Group items tagged

Due to the relational nature of a networkological approach, reified terms such as matter, energy, mind, knowledge, and consciousness are ultimately seen as derivative products of larger contexts and processes.

The Networkological perspective is therefore also a method and a critique. Any reified entity or distinction will necessarily be broken down by a networkological critique, and re-related to the wider contexts within which it exists and from which it has emerged.

The Networkological approach, as a philosophy of relation, is also necessarily a philosophy of process, for relation is both spatial and temporal.

The Networkological approach is fundamentally a philosophy of relation. It does not deny the existence of isolated elements, so long as these are seen as ultimately related to the contexts and processes of their production.

The network is increasingly one of the fundamental metaphors whereby we have described the character of our age. Despite this, there has yet to be a philosophy of networks. A Networkological approach aims to address this fact.

Our age is one in which relation is increasing, reified entities are being reworked, and previously existent relations are becoming ever more evident.

Based on what is stated above, we can formulate the basic principle of a networked ethics: Let all your networks operate at maximum robustness.

There are definite precursors, and in some cases, fellow travellers, to the Networkological approach. Some key predecessors include the following: Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Henri Bergson, Baruch Spinoza, G.W. Leibniz, Alfred North Whitehead, Gilbert Simondon, F.W.J. Schelling, John Dewey, The Stoics, Karl Marx, Jacques Lacan, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, G.W.F. Hegel, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek, Yuri Lotman, Ernesto Laclau, R.W.D. Fairbairn, Guy Debord, Bernard Cache, Bruno Latour, Manuel Delanda, Brian Rotman, Graham Harman, Jonathan Beller, and the Complexity Theorists associated with the Santa Fe Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico.