Eryk Salvaggio
Since the beginning
Works in Ogunquit, Massachusetts United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The Harry Potter of the Digital Avant Garde." - Pieter van Bogaert, of the Belgian Newspaper "TIJD", 09/03/02.

Discussions (384) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: necessiti of ego-destruktion


But I really want to build a network where the ego implodes, don't I? I think of what I'd like to do with art, and that's one of the aims- to encourage and assist in the destruction of illusion, delusion, and ego. I haven't done very well, but the
theme is present as an interest, maybe the sole interest, and I doubt that with art I've even yet to begin producing anything.

So, really? Is this a completely misguided practice? My doubts as of late are whether or not the net can produce that kind of result in any other way besides slapping hands when they point at you. I feel like the entire structure is designed for ego
annhilation or to facilitate the ego annhilating, you know? Either this thing is gonna get us somewhere or its going to kill us in a bath of crazy externally reinforced subjectivity.

If boiling our ego/illusion/delusion/false consciousness in a tub of acid must be a completely self-contained process, then I could never assist anyone! I recieved outside help, though I had to choose it. I don't feel like I could give it, not yet.
If true, what next?

-er.

"-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@punkassbitch.org> on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 at 7:49 PM -0500 wrote:
>"Obviously, before the Bodhisattva is born, the Bodhicitta must be
>formed within ourselves. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the
>necessity of disintegrating the ego, the "I" in order for the
>Bodhicitta to emerge. The Bodhicitta is formed with the merits of love
>and supreme sacrifice for our fellowmen. The Bodhisattva is formed
>within the environment and psychological atmosphere of the Bodhicitta."
>
>To create a network with the risk of egos imploding has been proven
>again and again and again as unsound and yet the humans keep on trying.
>
>Why is the destruction of the ego such an unpalatable task?
>
>
>- The Pistis Sophia Unveiled
>--
>`~. ka-shin.Rei D42 Kandinskij
> D42 Des?Gn Studio
>
>
>+
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: question blocks=ohio bomb squad


One of the weirdest parts of this is the massive difference between the original sites fun loving, happy puppy approach and the subsequent ohio newspapers coverage of it as if it was designed by al qaeda to tear away american youth.

Oh, media!
-er.

trin7021@saintmarys.edu on Monday, April 03, 2006 at 10:45 PM -0500 wrote:
>creators of super mario bros question blocks are facing criminal charges after the bomb squad was called out to investigate the works.
>
>check out the history of the question blocks:
>
>http://www.qwantz.com/posterchild/
>
>+
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: I have a suggestion for Rhizome...


While the artbase could be linked in, I had read the original idea as more of a collaborative toolbox for artists? Programmers could donate scraps of interesting code (though how "interesting" will be hard to measure) and the repository would work
as a way for artists to get code to play with, and share projects linked by threads of code. This is an interesting idea, (very viral, nice to see how snippets of code could be mapped together with wildly varying uses), but also a potentially
massive undertaking!

-er.

Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> on Monday, April 03, 2006 at 11:54 AM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Lauren,
>Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the Artbase,
>linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that work and the
>code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This code is used in ..."). I
>can't decide whether it should be a requirement that the code belong
>to a piece in the Artbase or not. I think that would make it more
>relevant. And just to make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any
>means suggesting that everyone with work in the Artbase release their
>code. It would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
>the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains keyword
>references for most major programming and scripting languages. I
>think it would be good if code could be viewed online as a text file
>instead of having to download everything but that could be
>problematic for projects that contain several different files.
>Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
>qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/
>licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't feel that Rhizome would have
>any obligation to describe the differences between the licenses.
>Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
>submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that if
>someone creates a new project using code from the repository and then
>submits that work to the Artbase, they should indicate that open
>Artbase code was used and what code it was. That way we'll end up
>with a big reference list of different ways that the code is
>utilized. Also, if someone makes significant changes to existing
>code, that code could be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to
>the code that it was derived from so that you get some sort of
>historical code tree.
>
>On top of everything else, I really think that this could also help
>to introduce the general public to some of the processes and methods
>involved in the creation of digital and networked art. The more I
>think about it, the better I like it.
>
>As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based systems for
>organizing and archiving open-source projects but I'm not really sure
>that that's the way to go. Firstly, most of them are really ugly.
>Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
>aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing" whereas I
>think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with a rather simple
>implementation, utilizing as much of the Artbase's current
>architecture as possible and then adapt, add and alter as time goes
>by and as we learn what works, what doesn't, what's good, what's bad,
>etc.
>
>best,
>Pall
>
>On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
>> repository
>> could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
>> stands?
>> Lauren
>>
>> On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
>>> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>>>
>>> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
>>> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
>>> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
>>> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
>>> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
>>> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
>>> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
>>> archive.
>>>
>>> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
>>> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
>>> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
>>> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
>>> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
>>> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
>>> etc.).
>>>
>>> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
>>> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Pall Thayer
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Marshall McLuhan


Hi Eric,

I had just been reading "The Gutenberg Galaxy" when you wrote your post, and found it odd, and worth discussing, that after that book I had reached a seperate conclusion on McCluhans ideas than you did.

Sorry to obfuscate anything. McCluhan says it pretty specifically, on pg 255:

"the increasing seperation of the visual faculty from the interplay with the other senses leads to the rejection from consciousness of most of our experience, and the consequent hypertrophy of the unconscious."

This seperation of the visual faculty, according to McCluhan, is a direct consequence of the seperation of text from meaning. In oral cultures, learning and meaning are always collaborative, always respond to another person. The library is stored in
other people. In this situation, there's a fundamental shift both in how we percieve information, and how we percieve the value of other people.

I haven't read Virilio, but I was making my own observation, based on my experiences (particularly in the partisan political side of the net) that the way we treat the web is to act as though it is an ongoing conversation, when in fact it is really
an archive of text masquerading as conversation. In other words, we treat the "dynamic", "collaborative" web (as opposed to the "static" web) as if it were an oral society where information is transactional, instead of acting like it really is- a
textual archive of recorded conversations, and therefore, still very much dismembered from any interpretation of our environment or any ability to engage or interact with people.

This does touch on your interest in the interaction of humans in physical and virtual spaces. To state that geography has collapsed is correct, by our current perceptions one can play a game with someone in China or the Soviet Union, and so cultural
exchange and conversation is possible. But it is a far cry from there, in my opinion, to say that nationstates are therefore irrelevant- global politics have always operated without any real consideration for the people they are supposed to
represent. They are a political fiction, run with real consequences for real people, regardless of whether those people are capable of engaging culturally through a virtual space. Particularly if that virtual space is misunderstood, which it is.
Right now, as an example- I am not purely engaging in a public conversation with you. I am not "typing a conversation". I'm building an archive. There's a drastic difference between conversation- a purely collaborative process- and the rapid
archival of critique and response, which is the basic, logical eternal process of "dialogue" we've had with most cultural responses in history since text (essentially, we're writing a collaborative essay, which is a far cry from dialogue).

So what we are doing is more directly connected to archive, the development of reference. This kind of conversation is radically different than what we think we're doing, which is conversing. Your thought that I am obfuscating a point and
contributing nothing is not something that would happen in a "conversation" taking place between two people in an effectively "collapsed geography". It happens because you are concerned with the development and the construction of the archive of
your ideas. T

I think that's one way to look at it. Of course, the oral culture has no reference, an archive of the conversation doesn't exist, there's no concern for it. I worry that this negative side of oral culture is the problem. Leaving the example of our
conversation and going back to my observation on the political sphere of the web: people seek out people who will help us construct an archive that reflects our individual view of reality, instead of using objectively constructed, carefully observed
and interpreted references. (In oral cultures, objective reality is held in check- not precisely, by any means- by the fact that information was stored in other people, who could verify it but also challenge you if you use it incorrectly. Text loses
that). For most of the seething political conversations which are dominating the media and the electorate (in the USA, anyway) the reference is "conversations" with individuals of like mind: no ISP has yet built in a system that intercepts and
corrects packets containing bad information, warped logic or, not that we'd want it to, deviant thought (which is the downside of the oral culture).

Here's where I am trying to add something to McCluhan's equation:

Is this search for a mirror archive of our desires simply because we are in a transition period from "one to many media" (the broadcast) to "many to many media" (the rhizome)? Instead of a collaborative textual conversation (which might be
impossible for some) and the use of the greatest research archive in human history to share information and observation, we're seeing people previously choking on the input of the one to many media (with no response mechanism in place) using the
new, many to many medium to emulate the behaviors they've seen- they becoming broadcasters instead of collaborators. They kind of just perpetuate the cycle of abuse!

One example: I helped build a community access, public radio station in a small NH town two years ago. I was also an administrator in the management of this station. It was shocking, to me, how much of a battle it was for people to give up emulation
of what they had been hearing for decades on corporate run media. Any culture where a tool is used by elites for very long, and suddenly becomes available to the many, will in fact be used in much the same way that the elites had used them- because
that history of consuming media creates roadblocks for understanding ways that the media had not been used. It's cultural conditioning, and in talking about the media it's an important thing to recognize, especially as we're seeing it now on the
web.

Or, alternatively, are we seeking a mirror to archive our desires online simply because, as Beaudrillard wrote in "Impossible Exchange", we seek verification of our private reality in order to convince ourselves that it is real (or right, for that
matter).

Sorry if you mistook my previous response for "emotional".

Cheers,
-er.

Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 12:45 AM -0500 wrote:
>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
>+
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Marshall McLuhan, "actual destroyer of our civilization"


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