Re: <nettime> Fw: Interlude: Heidegger summarizes signal from 2 decades of nettime

[Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com>]

[inline]

On 10/20/19, 11:16, Max Herman wrote:

> On the first video, I see the danger of making everything instantly
> available so to speak online.  It removes the role of doing your own
> activities, having one's own life, just getting one online.  Also the

I think that there is another issue: instant (audio-video mediated) 
consumption may actually impair or prevent cognition. It doesn't help 
when it's one of billion items visibly stacked together*. It may have to 
do with mechanics of humans.

In other words, if you want to disarm a concept or an idea, flood 
Internet with videos and tweets about it.

It explains why the quality of discourse on mailing lists surpass any 
shitty GUI/web media. We should be writing letters. One message to 
nettime would be, what ... $2,000 in stamps? Now that would rise the 
quality!

* I am not sure that "one web site per video" would help - they are 
still all stacked on the same screen. Books are unruly and can assume 
any position and orientation

> idea of bioengineering, which takes this to a new level: you not only
> buy a premade product, but you buy a premade humanity with all the
> errors of the first behavior but now internalized.  Then he references
> "the Event" which I would interpret to mean "that point at which humans
> started creating themselves by their actions."  But all life forms do

I laughed at this, because the first thing that came to my mind was 
Great Oxidation Event ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event ), which poisoned 
the planet's atmosphere with O2 and killed millions of innocent 
anaerobic species.

> millennium reference too makes sense.  Is that possibly related to
> net-time?

I always wondered if nettime was short for "network time" or does "net" 
mean "netto", like in "net weight" ?

> For the second video about Marx, I can see the errors in a statement
> like "the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it."  This

Marx did say that in 11th thesis on Feuerbach 
(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm): 
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; 
the point is to change it."

> innovation, on both the left and the right: especially Freud and Marx
> but also their "antagonists" (capitalism and the church).  Common sense
> replies like family systems theory took a bit longer to find a more
> balanced approach and evolve beyond the ideology wars, but have vastly
> more scientific longevity and accuracy.

The enduring takeaway from Marx is that shit doesn't happen by itself, 
or because of cosmic rays; there are actors (classes). There were many 
attempts (funded by one of the said actors) to mask this simple fact by 
manufacturing complex "theories", which boil down to cosmic rays. Modern 
economy (including Piketty) is the prime example of this. There is a 
loaded gun at the far end of any social phenomenon.

> I forget who it was who asked Freud at one point, "isn't dysfunction
> more about the ongoing family system dynamic rather than a single
> traumatic event about Oedipus?" and Freud replied, "that is absurd,
> because if it were true what use would there be for psychoanalysis?" I
> paraphrase here but it is roughly the exchange.  The questioner went on
> to establish family systems theory I believe or to help do so, and
> systems theory went on to have applications on many levels (like
> Bateson) whereas psychoanalysis is now viewed more or less as totally
> fake (except, crucially, in literary theory).  Ironically, if you
> consider the popularity of psychoanalysis in the USA through the 2nd
> half of the 20th c. it is no surprise that we still haven't learned much
> about any new ways of talking -- most of the pop culture and leadership
> behavior, not to mention academic infrastructure, took Freud (and Marx)
> or anti-Freudianism (and anti-Marxism) as gospel.  We still live and
> operate in that "built environment" to a great extent and perhaps
> getting back to a simpler way of talking wouldn't be wrong.  A lot of
> conditions suggest that might be happening.

Exactly. The whole charade just to prevent you from observing the loaded 
gun.

Regarding psychoanalysis, it's rent-a-friend (sometimes a pusher) 
masquerading as 'discipline'. It doesn't mean that rent-a-friend itself 
is useless - on the contrary, it totally works in these pulverized 
societies. Its rise may have something to do with the organized 
extermination of prostitution.
#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: