[Nettime-bold] Re: [syndicate] Malady Returned to Sender

[bc <human@electronetwork.org>]

[public repost in response to no restatement of intentions
about the restate/rebelle textwork, only public chatterings
that make one question the ability of a non-transparent
organization (multitudes, .no?) of network.tricksters to be
able to collectively and publicly address a single ethical
question about their written work in one unified response;
with 1 voice. instead masks of medusa & winged dragons
fly around as if free from consequences for the ideas they
propose but deny responsibility for, and to/for what end?
nothing more than lord/ess-of-flies on an internet island...
good luck all of you, indeterminacy eventually bites back.
plausible deniability, no. culpability of net.despotism, yes.]


  ----
To: restate@restate.org (nn, antiorp, etc etc, fm, lv)
Sent: yesterday

Bcc: *, *

  [hello, i did not send this post to the syndicate list, as i felt it
  might be an affront, if not a surprise. so although my fear, if
  you are warriors, may not scare me in the same ways one may
  think, it is the mind of restate, its intentions, its ethics, that i
  question. if need be, destroy me. i am unable and unwilling to
  fight a war over this question. it is meant only for reflection,
  as this suspended state is only nothingness. and you have and
  are doing something quite interesting. it is just this question
  that makes me not want to believe in the possibility, and yet
  while not being able to trust restate, it is of human necessity
  to challenge, to ask, to require some act of conscience, that of
  the more disturbing aspects of the ideas have been contemplated.
  and there is more to it than this. or it is at least contemplated.
  yet, it is the end. if you want to publish it you can. a critique but
  not a zero-sum question. technologies double-sword, paradoxed.
  best of wishes, your AV aetherware is surely a joy to behold.]




  one thing, restate: about ethics....

>>  as for aesthetics, your ability to convey, to master language,
>>  and, of course, even to be manipulable with it, is quite powerful.

  if one looks closely at your work at:

>>  http://rebelle.restate.org
>>  \\the elegant icebreaker. she is doppelplus cooler.
>>			just one alluringly ambrosial antidote.

it is not very different a mechanism as that which can import geometric
imagery into the human brain via sound manipulations. in tripled-reading
of the text, while it has its great integrity of thought, could it also be used
for other purposes- to entrance, so to speak- and be dangerous in ways?
and, not knowing who you are, yet, profiling a demographic which could
in fact make such lissijous figures in the mind via oscillations, it makes a
person wonder what to make of the below, from an ethical standpoint:

>restate eksamemes elegant evolutsion is now.
>(search and replace)

minds with other minds- thoughts with other thoughts- what memes
are to be replaced- what is so true, that it cannot stand by its own truth,
to be responsible to the public for what it proclaims is a remediation?
many a shell operation has occured underneath different dis-guises,
such as yours, a statistically adnormal probability, given the de-vices.

>restate/rebelle.
>(sweet and seksy)

suprematist-biology could be thus. ideal. manifestos g(al)ore. but are
the more troublesome aspects dealt with, re-cognized in the definitive,
beyond proclamations, on Nietzsche's mountain, speaking w/out saying?
what if it were a fiction, a ruse. a game being played, all fine and good,
yet possibly with dangerous consequence, in a theoretical fascination.

>the turbulent tool vor publik pervormers, mutsikians, techno 
>artists, dissenters et al.
>adekvat vor live video audio performatsia and onstage operatsions.
>(integrates all relevants into a singular entity)

  this is what is of concern, get all the herds of people together,
  an acidic test if there ever was one, and let them see/hear, then
  repeat, in the hundreds of monkeys to be, how great it is to use the
  EM device to transform the self, the transformation of power into a
  system of control, it has been around for a century or so by now.
  arrives out of most universities in the darkest of ages, like these.

  the ritual, no longer church, but the mass of turbulent vibrations
  dancing on ceilings, the entrancing trap-door, psyche's safest play-
  in deepest psycho-logic today, and forevermore. trust you- who?

  how can this ethical questioning be re-solved, if one can re-state it,
  so that what is likely not simply a blackbox is evaluated ethically--
  thus, evaluating technodeterminacy in your audiovisualization box.

  a checking of  the balance on the dual purposing of the artwork with
  potentially madscience in its experimental deployment, to serve who?

>no no sovtware. no no coporateware. no no vaporware.

  hardware, though, no? and exactly what type of special-effects can it
  indeed do, to me, to you. is it only for owners/experimenters to know?
  what if the device damages wetware in its enchantment. what of ethics?

  and that is why it is difficult to judge the intention behind the idea, as
  it depends upon how it is used. a certain frequency can in effect turn
  the brain off, into a hyponotic state. by physiology. so it makes one
  question if this is the purpose, as this intent is not contradicted in the
  text on restate/rebelle, and almost differentiates knowers & followers.

  you, being on both sides of the paradox, quantum, but an impossibility.
  that is, a choice, a determination is to be chosen at some point, by some
  as you are selling the idea, the dream, the goal, the hope, the vision, and
  it is not benign, it could potentially, and if reviewed, possibly, 
be damaging.

  and mask-makers, well, they cannot live in indeterminacy, they all will have
  to choose, their emotions. as humans, in the constant flux, all have a choice
  to make. and one involves knowing, and another, choosing not to know, or
  to believe, or accept responsibility. -- this is not to say any of 
this is written
  in the negative, but without an identity, you/whoever-you-are, are similar
  to an offshore databank that makes one wonder about other islands. it
  makes it impossible to trust the worst-case is not the whole case-in-point.

>illegal independents.
>
>undock vrom surround. relate to your selv.


  and thus the question seems to be, at least to one individual, is if such a
  device as innocuous as an audiovisual hardware engine (sound, video/
  individual headphones and tv to group shows), is that what if it brought an
  illegality to independence, via hypnoptic transcendence? parsing the logic
  of the text you present, this may be the gravity of the 
machine-as-represented.

  there is a fracture. only a human or humans could produce, so slight a it is,
  a fissure, yet it is there, here. however many there are of you, an army even,
  however bright and smart and intelligent and good-intentioned, as it might
  be assumed. still, how is one to _trust, to give any benefit of all 
doubt to that
  which has no face. no identity that is public. no measure of responsibility...
  for all others in the public sphere. it is an ethical conundrum 
unresolved, and
  a restatement would be appreciated as per the intetion of such opaque devices.
  and so it is a question. if your machine can produce hypnosis, even 
with utopia,
  how is this reconciled with as a freedom for the individual and not 
enslavement?

  curious. with respect.
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold