No Borders Metaphysics

Orientation towards objects, as an attitude that goes beyond ontology and acquires all dimensions of a political stance, opens up the political issues of how to deal with objects. Adrian Bowyer, with the RepRap project, suggests that symbiosis is a relationship with objects that should replace the current one where they are put at the service of our lifes. Currently we can make scarse room for a genuine life for objects - they often appear as the ultimate harbour of lifelessness. In particular, their lack of life is put into our service - we make their existence as an existence at our service. Still, it is clear that they make alliances, they rescue us, they are actants in networks that sustain other supposedly living existences. They carry a messianicity in them - in the Derridian sense that Bennett explores which makes them capable of saving lifes at any moment. Objects appear as a lifeless part of our life but as actants of our political choices - which amount to the way we live - t

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

This is my contribution to the debate on the politics of taking human life to be worthless. It revolves around recent development of negative ethics by my friend and colleague Julio Cabrera: here

In a old and nice little essay on Platonism and the Ockham´s razor , Oswaldo Chateaubriand begins to pave a possible road for a renewed Platonism that would fill the holes which made philosophers so impatiently give up on such a theory about reality as a whole. He disparages against the Ockham razor, which is an absolute principle that favors desert landscapes against all sort of speculation. It has set the stage for confining mathematics to a physical non-place, devoid of any inherent connection to concrete things. In particular, it makes mathematisation something outside the sphere of what there is - to mathematize is to drift away, as the razor inspired projects like Hartry Field´s fictionalism. The razor keeps speculation to a minimum and exiles the products of a mathematizing effort. My interest in negation and the reality of inconsistencies has driven me towards Platonist territories. The essay came back to my mind: why philosophers are so impatient against an overall view of