[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Declaration of Interdependence

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

>  >Re:writing the Declaration of Independence, or:
>
>or .... or another western male wishes to bring bananas to balkan da +?
>

  that was then, them, in my view we can get beyond history
  and into a common human story... one and many (self/selves)


>
>humans arent created equal.
>humans are treated equally.
>
>grosz grosz d!ferensz.
>
>nn


  in legal terms, humans equal. in human terms, compassion,
  love, respect, etc, ie treatment, should be most valued.
  yet it is not the way it works. if humans, then treatment.
  without humans, being created/established, they/we will
  always be trying to find human equality in being wo|men,
  through difference, given the id/entity of psycho-logic




>
>>A Public Dissent of the Declaration of Privatized Dependence
>
>
>
>Iago has said "our bodies are our gardens to the which our wills are our
>gardeners"

  my garden is toxic, of rebar and concrete and pools of oil, of
  weeds and smog and dust and soot, of insane heat and bitter cold,
  of barren social, economic, and political scenarios, unihabited
  by humans, unihabitable by humans. by any life at all. without
  wills, common, some survive, most die. living is an illusion to
  all but those who exist in the mind. the body is a mirage u know.


>
>There isn't a contradiction between free will and what one shall do knowing
>in advance there isn't a contradiction between free will and knowing 
>in advance
>precisely what one shall do. If one knows self completely then this is the
>situation. 
>One does not deliberately do the opposite of that one wishes. [NN
>entered when Godel exited]

  in an either-or logicality of the world, this is true, and not false.
  but with paradox, it could be both. is there ever pure free will,
  without some kind of friction? what about a limited or bounded
  freedom, within which one can work, manipulate, foresee but not
  with total clarity. a fuzziness. and what if, instead of 'best of
  all possible worlds', and given an existence of annihilation, that
  what is good for a person is their own demise. this would make one
  who is sane, insane. and those insane, most sane of all. paradox.
  freedom of will is a power to enact change within a given set of
  circumstances, to do (in one view) the best of possible scenarios
  to help the larger model adapt, making needed changes to move on
  to a better model of existence for the whole and the part. parts
  are sacrified. else, wholes. wholes defeat any part which threatens
  them. the state, of the individual, of the collective of individuals,
  or as it is today, of the collective of private people, makes for
  a whole without a center. if human, there would be 'oneness' to
  the whole. without, there is only separation, difference, chaos,
  opposition. paradoxical logic (virilio wrote of, have yet to read)
  is one way to see the quantum effects/affects of our common environs
  in our consciousness. else, brains processing ideas in enlightenment
  era logics which do not replicate the real, realistically enough to
  model changes intended, but instead, the model models us, alone.




>
>Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Discourse on Inequality wrote: "The first life
>form who, having enclosed a bit of land said 'This is mine', and found people
>stupid enough to believe him, was the true founder of civilized society".
>
>
>I enclose my body and say: "This is mine. There are more riches than
>have yet to be revealed!! Extend me!!!"

  mcluhan said so too. like the foot into the wheel. hand into hammer.
  or was it mumford too... given molecules, surface, illusion of, yes,
  there is enclosure. given atomic, the sub-atomic, the flurry that is
  the buzzing of particles making surface and solidity, are more of
  emptiness than fullness. more vacuum than matter. mind than body.
  or so it could in part be perceived/believed.

  culturally, ethnographically, the body and perception are not as
  universal as body is inside and outside, mind so too. mortal coils,
  humans as electromagnetic engines, say, awash in seas of charge,
  as are thoughts and feelings, and those who have passed as memories
  which ignite with sparks that sense that something is here that is
  beyond sight, beyond current words and ways of saying...what is real.

>
>The concept of ownership is essentially a social one - it is our social
>grammar.

  cones of energy, may be. but who is the owner if something is owned.
  many, for it is a deity firstly. it is not a self. others it is a
  self, their self, else, a societal other. either-or, if one has to
  choose, so does medieval history show, many choose belief and faith
  over trust and reason. as what is true is not absolutely so, and
  reality needs something absolute, it seems, to be true. so, that
  leap, even existentialists had it, to make from what is to it is.

  ownership. who owns what?

  do I own i?

  do You own you?

  does He own she, as in History of Mankind, is the human story?
  breaking down the arch-i-text of languaging, the fe|male and
  the wo|man, s|he can begin to find neutrality, to bring into
  balance such gender encoded and slanted perspectives which are
  always tipping the scales of reason and fairness and free will,
  artificially limiting, by privatized language, the public will
  to become common, as public citizens around the world. while,
  still, retaining a sense of owndership of the individual self,
  the I, Me, Myself who is a particular woman, man, or both, to
  be defined by the definer, not the defined. and the definer
  of ownership is not the individual, but something else, a
  bureaucratic systematic which necessitates the same psycho-
  logic, limiting identities to their separation/alienation,
  and leaving us, lovers of freedom and ideas, to wilt in
  the Son of Global Warming, Our George "the Burning" Bush.

  He owns us. Private Representative of the Human Public.
  He determines our fate. His policy. etc. whomever He is.
  it is a private person and persons directing the machinery
  to push forward this individualized logic of divide/conquer.
  yet, what if we are so divided, we are conquered already,
  so much so, that we need to work to put ourselves back to-
  gether again. else, well, the predictable. the purging that
  is now going on in sectors away from most people's minds
  (and beliefs that it _could_ actually be happening now,
  in this world, even though a movie is not being made,
  and it is not on tv, in the news, or in a professor's
  reading list of important current events)... death is
  marching forward, first minds go blank, then, nothing
  remains to be said. and any attempt to say, is suicide.
>
>When I feel pleasure, a sour taste or a sensation of blue light
>the experiences belong to me exclusively. They are MINE.

  how so, when that blue line that squiggles on the screen is
  shared, is universalized in some archetypal dream symbol of
  the hazey eyesight of monitorized blightlight? i too have
  see the blue, as it is reality as humans perceive, however
  differently. mine, specifically, yes, irreproducibly yours,
  too. but also, something common, in that same event, some-
  thing public. a shared blue light and a totally unique blue
  light. a whole event. never split into one or the other.
  but today, it is _only possible for it to be an individual's
  blue light, so personalized it can be copyrighted, trademarked,
  patented, property. so what if we are not foolish enough to
  believe this blue light could be anyone's, but instead it
  is also everyone's, too?




>The idea of private ownership is psychologically the metaphorical extension of
>the idea "this is my body" a matter of extending the boundaries.


  begins with psychological id/entity. language, saying, defining.
  imagining first humans. hard to believe a total concept of self
  was pre-established prior to language, but rather made-up, on-
  the-fly, as it happens, like communicating, like languaging in
  space-time. a guess at least. thus, privitization of the self,
  well, may not have been the first order of things, but instead
  was an evolution of ways of being/perceiving. that patriarchy
  ties in well with patriarchal language, with history and the
  religions which support male deities, makes for a complete and
  total system upon which the privatized self could be established
  by default, as status quo. to question Him is to question God,
  to some. when He says, We say. etc. I say, I am, etc. etc. and
  there is a cosmos/graphy/ology in this wordaging... what of,
  though, the cosmos of the mindbody... origin story, secularized.

  what of big bang to consciousness, prior to language...?

  ElectroMagnetic soup sparking charges expanding lightspeeding
  as worlds unfold in material slush, somewhere in the making of
  worlds of atoms, life evolves, order at edge of EM chaos, and
  the geomagnetic that is earth, the lightning of the charged
  atmosphere, the lifeforms that communicate, regulate energy,
  and transport themselves via thus, as does a fish, as do the
  humans that finally stood up and said: holy Ugh! what was it
  in their minds, then, prior to saying, but trying to say,,,
  trying to say what... to define, what... self, other..etc...?

  maybe, as the brain has its fishy origins, as does embryology
  its reptilian trace, could the issues of ownership be found in
  the actions of little babies as they touch their toes for the
  first time with their little fingies? as they look upon their
  hand, thinking what... but the immediate, sensation... knowing
  without saying, or not knowing and not needing to say anything
  until trying, as everything changes and necessitates commonality...
  in order to survive... to life... to share... experience and
  understanding... and what is this today¿  This is MINE. That
  is THEIRs. We are Separated. Different. Never Connected. As
  unique as snowflakes, and as temporary, in the cyclic flow.

  permanence may come from the collection of US's, of bringing
  together our differences, our differently owned toes, and in
  still having our independent toes, our free wills, also finding
  an acceptable limit in order to share a reality, to disagree,
  even vociferously, while still being able to cooperate as a
  larger whole, a 'one' being. thus, this is mine = all of ours,
  while still being unique to the individual person. thus the
  idea: the only institution is the human institution. and
  the only group worth being in, is a group of individuals.



>Body without borders.
>Our bodies are the borders of our understanding.
>The universes are the body.

  body without borders, a question.
  minds are borders of relating, perceiving, and believing.
  before opening bodies (which were never closed, e.g. dna)
  the mind needs to be opened to accept that the body-matter
  is not the ultimate objective answering, as it is indefinite,
  uncertain, and paradoxical. expertise in the body is the key
  to the heaven that is the current hell of uncivilization, and
  to have expertise is to pretend to know something, censoring
  and-or ignoring contradictory evidence/facts, due to authority,
  and the paradoxical truth vanishes, as a false-positivity reigns
  supreme, that is the model to make changes within, and not to
  change the model, as the real is differnt than this limit allows.

>We want don't we +?


  the universe is made up of mindbodies, it seems.
  one mindbody may be a part of the universe, but how the whole?
  to some, it is this. but this is a private worldview. and is
  where an absolute is presumed to be applicable to the whole,
  yet is a personalized view of things, belief systems. philos.

  humans want bodies and don't have them.
  humans want minds and don't have them.
  humans are not being, today. as primary identities.
  they are subservient to the limits of private wo|MANkind
  and HIStory of the world. be it whatever. whomever, however.

  absolute truthes need to be absolutely true. and how so,
  if not using human identities, in, say, scientific reasoning?
  then, things like nuclear policy can be driven by private
  industry and interests, to the detriment of the whole species.
  some alphamale apemen and humans in their toxic cageyness,
  game playing in university laboratories, getting degrees
  and their shots, to go live in the world not of their making.
  as has been said within american slang; `take a chill pill.'

>
>The first things which belong to me are those that are actually physically a
>part of me - these are my eyes. my fingers etc. They aren't yours. When they
>sense I sense. You
>may perceive and only. They may never be your property.

  agreed. but are they your property, either? maybe that is a private
  question. to me it is such. first questions. leaps for making sense,
  with the meaning. but we can agree that fingers are unique and yet
  are universal. we have fingers. you have fingers. i have fingers.
  some do not have fingers at all, via birth abnormalities, etc.
  but still, a common fingerness, is statisically a norm for the
  population. there is deviation from the norm. where does the
  property issue come into play with transplants and bioethics
  and artificial limbs and cyborgs, etc. it seems this is part
  of the 'post-human' philosphies that i never understood in
  literal terms, as we have yet to be human, how can we be 'post'
  human, identities? yet, maybe it is artifice, in the making of
  ourselves, in varieties. where we define ourselves, our self,
  as we make ourselves, as we mutate, devolve, and try to evolve
  into some worthwhile way of being in the shared world of things.
  belief is a result of perception. one decides upon perceiving,
  what it is one believes. can one believe without consciousness,
  otherwise... or is that just the real, being, just as it is...



>Never +? Never - but I plans for yours do have.
>
>Is there something even more basic than the ownership of one's body +?
>
>Yes. The "I" - hence "!"

  yes. but no. literally, the uppercase I, as an identity, as
  a pycho-logic, is proprietarized, as it is a Proper Noun, a
  specific person, place, or thing, in the English language.
  the 'i' is an illegal word. it upsets people to see it. it
  is a humble versin of the I, not so unique. not so loud and
  brazen and self-assured. but more quiet, passive, wondering...

  I= specific unique person
  i= common and shared in people

  one can be both an I and an i. so it seems. formal and informal.
  specific and general. expert and novice. private and public, each
  shifting at times, one into the other, vice versing.


>Suppose I were to have a twin joined at the waist sharing the same skin.
>Which of MY bits are wiggling now +? What shall I claim as me and mine +?
>
>I am the executive self - the de facto kontroller - the I.

  i disagree, from my perception of events, it is a choice, one
  chooses, as you ask the question. what if the identity is one
  that is decentralized, not located within one body, one mind,
  but a collection of all bodies and all minds, re-presented in
  a new form/ality beyond words...

>
>
>I am the realtime experiment - for sensations are self-characterizing /
>self-disclosing and phenomenally immediate. No one has sensed in the past. No
>one has sensed in the future.
>Present is all one can sense. 1+1=1

  the present is the future-past in reality timespatialized.
  paradox in that 1+1=0, too.

  -1+1=0. or, 0+1=0. take your pick. paradox. logic. probability.
  absolute truth and-or nothingness. atom and universe. mindbody.



>Sensations = I = persist for as long as the surface stimulation continues.
>
>There is more to it still +? Have you tried +?


  sense is an illusion. mediated. nerves. no direct interface. it is
  preprocessed in the brain, electromagnetic real is mediated through
  EM channels of infoenergymatter, conduits to making info into the
  meaningspace of mindesign, where what is perceiving is then chosen
  as to what one believes. what is one, an I and an i? or one or
  the other, as is the ruling paradogmatic? this or that, tit for tat.

  everyone needs a mindfuck it seems, as orgasmatrons are not enough
  to break free the desiring machines to reveal the boundaries that
  now exists based on mommy-daddy-me, making way for more accurate
  and liberating models of the real, and the freedom to shape the
  shared human (and unique individual) destinies within this realm...



>I tell to you and I - as night follows day across the surface of this planeta
>so the waking state follows sleeping state across the surface of the child's
>mind.

  what is so odd, psyche, dreamsurfer, is your words encode current
  events as an oracle does for the mystified. day into night into day.


>In sleep we collapse into our.cellls.


  do you have nightmares every night ? do you wake screaming ?
  are you always tired from never being able to rest ? are you
  challenging madness with every thought, where what is true
  is not really true, but you have to choose to believe it is,
  to pragmatically exist, but never to live? then, there is
  only sleep, there is no state of being awake, alive. there
  is only eternal death. unless We can break out of this prison
  of mind embedded in a historical psycho-logical paradigmatic...


>
>Now - to answer your question.

  your answer is the question, it seems. which i too share.

human being


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold