<!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>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"><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><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></BODY></HTML>