. community —

Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our civilization"

Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our civilization":
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-342-1820/life_society/mcluhan/clip6

ja
http://vispo.com

Comments

Regina Pinto March 16 2006 03:37Reply

Hi Jim,

An interesting essay:

From Internet to Gutenberg
http://www.hf.ntnu.no/anv/Finnbo/tekster/Eco/Internet.htm / in English,
A lecture presented by Umberto Eco at The Italian Academy for Advanced
Studies in America (November 12, 1996)
http://www.inf.ufsc.br/~jbosco/InternetPort.html (in Portuguese)

………….

"Let me conclude with a praise of the finite and limited world that books
provide us. Suppose you are reading Tolstoj's War and Peace: you are
desperately wishing that Natasha will not accept the courtship of that
miserable scoundrel who is Anatolij; you desperately wish that that
marvellous person who is prince Andrej will not die, and that he and Natasha
could live together happy forever. If you had War and Peace in a
hypertextual and interactive CD-rom you could rewrite
your own story, according to your desires, you could invent innumerable War
and Peaces, where Pierre Besuchov
succeeds in killing Napoleon or, according to your penchants, Napoleon
definitely defeats General Kutusov.

Alas, with a book you cannot. You are obliged to accept the laws of Fate,
and to realise that you cannot change Destiny. A hypertextual and
interactive novel allows us to practice freedom and creativity, and I hope
that such a kind of inventive activity will be practised in the schools of
the future. But the written War and Peace does not confront us with the
unlimited possibilities of Freedom, but with the severe law of Necessity. In
order to be free persons we also need to learn this lesson about Life and
Death, and only books can still provide us with such a wisdom. "

Bye,

Regina

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:15 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our
civilization"


> Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our civilization":
> http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-342-1820/life_society/mcluhan/clip6
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Jim Andrews March 16 2006 17:38Reply

> But the written War and Peace does not confront us with the
> unlimited possibilities of Freedom, but with the severe law of
> Necessity. In
> order to be free persons we also need to learn this lesson about Life and
> Death, and only books can still provide us with such a wisdom. "

Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves…

ja

Regina Pinto March 16 2006 19:49Reply

"Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves…"

Huuum, I am not going to give you a literature example, I tryed to remind of
any digital work about this subject but I could not, could you?Watch the
excellent Woody Allen's movie "Match Point" and after this tell me if your
feelings about fate continue the same. ;-)
Eco's text is wonderful and very clear and well written, although, it seems
to me that you do not agree with it. To agree is not an obligation but I
believe that it is good to confront his ideas with McLuhan ideas, do not you
think so?

Regina

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our
civilization"


>> But the written War and Peace does not confront us with the
>> unlimited possibilities of Freedom, but with the severe law of
>> Necessity. In
>> order to be free persons we also need to learn this lesson about Life and
>> Death, and only books can still provide us with such a wisdom. "
>
> Men at some time are masters of their fates:
> The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
> But in ourselves…
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Jim Andrews March 16 2006 21:23Reply

> To agree is not an obligation but I
> believe that it is good to confront his ideas with McLuhan ideas,
> do not you
> think so?
>
> Regina

What idea of McLuhan's are you thinking of?

ja

Regina Pinto March 17 2006 02:02Reply

" What idea of McLuhan's are you thinking of?"

This one, which I cut from the text you sent yesterday morning.

" Immediately, Marshall McLuhan's philosophies are brought into the
discussion. They speak of McLuhan's theory that literature is finished. "

Literature is not finished because of television or new medias and, the best
way to read Literature up to now, are yet common books. Have you read the
complete Eco's text and not only the two paragraphs of my yesterday morning
email?

Regina

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 1:23 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our
civilization"


>> To agree is not an obligation but I
>> believe that it is good to confront his ideas with McLuhan ideas,
>> do not you
>> think so?
>>
>> Regina
>
> What idea of McLuhan's are you thinking of?
>
> ja
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Jim Andrews March 17 2006 03:22Reply

> " What idea of McLuhan's are you thinking of?"
>
> This one, which I cut from the text you sent yesterday morning.
>
> " Immediately, Marshall McLuhan's philosophies are brought into the
> discussion. They speak of McLuhan's theory that literature is finished. "
>
> Literature is not finished because of television or new medias
> and, the best
> way to read Literature up to now, are yet common books. Have you read the
> complete Eco's text and not only the two paragraphs of my
> yesterday morning
> email?

I had a quick read of it. Have you read 'Understanding Media' or any of
McLuhan's other books? Yet we know something about McLuhan, though most of
it is second-hand or via video or sound. In saying 'literature is finished',
he might have been thinking of how his own work was propagating. There are
his books, yes, and they are an important part of his oeuvre, but what most
people know about Marshall McLuhan is *not* his books. They've encountered
other people talking/writing about him, or have heard recordings or seen
video.

Literature–print literature–now shares the literary pie with other media.
Intense engagement with language is not limited to words on a page, as you
know. Serious, imaginative writing is not limited to literature (print).

Also, given the contemporary situation, can you imagine the most promising
young writers gravitating to print? I would think that intensest engagements
with language are to be had elsewhere.

ja
http://vispo.com

Regina Pinto March 17 2006 10:53Reply

Hi Jim,

I can not discuss about McLuhan with you because I did not read much of his
work. What I really did not like yesterday is the idea that he said that
Literature is dead, but if you have other meanings for which he said, things
change. To read McLuhan is anything that is missing in my life bibliography.
But it is never late to start, for which book do you think that I have to
start my McLuhan adventure?

As you certainly know my formation is in Anthropology of Art, so that I can
not think that any art expression will disappear and give place to other
expressions.
If you remember, Picasso and Bracque created cubism from African masks,
masks of a less complexe (?) culture and I yet admire african masks. I
believe in "less complex", I believe in complex too, I do not like the idea
that a nice less complexe culture must be victim of evolutionism. I am for
good Art, it does not mind if it is more complex or less complex. That is
it, however people think differently, and if you do not agree with me, it is
not a problem. It shows how humanity is nice in its difference.

You know how I like your work and how I work with literature in my own
multimedia way. But I think that these are our ways and that there are other
ways so beautiful like ours. One of them is literature to be print. I like
books, to feel the smell of an old book, imagine how many hands opened it
… Also I like new books, to feel the smell of them and imagine how many
hands will yet touch them… When I was a teen, I was what people call in
Brazil "rato de biblioteca" > "mice of library", I still remember the old
building of the library of my school and the time I spent there looking for
interesting books, books that made me fly hight, very hight in an unlikely
limit…

What will be the Art of the future well, the future will tell us, I am sure.

Warmest regards,

Regina

Ps: I have just written my first literay text, my previous texts are
parodies of other Author texts that I admire. I think you know them because
of my e-books. However this one is not a parody, it is really mine and I am
very proud of it ;-). The interesting is that it appears from a not very
nice event, Helen Jamieson suffers an accident and she had to substitute a
portion of her femur to a tantalum piece. She is featuring this in her blog
(http://www.creative-catalyst.com/plog.html). Also she is inviting people to
create stories for that event. I created mine and liked and decided to do a
multimedia book with it. If you have time, browser at
(http://www.creative-catalyst.com/e-femoral/regina.html) and read it. No, it
is not my intention to make a printed book ;-), as you, multimedia is my
favorite way of creation.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our
civilization"


>
>> " What idea of McLuhan's are you thinking of?"
>>
>> This one, which I cut from the text you sent yesterday morning.
>>
>> " Immediately, Marshall McLuhan's philosophies are brought into the
>> discussion. They speak of McLuhan's theory that literature is finished. "
>>
>> Literature is not finished because of television or new medias
>> and, the best
>> way to read Literature up to now, are yet common books. Have you read the
>> complete Eco's text and not only the two paragraphs of my
>> yesterday morning
>> email?
>
> I had a quick read of it. Have you read 'Understanding Media' or any of
> McLuhan's other books? Yet we know something about McLuhan, though most of
> it is second-hand or via video or sound. In saying 'literature is
> finished',
> he might have been thinking of how his own work was propagating. There are
> his books, yes, and they are an important part of his oeuvre, but what
> most
> people know about Marshall McLuhan is *not* his books. They've encountered
> other people talking/writing about him, or have heard recordings or seen
> video.
>
> Literature–print literature–now shares the literary pie with other
> media.
> Intense engagement with language is not limited to words on a page, as you
> know. Serious, imaginative writing is not limited to literature (print).
>
> Also, given the contemporary situation, can you imagine the most promising
> young writers gravitating to print? I would think that intensest
> engagements
> with language are to be had elsewhere.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Jim Andrews March 17 2006 11:29Reply

Hi Regina,

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you should read McLuhan before talking
about him. My point was that most people who talk about McLuhan know about
him elsewhere than from reading his books. One could say the same of Allen
Ginsberg or William S Burroughs or any number of writers whose media
presence is more prominent than their books. I don't mean that this
invalidates what people say about McLuhan. Instead, I mean it illustrates
that 'literature is finished'–in the sense that popular knowledge is much
less print-based than 'anchored' in other media.

Also, the assertion that 'literature is finished' operates much like other
equally overstated propositions such as 'evolution is over' or 'we are
post-human' or 'the medium is the message' etc: it is the popular face of an
argument or phenomenon that cannot be so easily summarized, but must be
stated compactly to travel in popular culture. It requires considerable
'unpacking'.

Paper books have real advantages over other means of distributing certain
types of work. And these advantages ensure that the book is not going away
any time soon.

You ask about McLuhan's books. I haven't read them all myself.
'Understanding Media' is the main one. I wrote an essay that people seem to
like as an introduction to his work:
http://vispo.com/writings/essays/mcluhana.htm

ja

Regina Pinto March 17 2006 11:50Reply

Hi Jim,

"Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you should read McLuhan before talking
about him."

Well, I did understood what you intended to say. The problem is that I
really think that I can not discuss an Author who Idid not know very well.
That is it.

I will read your text and then I will tell you what I think.

Bye,

Regina

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our
civilization"


> Hi Regina,
>
> My point was that most people who talk about McLuhan know about
> him elsewhere than from reading his books. One could say the same of Allen
> Ginsberg or William S Burroughs or any number of writers whose media
> presence is more prominent than their books. I don't mean that this
> invalidates what people say about McLuhan. Instead, I mean it illustrates
> that 'literature is finished'–in the sense that popular knowledge is much
> less print-based than 'anchored' in other media.
>
> Also, the assertion that 'literature is finished' operates much like other
> equally overstated propositions such as 'evolution is over' or 'we are
> post-human' or 'the medium is the message' etc: it is the popular face of
> an
> argument or phenomenon that cannot be so easily summarized, but must be
> stated compactly to travel in popular culture. It requires considerable
> 'unpacking'.
>
> Paper books have real advantages over other means of distributing certain
> types of work. And these advantages ensure that the book is not going away
> any time soon.
>
> You ask about McLuhan's books. I haven't read them all myself.
> 'Understanding Media' is the main one. I wrote an essay that people seem
> to
> like as an introduction to his work:
> http://vispo.com/writings/essays/mcluhana.htm
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Jim Andrews March 17 2006 14:53Reply

also, overstated propositions like 'literature is over', 'the medium is the
message', 'evolution is over', 'we are post-human' etc, in addition to being
compact, are also controversial. this compact, controversial form allows
them to be easily propagated in popular culture. in part because dodos like
muggeridge and woodcock end up calling him 'the actual destroyer of our
civilization'. that's got to be worth a look.

my friend lionel kearns tells me of seeing mcluhan in 1964 in vancouver, the
year 'understanding media' was published. he was a kind of performance
intellectual. his talks were mostly in dialogue with the audience and, as
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-342-1820/life_society/mcluhan/clip6
indicates, he could really get them boiling.

ja
http://vispo.com

Eric Dymond March 17 2006 21:30Reply

It is fun to hear Malcolm Muggeridge and George Woodcock say "What a good fellow McLuhan is" while Woodcock recounts his wife's distress that she felt during one of his lectures. I remember these events, they were heated affairs.
At the end of the short clip is a revealing comment, *societies have suicidal tendencies*
Neither one of the two would ever acknowledge that before the written word was the spoken word, handed down from generation to generation.
From spoken word to written word to mediated word, words remain words I suppose. To those two, engaging in Literature was an Act of Faith.
Mix the words with symbols and images, and you get the drift of McLuhans message. It's like Media 101.

Jim Andrews March 18 2006 15:30Reply

the propositions i mentioned in my last couple of ees are aphoristic and
counter-intuitive, as well as compact and controversial. they are the koans
of popular culture. they're also headers/headlines for a larger data packet.
'history is over'.

ja
http://vispo.com

Rob Myers March 18 2006 15:57Reply

On 18 Mar 2006, at 22:30, Jim Andrews wrote:

> 'history is over'.

Yes, I remember when people used to say that.

- Rob.

Jim Andrews March 18 2006 16:35Reply

> > 'history is over'.
>
> Yes, I remember when people used to say that.

Is it back on now?

ja?

Eric Dymond March 18 2006 21:25Reply

Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't die, Geography collapsed" its all about the speed of communication.
As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art is not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always in time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.
Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.

Where is my geography when I post to Rhizome? Where is my geography if I play Everquest online with users from India, Germany, Brazil and Canada?
The history of our interaction is still time based, but the Nation State has no part. How can we write a history of the nation state when noone is interested in that context?
The failure of history is bound to old conventions (nation state and common geographic interest). With that eliminated, The new geography, the geography of rhizomatic interests takes main stage. Virilio is dead on the mark, and he's as scared as the rest of us. Write new histories.
Have a good weekend!
Eric

Eric Dymond March 19 2006 00:24Reply

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't
> die, Geography collapsed" its all about the speed of communication.
> As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art
> is not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always
> in time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.
> Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.
>
> Where is my geography when I post to Rhizome? Where is my geography if
> I play Everquest online with users from India, Germany, Brazil and
> Canada?
> The history of our interaction is still time based, but the Nation
> State has no part. How can we write a history of the nation state when
> noone is interested in that context?
> The failure of history is bound to old conventions (nation state and
> common geographic interest). With that eliminated, The new geography,
> the geography of rhizomatic interests takes main stage. Virilio is
> dead on the mark, and he's as scared as the rest of us. Write new
> histories.
> Have a good weekend!
> Eric
>
http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html/lyrics/d/dont_fear_the_reaper.txt
why not

Eryk Salvaggio March 19 2006 17:05Reply

I disagree that the nationstate is meaningless outside of the context of online gaming. This collapse of geography is real but occurs simultaneously with actual geography, the idea that one or the other is more relevant isn't true; your internet
login terminal's geography still has an enormous amount of influence on history. Only highly developed western cultures can afford to believe in the collapse of geography, the reality is that global politics will exist on an invisible scale simply
because they can finally manage to function unobserved.

Didn't McLuhan say that our text based media allows us a greater disconnection from the synthesis of all of our senses? A textual medium that pretends to be oral culture is even more disorienting!

-er.


Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 11:25 PM -0500 wrote:
>Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't die, Geography collapsed" its all about the speed of communication.
>As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art is not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always in time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.
>Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.
>
>Where is my geography when I post to Rhizome? Where is my geography if I play Everquest online with users from India, Germany, Brazil and Canada?
>The history of our interaction is still time based, but the Nation State has no part. How can we write a history of the nation state when noone is interested in that context?
>The failure of history is bound to old conventions (nation state and common geographic interest). With that eliminated, The new geography, the geography of rhizomatic interests takes main stage. Virilio is dead on the mark, and he's as scared as
>the rest of us. Write new histories.
>Have a good weekend!
>Eric
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Maschine Hospital March 19 2006 23:15Reply

May wish to research J. G. Bennett's scale of consciousness development:

family
tribe
nation
epoch
civilization
culture
art


in ascending order (roughly, I may be missing some stages)

am operating roughly on scale ov epoch orbiting quickly towardz
civilization

as it can be seen chaos, anarchism, and de-statification iz ov NO Interest
at all and whatsoever to individual interested in art

in other wordz the contemporary psychopath instead of OVERCOMING "each
stage" with itz accordant lawz turns itself into self-destructiv stupidity
instead of assimilating and transforming (that's what one seeks–those who
are willing to *transform*–not facilitators, and not flexible paveways
for various agendas) in a conscious way their surroundings

after having witnessed dadaist exhibit repeatedly again fail to comprehend
how it could possibly pass by people that dadaism was a vicious attack on
garbage and not an embrace of the shit

a singlehandedly most-beautiful-aristorcatic gestures

the sharpness and lucidity of diamond against christmassy-eyed and the
undiscerning psychosis produced by abuse of religion

the kind that facilitates hollywood, and psychoapthic "ceremonial
magic"–debutate "ceremonian housewives" and inustrialite "magnates" who
are here to "order the world" with their .. well nevermind

spastically enough as the US has been concurrently established as a
"nation"–the grappling is of course for some sort of "neue" religion
as GENUINE religion based on charisma can organize, stimulate, and
energize a nation into a civilization, and no amount of "family friendly"
will solve that

uncertain as to the real place of genuine islam as "last religion" in all
of this (???)

test driving the eagle–yes, unity is possible

naturralich, avec upward escallation, there is downward resistance
(unconscious degeneration into tribalism and the family) und war

and da + da terribly enough, war seems to be an integral part of the
process of the shedding of outgrowth

the latter being for the "anti-war" ultra-moronz

(not that we are pro-war)

_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Jim Andrews March 20 2006 03:45Reply

> May wish to research J. G. Bennett's scale of consciousness development:
>
> family
> tribe
> nation
> epoch
> civilization
> culture
> art

interesting. yet so much in art is organized around tribe and nation.
grants, for instance, are almost always tribal or regional or national. very
hard to find financial support for one's work at those 'higher' levels even
if the work operates on those levels and disregards the tribal and national.

not impossible, though, i presume, and perhaps finding a way to make it so
is part of the long journey in the art.

ja
http://vispo.com

Maschine Hospital March 20 2006 07:15Reply

und more ultra garbage:

> Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 11:25 PM -0500 wrote:
> >Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't die,

history couldn't possibly die as history is time

the essential quality is whether you CHOOSE TO DIE CONSCIOUSLY in the "eye
of the storm" as it were

Geography collapsed"

beh, geography has always collapsed–a million times at that
that is the nature of the beast

nature is mutable and it has its own agendas
it is the responsibility of humans to respond flexibly as well

> its all about the speed of communication.

no it isn't.. speed of communication is degeneration into chaos as the
fact that new georaphy has not been formed–"speed" in fact being the NEW
QUANTITY vs quality

it should be understood in fact that the majority of contemporary
languages are COMPLETELY DEGENERATE and as such completely unsuitable for
the "ordering" of humanity or the paying of the solar taxes

hence > war

likewise contemporary men's fitness is highly dependable on "money"–
ie the capacity to "capitalize"

it is to be understood that to CAPITALIZE is not to PROFITEER–which is a
common problem in the Western World–profiteers there are plenty

money or "currency" or "human energy" needs to be attached to
VALUE–referencing to the fact that we seek conscious individulas capable
of TRANSFORMING rather than self-destructive and predatorial (annie
sprinkle, tg, fluxus, h3o, etc.)

we seek individuals magnetique

> >As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art is
not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always in
time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.

the relationship is of bodily "time" vs. Time.

> >Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.

McLuhan was not a prophet. He was able to operate on Epochal level and
develop a corresponding degree of consciousness.

_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Joseph Gray March 21 2006 12:16Reply

Hey, I thought you were dead!?



On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:14 AM, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

> und more ultra garbage:
>
>> Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 11:25
>> PM -0500 wrote:
>>> Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't
>>> die,
>
> history couldn't possibly die as history is time
>
> the essential quality is whether you CHOOSE TO DIE CONSCIOUSLY in the
> "eye
> of the storm" as it were
>
> Geography collapsed"
>
> beh, geography has always collapsed–a million times at that
> that is the nature of the beast
>
> nature is mutable and it has its own agendas
> it is the responsibility of humans to respond flexibly as well
>
>> its all about the speed of communication.
>
> no it isn't.. speed of communication is degeneration into chaos as the
> fact that new georaphy has not been formed–"speed" in fact being the
> NEW
> QUANTITY vs quality
>
> it should be understood in fact that the majority of contemporary
> languages are COMPLETELY DEGENERATE and as such completely unsuitable
> for
> the "ordering" of humanity or the paying of the solar taxes
>
> hence > war
>
> likewise contemporary men's fitness is highly dependable on "money"–
> ie the capacity to "capitalize"
>
> it is to be understood that to CAPITALIZE is not to PROFITEER–which
> is a
> common problem in the Western World–profiteers there are plenty
>
> money or "currency" or "human energy" needs to be attached to
> VALUE–referencing to the fact that we seek conscious individulas
> capable
> of TRANSFORMING rather than self-destructive and predatorial (annie
> sprinkle, tg, fluxus, h3o, etc.)
>
> we seek individuals magnetique
>
>>> As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art
>>> is
> not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always in
> time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.
>
> the relationship is of bodily "time" vs. Time.
>
>>> Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.
>
> McLuhan was not a prophet. He was able to operate on Epochal level and
> develop a corresponding degree of consciousness.
>
> _________________________________________
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Eryk Salvaggio March 21 2006 19:33Reply

I wonder if I understand what you mean by "transformative". Isn't the entire enterprise of transformation built on the faultline of human limitations? I mean it's a precarious balance for someone to even attempt authentically transformative work in
*themselves*, nevermind attempt to communicate that process to others in a way that can actually function outside of ego extension. I don't mean to sound snide, but I feel like the approach that you advocate, which I respect, is expressible only in
a Fudo Myoo kind of violence (which is not violent at all, but takes on the same kind of energy, ie, destruction and correction). I wonder if you'd agree? I wonder if there is room for any kind of play in that space. Not imaginary, acting out kind
of play, but actual ego abandonment and collaborative, creative exploration. Are the two at odds? Or is it that, as clunky as this question is gonan be: Is the fudo myoo violence simply required as the cost of admission to the sandbox of actual
transformation?

I ask because it's clear to me that the internet is spawning a very hostile atmosphere, one where people have the option to really collaborate and "solve", but instead has turned into a place where weakness and senses of personal insufficiency serve
out a mutual parasite/host function that just reaks of a desperate desire to shout "me, me me" constantly (and I speak from personal experience about the seductive nature of this medium to magnify insecurity into violence). McCluhan talked about
text as a mediator, as verbal communication as a community builder, here we have text masquerading as conversation and oral culture, but isn't quite the same, doesn't accomplish the same things, and I wonder if we are simply going to create (or have
created) a very efficient machine for making "objective reality" even more controversial.

I assume you don't like to speak of the "sociological", but I would suggest that we're watching a process of ego abandonment that is simply remarkably painful for westerners to deal with at the current moment, a point where technology has given us
the ultimate tool for communication and listening and authenticity that has been turned into an ultimate tool of "self expression" at the expense of every one of those "selves" who join the chorus. The question I have is, is there an inevitable
breakdown of that abuse of this technology? Or is it possible it just keeps mutating? Is there anything that can be done in *this* space (the collapsed geography of the internet) that can actually create a transformation? Or is the internet, really,
something that has no role in individual (and therefore, presumably, collective) transformation?

-er.

PS: It's good to hear from you again.


"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@punkassbitch.org> on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 1:14 AM -0500 wrote:
>May wish to research J. G. Bennett's scale of consciousness development:
>
>family
>tribe
>nation
>epoch
>civilization
>culture
>art
>
>
>in ascending order (roughly, I may be missing some stages)
>
>am operating roughly on scale ov epoch orbiting quickly towardz
>civilization
>
>as it can be seen chaos, anarchism, and de-statification iz ov NO Interest
>at all and whatsoever to individual interested in art
>
>in other wordz the contemporary psychopath instead of OVERCOMING "each
>stage" with itz accordant lawz turns itself into self-destructiv stupidity
>instead of assimilating and transforming (that's what one seeks–those who
>are willing to *transform*–not facilitators, and not flexible paveways
>for various agendas) in a conscious way their surroundings
>
>after having witnessed dadaist exhibit repeatedly again fail to comprehend
>how it could possibly pass by people that dadaism was a vicious attack on
>garbage and not an embrace of the shit
>
>a singlehandedly most-beautiful-aristorcatic gestures
>
>the sharpness and lucidity of diamond against christmassy-eyed and the
>undiscerning psychosis produced by abuse of religion
>
>the kind that facilitates hollywood, and psychoapthic "ceremonial
>magic"–debutate "ceremonian housewives" and inustrialite "magnates" who
>are here to "order the world" with their .. well nevermind
>
>spastically enough as the US has been concurrently established as a
>"nation"–the grappling is of course for some sort of "neue" religion
>as GENUINE religion based on charisma can organize, stimulate, and
>energize a nation into a civilization, and no amount of "family friendly"
>will solve that
>
>uncertain as to the real place of genuine islam as "last religion" in all
>of this (???)
>
>test driving the eagle–yes, unity is possible
>
>naturralich, avec upward escallation, there is downward resistance
>(unconscious degeneration into tribalism and the family) und war
>
>and da + da terribly enough, war seems to be an integral part of the
>process of the shedding of outgrowth
>
>the latter being for the "anti-war" ultra-moronz
>
>(not that we are pro-war)
>
> _________________________________________
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Maschine Hospital March 21 2006 22:07Reply

Death happens all the time, but only the immortals survive it.

Yours truly,
Ragnarok


On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Joseph Gray wrote:

> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:16:08 -0800
> From: Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com>
> To: list@rhizome.org
> Cc: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@punkassbitch.org>
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Marshall McLuhan,
> "actual destroyer of our civilization"
>
> Hey, I thought you were dead!?
>
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:14 AM, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> > und more ultra garbage:
> >
> >> Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 11:25
> >> PM -0500 wrote:
> >>> Virilio says, and I paraphrase, "Fukuyama was wrong, history didn't
> >>> die,
> >
> > history couldn't possibly die as history is time
> >
> > the essential quality is whether you CHOOSE TO DIE CONSCIOUSLY in the
> > "eye
> > of the storm" as it were
> >
> > Geography collapsed"
> >
> > beh, geography has always collapsed–a million times at that
> > that is the nature of the beast
> >
> > nature is mutable and it has its own agendas
> > it is the responsibility of humans to respond flexibly as well
> >
> >> its all about the speed of communication.
> >
> > no it isn't.. speed of communication is degeneration into chaos as the
> > fact that new georaphy has not been formed–"speed" in fact being the
> > NEW
> > QUANTITY vs quality
> >
> > it should be understood in fact that the majority of contemporary
> > languages are COMPLETELY DEGENERATE and as such completely unsuitable
> > for
> > the "ordering" of humanity or the paying of the solar taxes
> >
> > hence > war
> >
> > likewise contemporary men's fitness is highly dependable on "money"–
> > ie the capacity to "capitalize"
> >
> > it is to be understood that to CAPITALIZE is not to PROFITEER–which
> > is a
> > common problem in the Western World–profiteers there are plenty
> >
> > money or "currency" or "human energy" needs to be attached to
> > VALUE–referencing to the fact that we seek conscious individulas
> > capable
> > of TRANSFORMING rather than self-destructive and predatorial (annie
> > sprinkle, tg, fluxus, h3o, etc.)
> >
> > we seek individuals magnetique
> >
> >>> As well, Virilio points out that The crisis (Accident) in visual art
> >>> is
> > not an issue in the performing arts. The performing arts are always in
> > time, the visual arts have to elicit the concept of time.
> >
> > the relationship is of bodily "time" vs. Time.
> >
> >>> Beautifully expanding McLuhans prophecies.
> >
> > McLuhan was not a prophet. He was able to operate on Epochal level and
> > develop a corresponding degree of consciousness.
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Eric Dymond March 21 2006 22:45Reply

when i read the reaction to my original post, i was surprised at the level of emotion it elicited.
The original post pointed to current tendencies in a remote field of critical discourse .
The proposed passing of McLuhan's Global Vision to Virilio's Dromology seemed pretty straightforward to me when I was pointed it out. It wasn't transformable, it wasn't about a new sociological representation of a networked community.
It was a way to identify where and why we do what we now do as humans interacting physically and virtually.The virtual was intended as a background field , a field tied in with the figure ground relationship.
Unfortunately that wasn't the perception.
Perhaps the listserv is a bad place to make bold statements.
But those of you who make confusing statements, and employ otherworldly metaphors simply obscure our view. The use of pseudonyms and alias' simply makes understanding cloudier, and there is nothing clever about it.
I am sorry, but I find most of these reactions difficult to follow. They seem to offer up a way to make things fuzzy and inaccessible. At least Virilio makes things clear and understandable. Neither Eryk, Machinus?, and Kandinsky(I don't care how you spell your pseudonym) have added anything to this discussion.

Eric

Maschine Hospital March 22 2006 08:34Reply

There is never any emotion in anything written here, to clarify.

Nothing fuzzy either, but diamonds are not logical.
Likewise it is silly to qualify any of te responses as "reaction"
just because they are evasive of logical thinking.

angels always ravel sideways on silver mercurial wires

maybe you should make an effort

xoxo,
007


On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:


> when i read the reaction to my original post, i was surprised at the level of emotion it elicited.

in other words you were surprised at your own emocion?

de.lightful

> The original post pointed to current tendencies in a remote field of critical discourse.

only known to the "selekt.few"

> The proposed passing of McLuhan's Global Vision to Virilio's Dromology
> seemed pretty straightforward to me when I was pointed it out.

It must be?

> It wasn't transformable, it wasn't about a new sociological
representation of a networked community.

> It was a way to identify where and why we do what we now do as humans
interacting physically and virtually.

A very dry martini, as it were.

> The virtual was intended as a background field , a field tied in with
the figure ground relationship.
> Unfortunately that wasn't the perception.

> Perhaps the listserv is a bad place to make bold statements.

Boldness? Where? Mr. Picabia, please.



> But those of you who make confusing statements,

There is absolutely nothing confusing about our statements.

> and employ otherworldly metaphors

Or otherworldly, for that matter mr. stiff my nose is stuck in my pants
and I am sticking to it.

> simply obscure our view.

You have no view.

> The use of pseudonyms and alias' simply makes understanding cloudier,

Your understanding mr. cloud-cock.

> and there is nothing clever about it.

The last thing we are is clever.

> I am sorry, but I find most of these reactions


They are not reactions and your dismissive slap-labeling doesn't make them
such.

> difficult to follow.

There is nothing difficult. Anywhere, at all.

> They seem to offer up a way to make things fuzzy and inaccessible.


You should refer to Mr. Kurt Schwitter's "impenetrable text".

> At least Virilio makes things clear and understandable.

Mano a mano.

Neither Eryk, Machinus?, and Kandinsky
(I don't care how you spell your pseudonym)


It's not a pseudonym. It's a Real name.

> have added anything to this discussion.

Au contraire amigo. Are you trying to say that we subtract and divide?

Aliiiice!
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

// jonCates March 22 2006 09:40Reply

On Mar 22, 2006, at 9:33 AM, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
> >Nothing fuzzy either, but diamonds are not logical.

timonds are trans{logical|local}

alternate spellings == timond, tiamond, tyemonde, etc…

recent occurrences == criticalartware's "Kaptain Kludge Stole Liken!"
account:

"HourGlassDolphins protect timonds + {entry|exit} {to|from}
bubbleverses. Kludge may have stolen liken, but HourGlassDolphins may
be able to stop him from absconding wit his terrible treasure.
HourGlassDolphins know what we also hold tru, dat is: Discourse is
the meshwork of reality."

uri: http://criticalartware.net/likn.html

// jonCates
# http://fvnm.info
# http://r4wb1t5.org
# http://criticalartware.net
# http://systemsapproach.net

<–! NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION EXCEPT ON RHIZOME.ORG WEBSITE AND EMAIL
LISTS. !–>

<–! (CC) SOME RIGHTS RESERVED: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.5 !–>
<–! http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5 !–>

Christina McPhee March 22 2006 10:30Reply

re: http://criticalartware.net/likn_kK.acc.html

Some wormhole Spice: "my name is Kaptain, Kaptain"

To the whereabouts of Kludge, this text may give a klue.

Timonds are forever,

xxc

On Mar 22, 2006, at 8:40 AM, jonCates wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2006, at 9:33 AM, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>> >Nothing fuzzy either, but diamonds are not logical.
>
> timonds are trans{logical|local}
>
> alternate spellings == timond, tiamond, tyemonde, etc…
>
> recent occurrences == criticalartware's "Kaptain Kludge Stole
> Liken!" account:
>
> "HourGlassDolphins protect timonds + {entry|exit} {to|from}
> bubbleverses. Kludge may have stolen liken, but HourGlassDolphins
> may be able to stop him from absconding wit his terrible treasure.
> HourGlassDolphins know what we also hold tru, dat is: Discourse is
> the meshwork of reality."
>
> uri: http://criticalartware.net/likn.html
>
> // jonCates
> # http://fvnm.info
> # http://r4wb1t5.org
> # http://criticalartware.net
> # http://systemsapproach.net
>
> <–! NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION EXCEPT ON RHIZOME.ORG WEBSITE AND EMAIL
> LISTS. !–>
>
> <–! (CC) SOME RIGHTS RESERVED: Attribution-NonCommercial-
> ShareAlike 2.5 !–>
> <–! http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5 !–>
>
>

Joseph Gray March 22 2006 12:11Reply

Frustrated Total Internal Reflection.

Oh, dark and twisted mirror, what sayest thou?

no emotion, no emotion, it's a masquerade;
a mask lifted to reveal a mask to reveal a mask to reveal a mask to
reveal a mask to reveal a mask to reveal a mask to reveal a mask to
reveal a mask

Maschine Hospital April 9 2006 20:24Reply

Specialy offer, especially for you: from the bottom v our pantz,
si vous remitte a payment in the amount of $270 kash, we will mail you a
very ultr avaluable student program, as designed by the designer itself.

hey.. why wasn't this sent a long time ago?

_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

OMEGA DAY Aug. 11 2011 12:55Reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyhJ69mD7xI&ob=av2n




4. We want to know your friends but aren’t so sure you need to know ours.
I’m not going to lie; this is hypocrisy in its most raw form. We want you to bring us around your friends, we want to know them and we want them to like us, but we aren’t quite as crazy about you knowing our friends. The why of this is as simple as it is irrational and here it is… we want to know your boys so we can understand the kinds of things they may get you to do when we’re not around. In short, will they encourage you to cheat on us, will they get you doing reckless and dangerous things, and will they help you engage in self-destructive activities? What we want to know is if they will be good or bad influences on you. We also want to create a buffer; we want your friends to like us so that they won’t want you to lose us. If there is no tension between your friends and us then we don’t need to fear them asking you to choose between love and friendship. Now on the flip side, we don’t really want you getting all chummy with our friends because we don’t want them to fill you in on all of our dirty little secrets. As previously noted girls are talkers by nature and we don’t want them to let something slip that may make you raise an eyebrow in our direction. We also fear, but will never admit fearing, you wanting one of our friends more than you want us. It’s bad enough to lose your guy to another girl but when that girl was once a friend, well, the sting is even sharper. So allow us this hypocrisy. It’s irrational, that's true, but it’s also quite harmless.