Pix credit here |
Happy to pass along this quite interesting CfP (call for participation) being circulated by the China Quarterly on "The Politics of Knowledge Production about China". It fellows below.
Larry Catá Backer's comments on current issues in transnational law and policy. These essays focus on the constitution of regulatory communities (political, economic, and religious) as they manage their constituencies and the conflicts between them. The context is globalization. This is an academic field-free zone: expect to travel "without documents" through the sometimes strongly guarded boundaries of international relations, constitutional, international, comparative, and corporate law.
Pix credit here |
Happy to pass along this quite interesting CfP (call for participation) being circulated by the China Quarterly on "The Politics of Knowledge Production about China". It fellows below.
Pix Credit here |
To grunt in a way that others understand is to embrace the world view of those to whom one grunts.
Homer was able to construct (or imagine) a closed form because he had a clear idea of the agricultural and warrior culture of his own day. He knew his world, he knew its laws, causes, and effects. That is why he was able to give it form.. There is, however, another mode of artistic representation, one where we do not know the boundaries o what we wish to portray. . . We cannot provide a definition by essence and so, to be able to talk about it, to make it comprehensible or in some way perceivable, we list its properties. . . . (Humberto Eco, The Infinity of Lists (Alistair McEwen (trans); NY: Rizzoli, 2009), p. 15).
Cultures tied to the tradition of Abrahamic religions encounter this semiotic reality of signifying the world around the central figure of humanity under the leadership of God (Gen 2:118-19 (Adam naming all of the creatures brought before him by God), and lists. Lists are found throughout the Bible and provide a detailed description of historical connection, of pedigree, of the passage of time, and of the thing that is listed by reference to the quality the lists chronicle in common (eg, Gen 5:1-32 (the generations separating Adam from Noah and the first destruction of humanity). Guiguzi speaks of Ming (名)--of naming, of defining accurately, and of drawing distinctions, a concept that itself was closely though controversially tied to that of shi (实) of actuality, truth, or essence of the thing names (Guiguzi, Guiguzi: China’s First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Translation and Commentary (Hui Wu (trans) (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2016), p. 156; 60 n. 26. (Xi Jinping's Semiotics of Marxism (名实) and the Coding Languages of Knowledge Platforms: Tian Xinming, "Do a good job in philosophy and social sciences as a fundamental principle: the inheritance and development of Marxism by General Secretary Xi Jinping's important expositions on philosophy and social sciences" [田心铭, 做好哲学社会科学工作的根本遵循——习近平总书记关于哲学社会科学重要论述对马克思主义的继承和发展])
From the impulses at the heart of these ancient sources, it might then be possible to glean two important elements that drive these organizational impulses. The first is to recast the world around the human in terms that are more relevant to the human experience—that is to put the human at the center of the human experience of the world. The second is to assert some sort of dominion of this ordered world which is rendered in and through the act of intelligent naming. To borrow from Noam Chomsky’s development of the possibility of understanding ( ‘What Can We Understand?,’ Noam Chomsky, What Kind of Creatures Are We? (Columbia University Press, 2016), pp. 27 et seq. and to invert Chomsky’s emphasis, human collectives categorize and name to develop the means for identifying and managing those problems which fall within human cognitive capacity, which can then be projected around the mysteries which do not—a cognitive extension of sorts (ibid., 27-28, borrowing from Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotics of “abduction” and that “array of ‘admissible hypotheses’ that are the foundation of human scientific inquiry.” (Ibid., p. 28).
Pix credit here |
All of this is to suggest that the nature and limitations of human cognition—and more importantly its ambition to name and control the objects so named and (well) ordered within human cognitive spaces, plays a substantially perverse role in the constitution and all objects that human either recognize, choose to surround themselves with, or constitute as instruments. But that gets at things backwards. Humans believe they can constitute a thing by naming it (in the sense suggested above). Yet recent events continue to remind those humans (and their ambitious projects) that while such naming may provide some (false) sense of order, and an ordered universe with humans at the center, that ordering is only as good as the willingness of the human collectives to indulge a belief in the “truth” of those naming rituals, and the regulatory ordering structures human spend so much time building for themselves.
Less abstractly, perhaps, the human proclivity for vesting objects around them with function, purpose or a specific relationship to the human—and then to develop baroque and complex regulatory systems around that set of ordering diktats (in law, morals, science, and the like)—misperceives the relationship between the human and their objects. The relationship between the human and their objects is dialectical and inter-subjective rather than hierarchical. Each shapes the other through repeated and mimetic interactions that are affected both by the “meaning” assigned to objects and the use to which they put or which resists containment within the name given. The regulatory structures which are then used to manage their dialectics might be understood as ideologically political—as a dialectics of meaning making through lived experience in relation to and against the idea of that object.
There are all kinds of human objects and activities in which this dialectic can be observed in action. Traditionally the recognition and suppression of markets in (the consumption of) things or experiences has been at the heart of the constitution of human solidarity and collectivity for a long time. But it also apples to objects. Objects transfigured into sacred things—flags, vessels, or other objects—have traditionally occupied a central place in this sort of semiotic phenomenology (where the object, as signified, is transformed by the investment of acts of collective meaning into something else). These conscious transformations of physical objects into concrete manifestations of abstract concepts, or even of the physical manifestation of one thing is a basic element of the constitution of human collectivity through the arrangement of collective consciousness of what things “are”, how they “behave” and especially their “purpose” and “use.” This basic set of ordering premises then permit the unleashing of the collective titans of human social relations—rules, laws, and systems generally of disciplining collective behavior and perceptions—as moral, legal, social, political, and economic system premises, goals, and orienting baselines for assessing and managing inter-human behaviors.
Pix credit here |
Recently, though, these fundamental rules of the operating systems of human relations around objects have appeared more urgently in the context of common household products—even the description of the objects around which the problematique is to be discussed suggests the power of naming in cabining fundamental premises about the “thing”, its “legitimate” or “expected” use and as well the consequences for “mis” use.
Indeed, the condition or meaning of ordinary household products has exploded in recent weeks.
Literally.
The recent episodes of exploding communications devices in Lebanon and surrounding areas, targeting primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) fighters loyal to the group Hezbollah and their support systems, have made unavoidable a confrontation with the dialectics of meaning (and utility). With that confrontation, one is (again) faced with what (for the human collective) is perhaps the disagreeable realization (again) of the inevitability of the semiotic revaluation of the premises of phenomenological stability vested in and through objects and ensured by the human centered identity-regulatory structures built around those premises of (enforced) stability.
Pix credit here |
Pix credit here; Movie John Wick |
And thus the perversity of the human desire to manage through intelligent naming; or rather the dialectical balancing from this lust for control. The greater the desire to control of thing by vesting it with purpose built into the perception of the object, and then surrounding this perception-purpose with rules, the greater the likelihood of human vulnerability. Expectation of purpose makes vulnerable ; the greater the investment in purpose the greater the vulnerability when the elasticity f purpose is revealed or experienced. That certainly was the case with the communications devices in the Middle East; vulnerability was experienced as a physical manifestation when the phenomenology of purpose reveals the arbitrariness of the investment in a fixed purpose. The great strength of that project can as easily be turned to its greatest weakness. Objects have no purpose in themselves; even those made by or through human agency. Perception of a thing is an investment of the human in the thing. The range of human perception of a thing is finite and directed by and manifested as the limits and forms of human perception. But they do not affect the elasticity of “purpose” to which an object may be put, or not put. And yet purpose is necessary to reduce infinite elasticity to something that may be managed for the stability of human social relations—in whatever form appeals to the human collective in each stage of its development. And there the tension.
This is a tension that is made more acute in periods, like this one, of potentially substantial transformation, or revaluation of values in themselves and in the things around and touching on the human—the planet, its environment, and the things that form part of this environment, including the human thing and their artifacts. One might object that the meaning and signification of these transformations (at least theoretically) have been more or less well enough managed as a form of regulatory bathos, a low level legal issue of little consequence because of its reliance on the power of the perception of a thing. This has taken the form of an emerging law on mixed use objects, in sanctions regimes, and increasingly in the context of the revaluation of things within the premise universe of human rights at least as that is understood within their conventional international apparatus). Nonetheless its transformative semiotics cannot be ignored, if only because the distance between the conceptualization of the thing (purpose) and its regulatory structures appears increasing detached from the performance of purpose(es) in the face of law (and as a challenge to its relevance in the experiential realms of human social relations).
That challenge is not confined to the great perception smelters of war. The human body provides another venue for the transformation of objects, especially those made by and in the image of the human. Pharma now also serves as a leading force of phenomenological instability of the perception of a “reality” of objects (or at least in activating its dialectical dynamics). Ozempic is merely an easily recognizable example, one that is most potently read on the bodies of those who have sought personal physical transformation through the repurposing of a drug to better align the abstract sense of self with what stares at them from a mirror.
Pix credit here |
On 28 August 2024 a joint meeting of the International Committee of the ABA Senior Lawyers Division (SLD) and the National Security Committee of the American Bar Association International Law Section (ILS) organized a session entitled "AI Ethics in Practice – A Compass for Legal Innovation."
In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, ethics serves as a guiding light, ensuring responsible innovation and safeguarding our legal systems. This webinar delves into the ethical dimensions of Generative AI (GAI), providing legal professionals with essential guidance to navigate ethical challenges and apply existing rules to emerging technologies.
As GAI becomes integral to daily life and legal proceedings, understanding its implications is crucial. This session offers insights into AI-generated evidence, emerging legal claims, and prepares legal professionals for the challenges ahead.
Explore the GRACED framework—Great Governance, Responsible Risk and Strategy, Authentic Augmentation, Co-Creation, Ethically Effective approaches, and Data-Driven decisions. Learn how to ensure transparency, accountability, and ethical integrity in AI development and deployment, manage AI risks, prioritize human rights and fairness, and build inclusive AI systems. We will also address ethical considerations for predictive analytics and optical surveillance, examining their impact on legal decision-making and the broader justice system. (HERE).
Featured Speakers:
Adriana Sanford: A global threats specialist, professor, and international TV commentator, recently recognized among the top Cybersecurity Woman of the World Edition for 2024. She holds advanced law degrees from Georgetown University Law Center and Notre Dame Law School and is a member of the steering group of the National Security Committee of the ABA International Law Section. Sanford is also the recipient of the 2019 Cybersecurity Woman of the Year - Cybersecurity Woman Law & Privacy Professional of the Year Award.
Karen Worstell, MA, MS: With nearly four decades of experience in cybersecurity, Karen Worstell is renowned as a serial CISO for iconic brands and a Silicon Valley technology leader. She has held leadership roles as CISO at global institutions such as AT&T Wireless, Microsoft, and Russell Investments. Worstell pioneered cybersecurity initiatives at Boeing, has advised on national security for NIST and the U.S. Department of Commerce, and has served as a Palliative Care Fellow for the VA hospital.
Moderator:
Jonathan Meyer: Co-Chair of the National Security Committee at the American Bar Association's International Law Section, Vice Chair of the ABA Committee on Export Controls and Economic Sanctions, and Co-Chair of the International Committee of the ABA’s Senior Lawyers Division.