Skype

Chat History with hope, that's fine with all of you (#soenkeha/$ingela.j;8149f27f3c06e524)

Created on 2008-04-06 23:15:51.

2007-08-15

soenkeha: 19:09:13
hope, that's fine with all of you
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:09:19
ok
Sönke Hallmann: 19:09:38
As for today, I simply like to suggest that we start this session with reading Virno's essay "General Intellect" (http://www.reading.department.cc/). The invitation is as always meant as a proposal.
Sönke Hallmann: 19:10:02
And maybe as a sidenote, this reading follows two sessions, which I organized together with Ingela for wmaoyw on Virno's "A Grammar of the Multitude" in July (http://www.whomakesandownsyourwork.org/mw/index.php?title=Sönke_Hallman%2C_Department_of_Reading).
Sönke Hallmann: 19:10:40
any questions or more comments right now?
Sönke Hallmann: 19:10:56
what do you think, should we start reading then?
Simon Goldin: 19:11:10
Yes. seems like the thing to do
Inga Zimprich: 19:11:22
yes, reading is silent. mostly
Sönke Hallmann: 19:11:50
so, reading then
Michele Masucci: 19:31:03
ok, are we done?
Tomas Nygren: 19:31:53
finished.  what can we say about the consumers? as opposed to the producers in virnos terms? I just wonder if the research lead by Arnold Mitchell. ( http://www.sric-bi.com/VALS/ )
Tomas Nygren: 19:32:15
can make any direction in this understanding of the "masses"
Tomas Nygren: 19:32:59
( another link http://www.msu.edu/~leejooh2/works/ivals.html )
Sönke Hallmann: 19:33:56
just in between for those, who joined the chat later: we have two simple rules for today within the chat. If you should refer within the skype-chat to a passage or term from the wiki, please quote this term of passage as follows: #quote from text#. If you should refer to a term or passage from the chat itself: ^quote from chat^.
Sönke Hallmann: 19:34:29
it will help to further the technological development of the DoR
Sönke Hallmann: 19:36:21
but, Tomas, would you like to say some more about mass-customization
tsila hassine: 19:38:18
hi all
tsila hassine: 19:38:26
sorry for tardiness
Michele Masucci: 19:38:47
I think personaly it would be very interresting tosee if we could speculate on the following question #What kind of speech act might correspond to civil disobedience and exiting?#
Ingela Johansson: 19:38:51
hi tsila
Tomas Nygren: 19:38:53
im just qurious.. VALS was based on empirical reseach with psychological answering questionaries, all this info was munched up by a computer and in the output you had some "categories" of consumers that crossed all classes etc..
tsila hassine: 19:39:04
hey ingela!
Tomas Nygren: 19:39:25
much of marketing is using the VALS schema today..  as well as youtube ;)
Sönke Hallmann: 19:39:54
^consumers? as opposed to the producers^ - I wonder, if even this distinction becomes obsolete with Virno's approach
Michele Masucci: 19:40:17
As well as privat - public life
Tomas Nygren: 19:40:38
aha.. well it might be, I get the point..
Tomas Nygren: 19:41:20
..regarding resources..
Sönke Hallmann: 19:42:48
and, yes, I would also like to speculate on that question: #What kind of speech act might correspond to civil disobedience and exiting?# but maybe, we could first try to follow a bit Virno's redefinition of the #general intellect#
Simon Goldin: 19:43:10
yes good idea
Ingela Johansson: 19:43:12
yes
Sönke Hallmann: 19:43:34
that might also adress the distinction between ^consumer and producer^, mayber
Tomas Nygren: 19:44:24
"a combination of technological expertise and social intellect, or general social knowledge - increasing importance of machinery in social organization."  / wikipedia definition
Sönke Hallmann: 19:45:50
well, I guess, this quote contains the central thesis of Virno's essay: #The analysis of Postfordist production compels us to make such criticism; the so-called ‘second-generation autonomous labour’ and the procedural operations of radically innovated factories such as Fiat in Melfi show how the relation between knowledge and production is articulated in the linguistic cooperation of men and women and their concrete acting in concert, rather than being exhausted in the system of machinery. In Postfordism, conceptual and logical schema play a decisive role and cannot be reduced to fixed capital in so far as they are inseparable from the interaction of a plurality of living subjects. The ‘general intellect’ includes formal and informal knowledge, imagination, ethical tendencies, mentalities and ‘language games’. Thoughts and discourses function in themselves as productive ‘machines’ in contemporary labour and do not need to take on a mechanical body or an electronic soul. The matrix of conflict and the condition for small and great ‘disorders under the sky’ must be seen in the progressive rupture between general intellect and fixed capital that occurs in this process of redistribution of the former within living labour.#
Sönke Hallmann: 19:47:01
though I really have no idea, how the factory of #Fiat in Melfi# is organised
tsila hassine: 19:48:25
not having read the text yet, I'd like to tie together teh consumer as "micro-producer" in teh case of youtubbe, delicious, flickr etc, and the way this is later out to use for profiling   - teh VALS strategy
Simon Goldin: 19:48:53
but I like that he uses a car factory as a metaphor
Michele Masucci: 19:49:06
Like a big coference building
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:49:32
yes, cars seems to be the main mataphor in neo-marxist theory
Simon Goldin: 19:49:36
because ofcourse we think of Ford for Fordism ... and then Fiat for Post-fordism... nice!
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:49:40
ford, toyota, fiat
Sönke Hallmann: 19:50:04
made in Italy...
Michele Masucci: 19:50:19
toyota is different thatn fiat though
Simon Goldin: 19:50:35
Toyota = JIT
Simon Goldin: 19:50:41
just-in-time
Michele Masucci: 19:51:49
are you saying post -marxist theory has not dealt with its own machinery?
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:52:36
no, just funny that the production of cars is the mesure of materialist history
Simon Goldin: 19:53:09
No. I think the car factory is interesting. Because I guess what Virno is trying to point at is that even that which we think of as assembly line production mainly is a social production or a linguistic production today... or at least so he argues
Andreas Müller: 19:53:32
what is this #progressive rupture between general intellect and fixed capital# that virnofound in the fiat factory? sounds promising, but i dont see what he means?
Simon Goldin: 19:53:56
Yes Andreas I would also like to understand that
Sönke Hallmann: 19:54:11
but to refer to the initial question of our invitation (#What kind of speech act might correspond to civil disobedience and exiting?#), I think, at first it's necessary to understand, that #thoughts and discourses function in themselves as productive ‘machines’ in contemporary labour# as well as why they #do not need to take on a mechanical body or an electronic soul# - thus, what it exactly means that the generic human capacities in postfordist production are put to work...
Simon Goldin: 19:54:51
and have they not always?
Simon Goldin: 19:55:02
is this specific to post-fordism?
Sönke Hallmann: 19:57:09
I mean, that would bring us back to the concept of virtuosity, to better understand this #radical metamorphosis of th concept of production#
Michele Masucci: 19:57:10
well I think we have to differentiate a little....fordist line of production still exist and dont require any generic human capacities....but post fordist modes of production have proliferated.
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:57:39
I don't know, but I find this to be mora of a redefinition marxism then a historical fact
Andjeas Ejiksson: 19:57:58
i.e. building new theoretical tools
Simon Goldin: 19:58:05
yes, agreed
Michele Masucci: 19:58:05
yes of course
Tomas Nygren: 19:59:39
so robots are living in a fordist world?
Michele Masucci: 20:00:27
Not robots but humans that are forced t act like one
Tomas Nygren: 20:00:54
heh yes.
Sönke Hallmann: 20:01:30
but in that sense - ^fordist line of production still exist^- Virno's example of #Fiat# is interesting as it demands to think immaterial labour - as creation and distribution of information, cultural narratives, instrumentalisation of relationships within the realm of labor - not just outside the factory
Simon Goldin: 20:03:07
maybe the point he is trying to make is that thought and discourse have always been productive and maybe even work... but not labour... in this sense the difference in post-fordism would be the strategy of capitalism to exploit these capacities...
Simon Goldin: 20:03:15
but this is also where the problems begin
Simon Goldin: 20:03:22
as far as I'm concerned
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:03:35
but, talking about virtuosity: the radical in Virnos work is that by saying that virtuosity is a modus of production we can no longer make a strict distinction between politics and labour, the way Arendt and Aristotle does. Political practice and labour has no qualitative distinction.
Michele Masucci: 20:03:38
yes,
Simon Goldin: 20:04:21
so everything is politics...?
Michele Masucci: 20:04:32
no
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:04:52
it does not make it the same
Tomas Nygren: 20:05:06
according to VALS everything is lifestyles..
Michele Masucci: 20:05:14
Fuck VALS
Simon Goldin: 20:05:21
no ofcourse.. I was just using the analogy because it tends to be that every thing is labour
Sönke Hallmann: 20:05:24
commodification of life-styles
Simon Goldin: 20:05:36
in this discourse
Michele Masucci: 20:06:22
That is interresting because it takes us to the question what a possible exit could be
Simon Goldin: 20:06:47
and also what is this thing we want to exit from???
Michele Masucci: 20:06:56
a non active life does not seem to be the case according to Virno that would be Arends position but what?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:07:13
^everything is labour^- well, I think, that's why the Post-Operaist speak of an arbitrary border between remunerated and non-remunerated life
Simon Goldin: 20:07:28
right
Michele Masucci: 20:07:35
Capitals apropriation of our "hears and Minds maybe?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:07:45
could you say some more about the ^non active life^in Arendt?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:08:45
maybe, it would be nice to read some Arendt also - if I am right, Andjeas also suggested to take a look at a passage from Arendt?
Simon Goldin: 20:09:03
(or it's our hearts and minds that have appropriated capital) I'm looking at the paragraph #Marx claims that in a communist society, rather than an amputated
worker, the whole individual will produce. That is the individual who has changed as a result of a large amount of free time, cultural consumption and a sort of ‘power to enjoy’. Most of us will recognise that the Postfordist labouring process actually takes advantage in its way of this very transformation albeit depriving it of all emancipatory qualities.#
 and asking myself: what would the difference be if we were emancipated and how would we know we were...
Sönke Hallmann: 20:10:01
yes, ^how would we know^
Simon Goldin: 20:10:41
Yes... I'm thinking that the problem for me is the macro-level of discourse
Simon Goldin: 20:11:07
and that it needs to come down to the level of knowing emanicpation... and the difference in what that could be...
Michele Masucci: 20:11:12
More specificity?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:12:52
ok, maybe that's also something to put together this question of ^knowing^, knowledge, and that of political action
Michele Masucci: 20:12:54
Wel post fordism seems nicer than Fordism
Simon Goldin: 20:13:34
I guess I'm just a bit worried about the grand narrative. And "exit" or "civil disobedience" as so heroic gestures. Trying to understand what exactly I would be fleeing away from... and if I want that...
Patricia Reed: 20:14:52
The translation from ^knowing^ to ^action^ is also for me quite a precarious translation
Patricia Reed: 20:15:14
sorry for being late, just catching up...
Tomas Nygren: 20:15:39
I wonder does Virno think that man is good in nature? like Jean-Jacques Rousseau or does he have a more Freudian perspective.. I might help my understanding of his general intellect definition
tsila hassine: 20:16:30
thinking of the ^non active life^, how far would that be fom Bartleby's "I prefer not to" , and wouldn't that be teh utmost form of resistance in a system where one is forced to make bad choices ? 
Michele Masucci: 20:16:33
Personallly I would flee away from discourses, ideas and thoughts that made me work and think in a way that hurt myself and the ones close to me...
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:18:55
I think the discurse on Bartleby is very interesting, but I really don't find it to be an alternative to rot away
Simon Goldin: 20:19:16
Can someone brief me on Bartleby?
Simon Goldin: 20:19:20
sorry the ignorance
Sönke Hallmann: 20:19:30
well, Virno at least notes, that the multitude is ambiguous, in that sense he certainly does not say that ^man is good in nature^
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:19:42
its a short novel by Herman Melville
Simon Goldin: 20:20:02
Ah... thanks
Sönke Hallmann: 20:20:07
so, Bartleby's central expression is: I prefer not to
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:20:16
yes
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:20:21
he is a secretary
tsila hassine: 20:20:27
Bartleby continuously refuses to make choices, by "I prefer not to"
tsila hassine: 20:20:46
(oops - sorry for inner contradiction)
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:20:53
not only choicses
Sönke Hallmann: 20:21:01
but work
tsila hassine: 20:21:03
in this way actively refuses to take active part in society
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:21:11
he starts prefer not doing anything
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:21:27
eventually rots away in prison
Anthony Auerbach: 20:21:32
exactly. it's nothing to do with choice. he refused the work he is asked to do by his boss
Michele Masucci: 20:21:36
II dont think that is exit or civil dissobedience at all
Anthony Auerbach: 20:21:45
but he didn't quit the job
tsila hassine: 20:21:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartleby_the_Scrivener
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:22:30
no, that is the radicallity of Bartleby
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:22:39
he does not quit
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:23:03
he does not leave anything
Sönke Hallmann: 20:23:12
if Bartleby doesn't ^quit the job^ but refuses the work, what kind of #exiting# is that
Anthony Auerbach: 20:23:15
in fact he lives in the office until the police drag him away
Michele Masucci: 20:23:20
most of all he does not transform
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:23:23
when the firm he works at leavs, he stays
Patricia Reed: 20:23:32
This is where I think this #cynicism# discussion gets intertesting compared to the #common participation#
tsila hassine: 20:24:15
^transform^ as in "adapt" I'd say
Michele Masucci: 20:24:56
well maybe create another workplace, way of working, living and speaking about work...
Inga Zimprich: 20:25:05
#In Postfordism, the tendency described by Marx is actually realised but surprisingly with no revolutionary or even conflictual implication.# Is it because we are experiencing contexts in which hope and cynicism co-exist neighboring so closely? The experiment of relating via technology contrasting the uncountable ^VALS strategies^ as being difficult to distinguish as seperate. Is that what makes it difficult ^to know when one is emancipated^?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:25:16
and I like to add Praticia's remark, that ^the translation from ^knowing^ to ^action^ is also for me quite a precarious translation^ - since we are reading these kind of essay's that produce rather knowledge then practicing some kind of #exit# on a linguistic level
Simon Goldin: 20:26:10
Well we are practicing something on the linguistic level also
Simon Goldin: 20:26:38
I'm thinking alot about how difficult the #general intellect# is in a situation like this
Simon Goldin: 20:26:54
how we don't really understand each other most of the time
Michele Masucci: 20:27:19
We are working on it ;-)
Sönke Hallmann: 20:27:35
and "with" it
Simon Goldin: 20:28:09
so is this work emancipatory or a design process in the continuous development of post-fordism
Sönke Hallmann: 20:28:15
both, what is called #general intellect# and our incapacities to ^really understand each other^
Michele Masucci: 20:28:19
im having fun
Sönke Hallmann: 20:28:44
well, am afraid, you can't really tell that apart
Inga Zimprich: 20:29:06
something about the faculty of enjoyment?
Inga Zimprich: 20:29:13
When discussing ^producing knowledge^ I need to search for the possibility of a breaking / breaking loose or loosing of tradition. (or the possibility of tradition to offer unexpected opportunities to loose/get lost) In order to discuss concepts as "general intellect" I need to pay attention to the relation of knowledge-generating institutions, from theoretical texts as the one we are reading, to scientific dialogue and resulting the technology we are using, to institutions set up as knowledge generators as academia. If not suspecting the possibility of shifts of meaning , such a discussion would be rendered useless. Does this possibility of shifting lie in: #the faculty and power to think, rather than the works produced by thought – a book, an algebra formula
etc. In order to represent the relationship between general intellect and living labour in
Postfordism we need to refer to the act through which every speaker draws on the inex-
haustible potential of language to execute contingent and unrepeatable statements.#
tsila hassine: 20:29:38
(should be maybe also a faculty of jouissance ;-) )
Inga Zimprich: 20:29:50
that could be your department :)
tsila hassine: 20:30:13
i'll give it serious consideration  :P 
Inga Zimprich: 20:30:40
not too serious, don't forget jouissance
tsila hassine: 20:31:46
(not wanting to go into a totally unrelated thread, but this is extremely serious business :-) )
Ingela Johansson: 20:32:17
Just a passage from Eva Grubinger,  ‘Artists often embrace new technologies as a means in itself rather than a means to an end’, she notes, ‘they tend to fool themselves by the seemingly limitless possibilities of new techniques instead of focussing on the results, which are often embarrassing. Taken too seriously the immaterial qualities of a medium may result in yet more alienation from the physical environment …Unwillingly, artists and curators provided the avant-garde for [sic] a neo-liberal life-style, which pretends to free capitalism from the curse of oppression and bureaucratic routine but only introduces more subtle regimes of power that are not organised as pyramids but as networks.’
Ingela Johansson: 20:33:15
http://www.metamute.org/en/Control-Alt-Delete
Inga Zimprich: 20:33:23
//In parallel (that's interesting, Ingela)

#language is the most common and least ‘specialised’ conceivable given. A good example of mass intellectuality is the speaker, not the scientist.#
Virno touches upon both: Arendt's solitary thinker and the speaker – including the speaker's notion of public addressing / (the speakers relation to the general intellect?) While we are working on a concept of reading here which shifts from a solitary perception of the process of reading towards an idea of a community of readers, I also wonder whether thought can be characterized as a solitary activity? Would speech or discussion qualify more than thought?
>> Trying to go back to  ^#What kind of speech act might correspond to civil disobedience and exiting?#^
Ingela Johansson: 20:34:52
yes I also fint that  :)  interesting
Inga Zimprich: 20:35:28
Compared to the cynic the artists playing around with technology might be more good-natured in their capacity to hope that within the science-derived network of facilitators shifts could occur. I would object Eva Grubingers idea that they ^fool themselves by not focussing on the results^. Maybe it is that they dont focus on the result which makes them producing "shifts"?
Sönke Hallmann: 20:35:39
#general intellect#, #mass intellectuality# - that already points to a concept of thinking that doesn't introduce a solitary actitvita
Sönke Hallmann: 20:35:54
activity
Sönke Hallmann: 20:36:17
just, wondering, where exactly Virno speaks about that in "A Grammar of the Multitude"
Sönke Hallmann: 20:37:31
as much as this is linked to his reference on the Aristotelian conception of "common places" as a kind of refuge for the most unspecialised creature that the human being is - following Virno
Inga Zimprich: 20:38:07
(actitvita – just as Arendts Vita Activa a great brand-name for medicine for elderly. I'll note it)
Inga Zimprich: 20:38:12
(off topic)
Michele Masucci: 20:38:16
page 25
Sönke Hallmann: 20:38:32
ah, would you like to quote a passage?
Michele Masucci: 20:38:49
"the multitude does not clash with the one it redefines it"
Simon Goldin: 20:38:56
wow anyone taken Vita Activa drugs? I would love to  :)
Inga Zimprich: 20:39:08
wait until you're older
Simon Goldin: 20:39:27
all in due time
Ingela Johansson: 20:39:46
ha ha
Inga Zimprich: 20:40:42
Yes, he speaks of  #generic attitudes#, #the faculty of language, the disposition to learn,
memory, the power of abstraction and relation and the tendency towards self-reflexivity# –– a sort of open source stock of human faculties –– (a sec)
Sönke Hallmann: 20:40:43
ah, yes, that's the difference between the #people# and the #multitude#
Sönke Hallmann: 20:41:47
I mean, the reference to the ^one^ not as centripetal, but centrifugal
Sönke Hallmann: 20:42:54
Inga, I think it's time that you take ^Vita Activa^ out of your book shelf and quote something healthy for us
Andreas Müller: 20:45:09
^Vita Activa^ is the german title of "THe Human Condition". Isnt that a strange translation?
Inga Zimprich: 20:45:35
Then I try with Bachmann:
#Mass intellectuality has nothing to do with a new ‘labour aristocracy’; it is actually its exact opposite.# I have to think of Ingeborg Bachmann's speech receiving the price of honor of people blinded in the war. She says (more or less) "When my audio play 'the good god of manhatten' circles all around the question of love between man and woman, you may say: this is extreme. this is a border-case. But I wonder whether not any daily-life occurrence of love embodies this extreme case, the border-case."

When Virno introduces these primary faculties of each human #the faculty of language, the disposition to learn, memory, the power of abstraction and relation and the tendency towards self-reflexivity# does it also suggest a/the space of speech, a space of shift?
Inga Zimprich: 20:46:06
Just in order to think of "production" – what is the production we are speaking about?
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:47:09
For Virno, production is production of production
Inga Zimprich: 20:47:26
fine. then you have plenty to choose from
Michele Masucci: 20:47:28
the process as product
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:48:11
that is wher the concept of viruosity comes in
Inga Zimprich: 20:48:28
I mean, that is really a nice definition. it definetely embraces any bordercase that Bachman mentions. Yes, virtuosity, indeed, agree
Sönke Hallmann: 20:50:20
^production of production^ - maybe we could define that even more in detail
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:50:58
in detail?
Michele Masucci: 20:51:33
To make things happen out of a saturated condition
Sönke Hallmann: 20:51:45
how do you produce production and what does that include regarding social relationships etc
Michele Masucci: 20:53:13
In detail it is aout what the factory should be doing when it moves to other regions?
Inga Zimprich: 20:53:20
sorry for my auto-scooter slang. I just enjoyed for example this: ^Simon Goldin 8/15/07 8:10 PM Yes... I'm thinking that the problem for me is the macro-level of discourse
8/15/07 8:11 PM and that it needs to come down to the level of knowing emanicpation... and the difference in what that could be...^ How to take a what is better question ^8/15/07 8:12 PM Wel post fordism seems nicer than Fordism^ down to the question where does addressing take place? or:  ^#What kind of speech act might correspond to ..... ?#^
Sönke Hallmann: 20:53:31
another important definition within the concept of ^virtuosity^ is that it is performance, thus "work" without an end product
Inga Zimprich: 20:53:43
yes
Sönke Hallmann: 20:54:01
the product is the production?
Inga Zimprich: 20:54:19
Back to Eva Grubingers idea that they ^fool themselves by not focussing on the results^
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:54:25
What I mean, and what I think Virno means, is that production, more then beeing a produciton of something is a production of the virtual, the world which we produce for ourselves.
Inga Zimprich: 20:54:39
yes
Inga Zimprich: 20:54:41
agree
Patricia Reed: 20:54:54
I would have to go lefebvrian here and suggest there is a high degree of reciprocity always involved, which can sometimes produce the tautological...on ^production of production^
Sönke Hallmann: 20:54:59
.... spektakel ... taraaa
Andjeas Ejiksson: 20:56:47
And I think at this point, the point of the spactacel, the idea of an exit becomes quite difficult if you dont believe in a true and historical constant huaman nature
Inga Zimprich: 20:57:34
Virno seems to actively demand consequence: #The cynic recognises the primary role of certain epistemic models in his specific context, as well as the absence of real equivalents; he repeals any aspiration to transparent and dialogical communication; from the outset, he relinquishes the search for an inter-subjective foundation to his praxis and withdraws from reclaiming a shared criterion of moral judgement.
The cynic dispels any illusion of prospects of egalitarian ‘mutual recognition’. The demise of the principle of equivalence manifests itself in the cynic’s conduct as the restless abandonment of the demand for equality. The cynic entrusts his self-affirmation to the unbound multiplication of hierarchies and inequalities that the centrality of knowledge in production seems to entail.#
  
Sönke Hallmann: 20:59:01
I think, that is a very brief and good definition (^production, more then beeing a produciton of something is a production of the virtual, the world which we produce for ourselves^), from which we can start to ask again, what #disobedience# and #exit# as #political action# could mean and in how far the human being as a creature with no specialised instincts - Virno's definition - is a such appropriated by capital, thus deprived of a "true expression" of the publicness of the intellect - #mass intellectuality#, #general intellect#
Inga Zimprich: 21:02:14
Again I stumble about the concept of disobedience. Would such a production not imply a concept which is not in the first place a critique, not a call to object and refuse, but doesnt it hold in the potential to ^produce the world which we produce for ourselves^. 
Sönke Hallmann: 21:03:02
^hold in the potential^ - what do you mean?
Inga Zimprich: 21:03:23
sec
Inga Zimprich: 21:03:53
virtuality. potential of the also possible that you participate in 
Inga Zimprich: 21:05:27
and does this hold in the risk of – in the absence of a tradition of critique which probably do not apply in concepts of virtuality and production or production – that one #withdraw(s) from reclaiming a shared criterion of moral judgement#?
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:06:07
transcendence?
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:06:39
I think this is a great problem for Virno
Sönke Hallmann: 21:06:46
but do you mean that the potential of disobedience is already implied as a emancipatory potential in the ^ world which we produce for ourselves^ - absorbed by advanced capitalism - or that this production also absorbs #disobedience# - maybe that is even both possible
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:07:19
On the one hand radical immanence on the other hand exit. Exit from what?
Inga Zimprich: 21:07:20
sorry telephone
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:07:35
and to what
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:07:38
wher
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:07:40
e
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:08:07
Here, Bartleby is the only path
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:08:19
an non-exit exit
Sönke Hallmann: 21:08:33
so, it can only mean a kind inner exit?
Sönke Hallmann: 21:08:51
well, the letters are fleeing my writing
Patricia Reed: 21:08:56
Don't you think that the ^potentiality^ for / of disobedience is inherently coded into the ^the world which we produce for ourselves^?
Inga Zimprich: 21:09:07
ähm. yes, for me personally ^world which we produce for ourselves^ implies a possibility of rendering through performativity, through production which does not need to be explicitly critical, certainly.

virtuosity? relation between transcendence and virtuosity?
Inga Zimprich: 21:09:22
sorry, was still editing
Sönke Hallmann: 21:10:02
yes, it is
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:10:19
It is a difficult question
Michele Masucci: 21:10:43
I think ^world which we produce for ourselves^ is the exit
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:11:15
of course there can be some kind of disobedience, and some kind of exit here
Inga Zimprich: 21:11:20
another part from Ingeborg Bachmann's speech: "Not in order to contradict myself, but to specify, I want to note that I am aware that we have to remain within the order. that an exodus from society (an outside/exit) does not exist. But within the tension between the possible and the impossible we expand our limitations."  For me this corresponds to the area of viruality
Michele Masucci: 21:11:28
Apropriation is inveitable, but we can always be a step ahead
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:11:59
but this is the point wher Virno wants to define a possibility
Patricia Reed: 21:12:14
yes expanding the "normal"
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:12:18
but a possibility of what
Inga Zimprich: 21:12:28
I disagree. You can never be sure whether you can be a step ahead. Ahead of what and at which point in time? I doubt you can even know whether it is you is appropriated or you who is appropriating. just as an example
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:13:37
but can be strategical
Inga Zimprich: 21:13:45
^^I think ^world which we produce for ourselves^ is the exit^^. That would lead to the question "what is exit"? is it a way out or is it very small differences? is it fluctuation? viruosity? gaps in speech?
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:14:21
this is where the refernce to Machiavelli becomes interesting
Michele Masucci: 21:14:28
Yes, to not simply reproduce
Sönke Hallmann: 21:14:50
 a repetions that differs
Sönke Hallmann: 21:14:58
repetition
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:15:08
for him virtuosity correlates to strategy
Inga Zimprich: 21:15:14
I mean, where is the "border-line" between in and out? between now and then? #In Postfordism, the tendency described by Marx is actually realised but surprisingly with no
revolutionary or even conflictual implication.# Does historic change come along and say: Look I am here? is it distinguishable? ^How to know you are emancipated^?
Michele Masucci: 21:15:49
No more borderline...its lost
Michele Masucci: 21:16:00
Or has never been
Simon Goldin: 21:16:01
I'm thinking here about some friends who work for infosys in bangalore...
Simon Goldin: 21:16:11
they just got promoted
Simon Goldin: 21:16:25
to start making the internal tv-channel for the company globally
Inga Zimprich: 21:16:29
I am very sorry, but I have to leave. very nice to have read the comments of some new names. I enjoyed. Thank you! 
Simon Goldin: 21:16:39
Thank you
Tomas Nygren: 21:16:46
:)
Sönke Hallmann: 21:16:49
yes, thanks for your comments
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:16:50
thanks
Inga Zimprich: 21:17:00
thanks simon and all for organizing good luck with wmaoyw
Simon Goldin: 21:17:25
Oh... thank you Inga!
Michele Masucci: 21:17:40
Thanks
Inga Zimprich: 21:17:44
:) bai
Michele Masucci: 21:17:57
Ciao
Patricia Reed: 21:19:25
Sorry I have to run away too...ughh, nice to discuss with you though and very interestnig text
Simon Goldin: 21:19:26
I got side-tracked.. but what I wanted to refer back to was ^"what is exit"? is it a way out or is it very small differences?^ and de certau's idea of tactics of resistance as opposed to strategies...
Simon Goldin: 21:19:58
but really I should also leave now I realize
Michele Masucci: 21:20:06
I think also a historical curiosity is that Operaist movement and Autonomia comes from an Disillusionment od soviet communism an end to the beliefe of an outside
Simon Goldin: 21:20:20
Wow. It's been a great discussion this eve!
Simon Goldin: 21:20:26
I really enjoyed it
Simon Goldin: 21:20:38
Good night and  (hi)
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:20:51
ok, bye
Sönke Hallmann: 21:20:54
hey, thanks and good night
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:21:29
will we continue for a while, or?
Michele Masucci: 21:21:47
Already done---I think I could continue if anyone is interrested?
Sönke Hallmann: 21:21:49
maybe, it's a good point to close the session - of course, there remain lot more questions than at our start
Sönke Hallmann: 21:22:00
ok, we can also continue
Michele Masucci: 21:22:01
ok, ciao
tsila hassine: 21:22:06
yes but this is always teh case :-)
Tomas Nygren: 21:22:25
oki good night! nice as always!
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:22:35
any final words
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:22:37
?
Sönke Hallmann: 21:23:47
I think, I really like to concentrate our questions and comments and see, if Virno's wrtings offer some more answers on these questions
Sönke Hallmann: 21:24:00
more - or at least some
Ingela Johansson: 21:24:56
hi, I just came back I have been out of the discussion-but would like to thank you for all comments.. will read read and save it. Ciao
Sönke Hallmann: 21:25:00
as I see it, the question of political action on the level of speech acts is a dominant line within his writings, though he seldomly addresses this question explicitly
Sönke Hallmann: 21:26:05
so, maybe some more about that another time - thanks to all of you for your readings and comments, very nice
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:26:25
ok, thanks
Andjeas Ejiksson: 21:26:28
and bye
Michele Masucci: 21:26:46
sent file A Few Fragments on Machines - Mozilla.pdf to members of this chat
Michele Masucci: 21:27:18
Another voice
Sönke Hallmann: 21:27:21
but of course, the essays are online on the wikipage and if you feel like working (editing) on them, you are most welcome
Sönke Hallmann: 21:28:51
night then
tsila hassine: 21:29:32
soennke
tsila hassine: 21:29:37
when are we meeting tomorrow ? 
Sönke Hallmann: 21:29:43
at 10 am
Sönke Hallmann: 21:29:46
is that fine with you?
tsila hassine: 21:29:48
ok 
tsila hassine: 21:29:51
yup