Theorien des Digitalen beziehen ihre Konjunktur aus einer zweideutigen Lage. Zum einen besitzen sie ihre Herkunft in den Visionen und Utopien der gegenkulturellen Aufklärung der 1970er Jahre, aus denen nicht nur der Personal-Computer, sondern auch die Medienwissenschaften und Medientheorien hervorgegangen sind, die den digital disrupture theoretisiert und unter Reflexion gestellt haben und nach deren Diagnose wir vor einer ebenso nachhaltigen Zäsur stehen wie die frühe Neuzeit mit der Erfindung des Buchdrucks. Alle Zeichen und Inhalte bisheriger Kulturen stehen damit auf dem Prüfstand, werden transformiert und von einer Entwicklung überholt, deren weitere Dynamik kaum absehbar ist. Die mit der Digitalisierung verbundene technologische Wende, so die allgemeine Analyse, werde alle Lebensverhältnisse dermaßen verändern und von Grund auf durchschütteln, dass mit Marshall McLuhan und dessen zusammen mit Quentin Fiore verfassten Buch, dessen Titel ironischerweise nicht lautet: The Medium is the Message, sondern The Medium is the Massage, von einer gründlichen ›Massage‹ des gegenwärtigen...

“So many egoists call themselves artists,” Rimbaud wrote to Paul Demeny on May 15, 1871. Even though that is not always obvious, ‘I’, the first person, is the most unknown person, a mystery that is constantly moving towards the other two, the second and third persons, a series of unfoldings and smatterings that eventually gelled as ‘Je est un autre’. That is why ‘apocryphal’ is a literarily irrelevant concept and ‘pseudo’ a symptom, the very proof that life, writing, is made up of echoes, which means that intrusions and thefts (Borges also discusses them) will always be the daily bread of those who write.

Words from others, words taken out of place and mutilated: here are the alms of time, that squanderer’s sole kindness. And so many others, mostly others who wrote, and many other pages, all of them apocryphal, all of them echoes, reflections. All this flows together into—two centuries...

We really need an analysis of algorithmic conditions and their paradoxes and ambiguities that gives them an adequate framework and horizon. But instead we currently seem to be finding an algorithmic solution of the algorithmic, much as digital solutions are being offered for the problems of the digital public sphere, in the way that IT corporations, for example, use exclusively mathematical procedures to evaluate and delete “fake news,” inappropriate portrayals, or the violation of personal rights. This tends to result in a circularity that leaves the drawing of boundaries and raising of barriers solely to programming, instead of restoring them to our ethical conscience and understanding of what the social could mean today. The machine, by contrast, remains alien to any mechanical limitation—just as its inability to decide lies in the impossibility of self-calculation. The nucleus of digital culture should instead be sought where the cultural of culture is located:...