[iDC] The Ethics of Participation

[A. G-C]

Dear Trebor, dear Keith, dear all,

You know how my Anglophone situation is much more that not plenty but
completely relative..  so currently I cannot answer in reciprocity in the
usual flow of the list whether it really very well interests me as relative
points of views in activity in the side of my "natural" friendship.

But sometimes I think that may be an information from my part can bring a
singularity that disturbs for opening another view or recall that there
exist another point of view. Otherness (not proper me but any ideas
disturbing the rule or the thematic) being the conceptual demiurgic or
shamanic guest that we must never forget at the table, whatever it would not
appear... (I guess that we are a lot of subscribers to be in this grateful
no consensual situation, not consensual from any parts even between the
mostly silent subscribers themselves;-)

It is not a religious allegation, but an allegation to tribute the knowledge
that knowledge cannot exist really if it excludes that another reality can
exist in the same time, as well the knowledge can miss it by simplification,
as well ignoring it. Anyway I say of outside. If your window has not outside
view, can be an unexplored world but a symbolic view in remind: what do you
certainly know of the inside place where you work and tribute, in such a
world where the environment (can be obvious can be dark can be secret)
masters the evolution and the interactivity of indifferently all the
subjects? 

All the new in Sciences specially in Biology from Physics mark this while
rationalist materialism goes on its fatality by missing it. It is the reason
of the stochastic importance more random role more critical mass in all the
complex phenomenal approaches.
Transparency is not more the relevant question. So reciprocity as well
transparency could well make a past affair -for a moment (till it reappears)
as it was the affaire of the ruling subject -the mark of the technical age.

There is not knowledge as active process from information adding the mental
singular complexity (of that one who thought), where does not consist the
part of enigma. You'll never reveal it, but enclosing it because you cannot
solve it will create both that psychoanalysis calls the expulsion, and may
be fortunately (but uncertainly) the predictable critical mass.

Not toward but beyond the consensus of reasonable humans there is the
inextricable complexity of the life, the one that it is not vain to approach
and to estimate, but that it is vain to want to control because it will
always produce unforeseen effects, reigns of a sort of vitality of the
world. [In which the choice of artificial disposition at the moment it does
not plagiary the life but does not more request to control the life can be
relevant from the register of more certitude but persisting some questions
sill available:-]

By this way, not being from a dualistic point of view but a pragmatic
observation we can say that the energy of the world consists from a part of
evil (that escapes the rule and that escapes the knowledge).

>From the XIXth century I am not an adept not more of evil:) I think that
several metaphors from any novels by Henry James, more from a novel of
Balzac, are still available for help us to know what of the impact of enigma
in the anthropological reality both of the social life and of the research.

So what :


  On 4/01/07 21:46, "keith at thememorybank.co.uk" <keith at thememorybank.co.uk>
probably wrote:

>  
> Levi-Strauss said that reciprocity is a human universal. But my bet is
> that it was invented by agricultural societies and lasted only into the
> first stage of industrialization. The age of the internet has more in
> common with foraging societies for whom sharing is an active principle,
> but reciprocity generally is not.

Notoriously being a relevant note on the digital age
(that is not a movie). Thanks for this universal observation (this is not a
joke).

> So one question might be, Is an ethics
> possible without reciprocity?

Fortunately Yes, it is the stoical attitude.

Or there would never exist individual resistance nor resistance of the
minorities in the ruling societies: what nowadays does not develop otherness
as an interesting absence of reciprocity expecting the reciprocity of the
otherness, but the installation of ubiquity of the world may be a war mode
(consisting the misinformation of the world) may be a peace mode (the
realization of a multiplicity of differences, into ubiquity as synchronism/
anachronism from multiplicity, where the mode of change can be that one of
the event: appear/ disappear?

> For surely granting ones attention is not
> usually an ethical matter.
> 

I do not know more what is ethical matter in such actual context can be
inside can be outside of the list. But respecting that difference can be
expressed without consensus - or something by this way...

Whether supra-activity is not really silent in its proper low universe,
interactivity as well activity can be silent even their proper high
universe. More any times the subscribers communicate in private after a
public calling or answer online. We have not a view on each road. But know
that several roads emerging from the list can exist for their proper sides.

May be not?

All my wishes for the crazy 2007 of which FR activists from Nantes think
that the power have to stop making more;-)

I.e. I personally enjoy iDC whatever a large part outside of me;-)

We have to distrust silent masses (we have to take it into account exactly
because they keep silent or walking without reciprocity in a post
dialectical world;-)

For the changing change - Pataphysically yours

Aliette
________

>