Book ReviewQuantum Closures and DisclosuresBy Gordon G. Globus (2003)

Quantum Closures and Disclosures: Thinking-Together Postphenomenology and Quantum Brain Dynamics (Volume 50 in the series Advances in Consciousness Research).,br> Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Soft Cover (200 pages). €68.00 (ISBN: 978 9 02725 180 0), $81.95 (ISBN: 978 1 58811 371 9)Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 6, Edition 2 August 200

Company Participation in Open Source Software Communities: Measuring Sustainability

A framework for analysing the sustainability of a community in four dimensions – social, cultural, legal and economical – is presented. The framework is further differentiated by taking into account the different types of open source software communities, particularly with regard to their work ethics: voluntary or salary-based. In conclusion, the framework is tentatively applied to two communities, Debian and Eclipse

Ethics, Nafthism, and the Fossil Subject

Several socio-economic and technological conditions shaped the faces of modernity, but without massive energy surplus modernity as we know it would not be possible at all. Fossil fuels are not created by humans. Consequently, part of the credit for modernity that is assigned to the other (human) conditions, belongs to (non-human) fossil fuels. The misplaced assignment of credit also points to modernity’s characteristic blindness to its material conditions. By and large, modernity has been described as a human victory over nature. This is supremely ironic, as the supposed human independence relies on a particular natural phenomenon. Unfortunately, this forgetfulness extends into ethics. Typical modern views on ethics rely on a subject with an autonomous capacity to act and deliberate. There is a structural parallel between the way in which the modern subject detaches itself from its material and social surroundings and the way in which a fossil fuel economy detaches production from consumption, products from waste, actions from consequences. If ethics is blind to the way in which the detachment is dependent on a particular energy regime, it is unlikely to result in a robust de-fossilization. In this article, we argue that the notions of modernity and (modern) subjectivication are made possible by non-human energy, namely fossil fuels. Thus, energy ethics for the postfossil era will be ultimately based on a-subjective and non-modern premises

From the Archimedean point to circles in the sand—Post-sustainable curriculum and the critical subject

Critical thinking (CT) is frequently mentioned as a key competence in sustainability curricula. In this context our era is often diagnosed as being ‘post-truth’, indicating an epistemic concern. However, emerging ‘post-sustainable’ views in education indicate that environmental crises are posing increasingly existential concerns, which might partly explain why simple consciousness-raising sometimes faces denial or fails to promote sustainable action. To overcome this challenge, we undertake a philosophical critique of modern (individual, rational, autonomous) subjectivity assumed in CT and much of curricular thinking. We follow the ‘ontological turn’ where criticality means self-reflective questioning of one’s own being-in-the-world. One acute question concerns energy, especially fossil fuels, which constitute much of the autonomous experience of modern, critical subjectivity, while simultaneously endangering the future horizon of that same subjectivity. Climate strikes at schools and the yellow vest movements indicate, in their own ways, how ecologically problematic fossil fuels are bending modern rationality into unpredicted directions. Metaphoric Archimedes and his ‘circles in the sand’ demonstrate the vulnerability of critical thought facing post-sustainability. This vulnerability should be addressed in curriculum theory, since it is interdependent persons—rather than independent subjects—who are open to sustainable transformation and action.Peer reviewe

Tuleva yliopisto

"Emme kirjoita vain tulevien yliopistojen puolesta, vaan toteamme, että uudet yliopistot ovat jo täällä. Tieto ei ole jossakin tuolla tavoittamattomissa, yliopisto ei ole pelkkä ihanne, jota lähestytään. Jokainen meistä on jo kokonainen ihminen, tietoineen ja taitoineen, ongelmineen ja pulmineen. Jokaisella meistä on ajatuksia, teorioita. Jokainen miestä on jo osa sukua, kylää, kaupunkia, kieltä, kulttuuria. Yliopisto ei ole siellä, missä Suomen laki ja asetus sanovat sen olevan ("viralliset yliopistot"), vaan siellä, missä jo tasa-arvoiset ja jo oppivat ihmiset yhdessä toistensa avulla ymmärtävät, tutkivat ja oppivat. Yliopistovallankumous on jo tapahtunut, uusia yliopistoja putkahtelee kuin sieniä sateella. Tulevien yliopistojen aika on tullut: ei vielä on nyt." - Salminen, Suoranta & Vadén, Tuleva yliopist