Thanks Barbara,
I am with you regarding the agency of physical materials. Yes, knitting is a collaboration between the live human knitter, the history of knitting as a cultural practice, the climate temperatures of the world that would lead humans to develop a historical "code" of knitting, the materiality of sheep, grass, wool, spinning tech, etc.
But I am also positing that "language" is itself a force in the material world. So I don't solely identify Derrida with "the linguistic turn" any more than I see him excluded by (or overcome by) "the affective turn." From the perspective I am trying to forward, knitting patterns (code) are not solely a "human" thing, nor solely a "semiotic" thing. Knitting code arises in the world at the confluence of immanent historical forces (global temperature, human skin, human hands, sheep, grain, grazing propertly laws, the materiality of wool, the technology of spinning wheels and looms, the technology of writing and speaking, the culture of knitting circles and quilting bees) and feeds back into the world to further affect future forces.
Language is an affective immanent force. Humans are "natural" material (with an uber-funky and unique agency way unlike wool, but not apart from wool in the world). Derrida (+ Austin, Bakhtin, but *not* Searle!) and Deleuze (+ Whitehead, Bergson, Massumi, Elizabeth Grosz) meet in a holy kiss (or something much more illicit and entangled).
Best,
Curt
On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Barbara Lattanzi wrote:
> Hi Curt.
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Barbara, you ask, "Can we coders translate this to say that there is a fundamental connection among computation, the performativity of code, and historical temporality (not just clock-time!)?"
>>
>> How would you define "computation" above? (I'm not being snarky. I'm actually curious.) I uderstand what you mean by history (like biological evolution) vs. computation (like an emergent artificial life system).
>
>
> No, I do not see one thing "versus" another....history is not opposite computation.
>
>> But when the performativity of code is set against (or even beside) something else called "computation," i'm wondering what remains that may properly be called "computation?" I would say the two are so fundamentally connected as to be (at least immanently) inextricable.
>
> Excuse me for not being clear. In the discussion of performativity of code, I feel there is an over-reliance on language.
>
> For me, this confuses the discussion which then tends to rely on the concept of performativity to prop up such formulations as "humanizing data" or prop up projects of "deconstruction" centered on language, or dependence on linguistic terms such as "slippage".
>
> So, I am suggesting (based on a very different set of references) that computation is not limited to human intention and performativity is not solely dependent on human language (as important as language obviously is).
>
> I am trying to make room for consideration of the nonhuman. That is, the nonhuman that computes, that performs a solution to a problem through an organization of matter and energy.
>
> Rachel, earlier on, says..."In the handmade we see slippages all the time, arguable one of the defining characteristics of something that is handmade."
>
> My response to this is simply her description doesn't go far enough in representing what is going on with the process of knitting. Performativity of code uses a formal set of instructions to simulate the ability of matter to express its capacities.
>
> If we apply that concept to knitting a hat, what happens? We see that a bundle of threads, in partnership with the know-how of the craftperson, are able to cohere as a knot, solving a problem of unequal tensions that give rise to the hat itself.
>
> Rachel's notion of slippage only goes so far as a shorthand for something much more exciting...a knitted hat (as an example) takes shape as a combinatory procedure, part human, part nonhuman.
>
> Barbara
|