[-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections

[Adam Nocek]

Hi all,

Thanks for forcing me to clarify, Johannes. I mentioned last week's
discussion for two reasons, I suppose. On the one hand, I wanted to call
attention to the fact that  "eco-technologies" (which include the products
of biotech, synthetic biology, biodesign, etc.) are often marshaled to
support the neoliberalized ideal of an "eco-city" with its healthy
metabolism, and so on. This was mentioned last week, I believe. In other
words, the neoliberalization of urban design and biodesign are deeply
entangled.

The other reason for mentioning last week's discussion is more abstract.
That is, I'm very intrigued by the notion of the "urban" that Ross
proposed: namely, that it is a "spatial-political order predicated on
limitless expansion." I imagine that Ross is drawing on Brenner and
Lefebvre here (although please correct me if I'm wrong, Ross). What strikes
me, though, is that just as the "urban" is a "spatial-political order" that
constitutes the world under neoliberal power, life is also becoming-- and
in very particular ways--something that is predicated on the limitless
expansion of its territory. And the point is: garage biology does not
easily escape this expansion. Genetic tinkering (Oron, please correct me if
I'm wrong here) never happens in isolation -- either in the wet lab or in
the garage. Biomaterials and information are sent through the mail (think
of Steve Kutz), exchanged online, found on data bases, etc. In short, bio
information, materials, and parts circulate in a global exchange that is
profitable -- from next-generation biofuels and organ regeneration to 3D
printing organic chairs, etc., etc. One of the implications of this is that
there is an unprecedented spatial-political expansion to "life," to its
materials, and to its limitless applications--and there are also gross
inequalities that this expansion produces. In any case, what my previous
post was trying to suggest, I suppose, is that urban design and biodesign
may share this dream of territorial expansion.

And my call for "deep time"… well, that was merely a plea to think about
life as somehow existing simultaneously within the register of neoliberal
expansion and within the register of the geologic time of the planet… to
the extent that this is at all possible…

Hope this clarifies. Thoughts??

Best,
Adam



On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Johannes Birringer <
Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> dear all
>
> realizing the discussion is invited to move on (by Adam's post today),  I
> still hope Oron will follow up his initial postings and perhaps expand on
> the notions of regenerative biology
> and designing life that he brought here.  Am not sure how they relate to
> "deep time", as Adam suggests, and I am also not convinced that we can draw
> easy parallels between the first
> and second weeks' subject matters.....
> >
> What's intriguing to me is how much the conversation is an elaboration of
> last week's developing discussion on urbanization [Adam]
> >
>
> Could you refine how you see 'urban data politics' related to the modes
> and "modalizations" of life, as Manchev may imply that side of
> biology/biotechnology --  introduced by Oron or projected by the
> quasi-critical designs of bioartists who investigate growing cultures or
> tinkering with cells, at the genetic level  --  when critiquing the
> politics of plasticity.  For those who were interested in my reference to
> Boyan Manchev's writings but could not track the german text, i found an
> english translation from a Slovene translation ("Odpor plesa", Maska 25
> [2010], pp. 9-19), and cite a paragraph from the opening pages of that text
> on modes of life:
>
> <
> Forms of Life as commodities
>
> The society of the spectacle undoubtedly complies with technology-based,
> post-industrial capitalism, its logic of production as well as the modern
> logic of representation: it is the outcome of hyper-technologization and
> functionalization, codifying life and prescribing processes of
> subjectivation, which are nothing less than forms of subjugation. The new
> model up for debate, as it surpasses the model of developed modernity,
> introduces a completely new commodity to the game: the forms of life
> itself. In reference to Debord’s definition of the society of the
> spectacle, one could define this new model as “capital accumulated to the
> point that it becomes a form of life”.
>
> But first, in what sense can the term ‘life forms’ be used? The term has
> the fundamental task of introducing a different notion of life, which
> implies that there is no essentially determined life, only life forms, or
> rather modes of life: Life is the modalization of life...
>
> Traditional capitalism was based on the notion of growth: Working more
> efficiently and producing more meant an increase and expansion of leisure
> time for autonomous life beyond commerce, thus creating more space for
> forms of life that do not conform to the rules of any market. The distinct
> quality of the new model, in contrast, lies in the attempt to absorb the
> subject’s modern autonomy by taking over the sphere of privacy.
> Philosophically speaking, this means taking over the sphere of possible
> experimentation with different modes of subjectivation, life and
> alternative human interaction, in short, the sphere that is the actual site
> of ‘human existence’.
>
> The new model thus takes over the ‘un-producible’, totalizing the range of
> the market....
> >
>
>
>
> regards
> Johannes Birringer
> dap
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20140923/6a6b54ba/attachment.htm>