nettime's digest on Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:32:55 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> There are only Vectors [2x] |
Table of Contents: Re: <nettime> There are only Vectors "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark@hotmail.com> RE: <nettime> There are only Vectors "Eugene Thacker" <eugene.thacker@lcc.gatech.edu> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:01:13 -0500 From: "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> There are only Vectors David writes that "surely power has always had a vector." yes, but its historical-technical form changes. The most significant change, in my view, beginning with the telegraph, which bifurcates time, splitting the time of the movement of information from that of objects and subjects. I don't really find this in Virilio, who does speak about differentials of speed, or the gearbox of speeds. But in the main i think my approach is quite different. Virilio does not really address what I am calling third nature, where the landscape of the communication vector becomes a space and time over and above the space and time of things, both directing it and managing it, but also producing new kinds of 'accident', or what i call the weird global media event. Thanks to Miguel for mentioning the epidemological use of the term vector, which is also a good way of understanding the term. A vector for HIV is human blood; a vector for cholera is water. It defines a space of possibility and also of impossibility. You can't get AIDS from drinking water; cholera cannot really use the air as a vector, etc. Even within the space of possibility, it doesn't determin why *this* blood, *this* water is actualized as the vector. Or in other words, this is a 'technological possibilist' line of thought, not a technological determinism. I would point out to Are that I was *not* one of those people wetting their pants over headsets and data gloves. In fact these are the concepts by which i managed to *avoid* some of the fetishisms of technoculture writing. Of course you are all free to just worship at the feet of famous names, and attribute all that is good in thought to your favorite idols. Or we can think for ourselves, here and now, by finding what is productive in each other's thought. That way might lie an ethics of the vector... ___________________________________________________ http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html ... we no longer have roots, we have aerials ... ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:42:54 -0500 From: "Eugene Thacker" <eugene.thacker@lcc.gatech.edu> Subject: RE: <nettime> There are only Vectors Hi all - I've been reading McKenzie's interesting posts for some time & wanted to add a few more perspectives: (i) Information: it seems that a certain notion of "information" is central to the vector & vectoralization. The vector seems to depend on three proce= sses that are at once technical and political: informatization (encoding; everything is information), commodification (property-without-matter; information valuation), and distribution (regulation of how that information moves). Maybe a historicizing of information may help clarify the "ontological jam" McKenzie mentions. For instance, much of the modern, technical definitions of info arise out of US military research - Wiener's cybernetics defines information as "negative entropy" in the context of anti-aircraft ballistics technologies, where "informational feedback" is of central concern. Similarly, Shannon's work at Bell labs not only established the sender-message-ch annel-receiver model of communications, but also defined "noise" in relation to cryptography. Shannon & Weaver are interesting - and exemplary - becau se they explicitly define information in a quantitative manner, irrespective of content. (ii) Wet data: McKenzie talks about vectors as "the capacity to subordinate materiality to 'informationality'" & also mentions epidemiology & viruses in his work, and maybe the example from biology is instructive, if only as a counter-point. There's all this talk about genetic "information" and DNA as a "code" (there's a number of events celebrating the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA this year...). And, historians of science have pointe= d out the cross-disciplinary transactions between cybernetics/engineering & biology/genetics during the post-war era, culminating in the informatic view of biological life. But there's some very obvious ways in which the information-materiality issues haven't been resolved in artifacts like genome databases, biochips, or genetic drugs - or rather, they have been resolved strategically by the pharma industry by saying that information is essential, abstract pattern (DNA) that is defined by its mobility (database, pill, body). Do biologists mean the same thing by "information" that technologists do? The implication is that the genome is an Internet, but if you look closely t= he term mutates when it goes from one context (engineering, cybernetics, military-tech) to another context (biology, genetic engineering). Evelyn Fox Keller mentions this when she notes that, for Watson & Crick, "information" means both content and form (sequence + double-helix; a mutation can mean = disease), both quality and quantity. Whereas for Shannon & Weaver, information is not to be confused with the "content" of a message. This is why the vectors of biology are an interesting case - the term is also used in molecular genetics textbooks in the context of gene therapy, clo= ning, and in protein synthesis. What's interesting is that whenever "information" is used, it's used in its technical sense, but, in biological networ= ks, there is no channel separate from a message, no data or file that's passed from node to node. Membrane signaling, for instance, in which molecules are brought into or kept out of a cell, is not really signaling in Shannon's sense, because everything happens through intra-molecular interactions. = There's no data sent across cable, everything's physical (which doesn't mean it's natural). The body is already information long before the computeriz= ation of biology & genome databases. (iii) Virtual vectors: which leads to a question - can vectors be virtual? McKenzie I think states that they are, with qualifications. It can be asked another way - is information movement, or is information a mobile? (iv) Mathematization of politics, or politicization of math? I'm still looking for texts which really address the implications of appropriating math terms like vectors, graphs, networks, nodes, edges, hubs, topology, etcetc. into political discourse... - -Eugene # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net