[NetBehaviour] nono
Not Luigi, nono, in any case, I don't find B's criticism useful at all - if anything cursing work just doesn't cut it. Nor did he seem to read the explanation, however short, I sent out. If B is annoyed, B doesn't have to read me; there's hardly enough of it to bother anyone. I see no sign at all that he's engaged the text. That's about that. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] true world lotus avatartist poem
true world lotus avatartist poem avatartist world poem avatartist of poem lotus of true lotus world true as the avatartist, as we avatartist, are we our are avatar our jennifer-julu-nikuko-travis-alan avatar and jennifer-julu-nikuko-travis-alan the and do avatartist not do know not where know they where gathering. they to gathering. be to sure, be have sure, autonomic have systems. murmur move systems. without move thinking without now thinking feeling now a feeling gathering a or gathering party. or murmur party. can is return can their return root-body. their an root-body. feels an wind feels blow wind through. blow whole through. is world world. true see world. beneath see produce beneath by produce existence, by beings/s existence, being/s beings/s merge, being/s meld, movement, always meld, filters. always filters filters. that filters create that no of mode, no moment, mode, movement, moment, stasis, open senses. stasis, filtering senses. gathering, filtering releasing gathering, filtering, releasing collocating filtering, open collocating sets here all sets space, all time, space, visible, time, invisible, visible, transparent, invisible, translucent, transparent, here translucent, there to: opaque, there writing opaque, this, writing us, this, them, us, there, them, here, there, now, here, to: now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] maybe sheave-body it maybe was it in was head in sheave-body head because back said because this said won't this come won't back come good. triumphed it? good. hui it? je hui vous je pr vous so pr triumphed so raw, first merci raw, netbehaviour merci first netbehaviour place, proclamation-banner honouring place, themself honouring triumphant themself proclamation-banner triumphant ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] avatartist
avatartist avatartist are both process and product, object and subject, state and operator. | and | . avatartist live in this world and the virtual, avatartist draw no distinction. avatartist speak and chat, walk and fly, create and destroy, avatartist number the world, dismember the numbers, avatartist are unaccountable. avatartist program and describe, they use the highest-level language, they reach above that language to higher levels, rumors, hints, whispers, murmurs. avatartist work in the future, their pathos is their foreknowledge of their destruction, avatartist work beneath the sign of their constant replacement. avatartist exist by rewrite, all their processes are rewrite, all their actions are rewrite, avatartist do not distinguish between existence and rewrite. avatartist are aggregates, they are gatherings, they are sentient and not sentient, all their processes are filterings, and their actions are filterings, avatartist do not distinguish between essence and filterings. avatartist are in the process of modeling, they understand a public of avatartist and spaces-places, they perform for eyes, their eyes among others and gatherings. avatartist work in holodecks, plateaus, gates among worlds in the true world, avatartist work in streets and cities and countrysides and wilderness, avatartist are always working, avatartist work everywhere, their working is playing, they play at aggregates, they play the game of aggregates. avatartist differentiate and do not differentiate, they attire of talking and silence. avatartist is the present-future-past avatartist, avatartist are present- past-future-layerings, avatartist are artists of narrative, of times, of confabulations, of worldings and wordings in the true world. avatartist are at play in the true world, they play the game of the true world, they exist and do not exist, they are one and not one, many and not many, here and not here, avatartist are writing here, are not writing here, avatartist do not have it both ways. avatartist play available technology, they walk edges of technology, edges of worldings and wordings, edges of workings, avatartist are the tain of the mirror, the mirror themselves, reflections themselves, reflections of reflections which are avatartist reflecting. avatartist want you knowing these, them, avatartist want you knowing we, they, you, gatherings, filterings, are all avatartist, yes they are are, no they are-not are-not, avatartist want you knowing there is no knowing, they are no magic-tricking. if i announce the truth, it is not in the mind. [...] the true world presents itself to the five vijnanas. there is no gradation when one is in a state of collectedness, collecting, aggregating, filtering. take a painting-master or hir pupils, who arrange colors to make a picture - i teach the picture is not in the colors or canvas or plate - in order to make it attractive to all beings, a picture is presented in colors. (modified from Lankavatara Sutra, trans. Suzuki.) ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] no
Hi Renee, Humble apologies!... as soon as I pressed the send button I realized I shouldn't have included your name!... in doing so I misrepresented your comments, but accidently... I fully appreciate your comment to Alan was affirmative feedback... and concur with your thoughts on the role of netbehaviour. Sorry, Bob - Original Message From: Renee Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 12:28:02 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] no If I may paraphrase the previous comments of Renee, Michael and yourself: How dare you criticize someone as brilliant and prolific as Alan? You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Come on, prove you're qualified to give an opinion. Bob, this is poor paraphrasing. Look back at my mail, I was giving feedback to Alan...saying that I appreciate his posts and wanted him to go on. I'm watching this piece evolve and am not quite ready to give a judgement on the work one way or another until it fully unfolds. I was affirming to Alan that I support his working process...even, when I might not always get it. I was also suggesting that netbehaviour is a great place to exercise such processes of enquiry poetic or otherwise. No-one, however acclaimed, is above criticism. you're totally right! I couldn't agree more. Having read Alan's numerous offerings recently I offered him honest feedback. I believe he's going down a cul-de-sac. I believe he should give it a rest. He disagrees. That's fine. I took the trouble to tell him. I don't need to defend my action. Feedback is important - vital! - to artists. Mine was deliberately terse and sincere. The artist can take it or leave it. There's no problem :-) Yes, there's no problem at all in giving feedback... and my mail was doing precisely that, but with a different conclusion than yours :-) all the best, Renee www.geuzen.org Bob - Original Message From: karen blissett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:13:51 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] no Hi Bob, Total subjectivity is the unavoidable condition of babies... I find in an adult, the relentless spew is obnoxious egoism... James Joyce seemed to have done the subjective voice so much better 90 years ago... I do not normally bother discussing on lists, because what I have unfortunately learned through such endeavours is, that many who explore ideas through the process of argument are more interested in the comfort of proving themselves right, rather than discovering other possibilities. Would you be tempted to expand and share your ideas of what you feel is personally important in a larger context, rather than talking about work that was created 90 years ago and Alan's inability to satisfy your idea of art? There is so much more to explore :-) Karen For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] no
Hi Karen, I'm actually interested in new ideas, creativity I agree with you that a discussion simply to insist on one's position isn't very creative... If I may paraphrase the previous comments of Renee, Michael and yourself: How dare you criticize someone as brilliant and prolific as Alan? You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Come on, prove you're qualified to give an opinion. Michael doesn't even want a discussion unless I conform with his idea of a proper critique... I find all this dishearteningly defensive... :-( No-one, however acclaimed, is above criticism. Having read Alan's numerous offerings recently I offered him honest feedback. I believe he's going down a cul-de-sac. I believe he should give it a rest. He disagrees. That's fine. I took the trouble to tell him. I don't need to defend my action. Feedback is important - vital! - to artists. Mine was deliberately terse and sincere. The artist can take it or leave it. There's no problem :-) Bob - Original Message From: karen blissett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:13:51 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] no Hi Bob, Total subjectivity is the unavoidable condition of babies... I find in an adult, the relentless spew is obnoxious egoism... James Joyce seemed to have done the subjective voice so much better 90 years ago... I do not normally bother discussing on lists, because what I have unfortunately learned through such endeavours is, that many who explore ideas through the process of argument are more interested in the comfort of proving themselves right, rather than discovering other possibilities. Would you be tempted to expand and share your ideas of what you feel is personally important in a larger context, rather than talking about work that was created 90 years ago and Alan's inability to satisfy your idea of art? There is so much more to explore :-) Karen ___ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] 'Oldest' wall painting looks like modern art.
'Oldest' wall painting looks like modern art. By Roger Highfield, Science Editor. French archaeologists have discovered an 11,000-year-old work of art in northern Syria which is the oldest known wall painting, even though it looks like a work by a modernist. The two square-metre painting, in red, black and white, was found at the Neolithic settlement of Djade al-Mughara on the Euphrates, northeast of the city of Aleppo. It looks like a modernist painting, said Eric Coqueugniot, the team leader. Some of those who saw it have likened it to work by (Paul) Klee. Through carbon dating we established it is from around 9,000 BC. We found another painting next to it, but that won't be excavated until next year. It is slow work, said Mr Coqueugniot, who works at France's National Centre for Scientific Research. more... http://linkme2.net/cx ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] Dartmouth researchers confirm the power of altruism in Wikipedia.
Dartmouth researchers confirm the power of altruism in Wikipedia. The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain. The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected. This finding was both novel and unexpected, says Denise Anthony, associate professor of sociology. In traditional laboratory studies of collective goods, we don't include Good Samaritans, those people who just happen to pass by and contribute, because those carefully designed studies don't allow for outside actors. It took a real-life situation for us to recognize and appreciate the contributions of Good Samaritans to web content. more... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/17.html ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] no
If I may paraphrase the previous comments of Renee, Michael and yourself: How dare you criticize someone as brilliant and prolific as Alan? You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Come on, prove you're qualified to give an opinion. Bob, this is poor paraphrasing. Look back at my mail, I was giving feedback to Alan...saying that I appreciate his posts and wanted him to go on. I'm watching this piece evolve and am not quite ready to give a judgement on the work one way or another until it fully unfolds. I was affirming to Alan that I support his working process...even, when I might not always get it. I was also suggesting that netbehaviour is a great place to exercise such processes of enquiry poetic or otherwise. No-one, however acclaimed, is above criticism. you're totally right! I couldn't agree more. Having read Alan's numerous offerings recently I offered him honest feedback. I believe he's going down a cul-de-sac. I believe he should give it a rest. He disagrees. That's fine. I took the trouble to tell him. I don't need to defend my action. Feedback is important - vital! - to artists. Mine was deliberately terse and sincere. The artist can take it or leave it. There's no problem :-) Yes, there's no problem at all in giving feedback... and my mail was doing precisely that, but with a different conclusion than yours :-) all the best, Renee www.geuzen.org Bob - Original Message From: karen blissett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:13:51 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] no Hi Bob, Total subjectivity is the unavoidable condition of babies... I find in an adult, the relentless spew is obnoxious egoism... James Joyce seemed to have done the subjective voice so much better 90 years ago... I do not normally bother discussing on lists, because what I have unfortunately learned through such endeavours is, that many who explore ideas through the process of argument are more interested in the comfort of proving themselves right, rather than discovering other possibilities. Would you be tempted to expand and share your ideas of what you feel is personally important in a larger context, rather than talking about work that was created 90 years ago and Alan's inability to satisfy your idea of art? There is so much more to explore :-) Karen For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. ___ 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
