I mainly agree.
The realistic take has always been and should always be: Whatever
technology and/or social process that can be used to strengthen
the interests of strategic power, will be used to strengthen the
interests of strategic power.
Is a very apt description of what is the main
Felix Wrote
Where the terms makes no sense, in my view (and also in Florian's),
is sociologically. The most powerful forces that transform globalized
societies, are all dependent on, and amplified by, digital
technologies. If anything, we are in the middle of the historical
run of this
Rousseau comes fleetingly to mind:
The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and
protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each
associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may
still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.
And a
This discussion, especially related to questions of mindful
disconnection, recalls Sigfried Giedion's 1948 anonymous history,
Mechanization Takes Command.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb01139
As he put it:
Never has mankind possessed so many instruments for
Browsing through the files of Amsterdam?s Institute for Social History (as
you do) I found Tjebbe van Tijan?s excellent essay written in 1998. Below
is a short taster. Full essay to be found:
http://socialhistory.org/sites/default/files/docs/digitial-ways-forgetting.pdf
Digital ways of
...@kein.org
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:58:27 PM
Subject: Re: nettime Post-digital
Quoth Felix Stalder:
Enzensberger's text was just a joke, and the FAZ printed
it because it would stir controversy, not because it had much to offer
intellectually.
Was it really just a joke? I'm not so sure
Am 10.03.2014 um 09:51 schrieb mp:
and this is not a joke either: communal/collective spaces for
communication can be really good. A place to meet. A digital square.
i have to admit i less and less believe in this.
the only thing i am strongly recognizing is, that friends, people and socitey
