This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1DC2A.74A21140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I don't agree with you mainly because I treated from a more general point of view: I discovered in your considerations many "particular" point. But I think that these debates can be very instructive and useful. Thanks 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. I agree with the preposition about the elite; about the myth, EJ said that the myth is ever, it isn't die. 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. I'm not sure that we live better after 1945; perhaps I say this because I live in the defeated Europa, but the ideologies of 900, Fascism and Nazism, even if they were condictioned by the modernity, neverthless protected the ruins of an old order or people who lived under them. And they were the product of a choose of people, not of the capital or economy: they were a natural reaction to the simbols of modernism. 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. I think that all West is a "New Atlantis", the example of GSM is only a little aspect... and the USA politic, what perhaps came more from the natural espansionism of the capital and the activist ethc than from a wanted decision, is an impereialistoic politic. I think that nihilism is the product of the decadence of all hard valours, first the christianism, then all the modern ideology, who have had is climax in 500-600, but it came from before 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... the vulgarization of technic is this: everyones use it without understanding how to use. There is other: pollution is the first effect of the vulgarization: the technic is in the hands of capitalism, the tecnhic destroyed nature because people, not aristocracy (in Jungerian sense) use it. Industry under the control of the human insticts of angry of money and things, simbolized by the capital, is the primary vulgarized technic. 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. Like Nietzsche said, who hasn't refused old valours live in a condiction of "passive nihilism"... EJ said that the only way to cross over the line of nihilism is going into it: people who believes in the ancient, museal valours hasn't started the crossing over the line. And even the moltiplication of beliefs gives us the sureness we live in a complete nihilism. 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_001F_01C1DC2A.74A21140 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 content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002><EM>I don't agree=20 with you mainly because I treated from a more general point of view: I = discovered in your considerations many "particular"=20 point.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002><EM>But I think=20 that these debates can be very instructive and=20 useful.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002><EM>Thanks</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>To=20 be honest, I take a much more prosaic view of this technology issue = and it's=20 got nothing to do with gods, titans or any other mythical = metaphors but=20 good old-fashioned capitalism and, in the case of specifically = military=20 technology (if there is such a thing), the interests of the ruling = elite in=20 preserving that capitalist hegemony, plus whatever ideological = remnants adhere=20 thereto.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> <FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2><EM>I=20 agree with the preposition about the elite; about the myth, EJ said = that the=20 myth is ever, it isn't die. </EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial 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=20 state. But we cannot get away from the fact that our liberty and = individualism=20 are just as much created and pandered to by the new wave of capitalism = and=20 corporations who sell us the emblems which so seem to represent them, = or else,=20 are able seemlessly to absorb counter-cultural movements and make them = mainstream. (by new wave I mean those forms of agile production which = emerged=20 in the aftermath of the uniform, conformist mass production of = classical=20 Fordism. Maybe Dell is the prime example).</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>So,=20 what then controls all this? A naive question, given the complexity of = history, current socio-economic structures and cultural-political = impulses.=20 One approach would be to say "the market" and the market is pretty = ruthless=20 but can in turn be manipulated from outside whilst also expressing=20 deeper-seated cultural phenomenon. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>Of=20 course, the society that this produces is ultimately very unheroic and = undramatic. Markets and consumption are the major forums of social = exchange=20 and negotiation rather than conflict. This exclusion of armed conflict = is=20 surely the greatest success of the post-War European and North = Atlantic=20 political and economic structures. Mundane, aesthetically neutral, = maybe - but=20 far better than the situation of 1945.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D+0><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002></SPAN></FONT><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN class=3D926092815-02042002><FONT = color=3D#0000ff=20 face=3DArial> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002><EM>I'm not sure=20 that we live better after 1945; perhaps I say this because I live in = the=20 defeated Europa, but the ideologies of 900, Fascism and Nazism, even = if they=20 were condictioned by the modernity, neverthless protected the ruins of = an old=20 order or people who lived under them. And they were the product of a = choose of=20 people, not of the capital or economy: they were a natural reaction to = the=20 simbols of modernism.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002></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=20 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)=20 vulgarized, but search the destruction, "choose more and more = destructive=20 measure", it's the only way. What are your opinions</EM><SPAN=20 class=3D926092815-02042002><FONT 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=20 are talking about is a leadership of the USA per se. In terms of = military=20 affairs, yes - as far as the West in general is concerned, whilst the = EU=20 structures are only now being formed and lag far behind the US in = terms of=20 financing, more so since September 11th. However, although prominent = since=20 invention in Afghanistan, this is effectively a side-show in the = overall=20 scheme of 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=20 don't agree either that participation in market economies necessarily = means=20 the destruction of old values - artificial, historically relative and = fragile=20 phenomenon that they might be.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002><EM>I think=20 that all West is a "New Atlantis", the example of GSM is only a little = aspect... and the USA politic, what perhaps came more from = the=20 natural espansionism of the capital and the activist ethc than from a = wanted=20 decision, is an impereialistoic politic. I think that = nihilism is=20 the product of the decadence of all hard valours, first the = christianism, then=20 all the modern ideology, who have had is climax in 500-600, but it = came from=20 before </EM></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=20 little distasteful... Quite the reverse of J=FCnger's attempted = aestheticisation=20 of technology in the 1920s and 30s. Perhaps it's all a matter of = presentation=20 and quite how you film the items... Tanks are definitely quite = attractive in=20 arms company promotional videos. Technology's not all Las Vegas tacky = glitz=20 ;-) Mind 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 size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>the=20 vulgarization of technic is this: everyones use it without = understanding how=20 to use. There is other: pollution is the first effect of the=20 vulgarization: the technic is in the hands of capitalism, the = tecnhic=20 destroyed nature because people, not aristocracy (in Jungerian sense) = use it.=20 Industry under the control of the human insticts of angry of = money=20 and things, simbolized by the capital, is the primary vulgarized = technic.=20 </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=20 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=20 mourning for lost beauty as property development encroaches, for = instance,=20 that seems more in tune with impending environmental crises - but = again these=20 are unheroic 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=20 belief systems, but, as I'm sure it will with measures to protect the=20 environment, swallows them up and reinvents itself in renewed = diversity with=20 products to 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 size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D926092815-02042002>Like=20 Nietzsche said, who hasn't refused old valours live in a condiction of = "passive nihilism"... EJ said that the only way to cross over the line = of=20 nihilism is going into it: people who believes in the ancient, museal=20 valours hasn't started the crossing over the line. And even = the=20 moltiplication of beliefs gives us the sureness we live in a complete=20 nihilism.</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=20 at face value and consume blindly, it's certainly not as all American = as some=20 would say and it's flexible and dynamic enough not to require a new = age or any=20 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></BLOCKQUOTE></= BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1DC2A.74A21140--
Follow Ups to this Message
Replies to this Message
Markup © John King, July 2001.