Manuel de Landa, in his brilliant book A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History writes of the two skeletons that humankind have developed. Our endo(internal)skeleton "made new forms of movement control possible, freeing [us] to conquer every available niche." Later, around 8000 years ago, we then developed the urban exo(external)skeleton, whereby "bricks of sun-dried clay became building materials for homes [...] and defensive walls."
Snails have exoskeletons. A protective shell within which to hide. Our early cities were simply exoskeletal defensive structures to protect communities against constant pillage and plunder, thus allowing culture and community to grow.
Mammals have developed endoskeletons. Non-protective, they instead allow huge improvements in a body's motion control. We can stand, run, hold, sew, build.
So, in the manifestation of the Body of Christ that you are a part of, is that body endo- or exoskeletal? Is it there as hard external shell to protect and shield us from the plundering of 'the world'? Or is it an internal strength, allowing new forms of motion control, allowing a gathered people to join and stand and build?
The question is pertinent for all of our networks. Are they protective covers that help us feel connected, but prevent real engagement, and are they in fact in danger of being so big-boned that they crush us into inactivity?
Technorati: de Landa | Endoskeleton | Non-Linear History | Exoskeleton
Look at you with your top-down binary thought, either/or scenarios. Where’s de Landa’s and/both in this? Get digital baby !-)
Posted by: nic | October 05, 2007 at 09:50 AM
...maybe even a thirdplace, a place of other. And/both generating a third term, a new site
Posted by: nic | October 05, 2007 at 10:45 AM
You mean analogue, right? Or digilogue. Or anaital.
Maybe we shouldn't deliberately try to write them; de-scribe the poles, and the 3rd places emerge between.
Posted by: Kester | October 05, 2007 at 01:29 PM
Brilliant. Anaital sounds rude.
All of those defintions and more...
Posted by: nic | October 05, 2007 at 01:37 PM
digendoxogital ?? not quite so rude eh ? ;-)
Posted by: julie | October 05, 2007 at 07:15 PM
no i mean - digendoxologue - pressed the post button too early !
Posted by: julie | October 05, 2007 at 07:17 PM
As usual, I was not aware of what I was going on about— init?
The main part of my 'probe' (there are several parts— is telescopic).
Not analo-digilogue. More:
inside/outside
figure/ground
subject/object
real/imagined
We're back to camouflage and all that.
Give some Lefebvre. Go on son!
Ill y a toujours L'autre.
Posted by: nic | October 05, 2007 at 10:19 PM