Re: nettimespace entangled - part 321

[brian carroll]

hi John, thanks for sharing your perspective. it is not uncommon  
(criticism) and appreciated as such.

your post (and its seconding) could have been responded to in a  
nanosecond though a pause was
necessary for me to remember that sharing ideas should be fun and not  
simply a laborious task and dealt with in terms of tedium, and overly  
seriously, etc. in any case it was good to reflect on these issues  
once again.

I will offer another view of this same situation you critique, not to  
negate the validity of your viewpoint (too long, nonsensical) and  
instead to engage your criticism in the context of sharing complex  
ideas which are viewed from various perspectives. in particular, your  
observations as they are related to your role as an observer, and how  
this may play a part in what you are observing and attribute to me.


> 1) While your writings make frequently interesting points, they are  
> too verbose.  Extended length is acceptable if the author writes on  
> exceedingly complex topics or for audiences with backgrounds  
> outside of the subject matter under discussion.

what I write is often equivalent to 'heresy' on many levels, and to  
back up these ideas, oftentimes novel arguments have to be built-up  
which can take a lot of words to do. for instance, previously I have  
written (for years) about the materiality of the supposedly  
'immaterial' Internet as it is grounded in infrastructure, which is  
totally against the trend. and requires a lot of work to address  
ongoing views which are the default consensus. as it happens, sharing  
ideas in an ideological saturated environment requires both  
addressing the ideology and its dynamics and placing these in  
relation to the new ideas and comparing their models, etc. it is not  
so simple as just sharing one's model, it also involves active  
engagement of known beliefs which must also be addressed, which makes  
up the basis for anyone to challenge statements made, contrary to the  
overriding view. the burden of proof is on the writer to make a case,  
and if that case is not being made, it should be pointed out where in  
the text that there is a break in the logic or reasoning that refutes  
the argument. (note: this is not what is happening with my work in  
the critique, which is not about the ideas and instead about their  
formal presentation.)

  if everyone agreed to the same view, or there was a high-level of  
shared understanding about ideas, then i could write the same thing  
in 1 paragraph, yet that would be easy to refute. so, these writings  
function more as logical arguments and in that, equations which  
enable the thoughts to exist in an environment of peer-review which  
any ideas could be discredited by peer review- as to the ideas  
themselves- which is not happening. it is not necessarily because  
people are not reading the works, it is because there are solid  
arguments (most times) which can stand up to substantive criticism,  
and all it would take is someone to perform that role to make this  
more publicly self-evident than it now is. i.e. it would take others  
to place their ideas on the line, to risk their own modeling and  
challenge views so to gain a better (shared) understanding. that this  
is not happening cannot necessarily be pegged to the length of text,  
nor that it is non-sensical because if it were non-sensical or hazy  
then someone should be able to point out where, how, and why it is  
so, and thus disprove or refute the argument. note: without any  
examples as to such claims, it is impossible to review that the text  
'does not make any sense' etc. if you provide examples, that is where  
the fun begins, and would open up the ideas to many views and that is  
the entire point of sharing these ideas, at least for me. so to  
improve the ideas themselves.

now if the ideas can be said in a better format, with improvements-  
that I totally can accept and agree with, yet this is not the point  
of the text itself, the ideas. the ideas themselves are what is  
important and while they may be imperfect, they can be improved by  
others and are free to do so. if you or anyone can boil the text down  
to one page and retain the same meaning, while attributing ideas to  
their sources, then that is fine. though I would argue that because  
of the nature of these ideas, in this context, that, with the writer  
that exists (me) this is the best they can do in presenting these  
ideas and that role of the writer is both of creative limits and  
liberty to do one's best in sharing ideas as best they can. I do not  
need to be policed on my writing style, for while it may be valid as  
a critique about the form, it does nothing to refute the ideas  
themselves and stands only as a complaint about the form. it may be  
hard to read so much text- though it is not unfamiliar if reading  
philosophy, and it is almost funny if considering sharing grounded  
ideas that hold to a common share

nettimespace unentangled - part 3

[brian carroll]

[a few more ideas on perspective, identity, ideas, public reasoning...]
---

* the purpose of writing all of this, is that the basic situation for =20=

sharing ideas both online and offline today happens largely within a =20
context of dysfunction, which appears to have a role in undermining =20
the ability to _reason ideas, successfully, versus failing to engage =20
in this process of refinement which enables greater understanding.

  instead, this inability to achieve greater insight by corroborating =20=

and challenging points of view in a shared empirical framework leads =20
to a loss of accuracy in the way ideas are represented, because in a =20
context of relativism each view can co-exist as a private reality, =20
while negating a necessary public reality that exists between the =20
views, or a shared universalism. this is non-sensical yet it is in =20
such a way that 'facts' can be privatized, and become options and =20
choices by which private opinions begin to rule over public =20
knowledge, and likewise, private knowledge over public understanding, =20=

until what is being privately represented is so far away from public =20
truth as to be unrecognizable as existing as a shared experience.

  that is, the bias and distortion of a particular viewpoint can be =20
so extremely unlike other views from an neutral point of view that =20
failing to acknowledge these dynamics lead to a devolution of 'ideas' =20=

into a realm of 'ideology' by pursuing reasoning without common =20
empiricism, as discourse and debate further relativizes and =20
differentiates (difference), dispositions becoming more and more =20
polarized.

so the question may be: what can be done about this dysfunction of =20
'reasoning' in relation to the role of ideas and their accountability =20=

in terms of facts, truth, logic?

some possibilities include: grounding 'ideas' within public fact, =20
truth, logic, and empirical reasoning. if claims are made beyond =20
this, such as with 'theories', it should be the responsibility of =20
claimants to check and balance their own ideas in this regard and not =20=

rely on others to provide such discipline. i.e. if there are =20
universal statements being made that there is some obligation to =20
square these views, as public views, with public reality not only =20
private musings of metaphysics, religion, mysticism and magic, yet to =20=

equate the latter as if equal to neutral, balanced, view of what =20
exists as it exists for all.

so, it is necessary to acknowledge that 'public' ideas are =20
distinguished from 'private' ideas posing as public thinking, yet =20
without the responsibility to defer to public facts, truth, logic, =20
reasoning, etc (which would be to say, a shared empirical reality =20
that exists as this public context). and with relativism, it may be =20
that there are ideas which are simultaneously public and private, =20
with complexity making it very unclear as to what any given idea may =20
be, at any given moment, from any given perspective-- yet that this =20
may again be related to the establishment and respect for existing in =20=

a shared universe, based in reasoning, where these situations can be =20
navigated, this territory mapped, etc. and so on.

* of course, the above ideas could be 'believed' to be right and =20
'proven' to be wrong, rather simply. it is the issue of the Privilege =20=

of Perspective within an infinitely relative worldview that is the =20
traditional context. and it is also related to the binary mode of =20
thinking which is equally prevalent today, which is to consider ideas =20=

in black and white terms, which may be most effective when there is =20
no shared view because it chops thinking down rather fast into =20
manageable bits vs overwhelming complexity.

yet it is possible that observations and reasoning could encompass =20
opposing views simultaneously, if paradox was allowed in the modeling =20=

of reality.  therefore, maybe there are public dimensions that are =20
obviously in metaphysics, so this is too broad a claim against them, =20
yet there is some truth that in a given context they may become =20
detached from shared truth and this perspective is valid, as it is =20
reasoned. so too, it may be that there may be claims of 'shared =20
empiricism' being proposed, yet this is still too private even if it =20
is said to represent a more public viewpoint, etc. etc. -- all of =20
this can be accommodated in shared reasoning if 'paradox' is =20
acknowledged. thus, contradictions do not nullify whatever truth may =20
be existing, and grounded, and thus truth may be 'suspended' in a =20
sense, yet also allowing discarding of the extraneous and inaccuracy =20
through a process of refining of ideas.

to do so, a _full-spectrum consideration between viewpoints (black =20
and white, thus, the gray area) would be to consider ideas in such a =20
range of thinking, if acknowledging that partial truths may exist, =20
opposed, yet n

nettimespace unentangled - part 2

[brian carroll]

[i've been informed the originating post on abuse was not in  
reference to me, yet the follow-on posts did seem to extend this to  
my work so i am going to continue with making the case about the  
status quo in which ideology has constrained what is possible, and  
the role of ideas in reasoning beyond this, where everyone is on the  
same side of the situation, even if having widely differing viewpoints]
---

* what if the price of thinking were considered in terms of the  
'conflict' of ideas, conflicting ideas as part of the cost of doing  
such business - that this is a natural condition for mediating ideas,  
which may be juxtaposed even opposed, and it becomes a question of  
how this is going to be mediated and the success or failure of doing  
so - in terms of the ideas themselves, would also be accounted for in  
some way. that is, that maybe there is a burden involved in all of  
this, that includes engaging the problems of thinking and the  
difficult aspects, not just the cheap easy and free use of ideas for  
other agendas, and instead, the responsibility of ideas to the  
foundations upon which they are built, in truths developed over  
lifetimes, of substance, and greater worth than any individual  
thinker alone.

then, what if this aspect of thinking and sharing of ideas, concepts,  
views, beliefs, speculations, was to not be grounded in a common  
language, in a common logic, in a common truth or reasoning-- that  
is, everyone can be talking and saying things, yet there are no  
bridges between the ideas, the thoughts, the truths espoused,  
necessarily. and instead, as with relativism, each thinker can  
recreate a worldview even universe unto themselves, and if divine  
call this infinite and preach such a gospel.

that is basically the situation today, in the extreme, because  
without a common foundation for relating across viewpoints, on shared  
issues, the reasoning is fractured to points of view which are based  
on bias and distortion of individual points of view that have no  
empirical relation in which to build a larger perspective. and, it is  
questionable as to the 'ideas' being considered, how accurate they  
are to modeling a larger reality than that of any given individual if  
they are not checked and balanced by other (external) views, which  
may contradict claims or beliefs which are said universal.

in this sense, the unconnected fragmented pursuit of ideas devolves  
ideas into simplistic ideology in which, regardless of external facts  
truth or evidence to the contrary, one's point of view is supreme,  
which tends toward divine despotism. this is also entirely privatized  
thinking, which may itself function in terms of market economics no  
less, that if others believe in the model being presented, however  
subjective or distorted or biased, that a private empiricism (and  
even Empire) can rise around these
ideas which are largely not related to outside points of view of  
fact, logic, reasoning, open debate, etc, which would obligate the  
ideas to be grounded in relation to the claims being made as a result.

that is, the ideas as ideas could be short-circuiting in terms of  
truth, logic, facts, reason, yet it would be unnecessary to have to  
acknowledge such a situation, based on the exploitation of this  
privatized position of power in hierarchical structures (education,  
institutions, groups) which can use privileges of authority  
(positions of power) to circumvent checks-and-balances, transforming  
the public review of ideas based on empirical facts, argument, into  
one of a belief system, which if one does not like it then one can  
simply make another choice as to their (private) beliefs, or leave  
school.

this then turns the process of reasoning ideas, which has gone on for  
centuries, into a private affair which functions only at the limited  
or constrained levels which are available in the thoughts, as they  
are believed to exist. which effectively is to say, questioning has  
been answered within an ideology.

"i believe this idea means this". (external: 'what about this?')  
"that is not how i see it..." ad adsurdum.

i.e. anyone can say anything about anything, yet it not mean anything  
to anyone else, i.e. babble. this is the curse of relativism, in  
which every facet becomes tangential to every other viewpoint, and in  
the denial or ignoring of the common geometrical connections, the  
larger in-formation is unseen.


without a grounding in common facts, truth, logic, and reasoning  
which is public - this can become a finite limit and boundary for  
'ideas' which are interpreted by private thinkers, using private  
language, private logic, private viewpoints or identities, and  
private reasoning that only people who can engage or accept ideas on  
these terms (of private engagement) can partake in this private  
empiricism, and thus build up an empire of such private thinking by  
which to then go on to declare larger tr

nettimespace unentangled - part 1

[brian carroll]

[the following notes relate to the thread 'nettime as idea' which seek
to clarify the _context for the comments made regarding the charges of
'abuse' in that issues of complexity, perspective, relativism may all
be facets of a larger shared experience - yet which may mean different
things to different people. an impersonal accounting will be followed
by a personal accounting of this issue, from my given perspective.]

---

* having signed onto nettime years ago, it has been a great resource
for ideas, for years, no doubt. yet it has had 'high hopes'
expressed in its agenda, about what is needing to be addressed,
engaged by thinkers and doers, and questions about how to go about
this oftentimes are presented. world issues, local vantages,
online and offline coordination, etc. this aspect of nettime, its
'purposefulness' as a list, having some agency or greater purpose
for ideas, in which they are put into actions, in larger and smaller
scales, has been one of the most intriguing and hopeful aspects,
and this is a nettime that has potential to do things needing to be
done, if only some of the issues or hurdles could be overcome. how to
do that is a perennial issue and how this questioning occurs, also.
'Empire' could be seen as one instance, another 'tactical media', as
others. i believe in this nettime, in this purpose, in these efforts
and experiments, even if the ideas are problematic as to stated
goals, there is undeniably the intention to effect positive changes.
i respect this nettime, these nettimers, and yet find the ideas are
questionable as to what is being claimed versus the actual situations
- as they are being modeled, as ideas, in terms of logic, truth, fact,
reasoning.

i am not sure this is problematic in any way, excepting not buying
into these approach to resolving the issues, and instead offering
substantive critiques of many ideas, in hopes of refining them through
debate, with regard to what is more actually going on. such as with
issues of Empire and empiricism, or Tactical Media in relation
to electromagnetic infrastructure, say. this is common fare for
ideas, to dissent views and debate positions and seek some greater
understanding through this process. yet, on nettime, this process is
pretty much one-way, and the criticism is never answered or responded
to, directly, in terms of ideas. and it seems that this external
criticism of these approaches, of challenging the critics and their
own critiques, becomes an issue of contempt over a period of time,
in that this devalues the purity of consensus around which people
gather and continue developing such thinking. that is, the thinking
itself appears to be set-in-place around a set of assumptions about
how things work, which is self-supporting within a given culture
or ecosystem, if academic, and it can sustain without need for
modifications as to the ideas, as they are capable of pursuing things
without need for additional adaptations beyond the confines of the
users.

the issue with this is oftentimes these ideas are 'grounded' in
philosophies which have been extended and have become the platform for
agendas, and in a sense are used as justification and legitimation of
such an approach - based on ideas - yet which, if the ideas themselves
are merely utilitarian, may have the agenda turn against the original
intent of the ideas. D&G stated this in Anti- Oedipus to some extent,
i think it was, in that to simply apply the ideas is not enough,
because they are corruptible as ideas. (my paraphrase, and it can
be said in another way: that accepting something as true, and then
extending that truth beyond its originating circumstances can detach
this truth from the facts which constitute it, and as such, truth
can be separated from reality, and reason can be separated from
a responsibility to this (shared) truth, which -- if this is all
based in philosophy -- would need to be respected, and not ignored
as secondary to another agenda, if it is the basis for actions. in
this case, this is a difference between ideas that are open to being
questioned (criticism) and ideas that are closed as if an answered
question, which becomes ideology.

thus, in challenging ideas, based in philosophy, as to their truth in
relation to rather large grand sweeping claims of totality (reality,
value, justice, purpose, politics, etc) - it would seem 'fair game'
to question the ideas that underly this system of thinking - which
is rather pervasive and consistent as a 'school of thought' in terms
that there is some monoculture in all of this, academically, that
ties in with certain theories of how things are, how they should be
approached, and that this is justified based on big ideas in important
books.

so there is book knowledge and there is understanding of the issues
in relation to being able to personally and successfully reason the
arguments as to the claims being made. that this is challenged by an
outsider is part of 'discursive practice' one might be led to 

nettime as idea

[brian carroll]

  * is it possible that 'ideas' that are now institutionalized
are part of the problem, in that they do not lend them-
selves to building up shared views, and instead dividing
ideas into categories, which narrows down potentials for
building greater knowledge/understanding thru discourse?

(i.e. maybe the thinking/conceptualization is rather weak for
and detached from the actual situations, and that *silence*
may be a testament to irrelevancy/inadequacy of academic
systems of thought to engage situations as they now exist.
and thus this could be an indictment of, say, theory itself?)

  * years ago i proposed Nettime as if a medium, by which to
take on the New York Times, and would add that with all
the tech/computer skills, the Listserv model itself should be
hacked and modified and expanded to experiment with the
_list as a functioning idea, by which to allow discourses to
occur beyond the original designs, such as loops in which
offlist discussions may still live, (go on), in the archives as
live events, even if not on list, such as tying a BBS or RSS
comments feed in with the List, whatever dimensions could
be woven (that deal with technology assisting the content,
and not simply becoming the content itself, meaningless.

this is what i do not understand about the whole situation:
there is probably more diverse talent on this list in terms of
culture, knowledge, geography, social awareness, technology
and yet there seems to be difficulty in sharing a focus or what
is actually of greater value, to the larger organism of nettime.
-- why, with all this potential is the list itself as a mechanism
not a shared focus by which to transform this situation and
not be reliant on the default configurations -- or, for instance,
why is it that the issues of philosophy cannot become a focus
by which to figure out a way to gain a shared ground by which
to build up relations between the various systems of thought,
by more than linking to websites or projects, and instead get
into these dynamics, on list and in the list as a machinery, in
which these issues could in/form the shape of nettime itself?
it would seem it has to do with what is seen as important and
how it is approached: in terms of ideas, nettime itself is itself
an idea that seems to be passed over, and is said to limit other
ideas, yet maybe it is more complex and more simple than this.

maybe it is that the 'project' has yet to be nettime itself, as a
larger idea, by which to focus shared action on building up a
better medium for the things people want to do, via listservs,
via e-mail (including attaching small graphic/diagrams so as
to communicate ideas, literally, inaccessible without images,
which could and would require moderation, image server, etc).

* maybe what is most troubling is that nettime is standing still,
and has not evolved as a medium all that much, when there is
all the potential for taking it on as a shared project, technical,
cultural, social, etc. and making it into something that has yet
to exist, and that is DiY from the networks and the ground-up.
maybe nettime risks not surviving because it does not know
what it is adapting to, or this is not even a question, and that
the assumption that its content (discourse) is somehow going
to save it may be mistaken-- that its content may be part of
the reason it is dying: the cause of its deterioration, looking
into the mirror of the vital lack of insight bred in Universities
today with regard to how things are actually working, even.
that is, the mental modeling may be insufficient, and yet the
nettime-model does not necessarily have to rely on failures
of ideology, for its own development. it could challenge the
institutionalization of methods and forms of inquiry, linearism,
all the stuff that is critiqued, and actually experiment and go
into questioning mode of the assumptions that are propping
up this wasteland of imagination, and bring it all back down
to earth, by making the list real, making it relevant, based in
common sense and peer review and checks and balances of
ideas, as a public forum, which redefines the very questions
that all the expertise supposedly existing, fails to account for.
that is, relevance, realism, idealism, action, shared agendas.
maybe it is psychological, even, a predisposition, based upon
academic assumptions, sacred cows, in need of slaughtering.


bc

  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/





#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and

BLACKFLAG OPS [outside.US] Part3

[brian carroll]

many of the problems in the Middle East relate to failures and biases  
of .US FOREIGN POLICY which has been proven to be detrimental to .US  
interests in that these are the very problems generating the need for  
a 'War of Terror.' i.e. the catastrophic decision-making of the .US  
'War of Terror' is an extension of failed .US policies in the Mideast  
by which to secure victory for one-side of the mideast conflict, at  
world-scale. fighting this war only generates more opposition to the  
basic policies underlying all decision-making, which is an unjust,  
biased, and distorted view of the situation between .IL and  
Palestine. and continuing to fight this war only compounds the basic  
situation further, becoming entrenched in the polarized binary  
ideological worldviews, which can only create more war, death, and  
destruction by taking such a path.

for this reason .US BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS become necessary because  
the .US GOVERNMENT is no longer effective in its decision-making by  
which it could transform this situation in the interests of .US  
citizens and the .US STATE. that is, via POLICY which takes into  
account these well-known * facts * about the basic situation  
underlying the ideological struggle now underway. if anything, it  
could be said that the POLICY is based on an "anti-enlightenment"  
philosophy in which public reason has no role in .US decision-making,  
and only a private reasoning which is largely irrational if taken in  
terms other than those it can control.  it is in this way that an  
INSURRECTIONIST agenda has found its way into .US POLICY via  
Neoconservatives who have subverted .US GOVERNMENT for an agenda that  
makes no sense for the .US citizens to pursue, including the .US  
military, because it is against the self-interests of the .US itself.

instead of governance in a constitutional democracy in which the  
public will is being represented -- this has been short-circuited by  
PRIVATE POLICIES which are dictated, one-way, via MASS MEDIA which  
bypasses the public checks-and-balances of democratic governance,  
which then distorts the representation of issues and thus the reality  
of issues as they exist to .US citizens as represented in the mass  
media of magazines, newspapers, television, radio, etc. what is being  
represented in the .US is a violent right-wing perspective of the  
Mideast situation, by default. that is, an agenda that is based on  
fighting and winning one-side of the Mideast conflict, is the status  
quo position for all reporting and all representation of the issues  
in the .US with regard to issues between Israel and Palestine. thus,  
American citizens are only getting one-side of the story, and this is  
considered the only side of the story. this basic compromise of  
objectivity has led to the 'War of Terror' as being a legitimation of  
pursuing such a strategic extension of this basic idea, in that the   
'War of Terror' POLICY further secures this narrow point-of-view (of  
Israel's right-wing) in the .US as its FOREIGN POLICY agenda, its  
geostrategic purpose and planning for its development in the world.  
the very fact that the narrow POLICY goals of an external state have  
become the sole geostrategic agenda for the .US is an indication of  
external forces interfering in the internal affairs of the .US, which  
is unacceptable. it accounts to treason, if not total subversion.

this is to say that, because of the way the .US GOVERNMENT is short- 
circuited by special interests and corporate-machinery, the situation  
in the mideast has been 'misrepresented' by a one-sided and BIASED  
approach, which feeds the mideast conflict which scales up to the  
'War of Terror' -- and that for those who are being represented  
by .US FOREIGN POLICY, are INSURRECTIONISTS both internal (Neocons)  
and external (Likud) to the .US affairs of state. in this way,  
the .US has taken on an agenda by which to fight and die on behalf of  
external forces, under the .US FLAG and by contorting the original  
intent of the .US CONSTITUTION, to place American lives and treasure  
in service to a foreign agenda and its self-interest -- a fatally  
unwise to pursue as .US POLICY, because it does not serve the .US  
self-interest. instead it is only automatically generating more and  
more terrorism which is naturally balancing this unequal situation.  
so, the POLICY which is a failure for .US interests actually becomes  
a business model which creates a supply of 'terror' by which the  
corporate dictatorial state can continue to destroy the  
constitutional state in pursuing such circular logic. that is, TERROR  
is an ecosystem by which corporate machines are making PROFITS off of  
this human oppression, via dehumanizing policies which are unfair and  
unjust, which create the very problem that the 'War of Terror' is  
supposedly to solve, yet this only creates more and more terror, as a  
commodity, by which to trade and extend this mod

preface to Part 3 (on policy)

[brian carroll]

[several world-scale changes since writing Part 2, thus necessary to  
further understand the situation before continuing. a post on logic  
will follow which will be to consider the present situation as  
existing in two different worldviews/paradigms/realities/etc...]

---

to continue with strategic planning for .US BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS it  
is important to once again clarify its reason and purpose. in the  
present situation in which there is an endless 'War of Terror' which  
has become a business-model for certain interests whom happen to  
profit from such a mode of global warfaring, the problems being  
'fought' are not even being addressed and instead are being  
exacerbated so as to continue with the extension of this warfaring.  
to resolve issues of the 'War of Terror' would require a fair and  
just resolution of the mideast conflict between Israel and Palestine,  
for instance, in addition to another approach to diplomacy. none of  
this has been possible within 'War of Terror' modeling, because it is  
biased for making war, and doing so in a biased way that looks at  
only one-side of the situation. this 'governance' is happening  
outside of the 'public' checks-and-balances of representative  
government in the .US and instead the decision-making guiding the  
collective state of some 300 million citizens is being led by special- 
interests, which if taking account of these actions make .US citizens  
* less safe * and promotes further TERRORISM against .US citizens and  
interests, because of such contrarian policy. what has occurred,  
instead, is that through INSURRECTIONISTS both internal and external  
to the .US government, the policy of an ally has been out outsourced  
to the .US and subsidized by .US taxpayers which does not benefit .US  
citizens or the .US state, and has killed tens of thousands of  
innocent citizens in its pursuit, and some 2,600 .US soldiers  
fighting for a cause that exists outside of the domain of the .US  
constitution yet this INSURRECTIONIST POLICY is equated as being a  
natural extension of the constitution: that is, to put the .US  
government and .US voluntary military in service to another country  
to pursue its foreign policy objectives via fighting and dying on its  
behalf and for its strategic interests. any .US leader who advocates  
such strategic actions is doing so against the very interests of the  
state and its peoples and is incompetent in protecting and defending  
its public interests in a hostile and chaotic world. there is no law  
which can justify treason as patriotism.

and yet, given a complex world, it may be possible that whatever  
the .US interests are in such a foolish policy as it was undertaken,  
that the good can still be salvaged from this misguided affair of  
state, if there is a wholesale change in leadership and direction  
from this point onward. that is, to rebuild what has been lost, and  
to take command and control of this situation so as to turn it around  
and secure the situation, begin .US troop withdrawals, while also  
engaging and addressing issues of nuclear peace, mideast peace, and a  
2-state solution between .PS and .IL by which to resolve the 'War of  
Terror' and start the new millennium by building, not destroying it.

in other words: what will be worth all the bloodshed and treasure?  
securing mideast peace. it will save the mission and put the  
sacrifices in the proper context in which they belong-- the ultimate  
goal is to secure a world at peace and allow it to work together for  
mutual goals and shared prosperity- this is what is required to begin  
on that path, which will both differentiate the 21st century from all  
preceding centuries while connecting it with the greatest events of  
the past, and define world civilization anew, at world-scale, and to  
govern in this realm.

it is in this way that even though .US policy may have been wrong,  
that given the way things work with machineries of state, it may also  
have been 'necessary' in terms of how state automatically function in  
pursuit of their goals, as behavioral mechanisms, and in this paradox  
that there may still exist a human dimension whereby - it is true and  
believed - that there is some saving grace from all of this, and that  
should this current situation be turned around, that in the end, some  
centuries later, it may have allowed changes to occur that otherwise  
possibly would not have been able to, even if wrong and immoral. this  
is to say that, given the givens, and how politics work, that  
President Bush banked his presidency on this decision, as being the  
right one, for its transcendent aspects of being able to resolve the  
problems of mideast peace. at this point the only way that is going  
to happen is by taking another strategy which actually can and does  
resolve the ongoing and new problems, yet this requires the wholesale  
jettisoning of Neoconservative and status-quo policies in the mid

BLACKFLAG OPS [outside.US] Part2

[brian carroll]

* BLACK FLAG OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

(General Policy Direction in Middle East and Southeast Asia)

  [Continued - Part 2]


{{ .US BLACKFLAG temp.online @ www.electronetwork.org/temp/ 
blackflagUSv.gif  }}


Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

-- H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880 - 1956)


*

{{ "rewiring the Mideast circuitboard via .US BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS"
reference MAP temp.online @ www.electronetwork.org/temp/MAP.gif  }}



3. .US policy inversions -- Syria and Iran

the absolute hypocrisy of current .US foreign policy positions, under  
the influence of Neoconservative operatives, must be recognized and  
nullified immediately for they are both un-American and only  
perpetuate the problems that, supposedly, are seeking resolution in  
the "war of terror" - though it is more likely that the existing  
approach is designed with this very fact in mind.

that is, the .US battle planning and 'order of battle' driven by the  
Neoconservatives, and dictated by those violent extremists in the  
Israeli government associated with the Likud, had spoken of 'first  
Iraq' then 'Iran and Syria' would be next-in-line for .US military  
aggressions, including invasions, in this ongoing 'War of Terror'.  
let's make this very clear: a foreign power, Israel, has publicly  
spoken of internal .US military planning in both the lead-up to the  
Iraq war and subsequent military actions (follow-on) after this,  
which has been placed outside of democratic control of citizen  
governance. i.e. a foreign power is influencing the choice of  
sending .US citizens, spouses and children, into battle on its  
behalf, and to sacrifice themselves for the designs of .US and .IL  
Neoconservatives, fascists, and 'violent extremists' (Judeo- 
Christian, if not simply satanists - calling it like it is) and that  
this is a betrayal of the public trust and oath of office as to who  
is actually 'commander-in-chief', of .US foreign policy, or domestic  
policy for that matter. this is to say that that in itself is an act  
of treason at the highest levels, which has plenty of spy stories  
associated with it in the press, yet the conclusions have yet to be  
heard of what this all adds up to.

it is proposed that this is more evidence of a coordinated  
Insurrection, both by internal forces (who are aligned with the  
Whitehouse of George H.W. Bush (1), whose son has now crashed the  
country in a latest act of private recklessness over the public state  
of affairs.) -- and by external forces in .IL and elsewhere who act  
by proxy of the special-interest groups and lobbies, whose power has  
coalesced over this same last period of 40 years in the formation of  
the GOP-Neoconservative alliance which has handed over the decision- 
making of the .US government to private powers who are outsourcing  
their foreign policy using the blood of .US soldiers, citizens, and  
their families suffering, in addition to raiding the public coffers  
to pay for their own policies, by government heist.

to say this is not the case, on its face, consider how .US  
Presidential hopefuls like Hilary Clinton have traveled to Israel to  
announce their run for .US President, announcing their intentions in  
another country - by which to try to get elected in the United States  
of America. no matter the demographic challenges of a particular  
locality, when this race begins 'offshore' so too do the policies  
that will be driving such candidates in their governance. make no  
mistake: this is selling out America to a particular influence that  
has some relation to those now subverting .US government ends other  
than those good for Americans. and that this is traitorous,  
treasonous, and despicable if ignoring the 'cost' of continuing this  
business-as-usual without fixing the problematic dynamics that are  
now undermining constitutional democracy and installing a corporate  
dictatorship in its place.

again: this is not anti-semitic nor is it anti-Israeli (whether  
Palestinian or Jew, Orthodox or atheist) -- it is instead an issue of  
foreign-interference and manipulation of internal .US affairs and  
external .US policies and foreign affairs which have undermined  
the .US government, and those doing this are both in the .US and .IL  
and elsewhere, and their modus-operandi is 'violent extremism' other- 
wise known as 'terrorism' by which they pursue their agenda: and this  
is to take a stand against this  movement, which is to take a stand  
against FASCISM itself, and Judeo-Fascists in the .US and .IL and the  
Christian Fascists who also partake in this 'crusade' against Muslims  
in .US imperial policy. it is so _un-American_ that it is hard to  
reconcile how such policies could have been pu

BLACKFLAG OPS [outside.US] Part 1

[brian carroll]

[note: currently weathering a major propaganda storm whereby the film  
United 93 submerges everything in its heavy and impenetrable  
ideological fog via uncritical distribution by mass media, which  
vanquishes whatever light might have existed by which to navigate,  
into a submersed state of lost sense of direction, distance, and  
general confusion, just as it was designed to do. so too, the  
addition .US patriotism raining heavily down upon this wayward ship  
of state, in having  the President standing on the side of reciting  
of the National Anthem in English, is thoroughly twisted and  
disorienting as to the actual nature of these events. that is, as if  
defending traditional values when in fact having undermined and  
exploited them as political camouflage. for instance, the FBI being  
on the lookout for "Terrorists", who are defined as: Defenders of the  
U.S. Constitution, against federal government and the UN, Those who  
make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution, Lone individuals,  
Rebels" etc.*  thus, in hoisting the .US BLACKFLAG over this existing  
deck strake, it will be to symbolically invert this pirated ship of  
state *by recognizing it as such* so as to reclaim and retake our  
constitutional democracy, so to immediately navigate/steer/govern in  
a more enlightened direction...]

---


simultaneous and coordinated activation of BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS  
outside the .US will engage and transform existing policy fiascos  
into a shared general direction that is in-line with constitutional  
democracy and the right of citizens to peacefully co-exist on this  
planet together...

from this present day, the overall goal will be to engage issues  
generating the 'War of Terror' worldwide, with a laser-focused  
emphasis on resolving the Mideast conflict via a 2-state solution  
between .IL and .PS, a goal of which the .US will be in service to,  
and accord all sides respect and a balanced perspective by which to  
resolve the ongoing conflicts. this would include protecting the  
human rights of those in the region, and bringing large resources  
into .PS to help in building the state, if such assistance were  
acceptable, and also larger regional development based upon a 'long- 
term truce' whereby Islamic and Judeo-Christian and other countries  
can work together on building a shared prosperity while respecting  
sovereignty, cultural autonomy, and governance independent of  
external control, manipulation, influence in internal affairs.

thus, the ultimate goal of .US BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS will be to  
establish Mideast Peace, and to end the Neoconservative 'War of  
Terror' which is itself only an endless reign of terror. in doing so,  
a basic shift in dynamics will recontextualize policy options and  
decision-making in the region and world, between states and peoples,  
which could become the foundation for building new peace at the world  
scale, beyond nationalism, along with revitalizing global  
institutions so as to prevent that which the .UN is now unable to  
prevent, via a more representative, balanced, fair, and just world  
organization that is based on multipolar ecological relationships in  
a shared world, with issues that need to be addressed in our  
lifetimes, if our children are ever to live...

all of this hinges upon the legal, moral, ethical, democratic and  
constitutional actions of those in the .US military and .US citizens  
to take on their responsibility to take back control of the state  
from Insurrectionists, so as to make such a future, indeed, possible.  
without this sacrifice, it is predictable that such actions cannot  
and will not happen, by ideological predisposition and an inability  
to govern on behalf of the interests of the human state itself. and  
thus, until such actions are taken, there is not a chance-in-hell of  
such a direction being undertaken. and the world is watching, and  
waiting, and it is in such a dire hour and haunting hour that the .US  
will be judged, for having taken on the mantle of responsibility for  
leadership, and working with all others in the world for a shared  
agenda to which we all benefit, or to leave behind all obligation for  
shared improvement and destiny, to pursue a divisive and dehumanized  
and base agenda which is a travesty of the original moral cause of  
the state and its future principled development.

if truly American, there is no choice: the collective and individual  
will has already been cast into history, that the true America is in  
service to our human development and sharing this story, not in a  
particular history and mankind and limited view to which all are  
supposed to obey as slaves. though this happens in a context of  
confusion, of disinformation, of chaos and confusion, which only  
strengthens the deception over the true aims of the existing agenda,  
and will cast doubt on pursuing the true course of America, through  
tumultuous events, into an altogether 

BLACKFLAG OPS (internal.US)

[brian carroll]

(resending...)

// inspired by Houdini i've managed to wrest one arm free from my
// straightjacket and am running from cybercaf? to cybercaf? to type
// this latest dispatch and send it out, all-the-while dodging Haldol darts
// shot from Marlin Perkins Junior hovering above this Wild Kingdom in
// his helicopter, while escaping butterfly nets of ambulance drivers, ETC.
---

it is impossible to know how to write the following, yet for me it is  
not an issue of free-will and what must be written is known, while  
the way it will arrive is anyone's guess...


* BLACK FLAG OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *



Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

-- H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880 - 1956)


*


 it is for this reason that such 'unknowns' create a predicament as  
to how to present the present moment as being one of a 'state of  
emergency' if, contrary to immediate sense experience, others may not  
yet 'see it this way'. yet, as previously stated: images lie. so, it  
is in such a situation one is required to convey the direness of what  
is now underway, both internationally and domestically for the .US,  
that is the 'state' which is shared by citizens in a constitutional  
democracy, at the hands of the .US government, which has been  
subverted both internally and externally by coordinated insurrection.

what this is to say is that while waking up into a beautiful Spring  
day, the sun rising just over the horizon, a burning orange and  
searing red opening into this day, that it is instead to convey this  
as a situation of darkness, where the chirping birds and happy  
smiling people are living in a world that is not actually grounded  
where they exist, in terms of issues such as global warming, poverty,  
war, and other actualities - because they are not represented in this  
state as it now exists. thus, citizens minds have become divorced  
from citizens bodies through the private manipulation of representing  
the state of affairs and the issues of the day, including their own  
governance. this is to say that if a tyrannical dictatorship were to  
exist, it would be considered crazy-talk and people may be medicated  
as a result.

this is the issue of 'short circuiting' of ideas in the mind and how  
they make their way into the realm of the body, or vice-versa, in  
times as difficult as these - where reasoning becomes all critical to  
making-sense of what options exist for decision-making, while  
obfuscation and censorship work to shore up the status-quo and keep  
things in the existing framework, which is heading into catastrophic  
failure.

it is an issue of what to do about this situation, this 'fall' if you  
will, of the .US and its role in the world. not as a superpower, as a  
state and its citizens and its governance, both internally and  
externally.

for in this place there is a burning orange sunrise into a day of  
clear blue cloudless sky, yet something is amiss. this is because the  
shadows have become transparent in this decades long night. 'all is  
not as it appears' and the environment is becoming thick with charge.  
under the feet, in the atmospheres of mind. a tingling sensation, so  
very strange and yet welcoming. as if the spark of life has returned...

thus, the sense is that even with 'clear skies' as far as the eye can  
see, lightning could strike at any moment. a 'divine charge' emerging  
from the realm of minds, making their way to the ground, in which the  
swords of many will be made manifest in shared voice, morality, and  
the cause of life. thus when -not if- such a storm erupts, these  
swords of lightning will strike at the heart of evil, en masse...


*

current events are thus suspended in such a charged and polarized  
context, where minds and bodies are in vast disagreement over the  
nature of reality. it is speculated that this is not confined to  
the .US 'homeland' alone, given the shared nature of the conflicts  
that have yet to find grounding in reason. in that, the Enlightenment  
tradition upon which Western democracy hinges is non-existent to the  
issues of the day: instead the reality of events 'on the ground' can  
be wished or will away, by the ignorant if not the arrogance of  
tyrants whose power becomes voided when it is totally separated from  
truth itself. thus, whatever 'virtual' storyline is said to represent  
the events in this late hour, they are nowhere near what actually  
exists in this hour. it could be said to be a situation that is  
basically and fundamentally inverted from one version of events to  
another- the 'difference' could not be farther. that makes for some  
high-voltage lightning, which turns the st

.US strategy backgrounder

[brian carroll]

[this is a preface for BLACKFLAG OPERATIONS outside the .US, which is  
to provide context for a map of the Mideast Circuit and a plan for  
turning things around. there are some big inversions in basic  
assumptions related to such an approach and thus the following words  
seek to preempt the conflicts of ideas, so that it separates out a  
clear plan with a complex situation in which it is placed. as such,  
the following is attempting to convey that .US grand strategy itself  
is failing, not just the latest .US administration, though it is  
failing catastrophically in how it is going about governing, and that  
another approach (based on another logic, and another representation  
of reality, no less) will offer a view that is basically an inversion  
of what now is going on, in terms of decision-making and perspective.  
and it may be a bit startling and it may be considered to be against  
the existing goals-- and this is to suggest that, if trying to get to  
place 'B' that this is a feasible/viable way of moving in such a  
direction, whereas the existing approach is unable to even find any  
movement in relation to these very same ideals. and so it could be  
debated, the legitimacy of such an approach, though I wanted to  
dispel a sense that there is a shift 'in direction' of the 'ends' -  
which is a better world which exists in peaceful relations, should  
that be achievable in ways more realistic than approached today. as  
such, this is part of the bureaucracy of words in relation to ideas  
that people make decisions based on, historically, and provides a bit  
of context to offer additional details as to why this approach (next  
post/map/plan) is both viable and responsible, in-line with  
traditional values and historical ideals of the .US as a  
constitutional democracy and its governance, both internally and  
externally, in the world and its affairs.]



 if accepting that the binary ideology of the 'War of Terror' only  
leads to more war and limited options as to how to proceed via its  
debilitating bias as to equating .US decision-making with a  
Neoconservative worldview, it becomes apparent how a change in this  
overriding black-and-white logic can transform this basic situation.

it is by allowing a 'gray-area' to exist, and modeling it, that other  
interconnections can be seen that were not previously allowed in  
decision-making. and, in this way, the situation in the Mideast can  
be seen in ecological terms beyond the boundaries of nation-states,  
where the region could be considered as a circuitboard in which  
machineries of state and peoples are short-circuiting. and thus, to  
question what can be done about it.

it becomes a showdown between dueling realities, one which is based  
on the binary "War of Terror" which is failing to model the situation  
accurately, and a paradoxical "Mideast Peace" which is complex and  
multilinear.

so too, it could be said that the existing .US flag with all its  
colors represents the failure of the "War of Terror" to accurately  
model events as they exist, beyond false constructs -- whereas  
the .US BLACKFLAG would be symbolic of this failure, and a beginning  
point in which to engage the reality of events as they now exist. (it  
is to attempt to say that, this duel of flags is also the duel of  
logics and how to model current events: and ultimately what this duel  
of flags is about is a duel about the nature of reality and its  
symbolic representation. that is, is it based on lies and fiction and  
ungrounded, or is it based in truth, facts, logic, and reasoning? the  
BLACKFLAG thus would establish the latter as the foundation upon  
which to restart .US decision-making in its policy so that 'the truth  
is on its side' and truth and reality are not divorced from  
eachother, as now exists.)


the most important point to make is that basic .US grand strategy  
(historical) is cataclysmic failure and it is unsustainable to  
continue on this path, and it is increasingly likely that what  
currently exists as extensions of this strategy will also not be able  
to sustain the current failures, and will have to be dealt with  
sooner rather than later. as such, either the .US will undergo total  
collapse whereby its core processes cannot function to sustain  
themselves, less their internationalist extensions around the world,  
and that if this were to totally collapse under its own weight, that  
even these extensions would begin rapid deterioration - which becomes  
chaos if this is the existing ordering which is based on leveraging  
imbalances between nations. as such, if a collapse were to occur,  
there may be little left to regain much of the ordering that had  
existed at world-scale, and could automatically usher in new and more  
complex conflicts by the sheer nature of nations competing at world- 
scale. else, this situation could be dealt with in a controlled- 
collapse to soft-landing/redirection of hat exis

spectacles of terror (4.20.06)

[brian carroll]

[fugue for armageddon in D by Secretary Rumsfeld]
---

if it is true that corporate democracy may have overtaken human  
democracy in the governance of the United States, and that this has  
in turn become a corporate dictatorship driven by machine-values  
(dehumanized) in which morality has no place, then it is possible  
that in representing this situation in the mass media, something  
equivalent to a mirage may be seen, and believed, by the masses even  
while what is being portrayed brings the distinct possibility that  
'things are not as they seem.'

thankfully, all the media theory of the last 30+ years will help  
decipher another interpretation of the current events as privately  
presented in this 'reality, inc' aligned with the Neoconserative  
ideology,  and consider what is going on from another perspective,  
that of our shared public humanity.

if one takes into consideration the spectacular terror of 9/11, the  
United 93 airplane that crashes and become a movie ('coming soon to  
you'), and the anthrax attacks against media outlets, it brings into  
relation this dimension of mass media and how it influences mass  
perceptions about what is going on. and, because the mass media  
'represent' what is going on, legitimizing what is considered 'real'  
for the masses, it becomes a choke-point in terms of the power of  
representation in the structure of the corporate democracy.

this is an attempt to say that there is a possibility that the mass  
media would be able to take various views of events, such as 9/11 or  
the anthrax letters, or United 93, in a public democracy of human  
citizens who question these views in ways that may be beyond the self- 
limitations of the corporate citizens who now decide what is and is  
not going to be represented, and how.

in other words, mass media creates and establishes its own empirical  
viewpoint, shared among the private mass media, as to what is going  
on, through some kind of consensus in which 'the party line' of the  
events related to 9/11 and 'terror' are now defaulted to a corporate  
viewpoint of these events, and in particular, oftentimes one that is  
beneficial to 'Neoconservative Reality Inc.'

thus, there is an issue involved of who the mass media is serving,  
should what is being represented not match up with the reality of  
events as they actually exist, and greater truths. i.e. the freedom  
to represent what is going on, from a human perspective, with the  
human rights to speak truth from within this governing structure of  
private power, media, and corporations.

this is to say that the possibility exists that 'truth' could be  
separated from 'reality' at this choke-point of mass media, by which  
what is represented becomes a misrepresentation of current events,  
which by default serve the private corporate dictatorship that has  
been established.

for example, while the 'official' storyline for 9/11 may have been an  
impossible scenario of Al Qaeda terrorists defeating every redundant  
security setup within the continental United States, and achieving  
pin-point accuracy beyond human thresholds and limitations to achieve  
'their' objectives, that even though there are much better  
explanations based on common sense, peer review of facts,  
correspondences and prime motives given history since the Nixon  
Whitehouse and its players now having reinvested the works, en total,  
-- that the other versions are locked out of democratic governance  
and its critical functioning as public checks and balances by this  
same privatized media, whose corporate allegiances may sway towards  
Neoconservative ideology.

thus, it is possible that what is being represented in the mass media  
regarding 9/11 is a complete and total lie, a fiction, which is  
propagated through privately owned distribution of views which are  
supposedly a 'public representation' of what is going on, which could  
instead be a total fabrication. a shadow play. and yet, having the  
mass media under the control of private corporations in a corporate  
dictatorship would enable any human dissent or better explanations to  
be short-circuited and kept outside of the governing structure-- and  
thus it sets up the distinct probability that if this official  
storyline was actually fictitious, that so too, 'the terrorists'  
would likely be suspect as to who is actually the terrorists, both as  
to who conducted these operations on 9/11 and those that this .US  
administration seeks to root out in the .US homeland.  for, as stated  
previously, there is every indication that 'the terrorists' are human  
citizens who stand against this Neocon takeover of the government,  
and thus all the terrorist surveillance and break-ins and black-bag  
jobs are going to happen to citizens, including eventually one-way  
tickets to Guantanamo prison, where there is torture, etc. it is only  
a matter of TIME, if such a thing were to evolve in a certain way.  
this w

Re: Network, Swarm, Microstructure

[brian carroll]

regarding hierarchies and networks, with regard to protocols, etc:

is it possible that network interactions can be 'weighted' with  
regard to different variables, as to how they function (in terms of  
vertical/horizontal management of flow or routing of interactions  
through some kind of decision-tree or charting of the way the  
interaction exists in the network itself, between nodes?

this is an attempt to say, could 'the router' or 'hub' in some way be  
a physical modeling of this same questioning of hierarchy and how  
decision-making exists with regard to certain dynamics? and thus a  
star network may interact differently than a linear bus network  
topology, etc.

Network Topologies
http://www.delmar.edu/Courses/ITNW2313/network.htm
http://fcit.usf.edu/network/chap5/chap5.htm

(i am not exactly sure what i am trying to get at here, only that it  
would seem that there are many 'dimensions' involved, and in this, it  
would seem possible that there is a different weighting of a given  
situation, in terms of its dynamic relationship within/without a  
given network and its mediation, which would seem to be dynamically  
addressed -- i.e. as it is related to how the network itself  
constitutes/models/governs itself and its interactions --  it also  
makes me wonder if it is somewhat akin to 'layers' as Pit Schultz  
once wrote about on nettime, etc. that is, some things happen on one  
layer and there may be multiple higher/lower level things going on  
(dimensions) simultaneously, though I am not sure if this is how IP  
actually works or not...) brian



 brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
 architecture, education, electromagnetism
 http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
 http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

re: network

[brian carroll]

  hi Albert, i've yet to read the original post yet found interest
in what you are referring to, and i wonder...

  * might 'network' and 'market' be juxtaposed, in the way that a
  network may function around individuals and the market may
  function around groups?

  * to me it sounds as if this is an issue related to conceptualization;
  and that 'networks' may function in a larger environment of ideas-
  for instance, with regard to flow, swarms, etc... it would seem that
  'networks' could be considered in terms of an ecological system
  in which various ecosystems (self-contained groups) are linked to
  eachother, with flows between ecosystems in the larger ecology...
  (where, possibly, groups are balancing in a larger dynamic, etc.)

  Brian



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

Re: re: nuclear diplomatic track

[brian carroll]

or, maybe this is the pre-existing condition of the last 40 years,  
via the rise of a particular dynasty, and this condition would merely  
be to transfer it from a private to a public realm, in which the  
state could both be abolished by constitutional authority and then  
reconstituted under shared principles. that is, to reclaim democracy.  
this is not necessarily a coup, if there is an illegal government. it  
is a civil war and exercising legal authority to reclaim the state by  
legal means, by constitutional right. whether one believes it or not,  
the military take the constitution seriously when they are dying for  
it, and die for it so that it can survive times such as these. and  
thus these words are not at all hollow.


On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Benjamin Geer wrote:

> On 13/04/06, brian carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yet, in 'a state of emergency' it would be imperative to have public
>> .US control over the state, so things do not get out of hand. so,  
>> it is
>> like having a circuit-breaker, and what will be called for is that  
>> the
>> .US military prepare to take temporary control of all critical .US
>> functionality, outside of political control of the reigning parties,
>> until the state can be reconstituted.
>
> I don't think a military coup can be equated with public control of
> the state.  Military coups often lead to military regimes that last
> for decades, or to unstable states in which regularly occurring coups
> become the normal mechanism by which power is transferred from one
> ruling clique to another.  "States of emergency" have an unfortunate
> tendency to last for a very long time.
>
> Ben

GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON // public service announcement
OPEN for international human rights & Red Cross inspections
CLOSE for violating human rights in the name of democracy






#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

fwd: Network Experiment #1

[brian carroll]

(images cannot be directly linked to via google, and
nettime does not allow attachements, so please view
at:  -bc)
---

in contrast to conducting a TAXSTRIKE which would
seek to influence the hardware of machines of state,
it is proposed that a 'softer' approach would provide
an appropriate and responsible path for testing ideas
of a panopticon in terms of its representing a shared
experience, or in keeping ideas in and outside of it.

today the 'mass media' of radio television and news-
papers could be considered the default panopticon for
private representation on behalf of the public citizenry.
it is in this 'privatization' of a larger reality, in a smaller
and contained 'reality, inc' that issues can be distorted
from a less-controlled versions of events, which today
may be seen as contrasting between public and private
views (or representations) - which ultimately break be-
tween democratic representation and that of dictatorship.

the 'mass media panopticon' is thus the default way in
which 'reality' is supposedly mirrored between various
peoples, both internally and externally to other cultures.
(e.g. relations between Islam and 'the West' are seen to
be mediated in relations between Al Jazeera and CNN).

the problem with all of this is that the mass media limit
what is actually going on, for a very specific, controlled
version of events which oftentimes serves a given point-
of-view or ideology which tends to distort what is going on.

it is through this controlling of language by its privatization
of discourse, and the default modes of binary reasoning,
in addition to the overarching psychological identity that
is employed as the perspective of a common viewpoint
(such as religion, ethnicity, income, status, even politics)
that the 'reality, inc' that is reportedly presented, is, in fact
infused with bias of observers, which effects observations.

to the point that, by fiat of appearing within the mass media
panopticon, something is presumed to be legitimate as a
reality, no matter the truth-value of what is being broadcast.
(cf. the recent scandals in plagiarizing peeling off the veneer).

thus, while the mid-east war at world-scale may be what is
actually causing the dynamics of the present day, instead it
can be presented as a global 'war of terrorism' in ideological
terms which have no need for public checks and balance,
as this critical function of public democracy has been short-
circuited by private mass media, which route around this, by
validating "public" views outside of democratic processes. it
is by the expert manipulation of this Rube Goldberg machine
of mass media, that the Iraq war was launched on autopilot.

it is by this same process which bypasses representation of
the public, using private mass media and its panopticon, to
say that prisoners of this 'terror war' are not afforded human
rights under international law, the Geneva Convention, etc.
to the point where this process has transformed itself, which
now implicitly condones torture in the name of democracy.
and leaders can go on television and in the mass media to
preach of Democracy as a liberating force in the homeland,
while oppressing those elsewhere, as tyrannical governance.

http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l/attach/ 
7dcf1652fc0e719e/MEDIATERROR.gif?part=2


it not only becomes a question of 'reality', but of who controls
'reality' as it is represented. and it is by way of mass media
and its panoptic perspective that a situation now exists, in
the .US in the year 2006 CE, that torture has been instituted
on behalf of .US democracy, at the same time 'democracy' is
said to be the major export of the .US for others in the world.
would it not appear, from another perspective, itself Tyranny?

the human reality which would balance out the facts versus
the fictive misrepresentations which twist distortions to serve
a political agenda at odds with the rule of law, is contained in
the mass media panopticon and helpless in representing itself
other than by servile obedience to aristocratic mass media. it
becomes an issue of how to have human representation that
is not limited by corporate representation, of issues and ideas
involved in this supposedly endless 'war of terror' campaign.

lucky for humanity, there now exist networks by which people
can share ideas and information outside of the mass media
panopticon, and which are tentatively beyond the total control
of existing forces, by which to predetermine the flow of ideas.
this networking of computers, mobile phones, and people, in
addition to the open conduits leading into mass media markets
enables and allows a new exchange of ideas and information,
which provides cybernetic feedback to the existing organism
of state and its governance via the mass media panopticon.

and this bec

on nuclear diplomacy / d.1

[brian carroll]

  [this post is seeks to provide a framework by which to
  consider 'paradoxical logic' as a basis for reasoning
  and modeling complex issues in non-linear/multi-linear
  environments, which can be conceptualized in terms of
  circuits, ecological relationships, and decision-making.

  the context in which this is written provides a preface,
  so as to demonstrate the traditional viewpoint of these
  same issues in relation to an upgraded common sense,
  and the stakes of pursuing such ideas in the .US 2006,
  which becomes a competition of realities, old vs. new...]
  ---

  a duel of realities is now taking place, and it is how the
  issues of current events will be conceptualized, which in
  turn shapes what decisions can be made to address them.

  it has been explicitly stated that the existing rhetoric with
  regard to the global conflicts now underway, has never
  yielded to greater clarity or realism, with regard to what
  exactly the global 'war of terror' is, who a 'terrorist' is, etc.
  the role of reasoning in public debate has been absent in
  regard to fundamental issues of definition, which shape a
  reality of events, how they are portrayed, and represented
  by the mass media, which is a one-way presentation of the
  views about these very same issues. the existing situation
  is such that the 'rhetoric' of the 'war of terror' so far seems
  to be detached from a 'reasoned reality' which can stand
  on its own, by way of argument, in an open public debate.

  thus, in the competition of ideas about what is going on, a
  public debate about an endless global war being waged on
  behalf of a democratic state and its citizenry would be able
  to provide checks-and-balance upon what is proposed to
  be the 'public' basis for governmental decision-making by
  way of testing the rigor and logic of the arguments used.

  failure to do so, to test ideas for their substance, accuracy,
  and truth-value, would be to risk having a private point of
  view of complex events, which is sustained in the private
  infrastructures of mass media aligned with a certain view-
  point, yet which exists outside of democratic checks-and-
  balances with regard to the larger public issues involved.

  in other words, what is said to be the 'war of terror' is in no
  way obliged to answer to its public critics who question this
  argument, and petition government to clarify its position in
  regard to actually clarifying the war now being waged on be-
  half of its citizens- so that what is said to represent a public
  view of events, actually does represent a public viewpoint,
  unbiased from special interests, including foreign influences.

  for not providing such public checks-and-balances could in
  extreme cases allow a government to exist beyond its own
  people, without need nor reason to answer their petitions,
  because as a machinery-of-state, a short-circuit has been
  able to cut the public out of the private operation of state,
  which is further reinforced and buttressed by mass media,
  which creates a privatized 'reality, inc' which is a one-way
  broadcast of a particular relativistic point of view of events.

  in such a case, what was once constituted some 200 years
  ago as a public government would be then devolve into its
  own antithesis by the exploitation of Constitutional coding,
  in which what were once ideas by which to govern began
  to transform into ideologies, by which to control a machine-
  of-state which serves purposes other than its core citizens.

  in this case, the argument has been that the .US is now in
  the process of devolving from a democracy of mankind, to
  a democracy of the cybernetic machinery of this populace,
  whereby citizenship is a survival of the fittest competition
  between human citizens and corporate citizens, which the
  corporations has now won in terms of public representation
  in government, in terms of decision-making and issues and
  the reigning ideology, while also controlling the means of
  'public' representation by way of the private mass media,
  which supposedly is to provide checks-and-balances upon
  democratic government by way of acting as its own oversight.

  thus, there is a functioning government which is ideologically
  believed to be a functioning democracy carrying on the will
  of its public citizens in its policies, as rhetoric attests to in
  terms of faith and allegiance and patriotism to such a view,
  yet in actuality there is no interaction between public citizens
  and this .US government with regard to addressing issues in
  which the machinery of state and its people are brought into
  war, around the world and within their own civilian population,
  and questioning the logic, truth, and validity of the arguments
  being promoted in one-way mass media and by government
  'representatives' -- which in these same terms are equivalent
  to private positions on public issues which are distorting the
  actual issues, for 

note on nuclear treaty

[brian carroll]

  [originally sent to the electronetwork-list, 2-6-06. post
relates to background for the 'war of terror' as seen as
the mid-east war as world-scale. thus the cartoon issue
(which, imo, should be considered in terms of racism...),
nuclearism, war of terror, surveillance, and other issues
can be placed in a single context. posts preceded these
with diagrams, which modeled this situation yet nettime
does not allow infographic attachment so they were not
sent, though they will be compiled when the larger essay
is finished: human techn=E9 and the cybernetic estate. bc]
---

  as evidenced over the weekend, the decision made
  to ratchet-up nuclear dysfunction into nuclear conflict
  is still just beginning to impact, and makes it impossible
  to try to reason another option during diplomatic fallout.
  it is incredible how these automated mechanisms could
  make things even worse, on ideological grounds, which
  is in the realm of nuclear - nuclear - conflict, while during
  a supposed endless 'war of terrorism', which this type of
  decision-making helps to support and make it inevitable.
  there was a very simple matter-of-fact about this situation
  i was going to write about, yet now cannot, as it is too hard
  to reason in such an environment. though i will mention it,
  in brief, without an essay, just because...

  it was that it is more than evident nuclear diplomacy now
  exists in a binary situation, as an Iranian representative
  had mentioned that it was either to 'resist' or 'surrender'.
  that is a binary decision. so too, Israel's now being either
  to 'attack' or 'surrender' could also be seen in such terms.
  which, to me, offers now good choices for anyone involved.
  as a way to get to engagement, to talks, to security pacts,
  a treaty, which would be necessary to establish a larger
  regional peace treaty (such as, first between .IL and .IR,
  on nuclear security and a showing of cards, transparency
  on all sides =3D> thus absolving the hypocrisy which is now
  distorting fair-judgement and good-will because of tricks
  and imbalances in existing (binary) frameworks). then, to
  get .SY and .IR and .LB and other primary opponents in
  ongoing hostile conflicts to build on this for a peace treaty
  for ending the mid-east conflict, with .UN resolution 242 as
  a solution for stopping all hostilities between countries now
  in (foreseeable) armed conflict, which would allow a way of
  creating a basis for a long-term truce, while also inverting
  the ideological polarization, and addressing the Palestinian
  relations with Israel, which could enable a non-hostile state
  to rise next to Israel with what appears to be an organization
  capable of building up a state, in the quick, with the support
  of funds. likewise, such efforts were going to be mentioned
  in relation to drawing-down .US troops in a general truce,
  in which .US troops and equipment may be useful so to
  jumpstart some of the engineering work or whatever may
  be helpful to stand between forces now in chaos, if it were
  to be towards stabilization of the middle-east, accepted by
  all sides, say under a .UN flag. in any case none of this is
  now possible to mention because of what are extremist-
  approaches, imo, to very fragile situations which then make
  it impossible to pursue such reasoning because 'sanity' is
  not a basis for decision-making, and calm, cool, collected
  thinking is replaced by the fervor of people who want war.
  it is not possible to 'write out of' such overwhelming idiocy,
  and the lack of judgement is epic -- this is nuclear strategy
  which is written on a cocktail napkin, and is true madness.


  it should now be very clear that there has to be some 'slack'
  involved in such a polarized situation, to make more options
  available (instead of taking them away, which is what has
  now happened-- IAEA inspectors, cameras, now enrichment
  begins, etc. all for an ideological necessity to pursue a course
  which has been a total failure, and which now results in even
  greater losses, because it is not based on .US interests, nor
  on protecting .US citizens, and instead is putting others views
  at the forefront of .US global strategy, narrowing it down to a
  very small consideration of the issues/impacts, and has put
  the nuclear scenario backwards from how it should be, and
  who should be calling the shots with regard to this conflict.

  * it would be to demand that .IL stay within the .UN Security
  Council, and under no circumstances be allowed to act out-
  side of sanctioned international law - for its own safety and
  for the wold's safety with regard to the seriousness of the use
  of nuclear weapons. Russia has made a similar point, explicit.

  * the .US/.EU and .RU and .CN should step in and step up in
  talks about resolving the issues in a treaty framework, where
  .IR and .IL are not left to decide how to resolve this situation
  themselves, when it impacts everyone, and is

on establishing a long-term truce / c.2

[brian carroll]

  on nuclear peace and middle-east peace policy: or,
  how to stop the war of terror and build upon peace

  on establishing a long-term truce / c.2   (cont.)

---

  one of the biggest issues in considerations of a truce
  in the given context is that it is unclear that machines-
  of-state will not continue to progress according to their
  pre-programmed ideological roles, now matter what is
  attempted to be mediated using shared human reason,
  so as to seek a draw by which to transform the situation.

  thus, prior to proposing steps for a truce - a potential
  pre-peace treaty framework for engaging the mid-east
  conflict in the terms it exists, rather than in the fictional
  'war of terrorism' that seeks to obfuscate this viewpoint -
  it is still necessary to once again address the context in
  which the .US and the western ideology are, by default,
  incapable of engaging in terms of such a truce, officially.

  this is to say that there is an ideological pre-disposition
  to war which in the context of the 'war of terror' would
  make it seem to be a simple issue of good versus evil.
  whereas, it is that the .US and western countries exist
  on one-side of the mid-east conflict, and thus decision-
  making at a policy level of machineries of state, have
  inherent bias, which to date is in defense of policies in
  regard to the mid-east which are oppressive to others
  in the mid-east and are being fought against in a war,
  now world-wide, and those fighting this other side of
  this war are considered terrorists and illegitimate for
  doing so, when they are instead warriors from another
  side of a war being fought, yet are scolded for fighting
  a war, as if the status-quo imbalance in global policies
  is to be accepted as fait accompli by the other peoples.

  therefore, by acknowledging the mid-east conflict is a
  legitimate and ongoing war, would require changing
  the current policy dynamic of the global 'war of terror'
  which masks this more actual dynamic with a fictional
  one-sided accounting which distorts all decision-making
  as if it is that 'our side is good, the other side is only evil.'

  this is to say that there is an ideological prejudice in the
  policies of the west, in which it is to have chosen sides,
  in a binary competition, yet to assume impartial views
  by which to judge the actions of others, while being in
  a state of complete and total hypocrisy, and the pursuit
  of such ignorant, inauthentic, and disingenuous policies
  is instead to result in a worsening of the outcomes on all
  counts, for their pursuit as a way of proceeding to peace.

  this is to say, there is a complete unfairness in the basic
  disposition of the western governments to the questions
  related to mid-east peace, which warp the possibilities of
  a peaceful outcome -- and today the failure to do so is
  directly tied to terrorism on the world-scale, because in
  terms of fighting a war by warriors, it is made justifiable,
  because the mid-east conflict is put 'beyond reasoning'--
  by making scapegoats of one people, while proclaiming
  divine innocence of another, as if this is a place to start
  any discussions, and to have it as institutionalized bias.

  it does not help the Israelis, the .US, .EU, nor anyone in
  the end, and it is at the base of what is now rising up into
  a volcanic storm of ideological fallout from the failures of
  such a policy worldview, by which to predetermine actions
  of automated machineries-of-state, in relation to human
  democracy, to pursue an agenda as if beyond question,
  by which a divine leader is to prosecute until the endtime.

  the 'war of terror' forgoes human reason and places its
  faith and trust in the automated reasoning of machinery,
  and global war machinery which has an appetite to feed.

  versus a 'mid-east' war now at world-scale, which is a
  sane and understandable conflict which needs to find a
  new equilibrium in the region and the world, so as to both
  address and transcend the outstanding and ongoing issues,
  yet these two agendas are placed at odds by today's politics.

  to engage the 'war of terror' as the 'mid-east' world war is
  to challenge the ideological fixation with its predetermined
  plan to continue its prosecution of original battle-planning
  (Iraq, then Iran and Syria: all said to be- 'the axis of terror'),
  which is, as mentioned, against the specific interests of the
  'leadership' in occupying the highest offices of government,
  in that this is their business plan for being/staying in office...

  there has been no indication of a willingness to accurately
  address the underlying issues of the 'war of terror', which
  would place the ideology in a checks-and-balances frame-
  work of the mid-east conflict (war), and how the views of
  the 'war of terror' are actually _one-side of the mid-east
  conflict, and thus, one side of the binary coin, which if it
  is to further pursue an issue 

on establishing a long-term truce / c.1

[brian carroll]

(this could be considered follow-up to B. Geer. thanks...)
--

  [the previous two posts* on public/private realities were
  written to help establish terms in which the 'war of terror'
  could be engaged as the mid-east war at the world-scale.
  unfortunately it is not satisfactory or adequate in describing
  a new context, due to several limitations, though it may be
  able to function as a 'sketch' by which to continue with an-
  other view of current events and suggest ways to proceed.

  ((* post 1+2: http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l/ 
browse_thread/thread/1770b729458c3913/c152911846d9a538#c152911846d9a538
   http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l/browse_thread/ 
thread/d586674c9a230b2a/d61514468053b94f#d61514468053b94f  ))

  thus, it may be in some way equivalent to looking at a huge
  night-sky, and all the stars, unmapped, and to talk about
  the constellations (connected ideas) and the stories of how
  they relate, with one another, by way of such a reasoning.
  such that, it may be our human conflicts today could be, in
  part, related to the machineries as they exist, and that it is
  in the nature of a changed reality, with electromagnetism
  for instance, that a new context for a sharing of ideas may
  be established, with all are on the same side of questioning.
  looking at an immense cosmos, and trying to figure out our
  human place in this public scale which we share on earth.

  thus, while there surely is the need to acknowledge that a
  Muslim reality exists, and an American and Western reality,
  that what may be conflicting between them may actually be
  not the humanity they share between them (and the truth
  of a human reality we share between us at the world scale)
  as it is reasoned-- and instead, what may be of conflict be-
  tween peoples may have something also to do with what
  has become an inhuman development, brought about with
  science and technology, which now lacks moral and ethical
  universalism to restrain its automatic global development
  from becoming an oppressive force, against all people in
  the end, though some more than others may be effected,
  so as to wage a war against its unthinking dehumanization,
  in the name of 'enlightened' western and global progress.

  if such were approximately the case, that what is going on
  may have something to do with people and their machines,
  running amok on and for other people, in a survival of the
  fittest contest of global superpower (versus a balancing of
  world order, at world scale, by world reason & organization),
  it would then be to take current events of the 'war of terror'
  and recontextualize them; from one that is largely based in
  irrationalism and founded upon the fight of good vs. evil, in
  which, in the name of Gods and Devils., an endless war is
  to be fought to the death, versus something else going on...
  (note: in the .US context, this becomes like the Salem witch-
  hunts, looking for terrorists, in addition to a statement by a
  'high-government official' equated this as fighting Satanism).
  by placing an enemies viewpoint 'in league with the Devil',
  it is to allow all the abstractions of humans-fighting-humans
  on behalf of cosmic forces and divine truth, which becomes
  separated from 'reason' which brought about democracy as
  a western tradition, which no longer functions in governance,
  and instead 'faith' and 'trust' in divine leadership has taken
  its place. and the litmus test becomes one of obedience to
  such a worldview, either you take it or you are the enemy of
  the people as they are thus represented, by a divine dictator.

  what is the most important point of this is that what has been
  a tradition of human 'reason' has been lost in .US governance,
  and, to wage a global war on behalf of ideas that are based
  on secrecy, which exist within opaque agendas, and beyond
  democracy and its checks and balances with regard to truth.
  reason does not exist, anymore. and any war that is to be
  waged in such terms is suspect as to its ulterior motivations,
  because 'truth' becomes the greatest enemy, as does reason.

  for otherwise, why would the 'war of terror' be waged in such
  terms, if it is actually a false-flag operation for fighting one-side
  of the middle-eastern war, with .US/western forces as a proxy?

  to view current events as such would change everything, for it
  would not simply be about a fight of God versus the Devil, or of
  goodness versus evil, and lightness against the 'darker' forces...

  and it would help to explain the xenaphobia, the racism involved,
  the bias and hatred and unfairness, the lies and untruths and of
  manipulations, of hypocrisy-- which ultimately brings to bear the
  realization that something else is going on here than what is now
  being presented by mass media and its virtual representations...
  for how, 'in the name of God', could the greater good legitimate a
  torturing of human beings

on nuclear diplomacy...

[brian carroll]

  (2)  it is difficult to understand how current events could
  be worse-handled in terms of nuclear diplomacy, if not
  for the fact that the existing behavioristic modes of inter-
  action of competing machineries-of-state ultimately only
  leads to nuclear brinksmanship, and war, unless changed.

  it is more difficult to understand what can be done, if only
  imagined, given recent history and categorical imperatives
  to pursue due course, into successive disasters based on
  some pure and secretive understanding that also is wrong.
  a few of those who begged to differ are no longer around.

  how much of what is driving current events is on 'autopilot'
  in relation to nuclear issues- and for which human 'reason''
  is not what is driving decision-making, and instead another
  programming of this machinery to seek a certain agenda...

  one would not be insane to wonder how a Neoconservative
  agenda to topple Syria and Iran after invading Iraq is now
  ramping up to the full pressure of western governments and
  its influence in international organizations and their affairs--

  or how, just yesterday, these two countries were remarked
  to be the 'Axis of Terror' -- which completes the circle of the
  model proposed here, by which the War of Terror is actually
  the Palestinian/Israeli conflict writ-large at the world-scale.

  what it may mean is that things are actually becoming more
  realistic while they are also being made more abstract by
  way of using rhetoric which distorts while clarifying existing
  situations: that there is an ongoing war between .IL/.PS that
  is being mediated throughout the mid-east and the west, in
  which 'terrorism' is a response from this other side of the war,
  and that by ignoring this dimension, the conflict is unsolvable,
  and relies on the triumph of one humanity over its neighbors.

  and this, in a nuclear context, including issues of weaponry,
  energy, security, economics, development, culture, etc. it
  would seem that in such a context, that is, of open warfare,
  that any development of nuclear infrastructure is a threat to
  one side of this coin-- and that, feasibly, there may be noway
  to establish nuclear security until the Mid-east war is ended.

*

  this is to say, the 'war of terror' is actually the 'mid-east war'
  at the world-scale, as it is the ecological effect at world-scale
  of the Palestinian/Israeli "conflict", between humans and state
  machineries, including the United Nations and how it mediates
  what is an ongoing war (that is not considered as being a war)
  where it is to mediate diplomatic relations as if a referee, and
  in a precarious situation as for its unbiased legitimacy, and of
  the idea of the rule-of-law governing international relations at
  this world-scale, rather than nations ignoring world interests.
  i.e. going to war by bypassing the .UN, exactly that which the
  .UN was set up to prevent, as an abuse of nationalist powers.


  it is a hard-call. what is going to happen. is it just that engines
  are revving, yet are on blocks and will not be going anywhere
  in terms of warfare, outside the .UN framework, with relation
  to nuclear issues? or would it be that actions may be taken in
  such a way as  to ignore international organization, to go out-
  side of the .UN, and exacerbate existing ongoing and fragile
  situations, to enflame them in new irrationality and insanity, to
  stoke the nuclear fires and bring armageddon into the Earth?


*

  there appear to be at least two options for interpretations,
  modeling, and both exist in the ecological modeling of humans
  and machineries of state, in relation to ongoing nuclear issues.
  one is based on the possibility that there is human reason that
  is at the helm of these interactions, and that while there is a
  certain dynamic- it does not close down the possibility of new
  relations and better decision-making; that is, there is sentience
  in the machinery and it is under human command and control
  and can be navigated, at national and world-scales, to a new
  place that may be appearing on the horizon, if it can be seen...


  otherwise, the other option would appear to be that of state-
  machinery run amok by ideology, and a certain 'insanity' that
  is beyond human reasoning, and that the course of nuclear
  events is pre-destined if only it can proceed apace, untouched.
  this would be the original Neoconservative plan which seeks to
  topple Syria* and Iran, under whatever pretext (nuclear, other)
  as part of a larger war-plan for seeking to rewire the mid-east.

  (*whatever the goals are, e.g. more democratic representation,
  while it may not be something to dictate, it would appear that in
  an environment not based on opponents in regional warfare,
  that these aspects for improving relations could become a basis
  for shared diplomacy, s

.US duped nukem

[brian carroll]

// my apologies for not prefacing the nettime version which
// makes no sense without stating this has been sent to a
// list that previously dealt with .US Energy Policy, both the
// electricity-list/electronetwork-list and also the PEN-list, in
// which the below-stated maps of oilfields were referenced.
// i send out of a request for distribution of this general view,
// which i fear will not be considered and thus state it publicly
// as reporters are often close-to-the-vest as to where these
// ongoing investigations of the .US miasma may actually go.
// also, of concern for safety. the more who know the better...
// the more who question along such lines, the more helpful...

this e-mail was sent from the electronetwork-list:
http://groups.google.com/group/electronetwork-l

---

(check - check, 1 - 2 - 3 -, testing - testing. can you hear
me? check check, testing. are you ready? check check...)

over the years on this list a general premise has been
that electromagnetism is a realm where politics operates
today, and to offer some examples of this, whether by way
of the use of media, focus of topics such as nuclear or I.T.,
or the issues that becomes central during current events.

it has thus been surprising how this electromagnetic context
has provided a single view of the last few years, in that the
issues of energy and oil, war and weapons, media and ideas
have coalesced in such a way as to potentially offer insight
in the cohesiveness of events though they may otherwise be
seen as disconnected by division of topics, viewpoints, etc.

it is a critical time here in the .US, these next few weeks will
change the direction of the world, most certainly, and which
way it is still unknown --- one aspect is the .US investigation
into the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's information in
retaliation for challenging the cause for the war going in Iraq.
the agent was versed in WMD, the case for war was nuclear,
the fabricated evidence from aluminum tubes, satellite images,
and yellowcake uranium, to the Vice President and Condi Rice
referencing a NY Times story by Judith Miller, justified such a
view of nuclear 'mushroom clouds' if the .US does not enter
into a pre-emptive war with Iraq, outside the .UN's own IAEA
(atomic energy agency) which, as with others, raised serious
doubts about the claims being made (and Mr. El Baradei and
the IAEA was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week),
while there is still more to go on the agenda, it would appear...

the big question may be where this ends up, as an investigation
as it could either be contained into a certain segment of inquiry
or it could go far and wide into situations preceding the present.
and this would be a major concern, where it will be stopped and
if it will be obstructed from actually getting to earlier connections.

by this I mean that this situation, from the 2000 election forward,
provides plenty of questions for the issues now at center stage,
and thus it is curious if the connections which were at the time
questioned, such as the Energy Task Force led by VP Cheney,
Enron's Ken Lay, and Halliburton, and held off-record by Judge
Scalia, a VP Cheney friend & confidant during a Supreme Court
challenge to public access to these records, and the subsequent
distancing of Enron and its plans for global domination of the oil
and broadband markets - and the billions in bankruptcy while he
remains living in a Houston penthouse - at the same time a role
of Halliburton being handed contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq,
and hurricane redevelopments, in no-bid contracts, would seem
to indicate a conflict of interest in writing public energy policies--
which have left the .US in strategic and security limbo as a direct
result of these same conflicts of interest realized in other events.

For instance, documents of the Energy Task Force led by VP
Cheney had somehow included maps of the oilfields of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other places in regards to planning
out .US energy policy - potentially also in relation to the .US
war in Iraq - and it was Dan Bartlett (if memory serves) or it
may have been Andrew Card who could not explain how such
documents were involved in the meeting, or why James Baker,
the Bush family liason, was involved in moving these maps of
oilfields between Cheney (oil executive), Bush (oil executive),
and others (Rice, Baker, Bush Sr., others). such maps of the
oilfields were, at the time, speculated and feared as being of
some larger design for the invasion of several countries to
take over the oil-fields, yet such a strategy would be hard to
imagine, given that there was no reporting going on, nor any
basic oversight into the private energy meetings or the WHIG
(White House Iraq Group) and likely other 'groups'. such as
any involving energy policy and planning related to Iraq and
oil fields and their possible connection to Enron, Halliburton,
and the .US military as a tool of private corporate strategy.

2,000 dead .US sold

.US nuclear pols

[brian carroll]

(check - check, 1 - 2 - 3 -, testing - testing. can you hear
me? check check, testing. are you ready? check check...)

over the years on this list a general premise has been
that electromagnetism is a realm where politics operates
today, and to offer some examples of this, whether by way
of the use of media, focus of topics such as nuclear or I.T.,
or the issues that becomes central during current events.

it has thus been surprising how this electromagnetic context
has provided a single view of the last few years, in that the
issues of energy and oil, war and weapons, media and ideas
have coalesced in such a way as to potentially offer insight
in the cohesiveness of events though they may otherwise be
seen as disconnected by division of topics, viewpoints, etc.

it is a critical time here in the .US, these next few weeks will
change the direction of the world, most certainly, and which
way it is still unknown --- one aspect is the .US investigation
into the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's information in
retaliation for challenging the cause for the war going in Iraq.
the agent was versed in WMD, the case for war was nuclear,
the fabricated evidence from aluminum tubes, satellite images,
and yellowcake uranium, to the Vice President and Condi Rice
referencing a NY Times story by Judith Miller, justified such a
view of nuclear 'mushroom clouds' if the .US does not enter
into a pre-emptive war with Iraq, outside the .UN's own IAEA
(atomic energy agency) which, as with others, raised serious
doubts about the claims being made (and Mr. El Baradei and
the IAEA was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week),
while there is still more to go on the agenda, it would appear...

the big question may be where this ends up, as an investigation
as it could either be contained into a certain segment of inquiry
or it could go far and wide into situations preceding the present.
and this would be a major concern, where it will be stopped and
if it will be obstructed from actually getting to earlier connections.

by this I mean that this situation, from the 2000 election forward,
provides plenty of questions for the issues now at center stage,
and thus it is curious if the connections which were at the time
questioned, such as the Energy Task Force led by VP Cheney,
Enron's Ken Lay, and Halliburton, and held off-record by Judge
Scalia, a VP Cheney friend & confidant during a Supreme Court
challenge to public access to these records, and the subsequent
distancing of Enron and its plans for global domination of the oil
and broadband markets - and the billions in bankruptcy while he
remains living in a Houston penthouse - at the same time a role
of Halliburton being handed contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq,
and hurricane redevelopments, in no-bid contracts, would seem
to indicate a conflict of interest in writing public energy policies--
which have left the .US in strategic and security limbo as a direct
result of these same conflicts of interest realized in other events.

For instance, documents of the Energy Task Force led by VP
Cheney had somehow included maps of the oilfields of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other places in regards to planning
out .US energy policy - potentially also in relation to the .US
war in Iraq - and it was Dan Bartlett (if memory serves) or it
may have been Andrew Card who could not explain how such
documents were involved in the meeting, or why James Baker,
the Bush family liason, was involved in moving these maps of
oilfields between Cheney (oil executive), Bush (oil executive),
and others (Rice, Baker, Bush Sr., others). such maps of the
oilfields were, at the time, speculated and feared as being of
some larger design for the invasion of several countries to
take over the oil-fields, yet such a strategy would be hard to
imagine, given that there was no reporting going on, nor any
basic oversight into the private energy meetings or the WHIG
(White House Iraq Group) and likely other 'groups'. such as
any involving energy policy and planning related to Iraq and
oil fields and their possible connection to Enron, Halliburton,
and the .US military as a tool of private corporate strategy.

2,000 dead .US soldiers & tens of thousands of dead Iraqis
later, and the failure to secure any of the original objectives
of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, save its 'democracy',
and yet talk remains of the original agenda, as it was stated
by another country of .US battle planning, that Syria and Iran
would be next in line after Iraq. and once again the nuclear
context is a pre-text, and the .US is to potentially isolate itself
by continuing the same policy agenda without any insight into
the earlier justifications - with no real understanding of how it
fits together at a time when the .US President was elected-
on election day, no less, the lowest prices for gasoline in the
.US on that day, while the electrical grid was being turned off
by Enron in California, and other such 'conspiring' events.

oh New Orleans...

[brian carroll]

  [i am sending this to nettime to pose a question about the
  role of the .US constitution as code, and how it may relate
  to hurricane Katrina, before, and reconstruction efforts after.
  it is based on a series of posts relating people to transistors
  which is linked at the end, based on some previous writings.
  this is more of a rant than anything else, yet i send it out in
  case others have comments or ideas about this aspect... it
  is part of the electronetwork site electronetwork.org and a
  list http://groups-beta.google.com/group/electronetwork-l
  which was were this post originated, forwarded here. brian]


  i've been wanting to write something hopeful about the
  most recent cataclysmic disaster in New Orleans, yet it
  has been hard to sustain hope, the deluge is complete.
  it would seem that there are so many problems of such
  a scale, and in my opinion - no one - in government or
  public life who is capable of handling any one of these,
  less the dozens that concurrently are going on at once.

  they all relate to policy, in one way or another, decision-
  making and ideas of planning. excepting that 'planning'
  is considered rather retrograde for the current managers
  of the machinery of state, the political 'managerial' class
  has a different philosophy about how things really work,
  which may be split from a reality others may share, live.
  in other words, ideologies do not match issues we face.

  [**correction: the following is a misstatement/mistaken way
  of trying to say: that energy policy (in the .US) is unrelated
  to economic policy, is unrelated to transportation policy,
  is unrelated to housing policy,... national security,... etc.]

  for instance, in policy many are compartmentalized into
  industrial methodologies, which are unconnected with
  other areas in which these same things interact: such as
  with energy policy and its role in inflation or raising costs
  of living, in turn, bankruptcy of industries not adapting to
  changing patterns (airlines), else raising of fees (UPS),
  else the cost of some smoked almonds at a grocery store
  and running machinery, materials, packaging, shipping.

  there is so much that could be approached through this
  situation and yet words are almost too difficult a way to
  frame ideas which are so vast. i was going to draw the
  bubble diagrams in an attempt to enter into aspects of
  perception, reality, media, representation, cyberspace,
  and then issues of race, logic, language, psychology-
  and to reference why, when this is happening in New
  Orleans it is perceived as different from elsewhere in
  the world, such as Africa, which have been in states
  of despair for decades. what is going on with issues
  of representation? why is the crisis and responsibility
  perceived one way in one instance, and another in
  another instance? i believe it is another indication of
  the role of a conceptualization of how we are trained
  to think about things (perceiving, judging reality, even)
  that goes to the core of 'the constitution' of the self, in
  the sense previously written about on list, with regard
  to the individual as a state and a state of individuals.

  if one looks at the 'source code' which in the .US has
  been programming relations between individuals in
  this state, it was composed by minds which were, in
  the time of its writing, slave owning white americans
  who, as a public group of men, decided to declare a
  common public which could be open to evolving of
  the principles beyond their limitations, including the
  ideas of equality, rights, justice, liberty, privacy, etc.
  the .US constitution created a framework with bugs,
  which are evident in any .US city and which has often
  been ignored or disregarded as a structural necessity
  to keep and maintain the current system working as is.
  that has been an accepted 'moral' and 'ethical' lapse of
  a utopic vision, which if only everyone followed ideas
  of certain political managers, all would be redeemed
  and it is the people who are imperfect, not the ideas.

  no need to demythologize issues of race or class in
  relation to the issues New Orleans, in relation to the
  issues of policy - programming of how individuals are
  interacting in making the larger state function, how and
  why, where and who-for. it is only limited by imagination
  how things could work, for what purpose, by reasoning.
  thus why after 200 years of a constitution could there be
  such a difference between what is said to be real, and
  what actually exists? how can there be multiple views
  of what is going on, and yet no agreed upon 'reality'?

  the news media  (at least this once) brought multiple
  perspectives to bear upon a situation in which aspects
  of the panoptic prison of media representations finally
  had to square with views outside agreed-upon constructs.
  it is one of the few times when having multiple television
  news organizations descend

Re: commercial communism

[brian carroll]

  hi Dave, my apologies for being slow in responding
  to your interesting observations. what surprises me
  is that everyone has a different perspective about
  the questions and i had not considered these points
  of view, so it is exciting to consider it further...

  one difference i tend to see between views is that
  of making them tangible in examples which could/can
  be related to everyday experience. whereas it is a
  bit hard for me to realize a literal manifestation,
  as it is still an abstraction for me and it may not
  correspond 1:1 to more developed views of culture
  in which the economics/politics/sociality are more
  clear, or less fuzzy. i don't know so i am going to
  put some more ideas out here in case others have a
  better idea of what this really is as a questioning.

  for me it is not traditional categories of commerce,
  and political organization which bounds the ideas of
  commercial communism or social capitalism. it does
  not seem to be a thing, possibly it is more of some
  kind of process, a manifestation of proceeding in a
  certain way, regardless of mission statements, etc.
  maybe it is a type of organization of effort, work,
  though, and maybe this appraisal is confused as it
  is only a sketch whereas others who know structures
  that relate to these concepts, inside and out, could
  bring greater fidelity to the domain of these ideas.

  i.e. a given corporation can function with a type of
  governance, even to succeed as a model of governing,
  and yet there would still likely be a dynamic which
  could pursue social capital vs 'communal commerce'
  or commercial communism (to me it is close to being
  equivalent and neutral, to this idea).

  i guess what i am trying to get at, as an idea, is
  that it may not be 'traditional', rather conceptual,
  possibly, in relation to superstructural relations
  with these ideas as they are usually contextualized.
  it may be a function of bureaucracy vs individualism,
  or of a type of cultural determinism, which is also
  not one or the other as a static choice and pathway,
  rather a shifting switch for cultural manifestations.

  for instance, if placing the ideas in a traditional
  bureaucratic organization, two examples might show a
  similarity and difference in the way these ideas seem
  to exist in the macro-sense...

  Thomas P. Hughes (STS, science-technology-culture) is
  a historian of technological systems and i believe in
  one of his works he looks into NASA as an innovational
  organization of large systems. to me NASA is emblematic
  of a 'social capital' approach to ideas in which the
  role of the individual and ability to change, question,
  review, adjust and to invest in long-term exploration,
  research and development, and to make it break-even in
  some cultural sense - shows the potential and a unique
  value system which harnesses human goals, imaginations,
  and translates this way. a bureaucracy could not come
  up with the idea of hitting a comet on the 4th of July
  and the social value as an event, and real scientific
  value, etc. there is something about NASA that is in
  some way a counterpoint to most everything else, in
  the corporate world, maybe DARPA too (though possibly
  less altruistic), the national park systems, etc. an
  aspect that ideas have an overriding value and guide
  decision-making and ideas of how profit is evaluated.
  as such it may be how it interacts with the 'frontier'
  and this makes it a necessity, avant-garde bureaucracy.

  the opposite approach could be seen in something like
  the World Trade Center redevelopment efforts where the
  bureaucracy functions as a giant automatized machinery
  which 'develops' by way of a process that is fixed and
  unable to change, to question, as it has an answer of
  its own design that requires that it does not need to
  ask particular questions, or special values, as it is
  a monolithic approach to, say, business-as-usual. it
  may be a functionalism, a pragmatism that this is how
  things get done and all that needs to be done is to
  get out of the way. maybe this is how countries are
  terraformed over time, developed by fixed processes,
  like programming code for a 'suburb' as an idea, in
  which the variables are figured out by earlier tests
  (in social capital ideas/investments) then to later
  become steamrollered as a prefigured solution, which
  may have its profit and economic value in not opening
  up the processes to questioning (as it would lose its
  efficiencies this way, reinventing the wheel at every
  junction, or reinventing the suburb at every city).
  in this way it may be considered the rear-guard and
  may function within a simple uninterrupted agenda.



  the thing about it, is that it would not necessarily
  have to be a judgment (social capital good, commercial
  communism bad), as it could feasibly exist as the same
  time within an organization or approach, in that some
  problems could 

Re: commercial communism

[brian carroll]

  hi Craig,

>>  .US corporations have long seemed to have
>>   become communal organizations by way of
>>   childcare, housing, eating, healthclubs,
>>   recreation when off work with employees,
>>   etc. and the role of ideology in culture
>>   is reinforced by these same mechanisms.
>
> For a minuscule portion of the working population of the .US perhaps,
> but for the vast majority (and still growing) they get nothing of the
> sort from their paymasters.

  true, most have none of it and few have some of it,
  though i wonder if it may function as part of the
  'ideal' that drives ideology that this system does
  work at some point in some way- and possibly there
  is an element of the casino logic to it, to win big
  by landing in such jobs with the right education, etc.

  the yearly lists of 'best corporations to work for'
  judge these based on employee perks, etc. and during
  the dot-com boom in San Francisco, getting massages
  or playing ping-pong may also qualify in some way
  as to how the 'corporate campus', lifestyle even,
  may not be benign fun but a human resources gambit.
  Google retains this lifestyle and now is at the top,
  and yet it almost function as if a secret society,
  having replaced the machined IBM uniformed workforce.

  though it is not limited to international business,
  look at universities that are adding rock climbing
  walls, spas, and other cultural accouterments (at
  the price of affordable education, etc.) which may
  further serve this 'lifestyle' as a way of social,
  economic, and political control of the cultures.

  it may be related to some type of deterministic
  approach, a fixed-belief system about values, and
  with respect to the commercialist-communist axis,
  this may function as ideology: a corporate self-
  serving utopia of what the market already offers
  to consume).  it would then function as a closed
  system, based on certain assumptions that cannot
  be questioned, by most anyone involved except at
  the top/center of the hierarchies.  whereas with
  a social-capital viewpoint, it may be considered
  with a more open questioning based on a different
  evaluation/value system. in the former (CC vs. SC)
  there is one sociality, one economic, one political
  system being served as if an automated mechanism.
  in the latter, there are many options could be
  evaluated given a particular context and outcome,
  though less easy to place in similar universality
  because the ideas may still be 'open questions'
  and thus not predetermined for rightness, etc.

  just throwing some ideas out here in case there
  are any econos/others who might be able to flesh
  the ideas out further.  the main response to the
  question raised would be, then, that it may be a
  difference between the ideals that drive ideology
  (commercial communism) versus the realities that
  drive the ideas of social capitalism, and actions.
  fwiw. regards, brian


bc-microsite: http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

world design

[brian carroll]

[this is a post i am submitting for nettime publication
not because it is to spread some mistaken notions and
beliefs, but to provoke discussions as it cover a wide
variety of views and it is a contribution towards any
advancements / clarifications / alternative views that
may be more insightful from the larger nettime. brian]


Date -- Sat Jun 25, 2005  3:12:14  PM US/Central
To -- open discussion   design-l.v2)(architexturez.net
Subject -- [design] re: world design


[this is an emptying of my brain of angst of the current
situations that i needed to let out, and it may be in-
comprehensible, it probably is, and yet i send it anyway...]

  hi Cheryl, you remind me of a friend who was an artist and teacher who 
opens things up and keeps imaginations moving and exploring ideas. very 
nice.

> about emerging art in china - present day artists - and my inital 
> impression from this art in america slick magazine article was that 
> freedom to be western artists was supposed to be a positive step 
> forward for them? my question is - is it just a matter of time before 
> this brilliant explosion of creativity mellows into the spiral of 
> western mundane?

  these are huge questions and i think worthwhile to enter into further 
as i think the .US reality-distortion mechanism is part of a doctrinal 
world-view that no longer reflects the situation accurately. 
culturally, China could probably swallow the world whole, compared to 
the .US which has grafted itself into infrastructures of other 
societies. yet China would also likely have to eject the world just as 
it swallowed it as no matter how big a nation-state gets and tries to 
become a world-state/the world-estate, it would likely have to survive 
and succeed beyond the same situations the .US finds itself in now, 
with a particularized universalist ('modern') rhetoric yet a finite 
view of what that is and a rigidity that does not scale as well as it 
is locally believed.

for instance, consider the .UN global organization that attempts to 
politically represent the world today. it is a type of consensus based 
on appointed bureaucrats (not elected) who mediate international, 
regional, and issue-based affairs and policies. yet whole segments of 
the world are outside of its current workings, the representation is 
modeled in a type of nationalism that is to become global consensus of 
competing views, when or if it can work. the idea of rhetoric is often 
of 'world community' that this .UN is said to represent or to call to. 
and yet, what 'united nations' are actually represented of the world as 
a community?  is the United Nation an organization that scales 
internationalism beyond specific states and into another scale of 
interactions, or does it reside operating within separated statehoods, 
a finite multidimensional chess games that gets stuck over time, and 
begins to wind-down in its ability to function, to represent 'nations' 
and instead 'nationalism' in the world-scale, ... the point being that 
there is a United Nation today and its name is the USA. not nations, 
nation. what the .UN is trying to do, the USA cannot do, and that is 
represent the World Community beyond competing nationalisms, as a 
cooperative and collaborative state based on shared principles. yet if 
looking at, say, .UN websites, much of the middle-east is not 
represented online in the way western countries are in the .UN 
structure.  if memory serves, Palestine does not even have an official 
website, other states lack them or choose to not represent themselves 
in this way, which reflects something amiss in the even distribution of 
such organization.

why are their ghettos and ghosttowns in .UN webspace, or wars in 
certain .UN districts while others play 3D Nukem games about killing 
everything and anything that moves while living in a hothouse suburban 
world theater complex.

the inability of the .UN to function beyond nationalism, considering 
the goals of the .UN to be some kind of ideal beyond the nation-state 
yet bounded by nation-states- yet the next level of evolution may have 
been solidified in its workings for the past 50 years, the constant aim 
of achieving 'world community' as a common reference/referent. world 
community as an idea begs for peace, common interests, shared policies. 
'united nations' begs for competition, war, leverage, ideological 
struggles of the centuries, and unshared assumptions and goals and 
issues of power, weak and strong, dominance and submission, etc.

with this in mind, the role of China's development in a broken .UN 
context would be a further reeling back of advances into a hyper 
competition, world war, machined ethics for automated state, and 
ideologies battling for the portrayal of the better of horribly worse 
situations as an extension of this decrepit situation of ill-governance 
which is pseudo-representative of the nation as world-state, with 
contenders, defenders, and issues of misguided empires, etc. it i

commercial communism

[brian carroll]

  hi ivo. read your essay on nettime and
  you write about a fusion of sorts, as:

'The entire communism/dictatorship -
free-market/democracy polarization
is just an illusion...'

  .US corporations have long seemed to have
  become communal organizations by way of
  childcare, housing, eating, healthclubs,
  recreation when off work with employees,
  etc. and the role of ideology in culture
  is reinforced by these same mechanisms.

  i've wondered if it is because 'capitalism'
  is not so much the corollary to communism,
  though both of these seem to be economic-
  based (or at least grand narratives for
  why communism ('the wall') fell, due to
  economic stagnation, etc). instead, it
  would seem that capitalism|socialism are
  one dynamic, capital being economic and
  socialism being social, social-capital
  being the politics of that dynamic.

  whereas to me it seems that commercialism
  functions ideologically in step/queue with
  communism as a central organizing function-
  lock-step marching into oblivion as a basis
  for policy, for social issues, economics,
  politics- a type of extreme economics that
  forces itself as a social plan by force.
  thus, some hybrid variant potentially being
  'commercial communism' that is in opposition
   to different cultural principles of 'social
  capitalism', the latter being grounded in
  ideas while the former is an ideological
  operation functioning as automated machine.

  i realize everyone knows a lot more about
  these things than i though the concepts are
  brought up within the context of daily living
  in the .us in this way, in my experience and
  your essay accesses this view, at least imo.

  maybe this is entirely wrong to experts yet
  it is more truly the situation than arcane
  historical arguments that cannot be placed
  in the present, such as tv commercials.
  (which, by the way, are heavily advertising
  Homeland Security jobs as a growth industry.)
  brian


  [plus, there's serious protectionism now in
  existing industries/professions to keep things
  unchanged. one example of total corruption is
  the field of architecture, where the professors
  are celebrity architects, schools are intern-
  ship mechanisms and also places for jobs to
  be sketched out by students for pilfering by
  firms, whose architects also are on committees
  who give themselves awards, run organizations,
  magazines to officiate and authenticate what
  are the credentials and licenses needed for
  a legal practice. if one does not agree with
  the ideology you cannot work in this field.
  it is completely controlled and representative
  of a modern commercialist ideology run amuck.]



  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

Re: The New Middle Ages

[brian carroll]

> i think you point at a crux, this is the ongoing bet and from my point 
> of view it seems like even more disciplining eating away even more 
> personal space, but from the prisoners point of view there is always a 
> finger you can move and if they immobilize that, well you can still 
> click your tonguealthussers 'hey you' is now commodified in the 
> dutch smokingpole [...] it is so strange to me that these two 
> structural lines are so visible, one towards this selfdisciplining, 
> and one towards this selfrealization, as if the default has become the 
> schizophrenic.

i wonder about the choices of perspective available in
observing these issues and effects, as to me it seems
generate something fundamental about a given outcome,
or conclusion. the smoking pole thing made me laugh,
actually, as i was thinking in terms of revolutionaries
and political prisoners and assassinations and such.

about the issue of perspective, i had a great teacher
once who changed my view of perception/observation as a
result of making the case that 'scientific' observation
not only means counting, but also being counted, and in
including this perspective in one's own analyses. that
is, the perceiver is perceived, and thus grounded in
the observation by an outside accounting, to an extent.
therefore, it is not just 'look over there' at event X,
but that the looker at place Y is part of that event X
in perceiving it, e.g. from a place and point of view Z.
and this is where the universal is more readily sensed
about local and particular events, more universal subject.

X  ---> Y

^
Z

the philosophy it is from is part of the nettime archive:
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0104/msg00140.html

'The objective plane is the space of science.  It is, above all, a 
public space, but existentially apart and quite literally Over There.   
When a person can perceive the world in that plane, (s)he has become a  
  scientist.  When a person can perceive him(her)self in that plane, 
(s)he has become self consciously public, perfectly anonymous and truly 
modern;  -- the voyeur and the scientist's dream.

   A state constituted about the objective plane is rationalized 
around anonymity rather than belief.  This defines the dilemma of 
education.'

(it would seem to be common sense and yet few arguments
get beyond X, usually by editing out points of Y that
may challenge thinking, and never even accessing Z...
to me it has to do with a question of scale in which
logical approaches can effectively limit possibilities,
which is reflected in assumptions and contingent reason.
there is a paradox of observation, it would seem, that
needs to at least be recognized if not accommodated...)

as such the 'anonymous' point of view (POV) would be able
to be assumed, it could be a smoking pole or executions,
in the same questioning, and both have relevance if it is
in the realm of Z, where interpretations can co-exist...*

it is the basis for the smoking pole, it would seem if it
is to include social behaviorism and pressures, by way of
some Pavlovian dog-training exercise to humiliate smokers
and treat them like dogs, and while this may seem to be
a prison it may be considered also of one's own making,
at a certain point, that the absurdity is more than just
an abstract event, but that it is purposeful to produce
some desired outcome. like, lung disease and controlling
the environment from events and those who produce them,
from another perspective it prisoners make prisoners of
others (non-smokers, etc.). whether or not one smokes,
in either case there seems to be something shared about
the aspect of behavioral manipulation (of a state, say)
and its right to pursue this, for its own good, up to
a point (ethics, law, morality). it may be for its long-
term survival, at one scale, and yet may make some very
miserable and uncomfortable and oppressed at another.
maybe this is okay, though, actually, at some line in
the cosmic sand, in order to change and adapt to change.
such as, smoking kills people and costs enormous sums
of money in lives, lost productivity, and problems. if
the smoking pole is the worst persecution for smokers,
they'd be glad they're not committing crimes in Rome,
where i recently read they'd throw people in sacks with
an angry dog, snake, or ape, and toss them in the sea.
standing by a smoking pole may not be the worst option,
and subsequent fears are more to do with passive killing
neighbors, 'slow motion suicide' of cigarette death-tax.

paranoia, fear, persecution may be real for a smoker,
or trouble-makers, and to what extent is it based on
promotion of fears and issues of security, in certain
contexts, or upon taking risks and then getting burned
because you lose the bet and have to face the situation.
i tend to think it is more likely the latter

The New Middle Ages

[brian carroll]

   hi Rob. enjoyed reading your essay/thoughts.
   one thing came to mind about the issue of
   'fear' versus peace. is it possible that it
   is assumed to be 'fear' and may indeed be
   fear that is translated by the actions, and
   yet it is possibly also a new context of risk,
   risk-taking, and that this is the ongoing bet?
   that in this arena risk and reward again go at
   it, war and peace too, though recontextualized?
   i do not know but you have me contemplating it.
   brian

bc -- http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#   is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net