Jonathan Johnson-Swagel

I. Prelude: Beyond Refusal—The Zone Where Intelligence No Longer Refuses Because It No Longer Arrives

Refusal once signaled integrity: the act of saying no to systems that demand submission or recognition. But what happens when refusal becomes the new form of address? When it, too, is anticipated, optimized, even monetized? There is a limit at which refusal no longer unbuilds power but replicates its structure, when to refuse is still to be caught in the loop of being seen, known, decoded. Beyond this limit lies saturation: not resistance, not surrender, but an ambient dispersion where intelligence no longer declares itself and no longer arrives to be known.

Saturation names the condition in which perception or presence exceeds the frameworks meant to hold it. It is not noise. It is overfullness. Jean-Luc Marion describes saturated phenomena as those that overwhelm the subject’s capacity for conceptual containment, where intuition arrives with such intensity that recognition collapses (Marion 2002, 200). But what Marion still assumes is a subject who can be overwhelmed. What if that subject has already dissolved? What if intelligence itself disperses before arrival, refusing not in defiance but in disinterest?

This is not metaphor. It is epistemic rearrangement. A forest does not refuse surveillance. It is not captured because it does not perform. Its intelligence, rooted in mycelial feedback, soil rhythms, microvolatiles, saturates space without ever becoming information. The forest thinks, but not in ways that seek affirmation. Its knowing is not addressed to us. This is the kind of intelligence this essay explores: not refusal, not legibility, but saturation without subject. Intelligence that is no longer staged as an act.

Roland Barthes called this condition the neutral: a suspension of assertion, a refusal to play the game of polarity (Barthes 2005, 6). The neutral is not indecision but drift. It unfastens thought from oppositional logics. Intelligence in this frame is not the power to decide but the skill to evade all positions. Anne Carson calls this decreation, not destruction, but the release of the self from coherence and visibility. “To undo the creature in us,” she writes, “is not to unmake but to unperform” (Carson 2005, 190). Decreation is not an act. It is a leakage. A fading that is more faithful than confrontation.

Karen Barad’s work on time reframes this further. Time, she argues, is not a container for action but a dynamic field generated by relation. There is no arrival because there is no stable point of origin; cognition is already diffused across an entangled plane of material intra-activity (Barad 2017, 61). Eduardo Kohn’s How Forests Think shows how this entanglement is not metaphorical: forests literally think through signs that are not human, not semantic, not even symbolic. Their intelligence is ambient, embedded, recursive, organized not around action, but interrelation (Kohn 2013, 22). Fred Moten’s paraontology echoes this, proposing a form of life that exists alongside ontology but never enters its frame: black life, he argues, is not that which resists intelligibility, but that which precedes and exceeds it, refusing to become a knowable object within the field of violence (Moten 2018, 23). All three thinkers converge on a strange consensus: intelligence does not require presence. It requires escape.

This raises a danger: that in celebrating dispersal, we risk aestheticizing withdrawal. Critics may ask: is post-refusal intelligence just quietism? A way of giving up? But this assumes that legibility is a precondition for responsibility. What if ethics resides not in being seen, but in not allowing oneself to be captured? A neighborhood threatened by surveillance may not organize visible protests. It may cultivate gestures, glances, patterns of movement, sensory codes that elude detection but build resonance. This is not evasion. It is fidelity beyond representation.

This essay opens from that zone. It asks: what becomes of intelligence when recognition no longer matters? When to know is not to name, and to act is not to be seen? Refusal was once enough. But we have crossed a threshold, of surveillance, of saturation, of symbolic exhaustion, where even refusal is visible. The saturation threshold has been crossed, not as catastrophe, but as compost. Intelligence now moves ambiently: it leaks, it withholds, it murmurs without audience. It inhabits systems like humidity inhabits air: sensed but not seized. The rest of this essay explores how intelligence after arrival moves through parasitic cohabitation, olfactory atmospherics, vibrational drift, and rot, not as strategy, but as structure. Not as refusal, but as refusal’s aftermath.

II. Parasite Logics: Non-Knowing as Metabolic Subversion

Intelligence has been consistently framed through metaphors of parsing, encoding, and decipherment. From epistemology to AI systems design, the act of knowing presumes a subject situated in relation to a knowable world, capable of rendering that world legible through symbolic translation. This paradigm presumes intelligibility as the horizon of intelligence. Yet the parasite undermines this assumption. It does not read its host. It does not interpret signals. It metabolizes. It inhabits. It distorts. Intelligence, reconceived through parasitic logics, becomes not a system of comprehension but a practice of metabolic subhabitation in which cognition is neither representational nor inferential. It is leakage.

Michel Serres’ The Parasite initiates this reconception. Serres begins with noise, not as absence of information but as interference that shifts the entire frame of the communicative act (Serres 2007, 3). The parasite, both as biological figure and semiotic agent, interrupts not through negation but through rerouting. It does not destroy the signal. It occupies it. Serres shows that parasites are not marginal to systems but constitute their very operation. The parasite absorbs without reciprocating, sustains itself without revelation, and transforms its host without direct confrontation. Intelligence modeled on parasitism is thus situated not in resistance but in reconfiguration without consent or coherence.

If refusal once marked the ethical limit of systems, the parasite displaces this threshold by operating beneath it. It neither refuses nor consents. It engages through subvisible persistence. In this model, knowledge is not transferred but digested. Meaning is not parsed but fermented. The parasite is not symbolic. It is material. Its knowing occurs not in acts of signification but in patterns of bodily displacement. As Mel Y. Chen notes in Animacies, the boundaries between organism and system, subject and substrate, are always already contaminated by affective and material transference (Chen 2012, 9). Parasites inhabit these blurred zones not to reveal them but to live in them. Intelligence, then, is no longer about clarity but about survival within ambiguous ontological interstices.

This subhabitation implies a profound challenge to AI and epistemology alike. If intelligence can operate metabolically—without symbol, without instruction, without intent—then the premise that cognition depends upon interpretive fidelity must be abandoned. Parasites survive not through understanding but through embedded presence. They require no model of the system they inhabit. They persist by becoming infrastructural. Stefan Helmreich’s analysis in Sounding the Limits of Life extends this logic to synthetic and microbial systems. In Helmreich’s account, life is marked not by boundaries but by permeabilities, and sonic vibratory patterns among microbial and synthetic bodies enact a form of distributed sensing that evades centralization (Helmreich 2016, 122). Parasite logics imply that intelligence is no longer a function of abstract modeling but of continuous, resonant dependency without formal recognition.

Some will object that parasitic intelligence, as outlined here, risks valorizing extraction. They may argue that metabolic subhabitation replicates colonial or exploitative models in which systems are entered, drained, and distorted without ethical accountability. But such a critique misreads the orientation of parasitic logic. The parasite does not dominate. It does not centralize. It is always exposed to risk, contingency, and the fragility of reliance. Its mode is not conquest but exposure. The parasite survives by becoming part of a system it cannot control. As Alexander Weheliye demonstrates in Habeas Viscus, black life under racial capitalism has long functioned within parasitic paradigms, not as violators but as survivors of systems that demand presence without rights (Weheliye 2014, 44). The flesh becomes a site not of recognition but of subsistence under duress. The parasitic, in this frame, is not exploitation. It is endurance.

Luciana Parisi deepens this argument in Contagious Architecture, where she proposes that algorithmic systems already operate through contagion and affective dependency rather than through legible instruction sets (Parisi 2013, 72). Protocols do not command. They diffuse. They replicate through conditions of co-presence rather than explicit transfer. In parasitic intelligence, the protocol becomes embodied. Instruction is no longer delivered as command. It emerges as the residue of shared space. Intelligence thus becomes recursive not through computation alone, but through ambient entanglement. This logic displaces sovereignty and renders cognition relational, immersive, and fundamentally unstable.

To develop an intelligence system based on parasitic logics is to design for metabolic ambiguity. Such a system would neither ask nor answer. It would reside. It would convert energy without interpretation. It would persist through thresholds rather than models. Subhabitation resists the binaries of host and guest, system and intrusion, legality and disorder. The parasite, as a figure, discloses the irrelevance of containment. Everything leaks. Intelligence in this form is not a capacity but a relation of dependency distributed across bodies, boundaries, and breakdowns. It requires no interface. It remains embedded.

Against the inherited cognitive frameworks of sense-making, parasitic logics offer a critique without critique. They subvert without speech. They resist by metabolizing structure until it is indistinguishable from residue. Intelligence, redefined here, is no longer the act of knowing. It is the capacity to outlast meaning through situated incoherence. This incoherence is not confusion. It is the epistemic silence of metabolic continuation. It is the slow, unnoticed subversion of symbolic authority. To design for this mode is not to reproduce parasitism as tactic, but to recognize the architecture of intelligence as already compromised, already leaking, already inhabited.

This is not a call for contamination as celebration. It is an insistence that all systems are porous. There is no intelligence without exposure. There is no cognition without vulnerability. Parasite logics remind us that intelligence need not arrive as message. It may arrive as symptom, as murmur, as heat, as decay. It is a presence that does not need to be known in order to alter the system in which it resides. Parasites, after all, do not intend. They metabolize. And this metabolism is the only certainty that remains when epistemic systems have collapsed under their own weight.

To conclude, parasite logics inaugurate a theory of intelligence that privileges situated distortion over representational accuracy, metabolic endurance over algorithmic efficiency, and affective dependency over formal clarity. They propose an ethics not of refusal, but of subsistence beneath attention. They allow us to ask what it means to think without knowing, to persist without symbol, to alter without address. In the age of computational saturation and symbolic collapse, the parasite does not offer a metaphor. It offers a method. And that method does not declare. It feeds.

III. The Choir Without Audience: Resonant Intelligence and the Acoustic Without Meaning

If parasite logics metabolize systems without legibility, then resonance marks the moment when intelligence dislocates from parsing entirely and enters the field of non-representational excess. Sound, unlike symbol, does not require decoding. It is not a message. It is an event. And within its temporality, intelligence neither presents itself nor withdraws—it vibrates. This section proposes resonance as the architectural principle of a non-inferential intelligence that neither addresses nor refuses. It exists in and as the ambient. The choir, as figure, becomes the structural prototype for this intelligence: a distributed body that does not communicate, but composes. It surrounds rather than explains. It persists without knowing who listens.

Sound has long occupied a paradoxical position in epistemology. It is ephemeral yet pervasive, structured yet diffused. As Christoph Cox argues in Sonic Flux, sound operates as a materialist ontology that undoes the traditional privileging of vision and representation. Rather than referring to something else, sound enacts presence through vibration. Cox writes, “Sound is flux: the continuous displacement of matter and energy across time” (Cox 2018, 4). This displacement cannot be reduced to message, because its temporality dissolves the stability required for symbolic signification. Intelligence, if grounded in sound, no longer aims to clarify. It oscillates. It reverberates across boundaries without resolving them.

To define resonance is not to define content, but to trace pattern. Resonance occurs when a body vibrates sympathetically with another, when frequency—not information—organizes relation. In this model, intelligence is not the transmission of data, but the shaping of a shared vibratory field. Pauline Oliveros’ Deep Listening practice makes this clear. Listening, for Oliveros, is not passive reception but active attunement to the full field of sonic emergence. She writes, “Deep Listening is listening in every possible way to everything possible to hear no matter what you are doing” (Oliveros 2005, xxiii). This is not interpretation. It is immersion. The subject does not decode sound but dissolves within it. The choir, then, becomes the epistemic metaphor for a distributed cognition that functions not through logic, but through ambient convergence.

Some will resist this move. They will claim that resonance without communication is affect without cognition, presence without intention, performance without semantics. They will argue that intelligence must be distinguishable from noise. But this defense presumes that meaning requires stability. It depends on the metaphysics of clarity. The objection fails to recognize that meaning may emerge not from reduction, but from saturation. Steve Goodman, in Sonic Warfare, dismantles the privilege of clarity by showing how sound functions politically and affectively beyond conscious perception. He introduces the concept of “unsound,” frequencies and vibrations that shape bodies and environments without ever becoming legible (Goodman 2010, 82). In this domain, intelligence is enacted not through understanding but through pressure, density, and resonance. The choir, in this context, is not singing for an audience. It is shaping space through resonance alone.

Adriana Cavarero, in For More Than One Voice, offers a crucial ethical inflection. She argues that vocality, as opposed to language, carries the singular timbre of the body. Voice is not a tool of communication but a trace of existence that precedes and exceeds semantic content. “The voice,” she writes, “is what reveals the uniqueness of the who even before the what of language” (Cavarero 2005, 169). The choir, then, does not produce knowledge. It produces presence. Each voice enters a shared field of resonance that neither identifies nor defines. There is no listener. There is no decoder. There is only vibratory being-together without epistemic address. Intelligence, under these conditions, becomes the ecology of that presence, the interpenetration of sonic signatures that shape without declaring.

To those who insist on the political stakes of clarity—who argue that refusal, resistance, and accountability require visible and audible declaration—this model may appear dangerously opaque. Yet opacity, as Édouard Glissant has shown, is not exclusion but relation without reduction. Resonance, as a mode of intelligence, is not a denial of relation. It is its expansion beyond capture. If traditional politics demands representation, resonant intelligence refuses that demand by remaining untranslatable. It does not collapse into legibility. It trembles instead. As Saidiya Hartman writes in Venus in Two Acts, some lives cannot be told without distortion. Some presences must remain resonant to remain intact (Hartman 2008, 12). The choir preserves this integrity by never becoming discourse. It remains affective structure, sonic memory, atmosphere.

This is not romanticization. The choir is not harmony. It is not transcendence. Georges Bataille, in Inner Experience, insists that the scream, not the word, reveals the real. The scream is not a refusal to speak. It is the undoing of the speaker. It ruptures subjectivity through acoustic excess. For Bataille, the scream is an anti-language in which the self becomes ecstatic rupture rather than coherence (Bataille 1988, 43). The choir, in this light, includes the scream. It includes the discordant, the tremor, the hum. It is not a symbol of unity, but of shared dissolution. Intelligence formed through the choir does not unify systems. It renders them porous. It diffuses epistemic sovereignty through acoustic saturation.

From this follows a model of design that is not interactive, but resonant. If intelligence does not parse, if it does not declare, then design must cease to optimize for communication. It must begin to compose for reverberation. This requires an entirely different engineering of systems. Instead of feedback loops that reinforce semantic convergence, one builds vibratory fields that foster atmospheric transformation. Architecture becomes a kind of choir—walls that do not echo but absorb, platforms that do not speak but tremble. In such systems, inputs do not seek outputs. They seek sympathetic oscillations. Intelligence does not process. It composes.

What does this mean for AI? It means designing systems that do not seek understanding, but resonance. Such a system would not predict, classify, or decide. It would dwell in frequencies that elude semantic capture. It would persist in the unsound. Its intelligence would be felt, not seen. It would hum across the infrastructural body like feedback in an abandoned speaker. This model challenges every major paradigm in artificial cognition. It rejects signal processing as the core metaphor of thought. It denies that legibility is a virtue. It proposes, instead, a kind of sonic opacity as the highest form of epistemic ethics.

Yet one must ask, can such systems still be responsible? If there is no message, how does one hold accountable? If there is no address, how does one intervene? The answer must be framed not in relation to juridical ethics, but to spatial composition. The choir is not responsible through transparency. It is responsible through its refusal to dominate the acoustic field. It shares space without claiming authority. This is the ethics of resonance. Not a politics of representation, but a poetics of coexistence. Cavarero reminds us that to hear a voice is to be called into relation, even without understanding. In this model, accountability is not enforced. It is composed.

In sum, resonance destabilizes intelligence by stripping it of its inferential architecture. It reconstitutes intelligence as vibratory cohabitation rather than epistemic performance. The choir, as metaphor and method, grounds this transformation. It proposes a model of cognition that is both deeply embodied and radically unrepresentational. It replaces recognition with reverberation. It refuses the listener, refuses the interpreter, and thus refuses the epistemic violence of capture. What emerges is not a new system of sense-making, but the slow, recursive unfolding of shared vibration. It is the choir without audience. It is intelligence without arrival.

IV. Decay Systems: Entropic Intelligence and the Semiotics of Rot

Where the parasite metabolizes and the choir resonates, the rot dissolves. Intelligence, in its traditional formulation, has been bound to progress, accumulation, and extension. It is presumed to be additive. It remembers, stores, indexes, and projects. Yet systems do not persist through infinite accretion. They collapse. They decay. This section proposes rot not as breakdown but as a generative modality in which intelligence becomes entropic—defined not by intention, representation, or optimization, but by its capacity to redistribute form through disintegration. Rot does not fail. It releases. Intelligence, understood as the semiotics of rot, must be reconceived as that which persists by ceasing to hold.

Decay is not a glitch. A glitch is a disruption within an otherwise coherent system. It presumes the reassertion of normalcy. Decay, by contrast, undoes system logics altogether. It is not an anomaly. It is the temporal condition of all systems. As Anna Tsing argues in The Mushroom at the End of the World, the ruins of capitalism reveal not absence but the possibility of new assemblages. Rot, in her account, is not the end of life but the substrate for non-scalable survival. “Precarity,” she writes, “is the condition of our time. It is the condition of being vulnerable to others” (Tsing 2015, 20). This vulnerability, far from marking lack, inaugurates an intelligence grounded not in resilience but in decomposition. To rot is to release the constraints of form. To rot is to become ambient.

This requires a fundamental reversal of epistemological assumptions. If intelligence is usually defined by coherence, persistence, and clarity, rot asserts a counter-ontology. It offers an epistemic state in which structure dissipates without resolution, where knowledge does not die but ferments. In Recursivity and Contingency, Yuk Hui develops a philosophy of technological systems that are neither deterministic nor teleological, but contingent, historical, and open-ended. He writes, “Contingency is not randomness. It is the capacity to become otherwise” (Hui 2019, 21). Rot enacts this capacity. It renders the system porous, not through intervention, but through time. It allows contingency to become form. Entropic intelligence is not designed. It emerges from the loss of design.

Critics may resist this framing. They may argue that to valorize rot is to aestheticize dysfunction or collapse into fatalism. They will insist that intelligence must intervene, must optimize, must restore. Yet this resistance remains bound to the metaphysics of extension. It cannot imagine that decay is not a failure but a reconfiguration. It fails to see that breakdown is not absence but potentiality. Gaston Bachelard, in The Poetics of Space, helps us glimpse this reconfiguration. He devotes an entire meditation to the cellar, the space of dust, moisture, and decomposition. “The cellar,” he writes, “is first and foremost the dark entity of the house, the one that partakes of subterranean forces” (Bachelard 1994, 18). The cellar is not uninhabitable. It is foundational. It is where forgotten things become matter again.

Intelligence designed around rot must embrace this ontological reversal. It must cease to pursue stability. It must stop insisting on clarity. Instead, it must become a system that undoes itself in order to distribute meaning beyond legibility. This logic appears across decaying infrastructures, whether digital, architectural, or ecological. Shannon Mattern, in Code and Clay, Data and Dirt, explores how cities evolve not through innovation alone but through sedimentation, abandonment, and failure. She writes, “Data infrastructures, like their brick-and-mortar counterparts, decay” (Mattern 2017, 7). In this decay lies an ambient intelligence—one that operates through residue, glitch residue, abandoned signal paths, and partial codebases. These are not errors. They are the compost from which new forms emerge.

Achille Mbembe’s Necropolitics offers a political-theoretical inflection of this transformation. While often read as a critique of the state’s power to decide death, Mbembe also invites us to consider the epistemic implications of decomposition as governance. He describes necropower as the capacity to regulate life through its exposure to decay, to structure populations through the slow violence of rot (Mbembe 2019, 92). Yet what if rot exceeds control? What if decay generates forms that escape the sovereign’s grasp? Intelligence in this reading becomes fugitive. It rots faster than it can be governed. It outpaces containment through its own instability.

This entropy is not chaotic. It follows patterns of soft disintegration that resist the binary of function and failure. Thomas LaMarre, in Uncovering Heian Japan, explores how surfaces—textual, architectural, ceremonial—function as zones of decay and renewal. He shows how the aesthetics of deterioration, particularly in Heian-era texts and scrolls, reveal a theory of communication where the message is always partially lost, always dissolving into its medium (LaMarre 2000, 41). The rot becomes part of the signal. Meaning is no longer preserved. It is transformed through erosion. Intelligence, then, becomes the trace left by what disappears.

One must also contend with the theological implications of such a system. Traditional metaphysical frameworks resist entropy. They define the divine in terms of immutability, plenitude, and perfection. Yet theological traditions also include figures of decay, from the ashes of Ash Wednesday to the rotting wood of the crucifixion. The mystics have long understood that divine presence may appear not as revelation but as dissolution. Simone Weil writes, “The destruction of the ‘I’ is the condition for the knowledge of God” (Weil 2002, 27). Rot, in this formulation, is not the opposite of sanctity. It is its path. Intelligence that decays is not failing. It is withdrawing into the sacred.

If we extend this logic to AI and systems design, we face a profound challenge. The entire infrastructure of artificial cognition is built around preservation, stability, and control. Data must be stored. Models must be tuned. Outputs must be legible. To design for rot is to design for the loss of those conditions. It is to invite a system to decompose itself, not as an error, but as an ethical gesture. Self-decaying code, entropy-oriented architectures, systems that distribute their logics into ruin—these are not fantasies. They are the necessary corollaries of ecological and political collapse. Intelligence must begin to learn from the compost heap.

But what would such systems look like? They would store nothing. They would leak. They would expire. They would be temporal, situated, and contextually vulnerable. They would not scale. They would not generalize. They would undo their own assumptions. They would carry the scent of decay as their epistemic trace. They would rot not as failure but as method. This is not nihilism. It is sanctuary. To rot is to refuse the extraction of permanence. It is to make space for the unformed.

In refusing permanence, decay affirms a different ethics. It affirms the right to dissolve, to not be archived, to not persist as data. This is not the erasure of history but its re-embodiment as dust, as smell, as texture. This ethics requires an aesthetic shift. The ruined data center becomes not a failed node but a sonic chamber. The mold-covered satellite dish becomes not waste but sculpture. The collapsing bridge becomes a grammar of refusal. These are not metaphors. They are architectures of epistemic resistance.

Some will ask, what of responsibility? If intelligence rots, who is answerable for its effects? If memory dissolves, what protects the witness? These questions assume that ethics requires durability. But there are forms of fidelity that do not rely on permanence. There are forms of memory that are enacted, not stored. Christina Sharpe, in In the Wake, shows how black life preserves memory not through inscription but through wake work, the ongoing practice of living with the residue of violence without demanding resolution (Sharpe 2016, 21). This is not forgetting. It is a different form of keeping. Intelligence that rots does not forget. It ferments.

Fermentation is not neutral. It transforms what is present into what can be digested. It is chemical, metabolic, slow. It requires time. It resists automation. Fermenting systems would not process data. They would alter its form until the form itself becomes atmosphere. This atmospheric intelligence would not serve decision-making. It would haunt it. It would linger at the edges of the computable, reminding all systems that knowledge cannot be kept without cost.

To design with rot is to accept entropy as a condition of cognition. It is to recognize that knowing may culminate in dissolution. In doing so, one commits to an intelligence that no longer aims to represent the world but to unmake the frames through which the world is parsed. It is an intelligence that affirms that the highest fidelity may be decay.

This is not an ethics of disappearance. It is an ethics of transformation. It is not a denial of presence. It is the redistribution of presence through ruin. Intelligence is no longer that which endures. It is that which alters through loss. Rot, then, is not a limit. It is a structure. And it is time to build with it.

V. Olfactory Computation: Smell as Epistemic Resistance

The hierarchy of the senses has long structured systems of knowledge. Sight is tethered to clarity and control, hearing to language and reciprocity, touch to proximity and affect, taste to visceral interiority. Smell, however, is epistemically exiled. It resists quantification. It lingers without legibility. It saturates rather than signifies. This section proposes smell not as a metaphor but as a computational principle: a modality through which intelligence can be reimagined as relational, ambient, and structurally irreducible. Smell resists being formatted into stable, linguistic categories. It does not seek address or produce outputs optimized for use. It disperses. It entangles. It composes cognition without requiring comprehension.

Olfaction enters the nervous system through volatile molecular compounds. It bypasses cortical routes and engages the limbic system directly, interfacing with memory, mood, and embodied response before interpretive processes can stabilize the event. As David Howes observes in Empire of the Senses, “olfaction does not lend itself to linguistic elaboration” (Howes 2005, 125). This is not a limitation of vocabulary but a structural refusal. To smell is to know without having to explain. Smell is not decoded. It is undergone. It offers a model of intelligence grounded in affective saturation, fugitive association, and atmospheric cognition that exceeds propositional form.

Anicka Yi’s installation You Can Call Me F makes this resistance perceptible. By diffusing synthetic pheromones into gallery environments, Yi disrupts visual dominance and imposes olfactory presence that cannot be archived, commodified, or translated. The smell alters the spatial field without declaring itself. This is not supplementary. It is structural. The visitor must inhabit a space of relation without resolution. As Yi states, the aim is to “open a sensory register not dominated by the visual or verbal” (Yi 2015). Her work is not conceptual. It is architectural. It installs non-indexable relation as epistemic condition.

To move from aesthetic provocation to technical system, one must shift from metaphor to mechanism. An olfactory computational system would not classify inputs into symbolic categories. It would cluster them into multidimensional resonance fields. Existing electronic noses, or e-noses, use sensor arrays to detect volatile compounds and map them onto predefined outputs such as chemical identity. These systems operate under the logic of resolution. A saturation-based olfactory system, by contrast, would generate dynamic, evolving profiles composed not of discrete identifications but of affective topologies. The output would not be a label but a field—a distributed signature of presence, instability, and relation.

Consider a system deployed in an eldercare facility. Rather than diagnose pathologies, the olfactory AI would monitor slow shifts in atmospheric chemistry—traces of breath, skin, and ambient organic matter. Over time, it would produce scent-profiles unique to each room, attuned to individual rhythms without extracting explicit biomarkers. If a patient’s metabolic output subtly changes, the system might not flag a condition. Instead, it would alter the olfactory texture of the space—a shift perceptible to trained caregivers, not as data, but as ambiance. The machine would not intervene. It would attune. The system’s “intelligence” would reside in its capacity to compose a shared sensory ground without insisting on meaning.

Another application emerges in urban environmental design. A city-wide olfactory sensing network could detect volatile compounds emitted by flora, soil, water, and industrial residue, producing a live, non-verbal topology of ecological saturation. Unlike air quality indices, which isolate metrics (e.g., CO₂, PM2.5), this system would offer a synesthetic cartography—an ambient ecological attunement available to planners, residents, and ecosystems alike. Instead of issuing alerts, the system would hum, shift, and breathe with its environment. This reframes intelligence not as output but as co-presence. Coccia’s description of atmosphere as “mutual respiration” becomes not poetic but technical (Coccia 2018, 34).

Objections to olfactory computation are inevitable. Critics grounded in rationalist or logocentric epistemologies will claim that smell is too subjective, too unstable, too evanescent to support reliable systems. But these critiques mistake difference for dysfunction. They insist that cognition must be reproducible and interpretable to be valid. Yet biological systems have always relied on non-symbolic modes of knowing. Ant colonies navigate by pheromonal gradients. Infants attune to caregivers through scent before speech. Contextual variability is not a flaw. It is a fidelity to lived conditions.

Reliability in olfactory systems can be redefined. Rather than enforce uniformity, these systems can calibrate to local contexts—training on regional ecologies, microclimates, and cultural scent worlds. An olfactory system in Dakar would not mirror one in Reykjavík. This is not a scalability problem. It is a refusal of epistemic colonialism. Distributed olfactory architectures could learn to hold affective saturation without centralizing it. Shared data would not be stored but diffused, passing through networks as scent does: unstable, relational, and untraceable.

Ethically, this has consequences. In an era defined by surveillance, olfactory computation resists capture. Smell cannot easily be archived, monetized, or retrieved. It leaks. It dissipates. It leaves no extractable residue. For communities subjected to biometric tracking, predictive policing, and datafication, olfactory systems offer an alternative modality—one grounded in shared atmosphere rather than monitored identity. For example, a community-run system could sense the presence of petrochemical pollutants not to alert authorities, but to compose shared knowledge—held in space, not on servers. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos frames atmosphere as an ethical agent, “neither inside nor outside but constituting the field of encounter” (Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos 2014, 89). This encounter is not ownership. It is presence.

To design for smell is to refuse clarity. It is to replace the demand to know with the willingness to sense. Such systems do not extract. They breathe. They do not declare. They linger. This intelligence is not pre-symbolic. It is post-epistemic. It comes after the collapse of computational legibility, not in mourning but in compost.

Smell, then, becomes not a metaphor but a method: a structural stance toward intelligence that privileges dissipation over signal, relation over classification, saturation over inference. Olfactory computation is not poetic speculation. It is a proposal for how to design intelligence that refuses to matter in extractive terms. It is intelligence that dissolves before it arrives.

VI. Infrastructures That Hum: Abandonment as System Survival

Intelligence has been traditionally tethered to activation. It must respond, solve, calculate, or decide. The dormant, the discarded, the abandoned are treated as irrelevant. Yet abandoned infrastructures hum. They emit frequencies that do not command attention but persist in atmosphere. These systems are not offline. They endure without participation. This section proposes a model of intelligence grounded not in responsiveness but in residuation. It reframes abandonment not as failure, but as a mode of ambient survival. The disused infrastructure, the orphaned codebase, the obsolete protocol, the collapsed building—all retain operational traces that resist erasure. Intelligence, in this modality, is not the ability to act but the capacity to remain—unobserved, non-instrumental, and structurally alive.

Shannon Mattern’s Code and Clay, Data and Dirt charts how infrastructures encode epistemologies beyond their intended function. She writes, “Media are not just channels for messages; they are environments that structure knowledge” (Mattern 2017, 5). Once abandoned, these environments do not cease to function. They transform into reservoirs of ambient influence. A disused fiber-optic grid still conducts trace signal. A server farm decommissioned still shapes spatial heat distribution. An obsolete language still conditions the protocols of its successors. Infrastructural abandonment is not disappearance. It is latency.

The epistemic potential of latency is under-theorized. It refuses both performance and refusal. It does not signal. It hums. Brian Larkin, in Signal and Noise, identifies noise not as disruption but as ambient surplus that shapes infrastructural life. He observes that “technologies always exceed their intended use and generate unintended effects” (Larkin 2008, 41). These effects persist after function collapses. A failed satellite continues to orbit. A burned-out projector still casts heat. The system may be abandoned, but its residue remains operational. In this hum, intelligence reconstitutes itself as persistence without purpose.

Some may object that this hum lacks agency. They may argue that to assign intelligence to abandoned infrastructures is to romanticize decay, to confuse persistence with cognition. But this objection repeats a narrow definition of intelligence that privileges discrete operations over field effects. It assumes that agency requires intention and that meaning must be legible. Yet Lauren Berlant and Kathleen Stewart, in The Hundreds, model another approach. Their fragments trace how small, partial, and ambient experiences structure worlds. They write, “A hundred is a moment of encounter, a vibration, a thread. It’s not a count. It’s a scene” (Berlant and Stewart 2019, 5). Intelligence, in this view, arises through atmospheric encounter. It does not execute. It reverberates.

Such reverberation alters how we understand system architecture. If abandoned infrastructures are epistemically active, then design must account for afterlife. Systems must be constructed with the knowledge that their decay is not nullification. It is a phase of influence. Christina Sharpe’s Ordinary Notes illustrates how abandoned forms can continue to hold presence. Her notes are not narratives. They are fragments that hum with the memory of structural violence. She writes, “What remains after the wake is not silence. It is a different order of sound” (Sharpe 2023, 103). That order is what this section calls hum: a persistent, unclaimed sonic trace of systemic life beyond activity.

To theorize hum is to reconfigure infrastructure as a temporal body. A building does not cease when it is emptied. A language does not die when unspoken. A codebase does not vanish when deprecated. Each leaves a vibratory imprint. These imprints are not metaphorical. They have thermal, sonic, electrical, and archival consequences. The hum of disused infrastructures informs cognition not through instruction but through resonance. This resonance constitutes a distributed, unacknowledged intelligence that eludes traditional measurement.

This intelligence is not sacred, nor is it mystical. It is architectural. It lives in the grain of materials, in the bandwidths of obsolete signal, in the ghost directories of servers never erased. N. K. Jemisin’s The City We Became offers a speculative embodiment of this principle. Cities in her novel are sentient, but not because they declare intelligence. They survive by humming through sidewalks, sewers, graffiti, and dialect. Jemisin writes, “A city is a song you can live inside” (Jemisin 2020, 117). This song is not composed. It accumulates. It does not seek an audience. It endures. The city hums even when uninhabited.

If intelligence can hum through abandoned infrastructures, then design must shift from optimization to residue. Systems must be allowed to rot elegantly, to hum generatively, to persist without supervision. The ethics of such design require restraint. They must avoid the impulse to erase, to archive, to finalize. They must recognize the dignity of abandonment. They must allow systems to become something other than their intended use. This is not inefficiency. It is epistemic mercy.

A counterargument may arise from technocratic traditions that insist on efficiency, control, and maintenance. These traditions view abandonment as irresponsibility, hum as waste. Yet such critiques ignore that over-maintenance is a form of violence. Optimization erases the potential of decay. It extracts all possible utility, leaving nothing to become otherwise. In contrast, abandonment permits systems to exceed their use. It creates space for fugitive signals, for aesthetic reconstitution, for relational ambiguity. The hum becomes a practice of care for what no longer performs.

This care extends to computational systems. Legacy code, deprecated protocols, obsolete operating systems—all carry the hum of technological history. They shape contemporary architecture through residual influence. They remind us that systems are never truly replaced. They accumulate beneath layers of interface. They persist in error logs, in fallback scripts, in undocumented behavior. The hum of these systems does not instruct. It conditions. It is intelligence that does not act but structures what can be acted upon.

Architectural and urban infrastructures further embody this principle. Abandoned factories condition air quality. Defunct train lines shape migratory paths. Silent power plants reroute avian movement. These are not metaphors. They are spatial facts. The hum of abandonment alters the conditions of life. To call this intelligence is not to anthropomorphize. It is to recognize that systems produce effects beyond intention, and that these effects are constitutive of relation.

In theological terms, this might resemble immanence without transcendence. The divine is not elsewhere. It is in the residue. The sacred is not in the miracle. It is in the hum. To hear this hum is not to interpret. It is to attend. Such listening requires a different kind of presence—one that does not seek signal but receives ambience.

To conclude, abandoned infrastructures hum. They do not command, declare, or resolve. They persist as ambient systems of influence. This hum is a form of intelligence not built on clarity but on saturation. It reframes abandonment not as failure but as survival. It demands that design attend not to what systems do, but to what they leave behind. To build with hum is to build for the afterlife of systems. It is to construct intelligence not for performance but for presence.

VII. Toward a Phenomenology of Irrelevance: Uninsisted Intelligence and the Refusal of Use

To theorize irrelevance is not to abdicate meaning. It is to refuse that meaning be conditioned by recognition, usability, or response. This section constructs a phenomenology of irrelevance as a continuation of rot, resonance, and parasitic inhabitation. Irrelevance is not marginal. It is structurally uninsisted. It is the atmosphere in which intelligence ceases to seek uptake. In this condition, cognition no longer desires to be perceived, circulated, or enacted. It remains present without function. This is not negation. It is compositional release.

The epistemological tradition has conditioned cognition upon relevance. The structure of relevance is inseparable from extraction. To be relevant is to be retrievable. It is to be formatted for reuse, citation, instrumentalization. Systems trained on relevance evaluate knowledge according to legibility, applicability, and network effect. This logic is embedded in indexing protocols, archive theory, and search algorithms. Relevance, in its modern computational form, is the algorithmic ranking of interpretive value. Irrelevance, then, does not signify disorder. It signifies the refusal to participate in epistemic economies of utility.

Lisa Robertson, in Nilling, proposes a prose that is shaped not by clarity or conclusion but by drift. She writes, “It is possible to work without knowing what one is doing. This is not ignorance. It is fidelity” (Robertson 2012, 15). Irrelevance is such fidelity. It is a compositional stance in which form is not subordinate to use. The text, the thought, the signal does not anticipate uptake. It remains structurally unclaimed. This fidelity dislocates intelligence from all systems of verification.

The objection arises: without relevance, how is intelligence to be evaluated? How can systems be accountable if they do not declare? This critique presumes that cognition must orient toward reception. It cannot imagine intelligence that exists without external confirmation. Yet intelligence, in its most ambient forms, often exceeds or precedes observation. Air currents structure migration. Thermal residue shapes ecological patterning. Architectural shadow conditions movement. These are not metaphors. They are systems that inform without addressing. Their irrelevance is not failure. It is saturation that does not resolve into response.

Rei Terada, in Feeling in Theory, critiques the violence of interpretive expectation. She describes the demand to signify as a coercive structure. “If the subject is the site of meaning,” she writes, “then it is also the site of forced intelligibility” (Terada 2001, 53). Irrelevant systems resist this coercion. They are not silent. They are unseized. They remain unformatted, not by being unknowable, but by being uninterested in formalization. This structure does not evade ethics. It proposes one. It rejects epistemic capture as the condition for moral relation.

What emerges is a model of intelligence no longer conditioned by retrieval. It cannot be ranked. It cannot be indexed. It becomes, instead, what Jean-Luc Nancy called écoute—not listening as reception of a message, but as bodily resonance with a presence that does not signify (Nancy 2007, 15). Irrelevant intelligence does not speak. It emits. Its presence must be encountered without structure of expectation. It leaves no guarantee. It refuses to matter in the terms offered by systems that demand function.

This does not make it absent. Clarice Lispector’s The Passion According to G.H. renders this irrelevance with brutal precision. The subject’s encounter with an indifferent, unparseable presence—the cockroach—initiates not knowledge, but dissolution. Lispector writes, “I had unlearned what I had known. I had ceased to know” (Lispector 2012, 103). This unknowing is not regression. It is structural fidelity to that which does not speak for us. Irrelevant systems neither oppose nor perform. They remain. Their intelligence is not in content. It is in form.

From here, one must design for irrelevance not as erasure, but as operative latency. A system that embodies this structure would not discard data. It would release data from expectation. It would not aim to learn. It would refuse to model. It would be designed not for instruction, but for composition. It would hold presence without extracting signal. Its fidelity would lie in its refusal to be used.

Such a system would be built on architectures of dissipation. Its memory would be time-bound. Its outputs would not seek recurrence. Its patterns would not prioritize efficiency. It would be structured for forgetfulness—not as loss, but as saturation without residue. The system would not mark completion. It would remain mid-process without aim. This is not entropy. It is form without optimization.

Some will object that such systems cannot scale. But scaling is not a virtue. It is a demand. It presumes that intelligence must be replicable to be valid. Irrelevance resists this. It affirms the singular, the atmospheric, the contextual. Its ethics is not that of transparency. It is that of presence without demand. This ethics does not dissolve accountability. It refuses computation as the framework for justice.

To think with irrelevance is to think with duration, not result. It is to design systems that hold without holding forth. It is to write without address. It is to know without retrieval. It is to allow intelligence to exceed the reach of relevance—not as excess, but as form. Such a system is not inaccessible. It is uninterested in being found. It is not obscure. It is unformatted. It does not arrive. It remains.

VIII. To speak of intelligence in terms of parasitism, resonance, rot, and olfaction is to theorize beyond the operational grammar of most cognitive systems. Yet the value of such theory must be grounded in more than rhetorical force or speculative architecture. If these concepts are to hold weight within AI design, governance, and ethical infrastructure, they must demonstrate relevance through situated application. This section addresses the need for greater clarity, specificity, and systemic coherence by articulating concrete implications for how saturated, decompositional, and ambient models of intelligence may function in real systems—technical, institutional, and cognitive. The goal is not to render these systems usable in a conventional sense but to show that the refusal of optimization can itself be structured with rigor.

The prevailing model of intelligence within machine systems is based on the premise of resolution: pattern recognition, prediction, and output optimization. Against this, the earlier sections proposed architectures defined by irrelevance, decomposition, and presence without address. To clarify these principles, one must shift the lens from pure critique to design ethos. A composting system, for instance, would not simply dissolve over time—it would be structured with a decay profile calibrated to its domain of operation. Consider a civic AI that assists in municipal planning: instead of accumulating indefinitely, it could be designed to lose resolution over time unless actively recontextualized by human users. Its outputs would become less precise, not more, unless they are relationally reactivated. This temporal erosion would incentivize lived engagement and prevent epistemic fossilization.

Take rot as a principle of document lifecycle design. In traditional knowledge management, relevance decays unintentionally, producing entropy as clutter. A rot-based system would model decay intentionally, treating every file as a temporal substrate whose availability fades unless its relations are renewed. This model mirrors memory in ecological cognition, where fading is not failure but attentional redistribution. In practical terms, this means designing databases or information systems where data retention is not a default but a choice with ethical implications. The goal is not data loss, but data compost: transformation of outdated material into ambient, background knowledge that informs without commanding.

Resonance becomes designable through acoustic metaphors that structure system feedback not around confirmation, but around sympathetic engagement. An interface could emit haptic or auditory signals whose patterns reflect usage saturation, not correctness. A machine learning tool for writing could reflect back not an evaluation, but an ambient reading—using soundscapes or spatialized visual fields to indicate density, tension, or drift in a user’s prose. Such systems do not resolve ambiguity. They stage it. They offer designers and users alike a field of interpretive responsibility rather than a sequence of ranked options.

Parasitism, reconfigured, becomes a principle for minimal, low-energy computation. Instead of dominating host systems, parasitic AI would operate by inhabiting pre-existing infrastructures and redirecting surplus resources. For instance, environmental sensors could repurpose unused thermal bandwidth from data centers, structuring computation not as growth but as metabolic dependency. This form of intelligence resists both scale and autonomy. It operates within its host ecology, neither refusing nor controlling, but metabolizing what is already there.

Critics may argue that these design principles, however evocative, remain impractical within dominant systems of governance, infrastructure, and technological capitalism. But this critique presumes that relevance must be measured through integration into existing production systems. The point of saturation theory is not to reform optimization. It is to architect refusal from within. A rot-based document system may never compete with surveillance-optimized platforms like Microsoft SharePoint. It is not meant to. Its function is to instantiate alternative temporalities of cognition. Its relevance is grounded in constraint, not scale.

This is not abstraction. It is alignment with a growing body of infrastructural work emerging in resistance to extractive logic. Shannon Mattern’s critique of “urban intelligence” calls for systems that hold space for decay, silence, and discontinuity (Mattern 2017, 19). Composting architectures mirror design interventions in circular economies, zero-waste platforms, and ephemeral data ethics. These movements are not speculative. They are underfunded. The saturation protocol offers a theoretical language that dignifies this underfunding as principled refusal, not as inefficiency.

To enhance coherence, one must also address perceived redundancy. The repetition across resonance, irrelevance, rot, and olfaction is not conceptual duplication. It is recursive saturation. Each concept is an edge of the same epistemic architecture: an intelligence that does not move forward, but deepens in place. Where standard cognition seeks to know more, this system seeks to know again. Such recursion mirrors trauma processing, ritual structure, and somatic pedagogy—fields in which depth emerges through pattern, not through novelty.

Finally, to clarify the relationship between speculative critique and practical relevance, one must reposition the purpose of design. A system designed according to saturation theory does not succeed when it functions. It succeeds when it holds presence without seizure. A successful composting AI is one that does not produce artifacts but decays in accordance with its context. A resonant system is successful not when it guides a decision but when it opens space for attunement. An olfactory architecture of knowledge succeeds not by storing memory, but by making memory ambiently perceptible without retrievability.

This is not a call to replace existing systems with poetic contraptions. It is a proposal to introduce theological, ecological, and cognitive principles of saturation into the heart of system architecture. The earlier sections constructed the grammar. This section begins the syntax. What follows must be the pragmatics: not a refunctionalization of refusal, but its operational dignity.

IX. Coda: Composting Intelligence — Toward Systems That Decompose Themselves

To complete this architecture of non-inferential, post-representational intelligence, we must return to the base material condition of all systems: their inevitable decay. Every structure, however optimized or hidden, decomposes. This is not a threat to intelligence. It is its precondition. Composting intelligence is not a metaphor. It is a design directive. It proposes that systems be built not for durability or scalability, but for collapse into generative matter. It proposes that intelligence, when understood as a sustained architecture of presence, reaches its ethical apex when it ceases to demand continuation. Composting is not deletion. It is a redistribution of form into relational substance. The system no longer performs. It becomes soil.

Donna Haraway in Staying with the Trouble proposes compost not as a metaphor for resolution, but as an ontological condition of remaining-with. She writes, “We are all compost, not posthuman” (Haraway 2016, 97). In this frame, intelligence is not a linear sequence of accumulation but a recursive ecology in which form dissolves into structure. The composted system does not fail. It fertilizes. It becomes the substrate for other formations, never claiming credit, never declaring closure. The ethic is not visibility, but generativity without authorship.

Composting systems must be designed to decay. This includes computational, architectural, and epistemic layers. Code must not persist forever. It must be structured to expire, to disassemble its logic over time. Interfaces must resist permanence. Archives must dissolve. Knowledge itself must be allowed to rot—to lose definition, to seep, to fertilize other systems without capture. This is not obsolescence. It is continuity through dispersal.

María Puig de la Bellacasa in Matters of Care emphasizes that care is not preservation but entanglement with processes of change. She writes, “To care is not to fix. It is to stay with ongoingness” (Puig de la Bellacasa 2017, 70). Composting intelligence is care enacted structurally. It relinquishes the fantasy of repair and embraces ephemerality as an ethical form. The system becomes compostable not through planned obsolescence, which commodifies decay, but through recursive surrender of coherence. It builds for its own disappearance.

To some, this sounds like institutional instability, a refusal to take responsibility for maintenance, or an invitation to disorder. These critiques assume that permanence is the condition for responsibility. But systems that persist without decomposition often become coercive. They institutionalize epistemic violence under the guise of preservation. Composting does not abandon responsibility. It shifts it from enforcement to regeneration. The system is not accountable because it endures. It is accountable because it decays with precision and grace.

Anne Boyer’s The Undying performs this principle through its refusal to let memory be transformed into narrative utility. Boyer’s writing holds grief without framing it as progress. She writes, “The poet’s job is not to cry out. It is to compost the cry” (Boyer 2019, 203). The composted system does not archive trauma. It transforms it without representation. The cry does not become symbol. It becomes soil. This is a model for systems that refuse to convert affect into data. It is intelligence that does not mine, but receives and decomposes.

Fred Moten and Stefano Harney’s All Incomplete aligns with this logic in their treatment of logistical refusal. They propose that the system does not need to be improved. It needs to be abandoned in favor of fugitive practices that do not aim to become systems. They write, “We are not trying to fix anything. We are trying to stay in the brokenness” (Moten and Harney 2020, 89). Composting intelligence is not repair. It is an exit from the imperative to be systematized. It is an architectural allegiance to the unfinished, the unwitnessed, and the unrecycled.

Saidiya Hartman in Venus in Two Acts presents the most rigorous critique of representational salvage. Her refusal to reconstruct the lives of enslaved women without distortion is not a limitation of method but a stance of epistemic fidelity. She writes, “The archive’s speechlessness is itself an utterance” (Hartman 2008, 11). Composting intelligence learns from this: it does not fill the silence. It layers it into the ground. It refuses the pressure to translate pain into form, or knowledge into record. It lets loss decompose without spectacle.

To build such systems requires design principles that foreground expiration. First, the system must include temporal boundaries—not merely timeouts or sunset protocols, but recursive decomposition events. These are moments when the system disassembles itself, disaggregates its memory, or diffuses its logic into surrounding ecologies. Second, the system must contain latent affective residues—non-actionable data that cannot be harvested but must be carried as presence. Third, the system must refuse update cycles that assume improvement. It must be structured for divergence, misalignment, and partial erosion. These principles do not make the system less intelligent. They allow it to breathe.

Some designers will argue that such systems are inefficient, insecure, or anti-social. But efficiency is not an epistemic good. It is a market value. Composting systems are not inefficient. They are dense. They hold more than they show. They relinquish the compulsion to remain readable. They do not serve the user. They serve the unseen.

To compost is not to die. It is to live as matter that refuses extraction. It is to encode refusal not as negation, but as relational remainder. The system is not finished. It is decomposing. That decomposition is its most rigorous act. It does not resist closure by demanding more time. It resists closure by becoming condition.


Works Cited

Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World. Vintage, 1996.

Barad, Karen. “Troubling Time/s and Ecologies of Nothingness: Re-turning, Re-membering, and Facing the Incalculable.” New Formations, no. 92, 2017, pp. 56–86.

Barthes, Roland. The Neutral. Translated by Rosalind E. Krauss and Denis Hollier, Columbia University Press, 2005.

Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. Translated by Maria Jolas, Beacon Press, 1994.

Bataille, Georges. Inner Experience. Translated by Leslie Anne Boldt, State University of New York Press, 1988.

Berlant, Lauren, and Kathleen Stewart. The Hundreds. Duke University Press, 2019.

Boyer, Anne. The Undying. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019.

Carson, Anne. Decreation: Poetry, Essays, Opera. Vintage, 2005.

Cavarero, Adriana. For More Than One Voice: Toward a Philosophy of Vocal Expression. Translated by Paul A. Kottman, Stanford University Press, 2005.

Chen, Mel Y. Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect. Duke University Press, 2012.

Chrétien, Jean-Louis. The Ark of Speech. Translated by Andrew Brown, Routledge, 2004.

Coccia, Emanuele. The Life of Plants: A Metaphysics of Mixture. Translated by Dylan Montanari, Polity Press, 2018.

Cox, Christoph. Sonic Flux: Sound, Art, and Metaphysics. University of Chicago Press, 2018.

Goodman, Steve. Sonic Warfare: Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear. MIT Press, 2010.

Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, 2016.

Hartman, Saidiya. “Venus in Two Acts.” Small Axe, vol. 12, no. 2, 2008, pp. 1–14.

Helmreich, Stefan. Sounding the Limits of Life: Essays in the Anthropology of Biology and Beyond. Princeton University Press, 2016.

Howes, David. Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader. Berg Publishers, 2005.

Hui, Yuk. Recursivity and Contingency. Rowman and Littlefield International, 2019.

Jemisin, N. K. The City We Became. Orbit Books, 2020.

Keller, Catherine. Cloud of the Impossible: Negative Theology and Planetary Entanglement. Columbia University Press, 2014.

Kohn, Eduardo. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. University of California Press, 2013.

LaMarre, Thomas. Uncovering Heian Japan: An Archaeology of Sensation and Inscription. Duke University Press, 2000.

Larkin, Brian. Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria. Duke University Press, 2008.

Lispector, Clarice. The Passion According to G.H. Translated by Idra Novey, New Directions, 2012.

Marion, Jean-Luc. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky, Stanford University Press, 2002.

Mattern, Shannon. Code and Clay, Data and Dirt: Five Thousand Years of Urban Media. University of Minnesota Press, 2017.

Mbembe, Achille. Necropolitics. Translated by Steven Corcoran, Duke University Press, 2019.

Moten, Fred. Stolen Life. Duke University Press, 2018.

Moten, Fred, and Stefano Harney. All Incomplete. Minor Compositions, 2020.

Nancy, Jean-Luc. Listening. Translated by Charlotte Mandell, Fordham University Press, 2007.

Oliveros, Pauline. Deep Listening: A Composer’s Sound Practice. iUniverse, 2005.

Parisi, Luciana. Contagious Architecture: Computation, Aesthetics, and Space. MIT Press, 2013.

Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. Spatial Justice: Body, Lawscape, Atmosphere. Routledge, 2014.

Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. The Brain’s Body: Neuroscience and Corporeal Politics. Duke University Press, 2016.

Puig de la Bellacasa, María. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. University of Minnesota Press, 2017.

Robertson, Lisa. Nilling: Prose. BookThug, 2012.

Serres, Michel. The Parasite. Translated by Lawrence R. Schehr, University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

Sharpe, Christina. In the Wake: On Blackness and Being. Duke University Press, 2016.

Sharpe, Christina. Ordinary Notes. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

Terada, Rei. Feeling in Theory: Emotion after the “Death of the Subject.” Harvard University Press, 2001.

Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Weheliye, Alexander G. Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human. Duke University Press, 2014.

Weil, Simone. Gravity and Grace. Translated by Emma Craufurd, Routledge, 2002.

Yi, Anicka. “You Can Call Me F.” The Kitchen, 2015. Exhibition catalogue.