hello all;
David Chirot's long posting on projection and projectiles was intricate, and
very thought provoking, there would be so much to debate, and your examples
are of course lovely, unusual (Leni Riefenstahl alongside Jenny Holzer, or
Pipilotti Rist?)
>>
If one examines the situation in the inverse, then, what the
Projection does is not Control, but offer Safety, Security. And if a person
has the illusion of safety, then they feel they are not threatened by control.
Control vanishes fro the site of projection and is distributed among the entire
mass of "individuals" who al seem to think amazingly alike when it comes down
to safety and security. Self-censorship replaces the need for censorship and
outright physical enforcement becomes unnecessary...
>>
>>
As long as one believes that one is more 'democratic, more "free," and More
"moral" than others, then nothing one does in the name of safeguarding these is
seen in any way as being immoral, criminal, anti-Democratic, hypocrisy raised
to the ultimate degree. >>
Your conclusion seems to be to draw attention to the issue of how apparatuses
and their mechanisms generate "security" under specific economic and
political/ideological conditions, and some of your analogies draw on fascism as
well as on contemporary gloablized neoloberal capitalism (the systems
themselves have been studied as "capturing technologies," yes?). Regarding new
diffiusion stretegies and "democraticizing" media (YouTube, Twitter, blog
journalism, Wikepedia, etc), would you then argue that these are in fact not
democratic at all? or only pseudo democratic charades (theatricalized under the
banner of the new amateurism?). Is not the projection of security , as
categorical Imperative, failing all the time? and to what extent does it
succeed?
regards
Johannes Birringer
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
