RE: [-empyre-] noiseless art / vulnerable butterflies forward from J. BIrringer

[Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>]

This message was received in rich text format.  Mailman software does  
not accept RTF, only plain text.  Forwarded here in plain text.

thanks

cm



From: "Johannes Birringer" <Johannes.Birringer@brunel.ac.uk>
Date: November 26, 2006 8:02:14 AM PST
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: RE: [-empyre-]  noiseless art / vulnerable butterflies




hello all.

The conversation of postings in the NovemberDebate (THE WORK OF ART  
IN THE AGE OF A NOISELESS WORLD) has now accumulated 69 pages, after  
about 45 posts. on my document file.
The November discussion has not been logged yet in the  
soft_skinned_space. so if you want to track-back, you have to go to  
the November thread, which lists the postings in a non-linear  
fashion, following a principle of organization not known to me.

i just wanted to say that I have not quite attempted to be involved,  
before, in such a month long conversation on a proposition [--a  
utopia embedded on digital informational technology... with a  
cybernetic paradigm aiming at a world of perfect informational flux -  
that is, a world without noise],
initially rephrased by Hamed, following Sergio's announcement.


I)
How should we understand "better life,"  "goals,"    "utopia," ,  
"world without noise"?
In what sense? In what  / through what / contexts?


Three weeks later, Hamed' consistency in trying to parse Benjamin's  
writings & the messianic dimensions of his philosophy, is still  
noteworthy, as he suggests we could reach some better understanding  
of the "language of technological media" if we carefully analyse what  
is meant by language{s), whether media can be (or not) a universal  
language, what is meant by "pure language", and what might be  
conceivable as a messianic end of languages (redeemed humanity).

I found Hamed's last post to be difficult to follow (again, from a  
perspective such a mine which is neither directed at a totalizing  
ideal or a messianic redemption - i cannot not even think redemption;  
nor do I quite grasp why Hamed wants us to think about  art "aiming  
its attacks" on non-messianic universal dictatorships? art being able  
to aim at anything?  .... having strength to question sacrifice,   
bare life, the reductions and degradations of biocybernetic  
technologies in today's noise world?  I do not see aft having any  
such powers. I do not think games or hacking/coding are interesting  
to talk about as such unless we consider gaming a major phenomenon of  
dissociative consciousness (autism), and engage in parsing the  
technologial shadows (Miguel)  or accidents  and the fall outs of the  
cybernetic control paranoias.,.......influencing the innocent  
children (to be or do what?).  I don't think anyone is innocent.  I  
do not know what butterflies have to do with the messianic or with  
art as "interrogation machine" (this is a reference to Laibach and  
NSK). As far as children are concerned, when they become adoloscents,  
I presume they will question what they have learnt, and try to  
understand how things work.

I take it that Hamed's implies:    Noise (as in: Babel), is in fact  
diversities (of languages and existences in history/hisytories).    
The "noiseless", according to Hamed's reading, would be a positive  
theology -  redeeemed humanity.

After reading Hamed's post, and Miguel's and  Michelle's, I tried to  
go back to Aliette's writing,  and i find it unintelligible. I don't  
mean the english, I mean the thought process, this is really  
maddening, actually, and my own poverty.

But it interests me now to wonder whether such a conversation, here,  
in this November, makes any sense whatsover, and why are we having it  
in the first place, and can one have a focussed conversation in a  
babelhypertext?



Johannes Birringer
DAP Lab
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap