Friday, September 30, 2011

Fernando Zalamea podcast


Fernando Zalamea's seminar for the Versus Laboratory project, "Sheaf Logic & Philosophical Synthesis", is now available as a podcast:



It was a fascinating event, and I'll have more to say about it soon. For now, you can wash your dishes and sheafify your abductions at the same time. What else could you possibly want?

Note: To download the file, go HERE.

Note: The sound quality of the recording has been somewhat improved, thanks to the technical prowess of Julian Rohrhuber. The links have been updated to send you to the improved version of the podcast.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Catarina Dutilh Novaes, FORMAL LANGUAGES IN LOGIC

Catarina Dutilh Novaes of M-Phi and NewAPPS fame has just released an early draft of her forthcoming book, Formal Languages in Logic: A Cognitive Perspective, which promises to be extremely interesting. You can find a copy of this draft via the link above.

Reminder for Zalamea Seminar at JVE


SEMINAR: FERNANDO ZALAMEA, “SHEAF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL SYNTHESIS”
TIME: SEPT. 29TH, 14h – 17h
LOCATION: AUDITORIUM, JAN VAN EYCK ACADEMIE, MAASTRICHT

The point of this seminar is not only to acquaint us with the vibrant landscape of contemporary mathematics – and the field of sheaf logic and category theory, in particular – but to show us how this landscape’s powerful new concepts can be deployed in the fields of philosophy and cultural production. Its aim is nothing less than to ignite a new way of thinking about universality and synthesis in the absence of any absolute foundation or stable, pre-given totality – a problem that mathematics has spent the better part of the last fifty years thinking its way through, and which it has traversed by means remarkable series of conceptual inventions – a problem which has also animated philosophical modernity and its contemporary horizon. This marks something of a variation on the theme of antagonism and technique that Versus has taken as its focus for the coming year: rather than seek to fragment philosophical concepts through the prism of non-philosophical disciplines – understood as something like “conditions for philosophy” – we will mobilize mathematical concepts and techniques to synthesize and render continuous what philosophy has fragmented. The crisp dichtomies of realism versus idealism, form versus content, the static versus the dynamic, and so on, are skillfully woven into a complex oscillating fabric that, far from obscuring the polarities in a night in which all cows are black, unleashes a living swarm of powerful conceptual nuances and distinctions from what was, in retrospect, a lazy taxonomy. This labour of synthesis, itself, demonstrates how far real mathematics – the living mathematical practice of the present age – outstrips anything dreamt of in our philosophy.

Our guide in this endeavour will be Fernando Zalamea, a Columbian mathematician, philosopher and novelist whose work seeks to explore the life of contemporary mathematics while redeploying its concepts and forces beyond their native domain. In an incessant, pendular motion, he weaves the warp of post-Grothendieckian mathematics through a heterogeneous weft of materials drawn from architecture and fiction, sculpture and myth, poetry and music.

We see Zalamea’s work as expressing an all-too-rare effort to subject philosophy to the condition of mathematics, and his degree of immersion and care for the latter is perhaps unmatched by any since Albert Lautman. If Lautman was Deleuze’s Virgil through the rings of modern mathematics, we may count on Zalamea’s work to guide us through the contemporary mathematics that we believe any philosophy awake to its own times must traverse. Just as analytic philosophy emerged from the shockwaves of the explosion of classical logic and set theory onto the scene in the early 20th century, the conceptual force of mathematics after Grothendieck holds the potential to spawn a new, ‘synthetic’ vision of mathematically-conditioned philosophy for the present age, one which Zalamea foreshadows under the rubrics of transitory ontology, epistemological sheaves, and universal pragmaticism. Though the seminar will not be fail to be of interest to mathematicians and logicians, who we think will find even their own terrain illuminated by Zalamea’s insights and mediations, we hasten to point out that the seminar will presuppose no prior knowledge of advanced mathematics.



We ask that the seminar participants read the excerpt from Versus Laboratorian Luke Fraser’s translation of Zalamea’s Filosofía Sintética de las Matemáticas Contemporánes (Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics), which is forthcoming from Urbanomic Press and which we have provided for the seminar participants in draft form. Like all Versus Laboratory seminars, this will be a fully participatory event, with plenty of time for a detailed discussion of the concepts and problems at stake.

Readings for the seminar can be found HERE. 

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Course: Philosophy and Theoretical Computer Science @ MIT

Not technically part of MIT's "OpenCourseWare", but all the readings are available as links & it seems that we may have audio to look forward to. 

Friday, September 2, 2011

Broccoli Logic


This "Broccoli joke" jab at Tarskian semantics turns up at least a dozen times in Girard's writings. Here is a particularly clear form of it, from "Truth, Modality, Intersubjectivity," which should be available in the ARCHIVES.
Truth according to Tarski
Long ago, Tarski gave a definition of truth of the form :
A ∧ B is true iff A is true and B is true. All the other cases being treated in the same way, to sum up :
A is true iff A holds. Such a definition discouraged generations of mathematicians from even thinking at logic ; moreover, logicians developed a sort of esthetics of the meta ensuring that you must be dumb if you don’t understand the depth of such definitions . But the king is naked and one must say it : the arrogant essentialism of the Tarskian approach hides the absence of any interesting idea as to truth. It relies on a fantasy of objectivity reused by logical hustlers to develop systems of their own, typically :
A broccoli B is true iff A is true broccoli B is true.
the logic of broccoli, which is not even edible! This is the triumph of discretionary definitions : the absence of a decent subjective dimension in the logical explanation eventually leads to subjectivism.

THE ARCHIVE EXISTS

On the left-hand side of your screen, you'll see a link (listed under "Pages") to the Form & Formalism ARCHIVE. The idea is the begin something of an AAAAARG-like resource for the sort of material we deal with here. In the future, I'd like to move the archive off to a more secure and anonymous location. For now, it's probably safe and sound in this lonely neck of the woods, but if anyone can offer me any help in setting it up on its own website, that would be lovely.

For now, enjoy the library we've assembled. If you have any suggestions -- or, better, Scribd or ifile.it links -- for books or articles that you'd like to see in the Archive, please send them to me. You can use the comments section at the end of this post for that purpose.

(Speaking of libraries, I've also started attaching the "Library" label to any posts that contain links to texts, some of which I might not have gotten around to placing in the archive yet.)

Nothingness & Event

Aside from a bit of formatting that remains to be done, I've just finished my article for MonoKL's upcoming special issue on Badiou. It's essentially an extraction (and condensation) from my MA thesis, which I wrote a few years ago on Sartre and Badiou. Though I see it as being, more than anything else, a sort of formal experiment on philosophical materials (I have a hard time drawing anything, I don't know, self-subsistent out of it) it might be of some interest to the readers of this blog.

The gist of the paper is to demonstrate a strict structural similarity between the form of the Badiousian event and that of the Sartrean for-itself, and then use this homology as a means to splice together the two structures, as a way of fleshing out the skeletal theory of the subject in Being and Event with the dynamics of lack that emerge from the immediate structures of the for-itself in Being and Nothingness. Pure scholasticism, really, but I had fun constructing it.

The paper can be found HERE.