Two quotes and thoughts

1. TOWARD EMBODIED VIRTUALITY

Quote:
The chapters that follow will show what had to be elided, suppressed, and forgotten to make
information lose its body. This book is a “rememory” in the sense of Toni Morrison’s Beloved:
putting back together parts that have lost touch with one another and reaching out toward a
complexity too unruly to fit into disembodied ones and zeros. (p.13)

The general idea of this point:

Historical Development of Virtuality: The author traces the historical development of the
perception of the world as an interplay between informational patterns and material objects. This
construction emerged notably after World War II, influenced by cybernetics.

The perception of virtuality, viewing material objects as interpenetrated by information patterns,

emerged in the wake of World War II. By 1948, thinkers like Wiener had articulated the distinction
between information and matter, emphasizing that "information is information, not matter or
energy." This definition is not merely a psychological phenomenon but is instantiated in
various powerful technologies.
2. Rancière: Who Is the Subject of the Rights of Man?
Quote:
"Consensus means closing the spaces of dissensus by plugging the intervals and patching over
the possible gaps between appearance and reality or law and fact."(p.306)

The article explores the complex relationship between the Rights of Man and the concept of the
subject. Rancière engages with the ideas of other philosophers, such as Giorgio Agamben and
Hannah Arendt, to discuss how political subjects emerge in the context of rights and citizenship.
The text delves into the implications of political dissensus, the nature of bare life, and the role of
humanitarianism in shaping the discourse around human rights.

Research Question: The article seeks to answer the question of who constitutes the subject of the
Rights of Man and how the concept of political subjectivity interacts with the notion of rights.

About Rancière’s critique on Arendt:

Jacques Rancière offers a critical perspective on Hannah Arendt's conception of political subjects
and the nature of democracy. Here are some key aspects of Rancière's critique towards Arendt:

Concept of Political Subject:

Rancière challenges Arendt's distinction between "man" and the "citizen." While Arendt suggests a
fundamental division between those who belong to the political realm (citizens) and those who do
not (humans), Rancière argues that this distinction is not a sign of disjunction but rather an
opening for political subjectivization.
Rancière introduces the concept of "dissensus," emphasizing that true politics involves a capacity
to stage scenes of dissensus. He criticizes Arendt's idea of consensus, which, according to
Rancière, attempts to get rid of politics by replacing surplus subjects with predefined social
groups, identity groups, and other partners.

In summary, Rancière's critique of Arendt revolves around his emphasis on dissensus, the role of
surplus subjects, and the dynamic relationship between the Rights of Man and their dissensual
stage. He argues against the depoliticizing tendencies inherent in Arendt's ideas and suggests a
more inclusive understanding of political subjects.

My personal thoughts:

Virtuality: A Way of Eliminating Dissensus?