..................... | ...... | mailing list archive |
..... | ||
HOME
SEARCH FAQ |
Main IndexRe: LIFESCIENCE: poor vision
--------------------------------------------------------- ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99 LIFESCIENCE Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09 http://www.aec.at/lifescience --------------------------------------------------------- On 20-Jul-99, PROFRICHAR@aol.com wrote: >--------------------------------------------------------- >ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99 >LIFESCIENCE >Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09 >http://www.aec.at/lifescience >--------------------------------------------------------- >In einer eMail vom 20.07.99 00:36:06 MEZ, schreiben Sie: ><< Thema: re: LIFESCIENCE: poor vision > Datum:20.07.99 00:36:06 MEZ > From:Lubica=Lacinova%IPT%MRI@vines.ipt.med.tu-muenchen.de > Sender:owner-lifescience-en@aec.at > Reply-to:lifescience@aec.at > To:lifescience@aec.at > > > I am afraid this would somehow miss the point. >that was fully intentional. I'm afraid the point of deliberately missing the point rather escapes me. >I am afraid it damages the cause - happening with sheeps could be very >easily laughed out. And it would add an argument in favor of cloning: "see, >no serious arguments could > be raised, just childish games". > >- so this is your point of view if this would be an experimental action there >would be further imformations about this performance that would be able to >raise a bunch of important questions. I would have thought this list has already proved that there is little point in trying to start a discussion or to raise questions if nobody is willing or able to weave them into something worthwhile. > Further, time to discuss cloned sheep is over. >-sorry i am always a bit out of time. If we conclude that art/culture has reduced itself to a meaningless and valueless self-preserving system of economic exchange, then I suppose trying to keep out of date pseudo-discussions on artificial life-support systems so they may continue to be sold long after their "use by date" has elapsed, is about the only possible strategy left. >maybe but perhaps only the dangerous looking things become interesting, Is this a functional basis for a strategy which you actually use as a guiding principle in your daily life -or is it simply a theoretical, abstract posture which you adopt in order to create another "controvesy" in order to preserve the life of a discussion going nowhere? trevor --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe') Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|