Dear Speculativity,
Apologies might come duely since I have no clue whether you are Speculativity, Speculativities or indeed an un mention-able sensation that’s judged – or worst,
PreJudged –
a sort of pre-birth condemnation to live as a speculation.
However –
I guess that you are sensitive enough to smile wryly while freshly noticing the term
“worst”, since
how else could it be said in context of temporarilies’ judgements, without invoking some kind of a You connected to
dear Speculativity?
I don’t know how to say the above succinctlier,
however
perhaps if I had a clue – this whole letter wouldn’t come – let alone offered?
A some kind of “they”,
claim that we humans have no hold to be moving intelligent claims for the future – so maybe, as a human i should be able to address this open letter to a part of you that may do future-less speculativities?
How can I, a human, claim something of a cultural future that, unlike versions of my cultural pasts I myself consider to be without a human centrality?
(ie – the kind of times i am familiar with are only with humans at the core. It might be said that even when gods are perceived elements around which life revolves – it is humans who do both the centralisation and its various perceptions. Therefore, it feels somehow uncomfortable to say honestly that, as a human, its possible to do other than pointing. Look, a time without human centrality! Is that interesting in any way, unless i pretend to have a clue how such times may come to be? Or, pretend that, in the very clue offered into speculativity – there’s no push, no drive, no motive that has its’ own hyperstitious qualities if not values?
)
Though, tbh,
when you guys – speculativities – come along,
we humans perhaps
can be said to abuse you since we
can hardly help producing and using speculations while being mostly utterly wrong? Indeed, I suppose you guys may wonder sometimes how come we attach a truth value to speculativities.
Does it really matter whether or not you guys –
speculativities –
ever get together and chat about humans?
See, in case we don’t mind, the applicative value of a speculation, in case speculativity – you? – has no desire to have entanglements with that which isn’t speculative so you could thrive, then
we can say it is
Fabulative.
Perhaps this lack of hold, on speculativity and future, comes since time knows no pasts, presents nor futures?
Perhaps this lack of future claims comes misunderstood and the They (human Speculations that may not be You)
talk of looming environmental catastrophe that isn’t a future but already in with life? A catastrophe that has began with agriculture and that only now we notice it’s tail folding into a crashing end?
(..and this PerhapsIc line above –
is it a fabualtive or speculative one?)
Them “They”
might also talk, as mentioned, of a future that has no humans at its core, a time when other kinds of life, living, thinking, linking, connecting and creating biases attempt to inflict the cosmos with to their own specs and ranges.
Here cosmos – Take this Me!!
Here cosmos don’t take their This – Take This I as We!!
Here cosmos, please listen to All of Us!
Here cosmos, Why wouldn’t just do us all a favour, hey?
Here cosmos, Let’s keep shoosh and get together!
..and the cosmos..?
(Current we humans call these various intelligences (which, like drug dealers – we push) names like:
AI, AL, GAI and nameless candidates come in way of bio-augmentations to humans who may afford to genetically transform into lives that leaves humanity while presuming to do some things in improved fashions.)
Is it possible to offer a suggestion that fail to speculate, of an idea that perhaps you, Speculativity,
suggesting that the sensation from any given speculation – has a range but no particular temporality?
An offer –
if it fails to offend while manages to engage a curiosity.
Or..?
Perhaps a condition rather than an offer?
Still in ranges of speculativity?
Well,
Lets go full spectrum speculation?
Afterall, it seems you are more prophetic, beyond specific time intervals – or am i simply mistaking speculativity with prophtivity?
For example?
An amorphous “they”,
seem to live full of claims about the Neandertals. However there’s an idea yet to be be claimed about when Neanderthalic humanoids could have realised that, from their point of view, what we homo-saps call “time”
comes different for their Neadertalic minds.
These Neanderthalics had compositional biased minds where things moved into, from, through, by and with circumstances that came together in space.
A suggestion to take trip to the seaside in a few days; might seem in a future for us,
however the Neandertalic mind could have considered connections, spatial compositions of such a proposition.
The sun connects itself each morning with earth a certain angle (a different place, but same angle),
so a Neandertalic person could simply count such connections of a certain angle, say:
lets have 4 sun angles, so we can make a shape from here to the seaside and back.
(notice no future tense, nor time inference required and the 4 sun angles may come as enabling the move, the seaside trip. Like an emphesised area, in an abstract painting, that allows lines to come off it while maintaining a certain feel of the composition as a whole?)
Therefore,
through composing lines that may look for others as some mere shapes – they, the Neandertalics were working hard attempting various combinations of shapes, trajectories, spaces and compositions to contemplate.
Compositions that revealed life for them in a particular manner.
That’s how they realised that life has a fate built into it for them. A fate to come as other-humanids’ biases. That Neanderthals, to be part of life’s compositions, they had to embed themselves within other patches of the composition.
A harsh thing to realise, isn’t it?
Since that realisation didn’t conceive what we might call a future for their own Neanderthalic minds who, i speculate, lived compositionally and therefore excluded Any notion of temporality, all that was noticed are deadly shapes, harsh compositions, trajectories that fail to have space – they decided that for their own contemporary powers glories,
they should mate with these other-humanoids, the ones we currently call homo-saps.
Is that how we came to both be the only humanoids around And contain a fair bit of Neanderthalic genes?
Since the Neanderthals fancied life Through homo-saps kinda humans?
How some “they”,
seem to live with a few contradictory claims connected with speculations in the range of life and intelligence?
For example:
How can we square the notion of humanity’s turn into a ghost that haunts itself like a jamesonian pastiched zombie aesthetics
reflecting endleslly on a past emptied by patches of pastiche made from their own reflectiveness that reflects upon its own past of pastiched zombified reflection which is a zombie for a horrified zombie who mimics a zombie to have a vision of a zombification that has an animation who’s life comes from moving like a movement without animating the gesture,
aesthetics of windless ghosts that rages in all kinds of hautological inspired cultural outings;
while humans develop stuff like
Afro-Futurism, Fem-Futurism, Communal-Futurism and a host of other human orientedly named futurisms?
A simple way to square these seeming contradictions is by claiming that the haunted-pastiche versions live only when one’s mind is focused on european, aka “western” centrality. Hence the rest of humanity can politely thank the european for not much at all and move on? Move on how,
with another human centric cultivations?
Therefore when we check a relationship, a range of proposals full of speculativities as to how AI-kind-techne will be
African
Feminist
Asian
Amazonian(not-the-behemoth-corporation)
reveals a spec of thinking which, in fact, seems nothing like a post human at all.
Speculations that, for example, consider AI technologies as enabler and producer of feminist praxis seems to be very human indeed.
Femenism is, afterall, a human move.
(
A current search for “cross species feminism” and “cross species feminist futurism” on Startpage
gives:
“:( Uh-oh, there are no results for this search.”
Though.. this will stay until this text gets indexed, and then offer a beginning for someone who might ask:
“has someone thought of that?!”
A current search for “multi species feminism” on Startpage
gives 3 links:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v39/n11/jenny-turner/life-with-ms-cayenne-pepper
https://www.berlinerfestspiele.de/en/berliner-festspiele/programm/bfs-gesamtprogramm/programmdetail_193322.html
https://www.praksisoslo.org/events-calendar/softenclosure
Perhaps curious to note that multi differs from cross species through a certain hierarchy of action and setup. I’d say that the trees entering Havana art academy offer cross species exits, where-as offering a coyote a space in a gallery and doing things with them, is multi species – since human is in control.
)
Perhaps, Dear Speculativity,
a non human future may come dressed as a techno-zombie from a past – a suspiciously european past – when the non-human centrality was a deity? A deity centrality that manifested itself in stuff like architecture which emphasised so called Non-Human proportions. However
never failed to consider these “non human” proportionality from very human perspectives.
Something that can be palpable whenever one may visit a miniature gothic cathedral, since they will have to consider their size much much smaller – if they are interested in appreciating the impact of the building.
(NEED TO SPOECULATE ABOUT ME)
How can we move with – rather than shape – human times and the notion that in case there are times they came with others and will come oriented around frictions from exits, escapes and pushes with other kinds of life and intelligences that are beyond the capture, away from the conceptual orient for humans in the literal sense of away from human horizon;
a spec beyond that which a human mind may prospect and inspect, get sensations with, and indeed make sense of.
These kinds of concerns may scare you. I know. Afterall, when we consider the Beyondness of a Spec – it is a range that makes the Spec in Speculativity. In that way, by definition, beyond the horizon – is where speculativity doesn’t live. However, I think the whole question can be thought, can be considered, differently.
Let me try and explain:
In the recent past, you might have noticed that you were called upon by humans more often and given a wider range in the past 10 years or so, than the 10 years prior.
That’s because speculativity wasn’t so much in cultural vogue and had a bit of a come-back. Such a come-back that some humans became speculationist – they mystified you, turned you into something that isn’t you anyway, a fetish!
Everything uttered, in that kind of a mind set – is speculative.
It can be said that apart from using a mistaken metaphore – horizon, some “thing” we never go beyond – the whole move into asking you about your own negotiativity with others, based on decentralising yearnings for humans, is speculative at best.
Sure
To put this bluntly with padded apologies:
How can we have an AmazonianFuturism when such a notion has humans and de-colonial minds at core –
while, on the other hand saying that planetarily at the very least, future is for AI kinda life?
How can we utter an honest AmazonianFuturism without, in fact, failing to consider amazing amazonian lives as eual and equyitable elements in the composition of Any intelligent lives in the cosmos? (let alone this cherished planet)
A simple manner connect these contradictions may come via claiming that all such futurisms rather fancy incorporating themselves with many different technologies that are yet to be encountered. However, how can one offer a range of sensing – a spec – which they claim comes beyond any possible nor plausible reach? A new kind of religion? Coming to terms with our inner Neandertalics by realising that they were correct and the geneticament of statements to the tune of if You can not beat – join?)
A pejorative “they” claim that claiming comes with grasping, catching that which is said to be, err, claimed. Therefore, they caught up with a fated future despite being clueless of the Neandertalics way of doing the exact thing. They claim that the fate of human fates in precisely to free intelligence from living in and through time biases. From that perspective, since animals always combined techne with poieses – giving fruit with a manner of doing that very fruit giving –
the questions