Re: [ox-en] The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage
- From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk telekommunisten.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:54:52 +0100
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 03:29:22 -0800 (PST), Michael Bauwens
<michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:
so it is unwise at best to build on that as if it was a solid
foundation. Some self-relativising would do no harm here.
There is nothing hazzerdous, nor unwise in writing essays on the
"unproven,"
you are grapsing at straws.
From the rest of your letter, I can only conclude that you are absolutely
blind to the enormous change that is taking place, and to the many
communities that are constructing new logics and relational worlds of
gifting, sharing and the commons, in countless domains of social life,
and
it is these communities that many participants here are also
participating
in.
What I am not blnd to is how much struggle and poverty there is in
these communities you idealize, because I have seen close friends
suffer and bear material sacrifice and the physical and psychological
scars of trying to live a life commited to sharing and equality in
a world based upon exploitaion and privilege.
It is because I treasure these communites, and that I am so-keenly
interested in the political and econonic challnges we face and not
satisfied to trust our future to ill-defined vague ideas and
utopian longings.
If you ignore what I'm pointing to, please take some time to sample
some of the 6,000 pages of documented open and free, participatory, and
commons oriented activities and projects that are referenced at
p2pfoundation.net.
Thank you for your efforts in documenting all this information and
projects,
you are doing a very valuable service to the community.
entangled in a competition for negativity, and to narcissically indulge
in
the feelings of superiority that this produces.
Sounds like Graham. And certainly not me or Matteo, neither of us have
claimed any superiority nor any credentiuals whatever.
I'm not especially referring to Matteo, who may well be a very worthy
activist, my critique of his text was very specific. So again, let's
focus
on the arguments concerning his text, not in psychologizing.
If your critique was specific, I missed it. What came across was some
falacoius
appeals to hazzard. Please restate your spefic ciritique as an unequicoval
logical argument.
My own
psychologizing that I've done here is also to show how unproductive that
is, it just leads to back and forth attacks 'ad hominem'
"ad hominem" is not a synomym for personal insult, but rather it is a type
of logical
fallacy where the argument is deemed false because of some characteristic
of it's
maker. I do not employ this fallacy. You and many others here do.
If you think psychology sheds any light our discusion, please feel free to
bring it up.
Cheers.
--
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de