nettime's_geowanker on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:55:51 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> LOLZ. LSDZ, NSAZ, BRICZ, ARTZ digest [x4: jernej, newmedia, valle] |
RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet "Jernej Amon Prodnik" <jernej.prodnik@gmail.com> Newmedia@aol.com Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com> RE: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "Jernej Amon Prodnik" <jernej.prodnik@gmail.com> Subject: RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:04:02 +0100 It's still interesting to read something as stupid as calling Wallerstein stupid (most of all, stupid because he doesn't consider the Internet and the complete and radical change it supposedly brought about, lol). A nice summary that, Eduardo. Jernej -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces@mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces@mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Valle Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:55 AM To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Geopolitics and internet Mark, You must have in mind some things: <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Newmedia@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:04:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Duda: > You must have in mind some things: Yes, a few things . . . <g> > a) Technology is not neutral and that's no difference > in Digital Technology and Internet ALL technology has a *bias* (particularly, starting with language) -- which does not mean that those who "use" the technology understand what this BIAS might be, since few people (even today) think in terms of technological environments or the ways that they shape and define our behaviors and attitudes. Yes, Plato was concerned that alphabetic writing would radically change the human capacity to REMEMBER and he was correct! But how many on this list, including the "fans"of the Pre-Socratics, have read Eric Havelock's "Preface to Plato"? > b) Merchant Order and Cities, putting things on a > historical perspective in geopolitical terms It's important the list of technologies you cite ends with the "New York -- electric engine" (i.e. Edison and Tesla) and "Los Angeles -- the microchip" (although, this was actually "Silicon Valley," not LA, while noting that the "customer" was the post-Sputnik "space race," including both communications satellites and ICBMs, which was certainly centered in SoCal, w/ Lockheed et al.) So, what are the BIASES of *electricity* and *silicon* and what did they PROVOKE in *cultural* terms? What happens to people when they start launching satellites into orbit? How does this change our perception of what it means to be "global"? Without "answers" to these questions (or for that matter, without even understanding the importance of the questions), you will spend a lot of time running in circles chasing your own tail and never really get anywhere -- burdened with the *biases* of earlier technologies! > c) Second about the shift of paradigm in the order city > to still maintain geopolitical control Google was an offshoot of the NSA -- based on the intelligence community's need for a "database" that could deal with an unlimited amount of "unstructured" data (i.e. they paid for the development of Big Table) followed by the impulse to be able to "watch" the real-time stream of *here comes everyone* "questions. But that doesn't mean that "Uncle Google" (or those at Ft. Meade getting the real-time feed) either know what to do with it or what its wider implications might mean. Yes, if "ebola" breaks out in Wichita, then the NSA will quickly know that people are Googling strange questions about blood coming out of their orifices but that's hardly a sophisticated form of "control" of anything (including people's orifices)! > d) how the geopolitical control is related to enterprises > each one dominating one field related to the geopolitical > control and the digital condition No. None of companies you mention -- many of which I know quite well -- are in CONTROL of anything other than the *forms* they generate and, ultimately, the influence these forms have on the wider technological environment. They are, if you will, the technological *environment* reproducing itself -- as if there were no humans involved. The "semiotics" of Apple is SATANIC, for instance, since the name "Apple" and the symbol of the fruit w/ a bite taken out is deliberately lifted from Genesis and the "temptation" of EVE by the serpent. Does that mean that Steve Jobs was promoting the *devil* or (more likely) that he was promoting the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN implied by our inclination to "think different"? Take enough LSD and you meet the *devil*? What's "controlling" what? > STUPID is disconsider history and not know that > history is repeating itself. Yes. It is STUPID to not consider what we have already learned. It is also *stupid* to only consider history as a LINEAR "progression" (i.e. 18th century book-based thinking), when *electricity* pushed us into thinking in "all around" terms 150+ years ago (i.e the "electric" origins of "social" science). But that doesn't mean that using the "geo-political" (i.e. mostly "geographical") frame is the best one or, given its own origins and historic context, that it is really informed by what has been learned in the past century about society and its *formative* relationship with technology! The EAR replaced the EYE a long time ago! So, what happens when the HAND replaces the EAR? (And, if that question doesn't make any sense to you, then what do you "know" about the world we live in?) Eric McLuhan asserts that we are now living in "next" Renaissance, a repeating pattern with roughly 400 year "cycles," If he's right, then what is being RE-BORN (or re-learned) . . . ?? Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:50:51 +0000 Rethoric ... Nasdaq is going on well , i wonder Why and where they are located. Why CERN is not in ?frica ? When the Imperium shifts to the hiperimperium. XX XXI Imperium HiperImperium It is not because communication is changing that reality is changing , but there Will always be some REST for the REST of the World. information is not knowledge. The people that sells bits dont care about the bits, they just want to sell machines to be more precise nowadays mobile machine$$$$$. I am Still using my 5 senses ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:48:58 +0000 In Liverpool i was presenting a Geopolitical analysis of Contemporary Art and Electronic Art inside of what i called the Web of Art and their 14 instances. I was analysing only 3 instances: the artists, the fairs and the collectors and they were still on the same geopolitical pattern. China was rising and so the BRICS because of lack of infra structure, need of expansion of capitalism and cheap labor force , but we all know where the headquarters and CEOs are located... You were saying that communication is changing everything and if the spectrum is few, how can they even talk ... So here you have some facts that reality is not really changing in terms of geopolitical power i will send some conceptual maps from my presentation in Liverpool. <...> From: Newmedia@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:46:48 -0500 Subject: Re: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet Duda: Sorry -- how do you explain the rise of CHINA in "geopolitical" terms (i.e. a development which was completely missed by the geopoliticists)? Why would changes in communications make "problems" go away? And, "communication" isn't about spectrum (which is a machine-to-machine parameter) but instead about how *people* actually TALK to each other! I wasn't there, so what did you PROVE in Liverpool . . . ?? <g> Mark In a message dated 2/19/2013 1:08:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dudavalle@hotmail.com writes: In geopolitical terms, NO. And this was proved in my presentation in Liverpool in relation to Art. <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # 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://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org