Re: [-empyre-] meat and potatoes space
Maybe it is progress-
So Lets play.
Man, looking back at the original questions below, it seems as though
the current topic goes right along with the matter at hand. I think I
addressed many of your ?s from my own regional/cultural/social place,
and it seems as though Robby has dealt with said in his questioning
I am not sure we have broken so far from the discourse.... And no one
said we all agree, but maybe were trying to clarify individual points
of view in a manner which is illuminative but so as not to bash or
flame. This seems to be one metric of making collective network
endeavors (moderately) successful: stepping back and
reconsidering/rehashing/redefining. And then remaking. Better than
arguing and destroying I think...
This conversation and the topics at hand this month have been of
particular interest, and I really appreciate the moderators, guests,
and other contributors continuing to fill my inbox with more
information than I will be able to properly digest for a good while. So
with that we can all continue to create, consider, create...(flame,
bash, argue, create)
So Lets play.
I. Questions- of Precepts...
1. Who are we when we think of a network of spaces?
2. Who are we (this is a super-fucking-inclussive we... I want to be a
part of any club that will have me and want anyone to be a member of
my club as long as they are members a club that is meaningful.)
3. What is OUR common denomonators
a. what values do we share
b. what ideals
c. what goals
d. what resources
4. What are our differences?
5. Who are we in our local cities and scenes and how does this relate
to our more global we?
6. How do we distinguish ourselves from the those that are clearly not
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:35 PM, marc wrote:
For me, this thread is a great snap-shot of our current moment and a
weakness of our collective discursive practice.
We all agree in the end! And that is all we learn!
Where has this conversation gone?
This is the atomization of our intellectual heritage and future so
that we have no agenda besides stating our opinion.
Christina and I set out an agenda in week one, and I set out an
outline entitled "play ball" inviting collective engagement towards
progressive problem solving.
Weeks later, we are bickering (me included) about things that seem
like we can all somewhat agree upon.
On Nov 29, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ryan Griffis wrote:
On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:00 PM, marc wrote:
I would imagine that we could collectively imagine that there is a
hybrid practices between the web and the "meat-world" (great term).
that we could collectively allow for a functionality on both
i think Robby's post is meant to be a bit (or more) provocative here
(of course, i've been known to be wrong!). and his crit of tech lines
up with some of the other concerns about the false promises of IT to
deliver democracy, so it's not without some sound foundation. Read
Hakim Bey (aka Peter Lamborn Wilson) lately?
Trebor text posted earlier i think also asks some great questions
that had a couple people on his New Media Education challenging the
effectiveness of IT for the purposes of the left.
Anyway, i think the whole dichotomy thing IT/anti-IT is kind of a
distraction and a bit of a red herring... were people arguing over
whether or not the printing press was going to change the world for
the better, lift up the oppressed, just by being produced?
it did no doubt change the world, but it certainly didn't eliminate
oppression, as our reality testifies to.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and