R: Dieter, was machst Du wieder hier in Zürich?

(… what are you doing in Zurich?)

D: Nichts, Eva hat gerufen.

(… Eva has called me)

R: Aber Du bist doch tot?

(… but you are dead?)

D: Das macht nichts, ich muss trotzdem kommen.

( it does not make any difference…)

R: Warum musst Du trotzdem kommen, Dieter?

D: Für die Gerechtigkeit.

R: Seit wann bist Du gerecht?

D: Seitdem Eva Selbstinterviews in der Sonntagszeitung führt.

R: Erklär Dich, Dieter, geht es um so etwas wie mit dem Beuys vor Jahren?

D: Nein, es geht um weniger, wollen wir nicht etwas trinken gehen?

Seen from a broader perspective blogging unifies. Now millions of persons use the same format. So the expressions of millions of persons are subjected by a digital format, so millions of expressions are homogenized.

From a closer perspective this argument does not hold. (more…)

Koranschülerinnen, Islamabad Mai 07
Bild: Mian Khursheed/Reuters (Ausschnitt)

Does blogging change our way of feeling and thinking?

Scanning through this blog and posting in this blog strengthens  aspects of my personal being in the world. But strenghtening is not changing.

Changing is caused by events. Changing is enforced by catastrophes. Catastrophes are forms of subversion.

Is it possible to create situations of subversion in a blog?

Subatomic models offer something. They include messenger states that trigger changes. The search for subatomic particles is a way to come to a better understanding of changes. These occult changes will sensibilize blogging subjects to perceive changes of its own state.

But how is it possible to get hold of subatomic changes? Think of and look for Higgs particles.

Jabès creates a field of tension between the words “page”, “word”, “white”, “writing”, “sand”. What would be an aquivalent for these words in the domain of computing? May we translate

“page” with task?

„word“ with number?

„white“ with equal?

„writing“ with counting?

„sand“ with nature?

Every number is something special. Each integer has its own character. So numbers can be thought as persons. So the computer, which is called a number-cruncher can be thought as a person-cruncher. The cruncher processes data, for example news. Every news can be represented as a number, which can be crunched. So the world of news can be crunched, so the world can be crunched.

The computer seems to be powerful, powerful like the book or powerful like god. Is the computer powerful like a word? A word like the word „god” is powerful. It is an expression of god. Without words god would not exist.

Can we ask a number? We can ask a computer to calculate numbers. The calculation gives an answer to a question. Numbers by themselves do not give answers. But we can understand numbers as questions, as question marks, as marks that embody questions. The human mind asks. He invents signs such as god and numbers in order to give his questions a body, an appearance. Without questions the computer could not give any answer. But we can understand the computer as something, that moves marks, as something that moves expressions of questions. So we may become able to subvert the power of computing machines. We may enable ourselves to understand numbers as powerful questions.

“The rapports, that the answer has with the question, are in the first line rapports of power and therefore political”. (Jabès)

Bestimmte Pilzarten können radioaktive Strahlung als Nahrungsquelle nutzen. Dabei wandeln sie die Strahlung mit Hilfe des Pigments Melanin in Energie um, die sie wachsen lässt.

French “trou” means hole, prison in a ship, nest, backwater, gap. Is the computer something like this? Is a computer a prison in a ship, in spaceship earth?
Is the computer something closed, something that does not stand in communication with others?

The door, the roof, the wall were a gap. We have only this gap in order to err, to love, to die. (Jabès)