:: Re: [Bricolabs] Technoshamanism in …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: fabi borges
To: Bricolabs
Subject: Re: [Bricolabs] Technoshamanism in the South-South dialog
coordinator? noooo carsten.....jejejejje

articulator.... or something more.... in articulation...

Maybe I give this impression, but it is my father's guilt!!!


2017-02-14 12:21 GMT-02:00 Carsten Agger <agger@???>:

> An interview with Fabiane M. Borges, coordinator of the technoshamanism
> network.
> http://www.goethe.de/ins/br/lp/prj/eps/nsu/en16159670.htm
> * From your point of view, what are the main questions and problems of the
> Global South? *
> The usuals: impoverishment of the lower classes, media coverage brokered
> by market interests, industry exploitation, mass insecurity, depletion of
> natural resources in order to sustain developed countries, elites
> uncommitted to the interests of their own people who collaborate
> assiduously to maintain misery for their own interests, government
> corruption, monocultures destroying forests, simplistic development
> projects imported by rich countries with no attention to regional
> particularities, the lack of investment in local brainpower, etc.
> * What are the gaps in the South-South dialog? ?*
> When I arrived in Africa or in India, in the Middle East or traveled to
> countries in Latin America, I had the same impression: that I knew hardly
> anything about these places. There is a machine that produces information,
> which is transmitted by a, well, biased, fetishist media, and which does
> not deal with the issues from an informed perspective, but instead with
> opportune metaphors and ethnic discrimination; that constantly shows either
> traditional exoticism or the chaos of violence, terrorism or proverty. They
> try to hide ways of life, relationships, negotiations, ways of surviving or
> community relationships, promoting through this massive ignorance
> convenient ground for the most diverse “interventions” with the support of
> the mediotized.
> I signal the media as one of the biggest problems in relation to dialog in
> the Globlal South, since they mediate “truth” and homogenize problems,
> forging images and giving them importance according to their pacts with
> market interests or war. Barring a few exceptions of media outlets that are
> more committed to criticism and the depth of the field – but even in those
> cases, in most, terribly vertical. At the beginning of the 21st century,
> the Internet was the great generational promise for more horizontal
> communication platforms, where through open channels, networks, emails,
> sites, blogs it was possible to access in a less mediated way local
> realities and with this you will have more access to the general occurences
> around the Global South. This type of access is more active, since it
> allows for manifestation, criticism, increased knowledge, more equal
> exchange among those interested. The Internet worked to broaden the
> terrestrial spectrum and still works and has brought us more clarity about
> the ways of life in “Third World” countries, since the ways of life in
> “developed” countries like the fateful *American way of life*, have been
> internalized in us ad naseum.
> This promise, however, is at risk. All the horizontality technologically
> possible amounts to sites, bits of land, sources in dispute. A strange
> landscape drawn (programmed) by libertarians and mercenaries, the first
> being under the power’s watch, people driven to suicide, dead, hidden in
> fear, exiled; and the second create design, engineer projects, set trends,
> according to market interests and maintaining their own power. The rest are
> the users who still exercise their minor freedom while providing figures
> for big data, whether these figures are revolutionary or reactionary. What
> is interesting to note here is that communication remains mediated by
> market interests, but it is STILL possible, through the Internet, to create
> niche transcontinental relationships and, yes, niche relationships among
> the Global South. This is, at the very least, a process of disalienation
> and self-recognition that should be broadly strengthened by the involved
> States.
> It is important, nonetheless, that these networks not be promoted only by
> States, or large corporations, or university conferences fashioned like
> those imported from Europe or North America, but rather that these
> relationships be promoted on a large scale, strengthening projects,
> meetings, massive exchange between these countries of the Global South.
> What would be surprising and liberating, in these encounters where new
> paradigms emerge over and above the timeworn idea of progress and
> development, would be that more real questions be debated, questions that
> are more linked to the demands of our planet and its inhabitants
> (eco-demands).
> * How do the episodes "At the Table" and "Technoshamanism", in which you
> participated, relate to these gaps and problems? *
> I think that the important aspect of that table was to clarify a few
> questions related to technoshamanism. For example: it is not an
> anthropologists’ network, despite having some very interesting ones around.
> Nor is it a network of indigenism, despite its obvious indigenism and its
> many programs with indigenous goups’ participation and references to those
> groups. It is not an artists’ network, in spite of many artists being
> involved with it. It is not a network of permaculturists, in spite of its
> many permaculture and agroforestry projects. It is not an electronic music
> network, in spite of having much of this in it. It is not a technology
> network, despite having many technologists and this being a central theme.
> It is a network of people interested in thinking and producing technology
> and ancestral knowledge, targeted at free, autonomous, collective,
> collaborative, open source technologies. And ancestry is addressed not only
> through traditional knowledge, but also through imagined knowledge,
> subjective statements, expressions of body knowledge, of art, performance,
> music, of rituals and free cosmogonies as well as for the future, or
> rather, through the utopias that will be generated by this coupling, and
> projects for the future (which is also the past), ancestral futurism
> <https://tecnoxamanismo.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ancestrofuturismo-cosmogonialivre-rituaisfac3a7avocc3aamesmo.pdf>.
> Thinking about the modes of technological production, technological
> autonomy or the ideologies that pick up technology and argue over its
> ramifications is the work of this network. And at the same time, the work
> is about broadening the concept of ancestry beyond the human and linear
> temporality. So it is not an attempt to include people without technology
> in the use of technology; nor is it to spiritualize technocrats, but rather
> to promote negotiation between the fundamentals of technology and ancestry
> that promotes a more engaged science in a thinking that is more varied and
> vice versa, a thinking that is more engaged in a more varied science.
> Perhaps in order to better understand one has to grasp the notion that we
> do not agree with the ideology that runs through the technological
> production of progress and development through market competition, because
> this competition relies upon halting the flow of goods, planning
> obsolescence and the promotion of irresponsible consumerism. Not to
> mention, the technology project currently flourishing is exactly one of
> extreme control and hyper-surveillance. We are in the hands of a perverse
> God, of great magnitude, who is enslaving us all and guaranteeing supreme
> life only for his chosen ones.
> Bringing Shamanism into the technology discussion is important because it
> conflicts with the monotheist imaginary of the superpower, permeating it
> with spectral masses, souls, populations. Technology here is placed in the
> service of something other than power and control: that is to say, in the
> service of insurgent demands, local needs, scientific inquiry,
> collaborative projects. Technoshamanism is, thus, a collaborative utopia.
> As a network of utopian collaboration (but also dystopian and entropic),
> these concepts and these practices are beginning to gain momentum through
> the encounters it promotes. It only functions in network, it is not a
> government project and it cannot be spread on a global scale, nor will it
> be bigger than itself, it is only boundless for as long as it lasts. But it
> is international and it is coping with associated networks, promoting
> debates, gathering knowledge that can be put to use by groups or small
> communities, transferring experiences from one side to the other, promoting
> free rituals, activating the imagination and the field of subconscious
> relationships. It is a social clinic for the future, exactly because it
> deals with this ancestry (subjective, clinical subconscious fields), with
> these societies (community networks, indigenous communities, Internet
> groups, international communities) and with these futures (imaginary
> dispute about the future, Antropoceno, de-antropocenizing practices).
> Subjectivity – Society – Future. What other humans could we be?
> We don’t know for certain how much repercussion technoshamanism has in the
> countries of the South. We do know that in Latin America it has a great
> deal of connection, with very engaged people from countries such as Ecuador
> and Colombia. But I think it can be a great proposal to start to think in
> this confluence between the Global South and technoshamanism’s
> ancestralfuturism. There will be no technological or future transformation
> without the paradigmatic change of subjects and their ways of wanting.
> *Fabiane Borges* has a PhD in clinical psychology. Her research focuses
> on Space-art, art and technology, shamanism, performance and subjectivity.
> _______________________________________________
> Brico mailing list
> Website on http://www.bricolabs.net
> Unsubscribe: https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/brico