{"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":85,"pdf_page":92,"physical_index":92,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d981ab31c49dd9ad0d812abf7ef3a3e8f25f5dc65c8d946423b23dac4ae5eae0"},"chapter":"DIGITAL LABOR","content":"In contrast to other automata of the 18th century, the Turk's apparatus did not act as mere clockwork; instead, it gave the impression of a self-regulating system that could counter external actions within the symbolic logic of chess.\"1 As historian of technology Otto Mayr (1970) suggests, in contrast to the idea of clockwork universe, which was the political universe of autocratic feudalism, the mechanical, political, and economic ideas of self-regulating systems influenced the Enlightenment ideas of liberal subjects and democracy. This association is partly constructed as a result of the rationalization of the socioeconomic life through industrialization, where subjects self-regulate according to their rational economic interests. Philosophical arguments for such conflict-free social systems had already been provided by various scholars, the most famous of whom was Gottfried Leibniz.\n\nThe preceding century had seen Leibniz's proposal of a universal symbolic language or algebra of thought. Since the expansion of the commerce in Leibniz's time, there had been a search for a universal language that would allow European traders to establish a sustainable communication with the people in the new colonies. Leibniz's universal language could be manipulated by a logical calculation framework, calculus ratiocinator (ca. 1680), which was a precursor model of modern computing (Wiener 1948). Leibniz suggested that the mind is a spiritual automaton that operates involuntarily based on a predetermined set of laws. “The operation of spiritual automata, that is of souls, is not mechanical, but it contains in the highest degree all that is beautiful in mechanism\"(Leibniz 2005: 365). However, the automaton/self-moving soul does not eliminate agency for Leibniz, because symbols and the symbolic systems of language play a constitutive role for reasoning. Based on this principle, Leibniz proposed calculus ratiocinator as an ultimate solution for all conflicts between the people of the world. This perspective finds its expressionin Leibniz's Machiavellian motto calculemus (let us calculate!): “if controversies were to arise there would be no more need ofdisputation between two philosophers than between two accountants. For it would suffice to taketheir pencils in their hands, and say to each other: Calculemus.\"12\n\nChess is à perfect example for computable symbolic systems; consequently, when the Turk spoke the language of the symbolic via chess, it entered“the world of the machine\" (Lacan 1991: 47). But that machine denoted a particular type of subjectivity because of the nature of the actors and their limited set of behaviors that are strictly defined within a set of rules in the game of chess. As Deleuze and Guattari state:\n\nChess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop.\n\nReturn of the Crowds\n\n85","previous_page":null,"next_page":null}