The masturbation smiley

This week’s tweet is one you could have suspec­ted as that kind of type this pro­ject would have star­ted with. Tal­king about infor­ma­ti­on that is just too much on twit­ter is most­ly infor­ma­ti­on about sexu­al habits.
This is one of them and one that is qui­te com­pro­mi­sed:

The sim­pli­ci­ty of the messa­ge turns out to rise a lot of ques­ti­ons:

Does Tony real­ly do that what he claims to do or is he just kid­ding? Is that an infor­ma­ti­on he real­ly wants to sha­re with others? What kind of pro­fit would someo­ne else have with this infor­ma­ti­on? Is the­re no one wit­hin Tony’s world that feels uncom­for­ta­ble with his?

Tony doesn’t seem to bother about tho­se ques­ti­ons. He even seems to be a rather rela­xing guy having the time to post a tweet while com­ing into action. But why is he adding a smi­ley to his post? Does he think: Well, you hadn’t expect I would real­ly wri­te this, he? Is he thin­king adding a smi­ley makes an action cool? Is the same con­tent bet­ter without a refe­rence to smi­ling (bes­i­des on the ava­tar) ?

Well, think about that. Or rather don’t :).


The nothing

Ladies and Gents, this week’s tweet is THE tweet.

It’s the ulti­ma­te tweet.

It con­ta­ins basics any twit­ter user uses. And it’s more. It’s art.
What kind of art it is, is what we need to find out.

So here’s what the tweet of the week is all about. Doomsham­mer says? Wri­tes? Shows? This:

This is more than just a tweet. This is more than just play­ing a tiny tech­ni­cal game. This is a theo­reti­cal and prac­tical expres­si­on of the not­hing:

On the one hand you don’t find a sin­gle viewa­ble sign to iden­ti­fy.
On the other hand and as a result of the for­mer you don’t find any abs­tract infor­ma­ti­on wit­hin this tweet apart from the author’s name, the soft­ware he uses, the star and the time the tweet was made. If you want to talk about this tweet you are urged to refer to not­hing­ness.

It was Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger clai­ming the not­hing noths (“Das Nichts nich­t­et.”). You can object against Hei­deg­ger that his hard­ly under­stan­d­a­ble usa­ge of tur­ning nouns into verbs is not a pos­si­ble way to iden­ti­fy truth. But this objec­tion could fail due to just reve­aling yours­elf as being pighe­a­ded. The mista­ke of defi­ning how to iden­ti­fy truth could lie in your own assump­ti­ons. But without try­ing to glo­ri­fy Hei­deg­ger we have to sta­te that Doomsham­mer shows there’s still some­thing after the not­hing has left.

Lea­ve is defi­ned by Hei­deg­ger with the fol­lo­wing:

This is in english: “Lea­ve is the absen­ted arri­val of the hiding of kee­ping the pro­gress in the begin­ning.” So Doomsham­mers’ expres­si­on is both the absence of any tweet con­tent and the begin­ning of any tweet.

So do not let Doomsham­mer fool you by lin­king to his own tweet as a tweet of empti­ness:

You might still want to say, we’re mis­sing the point. We’re over-interpreting the who­le tweet. We don’t have any inte­res­ting TMIs left and are urged to lift this up to one. Doomshammer’s just a nerd having fun with his iPho­ne.

So if that would be right our text would be TMI. If not we would have pro­ven the incredi­ble kind of art of this tweet.

We actual­ly think we can pro­ve our the­sis.

We can’t do this theo­reti­cal­ly but wit­hin prac­tise, wit­hin one of the artist’s tweet. Take a look at what Doomsham­mer threw like an unsa­tis­fy­ing pain­ting into the trash bin just a second befo­re reve­aling his mas­ter­pie­ce:


The clever doggie

If peop­le on twit­ter don’t talk about them­sel­ves or their pro­blems, they talk about news, tv, films, other peop­le or ani­mals. If they talk about ani­mals, qui­te often they talk about their pets. And if they talk about pets then they talk about things they did wrong. You can hard­ly ever read a descrip­ti­on of a real­ly right­ful done action of a pet. Or may­be that’s just my per­cep­ti­on. It just seems not to be too inte­res­ting to talk about that.

If twit­ter users do not talk about their pets, but about ani­mals, it’s about ani­mals in their envi­ron­ment not belon­ging to them. Brittt is one of them. It does not slip her atten­ti­on what and how ani­mals act that are near to her. So she wri­tes:

The first thing I thought is some­thing, I sup­po­se none of you thought. I thought: What a cle­ver dog­gie. He comes into the room, reco­gni­zes that the win­dow is open, jumps upon the win­dows­ill and does his busi­ness out­side for not soi­ling the room. Good boy!

Too sad a second later I thought that wasn’t Brittt’s sto­ry. She in a way wan­ted to tell that a dog was shit­ting out­side her hou­se and that she could watch him doing his busi­ness. And the open win­dow seems to be a link to me that she even smel­led that hap­pe­ning through her open win­dow.

I don’t wan­na care. I think my sto­ry is much more com­pel­ling.


OMD — Pandora’s box


Twarres — Wêr bisto?


The Housemartins — Caravan of love


Echo Echo — Nur dein Clown

In den 80ern war es ja weit ver­brei­te­te Mode in Deutsch­land, alles was musi­ka­lisch im eng­lisch­spra­chi­gen Aus­land Erfolg hat­te, auf deutsch umzu­tex­ten. Das war meist eher beknackt, aber Echo Echo geste­he ich zu, der Über­tra­gung etwas durch­aus inter­es­san­tes abzu gewin­nen:

Mal im Ver­gleich dazu das Ori­gi­nal: Fly­ing Pickets — Only you.


Ice MC — Think about the way