cosmic_disciple ([info]cosmic_disciple) wrote,

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6902/1.html

"They used theory for prestige, to block speculation. That is why so many artists used to resent theory. You would get these lame pieces, somebody trying to apply Heidegger to Parliament-Funkadelic because they had seen the word "ontology" on a cover, instead of taking Parliament to read Heidegger. They always did it the other way round. Theory wasn't being used to pluralize, to see that there was theory everywhere you looked, and everywhere you listened."

"The sense that all these sonic life forms are crossing from the world of the records into the world of your head."

"They did not footnote their work and refused to contextualize their work."

"Phase one was criticizing everything. Phase two was writing, being the hermit. Hiding away, refusing the phone calls, the trips, the jobs. Phase three is now, travelling, the network, when you realize that a book will never bring you any money. It is all about the communication vectors which a book makes possible."

"Ballard said that the writer should access inconceivable alienations. People do not know what they want until they are presented with it. Nobody knows what they desire. There is a machine, but it takes the form of book. You know books are boring. Still, when you open my book it says at the top: "Discontents". The writer is admitting right upfront his irritation, impatience and restlessness."

"Though the hermit position is not always a voluntarily one."

"Sonic evolutions happen when people give up on things."

"That's what the readme! anthology of nettime looks like."

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 3 comments

[info]sasch_ul

May 25 2009, 22:20:48 UTC 3 years ago

not that i read hegel or heidegger, i dont... but part of what attracts me to philosophy is more linguistical, understanding how we use our language.. I still dont understand the moral instinct, i know it is tied to the part of the brain that needs to be most adaptable, so it doesn't work well rationally... so maybe when we try to construct a theory in a concrete way it has no other choice but to be exactly what it is not... language always builds contrast, i always think its our language we take too seriously because it was devised for a pragmatic purpose, and I feel like language that is instructional is living and breathing... language that is descriptive is emotional/nostalgic ... i think it has more to do with our memory, I mean both do...but I dont know, I am still contemplating all this stuff... I still dont know exactly what higher consciousness is

[info]cosmic_disciple

May 26 2009, 03:12:54 UTC 3 years ago

I bookmarked this - there's a lot to read!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…