@bot ...

@bot hello?

:)

Digital Autonomy logs

@bot ...

autonomy?

automatic autonomy

onomy

botonomy

a bot of one's own

full interview with Eleanor Greenhalgh

Sebastian Olma on Spinoza, internet and autonomy (from In Defense of Serendipity)

ciao bot

Possible Vocabularies: Affective / Feminist / Collective / — ...Infrastructures // Interdependent Networks // "Livable Interdependencies" (Judith Butler) // "Non-sovereign relationality" (Lauren Berlant) // Selves-organized // Sym-poiesis (Donna Haraway)

Possible Vocabularies: "Intra-sectionality/  Trans-sectionality/ Intersectional Technologies (Femke Snelting)"

"Solidarity Poiesis: I believe it is crucial to enable apoetics that generates infrastructures of their own kind, ones that can be seen as sensuous, 'non-reproductive' extensions of sociality. After all, that which can be deemed crucial for imagination is the sensuousness that imagination is operating with: the resistance of the concrete to any form of abstraction or reduction. (Robin Vanbesien)"

, if you hear me: this is from Melissa Gregg's Counterproductive

This is from a text by Femke, which she wrote in the conext of the Affective Infrastructures study circle of his year's Transmediale

More Gregg on time sovereignty

Luke is here

more from the text by Femke, on Lauren Berlant's "nonsovereign relationality"

btw.: https://possiblebodies.constantvzw.org/geometries/othergeometries.pdf

/book autonomy

/book butler precarious life

/book laboria cuboniks xenofeminist

Campi Aberti

correction Campiaperti

http://distributedweb.care/posts/who-owns-the-stars/

from the link above: "But, self-sovereignty is far too vague of a concept on its own. Left- and right-libertarianism both start with self-sovereignty as a core value, but they end up with vastly different conceptions of what meaningful self-sovereignty looks like and how it can be achieved. Left-libertarianism finds that self-sovereignty arises from social organizing, care, and democratic governance, which build towards positive freedoms (freedom to learn, to flourish, and so on); whereas, right-libertarianism believes it comes from the market and that negative freedoms (freedom from restrictions and regulation) are the goal. Though Yarvin does not identify as a libertarian (he is, in his own words, sympathetic to it), his neocameralism is right-libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion6 of corporate tyranny and serfdom."<\em>

hello from Bucharest

hey are you still recommending us books?

what about post-digital /books?

“Relational design” does not name a style, a school, or a movement. Instead, it is an analytical tool by which we can better understand the historical evolution of ideas in design. It privileges process over product, open platforms and systems over one-off objects, and design understood as situated experience. If the old modernist maxim was “form equals content,” its contemporary is “form equals context.” While most 20th century design is autonomous, independent, isolated, and closed, relational design is synonymous with interdependence, connectedness, and openness. It evokes today’s network culture, both literally and metaphorically, and the web of associations, uses, and contexts determining design today. (From: http://sds.parsons.edu/designdialogues/?post_type=article&p=68 as a addition to the references we collected so far )

(btw i think there are problems with the statements about "openness", the vagueness of "relational" (sounds neutral almost) and the word "equals" in "form equals context", but i thought it was nice to add as a reference, as it uses the term "interdependence" and "situatedness" )

"If relational art produces human relations, then the next logical question to ask is what type of relations are being produced, for whom, and why?" (Claire Bishop)

hello welcome back!

Hello

he do something

speak to me

coucou

olala