#blubers

Is like the age of zeroes and ones. Again. Attaching labels on everything in order to count them into equations. Simple, right? Just think about everything that is possible thinkeble, attach a ...let's call it value, or better power and count it. Do artifacts have politics? Where are the missing masses? Blur.

One may ask: why is it so hard to remember how you hate that ...teacup? watch? pencil? colleague? Are feelings towards object different than feelings towards persons? You smash the teacup, you avoid the colleague. Still, we don't really want to be materialists right? But people do merry in the name of money.

Materialism isn't far from capitalism, value based processes. We like or we disregard it, here there are some that embrace it. Objects do have politics. They do have agency. (Prison)> a list (if looked at it in one dimension) of constraints that were design to have a political, social, humanistic, technological function.

We that are not materialists. Disregard the power of objects just like that. Setting: North Korea. Or one other if it was few decades ago. Go in front of that big pile of concrete or bronze statue of whoever is standing and do something that is characteristic to the human nature (be unorganized chaotic: e.g. run about and shout that you need a change). That still mass of material will punish you. Yes we dip into waters of symbolism, but objects stand close to their definition. The difference is that objects act more directly by themselves in comparison with still statues.

We assume from this point on that every thing, has politics and agency, an expression of a defined system. We shall not be surprised when one smashes the keyboard, screams at the mouse, at the designer, at a statue, at a football player, at a door, at self.

Slam! the door shuts in my face. Who the * designed it? Should I go and complain at the administration? Should I just disable the mechanism? Should I remove the door? Just a few options. All have consequences, all have impact.

We design consequences. But who designs us? We design to design our-selves. Discipline, creation, evolution. Caught between the carrot and the lash, we multiply selves. Multiplicative replaceable technological partial scoped imperfect clones — objects.