flaming, bashing and creating are a part of a process. Sorry to sound
like a spoil sport. Robby's questions were totally in line with the
I am just commenting on the fact that we try and look for differences
so much instead of stepping forward creatively together and
collaborating on something discursively unknown.
I started out the month with one cruel comment saying that meaningful
expressions are a dime a dozen and I appologize, in my previous comment
for treating the last handfull of comments as though they were worth 10
cent. That is wrong.
Yet this thought keeps playing in my head, and also something Fred
Dewey, an LA based thinker talks about. How more then anything else,
the US 2 Party system is based around sealing the deal on the illusion
of basic binaries in American politics... and that more then anything
else in the US, the most dangerous thing to do would be to come
together through difference and find common ground. This sounds like so
much happy talk, but really, sociologically, on this list, what really
is the range of opinion? I doubt at its core that the differences are
Why do I spend the time looking for differences instead of building
common ground and making it productive towards some unknown?
By unknown I mean the following- I have so many holes in my
understanding of how this vast hegemonic empire functions and how
unmeditated difference occurs none-the-less in spite of this vastness.
Pick something, anything. We could all participate in learning.
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
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