trevor on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:27:26 +0200

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Syndicate: East and Was

----- Original Message -----
From: Zvonimir Bakotin <>
To: <!@"$%^&*#?> <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Syndicate: East and Waste

> <!---snipped overhead---!>
> > It seems, socialism turned out to be only a badly designed version.
> > Maybe it would never have fallen if the human need to glorify their own
> > excrement wouldn't produce a wish to colour and paint them.
> Very bad beta version, then advertized as transition era to;

Well, I suppose that is enouraging -if all that positive advertising
couldn't save a bad product!

> > Communism; it is a place without rubbish, an ideal place of cycling and
> > networking, in which all have some relation to something else.

So, we can expect an interesting battle over the internet patents it seems!

' "British Telecommunications (BT) claims it owns the patent to hyperlinks
and wants ISPs in the US to cough up hard cash for the privilege of
using them.

A spokesman for BT said: "We patented the principle of the hyperlink in
the mid-70s when people were still wearing kipper ties and flares ..."

See the whole article at The Register  '

(Circulated via <>)

> That one may be advertized as NT 5.0, endless cycling of brain washing
> prop... networking yes truly advanced concept indeed, big brother and
> *social corrective spying* as central doctrine...and every/thing/word was
> connected Contral Committe ultimate *meta brain* far beyond the utopia.

Concidering the level of control available then presumably the "human need
to glorify their own excrement " was irrelevant -it was the topology of the
network that was fundamentally wrong.

The centralization was presumably responsible for reducing efficiency within
the recycling system.

This rather suggests that "ecology" is an essential concept -not in romantic
terms of singing wales and contented pandas -but in terms of an essential
questioning of the viability of the total outcome of all the dynamic
(cybernetic) interactions between the different components of

Presumably,  if successful companies continue to merge into monopolisitic
conglomerates -they will eventually destroy the viability of the network,
just as efficiently as the communists did.

Somewhere between total chaos (uncontrolled banditry) and total control
(robber barons) must lie the point of "aesthetic" equilibrium within this
(the) dialectic axiom. Presumably, (also in consideration of the
"ecological" sustainability of the system) the "aesthetic" point can be
niether universal nor static.

> There is just *minor* rubbish of milions of victims of ideology on the
> way to that *ideal place* but thats another issue.

It is (per definition) inevitable that all non-viable systems (including
dictorships) will collapse, the problem is not getting rid of them -but of
limiting the damage they do -before and during the collapse!

> z

------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive:
 to unsubscribe, write to <>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress