Trolley Problem Materialism

before we discuss the trolley problem
we need to find out what happened to the brakes
for no-one builds a trolley without brakes
but if the brakes were not working
we need to find out why
was it sabotage?
worker action?
were the brakes just poorly made?
and if so, why?
or the brakes were not maintained properly?
what kind of trolley company lets a trolley which has not been adequately inspected out on the tracks ?

perhaps the driver was drunk or incapacitated
but why?
are the work conditions too bad?
or living conditions too stressful?
what kind of driver would drive a potentially lethal trolley incapacitated?
needs the money too badly?
afraid to lose the job?

before we discuss the trolley problem,
we need to discuss the brakes problem,
if the brakes have failed, what happened?
how were they made? under what conditions?
how were they maintained? under what regime?

the brakes work paradigmatically
for every tech catastrophe
first try to solve the brakes quandary
to worry about a speeding trolley.


Screen Shot 2017-10-24 at 00.36.41



… and then there is the track problem…

DiEM25 needs to declare international solidarity

The defiant optimism and energy behind the DiEM25 initiative is flagging due to uninspiring and unrealistic goals.  To help counter this tendency, DiEM25 must contend with and reject an implicit Euro-chauvenism in its program.  Prosperity, solidarity and security in Europe can not come at the expense of exploitation and unacceptable living and working conditions in the productive nations on which Europe’s economy still depends.  Europe must become a world leader in international solidarity innovation!  

DiEM25’s first “Immediate” [1] objective: to stream the Eurozone finance ministers meetings is ridiculous, impractical and it is diffusing momentum of their initiative. This call for transparency is even facetious, clearly debunked as un-actionable in Varoufakis own latest book “Adults in the Room” where he discovers that the real decisions are made by “insiders” who not only disdain but ignore with impunity anyone on the “outside” who has any opinion on how things are managed behind the scenes.  Besides, who is going to watch the stream of finance ministers speaking economics and understand what they are saying? There are no economics courses provisioning in DiEMs platform. Or is the idea for the viewers to vote the finance ministers off the stream like in the Eurovision song contest?

Austerity has been discredited. There is a strong and rising political desire for sustainable measured and fair economic practices.  Europe’s success is mortally bound with the success of the people on the rest of the world.  Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign acknowledges at least that imperialist wars must come to an end [2] and that desperate conditions outside of Europe have implications for peace and security in Europe.  DiEM25 should at least put as much energy and resources towards supporting activities for long-term sustainable global peace and prosperity, as it puts into its dubious agenda to “democratise” necessarily corrupt procedures of the inaccessible insiders at the upper echelons of European administration.  What Lenin called the “opportunist” position which claims to be able to produce fairness from the institutions down, must be counterbalanced with concerted, persistent action to improve the conditions of people around the world.  DiEM25 must declare itself explicitly against Euro-Chauvinism and for a non-colonial non-imperialist and anti-colonial social political and economic plan whose success need not come at the expense of the productive classes elsewhere in the world. Democracy in Europe cannot be dependent on tyranny and oppression elsewhere.


[1] see

[2] from Corbyn’s  Westminster speech on 26.05.17, reprinted in it entirety here

“…We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home….”

DKN: Knowledge 2 : the status of truth

>>this essay is in progress, expect changes, it may also morph into two or more separate essays<<

It is ironic, in this age of advanced scientific and technological affordances, suffused with the triumph of reason, that the status of truth is seen to be in crisis. This may be due to the fact that the technologies which work so reliably on the basis of rational, causal scientific principles, require not fundamental truths, but only instrumental ones. For the truth to be instrumental, it must produce timely facts, occurrences on which our politics are leveraged.

The Ancient Greek physicists, Thales, Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, were interested in the ontological truth of materials, speculating their inner workings and principles into extreme mathematics. Today’s science is more sanguine about the accessibility of any comprehensive physical truth. Though the mathematics have only become more complex and extravagant, the objective is not philosophy but reliability, the mastering of measurable behaviours of materials in the service of human needs. Rather than demonstrating comprehension of essential truths about their material existence, contemporary advanced technologies evidence, and persistently manifest control over the behaviours of (the aspects of) the materials we can understand.

In other words, we have surrounded ourselves with a menagerie of technical affordances which are designed from the atomic level upwards to serve human needs. This domestication of nature at the mineral, atomic, and sub-atomic level at play in the metallurgy of computer hardware, is no different in principle to the “Natural nano-tech”[1] domestication of plants, livestock and other humans, which produced the sedentary agrarian civilization which is the basis for the technology you are reading this on right now. As Norbert Wiener observed, cybernetics is merely automated slavery[2] Every civilization based on slavery has to contend with a perverse excess of material capacity which has no place in the servitude. What to do with the intelligence, imagination and dreams of the slave, or, even that of the resource cow?

All the things of this world come into our economy though need. Through need to feed families we scanned the skies and divined rhythms of the seasons and climates. Through need to feed families we domesticated minerals, plants, animals and other humans. Needs define the meaning anything acquires.[3]  Epistemology is not only anthropomorphic, it is opportunistic,  it always has an end in mind, the open end called “survival”. So epistemology is always to some degree teleological, in that the result must always be “we survive” it might even be an open form of secular humanist eschatology.

Needs are acute. They are more precise than general perception. Needs focus perceptions and the perceptions which are not needed to assuage the needs are disregarded. Thus the pain and trauma of the slave or of the resource animal is disregarded, much literature is dedicated to why this must be so.[4] specific parts of animals, minerals and plants are excised to fulfil particular vital needs and the rest must be discarded. In colonialism, the intelligence, the flourishing of whole generations of human beings is suppressed for the benefit of the colonizers.

Many of the “former colonies”  still work today under the heel of the Northern powers, as a massive stockpile of wealth, without which the latter would founder. Thus the inability for Europeans to respond when the misery and despair of their southern neighbours reaches such a pitch that people risk terrible odds to flee on rafts meant to escape a sinking ship. The suppression of the aspirations of those who produce the wealth for all,  has been a part of the Humanist project for so long it has become accepted  (necessary evil) inextricable from Humanist aspiration. The glories of the Louvre and Versailles are built on human bones, not only those of the serfs and downtrodden ripped-off of Europe but even more so, the sacrificed human bodies of Africa, Asia, America, everywhere humanism-justified colonial dominion maintained. Beneath the slick veneer of digital wonder-things which allow us to navigate the last-minute excitement of global finance disruption culture is “primitive accumulation” all the way down.

A utilitarian understanding of truth strips away the “necessary” from the “expendable”.  The “expendable” is an epistemological black hole called waste, a place of fear and its excess, fantasy[4]. The enormous “efficiency” of contemporary technologies leave us powerless to contend with the unexpectedly complex excesses of global warming, the e-waste and resource wars of the electronics production chain. An ambitious epistemological regime needs to square the rationalist/functionalist circle to bring “what works” back into perspective with “what is”. Acknowledging the minuscule understanding we have today of “what is” [5] will help us examine “what works” with the scientific rigour it deserves, since “what works” is not the truth, but only convenience, and the truth is forever catching up with us.

Post-truth was named the “word of the year 2016” by the Oxford Dictionary, defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. Strangely, or perhaps understandably, there is no Truth in the definition, instead there are “objective facts”. The rest of the definition positions post-truth clearly in the realm of propaganda, coercion, peer pressure, in short “argumentum ad passiones” arguments directed to the passions as opposed to those directed towards reason. Time flies when you’re having fun.  What notion of objective fact is then operative in post-truth?

Post-truth seems only to signify a summary disappointment with the capacity of liberal democracy to uphold the primacy of rational argument in the face of overweening political force. It is promised, or hoped, that hyper-rationality, today represented by data computation practices, could inoculate the polis from deception. No amount of computation will ever suffice. Post-truth reveals technological certainty to be yet another egotistical veneer in which we make our complex reality “presentable”. Our devices appear to work for us, but that is only a ruse. More than for us, our devices are working for others, to extract every available last drop of value from our activities and, essentially to financialize our futures.

Our devices respond to our needs only on the condition that they respond to the requirements of those which provide the functionality. Our devices work for the owners in several modes, controlling and exploiting us, and controlling and exploiting people all along the production chain which make the hardware and software available. There will be no emancipation through such technology. Indeed any emancipation will only occur despite any dependence of such technology.

For political expediency, the rational precision demanded by the functioning of our advanced technologies is not demanded of our politicians. If it were, politicians would have to reveal the economic machinations of real political power of which they are merely the presentable reflection. A rational, materialist political language can encounter the immensity of this challenge, accounting for all the actors involved, from the weakest to the most powerful.  These are the “objective facts” operative in all our built technologies, and thereby in truth, post-truth and and every semblance, projection and grain of data.[6] The truth we must face is the deep intractable enmeshedness. “We are all in this together” in the web of global production of technological and cultural effects, of hardware, software, fuel, fantasy and hope.

Today’s science understands human being as a loose semantic envelope which signifies material configurations of qualities we are told by science are emergent in quantum relations. Contemporary politics understands human being in classical physics of atomic individuality. The elemental grain of political fact in contemporary anthropomorphic politics is human life.  Human life is articulated  individual political entities with a name and a set of precise spacio-temporal coordinates, birthdate, birthplace, and if applicable, time and place of death.  Every industrial product is a record of the intractable, genetic facts, the undeniable human participations (in precise space-time durations).

Human beings, under prevailing conditions of rentier capitalism, are first and foremost merely containers of raw material capacities for “primitive accumulation”, financial speculation for investment capital, a comprehensively chronological universe. The challenge is to channel this value generated in chronology into solidarity economies.[7]  Unless we stand together in the face of post-truth to demand the recognition of the merest “objective fact”: that we “are” as beings, our relationships and our promise will continue to be conformed to the purposes of contemporary “primitive” value extraction, we will pay with our lives for the resources we will need to survive.

This intolerable situation might unite us, for there is still power in numbers. Despite, or perhaps, acknowledging the post-truth condition, the majorities still need to mobilize for better conditions, not only for themselves but, as solidary actors in the global productions chain, necessarily also for the suffering exploited of the entire world. Robust and valourous imaginations are required generate and sustain  transformative political programs.  These imaginations, always embodied must be sustained materially, in human beings with food, shelter, water i.e. civilization. Our challenge is to develop programs which can sustainably provide these conditions, despite the prevailing conditions of rentier capitalist extraction, solidarity programs which can instrumentalize capital against the rentiers.[8]  These programs will attract participation, in unprecedented arrays of indelible facts, which can innovate truths operating in other notions of time.

We may not have the Truth, but at least we can have facts. The facts which document our efforts, to get ahead, to make a living, to seek or innovate Truth. The facts are tied down in space and time. This is how we organize materials which serve us and this is how we must understand the experience these technologies afford us.[9] It is not any Truth, but facts which “set us free”.

Meanwhile, it is ridiculous to imagine an outside (of rentier capitalism) without first having usurped the inside for ourselfs. To destroy chronology we must destroy the rentier capitalism which relies on it for its life-blood, for its mode producing all the things we rely on every day.  Only as we comprehensively usurp the global means of production can we begin to imagine other ways we might all get along together in the common effort to provide for the flourishing of our species, outside of chronological time models, and then, perhaps we may have to abandon some of the science which requires too much chronology, but then we may not need it any more. There will be a new truth which is in the satisfactoriness of our interactions, with ourselves and with Nature, of which we are a part.


[1] as described here:

[2] “Let us remember that the automatic machine is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequences of slave labor.” ― Norbert Wiener (1948/1965) Cybernetics: or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge, MIT Press

[3] Protagoras’ famous maxim, cited by Socrates in Plato’s Theaetetus reads ” πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον’ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ‘τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστι, τῶν δὲ μὴ ὄντωνὡς οὐκ ἔστιν “. In the classic (Benjamin Jowett) translation this appears as “[Man is] the measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are and the non-existence of the things that are not. ”  Jowett translates “χρημάτων” as “things”, more precisely “χρημάτων” translates as “needs”. Therefore,   “human being is the measure of all needs…[to the degree that they exist or not]”

[4] examples please? is it religion, classic literature?

[5] see additivism

[6] according to CERN . chronology can get infinitely more specific, but truncation error accrues.

[7] ST6M

[8] Venture Communism

[9] counterpolitics…Michael Hudson

[10]  imagining that there are transcendences cyclical eternalities which supercede chronology is priveleged thinking dependent on the apparatus which supports this thinking. Please do it in a hand-made shed hewn from wood from the forest using a hand-made axe.

DKN: Knowledge 1

How do we know what we know? How does the data, the stimulus, the agencies which we experience as reaching us from outside of us become the impressions we interpret as knowledge?  The production, giving forth, of knowledge occurs in obscure spaces within each of us, a domain of natural nano-technology which has only the most tenuous, but nevertheless tenable, connection with the meanings which form there.

One thing which distinguishes our knowledge from the data that informs it, is that the knowledge is less dynamic. Knowledge is a practice of integrating data into meaning.   Knowledge is the aggregation of this experience, the experience of integrating experiences into models of meaning, testing and adapting these against new experiences. Therefore knowledge invokes memory, the memory not only of experiences but also of the production of knowledge. Knowledge, in this sense, is the always provisional, status quo of a dynamic process.

In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates claims that all properties of existence are in motion

“namely, that motion is the cause of that which passes for existence, that is, of becoming, whereas rest is the cause of non-existence and destruction; for warmth or fire, which, you know, is the parent and preserver of all other things, is itself the offspring of movement and friction, and these two are forms of motion. Or are not these the source of fire?” [1]

Two millennia later, the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead makes a similar claim.

“That ‘all things flow’ is the first vague generalization which the unsystematized, barely analysed, intuition of men has produced. … Without doubt, if we are to go back to that ultimate, integral experience, unwarped by the sophistications of theory, that experience whose elucidation is the final aim of philosophy, the flux of things is one ultimate generalization around which we must weave our philosophical system. ” []

The implication is that knowledge is generated in the fluid interaction between the thing perceived and the perceiving subject. Knowledge can only be said to lose its dynamic property in the historical moment of its application, in an active subject informed by the status quo of the knowledge.

Plato’s Theaetetus recounts a long dialogue between Socrates and the eponymous young scholar on the status of knowledge, with Socrates offering to play the philosophical mid-wife and help Theaetetus “give birth” to the knowledge within him. The dialogue grapples with a famous fragment from Protagoras

πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν

“A human being is the measure of all things:
of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”

which Socrates proceeds to interpret as empirical relativism,  all the while admitting he is probably misrepresenting what Protagoras meant. A long proto-Cartesian stoicism-infused discussion follows on the unreliability of the senses, with plenty of examples of two people experiencing something together with different perceptions of it. However, one thing can be asserted through all the relativism, that all the perceptions first need to be processed into a language form for the comparison between the two perceivers to take place at all. Operatively this means that empiricism, and therefore, knowledge is always anthropomorphic. Since language is always a convention where meaning is infused into general semantic categories through experience of living users of human language, meaning is also always anthropomorphic. This is another interpretation of Protagoras’ maxim, that we cannot know outside of epistemology overdetermined by human-scale experience of the world.

Our ideas of visuality are informed not by all electromagnetic radiation but by the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation we perceive as colours of light.  Likewise our aurality. Our sense of relative size is informed by how large we are, et c. In this way there can be no non human epistemology, and inversely, the greater Nature, of which human beings can only perceive tiny slices, also includes all human activities, so that “We may not pick and choose. For us the red glow of the sunset should be as much part of nature as are the molecules and electric waves by which men of science would explain the phenomenon”  [3]

What we call science is merely the Latin word for knowledge: scientia, related to scindere, to cut or divide. Science is about taking things apart, measuring them in order to understand how they work. This is not the idle physics of the Greeks, who attempted to understand the essential truth of perceived behaviours and qualities.  Science is intrinsically instrumental knowledge, understanding of not of essential truth of behaviours but of what actions will reliably bring about the desired behaviours. Therefore scientific knowledge is always already over-conditioned by human epistemology and human needs. [4]

The end of Theaetetus in inconclusive. Socrates tests out three definitions of knowledge but none are quite satisfactory, the dialogue breaks off with Socrates leaving for the court where he will eventually be condemned to death. The mortality points to the limit of epistemology, that of the finiteness of human life and of the relationships and exchanges with other humans, the part of the social production of knowledge each person is a part of. Knowledge in oneself is learning from experience, it can remain silent and obscure within the body. As soon as it requires to be exchanged, it must be externalized in explicitly anthropomorphic terms, language, epistemology, words which are determinate, arbitrarily and provisionally fixed and limited, as are particular human capacities, as is human life.

Wisdom is often described as the knowledge of the limits of ones knowledge, an imperfect certainty. Etymologically, wisdom in German is derived from “to see”, “to experience”, and experience comes out (ex-) of taking a risk (as in peril). Acquisition of knowledge entails many risks, not the least of which is that the knowledge acquired is in vain, or for nought. Nevertheless, there is a sense that all experience is valuable though we may not yet know what for.



[1]  Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 12 translated by Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1921. [153a] 

[2] Whitehead, A. N. ,Process and Reality, New York: Macmillan, 1929, p.317

[3] Whitehead, A. N. The Concept of Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; reissued Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2004, Pt 2, Ch. 9, sec. 2

[4]  “…factual ‘discoveries’ (again, according to everyday language) are only discovered as effects or states or properties of manufactured objects or events, they do not refer to natural objects or events at all … ‘discoveries’ made in scientific lab- oratories always discover possible technical procedures.  They are concerned with human action, which are successful in the sense that they realize the events states that match the (theoretical or hypothetical) expectation of the experimenter. Discoveries, in short, are always bound up with the scientist’s own proper actions. In other words, only in terms of means-and-ends rationality, lab research can be understood and reconstructed. e scientist makes discoveries by means of his or her inventions. is also holds for all those famous ‘lucky’ discoveries: only if they are reproducible, they count as scientific findings.“  Schmid, G, et al.: (2006) Nanotechnology, Assessment and Perspectives. Springer, Berlin, p.45

Liberal is not Left

Liberal and Left are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable, each describes a different political position which is generally at odds with the other.  In an age where the right is on the rise in all the highly developed economies, it is important to make this distinction. Many liberals are fine with fascism, as long as it is good for business, however the Left will never be fine with fascism or any system which concentrates power in the hands of an unaccountable few.
Liberals seem to be about freedom, because freedom is in their name.  Indeed, historically they were all about freedom, freedom from the social strictures of monarchy and feudal power.  The liberals were wealthy bourgeois who wanted the “freedom” to run the country.  In the early days, many of these used populist rhetoric to catalyse the power of the general population behind their campaign.  However, if you look at any of their writings, for example those of Locke, Adam Smith or Rousseau, you can see that the freedom of liberalism was intended not for everyone but specifically for an educated elite. Liberal freedom means even the queen is free to sleep under the bridge.

Once liberals had displaced hereditary feudal power and become ruling parties in the great industrial states, they changed the thrust of their emancipatory campaign. Instead of civic freedom for all, liberals used their power to entrench their economic position and began to apply another notion of freedom, free markets and free trade. To this day liberals “freedom” is principally about free markets and free trade, i.e. global corporatism and its rentier property system.
The Left, on the other hand, advocate an international solidarity economy, the evening out of the inequalities of wealth and opportunity, an economy where value is produced by each according to their abilities and for each according to their needs. The Left reject the false freedom of free markets which generate cabals of colluding monopolists who inevitably abuse their wealth to exercise inordinate political power over the many. The Left reject any form of nationalistic, racist, sexist, or any other normative discriminatory political disenfranchisement. The Left struggles for an economy where rentier title has been mutualized and the value of the productive contribution of each is set towards ensuring the best conditions of the flourishing of all.

In terms of freedom of expression, both the Left and liberals are permissive. However liberals believe in the freedom of the wealthy to make their expression heard louder than anybody else’s, and they exercise this “freedom”.  Liberals also believe in the super-national privilege of corporations to silence criticism of their business as being damaging to their profitability.[1]  The Left attempts to build utopian forums and other social forms of civic organisation where in principle everybody’s views can be negotiated. This highly democratic ideal is still in its infancy, it remains one of the most important sectors of social innovations of the Left.

In the US, it is said, there is a crisis of the liberal media. But the liberal media with their Purple Revolution is showing itself perfectly able to function and adapt to the new reality under Trump.  Times will now only get more difficult for the disenfranchised who voted for Trump and Sanders, and the liberal media will ignore them, because MSM are the voice of free-market bankers and free trade colonial business. Wall street revenues pay the paychecks of the news anchors researchers, journalists and actors on the liberal media, it is no wonder that Bernie Sanders was given such paltry coverage, unlike Trump who blamed illegal workers and minorities for the crisis facing the US, Sanders pointed his finger squarely at the 1%, the owners of the media.

The solidarity Left economy is small, it does not have the luxury to fund massive media juggernauts which crush popular opinion into submission. Nevertheless the movement which rallied behind the Sanders candidacy was able to break fundraising records of small contributions without any benefit of MSM publicity. This is because Sanders’ message, like that of Trump, resonated the suffering and represented the conditions to the vast majority, rendered despondent under liberal austerity economics. Whereas the MSM were fine to showcase the egregious, insulting and offensive excesses of the extreme right candidate, they ignored the one which threatened to truly undermine liberal power through advocating such things as progressive taxation and banking reform.

In the US, all the Left or “progressive” media is constrained, for budgetary reasons to the margins of the Internet.  Despite what we are told about the MSM being “dead”, it is still the authoritative source for news for the vast majority of people, especially the old, who still vote.  Even Wikipedia, apogee of democratic erudition, is biased towards mostly liberal MSM with their condition that only “reliable sources” be used as references in articles.  What are “reliable sources”? The academic publications, liberal media press and publications, or the conservative ones.[2]

The monopolization of broadcast media by a collusive wealthy oligarchy is illegitimate, as is all private rentier title. Unfortunately the Left can have no chance to politically challenge both liberals and conservatives without a truly Left media of scale. Under Trump, the majority of the American people will have it demonstrated again that their best interests will never be served by either the Democratic party or Republican party because they are two sides of the moneyed elite. The conditions of the vast majority will not improve and the emancipation of the human potential of the youth will be suppressed for another generation.

Only a truly Left and not a liberal media can coalesce the political movements which can withstand the crushing intellectual and physical assaults of the elites. We have seen during the democratic primary how independent media can play a transformative role in bringing people in and supporting communication, exchange and collaboration within a movement which truly has their interests at its core. But such media must burst into the mainstream, and this will require great economic resources. The Sanders and Corbyn campaigns have demonstrated, that progressive causes can be supported long-term with small donations from a wide base. This model needs to be expanded and extended. In the meantime let us not confuse liberal with Left… it is not helping anyone face down the challenge from the right.



[1] see

[2] see

DataKnowledgeNarrative: On Data

On Sublime Data

There is a first datum that precedes and informs all data. Data is literally, etymologically a given, plural form of datum, from dare “to give”. Data is what we receive, it is the noumena which we variably and variously discern into phenomena. For a foetus in gestation, data comes through the flesh of the mother. Upon ejection into the world the schizosomatic maternal filter falls away and the infant begins to distinguish the 5 senses and process perceptions. Through perceptions, apperceptions, intuitions, and instincts, phenomena are gradually elaborated through experiential memory.

Perceptions are produced through the senses by activating (stimulating) bio-chemical corporal nano-technologies. Environmental variations are distinguished through such “natural technologies” into sensations. These sensations are then interpreted into meaning, sense, through comparison with previous sensual experience. This is a process of “information”, whereby the noumena “in-forms” subjects through their perceptions.

We are still not yet in the domain of language, barely grasping coalescent concepts. The meaning of sense data is produced pre-linguistically through contextualization with lived experience. This irrefutable subjective continuity is what produces the desire for sharing experience, communication, the congregation of experiences. Screaming into the unknown eventually gives way to the schizo-oblivion we know today as the thin membrane of “me”, assailed on one side by the enclosed obscure noumena of the body and on the other by the illuminated extents of “Nature”. But this membrane is a moebius, as Nature includes the cogito and the obscure nature of the body. Nature, noumena is the unsublimatatble meta-context from which we divine information in the flight from fear and striving for ataraxia.

All data is a kind of abstraction, only an abstraction in as far as the perceiving human body perceives its perceptions individually, ideally, in the Cartesian sense, in a perfect artificial consciousness divorced from its context. This means that all data exist in an anthropomorphic epistemology first, at best one which also integrates anthropic activity within and not without a concept of Nature, which expands beyond anything that any human being or network of human beings can directly sense or comprehend. This is not to say human beings are incapable of intuiting and sharing intuitions they cannot define. The words like “data” fail them but do not occlude the experience. This is the role of poetry, prose, music and the other arts, its called sublimation.

Sublime is Nature rendered into the world of human being. Sublime preserves all of the polyvalent expansiveness of Nature removing only the awful terror and horror that strikes one in the face of the immensity of existence. Through words, drawings, music, we sublimate the inexpressibly diverse and expansive. When data first begins to register as information in awareness it is always already sublime.

Natural Data

Nature matters. Nature is the prime matter. Nature is us and we are Nature. Nobody is outside of Nature, and no technological instrument or artifice is outside of Nature. However, we need to confront at every turn the historical vestiges of a distinction that was made a long time ago between Human Being and Nature which has since become the dichotomy artificial/nature culture/nature or even, more provocatively nature/nurture.

The Greeks did not speak of Nature, they spoke of physics. This is because anthropocentrism was just emerging with the introduction of the alphabet. Domestication had already long begun, convening the forces and affordances of “Nature” to reliably supply the needs of human beings. This is what we call civilisation: the disciplining of Nature for the purposes of regularizing the provision of social needs from Nature. The means by which the affordances of “Nature” are convened for the purposes of civilization is called technology.

When we speak of “Nature” and “Natural affordances” that these have always included the affordances of other human beings. This can be understood principally in two senses.: 1. slaves, women’s indentured labour, prisoners of war and other types of labour often also are assumed and convened by force, disciplined to serve the needs of civilization, 2. once the distinction between anthropos and Nature becomes culturally relevant, it emerges that Nature is not simply without anthropos, in the light, to be ascertained, but also within, in the dark, to be intuited and obeyed. The inner-nature affordance of human beings must be reproduced at the animal level, mainly food and drink, for contributions to civilization to be afforded.

Technical data, digital data

Today, when “data” is discussed, what is referred to is normally “digital data”, i.e. information in discrete numerical quantities. These are a message code through which phenomena are interpreted and transmitted. “Digital data” exist on an infinitesimal scale, the scale of electrons, literally sub-atomic, the scale of magnetic charges and valencies, i.e. on a sub-atomic scale, very far and in an atmosphere very different from the one human beings inhabit.

Sensors are required in order to generate digital data from phenomena[1]. Common sensors mimic perceptivity of human beings: sound sensors, light and image sensors, vibration and gyroscopic (balance) sensors, et.c. These sensors are constructed to translate changes in a very precise experiential slice of the environment into electronic signals, for example image or light sensors translate electromagnetic radiation from the visual spectrum (wavelengths of 390-700nm). The image sensor’s chemical constitution gives off valency electrons when struck by visible light, sending electronic information down into the device to be sampled.

Sampling is where the electronic information becomes digital. A sampler “samples” (measures) the incoming stream of electronic information, which is not yet digital, according to a clock rate. This is called the sample rate. If the sample rate is 1 time a second, one measurement will be taken from the incoming electronic information stream every second. 1 time/second is also known as 1 Hertz or 1 Hz. Sampling chops up the incoming stream of electronic information from the sensor into discrete measurements, these measurements are stored as numerical values in the memory. This is digital data.

Contemporary computers can only operate with digital data. Since this data exists operationally only in an infinitesimal electronic form, it must be converted to a visible scale for humans to work with it. This means it must be transmuted from encoded values back into the realm of human perception, to the wavelengths of sound or light we can detect. Even words, saved in digital form must be transmuted back into graphic letter forms on a screen or printed. This transmutation not only produces shapes human beings can identify as language codes, but, in the process, it enlarges the data many million times so that it can become visible.

So there is an epistemological schism between the scale in “nature” of the macro-phenomena we can perceive with our “unaided senses” and the scale of the aspects of the phenomena which are registered, recorded and retrieved from the digital realm.  This digital realm is extremely artificial, made up of metals of the highest purity, and alloys and exotic chemical blends of the most precise measure. This realm is the product of global industrial processes which integrate the labour of human beings in various capacities, but rely on the reliable behaviour of machines for the most intricate parts of its construction. Inside the computer processors, the data flows reliably according to chemical principles. The computer is a highly disciplinary down to the material make-up of its smallest circuits. The materials inside the computer have been abstracted from their “Natural” mixts and suspension. A perverse excess of this process which on one hand produces the miraculous functionalities we use every day. Are the poisonous trailings pools at the mine heads where the minerals are extracted and purified.

There is no freedom in the computer, if there were, the computer would not work. [2] Conversely, the lack of freedom of the functioning machine makes human activity appear incomparably more free. This is freedom by contrast, or philosophically negative freedom, not freedom for, but freedom from. The computer is an extreme accomplishment of science, a clockwork artwork which produces freedom.[3]

All data, whether digital or analogue become exemplary in its inadequacy. In other words, a video recording of scavengers at a garbage heap will represent the sounds and sights from a particular angle, or perhaps several angles, but will not convey the smells of the garbage or the temperature or humidity of the air. All data is abstract. Representative data is removed from the lived matrix in which it was recorded. The recorded data then is to stand in for the missing data, ready for the consumer to “fill in” the missing data again when reviewing the recorded data, using intuitions.

McLuhan describes this inadequacy of recorded data as captivating our consciousness through our compulsion to fill in the blanks, the more insufficient the data, the more engrossing the medium. But it is not merely the insufficiency of abstracted data which generates such epistemological richness, it is the fact that such data is abstracted also out of the flux of time, it becomes static, frozen, a talisman. We, as timely beings who must change in time, are confronted with recordings which no longer change quite so much, we have a taste of immortality, of omnipotence. From this paradigmatic abstraction, inscribing the multi-sensorial living world into indelible silent merely visual technical text we have the basis of our scientific method and its emancipatory agenda.

There is then a tension between data as a record and or representation, and that which is abstracted out to become data, which is the whole world – the data. The data is so infinitesimally small by comparison with the whole excised world that it becomes exquisite, a dear trace of a fleeting present past. As we grasp for meaning in the world we hold hard to fragments of data, but these not only tie us to machines, industrial processes and the electricity grid, they also split us out of involvement and into individuality.



[1]  For a discussion of the difference between analog and digital data, please see here.

[2] For a detailed examination of disciplinary rigour in technical instruments, please see here, or read my book.

[3] For an in-depth study of the trade off between disciplinary functional reliability and freedom, please see here.

Digital Materiality: New Materialism

Bratton's stack mode

Bratton’s stack model

The bottom layer of Benjamin Bratton’s stack model of the Internet is the Earth. Obscure and unfathomable (but not incalculable) like our own bodies, the Earth is the locus of a complex of chemical processes we still rely on every day. The Earth is the wellspring of all wealth that is generated through human labour because we are reproduced through interactions with the stuff of the earth. The Earth in Bratton’s model represents an indefinitely complex material sine qua non of our networked world experience.

Today’s economy is often described as increasingly “immaterial” where the costs of reproduction are “next to nothing”. Anyone who is not ideologically blinkered so as to confuse the quarterly corporate reports data with real processes going on in the world understands the offensiveness of the claims of immateriality. Climate change, institituional racism and sexism , resource wars all testify to the contrary. A new generation of scholars have reacted to address this cynical ideology in a discipline which has come to be labeled new or neo-materilaism[1].

Karen Barad explodes Bratton’s earth with a methodology trained through theoretical physics. In Barad we explore how certainties of material behaviours in classical physics are really probabilities constrained to serve political ends. Very much in the sense of the fashionable notions of Alfred North Whitehead, the properties of materials become available to us only through interactions, In Barad’s Agential Realism, matter is allowed to matter in queer ways which may elude or defy our conventional linguistic epistemologies, reworking or “diffracting” nature/culture distinctions.

“I propose a posthumanist performative approach to understanding technoscientific and other naturalcultural practices that specifically acknowledges and takes account of matter’s dynamism. The move toward performative alternatives to representationalism shifts the focus from questions of correspondence between descriptions and reality to matters of practices, doings, and actions.” [2]

Post-humanism, a prevalent trend in new materialism is not trans-humanism, and does not necessarily refer to the “technical singularity of the fusion of humans and machines” or the “end of humanity as we know it”. Rather, post humanism is a critique, especially of the patriarchal epistemic and event ontological frames which structure Enlightenment humanism Post-humanism repositions humanity as a diffuse natural phenomena ‘entangled’ among, and never entirely dissociable from the great material fluxes of the universe. Technology is not separate from or invented by humanity but already emergent in the relation between ourselves and the world. In Agential Realism, matter works on us and elaborates us as much as we elaborate matter.

“What often appears as separate entities (and separate sets of concerns) with sharp edges does not actually entail a relation of absolute exteriority at all. Like the diffraction patters illuminating the indefinite nature of boundaries – displaying shadows in “light” regions and bright spots in “dark” regions – the relationship of the cultural and the natural is a relation of “exteriority within.” This is not a static relationality but a doing – the enactment of boundaries – that always entails constitutive exclusions and therefore requisite questions of accountability.”[3]

Barad’s new Materialism posits the cartesian cogito as a relation where every thought idea or perception is a product of intra-actions in an entanglement of phenomena, some among which are human being. This approach might help us elaborate what Barad calls an ethico-onto-epistemology (fusing together three commonly distinct philosophical disciplines) where human being entangled in “Natural” proceses does not have the liberty to act independently but always acts relational to an incomprehensible (non-anthropologizable) play of forces. Informed by quantum physics, our classical understanding of our human existence, its extents and taxonomies seem to disintegrate, we enter a queer space of undefinable interplay.

It remains to be seen to what extent cultural forms can be elaborated which cultivate sociabilities appreciative of the radical complementarity in Barad’s queer materialism. Quantum physics information comes to us through a regime of the most intensive rigour and discipline in labour and material forms. New materialism celebrates the an-anthropocentrized understanding generated through arbitrary mechanical actions of scientific instruments and their dominion over materials. Disciplines such as high-energy physics elaborate control over the physical world on the smallest physical scales (which are also the largest). In breaking up conventional understandings of matter, opening out into post-causal, indefinite unconstrained incomplete models, there is the tendency to adopt metaphors and allegories from cosmologies which have been excluded from the discursive space of the “rational age of science”. Ancient intuitions of universal holism are confirmed through mathematical scientific rigour. There is an (infinitely, voluptuously complex) order to things of which human beings (and all they do) are but an infinitesimal and fully integrated figure.

We have at once enormously powerful industries operating and perpetuating conditions of extreme discipline through every rhizomatic tuber of its (re)production chains, and a realm of speculative materiality appropriated to coalsce a new transgressive morality. Potentially emancipatory in Barad’s ethico-onto-epistemology is the delegitimization of conventional domestic, religious, and political socio-cultural forms which have disadvantaged women and minorities throughout history, intrinsic to a dualistic culture/nature models of the world where human interests or needs always take precedence. An-anthropocentrizing our being-in-the-world promises to generate a new environmental holism where illusionary and exploitative borders of individualism melt away to avail an ever-elusive and uncontainable entanglement of experience.

There is a fundamental internal conflict between the disciplinary conditions for the reproduction of cutting-edge scientific information about the physical materials of the universe [4], and the largely indescribable, an-anthropocentrist meta-physics and transgressive post-humanist social agenda it proposes. The former normalizes conventional, nominally patriarchal world of nations, institutions, industry and finance which (re)produce & train the technicians to serve the equipment which (re)generates the material regularity of today. The latter, based on experimental practice, informed by the scientific method, radiates a diffuse, uninhibited, indistinct epistemology which, if acted upon, would disrupt debilitate and undermine the structural underpinnings of prevalent scientific practice through the high-energy physics fintech apparatus which reproduces it. The environmentalist morality of new materialism may work to inhibit the reproduction of the techno-industrial apparatus which provided the onto-epistemological basis for its formulation.



[1] New-materialism has been generating over the last two decades a richly provocative and challenging culture and literature. Though I concentrate in this blog entry on the thought of one of new-materialism’s most prominent thinkers the theoretical physicist Karen Barad, it must be understood that this strain cannot possibly be represented by any one scholar. Myra Hird, Elizabeth Gross, Stacy Aliamo, Cecilia Åsberg and Rosi Braidotti are just a few of the prominent thinkers diffracting and elaborating new materialism .

[2] Barad, Karen. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007, p.135

[3] Barad, K. (2003) Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 28(3), p. 803

[4]  This tension is elaborated more extensively in this essay.

Digital Materiality: Supermodern Digital Materialism

The materiality of digital devices is strictly disciplinary down to the chemical level of electronic transmission[1], from sensors to memory to processors to pixels.

ccd sensor structure

Microscopic views of computational circuitry reveal that digital data is reproduced in perfect nano-Taylorist robot factories, row after row of infinitesimal, ultra-specialized machines doing the same thing over and over according to command, as long as current flows. International standards regimes are indispensable to ensure the consistent performance of the components, and to allow these to designed into enormous amalgamations of standardized modules to make up elaborate multi-functional assemblages.

There can be no freedom at the chip fabrication facility, nor at the factory where the specialized components are assembled into the device.  If there were any freedom there, the device would not work.[2]  At the mine head, people work under the most desperate conditions for the merest pittance, sometimes at the end of a gun, often under threat of instant dismissal without the least modicum of health care or other social provision or rights common in the global north where the products are designed[3].  This extreme ‘primitive accumulation’ [4] at the base of the electronics production chain, the enormous discrepancy between what the miners earn and the value they produce in their daily production is the wellspring of all profits in the electronics industry. 

Capital investment in the sector is made with the expectation that the current conditions of extreme exploitation will prevail. Today, this investment is pervasively financialized using advanced investment instruments, derivatives, restructured into assemblages of fintech digital assets of various kinds to be traded arbitrarily and  automatically. Any significant improvement of working conditions, especially salaries at the base of the production chain would be a fundamental shock to the sector, returns would fall dramatically leading investors to look elsewhere to grow their wealth.  

The irrepressible ’freedom’ of the environment, much too large and complex for any existing mathematical model encounters the rigid disciplinary force of techno-industry and produces chain reactions of countervailing force. This anomalous force, it has been argued will disproportionately impact the least economically advantaged. Under capitalism, the explicit or unintentional advantages of every technological development accrue to the already most privileged, the detriments to the already least privileged.   Computation will not save us from climate catastrophe when the material conditions of the reproduction of computationality have become a force of Nature.  

Pervasive computation promises order, the finer the granularity of the computation the more transcendent the order.  This is the “sensor everything” credo of the IoT industry and the smart cities lobby. Sensors are there  to produce freedoms through control, cyber-freedoms where social and economic injustice can be technically mediated.  Your cyber toothbrush will inform your insurance company whether you should be paying higher premium on dental work, thereby compelling you to brush more carefully.[5]   Smart city architecture will respond to you depending on complex analytics of your social-economic data, as a result you may or may not be allowed entry to various locations, the automatic doors may simply not open for you.  Remember that the etymology of “smart” is “Schmerz”, Smart City is “Schmerz” City.  A Smart City is one where disciplinary pain is meticulously inflicted in order to maximize productivity, and recommend, ensure and reward behaviour which conforms to algorithmically defined standards.[6] 

“Algorithmic governance” is invoked as an improvement on social and cultural technologies we have cultivated through much trial and error across centuries.   Certainly,besides their successes these governance technologies in law, custom and tradition have not yet generated a completely just society.  “Sensor everything” promises to propose more advanced models through the massive dataset algorithmic analysis.  However, for the time being and into the imaginable future, these datasets will not only be incomplete, they will merely constitute another technocratic layer of disciplinarity obscuring the problems already endemic to the forgoing and still pervasive models of social production (e.g. “state”, “company”, “cooperative”, “association”).[7] 

The project for democratic participation in governance is being trivialized as real power is more obscured than ever in a realm of semi-transparent “open knowledge” swamping citizens in selected deluges of non-human-readable data while hiding the valuable interpretive algorithms behind intellectual property (IP) firewalls.  The Smart City is a proprietary city we must all become investors or lose out all together.  The democratic voice will become a shareholder’s voice.  Government run by multi-national corporations under obscure copyright software and hardware regimes, is no better than the feudal system capitalism promised and succeeded for a while to improve upon.

Computers are commanded with mathematical codes, down to the most fundamental “machine language” executed on the hardware.  These mathematical codes are abstractions of desired device behaviours, they are prescriptive.   Again, there is no “freedom” here, if there were, the device would not work. All the life-like behaviour, all the human scale interactive interface surfaces we are used to interacting with, from bank machines to games,  are elaborately coded facades of recognizability behind which function, according to the strictest rules, the software command structures.

Computation is thus a highly organized and unfree realm of engineering which is there to provide reliable mechanics to manage processes. In the past few decades computation has increasingly been applied to activities in the civil sphere in the interest of ‘convenience’.  As noted in a previous installment [8], convenience consists of the user adjusting their expectations of the device so that the device can satisfy them.  As such, the desired use of computation become a choice to adjust one’s expectations to what can be provided by the device.    Because computers originate in and operate in a severe and unforgiving environment, unappealing to the average consumer, interface and user experience (UX) design have become essential practices in the software industry.

“Artificial Intelligence” (AI) and “Machine Learning” (ML) attempts to automate UX continuous-delivery redesign efforts towards the “market of one” (Mo1)[9].  Because computer programs do not natively “know” their users, they must acquire information about them through interactions. These interactions may be explicit or implicit. Explicit interactions include: posting on social media, sending a text message or making a phone call, playing games and using apps.  Implicitly, a device has all its data-acquisition capacities always on, the microphone, gyroscope, GPS sensor can learn when and how the user is sleeping, how much they exercise where and when.  Convenience is more mutual than ever, one conforms to the capacities of the device as the device conforms to the predilections and needs of the user, in real time, as long as the sensors are operating. What might have been considered surveillance today is completely conflated with convenience.

Civil surveillance is endemic to the life of every citizen.  Ewa Majewska has described how this surveillance, as well as being an implicit system of patriarchal control can be interpreted as a matriarchal concern for the well being of the citizens.[10]  Today surveillance is no longer merely the realm of state power and identity, but the everyday experience of interacting through networked computation.  As such, enormous amounts of personal data are accrued constantly by any number of private companies who are granted access to sensors on devices where users have installed the applications they need to manage their social and professional lives. 

The 24-hour experience of being human is becoming professionalized through pervasive computational feedback applications. The profession is “officer”.   We check our devices compulsively for the slightest sign that the greater techno-industrial dispositif might need our protection. 



[1] “Computers are perfect instruments to be employed in military and police work because they behave absolutely, invariably according to command protocols. There is no freedom in a computer, if there were any freedom in the computer, it would not work. The implementation of computerization into social, civil sphere as well means that technology more applicable for discipline s being used “freely” the result is a certain militarization of the civil sphere, and uncomfortable overweening transgressions of the state through shared computational protocols into everyday life in the civil sphere. Networked computers truly bring into being a Cyber-social realm where discipline is not only cultural but structural, new forms of freedom will thereby be engendered but ever more informed by computational discipline.”  – Gottlieb, B. (19.12.15) “Structural Challenges to Technological Emancipation 1/3”  here.

[2] “The ‘creative’ ‘freedom’ we enjoy with computers, manipulating highly abstracted and disciplined images and sounds and texts on our devices, is predicated on unfree practices. This unfreedom is central and compulsory, inexorable to ‘free expression’….were programs, strategies and practices to become prevalent which could sustain other less-hegemonic conditions of production, such forms of productions will likely not be able to supply us with the same technological devices, and same techno-scientific vectors we are persistently informed are the unique guarantee of our survival as a species.” – Gottlieb, B. (05.02.14) “A Heavy Heaving Freedom”  here.

[3] Extreme exploitation in the electronics supply chain has been a hot topic in recent years, revealing that there really is no way to reimagine contemporary capitalism without the fundamental injustice of extreme wealth disparity. The Wall Street Journal is no exception in throwing up their hands.

[4] “The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the prehistoric stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it. The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former.”  -Marx, K. Capital Vol. 1,  Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation Chapter Twenty-Six: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation

[5] A favourite example of techno-solutionism-critic Evgeny Morozov, one instance of it is here.

“People don’t understand what’s at stake….If you use your smart toothbrush, the data can be immediately sent to your dentist and your insurance company, but it also allows someone from the NSA to know what was in your mouth three weeks ago….The monitoring and surveillance are just the indirect consequence of the convenience of a smart shoe or trash can. [Like Gmail], people accept the idea that they get something free, and if privacy is the price, they’ll pay it.”

 – From Morrison, Patt (19.06.13) “Evgeny Morozov, Internet Cassandra”

[6] Ursula Franklin, already in 1989 perceptively criticised how what she described as the “prescriptive” structuring and ordering of computational technologies,  were creating a “culture of compliance”

“The ordering that prescriptive technologies has caused has now moved from ordering at work and the ordering of work, to the prescriptive ordering of people in a wide variety of social situations. For just a glimpse of the extent of such developments, think for a moment about the new “smart” buildings. Those who work in the buildings can have a card with a barcode that allows them to get into the areas of the building where they have work to do but excludes them from anywhere else.”

— Franklin, Ursula (1990/2004) “The Real World of Technology”, House of Anansi Press, Toronto, p.18

Cory Doctorow is waging a battle against “single-purpose computing” ,one of the key features of the IoT (Internet of Things) techno-industrial vision of the future. He elaborates many of the reasons in this talk.

[7] A good example for this is the “Circles” blockchain-based project to provide an autonomous, decentralized, voluntary, altruistic universal basic income.   This is a project which desperately seeks a technological alternative to Keynsianism, charity or some other means of mitigating poverty. Well-meaning though it might be, it imagines that a community of altruists can be sustained purely on the level of code, utterly disregarding the potentially valuable lessons of social history and the many forms of solidarity economic sharing which have been developed, refined and practiced over centuries.

[8]   “We are thrown into a world, a culture, a context already transfused with technical aesthetics, a world of conveniences.  The cultures we are born into are full of compensatory and adaptation methods residual of the many generations of technical revolution and upheaval which occurred through the generations. Marshall McLuhan referred to this as the “environment of services” for which we need a new “ecology”.  The technical environment becomes a second nature of social/human effects wrought by technical processes.”  – Gottlieb, B. (06.06.16) “Digital Materiality: Technical Aesthetics” here.

[9] Hal Varian also calls this “First-degree price discrimination”

“Information technology allows for fine-grained observation and analysis of consumer behavior. This allows for various kinds of marketing strategies that were previously extremely difficult to carry out, at least on a large scale. For example, a seller can offer prices and goods that are differentiated by individual behavior and/or characteristics. … In the most extreme case, information technology allows for a “market of one,” in the sense that highly personalized products can be sold at a highly personalized price. This phenomenon is also known as “mass customization” or “personalization.”

-see Varian, H.  (17.09.01) “High-Technology Industries and Market Structure” here.

[10] Majewska, Ewa (2016) “Hiacynt”, paper presented at  “Strategie Queer 2” Conference in Warsaw, 2-3 June 2016, draft available here


Concatenated Oikoi: Human Nature and the Anthropocene

There is no ecology without economy. Marshall McLuhan famously quipped

“When Sputnik went around the planet in 1957 the earth became enclosed in a man-made environment and became thereby an “art” form.”[1]

McLuhan pleaded for an ecology among the media that would save literacy. [2]

“For the first time the natural world was completely enclosed in a man-made container. At the moment that the earth went inside this new artifact, Nature ended and Ecology was born. “Ecological” thinking became inevitable as soon as the planet moved up into the status of a work of art..” [3]

Sputnik was a simple radio transmitter sent up higher than human beings had sent anything up before, and it stayed up, as was expected according to the calculations programmed by Georgy Grechko [4] into the USSR Academy of Science’s mainframe computer. It orbited the earth 1440 times for 3 months at the end of 1957.  Radio hobbyists around the world eagerly scanned the spectrum to hear its distinctive status beeps. These beeps were the only information it sent back to earth about its experience in orbit.  Sputnik, as the first satellite, was earth’s orbit’s original contamination,  a technical interface between human beings and the planet they shared and a new dimension of its pollution.

Today, computation is central to our understanding of our environment, at the same time computation powers ever-accelerating industrialization which ecological science has determined to be generating dangerous climate change effects. The reason ecology cannot save humanity is, because, in order to do so, it must not privilege humanity, but rather reinterpret humanity as a figure in an infinitely (uncomputably) expansive and heterogenous ground we might call Nature.  Against such an effort is the discipline of economy. Our difficulty confronting fundamental challenges to anthropomorphic omnipotence in anthropogenic climate change, ocean acidification and other effects of techno-industry, is due to the deep interrelated roots of our concepts ecology and economy in the the oikos [5] or household.

The house of household implied an already domesticated (domus = house) realm, a realm overdetermined by human needs and technologies to provide for these. Everything that happens within the household is thus already overdetermined by anthropocentric priorities and anthropomorphic epistemologies. The wall around the household, like the wall around the ancient city, or the contemporary national frontiers create new, distinct environments within which “civilised” behaviour can take place. Inside the oikos, we are only dealing with the aspects of Nature which have been bearing on anthropic processes, needs and concerns.  The envelope of knowledge and technological infrastructure symbolised by Sputnik creates a household out of the entire planet, thus an ecology

The second half of the word “household”, the “hold”, indicates the ownership, title and dominion over the home. In ancient Greece, this was a deme, a patriarch a hegemon who was the political representative of the household, the smallest political unit of the polis. Under the deme laboured any number of slaves, women including wives and concubines and often children. The economic benefit of their activities were subsumed into the household and the personal, private wealth of the deme. The household is “private” property in the most radical sense of the term, a nascent and prototypical realm of patriarchic autonomy connected to the “public” sphere through his democratic tributes and responsibilities.  The oikos is thus an architypal private space, private property, which implies that ecology is not a public natural resource, but a domain of proprietary or privileged knowledge.   Ecology is an interplay of economically motivated human activity within an imperfectly accessible and knowable realm referred to as Nature.

In prevailing techno-industrial approach to economics, environmental sensors are designed specifically to provide data necessary to coordinate commercial activities through networked computation. There are only sensors for that which is  understood to contribute to economic growth, or greater efficiency in the production chain.   For everything else we have no sensors.

Until some extraneous phenomena such as climate change can be seen to impact globalized productivity in some way, this phenomena remains non-sense, noise, irrelevance, little or no data is collected, and what there is is usually discarded.   Bringing phenomena into what Jacques Rancière calls the “distribution of the sensible” will always be a political act.

In order to satisfactorily encounter the complexity of the environmental concerns we face today, new dimensions of sensibility, externalized in sensing technology or otherwise,  will have to be developed. This historically has always required government funding.[6] New sensing regimes can revolutionize our environmental understandings, but if they are based on industrially produced sensor data they will only produce a new anthropomorphic concatenation. Perversely, now that our networked-computation-sensor-based models of “the Climate” have begun to reach the complexity required to provide the vital insights, even prognoses they promised, anthropogenic climate change has progressed to such an extent that the new “anomalous” conditions continue defy the models. [7]

Today’s sensor-data-based environmental science is completely beholden to and overdetermined by computational industry which produces sensing technology through the global electronics production chain. It is well known that this production chain is not only intensely polluting in the production phase, but also in the disposal phase. Therefore the contemporary practices of ecology informed through digital data itself produces dangerous waste as it helps justify the deleterious human and environmental impacts of the electronics production chain. Can ecology integrate the technical reproduction of its own practices into itself?

concatenated oikoi

Disaster capitalism [8] wraps around this ecological excess as a second layer of economic concern. So-called “green” technologies promise to address the threats detected through techno-ecological sensing regimes with profitable innovations.  Though the operation of these green technologies may generate less harmful emissions it is unlikely that their production is any bit easier on the environment or on the people and places which produce them than is any other technology. Transversal commercial fields of environmental clean-up, waste processing and storage have spawned enormously profitable industries which struggle to deal with the deleterious “externalities” of ordinary techno-industry.

Enclosing the concatenated oikoi is the ecumene, the known or inhabited world. What happens outside the ecumene is irrelevant to us until it isn’t (the point when something enters the ecumene, it anthropomorphs). We live in a fundamentally anthropomorphic epistemology which sets sociocultural priorities we cannot feel or act out of.  The only Nature we know is the Nature we encounter, the Nature we hope to control through technical means.   Study of natural processes with the intention of confining them to serve human purposes has unleashed enormous technical power. Human beings today are born into imperceptibly powerful industrial dispositifs which become “second Nature”, which always already enframes Nature “tout-court” in anthropocentric interpretation, and this interpretation is a political expression.

Proprietary politics through monopolistic inheritance, IP, patent and land ownership laws mean that the dividends of technology remain unevenly distributed. This produces the contemporary computational leisure society whose cultures ritualize the management of remote workforces and resources.  The conditions under which these workers must reproduce their value for the ownership classes begin to merge in the concept “environmental justice”.   We need ecumenical modeling which elaborates the interplay between the concatenated layers of oikoi.

Whatever happens outside the ecumene is obscene, taboo and terrifying because it threatens the fragile order we have cobbled together to enjoy and understand each other. We accept all the compromises, hypocrisies and trade-offs of our societies because they are better than being exposed to the whims of unsublimated Nature. Unlike other traditional belief systems, the great rationalism of Western civilization has made a sharp distinction with the greater unknown within which it has conjured a new Nature, a Human Nature of enormously satisfying and technically wondrous effects. Nevertheless always beyond the ever expanding frontiers of the Empire of Knowledge, unsublimatable otherness persists.

Understanding of our planet provided through our technologies will always be anthropomorphic artwork. Just like art work, the effects on the (human) environment, the interactions with (human) Nature with always be incompletely foreseeable, and knowable. Techno-industry organizes the environment in orderly arrays of human activity, the domestication we refer to as “peace”. However, even in the domain of human affairs, we can see that the peace is won at the expense of the dominated, and that the domination of the (human) environment creates unacceptable consequences of pollution, destruction and war which can not be externalized. The refugees surging at the illegitimate borders drawn across the world are part of, and must be given a fair share in the ecumene.



[1] Marshall McLuhan from “McLuhan Unbound” (2005) Ginkgo Press, Corte Madera (USA) p.22

[2] ibid, p.4


“the hidden aspect to the media are the things that should be taught because they haven’t irresistible force when invisible when that these factors you remain ignored an invisible a they have and absolute power over the user so yes the sooner that the population or the young or old can be taught the effects of these forms the sooner we can have some sorta reasonable ecologies among the media themselves what is desperately needed as a kind of understanding in the media which have been implemented to program the whole environment so that’s a literal values would not be wiped out by new media”

[4] Georgy Mikhaylovich Grechko (b. 1931) trained as a mathematician, later became a cosmonaut himself, making the first spacewalk in an Orlan space suit on December 20, 1977.

[5] the “eco-” of ecology, economy and ecumene is derived from the ancient Greek word for family, family’s property or house, in short, household: οἶκος “oikos” .  Ecology would then mean the words, language or theory of the household, economy would mean the rules or laws of the household,  οἰκουμενικός ecumenical refers to the “whole inhabited world”.

[6] Marianna Mazzucato is a prominent researcher on the theme of public sector innovation, see


“The planetary scale of the climate has finally been replicated in the planetary scale of our information systems, which encircle the globe. Both of these systems are, quite literally, out of control.

In the case of the weather, anthropogenic climate change is now irreversible, and is driving increasingly violent change, both within geophysical processes, and within societies. Climate-driven wars and mass migrations are already a reality, as are effects which can be experienced more immediately, such as increased turbulence in the atmosphere.

And yet, despite the direst warnings and desperate urgings of scientists, we seem unable to respond to this crisis. Writing in the New York Times, the founder of the Global Weather Corporation, a corporation using advanced data processing to improve weather prediction, forecasts “A New Dark Age”, in which the exponential disruptions produced by climate change drastically reduce our ability to predict the future. We will lack the tools and the understanding to deal with emergent, chaotic conditions, and the times we live in will be considered the point at which we passed through “peak knowledge” about the planet we live on. In response, the author proposes massive technological investment in weather monitoring and prediction: more data, more processing, more computational knowledge of the world. “

Benjamin Bratton, essay from his Cloud Index project

[8] Klein, Naomi, (2008) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books, New York.

Digital Materiality: Anthropomorphism & Political Economy

By now we have (in the previous articles in this series) seen that digital data is neither immaterial nor identically reproducible. Every instance of every bit of digital data is materially unique in time and space. However despite the fact that all digital data is in principle “knowable”, since it is produced by human activities, our understanding of it suffers from several, perhaps irremediable “scalar interpretation” problems.

a. digital information, on the surface on which it is usable by human beings, is reproduced at a regular rate according to the local electricity system. Each fraction of a second instance of, say, each pixel on a screen, is, in principle different, since the materiality of the screen technology is degrading, there are current variations etc. On the macro level of observable actions, human beings do not act at anything near 50 or 60 Hz, such frequencies are epistemically alien. Therefore, in order to understand what is happening at that speed of reproduction of digital data, the representation must be simplified, “abstracted” or slowed down.

b. digital information is electronic information stored and processed through volatile memory.  It must be reinstantiated at a regular rate to appear stable for anyone using or accessing it. The data is thus constantly reproduced while it is being consumed.This reproduction is carried out by automatons on the scale of chemical interaction, i.e. far below the wavelength of light perceptible by human vision. The structure of computational devices, CPUs, memory etc, is invisible and opaque to human beings and must be enlarged in order to enter into conventional epistemology. Typically this size amplification is carried out through microscopes. For very small components, microscopes which are not ‘scopes’ in the direct sense of optical devices, but tactile sensors, STM which feel around in the dark. The measurements of these sensors are transformed into numbers, charts and images, thousands of times larger than the phenomena they represent. The images which result are arbitrarily coloured and contoured to give the illusion of objects we might encounter with our unaided senses.[1]

“First only through this program do the data acquire an appearance, a surface and a depth. A form of shadow also appears in the images they show, which adds to the impression of plasticity. Such a shadow is naturally but a phantasm, it has nothing to do with the actual processes at play, how could there be shadows where there is no light?” [2]

Scientific concepts of quantum particles are appropriated or apprehended into necessarily holistic world views conditioned by personal empirical experience, informed by classical physical behaviour. In other words, though our perceptions constantly interface with the subatomic world, our empiricism is based of experience of the world in classical physics. This experience propagates holistic systems of significances, within which we situate and come to understand our contemporary conditions and find meaning.[3]

c. Again, digital data is produced and processed on the electronic i.e. subatomic scale, a realm of quantum behaviours which are alien to conventional time/space epistemology of human experience. Quantum physics behaviour must be translated to conventional physics behaviour in order for it to be “ex-plained” and “de-scribed” in human discourse. [4] This process of translation must resolve fundamental epistemological incompatibilities. Needless to say, information about quantum behaviour is profoundly disruptive to conventional notions of truth, fact and certainty. The media products we consume, however, though they are generated on the quantum level, maintain conventional truth criteria, importantly those of surplus value, profit, ROI and private property, and IP.

d. electronic information is sub-atomic, this means it instantiates valency and conductive chemical principles of the materials of the physical memory and transport structure. These materials must be of the highest chemical purity for the electronics to function as expected. Extreme metallurgical precision is required, involving enormous global infrastructure to take the ore from the ground and process it into the materials which can make up computational devices. Though the data is subatomic, the real estate, hardware, automated robots, specialized production and fabrication and assembly buildings, clean rooms, and personnel all operate on conventional (macro-)materiality subject to conventional economic pressures. This is not to mention all the intermediate forms of logistics, trucking, shipping, air cargo, rail, ports, airports, roads etc, and the electricity production grid the provisioning of which must be negotiated between governments, corporations, and various local and trans-local actors at human scale.

e. Conventional geo-politics with armies, paid militias and security details, pirates and police control massive worker populations in the mining industry where where not only the exotic essential so-called rare-earth metals required for electronics are sourced, but these human-scale manifestations of discipline and control also ensure the provisioning of the more abundant minerals such as copper and tin for integration into the electronics production chain. . There is also the feedback loop of the cyber.weapons/war industry where military research leads the digital technology innovation curve, establishing control over macro-political territory for economic gain.

Persistence of Anthropomorphism: Politics

Humans play an odd obsolescing medial role between the infinitesimal and immense of digital information. This is made more confusing by the fact that all the information we have about the information comes to us in forms (semantic) which are adapted to our epistemological predilections and habits.

This has enormous political, economic and cultural implications. The political science of democracy is a work in progress. There are and will perhaps always be powers which are exercised beyond the purview (and thereby the regulation) of a social body. In other words, government will always be inadequate to provide justice for all citizens. Unfortunately that inadequacy is opportunized by the most powerful, so it is fair to say that government always intervenes on the behalf of the powerful at the expense of all others. Under capitalism, the government always intervenes first in defence of private property. Digital technologies will never “solve”this endemic problem. In fact it could be argued that, due to the structural hegemonic “cyber-” (control) design priorities in the hardware which reproduce digital information, digital technologies cannot even be commandeered to serve the purposes of the many at the expense of an elite.

Digital technologies require enormous material resources to function. Nation-scale power grid, network cabling including submarine cables, server farms and data-centers.

In considering a nomos of the Cloud by counting the transoceanic fiber-optics also digging through the countryside, data centers buried deep in mountains near dams, the exotic minerals pulled from African rivers to make cell phones, alongside the engineered hallucinations of augmented reality, an inability to stay true to the dirt-venerating provincialism of Schmittian nomic priorities is seriously challenged. No workable distinction between ground and water, between Cloud infrastructure and Cloud interactivity as mapped across some spectrum from tangible to virtual, can survive much poking and prodding. Even so, there are nomic claims on the undetermined territory of the Cloud, as recent revelations regarding state surveillance programs and state versus state cyberwarfare make plain, for example. Even so, the residual confusion of jurisdictional divisions of land, sea, air, and cyber is itself worth mapping forensically. From its buzz and howl, perhaps alternative governmentalities for the decades that lie beyond might cohere.[5]

Even should a government be commandeered by the mass, the so-called “reconfiguration thesis” that somehow the digital infrastructure can be reappropriated to the advantage of the many, is unlikely.

“the use-value which the logistics industry produces is a set of protocols and techniques that enable firms to seek out the lowest wages anywhere in the world, and to evade the inconvenience of class struggle when it arises. In this sense, unlike other capitalist technologies, logistics is only partly about exploiting the efficiencies of machines in order to get products to market faster and more cheaply, since the main purpose of the faster and cheaper technologies is to offset the otherwise prohibitive cost of exploiting labour forces halfway around the world. The technological ensemble which logistics superintends is therefore fundamentally different than other ensembles such as the Fordist factory; it saves on labour costs by decreasing the wage, rather than increasing the productivity of labour. To put it in Marxist terms, it is absolute surplus value masquerading as relative surplus value. The use-value of logistics, for capital, is exploitation in its rawest form, and thus it is truly doubtful that logistics might form, as Toscano writes, “capitalism’s pharmakon, the cause for its pathologies (from the damaging hypertrophy of long-distance transport of commodities to the aimless sprawl of contemporary conurbation) as well as the potential domain of anti-capitalist solutions”.”[6]

The electronics production chain is over-determined by capitalist work-efficiency considerations and would have to be completely reconfigured from the bottom up to ever properly serve an emancipatory an egalitarian function. I have argued elsewhere that improved conditions at the base of the production chain would perhaps even make the production of digital technologies as we know them today impossible.[7] Contrarily, enormously creative, imaginative, inventive and innovative new forms of mitigating general want and caring for all according to their needs are likely to emerge from the emancipated poor of these places.

The illegitimate, misguided and failed “development” programs of the major international finance institutions WTO, WB, IMF, etc are simply the continuation of colonial industrial policy. They are holding half of the world back, and the returns are shrinking. International finance elites, as they proselytize a new universe of data prosperity based on “immaterial data”, squeeze enormous profits from the desperate poor by taunting them with house ownership, the “American” dream and visions of autonomous entrepreneurial tycoonery.

Data is not immaterial “there is no cloud only someone else’s computer” [8]. The stack is owned physically and encircled with barbed wire and hired mercenaries and guards. You cannot go there. Unaccountable financial elites hide behind governments and play one government against each other to their advantage. Local laws are there first and foremost to protect private property. Citizens are thus still in the position described by Marx in 1868: their freedom is that of the freedom to sell their labour to capital on the market.  The pittance they receive for their invaluable participation in socially necessary production is even pre-emptively expropriated by an unfair and fraudulent  commercial regimes  on all the socially necessary reproduction costs: food, shelter etc.  The object is to monopolize people and control their behaviour, not only in the present, but as far as possible into the future, so an every increasing part of the value they produce can be appropriated.




[1] The question of arbitrary selection of “relevant details” in scientific illustration is the theme of the excellent “Objectivity”   Galison, P. Daston, L.: (2007) Objectivity. Zone, Brooklyn

[2]  Nordmann. A. Et al. Hrsg.: (2006) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. Akademische Verlagsgesellscha , Berlin p.106

[3] Gottlieb, B. (2016) “A Political Economy of the Smallest Things” ATROPOS, New York, p. 61

[4] Excellent on this is Brigitta Falkenburg’s (2007) Particle Metaphysics. Springer, Berlin

[5] Bratton, B. “The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty” MIT Press Cambridge  p.49

[6] see Jasper Bernes “Logistics, Counter-logistics and the Communist Prospect”


a heavy heaving freedom

  “were programs, strategies and practices to become prevalent which could sustain other less-hegemonic conditions of production, such forms of productions will likely not be able to supply us with the same technological devices, and same techno-scientific vectors we are persistently informed are the unique guarantee of our survival as a species. We will increasingly need to rely on much more involving and troubling things, possibly somewhat less convenient but potentially even more breath-takingly fulfilling and redeeming. We will need to rely more on eachother.”

[8] slogan of the Free Software Foundation of Europe  there is no cloud...