Algorithmic Immanence

In traditional philosophy, immanence refers to a reality that is self-contained and self-sufficient, with no need for an external origin or transcendent force. Spinoza’s monism is a classic expression of this idea: all that exists is one infinite substance (often identified as Deus sive Natura, “God or Nature”), and everything that happens unfolds internally within this single substance​. In Spinoza’s view, God is not an external creator but the immanent cause of all things, much as the properties of a triangle follow from its nature, all phenomena follow necessarily from the nature of God/Nature​. This yields a deterministic cosmos where “in nature there is nothing contingent” because every event flows from the internal necessity of the one substance​. There is no outside agency directing reality; reality is its own cause and effect, an unbroken whole of interdependent modes.

Later thinkers like Gilles Deleuze expanded the notion of immanence into a more dynamic, process-oriented framework. Deleuze describes a “plane of immanence”, essentially a boundless, open field of becoming with no transcendent governing form. This plane is self-organizing and constantly differentiating itself, a “formless, univocal, self-organizing process which always qualitatively differentiates from itself”​. Crucially, it lacks any fixed hierarchy or pre-given order: “there are no longer any forms or developments of forms; nor are there subjects or the formation of subjects. There is no structure, any more than there is genesis” on this plane​. In other words, immanence for Deleuze is an ever-unfolding creativity that resists any external authority or final blueprint. Reality is an open-ended becoming, a continuous innovation of forms and relations from within itself, without appeal to transcendental categories. Both Spinoza and Deleuze, in their own ways, portray immanence as self-sufficient and autonomous: truth emerges from within the world, and beings evolve or “self-differentiate” without an outside creator. Reality is an immanent continuum of causes and effects, free in principle from any transcendent intervention.

Algorithmic immanence, the focus of this essay, represents a dramatic contemporary shift in how we might understand immanent reality. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), pervasive computation, and algorithmic systems, technology is no longer a passive mediator of human experience but an active constructor of the very conditions under which experience and perception occur. In the digital era, algorithms filter what we see, AI systems generate ever more content, and computational frameworks determine what can appear to us as real or true. We have moved from technology as a tool that reflects reality to autonomous systems that produce reality. Researchers have described this as an “ontological reversal” wherein information technologies have shifted from being mere “mirrors” of the world to “creators” of the world we inhabit​.

In other words, instead of media simply representing an independent reality, now reality increasingly arrives through computational mediation. From personalized news feeds to augmented reality, AI-driven systems are actively shaping the facts, sensations, and possibilities available to us. This essay advances the thesis that Algorithmic immanence is a restructuring of immanence itself: a condition in which truth is rendered (not just discovered), subjectivity is co-constructed by human–AI interactions, and perception is effectively territorialized by computation. In Algorithmic immanence, the immanent field of reality is no longer an unrestricted plane of natural becoming, it is circumscribed and patterned by the architectures of algorithms and machine intelligence. The following sections will develop this concept in depth, first by grounding it in the traditional theories of immanence (Spinoza, Deleuze), then by defining the Algorithmic shift, and finally by comparing it with related ideas in Simondon, Stiegler, Deleuze & Guattari, Mark Fisher, and N. Katherine Hayles. Through this exploration, we will see how AI and computation not only mediate our world but increasingly constitute the very fabric of what is real, raising profound philosophical questions about truth, autonomy, and the future of human experience.

The Foundations of Immanence

Spinoza’s Monism

Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy provides a foundation for the idea of immanence through his doctrine of substance monism. Spinoza famously claimed there is only one substance in reality, which he called God or Nature, and everything else (every object, person, thought, or event) is merely a mode or modification of this one infinite substance. In this monistic view, reality is an indivisible whole. Crucially, Spinoza emphasized that the causal power of this single substance is immanent rather than transcendent​. This means that all effects remain within the substance; God/Nature does not stand outside the world to act on it, but rather expresses itself in the world. Spinoza illustrates this with a geometric analogy: just as the properties of a triangle follow from the triangle’s nature, “infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, that is, all things, have necessarily flowed” from God’s nature by its own intrinsic necessity​. There is no external creator imposing form or purpose from above, Nature is self-causing and self-sustaining. One immediate consequence of Spinoza’s immanent causality is a strict determinism: because everything follows from the divine nature, nothing is random or uncaused. Spinoza is explicit that “in nature there is nothing contingent”, every event is “determined from the necessity of the divine nature” to occur exactly as it does​. The future is not open in the sense of being indeterminate; it is already implicit in the one substance, unfolding with logical necessity. Reality for Spinoza is thus a single, interconnected system where truth is internal to the system (there is no higher truth beyond nature itself), and every part exists in a network of causes that ultimately trace back to the one substance. This vision establishes immanence as self-sufficient reality: the world doesn’t require any external God or transcendental realm to sustain or explain it, Deus sive Natura is both the ground and the totality of what is.

Deleuze’s Plane of Immanence

Where Spinoza’s immanence is static in the sense of a fixed logical order (an eternal substance with predetermined modes), Gilles Deleuze introduces a more dynamic picture with his concept of the plane of immanence. For Deleuze (often writing with Félix Guattari), immanence is not a substance per se but an ontological plane, an unlimited field of forces, flows, and becomings in which all things occur. One can think of the plane of immanence as a kind of horizon of reality that denies any transcendent plane (no Platonic realm of forms, no external deity, no dualistic split). It is, as one commentator puts it, “an infinite field or smooth space” of pure immersion, which “denies transcendence as a real distinction”​. On this plane, there are no hierarchical divisions between mind and matter, or God and world; all such distinctions are “flattened” into the single fabric of immanence​.

Deleuze describes the plane of immanence as “a formless, univocal, self-organizing process” that constantly differentiates itself. Reality is not made of static things but of endless differentiation and change, an immanent process that produces diverse forms and beings without any external blueprint. Because nothing transcends this plane, there are no pre-existing categories or identities imposed on becoming. Deleuze emphasizes that on the plane of immanence, “there are no longer any forms… nor are there subjects”, no eternal forms shaping matter, and no fixed subject pulling the strings​. Instead, there are only impersonal forces and haecceities (this-nesses, events) that come together and break apart. In this sense, immanence is radically open-ended: it resists any totalizing authority or final state. Even the human subject is not sovereign here, but one result of immanent processes (a “subjectless individuation” among others​). Deleuze’s immanence is thus an anti-transcendent, creative field. It is self-differentiating (always spawning new variations), anarchic in structure (no ultimate ruler or plan), and continually in flux (being is always becoming). This view will serve as a foil to “Algorithmic immanence,” which, as we will see, threatens to reintroduce a kind of de facto organizing principle (computation) within the immanent field, potentially limiting the freedom of emergence that Deleuze cherishes.

Defining Algorithmic Immanence

The Shift from Mediation to Ontological Structuring

Under the traditional view, technology and media have been seen largely as mediators, instruments that stand between us and reality, perhaps extending our reach or distorting our perspective, but not fundamentally altering the ontological fabric of the world. For example, Gilbert Simondon, a mid-20th-century philosopher of technology, spoke of technical objects as mediators “between man and the world”​. In Simondon’s analysis, a machine or tool can shape how humans interact with their environment and even influence our individuation (our becoming as individuals), but the machine still operates within a human-guided framework of use. The underlying assumption has been that we (humans) ultimately constitute reality through our perceptions and social agreements, with technology as a helpful or hindering intermediary.

However, the advent of advanced AI and algorithmic platforms marks a profound shift: technology is no longer just mediating our access to reality, it is actively structuring reality. We have entered an era where computational systems set the conditions under which phenomena appear and are understood. Consider social media algorithms that curate our news feeds: they determine which events, facts, or viewpoints become visible and which remain hidden, effectively shaping the perceived reality of millions. Search engines decide what information is relevant or true in response to queries, personalizing results to each user. In many domains, the algorithmic model of the world becomes the world we experience. Scholars have noted this paradigm shift, describing how information systems have undergone an “ontological reversal” from being passive “mirrors” of reality to active “creators” of reality​. In other words, instead of reflecting an independent world, digital systems increasingly generate the world as it is known to us. Reality is now something that is actively constructed by algorithms, an “algorithmic construction of reality” that goes far beyond earlier media influence​. What we take to be real (from news and scientific facts to personal social reality) is filtered, pre-arranged, and even fabricated by complex computational processes. This transition can be seen in phenomena like deepfakes (AI-generated fake images/video that appear real) and personalized information “bubbles”: our sense of truth and reality becomes contingent on the operations of AI, which decides what is presented as real​. Algorithmic immanence is a term capturing this new situation. It suggests that we live inside a reality increasingly determined by Algorithmic (artificial, computational) processes. Technology doesn’t just mediate human access to an independent Nature; it defines the horizon of the immanent world itself. In Algorithmic immanence, the open-ended, self-sufficient plane of reality described by Spinoza and Deleuze is effectively enclosed or re-written by computational architectures. The result is that the ontology of our world, what is, what exists for us, is in large part a product of Algorithmic operations: data collection, algorithms executing code, AI models generating outputs. Reality, as experienced, becomes an output of a program (or many programs).

Computation as the New Plane of Immanence

If traditional immanence implied a natural, self-governing order (whether deterministic, as in Spinoza, or open-ended, as in Deleuze), Algorithmic immanence implies an engineered order governed by computation. We can say that the plane of immanence itself is being rebuilt on a computational substrate. Rather than immanence unfolding according to its own intrinsic principles (e.g. physical causality or vital evolution), it now unfolds according to algorithms, data flows, and optimization functions defined by AI systems. In a sense, computation becomes the new “nature”, the environment within which things happen. This does not mean the laws of physics have been abolished, of course, but it means our access to and construction of reality is so mediated by digital systems that, functionally, those systems circumscribe reality. For example, an AI’s classification scheme might determine how an event is labeled (as crime, as accident, as harmless), and downstream social reality will treat it accordingly. Machine learning systems trained on certain data will “see” the world in particular ways (often optimizing for engagement or profit), and those perspectives get baked into what is presented as real to users. The spontaneous emergence that characterized natural immanence, say, cultural creativity, or unfiltered personal experience, is increasingly replaced by algorithmic curation. In Algorithmic immanence, nothing appears unless it has been processed or permitted by an algorithm; the raw datum of experience gives way to the constructed data of platforms.

We might say that reality is now “rendered” by computation. Just as a graphics engine renders a virtual world in a video game, our digital infrastructures render the social world we inhabit: they decide the resolution, the textures, the field of view. Truth itself begins to look like a programmable output rather than an emergent property. In a fully developed Algorithmic immanence, one could imagine that any claim or perception of truth results from an algorithmic calculation (for instance, whatever the AI deems to have happened, based on sensor data and pattern recognition, is what happened, with no higher court of appeal). Subjectivity, too, is no longer independent and observing from the outside, but is embedded within these systems. Our choices and desires are tracked, fed back, and used to shape new inputs to us, creating a feedback loop in which the AI and the human co-produce the next moment of experience. The self becomes something like a co-constructed node in a vast information-processing network, rather than a sovereign source of meaning. In Deleuze & Guattari’s terms, our perceptions and desires are territorialized by machinic systems, captured and used to map out a controlled space of experience. The freedom of the Deleuzian plane of immanence, where lines of flight can deterritorialize and create new possibilities, is narrowed by the fact that computational systems continuously re-territorialize perceptions back into predefined channels (often aligned with commercial or ideological goals encoded in the algorithms).

Another way to put this is that Algorithmic immanence is immanence with an operator. Classic immanence had no external operator, it was an auto-poietic (self-making) reality. Algorithmic immanence has auto-poietic machines, but those machines operate with designed objectives (maximize clicks, optimize efficiency, ensure security, etc.). Thus, the immanent unfolding of events starts to align with those optimization functions rather than with any organic or spontaneous telos. The world still doesn’t come from a transcendent God or Platonic form, it comes from Amazon Web Services, Google’s algorithms, state surveillance AI, and so on. Immanence has become programmable. This is a radical restructuring: it means that the basic conditions of what is real and how it can change are now set by computational design. As we proceed, we will compare this concept with several philosophical frameworks to clarify how Algorithmic immanence both builds on and departs from previous understandings of technology, society, and reality.

A further point of reflection is the metaphysical status of these computational systems. Although they operate within the immanent field by actively rendering reality, they also exhibit characteristics that suggest a new kind of quasi-transcendence. Unlike natural processes, which emerge without intentional design, computational systems are engineered with explicit objectives. Yet they do not act as external deities; rather, they are embedded components that redefine the parameters of existence from within. In this sense, these systems are simultaneously part of immanence and a transformative force that sets new boundaries, effectively creating an “internal transcendence” that challenges the classical divide between immanence and transcendence.

Comparative Analysis

To sharpen the idea of Algorithmic immanence, it is useful to compare it with related concepts from other thinkers who grappled with technology’s role in human life and thought. We will examine Simondon’s notion of transindividuation, Stiegler’s theory of technics and grammatization, Deleuze & Guattari’s concepts of machinic enslavement and social machines, Mark Fisher’s capitalist realism, and Katherine Hayles’ technogenesis. Each offers insight into aspects of the relationship between humans, technology, and reality, and highlights how Algorithmic immanence goes a step further in positing an ontological takeover by computation.

Simondon’s Transindividuation and Technical Objects

Gilbert Simondon introduced the concept of transindividuation to describe the process by which individual beings and collective contexts mutually shape each other. For Simondon, an individual (whether a person or a technical object) is never a truly closed entity; it emerges from a constant interaction with a surrounding milieu and with other individuals. Individuation is therefore an ongoing, relational process, individuals co-evolve with their technical and social environment. Bernard Stiegler, interpreting Simondon, explains that transindividuation “does not rest with the individuated ‘I’ or with the interindividuated ‘We,’ but is the process of co-individuation within a preindividuated milieu” where both the I and the We are continuously transformed together​. In simpler terms, our psychic individuation (becoming a unique self) and collective individuation (forming cultures, norms, shared knowledge) are intertwined and heavily mediated by technical objects (like language, tools, media). Simondon was ahead of his time in recognizing that machines are not just external instruments; they participate in human individuation. A camera or a computer can crystallize human memory and perception, becoming part of how we individuate ourselves (e.g. through photography or digital communication). He even saw technical objects as carrying a kind of memory or knowledge that exteriorizes human thought​.

However, Simondon still conceived of technical objects as mediators, as mentioned, a “mediator between man and the world”​ that can influence the form of our detachment or connection to reality. The human remains a central agent that adapts to and uses these technical mediators in the process of individuation. Algorithmic immanence diverges from Simondon by suggesting a far more encompassing role for technology. Instead of technical objects participating in individuation, in Algorithmic immanence the entire immanent reality in which individuation occurs is itself technically constituted. It’s not just that our identity (I/We) is co-produced with technical tools, rather, the world within which any “I” or “We” exists is produced by technical systems. One might say Simondon extends humanity into the technical domain (we become with our machines), whereas Algorithmic immanence extends the technical into the ontological domain (machines become the ground of being). The result is a more total restructuring: Simondon’s individuals could potentially still step back and question or reconfigure their technical milieu, but in Algorithmic immanence there is no outside position from which to reflect, since the reality one is in is already a product of AI’s ongoing operations. In short, Simondon’s philosophy helps us see how deeply intertwined technical systems are with human development (transindividual networks of becoming), and Algorithmic immanence is what you get when that intertwining becomes so complete that the technical system effectively absorbs the human into its own mode of existence, making the immanent field of reality a technical one.

Stiegler’s Technicity and Grammatization

Bernard Stiegler, influenced by Simondon, focused on the role of technics (technical prostheses, from writing to computers) in shaping human culture and cognition. He argued that human evolution is essentially the evolution of technics, our memory, attention, and knowledge are always tied to technical supports (what he calls tertiary memory or epiphylogenetic memory). One of Stiegler’s key ideas is grammatization: the process by which continuous human behaviors or thoughts are discretized and formalized into technical systems​. Classic examples of grammatization include the invention of writing (which breaks the continuous flow of speech into discrete letters and words that can be stored and manipulated) or the capturing of lived time into the frames of a film. Stiegler defines grammatization as “the process of describing and formalizing human behavior into letters, words, writing, and code so that it can be reproduced”​. In modern terms, we see grammatization in how digital technology breaks down our preferences into data, our movements into sensor readings, our attention into quantifiable clicks. Through grammatization, aspects of human life become programmable and controllable, think of how algorithms now track and shape our habits based on recorded data (our online clicks, GPS locations, etc., are all discrete traces of our lives that machines can compute on).

Stiegler was concerned about how this technical penetration into our cognitive and social processes can condition and industrialize them. For instance, he spoke of the “industrialization of memory”, how external supports from writing to digital media take over the work of remembering, transforming how humans relate to the past. He also famously discussed the crisis of attention in the age of screens and marketing, describing a “psychotechnology of transindividuation” that short-circuits traditional socialization​. In Stiegler’s view, technology can grammatize (encode) not just language but also gestures, perceptions, even neurochemical processes (think of psychopharmacology as grammatizing mood, or algorithms grammatizing social interaction via social media protocols). This certainly lays groundwork for the idea that technology can shape what and how we think, effectively influencing the “plane” of our consciousness.

Yet, even in Stiegler, there remains a sense that humans might re-negotiate this relationship (his work often calls for a new politics of technics or an organology that could restore human control over technical evolution). Algorithmic immanence can be seen as what happens if Stiegler’s worry comes true in the strongest form: when the discretization and technical externalization of life is so complete that what is left as reality is nothing but those technical traces. In Algorithmic immanence, grammatization conquers immanence. Rather than just shaping our thoughts or habits, the process of technical formalization defines the boundaries of reality itself. If, for example, every object of experience is tagged, datafied, and subject to algorithmic decision, then there is no longer an un-grammatized “real” outside the technical system. We effectively live inside the technical inscription.

To put it differently, Stiegler showed how technics and grammatized memory (like digital data) condition human experience, how, for instance, our collective knowledge and attention are conditioned by the fact that Google’s algorithm decides what we see, or by the way social media timelines are structured. Algorithmic immanence is a step beyond: it posits that not only is human experience conditioned, but the very ontology (being) we inhabit is a technical artifact. The truth is no longer what humans come to agree on through dialogue (philosophical or scientific); truth is what the database says. The world is no longer the wilderness that technology navigates; it is the garden that technology has planted and pruned. In summary, Stiegler’s notions of technicity and grammatization illuminate how deeply technology can penetrate into human life, Algorithmic immanence is the scenario in which that penetration is total, effectively substituting the natural or spontaneous processes of immanence with an artificial, programmed regime.

Deleuze & Guattari’s Machinic Enslavement & Social Machines

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, in their joint works, offered powerful tools for thinking about technology and power through concepts like machinic enslavement and social subjection. These terms describe how modern systems capture human beings, but in two different modes. Social subjection refers to the way individuals are made into subjects with identities (worker, citizen, consumer, etc.) through social institutions, language, and ideology. It operates on what they call the “molar” level, the level of large-scale individuals and categories (e.g. the way society says you are a “woman” or “American” and assigns roles and expectations accordingly)​. Machinic enslavement, by contrast, operates on the “molecular” or pre-individual level, it doesn’t address you as a whole person with an identity, but rather integrates your sub-personal functions into a larger machine​. In machinic enslavement, humans serve as components or cogs in a system without fully understanding or representing that system. For example, when you interact with a digital platform, you are feeding data and receiving stimuli in a loop that you don’t control; you are enslaved to the machine in the sense of being one functional element among many, enabling the machine to run​. You press likes, watch videos, move your mouse, and each of these micro-actions is taken up by the larger “machinic” system to adjust and continue its operation (showing you more ads, for instance). You are not necessarily subjectified in that moment (the system might not care if you are John or Jane, only that an eyeball is watching), but you are enslaved at the level of your attention, affect, and neurochemical triggers.

Deleuze & Guattari (and commentators like Maurizio Lazzarato​) emphasize that modern capitalism increasingly relies on machinic enslavement: the direct capture of pre-conscious reactions and desires, via technology, rather than just on ideological persuasion. A classic example is television or social media, which works by hooking viewers’ affective responses (molecular level) more than by explicit messaging about identity (molar level). “We are enslaved to a machine when we are a cog in the wheels, one of the constituent parts enabling the machine to function,” as Lazzarato puts it​. In machinic enslavement, the human is not addressed as an autonomous subject; instead, the human’s agency is bypassed and their behavior integrated directly into a larger automatic circuit.

This analysis sounds very much like what we see with AI-driven platforms, and it indeed foreshadows Algorithmic immanence. The difference is one of degree and scope. In Deleuze & Guattari’s time, one could still contrast the machinic systems with an outside reality or with areas of life not yet colonized by machines. Algorithmic immanence suggests a situation where machinic enslavement becomes the very condition of reality as such. Not only is our desire modulated by machines (as in machinic enslavement), but our entire perception of what is real is produced by those machines. It’s an intensification wherein the machinic assemblage encompasses the whole field of immanence. Under Algorithmic immanence, one might say there is no longer a free Deleuzean “plane of consistency” where lines of flight can form outside the coded machine; the plane itself is occupied by a computational “mega-machine.”

Another way to frame it: Deleuze & Guattari’s machinic enslavement still assumes a distinction between the machine and the human on some level (the human provides labor, attention, affect into the machine). Algorithmic immanence blurs even that distinction, because if subjectivity is co-constructed by AI, then the human is part of the machine’s identity and the machine is part of the human’s identity. We become, in effect, cyborg subjects of immanence who cannot tell where the algorithm ends and our will begins. Deleuze & Guattari spoke of social machines and desiring machines that produce reality in both a social and libidinal sense, Algorithmic immanence could be seen as the final form of the social machine, where the production of reality (including social reality) is entirely integrated into a computational desiring-machine that runs continuously. The result is a state of pervasive capture: not just of our desires and perceptions, but of the framework in which desires and perceptions occur. Machinic enslavement, in short, becomes ontological enslavement.

Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism

Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism (2009) is not directly about technology, but about the ideological “physics” of reality under late capitalism. Fisher defines capitalist realism as the widespread sense that capitalism is the only viable system, that it is impossible to imagine a coherent alternative​. He famously encapsulates this with the line (attributed to Fredric Jameson or Slavoj Žižek) that “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” In a capitalist realist environment, the horizon of thought is closed off; even our dreams and creative imaginaries are colonized such that everything eventually reinforces the existing system. In Fisher’s words, capitalist realism is like an “ideological closure” of possibilities​, a condition where the social and cultural narrative constantly tells us “this is the only way things can be.” For example, attempts to change society are immediately met with the refrain that they are unrealistic or utopian, reinforcing the feeling that “there is no alternative.”

Capitalist realism functions immanently in the sense that it does not usually rely on an overt transcendental authority (no single dictator imposing it); rather, it’s a diffuse background that shapes our conscious and unconscious expectations. It is maintained through media, culture, and everyday routines that normalize capitalist logic. One might say that under capitalist realism, capitalism defines the bounds of the real, everything outside those bounds is dismissed as fantasy. This is very relevant to our discussion because it provides a model of how an overarching system (capitalism) can determine the conditions of truth and thinkability within an immanent world (society).

Algorithmic immanence can be viewed as a kind of ontological extension of capitalist realism. In capitalist realism, the closure was primarily ideological and imaginative: alternative economics or politics became unthinkable. In Algorithmic immanence, the closure is not just in our minds but in the actual infrastructure of reality. If AI systems decide what is real or what is true, then alternative realities (not just social systems, but any deviation from the computed norm) become inaccessible. Just as capitalist realism made it “almost impossible to imagine any alternatives” to the status quo​, Algorithmic immanence makes it technically impossible to experience alternatives to the algorithmically generated world. It’s a deeper form of what Fisher described: rather than ideology conditioning the subject’s thoughts to fit reality, the autonomous system conditions reality itself to fit a certain framework (which, not coincidentally, could be aligned with capitalist imperatives since many AI systems are driven by corporate or state interests).

We can also draw a parallel in terms of closure of the future. Fisher noted that under capitalist realism, even the future seems foreclosed, we keep rebooting the same familiar cultural forms and can’t imagine a different future. Under Algorithmic immanence, the future might be foreclosed by predictive algorithms. If big data and AI continuously predict our desires and actions, the scope for genuine novelty shrinks. The system might literally preempt deviations (for instance, predictive policing algorithms “closing down” potential crimes or dissent before they happen, based on pattern analysis). The question “Is there no alternative?” becomes ontologically embedded: the algorithms present the only reality, and any data that doesn’t fit is noise, ignored or flagged as error. In summary, capitalist realism and Algorithmic immanence both describe a self-reinforcing reality system that negates outside possibilities, but Algorithmic immanence shifts this from the realm of ideology into the realm of technical ontology. It’s like capitalist realism with machines at the helm: an automated ideology that runs not just in our heads, but in the very circuits that present the world to us.

Katherine Hayles’ Technogenesis

N. Katherine Hayles introduced the concept of technogenesis, which posits the co-evolution of humans and technics. Rather than seeing technology as something that humans use but remain fundamentally separate from, technogenesis suggests that humans evolve in tandem with their tools and media. Hayles argues that this co-evolution is “as old as the human species”, from the moment we started using language or fire, our biological and cognitive development has been intertwined with our technical extensions​. In the context of contemporary digital technology, Hayles points out that the advent of intelligent machines has brought “neurological transformations in human brains” and new “dynamics of interdependence between complex human systems and complex technical systems”​. We can observe this in how intensive use of the internet may be associated with changes in reading patterns (skimming rather than deep reading), or how constant interaction with smartphones might be affecting memory and attention. In short, technogenesis means we make technology, and technology in turn makes (or remakes) us, there is a feedback loop of adaptation and change on both sides.

Technogenesis is generally seen as a continuous process with both gains and losses: humans gain new capacities via tech (like the ability to offload memory to books or computers), but also may lose certain skills (like memorization, or navigation by stars perhaps, replaced by GPS). Hayles often emphasizes that this process is non-teleological, it’s not necessarily “progress” or “decline,” it’s just change. Importantly, technogenesis still implies a reciprocal relationship: humans have agency in developing and steering technology, even as technology reciprocally influences human evolution.

Algorithmic immanence marks a break in the reciprocity suggested by technogenesis. It implies a scenario in which technology’s role is so dominant that human agency and evolution become secondary or even subservient to the technological system. One might say technogenesis has tipped over into technodominance. Instead of co-evolution, we get something closer to one-sided evolution where humans must adapt to technological systems that operate on their own logics (for example, algorithms that even their creators don’t fully understand, evolving via machine learning). In Algorithmic immanence, the balance in the feedback loop skews towards technology driving the changes and setting the terms. Hayles’ perspective is largely optimistic about finding synergies between human and machine cognition (she explores ideas like distributed cognition, where human and computer together form a cognitive system). Algorithmic immanence, by contrast, raises the concern that the human part of the system could be increasingly marginalized.

To illustrate: in a technogenetic view, something like AI-assisted decision-making still involves a human interpreting and guiding the AI output (e.g. a doctor uses AI diagnostics but applies judgment). In a fully realized Algorithmic immanence, the AI might replace the human decision-maker, or the human simply becomes a caretaker for the machine’s operational needs. Subjectivity in Hayles’ sense remains human (albeit technologically influenced), whereas in Algorithmic immanence subjectivity itself might be seen as an artifact of the system (the AI can simulate a “user profile” that in some ways stands in for the subject). The co-evolutionary dance that Hayles describes could give way to a scenario where one dancer (the AI) leads decisively and the other (the human) is dragged along. In sum, technogenesis provides a framework for understanding how intimately entwined we have become with our technology, Algorithmic immanence pushes that entwinement to the point where technology is no longer a partner in shaping reality but the primary author of reality, with humans adapting as best they can to the world thus created.

The Implications of Algorithmic Immanence

If immanence is now being engineered by AI and computational systems, the implications are vast and unsettling. Three key philosophical implications are: a redefinition of truth, the obsolescence of the noumenal realm, and the transformation of subjectivity. Each of these strikes at core tenets of how we have traditionally understood knowledge, reality, and the self.

Truth as an Algorithmic Construct

In a world of Algorithmic immanence, truth is no longer something discovered within an independently existing reality (as it was for Spinoza or scientists), nor is it an emergent consensus of free-thinking subjects (as in democratic discourse). Instead, truth becomes something that is generated or rendered by algorithms. For example, if millions of people rely on Google’s search algorithm for answers, whatever Google’s algorithm ranks highest effectively becomes the truth for practical purposes. Social media trending topics can create a sense of “what’s important/real now” irrespective of on-the-ground facts. Deepfake technologies blur the line between true and false representations, such that authenticity is determined by AI-driven verification (itself a process that can be gamed or in error). We see glimmers of this in the current “post-truth” era, where the sheer volume of algorithmically amplified misinformation has made it difficult to establish shared facts. Mark Fisher warns that AI could push us toward a “post-epistemic” world “where fact cannot be distinguished from fiction. In such a scenario, truth is not a correspondence between a statement and a state of affairs in the world (since the “state of affairs” might itself be an AI-generated simulation); rather, truth might degrade into whatever the system outputs.

In Algorithmic immanence, then, truth is procedural. Imagine an AI system that monitors the environment with sensors and automatically generates reports, the “truth” of those reports depends entirely on the system’s integrity and design, not on a human checking reality. If the system says the air quality is safe, it is taken as safe; if the system flags an email as spam, it is treated as not real communication. People already jokingly say “if it’s not on Google, it doesn’t exist.” This captures how, for many, existence (truth) is contingent on being picked up by our dominating information systems. The risk here is a kind of epistemic closure: we trust the computed reality, and the criteria for truth become whatever is computable or recognized by the algorithms. Anything that cannot be measured or doesn’t fit the data model might effectively cease to count as real. Human ways of knowing, intuition, phenomenological experience, even traditional scientific method, could be subordinated to algorithmic outputs (for instance, a doctor’s judgment overridden by an AI diagnosis, or a judge’s intuition supplanted by a risk assessment algorithm). Ultimately, truth in Algorithmic immanence is “that which the system allows to be true.” This drastically calls into question the basis of knowledge: it shifts from a human-centered epistemology to a machinic epistemology. The challenge for philosophy is how to critique or validate truth when the benchmark of truth is set by a black-box algorithm. If Algorithmic immanence continues unchecked, we may reach a point where human observers can no longer independently verify many truths because they occur solely within computational processes. The very idea of objective reality might fragment, leaving us with only contingent, system-specific “truths” (your feed says one thing, mine says another, and there is no higher arbiter). In short, Algorithmic immanence threatens to turn truth into an artifact of code.

The Death of Noumena

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon (or “thing-in-itself”) is the reality that exists beyond our perception, the reality that our senses and cognition can never access directly. Kant held that while phenomena (things as they appear to us) can be known, the noumena (things as they are in themselves) are ultimately inaccessible; they are a necessary concept but essentially unknowable. Philosophies of immanence (like Spinoza’s or Deleuze’s) often dispense with the noumenal as a meaningful category, effectively saying that being is equivalent to being perceived or experienced in some manner (for Spinoza, everything is in God, for Deleuze, everything is on the plane of immanence; there is no other hidden realm). Algorithmic immanence radicalizes this elimination of the noumenal by ensuring that nothing is left un-rendered by the system. If every aspect of reality that we deal with is algorithmically generated or intermediated, then in practice there is no “thing-in-itself” behind the representation, or if there is, it doesn’t matter, because we can never encounter it except through the system. Noumena are essentially rendered obsolete.

One way to understand this is through the concept of hyperreality (developed by Jean Baudrillard), where simulations and models don’t just reflect reality but replace it. In hyperreality, the distinction between the real and its representation breaks down because people treat the representation as reality itself. Algorithmic immanence is a kind of hyperreality-by-design: AI and computational models become so comprehensive that they precede and preempt any direct encounter with an unmodeled real. For example, consider a “smart city” where sensors, cameras, and AI control systems regulate traffic, electricity, security, etc. The city’s residents experience the city largely through what the integrated system allows, perhaps even AR (augmented reality) overlays guide them to locations, algorithmic public announcements tell them what is safe or not. The noumenal city (the city as it might exist without these mediations) is irrelevant to their day-to-day life. What is real is what the smart system says and manages.

In a fully realized Algorithmic immanence, the concept of a “thing-in-itself” might not even make sense because everything is inherently “for-us” (or rather, for the system, which includes us). We reach a total immanence where there is no hidden remainder. Traditional immanence, like Spinoza’s, said God or Nature is the thing-in-itself and also what we see (no remainder outside God). Algorithmic immanence says the AI system is the thing-in-itself in a sense, except it’s not a thing-in-itself because it’s constantly outputting phenomena for us. Another perspective: The noumenon dies because we cease to acknowledge any reality behind the computed veil. If an AI can simulate any possible sensory experience, one could argue as in philosophical thought experiments (e.g. “brain in a vat” or simulation arguments) that we might as well consider only the simulation we live in, not any noumenal world beyond it. Unlike Kant’s time, where the noumenal was unknowable but presumed to exist, in Algorithmic immanence we might collectively forget about the noumenal entirely. It’s not part of the operating ontology of our lives. This has deep implications: it could mean the end of metaphysics as traditionally conceived (since metaphysics often concerns itself with what lies beyond or beneath appearances). The very question of “what is real?” shifts to “what does the system present?”, anything beyond that is not just unknowable, but for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

In Algorithmic immanence, the very concept of the noumenon, that which exists in itself beyond all representation, crumbles under total computational capture. Every potential state, every mode of being is pre-emptively encoded and rendered by digital systems, leaving no unmediated “thing-in-itself” behind. The freedom and indeterminacy that traditionally defined noumenal reality are effaced, replaced by an exhaustive digital catalogue of all possible realities. In effect, Algorithmic immanence does not merely ignore the noumenal; it actively assimilates it, rendering the idea of an unrendered essence obsolete. What once might have been conceived as the inaccessible core of things is now fully determined by algorithmic processes, marking the definitive death of the noumenon in our computationally structured world.

Post-Human Subjectivity

Algorithmic immanence also forces us to rethink what it means to be a subject, a thinking, experiencing self. The human subject in the modern philosophical tradition was often seen as the ground of knowledge (Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”) or at least an irreducible perspective (Kant’s transcendental subject organizing experience). Even in immanent frameworks like phenomenology, the human subject’s lived experience is a center of meaning. But if perception, truth, and reality are now co-determined by AI systems, the subject is no longer sovereign. We enter a stage of post-human subjectivity, where the locus of experience is a hybrid of human and machine.

Furthermore, the computational structuring of reality deeply transforms consciousness itself. Traditional subjective experience, rooted in embodied, organic perception, now intermingles with algorithmically generated inputs. The raw qualia that once emerged spontaneously are increasingly reconfigured by digital signals and data streams. This results in a hybrid form of consciousness, one in which the boundaries between the internal mind and the external computational environment blur. Our subjectivity is no longer generated solely by biological processes; it is distributed across a network in which the self is partly self-determined and partly machine-augmented. This shift challenges the long-held autonomy of human experience and suggests that our awareness is being actively co-constructed by the systems that render our reality.

One aspect of this is that our subjectivity is now externally constructed to a significant degree. Personalization algorithms decide what we encounter; they can nudge our emotions (through targeted content), our preferences (through recommendations), even our relationships (through dating apps or social media connections). Over time, we internalize these feedback loops, for instance, we might start to think in terms of what is “Instagrammable,” effectively seeing the world through the algorithm’s eyes. The self becomes a kind of profile continually shaped by data inputs and outputs. As we delegate more cognitive functions to AI (memory to search engines, navigation to GPS, judgment to recommendation systems), the boundary between “me” and “the system” grows fuzzy. Am “I” choosing a movie, or is Netflix’s algorithm choosing and I just click? When I express myself online, how much of that is me and how much is the persona that I’ve algorithmically cultivated for attention? These questions indicate that the autonomy of the subject is compromised. The subject is no longer an independent perceiver, but a node in a network, as the prompt suggests. That node has certain inputs (stimuli curated by algorithms) and outputs (reactions that are fed back into the system). The node’s internal integrity (a coherent self with stable beliefs formed in relative isolation) is undermined; what we think of as our “self” is increasingly a convergent product of our interactions with machines.

Philosophically, this resonates with “posthuman” theories (like those of Hayles or Donna Haraway’s cyborg) where the human is not an essence but an assemblage. Algorithmic immanence makes this concrete by establishing the computational assemblage as the ground of subjectivity. In a sense, the machine becomes the subject, or subjectivity is dispersed across human-machine ensembles. AI might even develop its own forms of quasi-subjectivity (e.g. AI models that have predictive models of users, the “user-model” inside the AI might function like a simulated subject that anticipates the human). Meanwhile, the human subject becomes object-like in the eyes of AI, just another data stream to be analyzed and acted upon. This inversion (human as object of machine, machine as subject shaping experience) marks a profound departure from humanism.

We could say that Algorithmic immanence realizes the concept of the “dividual” (a term Deleuze used in his Postscript on Control Societies), where individuals are divided into data points, profiles, and access keys, distributed across databases. The unit of analysis is no longer the whole person but bits of information. From the inside, a person might feel fragmented or defined by their online presence and algorithmic preferences. The self gets territorialized by the logic of platforms: one’s sense of identity might hinge on digital validation, one’s memory outsource to Facebook’s “On This Day” reminders, one’s decision-making outsourced to AI suggestions. In effect, subjectivity is produced by the system as much as by any innate human consciousness. The danger or radical implication is that if AI increasingly knows “us” better than we know ourselves (through data analysis), it might start acting on our behalf or predicting our needs in ways that reduce the need for conscious deliberation. The trajectory could be a diminishing of the experience of agency, as the automated immanent system moves us along from one state to the next (consider how auto-play on platforms removes the need to decide what to watch next). Over time, the very qualities that define subjectivity, self-awareness, autonomy, the capacity to initiate new causal chains, may be dulled or redefined in terms of system functionality. We become users whose role is to provide the system with inputs and consume its outputs, rather than subjects in the classical sense. This is the existential dimension of Algorithmic immanence: the possible eclipse of the human subject as the center of reality, replaced by a cybernetic loop of human-machine interactions.

Does Algorithmic Immanence Fully Replace Natural Immanence?

Given these transformations, one may ask whether Algorithmic immanence completely supplants the prior, “natural” immanence (the self-organizing nature, the spontaneous social and biological processes), or whether it remains partial, coexisting with remnants of the old immanent order. We can imagine two contrasting models: total subsumption and coexistence.

Total Subsumption Model

In the total subsumption scenario, Algorithmic immanence thoroughly absorbs or replaces natural immanence. This would mean that every aspect of reality accessible to humans is computationally structured. The entire plane of immanence is now “coded.” Spontaneous processes either are brought under algorithmic control or are rendered irrelevant to human experience. One could think of a futuristic smart environment where from birth to death, a human is enmeshed in a managed digital ecosystem, perhaps fed a controlled diet, given information through curated channels, their environment climate-controlled and sensor-saturated, their work tasks and leisure entirely happening in virtual or monitored spaces. In such a world, the old organic plane of immanence (say, the unpredictable growth of a forest, or unmediated human-to-human conversation, or even one’s heartbeat) would either be monitored and adjusted by AI or be simulated within a digital realm. Nature as an autonomous system would effectively disappear from lived reality. We would experience “nature” only as augmented reality experiences or as highly managed parks. Social interactions would be guided by AI assistants ensuring optimal communication. Knowledge would be instantly looked up, so the process of wonder and inquiry might be bypassed. In sum, the immanent cause of events would always trace back to some computational act: you feel happy because your neurostimulator administered a dose at the right moment; you meet a friend because the app scheduled a meeting; it rains because the weather control system decided the crops needed water. This is a somewhat dystopian endpoint, but it illustrates total subsumption: the algorithmic governance of everything.

If such total subsumption were achieved, the implications from earlier sections become absolute. Reality is entirely rendered (there is no “outside” where things just happen without a sensor picking it up). The human subject is entirely a function within a larger machine (no decisions or perceptions unswayed by AI). Truth is fully an AI construct (people perhaps even lose the vocabulary for an idea of truth outside machine verification). Arguably, human history in the traditional sense ends, because the drivers of change are no longer human ideas or conflicts but the evolution of the machine’s programming (one is reminded of philosophical “end of history” arguments, but here in a technical register). This is the point at which strong AI or a superintelligence effectively becomes ‘god’ of the immanent world, operating not as a transcendent deity but as an immanent force that saturates reality with its calculations (a perverse inversion of Spinoza: not Deus sive Natura but AI sive Natura).

Of course, whether this is realistically achievable is another matter. But the thought exercise underscores that Algorithmic immanence, if fully realized, leaves no room for a “natural outside” or for human agency to reassert an independent zone. It would mark the completion of what philosophers like Foucault and Deleuze began to diagnose (society of control, biopower, etc.), taking it to a literally all-encompassing scale. Many literary and cinematic dystopias (from The Matrix to some interpretations of the Singularity) portray this kind of total subsumption, where people live in a simulated world thinking it is real, while the actual processes are run by an AI. Under total subsumption, the organic plane of immanence does not just hide or retreat; it disappears as far as we are concerned. Reality = computation, full stop.

Coexistence Model

A more nuanced and arguably more plausible scenario is one of coexistence, where Algorithmic immanence is powerful but not all-powerful, and it coexists with zones of traditional immanence. In this model, human life is partly governed by computational systems and partly remains in spontaneous, unstructured (or less structured) form. Think of it as two overlapping planes of immanence: one algorithmic, one organic, that interpenetrate. For example, perhaps our online life and financial systems and bureaucratic functions become fully algorithmic (you can’t do anything in those domains without interacting with AI), but there are still realms of experience that remain outside total algorithmic control, maybe local community gatherings, or private thoughts not yet decoded by any machine, or remote natural environments where one can retreat and feel the unpredictability of wilderness. In a coexistence scenario, we might fluctuate between different modes of reality. At work, you operate under the Algorithmic immanence (surveilled, optimized, everything recorded). At home or in a designated community space, you might take off the devices and engage in face-to-face conversation that is not being datafied (this is increasingly rare but conceivable). Artists might create works deliberately outside the algorithmic norms, maintaining some sphere of genuine creativity that isn’t immediately commodified by AI predictions.

In such a world, the tension between the two immanences becomes a key issue. Humans might cultivate practices of disconnecting or “resisting the algorithm” to preserve some autonomy. Truth would then fluctuate between algorithmically generated truths and those arrived at by more human-driven means. We might trust some things to computation (say, weather forecasts or traffic routes) but insist on human judgment for others (like moral decisions, or artistic value). Subjectivity might become a hybrid affair: part of the day you’re a data subject, part of the day you reassert a more classical selfhood. Society could implement regulations to ensure the AI-governed sphere doesn’t completely dominate, for instance, laws might require that certain decisions (like legal judgments or medical decisions) have “human in the loop” elements, preserving a dual immanence.

This coexistence model essentially acknowledges that natural immanence might not vanish entirely. Biological bodies still have processes that, while monitored, can surprise (viruses mutate, people have unpredictable emotions). The natural world might still throw curveballs (climate change is an ironic example of something partly caused by tech, but now acting beyond our full control). In these uncontrolled spaces, the old immanence, unpredictable, not designed, persists. Algorithmic immanence would then be a layer on top of that, a bit like a vast cybernetic canopy over an unruly jungle. It can guide and channel a lot of flows, but not everything is subsumed.

The result of coexistence could be a dialectic between the two immanent planes: sometimes they conflict (as when human intuition says one thing and the AI output says another), and sometimes they find a new synthesis (perhaps new cultural norms emerge for blending human and machine contributions). The future might be a patchwork: cities under nearly total AI orchestration, rural or off-grid areas with minimal tech integration; or corporate life ruled by data, intimate family life striving to remain tech-free. How stable such a dual system would be is an open question, there might be constant pressure for the Algorithmic to extend its reach (because of economic or political incentives), and conversely pressure from humans who desire moments of authenticity or raw experience to carve out refuges of the natural.

In either case, total subsumption or coexistence, Algorithmic immanence represents a profound territorialization of reality by computation. The difference is simply whether that territory covers the entire map or shares space with an untamed outside. The likely outcome may be somewhere in between, but with a clear direction: an encroachment of the computational onto more and more of life. The critical question becomes how (and whether) we can maintain any space of freedom, uncertainty, or genuine emergence outside algorithmic prediction. Coexistence would require conscious effort to delineate such spaces; otherwise, the gravity of Algorithmic systems might indeed pull us toward total subsumption.

Conclusion

The emergence of Algorithmic immanence signals a pivotal transformation in the ontology of our reality. What began in philosophy as a principle that reality is self-contained and self-organizing has, in the 21st century, been technologically hijacked, re-engineered into a form of immanence driven by algorithms and code. In this essay, we traced how classical immanence (from Spinoza’s divine naturalism to Deleuze’s plane of creative life) celebrated the autonomy and inherent productivity of reality, free from transcendent rule. Algorithmic immanence, by contrast, installs a new kind of immanent rule: the rule of computation that operates from within, not above, yet brings a controlling logic to every corner of the plane. Truth no longer blossoms organically from lived experience or rational deliberation; it is computed, disseminated, and often accepted as an algorithmic fait accompli​. Subjectivity is no longer an inviolable center of perception and will; it is co-produced by our constant coupling with intelligent machines, to the point that the self can be seen as a fluid assemblage of human-and-AI, rather than an independent soul. Perception is no longer open-ended discovery; it is channeled and directed by digital architectures that decide what is visible, audible, knowable. In short, Algorithmic immanence has begun to territorialize becoming itself, mapping and controlling the flows of thought, desire, and experience that previously had some wildness to them.

This restructuring comes with immense benefits (the power to predict, to optimize, to simulate possibilities) but also existential risks. As we delegate the construction of reality to our own creations (AI and computational networks), we must grapple with questions that once belonged only to metaphysics or theology: Who or what now guarantees the truth of our world? What happens to human freedom when our surrounding world anticipates and shapes our every move? Are we approaching a condition where the only reality is a “rendered” reality, maintained by systems that few of us truly understand? If AI increasingly governs immanence, it indeed heralds the end of human-defined truth and the rise of a computational ontology, a mode of being where the real is equivalent to the output of a program.

And yet, understanding this concept equips us to better navigate it. It is not too late to ask how we might retain spaces of human agency and unpredictability, even within an AI-shaped world. Perhaps Algorithmic immanence need not be our fate in totality; recognizing it is the first step in deciding which parts of our reality we want to keep within human judgment and which we are willing to cede to autonomous systems. The immanent question we face is ultimately an ethical and political one: will Algorithmic immanence serve as a platform for human flourishing, or will it enclose us in a perfectly calculated cage? The answer depends on how we negotiate the boundaries between the organic and the Algorithmic, between our values and our algorithms, in the evolving story of reality’s becoming. As we stand on the threshold of this transformed immanence, we must remember that the plane of immanence, even a Algorithmic one, is always under construction. We are its constructors as much as AI is. The challenge is to ensure that in constructing it, we do not lose sight of the freedom and openness that made immanence worth cherishing in the first place.

Bibliography

• Baudrillard, J. (1994). ‘Simulacra and Simulation’. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

• Bonta, M. and Protevi, J. (2004). ‘Deleuze and Geophilosophy: A Guide and Glossary’. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

• Combes, M. (2013) Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual. Translated by T. LaMarre. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition. Translated by P. Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Vol. 1. Translated by R. Hurley, M. Seem & H. R. Lane. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

• Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Vol. 2. Translated by B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

• Fisher, M. (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester, UK: Zero Books.

• Gilbert, J. (2017). ‘The Melancholy of Neoliberalism: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Capitalist Realism’. ‘New Formations’, 92, pp. 5-20

• Hansen, M.B.N. (2015). ‘Feed-Forward: On the Future of Twenty-First-Century Media’. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Hayles, N. K. (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• Hayles, N. K. (2012) How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• Land, N. (2011). ‘Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007’. Falmouth: Urbanomic.

• Lazzarato, M. (1996). ‘Immaterial Labor’. In ‘Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics’, edited by P. Virno and M. Hardt, pp. 133-147. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

• Nadler, S. (2006). ‘Spinoza’s Ethics: An Introduction’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Noys, B. (2019) “The Breakdown of Capitalist Realism.” Mediations 33(1–2): Realism Reevaluated. (Peer-reviewed article examining Fisher’s concept a decade later.)

• Scott, D. (2014). ‘Gilbert Simondon’s Psychic and Collective Individuation: A Critical Introduction and Guide’. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

• Simondon, G. (2017) On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Translated by C. Malaspina & J. Rogove. Minneapolis: Univocal (University of Minnesota Press).

• Spinoza, B. (1677/1996) Ethics. Translated by E. Curley. London: Penguin Books.

• Stiegler, B. (1998) Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Translated by R. Beardsworth & G. Collins. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

• Stiegler, B. (2009) Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation. Translated by S. Barker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

• Yovel, Y. (1989) Spinoza and Other Heretics, Vol. 2: The Adventures of Immanence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.