Keeping in mind a definition of schism as engaging with ideas about discordancy & paradox, the following lists some thoughts on the proposition. 

‘Crossing the line’, Is there a line? Who defines it? How does this definition change? What are it’s limits?

Ways in which clandestine, surreptitious, underground, subliminal or otherwise covert activities become conspicuous or influence the prevailing majority.

Notions of legitimacy and assimilation, incongruous & accidental routes to power and the relationship between actuality & ideology, activity & causality, aim & outcome...

The precarious balance between the underground & the mainstream, and how forms of supposed resistance are assimilated into pattens of consumption.

The possibility/impossibility of dissent.

Maps, sources & spreadsheets.

Rigged influences & their repercussions.

I heard on the radio how people open up more quickly on the net with people they don’t physically know...

“The fleeting almost insolent pleasure of being recognised by a machine, without the burden of emotional implications that are inseparable from recognition by another human being”. (Agamben, ‘Nudities’, pg. 53)

The covert nature of digital synthesising & the amount of overt information being exchanged ‘anonymously’. The challenge of the ‘anonymity of the great machine’.(Ballard) 

‘Transgression, then, is not related to the limit as black to white, the prohibited to the lawful, the outside to the inside, or the open area of a building to it’s enclosed spaces. Rather, this relationship takes the form of a spiral that no simple infraction can exhaust. Perhaps it is like a flash of lightning in the night, which, form the beginning of time, gives a dense & black intensity to the night it denied; which lights up the dark from the inside, from top to bottom, and yet owes to the dark the stark clarity of it’s manifestation, it’s harrowing and poised singularity. The flash loses itself in this space it marls with it’s sovereignty and becomes silent now that it has given a name to it’s obscurity.’ (Foucault , ‘A Preface to Transgression’)

ISSUE THREE