{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","uuid":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","normalized_title":"thestackonsoftwareandsovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","isbns":["9780262029575"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":517,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Stack%20On%20Software%20and%20Sovereignty","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/search"},"page":{"printed_page":205,"pdf_page":221,"physical_index":221,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"c5c7a954a1f3a7ee499c66025a8a55e88f626f37fd32500811add40bb2137c65"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"46. Addressability and Technique\n\nFor the Address layer of The Stack, different design programs might want only to deploy or disassemble existing Internet address architectures, but should instead proceed from the procedural terms of addressability itself. Some are universal, and others are specific to addressing within computational networks. According to Saul Kripke ’ s philosophy of language, we first point at something, and only then do we learn qualities about it. Designation precedes description. <sup>24</sup> Internet addressing systems also describe the world first by pointing at things, differentiating them, only later filling in content for them, and as they point toward unlike things, processes, and actions, this designation becomes a generic technology. <sup>25</sup> Laura Denardis describes the essential functions of Internet addressability according to four variables: universality (the address must be a required common denominator for access to the network), identification (the address must constitute a truly unique identifier such that no two things can share an address), exposure (addresses cannot be encrypted and must be visible to others), and, disinterest edness (the address is unconcerned with the content of any message sent to or from it). To locate Address as a layer within a planetary computational landscape, we could add several more of our qualifications. Among these is presence; whether something has or does not have an address has the functional effect of allowing it to exist or not exist within a world of experience external to itself and extrinsic to the generic designation of its address. If something that has an address is addressable, it is present, and stripping something of its address, or turning off its address, erases it from that world. This is address as a technique of identity and precondition for social performance. Second, addresses provide a space of relationality between things that exceeds the relations they might already possess as natural objects. Wine would still “ relate to its jug, ” as Heidegger intoned, <sup>26</sup> but as one node in a flat universal network, it could also relate to, and exchange real Shannon information with, a helicopter, a book in a library, or someone ’ s kidney stone. Flatness here refers not to ontology or the withdrawal of objects, but to their functional communication and their mechanically unwithdrawn relations. <sup>27</sup> These relations could include the identification of something with an address that previously had no name or any normal discrete quality as a natural object for any User, including either a tangible thing or an intangible condition between things. This “ word ” (the four letters to the immediate left, in quotes) in this sentence could have an address, but so could the immaterial fact that I wrote it, or that at a given moment, it is in my proximity. The fact that you just read that word could have an address. These relations, these traces without mass, are equally addressable and so equally “ things ” in the program of a universal deep address. What would relations say to other relations? By providing an address to a massless relation and making it a source or receiver of further information, alien worlds perhaps come into relief (if not for us). As heretofore unseen or unnamed relations are made clear and new concepts about their relation are superimposed on them, then things that already possessed common names and certain identifiable relations are also now seen in new light. The everyday taxonomy and categorization of the world might be scrambled. Things reorder themselves according to distant logics of proximity and come to belong to different sets and categories than before. Once recategorized, they could also be valued differently, revealed as crucial or dismissed as irrelevant for unexpected reasons. In this regard deep address is also a mereological technology.\n\nAddress Layer\n\n205","previous_page":204,"next_page":206}