Brian Eno keynote : Campfire Convention 001.UK
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Needing little introduction for many of us, Brian Eno delivered the first keynote speech at the inaugural Campfire Convention in the Black Mountains in Herefordshire on the morning of August 13th 2016. He asks the question "What do communities exist for?" Should we accept limitations on our personal freedoms in favour of a greater richness, power and cohesion of the whole community?
Eno was a founding member of Roxy Music, recorded many seminal solo albums and has gone on to become a celebrated producer, sound designer and visual artist.
Eno is an activist, who called for an international boycott of Israeli political and cultural institutions. He became a patron of VidereEstCredere (Latin for "to see is to believe"), a UK human rights charity. In 2015, he wrote an article for The Guardian in support of the left-wing candidate Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership contest, and supported a public forum in London, titled "Basic income: How do we get there?", about the benefits and need for a basic income. Hosted by Basic Income UK, it also included economist and Campfire Convention contributor Frances Coppola and anthropologist David Graeber.
In his message to Campfire before the event, Eno offered this preview “With the ongoing collapse of any form of coherent government in this country we need to start looking at other ways of creating a society that works for all of us - not just the wealthiest. The rise of various brands of populist Simpletons makes it essential that we start sorting out our own visions of society so we have something more attractive - and more true - to offer.”
Stage manager Richard Page stars in this video, collecting Eno's notes as they blow away in the wind!
www.campfireconvention.com
Callapro Films
"A first class level of professionalism" - BBC Academy
07702 886 149
www.callapro.co...
I enjoyed this so much. Extremely informative, intelligent and compelling. I learned a lot.
Thank you for sharing this.❤
I loved Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickle and Dimed." It made the point (on elitism) that she had a Ph.D. and found some of these jobs so hard that she wondered if she could even do them. (So much for a Euclidean hierarchy of worth.) I forgot who that book was by and "Dancing in the Streets" (recommended in a recently-watched BE video) is sitting on my nightstand. I can hardly wait to get into it.
Love the Backdrop, very expensive looking.
He's spot on when it comes to private tech from publicly funded research, state U's etc. DA JD NYC
Eight years ago I left Milano (and my family, my friends and my car) to lead a better life.
Hope is my second name but in this small place I live I feel as an alien: everybody thinks I am crazy because I care for nature so they told me not to bother because they throw the plastic we gather into the see. I feel depressed!
Brian Eno is my favorite artist. He is the best and the most hilarious when sharing all his anecdotes threaded by his creativity. But once he steps into the dark side of abstractions he just blunders big time. Darwinism has solely a sense for the system that created it, thence only for consciousness. I won't go any deeper since I may stumble very quickly upon solipsism. He should focus in art, where he rules big time and leave epistemological issues to boring and uncreative people. I love his art, precisely because it keeps me away from sombre abstractions and gives me hope.
Damn this is framed well
Scenious.
So well written.
I'm so glad they managed to get the water bottles in frame
Octavio Paz was Mexican, dear Eno.
Mexican and recipient of the 1990 Nobel Prize in Literature.
Brian could do with a long conversation and being schooled by Vandana Shiva on GM and biodiversity
I think Ayn Rand was a nut case too. I have a friend who liked her books.
How is possible to get a feedback using Shure SM58?
5:15 soundman!
I think the sound guy has a degree in sound 😂
OK it's in Los Angeles
Revolving door
Ex-European Commission head Barroso under fire over Goldman Sachs job
France has called on the former head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, not to take up a job advising US bank Goldman Sachs on Brexit. French Europe Minister Harlem Desir called the move "scandalous" and said it raised questions about the EU's conflict of interest rules.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36787931
Brian, it is possible to "privatize the costs and socialize the profits" for some entrepreneurs who have discovered that in the hierarchy of approaches to living effectively, the approach of optimizing human flourishing for as many people as possible, including oneself, is at the top, and that applying this approach to life, business and pleasure is in fact easily possible and greatly rewarding.
It is unlikely that someone who chooses to deny a transcendent realm and closes their mind to facts of reality here on the planet and to questions pertaining to our origin and events after our death, and who appears to let sentimentality as regards the now passing feminine Zeitgeist and the desirability of more socialization cloud their judgment can slough off a debilitating cerebralism and get active to honor the true purpose of our existence here, which is alleviating suffering. Now, with the RFID implant looming, the Bible ban, the growing hive mind, the many ill young people unfit for the knocks of life outside their safe spaces, the censoring of free speech and the decline in the standard of music and movies, the rise in interest in Lamarckian evolution and the idiocy of Billericay Dickie Dawkins' best efforts, the social behavior score system in China, many including myself are very unhappy to pay taxes to what is no better than an enemy mob. I find myself in strong disagreement with your liberal viewpoint; transhumanism is not my idea of progress for humanity, if progress is flourishing, increased empathy and ability to apply skillful compassion. Real evil exists. The lack of passion in modern music that you've mentioned is a result of a denial of evil and its inevitable punishment, the denial of Judgment after death and the prospect of Hell. Real Joy comes from living right, and this includes a Fear of the consequences of not doing so. It's not either Joy or Fear - it's moving away from fear to joy through doing the right thing! Init Brian?
hello sir - this was 3 years ago, but would you be up for an interview on the subject? you seem quite clued up! i am launching a culture website and aim to speak with a wide range of people on a wide range of subjects.
Fish n' chips Kilburn?
this is about eno's apps
OK
I know it may not appear that way, but I hugely admire Brian's work .
However, why does someone who claims to have working class roots make such determined efforts to show off his upper middle class linguistic heritage ? Is it because he went to St Joseph's College, Ipswich public school ?
No his father wasn't a postman. Brian Ferry's father was a farm labourer who he employed to tend his extensive grounds.
Why did he say that? (I don't mean that he shouldn't have...he is such a visionary, who cares?) I usually like people who pretend not to be rich more than those who do. I wonder if he thought that being from a privileged background would alienate everyday people? He reminds me of an urban planner in some parts of this. :)
His father was a postman same as his grandfather
He said they worked for the post office. Not at all the same thing. Brian is extremely public school posh. It isn't a crime but it is a fact.
This should make no difference. He will be remembered for his art and music.
Eric Mcoo not sure it makes a difference you can work for the postal service and still be working class, sorting office for instance. I'd rather take the man at his word, if he says his father was a postman I believe him. Don't see any contradiction.
1st step to civilisation begins as follows:
1. Free food for everyone (vegetarian, of course)
2. Free housing for everyone (How dare we allow aristocrats to live in a 10-room mansion while others are homeless? This is evil)
3. Free medicine and medical treatment for everyone
4. Free education for everyone (education means learning what your good at and doing it / becoming a better human being / understanding life and the earth)
5. Ensuring the elderly are properly taken care of until they die / demanding a dignified old age
6. Free humanity from the enslavement of money / get rid of the financial cabal
That's it. All other talk is superfluous gobbledygook!
Nuclear power is touted as a solution to a much larger problem, climate change. I get Lovelock's calculation, but he and Eno leave out the cost factor. Money spent to build a nuke would generate more non-fossil electricity-generating capacity if spent instead on renewable sources or end-use efficiency.
And since each dollar can only be spent once, nuclear power slows down climate-change remediation.
lower life forms don't think/imagine, says who?
I'm sorry, but everyone i the field of evolutionary psychology would disagree. Humans are most certainly ruled by Darwinian forces. We just have the ability to apply learning to overcome those forces.
'america' is not 'capitalism'. Just the use of the word 'capitalism' is a red flag it means conflating a country's economy with it's politics or whatever the state does. It's like 'america is bombing afghanistan that's what capitalism does'. If you change that to 'america is bombing afghanistan that's what a market economy does' then it becomes quite absurd. It's what a state does. Yes offcourse there's corruption and ties between the state and certain industries but which one is the core of the problem?
The basic idea here is that 'capitalism' corrupts the state I think it's the other way round the presence of the state corrupts the economy or the whole country or nation. People seem to be more becoming 'socialists' because of the presence of the 'government' and all it's tentacles like 'education'. The media is also wholly corrupted it's supposedly free media but it's all state propaganda.
there also conflation here between society and the state going on those things are really different things. And I think the state also dissolves society because there's no need to team up the gov. takes care of everything. You might argue that market interactions are kind of anonymous, that's true but so are interactions with the bureaucracy and in any case society is more than just the economic part.
And alot of people are getting rich because of the state not despite of it. Like the connected banking sector. And all kind of priveledges and IP laws. IP should be abandoned there's an article by Stephen Kinsella 'against IP'. And 'regulations' it's practically impossible to start a bank (I guess) because you have this barrier to overcome for the large ones it's easy. Companies like to be 'regulated' because of that reason. Companies are not necessarily friends of the free market which is kind of stupid I believe but also a source of confusion.
Yes privatized prisons are a bad idea I guess and also a source of corruption but lets not forget it's the state that throws people in jail for doing drugs or other victimless crimes. It's actually the state that's the criminal here but offcourse all states are criminal. And the biggest enemy of society. How Eno is so in love with 'government' is beyond me he should be for market economy that's really a 'complex system created by the people themselves' or other such views.
oh and Ludwig von Mises is the real thing when it comes to economics and not Ayn Rand why they keep coming up with Rand with the mixed in poison is beyond me although I may have a clue. And classical liberal theory is certainly not 'darwinian'. And it doesn't state 'greed is good' or 'there's no such thing as society'.
Human Action begins like this:
"Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.
Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man's body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined.
The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutralize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful.
The field of our science is human action, not the psychological events which result in an action. It is precisely this which distinguishes the general theory of human action, praxeology, from psychology. The theme of psychology is the internal events that result or can result in a definite action. The theme of praxeology is action as such. This also settles the relation of praxeology to the psychoanalytical concept of the subconscious. Psychoanalysis too is psychology and does not investigate action but the forces and factors that impel a man toward a definite action. The psychoanalytical subconscious is a psychological and not a praxeological category. Whether an action stems from clear deliberation, or from forgotten memories and suppressed desires which from submerged regions, as it were, direct the will, does not influence the nature of the action. The murderer whom a subconscious urge (the Id) drives toward his crime and the neurotic whose aberrant behavior seems to be simply meaningless to an untrained observer both act; they like anybody else are aiming at certain ends. It is the merit of psychoanalysis that it has demonstrated that even the behavior of neurotics and psychopaths is meaningful, that they too act and aim at ends, although we who consider ourselves normal and sane call the reasoning determining their choice of ends nonsensical and the means they choose for the attainment of these ends contrary to purpose.
The term "unconscious" as used by praxeology and the terms "subconscious" and "unconscious" as applied by psychoanalysis belong to two different systems of thought and research. Praxeology no less than other branches of knowledge owes much to psychoanalysis. The more necessary is it then to become aware of the line which separates praxeology from psychoanalysis.
Action is not simply giving preference. Man also shows preference in situations in which things and events are unavoidable or are believed to be so. Thus a man may prefer sunshine to rain and may wish that the sun would dispel the clouds. He who only wishes and hopes does not interfere actively with the course of events and with the shaping of his own destiny. But acting man chooses, determines, and tries to reach an end. Of two things both of which he cannot have together he selects one and gives up the other. Action therefore always involves both taking and renunciation.
To express wishes and hopes and to announce planned action may be forms of action in so far as they aim in themselves at the realization of a certain purpose. But they must not be confused with the actions to which they refer. They are not identical with the actions they announce, recommend, or reject. Action is a real thing. What counts is a man's total behavior, and not his talk about planned but not realized acts. On the other hand action must be clearly distinguished from the application of labor. Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends. As a rule one of the means employed is the acting man's labor. But this is not always the case. Under special conditions a word is all that is needed. He who gives orders or interdictions may act without any expenditure of labor. To talk or not to talk, to smile or to remain serious, may be action. To consume and to enjoy are no less action than to abstain from accessible consumption and enjoyment.
Praxeology consequently does not distinguish between "active" or energetic and "passive" or indolent man. The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come. For to do nothing and to be idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering. He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done.
We may say that action is the manifestation of a man's will. But this would not add anything to our knowledge. For the term will means nothing else than man's faculty to choose between different states of affairs, to prefer one, to set aside the other, and to behave according to the decision made in aiming at the chosen state and forsaking the other."
Human Action 1. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction
---------
Nowhere in liberal theory is there anything like 'poor people who have to work harder are the health of the system'. Maybe some 'neoliberals' believe that, but what the theory actually states is this:
----------
"What initiates the chain of actions that results in an improvement of economic conditions is the accumulation of new capital through saving. These additional funds render the execution of projects possible which, for the lack of capital goods, could not have been executed previously. Embarking upon the realization of the new projects, the entrepreneurs compete on the market for the factors of production with all those already engaged in projects previously entered upon. In their attempts to secure the necessary quantity of raw materials and of manpower, they push up the prices of raw materials and wage rates. Thus the wage earners, already at the start of the process, reap a share of the benefits that the abstention from consumption on the part of the savers has begotten. In the farther course of the process they are again favored, now in their capacity as consumers, by the drop in prices that the increase in production tends to bring about.
Economics describes the final outcome of this sequence of changes thus: An increase in capital invested results, with an unchanged number of people intent upon earning wages, in a rise of the marginal utility of labor and therefore of wage rates. What raises wage rates is an increase in capital exceeding the increase in population or, in other words, an increase in the per-head quota of capital invested. On the unhampered labor market, wage rates always tend toward the height at which they equal the marginal productivity of each kind of labor, that is the height that equals the value added to or subtracted from the value of the product by the employment or discharge of a man. At this rate all those in search of employment find jobs, and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. If wages are raised above this market rate, unemployment of a part of the potential labor force inevitably results. It does not matter what kind of doctrine is advanced in order to justify the enforcement of wage rates that exceed the potential market rates.
Wage rates are ultimately determined by the value which the wage earner's fellow citizens attach to his services and achievements. Labor is appraised like a commodity, not because the entrepreneurs and capitalists are hardhearted and callous, but because they are unconditionally subject to the supremacy of the consumers of which today the earners of wages and salaries form the immense majority. The consumers are not prepared to satisfy anybody's pretensions, presumptions, and self-conceit. They want to be served in the cheapest way." 6. Wages and Subsistence
-----
If you are going to 'quote' economic theory, use the actual thing and not the distorted version coming out of Reagan, Thatcher, Rand or any mainstream economist..
The free market does not financialize and commodify everything there are things outside the market it's just the 'economic' part of society. In a sense the taxation makes it worse because it forces people into making more money. So if you want less 'capitalism' get rid of government. You want a society where everybody is running around all the time making money? tax the hell out of 'em. And make sure to restrict the building of houses so prices will be sky high that way there's no escape for them. Like in California. At your service.
I don't buy that Iphone story I doubt the fraction is that high and at least you get something back from otherwise completely wastefull government 'defense spending'. Why as a libertarian do I have to answer for defense spending?
And I'm pretty sure Apple had to do a lot of engineering to get that touchscreen working properly. Same thing with the internet that's based on computer technology it's not just Cern. Oh but I guess the computer is also a creation of the government right? God it just goes on and on..
As predictable as a preacher’s sermon
What's all this drivel got to do with music?