[inline]
On 10/20/19, 11:16, Max Herman wrote:
On the first video, I see the danger of making everything instantly
available so to speak online. It removes the role of doing your own
activities, having one's own life, just getting one online. Also the
I think that there is another issue: instant (audio-video mediated)
consumption may actually impair or prevent cognition. It doesn't help
when it's one of billion items visibly stacked together*. It may have to
do with mechanics of humans.
In other words, if you want to disarm a concept or an idea, flood
Internet with videos and tweets about it.
It explains why the quality of discourse on mailing lists surpass any
shitty GUI/web media. We should be writing letters. One message to
nettime would be, what ... $2,000 in stamps? Now that would rise the
quality!
* I am not sure that "one web site per video" would help - they are
still all stacked on the same screen. Books are unruly and can assume
any position and orientation
idea of bioengineering, which takes this to a new level: you not only
buy a premade product, but you buy a premade humanity with all the
errors of the first behavior but now internalized. Then he references
"the Event" which I would interpret to mean "that point at which humans
started creating themselves by their actions." But all life forms do
I laughed at this, because the first thing that came to my mind was
Great Oxidation Event (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event ), which poisoned
the planet's atmosphere with O2 and killed millions of innocent
anaerobic species.
millennium reference too makes sense. Is that possibly related to
net-time?
I always wondered if nettime was short for "network time" or does "net"
mean "netto", like in "net weight" ?
For the second video about Marx, I can see the errors in a statement
like "the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it." This
Marx did say that in 11th thesis on Feuerbach
(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm):
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways;
the point is to change it."
innovation, on both the left and the right: especially Freud and Marx
but also their "antagonists" (capitalism and the church). Common sense
replies like family systems theory took a bit longer to find a more
balanced approach and evolve beyond the ideology wars, but have vastly
more scientific longevity and accuracy.
The enduring takeaway from Marx is that shit doesn't happen by itself,
or because of cosmic rays; there are actors (classes). There were many
attempts (funded by one of the said actors) to mask this simple fact by
manufacturing complex "theories", which boil down to cosmic rays. Modern
economy (including Piketty) is the prime example of this. There is a
loaded gun at the far end of any social phenomenon.
I forget who it was who asked Freud at one point, "isn't dysfunction
more about the ongoing family system dynamic rather than a single
traumatic event about Oedipus?" and Freud replied, "that is absurd,
because if it were true what use would there be for psychoanalysis?" I
paraphrase here but it is roughly the exchange. The questioner went on
to establish family systems theory I believe or to help do so, and
systems theory went on to have applications on many levels (like
Bateson) whereas psychoanalysis is now viewed more or less as totally
fake (except, crucially, in literary theory). Ironically, if you
consider the popularity of psychoanalysis in the USA through the 2nd
half of the 20th c. it is no surprise that we still haven't learned much
about any new ways of talking -- most of the pop culture and leadership
behavior, not to mention academic infrastructure, took Freud (and Marx)
or anti-Freudianism (and anti-Marxism) as gospel. We still live and
operate in that "built environment" to a great extent and perhaps
getting back to a simpler way of talking wouldn't be wrong. A lot of
conditions suggest that might be happening.
Exactly. The whole charade just to prevent you from observing the loaded
gun.
Regarding psychoanalysis, it's rent-a-friend (sometimes a pusher)
masquerading as 'discipline'. It doesn't mean that rent-a-friend itself
is useless - on the contrary, it totally works in these pulverized
societies. Its rise may have something to do with the organized
extermination of prostitution.
# distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
