Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ideas:research_threads_another_try [2008/07/21 22:17] – nicolas
+++ ideas:research_threads_another_try [2017/02/09 13:23] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 On the one hand, we are enthusiast about a culture that is about collaboration, exchange, mutual motions. We find that machines and digital networks are wonderful beings and contexts that allow for interconnections, other perceptions, other understanding of our environment, esthetics, politics. On the other, we realise that the networks and the digital environment didn't happen by mere chance. They carry with them a long history of discipline, surveillance, rationalisation, productivism and are backed by powerful actors to support the development of pan-capitalism.
-We need to face both sides of the problem simultaneously. Because the digital networks are vectors of inequalities, exploitation, surveillance, profiling, they allow us to better understand how they operate and the word we live in. And because they carry their particular potential for transformation, they give us the means to experiment with changes and alternatives pragmatically in this very world, Ici-Même. Tools uncontaminated by the economy, the military ideologies wouldn't have any practical grip on the world of Disney and Microsoft.
+We need to face both sides of the problem simultaneously. Because the digital networks are vectors of inequalities, exploitation, surveillance, profiling, they allow us to better understand how they operate and to better understand the word we live in. And because they carry their particular potential for transformation, they give us the means to experiment with changes and alternatives pragmatically in this very world, Ici-Même. Tools uncontaminated by the economy, the military ideologies wouldn't have any practical grip on the world of Disney and Microsoft.
 In the various themes that are dear to us, we feel the same tension: an urge to critically understand what a tool, a topology, an image, a protocol carries with it, and, at the same time, an urge to unleash the transformative power that resides in this very tool, topology, image, protocol, etc. To let oneself be transformed.
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 To let oneself be transformed. Als ons geheugen het risico loopt te crashen omwille van een teveel aan informatie en copyright-controle, kunnen we dan misschien onze lichaamstaal en stemmen gebruiken als remedie om te herinneren? Kunnen we van computers het vermogen overnemen om onszelf te ontwikkelen, door te leren van hoe iets gebruikt wordt en waar het fout gaat? Kunnen we nieuwe manieren uitvinden waarop we van mens tot mens informatie, geheugen en spirit uitwisselen? Kunnen computers leren van ons belichaamd en doorleefd geheugen? Kunnen we hun protocollen en voorschriften voeden vanuit ons complex begrip van gender, ras en geografie?
+Working questions:
+How can we have a culture of sharing when visibility becomes problematic? How can we base ourselves on unstable, non-universal, shallow protocols and still be able to find ways to exchange? Which new ways of indirect navigations do we need to build in our tools and our designs? Are dialects, slangs, provisionary languages the natural way of preserving opacity in the culture of sharing?