Cancel
Comment on Archeodatalogy - Entwined, Enmeshed, Entangled

starwalker Fri, Feb 22, 2013
The horizon of a new thought, weaved into cyber existence, this essay brings it to a palpable presence, thank you wildcat for the unrelenting pull in this direction… I think it is a great direction of research in the meta narrative of the Polytopia project; few reflections emerging with the reading. It is more questions than affirmations, addressing a refining of understanding.

Using for a moment a close analogy, an ecology in our physical world represents an integrated whole, an adaptive and complex system which is continuously processing at all scales the energy bonds and information exchanges between all of its constituents. In this sense an ecology emerges with the bonds among its parts, subsystems, agents, spaces and the flows of energy and information sustained among them. There is no separation between an ‘inhabitant’ and its ‘ecology’. We may use the perspective of ‘visitors’ to distinct ourselves from an ecology but even there the contour is not at all hermetic.

Would it be correct to consider infocologies similarly defined? with the difference that they are the integrated expression of information flows, in their hyperconnected abstract expression. Information flows are what binds us in a particular infocology. If this description applies, then one may ask what would be more ‘real’ in interaction, the infocology of flows or the particular narrative of an individual in it? And I believe that depending on which is the scale of interaction this is not a given (am I at a given moment entangled with an infocology or with a particular individual? Or is it with a unique flow of the infocology?).

We need to recur to the metanarrative of an individual as infocology to find the same level of relevancy. Does it matter though that I’ll know if a particular infocology is the emergent result of one individual, few or many? all I meet is a flow of mediated interactivity. The question that opens here is what exactly defines an ‘organism’ in an infocology? Relating it to the way in which organism is the basis for individuation in an ecology).

The moment that the focus shifts from ‘bodies’ to ‘flows of information’, the ‘individual’ could become a unique possible configuration among many. A chosen manifest in a particular flow, not necessarily the one I will a priori tune to while interacting in infocologies.

Am I recognizing ‘individuals’ behind the comments under an article at CNN? Depends, (automated bots not being the main reason for my answer). There is no denying ‘individuals’ but I am well aware that I am encountering particular partial narratives belonging to the particular infocology flow of information, not necessarily a representation of individuals.

The ambiguity grows, carrying though a projection of freedom, which I will compare, for lack of better metaphor, to the ability of changing the focus in a system of lenses (a camera or a projector or both) to different scales and resolutions, or in other words the capacity for coherency at multiple scales. Which description/composition of “I” carries the ability to produce coherent flows of information at multiple scales without losing its primal coherency?

And what to attribute this ‘organismic’ primal coherency to? Is it agency? Choice? Intentionality? Or is it the integrated whole? We can in actuality be simultaneously humans and topoi and variously integrated bodies and multitudes, while holding realness, intensity and intentionality, or can we? It is indeed a critical territory to chart and demands a full new thought about the individual sense of existence.
If i understand correctly your pointing to archeodatology may describe as well the journeys into this new perception of coherency. Thank you again for eliciting these thoughts.