Re: now what post-JED?

[batz <batsy@vapour.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Aimee wrote:

:Batz seems to be proposing we seek a (Habbermasian) 
:rational communicative space.

Never heard of it. 

:I really do not believe such an 
:ideal, rational 
:communicative environment exists or can exist.  I also 
:have serious doubts that such an environment is 
:desireable.  

See slashdot.org , the IETF or any ietf.org working group, 
nanog, the firewalls list, bugtraq or any other 
list full of hackers. See freebsd.org, any linux 
distribution, or collective open source software 
effort for examples of rational rough consensus
development and communicative environments. 

These are all hacker efforts.  

I don't think checking "identity politics" 
:or any politics at the door is a positive move.  It 
:leaves me pretty dry.

Why? 

I should have been more clear about what I meant by identity 
politics. I probably assign stigmas to it that others don't. 
I was referring to any merit assigned or dismissed based
upon a persons culture, race, nationality, class, gender,
sexuality, physical ability etc..

Though these are all important filters through which we interpret 
peoples words, I am skeptical about whether they should be the 
ultimate adjudicator of what is 'on topic'. 
 
Hacking is the rigourous persuit of function. This creates
methods that are created by their outcomes.  
I have found that in hacking, Functionality is the only
Truth. It differs from science, as the goal of science
is the aquisition of empirical knowldge, whereas 
hacking uses empirical and 'intutive' knowledge to 
further the goal of 'making somthing Go'. 

Hacking and pure science also differ in that science
seeks reproducable results, whereas hackery doesn't
require it, but it's nice if it happens. 

If a hack is effective and reproducable it then becomes
Elegant. These may seem paradoxical, but have a peek 
at the jargon file, and particularly some of the
ideas that have contributed to the practice of 
hackery. As function becomes truth, understanding
rapidly becomes the simple acceptance of paradox.

That is, until it decides to dump its core. If it
dumps core, then it wasn't a great paradox, it was 
probably an inadequately allocated buffer. 

Postmodernism isn't dead, it just re-appropriated
itself. 

 

--
batz
Chief Reverse Engineer 
Superficial Intelligence Research Division
Defective Technologies



[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]