<nettime> those who forget history are...ummm... [bello, pichlmair, shrdlu]

["nettime's_nutty_professor" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

"Ricardo Bello" <aracal@well.com>
     RE: Re: <nettime> | The HISTORY of TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED ART <...>
Martin Pichlmair <e9626313@student.tuwien.ac.at>
     Re: <nettime> internetontology[ Cyc and D. Lenat ]
"Etaoin Shrdlu" <grogg@rsub.com>
     Re:<nettime> Have We Not Learned Anything From the 90s? OR, 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Ricardo Bello" <aracal@well.com>
Subject: RE: Re: <nettime> | The HISTORY of TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED ART <...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:40:55 -0700

There are too many unknown artist in the world, whose existence
will not be discover by any curators. Who will travel Latin America,
country by country, city by city and discover savage talent?
I think itīs a good idea to spread the news of this book.


>--- Original Message ---
>From: Robert Atkins <robertatkins@earthlink.net>
>To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
>Date: 7/7/01 1:15:31 PM


>This is pathetic when books about art from a major press are
>written by writers who know little about part of their subject 
>*and* can't bother to spend the time doing real research. This 
>is absurdly far from a solicitation for information and 
>shockingly close to what we would consider plagiarism in our 
>students' work.
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:02:30 +0200 (METDST)
From: Martin Pichlmair <e9626313@student.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: <nettime> internetontology[ Cyc and D. Lenat ]

hi all,

that is an interesting topic. knowledge of the world. in a database ( not
to mention the word hierarchical, you use). i wonder if you ever read
goedel...

another detail: where does a fact become knowledge. in this case,
knowledge has to be defined as "worth of being entered into this
database". is it as soon as someone cares about it? as soon as someone
pays for it? in my opinion, this is NOT the definition of knowledge i
learned on the university.

but historical "events" where people decided, what reality is (and defined
knowledge through this), always tend to redefine knowledge by neglecting
the opinions of critics and accepting those of the defining ones (often
without proof). from this view, it seems like ANY attempt to define
knowledge has to be "repressive" against someone. take the catholic church
in europe in the medieval ages for example. knowledge can so easily be
misused, when it is based upon opinions and not facts (so, redefined).

i really wonder how this database handles contrary points of view. do they
give different meaning a kind of "weight" or "propability factor". to
reflect the situation of the real world, i would suggest a mixture of
random and a link to "culture profiles". we are getting close to where we
don't want to get.

if you want to read more about how to define what's a fact and what's
nonsense, what is DECIDED to be real (as part of the reality), i recommend
the book "troika" by the strugatzky brothers (russian scifi authors). in
german it is available as part of the fantastic "fantastische bibliothek"
by suhrkamp verlag.


martin pi

ps: as i always have to post :: don't mistake bad english for bad
thoughts!


On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, josh zeidner wrote:

> Hi Brian!
> 
>   Are you familiar with the Cyc project lead by Doug
> Lenat?  It is essentially an attempt to construct an
> ontology for the ENTIRE WORLD.  They have actually
> managed to encode quite a bit of data.  A small subset
> of it is available as open source.
 <...>

                               : martin pi 
                      contact  :
e9626313@student.tuwien.ac.at  :  0699 10443742
  johann strauss gasse 32 / 7  :  1040 vienna
                               :  http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9626313

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: 12 Jul 2001 11:36:35 -0000
From: "Etaoin Shrdlu" <grogg@rsub.com>
Subject: Re:<nettime> Have We Not Learned Anything From the 90s? OR, 

"Now, the internet is no more interesting than TV,
actually it differentiates itself by actually being
MORE annoying than TV. "

Only boring people get bored. You are clearly not looking in the right
places. Stop slagging the Internet. It may not really be as much of a tool
for social change as we thought it would be, but its hella more interesting
than TV.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:09:01 -0700 (PDT) josh zeidner <jjzeidner@yahoo.com> 
wrote:

> hello all,
>
>   It surprises me to see so many still cleaving to
>the idea that the internet will somehow democratize
>society and lead us to some kind of mythic utopia in
>the near future.  It seems to me that this experiment
>has been carried out to its fullest extent in the past
>10+ years, resulting in a resounding "NO DICE"( to use
>the endemic NY expression ).
 <...>

_____________RSUB__________________________
http://www.rsub.com  go there now - - - - ->

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net