www.nettime.org Nettime mailing list archives
| John Armitage on 22 Nov 2000 23:15:26 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> CTHEORY article 90[2] - Paul Virilio Hypermodern |
From: ctheory
To: ctheory {AT} concordia.ca
Sent: 21/11/00 19:15
Subject: CTHEORY article 90[2] - Paul Virilio Hypermodern
CTHEORY THEORY, TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE VOL 23, NO 3
Article 90[2] 21-11-00 Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
____________________________________________________________________
Beyond Postmodernism? [Part 2]
Paul Virilio's Hypermodern Cultural Theory
==========================================
~John Armitage~
------------------------------------------
Evaluating the important developments and controversial debates over
Virilio's thought is difficult because it is only recently that it
has come to be appreciated by mainstream postmodern cultural
theorists. Even so, a substantial secondary literature and
interpretative commentary specifically on Virilio has been growing
for some considerable time now and which encompasses the work of
political and cultural theorists such as Kroker (1992), Der Derian
(1992), Wark (1994) and Conley (1997) as well as my own. The single
most powerful reason for the appearance and development of this
literature and commentary is not hard to fathom. Virilio's work on
military space and the social organization of society has, almost
without exception, forecast, rather than followed, subsequent
cultural and theoretical developments. It is for this reason that
contemporary postmodern and other cultural theorists like Bauman and
Lash are keenly analysing Virilio's writings. In spite of such
analysis, Virilio's thought remains much misunderstood. Accordingly,
and generally following the position taken by Kroker in _The
Possessed Individual_, I shall evaluate the significance of Virilio's
writings by suggesting that they exist ~beyond~ the terms of
postmodernism and that they should be conceived of as a contribution
to the emerging debate over hypermodernism.[6]
Virilio's exegesis of military space and the social organization of
territory is an important contribution to critical cultural theory
because it diverges from the increasingly sterile current debate over
the differentiation of modernism and postmodernism. It is, for
instance, quite wrong of critical cultural theorists such as Harvey
(1989: 351), Waite (1996: 116), and positivist physicists like Sokal
and Bricmont (1998: 159-166) to characterise Virilio's thought as
postmodern cultural theory. Indeed, such characterisations are so far
wide of the mark it is difficult to know where to begin. I will
explain.
For one thing, although the concept of postmodernism, like Virilio,
came to prominence in architectural criticism in the 1960s, Virilio's
thought is neither a reaction against the International Style nor a
reaction against modernism. Postmodernism, Virilio proposes, has been
a 'catastrophe' in architecture, and has nothing to do with his
phenomenologically grounded writings (Armitage, 2000b: 25.) This is
because Virilio's work draws on the modernist tradition in the arts
and sciences. As I have noted elsewhere, in _The Information Bomb_,
Virilio routinely references modernist writers such as Kafka and
relishes the latter's declaration that 'the cinema involves putting
the eye into uniform'. The same could be said of Virilio's combative
relationship to both Marinetti's modernist Futurism and the Chapman
brothers' postmodern or 'terminal' contemporary art practices
(Armitage, 2000c: 146; and 2000d). Virilio's philosophical reference
points are Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, phenomenologists and
modernists. Furthermore, he regularly cites Einstein's writings on
General Relativity Theory, instances of Virilio's commitment to the
theory of scientific modernism established in 1915.
For another, Virilio sees no connection between his thought and that
of deconstructionist and poststructuralist theorists like Derrida
(Armitage, 2000b: 34-5.) Virilio has, for example, never shown any
interest in de Saussure's structural linguistics, preferring to this
day the world of phenomenology and existentialism. As an anti-Marxist
(and anti-Sartrean), committed 'anarcho-Christian' and thinker who
has 'absolutely no confidence in psychoanalysis' Virilio has little
in common with the pioneers of structuralism such as the semiologist
Barthes, the Marxist philosopher Althusser, the psychoanalyst Lacan,
and the anthropologist Levi-Strauss (Virilio and Lotringer, 1997
[1983]: 39.) Virilio's theoretical connections with Foucault's
_Discipline and Punish_ and Deleuze and Guattari's _A Thousand
Plateaus_ also need to be treated with care. This is because, unlike
most poststructuralist theorists, Virilio is a ~humanist~ and a
practising Christian. His work is vehemently opposed to the viewpoint
of anti-humanism and to the philosophy of Foucault's and Deleuze and
Guattari's messiah, Nietzsche. As Virilio recently exclaimed, while
he admires the '~operatic part of Nietzsche' he 'cannot stand' his
'underlying philosophy~'. Indeed, for Virilio, it's 'physically
repulsive!' (Armitage, 2000b: 34.) Thus, there are only indeterminate
and convergent relationships between Virilio's thought and Foucault
and Deleuze and Guattari's poststructuralist theories, something that
Virilio has pointed out before (Virilio and Lotringer, 1997 [1983]:
44-5.) For Virilio, the crucial pointers on all his cultural theory
have been World War II, military strategy, and spatial planning
(Armitage, 2000b: 26.)
Moreover, in contrast to many postmodern cultural theorists, Virilio
does not wholly condemn modernity. Instead, he views his work as a
'critical analysis of modernity, but through a perception of
technology which is largely ... catastroph*ic*, not catastroph*ist*'.
Arguing that 'we are not out of modernity yet, by far', it is, then,
'the drama of total war' that lies at the core of Virilio's cultural
theory (Armitage, 2000b: 26.) Concentrating his thought on the
varying speeds of modernity, Virilio's texts thus concern themselves
with its important characteristics such as technoscience,
surveillance, urbanism, and alienation. In addition, and despite his
reputation as a Cassandra, Virilio often insists that his conception
of modernity, as distinct from the theorists of postmodernism, is
essentially optimistic (Zurbrugg, 2001: forthcoming.)
Furthermore, Virilio is not wholly antipathetic to reason, even if he
is critical of aspects of the 'Enlightenment project'. Yet, he
certainly is inimical to Hegelian and Marxist theories of knowledge
and ideology. In this respect, Virilio can be considered as a kind of
'left Heideggerian' (Kellner, 2000: 118.) Virilio's critical
relationship to modernity is, then, somewhat removed from the
description of it given by postmodern cultural theorists like Waite
although a useful recent discussion of Virilio's ideas about the
Enlightenment, technological objects, modernity and rationality can
be found in Lash's work, _Another Modernity, Another Rationality_.
Lastly, Virilio's thought has almost nothing to do with that of
advocates of postmodernism like Lyotard or Baudrillard. Unlike
Lyotard's writings, for instance, Virilio's work remains true to the
principle of hope with regard to making sense of history -- even as
it crashes headlong into the wall of real time. Actually, nearly the
entirety of Virilio's work is a sustained attempt to make sense of
his own history and, through it, ours too. Nor does Virilio accept
the demise of all the 'metanarratives', insisting in interviews, for
example, 'that the narrative of justice is beyond deconstruction'
(Armitage, 2000b: 39.) Likewise, Virilio's hostility to Marxism,
semiotics, and Nietzschean 'nihilism' explains his antagonism toward
Baudrillard's concept of simulation. Again, and while Genosko (1999:
96) may well be correct that Virilio's hypotheses on speed are
'consonant with McLuhan's' the truth is that, unlike many postmodern
cultural theorists, Virilio does ~not~ share Baudrillard's admiration
for McLuhan's (1994) 'drooling' (Virilio, 1995 [1993]: 10; Armitage,
2001b: forthcoming) over new media technologies. Genosko (1999: 97),
for instance, argues that the 'differences between Virilio and
McLuhan are profound', particularly with respect to their
'representations of the drive toward automation'. 'The war machine of
Virilio and the love machine of McLuhan', Genosko (1999: 97) rightly
concludes, 'create quite different kinds of worlds: contest or
contact'. Virilio's war machine is therefore neither concerned with
Baudrillard's conception of 'hyperreality' and 'irony' or with
McLuhan's love machine. In fact, Virilio's thought is more concerned
with the historical, socio-cultural, technoscientific and military
realities of everyday life.
It is therefore very difficult to appraise the important advances of
Virilio's thought in terms of postmodern cultural theory. It is also
why I believe it is preferable to interpret it as the work of a
cultural theorist whose thinking addresses what might be called the
question of ~hypermodernism, or, the cultural logic of contemporary
militarism~. All the same, hypermodernism remains a tentative term
and an embryonic tendency in cultural theory today. Arguably, it
began with the publication of Kroker's _The Possessed Individual_.
Nevertheless, in the present period, I want to suggest that, along
with Virilio, it is necessary to move away from the polarised
assumptions of modernism and postmodernism. Why? Because it is
imperative to shift toward an understanding of Virilio's work on
acceleration through the 'excessive' intensities and displacements
inherent within hypermodern cultural thought about the
military-scientific complex (Armitage, 2000a.) [7]
A Brief Critique of Virilio
---------------------------
Virilio's cultural theory and numerous activities have courted
controversy since the 1960s. When Virilio and Parent built their
'bunker church', -- and which has to be seen to be believed -- the
bishop who consecrated it was, according to Virilio, muttering to
himself the following words: 'what a ghastly thing! Amen! What a
ghastly thing! Amen!' As Virilio tells the story: 'the priest turned
towards the bishop and said: "Monsignor, this is not an exorcism! It
is a consecration!"' (Armitage, 2001a: forthcoming.) Religious
criticisms of Virilio and Parent's architecture aside, there have
also been a number of recent academic critiques of Virilio's ideas
concerning the state, technology, and speed. Deleuze and Guattari
(1988: 351-423), for instance, attempted what Crogan (1999) calls a
problematic effort to 'subsume' Virilio's thought into their own
poststructuralist approach to cultural theory. But, as Crogan
suggests, Deleuze and Guattari's 'static, ahistorical model' of the
state and technology cannot easily be combined with Virilio's
writings without undoing 'its own coherency in the process'. In turn,
Virilio's _The Aesthetics of Disappearance_ has outraged the
neo-Marxian geographer Harvey (1989: 293, 299, and 351; 2000: 88).
For Harvey, Virilio's 'response' to what the former recently called
the 'theme of time-space compression' 'has been to try and ride the
tiger of time-space compression through construction of a language
and an imagery that can mirror and hopefully command it'. Harvey
places the 'frenetic writings' of Virilio (and Baudrillard) in this
category because 'they seem hell-bent on fusing with time-space
compression and replicating it in their own flamboyant rhetoric'.
Harvey, of course, has 'seen this response before, most specifically
in Nietzsche's extraordinary evocations in _The Will To Power_'. Yet,
in _The Aesthetics of Disappearance_, Virilio's unfolding and wholly
intentional reactions to the emergence of the dromocratic condition
are actually concerned with 'the importance of interruption, of
accident, of things that are stopped as ~productive~' (Virilio and
Lotringer, 1997 [1983]: 44. Original emphasis.) As Virilio told
Lotringer: 'It's entirely different from what Gilles Deleuze does in
_Milles Plateaux_. He progresses by snatches, whereas I handle breaks
and absences. The fact of stopping and saying, "let's go somewhere
else" is very important for me' (Virilio and Lotringer, 1997 [1983]:
45.) What Virilio's 'frenetic writings' actually substantiate
throughout the 1980s are the material and, crucially, the
~immaterial~ consequences of dromological changes in aesthetics,
military power, space, cinema, politics, and technology. In an era
increasingly eclipsed by the technologically produced disappearance
of cultural life, war, matter, and human perception, this is a very
significant achievement. In the contemporary era, though, the
limitations of Virilio's cultural theory are likely to rest not -- as
Harvey suggests -- with his similarities but with his ~differences~
from Nietzsche. As Waite (1996: 381-2. Original emphases.), quoting
the American performance artist Laurie Anderson, has argued:
Virilio still desperately holds on to a modicum of modernist
~critique~ of postmodern military tactics, strategies, and
technologies, whereas Nietzsche basically would have been impatient
with mere critique, moving quickly to ~appropriate~ them for his own
~use~, at least conceptually and rhetorically, as metaphors and
techniques of persuasion to preserve power for elites over corpses -
'now that the living outnumber the dead'.
Conclusion
----------
Although there are many controversial questions connected to
Virilio's cultural theory, his hypermodern critique of military
tactics, strategies, and technologies is beginning to collide with
the thought of a growing number of other cultural theorists such as
the Krokers' (1997). The reason for such collisions is that Virilio's
texts like _The Politics of the Very Worst_, _Polar Inertia_, _The
Information Bomb_, and _Strategy of Deception_ address some of the
most disturbing and significant contemporary cultural developments of
our time. Moreover, such developments are often designed to preserve
the power of the increasingly virtual 'global kinetic elites' over
the creation of the actual local corpses of what I call 'the (s)lower
classes'. A child of Hitler's ~Blitzkrieg~, Virilio has theorised the
cultural logic of contemporary militarism. This is the most important
aspect of his thought. Revealing the dromological and political
conditions of the twenty-first century, Virilio interprets modernity
in terms of a military conception of history and the
endo-colonization of the human body by militarised technoscience. As
I have indicated, the concept of hypermodernism needs to be uppermost
in any understanding of Virilio's particular contribution to cultural
theory.
Virilio is, therefore, one of the most important and
thought-provoking cultural theorists on the contemporary intellectual
battlefield. Just the same, unlike Lyotard's or Baudrillard's
postmodernism, Virilio's hypermodernism does not articulate itself as
a divergence from modernism and modernity but as a critical analysis
of modernism and modernity through a catastrophic perception of
technology. It is for these and other reasons that Virilio defines
his general position as a critic of the art of technology. Virilio's
theoretical position and cultural sensibilities concerning technology
thus remain ~beyond~ the realm of even critical cultural theory. He
does not depend on intellectual 'explanations' but on 'the obvious
quality of the implicit' (Virilio and Lotringer, 1997 [1983]: 44.) On
the one hand, therefore, Virilio is a cultural theorist who movingly
considers the tendencies of the present period. On the other, he is a
cultural theorist who utterly rejects cultural theory.
Hence, it is debatable whether there is much to be gained from
cultural theorists attempting to establish the 'truth' or otherwise
of Virilio's thought. For Virilio's critical responses to the
military, chronopolitics, cinema, art, and technology are actually
ethical and emotional responses to the arrival of technological
culture. However, it is crucial to remember that Virilio's responses
are not the passive responses of the armchair critic. As he
emphasises in the CTHEORY interview, '[r]esistance is ~always~
possible! But we must engage in resistance first of all by developing
the idea of a ~technological culture~'. Virilio is of course also
aware that his work is 'often dismissed in terms of scandalous
charges!' As he has noted, in France '[t]here's no tolerance' for
'irony, for wordplay, for argument that takes things to the limit and
to excess' (Zurbrugg, 2001: forthcoming.) Hence, to raise the
question of Virilio's cultural theory is to raise the question of
whether, outside France, his work should be dismissed in terms of
scandalous charges, received in terms suffused with praise, or a
mixture of both? In short, it is to raise the question of how much
tolerance there is in the English-speaking world for irony, for
wordplay, and for arguments that take things to excess? Attempting to
answer such complex questions will ensure that Virilio's hypermodern
cultural theory continues to elicit theoretical argument and social
debate for many years to come.
Notes
-----
[6] For an alternative conception of hypermodernism to the one
presented here see, for instance, Albert Borgmann's _Crossing the
Postmodern Divide_ (1993.)
[7] For an attempt to develop Virilio's work via a conception of
excessive hypermodern cultural and economic thought and the
military-scientific complex see, Armitage and Graham (2001:
forthcoming.)
References
----------
Armitage, J. (1999) "Dissecting the Data Body: An Interview with
Arthur and Marilouise Kroker", pp.69-74 in J. Armitage (ed) Special
issue on: _Machinic Modulations: new cultural theory &
technopolitics_. _Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities_.
Vol. 4, No. 2, September.
Armitage, J. (2000a): "Paul Virilio: An Introduction", pp.1-23 in J.
Armitage (ed) Paul Virilio: _From Modernism to Hypermodernism and
Beyond_. London: Sage.
Armitage, J. (2000b) "From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond: An
Interview with Paul Virilio", pp.25-56 in J. Armitage (ed) Paul
Virilio: _From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond_. London: Sage.
Armitage, J. (2000c) 'The Theorist of Speed', pp.145-147 in _New Left
Review_ 2 (Second Series) March/April 2000.
Armitage, J. (2000d) "The Uncertainty Principle: Paul Virilio"s The
Information Bomb", in G. Redden and S. Aylward (eds.), _M/C-A Journal
of Media and Culture_, Issue 3, Volume 3, 'Speed'. (Electronic
journal: http://www.api-network.com/mc/).
Armitage, J. (2001a, forthcoming) "The Kosovo War Did Take Place: An
Interview with Paul Virilio", in J. Armitage (ed) _Virilio Live:
Selected Interviews_. London: Sage.
Armitage, J. (2001b, forthcoming) "The Military is the Message", in
J. Armitage and J. Roberts (eds.) _Living With Cyberspace: Technology
& Society in the 21st Century_. London: The Athlone Press.
Armitage, J. and Graham, P. (2001, forthcoming) 'Dromoeconomics:
Towards a Political Economy of Speed' in J. Armitage (ed) _Parallax_
18, Vol. 7, No. 1, 'Economies of Excess'.
Baudrillard, J. (1983) _Simulations_. New York: Semiotext(e).
Baudrillard, J. (1995) _The Gulf War Did Not Take Place_. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Bauman, Z. (1999) _In Search of Politics_. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clausewitz, Von C. (1997 [1832]) _On War_. Ware: Wordsworth Editions.
Borgmann, A. (1993) _Crossing the Postmodern Divide_. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Conley, V. A. (1997) _Ecopolitics: The Environment in
Poststructuralist Thought_. London: Routledge.
Crogan, P. (1999) "Theory of State: Deleuze, Guattari and Virilio on
the State, Technology, and Speed", pp.137-148 in J. Armitage (ed)
Special issue on: _Machinic Modulations: new cultural theory &
technopolitics_. _Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities_.
Vol. 4, No. 2, September.
Deleuze, G. (1995) "Postscript on Control Societies", pp.177-182 in
G. Deleuze. _Negotiations: 1972-1990_. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988) _A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia_. London: The Athlone Press.
Der Derian, J. (1992) _Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed and War_.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1977) _Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison_.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Genosko, G. (1999) _McLuhan and Baudrillard: The Masters of
Implosion_. London: Routledge.
Guillaume, P. (1937) _La Psychologie de la forme_. Paris: Flammarion.
Haraway, D. (1985) "A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and
Socialist Feminism in the 1980s", pp.65-108 in _Socialist Review_ 80
(2).
Harvey, D. (1989) _The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into
the Origins of Cultural Change_. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2000) "Reinventing Geography", pp.75-97 in _New Left
Review_ 4 (Second Series) July/August.
Johnson, P. (ed.) (1996) _The Function of the Oblique: The
Architecture of Claude Parent and Paul Virilio_. London:
Architectural Association.
Kearney, R. (1986) _Modern Movements in European Philosophy_.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kellner, D. (2000) "Virilio, War, and Technology: Some Critical
Reflections", pp.103-126 in J. Armitage (ed) _Paul Virilio: From
Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond_. London: Sage.
Kroker, A. (1992) "Paul Virilio: The Postmodern Body as War Machine",
pp.20-50 in A. Kroker _The Possessed Individual: Technology and
Postmodernity_. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Kroker, A. and Kroker, M. (eds.) (1997) _Digital Delirium_. Montreal:
New World Perspectives.
Lash, S. (1999) "Bad Objects: Virilio", pp.285-311 in S. Lash
_Another Modernity, A Different Rationality_. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyotard, J-F. (1984) _The Postmodern Condition: A Report on
Knowledge_. Minneapolis and Manchester: Minnesota Press and
Manchester University Press.
Mandelbrot, B. (1977) _The Fractal Geometry of Nature_. New York:
Freeman.
McLuhan, M. (1994 [1964]) _Understanding Media: The Extensions of
Man_. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Plant, S. (1997) _Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + The New
Technoculture_. London: Fourth Estate.
Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. (1998) _Intellectual Impostures:
Postmodern Philosophers' Abuse of Science_. London: Profile Books.
Tzu, S. (1993 [ancient Chinese text]) _The Art of War_. Ware:
Wordsworth Editions.
Virilio, P. (1976) _L' insecurite du territoire_. Paris: Stock.
Virilio, P. (1986 [1977]) _Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology_.
New York: Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1989 [1984]) _War and Cinema: The Logistics of
Perception_. London and New York: Verso.
Virilio, P. (1990 [1978]) _Popular Defense & Ecological Struggles_.
New York: Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1991a [1980]) _The Aesthetics of Disappearance_. New
York: Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1991b [1984]) _The Lost Dimension_. New York:
Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1991c) _L" ecran du desert: chroniques de guerre_.
Paris: Galilee.
Virilio, P. (1994a [1975]) _Bunker Archeology_. Princeton: Princeton
Architectural Press.
Virilio, P. (1994b [1988]) _The Vision Machine_. Bloomington and
London: Indiana University Press and British Film Institute.
Virilio, P. (1995 [1993]) _The Art of the Motor_. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Virilio, P. (1996 [1966]) "Habitable Circulation", pp.xv in P.
Virilio and C. Parent (eds.) _Architecture Principe, 1966 et 1996_.
Besancon: L' imprimeur.
Virilio, P. (1997 [1995]) _Open Sky_. London: Verso.
Virilio, P. (1999a [1996]) _Politics of the Very Worst_. New York:
Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1999b [1990]) _Polar Inertia_. London: Sage.
Virilio, P. (2000a [1998]) _The Information Bomb_. London: Verso.
Virilio, P. (2000b [1999]) _Strategy of Deception_. London: Verso.
Virilio, P. and Parent, C. (eds.) (1996) _Architecture Principe, 1966
et 1996_. Besancon: L' imprimeur.
Virilio, P. and S. Lotringer (1997 [1983]) _Pure War: Revised
Edition_. New York: Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. and Kittler, F. (1999) "The Information Bomb: A
Conversation." Edited and Introduced by John Armitage, pp.81-90 in J.
Armitage (ed) Special issue on: _Machinic Modulations: new cultural
theory & technopolitics_. _Angelaki: journal of the theoretical
humanities_. Vol. 4, No. 2, September.
Waite, G. (1996) _Nietzshe's Corps/e: Aesthetics, Politics, Prophecy,
or the Spectacular Technoculture of Everyday Life_. Durham and
London: Duke University Press.
Wark, M. (1994) _Virtual Geography: Living with Global Media Events_.
Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Zurbrugg, N. (2001, forthcoming) "Not Words But Visions!" An Interview
with Paul Virilio, in J. Armitage (ed) _Virilio Live: Selected
Interviews_. London: Sage.
____________________________________________________________________
John Armitage is Principal Lecturer in Politics and Media Studies at
the University of Northumbria, UK. The editor of _Paul Virilio: From
Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond_ (2000), he is currently editing
_Virilio Live: Selected Interviews_ for publication in 2001.
____________________________________________________________________
* CTHEORY is an international journal of theory, technology
* and culture. Articles, interviews, and key book reviews
* in contemporary discourse are published weekly as well as
* theorisations of major "event-scenes" in the mediascape.
*
* Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
[....]
____________________________________________________________________
To view CTHEORY online please visit:
http://www.ctheory.com/
To view CTHEORY MULTIMEDIA online please visit:
http://ctheory.concordia.ca/
____________________________________________________________________
[....]
# 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 {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net
tel