Hi Andreas, I'm sure you knew ;-)
----- Could I just ask you a question? Is your name also 'Agam (A.) Andreas' ? what name should I use in the future? Much thanks marc > Hi Marc > > Thanks for your clarification of the subject, I was already wondering > what it was all about, now I am informed > > Thanks again > > Andreas Maria Jacobs > > w: http://www.nictoglobe.com > w: http://burgerwaanzin.nl > > "Politics is the Architecture of Death" > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 18:07, marc garrett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Hi Rob & all, >> >> Thanks for the link to the P2P (Foundation) conversation between >> Michel >> Bauwens & Geert Lovink. >> >> Lovink's relationship with 'free culture' comes from a micro >> perspective, influenced by connections built around an active respect >> for the idea, and possibly a personal reliance on structures which >> rely >> on frameworks dedicated, in supporting some form of 'official' >> authority. This creates a less socially grounded and intuitive >> understanding of why people are engaged in such things. >> >> Things cannot always be defined through theory or through 'officially' >> culturalized platforms or accepted intellectually condoned hierarchies >> alone. To be truly engaged, one has to cross over into different >> elements of being, connecting and touching - not necessarily because >> it's part of one's practice, but because it relates to everyday life >> and >> experience as well. Thankfully, such things can't be measured, >> packaged >> made into chewable concepts so easily. Where ever we happen stand to >> stand in the scheme of things, we only possess part of the picture, >> not >> the whole thing. >> >> Yet, what this situation communicates to me, is that many out there >> feel >> they know or have a particular advantage of the bigger picture because >> of their positions in relation to their privilege, rather than their >> actual engagement in a field such as free culture. And what theorists >> want, really does not matter - it's what people want that matters >> precisely because they are the users the community. >> >> "At the moment the amateurs are blocking the careers of entire >> generations of young professionals. With this the rich knowledge of >> professions is threatened to disappear (for instance those doing >> investigative journalism). We have to stop this talent drain and not >> create economies that have to live off charity. Free networks should >> take themselves more serious. The first step to get there should be to >> critically investigate the ‘ideology of the free’. New forms of >> production, as you call it, cost money. We need to circulate money so >> that it can flow into those circles that have taken up the task to >> seriously construct tomorrow’s tools.” >> (http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1148)" >> >> I disagree with the idea that amateurs are the enemy. Free culture is >> dictated and driven by amateurs' and their very human behaviours, just >> as much as by anyone else. This may trouble those who wish to >> control it. >> >> The other thing is that, critical engagement does not always have to >> be >> defined through specific groups of people. Creating a professional >> class >> may sound like a pretty decent idea to some, but for something to >> really >> have social significance and a cultural life, it needs to be allowed >> to >> live beyond a hermetically sealed vacuum. >> >> Having said all this, I feel that is Geert as an individual does >> propose >> some interesting arguments. What he proposes may not necessarily sit >> right, but they address important questions around how and why things >> 'should' always be free. If we want something to be free, perhaps the >> motives and ideas need to be explored more regularly or more deeply, >> rather than everyone just accepting and adopting the idea of it as an >> absolute. It's a bit like accepting democracy without knowing why its >> there in the first place - perhaps we just need to remind ourselves >> why >> we have it. >> >> Wishing you well. >> >> marc >> >> >>> "While such a critique is of course welcome and necessary, I was >>> rather >>> shocked in Venice when I listened to such a lecture, to discover that >>> Geert Lovink’s considers the free culture movement as an enemy, be >>> cause >>> it advocates everything to be free. Geert presented the following >>> expressions of free as ‘the enemy’: the freeconomic ideas of Ch >>> ris >>> Anderson (who in fact, also does not advocate everything to be >>> free, but >>> rather explains its economic rationale in a era of very cheap digital >>> reproducibility), the Oxcars free culture festival (which pays it >>> artists!), and the Barcelona charter on digital rights. This >>> equation is >>> of course entirely untrue, and I was surprised that someone of Gee >>> rt’s >>> stature, could make the classic mistake between free speech and free >>> beer, which has been clarified ages ago." >>> >>> >>> >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-the-difference-between-free-speech-and-free-beer-free-culture-as-people-want-to-be-free/2010/05/25 >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
