Hi dan, it IS difficult to deal with such 'sacred'
words as 'natural'. On one hand we could say
'everything is natural'; on the other, we could just
as well say 'nothing is natural' (except maybe 'the
void', whatever that might be - or not-be..) Maybe the
'natural' state is to remain silent / alone, so that
communication is the 'original' unnatural act?
BUT, I think 'natural' was also being played off
against another sense of the word, ie, 'normal' (which
has similar problems) as when Cubitt says "we have
defined the natural by the negative" -- after his
scary wilderness experience. Or, as he suggests:
"Perhaps, like primaeval Deleuzes and Guattaris, the
nomadic hunter-gatherers looked at the first sedentary
farmers with just such an apocalyptic intuition of the
end of true humanity as Virilio derives from the
intensifying relationships we establish with each
other through the increasingly demanding mediations of
our machines".
(I'm reminded of a scene in the TV Western _Lonesome
Dove_ where the nomadic bandits think nothing of
hanging, and burning, some 'filthy farmers'..) Is it
possible that someone could read _ATP_ and come away
with the idea that there's something 'unnatural' about
an "apparatus of capture"?! (or that "machinic
enslavement" is an 'unnatural' condition ;)
But, Cubitt seems to be taking the tact that 'nothing
is natural' -- I guess because 'the natural' has so
much of this sense of sacredness about it that he
wants to get away from (away from 'the return of the
same' toward 'the repetition of difference'?) This
enables him to say that "despite Virilio's fears, the
present is not the already achieved and completed
moment ... Considered not as given but as raw
material, the present becomes the workshop in which
the future is produced ... To idealise the immediate
excludes the possibility of the instability and
failure of dominance to dominate".
- mark
--- daniel haines wrote:
> hi mark,
> thanks for pointing me towards this: i finally got
> a chance to look at it earlier and it's a very
> interesting piece, i thought... all sorts of
> connections and resonances regarding the question
> of communication... - i'm not altogether sure
> about the way it negotiates the question of the
> "natural" - the way it defines communication as
> _not_ natural sits strangely with the ways it
> doubts a primordial experience, in that it is
> a bit problematic to define what _isn't_ natural
> at the same time as claiming that you can't
> define what _is_?! but that's one of those
> distinctions i've just never understood....!
> cheers,
> dan
>
> > NICE reply dan! If you haven't seen it you may
> > like to look at Sean Cubitt's essay, "Transport,
> > Transmit, Translate: Virilio, Ecology and the
> > Media", posted to Nettime a week ago
http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200007/msg00012.html
> > which opens with the following sentence -
> > "There is not and never has been a primordial
> > experience which can serve as ground for a
> > phenomenological account of sociality" -
> > and goes on to explain why it is so "imperative
> > for a theory of alienation to prove that there
> > exists a natural perception, and that it is
> > good". (something our old friend Unleesh also
> > insisted upon ;) Mark
> >
> > --- daniel haines
> <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote: [CUT]
> > > 4. apart from any of these things, i am
> > > intrigued by the underlying logic of the
> > > fall, the gloomy metaphysical assumption of
> > > identity as an expulsion from some kind of
> > > pre-conscious eden, which you seem to employ.
> > > the assemblage is doing just fine until
> > > the big bad phallus comes along and splits it??
> > > and then we all end up with subjects and
> > > objects... and isn't it all so terrible??
> > > well, i have to admit that the terror eludes
> > > me. [cut]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
words as 'natural'. On one hand we could say
'everything is natural'; on the other, we could just
as well say 'nothing is natural' (except maybe 'the
void', whatever that might be - or not-be..) Maybe the
'natural' state is to remain silent / alone, so that
communication is the 'original' unnatural act?
BUT, I think 'natural' was also being played off
against another sense of the word, ie, 'normal' (which
has similar problems) as when Cubitt says "we have
defined the natural by the negative" -- after his
scary wilderness experience. Or, as he suggests:
"Perhaps, like primaeval Deleuzes and Guattaris, the
nomadic hunter-gatherers looked at the first sedentary
farmers with just such an apocalyptic intuition of the
end of true humanity as Virilio derives from the
intensifying relationships we establish with each
other through the increasingly demanding mediations of
our machines".
(I'm reminded of a scene in the TV Western _Lonesome
Dove_ where the nomadic bandits think nothing of
hanging, and burning, some 'filthy farmers'..) Is it
possible that someone could read _ATP_ and come away
with the idea that there's something 'unnatural' about
an "apparatus of capture"?! (or that "machinic
enslavement" is an 'unnatural' condition ;)
But, Cubitt seems to be taking the tact that 'nothing
is natural' -- I guess because 'the natural' has so
much of this sense of sacredness about it that he
wants to get away from (away from 'the return of the
same' toward 'the repetition of difference'?) This
enables him to say that "despite Virilio's fears, the
present is not the already achieved and completed
moment ... Considered not as given but as raw
material, the present becomes the workshop in which
the future is produced ... To idealise the immediate
excludes the possibility of the instability and
failure of dominance to dominate".
- mark
--- daniel haines wrote:
> hi mark,
> thanks for pointing me towards this: i finally got
> a chance to look at it earlier and it's a very
> interesting piece, i thought... all sorts of
> connections and resonances regarding the question
> of communication... - i'm not altogether sure
> about the way it negotiates the question of the
> "natural" - the way it defines communication as
> _not_ natural sits strangely with the ways it
> doubts a primordial experience, in that it is
> a bit problematic to define what _isn't_ natural
> at the same time as claiming that you can't
> define what _is_?! but that's one of those
> distinctions i've just never understood....!
> cheers,
> dan
>
> > NICE reply dan! If you haven't seen it you may
> > like to look at Sean Cubitt's essay, "Transport,
> > Transmit, Translate: Virilio, Ecology and the
> > Media", posted to Nettime a week ago
http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200007/msg00012.html
> > which opens with the following sentence -
> > "There is not and never has been a primordial
> > experience which can serve as ground for a
> > phenomenological account of sociality" -
> > and goes on to explain why it is so "imperative
> > for a theory of alienation to prove that there
> > exists a natural perception, and that it is
> > good". (something our old friend Unleesh also
> > insisted upon ;) Mark
> >
> > --- daniel haines
> <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote: [CUT]
> > > 4. apart from any of these things, i am
> > > intrigued by the underlying logic of the
> > > fall, the gloomy metaphysical assumption of
> > > identity as an expulsion from some kind of
> > > pre-conscious eden, which you seem to employ.
> > > the assemblage is doing just fine until
> > > the big bad phallus comes along and splits it??
> > > and then we all end up with subjects and
> > > objects... and isn't it all so terrible??
> > > well, i have to admit that the terror eludes
> > > me. [cut]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/