Re: <nettime> Copyleft Porn Praxis and Subversion over Sabotage,

[onto <onto@riseup.net>]

beautiful thoughts, lotu5. thank you.

one or two comments:

1. "post-ideological society" you mentioned somewhere. What about
Zizek's critique of that term in "The sublime object of ideology." its
not that we're post-ideological, but that ideology takes place at the
level of action, and not at the level of ideas anymore. this in fact
might be more insidious.

2. "heterotopic times" - do you mean
this in foucaults sense of heterotopias
(http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.ht
ml) or in the sense of hetero-normative "Hetero-topias"? if you mean
the former, than i think its interesting to read it in relation to
McKenzie wark's discussion of Utopias/Dystopias--Heterotopias--Atopias
in "Gamer theory." Its in the Vice City chapter. Perhaps
'heterotopias' are already obsolete in this time of atopic (digital)
realities. If i can download the joy of copyleft-anticapitalist orgasm
anywhere, anytime, then this space of freedom is not nowhere (utopic),
or in other spaces (heterotopic) but everywhere (atopic). Is this
internal subversion of atopia by queer copyleft collectivities such as
SIS a way of 're-fusing' the 'game' of algorithmic sex, of playing it
against the prefigured game of pay-per-play-per-day-per-subjectivite?

3. what is the relation between the "representation" of new
genders/queer practices/non-capitalist class relations/other modes
of desire and subjectivity and the "production" of such things? Is
SIS a representing activity or a producing activity? Is it producing
for SIS collective, but representing for those who spectate it?
Whats the relation between viewer and producer, ie, the gaze, the
spectacle, the screen? Lacan writes on the Gaze, as well as Sarte,
Foucault, et al. Am i watching anti-capitalism in its creation? or
am i watching it in its ephemeral existence repeated online in an
algorithm? what does it mean to add a new sign to the code of digital
representation? especially a sign that rejects the normal assigning of
value-to-sign? in other words, can you speak for more than your-selves
when you speak of such a radical project? is the example enough for us
'non-porn-practioners' to understand, join in, become-different?


4. The tension between the universalizing drive of capitalism
to code every new object as commodity and the particularizing
drive of noncapitalism to efface every attempt to become a
universalizable object can be seen as dialectical, agonistic,
incommensurable, subversive, complementary, parasitic and more.
Does 'inoperability' capture this relation well? IS this relation
digital or analog? Current inoperable fields of desire can become
future markets, we know. IS this a threat to be pre-positioned
against so that inoperability acts as a shield to deflect the drive
of imminent commodification (ie, inoperability as sublimation)?
or does inoperability (in this case, of the body) consume
the desire to commodify itself in its own code (as copyleft,
nongenderconforming) before it gets taken by another (ie.,
inoperability as auto-interpellation, as subjectivation in the face of
an event, in fidelity to it)? Does this relation repeat, indefinitely?
is this another name for what marx called 'primitive accumulation'? Or
what badiou calls truth?

con amor,
onto


lotu5@resist.ca wrote:
> 
> Matteo Pasquinelli's recent article "The Ideology of Free Culture and
> the Grammar of Sabotage" examines recent practices concerned with
> licensing as an anti-capitalist tactic and its broader ideological
> ramifications for dialogs about file sharing and freedom of
> information, using the ideas of the parasite, cognitive capitalism and
> offering a strategy of sabotage.






#  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: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org