28.01.2015 Views

Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Chaosophy - autonomous learning

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

even on behalf of relatively simple and small machines that the<br />

desiring "convivial revolution" has to be made, but on behalf of<br />

machinic innovation itself, which capitalist or communist societies<br />

do everything in their economic and political power to repress. 13<br />

One of the greatest artists of desiring-machines, Buster Keaton<br />

was able to pose the problem of an adaptation of the mass machine<br />

to individual ends, or to those of a couple or small group, in The<br />

Navigator, where the two protagonists "have to deal with housekeeping<br />

equipment generally used by hundreds of people (the galley<br />

is a forest of levers, pulleys, and wires). "14 It is true that the themes<br />

of reduction or adaptation of machines are not sufficient by themselves,<br />

and stand for something else. This is shown by the demand<br />

that everyone be able to make use of them and control them. For<br />

the true difference between social technical machines and desiringmachines<br />

obviously is not in the size, nor even in the ends they<br />

serve, but in the regime that decides on the size and the ends. They<br />

are the same machines, but it is not the same regime. This is not to say,<br />

by any means, that we should counter the present regime, which<br />

submits technology to the aims of an economy and a politics of<br />

oppression, with the notion of a regime in which technology presumably<br />

would be liberated and liberating. Technology presupposes<br />

social machines and desiring-machines, each within the other, and,<br />

by itself, has no power to decide which will be the engineering<br />

agency, desire or the oppression of desire. Every time technology<br />

claims to be acting on its own, it takes on a fascist hue, as in the<br />

techno-structure, because it implies not only economic and political<br />

investments, but libidinal investments as well, and they are<br />

turned entirely towards the oppression of desire. The distinction<br />

between the two regimes, as the regime of antidesire and that of<br />

desire, does not come down to the distinction between the collectivity<br />

and the individual, but to two types of mass organization, in<br />

which the individual and the collective do not enter into the same<br />

108/

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!