Re: [313] Stewart Walker...
I second the opinion. - Original Message - From: "Mxyzptlk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: [313] Stewart Walker... > ...did an ass-blistering set today @ DEMF. IMO everything afterward was > anticlimactic. > jeff > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] Knights of the Jaguar cover version
www.hillhaus.com/mass/jaguar_ripoff.mp3 i have no idea where i got this, but i remember being told that it was the beginning of the sony version. /j - Original Message - From: "Matthew L. Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [313] Knights of the Jaguar cover version > Doesn't sound like the same as the Sony rip-off to me. I could be wrong, > though. From what I remember, the Sony version sounded like a clubby-trance > remix of the original gone bad. Hmmm... I realize that sounds redundant to > some, but it's the best description I can come up with. > > I agree, whatever it is... it sounds terrible! > > Matt > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web Site: http://www.magicmattkelly.com > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <313@hyperreal.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:20 PM > Subject: [313] Knights of the Jaguar cover version > > > > http://www.siworx.de/shop/demo/D2012.rm > > > > Is this the one that Sony did? Apparently this is off a Ladomat 2000 > record > > by BeigeGT (?). It's like nails on a chalkboard. > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] Is "technology" just a "new invention"?
Technology doesn't need to be new, timely, scientific, or even instrumental. True, those are common conceptions of what the word means. But when asked what technology is, what the essence of technology is, or what the prerequisites for a technological thing are, I'm willing to bet that most can't give answers (and if they can there is probably going to be quite a bit of disagreement). 'Technology' is derived from the greek 'technikon'. Technikon refers to that which belongs to techne. Techne is, essentially, a way to know things. In "The Question Concerning Technology", Martin Heidegger shows how technology is more a mode of perception and understanding than it is an adjective for the new or instrumental. He isn't alone in this line of thought. To name a few others, Walter Benjamin (The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction), Jean Baudrillard (Simulacra and Simulation (the Matrix draws a lot from this book)), and even Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) seem to think that technology refers not to objects around us, but the way we understand those objects, other people, and in general the world around us. Here is an interesting link for those interested in the interplay of "technology" and society: www.ctheory.com Cheers, joshua hill - Original Message - From: "FC3 Richards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Giles Dickerson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:17 PM Subject: RE: [313] Is "technology" just a "new invention"? > i thought technology was called technology because it was the science of > technical stuff > > > -Original Message- > > From: Giles Dickerson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:30 AM > > To: laura gavoor; James Bucknell > > Cc: 313@hyperreal.org > > Subject: [313] Is "technology" just a "new invention"? > > > > Think about this. > > > > Technology is called technology because it is new, timely, and a lot of > > these arguements I've seen have been typical technology versus > > instrumentation...etc... > > > > .org > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] Detroit + Dance (off topic)
- Original Message - From: "laura gavoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [313] Detroit + Dance > Still amazes me how dense most Americans are when it comes to the arts. > Sorry to soap box, but few dancers live very OKAY lives for lack of support > in this country. Most still live the life of the starving artist with a > couple of other jobs to survive, even while maintianing a position in one of > the world's most prestigious dance companies. > > After all...what is dance music without the dancer. Speaking of dance music, isn't the dancer (in America) usually the dense American? If a professional dancer is with "one of the world's most prestigious dance companies" and still needs to hold multiple jobs, then isn't this a global issue and not some problem of priorities with "most Americans"? Or perhaps the problem is specifically American: "How many poor people, who envy and hate the rich, nevertheless tolerate monstrous inequalities of wealth merely because they hope eventually to be among the few who rise to the top? Some even consider this vicious delusion admirable: 'the American Dream.'" (Allen Wood). Or maybe we average Americans don't support professional dancers because we are expected, by the dancers, to support them as if they are the string by which our distorted values cling to the isolated pockets of "critically aclaimed" cultural enlightenment. /j - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
