OR, you can as well tell us: how did you succeed to transform a content belonging to the realms of Arts, into
the realms of Sciences, and vice-versa? also Conceptual Philosophy transformed into Work of Art, explain how
people can learn in your steps? Are you 'followed' ? Does Philosophy exists at all, in itself ? Or is there only 'non'-philosophy ?
What do you think about that ? If so, do you ever try to help others learn Art, Sciences and Philosophy, outside from academic normative values?
also the space is left for you here, to Create some new Values !
i am me too always amazed at the way work redistribution (division du travail, see Plato Republic or Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith for inst.) entices some people to create little devicery, tools (called concepts) while others are set to create devicery that are handled , or supposed by the conceptualizers to be handled (and their purpose seem indeed to make « their devices » to work « well », smoothly, even if unresponsible to the plans the others might have for the first devices (the one objects of reflexion of the conceptualizers). in the case of this discussion between Brian and Molly on the potential of art to bring new possibles, in the face of control society by corporation and state agents. In my view both corporate and state agents are though hiding under the gize of their own tools (for inst. premptive war, media debunking, non scientific or non experience based science « Expert Commitees » etc) these agents of both corporate militaro industrial conglomerate and state organization are i contend the organizers of the societies of control which Burroughs and Deleuze talked about. The interesting question the conceptualizers are setting to the minds of the lower layers (while setting their concepts to those who are supposed to be unable to think in advance probably because we are supposed to need each other in this division of intellectual labour (cfr Negri?) ie.the artists in this interrogation: will artists be able to develop tools working in cunjuction with the perceived necessities of our times (ie. Control societies, privacy etc)?
In response to this questioning,
I just want to express my experience as an artist now: this pressure is always either unproductive (like when you have something to say BUT the teacher in art school puts an agenda on your thoughts-work-unconscious intuitive-aesthetical personal agenda that makes it impossible for you to accomplish your own blossoming in it) either destructive: the young artist is actually not an artist (because he does not think by himself) and will just adapt to societies other players (among which « theorists » intellectuals or media glue).
This is the true Tragedy of our time.
Because it IS true: the lower layers are the true answer to unblock the misery of the present (and future!!) control society. not only the artists, but the any workers who produce the tools to production that are free work and self liberation. the assemblage of tools which theorists and conceptualizer « reflect » upon only in a general view, which is smooth and large in scope and aesthetic in its own assemblage intensities (for the subjectivities) but which has the problem to depotentialise the free work synergy: indeed: reflexion (even when elaborating on art potential for freedom from control societies parameters) blocks and captures, attracts new problems, new knots to stiffen and transforms dark matter into more control: why? because thinking, by your self, is so important in this decodage of control societies, and the theorist absorbs any capacity (captures) of thinking by your self of the other « lower » layers (called here lower only because reflexion is general and assumes implicitely superiority in smoothness).
The importance thus for theory in this fight can only be in destruction: destruction of this capacity of some others to conceptualize and to capture the « lower » layers inner capacity to think.
Thats what the 1968 theorist dimly understood: ATP elaborates on how the intellectuals had been overflown by the situationists and new discovered molecularity of people in the streets of Paris or Bologna to think by themselves, instead than to listen and follow to old school Marxists or Adam Smiths theorists and Experts in street becoming or instituted in world forums, internet and media platforms, which simply have been built to please Condoleza Rice and the likes of them. The hidden Hawks!!
Thought should not reflect but create, always build new emotions to share with others, new visions, new ideas, in autonomous synergies: never dry concept shared without building some sensual flesh IN YOU as someone given by and with the Infinite Growing Substance in You, with this wonder: to discover in your own thinking pace, how adequately to resist other people meta-verse cancer, and start on a new dawn for Earth, to enjoy the impossible bliss to think by yourself on this planet.
Sincerely, un saludo a todo aquí
> i have posted about how control society
> requires to mark out people agenda
> by different ways, allowing people
> to think according to an agenda that is not
> yours, when you don’t « think from your self »
> what is interesting is thus:
> how would one become able to think from one self?
> the history of mankind since Lascaux South West cro-magnon France up to
> net time can document the archeology of mankinds endeavour to
> miss or seize an opportunity to think by and from one self.
> you can be passive at first, following the news, the succesion of threads
> on internet...
> but like Proust you can have a Will, in you, to one day be able to sift
> what can make you able to seize, from what can in contrario miss, and from
> this growing tool in your (plastic) brain, connect as soon as you could,
> with what in You might thrust you to another kind of « activity » (the goal
> of having a brain)
> Brian Holmes brilliantly exposed this in the post that he sent to a
> correspondant just a day after my « guide your self from your self and do
> not let others think your world » post last february here.
> He exposed a documentary, its structure, its analysis of the wheels of
> capital-wealth hunting hell, and reminded us what was important had escaped
> the documentary’s director: what was important was the («non-temporal,
> y-king, .. China») experience inside of which were situated the reflexions
> of the director.
> Maybe the director, Brian was trying to suggest, should reconnect with the
> experience in which his thought were rambling.
> As a conclusion: i would say: in this Nato versus Russia, China, Brics
> miscomprehension, what can be our singular experience as writers or
> to each of the thinkers of what is actually happening to humanity? what
> can be a singular experience,
> to each of the thinkers making cartographies describing what should happen
> to the other human thinkers and the other humans experimentators of this
> weird Nato-Brics miscomprehension (mutual different)
> is it in any sense helping other singular experience to do a cartography
> of what is happening really?
> (i say this on the base that the thinker (or the experimentator) has or
> can have (can develop by art or science) a human natural desire to care and
> to enrich the other humans: thrusting them in a collective experience that
> is different from the singular experience, also different from the
> weirdness (cfr « The Weird and the Eerie » by Mark Fisher) which this
> mutual different exposes us to, but nevertheless new future experience:
> important for extending and increasing our multiple singular experiences of
> life on our dear planet the Earth)
> Well anyway i would encourage anyone on internet to follow Brian Holmes
> idea on becoming interested by the study of the experiences made by the
> writers, the thinker, like his psychology, his phenomenological
> idiosyncrasy, translated in words not only but also in metaphors, signs,
> images of all kinds, sounds in the case of documentaries.
> Also the notion of fragmentary experience (in singular people but also
> plurial people) fragmentary due to autonomy of internet versus the recovery
> of an activity (see the start of this post about the difference between the
> first stage when you follow internet threads and TV feeds with passivity,
> when you are easily led by visual, sounds, words, into gathering into,
> into agregating into the autonomousity of the « internet », and keep in the
> back of this agregate sensation in you, driving your thoughts, something
> unconscious which expresses your own singular experience, which is the
> input that can help the other human to increase their own experience in a
> way that does not follow you but instead meets you, like when two skins
> touch , that something which happens outside of the surface of internet and
> TV, but could divert it in a new way (a bit in the spirit of Guattari s
> idea of a Chaosmosis mastery by an new Aesthetical Collective awareness («
> Chaosmosis » 1991)
> Regards to you all, un saludo desde
> Marine daughter of a Pirate
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 13:06:19 -0400
> From: Miro Visic <miroware at gmail.com>
> To: nettime-l at mail.kein.org
> Subject: Re: <nettime> nettime-l Digest, Vol 174, Issue 40
> CAA8C4aCMKhprsC2oXckxnjhyT1oL5NurS0DAf9oZw2XUPoNrsg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> So nettime turned into NATO shit list.