I've been long advocating that rhizome integrate the community into any process it can; so voting seems like a very good idea to me. Anonymity in the process might have been good (nameless proposals) and it also would have been interesting if we,
the community, chose some works to talk about online...

The reality is that we're in an open system, it's not rhizome's fault if none of us are sure how to react to it. We'll get used to it eventually. There's some kinks in the process but overall I think it's a pretty nice effort of getting away from
dry curational expertise in the grant process.

So, bravo for that.

-er.

marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 6:53 AM -0500 wrote:
>why vote at all?
>
>marc
>
>

As a finalist, I have to say I am kind of concerned as to why it was narrowed down to 27 if only 1 can get it- why not narrow it down to one, and give it? I ask in earnestness. A two step process seems to burden artists (the anticipation!) and
viewers alike (why vote twice for the same piece?)

Just my two cents. Still, it is pretty sweet to get into the finals.

-er.

Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Friday, May 05, 2006 at 10:10 PM -0500 wrote:
>This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
>Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
>Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.
>
>
>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

Rhizome was more fun when there were more "hackers" and/or art pranks. Though the endless repeating autoresponder is the least fun of all.

Not to mention I haven't even seen the mailia thing in action. What is it supposed to do, respond to email with an automated google search response? That would have been more fun to spam us with.

-er.

Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> on Sunday, April 09, 2006 at 1:36 PM -0500 wrote:
>Its not like its the end of the world.
>They will get this situation under control.
>
>I think its funny how people react to a temporary flux in their email
>routine. We must understand that Rhizome fosters a community of hackers as
>well as academic professions on the list.
>
>Best of luck with your lawsuit.
>
>Cheers,
>Lee
>
>
>
>On 4/9/06 1:11 PM, "hight@34n118w.net" <hight@34n118w.net> wrote:
>
>> this is enough
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
>--
>Lee Wells
>Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
>http://www.leewells.org
>http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>917 723 2524
>
>+
>-> 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

Well I should be more precise in breaking down the ego as an instrument of will and the ego as an instrument of delusion. Certainly the ego of the will is vital and no practice I know of advocates the destruction of that element of ego. The ego
driven mythologies and drive to reality-excluding self-satisfaction is my concern. The notion that the echo chamber is really a bunch of people getting together to form a mutually agreed upon, socially constructed reality. That has nothing to do
with ego and has everything to do with looking for outside reinforcements of mythology and delusion. And they'll do it, have done it- read any political blog with any readership to speak of, and watch what's happening. It's not pretty!

-er.

Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Sunday, April 09, 2006 at 12:38 AM -0500 wrote:
>>Precisely; but some of that anarchy is seeking order. So we're living >in an amplified echo-chamber of noise and self-gratification, and the >web allows us to seek out reinforcements of our reality rather than >the option to extend and expand it.
>It's
>>not the technology per se, its the use of the technology that worries >me.
>
>Well you are dead on track with the issue of use. I hope that egos take control of the media and use it for their own determined reification. We wait and watch and worry, but there is much to hope for. The current regimes force a self aware censure
>on our acts. I see the ego as the only way to break through this paranoid cul de sac.
>Same goal, different methods.
>take care,
>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

Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Saturday, April 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM -0500 wrote:
>But Eryk, isn't your ideal network just an extension of your own ego?

You can work with an awareness of your ego and ignore the ego. It takes practice, but not even that much practice before you're aware it's an actual possibility. I am not at the point where I can completely disregard ego, but I can be aware of my
ego to a greater extent than I have been, just by looking for it. I still have to admit I am primarily an ego-destructing hobbyist with bouts of authentic effort and opportunities.
>
>
>We all expected the network to profoundly change our actions, and it has.
>It's not as dark and forbodding as you describe. It is the anarchic, and anarchy was never a collective experience. I still see the collective as an extension of the super-ego, and that super-ego is easily usurped, by Stalin, by Hitler, and by
>current regimes.

Precisely; but some of that anarchy is seeking order. So we're living in an amplified echo-chamber of noise and self-gratification, and the web allows us to seek out reinforcements of our reality rather than the option to extend and expand it. It's
not the technology per se, its the use of the technology that worries me.
>
>
>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