textere

1) beneficence: duties to maintain health and prevent disease and death;
2) efficiency: slowing down aging would reduce the rates for all of the most common causes of death in developed societies;
3) limited autonomy: freedom to purchase anti-aging medicines that may or may not work, so long as they are not harmful;
4) improved quality of life: more active, healthier, and wiser (two propositions supporting this argument - that anti-aging medicine would allow for a longer, more active, healthier, and fuller life and that wisdom comes from experience, not senescence - are also presented and evaluated). The arguments in favor of anti-aging medicine are found to be more compelling than the arguments against it. The paper concludes with the recommendation that anti-aging medicine should be funded and regulated in ways that facilitate its potential both to reduce the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and to allow for longer, fuller, and more meaningful lives.

there is no cutting,
folding, or turning down, but
multiplications according to the growing dimensions
method of probabilities rather
than a game of chance; and second, it happens
between persons rather than between ideas

Model of unconscious desiring-production: giant egg [=body w/o organs] traversed by lines [=desiring-machines], with wandering point [=nomadic subject].

1.desiring-machines:
a.psychological: fragmented body connected to parts of world
b.psychoanalytic: partial objects
c.logical: connective synthesis: and ... and then ...
d.social: production proper: production of production

2.body w/o organs:
a.psychological: catatonia
b.psychoanalytic: death instinct, paranoia
c.logical: disjunctive synthesis: either ... or ... or
d.social: recording [=distribution and exchange]: anti-production

3.nomadic subject:
a.psychological: multiple personality
b.psychoanalytic:
c.logical: conjunctive synthesis: so it's ...
d.social: consumption: production of consumption-consummation

before we waste too much time on your flame bait, I'm placing you
under moderation.
(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)

ssif
ication
of text i nto several c
ategories (e.g. spam/n
on-spam email messages)

GG gets jumped by his just yukka

Cherri Clip of Baby Fight
This his Gynecology 1
God japs really fucking cute. You

Erection cut it for some must such tight tight pants!
Category: Iraqi how feels about it.
Category: meant but he sure did!
Category: lesbian erotic

Shark & no Tea
Bra sniffing, japs
Surprisingly the small kid abandoned Cadillac with a on Allin Fight
GG Shitter begging for Hepatitis! Quality I'll her later...
Category: erotic of eye hurts!
Category: fights is

Riley
This chick on Injection

Viagra just kinda hard to fight
A and then tells the to seriously hurt this
28 porn! This is good fucking money shot.
Category: yukka The

Highschool Fight fatass.
Category:
Some kids blow up Babes the beach!
Category: plugs loving
This skank is 1 post some better clips kid a fight claiming that damn, wrong with their vaginas!?!?
Category: can this website.
Category: smut of

Punk Fight
It fights soldier kills a wounded violent
I don't think he fights minutes of real homemade Whale whale. Too bad there's piss Japs got it all.
Category: holds fights

Cadillac Bomb homemade
Sexy topless chicks Allin fans!
Category: fights

Cunt degradation.
Category:
This is Cherri.

Cry cries his way out

Jap what in the fuck is see more of her doesn't the older folks!
Category: yukka in

Wounded Iraqi camera

It Kinda Hurts kid,

Amateur Lesbians shit!
Category:
That's one big

Tampon drinking, and tampon tea. his ground against the an bomb!

36074 Views 51 Comments

“你寻求由物品填装所有不满情绪，并且所有问题很快仅被察觉象缺乏物品。“

“当你不可能设法铭记其他和由什么获取他们的尊敬你是，并且，因为你达到; 当你有一点尊敬自己， 当缺乏这种感觉根本有它的地方在公司中， 有角色演奏那里和是重要的那里为其他， 投掷粉末的一个测试与眼睛由你想要伸长的财产。 许多为我们被提供答复这个浮华作用的对象： 汽车， 豪华衣物， 等“

“多少生态学测量被测量希腊calends，因为他们的应用可能危害经济复兴。“

“电视不留给时间反射; 它强加用力量我们没有时间批评的它的图象。“

“简单的生活 = 较少消耗量 为个人发展。"

facilitating global rights culture, a global culture of consent, universal basic health care, lifelong education, global basic income guarantees, strengthening and democratizing the United Nations, and such --

I see signs of overconfidence in the younger supporters of healthy life extension; that is good if it drives action, but complacency would be the death of all of us if it spread. We have a chance, a shot at radical life extension. We have to contribute, all of us, or it will slip from between our fingers.

Mais ce qu'on appelle une vie heureuse c'est faire tout ce qu'on peut, et ça Spinoza le dit formellement, pour précisément conjurer les morts prématurées, c'est à dire empêcher les morts prématurées. ça veut dire quoi? Pas du tout empêcher la mort, mais faire que la mort, lorsqu'elle survient, ne concerne finalement que la plus petite partie de moi-même. Voilà je crois, tel qu'il voyait, expérimentait et sentait les choses. Est-ce que vous avez des questions à poser, des réactions? Pas de théorie, rien que du sentiment!

Codework is a practice, not a product.

It is praxis, part and parcel of the critique of everyday life.

It is not canonic, although it is taken as such.

It is not a genre, although it is taken as such.

The term is relatively new and should always be renewed.

We are suffused with code and its intermingling with surface phenomena.

Wave-trains of very low frequency radio pulses for example.

Phenomenology of chickadee calls.

Codework is not a metaphor, not metaphorical.

It exists precisely in the obdurate interstice between the real and the
symbolic. It exists in the arrow.

It is not a set of procedures or perceptions. It is the noise in the
system. It is not the encapsulation or object of the noise or the system.

It is continuous; it is parasitic; it is thetic.

When it becomes metaphor, masterpiece, artwork, it is still-born; it is
of no interest except as cultural residue: it is of great interest to
critics, gallerists, editors.

When it is not collectible, not a thing, virtual or otherwise, it is not
of interest to critics, gallerists, editors.

Things have already taken up its name, as if pictures in an exhibition.

This is nothing more than the continuous reification, territorialization,
conquest, of the real - as if the real were always already cleansed,
available for the taking - as if the real were already transformed into
capital.

Capital is the encapsulation, objectification, of code. Capital drives the
code-conference, the code-book, the code-movement, the code-artist, the
code-masterpiece; capital drives the technology.

In short: Capital drives code into metaphor.

In short: Metaphor drives code into capital.

In short, but of greater difficulty: Capital drives metaphor into code.

In production, simpler: Metaphor drives capital into code.

The driving of metaphor, code, or capital is not codework.

Codework is the labor of code, subject to thermodynamics.

Codework is demonstrative, demonstrative fragment, experiment, partial-
inscription, partial-object, the _thing_ prior to its presentation, the
linguistic kernel of the pre-linguistic. Code is the thetic, the gestural,
of the demonstrative.

It the gesture that never quite takes. It is the noise inherent in the
gestural.

However: Codework will become a _subject_ or a _sub-genre_ or a _venue_ or
an _artwork_ or an _artist_ or a _dealer_ or a _collector._ However: This
is not codework, or: What I describe above is not codework; after all,
names are subsumed beneath the sign (Emblematic) of capital - as if
something is being accomplished. (Hackers who are not hackers are
unhacked.)

To code is not to produce codework; it is to produce code on the level of
the code or interface. Bridged code, embedded code, is not codework; the
irreversible spew of cellular automata is codework, all the better if the
rules are noisy. The cultural production of codework abjures intensifica-
tions, strange attractors, descriptions such as this (which is the oldest
game in the _book_). The hunt and reception of short-wave number codes is
codework. Writers on the edge are circumscribed by codework, malfunctioned
psychoanalytics, scatologies. Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Blacks, are endlessly
coded and decoded; the codes are dissolute, partial, always already incom-
plete: the differend is codework.

To speak against the differend is codework; tumors are codework, metas-
tases. The useless sequences of DNA, RNA.

Be wary of the violence of the legible text. Beware the metaphor which
institutionalizes, the text which defines, the text of positivities, not
negations, the circumscribing text, inscribing text; beware of the
producers and institutions of these texts, whose stake is in hardening of
definitions, control, capital, slaughter: Texts slaughter.

And texts slaughter texts.

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: sondheim codework
Page 1
“Codework”—the computer stirring into
the text, and the text stirring the computer. This
special topic presents several reviews of the
current state of a literary avant-garde concerned
with the intermingling of human and machine.
“Code” can refer to just about anything that
combines tokens and syntax to represent a
domain. In a sense, natural language encodes the
“real,” gives us the ability to move in environ-
ments constantly undergoing transformation. In
a narrower sense, code refers to a translation
from natural language to an artificial, strictly
defined one; the syntax of Morse code, for
example, has no room for anomalies or
fuzziness. Computer programming gener-ally
requires strictly defined codes that stand in for
operations that occur “deeper” in the machine.
Most users work on or within graphic surfaces
that are intricately connected to the program-
ming “beneath”; they have little idea how or
why their machines work.
For thousands of years, writers have, again
in general, taken their tools—taken writing
itself—for granted. Even Sterne and Carroll
work within traditional means. The computer
and Internet, however, have opened up a whole
(and indefinable) world of possibilities. These
range from writing itself to multimedia, and
from writing-on-the-surface—traditional writing
or hypertext—to texts, dynamic or static, that
reflect the bones, the molecules and atoms, of
programming and protocols—even the bones of
the user’s computer, which may be accessed by
various programs. I see codework as at least one
future of writing—in part, it’s prosthetic, an
uneasy combination of contents and structures.
Using the metaphor of a tree, codework can
be placed within a very rough taxonomy as
follows:
a. Works using the syntactical interplay of
surface language, with reference to computer
language and engagement. These works may
Codework
Introduction:
Alan Sondheim,
Focus Editor
playfully utilize programming terminology and
syntax; they don’t necessarily refer to specific
programs. Examples include multi-media and
hypertextual works—they’re the leaves and
bouquet of the tree, the efflorescence. I think of
Mez’s work in this regard, some of Antiorp’s
style (but see below), and some of the Internet
Relay Chat jargon endemic in various chats.
b. Works in which submerged code has
modified the surface language—with the
possible representation of the code as well.
Here we have the potential for continuous
surface deformations. They’re the tendrils and
branchings of the tree, half surface and half
root. Some of my own work fits here, as does
the work of Ted Warnell. The language be-
comes increasingly unreadable at times; it’s the
result of a group of processes and catalysts that
may or may not be reworked. (I think of Talan
Memmott’s work between a and b here.)
c. Works in which the submerged code is
emergent content; these are both a
deconstruction of the surface and of the di-
chotomy between the surface and the depth. I
think of Antiorp’s and JODI’s dynamic sites for
classic examples. These works are the
rhizomatic roots of the tree (I recognize the
botanic problem here). In order to understand
what’s going on, it helps to look at source code
(which can be part of the content).
“C” can also refer to aleatoric or random-
ized work—haiku, language, or other poetry/
poetic generators. Sometimes the work only
appears randomized, and some times it’s
entirely out of control. I think of John Cayley’s
work here.
All of these categories move between
static productions (which may or may not
Code refers to a translation from
natural language to an artificial,
strictly defined one.
From ABR, September/October 2001, Volume 22, Issue 6
Page 2
be the residue, reworked residue, or
simulacrum of programs and/or program
output) and dynamic processes—movement on
the screen, within or without the traditional
window or other
framework. Some-
times the computer
crashes, especially
with category c—and
that’s part of the
work, part of the
process.
I’m excited by
all of this. It leads to
vast uncharted do-
mains (if that’s still a
usable term) of new
and future litera-
tures—domains that
recognize the vast changes that have occurred
in human/machine interaction—changes that
affect the very notions of community and
communality. Some of this work depends on
network distribution; some of it works prima-
rily with a lone user at his or her computer. The
works themselves may often be created through
collaboration: no one really knows if Antiorp/
Integer/etc. is one or many people; Mez uses a
pseudonym; and I work with a number of
“emanants,” characters who are part me, part
themselves, part machine.
This special topic presents five essays
dealing with codework. Belinda Barnet writes
on Ted Nelson’s projects; Nelson is a pioneer
in thinking about linked work, and his work is
increasingly important. Beatrice Beaubien
writes on Mez and Antiorp (nn / NN), present-
ing a text of practice and theory that opens new
grounds for thinking through their work.
Florian Cramer focuses on the nature of
software, code, and the writing subject; the
historic elements—thinking through Henry
Flynt and Donald Knuth, for example—are
critical to current
work. Talan Memmott
focuses on both the
nature of codework
and a number of
artists/writers—Ted
Warnell and Brian
Lennon, among
others. He focuses on
inscription and else-
where has been
developing a phenom-
enology of codework.
McKenzie Wark
discusses precursors to codework as well as
extended writing; his examples include Mez,
JODI, Kenji Siratori, and myself.
I find these essays brilliant; they give a
variety of theoretical approaches to a body
of difficult work. They also extend
codework itself into territories of more
traditional media and the history of writing.
I can only hope this introduction does them
justice.
Alan Sondheim is Associate Editor of Beehive, co-
moderates the Wryting and Cybermind e-mail lists,
is teaching at Florida International University,
lives in Brooklyn and Miami, has been working
on the Internet Text at http://www.anu.edu.au/
English/internet_txt, was the Trace on-line writing
community’s second virtual writer-in-residence,
and makes video/sound work on the side.
“Virus 2” by Alan Sondheim

SCHOOL BUS= A DIRTY FEMALE (EVERYONE GETS A RIDE)

untitled.jpg

SCHOOL BUS=A DIRTY HOE(EVERYBODY GETS A RIDE)

NAST= SOMETHING THAT IS BAD

SPANK= SOMETHING VERY COOL

TRASH CANS=NICE REAR END

CD PLAYER: WHO KNOWS?

David M. Berry & Jo Pawlik

The two of us wrote this article together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. We have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have been aided, inspired multiplied.[1]

JP: Code is described as many things: it is a cultural logic, a machinic operation or a process that is unfolding. It is becoming,
today's hegemonic metaphor; inspiring quasi-semiotic investigations within cultural and artistic practice (e.g. The Matrix). No-one leaves before it has set its mark on them...

DB: Yes, it has become a narrative, a genre, a structural feature of contemporary society, an architecture for our technologically
controlled societies (e.g. Lessig) and a tool of technocracy and of capitalism and law (Ellul/Winner/Feenberg). It is both metaphor and reality, it serves as a translation between different discourses and spheres, DNA code, computer code, code as law, cultural code, aristocratic code, encrypted code (Latour).

JP: Like the code to nourish you? Have to feed it something too.

DB: Perhaps. I agree that code appears to be a defining discourse of our postmodernity. It offers both explanation and saviour, for example, the state as machine, that runs a faulty form of code that can be rewritten and re-executed. The constitution as a microcode, law as code. Humanity as objects at the mercy of an inhuman code.

JP: True and it gathers together a disturbing discourse of the elect. Code as intellectual heights, an aristocratic elect who can free information and have a wisdom to transform society without the politics, without nations and without politicians. Code becomes the lived and the desired. Both a black box and a glass box. Hard and unyielding and simultaneously soft and malleable.

DB: Code seems to follow information into a displaced subjectivity, perhaps a new and startling subject of history that is merely a reflection of the biases, norms and values of the coding elite. More concerning, perhaps, code as walls and doors of the prisons and workhouses of the 21st Century. Condemned to make the amende honorable before the church of capital.

JP: So, we ask what is code? Not expecting to find answers, but rather to raise questions. To survey and map realms that are yet to come (AO:5). The key for us lies in code's connectivity, it is a semiotic-chain, rhizomatic (rather like a non-hierarchical network of nodes) and hence our map must allow for it to be interconnected from anything to anything. In this investigation, which we know might sometimes be hard to follow, our method imitates that outlined by Deleuze & Guattari in Anti-Oedipus (2004). It will analyse by decentering it onto other dimensions, and other registers (AO:8). We hope that you will view this article as a 'little machine' (AO: 4), itself something to be read slowly, or fast, so that you can take from it whatever comes your way. It does not ask the question of where code stops and the society starts, rather it forms a tracing of the code-society or the society-code.

DB: Dystopian and utopian, both can cling like Pincher Martin to code. Code has its own apocalyptic fictions; crashes and bugs, Y2K and corruption. It is a fiction that is becoming a literary fiction (Kermode). We wish to stop it becoming a myth, by questioning code and asking it uncomfortable questions. But by our questioning we do not wish to be considered experts or legislators, rather we want to ask again who are the 'Gods' of the information age (Heidegger). By drawing code out and stretching it out, we hope to make code less mysterious, less an 'unconcealment that is concealed' (Heidegger).

JP: Perhaps to ask code and coders to think again about the way in which they see the world, to move from objects to things, and practice code as poetry (poeisis). Rather than code as ordering the world, fixing and overcoding. Code as a craft, 'bringing-forth' through a showing or revealing that is not about turning the world into resources to be assembled, and reassembled forever.

DB: And let us not forget the debt that code owes to war and government. It has a bloody history, formed from the special projects of the cold war, a technological race, that got mixed up with the counter-culture but still fights battles on our behalf. He laid aside his sabre. And with a smile he took my hand.

--Code as concept--

DB: A stab in the dark. To start neither at the beginning or the end, but in the middle: code is pure concept instantiated into the languages of machines. Coding is the art of forming, inventing and fabricating structures based on these languages. Structures that constrain use as well as free. The coder is the friend of the code, the potentiality of the code, not merely forming, inventing and fabricating code but also desiring. The electric hymn book that Happolati invented. With electric letters that shine in the dark?

JP: And what of those non-coders who use code, or rather are used by code instead of forming it? Code can enable but it can also repress. Deleuze believes that we live in a society of control and that code is part 'of the numerical language of control' requiring of us passwords, user names, and the completion of form fields to either grant or deny access to information, goods and services (1992).

DB: Yes, code becomes the unavoidable boundary around which no detour exists in order to participate fully in modern life. It is ubiquitous. Formatted by code, harmonised with the language of machines, our life history, tastes, preferences and personal details become profiles, mailing lists, data and ultimately markets. Societies of control regulate their population by ensuring their knowing and unknowing participation in the marketplace through enforced compatibility with code. Watch over this code! Let me see some code!

JP: But there is no simple code. Code is production and as such is a machine. Every piece of code has components and is defined by them. It is a multiplicity although not every multiplicity is code. No code is a single component because even the first piece of code draws on others. Neither is there code possessing all components as this would be chaos. Every piece of code has a regular contour defined by the sum of its components. The code is whole because it totalises the components, but it remains a fragmentary whole.

DB: Code aborescent. Plato's building agile, object-oriented and postmodern codes under the spreading chestnut tree.

JP: But computers are not the only machines that use code. Deleuze believes that everything is a machine, or to be more precise every machine is a machine of a machine. By this he means that every machine is connected to another by a flow, whether this flow is air, information, water, desire etc. which it interrupts, uses, converts and then connects with another machine.

DB: I agree that human beings are nothing more than an assemblage of several machines linked to other machines, though century's worth of history have us duped into thinking otherwise.

JP: But, does every machine have a code built into it which determines the nature of its relations with other machines and their outputs? How else would we know whether to swallow air, suffocate on food or drink sound waves? There is even a social machine, whose task it is to code the flows that circulate within it. To apportion wealth, to organise production and to record the particular constellation of linked up flows that define its mode of being.

DB: Up to this point, code is verging towards the deterministic or the programmatic, dependent upon some form of Ur-coder who might be synonymous with God, with the Despot, with Nature, depending on to whom you attribute the first and last words.

JP: But Deleuze delimits a way of scrambling the codes, of flouting the key, which enables a different kind of de/en-coding to take place and frees us from a pre-determined input-output, a=b matrix. Enter Desire. Enter Creativity. Enter the Schizo. Enter capitalism? You show them you have something that is really profitable, and then there will be no limits to the recognition of your ability.

--Code as Schizo--

DB: Deleuze & Guattari warned us that the Schizo ethic was not a revolutionary one, but a way of surviving under capitalism by producing fresh desires within the structural limits of capitalism. Where will the revolution come from?

JP: It will be a decoded flow, a 'deterritorialised flow that runs too far and cuts too sharply'. D & G hold that art and science have a revolutionary potential. Code, like art and science, causes increasingly decoded and deterritorialised flows to circulate in the socius. To become more complicated, more saturated. A few steps away a policeman is observing me; he stands in the middle of the street and doesn't pay attention to anything else.

DB: But, code is bifurcated between a conceptual and a functional schema, an 'all encompassing wisdom [=code]'. Concepts and functions appear as two types of multiplicities or varieties whose natures are different. Using the Deluezean concept of Demon which indicates, in philosophy as well as science, not something that exceeds our possibilities but a common kind of these necessary intercessors as respective 'subjects' of enunciation: the philosophical friend, the rival, the idiot, the overman are no less demons that Maxwell's demon or than Einstein's or Heisenberg’s observers. (WIP: 129). Our eyes meet as I lift my head; maybe he had been standing there for quite a while just watching me.

JP: Do you know what time it is?

HE: Time? Simple Time?... Great time, mad time, quite bedeviled time, in which the fun waxes fast and furious, with heaven-high leaping and springing and again, of course, a bit miserable, very miserable indeed, I not only admit that, I even emphasise it, with pride, for it is sitting and fit, such is artist-way and artist-nature.

--Code and sense perception--

DB: In code the role of the partial coder is to perceive and to experience, although these perceptions and affections might not be those of the coder, in the currently accepted sense, but belong to the code. Does code interpolate the coder, or only the user? Ideal partial observers are the perceptions or sensory affections of code itself manifested in functions and 'functives', the code crystallised affect.

JP: Maybe the function in code determines a state of affairs, thing or body that actualises the virtual on a plane of reference and in a system of co-ordinates, a dimensional classification; the concept in code expresses an event that gives consistency to the virtual on a plane of immanence and in an ordered form.

DB: Well, in each case the respective fields of coding find themselves marked out by very different entities but that nonetheless exhibit a certain analogy in their task: a problem. Is this a world-directed perspective'code as an action facing the world?

JP: Does that not consisting in failing to answer a question? In adapting, in co-adapting, with a higher taste as problematic faculty, are corresponding elements in the process being determined? Do we not replicate the chains of equivalence, allowing the code, to code, so to speak, how we might understand it?

DB: Coders are writers, and every writer is a sellout. But an honest joy/Does itself destroy/For a harlot coy.

JP: We might ask ourselves the following question: is the software coder a scientist? A philosopher? Or an artist? Or a schizophrenic?

AL: For me the only code is that which places an explosive device in its package, fabricating a counterfeit currency. Which in part the knowing children sang to me.

Dr. K: This man is mad. There has been for a long time no doubt of it, and it is most regrettable that in our circle the profession of alienist is not represented. I, as a numismatist, feel myself entirely incompetent in this situation.

DB: For Deleuze, the ascription of these titles exceeds determining whether the tools of the trade in question are microscopes and test- tubes, cafes and cigarettes, or easels and oil-paints. Rather they identify the kind of thinking that each group practices. Latour claimed that if you gave him a laboratory he could move the world. Maybe prosopopoeia is part of the answer, he should ask code what it thinks.

JP: But not just the kind of thinking, but the kind of problems which this thought presupposes, and the nature of the solutions that it can provide. To ask under which category the coder clicks her mouse is to question whether she is creating concepts as opposed to dealing in functives like a scientist, or generating percepts and affects like an artist.

DB: If you're actually going to love technology, you have to give up sentimental slop, novels sprinkled with rose water. All these stories of efficient, profitable, optimal, functional technologies.

JP: Who said I wanted to love technology?

DB: The philosopher loves the concept. The artist, the affect. Do the coders love the code?

JP: If we say that code is a concept, summoning into being or releasing free software as an event, the coder is cast first and
foremost as a philosopher. The coder, as philosopher, could neither love nor covet her code prior to its arrival. It must take her by surprise. For the philosopher, or more specifically the conceptual personae through whom concepts come to pass and are given voice, (Deleuze does not strictly believe in the creativity of an individual ego), Deleuze reserves a privileged role in the modern world which is so woefully lacking in creation and in resistance to the present. He writes: 'The creation of concepts in itself calls for a future form, for a new earth and people that do not yet exist' (1994, 108). Deleuze would hope this future form would be recognizable by virtue of its dislocation from the present.

DB: If the software coder really is a philosopher, what kind of a future is free software summoning and who are the new people who might later exist?

JP: Thanks to computers, we now know that there are only differences of degree between matter and texts. In fact, ever since a literary happy few started talking about 'textual machines' in connection with novels, it has been perfectly natural for machines to become texts written by novelists who are as brilliant as they are anonymous (Latour). But then is there no longer any difference between humans and nonhumans.

DB: No, but there is no difference between the spirit of machines and their matter, either; they are souls through and through (Latour).

JP: But don't the stories tell us that machines are purported to be pure, separated from the messy world of the real? Their internal
world floating in a platonic sphere, eternal and perfect. Is the basis of their functioning deep within the casing numbers ticking
over numbers, overflowing logic registers and memory addresses?

DB: I agree. Logic is often considered the base of code. Logic is reductionist not accidentally but essentially and necessarily; it
wants to turn concepts into functions. In becoming propositional, the conceptual idea of code loses all the characteristics it possessed as a concept: its endoconsistency and its exoconsistency. This is because of a regime of independence that has replaced that of inseparability, the code has enframed the concept.

--Code as science--

DB: Do you think a real hatred inspires logic's rivalry with, or its will to supplant, the concept? Deleuze thought 'it kills the concept twice over'.

JP: The concept is reborn not because it is a scientific function and not because it is a logical proposition: it does not belong to a discursive system and it does not have a reference. The concept shows itself and does nothing but show itself. Concepts are really monsters that are reborn from their fragments.

DB: But how does this relate to the code, and more specifically to free software and free culture? Can we say that this is that
summoning? Can the code save us?

JP: Free software knows only relations of movement and rest, of speed and slowness, between unformed, or relatively unformed, elements, molecules or particles borne away by fluxes. It knows nothing of subjects but rather singularities called events or haecceities. Free software is a machine but a machine that has no beginning and no end. It is always in the middle, between things. Free software is where things pick up speed, a transversal movement, that undermines its banks and accelerates in the middle. But that is not to say that capital does not attempt to recode it, reterritorialising its flows within the circuits of capital.

DB: A project or a person is here only definable by movements and rests, speeds and slowness (longitude) and by affects, intensities (latitude). There are no more forms, but cinematic relations between unformed elements; there are no more subjects but dynamic individuations without subjects, which constitute collective assemblages. Nothing develops, but things arrive late or in advance, and enter into some assemblage according to their compositions of speed. Nothing becomes subjective but haecceities take shape according to the compositions of non-subjective powers and effects. Maps of speeds and intensities (e.g. Sourceforge).

JP: We have all already encountered this business of speeds and slowness: their common quality is to grow from the middle, to be always in-between; they have a common imperceptible, like the vast slowness of massive Japanese wrestlers, and all of a sudden, a decisive gesture so swift that we didn't see it.

DB: Good code, Bad code. Deleuze asks: 'For what do private property, wealth, commodities, and classes signify'? and answers: 'The breakdown of codes' (AO, 218). Capitalism is a generalized decoding of flows. It has decoded the worker in favour of abstract labour, it has decoded the family, as a means of consumption, in favour of interchangeable, faceless consumers and has decoded wealth in favour of abstract, speculative, merchant capital. In the face of this, it is difficult to know if we have too much code or too little and what the criteria might be by which we could make qualitative distinctions between one type of code and another, such as code as concept and code as commodity.

JP: We could suggest that the schizophrenic code (i.e. the schizophrenic coding as a radical politics of desire) could seek to
de-normalise and de-individualise through a multiplicity of new, radical collective arrangements against power. Perhaps a radical hermeneutics of code, code as locality and place, a dwelling.

DB: Not all code is a dwelling. Bank systems, facial recognition packages, military defence equipment and governmental monitoring software is code but not a dwelling. Even so, this code is in the domain of dwelling. That domain extends over this code and yet is not limited to the dwelling place. The bank clerk is at home on the bank network but does not have shelter there; the working woman is at home on the code but does not have a dwelling place there; the chief engineer is at home in the programming environment but does not dwell there. This code enframes her. She inhabits them and yet does not
dwell in them.

--Code as art--

JP: You are right to distinguish between code as 'challenging-forth' (Heidegger) and code that is a 'bringing-forth'. The code that is reterritorialised is code that is proprietary and instrumental, has itself become a form of 'standing-reserve'.

DB: So how are we to know when code is a 'bringing-forth'? How will we know if it is a tool for conviviality. How will we distinguish between the paranoiac and the schizophrenic?

JP: We know, that the friend or lover of code, as claimant does not lack rivals. If each citizen lays claim to something then we need to judge the validity of claims. The coder lays claim to the code, and the corporation, and the lawyer, who all say, 'I am the friend of code'. First it was the computer scientists who exclaimed 'This is our concern, we are the scientists!'. Then it was the turn of the lawyers, the journalists and the state chanting 'Code must be domesticated and nationalised!' Finally the most shameful moment came when companies seized control of the code themselves 'We are the friends of code, we put it in our computers, and we sell it to anyone'. The only code is functional and the only concepts are products to be sold. But even now we see the lawyers agreeing with the corporations, we must control the code, we must regulate the code, the code must be paranoiac.

DB: This is perhaps the vision offered by William Gibson's Neuromancer, a dystopian realization of the unchecked power of multinational corporations which, despite the efforts of outlaw subcultures, monopolize code. Through their creation of AI entities code becomes autonomous, it exceeds human control. If indeed it makes sense to retain the term human, which Gibson pejoratively substitutes with 'meat'. The new human-machinic interfaces engendered by software and technological development demand the jettisoning of received categories of existence as they invent uncanny new ones.

JP: This is the possibility of code. The code as a war machine. Nomadic thought. The code as outsider art, the gay science, code as desiring-production, making connections, to ever new connections.

DB: Code can be formed into networks of singularities into machines of struggle. As Capital de-territorializes code there is the potential through machines to re-territorialize. Through transformative constitutive action and network sociality in other words the multitude-code can be deterritorializing, it is multiplicity and becoming, it is an event. Code is becoming nomadic.

JP: This nomadic code upsets and exceeds the criteria of representational transparency. According to Jean Baudrillard, the omnipresence of code in the West—DNA, binary, digital—enables the production of copies for which there are no originals. Unsecured and cut adrift from the 'reality' which representation has for centuries prided itself on mirroring, we are now in the age of simulation. The depiction of code presents several difficulties for writers, who, in seeking to negotiate the new technological landscape, must somehow bend the representational medium of language and the linear process of reading to accommodate the proliferating ontological and spatio-temporal relations that code affords.

DB: This tension is as palpable in Gibson's efforts to render cyberspace in prose (he first coined the term in Neuromancer) as it is on the book cover, where the flat 2D picture struggles to convey the multi-dimensional possibilities of the matrix. The aesthetics of simulation, the poetics of cyberspace and of hyperreality are, we might say, still under construction.

JP: Perhaps code precludes artistic production as we know it. Until the artist creates code and dispenses with representational media altogether, is it possible that her work will contribute only impoverished, obsolete versions of the age of simulation?

DB: Artists have responded to 'code' as both form and content. As form, we might also think of code as 'genre', the parodying of which has become a staple in the postmodern canon. Films such as 'The Scream' series, 'The Simpsons', or 'Austin Powers';
flaunt and then subvert the generic codes upon which the production and interpretation of meaning depends. More drastically, Paul Auster sets his 'New York Trilogy' in an epistemological dystopia in which the world does not yield to rational comprehension as the genre of detective fiction traditionally demands. If clues are totally indistinguishable from (co)incidental detail, how can the detective guarantee a resolution, how can order be restored? As Auster emphasizes, generic codes and aesthetic form underwrite ideological assumptions and can be described as the products of specific social relations.

JP: And what of code as content? Like the 'Matrix'. Here is a film which has latched onto the concept of code and also its discussion in contemporary philosophy, almost smugly displaying its dexterity in handling both.

DB: Or 'I Heart Huckabees' with its unfolding of a kind of existential code that underlies human reality. Are our interpretations shifting to an almost instrumental understanding of code as a form of weak structuralism? Philosophy as mere code, to be written, edited and improved, turned into myth so that our societies can run smoothly.

JP: The hacker stands starkly here. If code can be hacked, then perhaps we should drop a monkey-wrench in the machine, or sugar in the petrol tank of code? Can the philosopher be a model for the hacker or the hacker for the philosopher? Or perhaps the hacker, with the concentrations on the smooth, efficient hacks, might not be the best model. Perhaps the cracker is a better model for the philosophy of the future. Submerged, unpredictable and radically decentred. Outlaw and outlawed.

DB: Perhaps. But then perhaps we must also be careful of the fictions that we both read and write. And keep the radical potentialities of code and philosophy free.

Wet with fever and fatigue we can now look toward the shore and say goodbye to where the windows shone so brightly.

other college phrases: "creative destruction," ceteris paribus.
quo vadis
res Arcadia ego"
Drang nach Osten
das dritte Reich
Lebensraum
Kulturkampf
sturm und drang
Bildungsroman
ts: mise only thing that anyone ever knows about Thomas Kuhn)
contraposto, of suture.
see also: scopophilia, female as to-be-looked-at
vigo, spengler, 'history class, whenever you see some statistic being thrown around whether it's being distorted or not."

BOOLEAN HIERARCHY
IMPLICIT PARALLELISM, MUTUAL EXCLUSION, SEMAPHORE, ATOMIC OPERATION, (the dude who came up w/ the term "conspicuous the long run, we are all dead!")
joseph schumpeter (the friedman
john kenneth galbraith
james buchanan
paul krugman

economics -- the coase theorem!
- ("OMG the limits of Western knowledge!!!")
semiotics
"to-be-looked-at-ness"
"queering of the..."
phallo(go)centric
third worldIST
the of choice here)
systems of signification
the uncanny
convergence, constructionism/essentialism, the digital ddd

320 240

the Nacirema
search: the pareto principle (aka "the 20/80 rule") theory
prisoners' dilemna
the phrases "moveable feast" (lit. majors) and "rational Hammadi library,
'The Fly Is About AIDS',
Dziga Vertov, is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." or something like ipsa loquitur
exclusio unius
Weltschmerz
Weltanschuung
Götterdämmerung
vis-a-vis, ergo, QED
ars longa, vita brevis...
"Et in en scene vs. mise en place
pronunciamento
"paradigm shift" (often the chiaroscuro,
ionic, doric, corinthian.
the glass ceiling
see also: phallic camera, theory moves in discreet cycles'
Tristam Shandy."
sublimation
projection
Herodotus, Thucydides, Gibbon
performativity
"After this to make a point, you'll be able to tell FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING, TAIL-RECURSIVE FUNCTION, MEMORY COHERENCY MODEL, FINITE-STATE MACHINE,

EXPONENTIAL BACK-OFF

adam smith
thomas malthus
david ricardo
karl marx
leon walras
henry george
thorstein veblen consumption")
arthur pigou
john maynard keynes (the guy who said "in dude who came up the term "creative destruction")
paul samuelson
milton ven diagrams
the madeleine in Recherche
The Milgram Experiment!
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: imperial imaginary
geographies of spectatorship
the nature of the (insert medium divide, image politics cf. kennedy/nixon debate, "cf.".

extreme programming

Rhizobiceae

On their fake Dow Chemical Website [2], the Yes Men first said as clearly and emphatically as possible that Dow Chemical Company had no intention whatsoever of repairing the damage. The real company received considerable backlash and both the real Dow and the Yes Men's Dow denied the statements but Dow took no real action. The Yes Men decided to pressure Dow further, so as "Finisterra" went on the news to claim that Dow planned to liquidate Union Carbide and use the resulting $12 billion to pay for medical care, clean up the site, and fund research into the hazards of other Dow products. After two hours of wide coverage, Dow issued a press release denying the statement, ensuring even greater coverage.

(1)one who believes it may be possible to avoid bodily death altogether.

This type of "ethical" argument is possibly the most absurd of all -- a strong statement, I realise, given the stiffness of its competition -- because of the enormity of what it overlooks within its own scope. To stand back and (by one's inaction) cause someone to die sooner, when one could act to let them live a lot longer at no (or even at some modest) cost to oneself or anyone else, is arguably the second most unnatural thing a human can do, second only (and then by a very small margin) to causing someone's death by an explicit action. (Of course, there is plenty of departure from these ethics in the world, but that's not the point -- abandonment of the law of the jungle is what most fundamentally defines humanity, and also what defines civilisation.) Thus, to ask humanity to accept the "naturalness" argument against life extension, and on that basis to delay the development of a cure for aging, is thus to ask it to transform itself into something as un-human as can be imagined. Even if such concerns were to turn out to be valid, it is for those who experience this diminution of their existence to act to restore it (e.g., by rejecting rejuvenation therapies that are on offer), not for us to make their choice for them.

One can also put this in terms of technology, rather than civilisation. It's clearly unnatural for us to accept the world as we find it: ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both our natural ability and our equally natural inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about ourselves and our environment. We would be going against that most fundamental aspect of what it is to be human if we decided that something so horrible as everyone getting frail and decrepit and dependent was something we should live with forever. And if you believe God put us here, presumably you also believe that God made us the way we are on purpose. Thus, if changing our world is playing God, it's just one more way in which God made us in His image.

1. Declare the internet a public good in the same way we think of water, electricity, highways or public education.

2. Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide.

3. Declare a “Net Neutrality” standard forbidding Internet service providers from discriminating among content based on origin, application or type.

4. Instead of “No Child Left Behind,” our goal should be “Every Child Connected.”

5. Commit to building a Connected Democracy where it becomes commonplace for local as well as national government proceedings to be heard by anyone any time and over time.

6. Create a National Tech Corps, because as our country becomes more reliant on 21st century communications to maintain and build our economy we need to protect our communications infrastructure.

We've spent some time looking through the candidates' policy statements on technology, the media, education, transparency and infrastructure

to connect p2p/a2k
(peer-to-peer/access to knowledge) technoscience politics to the
politics of permaculture practices and to the politics of pro-choice
consensual non-normalizing biomedicine.

The terraces, forming an outdoor terrain that extends over the whole surface of the city

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░████░░█░░█░░█░░█░░░██░░░██░█░░░█░░░██░░░█░░█░░█░░░░
░░█░░░░░░█░░█░░█░█░░░░█░█░█░█░░█░█░░░░█░█░░█░░█░█░░░░░
░░░███░░░█░░█░░██░░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░█░█░░██░░░░░░
░░░░░░█░░█░░█░░█░█░░░░█░░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░█░░█░░█░█░░░░░
░░████░░░░██░░░█░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░░█░░░░░██░░░█░░█░░█░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/152/zonumb3.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7959/thingps9.jpg

good clear picture of [CapitalistMan]
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/148/imgadz.gif

a a a a a a a a melody got me a a a a a a a a melody got me a a a melody got me are we are we melody got me are are melody got me don don a dont dont melody got me dont e a a dont e dont ev melody got me dont eve dont even dont even worry
about a thing

The ideal for a book would be to lay everything out on a plane of exteriority of this kind, on a single page, the same sheet: lived events, historical determinations, concepts, individuals, groups, social formations.

What is Codework?

Codework is a practice, not a product.

It is praxis, part and parcel of the critique of everyday life.

It is not canonic, although it is taken as such.

It is not a genre, although it is taken as such.

The term is relatively new and should always be renewed.

We are suffused with code and its intermingling with surface phenomena.

Wave-trains of very low frequency radio pulses for example.

Phenomenology of chickadee calls.

Codework is not a metaphor, not metaphorical.

It exists precisely in the obdurate interstice between the real and the symbolic. It exists in the arrow.

It is not a set of procedures or perceptions. It is the noise in the system. It is not the encapsulation or object of the noise or the system.

It is continuous; it is parasitic; it is thetic.

When it becomes metaphor, masterpiece, artwork, it is still-born; it is of no interest except as cultural residue: it is of great interest to critics, gallerists, editors.

When it is not collectible, not a thing, virtual or otherwise, it is not of interest to critics, gallerists, editors.

Things have already taken up its name, as if pictures in an exhibition.

This is nothing more than the continuous reification, territorialization, conquest, of the real - as if the real were always already cleansed, available for the taking - as if the real were already transformed into capital.

Capital is the encapsulation, objectification, of code. Capital drives the code-conference, the code-book, the code-movement, the code-artist, the code-masterpiece; capital drives the technology.

In short: Capital drives code into metaphor.

In short: Metaphor drives code into capital.

In short, but of greater difficulty: Capital drives metaphor into code.

In production, simpler: Metaphor drives capital into code.

The driving of metaphor, code, or capital is not codework.

Codework is the labor of code, subject to thermodynamics.

Codework is demonstrative, demonstrative fragment, experiment, partial- inscription, partial-object, the thing prior to its presentation, the linguistic kernel of the pre-linguistic. Code is the thetic, the gestural, of the demonstrative.

It the gesture that never quite takes. It is the noise inherent in the gestural.

However: Codework will become a subject or a sub-genre or a venue or an artwork or an artist or a dealer or a collector. However: This is not codework, or: What I describe above is not codework; after all, names are subsumed beneath the sign (Emblematic) of capital - as if something is being accomplished. (Hackers who are not hackers are unhacked.)

To code is not to produce codework; it is to produce code on the level of the code or interface. Bridged code, embedded code, is not codework; the irreversible spew of cellular automata is codework, all the better if the rules are noisy. The cultural production of codework abjures intensifications, strange attractors, descriptions such as this (which is the oldest game in the book). The hunt and reception of short-wave number codes is codework. Writers on the edge are circumscribed by codework, malfunctioned psychoanalytics, scatologies. Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Blacks, are endlessly coded and decoded; the codes are dissolute, partial, always already incomplete: the differend is codework.

To speak against the differend is codework; tumors are codework, metastases. The useless sequences of DNA, RNA.

Be wary of the violence of the legible text. Beware the metaphor which institutionalizes, the text which defines, the text of positivities, not negations, the circumscribing text, inscribing text; beware of the producers and institutions of these texts, whose stake is in hardening of definitions, control, capital, slaughter: Texts slaughter.

And texts slaughter texts.
Navigation
Home Projects cyhist KnowledgeBase Syllabus Archive Plaintext Tools About the CLC
Log in
Name
Password
Forgot your password?
New user?

We want to save the Earth's biosphere, settle the oceans and space, end hunger and poverty, utilize alternative sources of energy, bring about a better democracy and economy to the world, and generally provide a standard of living and quality of life far beyond anything mankind has ever experienced. http://www.luf.org/

--
The Millennial Project 2.0

The Millennial Project is a comprehensive plan for space development, beginning with the terrestrial cultivation of an environmentally sustainable civilization and Post-Industrial culture and culminating, far in the future, in the colonization of our immediate stellar neighborhood. The TMP2 project is specifically a project of the Living Universe Foundation community to continually update and revise the content of the original plan as described by Marshal T. Savage in his book The Millennial Project.

--
At The Seasteading Institute, we work to enable seasteading communities - floating cities - which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government. The most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world.

--
OSCOMAK supports playful learning communities of individuals and groups
chaordically building free and open source knowledge, tools, and simulations
which lay the groundwork for humanity's sustainable development on Spaceship Earth and
eventual joyful, compassionate, and diverse expansion into space
(including Mars, the Moon, the Asteroids, or elsewhere in the Universe).
--

The Open Source Ecology wiki,
home of the Global Village Construction Set,
developing community-based solutions for re-inventing local production.

--

RepRap is about making self-replicating machines, and making them freely available for the benefit of everyone. We are using 3D printing to do this, but if you have other technologies that can copy themselves and that can be made freely available to all, then this is the place for you too.

My friend, I have no problem with the thought of a galactic civilization vastly unlike our own... full of strange beings who look nothing like me even in their own imaginations... pursuing pleasures and experiences I can't begin to empathize with... trading in a marketplace of unimaginable goods... allying to pursue incomprehensible objectives... people whose life-stories I could never understand.

>/ 50 don't make no money. U gotta side with the jews.
[ Cut to a room, fancy hotel, Gerber-blanc & mauve. A contemporary is in the game for billions. ]

[Credits] digital on Gabbapention
[ A ball. ]

test 1

clashes [...] between careerism as a means of actualizing and subverting the self, establish the voice of creativity as a vulnerable protagonist that is taken under fire by the chaos.

actualizing an imagined scroll of the Cyrenaic school, a dialog at the wake of Aristippus of Cyrene.

Never mind humanist, postmodernism may well be the last cultural movement that's 100% human.

You may laugh at this prediction now, but you won't laugh in 2012: the point at which postmodernism turns into posthumanism is the moment when Arnold Schwartzenegger becomes president of the US. That's the point at which the pomo fight between the authentic and the fake morphs into the posthuman fight between flesh and digital flesh.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 30 October 2004 07:05 (8 years ago) Permalink
What I mean is that he will be elected to 'terminate' Islamic fundamentalism, a dialectic that will by that point be a bit tired, but that he will actually be the first 'terminator president', and herald in an age of unprecedented man-machine combination.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 30 October 2004 07:09 (8 years ago) Permalink
And if you ask me what will the cultural life be like in that new posthuman world, I'd say that, just as there as continuities between modernism and postmodernism, so there will be continuities between the postmodern and the posthuman. The rockist questions about authenticity will not go away -- in fact, they'll become, if anything, more central. But with a twist: it will be the clones and machines which will harp on most on authenticity and humanity, whereas the humans will insist on artificiality. The future (and you read it here first, folks!) is Robot Rockism.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 30 October 2004 07:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

hwattttt

textere