brian carroll on Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:42:57 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> nettime as idea |
* 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 <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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]