{"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":420,"pdf_page":434,"physical_index":434,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"f30c303fd63593686a57cbc8133a84955032ad091b47bb745384847e62e2b33e"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"8. For a much detailed elaboration of these different performative typologies of interfaces, see my “ All Design Is Interface Design ” (presented at SoftWhere, University of California, San Diego, June, 25, 2008). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSoGFzLlLYQ.\n\n10. “ Nicolelis Lab, ” http://www.nicolelislab.net/.\n\n12. In this conjunction of a generalized interfaciality with the technogenesis of the human form, the reference is, in very different ways, related to the work Gilbert Simonden and Bernard Stiegler, but recall also Maurice Merleau-Ponty ’ s discussion of the cane becoming part of the body of the person who uses it to sense the world.\n\n14. Peter Galison, “ The Lives of Images: Peter Galison in Conversation with Trevor Paglen, ” Aperture 21 (Summer 2013).\n\n15. Like most visual economies of love or war, this depends on the identification of “ objects of interest. ” See “ Cyborg Astrobiologist Put Through Its Paces in West Virginian Coalfields, ” MIT Technology Review, September 24, 2013, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519576/ cyborg-astrobiologist-put-through-its-paces-in-west-virginian-coalfields/.\n\n16. John Underkoffler ’ s work on large-scale gestural interface systems has helped define this avenue of design research.\n\n18. What groups these together is the use of the motor body itself as a signifying machine, not a source from which a signifying trace remediates between body and machine. The model is kind of an inversion of modern dance notation systems, which code the slightest gesture with incredible nuance and flexibility.\n\n19. I should explain this folding/unfolding allegory in more detail. The “ Thing ” is, at least in the German, a “ gathering. ” Invoking this etymology, Bruno Latour extends Heidegger ’ s four-foldedness of the thing into new domains. We could say, however, that the interfaciality of a thing inverts the gathering and its network of relations. According to the Latour-Heidegger story, drawn from Heidegger ’ s 1950 essay, “ Das Ding, ” and Latour ’ s recent essays on the “ parliament of things, ” a thing is an assemblage or index of those actors and forces that gave rise to it, which are combined and folded within one another in marvelous ways to result in a given thing. The “ thing, ” however stable or temporary, gathers its particular forms and forces of earthly production into itself and presents them (each one of these — sun, water, metal, work — is still present in the thing) toward a new use or encounter. Conversely, the interfaciality of a thing inverts the direction of that gathering. In connecting one thing to another by remote control, by action at a distance, the interfacial thing unfolds out toward the world of other things in looping cybernetic circuits of relay and interruption. It doesn ’ t fold in; it explodes out. The unfolding, degathering interfaciality of the thing is equal and opposite to its infolding gathering as assemblage. See Martin Heidegger, “ The Thing, ” in William Lovitt, trans. and ed., The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (New York: Garland Publishing, 1977), and Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).\n\n420\n\nNotes","previous_page":419,"next_page":421}