KASPAR HAUSER&isabelle dinoire

Hi Manik,

I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
perspective.

Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
non-local "events."

I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
brave.

The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.

Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
me. I may say something that changes you.

So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
upon my shores and inundate me.

Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
place over here.

peace,
curt



At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>
>
>Curt wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>observations from this perspective:
>
>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29 )and
>totally
>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>origin(
><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire )because
>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom…"He come with the rain and
>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>
>1.
>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>
>
>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience…
>whole complexity
> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
>from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify…And you
>became one more indoctrinate man.
>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>disturb you at all.Really?
>
>
> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>
>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>another expression for event,or media…).Unclear ness part of
>text…
>
>2.
>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>piece is touching and brave.
>
>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>irony,not disown…Bad and ugly.
>
> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>
>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
>fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>Best wishes
>MANIK

Hi Curt,
Thanks for fast answer.
I spend a long time not to define my own feeling
toward Isabelle,but to find appropriate
way to answer to utmost horrifying declaration like this
one for example:"this video is about the truth of nerve endings and microph=
ones."
Or worst:"…we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
sampling and the sampling of media."My understand of
ethical can't store those nonsense in space of
creative/aesthetic/or"art",to be obvious on indirect way.
One boy from England,Marco B.(I think it's his artistic name)
use to make happening with bloodshed,and this concrete
act/ritual was utmost unacceptable for me as act of creativity.
I'm sure blood is better to use for infusion(I don't care if
somebody find that old-fashioned).Also MANIK despise
people who vulture/necrophilistic run to exploit others
accident(Agricola de Cologne,abe linkoln…etc).In Warhol case that was bre=
ak trough
conservatism of ruling class(in Foucoult classification *race*),but "somet=
hing good
repeating so many times(in time)became farce".In the midlle of farce,when
unconscious,amateurism cut up anyhow destroyed sense for dignity
of thoughtful people,my reaction was to defend essence I belive.
Finaly,in my own country,Serbia, MANIK'S exclude from public life(we dare
to think) and Rhizome_Raw is,so far,best place to expres opinion and define=

own mental space(next to making specific thing,techae,"art").We know
that ewerything we said on Rhizome_Raw goes on *right*place,spy are
around,you could think it's paranoya if you wish…
In your case I exaggerate because obvious i'm stil not
able to understand nuance of English language,and,which is
more important my threshold of sensitivity is shake
with too much stupid thing I see around.
You and few other guy(they don't need advertising by
mentioned theirs names)were MANIK'S fulcrum in
flood of contradictory and mediocre appear on Rhizome_Raw.
I was in dilema what to do.And I decide to wrote mail to you.
Your answer show to one who is interested
that there's way to put things on right place trough
dialogue with mutual respect.
MANIK know that's good way which could be useful as
realize something immanent to "art"&public direction.
MANIK'S first "art"experience was American films,
"Vistavision"is our first color fascination(still is).I know
about Amerika much more that you think(half of MANIK spend
few month there,and other half have son who study
philosophy and anthropology in Canada,its close to America?)
Sory if we offend you,and if we are it wasn't from pollute spring.
Best wishes
MANIK

Hi Manik,

I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
perspective.

Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
non-local "events."

I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
brave.

The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.

Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
me. I may say something that changes you.

So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
upon my shores and inundate me.

Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
place over here.

peace,
curt



At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>
>
>Curt wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>observations from this perspective:
>
>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikip=
edia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29 )and
>totally
>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/=
Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>origin(
><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire )be=
cause
>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom…"He come with the rain and
>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>
>1.
>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>
>
>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience…
>whole complexity
> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
>from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify…And you
>became one more indoctrinate man.
>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>disturb you at all.Really?
>
>
> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>
>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>another expression for event,or media…).Unclear ness part of
>text…
>
>2.
>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>piece is touching and brave.
>
>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>irony,not disown…Bad and ugly.
>
> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>
>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
>fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>Best wishes
>MANIK

Hi Curt,
Thanks for fast answer.
I spend a long time not to define my own feeling
toward Isabelle,but to find appropriate
way to answer to utmost horrifying declaration like this
one for example:"this video is about the truth of nerve endings and microph=
ones."
Or worst:"…we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
sampling and the sampling of media."My understand of
ethical can't store those nonsense in space of
creative/aesthetic/or"art",to be obvious on indirect way.
One boy from England,Marco B.(I think it's his artistic name)
use to make happening with bloodshed,and this concrete
act/ritual was utmost unacceptable for me as act of creativity.
I'm sure blood is better to use for infusion(I don't care if
somebody find that old-fashioned).Also MANIK despise
people who vulture/necrophilistic run to exploit others
accident(Agricola de Cologne,abe linkoln…etc).In Warhol case that was bre=
ak trough
conservatism of ruling class(in Foucault classification *race*),but "somet=
hing good
repeating so many times(in time)became farce".In the middle of farce,when
unconscious,amateurism cut up anyhow destroyed sense for dignity
of thoughtful people,my reaction was to defend essence I believe.
Finally,in my own country,Serbia, MANIK'S exclude from public life(we dare
to think) and Rhizome_Raw is,so far,best place to express opinion and defin=
e
own mental space(next to making specific thing,techae,"art").We know
that everything we said on Rhizome_Raw goes on *right*place,spy are
around,you could think it's paranoia if you wish…
In your case I exaggerate because obvious I'm still not
able to understand nuance of English language,and,which is
more important my threshold of sensitivity is shake
with too much stupid thing I see around.
You and few other guy(they don't need advertising by
mentioned theirs names)were MANIK'S fulcrum in
flood of contradictory and mediocre appear on Rhizome_Raw.
I was in dilemma what to do.And I decide to wrote mail to you.
Your answer show to one who is interested
that there's way to put things on right place trough
dialogue with mutual respect.
MANIK know that's good way which could be useful as
realize something immanent to "art"&public direction.
MANIK'S first "art"experience was American films,
"Vistavision"is our first color fascination(still is).I know
about America much more that you think(half of MANIK spend
few month there,and other half have son who study
philosophy and anthropology in Canada,its close to America?)
Sorry if we offend you,and if we are it wasn't from pollute spring.
Best wishes
MANIK

Hi Manik,

I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
perspective.

Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
non-local "events."

I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
brave.

The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.

Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
me. I may say something that changes you.

So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
upon my shores and inundate me.

Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
place over here.

peace,
curt



At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>
>
>Curt wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>observations from this perspective:
>
>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikip=
edia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29 )and
>totally
>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/=
Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>origin(
><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire )be=
cause
>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom…"He come with the rain and
>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>
>1.
>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>
>
>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience…
>whole complexity
> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
>from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify…And you
>became one more indoctrinate man.
>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>disturb you at all.Really?
>
>
> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>
>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>another expression for event,or media…).Unclear ness part of
>text…
>
>2.
>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>piece is touching and brave.
>
>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>irony,not disown…Bad and ugly.
>
> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>
>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
>fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>Best wishes
>MANIK

Hi Manik,

No offense taken about the US. I was just curious. I see that y'all
expect more of the US, and it is refreshingly hopeful that someone
has any expectations at all.

Regarding Kaspar Hauser, this was filmed near where I live:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell

Regarding Isabelle, I am glad that some things are still sacred to
some people. And I am glad that people are still using rhizome as a
community.

"Keep coming back. It works if you work it."

curt



At 8:24 PM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>Hi Curt,
>Thanks for fast answer.
>I spend a long time not to define my own feeling
> toward Isabelle,but to find appropriate
>way to answer to utmost horrifying declaration like this
>one for example:"this video is about the truth of nerve endings and
>microphones."
>Or worst:"…we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
>Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
>sampling and the sampling of media."My understand of
>ethical can't store those nonsense in space of
>creative/aesthetic/or"art",to be obvious on indirect way.
>One boy from England,Marco B.(I think it's his artistic name)
>use to make happening with bloodshed,and this concrete
>act/ritual was utmost unacceptable for me as act of creativity.
>I'm sure blood is better to use for infusion(I don't care if
>somebody find that old-fashioned).Also MANIK despise
>people who vulture/necrophilistic run to exploit others
>accident(Agricola de Cologne,abe linkoln…etc).In Warhol case that
>was break trough
>conservatism of ruling class(in Foucoult classification *race*),but
>"something good
>repeating so many times(in time)became farce".In the midlle of farce,when
>unconscious,amateurism cut up anyhow destroyed sense for dignity
>of thoughtful people,my reaction was to defend essence I belive.
>Finaly,in my own country,Serbia, MANIK'S exclude from public life(we dare
>to think) and Rhizome_Raw is,so far,best place to expres opinion and define
>own mental space(next to making specific thing,techae,"art").We know
>that ewerything we said on Rhizome_Raw goes on *right*place,spy are
>around,you could think it's paranoya if you wish…
>In your case I exaggerate because obvious i'm stil not
>able to understand nuance of English language,and,which is
>more important my threshold of sensitivity is shake
>with too much stupid thing I see around.
>You and few other guy(they don't need advertising by
>mentioned theirs names)were MANIK'S fulcrum in
>flood of contradictory and mediocre appear on Rhizome_Raw.
>I was in dilema what to do.And I decide to wrote mail to you.
> Your answer show to one who is interested
>that there's way to put things on right place trough
>dialogue with mutual respect.
>MANIK know that's good way which could be useful as
>realize something immanent to "art"&public direction.
>MANIK'S first "art"experience was American films,
>"Vistavision"is our first color fascination(still is).I know
>about Amerika much more that you think(half of MANIK spend
>few month there,and other half have son who study
>philosophy and anthropology in Canada,its close to America?)
>Sory if we offend you,and if we are it wasn't from pollute spring.
>Best wishes
>MANIK
>
>Hi Manik,
>
>I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
>everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
>of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
>reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
>rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
>heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
>experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
>perspective.
>
>Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
>true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
>me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
>non-local "events."
>
>I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
>that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
>cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
>brave.
>
>The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
>event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
>couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
>sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.
>
>Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
>Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
>or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
>whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
>growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
>as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
>one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
>me. I may say something that changes you.
>
>So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
>outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
>This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
>energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
>our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
>not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
>upon my shores and inundate me.
>
>Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
>imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
>in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
>place over here.
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>
>At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>>
>>
>>Curt wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>>
>> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>>observations from this perspective:
>>
>>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
>><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29
>>)and
>>totally
>>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>>(<<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>>origin(
>><<http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
>>)because
>>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom…"He come with the rain and
>>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>>
>>1.
>>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>>
>>
>>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience…
>>whole complexity
>> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
> >from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify…And you
>>became one more indoctrinate man.
>>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
>> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>>disturb you at all.Really?
>>
>>
>> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>>
>>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>>another expression for event,or media…).Unclear ness part of
>>text…
>>
>>2.
>>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>>piece is touching and brave.
>>
>>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>>irony,not disown…Bad and ugly.
>>
>> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>>
>>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
> >fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>>Best wishes
>>MANIK