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

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

On 26/11/06 19:30, "Christina McPhee" <christina112@earthlink.net> probably
wrote:

> 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, 

Really? Very interesting...

<<> actually, and my own poverty.

Both Guattari and Foucault could have been very amused by such a judgment
more from the part of any apologizing poverty...

Fortunately for you, not only I am not crazy but I have more humor, so that
I shall avoid returning you insults, but more: please find your luck in the
fact that I am not a psychoanalyst,

> 
> 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?

Question absolutely lightning:)

> 
> 
> 
> Johannes Birringer
> DAP Lab 
> http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>