an internet from agreements?

you mean internet of agreements?

the name “internet of agreements” has been TMed already. Interesting, hey? 😉

well.. how else can you get so many people, content and machines together?

only by agreement?

you want them all to disagree?

can we say that an agreement is kind of a contract?

if we can live with the idea that an agreement is indeed kind of a contract, what’s the significance?

in reference to Benjamin’s critique of violence.. Perhaps when a contract/agreement is “there” since it is enforceable – ie backed up by violence, threat or otherwise – an internet of agreements is an internet of violence?

fancy TMing “internet of non-violence”?

an internet that isn’t part of life?

an internet of non violent exchanges?

an interrnet of frictions?

an internet of factions?

an internet of interlacing sequences?

hummm.. maybe that is not an internet anymore?

an interfriction common?

f the internet, hey..?

the F common..?

no net anymore?

call it disco?


you know discotheque?

as in the library of discs?

yes.. a collection in a collective time space? (ie the disco night.)

maybe its more like discotechies?

tim berners-lee’s web?

Why the guardian gave a rather prominent opinion piece for tim berners-lee recently?

That’s a silly question – what are you driving at?

Perhaps the logic that if someone is perceived as an inventor of something-x, their opinion is taken as somehow more valid? (re something-x)

I think there’s a more interesting issue at hand. Maybe linked to your question, but might link to other stuff as well – why is the “web inventor” is practically calling for censorship?

The irony?


Well, the sorting out of “fake news”, can be seen as a form of censorship?

How else can we deal with fake news?

How about search narcissus kind of algorithms?

How about narcissus and some critical thinking education?

Isn’t it the education for all was supposed to be making people smarter and independently minded?

Even when the educational system is geared towards preparing people for work and job oriented environments?

Is that what might be called “digression”?

Isn’t the point that while the ideas here aren’t the correct solutions, maybe they show other – non censorship oriented ways – might be available?

But censorship is profitable, why not look into that?


Yes. It allows people to offer both protection and sell that ability to defend – no?

Like facebook protects its users from opinions they don’t like, and sells that ability to advertisers?

Aren’t these questions to do with other elements of tim berners-lee opinions?

Who’s web is it any way?

lol The guardian thinks its tim’s.. hey?

Tim thinks it’s everyone’s hence we lost it?

This guy, here, thinks the web was stolen. Maybe a point?

Isn’t it a bit strange to get an opinion like that from someone who pimps “indie” – a tool that will endeavour to protect people?

People or users?

Protect or offer ways for people and bots etc – to evolve their own ways of dealing with stuff?

But does the writer not have a good point saying that the web was stolen by google, facebook, etc?

Have we ever had the web?

Have we not?

When did we have the web?

To begin with?

When it was tim’s? 😉

No.. Later.. When – as an open source – it was openly circulated?

When universities – rather than big corporations – did the development? (eg mosaic browser?)

Were they not happy to sell code and cash in?

So the web was stolen when they sold open code and cashed in?

If they were able to sell – was it Ours to begin with? 😉

What about the development, like w3 consortium?

Could anyone get in there?

Anyone interested even if they weren’t techies?

So.. If it wasn’t stolen – when was it ours?

Maybe tim fancied the web to be ours?

The web is ours in tim’s wondering mind?

things i don’t understand – brexit edition?

Isn’t it that brexit, in effect and in fact, offers new opportunities to go from current eu arrangements to new ones, some that are yet to fail?

Brexit, is that a brexit that is britain – the geo-political entity – exit the eu, or is it a new arrangement between the eu and britain that involves uk not being a member of eu?
(If the the 2nd bit, how come people are fine with “brexit means brexit” which in itself pretends to mean something yet, means f all?)

How come there aren’t many calls for a new parliament, since this one voted to do a referendum that was so vaguely worded? (e.g. why did we not have a 3rd choice? eg to negotiate a new way to be in eu? why going out was not worded clearer so now we could have a better clue whether people voted for hard or soft brexit?)

How come, post brexit vote, we don’t seem to have calls for a new eu arrangement?
Could we not think of brexit as a new opportunity to fight the capitalist occupation? (eg claim eu became too wedded with capitalistic interests so as to abandon its people?)
Could we not claim that proposals to keep eu citizenship do not go far enough?
While its fab having an idea that essentially undermines nation states by allowing individuals to become eu citizens, perhaps this is a bit discriminatory when applied to uk alone? Why not any person?
Indeed, if non state entities can be eu citizens – why not:
associations and cooperatives?
artists of certain affiliations?
members of institutions? (eg say brighton uni and associated members can be in the eu..?)

Why not have eu art services, health services, education services – and so on – being made available for free for communities etc. – regardless of their state’s membership? eg this can allow setting up eu bits in the uk for people who fancy. (mind, if in the uk, why not in other places around the world?)

Can brexit not be thought of an opportunity to call on the eu for radical questioning of its role and operations so as to use ideas the eu claims to aspire – claims to breath – can be used to develop ways we can get free from the capitalistic occupation?

search and a freedom as being From?

Say a person is free to eat cucumbers, what is the next question?

What that person might be bound by?

As in one might get free from shackles but all that happened was entering a yet-to-be-recognised bind?

That’s a freedom from, no?

What about being free from freedom?

From freedom itself?

Say one chooses to focus on gardening, or something, whether or not that makes them feel or even be free?

Sure, a free society might be able to tolerate that without a pause. However, can a society based on choices, on right to choose one thing over another, tolerate entities that are free from needing to choose?

Isn’t being “free from choosing” – a choice?

Only from a circular argument that choice as freedom brings. If we are just doing being free by moving From – as a way of possible linking – where is the choice?

In moving From? 😉

LOL Actually, can it not be argued that in a choice oriented society we focus on stops, I choose a mortgage, I choose a book, I choose a drug, etc. – and these are just shackles yet to be realised? moving From is a shift of focus away to the linking process rather than elements being linked?

Is this a kind of a search?

But if you move From, by definition, what is it From? From what?

Can it not be said that since Fromness is a practice – a cultivable process – there is never arrival?

What, no orgasm?

How does it feel after orgasm?

How did we get from a search, fromness and freedom to orgasm?

Isn’t it precisely that Fromness? 😉

context, meanings and power?

Contextual language as a political statement?

Think Marcel might turn in his grave at the thought of political links via context alterations?

Perhaps more like turn a smile?

How is it that altering a context is political anyway?

Well.. One of the things contextual language claims that by yanking stuff out of context, we get new, altered, or yet-to-be-known meanings. The bed in a gallery might mean something very different to the bed in a bedroom. Is it not a little bit like claiming that red as in red light, and red as in red apple are not just different objects with red, but the red in them – its meaning – has altered by the objects?

Sure.. So..?

Now.. How might one go about keeping a meaning for from “red lights” to be “stop” and “red apple” as linked with the christian “original sin”?

Do these meanings need to be kept? Do they not come all natural?

What might be a natural meaning?


Because the term is the sound?

Yes! But, if indeed the meaning sprang spontaneously – aka natural – how come the words for air pockets within liquid alter among languages?

Even if we assume that indeed there are Some meanings that might be said to be natural, is it not safe to say that there are a fair few other meanings which do not come “naturally”?

And when the meanings are only context dependent, they require to be kept?

Well.. Lets try?

I say: pimookiux is light under water. Shall we agree to say that “pimookiux” is light under water?

Oh! What if I disagree?

Then perhaps we might need to argue, no?

So the question of power is whether or not we fancy arguing?

I don’t think by necessity. We might argue about pimookiux without resorting to a power struggle, right?

But if I don’t have the time and energy to argue about that?

Then since i said initially that pimookiux is light under water, the meaning will indeed persist, no?

I see.. So at some point, to alter the meaning, or make the term “piumookiux” be seen in a different way, someone will, by default, be challenging the power of whoever to give that term a particular meaning?

Maybe by having a language that is contextual oriented we get a process that keeps cultivating from the question of how meanings are being kept, are given, aren’t fixed?

Sounds very exciting, no?

What do you mean?

Exciting to challenge power no?

Might be very exciting, but when you are within power relations, it is just a temporary challenge that fail to offer something radical no?

Not radical?

Not radical in the sense of a new stem, a new direction, a different search to evolve with a from?

But isn’t this presisly what makes the contextual language so much “art”?


Artists always opened other ways to look at things, no?

So the contextual language in art is actually a very traditional kind of perception of artistic practices?

In terms of the concept of art?

But another way might be totally without meaning.. A bit like science, no?