Skip to main content

Materialism and universal devices

Last night I was talking to Phil Jones about the politics of piracy. What seems to be at stake, more than fighting against all limitation of access over information and goods, is the defence of some sort of universality. The defence of a universal computer over specialised devices, the defence of a universal fabricator over specialised 3-D printers. Universal machinery means widespread capacity for ontogenesis. It is not about reproducing the existing crystalized objects, in the suitable terms of Joni Kemp, but rather about letting new objects arise. The specialised devices are like controlled flows that a corporation or a government can plumb. A more universal device is an open flow that can go in all directions.

This universality is akin to that of matter. Matter can flow in several directions, the closest to matter one is, the closest to open potentialities one gets. Objects, on the other hand, portrayed as ready-made in their central actuality as Kemp has them (objects are always crystalized items), are like circumvented flows. Matter is what makes it possible for concrete things to become interchangeable - rubbish to become spaghetti al pesto in a fabricator or a bicycle to become part of a layer of the earth after a quake. If this is right, the politics of the Pirate Party should be about matter, about allowing for access to universal ontogenerators and not only to controlled, specialised devices to give rise to more of the same objects.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne