Barely have I redirected here to other articles in full length – yet reading Svitlana Matviyenko’s article “Interpassive User: Complicity and the Returns of Cybernetics” in The Fiberculture Journal provided such insight through its interweaving of strands of thought. Her article incites reading as a pleasure, by displaying a choreography in entangled thinking that acts so precisely on what is out there connecting the knots between the everyday and thought expression that I simply want to promote it as it is:
Abstract: This essay discusses the notions of â€œextensionâ€ and â€œprosthesisâ€ as two different logics and modes of being with technology. I trace the two terms to the work of Marshall McLuhan, influenced by the work of Norbert Wiener and Buckminster Fuller. I argue that the logic of softwarisation (Manovich, 2013) is similar to the logic of extension, while the logic of appification (IDC, 2010) is similar to that of prosthesis. I argue that these logics also map onto the logics of metonymy and metaphor. I explain why such a distinction is useful for reading mobile apps and the computing practices they enable. I conclude by raising questions about usersâ€™ complicity within the bio-technological cybernetic assemblage: What does the user of these technologies want? Is she able to confront her desire through their use? Why is the demanding swarm of parasitic â€˜media speciesâ€™, such as apps, so determined to get under the userâ€™s skin?