9 out of 10 muslim anarchists agree...

<FONT face="Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><DIV>the enviromantic love triangle</DIV><DIV><BR>always there is nature.<BR>nature is abundant and generous.<BR>nature is wild, impetuous, violent, unpredictable.<BR>society comes along.<BR>society is attracted by nature.<BR>nature offers society many things.<BR>society fears nature, can't explain nature.<BR>technology comes along.<BR>technology is seductive.<BR>nature is indifferent to technology.<BR>society and technology have an affair.<BR>nature is not jealous, but society distances itself from nature.<BR>society starts to feel protected from the violence of nature,<BR>but nature offers society things that technology can't.<BR>society starts to take advantage of nature.<BR>technology begins to grow in influence.<BR>technology is envious of society's dependence on nature.<BR>technology mimics nature, becomes wild, impetuous, violent, unpredictable.<BR>society is hurt by technology.<BR>society begins to fear technology.<BR>society feels guilt for its mistreatment of nature.<BR>society sees nature in a new way.<BR>society gets infatuated by nature once more.<BR>technology can not live without society.<BR>technology gets sexier, more alluring.<BR>society lusts after technology.<BR>but always there is nature.<BR>society is stuck in the eternal enviromantic love triangle.<BR>and that is where we are today.</DIV><DIV>komninos 1995<BR></DIV><DIV>komninos&nbsp;zervos<br>lecturer,&nbsp;convenor&nbsp;of&nbsp;CyberStudies&nbsp;major<br>School&nbsp;of&nbsp;Arts&nbsp;<br>Griffith&nbsp;University<br>Room&nbsp;3.25&nbsp;Multimedia&nbsp;Building&nbsp;G23<br>Gold&nbsp;Coast&nbsp;Campus&nbsp;<br>Parkwood<br>PMB&nbsp;50&nbsp;Gold&nbsp;Coast&nbsp;Mail&nbsp;Centre&nbsp;<br>Queensland&nbsp;9726<br>Australia<br>Phone&nbsp;07&nbsp;5552&nbsp;8872&nbsp;Fax&nbsp;07&nbsp;5552&nbsp;8141<br>http://www.gu.edu.au/ppages/k_zervos<br>http://users.bigpond.net.au/mangolegs<br>http://spokenword.blog-city.com<BR></DIV></FONT>

>this type of thinking lead to what
> I call a false transcendence - the idea that we will transcend the
> body, we will arrive at a heaven of pure information in which
> immortality essentially of consciousness will be achieved.

and before the computer "false transcendence" was provided by a book.


curt cloninger wrote:

> People think that society is the creation of technology, not that
> technology is the creation of society, and in this sense the computer
> and the net and cyberspace and all this type of thinking lead to what
> I call a false transcendence - the idea that we will transcend the
> body, we will arrive at a heaven of pure information in which
> immortality essentially of consciousness will be achieved. I know
> that your familiar with these sort of people, extropians,
> cybernetfreaks and technomaniacs who truly believe, in a true
> religious sense, that the computer is the final frontier of human
> consciousness. I'm just not convinced, I don't see any way the body
> is being transcended, it is still sitting in front of the keyboard,
> the eyes are still looking at the screen. William Gibson has a
> wonderful image of the hacker plugged in to the computer and dying
> while his consciousness is still living on in cyberspace.
>
> This is the fantasy that we can download consciousness and somehow
> achieve immortality inside the machine - at best I would say that
> this is a very hypothetical supposition, at worst it could turn out
> to be a total falsehood. If it is a total falsehood, then what we are
> looking at here is a bad parody of religion, a parodic consciousness
> or a conciseness which is simply a parody of itself, this I think is
> where the danger lies.
>
> - peter lamborn wilson/hakim bey (1995)

c.c:
i'd make a distinction. nobody ever thought they were going to upload their soul into a book. the book was always a sign pointing to an extra-textual place of spiritual transcendence. (whether that extra-textual place actually exists or not is an ontological question.) but these days some folks think the network is itself a place of "actual" spiritual transcendence. like the sign to mt. rushmore = mt. rushmore. like going to a restaurant and eating the menu.

m.k:
and before the computer "false transcendence" was provided by a book.

h.b:
> >this type of thinking lead to what
> > I call a false transcendence - the idea that we will transcend the
> > body, we will arrive at a heaven of pure information in which
> > immortality essentially of consciousness will be achieved.
>

>
>
> curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > People think that society is the creation of technology, not that
> > technology is the creation of society, and in this sense the
> computer
> > and the net and cyberspace and all this type of thinking lead to
> what
> > I call a false transcendence - the idea that we will transcend the
> > body, we will arrive at a heaven of pure information in which
> > immortality essentially of consciousness will be achieved. I know
> > that your familiar with these sort of people, extropians,
> > cybernetfreaks and technomaniacs who truly believe, in a true
> > religious sense, that the computer is the final frontier of human
> > consciousness. I'm just not convinced, I don't see any way the body
> > is being transcended, it is still sitting in front of the keyboard,
> > the eyes are still looking at the screen. William Gibson has a
> > wonderful image of the hacker plugged in to the computer and dying
> > while his consciousness is still living on in cyberspace.
> >
> > This is the fantasy that we can download consciousness and somehow
> > achieve immortality inside the machine - at best I would say that
> > this is a very hypothetical supposition, at worst it could turn out
> > to be a total falsehood. If it is a total falsehood, then what we
> are
> > looking at here is a bad parody of religion, a parodic
> consciousness
> > or a conciseness which is simply a parody of itself, this I think
> is
> > where the danger lies.
> >
> > - peter lamborn wilson/hakim bey (1995)

> c.c:
> i'd make a distinction. nobody ever thought they were going to
> upload their soul into a book.

why do artists care about what happens to their work after they die? of
course they don't care after they die. but before. is it that they care
about the betterment of humanity or their own life after death? they want
their silent running soul devices to keep running. but why?

the book was always a sign
> pointing to an extra-textual place of spiritual transcendence.
> (whether that extra-textual place actually exists or not is an
> ontological question.) but these days some folks think the
> network is itself a place of "actual" spiritual transcendence.
> like the sign to mt. rushmore = mt. rushmore. like going to a
> restaurant and eating the menu.

there are literalists in anything people believe. in religion and other
stuff.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
Browning

ja

>why do artists care about what happens to their work after they die? of
>course they don't care after they die. but before. is it that they care
>about the betterment of humanity or their own life after death? they want
>their silent running soul devices to keep running. but why?


actually, it would be just as difficult to pin point any precise
answer to why any person would care, even while they are alive.


do we do it for the process or product? if exclusively the process,
the "betterment of humanity" or "silent running soul devices" would
not be a consideration. if for the product, what do we get (what
physical change takes place in our environment)? certainly art is
not something people go into for the money.

though your use of the word "artist" is clearly just for convenience
(nothing wrong with that), it may be a helpful perspective to adopt
the view that there really are no "artists", only people who make
art. even the word "art" is a bit loaded, so come up (for
yourselves) with a suitable synonym/definition/substitute. only
people who make ________. (is "art" psychic nourishment, merely
cathartic, nervous impulse, decoration, …?)

by further distinguishing between the act of constructing and the act
of appreciation, the a word, loses some of its un-grasp-able-ness and
pretentious abstraction. this may be a clue as to what end the
individual does it for (substitute for questions too large to answer).


constant re-defining or questioning the definition, only results in
us having a word we can no longer share with much precision, only use
in vague general statements. this makes answering any
semi-philosophical questions about "art" nearly impossible. rather
than disproving a definition (that no longer even exists, because
what ISN'T "art"), it may be useful (to answer your concern), if
folks supplied their own (albeit personal) definitions of it.
–

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org

On Monday, August 02, 2004, at 01:34PM, Plasma Studii <[email protected]> wrote:

>>why do artists care about what happens to their work after they die? of
>>course they don't care after they die. but before. is it that they care
>>about the betterment of humanity or their own life after death? they want
>>their silent running soul devices to keep running. but why?
>
>actually, it would be just as difficult to pin point any precise
>answer to why any person would care, even while they are alive.

IMHO not really. You need your reputation to sell work to get cash to eat (or to pull newbies at private views; whatever). If your work is mistreated it'll affect that.

As for immortality, humans are genetic and memetic and so seek to propagate. A social legacy is one way of doing this. If it's not good for society it's not good for you. :-)

- Rob.