Re: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source
society' but also the implications for our ways of thinking about the 'prototype' as that which ties the old debate between 'synthetic' and 'natural' (Sonia Matos) In that sense, one could also say that prototyping also ties creationism and evolutionism as complimentary ideas of /genesis/ – the feedback cycles of correction leading to a qualitative leap (‘creation’) and emergence of the final object? It is in this process of constant re-design that knowledge shifts, encounters new subaltern meanings. (SM) Precisely. But shouldn’t we go as far as to say that that’s the only place where subaltern meanings can become manifest – after all, if they prevail over prototyping and become standards, how can they still be considered subaltern? I think I echo Davin’s concern: As a thought experiment, I think there is much value to thinking about our everyday practices as prototyping. On the other hand, I think we do lose something if we embrace this metaphor with too much enthusiasm. (Davin Heckman) I think the idea of prototype is particularly fruitful because of the special place prototyping occupy in the technical topology of the industrial age, and how it is ressignified by the present paradigm shift in modes of production and material culture. But I also wonder if it will remain meaningful as we get into different cycles (of marketing, of manufacturing). Best! Menotti ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source
It’s important to remember that synthetic biology is GM technology mark 2. I was at a recent committee meeting where a UK government official was urging us to employ the jargon of synthetic biology so that the memories of the GM debate can be avoided and the government and industry get there way the second time around. This is still about Monsanto and the ownership of biological organisms and we should keep that at the front of our minds. Do we want to see the entire planet’s food production forced into an industrial model of agriculture or do we want the means of production remain in control of local communities? I accept this is not a black and white issue but I know where I stand on this. Best Simon Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk si...@littlepig.org.uk Skype: simonbiggsuk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/ Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice http://www.elmcip.net/ From: Sonia Matos sonia_cabralma...@yahoo.com Reply-To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:18:29 -0700 (PDT) To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source Yes Gabriel, this is a very pertinent point you raise here. I do agree, Simondon's 'abstract and concrete objects' might not allow us to fully explore the ethical questions that surround the DIYBio project. After all, innovations in synthetic biology can be used for the wrong purposes, here I am thinking of viruses. However, what I find interesting in this shift of boundaries between is not only the new ways of 'making' biology and the implications for the future of the so called 'knowledge society' but also the implications for our ways of thinking about the 'prototype' as that which ties the old debate between 'synthetic' and 'natural' (and then again tying to your question concerning ethics). To a certain extent Simondon's work challenges the modernist conception of object, artifact, technologies as 'grand plans' with short foresight in relation to their actual uses, manipulations, destruction, re-fabrications, etc. (and here we include the 'natural'). It is in this process of constant re-design that knowledge shifts, encounters new subaltern meanings. Thinking of specifically about this point a combination between Simondon's philosophy and Bruno Latour's critique of modernist project might provided interesting links. Here I am referring to a short paper by Latour: 'A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk)' . Here is short quote link to the full paper: The great importance of Sloterdijk’s philosophy (and I think the major interest of a designer’s way of looking at things) is that it offers another idiom. The idiom of matters of concern reclaims matter, matters and materiality and renders them into something that can and must be carefully redesigned. This might be far from the humanists’ limited view of what humans are, but it is every bit as removed from the post human dreams of cyborgs. What is clear is that the collective definition of what artificial life supports are supposed to be becomes the key site of politically minded investigation. Nothing much is left of the scenography of the modernist theory of action: no male hubris, no mastery, no appeal to the outside, no dream of expatriation in an outside space which would not require any life support of any sort, no nature, no grand gesture of radical departure —and yet still the necessity of redoing everything once again in a strange combination of conservation and innovation that is unprecedented in the short history of modernism (p.11). www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL.pdf --- On Tue, 3/16/10, Gabriel Menotti gabriel.meno...@gmail.com wrote: From: Gabriel Menotti gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Subject: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 5:08 PM After this warm-up and to finalize my brief intervention, for this week’s Empyre I propose the following discussion: how might synthetic biological concocts shed new light on the concept of the ‘prototype’ as a means for democratizing knowledge productions? (Sonia Matos) I think diy bio is iconic as a practice because it not only seems to increase the dynamics between different levels of (knowledge) production – specialized and layman research –, but also between subject and object. The way you put it, Sonia, I can't help remembering Zaratustra famous remark that 'man is a bridge to the Overman'. After all, diy bio does breach the concreteness of a being that is not exactly (or entirely) technical - at least from an ethical
[-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source
After this warm-up and to finalize my brief intervention, for this week’s Empyre I propose the following discussion: how might synthetic biological concocts shed new light on the concept of the ‘prototype’ as a means for democratizing knowledge productions? (Sonia Matos) I think diy bio is iconic as a practice because it not only seems to increase the dynamics between different levels of (knowledge) production – specialized and layman research –, but also between subject and object. The way you put it, Sonia, I can't help remembering Zaratustra famous remark that 'man is a bridge to the Overman'. After all, diy bio does breach the concreteness of a being that is not exactly (or entirely) technical - at least from an ethical standpoint. In spite of this, is Simondon's approach enough to reason about biological (if not living) organisms? Would diy bio allow such reflexiveness that we start seeing ourselves as prototypes (i mean seriously, not in an scatological transhumanist way)? Or we still have to wait until the availability of a bioengineering home lab? one danger of do it yourself culture, is also the breakdown of actual cumbersome but humanly necessary moments of interaction. (Christopher Sullivan) i share some of your anxieties towards open source. in some sense, they risk being just a reorganization of priorities and levels of authorizations - the role of the designer becoming a form of mere use encompassed by a even more controled layer of design (let's say protocolar?). nevertheless, i believe that diy models create possibilities for meaningful interaction through the act of making - and even what you call 'actual' interaction, with digital models coupling with physical hardware, electronics and the possibilities of fast-prototyping (which might mean involve materials as cheap as paper). best! Menotti ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source
I think, at some level, we are always engaged in some level of prototyping the self. Certainly, this is the gist of Foucault's Technologies of the Self and the larger theory of discourse, where competing ideas about how to understand and fabricate the self compete for ascendancy. There are also shades of Lacan's future anterior here, that interrelation between present and future in the form of an anticipated sense of what one will have become. Fiction, too, is an area where we experiment with alternative methods of interaction, social organization, belief, imagination, and history. Spiritual practices, drug cultures, and political utopian movements also engage in these sorts of experiments in altered states and constructs, creating new types of people for immanent eschatological scenarios. And, finally, there are the many, many practical examples of mundane experimentation from fashion to body modification.We are forever adjusting culture and matter to suit our needs. My concern, I suppose, following Christopher Sullivan's comments, is in the adoption of a technical paradigm to account for practices which have a wide and rambling established history. As a thought experiment, I think there is much value to thinking about our everyday practices as prototyping. On the other hand, I think we do lose something if we embrace this metaphor with too much enthusiasm. Prototyping implies the pursuit of a desired utility. The very things which make it useful, perhaps, from an ad hoc, tactical sort of perspective also might make it onerous in another perspective (imagine, for instance, if div prototyping were a prescriptive, ethical imperative or something, if it were invoked with connotations of goodness). I think of some of the great art that rides the edge (like subRosa), playing with the culture of technocapitalism without falling back on essentialisms, these experiments can inspire rigorous questioning of utility itself. In this case, some diy bio prototyping might serve as a pretext for interrogating the very practice of controlling our bodies. (Who the hell are we managing ourselves for? For our anticipated career? To service long term debt? To get married and make babies? To consume more effectively? What the hell are all these treadmills for? Why do people need a phone on their ear? Why should I take these pills?) At some level, putting the question of daily life through the crucible of capital can be a productive exercise, in the same way that I can imagine that their might be something useful about giving a mean drunk a dozen bottles of Midori to drink (provided they aren't riding home in my car). The nauseating pain of the encounter might lead to a moment of clarity (at the very least, allowing a belligerent booze troll to baste in green, sticky-sweet, melon-flavored vomit is sweet revenge). For my thinking, the language of prototyping is useful in that it can be used to intervene against time. I would say one of the most pressing problems we face is the very pressing nature of the problems we face--there is too little time for thought, reflection, and deliberate action. The result is real drive to augment decision-making through automated processes or to constantly adopt the changes, applying feedback in retrospect. The construct of the prototype allows people to engage in this process with a certain level of consciousness, transparency, and reflexivity. To prototype is to anticipate the shortcoming in the current model. To allow progress to unfold while allowing for disasters of various stripes, displacing accountability from the self onto the apparatus. This certainly might be unavoidable in cases. I think squatters certainly are exploring a new models of dwelling in response to the crisis of capitalism. I think that people who share information as simply hashing out new norms for intellectual property in a changing world. In these case, the diy prototyping model offers a new way of thinking about social norms, outside of the established patterns. On the other hand, I don't know that anyone should be asked to live as a prototype. It frames the question of existence as a problem to be solved, while skirting the larger social question of practical problems in need of solutions. Finding the bugs in the system means that these same people will also have to confront various challenges to their existence. Yet this is the pattern I see across society at large. I have lots of friends that like living in big cities and I am always impressed by the creative ways they solve problems that I had never even imagined but it is also horrible that people are consistently expected to make do with a smaller and smaller share of society's wealth. If the best we can imagine is a world where change or die remains the law, while an entire social class exists who is always accelerating this change, while consolidating its privileges I think that we shouldn't bother
Re: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source
Yes Gabriel, this is a very pertinent point you raise here. I do agree, Simondon's 'abstract and concrete objects' might not allow us to fully explore the ethical questions that surround the DIYBio project. After all, innovations in synthetic biology can be used for the wrong purposes, here I am thinking of viruses. However, what I find interesting in this shift of boundaries between is not only the new ways of 'making' biology and the implications for the future of the so called 'knowledge society' but also the implications for our ways of thinking about the 'prototype' as that which ties the old debate between 'synthetic' and 'natural' (and then again tying to your question concerning ethics). To a certain extent Simondon's work challenges the modernist conception of object, artifact, technologies as 'grand plans' with short foresight in relation to their actual uses, manipulations, destruction, re-fabrications, etc. (and here we include the 'natural'). It is in this process of constant re-design that knowledge shifts, encounters new subaltern meanings. Thinking of specifically about this point a combination between Simondon's philosophy and Bruno Latour's critique of modernist project might provided interesting links. Here I am referring to a short paper by Latour: 'A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk)' . Here is short quote link to the full paper: The great importance of Sloterdijk’s philosophy (and I think the major interest of a designer’s way of looking at things) is that it offers another idiom. The idiom of matters of concern reclaims matter, matters and materiality and renders them into something that can and must be carefully redesigned. This might be far from the humanists’ limited view of what humans are, but it is every bit as removed from the post human dreams of cyborgs. What is clear is that the collective definition of what artificial life supports are supposed to be becomes the key site of politically minded investigation. Nothing much is left of the scenography of the modernist theory of action: no male hubris, no mastery, no appeal to the outside, no dream of expatriation in an outside space which would not require any life support of any sort, no nature, no grand gesture of radical departure —and yet still the necessity of redoing everything once again in a strange combination of conservation and innovation that is unprecedented in the short history of modernism (p.11). www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL.pdf --- On Tue, 3/16/10, Gabriel Menotti gabriel.meno...@gmail.com wrote: From: Gabriel Menotti gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Subject: [-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 5:08 PM After this warm-up and to finalize my brief intervention, for this week’s Empyre I propose the following discussion: how might synthetic biological concocts shed new light on the concept of the ‘prototype’ as a means for democratizing knowledge productions? (Sonia Matos) I think diy bio is iconic as a practice because it not only seems to increase the dynamics between different levels of (knowledge) production – specialized and layman research –, but also between subject and object. The way you put it, Sonia, I can't help remembering Zaratustra famous remark that 'man is a bridge to the Overman'. After all, diy bio does breach the concreteness of a being that is not exactly (or entirely) technical - at least from an ethical standpoint. In spite of this, is Simondon's approach enough to reason about biological (if not living) organisms? Would diy bio allow such reflexiveness that we start seeing ourselves as prototypes (i mean seriously, not in an scatological transhumanist way)? Or we still have to wait until the availability of a bioengineering home lab? one danger of do it yourself culture, is also the breakdown of actual cumbersome but humanly necessary moments of interaction. (Christopher Sullivan) i share some of your anxieties towards open source. in some sense, they risk being just a reorganization of priorities and levels of authorizations - the role of the designer becoming a form of mere use encompassed by a even more controled layer of design (let's say protocolar?). nevertheless, i believe that diy models create possibilities for meaningful interaction through the act of making - and even what you call 'actual' interaction, with digital models coupling with physical hardware, electronics and the possibilities of fast-prototyping (which might mean involve materials as cheap as paper). best! Menotti ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
