Anyone Heard Thoth Lately? (original) (raw)

Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) on Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:53:24 +0200 (MET DST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Anyone Heard Thoth Lately?

Folks:

Having just returned from a John Perry Barlow speech at the "Plug-In '97" conference in NYC, www.jup.com (held in conjunction with the "Intel New York New Music Festival, www.thegig.com -- no Thoth is not the name a band at the event, as far as I can tell), I thought it might be fruitful to reflect on some of Barlow's comments, their relationship to the "Long Boom" WIRED cover story from one of Barlow's "patrons", the Global Business Network, and the implications of all this for art in our times.

The speech was vintage Barlow, filled with shibboleths flying over the heads of most in the audience mixed with familiar notions about the end of intellectual property and rambling remarks about devils, value shifts and odd historical references. I'd like to briefly reflect on some quotes from Barlow's speech, which are emblematic of his reasoning (hopefully accurate and not taken out of context):

"If I treated my farm animals like record companies treat their artists then I would have been out of farming even sooner than I was",

"Behind every working anarchy there is an old boy's network",

"There's something enlightened about the patronage system" and

"We are now going from monotheism to pantheism almost overnight."

I'd like to suggest that these characterizations by Barlow constitute elements of an argument in favor of a kind of New Dark Age which far surpasses the medieval period in European history in its ignorance, brutality and ignobility. Indeed, what Barlow ennunciates is the core of an argument for ending what we now think of as the human race and replacing it with a form of animal husbandry presided over by priestly caste akin to the experimental "society" which surrounded the Grateful Dead -- the touchstone of Barlow's life.

We are all familiar with the now standard remarks that the Internet represents the "biggest change in what it means to be human since the capture of fire." Should we view this comment as worthy of discussion or merely as hyperbole? I'm convinced that Barlow, along with many others, is quite serious about literally changing humanity -- to end war, poverty and unhappiness, of course. Although he will no doubt take this as flattery, unfortunately, I believe these folks should be taken quite seriously since the psychological and genetic technologies to abolish humanity are all too likely to soon be in firmly hand and the unintended consequences of there efforts could become cataclysmic.

Indeed, this theme of "ending humanity" is all too common in the widespread cyberspace and "cyborg" literature and, often enough (ironically, of course) in nettime posts as well. As in the recent,

"OVERTHROW THE HUMAN RACE -- Luther Blissettt"

What would Barlow's vision of an Information Economy, with its coincident "overthrowing the human race" mean for art? Art would simply cease to exist. I suspect that this would superficially appeal to some nettimers but, perhaps, it is time to consider the consequences of such a drastic course of action.

Despite Barlow's characterization that this New Economy has "creative human endeavor" as it's essense (not all that different from Richard Barbrook's notion of "Digital Artisans", in my view), nothing could be further from the truth. Without humans, conscious humans, creativity is simply not possible.

Having just had the opportunity to tour a remarkable new exhibit at the Israel Museum consisting of artifacts honoring Eqytptian Gods, I am mindful that none of this Eqyptian statuary is art. As historians take great pains to point out, all these objects, as beautiful as they may appear to us, were not created to express beauty at all (a concept quite foriegn to the Eqyptians) -- they are magical totems ment to propitiate the pantheism of the Gods. And, indeed, if one follows Julian Jaynes (as I do), it is not exagerating to say that the Eqyptians were not conscious humans and, therefore, they were incapable of producing art -- just as the Eqyptologists emphasise (without any reference to Jaynes, naturally). In periods of human pre-history like the great civilizations of Eqypt and Assyria/Babylon or the cave painting of Southern France, for that matter, Jaynes posits that life was "determined" by hallucinated God-voices -- which he called the "bicameral mind" -- and that this mental regime began to be replaced by consciousness beginning around 1000 BCE with the advent of written history.

True pantheism is likely to be of the sort described by Jaynes. Hallucinated God-voices. This is presumably the reason why Barlow continues to take LSD and goes out into the desert to worship the rocks and the trees. Indeed, while Gnostics (as brilliantly characterized by Eric Davis on nettime) enervate much of post-modern religiousity, the Neo-gnostic desire to accomplish "spiritual alchemy" and to "re-integrate" with the perfection of humanity before the Fall would mean the end to Gnosticism along with the humanity who invented it. Gnosticism has been the creation of monotheistic and conscious humans. Pantheism is pre-Gnostic. It is pre-conscious. In fact, it is pre-human.

What does all this have to do with the Global Business Network (GBN)? The abrupt turnabout by GBN head Peter Schwartz in his recent cover article represents an important tactical shift which nettime related poltical-economists would do well to focus on. Instead of preaching that the future is impossible to predict and that a detached, scientific examination of alternative scenarios is the only responsible approach (the basis of GBN's present consulting practice), GBN has privately and now publically committed themselves to one particular scenario. In their own terms, they have committed the greatest possible sin -- gone "normative." Like Barlow's denounciation of media giants, GBN is now preaching that the multinational is dead or, at least, severely crippled. (Shades of Soros, as well?)

GBN's peon to the New Economy is but one form of the "soft argument" which accompanies Barlow's, actually more honest, "hard argument." As Barlow makes abundantly clear, the basis of the shift away from humanity (and monotheism) towards pantheistic post-(pre-)humanity is the shift from atoms to bits. It is his conviction that most people make their livings from the effluvia of their minds rather than their hands -- the result of computers and automation -- that makes the more fundamental shift away from humanity possible and even desirable.

Indeed, Barlow characterizes all forms of hierarchy as the "devil we know" and suggests that the end of the nation-state and a "return to emphasis on city-states", will make the shift towards a "working anarchy", which he hopes for, to become possible. This "working anarchy" will be patterned on the "canon of religion without dogma" which characterized the Grateful Dead and in which, one can hardly doubt, Barlow wishes to continue to be among the new "old boys network."

Art becomes tie-dyed, swirling, twirling comparisons of song-lists and the need to "be there" so that you won't miss the best version of "Truckin'" ever played. Or, as I've otherwise suggested, art ceases to exist.

Today in his speech, Barlow called corporations the "devil" and declared that the coming battle -- in which he is sure that blood will be spilled -- is between the "devil" and the "individual." "We're all human", he says, "and we're all capable of experiencing individual freedom."

Herein, of course, lies the great contradiction in Barlow's version of the future and the past. Individuality (with it's interiority, subjectivity, privacy and intentionality, or what Jaynes refered to as mind-space) is the certain hallmark of human "volitional" consciousness. It was the "invention" of monotheism which most clearly represented the transition from "bicameral", pantheistic, pre-conscious homo-sapiens towards become conscious humanity -- in turn, capable of creating art and understanding the Good (beauty). If Barlow's thoughts are carried to their conclusion, and the legacy of Abraham is overturned (Barlow's reference, BTW), the "individual" disappears. Truly pantheistic cultures don't have "individuals"; they have Grateful Dead concerts.

So, boiling it all down to the gristle, Barlow is calling upon "individuality" to overthrow individuality, "artists" to overthrow art and "creativity" to overthrow creativity. Perhaps, it will become clear in his future work if he is aware of this overarching and, quite possibly deliberate, connundrum. Moreover, it is undoubtedly time for nettime to consider the likely consequences of transmuting such rhetoric into reality.

Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City newmedia@mcimail.com

distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission

is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,

collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets

more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body

URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de