Re: [-empyre-] Baudrillard and the future of theory

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

Sorry Ken, "militant" follow others: I cant. Be singularly among others, I
can. You know perfectly how Canetti manifests the question of melancholia
regarding the camps and the shoa, I remind in the Human territory, from the
observation on a Holbein's (?) paint or engraving may be Last Judgment, may
be the plague: that a large part of human were in line to go to the trap
without protest and another staying a bit apart (in self reserve - not as a
selection; more a distance).

But I think that probably yes we have to found something radically and as
most as possible collective in act regarding information and communication.
FOR THE BEGINNING and without presupposing the following resolution..  But
it is not an alternate question. It is properly the dominant question that
requests strategy.

On this I agree with you.

And i wait any ideas from your part on this points;-) but CC can be a part
it is not the very solution because abolishing itself a part of singularity.

More on the question of scarcity, there is something which the marxism
cannot give a good answer on scarcity, it is properly the question of
precariousness of the life and of the events ad coming by and through the
life. Can be singular productions (or virtual productions), events and so
on. Which are things apart of the question of common (but multiple commons
that cannot be administrate)




On 11/03/07 17:01, "McKenzie Wark" <mckenzie.wark@gmail.com> probably wrote:

> On 3/11/07, Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org> wrote:
> 
>> Militant means a hierarchy that I cannot imagine to return with. Being
>> exactly the social representation of structured action to tribute the
>> reproduction of the same, from and to every time of political action even
>> democratic centralism.
> 
> I'm not interested in returning to Leninist models, either. But there
> are lots of other ways of creating *relation*, of putting people
> together outside of administration or exchange. For me this was the
> significance of the 'nettime years', back when it was more than a
> listserver. It was about very loose relations with very weak force,
> but lots of them.
> 
> If you read Adilkno's book Media Archive, which is still strongly
> influenced by Baudrillard, then you look at all the experiments in new
> media from that time as not being about the technology but being about
> relation, then you find there a quite different species of Baudrillard
> epigone to the more cliched kind Brian mentions.
> 
> I think those folks would have been boring no matter who they took up,
> whereas JB did help some really interesting people think their way out
> of some tired assumptions about media. The new media politics / theory
> / art practices partly took off from him, but not by imitation.
> 
> But another consequence of that period was the idea that we didn't
> have to agree on the theory first before there could be 'practice'.
> Theory could be used pragmatically and in the plural. There was a
> price to pay for that in rigor, in thinking things through, but if you
> had ever been in those interminable arguments about the 'line' it was
> refreshing, to say the least.
> 
> One question that hasn't come up yet, though, is pedagogy: how to
> teach theory as a practice, in the schools as well as outside of it.
> None of this will have happened unless somebody teaches it...
> 
> ___________________
> McKenzie Wark
> http://www.ludiccrew.org
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>