On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:20 PM Sean Cubitt
wrote:
The unthinkable has to be thought.
>
That's exactly it. I like this discussion. It's fascinating how the ideas
spring up like mushrooms. I especially like Oliver's call for all the
approaches that people might be experimenting with - aesthetic,
An-archism vs. mon-archism, many vs. few, devil
vs. deity, wilderness vs borderlands, mob vs.
cops, they vs. we, other vs. I, id vs. ego.
Same old duplicitous dichotomy, constitutional
democracy as if much different from constitutional monarchy.
"Constitutional" the playbook to invest
thanks for this interesting discussion to everyone,
I think a crux is to look at altermodern epistemologies and systems of
knowledge – and the (political) question is how to (finally) acknowledge
and federate these to the planetary political.
– this can be spelled out in terms of
Sean, Brian, others, thank you for the interesting and engaging
contributions. (Some of it gets a bit cryptic since it refers to
political discourses that are not immediately apparent, at least to this
reader, but that's generally OK for a most-of-the-time lurker.)
Sean Cubitt wrote (Nov 24,
Hi Brian, Sean,
> On 25 Nov 2020, at 01:19, Sean Cubitt wrote:
>
> Eco-socialism yes - but only if the 'social' is rethought - and re-practiced
> - no longer exclusively as human: The Commons is a better phrase, common
> land, general intellect (including those forms it takes when congealed
