werboon on Thu, 8 Jun 2006 04:26:46 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
RE: <nettime> NNA critical openings and closings |
There was a passionate point raised near the end of NNA, that just when people begin to critically say something on/about nettime, discussion quickly gets shut down, generally through the invocation of 'highbrow theory' and/or 'academic references'. And while this is true to a certain extent, people do hide behind references and theories, they are also increasingly inclined, in our ever expanding open social order, to hide behind forwarded information; not taking a position one way or the other, just forwarding. Sadly for us, both on and off nettime, without positions, collective critical engagement will wane and ultimately vanish, not just here, but everywhere. And so in the spirit of position-taking, I contend that with more and more social noise blaring out of internet-boom-boxes we are moving towards entropy and inertia; we are increasingly inclined to neither hate, nor love, just to open up more. With every passing moment, the diversity and variety of stories we tell and access about anything and everything are opening infinitely. And the more stories we are exposed to, the less inclined we are to take positions. How could we? Knowing that so many view things so differently. Today, we value information openings and fear closures against social noise; we fear the -isms they may produce. This is life in open social order, in cybernetic ecumenical society. And we are not here by chance. There is a legacy to this project, of which the internet is but one component. This legacy traces back to cybernetics and the mass adoption of a mathematical philosophy that is based on undertsanding both humans and machines as 'open information processing systems'. Through a variety of mapping techniques based on notions of feedback loops, cybernetics seeks to model socio-technical organizations and environments in order to subject them to simulation and experimentation with the aim of predicting movement and behavior, and ultimately controlling it. While early adoption of such mathematical philosophy was exclusively military, such notions quickly extended to questions of social order, leading to a series of initiatives spearheaded by the US government since the mid-40s to 'connect' people globally in the hopes of eliminating what an Adorno study on 'Racism in America' called the 'authoritarian personality'. Simply put, the idea was that the more 'open' and 'connected' people are, the less inclined they will be to take extreme 'authoritarian' positions of hate. The adoption of cybernetics as a basis for a worldwide social order was cemented at the Macy conferences in Chicago in the mid 1940s, which were attended by cybernetic and psychological luminaries including Norbert Wiener, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, von Neumann, von Forester and Kurt Lewin, as well as the CIA. These conferences ultimately gave rise to a series of 'open' social experiments including the LSD experiments at Harvard, Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters and also ARPANET. Contrary to many accounts of the impetus for ARPANET, the idea of an 'open social order' to encourage a world without hate was the fundamental goal behind the advent of the internet's predecessor, not fear of nuclear disaster. So, where I agree with Tobias to a certain extent, that there is an intimidation factor at play on nettime, my greater fear is that critical discourse is not just waning on the list, but throughout digital cultures and societies overall and this 'critical' inertia is a factor of an anachronistic term that merits re-emergence; information overload. And so, I take a position on the future of nettime-l: I think nettime-l is a good closure, as it stands, and language aside, it should not branch off into nettime jr., nettime sr., or whatever more, and heaven forbid, the blogosphere, with all its wide-openeness and capital co-optability. There is already enough noise from too many such openings. Rather, we need to take advantage of new openings that emerge from within the list itself, like NNA; and perhaps more importantly, we need to take more positions and provide far less information, in life as much as lists. Think twice about what you forward. Is it a good opening, or merely more noise? Take a stand nettimers! Take positions! Make closures! FUCK THE NOISE! at least fleetingly...and keep doing it HERE! ~kcw # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net