perro
/
perrotuerto.blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Pequeñas correcciones a 3

This commit is contained in:
Nika Zhenya 2019-05-05 19:36:46 -05:00
parent 5810ab1439
commit 83a0e324d9
1 changed files with 89 additions and 78 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

167
content/md/003_dont_come.md
View File

@ -2,34 +2,34 @@
> @published 2019/05/05, 12:00 {.published} > @published 2019/05/05, 12:00 {.published}
I love books. I love them so much that I even decide to make I love books. I love them so much that I even decided to make
a living from them---probably a very bad career decision. But a living from them---probably a very bad career decision. But
I can't idealize that love. I can't idealize that love.
During school and university I was taught that I should love During school and university I was taught that I should love
books. Actually, some teachers made me clear that it was the books. Actually, some teachers made me clear that it was the
only way I could get my bachelor's degree. Because books are only way I could get my bachelor's degree. Because books are
one of the main freedom devices in our shitty world, right? Not the main freedom and knowledge device in our shitty world, right?
loving books is like the will to stay in a cave---hello, Plato. Not loving books is like the will to stay in a cave---hello,
Not celebrating its greatness is just one step to support antidemocratic Plato. Not celebrating its greatness is just one step to support
regimes. And while I was learning to love books, of course I antidemocratic regimes. And while I was learning to love books,
also learn to respect its “creators,” until I desire to be one of course I also learn to respect its “creators” and the industry
of them. than made it happened.
I don't think it is casual that the development of what we mean I don't think it is casual that the development of what we mean
by book is independent from the developments of capitalism and by book is independent from the developments of capitalism and
what we understand by author. Maybe correlation; maybe intersection; what we understand by author. Maybe correlation; maybe intersection;
but definetly not separates stories. but definitely not separates stories.
Let's start with a common place: the invention of printing. Yeah, Let's start with a common place: the invention of printing. Yeah,
it is an arbitraty and problematic start. We could say that books it is an arbitrary and problematic start. We could say that books
and authors goes far before that; therefore, they aren't a product and authors goes far before that. But what we have in that particularly
of what it would became capitalism. But what we have in that place in history is the standardization and massification of
particularly place in history is the standardization and massification a practice. It didn't happen from day to night, but little by
of a practice. It didn't happen from day to night, but little little all the methodological and technical diversity became
by little all the methodological and technical diversity became
more homogeneous. And with that, we were able to made books not more homogeneous. And with that, we were able to made books not
as luxury commodities, but as objects of everyday use. as luxury or institutional commodities, but as objects of everyday
use.
And not just books, but printed text in general. Before the invention And not just books, but printed text in general. Before the invention
of printing, we could barely see text in our surroundings. What of printing, we could barely see text in our surroundings. What
@ -40,13 +40,13 @@ of text in our daily basis.
Newspapers first and now social media relies on that normalization Newspapers first and now social media relies on that normalization
to generate the idea of an “universal” public debate---I don't to generate the idea of an “universal” public debate---I don't
know if it is actually “public” if almost all popular newspapers know if it is actually “public” if almost all popular newspapers
and social media platforms are own by corporations and its criterias; and social media platforms are own by corporations and its criteria;
but let's pretend it is a minor issue. And public debate supposedly but let's pretend it is a minor issue. And public debate supposedly
incentivates democracy. incentivizes democracy.
Before Enlightenment the owners of printed text realized its Before Enlightenment the owners of printed text realized its
freedom potential. Most churchs and kingdoms tried to control freedom potential. Most churches and kingdoms tried to control
it. The Protestant Church first and then the Enlightment and it. The Protestant Church first and then the Enlightenment and
emerging capitalist enterprises hijacked the control of public emerging capitalist enterprises hijacked the control of public
debate; specifically who owns the means of printed text production, debate; specifically who owns the means of printed text production,
who decides the languages worthy to print and who sets its main who decides the languages worthy to print and who sets its main
@ -59,15 +59,15 @@ who tried to have that control and power. And most of them failed
and keep failing. and keep failing.
So during 18th century books started to have another meaning. So during 18th century books started to have another meaning.
They ceased to be mainly devices of God's word to be _a_ device They ceased to be mainly devices of God's or authority's word
of freedom of speech. Thanks to the firsts emerging capitalists to be _a_ device of freedom of speech. Thanks to the firsts emerging
we got means for secular thinking. Acts of censorship became capitalists we got means for secular thinking. Acts of censorship
evident acts of political restriction instead of acts against became evident acts of political restriction instead of acts
sinners. against sinners.
The invention of printing created so big demand of printed text The invention of printing created so big demand of printed text
that it actually generated the publishing industry. Selfpublishing that it actually generated the publishing industry. Self-publishing
to satisfy internal institutional demand openned the place to to satisfy internal institutional demand opened the place to
an industry for new citizens readers. A luxury and religious an industry for new citizens readers. A luxury and religious
object became a commodity in the “free” market. object became a commodity in the “free” market.
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ in order to secure freedom? But it also developed other freedom
that was fastened by religious or political authorities: the that was fastened by religious or political authorities: the
freedom to be identify as an author. freedom to be identify as an author.
How we understand authorship in our days depends in the process How we understand authorship in our days depends in a process
where the notion of author became more closed to the idea of where the notion of author became more closed to the idea of
“creator.” And it is actually a very interesting semantic transfer. “creator.” And it is actually a very interesting semantic transfer.
_In one way_ the invention of printing mechanized and improved _In one way_ the invention of printing mechanized and improved
@ -89,27 +89,33 @@ of enterprise and speech---what was seen even as a demonic invention
became one of the main technologies that still defines and reproduces became one of the main technologies that still defines and reproduces
the idea of humanity. the idea of humanity.
This openned the opportunity to independent authors. Printed This opened the opportunity to independent authors. Printed text
text wasn't anymore a matter of God's word or authorities but wasn't anymore a matter of God's or authority's word but a secular
a secular and more ephemeral Human's word. The massification and more ephemeral Human's word. The massification of publishing
of publishing also openned the gates for less relevant and easy-to-read also opened the gates for less relevant and easy-to-read printed
printed texts; but for the incipient publishing industry it didn't texts; but for the incipient publishing industry it didn't matter:
matter: it was a way to catch more profits and consumers. it was a way to catch more profits and consumers.
Not only that, it reproduces the ideas that were around over
and over again. Yes, it growth the diversity of ideas but it
also repeated speeches that safeguard the state of things. How
much books have been a device of freedom and how much they have
been a device of ideological reproduction? That is a good question
that we have to answer.
So authors without religious or political authority found a way So authors without religious or political authority found a way
to sneak their names in printed text. It wasn't yet a function to sneak their names in printed text. It wasn't yet a function
of property---I don't like the word “function,” but I will use of property---I don't like the word “function,” but I will use
it anyways---but a function of attribution: they wanted to publicy it anyways---but a function of attribution: they wanted to publicly
be know as the human who wrote those texts. No God, no authority, be know as the human who wrote those texts. No God, no authority,
no institution, but a person of flesh and bone. no institution, but a person of flesh and bone.
But that also meant regular powerless people. Without backup But that also meant regular powerless people. Without backup
of God or King, who the fucks are you, little peasant? Publishers---aka of God or King, who the fucks are you, little peasant? Publishers---a.k.a.
printers in those years---took advantage. That is why I did a printers in those years---took advantage. The fascination to
very problematic analogy, the fascitation to saw a work printed saw a newspaper article about books you wrote is similar to see
with your name is similar to see a Wikipedia article about you. a Wikipedia article about you. You don't gain directly anything,
You don't gain directly anything, only reputation. It relies only reputation. It relies on you to made it profitable.
on you to made it profitable.
During 18th century, authorship became a function of _individual_ During 18th century, authorship became a function of _individual_
attribution, but not a function of property. So I think that attribution, but not a function of property. So I think that
@ -128,26 +134,26 @@ beyond our corporeal world. And you don't have to rationalize
it: you can't prove it, you just feel it and know it. it: you can't prove it, you just feel it and know it.
So german writers used that as foundations for independent authorship. So german writers used that as foundations for independent authorship.
No God's word, no authorship, no institution, but a person inspired No God's or authority's word, no institution, but a person inspired
by things beyond our world. The notion of “creation” has a very by things beyond our world. The notion of “creation” has a very
strong religious and methaphysical backgrounds that we can't strong religious and metaphysical backgrounds that we can't just
just ignore them: act of creation means the capacity to bring ignore them: act of creation means the capacity to bring to this
to this world something that it didn't belong to it. The relationship world something that it didn't belong to it. The relationship
between authorship and text turned out so imminent that even between authorship and text turned out so imminent that even
nowadays we don't have any fucking idea why we accept as common nowadays we don't have any fucking idea why we accept as common
sense that authors have a superior and inalianeble bond to its sense that authors have a superior and inalienable bond to its
works. works.
But before the expansionism of German Romanticism notion of author, But before the expansionism of German Romanticism notion of author,
writers were seen more as producers that sold their work to the writers were seen more as producers that sold their work to the
owners of means of production. So while the invention of printing owners of means of production. So while the invention of printing
facilitated a new kind of secular and indepent author, _in other facilitated a new kind of secular and independent author, _in
hand_ it summoned Authorship Fog: “Whenever you cast another other hand_ it summoned Authorship Fog: “Whenever you cast another
Book spell, if Spirits of Printing's Invention is in the command Book spell, if Spirits of Printing is in the command zone or
zone or on the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Author creature on the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Author creature token
token with flying and indestructible.” As material as a printed with flying and indestructible.” As material as a printed card
card we made magic to grant authors a creative function: the we made magic to grant authors a creative function: the ability
ability to “produce from nothing.” to “produce from nothing” and a bond that never dies or changes.
Authors as creators is a cool metaphor, who doesn't want to have Authors as creators is a cool metaphor, who doesn't want to have
some divine powers? In the abstract discussion about the relationship some divine powers? In the abstract discussion about the relationship
@ -156,10 +162,10 @@ fit. You don't have to rely in anything material to grasp all
of them as an unique phenomena. But in the concrete facts of of them as an unique phenomena. But in the concrete facts of
printed texts and the publishers abuse to authors you go beyond printed texts and the publishers abuse to authors you go beyond
attribution. You are not just linking an object to a subject. attribution. You are not just linking an object to a subject.
Instead, you are grating property relationships between an object Instead, you are grating property relationships between subject
and a subject. and an object.
And property means nothing if you can't exploit it. At the beging And property means nothing if you can't exploit it. At the beginning
of publishing industry and during all 18th century, publishers of publishing industry and during all 18th century, publishers
took advantage of this new kind of “property.” The invention took advantage of this new kind of “property.” The invention
of the author as a property function was the rise of new legislation. of the author as a property function was the rise of new legislation.
@ -167,25 +173,26 @@ Germans and French jurists translated this speech to laws.
I won't talk about the history of moral rights. Instead I want I won't talk about the history of moral rights. Instead I want
to highlight how this gave a supposedly ethical, political and to highlight how this gave a supposedly ethical, political and
legal justification of the individualization of cultural commodities. legal justification of _the individualization_ of cultural commodities.
Authorship began to be associated inalienably to individuals Authorship began to be associated inalienably to individuals
and _a_ book started to mean _a_ reader. But not only that, the and _a_ book started to mean _a_ reader. But not only that, the
possibilities of intelectual freedom were reduced to a particular possibilities of intellectual freedom were reduced to a particular
device: printed text. device: printed text.
More freedom traslated to the need of more and more printed material. More freedom translated to the need of more and more printed
More freedom implied the requirement of bigger and bigger publishing material. More freedom implied the requirement of bigger and
industry. More freedom entailed the expansionism of cultural bigger publishing industry. More freedom entailed the expansionism
capitalism. Books switched to commodities and authors became of cultural capitalism. Books switched to commodities and authors
its owners. Moral rights were never about the freedom of readers, became its owners. Moral rights were never about the freedom
but who was the owner of that commodities. of readers, but who was the owner of that commodities.
Books stopped to be sources of oral and local public debate and Books stopped to be sources of oral and local public debate and
became private devices for an “universal” public debate. Authorship became private devices for an “universal” public debate: the
puts attribution in secondary place so indivudal ownership could Enlightenment. Authorship put attribution in secondary place
become its synonymous. A book for several readers and an author so individual ownership could become its synonymous. A book for
as an id for an intellectual movement or institution became irrelevant several readers and an author as an id for an intellectual movement
against a book as property for a particular reader and author. or institution became irrelevant against a book as property for
a particular reader---as material---and author---as speech--.
And we are sitting here reading all this shit without taking And we are sitting here reading all this shit without taking
to account that ones of the main wins of our neoliberal world to account that ones of the main wins of our neoliberal world
@ -193,33 +200,37 @@ is that we have been talking about objects, individuals and production
of wealth. Who the fucks are the subjects who made all this publishing of wealth. Who the fucks are the subjects who made all this publishing
shit possible? Where the fucks are the communities that in several shit possible? Where the fucks are the communities that in several
ways make possible the rise of authors? For fuck sake, why aren't ways make possible the rise of authors? For fuck sake, why aren't
we talking about the maintenance of means of production? we talking about the hidden costs of the maintenance of means
of production?
We aren't books and we aren't its authors. We aren't those individuals We aren't books and we aren't its authors. We aren't those individuals
who everybody are gonna relate to the books we are working on who everybody are gonna relate to the books we are working on
and, of course, we lack of sense of community. We aren't the and, of course, we lack of sense of community. We aren't the
ones who enjoy all that wealth generated by books production ones who enjoy all that wealth generated by books production
but for sure we are the ones who made all that possible. We are but for sure we are the ones who made all that possible. _We
neglecting ourselves: change my mind. are neglecting ourselves_.
So don't come with those tales about the greatness of books for So don't come with those tales about the greatness of books for
our culture, the need of authorship to transfer wealth or to our culture, the need of authorship to transfer wealth or to
give attribution and how important for our lifes is the publishing give attribution and how important for our lives is the publishing
production. production.
* Did you know that books have been mainly devices of ideological * Did you know that books have been mainly devices of ideological
reproduction---most best-selling books aren't critical thinking reproduction or at least mainly devices for cultural capitalism---most
books that free our minds, but school books with its hidden best-selling books aren't critical thinking books that free
curriculum and selfhelp and erotic books that keep reproducing our minds, but text books with its hidden curriculum and
basic exploitable stereotypes? self-help and erotic books that keep reproducing basic exploitable
stereotypes?
* Did you realize that authorship haven't been the best way * Did you realize that authorship haven't been the best way
to transfer wealth or give attribution---even now more than to transfer wealth or give attribution---even now more than
before authors have to paid in order to be published at the before authors have to paid in order to be published at the
same time that in the practice they lose all rights? same time that in the practice they lose all rights?
* Did you see how we keep to be worry about production no matter * Did you see how we keep to be worry about production no matter
what---it doesn't matter that it would imply bigger chains what---it doesn't matter that it would imply bigger chains
of free labor or, as I prefer to say: chains of explotation of free labor or, as I prefer to say: chains of exploitation
and “intellectual” slavery? and “intellectual” slavery, because in order to be an
scholar you have to embrace publishing industry and maybe
even cultural capitalism?
Please, don't come with those tales, we already reached more Please, don't come with those tales, we already reached more
fertile fields that can generate way better stories. fertile fields that can generate way better stories.