Skip to main content

Signals without modulations are blind

Wikipedia has: "modulation is the process of varying one or more properties of a high-frequency periodic waveform, called the carrier signal, with a modulating signal which typically contains information to be transmitted."

I was rehearsing the other day, in my attempts to lecture on non-human epistemology, the idea that the Kantian friction and requisite collaboration between receptivity and spontaneity (or the many variations thereafter, like Sellars' conception of the given being insufficient for an empirical report or McDowell's thesis that empirical data without concepts are at most exculpations and intuitions without concepts are mute) could be generalized beyond the usual domain of the relation between experience and concepts. In fact, one needs a pattern of importance - or a matrix of differences and indifferences - in order to be capable to come up with an empirical report - or an empirical judgement. Reliability as such requires a pattern of importance. Mammals are important for ticks, turbulence around the clock is unimportant for the time counting machine. Importance is what is acquired when we acquire concepts. That shades of color don't matter for the color vocabulary, that most curves are unimportant to draw distinctions between letters of an alphabet, that size is irrelevant for a geometrical figure etc. Some differences are important, others are to be taken as non-salient. In a more general format, signals without a pattern of importance are lost in a white blindness. Too many differences possible and not enough indifference. An antenna without modulation just captures too much - and, therefore, too little. It fails to capture the differences that make difference. It fails to capture information. Just like mere receptivity without a pattern of importance guiding it - receptivity has to be guided, guided by a problem, a quest, a spontaneous interrogation to pose. McDowell's positions would have that there is an amount of (past) activity required for passivity, acquired spontaneity makes receptivity capable of capturing information.

Capture can be seen in terms of rhythms. It is the body (the folds) of a capturing device that tunes in a rhythm. My eyes don't capture the rhythm of the planets, or the rhythm of the molecules - an all-capturing device is an intelligible intellect in the sense of the third Critique. There is no rhythm to be captured there. Hegel was right when he criticized Kant's idea that intuitions without concepts could be not blind for another intellect - that they are blind only for us. Hegel's point is that of a Subjectalist or that of a Metaphysician of Subjectivity in Meillassoux's terms and indeed akin to that of a process philosopher like Deleuze who would take that there is nothing to be captured without modulation. In other worlds, without correlation as an activity, there is no receptivity of an absolute as a passivity. Antennas are spontaneous: they seek signals, and they end up finding them. Antennas receive because they look out for signals, they look out for what concerns them. Importance, in that sense, because it connects receptivity with embodiment (in a matrix of differences and indifferences) could be the ultimate home for correlations - it makes the scheme of no absolute without spontaneity inevitable and correlation itself absolute. The persuasive line in favor of that is that there is no possible grasping of any rhythm without a pattern of importance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne