Vilém Flusser’s “Unio Mystica” or, Telematic Universe as Technotopian Catastrophe

Hermann Hesse’s ironic novel Magister Ludi, or The Glass Bead Game is about the secular sequestration of monkish scholars who’ve pursued the art of the Game across the millennium since Plato first imagined it as the contemplative life in his Allegory of the Cave. Hannah Arendt would divide the Fable between the vita activa and the vita contemplativa […]

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/vilem-flussers-unio-mystica-or-telematic-universe-as-technotopian-catastrophe/

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Vilém Flusser’s “Unio Mystica” or, Telematic Universe as Technotopian Catastrophe

  1. You and I do not see eye to eye, but I have never come onto your site and lambasted or criticized you for your thinking or approach. But I do not appreciate your tone, nor your coming on my site and trashing me and my pursuits. So I’m going to be as gentle as possible: stay away from my site, and me, I don’t need your crap anymore Landzek. Whatever you’re on about I do not wish to engage you, nor pursue any communication with your henceforth. This will be my final message. I will delete all of your posts on my site from here onward.

    1. I wasnt trashing you. I was offering my view. A piece of myself. For which you give me sarcasm and condescension. It shows much of your character. I mis estimated you. And you have become not interesting any more because it appears you only want agreement.

      👍🏽 im sorry your view of me is so skewed. Im sorry you are unable to see my good intent.

      Yes. Im done also. Good luck

      1. You came on my site, gave me an incomplete thought, a sort of gibberish sentence:

        “….basically my position is and has been the issue to begin with is: Theres nothing wrong with me. Why does it appear like there is?”

        Obviously this made not sense to me. It was as if you began a sentence in the middle of a thought, then went on to ask a strange question that had no context, didn’t relate to my post, and was to me inexplicable.

        I responded: “What are you on about? Are you having a conversation with yourself or me? If me, then I need a lot more context… It’s as if you began in media res and suddenly couldn’t decide if you were broken or not? Maybe you are an organic machine that has found itself to be broken? Not sure if that’s something I can fix, maybe a psychologist could help?”

        I’m not a theorist, I’m just a guy who likes to blog, to think, to share what I’m doing, reading, thinking…. I’m not a philosopher and don’t pretend to be. My site has not agenda, no program. I’m not an academic, I have no credentials. I’m not out to prove or disprove shit, I just enjoy people, sharing, living… I write for myself and friends.

        Obviously you are the one with the hostility not me. Everytime you come on my site you stir up issues, make nonsensical statements, and then expect me to respond? Bullshit! Get off yourself… your such a whiner and cry baby about everything. If you don’t get the response you want you attack. So be it. I’m an absurdist… I respond appropriately to idiotic statements such as you presented with humor. You take it literally. That’s your problem not mine. I’m done with this comic charade….

      2. It was in context of the post. That she accepted her issue. Exactly what you are writting about . That there are a certain type that i tend to see as insane that the system rewards for thier insanity.

        So it appears to me you have no reflection upn what you wrote because i responded to exactly to issue you presented. So either you cant or wont see that i was
        involved exactly with what you wrote.

        I said. That i see myself as having no problem, but the problem, ironically is that people who see themselves as having issues are accepted. So this posits that i must be insane; again, relating to your post implicitly.

        But you would not see it. All too ready to insult and create distance. Obviously

      3. Ah. Yes. I didnt see it as humor. Text can be mis interpreted. Yes. Perhaps you are correct there. But you could have diffused it . Oh well. I do probably have issues. Peace.

      4. I was trying to only post when i felt i had something pertinent so say. You are right. So i did. And youre respnse i reacted to negativky. a kind of conceptual relapse i suppose. Lol. But you were being funny friendly. But i took it as an attack.

        I apologize. Fkg text

    2. I think the mis communication between us is similar to musical genre: You are full of attitude and cant imagine that anyone would not be being sarcastic and giving you shit. So tou read everything as expressing such nonsense

      1. Landzek, there is a great difference in attacking a person’s ideas and attacking the actual person… in many of your rebuttals you step over that line. When I may at times utilize my comic nihilism to satirize, I’m not attacking a person’s person, but rather their linguistic rhetoric, which in the specific case of this argument was your ‘lack of context’ in argument. Let’s face it, when you said,

        “….basically my position is and has been the issue to begin with is: Theres nothing wrong with me. Why does it appear like there is?”

        I had no clue where this came from, nor where it was leading too. You started as if quoting from something “…basically” that led me to believe I was missing something I needed to reply. Then you state: “There’s nothing wrong with me. Why does it appear like there is?” I was not sure if you were speaking of yourself, or if this was some analytical proposition I was to inspect under analytical terms. For one thing I did not know what you mean by “wrong”… was this a medical, psychological, or some other category: should I know automatically what you mean by “wrong”? Then you ask: “Why does it appear like there is?” Obviously the only thing that appears is words, not the sensible behind the words – at least for me, since our interaction with each other comes through the interface of this media of computing, hardware, electronic code, etc. rather than meeting face to face. So there is not actual appearance per se, but rather an appearance of appearance in representationalism of rhetoric and trope. Yet, both your statement and your question have no context within which to answer or draw conclusions. You, just did not give me enough to go on…. so therefor I responded in what I thought would be taken as a humorous aside, saying:

        ““What are you on about? Are you having a conversation with yourself or me? If me, then I need a lot more context… It’s as if you began in media res and suddenly couldn’t decide if you were broken or not? Maybe you are an organic machine that has found itself to be broken? Not sure if that’s something I can fix, maybe a psychologist could help?”

        Since I did not have enough information I simply asked: “What are you on about?” Then I playfully guessed at the missing data, asking: “Are you having a conversation with yourself or me? If me, then I need a lot more context…”. Then I describes how I received you statement: “It’s as if you began in media res and suddenly couldn’t decide if you were broken or not? ” Then in a satiric gesture of comic resolve I ended: “Maybe you are an organic machine that has found itself to be broken? Not sure if that’s something I can fix, maybe a psychologist could help?”
        Which obviously was a joke, not intended to be taken seriously, but rather ironically and over the top.

        I must admit I quit taking myself seriously a long time ago. The internet is not a place people can truly resolve communications. In fact I agree with Luhmann that humans don’t communicate, only communications communicate. Of course there is specific reasons why he suggests this, having to do with language, sociality, technological and other aspects that I can’t go into. The gist for me is “don’t take yourself or others so seriously”… with that if you want to post on my site, please at least give me more or fuller information about what your wanting me to answer. Don’t expect me to take your aphoristic style without some details, I can’t pull thoughts magically out of the air from such simple statements as you sometimes leave for comments. 🙂

      2. Yes; we have a history, you and I, despite what little there is. 😉 imsure it contributed to the interpretation. For right off. I thought you were attacking me personally. But in fact, even while my second reply brewed in me, another voice was suggesting to me that i had read it wrong. But i was already off to the races.

        You could have stopped me by undetstanding that my reply was based in a tone that you did not intend, but you didnt. ..

        (Just a mint..)

      3. …so, in any case; i dont think you snd i are so different. Pethaps we might take this as a “getting to know one snother better moment” .

        Msybe. I will try to be more clear in where im coming from.

        And you, maybe, could try better to see where and how i am entering your discussion.

        Deal?

      4. …ah, and i will give you the benefit of doubt like i would someone i know, and if i think ur being an ass. Then i will tell you ‘dude. Why are you being an ass’

        Ok. Encounter group done.

        So any ways.
        I love that post. It reminds me of what i have come accross msny times; namely. That the criterion for success in this world is being insane. But i feel like many people would see me and judge me as ‘obviously. Not having what it takes’. Like im the one who really has issues. But i think im fine.

        I have even gone so far as to consider (maybe not so novel) that it is a type of person that enforces what this ‘ethical’ world is. That the sane people suffer because the manipulations of the few insane and threatening of violence few. Ever seen the movie “american psycho’ ?

      5. Yes, the movie was based on novels of Bret Ellison. I’m reading a sociological study of American Society by Charles Derber that highlights much of this: Sociopathic Society: A People’s Sociology of the United States. The difference between psychopath and sociopathy is only one of violence. The sociopath is a manipulator, while the psychopath is a killer… both without conscience or affective relations. Both treat others as if they were bugs to be manipulated, tortured, and played with as part of some sick perverted game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s