a question of a web side story and a


I have just came back from Warsaw where I hooked up with an old friend. I mentioned the process of fear cultivation giving the web as an example of an element where once the question of how to be fearlessly free was an emphesised process, now increasingly the process, if/when/where exists, is in context of having to keep the safety of social order..
My friend, not a very techy savvi to say the least, was very surprised at my line of thinking. Is it not obvious that the web is FOR control?
I replied with an attempt to talk of web-SItES as sort of nodes on a network, hence equal elements/strands – but didn’t get very far…
I was told that my thinking is all wrong because there is no such a thing as a website. There are only:
A webside?? What do you mean?
She was talking about the web as a big giant Book. Each “site” is a Side of a Page in this book. Hence we have a question of the people owning the book, controlling the publication of the single giant book, etc.. However in this imagination/language/strand the page is just an element given the ability to BE by the book, and is legit controlled because the book must belong to someone and the page is dependent upon the book’s owner.
As a web site, ie a bit of an internet server that serves data in a web protocol – hese a place of web rather than a place of torrents, coins or files transfer.

Leaving aside the correct or otherwise interpretation of the Polish use of “webside” and the English “website”, for me this incident projects an interesting illustration of how imagination is a constant practice of If/Search sequences.
If I imagine the web as she does, with sequences analogous to book publishing, making and reading, then the whole consequent search trajectory, the whole if proposition – is of a radical different frequency than that of a website being a network node.
As a webside, the book – ie the web – should actively control the content – just like editors and publishers do in books. Indeed, there is an Overall owner, an ultimate auithority, of the book within which each side/pageside resides.
From that view, it is ideological, hence imagination oppressive, to, for example, call for a fearless publication on the web. As a book, its not made, by the very processes that make it Be, to live as open and free.
From this imagination perspective, the very idea of a site, as a sort of independent element, is a wishful thinking. Like a child wanting a car to fly into space – just because it moves and it is a vehicle.

How does the holocaust come into this?
Well.. Apart from factory based processes of killing being high on my mind since visiting Majdanek and Treblinka, I think that the imagination of websites and websides can illustrate the significance of imagination that legitimise, yes in the present, holocaust/factory-killing-processes – and perhaps even cultivates or allow the cultivation of such beings as the death factories.
For me, my mind, the horrifyingly blood curdling, panic attack inducing elements in the “camps” was/is the continuation of their lives, of their cultivation. I expected to encounter dying beasts – and found living viruses. Beings latched onto past, present and future imaginations, ready for operation.. Like a sleeping being, they are safe in the knowledge that despite the appearance of past beings, of being archived, the imagination that legitimised them, and that was fed as well as feed them with life of death making/production, is here, alive and being cultivated well. Hence the death factories live as search imagination strands made of binarism, heirarchism, ownership, borders, controls, etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.