Most of human suffering comes from an exaggerated belief in agency and purpose, a belief that the personalized aspect of Web 2.0 accelerates. “What should be done and who am I?” is the question it poses to us repeatedly, as if the answer mattered. What’s on my mind? Where is my mind? Is what I see on the screen an expression of my mind? Philosophy of digital culture is perpetually torn between two overkills: declaring the internet a blessed place of productive schizophrenia, where we lose our own self-importance to communicate with the world, or, to the contrary, condemning it as a narcissistic delirium, where everything we do fortifies our self-importance. Benjamin Bratton captures this contemporary paradox by noticing that “paranoia and narcissism are … two functions of the same mask.” What should be done and who am I?”

Bogna Konior, The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

Ellsworth Kelly
From Line Form Color
1951

The relationships between theory and practice are far more partial and fragmentary. On one side, a theory is always local and related to a limited field, and it is applied in another sphere, more or less distant from it. The relationship which holds in the application of a theory is never one of resemblance. Moreover, from the moment a theory moves into its proper domain, it begins to encounter obstacles, walls, and blockages which require its relay by another type of discourse (it is through this other discourse that it eventually passes to a different domain). Practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practice to another. 

No theory can develop without eventually encountering a wall, and practice is necessary for piercing this wall.

Gilles Deleuze, Intellectuals and power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze

Sol LeWitt
All Combinations of Arcs from Corners and Sides; Straight, Not-Straight and Broken Line
1975