DRIFT

In this talk, I will think with the Caribbean poet and theorist Édouard Glissant, to tease out components of his concept of the ‘poetics of relation’ (Glissant, 1990), and how it can help us rethink how individuals, collectives, and histories relate to each other – via difference and beyond hegemonic frames of association. We will explore what entanglements (could) mean – in a world marked by centuries of colonial, capitalist, and globalized modes of connections – and the politics of knowledge that has created hierarchized and hegemonic geographies within it. What might terra incognita mean when we question both rationalities and potentials of knowledge-making?

The human mind can contemplate the strangest scenarios in imagination, from dragons and unicorns to surreal circumstances and impossible events. Why? What is the evolutionary utility of such mental escapes from reality? One promising answer is that imagination as mental simulation helps to answer ‘what if?’ questions. What if I try to jump the stream? What if I were an astronaut? Before blindly trying a dangerous jump, or venturing into difficult training, we imagine ourselves in such situations and try to guess what would happen then. Empirical research shows that imagination helps us in a number of ways: skiers imagining the path they’ll follow in the ski run perform better in a downhill race. House movers imagining guiding the couch through the living room door can reliably conclude that it will in fact pass through. But if imagination is arbitrary escape from reality, how can it give us knowledge of reality? One promising answer has it that mental simulation is anarchic in its input, but regimented in its development: yes, we can imagine any kind of madness. But once the initial supposition is in, we are to develop it following criteria of plausibility and reality-orientation. But what criteria are these? Better understanding how imagination as mental simulation works – which traps we are prone to fall into when we use it, when it can give us new, reliably formed and true beliefs – will help us to become better mental simulators, thus better equipped to deal with the uncertainties of the future.

In mijn recente boek Schokeffecten. Filosoferen in tijden van klimaatverandering (zie https://isvw.nl/shop/schokeffecten/) onderzoek ik de negatieve stemmingen die door de klimaatvoorspellingen kunnen ontstaan. Hoe buitelen gevoelens van angst, paniek, cynisme, ontkenning en teneergeslagenheid door elkaar, en hoe kunnen we daarin navigeren? Bij welke filosofische ideeën, historische verklaringen en betekenisgevende verhalen kunnen we ons het beste aansluiten om staande te blijven? Wat heeft de klimaatcrisis te betekenen voor (de filosofie van) de mens, de wereld en de natuur? In deze lezing zal ik de strekking van mijn boek uiteenzetten, en pleiten voor panische filosofie en duurzaam alarmisme.

Zoals Ursula K. LeGuin ooit zei: “People who deny the existence of dragons are often eaten by dragons. From within.” Tegenwoordig overheerst echter de technologische rationaliteit, de moderne mens is gaan denken dat alles meetbaar is, beheersbaar, dat hij zelf meetbaar en beheersbaar is, te vatten in cijfers en tabellen, en dat hij die cijfers en tabellen kan gebruiken om zijn authentieke zelf, zijn ware ik, zo hard mogelijk te laten stralen. Het zijn echter precies die opvattingen, betoogt Marian Donner, die ons zullen verslinden. Tijd dus om de draken op te roepen, de magie, het vuur en het spel. (Foto’s door Maarten van der Kamp)

Psychedelics are often described as powerful transformers of the mind. One of the recurrent themes in subjective reports is that psychedelics reveal our true selves. However, according to some Buddhists and philosophers, there is no such thing as the self. Which view is right? Do psychedelics have the power to reveal what’s deep inside us, or are they powerful tricksters – scramblers of the mind rather than the catalysts of truth?

I argue that in order to flourish in a diverse community we need to “decentre”. In dialogue with the Japanese mediaeval philosopher Dōgen, I show that decentring consists, firstly, of realising that I am not an isolated self, but a “contextual-self”: I am a node in a network, interdependent with other beings. Bodymind practices help to connect to our own contextual self, before we can optimally connect to others.
Secondly, decentering consists in learning about ways of perceiving, living, and valuing that are different from ours. My book Key Concepts in World philosophies can be used to get acquainted with frameworks different from ours. Learning about them make our life more spacious, and prepares us for interaction across differences. I will conclude with an example of decentering from Purcell’s chapter about the Aztec concepts of the good life, the slippery earth, and rootedness.

It would be easy to think that logic must end where the unknown begins: that we can only use logic and mathematics to quantify what we know, while what we do not know, what we are uncertain about, and what we cannot know, must lie beyond the realm of logical and mathematical reasoning. But nothing could be further from the truth, as will be argued in this talk.

For philosophers, nothingness has always held the fascination of a horror movie. It is often taken to be the very ground of being; but at the same, its experience occasions a sense of anxiety, angst, or vertigo. We are attracted and repelled by it at the same time. That seems like a contradiction. Indeed, the very notion appears contradictory. It is something. After all, you are thinking about it now. But at the same time, it is… well… nothing. In this talk, I will try to untangle some of these riddles.