--- schema_version: "library-reader-v1" source_type: "original_book" title: "The Stack On Software and Sovereignty" author: null edition: null publisher: null year: null isbn: "9780262029575" library_document_id: "24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341" source_sha256: "9ce65d410e7e1630d3751064df8dca7be548b331423b3bb82e47c29fb5ab6d96" pdf_physical_page_count: 517 pdf_physical_page_index_base: 0 range_start: 220 range_count: 10 html_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341?start=220&limit=10" markdown_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341.md?start=220&limit=10" previous_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341.md?start=210&limit=10" next_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341.md?start=230&limit=10" --- # The Stack On Software and Sovereignty > 页码规则：PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX 是从 0 开始的权威文件物理页索引；PRINTED_PAGE 是页面中识别出的印刷页码，可能为空，二者不得混用。 ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=220 | PRINTED_PAGE=204 Instead, we also need to consider a politics from the perspective of the addressed looking out at the world. Because each object is understood not only as a discrete entity but as a durable intersection of multiple ancestor and descendant objects, events, and processes, all of which are inscribed and archived in some sort of available “ cloud ” of traces, a mature Address layer infrastructure would also generate second- and thirdorder layers of metadata about metadata produced by the logistical intersections of new and old objects, coming and going. Like a text, any object can contain a multitude of contingent layers of logistical trace, including its location in open or proprietary supply chain models, as one instance in a network of metadata, traces, and relations with its own semantic meanings held in relation and association with others. “ It ” is contained inevitably within multiple sets of structured data at once, each set perhaps overlapping, perhaps aware of the work of jurisdictional categorization done by other sets and perhaps not. Any parameter of the object is articulated by an addressing of it as a nameable entity, as a site of interconnected relations, or as a producer of metadata about itself and those relations, but its appearance as a “ virtually discrete ” thing, a fleeting event, or a cipher for networked commodity flows is fixed at a specific location within a global addressable space so that “ it ” can say things to other things and other things can say things to it. Once more, for any trace to be visible, it must be enumerated and enunciated, and as these inscriptions for the virtual object are instances within a universal space of trace enumeration, they are addresses. This addressability of the object (or sub-object, or relation of assemblage, or SPIME, or event of association, or trace, or commodity life cycle phase) zooms between spatial and temporal scales, gaining complexity exponentially as data and metadata for second- and third-order relations accumulate. This ecology of proliferating data points generated by and about the flows of material cultures seems to aspire toward a beyond human-scale universal architecture for addressing the qualities of relations between all parameters. Seen through deep address, the ultimate politics of the Internet of Things hinges on the dynamic between the open universality of such a platform architecture and its global closure as a total geography. The abyssal scope of this architecture, its exponential layers of relations upon relations , and its essential position within The Stack, may be the most important intersection between the SPIME motif and deep address, and may be the most integral accident of the Address layer. 204 Address Layer ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=221 | PRINTED_PAGE=205 46. Addressability and Technique For 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. 24 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. 25 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, 26 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. 27 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. Address Layer 205 ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=222 | PRINTED_PAGE=206 Third, addresses, in plural networks, produce topology. Whereas the nested hierarchies of postal addressing (e.g., name, building, street, city) refer to specific locations within a natural geography, such that the physical proximity or distance of one addressee versus another might be deduced from their addresses, Internet addressing follows no such geographic conventions, and peer-to-peer networking is all but agnostic as to the territorial origins and outcomes of packet flows. Instead, the accumulation of Internet addresses in certain areas, such as New York and Palo Alto, and the density of relations between those accumulations produce durable patterns of information communicated through the world. 28 Globally our regular networks of bundled addressors and addresses wear grooves into information channels, sometimes aligning with geopolitical borders and interests and sometimes perforating them. Sometimes these grooves are a deliberate regulation, such as a walled garden enveloping a platform ’ s Users or a secure military organization, and sometimes they are accidents of common cause or of the expediencies of packet routing, which can generate new hyperbolic geographies in their own image. Fourth, address produces an effect of generic subjectivization within the network, such that anything, regardless of what a particular address actually resolves, human or nonhuman, big or small, is possibly both an addressee and an addressor within network space. Not only does it have presence, but it can also be spoken to and it can speak, and it can be spoken for. This goes for anything and anyone. Importantly, in this generic universality, there can be a dehierarchicalization of participants, putting everything on a similar level that ultimately can amplify eccentric pathways of evolution in the relationships of information at play in the world. 29 Flowers and bees already communicate, but what do flowers have to “ say ” to birds if they, or sub- or supercomponents of each, could exchange messages directly? And finally, fifth, as already mentioned in relation to intertextuality, address space allows for retroactive traceability between lines of communication and events of differentiation that have taken place. Such artifacts may in turn be themselves addressed and made into aggregate objects for subsequent chains and networks. That possibility of infinite recursion, for which any connection later becomes an address, and which is itself addressed and so on, is discussed further below. Each of these speaks to three general principles (which can be mapped onto or across singularity, bifurcator, and resolver). Address provides identity (through “ designation ” ), address provides exchange, and address provides recursion and the capacity to govern the conditions of those exchanges and their traces. Whether addresses are resolved as parcels of binary data, sovereign currencies, or quantities of extinguished carbon, each of these could in principle be enumerated by one or several universal addressing procedure platforms linking addressors and addressees up and down the layers of The Stack: User to Cloud to Earth. The design brief of the Address layer revolves around such scenarios and all their effects and accidents. 206 Address Layer ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=223 | PRINTED_PAGE=207 47. IPv6 In practice, ubiquitous computing and the identification of digital objects depend on multiple unlike schemes. There is no single globally unique identifier (GUID) system addressing all networked things across macro and microscopic scales. Explicit and implicit in each scheme is a means not only to describe and designate a certain functional world but also to program one through a particular grammar of connection. Some track homology between real and virtual objects (i.e., the Tour Eiffel in Paris to the Tour Eiffel avatar online in SecondLife, or an instance in a database to a real toy in a shipping container somewhere in mid-Pacific transit). Others, such as MQTT (message queue telemetry transport), broker signals between more local networks of the Internet of Things, and in Hollywood, EIDR (entertainment identifier registry) tries to identify and stores information for the tracking of unique copyrighted content across multiple work flows and consumer channels (it is but one of several systems of digital object identifiers supervised by the International DOI Foundation). 30 For the Internet at large, universal platforms for generic addressability might in principle enumerate anything, but they are not infinite. On the contrary, they are — perhaps unfortunately, perhaps fortunately — a finite and tightly governed resource. Internet addressing is based on protocols designed in the early 1970s, a time when it was thought safe to presume that the total number of network-addressable computers would be rather small, not conceivably more than a few billion. For the most part, IPv4 has been used to address almost everything connected to the Internet. There is, however, a problem with IPv4 and its ability to map a fast-growing Internet and a thriving ubiquitous computing ecology: all possible addresses are now allocated. IPv4 is a 32-bit address space and so has a maximal capacity of approximately 4.3 billion addresses, far fewer than even one per person. There are not nearly enough numbers in the address space to enumerate all the individual “ things ” that a robust future of ubiquitous computing would require, even with subnet routing and swapping addresses to and from things on the fly. In 2011 the final blocs of 16 million addresses were allocated to the five global (regional internet registries (RIRs). Readers can be excused if they have never heard of the transnational bodies responsible for allocating the addresses that provide address and access to the global Internet: AfriNIC (Africa), ARIN (which covers North America) APNIC (Asia-Pacific), LACNIC (Latin America), and RIPE (which covers Europe). Address Layer 207 ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=224 | PRINTED_PAGE=208 Pondering the significance of the Internet ’ s becoming “ full, ” I was interested in seeing a map of the global address space. Indeed in the long history of cartography, of world maps going back to the Greeks, Westphalian, and Mercatur projections, and medieval Islamic geographies like Muhammad al-Adrisi ’ s Tabula Rogerina, would the cosmogram of a now-full IPv4 address space perhaps compare on some small level? I was surprised, then, that was readily available. So in collaboration with the San Diego Supercomputing Center, Sam Kronick and I made one to satisfy our curiosity, which you can view online at the site associated with this book (thestack.org or bratton.info/ thestack). You ’ ll note two things right away. First, although the biggest presumed growth of User population is in South America, Asia, and Africa, it is North America and Europe that control many more addresses than those continents. Second, one whole quadrant (totaling hundreds of millions of addresses) is claimed by private and government actors, such as Apple, Microsoft, Halliburton, the US Department of Defense, the UK Ministry of Defense, Merck, and Lilly. One new economy of scarcity is addressability, and existing solutions to expand the address space are unlikely to be implemented as quickly as they could be. There is hard power in soft addresses as the power of the map is the power to qualify movement, and the top left corner of the IPv4 map is beachfront real estate. 31 But ultimately this scarcity is artificial and technologically unnecessary, and it has even distorted the structure of the Internet itself. 32 An original vision for the Internet platform was for decentralized “ state-full edges ” in which every node could peer with any other. “ Distributed state meant that adding nodes also added capability and that ownership and power stayed distributed as the Net grew. ... Unfortunately that chronic shortage of addresses contracted the web, shifting the definition of ‘ edge ’ from the device you are looking at to the ISP (Internet Service Provider) it ’ s connected to. ” 33 By contrast in an alternative postscarcity economy of addressing, with every little node also a server (hosting, sending, receiving, processing, sensing), then the physics of centralization and platforms may evolve quite differently, with communication flowing mote-to-mote, mountain-to-mountain, and mote-to-mountain, for example. Toward that, what is needed is not just another way to number the network but something that functions like a new network emerging through an enumerative infrastructure that is more correspondent to the polyvalent and multitemporal scales of The Stack. One technical solution to the artificial scarcity of addressability is IPv6, a 128-bit address replacement for IPv4, proposed originally in the mid-1990s. When would IPv6 run out? If you were to divide the total number of possible addresses within a 128-bit space by 7 billion people, it would be able to theoretically allocate approximately 5 x 10 28 addresses per person. That is an genuinely incomprehensible number; it is orders of magnitude more than Avogadro ’ s number ( >1 mole of addresses). You could, if so inclined, assign over 4 billion unique IPv6 addresses to every known star in the universe. Everyone, with his or her personal allocation, could assign a unique address to each grain of sand on Earth ’ s beaches; we could give each cell in every human body 2 x 208 Address Layer ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=225 | PRINTED_PAGE=209 $1 0 ^ { 1 3 }$ addresses, and so on. However, it must be said that the full IPv6 address space can enumerate many orders of magnitude fewer items than the possible number of books in Jorge Luis Borges ’ s “ Library of Babel. ” 34 How ubiquitous is the ubiquitous computation? If you were to try to assign an individual address to $1 0 ^ { 2 8 }$ things over the course of your life, you would have to work down to the level of individual molecules, numbering things at a scale below natural perception, doling out addresses for individual letters in books, hairs on heads, blood cells, specks of dust. 35 I was interested in experimenting with that fine granularity, trying to get a picture of it in my mind so that it might be more easily understandable. How small could one “ write ” an IPv6 address? I would need the most fine-tipped writing tools invented to find out. In collaboration with the Nano3 lab at Calit2, we wrote a single IPv6 address (3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff :fe21:67cf) with an electron lithography beam into a silicon wafer and photographed it with the scanning electron microscope (see the image in the online companion to this chapter). The address in our picture is 10 micrometers in width, about the size of a red blood cell. The lines of each digit are about 50 nanometers in thickness. But nano-objectivity is only part of the story. Recall that deep addressability would allow for the identification not only of things with mass but also of relations between things. Once again, each letter in the sentence you are reading right now could have an address, but your act of reading of each one of them, those immaterial relations between two things, it and you, could be addressed as well, and from this graph and set traces proliferate and become techniques of a new geography. One can address both a discrete thing and the abstract reverberating envelope of relations around it that could extend toward infinity. Put differently, deep addressability includes not only discrete entities but also multiple levels of abstraction, as well as the traces of those entities and in turn the abstractions we hold for those — not just addressable nouns but addressable verbs, events, and allegories. While it ’ s unlikely that I could exhaust $1 0 ^ { 2 8 }$ addresses for familiar physical things over the course of my life span, I could easily exhaust that many relations of relations of relations of relations. I could spend all my addresses in an instant of we were to extend relationality all the way down into the abyss. The exhaustion of any full allocation of deep address exists therefore somewhere between never and instantaneously, and the measure of that vast middle ground is essential to the design brief of the Address layer of The Stack. 36 Whereas the traditional Internet of Things situates a network of physical objects, the full Address layer would include all these but also concepts, events, procedures, and memes, addressable at a common level through a generic protocol. 37 While there are real barriers to a global IPv6 implementation, some technological, others economic, and others political, we should assume that for The Stack, some platform for deep address will in time enumerate things and events at a similar or even more granular scale, giving way to disorienting associations between micro- and macrocosmos, linking, delinking, and blurring across natural scales. Besides IPv6, Bitcoin allows for $2 ^ { 2 5 6 }$ possible private keys and $2 ^ { 1 6 0 }$ possible private addresses. Perhaps its hash architecture can be made to not only to map virtual quanta of “ value ” but actual things as well at the scale required by a global economy, or a parallel economy. (Is the “ coin ” the “ address ” and the value in the mesh of addressees? If so then the cost of addressing of anything and everything may be prohibitive without the introduction of some new incentive for settling the blockchain consensus.) All that is solid doesn ’ t melt so much as it becomes fuzzy and spastic. In this, Address layer technologies of universal addressability point not only to assemblages that exist but to the media with which to compose those to come. 38 Address Layer 209 ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=226 | PRINTED_PAGE=210 48. Communication and Composition Design can only grope with the implications of an Address layer that meets matter at its own scales, and surely, unfortunately, it will do so initially through a demand that everything must appear and be disclosed to the cartographic militation of logistical necessity. But the geographies of communication are never and can never be limited to fixing things according to path and place. Things in the world always communicate and exchange information: DNA, RNA, and hair follicles disturbed by sound waves and sunlight exchanging information with celluloid film, for example. Things inform one another in specific ways, and this specificity is how Michel Serres defines communication as the work of Hermes. Adjacent to this, I see addressability not just as an absolute logistics but as a transalphabetic compositional platform. The logic of deep address is not only to identify discrete things and capture them into the fold by tagging them but also to designate with some manner of practical durability the ephemeral, immaterial, even metaphorical associations between instances, and thereby framing them as addressable events and passing them along as messages. By one perspective, this is what poetry does with written words. Its facility is not in the naturalistic explication of things as they are, but in the ongoing demonstration of language ’ s ability to contend with the affective contradictions of semantic abstraction. It might do this through the alignment of ideas that, by their positioning just so, are arranged for us as the trace of an alternative perception, or through the fixing of symbols on a surface that, through the poet ’ s cunning alienation of our interpretation, disclose startling truths about the materials of writing, sounding, reading, and so on. Similarly for deep address, in the assignment of a specific sequence of addressing identities to a precisely chosen web of immaterial associations now made into singularities (a certain view out the window, the falling of an anonymous bit of debris, one moment in the crashing together of dangerous alloys like a car and a driver), we render a composition built of nothing but a stream of applicable addresses resolving (somehow) to the signified arrangement of concepts, proximities, and appointments. The more difficult assignment for design is to compose relations within a framework that exceeds both the conventional appearances of forms and the provisional human context at hand, and so pursuing instead less the materialization of abstract ideas into real things than the redirection of real relations through a new diagram. 210 Address Layer ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=227 | PRINTED_PAGE=211 In expanding the space of potential addressability, the protocol interfaces between any two things that could be encapsulated into a provisional incorporation claim for them a position within a territorial apparatus. Even so there can ’ t be one single necessary relationship between a comprehensive computational addressing mechanism, such as the Address layer of The Stack, and the given distribution of things in the world. There is no one matrix of correspondence between a primary planetary plane and a second artificial machinic layer. Instead, between the two are qualified simulations and countersimulations that always flow both ways. Address is not simply a virtual layer constructed at scale so that it could overlay the first plane, like Borges ’ s one-to-one scale map, causing the original geography of positions to fade, crackle, and blow away. Rather, the interlacing territories blend and perforate, signifying within the other, feeding back and forth until each is interior to the other. Through addressability, the linking of matter and information otherwise disconnected is also a reinscribing of the boundaries of potential aggregations and a restructuring of their amalgamations and divisions through a recognition of their conditions and dependencies as a formal “ haecceity ” (after Charles Sanders Peirce). The correlation between an address and an addressee puts into question the stability of referent, which can be temporary, slow, or fast. As such, the proper unit for deep address wouldn ’ t be an Internet of Things, which suggests durable appliances beeping at each other, but an Internet of Haecceities, addressable specificities that might name particularities as they come and go, even before and after they exist for individual Users. 39 For The Stack, the compositional logic of addressing is not contained only within the Address layer but links operations up and down from the local to global and back again. The Stack could be said to compose lines between addressees located elsewhere, as the Address layer provides identification and rendering as “ present ” whatever might be available for delineation or containment. Address is like a valve through which the nomos of the Cloud cleaves subdivisions smaller than the geographic, and where it draws landscape-scale calculable interiors. At the Earth and Cloud layers, platform service empires organize open and closed populations of addressable Users, sensors, data sets, and interaction platforms, among others, from which they absorb and recirculate patterns of value. The worlds that the Cloud layer provides is limited to what it can address and be addressed by. At the City layer, Address augments urban intensities of activity, attention, circulation, simultaneity, segmentation. That addition, where avenues, apertures, and avatars are gathered into tacit micro-stacks, doesn ’ t (necessarily) override local sites and their embedded rhythms, but it can compress and expand them by linking each interface with distant events. Above, at the Interface layer, interactive screens and programmable objects structure circuits of cause and effect undertaken through their summary diagrams, but can only present, frame, and instrumentalize what it is possible to address and summon. Only then are the gymnastic accumulation of traces that outline the User organized as a set of addressable positions, and only then can she affect and be affected by The Stack. Like pixels resolving into a portrait image with given distance, the pattern of instances that constitute the biography of the User for The Stack is a mosaic of addressable haecceities, and zoomed out further, the encapsulated User is also in turn another one of these resolved addressees. Address Layer 211 ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=228 | PRINTED_PAGE=212 49. Absolute Incommunication Another way of conceptualizing the design problematic of this sort of assembly is in symbolic artifacts and how they come to seemingly absorb traces of memory and significance that are imparted to them through use. Whether by genealogical possession or through ritual, repeated use, and iconic significance, simple objects are a repository of intentions and sometimes are thought to be haunted by them. Whole societies organize around pilgrimages to such haunted objects. Deep address might also serve to materialize absorbed traces of emotional baggage as explicit information in and through the objects they mark. The limit of what the thing can “ remember ” about its intersubjective relations with the world (e.g., affective, geochemical, temporal) is also what can be made calculable and sensible for it. Perhaps those memories are part of how searches about searches for something introduce significance through their recursion. As more things, events, and things are addressed, the social relations of mutual interest between haecceities are themselves transposed into addressable clusters and empirically queryable entities; they are addresses about addresses. These may spawn addressable networks of metadata that spawn addressable meta-metadata, all of which require visualization tools to make them sensical to human Users. And so things that materially absorb and communicate the conditions of their appearance, and the installations of people and things along the same plane of such a network, are a challenge to our ethical, political, aesthetic stance toward the dignity of both. Marx famously diagnosed capitalism ’ s confused employment of people as if they were things and the assignment of magical agencies to objects. We know full well that capitalist economic relations drive and are driven by a productive rationality that renders all components according to their most apparently efficient conditions of production and circulation so as to maximize the surplus realized in their transactional intercommunication. Logistics understands flatness quite well, and this is also the good news. 40 The challenge is unwinnable on humanist terms, and I am not convinced that any “ parliament ” of things can govern this maelstrom. 41 Instead I would hope that a strongly ubiquitous computation would help to implode the sentimental parameters of brute humanism toward an alternative and more rigorous materialism that extends ethical programs outward by demanding empathetic recognition of ourselves in networked matter as coaddressees. That said, we do not require anything like deep address to realize that our temporary condition as bags of absolutely secular chemistry is also a seat of empathy and solidarity, but it might help. 212 Address Layer ## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=229 | PRINTED_PAGE=213 Who or what could organize universal addressing platforms and distribute their rights and regulations, especially now? Anthropocenic economic axioms lean everything toward an imperative of connection, to link one market with another, one location with another, one gesture with another, and to capture all things under the rubric of universal exchange where they might communicate without interference, friction, noise, distance, or delay. Its capture and transmission of energy (e.g., physical, geographic, cognitive, chemical) is also, if not essentially, a relay and mediation of these forms as information (their storage, calculation, transmission). From the perspective of deep address, these economies are but one local site of a more comprehensive congregation of reactions. 42 The ultimate interest of this prehensile vortex is a white hot absolute communication, as means and end in itself. We have no idea how to govern in this context and will likely fall back on the structural compulsion to transparency and an enforced necessity of appearance, everything summoned past the threshold of the pornographic. For The Stack, appearance may already be “ compulsory, ” as nothing is couched within its architecture without prior nomination of its presence and identity (and its deformation and alterity). This mandate is similar to the function of money as the mediator of universal equivalence between things and actions, which guarantees their appearance one to the other according to that reductive exchangeability. We might then anticipate a full financialization of addressability whereby hoarding and speculating on the capacity to address things and events is itself a commodity with global value. However, while the Address layer contributes to The Stack ’ s totality through this compulsory cartography in which anything unaddressed cannot have formal presence and everything past, present, and future must be addressed, it is not necessary that they are representable through a single master perspective. That is, while the universal appetite of deep address appears as a totally synchronic space, an atonal closed field (an atemporal zero-sum geography, the ultimate walled garden), and so invites reflexive reactions of resistance, strategic opacity, and lines of flight, the totality is far more fragile and unpredictable than we might wish or fear. 4 We can then summarize two basic conditions that we will want to bounce off one another until they crack. The first is algorithmic logic in the service of a ferocious autophagic efficiency that characterizes the myopia of the post-Fordist aesthetics of logistics. The second is that the individuation and virtualization of particulate substance into a self-transparent computational material through standardized indexes of nested relations would become a prerequisite for the unrestrained financialization of matter, living and nonliving. But not only is the totality of The Stack itself deeply unstable, it ’ s not clear that its abyssal scope of addressability and its platform for the proliferation of near-infinite signifiers within a mutable finite space are actually correspondent with the current version of Anthropocenic capitalism. Concurrent to its immediate programs, deep address also distributes a mesh over existing supply chains that has the potential to destabilize their closed hub-and-spoke topologies. The valorization of the node within a decentralized network provides to it a certain degree of autonomy to form new edges on its own without the permissive provision from a central authority, market, or provider. The apparently irreducible plane of the addressable landscape begins to percolate with odd links and “ conversations ” between unpredictable pairings of sender and receiver. Organic conspiracies blossom in our midst, and these accidents are part of the unpredictability of platforms. Deep address demands appearance, but appearance to what? Toward what forum is it a forensic medium? How many utterly incongruent territories can evolve through this platform, one layered on top of the other, speaking completely different languages, deaf to one another ’ s claims on anything? There is no reason that the same object might not have a million different addresses for a million different schemes, most of which might not even be aware of the existence of the other and need never be. In this, the radical transparency of utter appearance becomes but one worldly immediacy, within the space of a particular addressing territory that may be illiterate of others and invisible to them. While any haecceity is obligated to appear to its own semantic references and in this is given both subjectivity and subjugation, it is also free to enter into relations with others that enroll it in exotic extrinsic economies. This potential blessing of drift toward alien incommunication is along with the very abyssality of deep address itself, a most productive accident of the Address layer, and one we would do well to explore. Address Layer 213 下一段：[继续读取](https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341.md?start=230&limit=10)