<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3603" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Reading my last post I thought it did not make sense. I
meant to say that becoming autobiographical as John did when he sent us to
his web pages is something that is a potentiality behind or
underneath our theorizing and letting out the
autobiographical in certain performed ways seems really interesting and
revealing and attuned with digital networking.
However in my former post I said the psyche is no longer personal and I
would say that of the autobiographical as well. So this swerve
to the autobiographical now is part of what needs to be thought
about and 'acted out' in a variety of ways. Finally I
meant to say that sometimes our swerve to theorizing (when
theorizing everything neatly away) is a defense against the
autobiographical Sometimes that is
necessary. thanks for you patience Patricia </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/15/2009 8:52:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Stmart96@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Thanks you Jonathan I think the differing between
Jonathan and John is especially interesting for the
autobio swerve offered by John. It is the drive to do
so that I think informs theory/writing/speaking. It is what they
are all about or at often times about. Our
networked digitizing is an intense expression of this even
in its failure I meant to say in my post that sometimes
the swerve to the criticism of capitalism seems
defensive unable to speak autographically even if it
is necessary to theorize capitalism. And I fell even more the
necessity to theorize capitalist governance simply because it
informs more in the way we swerve from the autographic to the
theoretical to the critical. Patricia </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:53:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jbeller@pratt.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Hi
all, forgive me for clogging your in-boxes. Luckily, the teaching week
begins soon so we'll all get a break.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For the record, what I wrote was the following:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"Goux's work delineates the homologous structures of psychoanalysis and
political economy. However, for all of its undeniable brilliance, it lacks a
materialist theory of mediation. Goux lacks an answer to the question 'how
do you get capitalism into the psyche, and how do you get the psyche into
capital.?' They are isomorphic, but why"(CMP, 25)?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So my immediate question, was in fact, following Patricia, how does
"he" do it, not how does this isomorphism come about.<BR
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 16px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV apple-content-edited="true"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">"Goux argues that 'the affective mode of
exchange,' meaning the symbolic, is a function of 'the dominant mode of
exchange,' meaning capital. While Goux's statement is accurate, what is left
out is that it requires the history of twentieth-century visuality to make
it so. The twentieth century is the cinematic century, in which capital
aspires to the image and the image corrodes traditional language function
and creates the conceptual conformation, that is the very form, of the
psyche as limned by psychoanalysis" (25). The cinematic image as
paradigmatic mediator between these two orders of production (political
economy and the psycho-symbolic) better describes the historically
necessary, mutual articulation of consciousness and capital expansion than
does Goux's provocative but too-abstract idea of the 'socio-genetic process'
in which social forms mysteriously influence one another or take on
analogical similarities. Goux's theory of mediations itself lacks a general
theory of mediation. It is only by tracing the trajectory of the capitalized
image and the introjection of its logic into the sensorium that we may
observe the full consequences of the dominant mode of production
(assembly-line capitalism) becoming the dominant mode of representation
(cinema). Cinema implies the tendency toward the automation of the 'subject'
by the laws of exchange" (25-26).</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">And of course, the rest of the argument is that
this itself a new mode of production, with the consequent transformations of
language, affect, the subject, the human, hermeneutics, depth, time, etc.
The visual turn is a cypher for all this.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">Ok, gtg. Thanks for your comment Patricia -- I
want to think more about it.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">Best,</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">Jon</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Jonathan Beller</DIV>
<DIV>Professor </DIV>
<DIV>Humanities and Media Studies</DIV>
<DIV>and Critical and Visual Studies</DIV>
<DIV>Pratt Institute</DIV>
<DIV><A title=mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu
href="mailto:jbeller@pratt.edu">jbeller@pratt.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>718-636-3573 fax</DIV>
<DIV><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Times size=4><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 15px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Sep 13, 2009, at 1:44 PM, <A title=mailto:Stmart96@aol.com
href="mailto:Stmart96@aol.com">Stmart96@aol.com</A> wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottommargin="7" leftmargin="7" topmargin="7" rightmargin="7"><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>I too have found the discussion stimulating, although hard to
find the time-space in which to speak or speak-up. Thanks to John
Sobol for an invite to mix it up. I too am more than a
technological determinist or rather less one than a lover.
No more or less than human beings, the technical object as
Gilbert Simondon would call it, is an invention an individuation
that has granted ongoing ontogenesis by also creating a milieu of self
determination (or further indetermination) so let it continue to grant and
be loved . While technology differs from the technical
object along the lines John Sobel suggests below, that
is, the potential is perhaps captured in technology, but
still or even so, it is the domain of the technical object modulating what
John refers to as "the head of the curve" as well as the fun and
love of the kids. So I am presently teaching a
graduate course on Freud and Deleuze and felt shocked at Jonathan (whose
work is much appreciated by me) when he asked<FONT
color=#400040> <FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #0026dc" face=Helvetica size=3>"How do
you get capitalism into the psyche, and how do you get the psyche into
capital?" <FONT color=#000000> I assume what is meant here
is: How do "they" do that? I was shocked because I thought
that different technologies are emanations of a dynamic ground
where the potentialities can inform or invent different
relations for psyche and technology, psyche and energy or
force and thus force, energy and the market , capitalist
governance, work labor sex etc. With this assumption I would
say, there is no 'in' of psyche Perhaps there never was
(Derrida says so but so does Deleuze who does a really
interesting theft of Freud's work) but more important
there is no 'in' of the psyche (or not only an 'in' ) now in
relationship to the digital, the emergent in relationship to
the digital. Psyche (its presently rethought energies and
forces) has escaped the individual, has dropped back down
through the pre-individual to ground or in-<EM>form</EM>ation as
a material force an ontogenetic force. This is an ontology for
affect and affect economies, among them capitalism. This points I
think away from the cognitive-ism or consciousness (albeit
unconsciousness) of Jonathan's question and sends his
own focus on "attention" or the labor of
attention toward the body and to the transformation of the
body-as-organism to a full body of desiring. One reason
I love the digital is that is makes all of this seemingly abstract
stuff so-not-abstract but accessible when we allow
it to shift criticism away from the given-ness of a
capitalist logic that always knows what's coming next
and seeks to show how it will be our fault that it did. Instead a way
is offered to respect the temporalities at
play, which are put in play often by capital (perhaps not
often capitalism or capitalist governance). The life-itself
that digital has enabled and which shows up in discourse about biopolitics
and necropolitics is not easy to capture without
producing the fringe of indeterminacy that is life-y. Even in
this awful times of war and terrorism torture poverty and death, the
life-y at least is good news and asks us to pay more
attention to measuring or capturing and its politics which is
non-organic and surely non-human as well as human. Well this
is only a start for me More to
come Patricia Clough.
</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/12/2009 6:21:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, <A
title=mailto:john@johnsobol.com
href="mailto:john@johnsobol.com">john@johnsobol.com</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This has been - as usual here on iDC - a highly stimulating
discussion. I hope my contribution contributes to its quality, though it
does come at this question from quite a different
perspective. </DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>I wish to return us to the outset of this thread, wherein Brian
quoted Jonathan thusly:</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #0026dc" face=Helvetica
color=#0026dc size=3>"How do you get capitalism into the psyche, and how
do you get the psyche into capital?" asks the philosopher Jean-Joseph
Goux. Drawing on key insights from Gramsci, Simmel and Benjamin -- and
radicalizing the work of film critic Christian Metz in the process --
Jonathan Beller gives this quite astonishing reply:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: rgb(0,38,220)"><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #0026dc" face=Helvetica
color=#0026dc size=3>"Materially speaking, industrialization enters the
visual as follows: Early cinematic montage extended the logic of the
assembly line (the sequencing of discreet, programmatic
machine-orchestrated human operations) to the sensorium and brought the
industrial revolution to the eye.... It is only by tracing the
trajectory of the capitalized image and the introjection of its logic
into the sensorium that we may observe the full consequences of the
dominant mode of production (assembly-line capitalism) becoming 'the
dominant mode of representation' (cinema). Cinema implies the tendency
toward the automation of the subject by the laws of exchange....
Understood as a precursor to television, computing, email, and the World
Wide Web, cinema can be seen as part of an emerging cybernetic complex,
which, from the standpoint of an emergent global labor force, functions
as a technology for the capture and redirection of global labor's
revolutionary social agency and potentiality."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#0026dc><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#000000>I
will begin by saying that I do not believe that this historical
trajectory gets to the heart of the matter. Valuable as it is in certain
respects in shedding light on our evolving world, I nonetheless believe
that it is a heuristic model that seems to fit the facts, yet elides
them. I will do my best to explain why I think this. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">I have not read your book, Jonathan, so if I am
way off the mark in my interpretation of your words than that will be my
fault. But it sounds to me like a causal relationship is being
established in the above analysis, between cinema's evolution as a
global cultural force and the parallel advance of certain socially
prescriptive aspects of modern and post-modern industrial capitalism.
The cybernetic loop you describe suggests that cinema and capitalism are
engaged in a form of dance, impelled, once begun, by the alarmingly
potent logic of "<SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="COLOR: rgb(0,38,220)">assembly-line capitalism"</SPAN>, that
incriminates cinema as both agent and victim. Certainly
cinema, (and cineastes) in your analysis appear as not just
one of these two things, but as both.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">With regard to the question of causality, I am
unconvinced that cinema's economic or epistemological architectures – as
opposed to its narrative themes or stylistic vagaries – played such a
fundamental causal role in the unfolding of the social dynamics of
"<SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="COLOR: rgb(0,38,220)">assembly-line
capitalism". </SPAN><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#000000>The
reason I think this is that I also reject, at a more basic level, the
argument that 'industrialism enters the visual via cinema' at all. In
fact I think this articulation entirely misses the essential
relationship between industrialism and the visual.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">The key to this relationship is the
understanding that industrialism is the more-or-less direct result
of increased literacy. It is of the eye, and it largely replaced the
experiential techne of the ear that preceded it, just as literate
capitalism replaced the economies of the ear that preceded it). As
simplistic as this sounds, it is, in my opinion, accurate and
fundamental. It is no accident that Scotland in the 18th century had the
world's highest literacy rate and was also the world's industrial
incubator. It is no accident that the popularization of literacy in
Britain coincided with its imperial rise. Nor is it an accident that the
peak in world literacy today coincides with the death of most of the
world's oral languages. The industrial age is a visual age. It is the
triumphant age of text, in which reading and writing come to rule the
world through their manifold representations in maps, constitutions,
lawbooks, forms, contracts, ledgers, deeds - and, of course -
blueprints, patents, technical specifications, reports, schemata,
manuals and the myriad textual tools that enabled
industrialization (i.e. the raster grid that Sean rightly indicates
is so historically definitive), as well as their resulting man-made
mechanical universe. And here I seem to hear the familiar "pshaw, this
is determinist claptrap" (though not perhaps from your lips,
reader), to which I reply: just take writing out of the equation and see
what degree of industrialism you are left with. Try it and see.
There is nothing left. Without the widespread dissemination of literacy,
industrialism crumbles utterly.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Cinema, seen in this light, is a mere actor in
the larger drama that is literate culture's struggle to achieve global
hegemony, and is not the primary cause of anything, except perhaps an
infinity of shared dreams (no small thing, I admit). It is just one of
many monological industrial media shaped by the technical and psychic
architectures of print. Just as television would become as well.
Neither is anything but a talking book from my perspective. And so to
answer Goux's question: you get capitalism into the psyche via the
printing press, you get it via the rigid, powerful, monological
imperatives of print. As with industrialism, extract print from the
evolution of capitalism and nothing at all remains, not even a trace. I
don't even talk about capitalism myself, only of literate capitalism,
for capitalism is epistemologically indistinguishable from literacy.
(Though strangely, so in many respects is Soviet socialism).</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">The second part of your paragraph, Jonathan, is
important too. </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="COLOR: rgb(0,38,220)">Understood as a precursor to television,
computing, email, and the World Wide Web, cinema can be seen as part of
an emerging cybernetic complex, which, from the standpoint of an
emergent global labor force, functions as a technology for the capture
and redirection of global labor's revolutionary social agency and
potentiality."</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#0026dc><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#000000>As I
have mentioned, I do not think that cinema and television are more than
accidental precursors to computing, email and the World Wide Web. (Kind
of the way Gil Scott-Heron seems to be the godfather of rap, whereas his
work is not directly related at all, only indirectly.) And as I see it
there are two cybernetic complexes in effect here anyway; one hegemonic,
one emergent; one literate and one digital. Each of these two looped
universes is indigenously highly distinct from the other, yet bright
minds with vast resources are desperately trying to colonize the
emergent one on behalf of the ruling one, with some success. And of
course defending the fort – and actively taking the battle to these
hungry entrepreneurs – are revolutionaries of all shapes and sizes, your
friends and mine, seeking to counteract this unfeeling assault with art,
autonomy, activism and more. Much more.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">However, what matters is not necessarily how
successful we and our idealistic friends turn out to be. What seems to
matter most is the march of time, and technology. When Negativland
pioneered its remix work it caused outrage and conflict. With the
passage of time, however, the mashup has become a staple of everyday
life. Not because Negativland (or John Oswald or Bryan Gysin for that
matter) 'won' but rather because they turned out to be doing stuff ahead
of the curve. It was not a case of the good guys winning due to hard
work, the righteousness of their message and the political
maturation of 'the people'. It just turned out that when the tools
advanced enough to make it easy and fun for kids to do, kids did it. And
that's basically all that revolution took to succeed. And soon the kids
will grow up. Lots already have.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">In this sense I am an unrepentant technological
determinist. Not that I think, for example, that the transition to
post-literate capitalism is a given. On the contrary, I expect things to
get more and more dangerous and bloody and I am not happy about that at
all, as the evolutionary conflict between the efficient and the
hyperefficient gains demographic momentum. So there is in fact an urgent
need for leadership, and by this I mean intercultural leadership that
constructively bridges the emergent and hegemonic cybernetic
loops in the pursuit of sustainable and judicious
compromises (to say nothing of also reaching out and inviting into
the dialogue the colonized oral peoples of the world who have a crucial
role to play here, particularly in helping to stave off literate
capitalism's imminent ecocide.) Antagonizing the corporate world for the
sake of personal catharsis is fun and all, and I have done it plenty in
my art, aimed at 'bad guys' who couldn't have cared less, but more
useful I now believe is an engagement that respects and enlightens,
rather than unmasking villainous archetypes in (our) everyday life.
There just too many of us. :)</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Literacy too has certainly functioned<SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="COLOR: rgb(0,38,220)"> "as a
technology for the capture and redirection of global labor's
revolutionary social agency and potentiality." </SPAN><FONT
class=Apple-style-span color=#000000>Except when it wasn't. Except when
it was something else. For </FONT><FONT class=Apple-style-span
color=#000000>it has also made possible wondrous and wonderful
achievements (for some – the many and/or the few). Drawing hard and fast
boundaries between this or that idea, this or that system, this or that
morality, is a favourite literate game. But I think it has served its
purpose. Let's mix things up a little more, focusing on what we have in
common rather than where we differ; trying to find a way forward that
balances the benefits that each cybernetic vortex can offer while also
seeking to offset its ill effects. And then look to the kids to make it
happen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT class=Apple-style-span color=#000000>That
sounds to me like a truly revolutionary program.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">(All of the above offered with the utmost
respect for the pleasure and privilege of this conversation and
hopefully not sounding as bitchy as I sometimes feel...)</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Thanks for listening,</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">John Sobol</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><A title=http://www.johnsobol.com/
href="http://www.johnsobol.com/">www.johnsobol.com</A></DIV></DIV>=<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>iDC
-- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR><A title=mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net
href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</A><BR>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR><BR>List
Archive:<BR>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<BR><BR>iDC Photo
Stream:<BR>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<BR><BR>RSS
feed:<BR>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<BR><BR>iDC Chat on
Facebook:<BR>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<BR><BR>Share
relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag
iDCref</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>iDC
-- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR><A title=mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net
href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</A><BR>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR><BR>List
Archive:<BR>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<BR><BR>iDC Photo
Stream:<BR>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<BR><BR>RSS
feed:<BR>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<BR><BR>iDC Chat on
Facebook:<BR>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<BR><BR>Share
relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag
iDCref</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>=<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>iDC
-- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR>iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR><BR>List
Archive:<BR>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<BR><BR>iDC Photo
Stream:<BR>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<BR><BR>RSS
feed:<BR>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<BR><BR>iDC Chat on
Facebook:<BR>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<BR><BR>Share
relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag
iDCref</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>iDC
-- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)<BR>iDC@mailman.thing.net<BR>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<BR><BR>List
Archive:<BR>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<BR><BR>iDC Photo
Stream:<BR>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<BR><BR>RSS
feed:<BR>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<BR><BR>iDC Chat on
Facebook:<BR>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<BR><BR>Share
relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>