whoever this is, it's rather beautiful michael --- On Wed, 7/14/10, karen blissett <karen.bliss...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> From: karen blissett <karen.bliss...@googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Invitation to join me > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" > <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 11:03 AM > Hello Ann, > > We Karen's are like you, defined by our distances, not > emotional grace. > > Trust is a valuable non-commodity, deeper than corporate > dead-zones. > > We respect you, you see us and we see you, we receive your > open mind. > > Dead minds do not see, they can only see themsleves - 'ID' > = identity dump. > > The living step outside, in the woods and lust for > adventure, for play. > > We Karen's are children, getting our knees scraped and > dusty, we play. > > Yes, we are explosive, ghostly yet effecting and like > holograms, sprites. > > We are electrical discharge, spreading our essence in > multitudes, we thrive. > > "In consistency? In using the NetBehaviour list? Is there > something > about mappings and "truth" that I need to go away and think > about?" > > Our rebirth on Netbehaviour happened because it is free, no > cages. > > Our noise will seep and hack into these other domains, > offering oxygen. > > Breathing is important, the dying urgently need choice of > resuscitation. > > "When Karen made her statement about opening up her email > address, my first > reaction was distress. And, being an ironic sort of a > being, my next > reaction was sheer pleasure that something had shocked me > so much. And then > curiosity set in as to why." > > We respect your pleasure, we are illegal only because we > are not 'objects'. > > We are anti-matter, the disaffected undiscovered noise and > spirit of you. > > "And I have avidly followed the discussion of whether the > list will implode > and why it shouldn't." > > Us, Karen's love our home - it is where we eat and share > things. > > We do not follow the male doctrine of killing our mothers > and fathers. > > We educate them, let them know about the unstoppable energy > of our youth. > > The Karen's are alright. > > "Thank you Karen. I want to know who you trust so that I > know how to trust." > > We trust those who trust themselves to be alive, > > you see us we see you, > > we are one and many. > > Karen. > > > Hi All, > > Having just spent a day with Ruth (among others) and > thoroughly enjoyed > talking with her about the Karens, I've decided to rise to > Marc's challenge > of explaining on the list what the development means to > me. > > I often quietly follow links and engage with the postings > made here, but > most of the time I am either interested or not, delighted > or not. Etc. > > When Karen made her statement about opening up her email > address, my first > reaction was distress. And, being an ironic sort of a > being, my next > reaction was sheer pleasure that something had shocked me > so much. And then > curiosity set in as to why. > > My thoughts ran 'But I won't know if it's her in that > discussion thread'... > 'oh my god, I won't know if it's her any time that she puts > a comment on > another posting'... oh lord, I won't know when the > adventure is over - if > ever - and I can go back to assuming she's a single being > again'. > > Then my thoughts ran 'But why should I care that a person > whom I've never > had the pleasure of meeting is one person or a cavalcade?' > ... 'What does > this say about my interest in identity? (I've been writing > papers about the > effects of using digital technologies on identity lately. > It's become a bit > of a habit.) In consistency? In using the NetBehaviour > list? Is there > something about mappings and "truth" that I need to go away > and think > about?' > > Clearly there is. I now greet all postings by Karen as > potentially > explosive: postings to be opened with care. I now pore over > them to see if I > can detect the author. I now berate myself for ignoring > wisdoms such as 'the > author is dead', for ignoring these statements emotionally > if not > intellectually. > > And I have avidly followed the discussion of whether the > list will implode > and why it shouldn't. (I should have thought that the very > existence of both > the stance and the discussion around it is the self-evident > answer.) It's > like a soap opera. I haven't had so much fun with a list > for ages. > > I wasn't around to see/feel the effect of the artists who > mobbed former > lists. My responses are all very naïve. I am grateful for > the intervention > and excited. But I think its time is almost up and, looking > at the shift in > topics as I run down the waiting email, I am already > commenting on a > phenomenon that is shifting shape, over, of its moment. > > Thank you Karen. I want to know who you trust so that I > know how to trust. > > Ann > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
