Dear all,
The below text, an initiative launched by Ashish Kothari, calling for
participation (to the construction of the emergence) sounds like a
reply to this discussion:
The Global Tapestry of Alternatives
The world is going through an unprecedented crisis engendered by a
dominant regime
> On 05-Jan-2019, at 9:28 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:
>
> Maybe you are part of some such attempt? Maybe you are involved in some
> experiment or initiative that you could describe?
>
Brian, I am afraid I do not have a clear answer to your request, as I am still
early in the search. I can
On 06.01.19 01:03, Florian Cramer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:57 PM Brian Holmes
> mailto:bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> What we need, first of all, is a vision so carefully articulated that
>> it can become a strategy and a calculable plan.
>> Exactly that is now emergent.
Hello all,
In trying to keep track of the contours of this conversation; I seem to find it
somehow removed from current political realities; as if the questions posed in
this discussion, while clearly relevant to the world we live in, can be
resolved in what seems to be a political vacuum.
Normally I find myself agreeing with Brian’s posts, so its an odd
feeling to be at odds with your recent ones. When Vincent wrote ‘where
is the surplus’ I didn’t take that as meaning where is the kit, plans
(of which there are endless shelves), materials and people, but where is
the power.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 6:03 PM Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> Your wording is interesting, because it connects "emergence" with the
> "state". Since the classical concept of emergence evolved around
> self-organization, it was decentralist. The state is a (more or less)
> centralist concept. The way
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:57 PM Brian Holmes
wrote:
> What we need, first of all, is a vision so carefully articulated that it
can become a strategy and a calculable plan.
> Exactly that is now emergent. The point is to make it actual. That means,
to make it into the really existing state.
Your
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:59 PM Brian Holmes
wrote:
>
> The fact is, so far at least, every investment of social desire on an
> *outside* results in the immediate incorporation of that outside as an
> object for the mainstream techniques of social control. So why not desire
> an *inside*? Why
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:43 AM Prem Chandavarkar wrote:
How do we design the social, political and media institutions that will
> allow the conditions for emergence to thrive? Our reflexivity will not
> allow these conditions to emerge spontaneously.
>
Prem, thanks for your exquisite recap of
Dear Brian,
Yes, there was great hope from emergence, and the expected results did not
materialise. But was that because emergence was not adequately understood, or
was it because emergence per se is limited. My instinct is that it is more the
former than the latter.
Let us take the example
I think this discussion on the Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist"
Movement and the quality of contributions is really amazing.
I have been involved and followed the climate justice movement for
several years and carried out a few artistic works on it. (This cycle of
films i
What matters is the remaking of social form. It's not just about inventing
a concept or revealing a contradiction. It's about contributing to shift in
what everyone shares: the built and instituted norm. Vince has challenged
the global norm of neoliberalism with a with a resolute and detailed
or body 'help' to
>nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..."
>
>
> To
Brian,
If I could pick a central aspect of future life we should be aiming for it
would be this:
Information and resources (material and time) growing closer and closer
together, while spreading more evenly across the globe.
The great irony of internet life, of course, is that while "know-how"
On 30.12.18 13:53, Keith Hart wrote:
> But -- there has to be a but -- I believe that there is one crippling
> intellectual impediment above all others that undermines political
> initiatives generated in this network. It is the belief that more
> solidarity can fix excessive individualism.
>
>
Maybe it's just me, but when I recently re-watched Easy Rider, I kept
rooting for someone to off the f*cking hippies. The same film now has
happy ending. It's funny how death as exit strategy lost its appeal.
On 12/30/18, 09:45, Patrice Riemens wrote:
"You do one thing" was an admonition I
The issue is not implied morality of scaling, whether it's good or bad
(and I agree on the current modality of scaling for value extraction by
few from the many.)
The issue is that the opposition bent on atomizing the society does
scale, and has no moral issues with it. The concentrated
'Scaling' is a strange idea. It can be used to describe mom-and-pop
efforts to grow some product line or whatever, but it has a more
important usage that's much more ideological — as in VC efforts to
identify potential unicorns. In that sense, it's invoked as though its
meaning is self-evident
Grüzi Mittenand,
"You do one thing" was an admonition I often heard when I lived in
India. My 'thing' I'd advise you (all?) to 'do' would be : (re)read
Bolo'bolo! (*) It's of course not _the_ (only) solution, but as a
'realistoc utopia' it does give a number of possible lines of thought &
The problem is that this doesn't scale. Or at least the scaling model
has not been discovered. At the same time, the opposition scales pretty
well.
For this scaling to involve machines (computers, programs, networks and
such, and I cannot imagine competitive scaling not involving machines -
Brian:
> However, emergence on its own appears useless as a principle of hope.
Good point. Allow me to amplify . . .
"Emergence"was a DoD project. Or, more properly a DoE one. The US Department
of Energy (spun-off from DoD to "control" nuclear weapons), established the
Mecca of "emergence"
Dear Felix,
>But to break out of the mold of neoliberal hyper-individuality and the
cult of "weak ties", to formulate something like a left perspective,
there needs to be a realization of a common fate, of a problem that
cannot be solved individually, but demands a collective response. From
this,
To find our way by constructing a vision of an alternative society may be
counterproductive. Living systems (and that includes society) are emergent:
defining ‘emergence’ as the capacity of a system to display at its core
fundamental properties that cannot be found in an earlier state of the
On 27.12.18 20:11, Brian Holmes wrote:
> So what's to be done is to generate new aspirations, new ideas of the
> good life, and initial models for putting them into practice at local or
> regional scale. Please notice, I am NOT talking about individual models
> - because as much good as that can
.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement
> (Brian Holmes)
>
>
> --
Vincent Gaulin wrote:
"I want to suggest that our "intellectualizing" actually step up to the
facts of existence, i.e. "How do we live vs. how will we live?""
Vince, I'm fascinated with your post and I'd like to hear more. You're
thankful for the work done by the New Deal in your grandparents'
Sun, Dec 9, 8:10 PM, Brian Holmes wrote:
the first institutional form we need is a discursive one capable of
admitting, thematizing and discussing the intertwined nature of the
economic and the ecological dead-end we are now in. ...
I don't think we will ever get the Ministry of Climate Change
27 matches
Mail list logo
