[-empyre-] the man as a prototype - the limits of open source

[Gabriel Menotti]

> After this warm-up and to finalize my brief intervention, for this week’s
> Empyre I propose the following discussion: how might synthetic biological
> concocts shed new light on the concept of the ‘prototype’ as a means for
> democratizing knowledge productions? (Sonia Matos)

I think diy bio is iconic as a practice because it not only seems to
increase the dynamics between different levels of (knowledge)
production – specialized and layman research –, but also between
subject and object. The way you put it, Sonia, I can't help
remembering Zaratustra famous remark that 'man is a bridge to the
Overman'. After all, diy bio does breach the concreteness of a being
that is not exactly (or entirely) technical - at least from an ethical
standpoint. In spite of this, is Simondon's approach enough to reason
about biological (if not living) organisms? Would diy bio allow such
reflexiveness that we start seeing ourselves as prototypes (i mean
seriously, not in an scatological transhumanist way)? Or we still have
to wait until the availability of a bioengineering home lab?


> one danger of do it yourself culture, is also the
> breakdown of actual cumbersome but humanly necessary moments of interaction. (Christopher Sullivan)

i share some of your anxieties towards open source. in some sense,
they risk being just a reorganization of priorities and levels of
authorizations - the role of the designer becoming a form of mere use
encompassed by a even more controled layer of design (let's say
protocolar?). nevertheless, i believe that diy models create
possibilities for meaningful interaction through the act of making -
and even what you call 'actual' interaction, with digital models
coupling with physical hardware, electronics and the possibilities of
fast-prototyping (which might mean involve materials as cheap as
paper).

best!
Menotti