This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C1DA6F.9586D0B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To be honest, I take a much more prosaic view of this technology issue and it's got nothing to do with gods, titans or any other mythical metaphors but good old-fashioned capitalism and, in the case of specifically military technology (if there is such a thing), the interests of the ruling elite in preserving that capitalist hegemony, plus whatever ideological remnants adhere thereto. That said, I'd much rather live in the West with our imperfect democracies than in any tribal, theocratic or any other primitive or totalitarian or chaotic state. But we cannot get away from the fact that our liberty and individualism are just as much created and pandered to by the new wave of capitalism and corporations who sell us the emblems which so seem to represent them, or else, are able seemlessly to absorb counter-cultural movements and make them mainstream. (by new wave I mean those forms of agile production which emerged in the aftermath of the uniform, conformist mass production of classical Fordism. Maybe Dell is the prime example). So, what then controls all this? A naive question, given the complexity of history, current socio-economic structures and cultural-political impulses. One approach would be to say "the market" and the market is pretty ruthless but can in turn be manipulated from outside whilst also expressing deeper-seated cultural phenomenon. Of course, the society that this produces is ultimately very unheroic and undramatic. Markets and consumption are the major forums of social exchange and negotiation rather than conflict. This exclusion of armed conflict is surely the greatest success of the post-War European and North Atlantic political and economic structures. Mundane, aesthetically neutral, maybe - but far better than the situation of 1945. technic. The question is: have we to believe in the north-american empire? Can we abandone ourselves to the force of the techcnic, under the leadership of USA, to make faster the run over the "line" and towards a new age? Have we to consider USA like the mondial empire, the paradise of tecnhic or a mix of these? The "american-peace", if we want to abandone old valours, yet dead or who are falling or destined to be destroyed by the waves of the nuhilism, we have to believe in it. The technic will be surely not in the hands of fews, it will be (and it is yet) vulgarized, but search the destruction, "choose more and more destructive measure", it's the only way. What are your opinions ? Given what I've said already, I strongly disagree that what we are talking about is a leadership of the USA per se. In terms of military affairs, yes - as far as the West in general is concerned, whilst the EU structures are only now being formed and lag far behind the US in terms of financing, more so since September 11th. However, although prominent since invention in Afghanistan, this is effectively a side-show in the overall scheme of things. The role of the US is far more significant than the deployment of military hardware. It is currently still the most significant element of the world economy. In my view, this does not equate with a world state. Neither is the US a technological paradise. Its GSM network coverage is pretty weak at the best of times - compare that to Europe or Japan. And, I don't agree either that participation in market economies necessarily means the destruction of old values - artificial, historically relative and fragile phenomenon that they might be. Furthermore, I fail to understand what "vulgarisation of technology" might mean. Mobile phones? Hm, maybe some ringtones are a little distasteful... Quite the reverse of Jünger's attempted aestheticisation of technology in the 1920s and 30s. Perhaps it's all a matter of presentation and quite how you film the items... Tanks are definitely quite attractive in arms company promotional videos. Technology's not all Las Vegas tacky glitz ;-) Mind you, I fail to see how server racks could ever be made aesthetically appealing... And as for searching for destruction? Now, that is interesting. Certainly not military destruction in this day of precision bombing, but there is a grim unsustainability in consumer-market driven capitalism which is only slowly being addressed. It is Jünger's elegiac mourning for lost beauty as property development encroaches, for instance, that seems more in tune with impending environmental crises - but again these are unheroic and without a clearly defined subject. And finally, I fail to see the nihilistic element in all of this. To be certain, religion has been more relativised than ever and capitalism is patently unsatisfying as a substitute. But there again, I'm sure some people consume religious sentiment like they consume any other cultural product. However, the market does not preclude the majority of belief systems, but, as I'm sure it will with measures to protect the environment, swallows them up and reinvents itself in renewed diversity with products to match. So, my two proverbial cents - it's the economy, it's not perfect, it's not heroic, it produces a lot of people who accept it at face value and consume blindly, it's certainly not as all American as some would say and it's flexible and dynamic enough not to require a new age or any revolutionary change, thank you very much. Regards, John ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C1DA6F.9586D0B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>To be=20 honest, I take a much more prosaic view of this technology issue and = it's got=20 nothing to do with gods, titans or any other mythical metaphors but = good=20 old-fashioned capitalism and, in the case of specifically military = technology=20 (if there is such a thing), the interests of the ruling elite in = preserving that=20 capitalist hegemony, plus whatever ideological remnants adhere=20 thereto.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>That=20 said, I'd much rather live in the West with our imperfect democracies = than in=20 any tribal, theocratic or any other primitive or totalitarian or chaotic = state.=20 But we cannot get away from the fact that our liberty and individualism = are just=20 as much created and pandered to by the new wave of capitalism and = corporations=20 who sell us the emblems which so seem to represent them, or else, are = able=20 seemlessly to absorb counter-cultural movements and make them = mainstream. (by=20 new wave I mean those forms of agile production which emerged in the = aftermath=20 of the uniform, conformist mass production of classical Fordism. Maybe = Dell is=20 the prime example).</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>So,=20 what then controls all this? A naive question, given the complexity of = history,=20 current socio-economic structures and cultural-political impulses. One = approach=20 would be to say "the market" and the market is pretty ruthless but can = in turn=20 be manipulated from outside whilst also expressing deeper-seated = cultural=20 phenomenon. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>Of=20 course, the society that this produces is ultimately very unheroic and=20 undramatic. Markets and consumption are the major forums of social = exchange and=20 negotiation rather than conflict. This exclusion of armed conflict is = surely the=20 greatest success of the post-War European and North Atlantic political = and=20 economic structures. Mundane, aesthetically neutral, maybe - but far = better than=20 the situation of 1945.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT><SPAN class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT><FONT = face=3DTahoma><FONT=20 size=3D2><SPAN class=3D926092815-02042002><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT = face=3DArial><FONT=20 size=3D2><EM>technic. The question is: have we to believe in=20 the north-american empire? Can we abandone ourselves to the force = of the=20 techcnic, under the leadership of USA, to make faster the run over the = "line"=20 and towards a new age? Have we to consider USA like the mondial empire, = the=20 paradise of tecnhic or a mix of these? The "american-peace", if we want = to=20 abandone old valours, yet dead or who are falling or destined to be = destroyed by the waves of the nuhilism, we have to believe in it. The = technic=20 will be surely not in the hands of fews, it will be (and it is yet) = vulgarized,=20 but search the destruction, "choose more and more destructive measure", = it's the=20 only way. What are your opinions</EM><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002><FONT=20 color=3D#0000ff> <EM><FONT=20 color=3D#000000>?</FONT></EM></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002> <FONT=20 color=3D#0000ff>Given what I've said already, I strongly disagree that = what we are=20 talking about is a leadership of the USA per se. In terms of military = affairs,=20 yes - as far as the West in general is concerned, whilst the EU = structures are=20 only now being formed and lag far behind the US in terms of financing, = more so=20 since September 11th. However, although prominent since invention in=20 Afghanistan, this is effectively a side-show in the overall scheme of=20 things.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>The role of the US is far more significant = than the=20 deployment of military hardware. It is currently still the most = significant=20 element of the world economy. In my view, this does not equate with a = world=20 state. Neither is the US a technological paradise. Its GSM network = coverage is=20 pretty weak at the best of times - compare that to Europe or Japan. And, = I don't=20 agree either that participation in market economies necessarily means = the=20 destruction of old values - artificial, historically relative and = fragile=20 phenomenon that they might be.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>Furthermore, I fail to understand what = "vulgarisation=20 of technology" might mean. Mobile phones? Hm, maybe some ringtones are a = little=20 distasteful... Quite the reverse of J=FCnger's attempted = aestheticisation of=20 technology in the 1920s and 30s. Perhaps it's all a matter of = presentation and=20 quite how you film the items... Tanks are definitely quite attractive in = arms=20 company promotional videos. Technology's not all Las Vegas tacky glitz = ;-) Mind=20 you, I fail to see how server racks could ever be made aesthetically=20 appealing...</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>And as for searching for destruction? Now, = that is=20 interesting. Certainly not military destruction in this day of precision = bombing, but there is a grim unsustainability in consumer-market driven=20 capitalism which is only slowly being addressed. It is J=FCnger's = elegiac mourning=20 for lost beauty as property development encroaches, for instance, that = seems=20 more in tune with impending environmental crises - but again these are = unheroic=20 and without a clearly defined subject.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>And finally, I fail to see the nihilistic = element in=20 all of this. To be certain, religion has been more relativised than ever = and=20 capitalism is patently unsatisfying as a substitute. But there again, = I'm sure=20 some people consume religious sentiment like they consume any other = cultural=20 product. However, the market does not preclude the majority of = belief=20 systems, but, as I'm sure it will with measures to protect the = environment,=20 swallows them up and reinvents itself in renewed diversity with products = to=20 match.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>So, my two proverbial cents - it's the = economy, it's=20 not perfect, it's not heroic, it produces a lot of people who = accept it at=20 face value and consume blindly, it's certainly not as all American as = some would=20 say and it's flexible and dynamic enough not to require a new age or any = revolutionary change, thank you very much.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002>John</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C1DA6F.9586D0B0--
Follow Ups to this Message
Replies to this Message
Markup © John King, July 2001.