Page 65 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 3(2) (2015). Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem/University of Primorska Press.
P. 65
ia universitatis This for example was very important when philosophy faced was that of not finding enou-
how to addr ess hyperobjects in exhibitions using emerging technologies 65 creating the interaction for our National Park gh terra firma to stand on in order to basically
Explorer7 in a national park in Breheimen Nor- say anything about reality itself. There has been,
way. Here the feedback of the physical interac- since Kant, and some unfortunate misinterpre-
tion was not on the object itself but rather on the tations of Nietzsche, a tending towards an on-
map all user interact with, therefore we were un- tological detente where philosophy narrowed its
able to make latency a playability feature, which foci of attention. The latter rendered a total va-
we had previously done in the aforementioned lue relative argumentation and the former a epis-
sea monster table, where the latency was incor- temological recursion. To paraphrase, it could go
porated as a use quality contributing to the lurk- something like: How can I know that there are
ing feeling of vulnerability we wanted the visi- (or are not) real things? What gives me (or deni-
tors to experience. Since the control function es me) access to those real things? What are the
and the feedback were separated in the Nation- possibilities of this access? What is the possibili-
al Park Explorer however the latency had to be ty of possibility? The Kantian rift had become a
kept at a minimum to keep the mental pairing of chasm deep enough to fill almost all of continen-
the input and the feedback intact. tal philosophy. This correlationism8 is not provi-
ding answers, or questions, that move or benefit
Based on these example we see that it is other sciences, art forms or practices. Some phi-
completely possible to incorporate the interac- losophers understandably had enough of this
tion as a part of the interpretation and interac- and thought about the current issues facing hu-
tion. However in a few of our upcoming projects manity, e.g. technological singularity; machine-
there is a new class of issues more and more prev- -human mergers or global warming.9
alent in museums that require a new class of in-
teractive approaches. Background
Theoretical background The shortcomings of the academic paper mill
might be to blame here. These thoughts have
In recent times some headway in the philosop- predictably not evolved through the academic
hical approach of the most pressing issues of our circuit as intended, but instead been circulating
time have been made. Due to a philosophical on forums on the internets where people within
standstill over the last 100 years, few scientists, academia who have been frustrated with the exi-
artists or designers have looked to philosophy sting forms of academic output and its incapabi-
to find answers or even questions. The ones who lity to accommodate new, unfinished, thoughts
did oftentimes found themselves in a Heidegge- or work in progress.
rian maze of circular arguments. The problem
The discourse has sort of ventured all the
7 Vimeo, https://vimeo.com/72203926 (20016-02-01). way into a place where one has been forced to ask
oneself: Why save a species if one does not be-
lieve in a species. Particularly this needs to have
an operational level as well. That something can
be done even though we do not agree on holis-
tic definitions or hierarchies or what privileges
whom.
Of all the things humans have created, re-
leasing the hyper object of climate change will
8 Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, ed.The speculative
turn (Melbourne, [Victoria] Australia: re.press, 2011).
9 Timothy Morton, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of
the World (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013).
how to addr ess hyperobjects in exhibitions using emerging technologies 65 creating the interaction for our National Park gh terra firma to stand on in order to basically
Explorer7 in a national park in Breheimen Nor- say anything about reality itself. There has been,
way. Here the feedback of the physical interac- since Kant, and some unfortunate misinterpre-
tion was not on the object itself but rather on the tations of Nietzsche, a tending towards an on-
map all user interact with, therefore we were un- tological detente where philosophy narrowed its
able to make latency a playability feature, which foci of attention. The latter rendered a total va-
we had previously done in the aforementioned lue relative argumentation and the former a epis-
sea monster table, where the latency was incor- temological recursion. To paraphrase, it could go
porated as a use quality contributing to the lurk- something like: How can I know that there are
ing feeling of vulnerability we wanted the visi- (or are not) real things? What gives me (or deni-
tors to experience. Since the control function es me) access to those real things? What are the
and the feedback were separated in the Nation- possibilities of this access? What is the possibili-
al Park Explorer however the latency had to be ty of possibility? The Kantian rift had become a
kept at a minimum to keep the mental pairing of chasm deep enough to fill almost all of continen-
the input and the feedback intact. tal philosophy. This correlationism8 is not provi-
ding answers, or questions, that move or benefit
Based on these example we see that it is other sciences, art forms or practices. Some phi-
completely possible to incorporate the interac- losophers understandably had enough of this
tion as a part of the interpretation and interac- and thought about the current issues facing hu-
tion. However in a few of our upcoming projects manity, e.g. technological singularity; machine-
there is a new class of issues more and more prev- -human mergers or global warming.9
alent in museums that require a new class of in-
teractive approaches. Background
Theoretical background The shortcomings of the academic paper mill
might be to blame here. These thoughts have
In recent times some headway in the philosop- predictably not evolved through the academic
hical approach of the most pressing issues of our circuit as intended, but instead been circulating
time have been made. Due to a philosophical on forums on the internets where people within
standstill over the last 100 years, few scientists, academia who have been frustrated with the exi-
artists or designers have looked to philosophy sting forms of academic output and its incapabi-
to find answers or even questions. The ones who lity to accommodate new, unfinished, thoughts
did oftentimes found themselves in a Heidegge- or work in progress.
rian maze of circular arguments. The problem
The discourse has sort of ventured all the
7 Vimeo, https://vimeo.com/72203926 (20016-02-01). way into a place where one has been forced to ask
oneself: Why save a species if one does not be-
lieve in a species. Particularly this needs to have
an operational level as well. That something can
be done even though we do not agree on holis-
tic definitions or hierarchies or what privileges
whom.
Of all the things humans have created, re-
leasing the hyper object of climate change will
8 Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, ed.The speculative
turn (Melbourne, [Victoria] Australia: re.press, 2011).
9 Timothy Morton, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of
the World (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013).
