ana on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:21:27 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] "Balkan point" vs. immediate eternity model


sending you other parts of the same text...



 If there would be some inventaroum of contemporary media - logical
 mistakes, both  "the argument of "as seen on TV", as concluding from
 media content as experience, and media distance on the objective
 viewpoint, and a "Balkan point", as concluding from history to
 priority, would belong to it.

 Instead of reevaluating history, on the Balkan there is a constant try
 reestablish it, which leads to the redundancy of wishes which are
 disagreeing about which time (or century) should be a criteria. The
 point is actually misusing relativisation, as argument of "who arrived
 the first" finished in the relative question of "depends in the which

 But seems that referring to the sole past is not the only exclusiveness

 that happens on today's planet. "Hyper" societies abolished history,
 of touristic play gardens, which show more syptomatics of the other
 disorder - instancy.

 Instant Eternity model, is as well, highly rationalised in physics,
 is today's West Bible (though it is completely strange how precisely
 that physics of speed, precise, unstable... doesn't at all belong to
 human measure universe).

 Kaluza-Klein theory on gravity, refers to the light as a vibration of
the missing dimension, which is speed. And that dimension is the one of
our relative own. To approve this we don't need to take some big
calculus, what is missing, if we are all moving with different
 speed is a simultaneity, which is only body related. In speed we miss
 each other.

 Now we have new list of our perception existence, difference,
 perspective, change, and speed. This chain coincide with the
 of beings on this planet, some of which only can notice existence, but
 some as well 'higher' dimensions. If we relate them to other people, we

 see they exist, they are different, they are close\near, they change,
 but finally we can not catch them.

 All those perceptoral dimensions can be explained in terms of each
 other, but always from the point of higher. Difference can be only seen

 if existence is known (in terms of existing and not-existing),
 perspective is a measurement of differences, change is a overlap of
 perspectives. So, speed is, finally, a crossroad of changes, a chaos in

 which only a preceptor exists.

 With demistification of metaphysical area, the problem of reevaluation
 of time and its ghostly accompaining reference to Eternity, under which

 we defined time, occurs. Suddenly, with lost of inter-relation criteria

 according to which we defined measuring of the limited time. The
 of the world exists where there is a line segregating  what we imagine
 as different.

 Instant Eternity, as belonging to private experiences leads to
 solypsistic universe, and can be treated as first of major accidents of

 micro-macro overlap, which lost the natural measure of the system of
 the world. World disappears, as is absorbed into invisible and
 unmeasurable, as the first measure is the one of body in time and

 Collapse of distances in all levels of contemporary civilisation can be

 seen, as well as narcissm, on the phenomenon where Eternity
 doesn't belong to out of time model, but is even more miniaturised at
 level of a moment now.

 The concept of immediate Eternity, which suddenly doesn't 'take place'
 after time, or out of it, was suggested already by Einstein, who
 that the present is a centre of time, not some Big Bang, not the
 creation. With that he rejected inflationary universe.

 Market society, loosing point of distinguishing original from the copy,

 and a source from the quote, just transferred macro thought to the
 consumable one. Now become forever simply in the slogan 'Buy it now -
 never', guaranteeing us at least some purpose of life, we got
 consumable Eternities Centre of time, even those not-cosmic ones,
 become light or speed of information.

 Suddenly I remember an old race, which is totally insane, without a
 purpose, but at the same time beautiful. Achilles, a human and a small
 Tortoise were running to see who is faster, and none won. Of course,
 none won, for the first reason Achilles was a gentleman, second that
 Tortoise was cheating, and third Zeno was a skeptic. It's ultimate
 wisdom, therefore, is not only that skeptic (and theory) can approve
 anything, which post-modern theory elaborated as a homework, and it is
 not as even that speed is relative, but as well that communication is
 important. And that communication was revealed with the text of Lewis
 Carroll 'What the Tortoise had have said to Achilles'.

 As speed is relative, only one standing outside the system (so Zeno,
 that doesn't want to do so), can conclude. Both carachters are only
 locked into mad world of the skeptic. Of course, we know that Achilles
 is faster, but limits of the race in terms of measurements of
 dimensions, just doesn't allow him to arrive the first.

 Zeno cheats, not allowing the dimension of a change. And this was
 by astronauts missing other dimensions. Change simply doesn't take a
 place, and there are only, looking from the point of two acters
 existence, difference and perspective. And speed can only be described
 going on one level lower, on the change, as their overlaps.

 So, we see Zeno's cheating, but we can not help to Achilles, that plays

 with the Tortoise. But at least they have each other, while
 looses that as a value.

 In the world of the speed, which excludes a body, what only can exist
 (maybe) can be thoughts. Consequence of their speeding up was known
 the old time.  Relativity teaches us 'we may only think we are faster'.

 If Achilles was not faster because of a calculation, the answer is very

 simple, what speeds up. It is the theory that is decelerating action,
 or as would any Balkan person, object 'stop talking, start running.'

 In the Minkowskian geometry, which was taken as the base for Einstein's

 concept of the physical universe, space and time are entwined. In it
 observers in relative motion can disagree regarding simultaneity of
 distant events. An even it identified by a whole world point in a four
 dimensional continuum. On the contrary, in the old Newtonian physics
 which used geometry which separated space and time dimensions, the
 problem of simultaneity was regarded as belonging to compentencies of
 the observer.

 Problem of simultaneity is not only a physical problem, and if
 it can turn to become a major catastrophe, it would be in social.
 Unpossiblity to realise simultanity, is as well unpossiblity to
 register same-time world, but only own existence. It is not the
 therefore, what would those two observers register, but would they
 register each other?

 'To gain real time over delayed time is thrust commit to a quick way of

 physically eliminating the object and subject and exclusively promoting

 the journey. But journey without a trajectory and thus fundamentally
 uncontrollable.' (Virilio)

 Without memory, as one of dimensions of percieving, in this world of
 instancy of serving the function, dimensions are not kept together,
 they split apart. World become a ground of self enough function (of
 travel, of explaining...)

 The first measure of the world was once a body. Today's ways of
 measuring, on the contrary, went on more micro or macro level of it,
 beyond visible, and that Leonardo's model is simply not interesting
 enough, maybe even because it portrays unknown other person, that
 narcisses can not stand (though I still think that theory couldn't
 it as that body doesn't look too theoretical). Instead of homocentric,
we have logo-ego   centric hybrid, that skipped the member that was once
a medium one itself. It gave up for media, which offer the illusion of
the bridge.

 We are tending to reach self-enough 'soft worlds', solipsistic
 autonomies, where the only measure would be the one of our wishes.
 be independent, but what does it mean in terms of the body is - alone,
 unneeded, replaceable. Out of us there would be that found dimension of

 vacuum. So, we`ll be vacuumised.

 First soft world I recall is a Wonderland, a world reacting on demands
 of a small Alice. Although, this world is personificated, and
 communicable, as sometimes joking with Alice, making her
 disproportional to it, contracting opposite to her wishes.

 Her experience is what we today call - ordinary psyhastenic experience,

 shift to another dimension while leaving body. The device was of
 imagining (or thoughts).

 But although story is beautiful, would contemporary adventurists even
 border to try to draw the world, to tell the story to someone? Or it
 would only serve a function for themselves, of their own generalised
 arrival, which will be without a point of returning back?

 To have a proper war,  you need to have a simultaneity, on a big scale,

 teaches us Balkan, which alwasy refer to returning point.  While ones
are bombing, the others are simultaneously preparing the next move, or
react immediately. Or, with
 this 10 years of war that was supported (literally, like, enforced and
 continued) by media, one side bombs, and the other makes shootings for

 Media in war has no ethics, war has more ethics itself, although is
 internal. The reason for it is that media lives on war and death, and
 belongs in set of "war profiteers". After it, all experiences based on
 that, are unethical.

 "Balkan point", though is a mistake, is precisely that "Forward to the
 Past" (if the West enjoys rather "Back to the Future model" where all
 points now are escaping back, but guarantee future), or it belongs into

 the logic of return. The problem of it, is again simultaneity, but in
 agreeing a history stratum, which would be relevant for both the
 presence and the future. But at least, that simultaneity is related to

 If I would need to conclude what is better, safe instancy of alone or
 unsafe social history shakings, I am still not sure, in between two
 mistakes, "as seen on TV - experience" and a  "Balkan point", or
 inbetwen not to communicate at all and fight.

 But, we are used to see mistakes of each other; from one side West in
 Eastern Europe resists, as a picture of promise, but as well, of total
 alienation, total decline as disintegrated and dead society, while East

 resists in West, as low, barbarian, uncivilised "garden of
 authenticity". Eastern Europeans go to West to check how still human
 they are, and all they see are robots, while West European go to East
 Europe like in a zoo, to see unique sort that was once inhabiting all
 planet (but seems there were two scenarios (either they all killed each

 other, and the Planet was finally quite, or they suddenly stopped to

 And indeed when an Eastern European goes on the West, they photograph
 themselves lost in "rush hours" just to remember how instant societies
 look like, pushed into one corridor (and showing their kids how they
 managed to survive, but never tried to run themselves), while Western
 Europeans photograph themselves near ruined houses (they will show to
 their kids disregarding the fact they arrived long time after). They
 will both be brave, and that might be a happy end.

 But sholdn`t in between two extremes somewhere reside point where there

 are no we and they...

Nettime-bold mailing list