[-empyre-] Fwd: noiseless art / vulnerable butterflies

["sergio basbaum" <sbasbaum@gmail.com>]

dear empyreans,

I'm forwarding four messages of Johannes that are meaningful
contributions to what matters in this conversation.

S.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer@brunel.ac.uk>
Date: Nov 26, 2006 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: noiseless art / vulnerable butterflies
To: sergio basbaum <sbasbaum@gmail.com>



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 whatsoever, 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