integer on Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:10:47 +0100 (CET)

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

[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

its actualization - its loss of maschinik autonomy, incurs an internal dialectic: 

       w.h. kalv!n
       kurt godel
       klauzl form log!k
       kataztrof! theor!
       et numerouz addtl arb!trar! zkemaz + komponentz
languaj           : =cw4t7abs w!th engl!sh zubt!tlz
zubt!tlz          : c!nec!ta
genre. kontent !d : !art housz \\ m9ndfukc
kontent length    : 147 m!n - 147k
reg!a             : =cw4t7abs
adm!ss!on         : grat!z w m9nd konta!nr
\\ 1900 : muz!k aprez la l!teratur : herauzgegen vom !nternat!onalen !nzt!tut 4 ordnung + d!z!pl!n
!n kollaborat!on w!th : - m9ndfukcmachtfre! \+\ m!n!zter de b!tztream ag!tat!on
    --\\ et aprez++
=cw4t7abs adressez dav!d z!karell!
  - Merci pour la qualit» de votre contribution



m0z!lla\4.7 [mak!ntosh  !  pPc]

>Funny that you bring up Chomsky in this "NOTHING WORSE" context.
>Do you know why there even is a "Chomsky" in the first place?  Why is this 
>particular man so well known and thus in a position to be so revered?
>This fellow was catapulted into the fame (and the all-so-important 
>say-what-you-want MIT tenure) which permits him the relative luxury of 
>impressing his personal "ideology" on the world precisely because he held out 
>the palpable opportunity for "controlling human communications."  All of it.
>Yup, Chomsky (or at least his "sponsors") is (are) one of the original "MIND 
>CONTROLLERS."  Yikes! <g>
>He offered the CIA (a reasonable substitute name for the folks who paid for 
>ALL of the work on linquistics and other "programming" techniques . . . 
>including such sundries as LSD and "graphical user interfaces" during the 
>formative 1950's) a *very* juicy and tantalizing potential -- an ultimate 
>"grammar," which was, it was hoped, "hardwired" into us all.
>Now, as you recall, "grammar" is simply another word for "magic" (as is the 
>word "glamour") and, thus, the Medieval handbooks for "magic" are still 
>referred to a "grimoires."  (OED: a magician's manual for invoking demons, 
>etc.)  Say the "magic" word.  Open sesame!  Abracadabra!!
>(Reminding us that the "ideologues" and the "occultists" are really the same 
>"Faustian" bargaineers -- just wearing their hats backward.)
>If (which fortunately for us all, since Chomsky himself admits that he was 
>100% wrong) you could actually find a "deep grammar" in human-beings, then it 
>would only be a matter of engineering to discover how to "program" us all.  
>Find the C++++++ . . . of the human mind, write the code, down-load it and 
>presto . . . CONTROL.
>Or, as Marvin Minsky (who is currently working on "programming" emotions and 
>who is still at MIT's Media Lab -- supported entirely by large grants from 
>"communications" companies) put it at that momentous 1955 MIT conference when 
>Chomsky's "deep grammar" thesis first burst onto an excited world-stage, 
>"Perhaps all human problems are just engineering problems.  With the right 
>engineering tools, we could potentially erase all these problems."
>Nice guy.  Warm and concerned fellow.  Only wants to end human suffering.
>Hmmm . . . will the ironies never cease?
>Mark Stahlman
>Nettime-bold mailing list

Nettime-bold mailing list