{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title":"DIGITAL LABOR THE INTERNET AS PLAYGROUND AND FACTORY","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780415896948","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","uuid":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title":"DIGITAL LABOR THE INTERNET AS PLAYGROUND AND FACTORY","normalized_title":"digitallabortheinternetasplaygroundandfactory","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780415896948","isbns":["9780415896948","9780415896955","9780203145791"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":267,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/DIGITAL%20LABOR%20THE%20INTERNET%20AS%20PLAYGROUND%20AND%20FACTORY","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/search"},"page":{"printed_page":116,"pdf_page":123,"physical_index":123,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"060ce1101dd0921e129c67c086cab879f32834ab404b253d92fdd40b985ae95d"},"chapter":"DIGITAL LABOR","content":"In these terms, media is more broadly described as\"contractions of forces of the world into specific resonating milieus\" (Parikka 2010: xiv), such that mediation is contingent and immanent. Mediation (if it even should be called that) is less about connecting two or more entities, although by the above definition of entities, they are media and they do connect other entities. Still, for theorists such as Goodman and Parikka, it might be better to describe mediation as modulation, intensifying or deintensifying rhythmicities and forces that are of but also below, above, and other than human perception. Here media are extended to various platforms organic, nonorganic, chemical, and neurochemical. As Parikka concludes: \"we do not so much have media as we are media and of media; media.. . cast a plane over the chaos\" (Parikka 2010: xxvii).\n\nThis definition of media borrows from contemporary thinking about assemblage as a mode of affective (de)intensification—that is, an affordance to sensations, percepts, and concepts and the modulation of their intensities at every scale of matter. As such, an analysis of effects engages them not as the end result of a predefined condition, but immediately as a cause or a condition of possibility of affect and further effects. This is the working of what Massumi has called a quasi-causality\"—that is, the (eternal) return of indeterminacy in every actualization or individualization.⁵ These actualizations and individualizations might well be thought of as bodies of affect, the bodies that this discussion of media provokes. If all entities are affective media, then they may share the definition of bodies that Elizabeth Grosz offers: \"discontinuous, nontotalizable series of processes, organs, flows, energies, corporeal substances and incorporeal events, speeds and durations\" (Grosz 1994: 164), and, as such, they are open to the affordance of a media assemblage and its modulation of intensities. Given this take on media as affective embodiments and bodies as affective media, questions arise as to how an entity or object should be thought, or how relation mightbe thought when the body-as-organism is no longer the figure of life, and organic matter is no longer privileged over nonorganic matter. And, finally, what does addressing these questions have to do with measure and affective labor?\n\nPrehension, Media Technologies, and Measure\n\nWhile Parisi has relied on Deleuze, increasingly she also turns to Whitehead. It is Whitehead's philosophy that accompanies Parisi in observing the ongoing investment in technoscience and its elaboration of mathematical technologies that are transforming, as nanotechnology means to do, the biophysical strata of evolution, adaptation, and change and thereby are displacing the postbiological as horizon of thought and extension in matter. This turn to Whitehead, I would argue, is due in part to the difference between his thinking about process and Deleuze's. While Whitehead is concerned with how entities become, nonetheless, entities do become; they become and they perish (Whitehead 1978). In this way, they generate space/time, while Deleuze's conceptualizations of virtuality, pure past, and duration put everything in time, put all entities in relationship, if not to each other, to virtuality. ForWhitehead, while there is becoming, it is a matter of what he describes as “concrescence,\"the actual becoming through a novel production of togetherness or the coming together of multiple prehensions, where prehension is the preconscious, preindividual act by which one actual occasion (entity) takes up and responds to another. Everything, not just humans, prehend in that each thing orients toward; it withdraws from or advances toward the worldas it experiences its becoming. Prehension is a “decision,\"’to use Whitehead's term, eliminating potential occasionsand delimiting a specific occasion, which, after perishing becomes the past or “datum\" for another occasion or for a grouping of occasions that endures as a “society\"—again to use Whitehead's term. It is precisely to prehensions that Parisi imagines nanotechnology to be directed.\n\n116\n\nInterrogating Modes of Digital Labor","previous_page":115,"next_page":117}