Y SIN EMBARGO magazine

Avatares de la vida. Ninots de UU, Miguel Ruibal, fernandoprats, Nirvana SQ, Leonie Polah, Brancolina, Thomas Hagström, Anna Christina, Thierry Tillier, Ezequiel Ruiz

Seven years of a periodical and independent publication is perhaps both necessary and long enough a time to verify or put into practice a set of ideas, wishes and adventures. YSE closes a cycle, but doesn’t close (neither literally nor metaforically). Seguiremos, pero seremos otros.

On air: YSE #29, LAST/s.

las premisas de YSE #22 / to be discussed on YSE #22, the directions

Publicamos las premisas de YSE #22 con la idea que aporten lo suyo a ellas.
YSI el contenido textual del issue fuese únicamente la discusión, que puede continuar de aquí al fin del otoño? Todo ello aderezado, por supuesto, con las aportaciones gráficas de los jugadores.]

¿Ideas para nombre del issue?

# # #

We publish here YSE #22 directions.
YSI the textual contents of this issue were only the discussion -and it can be continued until the end of autumn-? All that, of(f) course, with the tasteful sauce of the graphic artworks played by the players.]

Any ideas for this issue title?

Deadline: 1st November

Nota en Facebook

Hilo en Flickr


# # #

Esto no se trata de copyright (o leyes), se trata de dinero.

Capitalismo vs. Tecnología.

O de cómo los avances tecnológicos están carcomiendo
los principios axiomáticos, necesarios, del capitalismo

Digamos sus Ideales. El análogo platónico, el Ideal Capitalista.
Sus suposiciones, lecturas o conceptos de fondo. Sus esencias.

Lo que aquí tiembla no es la jurisprudencia o el derecho,
lo que aquí tiembla es una estructura o una arquitectura de poder,
fundamentada en concepciones que están abriéndose como una piel reseca
o un barro calcinado al sol.

Se trata de la digitalidad dando con tierra y clausurando buena parte del landscape materialista.

Se trata de lo inmaterial encontrando SU cuerpo, su perfecto dispositivo,
SU articulación o mecanismo. O al menos un cuerpo mucho más idóneo
que cualquiera que hubiera encontrado antes.

Hubo un tiempo en que la esencia era lo material, la última palabra,
aquello contra lo que difícilmente se podía oponer algo.
Eso cambió.

La cuestión está en el cambio de paradigma.
En el cimbronazo destructivo que sienten en sus cimientos
las jerarquías y absolutos que se conocían.

Lo interesante está en la posibilidad de un replanteo a bajo nivel
del sentido de valor, de los sistemas de valoración y sus escalas.

El objeto digital, infinitamente reproducible, multiplicable y alterable,  inmune a las condiciones productivas, a limitaciones de costo, espacio o tiempos de producción, más parecido (mucho más) a las ideas que a los objetos, como una máquina de movimiento continuo, como una fuente inagotable de energía, como un stock de existencias infinito, como un fantasma, instantáneamente distribuible, casi conceptual y abstracto, no formaba parte, no existía, y no está concebido en la estructura material-capitalista.
Y funciona como una espoleta o carga de dinamita que hubiera sido alojada en sus vigas, paredes o columnas. El objeto digital, como el espíritu o el alma (lo descarnado, depurado) de la cultura y el conocimiento.
Información en estado puro, en todas partes y a la vez: Mensaje, mensaje en un soporte que lejos de anclarlo lo dispara.

Sin medio, sin intermediario, sin comisarios ni interposiciones.
Eso es lo que permite la era digital, la tecnología.
Degrada a lo material y al capital a una mera manutención de organismos,
a funciones de alimentación, gestión/administración y transporte.
A un segundo o tercer orden o grado de jerarquía.
A una intrascendencia vulgar o despreciable.
A un lugar que extrañaba.

# # #

This is not about copyright (or law), this is about money.

Capitalism vs. Technology.

Or how technological advances are undermining
The axiomatic, necessary principles of capitalism.

Let’s say its Ideals. The platonic analogous, the Capitalist Ideal.
Its core assumptions, readings or concepts. Its essences.

What is shattering here is not jurisprudence or rights,
What is shattered is a structure or an architecture of power,
Founded on conceptions that are cracking like parched skin
Or scorched mud.

It is digitality pulling down and closing down much of the materialist landscape.

It is the immaterial finding ITS body, its perfect device,
ITS articulation or mechanism. Or at least a much more suitable body
Than any of which it had found before.

There was a time when essence was material, the last word,
That to which hardly anything could be opposed.
That changed.

The crux of the matter lies in the paradigm shift.
In the destructive blast the known hierarchies and absolutes
feel in their foundations.

The interest lies in the possibility of a low-level redefinition
Of the sense of value, valuation systems and their scales.

The digital object, infinitely reproducible,multipliable and alterable,
Immune to productive conditions, cost, space or production time limitations, more (much more) similar to ideas than to objects, like a perpetual movement machine, like an endless stream of energy, like an infinite stock, like a ghost, instantaneously distributable, almost conceptual and abstract, did not belong, did not exist, and is not conceived in the material-capitalist structure.
And it works like a fuse or dynamite load that had been lodged in its beams, walls or pillars. The digital object, like the spirit or the soul (the stark, purified) of culture and knowledge.
Information in its purest form, everywhere at the same time: message, message in a medium that, far from anchoring, rockets it.

Without fear, without intermediaries, without curators or interpositions.
That’s what the digital era, technology allow.
It degrades the material and the capital to a mere organism maintenance,
To feeding, management/administration and transport functions.
To a second or third order or degree of hierarchy.
To a place it missed.


Roman Aixendri

Oddly enough, the 21st century success is platonic since the virtual beats the material. Capitalism is, after all, virtual. Although its economy sediments through the material, in itself it’s something intangible, its value measured by its physical inexistence. So far, people, in order to transform the virtual (money, Platonic, abstract world) into something positive, tend to compulsively spend their money because the abstract founders, is a nothing against which nothing can be done.

The idea of capital is that it requires constant renewal, materialism has become obsolete, other kind of resources are now in, e.g. money is exchanged by sensations, relationships, pleasure, solidarity. The material shifts to the background but is still there. The ones dominating capitalism are the same ones who have bought the future possibilities of the virtual. The material translates into energetic and this is addictive.

An example of this: you buy and read a book, price 7 €. You sign up for an Internet connection, price 40 €/month (this is, it’s only useful if the expense is continuous). The reproducibility of the virtual, the infinite causes a loss of interest, the product loses its value, what gains value is the medium.

The abstract tends towards separation. The first ones taking advantage of separation are the capitalists. They cause isolations even in the own subject’s temporalities since they invalidate the past at dizzying speed. Isolated, the capitalism becomes stronger, since isolation generates frustration and frustration, to be solved, requires consuming (sensations, products, relationships, pleasure).

On the other hand, being a new medium, those best refining their skills in this new language will be able to change paths gradually. The little bastion is disputed in the high spheres of language.


Man as material object of the new capitalism (traffic of pleasure, relationships. The other as a medium to forget the I, or to make it more bearable).
The virtual as desvirtuatio of the material in this new era.
Apocalyptic theories as stabilizers of a new productive system.
The material yin and the digital yang.
The idea of progress as stabilizer of the capitalism, this is, thinking that capitalism will ve overcome makes it stronger.
Can the decline of capitalism as we know it lead to a new feudalism?
From Metropolis to Matrix.
Altruism as 21st century’s ism, the new vanguard, the new power.
Motivations for a war when the material is not a priority
The idea of irrational expense : true principle to ruin a formal logic system.
The world spleen as herald of a new type of consumption
Is it possible to apporeciate anything that can be infinitely replaced? Infinite pain for the death of a tamagotchi.
Materialist paradigm: to have. Digital paradigm: to keep connected. Which one do you chose? Is it possible not to chose?
Materialism generated marginality but will digitalism allow them?
The State wealened by the digital as reactor of a more totalitarian and ubiquitous capitalism.
Digitalization and the amateur
The ephemeral, the digital and the need for oblivion. Overproduction tends towards bulimia, to the constant denial of what has been absorbed in favour of something new. Hegel and his denial more up-to-date than never.
The possibility of the old in a society catapulted to the future.
Organless body vs. wired body.


Némesis liquidas (liquid nemesis). Catálisismo. Gaga-ismo (gagaism). Alienalismo (alienalism).

 L(e)tany (contracton of let (dejar) and litany (letania)). This would be related to the tedium of enumeration to which the human being is exposed through the eternal possibility of reproduction.

If I come up with something else I’ll keep you posted, and sorry if this was not what you were looking for.

Isabel Pérez del Pulgar
Every cataclism causes a great initial impact until it is reconducted and new structures are erected, derived from the obsolete former ones.
This change should bring more real democracy but, very subtly, a diferential abyss between formation and knowledge is forming. The latter in the hands of very few, against a vast mass of directed and consumerist formation. It doesn’t matter if material objects or desinformative programs are consumed.
At the sight of this I always remember Lampedusa:…
“Let everything change for everything to remain the same”
Will there really be a global change? Let’s not forget we ramble from a comfortable and well fed first world.
Hunger’s boosted in the world!

Ana Pastor
I’m amused by the digital paradigm: to keep connected. I imagine a wire hanging from me, trying not to step on it and looking for a plug. A literal plug. I’m sure the Japanese will achieve something like that. I like your article!

I think that, whether we like it or not (and we cartainly do not), global changes do not depend (nor ever have) on the (major) hungry sectors of the world.
“Will there really be a global change?” is an excellent question. Although, as far as we can tell, that change (or part of it) has been happening for some time. How to deal with the “differential abyss between formation and knowledge”?

Sara Saez
I, as always, don’t understand half of the things you say and also, as almost always, dare to give my opinion.
Changes. Since the world began, it moves on changes but everything really stays the same. It’s true that some things improve but at the same time others are worsened.
We can rebel at what we don’t like, we can rejoice when we get what we don’t like to move on, but nothing less. Everything’s divided and hierarchic as has always been.

jef safi

reading roman aixendri, and noting several points spontaneously ..
Postmodernity has not only a dark side, it has also an enlightened one (cf Maffesoli). Postmodernity is flying in the blow between yin and yang, so now postmodernity needs to look for its .. Qi (cf Laozi). Let’s forget markers as capitalism, materialism, virtuality, .. they are so overloaded that they no more mean any thing (cf Derrida), they confuse the rhizome (cf Guattari). From primordial capital, the noble one, emerged social investments (before egotist speculations) ; the virtual is not at all immaterial, all the virtuality is made of material hypomnemata, the net of the net does work by telepathy, …(cf Stiegler) etc
Postmodernity has to leave the “siecle des lumières” because it is too dazzling (cf Maffesoli), but without to seek in obscurantisms of course. Postmodernity has to find its median vacuum (remember the allegory of Camera & Obscura), to find its dialemmatics (remember the allegory of Philo & Sophy), and this has not to be waited from technologies, digital or not, this is not the problem .. this Qi has to be dis(re)constructed by the actors themselves. Here the net of the net can help them, can help us. This is a metastable destiny (cf Heraclitus), where we have not time enough to cry but to act, even if this destiny is desperate, because this is so joyful.
Who goes against the order of things speeds his agony.
Who accompanies the order of things can bend it with him.
Between the Sky and the Earth,
let’s embrace the breath, let’s experience the harmony.
( Laozi – Daodejing )
joël . . ªζ.ª )

Miguel Ruibal
I comment on my own means:


(click on the image to view large)

Miguel Ruibal
Digital water dilutes compound man.

Miguel Ruibal
Analogical melancholy, logical Ana.

Very interesting theme that could indeed stimulate a good discussion. I like a lot that graphic work;)


Roman Aixendri
Interesting contribution from Joël (I love the latter), more than forgetting I like the idea of distorting, perverting, any attitude has a dark origin. Derrida knows more about memory and autopsies than about forgetting. We will always dance in the shadows, with or without too much digital light. Dancing the abyss, without regrets, or stand still, also without regrets.

Sebastian de Cheshire
Let’s get down to work!

Flavio Crescenzi
We move on from one theme to another as if the former was an introduction to the following; as if the thematic flow had a discursive thread or axis, if not ideological. I find the suggested proposal necessary; we will work on this structure consequently, nurturing it with what we have at hand.

I agree with FC.
Especially with the clarification “non-ideological”, which I think is fundamental.

Ele de Lauk
Non-ideological? Does that exist?
Or with a permanently changing, dialectic and experimental ideology. [but is that an ideology]

Ele de Lauk
Of course, that’s a permanently changing, dialectic and experimental ideology.

To a second or third order of hierarchy
To a vulgar or despicable intrascendence
To a place it missed.
I like your article, thanks Fernando

this is the article, if you’re interested in reading it


We live in a time of fast living, mutated morality, cyber
dreams and easy reached pleasure, but we often suffer from
lack of fulfillment. We buy a lot, but somehow never have
enough. We have plenty to feel good, yet we often smile too
little. We live too fast to notice what happens next to the
road on which we are often speeding. We read too little of
what really matters and believe too much in what they say on
the news. We are used to ignore the problems that do not
directly concern us. We ask for more, but share less. We
talk too much, but listen too little.
Thanks to accumulated knowledge and fast shared information
we know more than ever before in human history, yet we still
haven’t learned how to conquer injustice. We have made
taller buildings, wider and faster roads, but we have
narrower viewpoints. We have learned how to make a living,
but not how to have a happy life. We’ve reached the Moon
and distant outer space, but have troubles to understand the
inner space. We’ve conquered the atom, but not the
prejudice. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We
build more, but keep destroying plenty. We rather invest in
development of super efficient killing machines and
exploring of lifeless space than we are concerned about the
only place where we really belong – the Earth. We pollute
everything and only keep promising to stop doing it. We
consciously destroy the nature to feed greed for profit. We
produce much more than we need, but we still haven’t
learned to share surplus without financial interest.
It needs long time to grow or build something, but only a
couple of minutes to destroy it. When did we forget to
remember mistakes? Is technology really making us feel more
comfortable or is the main reason for technological progress
just to produce/sell more in a faster way in order to easier
make money? What is still left that we can tag ‘free’ or
‘free of profit and interest’?
The problem with capitalism is not that it stimulates us to
produce things and make money, but that it keeps pushing us
to make more money even when we have enough (when we get
rich). In this crazy race for financial global dominance we
are witnessing a drastic decrease of real values related to
humanity, the man is contradicting his own nature and making
a transit to virtual space, because the real world is
becoming too messy to be liked. Are the machines really
going to make our dreams come true or is the technology only
selling us another well packaged product that promises much
more than it is able to give?

susan wolff
ah cyberspace, freedom, humanity and the challenges. The following is from a poem I am working on, based on the book “City of Panic” by Paul Virilio.
I sleep in the air between 0 and 3 and don’t own a piece of land. At the beginning of fall, down in the garden, a man, who comes from El Salvador, plays the guitar and sings cowboy songs for this neighbour, who sits under his baseball cap. I have never seen his face but I think it is shaped by metal splinters and body pieces from the beach where he crawled in June on the coast of France. His dog limps around the bushes at the edge of the fence, sniffing for the female he was sure was here. The singer reaches for a note that has escaped from his throat, not knowing that I have hidden it under my sheets.

susan wolff
there have been so many great points to this discussion up to this point.
the positive ones I appreciate such as jef’s: let’s embrace the breath, let’s experience the harmony.
fernando’s question ends with :”To a place it missed.” it is now a place we must create and the basis of creation is in those small moments between humans, thus the scene in the garden above
as to a title? fernando, you have such a short concise talent for combining words, I am sure you will find it. you have wonderful ideas in your questions and the title lies there.

Alicia Pallas

– Art as artisany (the skill to creat unique, irreproducible objetcs) vs. art as creation of ideas (the ability to generate ideas that become infinitely reproducible objects)
– The value of the contentless object vs. the value of the objectless content.
– Material capitalism: the previous judgment of intermediaries (editors, record companies, curators, juries) as added value of the object: selected works excuse the consumer/spectator from the obligation of developing and applying his/her own criteria.
– Virtual capitalism: multiplicity without restrictions as intrinsic value of the content. At the imposibility to control the objects’ content, the media for reaching these contents are capitalized. There are no longer intermediaries to control which contents we access, but there are still intermediaries that allow – or not- our access to them. From our Internet connection provider to the platforms on which we upload/search for contents, they are all intermediaries who are not interested in the type of contents we prefer, but are just satisfied if there is any content that interests us just enough. Access has become a key word, is it perhaps the new object?
– Virtuality allows the overcoming of traditional limitations of production (cost, space, distribution reach) that led to imposed selection of contents. It then becomes the ideal capitalist product and, nevertheless, this barrier overcoming allows it to equally overcome it own condition of object.
– The new limitation in production is, then, the ability to generate ideas. Once random selection criteria have been supressed, are we at the prelude of infinite artistic/cultural/informative production? or maybe this virtualization will prove that creativity was not as endless as we wanted to believe?

Possible titles
I like Roman Aixendri’s suggestion of “L(e)tany”. Very suggestive as let/any. Not so much as L€tany (though this is what Word correction understands if I write the e between brackets). Although I’m not sure its connection to the subject is obvious. I’ll keep on thinking.

Susan Wolff

it seems to me that much of the discussion is polarized: either/or, dark/light, bad good, old/new. do we not need a new, more faceted approach? more holistic? our thinking is still dualistic.
can we go beyond that in this new place we are searching for.

jef safi

. . hmm
. . “The crux of the matter lies in the paradigm shift.”
. . yes, in plural : paradigmatic shiftS
. . where paradigms are always these noospheric desiring machines able to metabolize, to anabolize, & to catharsize old/new jurisprudences as surely as old/new substances & essences . . let’s digest !

. . I propose to title the manifest : YSE#22 the “schisms shifts” issue

. . does it . . sound ?
. . ªζ.ª ) . ?

Miguel Ruibal


Susan Wolff

sounds good
but if we have more that one schism then shouldn’t the verb be singular

“schisms shift”? or am I missing your point?

I have also focused on” a fuse… in the walls” and “the spirit of digital”, but then that is dualistic. oh dear, so much for a new way of thinking

schisms shift I agree

Miguel Ruibal

“Man is a triphid to man.” H. O.



jef safi

susan : “schisms shift”? or am I missing your point?

jef : I suggested to use the plural “schisms shifts” because using “shift” as a noun, not a verb. And because I’m sure that the next “paradigm shift” will not be neither alone (every one who want to shift do it from his point of view) nor the last (every consensus, even building a sustainable épistémé would say Foucault, will not be the last)

Susan, using “shift” as a verb is also very interesting on an other way. Because the singular form induces an ambivalence. In a concise title as this one, the word can be read at once as a verb or as a noun. Merleau-Ponty would say that each reader can ear here what he wants to ear here, . .

Cordially !
. . ˜.?˜)

Susan Wolff

I like ambiguity. I like to leave it to the reader or the observer who no longer observes but participates.

I have been thinking about the word “Schism” for the last couple of days and wonder if it is the right one? it is so sharp a word. so much sharper than paradigm.
paradigm is a way of thinking, entrenched perhaps but not with a negative connotation.
schism is more divisive. more negative.



Hi everyone!

I have read the discussions above (unfortunately I don’t know much Spanish) and I like the idea of shifts (Joel) and humanity (brancolina). Some really great points. Susan, I really like your poem; it’s very “movie-like” with moments :-)

I have been working on a brief submission around Fernando’s theme where I reference technocapitalism and use analogies around what I refer to as “cloud city”.

Possible titles…hmmm.

Time for some free associations in keeping with the theme of the discussion of capitalism vs.technology:

synchroni city
skepsis nexus
misoneism (hatred or fear of change or innovation).
demiurgica (a neologism)
stygian swim
oneirica (neologism – relating to dreams)

Some of these may able and may not depending on other submissions ;-)



Sorry about the happy / winky faces…lol
I didn;t know that that would be be what it would show!


I also like the use of the euro symbol somehow in the title.
I have obviously been overzealous with the “enviar” button …

Miguel Ruibal


Alicia Pallas

Jef, Susan: I also wonder about “schism” being a little too drastic. But at the same time “shifts” are there to soften the schism, to blur the boundaries between this OR that… does “schifting” do the trick for you as a clumsy neologism for schism-shifting?

Kozology: if “schisms” or “shifts” still hang around as a title idea, there’s plenty of room for the dollar sign to appear, don’t you think?


Alicia Pallas – Thank you. “Schifting” or “$chifting” may be said different ways but still has the hard ‘c’ if that is of concern and adding the monetary symbol may complicate things? Hmmmm. Perhaps another tangent is necessary? Thoughts?

The reason I suggested alternative titles is simply to consider a “shift” in our thinking around the title. Jef, Susan, Miguel, Roman, Ele, RV, Sabastian?

Miguel Ruibal


“command: each one occupy your place in line

And feign dignity”


Miguel Ruibal


“the true…”

Miguel Ruibal


“We all hang from our mortality, that’s what we hide behind the need to have a discourse”


susan wolff

so, to all of you, it seems that we are a bit stuck in search of a title.
I have re-read all of the above and the word in Kozology’s last comment struck me “technocapitalism”
in this discussion we are trying to escape the problems of capitalism??
it has to be a shift in this since markets have proven themselves.

“technocap dreams”????

susan wolff

so what’s the title?


I don’t like “Schisms shift”, it’s too hermetic and uninteligible for those many readers who can’t read English”

Alicia Pallas

Maybe playing around with the word “capital”… cap.it.all?


Another twist to the title: what if we add “off”? capitall/off? Cap.it.all/off?

To capi t all means something like “on top of it all”. To cap it all off may also mean “complete” or “finish off”. The first meaning plays a lot with the subject; adding the “off” it plays with the second meaning (a completed cycle, a capitall model that has exhausted its possibilities, or that’s our initial hypothesis), and also with the more general meaning of “off”, more obvious to any ear not used to English.


¿YSE #22, cap.it.all? ¿YSE #22, cap.it.all/off? ¿YSE #22, capitall/off?

I think I like it.

susan wolff

interesting but the digital is left out, or? or is it enough that it is in the text?


I like the suggestions Fernando.
My pick is “YSE#22 capitall/off”.

Miguel Ruibal


“three men on a miserable cardboard”

“the true poor are contingent”


Miguel Ruibal


“Equidistance of the object is always illusory”


oriol espinal

Fragment 1.0

In a TV show, one member of the public addresses one of the guests with these words:

          Mr. Espinolza, with false modesty you have just defined yourself as a very small fish hard to be trapped by fishnets. What is your opinion about the ways of new capitalism? Don’t you think that said system is worryingly intervening on the net, making it more and more closely woven with the purpose of finally making off with everything?

This Espinolza drinks a sip of water and says:

          Since I haven’t been at my best lately and consequently I feel totally unable to offer enlightening answers, let alone to produce lapidary propositions, I will answer to you with a battery of questions, namely: do the words capitalism, technology and control (and naturally what they designate as well) constitute a new, definitive and evil trinity? : was Orwell a mere detractor of Stalinism or a complete prophet? : will the so-called First World en up becoming a huge closed monastery packed with pleasing telemata, where the even smallest attempt of transgressing order will be punished with perpetual disconnection? : off or keeping on feeding the databases of insatiable technocontrol? : […]


What I’m going to say is quite humble, placed beside so many good ideas. But I’m interested in the subject of solitude generated by digital technology. The social being becomes virtual or digital being. And we are all so alone in this conversion, that soon there will not even be a single café to sit down and read the news in the morning, even if those news I read on my netbook.

Thanks for the space Fernando.

Good afternoon