(This post is in English, for my dear internaut friends in #telekompaketet)
Axiom 1 – The territory precedes netizenship expressions
Proposition 1 – Force is derived from affective middle spaces, which are siphonophoric and deterritorializing.
Axiom 2 – The internet is in Brownian motion.
You will see a multitude of tiny particles mingling in a multitude of ways… their dancing is an actual indication of underlying movements of matter that are hidden from our sight… (Lucretius, 60 BC)
Protocols, clients, users, groups, formats, indexes, archives, visualizations… the means of transferring data are numerous, the modes of connecting and forming larger aggregates are almost infinite. This is attested by the use of social network analysis. Take the piespy robot, which maps the connections made between users of an Internet Relay Chat, and we get this output:Shakesperian novel, played out in real time. However, this one is not fictional, but is taking place in millions of places around the world, on more than 1500 IRC servers. It resembles more the unorganized (but still organic) siphonophoria mentioned above.There is a sudden formation, each with its own capacities, but the formation is only stable as long as it interacts. A conversation, such as the activist chat room of #telekompaketet, could vanish sooner than it appeared. The disorganized chaos is only meaningful, as long as affects are in between users.Lucretius, who was the first one to write about such seemingly chaotic movements (which resemble the modern notion of Brownian motion), proposed that there were ”underlying movements of matter that are hidden from our sight”, that in turn brought about the visible movements, perceptible to us.Concerning the energy that drives the internet-Brownian motion, we would fail to describe this as a force related to extensive substances, such as ”matter”, ”god” or ”law”. The energy is only meaningful within concrete assemblages and territories – The eagle’s vision are only useful when flying over a steppe looking for prey, the fur of the racoon dog changes with the temperatures of the forest and the biosonar of dolphins can only become capacities if they bounce on fish or rocks.
Proposition 2 – Legal overcodings are passive.If Axiom 1 is true, followed by the first Proposition, then internet is primarily an asignifying chaos. With Axiom 2 we discover that the geometry is held together by forces (puissance). Then, we must necessarily add a coding process in order to find what we all seem to talk about in relation to net politics, in the ”common sense” view. We must inquire to the semiotic processes of coding, re-coding and de-coding the ideals of integrity, freedom, net neutrality etc.Coding processes take many shapes. The most obvious ones are legal overcodings. Lately, regulatory frameworks of global, regional and national authorities have tried to define what the internet is about. Internauts are often defined as ”consumers”, ”markets”, ”audiences”, ”data” or even, in extreme cases, ”terrorist groups”.These could maybe be resisted by arguing reactively with ”freedom”, ”citizens”, ”integrity” etc. It is worth a try, why not.These legal codings, however, pale in comparison to jellyfish memetics. Make politics subsonar, submarine, without leaders as an asignifying practice! Leave only traces of water and slime! Fax your biosonar! Ping your way through the oceans, an make sure your harbours are filled with data love!
Conclusion – Jellyfish memetics are fractal.Updated: Spelling (if you find more errors, please comment).