not

lepsie v: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

rick falkvinge, oscon 2007 (o’reilly conf, portland OR), lecture, founder of swedish pirate party
http://blip.tv/file/318885/
=
main point v debate ci filesharing je dobry pre ekonomiku: copyright = commercial monopoly
copyright today has crapped into our private communications (it is illegal for me to send music in email to you guys)
if copyright is to be enforced in the digital age that means it [interferes] with our emails.
=> that means that every single piece of private communication has to be monitored by law enforcement and by corporate interest groups guarding copyright to watch for the copyright infringements.
it gets worse:
corporates lobby for ISP for being liable for what their users do.
=> that threatens the ‘common carrier principle’ that messenger is never responsible for the content of the message
= both are centuries old principles of how our democracy works
lady justice has a trouble:
on one end: income for luxury consumption; on another end: 2 principles of our democracy.
=> tiez ak je kazdy email kontrolovany, tak whistleblower protection is gone.
=> if you know you’re monitored you tend to put restraint on yourself.
a ked nemas moznost formulovat svoje myslienky privatne, you lose your identity (ktora je vytvarana v private exchange bwn you and your friends).
= you need privacy, you need a postal secret
corps nas chcu presvedcit o tom ze to je otazka profitu (a udrzania monopolov), no pritom je to otazka zakladnych ludskych prav.
summary of pirate party:
copyright has nothing to do @ my private communication; lifetime+70 yrs is ridiculous as a copyright term for commercial use;
DRM is evil; patents are even more evil (ranging from useless to immoral to diabolical);
privacy is good; dual process(?) is good; and transparent government is even better;
we also safeguard the right of attribution for the copyright very strongly
other parties when realised are loosing votes to PP came to them and ask to have things explained.
norska liberalna strana dokonca skopirovala cely ich stance on copyright
vo svedsku su dve silne strany,
we play ‘who wants to be the prime minister’, the price for that would be the IP rights reform

lepsie v: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

In 1984, in his last lectures entitled La Courage de la Verité
http://eipcp.net/transversal/1210/raunig/en
=
multiple forms of truth discourses (from antiquity)
of which three can be seen as figures of imparting knowledge:
/ existuje niekolko foriem diskurzov pravdy, z nich tri su vnimane cez poznanie (ale netyka sa poznania vsetka pravda? wp: poznanie ako prienik medzi pravdou a vierou)
* (classic) teacher
knowledge as techne, as an ability embodied in a practice.
In this mode of embodiment knowledge is owned, passed on from one to another as property, from teacher to pupil in a long chain of tradition, in a hierarchy of generations and a uniform, static order of knowledge.
a rigid striation and separation of the various techniques and disciplines.
the point is to develop a rhetorical practice that seeks conflict and transversal exchange beyond the boundaries of traditions and disciplines.
/ odovzdava sa z pokolenia na pokolenie, je to objekt, property, vec. …nie event!!!!
/ co ma za nasledok delenie na discipliny, napr na uni
/ ciel je zamerat sa na hranicne praktiky, konfliktne body, praktiky ktore sa stavaju nad hranice
* (universalist) wise man
his form of imparting only consists in being a role model, in epitomizing, exemplifying.
disregard for every kind of singularity, specificity, situativity.
/ byt stelesnenim poznania. vnutri seba. ‘ucit bytim’. ale problem je ze tiez nie je event, je to staticke. neviem odovzdat nieco na poziadanie..
* prophet, (charismatic) master-prophet
has the role of an imparter, but at the same time, he does not speak for himself, in his own name.
/ nechapem. zosobnuje poznanie, ale nehovori za seba?? hovori “we”? ako guy a pod a aktivisti v knihach?
/ foucault nema nic o chapani poznania ako eventu? (ma.. nasleduje stvrty typ)
/ toto je asi rozdiel!!!
/ prva cast bola o ‘knowledge that’, dalsia bude o knowledge as an event? nestratim sa v tom ale? nemam sa tu moc o co opriet…
delanda v new philosophy of society ani objekt as event nerozvija… mozno spekulativni realisti…
to je vnimanie objektu cez procesy, cez jeho vlastnosti ktore su v pohybe.
performing the knowledge…. knowledge production wl supplies ‘truth’, media debate enhances ‘belief’, and knowledge is being performed.
knowledge about how our world functions, in a dynamic way, what processes are inherent in the debate.
this is democracy – clash of various (incoherent) worldviews
* parrhesia, truth-speaking = “fearless speach” [rough translation], “frankness in speaking the truth”
fourth form of truth discourse that goes beyond the types of the teacher, the wise man and the prophet.
in 3 variations:
the political truth-speaking of the citizen to the majority of the assembly or the philosopher to the tyrant
/ excluded to the included?; mat prave ten jeden hlas len, voci majorite
ethical truth-speaking as test and exercise leading to care for the self and others. the questioning perfected by Socrates
socrates nie je teacher, wise man, ani prophet.
His craft consists not of teaching and imparting, but rather in a practice of calling-into-question.
Knowledge arises in the movement, which generates a differentiation, “as difference, as distance, attained contrary to general opinion and shared certainties”.
“school of the missing teacher” (“l’école du maître qui manque”)
practice of the Cynics as exercising the scandal of the truth, as “philosophical activism” and as a predecessor of the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th century.
this one is most relevant today.
/ assange???

+ moje reci:

; knowledge production, negotiation
na bxl openvideo workshope som povedal: debaty/spory na wikipedii? to je na nej najzaujimavejsie. ostatni stichli a pozreli na mna.
this is the event of knowledge production.

We would like to understand knowledge not as a static property, an object being transmitted from one node to another,
like a file being copied. Filesharing only gives means for knowledge being produced. Participation in the discussion
One may say the actual wikipedia pages are but the detritus of the knowledge. The event of knowledge production
is metasthasised in the wikipedia discussion pages, and in the articles and books being referred to, where it is being negotiated
by the users. We should [pripomenut] that the discussion pages accomodate the private mode of conversation, when the subset
of NPOV rules haunts the discussion.
/ v tom zlyhava log – iba transmituje data, miesto aby bol knowledge production platform
/ na prednej strane prebieha akurat formalna/technicka debata, ak ide o argument tak sa debata presuva do discussion

To Foucault, knowledge exists only where power relations are suspended. To Zizek, this Foucauldian position is false: there is no knowledge that does not presuppose power relations.
There is no place beyond discourse and the power relations that govern them; resistance and change are possible from within them (Zizek: Beyond Foucault, p. 90).
It is this position that colors the primary difference between the political strategies of Zizek over Foucault. To Zizek, revolutionary potential must be sought within the capitalist system of desire, and it must seek to be universalized.
/ takze aj wikileaks ma power
/ task: how to universalize revolutionary potential within the capitalist system of desire, aka je esencia toho co robia wikileaks?
a na zaklade toho – co robia zle?
/ presne takto by som mal pokracovat dalej [riesim teraz otazku transparency]
/ lokalizovat hlavne kontradikcie na ktorych sa pohybuje wikileaks (a s nimi aj globalna debata) a univerzalizovat ich
(v zmysle zizeka/kanta). cize lokalizovat ‘excluded’ – excluded informacie, treba zapojit do commons.
aby sa potom v ramci commons riesili problemy majetku a hodnoty objektu (vratane updatu tychto terminov)
/ scientific journalism – tiez zasadne tuna
/ excluded – otazka – vyradeni z coho? a co je tu commons?

+ moje reci k wikileaks:

otazka ludskeho poznania – chcu vytvorit intellectual/ record of how civilisation works in practise; our decisions are based on what we know.
je to nieco niekde, ktore mame odhalit a dostat k nemu pristup.
proste kopa, ktora je pod zamkom.
to snad ide do epistemologie – foucaultove pisanie o poznani spada pod nu?

; filesharing
? obmedzit cely clanok na filesharing? kludne.. filesharing in the context of political economy
mozno vysvetlit aj veci okolo, ale povedat ze ich nebudem teraz rozvijat

; propositions via potentialities
podla whiteheada potom pri cables pre nas nie je otazka ci su skutocne alebo falosne (pre wl tim bola otazka,
ci ich releasnu – to ci su prave bola len jedna z veci na zaklade ktorej zvazovali).
ale aky otvaraju v kulture potencial. W: “proposition points to a potentiality [..]
propositions are possible routes of actualization, vectors of nondeterministic change.
The “pri- mary role” of a proposition, Whitehead says, is to “pave the way along which the world advances into novelty.”.
^ takto citaj dokumenty ktore releasuje wl, a ktore obsahuje wp, a ktore siri tpb
vsetky tri su platformy, ktore maju podobne ambicie (aku hlavnu premisu ma tpb?)
=
task: open up access to excluded knowledge

; epistemology / knowledge that+how+acq
epistemologia – knowledge that [classical propositional knowledge = prienik medzi truths and beliefs], knowledge how, acquaintance knowledge…
ze 2 a 2 su 4. ale ze ako sa rata.
pozeram okolo na veci viem povedat ze su a kolko ich je.
ale o vacsine z nich neviem ako vznikli, ako stali sebou.
kutili su deleuziani.
viem ze nie co je, viem o vela veciach ze su.
ale viem len o malo z nich ako vznikli.
teda ake procesy v nich prebiehaju.
lebo sa menia dalej.
nie su fixne, nedorazili z buducnosti aby ostali rovnake, ani neplanuju ostavat rovnake s vyhladom do buducnosti.
menia ich ich procesy.
ktore ich formuju.
napr flasa vina… ako to ze je flasa vina? proces vyroby flase, proces vyroby vina, vinica, pestovanie vinica, distribucia, sklad, predaj, spotreba
recyklacia flase na inu flasu.

30+ ‘free’ gen – each time you hear free, reach your pocket vs pre-30 google gen – yea free!

controversialist, ale snad ok: “Any topic that can divide critics equally into two opposite camps..totally wrong. and .so obvious..has got to be a good one.”

este precitaj dalej

lepsie v: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

polit econ

[186] Badiou – 3 mozne zlyhania revolucnej lavice
=> vsetko zle. treba revolucneho agenta ktory je neoddelitelnou sucastou systemu dostat do subjektivity
/ akoze treba byt politickejsi? a revolucnejsi v kazdodennosti?

Marx pre-1850s: ‘Marxist’ theory
ciel, postcapitalist society, je socialna forma kde transhistoricka praca, oslobodena od fetters of trhu a osobneho vlastnictva,
has openly emerged as the regulating principle of society.
‘economic base’ vs legal/ideological ‘superstructure’
naive historicist evolutionism ~ ahistorical absolutization of labor (process of mat prod and repr of life) as ‘key’ to other phenomena
cosi s Heideggerovou dialectic-of-Enlitenment temou technokratickej ‘instrumental reason’ to ma, ze domination is grounded in very notion of labor
eg. German Ideology

Marx v 1850s inspirovany znovucitanim Hegelovej Science of Logic, vsetko prehodnotil a skomplikoval
mainly in: Grundrisse, a najma Capital
dosiel na to ze commodity fetishism ako iluzia nie je len sekundarna reflection, ale operuje v srdci ‘realneho procesu vyroby’
cize uloha nie je odhalit ako sa z bezneho reallife objektu stava fetisizovana komodita (mysterious theological entity),
ale odhalit ‘metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties’ v naoko beznom objekte
comm fetish = belief that commodities are magical objects with inherent metaphysical powers
Karatani: marx inak zacal tym ze kritika nabozenstva je pociatok vsetkej kritiky, presiel ku kritike filozofie, a skoncil pri kritike polit econ,
pri ktorej sa oblukom dostal naspat k tomu ze viera (v objekty) je v srdci ‘prizemnej’ ekonomickej aktivity

Engels tiez chapal produkciu jednak v ekonomickom zmysle (extrakcia komodit z prirody), jednak v spolocenskom (produkcia zivota, napr rodenie)

research z vela zdrojov
lepsia verzia v txt:

—>udalost roka v politike?

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/
next: zaciatkom 2011 leak internej dokumentacie US banky

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
cela sekcia v guardiane venovana jednotlivym leakom

SUMMARY OF CABLEGATE CONTEXT
5 medii: NYT, Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegel
NYT editor Kellher: The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)
wall street journal odmietol, lebo mal podpisat dohodu bez toho ze by vedeli co dokumenty obsahuju.
na http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/ publikuju ~140 docs/day (dovedna 251,287 documents, comprising 261,276,536 words….
7x vacsie ako iraq war logs, the world’s previously largest classified information release), bude to trvat niekolko mesiacov.
vybrane media ich asi dostavaju o den skor alebo tak.
cables date from 28.12.1966 till 28.2.2010.
confidential communications between 274 embassies/consulates/diplomatic missions in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC.
15,652 of the cables are classified Secret.
The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN;
turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”;
backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries;
lobbying for US corporations;
and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.
leaked from SIPRNet – us gov agency internet internal network (pristup ma 2.5 mil ludi, civilian/military/private sector personnel, aj 20-somethings vojaci), vytvoreny po 9/11
assange ma vo wikileaks org rolu pritahovania kritiky a pozornosti (aby org fungovala v chode) – je to tazke, ale na druhej strane dostava credit.
“we have always exptected the tremendous criticism. it is my role to be a lightning rod, to attract the attacks against the organisation
where i work. and that is a difficult role. on the other hand i also get an undue(?) credit.”

MAJOR LEAKS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis
(TOP) UN: US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership.
(TOP) US-Arabs-Iran: Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran
US does not secretly want to go to war with Iran but it has resisted pressure to do so from Israel and Arab leaders acting out of a coincidental common interest.
(TOP) North Korea: China wants Korean reunification. [asi preto lebo hrozi vojna s Juznou]
US claim Iran bought 19 BM-25 missiles from North Korea. [Russia doesnt believe it, neither the existence of missiles] / http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/30
At the request of the Obama administration, The New York Times has agreed not to publish the text of the cable.
@WL: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html
How the hacker attacks which forced Google to quit China in January were orchestrated by a senior member of the Politburo who typed his own name into the global version of the search engine and found articles criticising him personally.
use by Berlusconi of a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between.
Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations = “virtual mafia state”.
Putin as an “alpha-dog”, Hamid Karzai as being “driven by paranoia” while Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risk and is rarely creative”.
Yemeni president Abdullah Saleh said: “We’ll continue saying they are our bombs, not yours.”
US nuclear weapons still left in Europe are based in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey. The four nations have been long suspected of hosting the warheads, but NATO and the governments involved have always refused to confirm this.
+
* PAKISTAN: US believes under economic pressure they may sell enriched Uranium (capable of making a nuke) to terrorists
* KOREA: US and South Korea discussed a unified Korea, and SK has considered commercial inducements to China in order to get it
* GUANTANAMO BAY: The US has pressured countries to take prisoners from there (into their own prisons) in return for favors
* AFGHANISTAN: The Afghan Vice-President was found with $52million in cash when visiting UAE (implying massive levels of corruption)
* CHINA: China really did hack Google China, and has also hacked western government and corporate PCs
* SAUDI ARABIA: Saudi donors are still the chief sponsors of Al Qaeda + King Abdullah dislikes Iraqi and Pakistani leaders
* RUSSIA: Putin and Berlusconi are bffs to the point that Berlusconi is Russia’s mouthpiece in Europe (talk of lavish gifts both ways)
* LEBANON: US failed to stop Syria from (secretly and against agreement) supplying arms to Hezbolla which now has a massive stockpile of them
* GERMANY: US warned Germany not to arrest CIA officers involved in a bungled kidnapping of German civilian
* ISRAEL: Concerns it will strike Iran if Iran continues nuclear development
* YEMEN: Took credit on US’ request for missile strike on Al Qaeda
* IRAN: US is getting increasingly worried that Iran has the capabilites to produce Uranium, Ahmadinejad was also compared to Hitler
* LIBYA: Qaddafi has a “Ukrainian nurse” companion that never leaves his side + he reneged on a deal to return uranium to Russia
* BRITAIN: Cameron has been reported to be “easily intimidated” and “indecisive” by US Intelligence
* ARGENTINA: Hillary Clinton wanted to know if President Cristina Fernandez is a batshit crazy bitch and if she was taking drugs.
* VENEZUELA: Chavez should be isolated from the world.
+
cables are unlikely to gratify conspiracy theorists. They do not contain evidence of assassination plots, CIA bribery or such criminal enterprises as the Iran-Contra scandal in the Reagan years, when anti-Nicaraguan guerrillas were covertly financed.
(since “top secret” files are not circulating @ siprnet)
takze low level data (tiez povedal Ellsberg)

PUBLIC RESPONSES
v komentoch: dokumenty hovoria o tom co uz davno vieme ~ “no surprises” ~
WikiLeaks files only fill in details about what has generally already been known.
“There’s nothing new here, but WikiLeaks is dangerous!”
kontra: usa vedie tajnu vojnu proti al-qaide v jemene, dohoda s jemenskym prezidentom ze budu dalej hovorit ze na nich hadzu svoje bomby;
US spies on UN officials
A Sunday Times journalist suggested his mother’s lasagne recipe was secret, but that didn’t make it interesting.
vs: dat ho za mreze / zabit
21:34 < pht`> symbolicky poriadok ako zdielane klamstvo, o ktorom to kazdy vie, ale predsa sa udrzuje
sebej: jalova senzacia
+
velkolepe media headlines:
“new age of transparency”
“age of leaks”
“First Major Event in the New Epoch of Information Transparency”
….leaks tu boli aj predtym, napr watergate, dokumenty sa sirili fotografiou
+
heather brooke: ak vlada zaklada svoju moc na informaciach, je tazke ju monopolizovat, pretoze moze byt velmi lahko dispersed
ROZDIEL – toto su udalosti z celeho sveta, worldwide significance
+ ..
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia: “@wikileaks Speaking as Wikipedia’s co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.–not just the government, but the people.”
Max Boot, senior fellow at the US foreign affairs thinktank the Council on Foreign Relations: “This is journalism as pure vandalism.”

CONDEMNATION – “international condemnation of WikiLeaks” & arguments to shut WL down [by politicians all over the world, int’l orgs, etc..]
is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. [hypocrisy]
damage to national security.
H Clinton: leaks imperils lives and US diplomatic efforts.
“this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.”
“I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set in these messages but here in Washington.”
“Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid [uprimny] conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. I know that diplomats around the world share this view… We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off.”
right-wing Le Figaro, close to the French government, ran an editorial entitled “The tyranny of transparency” saying: “The massive diffusion of secret documents belonging to American diplomacy is an act of malice, about which it would be very naïve to rejoice.”
Socialist party was as critical of the leaks as Sarkozy’s right-wing UMP party. The socialist Jean-Christophe Cambadélis complained of “the tyranny of transparency with no limits” .
Francois Baroin, FR budget minister and government spokesman, told Europe1 radio, “I always thought a transparent society would be a totalitarian society.”
IT foreign minister Frattini: “the 9/11 of world diplomacy”;
IT head of Frattini’s party in the lower house of parliament: the documents were representative of a new form of “media terrorism”
US Republican congressman Peter King: WL should be treated as a terrorist organisation.
Ahmadinejad: disclosure that Arab states wanted to attack Iran was not a genuine leak, but part of a US campaign of psychological warfare.
Some part of the American government produced these documents. We don’t think this information was leaked. We think it was organised to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.
WikiLeaks “game” is “not worth commenting upon and that no one would waste their time reviewing them”.
FR gov: attack on democracy
Rep congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan: “The catastrophic issue here is just a breakdown in trust,”
many other countries – allies and foes alike – are likely to ask, ‘Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?'”
foreign policy hawk Lieberman: “I hope we are doing everything we can to take down their website.”

q of creative act
PZI otazka: je na wikileaks nieco kreativne? v zmysle whiteheada… does it give us something new? if yes, what is it?
ukazuje silu (taktickeho) filesharingu. [takticky zacal byt s iraq war logs, ked dali obsah najprv vybranym global mediam]
ake fikcie vytvara? W’s propositions as fiction-actual border object; “the tales that might be told about particular actualities”
existuje nejaka seriozna analyza wikileaks? napr z pohladu OOO?
co ine by sa dalo spravit s tymito docs? vykalibrovali to tak ze maju naozaj globalnu pozornost a generuju chaos, atomova memeticka bomba

q of public domain
releasing confidential gov data to public domain (where public gov data normally go)

q of accountability
na jednej strane debata o zopovednosti v suvislosti s transparentnostou, online identitou, ne-anonymnostou,
na druhej napr ranciere a bishop ktori argumentuju proti moral arguments / ethical standpoints
(podla ranciera dokonca pre-poeticky/pre-mimeticky/pre-reprezentivny), a PRO esteticky rezim umenia

q of responsibility
JA: I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, “The Bourbaki”. However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

q information transparency
ako meni transparentnost politiku a diplomaciu? politicke strany propagujuce transparentnost vyhravaju hlasy, ale v polit stranickej praxi
je transp nepresaditelna. vid Veci Verejne cz, alebo SK watchdog NGO + SAS).
MTP open org.
Kelly: transparency required @ The Cloud
WL is a symptom not a feature, due to a lack of trust and transparency between US Gov and its people.
niekt0: teoreticky je mozne podhodit medzi 100 pravych dokumentov jeden falosny
There is a certain vicious amorality about the Mark Zuckerberg-ian philosophy that all transparency is always and everywhere a good thing, particularly when it’s uttered by the guy who’s busily monetizing your radical transparency.
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”
novinari exposing secrets – selfish. And the way most journalists “expose” secrets as a professional practice — to the extent that they do — is just as narrowly selfish: because they publicize privacy only when there is profit to be made in doing so, they keep their eyes on the valuable muck they are raking, and learn to pledge their future professional existence on a continuing and steady flow of it. In muck they trust.
goal: not transparency, but just society. “It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it’s our goal to achieve a more just society.”
Wikileaks “practices civil obedience, that is, we are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction.”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-3,00.html
secrecy is not evil. “We keep secret the identity of our sources, as an example, [and] take great pains to do it. So secrecy is important for many things but shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.”
(kym napr Zuckerberg je za dismissal of all secrecy)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-3,00.html

q of censorship
JA: The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be “free” because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

assange’s portraits
Raffi Khatchadourian’s June portrait in The New Yorker, which makes Assange sound like a master spy in a John le Carré novel.
Tunku Varadarajan’s epic ad hominem bloviation in The Daily Beast: “With his bloodless, sallow face, his lank hair drained of all color, his languorous, very un-Australian limbs, and his aura of blinding pallor that appears to admit no nuance, Assange looks every inch the amoral, uber-nerd villain.”

wikileaks IS NOT assange – strategia prezitia v pripade vrazdy/zatknutia/zrusenia webu
WikiLeaks has released an encrypted 1.4 gigabyte file called “insurance.aes256.”
If something happens to Assange, the password to the encrypted file will be released (presumably via a single Twitter tweet).
What’s in the file? We don’t know.
at 1.4 gigabytes, it is nineteen times the size of the Afghan war log that was recently distributed to major newspapers.

BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures

hackers scandals in history
Gary McKinnon 66 aq 3 akbal I – get via blank or default pwds to Pentagon/US systems search for UFO/anti-gravity/free energy proofs
Daniel Ellsberg 31 ar 11 kan II – 71 released Pentagon Papers, study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times
inspirovany by epiphany he got @ 69 anti-Viet war speech by pacifist who was excited to be able to join his friends in prison.
via xerox.
ukazali ze Johnsonova administrativa vytrvalo klamala nielen verejnosti, ale aj Kongresu – vedeli ze vojnu asi nevyhraju a bude viac obeti ako
sa vseobecne predpokladalo.
novinar z Times porusil dohodu a publikovali komentar, Nixon zastavil vydavanie novin na 2 tyzdne, zatial ale Ellsberg leakol dalsim 18 novinam.
NYT a Wash Post vyhrali Supreme Court case proti vlade a mohli publikovat dokumenty bez cenzury ~ sloboda tlace je vyssia ako udrzat utajene info.
Brian Manning via Wikileaks
ROZDIEL – toto su udalosti z celeho sveta, worldwide significance

pre-emptive actions from politicians
Hillary Clinton obehla hlavnych spojencov a varovala ich ze vyjdu von leaky.
Clinton led a frantic damage limitation exercise this weekend as Washington prepared foreign governments for the revelations, contacting leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, France and Afghanistan.
new US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, published an article on Nov 30 in a Pakistan’s English-language paper, the News, which aims to pre-empt unflattering references to the Pakistani government and its military.
“Of course, even a solid relationship will have its ups and downs,” he says, adding later that: “Honest dialogue – within governments and between them – is part of the basic bargain of international relations; we couldn’t maintain peace, security, and international stability without it. I’m sure that Pakistan’s ambassadors to the United States would say the same thing.”
(cables include allegations that the military is colluding with militant groups and unflattering pen portraits of leading politicians)

TRIVIA
Manning: “[I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history.”
in “It was childishly easy. I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like ‘Lady Gaga’ … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing …”
he “had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months”.
Manning uploaded all files to “freedom of information activists” wikileaks.org (?!) — to muselo byt okolo 5 gb
Assange and his circle apparently decided against immediately making the cables public. Instead they embarked on staged disclosure of the other material – aimed, as they put it on their website, at “maximising political impact”.
Although none of the Wired articles ever mention this, the first Lamo-Manning communications were not actually via chat. Instead, Lamo told me that Manning first sent him a series of encrypted emails which Lamo was unable to decrypt because Manning “encrypted it to an outdated PGP key of mine” [PGP is an encryption program]. After receiving this first set of emails, Lamo says he replied — despite not knowing who these emails were from or what they were about — by inviting the emailer to chat with him on AOL IM, and provided his screen name to do so. Lamo says that Manning thereafter sent him additional emails encrypted to his current PGP key, but that Lamo never bothered to decrypt them. Instead, Lamo claims he turned over all those Manning emails to the FBI without ever reading a single one of them. Thus, the actual initial communications between Manning and Lamo — what preceded and led to their chat — are completely unknown. Lamo refuses to release the emails or chats other than the small chat snippets published by Wired.
teda manning nasiel lama cez twitter #wikileaks, poslal mu maily kryptovane jeho starym pgp klucom, lamo ich nevedel otvorit a poslal mu svoj aim nick, manning mu poslal dalsie maily s novym klucom, tie lamo vraj nedekryptoval a rovno ich poslal fbi
otazka teda preco si manning vybral prave lama; a preco lamo tvrdi ze ich neotvoril (asi sa boji ze by to z neho fbi vymazali:)
^ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html

; ad censorship
Assange: “I am a journalist, a publisher and an inventor,” Assange says. “I have tried to invent a system that solves the problem of censorship of the press and the censorship of the whistle-blower across the whole world.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007375,00.html

; aim: to expose oppresive regimes & to show how society really works right now
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080314204422/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About
WL eg. published a manual from Camp Delta at Guantánamo Bay, an internal report commissioned by oil-trading company Trafigura detailing the dumping of potentially toxic material off the African coast and a video of a 2007 American helicopter attack that killed two Reuters journalists in Baghdad — which Reuters had lobbied unsuccessfully for years to have released. WikiLeaks’ release of documents alleging corruption in Kenya won the site an award from Amnesty International. And with the Afghan papers, Assange “has basically guaranteed that think tanks, academics and analysts will study his website for some time. It’s history right there on the Internet for everyone to see,” says Paul Rogers, a British academic and security correspondent for the website OpenDemocracy.net.
+
a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks
+
Assange @ Oslo Freedom Forum:
“So, in this broader framework of what we do, it is to try and build a historical record, an intellectual record,
of how civilisation actually works in practice, now, from the inside, everywhere, in every country around the World.
Because all our decisions, individual decisions, our political decisions, are based upon what we know. Humanity is
nothing but what we know and what we have. And what we have can be replaced, and degrades quickly. And what we know
is everything, and it is our limit of what we can be. So before we embark on any particular political stratagem,
we first have to know where we are because, if we do not know where we are, it is impossible for us to know where
we are going. Likewise, it is impossible to correct abuses unless we know that they are going on.”
[mind determinism~chuen*]
15:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDvfQ5gZ-Jw
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/101236-transcript-julian-assange-wikileaks-speech-2010-a.html
+
Steven Levy, 1984′ Hackers:
hacker ethic includes, among others, the following two maxims:
(1) all information should be free;
(2) mistrust authority and promote decentralization.
+
Assange’s philosophy can’t be characterized in terms of left versus right so much as individual versus institution.
In particular, Assange holds that truth, creativity, etc. are corrupted by institutional hierarchies,
or what he calls “patronage networks,” and that much of illegitimate power is perpetuated by the hoarding of information.

; staff
6 fulltime volunteers + 1000 parttime encryption experts
1/10: 5 fulltime + 800 occassionaly, all volunteering
/ medzi nimi musi byt aka dovera!!!
As of June 2009, the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[5] and listed an advisory board comprising Assange, Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, C. J. Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker and Wang Youcai.
ludia okolo nich: dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, startup company technologists, refugee representatives, ethics and anti-corruption campaigners (former TI head), human rights campaigners, lawyers, cryptographers
Dan, CN, 69 pi 9 ix, najhladanejsi po Tiananmen protestoch 89
Laurie, co-founder of apache, member of openssl, director of open rights group, etc, UK, works with Google London on their projects (security protocol pre html/javascript/css)
Phillip Adams, AU, 39 cn 11 ahau, v teenagi clen comm strany, broadcaster
Xiao Qiang, CN, editor China Digital Times
Whitaker, BR, social justice advocate
Wang Youcai, CN, 66 cn 12 ik, jeden z Tiananmen 89 protest lidrov, v 98 co-founded Dem Party (zakazana), 98-04 sedel v base a po tlaku US pusteny
WikiLeaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.
?! WikiLeaks is planning to add an auction model to sell early access to documents.

; hosting
Pirate Party im v 8/10 ponukla hosting vo svedsku, napr v nato cyberbunkri; dostali DDOS, odisli na amazon; ten ich zrusil; odisli na OVH vo FR
Wikileaks integrates technologies including modified versions of MediaWiki, OpenSSL, FreeNet, Tor, PGP and software of our own design.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080216000537/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#What_is_Wikileaks.3F_How_does_Wikileaks_operate.3F
ad Freenet – funguje inak ako torrent, je p2p siet, ale casti dat su po uploade (publisher moze byt potom uplne odpojeny, ako pri torrente) zakryptovane, anonymne rozdistribuovane po hostoch (redundantne), nikto nema cely file, takze nikto nie je zodpovedny za obsah ako celok (ako na torrente, a tiez neni problem s lack of ‘seeds’).
ale problem – Freenet tends to ‘forget’ data which is not retrieved regularly.
While users can insert data into the network, there is no way to delete data. Due to the anonymity, no node knows who is the ‘owner’ of a piece of data. The only way data can be removed is if users don’t request the data.
A data haven is a computer or a network that holds data protected from government action by both technical means (encryption) and location in a country that has either no laws, or poorly-enforced laws restricting use of data and no extradition treaties. HavenCo (centralized) andFreenet (decentralized) are two models of modern-day data havens.
WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor because of the strong privacy needs of its users.
bulletproof hosting = WL keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information.
/ na SK to mala hysteria, medzi hekermi default hosting

According to Assange, Switzerland and Iceland are the only countries where WikiLeaks would feel safe to operate.
+ uvazuje o azyle v CH

Author and journalist Whitley Strieber: “Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East.”[32]
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=31640

; economy & aukcie
1/10:
core team sa vie samofinancovat, assange zarobil na nete. How do you and the other four guys who work full time without salaries finance living costs? I have made money in the Internet. So I have enough money to do that, but also not forever. And the other four guys, in the moment they are also able to self-finance.
donations = 10%, ostatne od journalist/tech/lawyers friends. In the moment most of the money comes from the journalists, the lawyers or the technologists who are personally involved. Only about ten percent are from online donations. But that might increase.
za pravnikov nikdy neplatili, vsetky spory vyhrali. We don’t have to pay for our lawyer’s time. Hundred of thousands or millions dollars’ worth of lawyer time are being donated. But we still have to pay things like photocopying and court filing. And so far we have never lost a case, there were no penalties or compensations to pay.
pravnikov maju od AP, LA Times, NNA. At the bottom of the site is a list of your “steadfast supporters”, media organisations and companies like AP, Los Angeles Times or The National Newspaper Association. What do they do for you? They give their lawyers, not cash.
nema problem s platenim ich zdrojov – preco by mali profitovat len novinari a pravnici? (by to riesili napr cez belgicko, ktore chrani media zdroje, vratane bank) Actually we would have no problem giving sources cash. We don’t do that, but for me there is no reason why only the lawyers and the journalists should be compensated for their effort.
the more evidence there is of some scandal and the more important the scandal, the less likely it is that the press will write about it. If there is no exclusivity.
aukcna nocna mora vo venezuele
(hovori o tom ako si mozu byt wl isti ze dane medium o tej story napise)
If you have an auction and a media organisation pays the most, then they are predicting, that they will benefit the most from publishing the story. That is, they will have the maximum number of readers. So this is a very good way to measure who should have the exclusivity. We tried to do it as an experiment in Venezuela .
Why Venezuela?
Because of the character of the document. We had 7 000 e-mails from Freddy Balzan, he was Hugo Chavez’s former speech writer and also the former ambassador to Argentinia. We knew that this document would have this problem, that it was big and political important, therefore probably no one would write anything about it for the reason I just said.
What happened?
This auction proved to be a logistical nightmare. Media organisations wanted access to the material before they went to auction. Consequently we would get them to sign non-disclosure agreements, chop up the material and release just every second page or every second sentence.That proved to distracting to all the normal work we were doing, so that we said, forget it, we can’t do that. We just released the material as normal. And that’s precisely what happened: no one wrote anything at all about those 7 000 Emails. Even though 15 stories had appeared about the fact that we were holding the auction.
You plan to continue the auction idea in the future …
We would actually need a team of five or six people whose job was just to arrange these auctions.
We plan to continue it, but we know it will take more resources. But if we pursue that we will not do that for single documents. We will instead offer a subscription. This would be much simpler. We would only have the overhead of doing the auction stuff every three months or six months, and not for every document.
+
15:19 < barak> hmm, tak mame to tu, cryptome’s john young’s hatred kampan o tom
ze wl su knowledge industry banda ma zazemie
15:20 < barak> akurat to je trochu ploche tvrdenie
15:21 < barak> wl sa obhajuju tym, ze tym media prinutia o storke nakoniec
napisat
15:21 < ach> to je tiez trochu ploche tvrdenie :)
15:21 < barak> prve si kupi exkluzivny early access
15:22 < barak> a ked nenapise, vyhodilo zbytocne peniaze
15:22 < barak> co ma ale vela slabin
15:22 < barak> takato logika
15:22 < ach> ved vravim
15:22 < ach> to je podla mna skor chaba racionalizacia
15:22 < ach> ako realny plan :)
15:23 < barak> ktovie ci to riesili pri cablegate. tvrdia ze nie. ak nie,
podarilo sa im vytvorit model kedy msg gets delivered
15:23 < barak> bez nutnosti aukcie
15:24 < barak> zaroven ohlasili ze stransparentnia svoj cashflow
+
este k aukcnemu modelu:
So the exclusivity of the story will run out after three months?
No, there will be exclusivity in terms of different time windows in access to the material. As an example: there will be an auction for North America. And you will be ranked in the auction. The media organisation which bids most in the auction would get access to it first, the one who bids second will get access to it second and so on. Media organisations would have a subscription to Wikileaks.
Let’s imagine there are only two companies in the auction. And one pays double what the other one pays. And let’s say the source says they want the document to be published in one month’s time. So there is a one month window where the journalists have time to investigate and write about the material. The organisation that pays the most for it gets it immediately, so therefore they would be able to do a more comprehensive story. Then the organisation that pays half as much gets it half the time later, they get the documents two weeks later. And then after one month they both publish.
But all in all I think we only would have to have a few bid cases per year, that would be enough to finance it.
15:31 < barak> rozhovor robili v case ked bol wl myslim dokonca dole, alebo
siel dole [ano, potvrdene v prvej otazke rozhovoru]. vzapati ale zacali chodit donations ake predtym
nechodili. co asi teoreticky vyriesilo problem pokrytia
operational costs
^ http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/

; wl – knowledge that + how (via epistemology)
diplomaticke kable a dalsie leaky, skratka wikileaks nam davaju nielen truths, ale aj knowledge how..
vela veci boli doteraz beliefs, no povrdili sa, a stali sa poznanim.
wikileaks mali pred 2010 problem vytvorit mesidzom impact lebo ponukali iba truth… neponukali belief… (??)
no poznanie potrebuje byt okrem pravdou aj vierou, ludia mu musia verit. (??)
no a vdaka pritomnosti v mienkotvornych mediach nabrali aj belief value. a stali sa poznanim.
guardian outsourcol pravdu na wikileaks, wikileaks zase vieru na guardian (??)
?? nie je ale viera moc klasicke vnimanie poznania?
+
druhu vec ktoru nam wl davaju je ‘poznanie ako’ (via foucault). vieme o tom ze al-dzazira je relativne nezavisla telka,
dnes vieme aj to, ze scasti zavisla je, a aj ako. je kontrolovana katarskou vladou.
+
a acquaintance-knowledge?

; text-based impact
zarazajuce je ze spravili taky impact cisto s texom….
video je silnejsie – na tom zas stal collateral murder (tu redefinovali vyznam pojmu ‘collateral damage’).
tymto sa spustila lavina zaujmu. ich znacka vyrazne profitovala.

; internetovy technokomunista
/ komentar na zunguzungu (clanok wikileaks now) ze nechape preco nevie autor spravit link medzi manifestom a ich dnesnou taktikou.
his ideology is concocted generally from the readily available ideology of Internet technocommunism.
? There isn’t anything “capitalistic” or “market-oriented” or “libertarian” about what he says, as capitalism isn’t “better” if its trade secrets are destroyed, just like government didn’t get “better” by having its cables exposed.
/ ==>> takze mu je ukradnuty trh aj kapitalizmus aj stat ktory zavisi na obchodnych tajomstvach??
he isn’t for transparency so much as “justice”. “Justice” is Bolshevism — it’s justice as he sees, with code as law, and the coder as the most powerful. The hacker runs everything…because he *can*.
That’s *his* justice, which isn’t even frontier justice, but the Bolshevik “revolutionary expediency”.
it’s all destructive, to make a situation of “the worse, the better,” so that he can proclaim victory of the web over old organic institutions.
Wikileaks, Now
== oh no! alebo mysli to ironicky? term that in fact Kevin Kelly of Wired and AJ Keen have used in describing the phenomenon of Web 2.0 quite apart from me.
tiez: “Free” to 4-chan to the TED cult to Tim O’Reilly
transhumanist/singularist/technoutopian/whatever ideas bound up in software production
rightwing kritika z pozicie: “code-as-law” is a threat to human rights, not a realization or an improvement of them / ale nepisal o tom aj Lessig?
WikiLeaks is Bolshevism. It’s not about reform or about some noble advocacy. It’s about nihilistic destruction.
ad scientific journalism – As if an “original document” is somehow “scientific”. As if any of these cables can really be understood, shorn of their context.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2010/12/christopher-schwartz-censors-my-comment-about-wikileaks-.html
/ ako ju vyvratit? neni wl fakt net technokomunizmus?
/ pojem pravdy u assange – tym trpim.. by som potreboval nastudovat foucaulta a uz nevladzem
Lovink&Riemens: wl is deeply shaped by 1980s hacker culture, combined with the political values of techno-libertarianism that emerged in the 1990s.
this brand of idealism (or, if you prefer, anarchism) is paired with a preference for conspiracies, an elitist attitude and a cult of secrecy (never mind condescension).
This is not conducive to collaboration with like-minded people and groups, who are relegated to being the simple consumers of WikiLeaks output.
The missionary zeal to enlighten the idiotic masses and “expose” the lies of government, the military and corporations is reminiscent of the well-known (or infamous) media-culture paradigm from the 1950s.
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/geert/2010/12/07/twelve-theses-on-wikileaks-with-patrice-riemens/

; centralised group + wl as conspirators too
Assange, as the original designer of WikiLeaks, envisions this entity as a conspiracy to fight conspiracies.
+
Isn’t it strange that in Assange’s view, the decentralized acephalic network as the structure of authoritarianism? Almost as if the positions have been reversed. Not only is he philosophically not a hacker, for him the problem is effectively that government is controlled by hackers.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg, another former member who left recently, seems to endorse the standard anarchist view in interviews. This might mean that Assange is partly acting pragmatically – trying out ideas like crowdsourcing and then discarding them when they fail – but the failures also cause him to hew closer to his own principles, and this means jettisoning members who fail to adapt.
If Assange logic/ratuonality is moving to a hacker based logic/rationality to an “institutional” media one, this implies that sooner or later Wikileaks will be affected by a Secrecy/Conspirative/Authoritarian logic/rationality.
the danger for Wikileaks and assange is to be devoured by the Monster they are fighting for.
koment zo zunguzungu

; journalism
Lovink & Riemens: Assange and his collaborators refuse to be labelled in terms of “old categories” (journalists, hackers, etc.) and claim to represent a new Gestalt on the world information stage.
Traditional investigative journalism used to consist of three phases: unearthing facts, crosschecking these and backgrounding them into an understandable discourse. WikiLeaks does the first, claims to do the second, but omits the third completely.

; ANONYMOUS
*2006 Habbo raid (niektori oznacuju 2003-2007 ako zlatu eru 4chan)
sli proti cenzure, scientologom, teraz aj za free speech
“loose coalition of Internet denizens”
“doing it for the lulz”
[Anonymous is] the first internet-based superconsciousness. Anonymous is a group, in the sense that a flock of birds is a group. How do you know they’re a group? Because they’re travelling in the same direction. At any given moment, more birds could join, leave, peel off in another direction entirely.
—Landers, Chris, Baltimore City Paper, April 2, 2008.
Operation:Payback
In 2010, several Bollywood companies hired Aiplex Software to launch DDoS attacks on websites that did not respond to software takedown notices.[71] Piracy activists then created Operation Payback in September 2010 in retaliation.[71] The original plan was to attack Aiplex Software directly, but upon finding some hours before the planned DDoS that another individual had taken down the firm’s website on their own, Operation Payback moved to launching attacks against the websites of copyright stringent organisations, Law firms and other websites.[72] This grew into multiple DDoS attacks against anti-piracy groups and law firms.
shifted to wikileaks
utoky na:
– paypalblog.com
– paypal.com – frozen 60k eur
– Operation:Payback – postfinance.ch, which frozen 31k eur
– related to 4chan, 711chan, ED, irc channels, youtube, etc… predtym scientology, etc

paste z: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

(from /not)
Cyberspace is what Deleuze
and Guattari call a “haptic” space, as opposed to an optical
one: a space of “pure connection,” accessible only to “closerange
vision,” and having to be navigated “step by step. . . .
One never sees from a distance in a space of this kind, nor
does one see it from a distance”.
No panoramic
view is possible, for the space is always folding, dividing,
expanding, and contracting. [nema zmysel robit vizualne komplexne webstranky – len tolko co clovek
vie cele prijat, v pozadi socialna navigacia, takze ‘listujem’ dalej
Time is flexible on the Net as
well; things happen at different speeds. Sometimes I must
read and type extremely fast to keep up with rapid-fire chat
room conversations. Other times I have to hold myself back
as I wait for pages or files to download.
What’s more, these
multiple speeds, times, and spaces overlap. Enveloped in
the network, I am continually being distracted.
I can no
longer concentrate on just one thing at a time. My body is
pulled in several directions at once, dancing to many distinct
rhythms. My attention fragments and multiplies as I
shift among the many windows on my screen. Being online
always means multitasking.

haptic space
=
a haptic vision of color, as opposed to the optical vision of light. What Deleuze calls haptic vision is precisely this “sense” of colors. The tactile-optical space of representation presents a complex eye-hand relation: an ideal optical space that nonetheless maintains virtual referents to tactility (depth, contour, relief). From this, two types of subordination can occur: a subordination of the hand to the eye in optical space (Byzantine art), and a strict subordination of the eye to the hand in a manual space (Gothic art). But what Deleuze, following Riegl, terms haptic space (from the Greek verb aptõ, to touch) is a space in which there is no longer a hand-eye subordination in either direction. It implies a type of seeing distinct from the optical, a close-up viewing in which “the sense of sight behaves just like the sense of touch.”
http://www.upress.umn.edu/excerpts/Deleuze.html
+
art historian Alois Riegl (1927) on early Roman art particularly textiles. Riegl’s work has been taken up by critical theorists to explore the specificity of cinema and digital media. In Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari appropriate Riegl’s term to describe a notion of space that is contingent, close up, and short term lacking a fixed point of reference. Haptic space for Deleuze and Guattari, may be visual, tactile and auditory
+
It is not about the all-encompassing (optical) view, but the micro-level (haptic) variation, which suggests orientation and negotiation that is articulated step by step, at a local level (Rebelo).
http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6065/Gilles-Deleuze-Francis-Bacon-the-Logic-of-Sensation-pt-2

thacker’s shaviro’s connected review
“Reach out and touch someone? It’s the worst thing that could happen to you”.

Connected is arranged as a series of short segments, each with a title, and each running between one to three pages. There is no one theoretical or narrative thread in Connected, but many. Methodologically, Shaviro uses science fiction as a way of gaining a novel, critical understanding of our current network society.
For Shaviro, science fiction is the only social theory capable of comprehending the many reversals that new media offer.

In his discussion of Bruce Sterling’s novel, Distraction, Shaviro notes the fine line between attentive multitasking
and the McLuhanesque “cool media” of total media distraction. In a way, Connected is Shaviro’s attempt to explore
this boundary. We might even call it the “critical theory of distraction.”

http://www.leonardo.info/reviews/apr2004/connect_thacker.html

lepsia verzia v .txt: http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/images/5/51/Pzi.esej.research.txt

premise: what if whitehead, not heidegger would set the agenda for postmodern thought?

INTRO

whitehead 861 aq 7 akbal IX – process and reality, 29
heidegger 889 li 11 cimi XI – being and time, 27
> both books = antiessentialist, antipositivist

1 q of beginnings
H’s first question of Being: “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”
W begins with “How is it that there is always something new?”
How can our culture’s incessant repetition and recycling nonetheless issue forth in something genuinely new and different?

2 q of history of phil
H: where did phil got wrong path?
W: “It is really not sufficient to direct attention to the best that has been said and done in the an-
cient world. The result is static, repressive, and promotes a decadent habit of
mind.” Instead of trying to pin down the history of philosophy, Whitehead
twists this history in wonderfully ungainly ways. He mines it for unexpected
creative sparks, excerpting those moments where, for instance, Plato affirms
Becoming against the static world of Ideas, or Descartes refutes mind–body
dualism.
^ nedebugovat linearnu historiu filozofie, ale nachadzat unexpected threads (ako 3hoursold v jpg ekologii)

3 W doesn’t talk about metaphysics

5 q of style
H: Heidegger’s contorted writing combines a height-
ened Romantic poeticism with the self-referential interrogation of linguistic
roots and meanings. It’s a style as portentous and exasperating as the myster-
ies it claims to disclose.
W’s language, to the contrary, is dry, gray,
and abstract. But in this academic, fussy, almost pedantic prose, he is contin-
ually saying the most astonishing things, reigniting the philosophic sense of
wonder at every step.

7 q of technology
H warns us against the danger of technological “enframing,” with its reduction of nature to the status of a “standing reserve.”
Heidegger ought to treat science and technology in the same way that he treats language: for language it-
self is a technology, and the essence of what is human involves technology in
just the same way as it does language
W: scientific and technical rationality is one kind of “abstraction.” This, in itself, is not anything bad.

8 q of subjectivity
Whitehead does not see the subject as an effect of
language. Rather, he sees subjectivity as embedded in the world. The subject
is an irreducible part of the universe, of the way things happen. There is noth-
ing outside of experience; and experience always happens to some subject or
other. This subject may be human, but it also may be a dog, a tree, a mush-
room, or a grain of sand. (Strictly speaking, any such entities are what White-
head calls “societies,” each composed of multitudes of “actual occasions,”
which themselves are the subjects in question.)
^ !! societies = objects composed of events(?) ??is he flat?? (flat ontology like early latour, and delanda)
+
In any case, the subject consti-
tutes itself in and through its experience; and thereupon it perishes, entering
into the “objective immortality” of being a “datum” for other experiences of
other subjects. In this way, Whitehead abolishes the ontological privileging of
human beings over all other subjectivities. This doesn’t mean, of course, that
the differences between human beings and other sorts of beings are irrelevant;
such differences remain pragmatically important in all kinds of situations, and
for all sorts of reasons. But in undoing the ontological privilege of being hu-
man, Whitehead suggests that the critique of the subject need not be so com-
pulsive a focus of philosophical inquiry.

Whitehead’s metaphysics stands outside the dualities—the subject or not, meaning
or not, humanism or not—with which recent theoretical thought has so often
burdened us.

Whitehead both exemplifies, and encourages, the virtues of speculation, fabulation, and invention.

Deleuze’s affinity with Whitehead lies, above all, in his focus on affect
and singularity, as a way of working toward a nondialectical and highly aes-
theticized mode of critique.

aim of S’s book: critical aestheticism.

W: “Beauty is a wider, and more fundamental, notion than Truth,” and even
“Beauty is . . . the one aim which by its very nature is self-justifying.”

Kant: Beauty cannot be judged according to concepts; it is a matter neither of em-
pirical fact, nor of moral obligation. This is why there is no science of the
beautiful. For Kant, aesthetics has no foundation, and it offers us no guaran-
tees. Rather, it throws all norms and values into question, or into crisis.
Beauty, Kant says, is not cognitive, not conceptual. “A judgment of
taste is not based on determinate concepts”; that is to say, the concept behind
such a judgment (if it can be called a “concept” at all) “does not allow us to
cognize and prove anything concerning the object because it is intrinsically
indeterminable and inadequte for cognition” (Kant 1987, 213). There is no
objective or scientific way to determine whether an object is beautiful, and—
if it is—to explain why.
+
beauty is not objectively there, in the world. It is not in nature; it is rather
something that we attribute to nature. An aesthetic judgment, therefore, is
one “whose determining basis cannot be other than subjective”
..Yet at the same time, beauty isn’t merely subjective.

ENDOF INTRO

+ research:

http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/index.php/Tactics_of_leaking_and_politics_of_the_common

http://burundi.sk/dusan/carrythatweight/index.php/DeLanda_-_New_Philosophy_of_Society

+ poznamky na papieroch vratane komentov od spekulativnych realistov

v ramci eseje o wikileaks, v ktorej som delandu nakoniec vobec nepouzil