@Johannes >>>>>>>>> "(I) find the idea of artizen nation objectionable.²
And so I introduce the origin of the concept of ³nation² from Wikipedia: "related to 'ethnic community' (with) a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity.² Isn¹t that, essentially, what we have staked out here in the nowhereness of the netbehaviour-space? On 3/5/15, 1:24 PM, "Johannes Birringer" <johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote: > >dear all > >Ruth's response to the discussion on "citizenship" on the net (following >Rob, Edward and many others here in this lively debate) is intriguing, >and I assumed you were seeing the notion of a place (not to speak now of >a 'nation') or a "here" as deeply problematic, yes? > >I do, and I have no inclination to ponder a 'nation', here or anywhere, >except to look critically at state formations today (or in the past), in >fact find the idea of artizen nation objectionable. Again, I also do not >think of this space of conversation and exchange as a place I could >imagine as anything other than a listserv, and I don't see myself as an >artisan or artizen (of the Net) and thus can't fully participate. Most >all of my work is done on the ground, in the studio and in theatres. > >However, I like this list, and often try to read, and noted that there >are recurring visitors, friendly commentators, archivists, announcers, >and yes, sharers, artists who share their work with us, and writers who >"live" in the space quite emphatically and poetically (like Alan >Sondheim), keeping me always alive-ly aware of what we are losing and >what we have already lost, irretrievably. > >[here i would re-site Alan's poem from the day after new year's day if >that were permissible, lest it also becomes invisible but it did >preoccupy me. thank you] > >>> >Invisibility > >http://www.alansondheim.org/cairn016.jpg > >Invisibility is the problem of our time, but there are so many! >Most of our collapsing phenomenologies center on attention >economies, acceleration, dromodology; these are epistemological >problems, what might be examined, what should be examined, and >the process of examination itself. But invisibility is more >perverse; it is an issue of ontology, of disappearance, from >within and without, a problem which not only robs us of our >situation, our habitus, but also invades the discourse of the >body and the self. It can be a sudden transformation, occurring >at the edge of the possible, the refugee, the unmanned migrant >ship floundering and heading for unknown shores; it may also be >a slow and almost imperceptible withdrawal from being, to the >extent that being exists as instrumental. Age is one index of >invisibility, and this I experience: whatever I do increasingly >makes no difference whatsoever, as long as it is with the bounds >of the law. Making a difference, making a distinction, is >fundamentally a communal and social act; when it no longer >matters, helplessness ensues - not the helplessness of a lack of >knowledge or tools (but that too), but the helplessness of the >collapse of speech acts or being. The aging body is a refugee >body, and what might have passed for wisdom is no longer given >an audience, but is transformed into some thing swept aside >within another register altogether. All of this occurs within a >rigidity of etiquette which is not acknowledged, but which >creates an iron and exclusionary ontology. Too many people I >know, for a variety of reasons (political, age, class, religion >or lack of it) feel marooned, a marooning which answers to no >shore, no boundary. The issue is one of consequences, which at >one point in our social evolutions might have been the concern >of cause and effect, but now operates within the regime of >effacement (what I have to say is of no consequence, because I >am not speaking - a Lyotardian differend which operates across >innumerable strata within broken models of being and the world). >Engagement is not a projection, not what 'makes us human'; it >is, of course, a skein, and one now driven by fast- forward >feedback, ranging from high-speed stock manipulation to high >speed online text-and-image feeds that leave no time for >reflection, but, more importantly, no need for reflection as >well. The horizon of all of this is the fracturing of steering >problems which dissolve in rhetoric and shifting positions; the >problems, however, remain and increase in urgency. Behind them >is an increasingly devastated planet with extinctions and >population out of control, existing within the immediacy of the >digital and its potential for internal transformation (a change >of pixel for pixel, for example), for epistemological slide. ... >For all of these reasons, these flows, invisibility tends >towards pharmacology and depression, towards despair and >violence, towards the inerrancy of fundamental religion and a >rigidity of logics and taxonomies between believers and non- >believers. It is easy to conclude from all of this that 'we are >all invisible' or some such, but in fact, the presence of belief >and violence point elsewhere, towards a sweeping-aside of the >ephemeral and the harnessing of the digital for a strict >rhetoric of communications. For those of us who can neither >ascribe to this, nor participate (by virtue of the problematic >'essences' of age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, >nationality, etc. etc. (all these categories left over from an >age of classical modernism and post-colonialism)), nothing is >left, and this nothingness leads nowhere to enlightenment, but >to those invisibilities which are always hammered into position >by others, but which always resist positionality as well; this >is the state of marooning, defined by the receding of that >instrumental past which at one point, close by, has seemed to be >heritage, but in fact was a social construct - the social >construct of time which, fast-forward, takes no time at all. It >is not that this too shall pass, but that this too has always >already passed, and where once the I-(pod) might have been, >there shall no longer be absence, but an absence of absence, >mute, ontological, nowhere and everywhere at all. There is no >answer because there is no time, and no evolution of our, or any >other species; there is only the time of slow cessation, on this >and other worlds, and the endpoint of invisibility is this - >that one is invisible because there is nothing to be seen. This >is no longer brilliant weather, but fabrication bending under >the weight of its own collapse, as popular culture demonstrates >over and over again, and we all succumb to its charms, just as >news, here in Providence, flails out with the slogan 'news you >can trust,' and advertisements hawk replacements and necessities >with the slogan 'just for you.' No one drives these, no one >receives them; events as well are marooned always already some- >where else, to someone else, to the displacement of populations, >from nothing to nothing. (Of course there is the trope that >'this essay, too, is invisible,' but how would one know, and >where is one? And immediately that one can see tendency towards >that absolutism that also participates in the annihilation of >the world, as if that were not an occurrence. What is foregone, >is foregone by virtue of invisibility; what is present, is >unaccountable, uncountable, and unaccounted-for. Such are the >shoals of ontology, such is the unseen, within and without the >parenthetical.) > >http://www.alansondheim.org/cairn011.jpg >>> > >regards >Johannes Birringer > > > > > >[Ruth schreibt] > >Hi Edward > >The artisans evocation is not an accident: ) And I share your feeling of >fellowship, commonness and community. > >There are all sorts of problems associated with taking the Net as a >'place'...however, billions of people now spend a lot of time 'here', >inventing, socialising, working, playing, committing criminal acts and so >it feels necessary to start thinking of the net as a place (and it is >actually emplaced in the cables and computers that constitute it), and >working out who and how the rights and obligations of its users and >creators could be negotiated. > >Thanks Rob for the prompts and pointers at people and projects that are >starting out in this direction. > >cheers, >Ruth > >On 05/03/15 01:44, Rob Myers wrote: >On Wed, 4 Mar, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Randall Packer ><rpac...@zakros.com><mailto:rpac...@zakros.com> wrote: >>>>> ³I'm not sure I feel like a citizen of the net. . it (citizen) >>>>>[also}] means 'A person who is legally recognized as a >>>>>member<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/member> of a >>>>>state<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state>, with associated rights >>>>>and obligations¹ and I'm not sure I feel any of those things about >>>>>the Net." > >All true @Edward, all true but, I leave with you with the following >Tweet I sent out yesterday (with some embellishment) : > >#netartizens<https://twitter.com/hashtag/netartizens?src=hash>: the >#Internet<https://twitter.com/hashtag/Internet?src=hash> as our own >self-proclaimed #nation<https://twitter.com/hashtag/nation?src=hash> not >requiring hierarchical authority from above to be [granted the rights of] >citizenship [of our own domain]. > >http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/02/stateless-in-west-africa/ > >"Ten million people around the world have no nationality. " > > > >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
