suggested it to library for purchase (2017) .. and they got it.. yay..
out in 2015 – so have been taking notes and such here: stack
acknowledgments include: Kate Crawford, Teddy Cruz, Adam Greenfield, Kevin Slavin, Bruce Sterling, McKenzie Wark, Lev Manovich, ..
as we quickly learn more precise and higher resolution processes, it becomes correspondingly harder to see the whole at once.. t
begs zoom dancing
need better vocab, new and better models..
the stack model is a diagram that works only when it is put to use. *perhaps by drawing the whole, we stand a better chance ..t.. of designing a better architecture of globalization. perhaps we are not lacking ideas but a platform to situate, deploy and enforce them..
*not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…
this book is my drawing on our cave wall, on that invites response, revision, and even replacement..
p 1 – models
the stack is an accidental megastructure, one that we are building both deliberately and unwittingly and is in turn building us in its own image..
the modern norm of political geography is fracturing thru its own radicalization and by its own hand..not just by the accumulation of violations to its authority.. at same time.. future of its governance, and the designability of that future, is now, as it has been may times before, being decide thru encounters w incommensurate external challenges to its claimed monopoly on geographic geometry.. such encounters sometimes produce genuinely new things, and sometimes they produce what is merely consistent with what can be enforced and sometimes they produce things that are neither..
what topological imaginations might allow us to reform it..?.. the stack model suggests both the means and ends of a specific kind of platform sovereignty.. it demands we understand the designability of geography in relation to the designability of computation and to see the state (and other sovereign institutions) in relation to both at once..
max weber’s sociological theories of bureaucracy also described the state as a kind of machine, a vast apparatus for which the instrumental rationality of inputs and outputs should guarantee predetermined outcomes. platforms, however, don’t operate according to such guarantees; they feed on the indeterminacy of outcomes..
the emergence of the stack my rep this historical logic taken to an extreme new maturity. it is not the ‘state as a machine’ (weber) or the ‘state machine’ (althusser) or really even (only) the techs of governance (foucault) as much as it is the machine as the state.. like foucault’s techs..mechanics are not rep of governance; the are governance.. but unlike foucault’s archaeology, its primary means and interests are not human discourse/bodies.. but rather..*the calculation of all the world’s info and the world itself as info..
this accidental megastructure, this machine that is also a ‘state’ is not the result of some master plan, revolutionary event, or constitutional order. it is the accumulative residue of contradictions and oppositions that arose to address other more local problems of computing systems design..
quiet enough to hear.. the emergence..
the design horizon for each layer of this stack must be considered in terms of both what it accomplishes as an ideal tech and perhaps more important, how its undesigned accidents characterize its real outcomes.. ie: in slippery redefinitions of citizenship and sovereignty in a cloud computing era, what referent of last resort can we rely on ? human rights? end user agreements?
let’s just go w gershenfeld sel.. sans labels, borders, training.. et al.. sans B & b
what if effective citizenship in a polity were granted not according to categorical juridicial id, but as a shifting status derived from any user’s generic relationship to he machinic systems that bind the polity to itself.. in other words, if the interfaces of the city itself address everyone as a ‘user’ then perhaps one’s status as a user is what really counts..
what if effective citizenship/status is irrelevant.. what if we’re doing/thinking that all wrong.. imagine we just focus on maté basic needs via 2 convos.. and then trust us all to listen deeper and do our part.. everyday
from this perhaps we see less the articulation of citizenship for any one city, enclosed behind its walls, but of a ‘citizen’ (is that even still the right word?) of the global aggregate urban conditions..could this aggregate ‘city’ wrapping the planet serve as the condition, the grounded legit referent, from which another, more plasmic universal suffrage can be derived/designed..
if so, for who and for what? if it could, or if it already is in some way, then our regular categories and criteria are not describing it very well for us.. this is perhaps because it is not planned but an accident of the process..
maybe not even an accident.. maybe more just a dance.. and maybe it doesn’t need description.. once we’re all dancing.. (ie: idio jargon as descriptive enough)
i wish this was my book and i could write in it.. so that’s what i’m doing here.. but dang.
what really are to be the national rights of mobile subjects in a cloud based society.. can you be bound to the data laws of your passport country no matter where you go
no laws/borders et al if truly cloud based.. we can facil that chaos..
the scenario described in chapters to follow and appearing before us in the real world can be summarized as one in which *users, human/nonhuman are cohered in relation to **interfaces, which provide synthetic total images of the ***addressed landscapes and networks of the whole, from the physical and virtual envelopes of the ****city, to the geographic archipelagos of the *****cloud and the autophagic consumptions of ******earth‘s minerals, electrons, and climates that power all of the above..
*start w 7 bn humans as user.. realizing it goes beyond them
**2 convos as interface
***hlb as address
****any community as city.. [has to be as the day ..or it won’t work]
*****io dance as cloud
******holmgren indigenous ness as earth – listening to all the voices.. human/non-human
squinting hard to make out the contours as they (layers of the stack) slip and slide off the map, we realize that *only a blur provides for an accurate picture..t of what is going on now and to come.. blur is what they are and what they do .. wet w life..us..
changing everyday/24/7.. antifragile
the zoom dance blur
it may be that our predicament is that we cannot design the next political geography of planetary computation until it more fully designs us in its own image or, in other words, that the critical dependence of the future’s futurity is that we are not yet available for it..
unfortunately, for learning how to know it, direct amplification in the intensity and resolution of our answers to the inevitably wrong questions will not help ..t
begs deep/simple/open enough ness
the geometry of political geography is only more complex, esp in that it seems to have no outside, no ‘free space’ to delimit itself against..
lines (and surfaces) provide tension by setting opposition between the negative spaces to each side (and inside and out) but they cannot ever fully control how either side is charged in relation to the other at any given moment: which one is dominant/subordinate, which is gathered in and which is excluded..
novel developments emerging thru the reversibility of ‘lines’ that are equally geographic and technological, folding the world in and out and up and down its layers, over and over again..
no nomos w/o topos: no stable geopolitical order w/o an underlying architecture of spatial subdivision.. the is loop topology is normative but not mandatory..
the stack model is also perhaps a contemporary version of what schmitt called the nomos,.. this slippery concept refers to the historically evolving structure of the world order.. and the corresponding partitioning of political space according to which sovereign entities are constituted.. is there a nomos of cloud? we may conclude that the stack is the nomos of our moment, or a better grasp on the architecture of the stack may establish that there is no real nomos after all
nomos is described as prior to ever legal, econ, and social order; it is constituted by appropriation, distribution and production and only thru this can it move from the particular to the universal: from arbitrary territorial capture, to representations of spatial delineation and to geopolitical order..
for schmitt (and heidegger and any number of subsequent political programs both left/right, irredentist/esoteric), ‘the very possibility of legal relations is dependent up on an original act of collective appropriation of land which establishes the material matrix – literally the ground – of those legal relations’
the cloud is not virtual; it is physical even it if is not always ‘on the ground’ even when it is deep underground. there is nothing immaterial about massless info that demands such energy from the earth…t
server farms ness et al
networks make space and take space, and like any other architecture, by their inscriptions into a given location, they exclude other possibilities from being there.. diff than buildings..but nevertheless placeful.. network edges/lines produce interiors/exteriors, and so networks are not just superimposed on a given territory, they also produce a real territory by striating it..
one line links across inhuman distance, and one line separates place into space (barbed wire on farms and phone lines), but no real line ever does one w/o the other and each allows the other to work.. but any line cannot by itself constitute its own political efficacy and make its own decision about what is inside and what is outside..t
as said, from the sky looking down, the sea and the land are both flat planes full of points located in a universally matching coord system, virtualizing the immediate perception of geography in motion.. this protocenematic flattening of natural dimensions, where the earth itself is seen merely as a ‘thicker version of the sky’ disheartened schmitt.. for schmitt, it is less physically defended than divided up like an algebraic equation.. and it is the spaceless ness of the 20th cent that the contemporary geopolitics provides, w none of the rooted limits of solid fortresses and true walls and not true distinction between friend and enemy. w/o these, schmitt wanted of an era inaugurated not only by global war but of total war of all against all..
if the space of planetary-scale computation is a new kind of ‘free soil’ then that ‘soil’ is land, sea, and air all at once, equally tangible and ephemeral
not only was icann (internet corp for assigned names and numbers) the internet addressing authority, established in california and its relationship w the us fed authorities long controversial, but today the us is still (and may remain) the unnamed unmarked center of addressable internet space (us websites are usually ‘com’ not ‘co.us’ as they would be w/o this infrastructural exceptionalism
data do not really have a national career unless they are forced to produce one.. (local)
in this regard, the amalgamation and reorg of interactions into verticalized planes and towers is not only an event in the world but a process of making the world.. it’s geo
the geometries at work don’t simply reflect governance; the perform it: from line into frame into topos into something else situated where we might once have put nomos…
for some writers (as for schmitt) the loss of a special coherence of articulation is also loss of all inceptive self-renewal. for them, computation has smothered the possibility of radical breaks w the present condition, leaving us all to wander about in virtual haze, having confused the entropy of ubiquity w the space of creation.. however i am not convinced that the end is upon us or that perplexed melancholy is wisdom..
that frame (world as lines and grids) is a device for saying something new or to say something about what is and is not new. the design of that frame itself and its capacity to enforce its own presentation is how the sense of a full world is approximated..
how is verticality similar and different in practice than horizontal? .. height.. ? or qualitatively diff order..?
the discussion of the layers of the stack, and the productive accidents of each, is an outline platform sovereignty, a term that will appear explicitly in some parts of the following chapters but lurks underneath almost every paragraph in some way..
platforms are what platforms do. they pull things together into temp higher order aggregations and in principle, add value both to what is brought into the platform and to he platform itself..
platforms possess an institutional logic that is not reducible to those of states of markets or machines, as we normally think of them..
while stacks are platforms, not all platforms are stacks and in fact most platforms are not stacks.. (geography and geometry are peculiar)
the etymology of platform refers to a ‘plan of action, scheme, design‘ and from the middle french, platte form, or literally, a plateau or raised level surface..
a recognition of platforms as a third institutional form, along w states and markets
for our purposes it is far less important how the machine reps a politics than how ‘politics’ physically is that machinic system..
at a more mechanical level, a platform is also a standardized diagram or tech. its structure and the paths of interoperability that hold it together can’t be considered outside of the regularization and rationalization of how it connects to the outside world..
systems swap material in this way, such that intermodality and intramodality come to enable one another: no standards, no platform; no platform, no stack
let’s make sure they are deep/simple/open enough for 7 bn.. today.. not after training.. but just as we are now..
containerizaiton migrated the packet switching from telecommunications onto the transit of physical objects (or perhaps the other way around). (paper envelope to steel shipping containers)
our interest, however, is not to critique platforms as aesthetic works but to id the work that aesthetics does in their development..
as opposed to other macrogovernance institutions, platforms do not work according to detailed premeditated master plans; rather they set the stage for actions to unfold thru ordered emergence. ..platforms begin by fixing equally strict means but are strategically agnostic as to outcomes: ends are a function of means..
equity: everyone getting a go everyday..
like some decentralized systems, platforms rationalize the self directed maneuvers of users w/o necessarily superimposing predetermined hierarchies onto their interactions..
an ideal platform is like an empty diagram thru which users mediate new and archived info
maybe even more ideal if users aren’t mediating.. rather just listening to own gut.. in order to offer best energies to our one ness.. [ie: work.. as solving other people’s problems.. not working so well]
platforms that organize existing systems and info tend to achieve generative entrenchment more quickly than those that seek to intro new systems from scratch..
well – if you call maté basic needs existing.. ok.. but if not.. then maybe the statement isn’t true and we don’t know that.. because we haven’t ever tried/allowed truly free people yet.. if we go deep/simple/open enough.. that exponentiating quickness will blow us away..
the stack is a machine that becomes a state, but it is also how both become platforms, or at least, as one condition around which their armatures are forced to evolve in relation to platforms..
as for any platform, that consolidation is driven less from centrally planned legal prescription than thru the algo conduction of self directed behaviors by free range users.. the stack discussed in the following chapters is a vast software/hardware formation, a proto megastructure built of crisscrossed oceans, layered concrete and fiber optics, urban metal and fleshy fingers, abstract id’s and the fortified skies of oversubscribed national sovereignty. it is a machine literally circumscribing the planet,
if you start looking for them, ‘stack’s are everywhere. in a way, the earth itself is a spherical stack,
charles and ray eames’s famous powers of ten films for ibm showed generations of high school students how to start from one everyday spot and from there think down to 10^-9 meters and up to 10^23 meters..and back again.. a kind of telescoping stack..
get pivot ness
it was to be based not on functional regulation but on the feedback systems of play and serendipitous interaction..t
the verticality of flattened systems is seemingly uncontainable..
as said, the stack is composed of geologic, humanistic and mineral layers charging feedback loops between these. as a cybernetic landscape, the stack composes both for equilibrium and for emergence, one oscillating into the other for diagonal purposes in barely accountable rhythms..
the stack’s disciplining of communication as an ecology of isomorphic techniques makes the world appear as a system that demands from us a constant redesign of its ever more granular interoperations….
ginorm small ness.. rapid prototyping to slow..
to control the stand is to influence the economies it enables.. as should be plain from current event, the interweaving of otherwise incommunicative hard and soft systems into new assemblages continues apace, and so the politics of standard (ie: open source, ip, net neutrality, encryption) becomes integral to the ‘democracy’ of infrastructure and to the little sovereignties of everyday life
? – assuming ip? encryption? econ..?
this registration of all systems as info systems a priori tracks software’s migration from military logistics to consumer footprints
war and market..?
as all systems come to mean info systems, then computation, which otherwise might be defined differently, comes to refer to ‘algos holding systems of info together’. the stack, as a particular megastructure, emerges from this history of systems conceived in relation to computation, and computation in relation to systems. it has inherited some of its limitations, ambitions, accomplishments, and blind spots and has evolved beyond others..
how much evolved..? can/need we not leap more..?
if we are more used to living so much of our lives inside the shells of planetary scale computational networks, we also observe that the political realities of universal global info turn out to be far more problematic, more mundane, and unusual than envisioned, feared, and hoped for. this disappointment itself may be the most timely message of the medium, but not necessarily its most lasting.. perhaps the persistent utopianism around communications infra still works.. not because of .. predicts outcome of large scale tech interventions..but because as genesis of productive accidents..able to make room for otherwise unauthorized plitical and social forms in its wake..
ie: and to extend this problem to the largest scale, an understanding of the ongoing emergence of planetary scale computation cannot only be understood as a secondary tech expression of capitalist econ..
? – keeps sounding too intertwined w econ
for some, an apparently universal convertibility of social systems into software systems motivates euphoric convictions in the instantaneous self realization of networked individuals, a particularly californian enthusiasm spanning from the ingenious to the idiotic..
how far can that go? (on being valuable to users and platform) .. for some the capacity for platforms to operate in this way suggests striking similarities w the hopes of socialist planners to engineer a pricing/planning mech that could observe, analyze, calculate, produce and distribute material and good s according to principles of rational evaluation instead of the anarchic vagaries of supply and demand
those planner and programmers also labored under centralized authoritarianism, and so for our efforts to plot out where else platform economies can be made to go and what alts to anthropocenic economics are possible.. it is not suggested that we look back on midcentury regimes for all the key clues..
google for ie .. testify against the notion of an intrinsic bond between capitalism and computational megaplatforms..
we may anticipate that to some significant extent the dovetailing of the future evolution of both agendas will transform one another and may even allow one to fully envelop the other: neither state as machine nor market as machine because the platform is state, market and machine at once..
why market? why state..?
some marxian articles of faith (tush that once global tech means of production valuation have reached some threshold level of efficiency and ubiquity, such that continuance of management by capital is not needed, then thing s will give way to a self regulating infra commonwealth) may have surprising interpretive value for the next century eve if it works out in ways utterly diff than originally and normally conceived..
yes.. ie: moneyless
as many on left and right have postulated, the acceleration of capital flows thru computation megaplatforms such as theses,may , in the long run, do as much to undermine the modern function of exchangeable property as it does to radicalize it..
undermine exchangeable property
let’s do that.. disengage from the irrelevants..
beer’s diagram was of the macrosocial emergent effect of platform sovereignties, and sakamura’s was the inverse, a tech harmonization of a social foundations..
the stack freezes, radicalizes and reinforces models of governance and macroeconomics at the same time as it dismantles them, builds geographies above/below them, and undermines their ability to reproduce themselves..
any model begs free people first.. or end up beer sakamura et al
as we conceive possible futures for the stack platform, in what way might the generative aspiration of cybersin do more work for users than the curatorial aspiration of tron or vice versa..?.. t
change the data.. to self-talk as data
beer and sakamura would likely agree, however, that any platform architecture will succeed not thru the premediated ingenuity of its original schemes that will always prove too brittle, but thru how it is taught to accommodate and validate unforeseeable new programs, and to do so as simply as possible..
facil curiosity.. 2 convos.. simple
in principle any machine could be inserted in a layer of the network if it can adhere to the necessary grammar that would allow it to communicate w its most proximate neighbors..t
begs we go w/idio-jargon.. no train.. beyond words
tcp/ip ‘won’ not simply because its early adopters were more visionary but because it just worked better to link together heterogeneous existing systems and translating between them so that they could work as one..
maybe.. but maybe too.. we just haven’t yet tried a nother way.. that feeds off idio-jargon and leaping.. as one..
we see that platforms that allow for tactical appropriation to optimized existing systems have an advantage over those that would appear from a tabula rasa.. at least w/in this context for established industrial systems..
(again.. seems to repeat this.. maybe i’m missing something).. i don’t know.. how are we doing so far..? what’s the advantage.. the world we now have..? and if we suggest it’s the quickness of the change.. we don’t know .. we’ve never let go enough to experience a leap..
tcp/ip .. rose to preeminence in the governance of networks not because it was the most perfect, or because everyone voted for it, or because it was the most legally sound; rather, it just worked to tactically glue together lots of diff things at diff scales into more manageable and valuable forms.. the same is basically true of the stack as an accidental megastructure
i hope so.. i hope it means we let go enough.. we’ve got to glue together the right thing.. ie: people via curiosity to get to the energy and alive ness we are currently missing
it is a space of deep addressability nominating and enumerating users and interlocking their traces easily or uneasily across unnatural scales..t
hlb that io dance.. as the day
at the top layer, because no two users have the same level of privilege and access w/in the space of possibilities in which..
why not..? leap/new-normal begs equity
interface and address may be monopolized by one jurisdictional totality in one context, and earth and city for another in another context but absolute dominion over all six layers across contexts is doomed by the superimposition of multiple geographies at once, communication w one another w/o master steerage or any one final settlement of transactions. at least in this way, the stack is (we hope) a totality that is resistant to totalitarianism, even as its governing coherency depends on the gravitational pull of each layer an on the gathering of more and more of the world into its logistics
sounds like gershenfeld sel..pre occupy ing everyone.. even the inspectors of the inspectors.. w good they can’t not do.. the dance of one ness
the tilt is not toward how a sublime coord of stack techs might hasten the arrival of some full spectrum computational end of history, but how its gnashing juxtapositions generate peculiar new spaces, fractured enclaves, and how its newly normalized exceptions are perhaps instructive beyond their immediate scope.. t
while scenarios for ubiquitous computing and an ‘internet of things’ suggest info exchange between ‘smart’ natural objects, what i refer to as ‘deep address’ is interested in communication between very diff spatial and temporal scales, absorbing any addressable ‘haecceity’ into vast, if also fragile, communicative fields that may exceed the limits of conventional control or literacy..t
i think were focusing on wrong data.. making everything too complicated.. if we just focused on data from two convos.. w/in & via.. deep addresses.. haeccities.. whatevers.. i believe we’d far exceed our conventions/controls/literacies..
we commit to the ongoing design of the accidental megastructure knowing full well that its ultimate prupose may be to disappear before it fully arrives..
nice.. thinking placebos.. and such.. in order to detox us while we leap.. in order to not perpetuate not-us ness..
p 2 – the layers
‘computation’ is not only what the stack is made from; it is also how the megastructure composes, measure,s and governs itself..
discovering or inventing computation..?
friedrich kittler: silicon is nature.. silicon is nature calculating itself. i you leave out the part of engineers who write little structures on silicon you see one part of matter calculating the rest of matter..
atomic bits swerve, as if by accident, and in the accumulation the entropy of the noisy void gives way to the negentropic formulation of the world and its temporal orderliness: from this calculation, forms form. lucretius called this economy of entanglement between atoms, located by their fluid communication in flight, the clinamen, and it has been the source of considerable philosophical and literary rumination (including marx’s doctoral dissertation).
although 20th cent invented computers, it did not invent computation so much as it discovered it as a general force, and offered some initial basic tools to work w it more directly. we are, like everything else, also its product..
important to distinguish the limits of formal computation, on the one hand, from what the limits of actual computational techs can really do, on the other… these are two very diff kinds of limits..
at time of book publication.. no one can pronounce the practical validity of quantum computing or industrial scale atomic level design, and so for that reason alone, we are careful to separate computation from computers, and not to confuse the mathematical genericity of computation as a process w the actual and comparatively feeble also crunching machines at work now and in the near future..
even supercomputing grids are just machines particularly efficient at calculation tasks at predictable speeds, but they are not in themselves ‘computation’ just as light bulbs are machines good at conducting electrical currents toward illumination but are not in themselves electricity or light
the forms of inhuman intelligence that they (computers) manifest will never pass the turing test, nor should we bother asking this of them. it is an absurd and primitive request. it is inevitable that synthetic also intelligences can and will create things that we have not thought of in advance or ever intended to make, but as suggested, because they do not need our thinking or intention as their alibi, it is their inhumanity that may make them most creative..
ie: could just listen to self talk w/o judging.. and use that input to connect us
this is made clear by unpacking and sifting thru the hardware on which the stack depends. silicon is far from the only important substance required in it manufacturing and maintenance, and the economics of its assembly are far from crystalline..
from this same land, the belgians too ivory, the americans cobalt, and now billions of earthlings everywhere carry little bits of africa around w them in their pockets. the financial rewards of mining and trading in electronics have contributed to devastating effects in the region, including overlapping civil wards in the drc and next door in rwanda (from 1998 to 2003, upward of 5 mn people died in the congolese civil war, making it by one measure the deadliest conflict since ww2)
the smoldering conflict is a war partially financed w the manufacturing capital of smart phones and laptops, inevitably, the smooth skin of the device demands gore to feed its gloss.. deforestation in the pursuit of new sources of coltan in remote areas populated by gorillas has also led to an increase in the trade/consumption of bush means…. a quasi cannibal econ that may also allegorize widespread war crimes in nearby villages…
there is no stack w/o a vast immolation an involution of the earth’s mineral cavities. the stack terraforms the host planet by drinking and vomiting its elemental juices and spitting up mobile phones..
elizabeth grosz writes: the earth can be infinitely divided, territorialized, framed.. framing is how chaos becomes territory. framing is the means by which objects are delimited, qualities unleashed and art is made possible..
delimited..? (defn: determine the limits or boundaries of)
i don’t know.. i think art is possible w/o delimiting.. have we ever tried.. have we ever been truly free to do/be our art..? as one/interconnected world..? it has to be all of us for it to work..
specifically this geo graphy is both a kind of writing of space and of expressing, communicating, politicizing compositional images of terrain as a precondition of the social and technical construction of spaces to be defended..
geography in this sense, is a specific kind of relationship between world and image, in that it is itself both an image of the world and a real rendering of physical landscape according to that rep.
the composability of the earth, as both figure and ground, mark and canvas, long precedes the global geometries of the stack, but the latter inevitably still draws on many varied precedent gesture. scores of ancient geoglyphs dot landscapes on all continents, carved into the skins of the planet or assembled w rocks put in lines for the viewing benefit of aerial audiences: deities, birds, skies, and whatever else might be observing from the top of the world. landscape is given a face. the advent and eventual predominance of formal agriculture permanently refixed that face’s expression..t
james suzman et al
is it permanent..?
google’s mission statement ‘ to org the world’s info and make it universally accessible/useful’ changes meaning when the world itself is seen as being info, such that to org all the info is to org all the world..
the info that is sensible to it is more often than not on the surfaces of territory, intensifying govt focus on them. skin, after all, is the largest sensory organ of any animal body..t
this solidifying in my mind.. our obsession with oppressing people for land..
too much quantifying/measuring/validating
so slogan ‘you can’t monitor what you can’t measure’ may need to be revised to include the foucaldian line ‘you can’t modify what you can’t monitor’ or even ‘you can’t not modify whatever it is that you sense’
i think us observing the modifying and the sensing and the monitoring.. changes us .. not for good.. we become not us.. begging gershenfeld sel to keep us free from being watched.. even by ourself.. because we’re so busy doing/being.. sensing yes.. but not to observe in order to change.. more like.. breathing..
why have all this complexity.. if it’s not to make our lives simple enough to be/remain alive..
there are other, and better judgments of these accelerations, displacements, elongations, migrations, vectors, lines, and links. can they be drawn w/o replicating the terms of reduction that any truly living image would need to escape..? ..t
yes.. we have to let go.. or we won’t be the ones living.. meaning alive living..
is this what is most starkly absent from google earth’s transformation of the map into the interface..t
i think yes..
what can we do w these pictures of the data that the world secretes, and what do they want from us ultimately..t
i think we’re secreting (produce and discharge) the wrong data.. it’s like we’re secreting supposed to data.. like we’re elongating the school experience.. (and why would we not.. that’s a long time to be taught that way of thinking.. that is not us)
we have to give self-talk as data a chance.. and not as a means of measuring.. only as a means of connecting people via curiosity.. the rest is trust.. let go and trust us to do the dance
it is estimated that the electricity required to send the trillions of spam emails worldwide each year is equivalent to powering 2 million american homes and generates the same amount of greenhouse gases as 3 million cars.. t.. but the cloud layer is not uniform and now it affects the earth layer depends on where it si buried..
also talked about old devices as waste..
imagine a world where no one is emailing.. and no one even has a device.. just a chip.. imagine us doing less paper work ness.. and more living ness..ie: affluence w/o abundance ness
incentives to intro greater energy efficiencies in data centers..
server farms via blockchain..? not true..? either way.. we can certainly cut out the Bureaucracy&bs
even if all goes well, the emergent mega infra of the stack is , as a whole, perhaps the hungriest thing in the world, and the consequences of its realization may destroy its own foundation..
not if we learn peepoople ness upcycling.. imagine if we disengaged from money alone.. all the energy that would save.. not to mention the human energy
in many cases this network is startlingly inefficient..
as are people.. causing us to want/use more than we need.. to now know what we need
on india .. and lack of transparency in grid makes losses difficult to measure.. t
what if all the measuring is wasted energy.. if we set the infrastructure/stack/whatever up right.. we won’t have to measure.. becomes irrelevant..
can the stack be built fast enough to save us from the costs of building the stack..t
only if we leap.. we need to model a means for 7 bn to leap
is sovereignty primarily for the measurement or for the measured?
sovereignty: supreme power or authority; the authority of a state to govern itself or another state; a self-governing state.
ie: between india and pakistan.. planted sizable number of sensors to detect ice temps, water flow,.. and other telltale effects of climate change..
perhaps won’t need to measure climate change ness if living better.. if structure designed simply for living better
the very placement of sensors in certain locations and the control of the data generated by them become a way to claim some of the always shifting terrain from
back to obsession of land/space property ness
if nation drowned.. still a nation..? inhabitants still possess fishing rights in waters now above homeland…? right to issue currency/passport..
? wrong focus.. (fitting w later writing about climate as some enemy)
design must be genuinely suspicious of remedies that valorize the amelioration of symptoms..t.. states of emergency often begin as a ‘temp measure’ precaution, pilot program, … but over time.. the exception becomes the rule and the rule becomes the rule of law because it is now seen as the normal shape of things..
design’s job too often is to reform the emergency,..t.. so that over time, the exception sheds its temp and provisional character as its effects settle out..
as *bruna mori writes, noguchi feared those camps would be permanent.. .. it is precisely this well meaning making permanent of the provisional exception that is worrisome.. perhaps the freedom of the interned was to some degree aided by the lack of design accommodation undertaken to normalize their camp’s exceptionality
accommodating emergency is also how a perhaps illegitimate state of exception is stabilized and over time normalized..
instead we should plot systemic interventions based on deeper scales of operation that might arrest the eventual immiseration of places, species, and landscapes by securing lines of flight for them..t
deep enough for flight.. let go
instead work less in response to the exceptional emergency than on behalf of the emergence itself..
a communitarian integration of local techniques of measurement and mitigation into a more immediate tapestry may be an attractive vision for some, but a singing chorus to the invisible hand of flat networks is not a scalable posture of resistance to the status quo; to the contrary, programmatic localism and the democracy of means is a play for weakness..
moreover.. where is the limit to the conceptual violence of turning nature itself into a kind of permanent emergency, climate change into its final exception and global warming into the masterwork of this ambient terrorist..? involving the planet as a ubiquitous enemy to be manage cannot end well for humans..
real design issues for the earth layer are not defined by how well we can calculate risk and stage manage disaster, but rather how well we engineer the path for one world to strategically fall apart into another..t
gotta leap.. let’s not go part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…
katrina – failure of state to maintain even basic infra protection…. these are less geodesign programs of curation and creation than of militarization of chemistry, a diff and unwinnable type of warfare..
our ecological emergency is an exceptional state of things largely built out of unaccounted for transactional externalities, neither legal/illegal per se, but that nevertheless cannot be expunged from the physical world that a sovereign state tries to see, name, and count..
determining what is and is not accounted for – addressed as being inside/outside the economy – is also a determination of what sovereignty is accountable to
for those models and for what they do and do not claim in total the right to deny id is as essential as the right to assign it..
perhaps id is non essential.. perhaps rights are non essential.. if infra built right.. ie: so that people are truly free
and so in this regard ‘seeing like a state’ or ‘seeing like a market’ also mean protecting blind spots as needed..
is the reliance on the id of ecological noise
saying as bad – because we are now in response/defense mode.. to a sick world.. but if we’re alive/healthy (world and creatures) and acting/being.. rather than responding.. then yes.. id ing or rather.. listening.. to ecological noise.. would be the vision.. holmgren indigenous law
can we power the planet other than by eating the planet, or at least find a better way to do so?..t
yeah.. peepoople and upcycling and gut ness..
in doing so, it generates more lines and borders, not fewer, and so its apparent universality is actually densely divided against itself..
on going expo but not expo enough.. let go..
another reason the open internet may provide a diminished fraction of the load for next gen cloud services is that it is getting full. there is a finite amount of info that can be pumped thru the network as it is currently constructed, and that limit may be appearing on the near horizon
we may like to think of fiber optics as providing functionally limitless bandwidth, but at a zettabyte order of magnitude, for a planetary cloud ultimately linking trillions of devices, this is not true.. unless new techs such as widespread multicore fiber are widely deployed in the next decade, the physical limits of how much info can actually pass thru a given channel may intro new economies of bandwidth scarcity, prioritization and pricing..
new kinds of cloud services.. previously only imagined.. such as holodeck quality virtual environments…
cloud ‘citizenship’ is structured around the slippery semantics of user id and addressing..
then let’s make sure it’s an id that matters.. and that can change daily.. 24/7
competing platforms, which seek to leverage their core control of self id economics as the basis of their platform’s effective autonomy, might be less enthusiastic about that particular arrangement. at the same time, id services are sure to continue to play a decisive role in differentiating privacy and publicity, cosily secure for those who can pay, but for those less fortunate life is lived out in the open, shedding data for whatever may come along to observe them..
begs gershenfeld sel.. snowden and batra private in public ness
perhaps there is no user who can search who cannot also be searched..t
again.. begs everyone too busy to do bad (gershenfeld sel as security) ..and .. having to really want to know to get beyond perhaps our best encryption (idio-jargon)
finally, far beyond web pages, the landscape of what can be addressed by a give search expands to include any ‘thing’ that can be addressed w a discrete numerical signifier, whether it resides on a server in a data center or in the habitats of everyday life..
maybe focus on a deep address w/curiosity via2 convos as significant signifier.. at least until we all have a chance to detox.. (until we’re all truly free.. dance won’t dance.. no matter what structure/platform/cloud…)
in this sense, it is not foremost an apparatus of surveillance or control per se but a medium for the capture and transformation of living, thinking, and knowing into platform value..t
a mech to listen to and facil (connect us) daily self-talk
toward rev of everyday life
in some cases, making info physical is indistinguishable from making physical machines more computational..
in fact, google’s fortune is probably more suited not to secession from state platform space, but to strategic interweaving w states (plural) and to an incremental assumption of traditional functions of the state, as they themselves pivot to the cloud.
the interface of two existing systems, an info network and an energy network, may combine to produce a third thing: an energy cloud drawn by a mixture of urban and regional infrastructures, networked production and storage centers, and on demand utility nodes. just as the production and management of infra cohered publics for industrial states, the same may be true for the org of new publics in their image of the platforms that come to manage them..
it is tempting to extrapolate from existing models and to inflate and linearize their exponential development.. surely to varying degrees the models described above, as abstracted from fb, apple, amazon and google, will persist, normalize, expand and recombine in some linear fashion. but in their *recombinations and in the gaps and failures, unexpected and perhaps unlikable development are certain to shift the terms by which such models mediate power..
well.. we could rather *do a reset.. a global do over.. we don’t have to follow this history
only for this reason, and not from making futurist predictions about companies or stocks, the models of the current mix are a good starting point from which to sketch what might arrange alt cloud polities.. each of the limited sovereignties that a platform enjoys over a specific domain can be recombined..
perhaps not a good route.. at least not when we have the means to leap.. for (blank)’s sake…
perhaps some new cloud platform will be based on a combo of aspects from fb, amazon, apple and google at once..
ok ish – but more from letting go.. and just seeing what happens.. i mean those parts that we’d like to join in the combo.. perhaps that’s because they’re more intrinsically us.. so.. we could recombo stuff.. and hope it works.. or .. again because today we have the means.. first.. set 7 bn people free and trust that dance.. just to see.. the infra biggy then becomes.. are the 7bn truly free..?
there is no reason to assume that the ecology of platform must be as it is, and very diff arrangement s are not only possible but inevitable..
true.. and also .. we could start over rather than re arrange (w an infra that is based on ongoing 24/7 re arranging.. iterations..
it would be worthwhile to formally outline full scenarios for each set of possible recombos from existing platforms (several others ie: walmart, alibaba, ge, samsung, unilever, siemens, toyota..
oy.. so not this.. those are all based on us not being us.. but rather us being ie: consumers..
if the basic ingredients from which those might be combined to develop global proto state platform *seem dangerously inadequate then my point about the necessity of tuning our design attention here has been made
*those words sound good.. brief relief.. till i read on.. we have to go deeper
what if it’s the basic ingredients that are missing.. that needs to be our archi/infra
in turn, that sovereignty over flows of value is translated into the right to issue standard guaranteed currencies, thru which those flows are measured and which symbolize the sovereignty that legitimizes that claim in the first place.. money is also a way to id the content of flows thru abstract equivalencies and thru the address layer.. to enforce territorial claims over id itself..
oy.. don’t you have kid.. don’t you want better than this.. we have to disengage from money/measure if we want to take this great opportunity in time to really see us..
instead of claiming and occupying an exclusive sovereign territory, google absorbs existing spaces into it purview by capturing and consolidating image of all territory at various scales, from street to satellite and back and rendering them in to the platform’s comprehensive interface of rationalized space..
city sketch up ness
we will see that finally, it is the mutual exclusivity and closure between delimited sovereign spaces that allow multiple universal claims to coexist in diff dimensions, even as they claim the same person or site as a subject
that is, the flip side of producing platform user id when none is wanted is that it also produced for user regardless of how other systems may otherwise try to exclude them. by their normalization of exceptional reversibility , urban and infra scale interfaces that once kept them out now let them in. automating sovereignty where estates had decided alienation..
maybe too much force work here… may be this just happens w/o all the id ing..? imagine the energy saved if so
spiderwebs of intricate relationship seeking a form – italo calvino, invisible cities..
seeking a form..? or just a daily connection..? huge diff..
the poverty of off the shelf smart city strategies is all the more distressing given how important the intelligent composition of computation systems at urban scale actually is, esp for new platform sovereignties..
humans, as a species, have physically evolved very little in the last hundred thousand years, and barely at all since the appearance of writing.
legible ness.. keeping us from us.. from aliveness/antifragility
sanford kwinter: there is no family of animal that is not defined by its capacities for signaling and no ecological niche that is not defined by the infra that supports this signaling..
not yet scramlbed.. infra for that: 1 yr to be 5 again
the city layer of the stack does not enforce dichotomies between urbanisms and of enclosure and urbanisms of mobility as much as it combines them.. one may turn into the other at any moment..
instead of housing massive inert populations, the city layer is perhaps foremost a platform for sorting users in transit, who in turn reprogram the urban platform, and thru it re sort one another..t
nomads.. in the city.. as the day..
landscape geography as an interface to the world as it is moved thru..t
holmgren indigenous law ..eagle and condor time
this is possible (or would be possible) only to the extent that the multiple grids of the city layer are also interfaces to other layers of the stack..
io dance ness
long ago ceremonial interface to a city may have been a gate or a bridge, which, when closed, also shut off the city from the movement of goods, people, ideas, microbes, and more.. now the airport is that interface into the city and to the nation state, regardless of the global point of departure, and regardless of how close the airport is from any actual formal border..
the airport discloses w/o fanfare that cities are airports.. airports are not simulations of cities; rather cities are simulations of airports.. where police deep scan your person while blending you a delicious smoothie of your choosing..
see that what finally empowers the interface is less its function as some coercive frame for all signification and gesture than because it is so uniquely and relentlessly responsive to the nuances of every user’s own desires, interest, and intentions. it may do one because it can do the other
? are you saying. may need the coercive frame..?
deleuze’s most widely leverage observation on the contemporary city and media. this very brief text is concerned w the historical transformation of cities from an older ‘disciplinary‘ mode, coercing inhabitants into governable mass envelopes such as schools, factories, prisons office building and barracks, toward a new ‘control‘ mode, for which anyone’s self directed movements thru open and closed spaces is governed in advance at every interfacial point of passage, as built up parametrically thru filtering gateways, point of purchase id verification, and the local geography of entertainment.. control, which deleuze defines in terms of the addiction-debt-mimicry topes of ..
we have the means to disengage from both of those modes..
deleuze saw that an evolution into societies of control is marked by the predominance of computation info tech as its signal apparatus: ‘the societies of control operate w machines of a third type, computers, whose passive danger is jamming and whos active one is piracy or the intro of viruses’
indeed the drift thru this version of the *control city is an encounter w layers of visible and invisible interfaces, mapping you and rendering the world as an image map and image instrument for your particular idealize conception of it..
if we let go of the *control bit.. sounds like.. in the city.. as the day.. we have the means to facil the chaos of 7 bn following their whimsy/bliss.. everyday..
the scenario he (deleuze) describes is one where the only apparently rhythmless intersection of free agents surfing across smooth urban canyons are in fact governed by the highly striated weave of dense differential connections in specific networks: one only because of the other. this city is not managed from some central command positions in the cybernetic equilibrium machine, .. but rather the inverse.. dispersal of authority into hypergranular interfacial fields is the constitution power; each ‘dividual’ is cast as a sort of cellular automation, *expressing absolutely specific intentions and instruction for an emerging territory in formation..
or perhaps.. just *intentions for the day.. (via2 convos ness).. no formation ness.. just free emerging ness
the *soft violence of this establishment is, once more, the constitutional logic o f the city layer as a social system and geopolitical framework, a logic if incorporation more than imposition..
*soft violence..? if i’m getting what you’re saying.. at least you’re not missing the inevitability of violence if we don’t let go enough.. but .. why..? when we have the means to let go enough.. the means to abandon even soft violence..? why would the new normal not let go? (am i missing what you’re saying..?)
..providing for its social regularity and durable structure
perhaps more durable to now be socially irregular.. taleb antifragile law et al
on leading beyond virilio and deleuze.. to genres of urban scale computation that their initial accounts could not anticipate..
guessing that i’m thinking beyond (or crazier than) what you can anticipate/believe..
the contrived statistical normalization of unlike kinds of urban users demos just how difficult it is to design urban interfaces for so many demanding occupants of the same location..
well.. not so difficult.. if occupants are truly alive/free.. and and interfaces are simple enough for everyone w/o training.. aka: deep/simple/open enough infra..
*we see that the global composite platform city isn’t filled by one total info model..(from looking at rot).. by design or by accident, they are all city level **expression of the stack..
today we can’t *see much (other than that we are all sick) from looking at our waste.. if not sick.. if truly free.. all of us.. we would peepoople ourselves..
not **the stack to come.. god i hope not of the stack to come.. hoping for a truly new normal
agamben: on the one side,.. lies the ontology of creatures, and on the other side, the oikonomia (economy) of apparatuses that seek to govern and guide them toward the good’
perhaps rather.. oikos ness
it doesn’t make them into automations; rather it establishes a certain field of *enunciation, improve.. which.. being similar for other users . also **provides terms for cumulative, collab work and social systems….t
**2 convos via *idio-jargon
for the stack, worldly interfaciality includes any operation by which the world is sensed and made sense of ..t
getting back to not yet scrambled ness (again.. begs we all be free first)
whose assignment is this? computer science is not nearly ready to take this on alone… et al
sounds like you’re describing what 7 bn free people would do.. if augmented by a mech that would listen to and facil their daily curiosity
it’s not difficult to make up long lists of possible projects: ar apps for ambulance.. mashup of post twitter microblog; citizen activists; ..traffic control;.. et al
seems a lot of these would become irrelevant if .. 7 bn people were free.. ie: would we have traffic control..? activists..? micromanagers..? but .. yeah.. a lot of things we aren’t even thinking of today would/could happen.. toward betterness.. i’ll use it again – peepoople ness vs toilets/waste/water
this experience in many cases, may be observationally indistinguishable from a psychotic break or from the affinity rituals of animism
crazywise ness.. proving to be our wisdom.. from a mech quiet/non-judgmental enough to let us listen to all the voices..
the generative accident of the mobile apparatus, w/in the city layer, is the spawning of unintentional sovereign positions into which users can step, even if they are at odds w formal scripts of jurisdiction..
? why would we create a new normal with formal scripts..with jurisdictions.. (still find sovereign ness unsettling)? i’d say rather.. everyone can step anywhere.. no training.. and we could say.. everything is intentional.. at least for say 1 second.. if we focus on self-talk as data.. and let the mech connect us..
improv happens.. but only after we check in w ourselves everyday.. rather than.. spending our day finding something to react to.. or finding something other people already like.. no?
transborder immigrant tool.. directing them to nearby water stations set up by other samaritan orgs… as far as the device apparatus is concerned, their presence there and their use of the interface is neither legal or illegal; they are just a use, and that’s good enough to provide full infra and territorial access..
again.. why design a new normal that has borders..? border issues..? laws for that matter..
siddiqi border law.. et al
agamben: every apparatus implies a process of subjectification, w/o which it cannot function as an apparatus of governance but is rather reduced to a mere exercise of violence
perhaps it’s all violence
this violence is another name for what agamben calls a ‘process of their de-subjectification’ or of removing the very possibility of subjectivity thru a kind of total and standardized form of capture, whereby the contradictions of multiple subjectifications are flattened…
an interfacial regime that produces a polity of user subjects that is far more inclusive than state sovereignties can manage..
that’s good.. let’s do that
this should alert us already to the limits of interpreting interfacial governance along an axis of individual agency vs collective interest. instead, the design problematic is to make more explicit how plural configurations of user positions cohere across diff scales and rhythms
simple.. just use daily curiosity as daily id..
another lesson to glean.. whenever there is a persistent/broadly experience mismatch between.. residual legal political form.. and .. emergent social technical form.. we can expect the structural momentum of that emergent form to spawn various ‘criminal’ connections and transferences, both amorally and asubjectively. it just does..
it doesn’t have to if we do a true reset.. to a truly new normal.. aka: means for 7bn to leap to a nother way to live..
it is less illegal that it is alegal: illegible, invisible, outside, or just incommensurate to established legal supervision
legible ness.. et al.. key is to design for the freedom of the inspectors of the inspectors as well.. ie: gershenfeld sel – it’s got to be that everybody has something else to do..
to design.. thru the interfacial agencies that this alt is already formulating in its disinvestment from the geographies it overwrites..
totally agree if we didn’t have a means to start over.. once we do reset.. then agree with this ongoingly.. that’s how we stay alive..
the stack works as both a control mech and a means to open up and flatten access, providing one because it provides the other.. ie: shenzhen. foxconn 300000 employee residents.. megastructure by sheer architectural scale and social totalization, and on could also say that foxconn is an island and therefore prone to both utopian and (as has been more the case) dystopian imaginations… voluntary prisoners.. of architecture
n korea – stadium pageants.. audience becomes media
seasteading institute ..which would move whole populations offshore to live on massive ships floating from port to port unmolested by regulation and undesired publics.. peter thiel..
archigram’s walking city project for 1967
it may be that the agonistic logics of politics – drawing line between friend and enemy over and over – make it more difficult to see how the technical achievement of constituencies that we believe we oppose also can form the basis of the real alt systems we also seek to design.. for the geopolitical ruptures of the stack, we can be sure that reversibility sloshes both ways: if voluntary prisoners can become foxconn, then the foxconn appartus-assembly archipelago could also provide the genesis of further inversions and utopian opposites.. if it does, would we be able to notice them.?? ie: obama era.. started w new vogue for infra investment and governance, but fashion proved short lived and easily diverted.. were supposed to give way to massive public spending on large built systems that actually did things.. but the new new deal didn’t happen..
not deep enough.. ie: investment and govt not us..
foster – his office was asked to work w the european space agency to design structure to be 3d printed on the moon.. case in point is foster’s unbuilt crystal island in moscow.. christmas tree like tower.. 27 mn sq feet .. 4x size of pentagon.. after financial crisis.. devel financing frozen.. and tower is not likely ever to be built.
iwan baan ness.. oh the things we could do if we quit thinking about the places we could go
our planet itself is already the megastructural totality in which the program of total design might work.. the real design problem then is not foremost the authorship of a new envelop visible from space, but the redesign of the program that reorgs the total apparatus of the built interior into which we are already thrown together..
yeah.. what we already have.. reset that.. but w/deep/simple/open enough infra
there is no expansion or any single building envelope tha can actually accomplish what is asked of these projects: ‘architecture’ is perhaps the wrong metaphor for architectural thinking and experimentation to lean on. .. fosters’ building is simply way, way too small.. it is actually a miniature in comparison to what is needed, and far too beholden to the traditions and economics of urban program from a bygone era.. instead we would do better to draw energy from artificial envelopes that do less to seal off and subdivide urban polities and do more to enable the appearance of programs that we cannot already anticipate, measure, or rent and resell in advance: a megastructualism based not on metaphor of the ark but on the scale and ubiquity of earth’s atmosphere
and/or the human body.. we have to go ginorm/small.. and design begs we the ecosystem be open enough.. for all of us.. all our curiosities.. et al
heatherwick (google version of cloud polis.. google 2.0): what is the best possible environ we can make to invent, engineer and most importantly make ideas happen and go out into the world..
thinking of chomsky serious things law.. and graeber max/min law.. et al.. none of these you describe will get there.. not till it’s 100% all of us.. and each one of us 100% free..
this version (google 2.0) at least makes some gestures toward including the outside user in its model..
contrast w new fb hq.. zee town.. more traditional corp campus.. company town..
amazon – new campus in seattle.. for amazon to encapsulate ecosystem of nonhumans is perhaps the point.. urban hq will integrate the co into the fabric of a ‘real city’ in ways suburban sv campuses will not..
google – org world’s info.. amazon – org world’s tangible commodities..t
what we need is to org people’s curiosities..
apple more enclosed.. but.. data centers, warehouses, and logistics parks that give shape to google, amazon and fb are no less geographic in scope, but they are not foregrounded as the face of the cloud polis in same away – as apple..
the physical object becomes the exemplar noncitizen user of the city layer.. far less restricted than passage of people..
on apple spaceship in cupertino and foxconn in shenzen.. dependent on each other though not knowing what each other is doing.. foxconn’s fences sit net to suicide nets as apple’s sit next to apricot fields,
the address layer of the stack is not only a master plane where individuated addressees are situated; it is also a medium of communication between them..t
on hp’s trillion sensor world.. everything filled w tiny sensors. transmitting data directly to one another or to the cloud.. why stop at trillion
we could go there.. but maybe just need a temp placebo.. wake 7 bn people back up to their natural senses/sensing.. get holmgren indigenous law to play out globally..
for any thing or event to participate in the worlds i just described, it must have an id and location that makes it available for connection w other things and events.. on its own, it is not present’ it needs to be made into an ‘it’ w a location .. it needs an address to have an id and any address requires an addressing table commensurate w the scales of our stack scenarios.. the ability to assign addresses is critical to any geopolitical system .. regarding the nomos, it is essential for any political geographical regime to be able to id the individual sites, fields, instances and actors w/in its jurisdiction field.. the terms of the nomos are also the shape of that space as configured by the flows that fill it up .. for modern governance, this requires not only the subdivision of geography by lines, but also the superimposition of a formal addressing matrix onto new or exiting geographies and the assignment of individual addresses to unique points w/in them.. further more , the hierarchical semantics of the address may also express divisions of geography.. ie: sequence of building number, street, city ,and state… political space is both made and made legible thru such categorical presentations, and the ancient and modern histories of cartography, geography, geometry, and geoscopy are interwoven w comparison between real physical feature of the world and these idea abstractions that measure, codify, and explain their scales, similarities and differences..
? i don’t get this..
the drawing of such a matrix of lines and inscription of the earth, perhaps in military competition w another enemy abstractions, is also a demarcation of possible interior and exterior relations and of political spatial orders to be accumulated and occupied..
? really don’t get it
the assignment of a unique postal address to a building gives it a certain legal, political id as a public entity to which and from which messages can be sent, and the official enumeration of these ids by the state has been an essential feature of the political modernity of cities and a source of sovereign legitimacy for their governance.
if some are adopted only locally, the principle of a single universal internet addressing geography would be undone *(is the price of universality always the acceptance of a totality?)
*in a sense .. yes.. that’s what we’ve been missing.. ie: 100% trust; 100% of the people; et al
this (what can and can’t be addressed) will frame the greatest challenges not only to tech infra but to our conventional understandings of what is and is not available for communication, human an nonhuman, physical and immaterial.. it is there that the material ambition of the stack may be most clearly demo’d
i agree this part is huge.. but not sure why it would have to be this way..?
any ‘thing’ that is incorporated into the stack must be known by it.. to be known, it must be locatable as a discrete entity among all others..
this is deep address; it is where the scope of addressability expands to the point of breaking common sense to what is and is not a sender, a receiver, and message as the theoretical landscape of info promiscuity explodes..
among other things the financial crisis is a crisis of addressability, and the addressing of things,
what gets to count and to whom, and who profits from merely counting? if one is unaddressed, then one cannot speak or be spoken to, and so in turn, resistance to official addressable geography and its enforcement s characterizes so many histories of resistance to authorities wishing to consolidate their power by consolidating ability to nominate space..
seems we’d be bringing into the new normal and/or the stack.. the poison of .. who gets to decide.. what/who/how is addressed.. et al
however, once again, the wider interest for the stack is not only as a mapping or interpretation tool, even for leaving bread crumb trails thru deconstruction of tracing cognition in real time, but as itself a first order compositional medium thru which gestures of nomination, measuring, localization, linking, delinking, association – in other words, articulation – are developed w due virtuosity so as to produce new creations in their own right, built of nothing perhaps but the addresses that codify and arrange each gesture for others to sample and appreciate..
? – this doesn’t sound like a necessity.. ie: new normal means/avails very little if we are all still sick/not-us..
articulation: the formation of clear and distinct sounds in speech.
do we need that..?
i don’t think we need to sample and appreciate things.. i think that’s part of what’s messed us up.. i think we just need to listen.. to our gut.. everyday..
nicholas negroponte and bruce sterling on address ness
this ‘word’ .. could have an address, but to could the immaterial fact that i wrote it, or that a given moment, it is in my proximity. the fact that you just read that word could have an address..
address provides: 1\ id; 2\ exchange; 3\ recursion – capacity to govern the conditions of those exchanges and their traces..
? do we need any of those..?
i see addressability not just as an absolute logistics but as a transalphabetic compositional platform.. not only to id discrete things.. but also to designate w some manner of practical durability the ephemeral, immaterial, even metaphorical associations between instances.. by one perspective this is what poetry does w written words
the proper unit for deep address wouldn’t be an internet of things, which suggests durable appliances beeping at each other, but an internet of haecceities, addressable specificities that might name particularities as they come and go, even before and after they exist for individual users..
address is like a valve thru which the nomos of the cloud cleaves subdivisions smaller than the geographic, and where it draws landscape scale calculable interiors..
the worlds that the cloud layer provides is limited to what it can address and be addressed by.. at city layer, address augments urban intensities of activity/attention/circulation/simultaneity/segmentation..
like pixels resolving into a portrait image w give distance, the pattern of instances that constitute the bio of the user for the stack is a mosaic of addressable haecceities, and zoomed out further, the encapsulated user is also in turn another one of these resolved addresses
get pivot z dance ness
i would hope that a strongly ubiquitous computation would help to implode the sentimental parameters of brute humanism toward an alt and more rigorous materialism that extends ethical programs outward by demanding empatheitc recognition of ourselves in networked matter as co addresses.. that said, *we do not require anything like deep address to realize that our temporary condition as bags of absolutely secular chemistry is also a seat of empathy and solidarity, but it might help..
getting us back to not yet scrambled ness.. we need something.. to wake us.. set us free.. ie: imagine a turtle..
who or what could org universal addressing platform and distribute their rights and regulations, especially now?
let’s try ..hlb via 2 convos that io dance..no regs/rights..
from perspective of deep address, these economies are but one local site of a more comprehensive congregation of reactions.
the ultimate interest of this prehensile vortex is a white hot absolute communication, as means and end in itself..t
indeed.. let’s just facil that.. ie: 2 convos
we have no idea how to govern in this context and will likely fall back on the structural compulsion to transparency and an enforced necessity of appearance, ..t..everything summoned past the threshold of the pornographic..
maybe we do know how to
govern facil it.. 1\ let go enough to set people free 2\ use infra: hlb in order to facil: 2 convos
and yes.. we don’t want to fall back onto anything compuslory/compulsion .. new normal..
this mandate is similar to the function of money as the *mediator of universal equivalence between things and actions, which guarantees their appearance one to the other according to theat reductive exchangeability.
whoa.. doesn’t have to be.. (*more like money as gossip trying to instigate war) .. no need to guarantee equivalence.. no need to play the exchange game.. just need to have equity (everyone getting a go everyday)
we might then anticipate a full financialization of addressability whereby hoarding and speculating on the capacity to address things and events is itself a commodity w global value.. however, while the address layer contributes to the stack’s totality thru this compulsory cartography in which *anything unaddressed cannot have formal presence and everything past, present, and future must be addressed, it is not necessary that they are representable thru a single master perspective.. that is.. while universal appetite of deep address appears as a totally synchronic space, an atonal closed field.. and so invites reflexive reactions of resistance, strategic opacity and line of flight, th e totality is farm more fragile and unpredictable than we might wish or fear
actually.. more antifragile.. and i’m thinking those.. if *not addressed .. don’t exist… nesses.. are the fragility.. we’re ginormous small (too big to know.. to little to label) so when we try to label all.. that’s our downfall.. that’s our energy sap..
and why financialization in a new normal..? graeber f&b the same law..
why bring the poison/cancer in to a reset..?
… would become a prereq for the *unrestained financialization of matter, living and nonliving.. but not only is the totality of the stack itself deeply unstable, it’s not clear that its abyssal scope of addressability and its platform for th proliferation of near infinite signifiers w/in a mutable finite space are actually **correspondent w the current version of anthropocenic capitalism.
*dang.. **hope not.
why would they be..?
node w/in decentralized network… provides to it a certain degree of autonomy to form new edges on own w/o the permissive provision from a central authority, market, or provider.. the apparently irreducible plane of the addressable landscape begins to percolate w odd links and ‘convo’ between unpredictable pairings of sender and receiver. organic conspiracies blossom in our midst, and these accidents are part of the unpredictability of platforms..
sounds like describing stuvoice/pbl/choice in pubic ed.. more like spinach or rock ness.. not really free will.. so in my mind.. big red flag it won’t work.. even soft core compulsion will kill us..
while any haecceity is obligated to appear to its own semantic references and in this is given both subjectivity and subjugation, it is also free to enter into relations w others that enroll it in exotic extrinsic economies.. this potential blessing of drift toward alien incommunication is along with the very abyssality of deep address itself, a most productive accident of the address layer and one we should do well to explore..
i don’t get this.. i think that still sounds w/in confines of not us ness..
we’d be more free and more secure going the gershenfeld sel ..address it fine.. but not to the exclusion of free people
the logic of absolute communication form which any haecceity must appear to a *common, **commanding network platform is a utopian gathering of all in to one (the first hint of totality and totalitarianism blurring). but in that guise, it is just that, a utopian projection of a master perspective ***from the heart of algo capital, and like any other utopias, its purity in principle is also its fragility in practice.
what if the *idio-jargon is our common.. and there’s **no commanding (only the 33 min a day).. and what if we just think utopias are pure in principle and fragile in practice because we’ve never before had the means/infra to facil utopia ness (instigating utopia everyday) ie: the chaos of everyone doing/being whatever they want.. so .. not fragility in practice.. just not yet actually praciticed.. and so.. begs we go ***from the heart..period (not algo/capital) .. that deep..
next ie is about market.. delmonte cans of corn
we need to focus on people/curiosity.. or we won’t turn this around..
ie’s of blood cells, pollen, oceanic wave formations.. et al..
those would be different if people were first free.. ie: less sick people/earth..
so if deep address evolves in such directions, its geopolitical effect may be driven more by these accidents, doublings, and reversals than by immaculate chambers of unventilated order..
i’m all against order.. but doesn’t help to re iterate rna if it’s so far off the dna .. no?
let’s do this first.. let’s deep address things that matter.. first..
when our lives are linked by the deeply addressable traces, shed like dead skin cells..
shedding.. a diff way.. yeah.. leave hlb trails.. but they matter very little in comparison to our daily do over.
things are already communicating w one another, and w incredible intensity and intricacy ( bee and flower).. some deep address scenarios would augment these lines of communication with formal addresses, sensors, and effectors, a prospect that leads in direction that are disruptive destructive, creative and outlandish. would the interweaving of the existing matrices of communication between things w the secondary blanket of addresses intro, in the intermingling of their tempos, their resiliencies and fragilities, their defenses, immunities, and fitness selection dynamics, some sort of second order synthetic evolution at least in some local sites..?
i don’t know.. i’m banking on a temporary placebo.. to get us back to holmgren’s indigenous ness.. that not yet scrambled us.. prototyping to slow us..
distortions emerge that are unknowable in advance, and with them the universality of the address layer makes it always suspect to idiosyncratic purposes and outcomes..t
perfect.. let’s design around that../idio-jargon as security/encryption/inclusivity..
if network topology is apparently flat and affected by endothermic perturbations from any point, the it is not just a map; it is a medium, , an ecology even, and it can and will evolve. gray goo scenarios of out of control molecular manufacturing and discharging entropic sludge in its wake are not best understood less as a real existential risk than as a parable for mindless industrial rapaciousness (greedy plunderers)
unless we’re defining entropy wrong.. because of misconceptions of ie: jo freeman and tragedy of commons et al.. only because we’ve never let go enough
similarly, perhaps federations of the addressed, across scales, become catalysts of a countercompostion of the world, generating unthinkable new ground and air, and so instead of an anthropocenic future in which fewer and fewer conglomerates own, license, or otherwise capitalize more and more things, perhaps the evolution of the infra results in an inversion of the ratio.. toward a new and more heterogeneous and complex jungle, *one that is perhaps mostly unrecognizable and incommunicable for us
affluence w/o abundance ness.. meets eagle and condor.. rendering ownership et al irrelevant.. *beyond words..
the radical ubiquity of addressing may alow the entire project of planetary scale computation to survive the eventual transition out of the anthropocene in ways that our lumbering hungry internet will not. if so, deep address may outlive the stack and it may even be part of whatever post anthropocenic platform infras of energy and info come next..
no system as complex as the stack could actually work w/o some way to simplify its functions and render them legible for the end users who make it all go on a second by second and year by year basis. users can use and be used by the stack only to the extent that they are provided the interfaces that make the earth, cloud, city, and address layers available and sensible for them..
mech simple enough for 7 bn .. today…. so.. begs no training.. no language barrier.. et al.. and perhaps most of all.. pertaining to a problem deep enough for 7 bn to resonate with.. today.. ie: if doesn’t resonate enough for 7bn to keep using.. simplicity alone doesn’t make that much diff
thru the stack, interfaces are tools for remapping what they map, and as interfacial drawings multiply, their alt geographies overlap and juxtapose.. this accumulation of *incommensurable *recursive projections back into direct perceptual reality (however inaccurate, false, stupefying, and illegible they may be) is the first generative accident of the interface layer..
incommensurable: not able to be judged by the same standard as something; having no common standard of measurement.
recursive: (computing) relating to or involving a program or routine of which a part requires the application of the whole, so that its explicit interpretation requires in general many successive executions.
an interface necessarily limits the full range of possible interactions in a specific and arbitrary way. any interface, because it is a specific summary, must eliminate or make invisible a whole range of other *equally valid possible interactions.. only because they reduce and simplify complex systems can they make it possible for people to use those systems at a systematic scale and realize platform value from them.. **w/o coercing us, the interface cannot properly interface anything to us..
*equally valid..? perhaps not if we get our infra to focus on ie: maté basic needs..
**unless perhaps.. we go deeper.. be\cause.. coercion is killing us
neil gershenfeld – develops self assembling microrobotics and a program of ‘conformal computing’ in which artificial and natural info layers might interoperate directly..
the design/governance challenge is then not to program this jungle platform in advance according to some set master plan, but to formulate *parameters thru which multiple subsystems can leverage one another..
exactly.. begs deeper than deep ness.. so we can io dance.. as the day.
perhaps *params could be.. 33 min of your day.. ie: 2 convos
critically, it is the incommensurability between these claims that is the real engine for stack’s geopolitics of interfaciality, writ large and small..
so the.. not able to be judged by the same standard as something; having no common standard of measurement .. ness.. begs ../idio-jargon ..et al..
the greater the mobility is w/in the network, the greater the need for more sophistication in its interfaces, and the greater the availability of cheap, powerful, intelligent computation, the greater the enabling of flexible mobilization…. this makes the production and figuration of these interfaces a critical site of empowered authority and its social imaginary..
as a therapeutic response, interfaces are asked to soothe the stress that they have caused by presenting their remedy images of orderly resolution as data visualizations.. mind maps, tools and trackers..
pattern recognition begins to take over for interpretation..
must reduce and conceal the complexity of the processes it reps…their reduction toward resolution is doctrinal..
the ideological reductiveness of the interfacial image is more than a conceptual problem.. it is also how systems enforce themselves, one against another..
so let’s let the tech do the complicated part.. ie: taking in all the curiosities via idio jargon and connecting like sentiments.. so that we can steer clear of vague/not-us definitions/languages/terms of things.. aka: let’s try idio-jargon
put another way, ar apps, in all their baroque banality, augment the world more than they augment visions.. (lots inbetween).. making the reality of ar perhaps irredeemably occult.. esp advertising.. a less secular danger is latent in ar in that it s most killer app would prove to be not marketing but those fundamentalist religion and politics..
ie: google earth as mech of attack in mumbai.. also as part of news coverage..
as the spawn of logistical aesthetics ,these regimes are not only a programmatic diagram of how a particular machine network works bu t, in aggregate, of *how the world works and what its proper configuration is or should be, and what is to be done about it , right there and now, by you.. it is this capacity to project an alt global space, in some cases a vision of purified utopia, thru an interfacial system of symbols that are also active tools, that allows ar and similar interfaces to function as theological media.. .. this is borne out by observing that any closed self referential platform is also a belief circle..
*how world is now working.. but not how the world/earth/us works.. huge diff.. and another reason this all begs that the infra is deep/simple/open enough to detox us while we’re leaping..
instead of being real spaces into which we might go, geoscapes are entered into and so made real by their occupation.. an irregular territory never empty but always exactly as full as the spaces that comprise it.. not an empty arena into which territories would move and be counted or installed..
the geoscape stages these incommensurate projections..it is the incompatibility, the noisy grinding of incompatible terms for addressing things, events, and territory, that is, in practice, the engine of geopolitical design..
truth be told, such monster projections and warring claims on space are also generative of the essential qualities of the spatial as a political medium
? i don’t see that.. the monster.. war ness.. as essential to a new normal..
put into sharper relief by the mumbai attacks is the volatile economy of contemporary warfare: contested urbanity, exceptional violence, civil architecture, geographic projection, networked software, motivated interfacial maps, all rolled into one…
see.. this is where i think looking at history messes with us.. if we presume that currently we are not us.. ie: we can look at history and see patterning in wars.. but that means little if in that history.. we aren’t free.. aren’t ourselves..
on the ultimate asymmetry between these two spatial logics, jihad and google, is less absolute than we might presume, and in their unlikely compatibility and alignment, something critical about how geoscapes operate above and beneath th estate is discovered. . the polyphonous perversion of their translatability, even and esp into anticosmopolitan fundamentalisms, is the means by which the geopolitics is given form
as active instruments, those projective and idealize inscriptions are more than maps; they are also the means to realize their particular compositional arguments about how the world should be idealized; the interface becomes the very tool to bring about the conceptual arrangement that it would want to represent..
they (clairvoyant fictions) are the visual languages available w which to explore, express, and communicate unrealized desire and ambitions for realities only imagined and wished for..which find shape as design fictions and so have permission to absorb utopian dn dystopian energies at that level..
this is unavoidable, and so let’s not avoid it.. any sovereign claim over a space is first a claim to define that space as such..and that ontological gesture is as necessary for satellite photography and internet addressing protocols as it s for monotheistic political theology, even as their claims may be heterodox and irresolvable and in fact because they are..
in the balance between an infra over which territorial claims are made and an infra thru which those claims are drawn, the ultimate geopolitical design of the stack can’t possibly be decided in advance
agree with that.. but.. why territorial claims..?
this productive *dissensus will remain open as long as the political architectures of the stack can situate multiple jurisdictional claims and generate new jurisdictional strata where not existed, such that no single combo can finally resolve into a **consensus sovereignty of last instance (or last resort).. this defense against totalitarianism comes not from an axiomatic reverence for nonhierarchical horizontality but from the multiplication of verticalized totalities one on another..
dual and treble citizenships and fractured and noisy names and aliases.. .. this confusion first compels an overidentification w the reflective contours of user subjectivity, ..
idio jargon ness .. changing daily.. because: too big to know.. too small to label..
in practice, however, the user is not a type of creature but a category of agents.. it is a position w/in a system w/o which it has not role or essential id.. he (astronaut) is rather a composite effect of interlocking organic and inorganic skins and metabolism, from the mechanical life support systems w/o which his bubble bursts to the trillions of microbes inside his gut w/o which his body will fall more slowly..
i would argue that anthropocenic humanism is not a natural reality into which we must awake from the slumber of machinic alienation; rather it is itself a symptomatic structure powered by – among other things – a gnostic mistrust of matter, narcissistic self-dramatization, and indefensibly pre copernican programs for design. by loosening the grip, alts can be modeled, midwifed, cultivated, cared for, radicalized, soothed, executed, extrapolated, rendered, exported, and accelerated..
indeed.. let go
the more salient design problem seems less to design for users, as if they were stable forms to be known/served, that to design and redesign the user itself in the image of whatever program might enroll it..
? ..who.. that sounds so off.. i must be missing something.. not design user.. set user free
visitors (at shanghai world expo) learn that it is our quantitatively comparative shadows that make us all one..
? – do you mean if you added us/shadows all back up we’d be one..?
mona lisa compare law.. and one ness..
ie: thru the pavilion’s displays , we examine .. vignettes of their daily lives, learning about what each of them does in the morning, what they consume at night, whom they love, what they produce,.. their distant lives and situation s are brought together an d made comparable.. if not also interchangeable.. by these standard metrics for evaluation their relative performance..
metrics..? evaluation..? performance..? ugh..
here the city (the world, really) is posited as a mesh of semantic chemistries subordinated to their logistical administration.. this isomorphic standardization of human survival – biopolitics entwined as usual w the statistical imaginary – underwrites an auto bio geopolitics of the user, opening its positions up to whatever ti might acquire or make use of it so long as platform interactions can be traced, weighed, and optimized in relation to a planetary resource totality..
hlb ness.. ok.. but measuring transactions ness.. ugh again..
we are asked to contemplate w wonder the arithmetic fairness of closed loops and the social diversity possible w/in them, not lines of flight from them.. fear and surprise, work and play are all equivalent in that they can be deduced equally in our common shadows..
tensions between entertainment as labor and labor as entertainment move front and center, and the attendant paradoxes if econ privacy and civic transparency grow louder..
work (art).. art (the thing you can’t not do and would do anything to give away) .. privacy in public.. et al
salu griffith poptech 2008 – energy calculations
matters little if we’re not really ourselves.. and .. we’re designing new normal.. no..? ie: what if in a new normal we render.. excessive driving/flights/foods/coke/pepsi irrelevant..
gordon bell life bits
the phenom of metadata would be overwhelming
true to what he recommended – i would just recommend hosting daily curiosities.. and i don’t think we record in order to play back.. i don’t even think we/others will look at our trail.. but it would/could be available..
are billions of users being convinced that their individual profile bios are more real than they actually are.. or are they being trained toward the distributed realization of the opposite ultimate conclusion..
i think neither.. so hlb way diff. again.. a collection of self talk.. in order to hear (your gut) and find others (that share your gut ness) .. for that day.. ie: 2 convos
will each of us become further atomized, more grotesquely overindividuated, staring dumbly into our own templated reflections.. more hive like.. drifting in the wake left by the memes of our curate externalized cognition? the better question is: what kind of user can be designed instead..?
rather: what could we be (and/or return to) if tech was as it could be..
the overdetermiend qs is analogous to the blackened canvas.. overwritten w layers and layers.. that overdeterminatino does not prohibit creativity, bit ti does shift its terms of operation. when the canvas is full, completely blackened w overlapping content, the act of creation doesn’t mean adding paint, more black on black, it is instead subtraction, that is, the intro of absence and silence so as to make room for info now made visible by this negation – scratching the black away to let the light in..removal as design strategy..
begs simple enough ness.. of a maté basic needs focus
the baseline for user layer.. need not be for one user at a time.. but for pluralities of partial users.. imagine one sort of user logging the totality of her perceptions and interactions not as an atomic iota lost in her own manifestations (like bell’s life bits) but as a population of 10 bn absolute users, all generating content and all feeding off one another’s issuances..
ugh.. thinking.. public consensus always oppresses someone
plural systems provide plural images.. which provide plural users – two of us, ten/hundred.. of us.. and entire city of us.. literally seeing thru each other’s eyes, remembering thru one another’s experiences.. walking in onto another’s shadows..
so this i like.. resonates w talk w david about shadows/chiaroscuro.. native americans use of one word to describe and entire experience .. and.. seeing with heart.. et al..
everyone can now swap pov. tomorrow, may i have your yesterday?..
not yet scrambled ness.. but i still think we’d want/need to start everyday from our own gut/curiosity.. if we could all do whatever we wanted each day.. i don’t think we’d be spending time looking at others’ lives to find something
larry smarr’s personal medicine is somewhat unusual in that the focus is shifted from the self regard of his own somatic body toward the curation and gardening of this internal microbial civilization
smarr’s broader intellectual project for the systemic establishment of digital medicine envisions the coembodiment of info at the scale of 7 bn humans and zillions of genes, environmentally bound molecules, proteins, and microbes, all contributing a comprehensive diagnostic simulation and treatment metabiopolitics.. a universal biocomputation intersecting w the universal ecocomputation that griffith’s demo popularizes..
while the expert arts of high touch treatment don’t abdicate their positions, the computation support of pattern recognition and robotic support of therapeutic abscission do alter how health is provided just as they alter what health is and make very diff demands on those trained to do the providing..
cool.. imagine doing that beyonds meds.. imagine fractaling the gut system and the earth system.. listening to that.. so that we don’t spend our days.. providing health/meds.. rather.. we just are healthy
with this in mind, it should be noted that smarr the permanent patient, also collects his own feces and has them expertly analyzed.. the best way to keep tabs on the state of his gut..
all good and well perhaps.. but we can do better than .. ie: permanent patient..
the user is an obnoxious subject, derived from the simpleminded and self affirming utilitarianism of consumer cybernetics and defended mostly to make humans easier to locate and monetize as end points in systemic relays.. in this light, putting nonhumans into that user position should be seen as a temp station at best.. but perhaps a means to invent diff kinds of agencies, not just mimicking this degraded human.. we must save the nonhumans from being merely humans, so that they could show us a diff way for us to be both human and not..
animals are key metabolic reserve that have been essential, if not always willing enablers of human evolution.. proteins in their flesh were consumed for ours, their skins became our clothes and allowed migration to new places that we explores while riding on their backs on our way. the terms of this relationship already seem ugly.. .. come to undermine the human/animal distinction..
it seems quite natural that someone w an interest in the engineering of global platforms would either begin or end up w transportation, but whether one sees the internet as a ‘superhighway’ or the hundreds of millions of cars in motion at only one time as ver large ‘data packets’ makes all the diff in how the issue is problematized and formulated
just as your mobile is not really so much a ‘hone’ anymore (it too is a machine user), the google mobile apparatus should be understood less as a car than, as said, as a car shaped end device w/in a larger cloud platform..
clearly the better design strategy is instead to imbue the user who is not the property owner (and who may never own property such as a a robot or an animal or a rainforest) w some real control over his/her relations to the stack, as broad or as delimited as any one of those addressable relations might be.. legacy vocabs of a property conflict and all the structural inadequacies that entails..
perhaps.. we just disengage from all ownership..
(on how to deal w security and bad actors et al).. a diff model user is required, but how? benedict singleton has developed a design theory based on metis and cunning, for which design is the instigation of traps.. all species are at work to design their interactions w the world so as to trap what they need.. and for humans the institutionalization or these traps is where design and governmentality intersect.. how intelligence leverages ecological interdependencies so as to modulate them by strategies and tactics.. flowers and bees, orchids and wasps,.. venus fly trap and fly, fy and dirt.. photo and memory..
oy.. let’s go w gershenfeld sel.. keeping everyone.. everyone.. busy doing their thing.. best security.. why is no one else saying/seeing this..? even Neil..?
p 3 – the projects
stack to come
stack we have now… these are the predicaments that condition us, but design is out of sync w them at present.. some design appears in advance of what it wants to describe, while other design lag behind what has already arrived but may not be recognized and named.. .. our attention is split between these two concurrent images.. even as they blend into the other.. both with and without our control.. our capacity to now design, govern, and draw sovereign geographies depends on the management of this blur..
the stack is fixed by what we exchange among one another in passing: money, carbon, electrons, affect, law, territory – one serving as referent standard for other w/o final grounding.. its scope is global but the interfaces in to the machine.. and the visible diagram of the work that it does, are always only partial
not partial ness..
turning the ecology itself into the final emergency against which we try to defend ourselves in a losing battle w the mathematics of systems biology
and so we are left w specters of cloud feudalism and cosmopolitanism.. both at once..
for these the terms of participation are not mandatory, and because of this, their social contracts are more extractive that constitutional..
begs we go truly free will w no social contracts..
this is the stack we have. we can see it as one image and so perhaps can also see how it might be recomposed as a whole. our most lucid attention now needs to be on the stacks to come..
? maybe we shouldn’t recompose from seeing stack we have.. maybe we leap to a do over.. a new normal..
at least 4 ways of adjustments between layers and stacks can be anticipated 1\ by overlapping 2\ by adjacency 3\ by sequentiality over time 4\ by scale..
? – i don’t see this as necessary.. what am i missing..?
that blur between on stack and another is not a symptom to be clarified and cured; rather, the blur is a high res image of what is actually happening, which is itself blurry.. to design w the blur instead of against it requires comfort w ambiguity..t
blur = alive ness
earth layer to come
for the earth layer.. the fragility of this model comes also from its purported success, and specifically from how much it underestimates the difficulty of achieving them
however, the simpler/sadder truth is that we are , as of now, incapable of governing ourselves according to the already available, more rudimentary info that ecologies communicate..
i don’t know.. i think we could do it now.. if we got rid of all the irrelevants that are blinding/covering us.. it (our indigenous ness) is in us.. just has to be uncovered.. that uncovering needs to be part of the stack(s) to come
a clouded river, a shrunken branch, a coughing fish: these are also instances of ‘data visualization’ and we do a bad job of interpreting them and acting on them. at best, we attempt to pathologize them and even criminalize them because they do not conform to quality metric and thresholds *(and higher res of images of the pathology will not ensure that the model can govern better)
indeed.. we do it to people too.. and *most definitely not..
still perhaps the problem is also that the vast plurality of worldly actors are left out of the picture, and perhaps by rendering those variables visible and transmissible.. those ‘trees’ become things for which political engineering can be more systematic and effective..
again.. esp people.. we could use people energy.. imagination.. and indigenous ness .. big time..
the most difficult question for this design and monitor and diagram system remains whether a more appropriate geopolitical architecture can be deduced from and designed by and for the earth layer..
i think so.. but only if we disengage big time.. from irrelevants
is there a channel for these instances to pluralize, to assemble into networks of diff size, so that they can in fact become more durable forms and be properly empowered to make gestures at the scale of the forces that affect their fates? can the ‘second planetary computer’ create worlds and images of worlds that take on the force of law (if not its formality) and effectively exclude worse alts?..t
indeed.. gershenfeld sel.. a nother way
this process by which *sovereignty is made more plural becomes a matter of **producing more than discoursing.. (then ***lists tons of things people do).. move from one scale to another, up and down and back again, and ****that itinerary is where the action is and where the story plays out..
*still questioning this
**being/doing.. producing sounds too much like productivity.. that we’ll end up measuring.. and losing ourselves to
***sounds like rev of everyday life
****sounds like as the day ness
its (the stack’s) ability to mature as a form of intelligence is dependent on learning to not cannibalize its planetary host
i’d suggest that’s less about becoming intelligent.. and more about listening to what’s already in us..
i also argue that some conceivable versions of a future stack have a decisive role to play in making intractable problems of governance and design far less dangerous, and the abstract machine of the earth layer’s second planetary computer is among these..
maybe – i hope.. or maybe we just disengage from governance..
another argument lace throughout this book is that the necessary intellectual and technological achievements are not at hand, that we must make them so, and toward that we must be willing to entertain shifts in the relationship between software and sovereignty, taken as our primary example..
? don’t get the software/sovereignty bit.. but i’d say the intellect and tech is at hand.. not in use.. but at hand.. we have all we need right now..
the paradox is that the system we have now – whatever you want to call it – is in the short term what makes the amazing new techs possible, but in the long runt it is also what suppresses their full flowering. . it’s more computation along the wrong curve,…. our current convo has too much faith in tech and not nearly enough commitment to tech.. it is placebo technoradicalism.. toying w risk so as to reaffirm the comfortable.. our machines get smarter and we get stupider.. but it doesn’t have to be like that.. another economic architecture is prereq..t
indeed.. a very different new normal.. let go..
mike davis (who will build the ark): we must be able to envision alt configuration of agents, practices and social relations.. this requires that we suspend the politico-economic assumptions that chain us to the present..t
huge.. i suggest an intentional and temp placebo to transition/detox/leap us..
perhaps given the precariousness of the situation, having learned to entertain the utopian impulse w imaginative schemes may prove an extremely practical capability to possess.. t
a nother way book.. let’s go there.. instigating utopia everyday
(on art inclusion).. they don’t work well when they are asked to resolve ambiguity instead of conspiring with it and cultivating its efficacy..t
cloud to come
if everyone is principle has the right of exit and to opt out of their citizenship end user agreement for another offered elsewhere, but all the good spots have already be taken by high end cloud polities that feature strong exclusionary membership bylaws keeping the plurality of humans at bay.. then the diff’s between state violence on the border and posted rules of the gated community, between pos and neg freedom essential, are dark and bitter comedy
isn’t it a dark/bitter comedy already..
we do need free exit ness.. (gray play law).. perhaps best if we disengage from citizenship ness.. as part of the ambiguity we need to embrace..
charter cities.. tilt toward privatopias
no surprise there.. look at charter schools et al
not surprising to see enclave/camp condition coexisting side by side and even sharing walls/borders, flipping interiority quickly or very slowly or not at all..
sounds like this new normal stack is just watching the perpetuational track we’re on..? of a broken feedback loop..?
balaji srinivasan: the best remedy is to allow for ‘free zones’ in which the ‘world run by sv’ could be tried, tested, and demo’s w/o interference for all to observe.. w nee to run the experiment to show what a society run by sv looks like .. exist is something we need to preserve..
right idea.. wrong model.. let’s try this.. we could do it in sv is you want..
(on the stack) – that range is not equally distributed to all users everywhere, and the most important variations may be possible for some users but not for others, and so exit is never available equally to and from all platform users
so.. either i’m missing it and this is current stack.. or stack to come is lacking something major.. equity has to be the foundation.. how to make sure.. everyone is getting a go everyday.. if you can’t exit.. you’re not getting a real go at the day
the management of multiple user id’s and political positions is less a psychological disorder than the politics of everyday life..
ok.. that sounds good..
larry page – google island.. set aside a part of the world.. safe places where we can try out new things..w/o having to deploy it to the world ie: burning man.. page’s thought bubble present more than a few problems.. w/o have to deploy to world implies island is a society sized lab w all standard measure in place to isolate and contain.. accordingly.. test bed can prototype only if border is enforced by draconian walls and firewalls..
and it goes on about larry.. and i agree w that part.. begs we design a model for the world.. to join in.. that’s its purpose.. because we’d be prototyping the serious/basic things.. not entrepreneur smorgasbord
the only way to have it both ways is to *solve for the closed totality of island and then ‘**deploy it to the whole world‘..t.. where planetary boundaries drawn against outer space may provide the same closure as the island drawn against the ocean: to make whole world into ‘the island’
yes.. like *that..(open enough system) .. as**that (model/means for 7bn to leap)
when exit becomes a privilege ..one defined by the suppression of entrance, .. it stops being a philosophical principle and starts being a weapon..
the stack cannot guarantee in advance that its cloud polities will not degrade into caricature dystopias (and no one can guarantee that they will).. *what we haven’t figured out, haven’t designed, are the appropriate ways for such an assemblage to compose itself..t
maybe we have.. ie: gershenfeld sel ..
we need to experiment w formalizing the partial ‘citizenships’ already at work in our multiple user id’s.. including rights of ‘refugees’ that all of us will be at one time or another, as both state ful and state less persons..
done.. nationality: human
we can choose whom we share our time with but not whom we share our world with, and so the voice versus exit dichotomy is dangerously incomplete as a basic algo for platform geopolitics..
2 convos addresses both voice and exit… time and world..
t‘d up to here
city layer to come
so for the stack, this leaves more questions. does the surplus of utopias prevent political will from acting on a planetary level precisely because it sublimates so much energy in to the realm of the imaginary, leaving us to conquer only fantastic worlds..? are the dreamworld fragments recuperable? ..can there be an antiromantic utopianism? .. for the geodesign we most need, can there be a true plurality of utopias, not a totality of the multiple, but like real cities, a multiple of totalities?
yes.. 7 bn.. instigating utopia everyday.. but this (i believe) begs one imagined utopia as infra .. for all the others to work w/in… otherwise.. we get what we have now..
it would seem that the positive answers to these questions point away from security (w a capital s) as the sovereign utopian imaginary for which all governance becomes a subset of policing..
all governance is a subset of policing.. no..?
in fact, the city itself, the primordial bunker on the horizon or the boulevard turned into battleground, is perhaps the exemplar tech for the oscillation between military and civilian deployments…. one core weakness of securitization as the design driver of urban interfacial systems is its consistent tendency to enact greater violence onto the city that it is ostensibly protecting that the dangers it defends against is ever likely to bring..
as perhaps our single most important form of tech, the city suffers from a kind of autoimmune disorder by which we disfigure them in advance of potential future disfiguring; we attack them w defensive measures in the inverted image of potential threat of future criminal or terrorist attack. this is designing for the emergency .. and not on behalf of the emergent.. that eventual violence may or may not come, and now it does not even need to come because its disfiguring plot has already been accomplished by security engineers..t
this all sounds like graeber.. esp in rev in reverse..
why so much emphasis on ie: holy wars.. in city to come..?
address layer to come
the translation between politics and programming is not automatic or inevitable, and indeed their transgenic encounter is occurring in ways that are often unpremeditated and misunderstood (being therefore the topic of this book).. it is not at all clear whether, in the long run, cloud overwhelm state.. states evolve into cloud.. both split/rotate to one another.. how deeply.. surveillance state will become universal solvent of compulsory transparency or an opaque monolith of absolute paranoia, or all of the above, or none of the above
none of the above if the infra is sound/deep enough
between the state, the market and the platform, which is best designed to tax the interfaces of everyday life and draw sovereignty thereby… where should sovereignty reside if not in what is in between us and derived not from each of us individually but by what draws the world thru us?
?.. not sure what you mean by ‘tax the interfaces’ and again ‘sovereignty’
why are those the only choices..?
platforms are not only a tech architecture, but also an institutional form.. at once they centralize (like states) scaffolding the terms of participation according to rigid but universal protocols, just as they decentralize (like markets) coordinating economies not thru the superimposition of fixed plans but thru interoperable and emergent interaction.. next to states and markets, platforms are a third form, coordination thru fixed protocols while scattering free-range users watched over in loving if also disconcertingly omniscient grace..
so again.. w/this defn/assumption of ‘platform’ .. we only have those three choices..?
to the socialist cyberneticians, the market’s transactional calculations would always be fatally inefficient because they are driven not by the *optimal distribution of goods and value but by the tactical extraction of profit, always providing a price that is a distorted reflection of that **surplus and not the need fulfilled (among other reasons of course).
perhaps optimal *have/need ness.. doesn’t involve **surplus.. (thinking affluence w/o abundance)
a centralized system may be based on input output models that are agnostic as to exchange value of goods and are therefore able to include the entire life cycle of resources in their models of econ activity.. in principle if *not in practice.. but historically have been crippled by the slow feedback of demand signals back into those models..
*perhaps this is part of tech as it could be.. ie: now we can.. i sure hope so.. because i don’t see a different future for good.. we’ve got to let go of calculating exchange.. measuring transactions..
ie: the platform scale of walmart and amazon allows them *line of sight into the supply chains that is so comprehensive, from the raw materials on which their suppliers depend thru to the tastes of indivdiual users, that they can set wholesale prices (and wages) at skin thin margins because they know more about their suppliers’ bottom line costs than the suppliers do.. this is one aspect of how platforms can manage a kind of synthetic catallaxy (economy)
? dang. let’s not bring measuring into this new ness.. ie: *the line of sight walmart and amazon have is of people who aren’t themselves.. won’t be relevant when 100% of people are free.. crazy that we are basing/assuming how we act on a few hundres years of capitalism or whatever.. when we lived differently for so many more years..
in some variants of marxian theory, it is an article of faith that socialism will emerge once capitalism has perfected tech systems to a degree that competitive ownership is unnecessary..
? so back to when it wasn’t necessary.. for 99% of human existence..?
the design dilemmas of algo governance are undecided but of pressing importance…
we are interestsd in systems that can *adjudicate the ‘socialist pricing problem’ (knowing that centralized systems can be too slow to sense and calculate individual price signals) and as well as the capitialist pricing problem: that market models can confuse the emergent effects of transaction liquidity w systems planning and do so at the expense of artificially segreagating and suppressing the real costs of near and long term ‘externalities’
*adjudicate: make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter
problem: measuring/calculating transactions/price.. whatever..
solution: disengage from irrelevants.. ie: money..measuring
we allow, to the pronounced consternation of both socialist and capitalist realists, that some polypaternal supercomputational descendant of google gosplan might provide a mech of projection, response, optimization, automation, not to mention valuation and accounting, beholden neither to market idiocracy nor dim bureaucratic inertia, but to the *appetite and expression of a curated algo phyla and its motivated users..
hm.. much here sounds good (ie: *curiosity via **2 convos).. but don’t see the diff between: valuation/accounting, and market-idiocracy/bureaucratic-inertia
such a platform of platforms might be idealized as pure governing medium, creating almost no original content in and of itself, because its fundamental role would be to interface, sort and optimize the logistics of physical and virtual value, moving in and out..
that.. but perhaps even simpler.. role to listen w/o judgement or language barrier.. to 7 bn curiosities everyday.. use that as data to connect people.. and facil resources.. tech as it could be..
the immediate question to ask on behalf of governance to this idealized cybernetic flow is where to locate anything like planning. is the plan still a future model pushing from the center out, or is it now an emergent pricing index pushing from the periphery in?
why pricing index..? and no.. no planning.. no prep.. no train..
we hold that the *epistemic significance of big data would be realized by their ability to find and surface **utterly alien patterns and relationships among the ***measured, and thereby to disturb our ****doxic conventions, even, and esp when, those interpretations are sensible only to machine users..
*epistemic: relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
**ie: unexpected tribe members.. because we’ve never connected by curiosity.. so we didn’t notice person right in front of us.. et al
measured.. listened to – all the voices
****doxic: of, relating to, or based on such intellectual processes as belief or opinion.
unfortunately, to date these methods seem to more disposed to optimize surgical correlations , confirming basic presumptions, and delivering high res skeuomorphologies that don’t feel as fragile as they really are only because everyone else is making queries and visualizing test data based on the same conceptual conventions..
pluralistic ignorance.. and gray research law .. gabor’s bermuda triangle
as for all the things and events beyond natural perception, the design program of deep address considers how it is that some as yet unspecifiable means to sense their presence and to *id them according to a generic addressing matrix, and even to **network them one to the other, would crack open the world’s info portraiture ***well beyond the normal scale of internet of things..t
*hlb via 2 convos that **io dance..
***or back to the not yet scrambled state..
the platform sees what it can, what it is programmed to sense, and it id’s and addresses those perceptions according to how ti is programmed to ‘think’ seeing what it thinks and thinking what it sees..
the redesign of money – not just the currency vehicle of exchange, but the evaluation of things and events as such – may also require, or even entail, a more rigorous, flexible, and intricate mech for id of discrete assets as the twist and turn their way thru financial wonderlands..
why..? finance and wonder don’t jive..
the evaluation of things/events.. same as vehicle of exchange.. both poison
if nothing else, bitcoins has made money into a general design problem, as it should be, and not just the design of financial products or the look of paper bills, but of vessel abstractions of time, debt, work, and prestige.
better alts are needed soon, before today’s digital platform currencies are prematurely entrenched in the wrong direction (artificially attenuated to closure and scarcity of the wrong stuff)
totally agree.. let’s try an alt.. sans money.. imagine all the energy saved if we stop measuring things..
interface layer to come
*where will those regimes get their raw material for this **artificial coherency?
don’t know about regime ness.. but.. *from self-talk as data.. and **
artificial possible coherence..
the most basic principles of infra resilience dictate that the algo correlation of new senses info must be able to reprogram even the most fundamental assumptions of that interfacial regime’s model of governance and how it obligates decisions of inside from outside.. if not, then that platform is a theocracy.. and surely there are far to many theocratic platforms already..
user layer to come
? – heavy on who user is.. human or non.. and what they can/can’t do.. how they’re named/addressed
i think we need to reset to a new normal.. and so.. our focus should just be on human curiosity.. facil that till we have (as mentioned in first of this section) more human/awake/alive humans generating energies..
the black stack
angelus novus is gone
agnelus novus: A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress
one cannot be pro blur anymore than one can be pro stack (or anti stack), and nor can design just remap one place onto the next..
nothing anywhere can really be ‘native’ anymore.. see all the hearts and minds rented several times a day to diff walled gardens and perceptual belief systems, and by ‘the cunning use of flags’ everything that is anything is laundered.., like nauru launders passports, cayman islands launders money and guantanamo by launders people..
when the state is sovereign, the individual seeks citizenship, but when the market is sovereign, the individual person seeks the status of the corp.
immigration becomes the panicked face of climate wars;
the lesson is that inside a domed totality, massively distributed single mindedness may be a better evolutionary adaptation than individuated nuance thinking..
will it provide the lightness necessary to organize a restorative, subtractive, resilient modernity..
if it can succeed, it is because its radicality is not drawn from the historical or geographic momentum of a new world, but rooted in the precarity of globalizations that are as irresolvable as they are interconnected.. either way , we slowly learn to let go of certain things ( nationalism, monotheism, econ psychologism, strong genomic and semiotic ontologies) and negotiate instead a deliberate and strategic dissolutions – on planet, off planet – into whatever and whoever comes next.. somehow.. i am optimistic.. the thesis of this book .. a design brief that invites others to collab on the articulation and realization of the renewed modernity described there, w all their deliberate commitments and expert abstraction..
the geodesign i would describe means an exploration of how certain control systems, certain platform system, and specific configuration work toward a particular desirable and undesirable govt effects (‘there is not architecture w/o violence, because there is not architecture w/o program‘).. platforms are emergent systems that are informed by power.. that is why and where they work..
in order to build the stack to come we have to first imagine it in ruins and work backward from this as both a conclusion and a starting point
for me, what is at stake is not philosophy or physics but the means by which we abstract actual work into intelligence and back against according to ideas of preferred function and outcomes..
the pressing issue is the design of users, which includes designing a geopolitics of user that is more sophisticated than the extrusion of microeconomic privacy into metaphysics
indeed.. self-talk as data as sophisticated detox
in the much of symbolic interchangeability (art into money into toy into energy into symbol in to .jpg into art into money), the building project needing donors is a new structure that can give rhythm and shape to the global noise..
indeed.. by listening deeper.. a simple message.. via tech as it could be
ideological apophenia grows freely in walled gardens, choking off other species..
apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term was coined by German neurologist and psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905-1961). Conrad focused on the finding of abnormal meaning or significance in random experiences by psychotic people
or perhaps not. perhaps the most relevant totalities multiplied one on top of another into hyperbolic geometries are those that seem too dumb to matter
too simple to matter.. too simple to seem possible.. yep
perhaps the real candidate is not the smart city but home depot.. ponder these warehouse arcades filled w incomplete things w incomplete utility that must be assembled later into metathings in order to be consumed and in order to realize their mission..
instead of driving a new condition to emerge at some postponed launch even (ext fiscal quarter, after the rebuilding of the temple, the coming of the multitude’s sovereignty, or whatever), this recalculation would perhaps do so here and now in this space thru the resorted sync field of the longest possible present moment..
ok then.. sync the resorting.. by trusting the dance/ convo.. in the now (aka no prep/training/on-holding) .. rev of everyday life.. et al
the geopolitics of the user we have now is..however, inadequate for that task, including its oppositional modes, but perhaps the spells of geopolitical apophenia can be broken..
thinking.. broken feedback loop ..perpetuateing .. not us ness
no one is more likely to commit atrocities than someone who believes himself to be acting in self-defense.. t
huge.. begs gershenfeld sel
if the panopticon effect is when you don’t know if you are being watched, and so you behave as if you are, then the inverse panopticon effect is when you know you are being watched but act as if you aren’t.. this is today’s surveillance culture: exhibitionism in bad faith..
so.. let’s go with.. everyone’s to busy (doing whatever they want) to be watching (for ill).. ie: gershenfeld sel
the emergence of stack platforms doesn’t promise any solution or even distinctions between friend and enemy w/in this optical geopolitics..
begs we disengage from enemy ness.. ie: thurman interconnectedness law
is there a trash can big enough for the big delete
absolutely.. global do over.. much like groundhog day ness.. daily re set..
instead of tabula rasa, the i tabula plenus allows for creativity and figurations only by subtraction..
let’s subtract away to 2 needs.. facilitated by 2 convos.. let’s subtract data to just self-talk as data
accidental megastrucutre: did not plan for stack to become.. an accidental.. techs of its layers cohere into an emergent order .. largely unintended, unplanned, unpredicted, unmanaged…
black stack: generic term for stack to come that we cannot observe, map, name or recognize.. know it’s coming but don’t know how to recognize in advance..
wesphalian state: refers to the 1648 treaty symbolizing the formal consolidation … the model provided the modern unit os state sovereignty as interior to that geo loop, a geopolitics that would variously id a balance of conflict between these units and a federalization of them into a particular form of *cosmopolitanism.. the nomos of the cloud is characterized partially by a **’delamination‘ of practical sovereignty from this grounding
*cosmopolitanism: the ideology that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality.
**delamination: a splitting apart into layers
when marx talked about freedom.. he talked about freedom in 3 ways
1\ freedom from economic necessities..from threat to life
2\ freedom from interference by other people
3\ freedom to express yourself.. be yourself..
that’s freedom.. now what freedom is there in this *free society..?.. when people are not free of economic worry.. tremendous uncertainty/fear.. lack of control.. **when people have no control over their lives.. they have no freedom..
**is this what Benjamin means by sovereignty in the stack..?
perhaps we use stack ness for a nother way
ported successes, and specifically from how much it underestimates teh difficulty of achieving them..ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…].. a nother way
Benjamin H. Bratton (@bratton) tweeted at 3:56 AM on Fri, Sep 07, 2018:
Good idea. https://t.co/4CziUKjb9o
When I was an architectural student we all had a copy of OMA’s SMLXL on our desks. This by
@bratton should be today’s equivalent for students and practitioners alike …. (although an abridged version for undergrads would be helpful)