[Nettime-bold] Re: 'Spatial Discursions' - (space and no space)

[brian carroll <human@architexturez.com>]

 fascinating Pit, in many ways, some of which i view as
 including personal assessments of my belief in my own
 work in regards to this subject. i think it is a major
 flaw in your position, and will get to that later. but
 also that, again, your perspective enlarges the question
 to the full-scope it reaches. to me space is engimatic in
 many ways, and maybe it is because of language and naming,
 but i think not, given your multiple arguments for the
 end of cyberspace. it seems the best way to sum it up
 is: cyberspace is tired. a very west coast thing, if
 you ask me. and an unhealthy trait of nettimers as
 producers and consumers of throwaway ideas, in one
 end and out the other. how 'space' can be simply
 thrown away, to me, is baffling. if not insane.

 there are so many interesting things you bring up,
 and yet on most, when it comes to conclusions based
 on the evidence you present, i find richness in the
 garbage, rather than waste. i find meaning, rather
 than worn metaphors. i find ideas 5 years old still
 worth thinking about, not simply to be discarded and
 new ones 'purchased' by an insider on the net.thought
 crowd. and thought, in many cases, it is, but philosophy
 it is not. for philosophy is debated and questioned,
 not authoritatively dismissed as being beyond the pale.

 nettime consumes thought as a type of division of labor.
 there are thinkers, there are non-thinkers. there are
 net.intellectuals, the net.avant-garde, and others. in
 this division, a concept like 'space' and all of its
 complexity as a subject of thousands of years of study
 by people whom know it in more than a thinking dimension,
 whom can draw it, think it, act it, smell it, feel it,
 dream it. and then there are those that can think it,
 or so it seems. this is a myth of course, the division
 of labor of ideas, of space. but it is the construct
 that ideas of space currently are exchanged within,
 where space is in some cross-disciplinary mix, between
 art, architecture, geography, & science and technology.

 to have a 'san francisco programmer' defeat the idea
 of space from the perspective of a programmer looking
 out from his keyboard at the 'billboards' (banner-ads)
 of the web browser and say 'space does not exist' as
 it ends at my screen is, to say the least, idiotic.

 at its most basic level it is untrue. now, if one states
 why this is so, the defense mechanism for the theoretical
 absence of space is only reinforced by intellectualist
 arguments. intellectualist in the sense that, yes it is
 thinking, but it is not necessarily logical thinking,
 and not all thinking is equally valuable. it is value-
 laden, but who decides value. you, Pit, have stated a
 large position, but it in no way negates my position.
 it is based on very large assumptions promoted by an
 intellectual division of labor. and instead of breaking
 down the issue to get at the core, more and more issues
 are added in. cybernetics, biotechnology, aliens, and
 Stalinist drives for power. all of which may have their
 place in this discussion, but only make the water more
 muddy and hard to see what is being debated, and what
 the issue we disagree about indeed is. instead of a
 divisive approach of divide and conquer (of new modes
 of `spatial discursions', that very issue that seems
 to be the problem with the concept of cyberspace), i
 suggest we simply and break this nut apart and see
 what kind of meat is on the inside...

 first, to divest context of the division of labor on
 the thinking of space online. Virilio, in my reading,
 does not negate space in his arguments, as much as
 presents the idea that space becomes intangible in
 its new speed. i believe one of his examples was to
 relate measurements, a meter or foot, a mile, etc,
 and ultimately works to the idea of these now being
 standardized based on the vibrations of atoms, i.e.,
 the atomic clock as standard bearer. there is time,
 the clock of the middle ages made of molecules, and
 there is the atomic clock, sub-atomic. one can be
 seen and directly perceived, and the other requires
 some type of equipment to view, such as a electron
 microscope. there are two orders of time, which are
 most visible in the analog clock (round dial with
 2 watch hands, one for minute and one for hour) and
 the digital, with LCD output. at least there once
 was. the one design, the analog watch, is based on
 some kind of planetary time, and the cycle of the
 day has some dual meanings, in that time is broken
 down into twelve hour cycles and the continuity is
 seen. the digital watch is all numbers. and a small
 a.m. or p.m. symbol designates which section of the
 12 hour cycle one is in. the point being that there
 is a difference in the watches keeping of time, in
 appearance. now, if we take this concept, post-1970
 whereabouts the first digital watches were made, and
 look at an 'analog' watch today, we can see what may
 appear to be the 'mechanical' analogue watch of the
 many centuries of prior timepiece development, but
 if we open the shell we will find an electric battery.
 the digital watch is obviously electric, the other is
 not. both are using the same power source to keep time.
 but one presents itself in traditional guise, and the
 other in a new aesthetic. this is an example of how
 two orders coexist, both electric. one identified as
 such, the other sublimated, with traditional aspects
 presented as the primary interface, but a simulation.

 i will now try to relate these two orders to the idea
 of space and cyberspace.... (please substitute any other
 word other than cyberspace that you would use to define
 the following comparision)...

 two orders of space likewise exist. one is traditional,
 the other is new, someday to become its own tradition.
 
 the cave painting, or better yet, a fire pit outside
 a cave with hunters with wooden spears and bone tools,
 try to communicate with each other about the animals
 nearby, which they need to kill to survive. they must
 have grunted a lot, banged on things, probably pushed
 each other over, and ran inside and outside of the
 cave a lot. such is the problem with communicating
 without a shared language.

 at some point, they externalized their perceptions in
 the manipulation of symbols. paintings of animals, for
 example. if such graphics were recognized as a type of
 language, so too it is likely that in the dirt outside
 the fire pit, they may have at one time drawn a map of
 where the animal-monsters were to be killed. maybe the
 tip of a spear was used to draw a diagram, and the dirt
 was used as a type of medium to communicate spatial and
 other information. so, at some point, some kind of map
 or diagram was used to show 'place.' (if this is too in-
 accurate, i know there are the first maps of civilization
 at another time, but wanted to try for a smaller scale,
 for the following comparison...)

 eventually maps began to be made, see Odden's Bookmarks
 for a slew of all the varieties, and become a way to
 represent the prevailing reality of spatial belief and
 understanding, part art, science, and myth. for the
 most part, these maps could be related to the analog
 watch. in that they corresponded with the prevailing
 realities of either the map makers, or those individuals,
 states, and civilizations they were commissioned by in
 ink and pencil, watercolors, oil paints, and paper.

 cut to year 2001. an individual flys into a large
 American city and has a Personal Digital Assistant
 (PDA) with them as their digital information device.
 in the USA, one can get a laminated maps at the
 tourist shops for a few dollars which show all of
 the tourist hotspots and places for sight-seeing.
 in a sense, these maps continue the old traditional
 map-making procedure of defining place, but most
 likely in the 'conquering of space' by coding it
 and making it hierarchical and differentiating it
 and giving it value (rich cultural places) and
 no value (no hotspots on the map). but let's say
 the person/traveller also has a Global Positioning
 System (GPS) plug-in for their PDA...

 when they turn on their GPS module, an electric
 device, a new paradigmatic event occurs, unlike
 that of traditional notions of space- and, likely
 many stander-by's have no idea that this GPS is
 a different paradigm of space. for instead of
 seeing and interacting in traditional space of
 the body and its senses, at whatever the sense
 of perception is for seeing (eyesight can only
 see so many hundreds of feet/meters ahead) and
 sound (can only hear within a certain range)...
 the GPS is using electronic satellites in orbit,
 around the entire Earth, to calculated via a
 triangulation of 3 different satellites, the
 semi-exact position of the GPS device, and thus
 the user of the map, via digital, electronic
 signals interacting between the GPS module,
 the satellites, and the ground-tracking stations.
 the satellites are, i think, 33 miles up in orbit-
 beyond sight. now, on the GPS, one can get a real-
 time update of where they are- on the planet Earth,
 via longitude and latitude, and also have a digital
 compass to give directions, via digital satellites.
 if lucky, the GPS will have software for the PDA
 which will have some street-map software. and the
 user of the GPS can utilize pre-made maps, with
 hotspots made by travel companies, or download
 custom maps from the internet, or make their own
 via marking space and giving it meaning. the GPS
 user becomes a mapmaker, if they so want, and can
 load their information back onto the internet and
 others can add to the map and create whole new
 maps. it is at least now becoming a possibility.
 in this example, the GPS device is the digital
 watch, a new order, which still has the old map
 in its representation, but in a different paradigm
 and with different qualities. (those whom find the
 word 'representation' too out of date, i'd be glad
 to debate the issue, to find out more about the
 basis for this popular belief).

 basically, the 'Spatial Discursions' author's
 argument can be compared to the traditional map
 and the GPS map:

 'Robert Nirre' states that the traditional 'map'
 is spatial, conceptually and functionally.

 'Robert Nirre' states that the GPS map is non-
 spatial, from the argument that 'the traditoinal
 map' inside of the GPS, in this case the software,
 which he is perceiving, has no spatial connection
 as there is nothing extending outside of itself.
 in my view Pit's argument goes further down this
 road, by talking about the layers of the technology,
 which i would compare with the latitude and the
 longitude aspects of GPS, or, on the hardware side,
 the way the packets are being sent. Pit presumes
 there is no 'meaning' in this 'materiality'. this
 argument, while popular and populist, disregards
 many important facts.

 for the GPS system, as a spatial system, to work
 requires more than the computer/PDA, and the
 software. it requires a global infrastructure.
 literally, dozens of satellites. hundreds of
 ground stations. repeater stations. and lots
 of data exchange and power to run the works.
 without this infrastructure, the GPS map would
 not work. now, can the GPS map, as a spatial
 device, be separated from this infrastructure
 as Pit appears to be saying, and Robert Nirre
 has most definitely stated? absolutely not.
 how can a global mapping system work without
 the global infrastructure to map the space?
 there is no meaning in a satellite in regards
 to the GPS map? no meaning to a ground station?
 that is like positing the Internet without hubs
 and routers (at least this incarnation thereof).

 there is great hubris in 'thinking' that there
 is an intellectual division between the thought
 of the GPS map, or the new electromagnetic space
 that it represents (cyberspace could be one of
 many variant and imperfect words to describe it).
 the division-of-labor thinker, aka "Theorist",
 intellectual, official/legitimate philosopher
 [need a Ph.D. for that these days, it seems...]
 makes the false claim that because the 'inside'
 of the experience, as experienced by the thinker,
 is perceived and interpreted in 'his' (as in
 Mr. Robert Nirre's) viewpoint, somehow this is
 a universal truth about the experience, as it is
 theoretical, has big words, has some interesting
 conceptual breadth and insight, and yet rests on
 a totally deficient understanding of space and
 of the larger technological structure, and its
 vital relationship to space-making, and instead,
 denies this, or better, negates it as is popular
 in theoretical circles, in order to 'think space.'

 talking with a young child, one could likely be
 able to explain how GPS works and ask a simple
 question like: could GPS work without Satellites?
 
 but with Robert Nirre, no such question is possible.
 nor with Pit. as there are tons of pre-established
 positions on these issues. and discourse becomes
 'talking-points', a type of brain sampling, but
 caught in the discursive practice, every loop is
 creating archives, but also digging ditches, until
 we can agree we need to make a ladder and get out
 of this competitive grave, agree on some basic
 truths, and start working together instead of
 against one another. cooperation, then competition.
 
 no, it is not possible for GPS to work without
 the satellite networks. nor without electromagnetic
 digital information, nor without electricity, nor
 without Einstein's and others' physics. how these
 are simply disregarded as outside the playing field
 of thinking about space is truly beyond comprehension.
 
 because of the division of labor in thinking, it
 is hard to discuss any possibility, _any possibility_,
 of universal and common truths, however fleeting and
 with whatever degree of uncertainty they inherently
 convey. sure, gnostic beliefs and mystic adventures
 await for all the cult-theorists, or cult-pols, on
 the internet, to scoop up brains and train them to
 think straight in a prioritized and private rationale
 for 'how things work'. but truth, as truth, and thinking
 as thinking, cannot simply negate universals with this
 position, and deem it not credible because of heresy.
 there are a million messiahs and a million churches being
 built online. that's not what this is about, in case it
 needs to be said. it seems like a battle of egos. one
 truth has to conquer another truth. truth, while it can
 be empirical, can also be paradoxical. but- computer
 processors today do not process information that way
 just yet, nor do our brains, as it is not part of our
 common logic. it seems that it comes down to whether
 or not Robert Nirre, Pit, or myself win this debate.
 rather than that there are issues involved, that
 surround beliefs and perceptions of what is true,
 and that finding out that truth is what is important.

 i do not dismiss whole eras of 'history' because they
 are unfashionable. not many have had to question their
 sanity, but when you do, truth becomes very important,
 as it is an issue of life and death. so too, is reason
 and rationality more than its negative effects. more
 than its relativistic failures. more than its utopian
 dreams and dystopic nightmares, and our Earthly dragons.

 thinking goes beyond discourse, beyond opinion, beyond
 interpretation, beyond debate. even great unanswerable
 questions must be asked, and attempts made at answering
 them, even though the futility is known well in advance.
 it is a way of testing ideas, testing thought, reality.

 do we exist in the same reality, you and i, Pit? i know
 for one thing, i certainly do not with Robert Nirre. he
 is hallucinating. he's nuts. he has no grounding for his
 ideas. he is dreaming, and is probably quite well-enough
 established to not to have to worry about it affecting
 his life. it is status quo 'See, I'm Theorizing!' that
 pre-supposes shared meaning where there is none, and
 assumes his empirical experience to be universal, when
 it is sadly narrow-minded in terms of `spatial discursive
 practice'. there is good to it, but the thesis is an
 insult to anyone who thinks differently, based on facts
 in the material world that can be counted and observed
 and reviewed and replicated by others. it is just another
 example of the role of theory as another institutional
 mechanism for the ideologues, in this case a good ol'
 technocrat in disguise, in the guise of an intellectual,
 whatever that means to people. anti-intellectual is
 a bad thing to some, i don't think so myself. part of
 the problem is all of the intellectualizing. it divorces
 the reality of the experience from its perception, and
 perception becomes the issue, and not the reality. with
 ultimately some god (or goddess) coming along to stand
 on the heads of everyone else, in pure Nietzschian fashion
 to declare themselves the new theorist, the super-wo|man,
 the semantic-wo|man whom determines meaning for the masses
 based on superior knowledge, uncontestable, and not unlike
 the philosophy that bred totalitarians. but in this case
 they are leading, but anonymous or untouchable, net.thinkers.
 the scarcity of these net.thinkers is found with any challenge
 to their ideas. what sets nettimers apart, in my experience,
 is they will debate enough so that the ideas can be exposed
 and their bones picked at in this 'death of nettime' space,
 in the most basic existentialist sense. the above quote is
 a reversal of the 'death of cyberspace' nettime that is now
 going on. i see nettime as no more legitimate an idea than
 that of cyberspace.

 the simplest but most painful way of conveying what this
 boils down to is that the philosophy which overrides
 net.thought and the prevailing logic that exists online,
 to date, is one that is established on traditional grounds,
 and in the division of labor, net.intellectuals, knowingly
 or not, are exploiting these relations in much the same way
 as the causes they stand against. paradox, contradiction,
 and hypocrisy- myself included. net.thought is much like
 a discourse about digital watches, all the while using
 logic of the analog watch, which is itself run by the
 same power structure that powers the digital. but the
 power structure, the energy-matter is separated from
 the information, in a division of intellectual labor.
 the result is that, so as to not contradict the Either-
 Or position, one has to choose reality, choose truth.
 what is being chosen is not these, but instead the
 perception of truth and reality, based on a flawed
 logic and reason and rationale.

 to declare no space in cyberspace is equivalent to
 declaring no battery in the present-day analog watch,
 as it would ruin the illusion that things are already
 figured out and the empiricism that has been used up
 to this day for interpretation is not any different
 from that of today's direct experience, and no significant
 reframing of the issues or questions is needed. we only
 need to process the present and theorize it and figure
 it out, so we can continue the long march into surity,
 which if anything is the biggest myth of all. apostasy
 is so.

 whether it is cyber- virtual- electronic- electromagnetic-
 digital- or new- space, there is space. there will always
 be space. it is not dividing because it is between the
 different disciplines of the University, between the
 different depart-mentalized understandings of it as a
 phenom. there must be a way to break out of constructs
 and see them anew, seeing them without the baggage of
 interpretation- at times with their stories, at times
 without. how can net.thought be so absolute. so assured
 of its certainty that 'no space exists'. it is nothing
 but messianic bread and fish, multiplied by being multi-
 plexed by the internetwork of co-processors. it becomes
 pure Dogma, which it has become in Robert Nirre's essay.

 there is no logic to stand on, nothing to debate. unless
 it is sanity. how material objects of non-thinkers (say
 an electrical lineworker or telecom worker whose trade
 is to maintain the data and power lines on the wooden
 distribution poles) are irrelevant to this 'dis-course'
 and its practice as a type of thinking is unclear. there
 is some type of cultural noise happening here. there are
 loaded words from all perspectives. buttons are being
 pushed at the same times hands are being shaken. this
 is not bad. this is life. this is thinking. this is
 discourse. but what about action? how are we going to
 get beyond talking. beyond debating. beyond disagreement
 without constructive solutions to these recursive loops
 inherent in language? to me this is an issue as central
 to nettime as anything in the current .sig, as it is
 what seems can only be called the No Exit condition of
 nettime as discursive (theory and) practice. theory is
 bullshit. what more is there to say? thoughts and ideas
 are what is important. theory is a package for them.
 but instead it has become its own value, as a type of
 high-art for thinking, the 'new' philosophy, unbounded
 by the limits of the past, but in total obedience to
 its structure while denying any connection. it is not
 about individuals as much as it is about systems. it
 is not about people being untruthful, as much as ideas
 being not exactly true or altogether inaccurate, from
 the grounds and assumptions used to establish them.

 there is a trade wind online and off, and it is blowing
 conservatism all over the place. even in the most open
 of forums. there is a bad feeling, something in the gut
 that growls and does not go away. there is a probabilistic
 inevitability that Bad Things are bound to happen, given
 the state of the world. given the state of discourse.
 given the state of incompatible ideas and specialized,
 divided modes of operation. cooperation on any scale
 as a whole is impossible. no change is in site. ideas
 are eating ideas. often the lesser ideas prevail in
 the Universities. in the Schools of Thought. in the
 Expert Knowledge. in the Philosophers and Theorists
 of Today. spectacle does not start with the eyes,
 it starts with the mind.

 with my utmost respect to both Pit and the nettime
 crew, i dissent this system as it exists. i both
 love it and hate it. i need it and yet cannot stand
 my need for it. for some, it is like a last hope of
 any significant action. if it cannot happen with those
 on nettime, it cannot happen online. and many are here
 because ideas already cannot happen offline. if there
 is any space that does not exist, it is for ideas which
 contradict the prevailing paradigm, on the largest scale.
 my assumption was always that nettime was established
 with a paradigmatically different vantage of events.
 but to my surprise, everything is based in traditional
 modes of understanding. stuck in time, is nettime.
 analog mind, speculating about digital time, while
 ignoring the batteries running the works.

 the cosmology of the big bang to life is not divided
 at the cellular level. information is not separated
 from matter and energy. information is matter and
 energy. if a koan is needed, McLuhan's will do: the
 Electric Light is Pure Information. the cell and
 molecules of DNA are supported by the electromagnetic
 structure of atoms and molecules. mutations have been
 attributed to high-energy particles knocking electrons
 out of orbit and causing reconfigurations of matter/
 energy/information and life to evolve. the human spine
 is a data and power infrastructure connecting the signal
 systems of the body so as to experience or sense reality,
 interpreted by the electro-chemical brain. the human
 brain thinks, i exist. it externalizes itself in maps
 infront of fires, trying to communicate with symbols
 and signs. ultimately, tools are developed, and things
 are experimented with. 2500 years ago a fellow named
 Thales finds amber and notices a spark. the connection
 between the lighting and gods and in the sky is brought
 to the ground in this magical stone. research & development
 begins. lighting, communications, power. basic industries
 (those smokestack industrial things that power this
 electronic box that enables us to communicate) are born
 centuries ago in basic experiments and discoveries.
 systems are created and evolve, enabling electrification.
 all of the analog industries slowly start to adapt/adopt
 the new electromagnetic order. buildings change. people
 change. tools change. language changes. watches have
 batteries. guitars go electric and becomes rock n roll.
 satellites are launched. atomic bombs explode. the
 Earth is melts. pollution from power plants and 2/3rds
 energy inefficiency devastate the planet. the USA uses
 1/4 of the world's energy, with a fraction of the world's
 population. the internet is born, apparently to many,
 out of thin air, no infrastructure, no context, besides
 the immediate. people are inside the space it creates,
 all those poles and towers which have been around for
 often 100 years in some form in the built environment-
 and since they are not visible online, they do not
 exist, as they are not on a webpage. they are not in
 this internal self-referential turing-machine, where
 whatever is outside a person's 'reality' is someone
 else's (division of labor) perspective. there is no
 whole. there is nothing in common. there is nothing
 in this 13+ billion year evolution of electromagnetism.
 lighting, Thor, Zeus, electric eels, light bulbs,
 consciousness, computer processors, radios, knowledge
 of the electromagnetic force, the speed of light,
 microwave ovens, PDAs, electric ignitions, piezo-
 electric lighters, and whatnot- none of these are
 related- difference/differance prevails. why? there
 can be no absolute order. there can be no universal
 order. there can be nothing true on the whole, as
 everything is ultimately subjective, and of private
 language, private visioning. an electromagnetic
 cosmology is not a private question. it is surely
 debatable. but to put it off as a private illusion
 is the worst of the current realm of thinkers. if
 facts do not matter, if truths do not matter, if
 pre-built structures and interpretations prevail,
 what is this type of thinking, but that of tradition?
 it is the analog watch using a battery denying the
 existence of the battery, its motive force. it is
 a new order, a new space, a new time. Virilio writes
 of it, in my opinion, too religiously, and others
 do, in my opinion, too mystically. what about a
 secular understanding of this phenomenon? what
 about its common thread throughout reality, from
 thought to action, from matter to energy to information.
 this is not plastic we're discussing. it is life.
 if for some it is vitalistic, that's fine. but it
 does not have to be that for everyone. if for others
 it is purely technical, that too is fine. but to
 deny it on subjective grounds as personal interpretation
 is an example of everything that is wrong with the
 current attitude, and aptitude of net.thinking. it
 is as much about posture as it is about position.
 it is more about the aesthetics of ideas in terms
 of their beauty, than about the design of ideas
 and their truth. the egos must be lost. the
 hierarchies flattened. the institutional channels
 opened up for new interpretations which challenge
 their own foundations of understanding. this is
 a radical time, it has huge potential for people
 to organize and work together in the best and most
 open sense, to enact the change we can agree that
 we need. the problem is that we cannot agree. and
 there is no 'we' under the current system of
 net.thought. there exists no net.action.

 when, where, how will we come together, in this
 space (your non-space) and work on shared goals?
 is it even possible? i have been optimistic up to
 this point, but a thunderstorm runs through my
 mind as i contemplate the fallout from furthering
 this discussion. writing is abrasive. getting
 together and talking about this need not be so.
 but that is not always a possibility. we have to
 mediate ourselves in language, through communication
 networks. we can talk, as if we are in the same
 room, space, that we are offline, which we are not.
 that is not the argument. the argument is whether
 this space can be understood and 'seen' and also
 whether the rules of language can be deciphered
 so we can re-code our communications so as to
 get beyond the current barriers of language and
 into a constructive and active relationship by
 understanding this space (not by denying it) and
 export or port this action into the external
 world, much like the first hunters looking for
 the game for dinner, to keep the tribe alive.

 well, some have a tribe. many do not, in the
 larger sense, in an undivided sense. barriers
 and divisions prevail, and withstand any breach
 from traditional means and methods. it is time,
 net.time, to break with tradition and look at
 these problems, and understand them from our
 first person perspective, and build our new
 empiricism based upon what we, as a common
 group of people, see and experience. but
 not as private individuals, but as a group.
 what do we have in common. war, poverty,
 death, inequality, pollution, etc. well,
 if we understand networked.space-time as
 as it is materially manifested in the
 electromagnetic infrastructure, both
 natural, artificial, and virtual, we
 are connected, by default to all of
 these issues. and to deny this is to
 do so only on intellectualistic grounds,
 not on common sense of intersubjective
 facts/truths common to most all. this
 is the great silence, the great denial,
 the great intellectual division of labor,
 and the thinkers are responsible for their
 ignorance, and should be first to recognize
 the truth as that is what they seek most.

 this response melds a personal message
 with ideas that are far from personal.
 it is up to the reader to determine what
 they think this means, not the writer. i
 can only hope that other humans reading
 this, if any do, recognize this trap we
 exist within, the condition of the networked
 space and time we inhabit with our selves,
 and the need to work together on finding
 better alternatives for the present, and
 ways to implement these. if one calls this
 madness, they are the ones who are mad.
 and madness is not at all that bad, if
 one realizes one is indeed insane. at
 that point, things get pretty clear,
 that nothing is real, unless you make
 it real. and i hope others see the reality
 of the larger issues this topic of space
 holds for our ability to work in this realm
 to make things happen for the public good.
 everything is privatized. even democratic
 thought. it is by default. it is a trap.
 a psychological-philosophical conundrum.
 no need for doctors and patients. no need
 for consumers and survivors. it is time
 to Howl and break out of this place.

-human being

 the electromagnetic internetwork is
 matter, energy, and in-formation
 http://www.electronetwork.org/

 research in summer 2001:
 electromagnetic space & time:
 tools will include:
 electromagnetic field (EMF) meter
 radio scanner
 GPS module/pending
 geographical traceroute program


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold