Re: [-empyre-] clarifying noiseless challenge

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

Once more apologizing for my very bad English speaking.

>From my part I approve totally this view which get us in distance from the
ideological conception of hackers and programmers.

They are not something supra human in secret. As they make no interpretable
thought being the codes, the reverse tribute is exhibition (ie. Obscenity).
The noiseless act may be a paranoiac request of power, certainly not a
secret social sense (for socially existing the sense must be a collective
event, so by definition it cannot be hidden).

Secret it is really secret : the critical mass may be predictable as dynamic
phenomena in ellipse, but its event can being a surprising manifestation can
never have the aspect of obscenity. All the contrary from the surprise it is
linked to the current (traditional) representation of revelation, whatever
it appears sometimes as catastrophe as fate or miracle as destiny.

What is secret it is tech entropy itself as increasing move breaking the
symbolic relationships of percept and world in a random probability of
anthropologic destiny that can be consider, appreciate, by anticipation, but
never described before its proper materialist revelation of the human world,
because it is not possible to know the multiple parameters of several sorts
which will enter the dynamic phenomena (may be stopping the increasing
entropy or turning it other, for example certain epidemics stopping suddenly
from themselves without specialists understanding why).

This only being the object of Physics numbering the time code speed and
orbital conditions of reaching a planet by a rocket (and somewhere the
result can be missing by accident).

On earth we have entered the stochastic anthropology (included our false
perceptions through several conditions of the events from abstract medias ?
as phenomena not culture) after the materialist productive society of the
symbolic contra&ct between capital and people ; by the way of the huge
phantom of our concrete history through the digital medias, of course yes
but not only.

There is another phantom which is not abstracted, being that of material
ecological turnovers, whatever not being secret, it strangely crosses our
digital phantoms (I mean the abstract world corresponding the tech medias).

Yet now human as one is nothing more but a part of the environment. We are
all other one. There is not a special condition of hackers of programmers in
the abstract world after the societies of the production and material
commodities; but otherwise if yes it would be a vision of former temptations
of subversive practice that would be only perverse reactions from the side
of power in a world which would have lost its former object.

Power is secret (ask why September 11 was both the date of murdering civil
and symbolic population of former representative US democracy, and the
anniversary of the putsch of Pinochet in Chile a lot of years before; remind
of CIA's scenarios in the early seventies of contractual global markets,
accidents in the world, or war for resolve the questions of resources and
political insubordination in the third millennium : but no one could certify
that Tsunami and Katrina catastrophes which probably help such projects
would have been commanded by tech interventions from the power: that is the
possible critical mass of other consequences convergence.

Convergence calls events as phenomena. A priori there is no sense into
convergence, but a fortiori. Confuse convergence and sense would credit the
supra human spirit as God. For whom does not believe in God, it is
unacceptable. Invisible hand from Smith may be predictable of actual
materialist view, but cannot be more from human than from God, all the
contrary actualizing the complexity of stochastic arrangements.

>From another hand whatever power it is power, neutral, whatever it comes
from a good intention, a simulate game realizing at last, or an
uncontrollable desire of total domination till the destruction of other.

Even subversion has to be considered from the point of view of stochastic
'pluriversal environmental conditions, it cognitively appears without
necessary quotation because it is our respective mental cognitive world, as
perception and practice. We have entered an experimental approve of the
thought that cannot be more dominated by Aristotelian categories or theories
of the critical societies.

No theory to tell the subversive mode is more available in our days but
randomiser accident (can be negation, can be revision under new masks but
never such as new under the mask). Chaos of society after the theory is not
a metaphor but simply a reality.

The butterfly does not think, he flies. That one reincarnating the god and
the king under the butterfly as metaphor does not leave appearing a new
opening since the secret of State.

Fortunately concerning the butterfly in the scientific theory it does not
have more the place of human than the place of God. Human being other
(whatever the flight of the butterfly tells to him): a singularity.

What and which or whom ?of the radical singularity?
 
More than ever, at the moment the complexity enter the life, we have to
prevent of analogy. Because from analogy till ideology there is only a short
walk that does not make the revealation of the manipulation, and even not
more the sense of Poetry.

That's my respective and active pragmatic point of view.

A. 


On 21/11/06 2:27, "miguel leal" <ml@virose.pt> probably wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I'm returning a little late to this discussion, sorry. But I have been
> following it from here. And as I could see, the last few days were
> quite silent... Probably as a tribute to November's theme at -empyre-
> soft-skinned space  :-)
> 
> Even so, there are lots of threads to follow, and being impossible to
> follow all of them, I am choosing something that I think it's important
> and latent since my first (and only) statement posted to the list.
> 
> Johannes (and Paulo Chagas) posts are exactly posing, indirectly, the
> question I would like to rise.
> 
> In fact, I also think it's erroneous to define 'digital' technologies
> as 'noisless'. All technologies are noisy by nature, and digital ones
> are not different in the results they produce. Technology is noisy
> because it's capable of acting in an unexpected way. Brendan presented
> it very clearly (even if in a simplified way) in his post about hackers
> and programmers as noise producers. Probably his mistake, in my point
> of view, was to present those hackers and programmers as the main
> engines of all that messy noise we can follow in every piece of
> software, or in any machine, even the analogical devices we are still
> surrounded of:
> 
>> "Spirit has been displaying some anomalous behavior," said Project
>> Manager John Callas, who noted the rover's unsuccessful attempts to
>> flip itself over and otherwise damage its scientific instruments. "And
>> the thousand or so daily messages of 'STILL NO WATER' really point to
>> a crisis of purpose."   [...]
> 
> That's why to say about programmers
>> and they make mistakes. ALL THE TIME.
> is the least we can say about technologies and its owns effects (and
> sometimes, why not, affects), but is still not enough. There is always
> a technological shadow, there is always a surprising
> being-in-the-machine-itself, that configures a technological
> unconscious. That's precisely, as I can put it in a few words, what we
> can get as one of the strongest shadows of Benjamin text (yes, a text
> as its own shadows). Ricardo points it out in one of is posts,
> underlining the 'optical unconscious' that appears, as a strong
> suggestion in Benjamin's text:
> 
>> -- by sugesting that the photo and cinema experience interferes in
>> perception -- for example, opens a "visual unconscious", thorugh which
>> we perceive previously unnoticed visual dayly realities -- he
>> anticipates McLuhan's thesis of media re-shaping our perception;
> 
> In my opinion, thats most important contribute of this text to our
> conversation: the revealing of a tecnological shadow, of a blind
> imagination that comes from the technological devices and the things we
> make with them.
> 
> ******
> Let's return to the suggestion of a noisy technological world to rise
> the question in the field of art practice, an important place to find
> some partial answers to our discussion. Being art, as we all now,
> confronted ever-since with the management of noise and the
> imprevisibility of the technological apparatus, it was obliged to
> develop different approaches to that same problem.
> Sometimes, artistic practice acts by excess, by an excess of
> transparency, revealing everything to build a secret (we can be secret
> showing everything). In this case, art is dealing with the noise and
> excesses of technology in an homeopathic way ? as with a kind of
> moebius band ? turning technology over its own noisy shadow. By the
> other hand, art choses many times a complete opacity, a complete and
> austere silence as an answer to that noise. In this case we are dealing
> with a model that builds technological phantoms.
> Both ways are capable of producing a strong thinking on technology and
> its particular noises ? now becoming predominant in our world ?even if
> one produces cacophonies and a bodily effect, and the other something
> phantomatic. Both approaches are able to produce unperceivable,
> unpersonal and inoperant things. Both strategies are a grant of
> survival.
> 
> to be continued...
> 
> ml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>