[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology

[Yunzi Li]

Dear all,
I am deeply impressed by all the topics and ideas told. Talking about
"privacy", especially the Facebook. I want to put "censorship" into
question. As I come from China,  so I know much about Censorship happening
there. Some websites like Facebook, Youtube are banned in China, if so, the
"imagined community" established by digital media may be prohibited by
official. I know some communist countries also share this problem.
Melody

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Eugenio Tisselli <cubo23 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Christina,
>
> It's very interesting that you bring up the question of "privacy" as a
> possible precondition needed for innovation (and, if I understood correctly,
> also creativity). But I wonder if "intimacy" would be a better way to
> characterize this "separateness" that an individual or group needs to
> develop cognitive processes in a staisfactory way.
>
> As Scott says, networks such as Facebook are primarily designed to harvest
> user data for its use by corporations. Privacy, indeed, has been a big issue
> around Facebook, and more so lately, when extreme policies were found to be
> invasive. Many users left Facebook because they felt their privacy
> threatened, by flocking to "smaller", more grass-roots or focused social
> networks. But I think it's interesting to think about this also in terms of
> intimacy. As individuals, we tend to seek intimate spots in order to think,
> to reflect... to create. As groups, we also gather in places which are
> welcoming. These environments seem to propitiate the "invocation/evocation
> of the broad contents of the mind", as you beautifully put it in your
> question.
>
> Can we think of an example of an "intimate" network?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eugenio Tisselli Vélez
> cubo23 at yahoo.com
> http://www.motorhueso.net
>
> --- El *jue, 7/8/10, Christina Spiesel <christina.spiesel at yale.edu>*escribió:
>
>
> De: Christina Spiesel <christina.spiesel at yale.edu>
>
> Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology
> A: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Fecha: jueves, 8 de julio de 2010, 05:44 pm
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> One of the clever aspects of Facebook was that it found a way to capitalize
> (in mutliple senses) relationships that pre-existed in meat world. That it
> is a panopticon is what keeps me disinterested in participating. And this
> leads me to a question that rubs against a number of these threads. Fair
> disclosure, it came up yesterday in a face to face group I am part of. Is
> privacy necessary to innovation (not necessarily artistic)? Follow up: is it
> necessary only to individuals or can it be a feature needed by working
> groups as well? I am raising this question not particularly with respect to
> protecting property interests in advance of "publication" (although they may
> come up along the way) but much more with regard to psychological/cognitive
> processes.
>
> Looping back somewhat in the conversation about the "utility" of art, why
> it is important (and by art, I mean all forms/media of expression), I have
> always thought that it represents the wider mind, gives form to its
> integration, which is incredibly powerful and important. What do I mean? The
> contents of our mental lives are big stews of the present/past experience,
> fantasies, unconscious material of all kinds, and yes, desire (=drive?),
> kinesthetic knowledge, etc.. Art making, because it draws on all these
> sources can, quite aside from the expressive goals of the maker, assure
> others that integration is possible. And it gives permission to others to
> try the same thing. So a more refined version of the question above is this:
> Is privacy required to invoke/evoke the broad contents of the mind in either
> individuals or as a result of group process?
>
> Christina
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eugenio Tisselli wrote:
>
> Davin,
>
> When I read your phrase
>
>   And, if we live in a true community, our
> ideas and actions
> are bound to modify, be modified, contradict, and/or
> complement the
> negotiation of being.
>
> the rose-colored environment of Facebook immediately came to mind. You know, you can "like" but not "dislike", and people rarely disagree or contradict each other. You say that we are bound to be contradicted when we live in a true community, and I would say that we actually need to be contradicted in order to set arguments, discussions and debates in motion. The fact that we are here at empyre, not necessarily contradicting each other, but offering continuous counterpoints and different viewpoints, makes us all richer. Knowledge can emerge from disagreement. So, in the almost complete absence of a minimal quota of agonistic exchanges between people, how can a community emerge from Facebook? Are there so many contradictions and conflicts in the "real world" that we turn to Facebook simply to escape from them? Could we then see Facebook as an "anti-community", where we all just whiz by other poeple's walls, stopping only to acknowledge what we like
>  and
>  ignoring what we don't?
>
> Eugenio.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au <http://mc/compose?to=empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> -----Adjunto en línea a continuación-----
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<http://mc/compose?to=empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100709/c3bd2ba3/attachment.html>