<nettime> "Balkan point" vs. immediate eternity model

[ana <ana.peraica@janvaneyck.nl>]

Hi,

sending you other parts of the same text...
greetings,

ana


"BALKAN POINT' VS. IMMEDIATE ETERNITY MODEL

 If there would be some inventaroum of contemporary media - logical
 mistakes, both  "the argument of "as seen on TV", as concluding from
 media content as experience, and media distance on the objective
 viewpoint, and a "Balkan point", as concluding from history to
 priority, would belong to it.
 
 Instead of reevaluating history, on the Balkan there is a constant
 try to reestablish it, which leads to the redundancy of wishes which
 are always disagreeing about which time (or century) should be a
 criteria. The point is actually misusing relativisation, as argument
 of "who arrived the first" finished in the relative question of
 "depends in the which century".
 
 But seems that referring to the sole past is not the only
 exclusiveness that happens on today's planet. "Hyper" societies
 abolished history, out of touristic play gardens, which show more
 syptomatics of the other disorder - instancy.
 
 Instant Eternity model, is as well, highly rationalised in physics,
 that is today's West Bible (though it is completely strange how
 precisely that physics of speed, precise, unstable... doesn't at all
 belong to the human measure universe).
 
 Kaluza-Klein theory on gravity, refers to the light as a vibration of
 the missing dimension, which is speed. And that dimension is the one of
 our relative own. To approve this we don't need to take some big
 calculus, what is missing, if we are all moving with different
 speed is a simultaneity, which is only body related. In speed we miss
 each other.
 
 Now we have new list of our perception existence, difference,
 perspective, change, and speed. This chain coincide with the
 development of beings on this planet, some of which only can notice
 existence, but some as well 'higher' dimensions. If we relate them
 to other people, we see they exist, they are different, they are
 close\near, they change, but finally we can not catch them.
 
 All those perceptoral dimensions can be explained in terms of each
 other, but always from the point of higher. Difference can be only seen
 if existence is known (in terms of existing and not-existing),
 perspective is a measurement of differences, change is a overlap of
 perspectives. So, speed is, finally, a crossroad of changes, a chaos in
 which only a preceptor exists.
 
 With demistification of metaphysical area, the problem of
 reevaluation of time and its ghostly accompaining reference to
 Eternity, under which we defined time, occurs. Suddenly, with lost
 of inter-relation criteria according to which we defined measuring
 of the limited time. The measure of the world exists where there is
 a line segregating  what we imagine as different.
 
 Instant Eternity, as belonging to private experiences leads to
 solypsistic universe, and can be treated as first of major accidents of
 micro-macro overlap, which lost the natural measure of the system of
 the world. World disappears, as is absorbed into invisible and
 unmeasurable, as the first measure is the one of body in time and
 space.
 
 Collapse of distances in all levels of contemporary civilisation can
 be seen, as well as narcissm, on the phenomenon where Eternity
 doesn't belong to out of time model, but is even more miniaturised
 at the level of a moment now.
 
 The concept of immediate Eternity, which suddenly doesn't 'take
 place' in after time, or out of it, was suggested already by
 Einstein, who claimed that the present is a centre of time, not some
 Big Bang, not the creation. With that he rejected inflationary
 universe.
 
 Market society, loosing point of distinguishing original from the
 copy, and a source from the quote, just transferred macro thought to
 the consumable one. Now become forever simply in the slogan 'Buy it
 now - or never', guaranteeing us at least some purpose of life, we
 got compressed consumable Eternities Centre of time, even those
 not-cosmic ones, indeed become light or speed of information.
 
 Suddenly I remember an old race, which is totally insane, without a
 purpose, but at the same time beautiful. Achilles, a human and a small
 Tortoise were running to see who is faster, and none won. Of course,
 none won, for the first reason Achilles was a gentleman, second that
 Tortoise was cheating, and third Zeno was a skeptic. It's ultimate
 wisdom, therefore, is not only that skeptic (and theory) can approve
 anything, which post-modern theory elaborated as a homework, and it is
 not as even that speed is relative, but as well that communication is
 important. And that communication was revealed with the text of Lewis
 Carroll 'What the Tortoise had have said to Achilles'.
 
 As speed is relative, only one standing outside the system (so Zeno,
 that doesn't want to do so), can conclude. Both carachters are only
 locked into mad world of the skeptic. Of course, we know that Achilles
 is faster, but limits of the race in terms of measurements of
 dimensions, just doesn't allow him to arrive the first.
 
 Zeno cheats, not allowing the dimension of a change. And this was
 tested by astronauts missing other dimensions. Change simply doesn't
 take a place, and there are only, looking from the point of two
 acters existence, difference and perspective. And speed can only be
 described going on one level lower, on the change, as their
 overlaps.
 
 So, we see Zeno's cheating, but we can not help to Achilles, that
 plays with the Tortoise. But at least they have each other, while
 civilisation looses that as a value.
 
 In the world of the speed, which excludes a body, what only can
 exist (maybe) can be thoughts. Consequence of their speeding up was
 known from the old time.  Relativity teaches us 'we may only think
 we are faster'.
 
 If Achilles was not faster because of a calculation, the answer is
 very simple, what speeds up. It is the theory that is decelerating
 action, or as would any Balkan person, object 'stop talking, start
 running.'
 
 In the Minkowskian geometry, which was taken as the base for
 Einstein's concept of the physical universe, space and time are
 entwined. In it two observers in relative motion can disagree
 regarding simultaneity of distant events. An even it identified by a
 whole world point in a four dimensional continuum. On the contrary,
 in the old Newtonian physics which used geometry which separated
 space and time dimensions, the problem of simultaneity was regarded
 as belonging to compentencies of the observer.
 
 Problem of simultaneity is not only a physical problem, and if
 somewhere it can turn to become a major catastrophe, it would be in
 social.  Unpossiblity to realise simultanity, is as well
 unpossiblity to register same-time world, but only own existence. It
 is not the problem, therefore, what would those two observers
 register, but would they register each other?
 
 'To gain real time over delayed time is thrust commit to a quick way
 of physically eliminating the object and subject and exclusively
 promoting the journey. But journey without a trajectory and thus
 fundamentally uncontrollable.' (Virilio)
 
 Without memory, as one of dimensions of percieving, in this world of
 instancy of serving the function, dimensions are not kept together,
 they split apart. World become a ground of self enough function (of
 travel, of explaining...)
 
 The first measure of the world was once a body. Today's ways of
 measuring, on the contrary, went on more micro or macro level of it,
 beyond visible, and that Leonardo's model is simply not interesting
 enough, maybe even because it portrays unknown other person, that
 narcisses can not stand (though I still think that theory couldn't
 stand it as that body doesn't look too theoretical). Instead of
 homocentric, we have logo-ego   centric hybrid, that skipped the
 member that was once a medium one itself. It gave up for media,
 which offer the illusion of the bridge.
 
 We are tending to reach self-enough 'soft worlds', solipsistic
 autonomies, where the only measure would be the one of our wishes.
 We'll be independent, but what does it mean in terms of the body is
 - alone, unneeded, replaceable. Out of us there would be that found
 dimension of vacuum. So, we`ll be vacuumised.
 
 First soft world I recall is a Wonderland, a world reacting on demands
 of a small Alice. Although, this world is personificated, and
 communicable, as sometimes joking with Alice, making her
 disproportional to it, contracting opposite to her wishes.
 
 Her experience is what we today call - ordinary psyhastenic
 experience, shift to another dimension while leaving body. The
 device was of course, imagining (or thoughts).
 
 But although story is beautiful, would contemporary adventurists even
 border to try to draw the world, to tell the story to someone? Or it
 would only serve a function for themselves, of their own generalised
 arrival, which will be without a point of returning back?
 
 To have a proper war,  you need to have a simultaneity, on a big
 scale, teaches us Balkan, which alwasy refer to returning point.
 While ones are bombing, the others are simultaneously preparing the
 next move, or react immediately. Or, with this 10 years of war that
 was supported (literally, like, enforced and continued) by media,
 one side bombs, and the other makes shootings for CNN.
 
 Media in war has no ethics, war has more ethics itself, although is
 internal. The reason for it is that media lives on war and death,
 and so belongs in set of "war profiteers". After it, all experiences
 based on that, are unethical.
 
 "Balkan point", though is a mistake, is precisely that "Forward to
 the Past" (if the West enjoys rather "Back to the Future model"
 where all points now are escaping back, but guarantee future), or it
 belongs into the logic of return. The problem of it, is again
 simultaneity, but in agreeing a history stratum, which would be
 relevant for both the presence and the future. But at least, that
 simultaneity is related to society.
 
 If I would need to conclude what is better, safe instancy of alone or
 unsafe social history shakings, I am still not sure, in between two
 mistakes, "as seen on TV - experience" and a  "Balkan point", or
 inbetwen not to communicate at all and fight.
 
 But, we are used to see mistakes of each other; from one side West
 in Eastern Europe resists, as a picture of promise, but as well, of
 total alienation, total decline as disintegrated and dead society,
 while East resists in West, as low, barbarian, uncivilised "garden
 of authenticity". Eastern Europeans go to West to check how still
 human they are, and all they see are robots, while West European go
 to East Europe like in a zoo, to see unique sort that was once
 inhabiting all planet (but seems there were two scenarios (either
 they all killed each other, and the Planet was finally quite, or
 they suddenly stopped to communicate).
 
 And indeed when an Eastern European goes on the West, they photograph
 themselves lost in "rush hours" just to remember how instant societies
 look like, pushed into one corridor (and showing their kids how they
 managed to survive, but never tried to run themselves), while Western
 Europeans photograph themselves near ruined houses (they will show to
 their kids disregarding the fact they arrived long time after). They
 will both be brave, and that might be a happy end.
 
 But sholdn`t in between two extremes somewhere reside point where there
 are no we and they...
 
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net