Amoore, 'Politics of Possibility', Chapter 6

Masked philosopher: Often Foucault’s interviews were done anonymously. If everything is predictable then there is no space for critique. If everything is predictable there is not space for anything new to emerge, no event. Foucault--if everything is predictable then there is no space for new thoughts. Space of critque within a politics of possibility as to take some of that novelty. Foucault felt when became know, the encounter with readers was predetermined.

It felt as though the space of critique was both internal and external to politics of possibility. Politics are only possible when you open a space of critique. Critique was construed negatively--critique is supposed to tell us how the world could be but doesn’t point us in the way it should be. Foucault says we need to bring critique in to create space for things to be otherwise, but there is no claim about the world should be. Art is sight of potentiality where alterity emerges. Are these politics realist enough?

She needs a space where the politics of possibility cannot contain the entire politics of potentiality. We could assume that we live in totalizing politics of possibility where potentiality is foreclosed. Why isn’t this is the case? Does possibility imply potentiality? You have to assume a difference between potentiality and possibility. If possibilities do not cover the space of potentiality, where can we see this? Her answer is art. The differnce between possibility and potentiality--something is possible when there is the probability that it could obtain. Potentiality remains the space where new things can emerge. As soon as in-betweenness emerge, isn’t it already there.  A life never becomes the life. A life is not actualized -- it exists in a different space that is not the same as the real life. Imminent life exists in a virtual space. If we make something legible isn’t it always already part of the politics of possibility?  Are possibilities limited to a certain space? What kind of spaces can the logic of the algorithm can be extended too? The space between the operating logic of possibility and its application into other spaces is the space of critique (I may have misunderstood). When we think terms of human potentiality, we can see uncertain futures.

If there is an ontology, the space of potentiality is one that contains smaller spaces of possibility. She posits this distinction because she has to have a space where critique is possible. Assumption--the space of potentiality is the sum of all the subsets of possibility. Her ontological assumptions is that this space of potentiality always exceeds these subsets of possibility. Amazon example about predictive preferences. In-betweeness is the actual body, the idea that the algorithm can’t attach predictions to certain bodies. Collaborative filtering solves this problem. Does the amazon example eliminate personal ruptures?

There is an ethical turn. The politics of possibility is indifference to whether or not a possibility comes to pass. So there is a problem decision, algorithm makes judgements not decisions. Politics emerges from decisions and responsibility. Politics of possibility lead to a politics of indifference. But are these decisions illusory? But are the stakes high in amazon purchases? They are high in drone attacks.

Are there differences between infopolitics and biopolitics? Is the goal of the algorithms to justify killing without responsibility? Is it more than that? You come to believe that is not a decision because the facts lead you to it. Is there space opened up by the act of decision.