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?
Imagination technologies do not mean anything, in my mind. Nothing innate, nothing in them that isn’t violent by its nature. However, nothing in them that Is naturally violent. eg a firearm tech is by its nature to produce a violent event. Might not be an act, but even burning stuff is violent..
However, writing tech, is not Aimed at violence. Can be used violently – but isn’t innately so.
Here’s an example of how islamic jihad’s head homcho, picked up on the violence of zionist feelings towards jerusalem, and hopes that arabs in general and palestinians in particular could learn to produce such imaginations. I think he thinks that as a result of such imaginations, the bodies follow in physical activities?
Secretary General of the Islamic Jihad: Gotta love Jerusalem as the Jews
Ramadan Shallah quoted Naomi Shemer’s song – “Jerusalem of Gold” – a conference clerics in Tehran
Tags: Ramadan Shallah
Send Ramadan, the Islamic Jihad Secretary-General addressed a recent speech at a conference of religious leaders in Tehran singing Naomi Shemer’s “Jerusalem of Gold”, as an example indicating feelings of love felt by the Jews of the world capital of Jerusalem.
מזכ”ל הג’יהאד האיסלאמי, רמדאן שלח
Secretary-General” of Islamic Jihad Ramadan Shallah Photo: AP failure
Army Radio was presented today (Monday) to the Send quoting lyrics in Hebrew and then immediately interprets them in Arabic. “They have a song in their entity Army Minister on June 7, when they captured the Al – Aqsa Mosque and entered the Temple Mount,” said Post, quoting the song and said that “this song says to himself every Israeli child and every Israeli soldier.”
Send criticized the attitude of the Muslims in Jerusalem and said that they are committed to it, at least not like Jews. “What does the example for us?” He said, “You will learn from the Jews, this cursed entity. They like the example not only militarily – but they do it well in a civilized way. ”
(..as a child growing in palestine, the song made me realise how false and convoluted zionism is.. it made me feel that they needed the song to convince themselves re how they could feel about jerusalem. it was/is a proof zionism is undemocratic by elevating its own aspiration above other people.. but not just zionism – all such nationalistic movements.. they can hardly be democratic if they need to exclude to survive, right?)
Was just checking images of people on ycombinator.
What are these images telling me?
They seem to say “be happy”.
Is life, is being alive, necessitate being happy – or vice versa?
I’d say being alive is to be creative rather than happy. To have a flexibility and honesty about the kind of personality one cultivates. Being happy, in that context, is very frightening. It requires hiding stuff others might deem negative. Indeed, it requires a sort of binary perception, a black and white, good and bad idea about the world.. A perception that in my mind is very aggressive, violent and when un-acknowledged, builds a lot of righteous residue.. (a sense of a person, society, and culture telling themselves that they are right, that they mean well – hence activities should be taken in that well-meaning light. And whoever perceives differently is dangerous to them, because they fail to see their mission, meaning, intent..)
The images seem like faces of people in some cult.. Perhaps the cult of capitalism? Cult the good well meaning capitalist?
Heard somewhere someone saying stuff to the effect of “the 1st step of violence is to change dreams”/imagination(?). ie, say there is a cultural dream of telling people not to say certain “rude” words, if I imagine/dream of a culture where such words/terms will not be censored, then by default am being violent towards the censoring folk. Reason being that I deny the propagation of their dream, am saying – there is a better/preferred dream, at least for me. In a sense, by dreaming/imagining differently, I might be violating the dream of others – even if its not yet out there on the streets because am questioning its legitimacy to be?
I like the idea because it emphasises the imagination, and how stuck we are within violence.. However, I am a bit hesitant because it seems to me that there are – could be – a few kinds here:
* the dream that denies yours. ie you are Not allowed to dream of censoring me.
* the dream that allows both of our dreams to evolve. ie my dream of an uncensoring culture is not because i want to deny your dream, but only its monopolistic element – and my dream isn’t denying that..
However.. We can say that the denial of monopolistic dreams is violent? I think this is a violent link, but not a whole.. I think religious people tend to feel it in the way of: “my freedom to be a religious killer is a straggle for equality!!” (eg the halal rules..)
Am kinda listening to Zizek’s violence revisited where, at the beginningIsh of the tirade he is talking about violence a requirement to “be heard”. I want you to know I think of A B and C + think X Y and Z, so I will violentiise(??!!) the Statements – else I will not be heard/taken seriously..
It seems to me that this is a conservative view/approach that takes the Gap between meaning and being as a given. I hit you, but intend this as a kiss. I make a sound, however it means – I intend it – to be an living entity. It isn’t. I know it is just a sound. Its ontological life is my imagination of it Being alive. How do I make it alive?
I invest power and violence in my intent. The intent will be with a threat – if You disagree, I’ll hurt you, is this sound a live now? Or I’ll place it in a rhythm, Sound, sound, sound sound sound, SoundSoundsoundSound Sound, soundsound, ssssOUNddSound!! Or A narrative, this Sound is very special because it came from our great Great and special foreparents from long long ago. This was the sound that helped them to keep Alive, and if you listen to it, carefully, you can still feel the energy of keeping organisms alive. Sound. Listen carefully.. Sound. They then knew the correct way of making the spell of this sound. They worked hard on keeping this knowledge from one generation to another. Sound.. That knowledge was lost because.. etc..
Will you now recall sound as a living entity?
Well.. I argue that the above process is precisely the difficulty of power and violence. We want to make spells. We want X to be and to be true – even if it isn’t. Just make the poor wealthy. Just make the sick healthy. Just bring the dead to life!
Just make the wrong right – NOW!!!!!!!!!
Yes, this is very understandable. But also a bit lazy.. I think that the gap – when is there – between the being of X and my intent, is because I want it to mean something. If I was just doing the X, make the X Be – then if I do it correctly, X will simply Be. It will be immanent onto itself. In that sense there is a certain violence of Being..
Maybe am conflating violence with energy..?
According to http://kottke.org/13/07/kuwaits-booming-instagram-economy – kuwaits slap images on instagram that declare stuff for sale and seemingly, it works.
As Fatima Al Qadiri observes in this interview, all people need to do is declare that they are selling.
I find it interesting that, perhaps unintendedly, the declarative business practice is talked on a power-based imagry site such as http://moussemagazine.it/ by a spectacle image maker.
Have these switch mode signal entities found each-other in a sort of emergent way? Organically?
Having just came back from a short visit in palestine/israel or rather Frankelstine, the Frankensteinian monster of israel + palestine + jews + muslims + christians + other religiously twisted minds, al-jazeera’s headline for http://arty.li/ZGR, which at time of typing, reads “We didn’t occupy any State” – rings horror in my mind.
Having done the search of meeting places for cockroaches and people at mediterranean biennale in the palestinian village of sakhnin – occupied since 1949 – and began the search for Hamas and Palestinian Authority in the israeli army HQ in tel-aviv; I’ve experienced the pain of 2 brutilised communities. One brutalised via kicking another, the other brutalised by being kicked – violence is a processes of forceful un-understandable, incomprehensible, random and haphazard acts & occurrences. These, like any kind of rape, leave people – perhaps other animals as well – scarred by pain for life.
That is the kind of life religious communities attempt to cultivate. Faced with seemingly random yet brutal universe/”nature”, I think that ancient people had to try and tolerate or accept so they could live without tipping over through fear, might be one of the elements that solved themselves into faith and religion. Hence Job asks for answers and being told to have faith, find the epistemic sensation of answers in faith and be satisfied with that. And that is why the book of Job is not para-biblical.
The people that got to curate the bible, mirroring the forceful arbitrariness that kept throbbing their lives incomprehensibly, I think, did not want or were mentally/emotionally unable to be considerate in their curation. I think they wanted to portray a very certain narrative within the various stories and views that lived within the jewish communities of their times, and their jewish histories.
So when I read “We didn’t occupy any State” the biblical twisting of history came to mind. No one, not even hamas, argues that the jewish community has occupied a state.
I think its rather typical of the jewish community in Frankelstine – though perhaps I shouldn’t write this as there are 0 examples that come to mind. And perhaps such practice of answering questions the other person is not claiming to have, is typical of other groupings as well – I didn’t check.. Indeed, perhaps somehow ironically the typicalness or otherwise of the State occupation question is not important here?
Perhaps the more interesting element is the example of self-righteousness that helps continuing the violence upon the “other” as well as one’s own self..?