Valerie Frissen, Jos de Mul, and Joost Raessens. Homo ludens 2.0: Play, Media and Identity, in Judith Thissen, Robert Zwijnenberg and Kitty Zijlmans (eds.), Contemporary Culture. New Directions in Art and Humanities Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013, 75-92.
 

Foreplay

Immense est le domaine du jeu.  (Emile Benveniste)

A spectre is haunting the world - the spectre of playfulness. We are witnessing a global “ludification of culture”. Since the 1960s, in which the word “ludic” became popular in Europe and the United States to designate playful behaviour and artefacts, playfulness has increasingly become a mainstream characteristic of our culture. Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind in this context is the immense popularity of computer games, which, as far as global sales are con­cerned, have already outstripped Hollywood. According to a recent study in the United States, 8 to 18 year olds play computer games on average for one hour and a half each day on their consoles, computers and handheld gaming devices (including mobile phones).¹ This is by no means only a Western phenomenon. In South Korea, for example, about two-thirds of the country’s total population frequently plays online games, turning computer gaming into one of the fastest- growing industries and “a key driver for the Korean economy”.²Although perhaps most visible, computer game culture is only one manifesta­tion of the process of ludification that is penetrating every cultural domain.³ In our present experience economy, for example, playfulness not only characterizes leisure time (fun shopping, game shows on television, amusement parks, playful computer and Internet use), but also domains that used to be serious, such as work (which should chiefly be fun nowadays), education (serious gaming), poli­tics (ludic campaigning) and even warfare (video games like war simulators and interfaces). According to Jeremy Rifkin, “play is becoming as important in the cultural economy as work was in the industrial economy”.⁴ In ludic culture, sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, playfulness is no longer restricted to child­hood, but has become a lifelong attitude: “The mark of postmodern adulthood is the willingness to embrace the game whole-heartedly.”⁵ Bauman’s remark sug­gests that in postmodern culture identity has become a playful phenomenon too.In this article we want to re-visit Johan Huizinga’s Homo ludens (1938) to reflect on the meaning of ludic technologies in contemporary culture. First we will analyze the concept of “play”. Next, we will discuss some problematic aspects of Huizinga’s theory, which are connected with the fundamental ambigu­ities that characterize play phenomena, and reformulate some of the basic ideas of Huizinga. On the basis of this reformulation we will analyze the ludic dimen­sion of new media and sketch an outline of our theory of ludic identity construc­tion.

 约斯·德·穆尔 著，吕和应译：《有限性的悲剧：狄尔泰的生命释义学》，上海：上海三联书店出版社2013年版

作者: 约斯·德·穆尔　[荷] Jos de Mul 
出版社: 上海三联书店
副标题: 狄尔泰的生命释义学
原作名: The Tragedy of Finitude. Dilthey's Hermeneutics of Life. Yale University Press, 2004/2010.

One of the founders of modern hermeneutics, German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) confronted the question of how modern, postmetaphysical human beings can cope with the ambivalence, contingency, and finitude that fundamentally characterize their lives. This book offers a reevaluation and fresh analysis of Dilthey’s hermeneutics of life against the background of the development of philosophy during the past two centuries.

 Amazon.com review of reader

Jos de Mul and Renée van de Vall (eds.). Gimme Shelter. Global Discourses in Aesthetics. International Yearbook of Aesthetics. Vol. 15. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Gimme Shelter. Global discourses in aesthetics contains a series of reflections on the impact of globalization on the arts and the aesthetic reflection on the arts. The authors – fifteen distinguished  aestheticians from all over the world -   discuss a variety of aesthetic questions brought forth by the aforementioned process of globalization. How do artistic practices and aesthetic experiences change in response to these developments? How should we articulate these changes on the theoretical level? When reflections on the significance of art and aesthetic experiences can no longer pretend to be universal, is it still possible to lay claim to  a wider validity than merely that of one’s own particular culture? What type of vocabulary allows for mutual – dialogical or even polylogical – exchanges and understandings when different traditions meet, without obliterating local differences? Is there a possibility for a creative re-description of globalization? And is there a meaning of ‘the global’ that cannot be reduced to universalism and unification? Can we seek shelter in a legitimate way?

Free download of the entire book (Open Access edition)

Jos de Mul. The biotechnological sublime. From nature to technology and back. Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. The Institute Letter. Spring 2013, 17.

Many things are awesome, but none more awesome than man.

Sophocles

Every once in a while we experience something extraordinary. Such ‘awesome’ experiences might happen in our research, when we unexpectedly discover something really amazing, or when we come across a magnificent landscape, hear a piece of music that really moves us, or when we fall deeply in love. Traditionally these kinds of extraordinary experiences are called “sublime”. In the following I will present some reflections on one particular kind of sublimity: the technological sublime.

Jos de Mul. Destiny Domesticated, or Five Not-So-Easy Ways to Tame Fate, in Frank van der Stok (ed.). Daan Paans: Letters of Utopia. Breda: The Eriskay Connection, 2013, 145-157.

Fate. Sooner or later it knocks at everyone’s door. In many different ways. It can enter our lives gradually in the guise of an incurable disease or spring on us suddenly in the guise of an unexpected oncoming car in our lane. It can befall us from the outside like a devastating tsunami, or loom up from within like an all-consuming jealousy. Fate can happen unintentionally, or be done to us – or another person – on purpose. It comes in the horrible guise of war and the intoxicating appeal of an addiction. It is painful when it happens to us, and often even more painful when it befalls someone we love. Without wanting it our frail happiness is continuously interrupted by fatal events. And even when we are lucky enough to avoid grand catastrophes in our lives, in the end we inevitably lose our loved ones and we, ourselves die. While fate inescapably befalls us we find it hard to bear that thought. It is a burden that we cannot carry, but that we also cannot shed.

Bruno Accarino, Jos de Mul and Hans-Peter Krüger (eds.). Internationales Jahrbuch für Philosophische Anthropologie. Band 3 / International Yearbook for Philosophical Anthropology. Volume 3. R. Becker, J. Fischer & M. Schloßberger (eds). Dezentrierungen. Zur Konfrontation von Philosophischer Anthropologie, Strukturalismus und Poststrukturalismus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2012, 364 p.

Die Philosophische Anthropologie ist in der Forschung bislang vor allem zum Existenzialismus und zur Kritischen Theorie in Beziehung gesetzt worden. Das erstaunt wenig, wenn man die Wirkungsmacht dieser beiden Pradigmen bedenkt.

Ertragreicher ist jedoch der bisher vernachlässigte Vergleich mit Strukturalismus und Poststrukturalismus, da hier der Anteil an gemeinsamen Problemen und Fragestellungen größer ist, was jede Diskussion von vornherein interessanter macht: Berührt sich die Philosophische Anthtropologie mit dem Strukturalismus nicht insofern in einer Abkehr vom Historismus, als beide Traditionen nach der Rolle durchlaufender Strukturen fragen, die den Zugang zu den Phänomenen regulieren? Und trifft sie sich nicht zugleich mit der vom Poststrukturalismus artikulierten Kritik an der Verabsolutierung dieser Regelsysteme, wenn sie auf der Geschichtlichkeit und Lebendigkeit der Praktiken besteht, in denen die Subjekte ihre Identität erst ausbilden, aber auch aufs Spiel setzen? Die Beiträge des Bandes zeichnen das Streitgespäch zwischen den drei Strömungen nach und diskutieren deren Gemeinsamkeiten.

Jos de Mul, eLife. From biology to technology and back again, in P. Bruno and S.Campbell (Eds.), The Science, Politics and Ontology of Life-Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury, 2013, 93-107.

One of the most striking developments in the history of the sciences over the past fifty years has been the gradual moving towards each other of biology and computer science and their increasing tendency to overlap. Two things may be held responsible for that. The first is the tempestuous development of molecular biology which followed the first adequate description, in 1953, of the structure of the double helix of the DNA, the carrier of hereditary information. Biologists therefore became increasingly interested in computer science, the science which focuses, among other things, on the question what information really is and how it is encoded and transferred. No less important was that it would have been impossible to sequence and decipher the human genome without the use of ever stronger computers. This resulted in a fundamental digitalization of biology. This phenomenon is particularly visible in molecular biology, where DNA-research increasingly moves from the analogical world of biology to the digital world of the computer.[1]

In their turn, computer scientists have become increasingly interested in biology. One of the highly promising branches of computer science which has developed since the 1950s was the research into artificial intelligence and artificial life. Although the expectations were high – it was predicted that within some decades computers and robots would exist whose intelligence would exceed by far that of man – success remained limited to some specific areas, in spite of the spectacular development of information technologies in the past decades. It is true that, more than fifty years later, we have computers which can defeat the chess world champion, but in many areas toddlers and beetles still perform better than the most advanced computers. Top down programming of artificial intelligence and artificial life turned out to be much less simple than expected. This not only resulted in the fact that computer scientists started to study in depth the fundamental biological question what life basically is, but it also inspired them to use a bottom up approach, which consists of having computers and robots develop ‘themselves’ in accordance with biological principles.

Jos de Mul. Database delirium. Lessen in culturele verwarring. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2013.

Abraham Maslow heeft ooit opgemerkt dat voor iemand die alleen een hamer heeft, alles eruitziet als een spijker. In een cultuur waarin de computer het belangrijkste instrument is, wordt de gehele wereld getransformeerd tot een database, waarvan de elementen naar believen en zonder einde kunnen worden gerecombineerd.

In Database delirium fileert Jos de Mul met een scherp mes en de nodigde humor de gevolgen van de alomtegenwoordige cut & paste-cultuur. Hij maakt de samenhang duidelijk van op het eerste gezicht los van elkaar staande verschijnselen zoals de multiculturele samenleving, genetische manipulatie, fortuynisme, de teloorgang van het historisch besef, schaatsende moslima’s, extreme makeovers, ludieke oorlogsvoering, hiphopsampling, postmodern fundamentalisme, Wittgenstein 2.0, bijeengesurfte scripties, de fusionkeuken, zencomputers en de Matrix-trilogie.

Heen en weer zappend tussen wereldwijsheid _ van Plato tot Pirsig en van zen tot Žižek _ baant de auteur zich een lichtend pad door de posthistorische sensaties en verwarring waarin Nederland gevangenzit en toont hij tegelijk de zinvolheid van die verwarring. Voorwaarts en vergeten! Zolang er virussen zijn, is er hoop!