Meillassoux: Science Fiction and Extro-Science Fiction

Science Fiction and Extro-Science Fiction

Now, what do we mean by "fiction of worlds outside-science," namely extra-science fiction or"XSF?" By the term"extra-science world," we are not referring to worlds that are simply devoid of science, i.e., worlds in which experimental sciences do not in fact exist.For example: worlds in which human beings have not,or have not yet, developed a scien­tific relation to the real.

By extra-science worlds we mean worlds where, in principle, experimental science is impossible and not unknown in fact.

Some additional commentary here in this blog post ->

However, it is that comment that suggests a weakness in the Kantian solution: there is nothing that actually prevents us from imagining extro-science worlds that are more stable than those described by Kant.  These would be worlds not subject to necessary laws, but still stable on the whole.  Or in other words, “Why should a lawless world be, without fail, frenetically inconstant?” To this, Meillassoux replies that a world obeying no law would have no more reason to be chaotic than it would to be ordered.  Nothing could prevent the composition of a global order containing small details that could “run out of control.”  In other words, the deficiency of the transcendental deduction is that it does not push hard enough on its XSF imaginary.

Further, Kant’s claim that science and consciousness have the same conditions of possibility—the necessity of laws—is itself faulty, because we can fiction worlds that contradict it.

Science Fiction and Extro-Science Fiction


Some additional commentary here in this blog post ->

Thanks for posting... if I ever get around to writing something someday, this classification structure of anti-structures will help me out

So the author proposes three classifications of XSF which exist on a gradient of frequency of irrational actions. XSF1 being the least frequent irrationality (which could be our present world), XSF2 being something like Ubik, and XSF3 being more like Lewis Carroll's wonderland. (although the latter is more fantasy than science fiction)

It occurs to me that there are basically three things to consider here: Structure (a.k.a. rationality or science or patterned regularity, etc), Randomness, and Will. The author doesn't mention Will... I suppose because if WILL entered into the equation then it would be a discussion of magical fantasy rather than science fiction. Although the Matrix is science fiction and Will is a huge thematic element... I recently looked up the Neo+Architect scene and watched it about 50x absorbing and meditating on the incredibly deep symbolism in regards to the Will vs. The Mechanism. 

Anyway... so there's 3 Things... it must be Will that gives structure its rigidity (or infrequency of change), and it must be structure that defines the target for randomness. Randomness can only be known by its relation to structure and vice versa. We could see Will as inhabiting the Abyss and Structure inhabiting the Logos and Randomness as inhabiting the boundary between the two where there is ambiguity. So Will operates on the structured Mechanism at its boundaries where it cannot be perceived... like an airliner flying into a region of unmonitored airspace and getting hijacked and no one is sure what exactly happened there...

If it is Will that gives structure its stability (pushing it towards XSF1 rather than XSF3), then the stability of reality is related to the sanity of the mind that generates it. The more minds there are, the weaker their wills must be in relation to the whole and so the averaging out of the Wills creates a very stable reality. The fewer minds there are, the more reality is subject to whimsy of any one mind. The number of minds is arbitrary and so reality can be divided up how you will. Which means that if you meditate on your relation to the totality of reality your power of Will is increased because you identify with a larger chunk of reality. Therefore to have a stable reality there must be a somewhat oppressive hierarchy set up to keep the minds believing they are small so as not to fuck it up for the rest of us.

Thanks for posting... if I ever get around to writing something someday, this classification structure of anti-structures will help me out

So the author proposes three classifications of XSF which exist on a gradient of frequency of irrational actions. XSF1 being the least frequent irrationality (which could be our present world), XSF2 being something like Ubik, and XSF3 being more like Lewis Carroll's wonderland. (although the latter is more fantasy than science fiction)

It occurs to me that there are basically three things to consider here: Structure (a.k.a. rationality or science or patterned regularity, etc), Randomness, and Will. The author doesn't mention Will... I suppose because if WILL entered into the equation then it would be a discussion of magical fantasy rather than science fiction. Although the Matrix is science fiction and Will is a huge thematic element... I recently looked up the Neo+Architect scene and watched it about 50x absorbing and meditating on the incredibly deep symbolism in regards to the Will vs. The Mechanism. 

Anyway... so there's 3 Things... it must be Will that gives structure its rigidity (or infrequency of change), and it must be structure that defines the target for randomness. Randomness can only be known by its relation to structure and vice versa. We could see Will as inhabiting the Abyss and Structure inhabiting the Logos and Randomness as inhabiting the boundary between the two where there is ambiguity. So Will operates on the structured Mechanism at its boundaries where it cannot be perceived... like an airliner flying into a region of unmonitored airspace and getting hijacked and no one is sure what exactly happened there...

If it is Will that gives structure its stability (pushing it towards XSF1 rather than XSF3), then the stability of reality is related to the sanity of the mind that generates it. The more minds there are, the weaker their wills must be in relation to the whole and so the averaging out of the Wills creates a very stable reality. The fewer minds there are, the more reality is subject to whimsy of any one mind. The number of minds is arbitrary and so reality can be divided up how you will. Which means that if you meditate on your relation to the totality of reality your power of Will is increased because you identify with a larger chunk of reality. Therefore to have a stable reality there must be a somewhat oppressive hierarchy set up to keep the minds believing they are small so as not to fuck it up for the rest of us.

I just re-read my post here because Laird liked it... thanks Laird!

And I thought I could add something else...

Could we apply the anthropic principle to this gradient of frequency of irrational actions? What I mean is this... our ability to think rationally and logically has arisen ostensibly as a survival mechanism to be better able to predict and react to situations. This requires reality to be predictable. If reality was not predictable enough then perhaps such a reality could not spawn minds that are rational or sane. If reality were too predictable then there would not be enough novelty entering the universe for life. Just as we exist in the golidlocks zone 93 million miles from the sun, perhaps we also exist in the golidlocks zone of a rational sane universe with just enough irrationality to create the whole thing.

[Laird]

I just re-read my post here because Laird liked it... thanks Laird!

Thank you for your boldly speculative and creative goldilocks-zone thinking!

I just re-read my post here because Laird liked it... thanks Laird!

And I thought I could add something else...

Could we apply the anthropic principle to this gradient of frequency of irrational actions? What I mean is this... our ability to think rationally and logically has arisen ostensibly as a survival mechanism to be better able to predict and react to situations. This requires reality to be predictable. If reality was not predictable enough then perhaps such a reality could not spawn minds that are rational or sane. If reality were too predictable then there would not be enough novelty entering the universe for life. Just as we exist in the golidlocks zone 93 million miles from the sun, perhaps we also exist in the golidlocks zone of a rational sane universe with just enough irrationality to create the whole thing.

Isn't that the ideal state for humans to live in - mainly rational with just enough irrationality to be creative and to have fun.  As above, so below.

As humans, our natural mode is to be. Rationality is a tool, rather than a state of being. It can distract us from simply being, in that sense it isn't necessarily beneficial, it can be an obstacle in the way of being who we are.

As humans, our natural mode is to be. Rationality is a tool, rather than a state of being. It can distract us from simply being, in that sense it isn't necessarily beneficial, it can be an obstacle in the way of being who we are.

That makes a lot of sense

Giving the mind a break from rationality and engaging in meditation or non-dual modes of thinking is a way of dissolving structures or patterns of thought and patterns of thinking that are lenses through which we view the world. It can be a great relief to dissolve structures from time to time. Stress exists in a structure but as soon as the structure dissolves the stress goes with it. Additionally dissolution of structure is a prerequisite to creation of new structures, so entering the mindfulness or non-dual state of mind can heighten creativity.

Rationality is in some sense a mirror looking back at itself. We are modeling reality and constantly comparing mental models with experience. And the reality itself could be a mental model by some definitions. So it is a feedback loop.

I don't think we can get away from feedback loops because that seems to be inherent in the thing we call consciousness. But meditation and non-dual thinking could be thought of as creating an additional feedback loop which moderates the other feedback loops. So the Ego is a "dumb" feedback loop, but meditating upon the Ego treats it as an object which allows moderation of it and also redefinition of it.

Anytime we put things into words, we have gone beyond raw experience of being. Things are words. But experience is just experience. Which is one reason I like to say: everything real is a metaphor. Putting things into words is what gives us knowledge but also casts us out of the Garden to struggle and toil.

"Where can I find a man who has forgotten words, so that I may speak with him?" Lao-Tzu

edit: I got the quote partly right... here is the full quote:
“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?” 

― Zhuangzi, Chuang Tsu: Inner Chapters