ana peraica on Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:57:36 +0200 (CEST)

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

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> commentary on Unsubscribe text

Hi Anna and others,

I think it is a different text, I have posted the one I refer to last year,
after Rod Summers, VEC gallery in Maastricht, sent it to me (it was a
transcribed lecture held somewhere on the very north). It should be
somewhere in Nettime archives (sent around Febrary last year) and it was
indeed published for a first time in Hype_text reader of Jean Paul Jacquet.
Other facts are familiar to me...

About the network itself I saw the archive of the same artist mentioned, it
was a whole room full of materials arriving from everywhere during all this
time. This archiving principle striked me, as the network, functionable
itself, makes not only a bulk material, but it is impossible to organize it
(or it is possible to use too many principles that do not apply for the
space; up/down, left/right). It looks Borgesian... and uncovers completely
different cathegory than the 'happy dynamics of the network'. It is a tragic
fact of the society of the information CIA (as usually) discovered also for
their, much bigger archives.

Despite the deep regards for Fillou I am not sure about 'eternity' (too big
term, or if used then I think the Einstein's version centred around point
immediate eternity, or 'now' is far more applicable, otherwise it would mean
that after some people disappear it is possible to continue their function
in the organization, and that realm is indeed totalitarian, which the
practice showed - only some networks/organizations with very bad
connotations preserved through the time this way, as Catholic Church for
example), and I especially hesitate to deal with such terms in regard to any
technology, as it is usually hype that relaxes after a while (and the whole
effect after it looks as a child's trainer pot eureka). I prefer to stay
with the paesant's wisdom 'nothing lasts forever', even God, and then even
Nietzsche. So, parallel to its horror effects (Kristeva) for me it is a kind
of commedian territory, terms as 'eternal', 'sublime', 'genius', the last of
which falls quite funny on AI test, and other, fill me with laugh as usually
are political and manipulating or otherwise are used uncritically,
performing the rhetorics of the power (and then it connotates a kind of
shauvinism; or, a plastic kind of power). They are charicatures of
civilisation of thinking.

I understand your art historian defense of Fillou, but don't quite see
reasons for the conclusion on the hierarchy of meaning, and an invisible
reference to the 'genius' concept;

Maybe some mailing lists
| hold discussions about irrelevant questions, but Filliou's network seems
| to be eternal.

All discussions are irrelevant, or relevant to the degree of applicability
and local reference. There is no relevancy that is general (as there is
always another defining context that can be used for making it irrelevant,
sophists used them quite well).
And finally eternity is not a criterium of relevancy, to the contrary it is
completely irrelevant, as what eternity, in terms of metaphysical
descriptions is a ground territory on which the difference, or an action
might be explained. For this an old argument of consistency from
metaphysics, sorry for again using a sword - God, is applicable, the One
(not mentioning the name again, to make this reply more polite) is not does
not have any processes activated, as it is self-suficcient, so does not need
to move (by learning, by discussion, or others).  Then, turns out, relevancy
is completely the opposite (if we are to set this as a binary distinction I
don't like also, or as a reference) of relevancy, as the ultimate relevancy
is life - means limited timed being, or definable inside it, as an event.
More local - more relevant (or relevancy is more definable).

Ana Peraica

Nettime-bold mailing list