Interference Conference - Amsterdam

Interference, n:

1. preventing (a process or activity) from continuing or being
carried out properly.
2. the combination of two or more electromagnetic waveforms to form
a resultant wave in which the displacement is either reinforced or
cancelled.

Interference is a gathering of people, perspectives, theories, and
actions that share a critical approach to society and technology. It
will take place at the Binnenpret in Amsterdam, NL from 15th to the 17th
of August 2014. It will be a space where we can meet, debate, share,
learn, and find our affinities and oppositions. The event comes as a
response to the lack of a common ground for confrontation and discussion
over themes like hacking, technology, art and politics that could break
out of the existing containers and roles for such concepts and practices.

Interference is not a hacker conference. From a threat to the so-called
national security, hacking has become an instrument for reinforcing the
status quo. Fed up with yet another recuperation, the aim is to
re/contextualize hacking as a conflictual praxis and release it from its
technofetishist boundaries. Bypassing the cultural filters, Interference
wants to take the technical expertise of the hacking scene out of its
isolation to place it within the broader perspective of the societal
structures it shapes and is part of.

Interference tries not to define itself. Interference challenges
hacker's identity, the internal dynamics of hackerculture and its
ethical values. It undermines given identities and rejects given
definitions. Interference is a hacking event from an anarchist
perspective: it doesn't seek for uniformity on the level of skills or
interests, but rather focuses on a shared basis of intuitive resistance
and critical attitude towards the techno-social apparatus.

Interference is three days of exploring modes of combining theory and
practice, breaking and (re)inventing systems and networks, and playing
with the art and politics of everyday life. Topics may or may not
include philosophy of technology, spectacle, communication guerrilla,
temporary autonomous zones, cybernetics, bureaucratic exploits, the
illusions of liberating technologies, speculative software, the creative
capitalism joke, the maker society and its enemies, hidden- & self-
censorship, and the refusal of the binarity of gender, life, and logic.

Interference welcomes discordians, intervention artists, artificial
lifeforms, digital alchemists, oppressed droids, luddite hackers and
critical engineers to diverge from the existent, dance with
fire-spitting robots, hack the urban environment, break locks, perform
ternary voodoo, decentralise and disconnect networks, explore the
potential of noise, build botnets, and party all night.

The event is intended to be as self-organised as possible which means
you are invited to contribute on your own initiative with your skills
and interests. Bring your talk, workshop, debate, performance, opinion,
installation, project, critique, the things you're interested in, the
things you want to discuss. Especially those not listed above.

Please let us know how you would like to interefere by sending a (brief)
abstract of your proposal before June 15 to interference [at] puscii.nl.

Updates and more information can be found on http://interference.io

Event date: 
Friday, August 15, 2014 - 00 to Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 17

Comments

when people come together in a ‘learning circle’, the understanding they can come out with is not what results from an interferential compromising of the participant offerings, it is ‘bigger than any one of the offerings or any combination of the offerings’. a relational nexus is bigger than the sum of the parts. Wheeler refers to this in quantum physics as ‘the surprise version of the game of twenty-questions’. there is a psychological difference in opening up to the emergence of an understanding that transcends the standard approach of selecting the best offering or trying out various ways of ‘combining the multiple offerings’.

as einstein says, in describing this relations-first, things-second view [non-euclidian relational space view];

“First of all, an observation of epistemological nature. A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To "visualize" a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement.” --einstein

this seems worth mentioning because our Western default is to come together and ‘debate’ ideas and to try to come up with a winning offering by forming crony political groups that back some compromise offering so that in the interference of multiple views, one view, a compromise or hybrid, perhaps, ... can be formulated that will rise above the rest. this is the Darwinian theory of evolution of ideas, as contrasted with the Lamarckian theory of evolution of ideas.

in the Lamarckian evolution, the outside-inward orchestrating influence is the leader in the dance and the component ideas are the followers. it is not a positivist construction by way of survival of the fittest competition as in darwinian evolution.

for example, as howard zinn observes in ‘A People’s History of the United States’, a forum drawn from both colonizers (executioners) and indigenous (victims) would get nowhere DEBATING their opposing theory. in other words, the interference of positive and negative [polarized opposite views] is zero.

however, the idea of ‘interference’ seen as two or more THINGS coming together is not the only view; i.e. if one sees the dynamics in terms of an energy-charged plenum, then the ‘opposites’ are conjugate aspects of the one thing [a dynamic unum], the relationally transforming plenum. the colonizer is going to see his actions as ‘constructive’ and the indigenous are going to see the colonizers actions as ‘destructive’. after all, you can’t build a city without destroying forest and meadow.

one doesn't have to see waves as 'things' [a plurality of 'waveforms']. in wave dynamics seen as dynamics within an energy-charged plenum, the opposites are ‘accommodating trough’ [e.g. low pressure trough] and ‘asserting crest’ [high pressure crest] as in ocean body waves and as in atmospheric flow; i.e. the opposites are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of ‘transformation’ [a transforming relational spatial plenum].

so long as one looks at ‘colonizer’ and ‘indigenous’ as ‘two things’ [unrealistic in a world that is a dynamic unum] that are ‘interfering’, one is going to predict that the interference of opposites gives zero; i.e. the opposing plurality of wave-things or 'waves-as-things' are mutually annihilating. however, if one starts from the relational spatial plenum in which they are both included, then the ‘subject’ shifts to the plenum, .. and what is happening to the plenum is that it is ‘transforming’. turtle island which now includes settlers and indigenous is transforming.

of course, there is a question as to whether we should ground our view of what is going on in terms of the transforming space, ... or start our investigation from the point of the view of the inhabitants of the common habitat. if we start from a plurality of mutually opposing inhabitants [organisms, ideas, organizations], one possible result is mutual annihilation. but if we ground such investigation in the common habitat which includes the plurality of inhabitants, then all we can have is transformation. the biosphere may flourish if human factions keep annihilating one another.

which should take precedence as ‘subject’ for ‘interference’? the common space which engendered both of these mutually polarized, interfering entities? or, the entities themselves? in the former case, ‘interference’ delivers only mutual annihilation, in the latter case, the confluence of crest and trough, high-pressure asserting/transmitter and low-pressure accommodating/receptacle is ‘transformation’ of the plenum that includes both of the opposing agents.

if we assume absolute space which means ‘independent things’ or ‘plurality’ then the interference of polar opposites delivers evolution by mutual annihilation or ‘mutual exclusion’ [Darwinian], but if we assume a relational spatial unum/plenum inhabited by opposites, then the confluence of opposites delivers evolution by transformation or ‘mutual inclusion’ [Lamarckian]. the members of a community could come to the council meeting/forum with the aim of cultivating balance and harmony in the relational space of community, or they could come with the aim of promoting the adoption of some kind 'what we should do' program that they conceive will deliver some desired future state.

this difference in interpretation of ‘interference’ of a multiplicity of views shows up if one walks into a typical Western ‘debating forum’ or into an indigenous ‘learning circle’. in the former, the interference is a ‘survival of the fittest’ competition, and in the latter, a 'surprise version of the game of twenty questions' where, as in einstein’s comment on relational space, one searches for the theory that is going to bring the diverse multiplicity of views [observations and experiences] into the most coherent connective confluence. this is NOT a game of political alliances to end up with one faction that pushes their compromise yang agenda through in a survival of the fittest competition.

when people go into a meeting, they could have either of these views of ‘interference’ in mind. what results will be profoundly affected by which definition of 'interference' they are holding on to; 'things-first, relations secondary' or 'relations first, things secondary'.

I'm so torn between making fun of this call-out to "magical circus droids" and "nostalgic cyberpunx", and the people who see "nerds" as "cisbro gentrifier scum" and "the ultimate enemy" etc

just look at this bunch of cybersquat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qWEsJmRnnE

something tells me if you had anything to say your post wouldn't simply be invective and a link

most hackers are technology freaks and not political philosophy freaks. government can always buy them with money.
even if they are anarchist collective offering web-hosting, secret service can corrupt one of them and control 2000 websites, so, they can become honeypot if there is one rotten apple in collective. trust only to yourself.
by the way, text is full of academic/NGO talking, you must concentrate to follow it. some people don't have contact with low educated people and they are excluded from society. NGO people are in NGO sector (with high salaries) and they are separated from society. They will never make revolution, they enjoy in capitalism.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
!
n
f
H
K
G
M
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Interference Conference - Amsterdam"