[p2p-research] Fwd: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source (innovation as manipulation)

Sat Mar 20 10:47:58 CET 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open
source
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>

interesting reply revolving around
*
*
*" **an interest in introducing an innovation with the intention of forcing
adaptation
in the population. "*

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: davin heckman <davinheckman at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open
source
To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>

Julian,

I'm sorry for being unclear.  What I had meant to say is that,
typically, a prototype is a discrete thing which is created with the
intention of being tested.  Certainly the way the prototype is tested
is a) the object itself is put through various challenges that are
anticipated uses and stresses, and b) the general integration of the
thing into the system is also tested at that point (how the thing
might fare in light of unanticipated uses and stresses).  The
distinction I was trying to draw was the coercive potential of
innovations.  Where there is less an interest in testing an individual
thing with the intention of improving it....  and more of an interest
in introducing an innovation with the intention of forcing adaptation
in the population.

I was less concerned with individuals modifying themselves through,
say, education or societies changing populations through educational
institutions.  These things, on their face, have the intention of
shaping the person and society.  They are, at least in principle,
geared towards the preservation of individual and social existence.
Or, at least, they do insofar as they are generated by a public in
service of the ideal public which they represent.

On the other hand, there are technologies that seem to be introduced
with the stated purpose of achieving one objective, yet have the
larger objective of changing human populations.  Take, for instance,
the infamous case of Nestle's infant formula strategy in Africa.
Company reps masquerading as health workers introduce infant formula
to a population that had not used it previously.  The suggested
purpose is to provide nutrition and humanitarian aid.  But when women
stopped lactating and suddenly found themselves forced to pay for the
product or watch their children starve, a much more radical technical
innovation becomes apparent--the forced creation of a new social web
in service of corporate interests.

More current (and relevant) examples might be the sort of biological
innovations that have been spurred by petrochemical industries as
ubiquitous products (plastics, agricultural products, drugs, etc)
saturate ecosystems with chemicals that interfere with hormone
production across the food chain, resulting in an explosion of
diseases requiring treatment.  I don't know that I know enough to say
that there is anything resembling a conspiracy here....  other than
the sort of conspiracy of opportunistically imposed apathy and
ignorance.  But the general recklessness of big business seems to
suggest that there is something intentional about turning quick
profits, letting major catastrophic accidents happen, and then
profiting further.  Habituating people to live in a precarious state
of withered consciousness seems to have been the real "value"
uncovered by the pervasive barrage of technical innovations....  human
beings can be turned into quivering beasts who will tolerate any
injustice simply to hope for another day, and in many cases, who will
tear at each other's throats in defense of the paymasters responsible
for this exploitation.

I suppose I should hang it up, here.  I might be drawing a false
distinction.  And I certainly am off the rails for this month's
discussion.  There is something moralistic in my argument, resembling
the months old discussion of "good" and "bad" that we had here.  Yet,
I wonder that there might be some value in drawing distinctions
between orders of technological existence.   That the fast-forward
orientation of prototyping is fascinating and productive....  but it
is a loaded term...  and it is one that I have a hard time unpacking.

Davin

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver <julian at julianoliver.com>
wrote:
> ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -0000, Johannes Birringer wrote:
>> >> Davin wrote:>> At one point in time, discrete objects were things that
were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and
tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test
individual and collective consciousness.  In other words, maybe we are the
 prototypes?  Being tested so that we can be effectively processed,
shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold>>
>
> Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly
clear
> that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's
root -
> simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the
duration
> of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and
eventuating
> objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved?
>
> Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially
aquaintances,
> marketeers and those that resource people.
>
> Beast,
>
> --
> Julian Oliver
> home: New Zealand
> based: Berlin, Germany
> currently: Berlin, Germany
> about: http://julianoliver.com
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100320/a2d786cd/attachment.html>