39 (2): 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, Shirley S. 2015a, June 6–7. New frontier: Head transplants. Wall street journal.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2015b, July 21. Scientists see ways to target Alzheimer’s in proteins. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  36. Webster’s new world dictionary. 1976. Modern desk edition. New York: Collins World.Google Scholar
  37. Wolfe, Alexandra. 2015, August 8–9. Palmer Luckey, The Wall Street Journal: Weekend Confidential.Google Scholar
  38. Youn, Monica. 2015, June 1. “Goldacre,” The New Yorker.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations