expand_less
In social theory, Deluse and DeLanda direct our attention to the way societies are actually structured as multi-layered, overlapping groups functioning between and across scales. They resist theories of emergent reality assigned to component assemblages or the whole systems they compose. Cybernetic or autopoetic systems are likewise multi-layered assemblages of overlapping components, themselves heterogeneous assemblages.
Introducing a bit of the language, extensive properties that related to extension and territorial metaphors, vs. intensive properties that constitute the identity of an assemblage. DeLanda diagrams two knobs on assemblages, one labelled Territoriality for the degree that the wholes are defined by extensive properties, and on labeled Coding for intesive properties. As an example, the Open Source fraternaty is low on the first and high on the second. If you speak the language of code, you are in, if you are working on the same part of the codebase, you are close associates, no matter where you live or what extensive properties (gender, ideology even religion are extensive to the extent they do not color the technicalcollaboration)collaboration). Highly coded assemblages can also share information and coordinate action within boundaries that are highly selective. Coded communications can be contained by physical (extensive) and by the technical means of encryption (intensive, by special coding).
Overlap is another way of saying connection. Though connections can be represented in diagrams and tracked as bits of data that can be processed and re-represented in many ways, the deeper reality always will have much more that can never be fully represented. A person as well as a smart phone, or a car or an airplane has an existance beyond any of these connections, overlaps and representations. Although the individuals and components only get their identities as individuals from the role(s) they play in different purposeful assemblagas, they don't disappear from the world when those purposeful assemblages no longer find sufficient use. Or looked at another way, the same components can serve many purposes. What is the purpose of a warriror and their assemblage into armies? What is the purpose of government? What can an operator and a bull-dozer do? It can knock down homes or build needed infrastructure.
The subject matter of assemblage theory becomes the whole of material culture and what history we have been able to piece together. The unregulated expansion of aspects of that material culture threaten everything, but instead of discussing what has gone wrong, I am interested how we can use what we can learn from appied assemblage theory, that is the application of assemblage theory towards designing and building what we want instead of being at the mercy of external forces.
Considering the technical context of [[http://ceptr.org/|Ceptr]], we are in the domain of social machines and hybrids of linked agents each of which may either a human agent, a pure bot, or something of both.
Introducing a bit of the language, extensive properties that related to extension and territorial metaphors, vs. intensive properties that constitute the identity of an assemblage. DeLanda diagrams two knobs on assemblages, one labelled Territoriality for the degree that the wholes are defined by extensive properties, and on labeled Coding for intesive properties. As an example, the Open Source fraternaty is low on the first and high on the second. If you speak the language of code, you are in, if you are working on the same part of the codebase, you are close associates, no matter where you live or what extensive properties (gender, ideology even religion are extensive to the extent they do not color the technical
Overlap is another way of saying connection. Though connections can be represented in diagrams and tracked as bits of data that can be processed and re-represented in many ways, the deeper reality always will have much more that can never be fully represented. A person as well as a smart phone, or a car or an airplane has an existance beyond any of these connections, overlaps and representations. Although the individuals and components only get their identities as individuals from the role(s) they play in different purposeful assemblagas, they don't disappear from the world when those purposeful assemblages no longer find sufficient use. Or looked at another way, the same components can serve many purposes. What is the purpose of a warriror and their assemblage into armies? What is the purpose of government? What can an operator and a bull-dozer do? It can knock down homes or build needed infrastructure.
The subject matter of assemblage theory becomes the whole of material culture and what history we have been able to piece together. The unregulated expansion of aspects of that material culture threaten everything, but instead of discussing what has gone wrong, I am interested how we can use what we can learn from appied assemblage theory, that is the application of assemblage theory towards designing and building what we want instead of being at the mercy of external forces.
Considering the technical context of [[http://ceptr.org/|Ceptr]], we are in the domain of social machines and hybrids of linked agents each of which may either a human agent, a pure bot, or something of both.