Nonfiction Book
The excellence of Ontological Design by Daniel Fraga and the Battle We Are All Already Fighting
In the Preface, Dr. Cadell Last and Alexander Bard describe Mr. Fraga as in the business of making us understand that we are ‘a constant project caught in a disorientating feedback loop with […] object[s].’¹ For too long, we’ve been caught ‘in an epistemological bubble […] thinking that what we design with our knowledge structures has no real impact on the fundamental ontology of being itself, or ‘the world,’ ’ which also suggests the naivety of believing there is a “real world” outside our subjectivity.² No, that doesn’t mean the Idealism of George Berkeley is true, but it does mean that we cannot draw a hard line between ourselves and our worlds. Perhaps we focus on “tools” in the famous quote because thinking about the truth is too overwhelming: “We make our worlds, and then our worlds make us.” How can we possibly change the world? Fighting back, for one.
‘The technocapitalist object designs us, designs our very being. Thus, it is an ethical necessity for us to design ourselves back, as an act of self-defense…[D]esign or be designed, there is no other choice.’³ With that, Dr. Last and Bard prepare us for an excellent text that should be required reading for everyone starting now, as of April 2022. It has always been the case that the objects and environments we made created us back, which would suggest that “something like” Ontological Design has been occurring since the dawn of civilization, but Mr. Fraga wants us to understand that things have changed in how they change. The degree and depth we can change ourselves today — thanks to AI technologies, the internet, and the like alongside radical changes in our sociological, religious, and philosophical thinking — is unparalleled. Our world is not the same: it is being essentially (re)constituted.
At the heart of the book is a focus on a ‘feedback loop,’ on how ‘by designing objects, spaces, tools, or experiences, we are designing human subjects.’⁴ The book is ‘a theory for architecting subjectivity,’ and presents itself as hopeful: yes, we are being designed and controlled by algorithms, corporations, governments, and the like, but we can fight back by taking ownership on how we contribute to our formulations as subjects.⁵ Running from our situation into isolationism would be easy: the real challenge is putting up the good fight. Mr. Fraga encourages us to take up that battle, though he is not idealistic, recognizing that ‘design always affirms some things and denies others.’⁶ Also, where we can design, we can design poorly, so there is real risk here, but Fraga would encourage us to make this a risk we own for ourselves. Our lives should be our lives.
What we affirm and what we deny should be what we affirm and deny, not the manifestations of some corporate or governmental “will” working through us. Would we rather not worry or think about all this? That’s not an option: the war for our attention and minds has already begun, and we are “always already” in the middle of it. The question is only if we will accept this reality and adjust, or deny this realization and, to allude to Deleuze, be “captured.” Create or be “captured” — these alone are the terms of engagement.
‘Our spaces […] are not ‘out there,’ independent from us […] by designing our environments, we are designing modes of being.’⁷ We can often think of ourselves as “beings,” entities which “are what we are” and that’s that, but Mr. Fraga wants us to understand that we are “becomings,” entities which shift and change from day to day. The notion of “being” can be seen as a comforting story we might tell ourselves so that we don’t have to worry about being shaped by the world around us, but a stable “being” as such is indeed just a story: we are actively creating and being actively created. We are not stable, always ‘designing modes of ‘human becoming.’ ’⁸ We are not safe. We are becoming ourselves.
I
‘This is not a happy book,’ Fraga tells us, but the book does suggest a belief in our capacity to “rise to the occasion,” and for that I am grateful.⁹ Every chapter beautifully elaborates the case, as if carefully inspecting the different sides of a jewel, and I myself was immediately hooked with the story about “Otto” and “Inga” on the possibility of ‘creating apparatuses to augment human cognition.’¹⁰ Fraga is elegant, which is fitting seeing as the book focuses on “design,” and the eloquence only helps readers absorb and embody the overall case (after all, ‘designers facilitate specific ways for subjectivity to occur’).¹¹ The style also helps us not feel too depressed by the subject material as we are told about “sensocracy,” a concept from Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist, on how we are surrounded today by sensors and machines which gather our data everywhere we go. Where there is ‘sensocratic enslavement’ though, there can also be ‘ontological creativity,’ which is what Fraga will constantly encourage us to explore.¹² It is the only option and way for Fraga, for there is no going back to ages before “The World War of Ontological Design” commenced.
Chapter 2 explores Foucault and “power,” with an emphasis on how ‘power […] creates subjects.’¹³ We often worry about force and direct violence, but Foucault would have us understand that, if we’re to understand “power” as distinct from “force,” then we need to understand power in terms of Ontological Design. Whoever designs our subjectivity has power over us, and if we do not own the design process of our subjectivity, we lack power. This might tempt us to remove power entirely from the social order, but that is impossible: in order ‘[f]or social interactions to take place, power constraints must limit the free and unbound expression of the subject’s drives and integrate them into a shared frame’ (emphasis added).¹⁴ Belonging Again attempts to describe the necessary and inescapable interplay between “givens” and “releases,” things we can assume “thoughtlessly” and things we can choose “consciously,” and indeed we need power to existentially and psychologically handle ourselves. “Power” is similarly inescapable, so the question must instead be how will we learn to handle it?
Power designs, and ‘[d]esign is never morally neutral,’ so we are caught in an ethical dilemma.¹⁵ To ignore Ontological Design is an ethical choice, one we will be in the wrong regarding if we ignore the topic entirely. Ethics explores “how” we should relate to the world and the things in it, and we must always consider “the tradeoffs,” because it seems impossible to create something that doesn’t bring with it a corresponding negative. Fraga discusses Paul Virilio, who teaches us ‘that technological innovations always contain within themselves the potential for new types of accidents,’ summing up the point with, ‘When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.’¹⁶ So it goes with Ontological Design: whatever we create, we will create a corresponding negative that we will then have to judge in ethical terms, which necessitate politics (‘whoever says ‘this is a good design because of X’ is always making a political statement’).¹⁷ And yet we must Ontologically Design: there is no choice but to take the art-form seriously, in all its dangerous and political inescapability.
Paraphrasing Alex Ebert, Fraga tells us that ‘we are no longer speaking of a competition within reality, but of realities in competition’ — from my work in Belonging Again, which explores thinkers like Peter Berger, James Hunter, and Philip Rieff, I cannot express how much I appreciate this beautiful line.¹⁸ Difference is deep, but we have perhaps wanted to believe it was shallow so that it would be easier to unify the world together without trauma or having to encounter “The Real” (a point which Dr. Last and I discussed in our talk on “The Technological Singularity”). However, there is something which transcends cultures, religions, creeds, and the like, and that is the universal use and need of “attention’: if theoretically a single institution controlled all human attention, that institution would control the world. “Deep difference” can function as a way to protect us from totalitarianism and vast control, but it also can be seen as inhibiting global unity and peace. As our attention is “captured” then, we might be torn between the desire to be unified (and “grounding attention”), and the desire to individuate ourselves as indeed “deep differences.” Fraga encourages us not to give into the temptation for “escapist unity,” but when we go and try to ontologically design ourselves, the existential and psychological burden of the effort might overwhelm us. Indeed, it will be difficult, but the choice is between fighting through the anxiety or having our attention shaped. The choice today couldn’t be starker: design or be designed. “No exit.”
II
Fraga wants us to understand that our environments and technologies profoundly work on our desires. He makes the example of a sofa and ‘the way our body has become habituated to the gesture of ‘sitting,’ ’ and asks what image enters our heads when we think about “sitting.”¹⁹ Is not the image shaped and structured relative to our relation with objects? Now, after using the technology, ‘we’ve come to desire rest and comfort’ in a manner that is relative to and conditioned by sofas.²⁰ The technology has worked on our desires in such a way that we now don’t even think about the fact that our “desire for rest” reflects our technological conditioning. I myself can attest how “playing with friends” gradually shifted through life from laser tag to the PlayStation, from videogames to jamming during Open Mics, which is to say that as I was introduced to new technologies and toys, what the phrase “playing with friends” meant changed without me consciously thinking about it. We are our “thoughtlessness.”
When we desire rest, our ‘desire path’ has been conditioned by objects to think of a couch.²¹ This gives a whole new meaning to Jung’s famous quote, and suggests that, indeed, ‘[i]t is not us who have […] ideas. We inhabit them.’²² The phrase “desire path” is useful, for it suggests that our desire is never “free floating,” but always situated within a condition that contributes to the direction in which our desire flows. Fraga brilliantly connects this insight with classical understandings of “naming” (say in Genesis) when it was understood that ‘[t]o name something [was] not only a way to exercise power over that thing; it [was] also a way to frame [it] in a broader context; to situate it in a diffused architecture of power.’²³ Names direct, and in many respects we can say that today technology and those producing it are “naming us” more than we are “naming it.” As a result, technology is “doing the framing,” while we just function as nice decorations for the world technology wants to inhabit. We think technology consists of objects, but increasingly the roles are reversed.
Technology and what Giorgio Agamben calls an “apparatus” are similar in that they are both ‘constructs that channel and divert flows.’²⁴ Desire is one of those flows, and thus technology is in the business of creating “paths” down which our desires can stream. Again, if we were just “beings,” we might not have to worry about how we might change through shifts in flows and the like, and perhaps this is why those in power may want us to ascribe to “the myth of being,” for until we start seeing ourselves as “radical becomings,” we are “radically defenseless.” Worse yet, if we see ourselves as “stable beings,” then we might convince ourselves that we wanted to end up the way we have ended up, that it was not technology which shaped us but ourselves. Believing this could help us avoid the trauma of the truth, suggesting that “the fear of trauma” could function to protect the powerful.
Is this “desire path” bordered by walls that force us to stay on the path? There’s no need, and in fact the “openness” of the path contributes to us not fearing it or suspecting that we are controlled. We desire the path: walls forcing us to stay on the path would only make us question our desires. In this way, we can associate how technology “captures” us with the protagonists who often inhabit the works of Franz Kafka, characters who participate in their “capture,” versus say in Orwell or Huxley where external powers force people through threat or pleasure into certain ways of life.²⁵
Fraga discusses “nudging,” where people are not forced to do x or y, but instead they are incentivized to want x or y in a manner that makes them believe their choice for x and y reflects their own desires. Nudge, written by Richard Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, is what Fraga refers to as ‘dictatorship lite,’ which for me I think can be associated with Kafka.²⁶ I have always felt that our focus on Orwell and Huxley actually contributed to us missing the ways by which we end up “captured” and controlled, and so I have wanted to stress Kafka as the better depicter of how power influences (through “infusion”) and controls us. Daniel Fraga though has provided a whole new angle to approach Kafkaesque operations of power, for which I am grateful. Indeed, Kafka is the literature of Ontological Design, but unfortunately most of his characters don’t realize they are being Ontologically Designed. They are like us.
“Nudging,” Fraga tells us, ‘doesn’t deny you freedom; it just gives you the right kind of freedom.’²⁷ Indeed, is not everyone in The Trial trying to help Josef K? Speaking of “Ontological Design,” Fraga gives us a sentence that perfectly applies to Kafka: ‘There are no bad guys, only confusion.’²⁸ A brilliant line, and that lack of “bad guys” I fear tempts us to create “bad guys” just so we can have a sense of what’s going on (hence the turn to totalitarianism under existential anxiety, as described in Belonging Again). But where “Ontological Design” is at work, causing confusion, that also means the potential for freedom has drastically increased: much to our dismay, “real freedom” and “real confusion” accompany one another.
All this hints at what Fraga means when he says that ‘the West is simply not Western enough’: Westerners can talk a big game regarding “the virtue of freedom,” but the moment freedom starts to cause confusion, Westerners tend to retreat to “strong men” and “guiding Big Others.”²⁹ We will always have this option of “retreat,” because “power will always be with us” as necessary for social orders, which means we will always have to live with temptation, temptation which will become increasingly harder to resist as the realities and possibilities of Ontological Design become all the more undeniable. We mustn’t flee, but ‘unless we are willing to confront the dark truth that power is a human universal, and admit its necessity even when it is ugly […] then we will forever be faced with oppression under the [banner] of ‘good,’ and ‘liberation.’ ’³⁰ This is because we will be absorbed into the “stories” of those who hold power (likely “morality tales”), and stories as such are often in the business of legitimizing power structures.
III
The goal of Ontological Design is always ‘to produce subjectivity,’ and subjectivity is “always already” undergoing production.³¹ We need to consider ‘existence as continuous creative interpretation,’ but this is a hard pill to swallow, because that means nothing is “given.”³² As Belonging Again discusses, this is an environment in which “the banality of evil” discussed by Hannah Arendt is unlikely, but it’s also the environment in which totalitarianism becomes appealing. When we learn that ontology is malleable, that there is no “given” way according to which we should process it, we learn that ‘the reality tunnel does not lead anywhere, but it is leading itself,’ which means that we are creating the cosmos as we walk.³³ Every step is walking on the “dark waters” of Genesis 1, an act of cosmic possibility that differs from the original story in that the “dark waters” never materialize into solid ground and yet can provide footing all the same (until we look down). ‘Experimenting with morality is simultaneously attractive and horrifying; the same weapon that can kill the enemy can kill [us].’³⁴
Modes of thinking are ‘apparatus[es] of governance,’ and what we see in Kafka are protagonists who are their own totalitarian dictators and creating the regimes which oppress them with their very lives (like God creating “out of nothing”).³⁵ Suffering in Kafka is created ex nihilo by those who suffer, and this is a result of their failing to understanding the reality of Ontological Design. We were all born in the middle of a fight, and the weapons of the battle are things like egospheres (‘a space, such as an apartment, that is associated to the discursive category of the individual’), chirotops (‘the zone of reach and action of the human hand in space’), and phonotops (our ‘personal sonic universe’) — just to name a few.³⁶ ³⁷ ³⁸
‘To inhabit a space is never a neutral matter,’ Fraga tells us, ‘[but] a product of the space and time where one lives.’³⁹ He’s exactly right, and all of the so described “weapons” above are examples of the ways spaces work on us just as much as we work on them. If oppressive powers work on the protagonists in Kafka, those powers are things like bedrooms, offices, lawyer homes, and tight halls. The spaces in Kafka feel like characters and forces of power, and Fraga helps us finally realize why: space shapes. ‘The lesson of virtual reality is that all reality is virtual,’ which is to say that all reality flows.⁴⁰ Everything is “becoming,” and that means those who try to “be” are out of the game. The fight is to not stop fighting.
I find it difficult not to quote Fraga’s entire book, it being so insightful. He points out how ‘[t]he idea of separate bedrooms for separate ‘individuals’ of the family […] hinged on the ability to mass produce door locks,’ suggesting that the very possibility of us considering ourselves “individuals” was greatly facilitated by the invention of keys and locks.⁴¹ Similarly contributing to the idea of “the individual” (versus the Deleuzian “dividual”) are headphones, which not only ‘afford an enclosed and individual sonic environment, but […] also create a barrier to social interaction.’⁴²
‘All is story,’ Fraga tells us, and ‘humans do nothing else but police each other’s adherence to stories.’⁴³ Religions are long stories of how people pressure and monitor one another into “the right beliefs,” but so can be politics. We are always creating stories according to which we can live and understand ourselves, and critically that means spaces and technologies are “story-makers.” In shaping us, technologies shape stories, and those stories are according to which we give ourselves meaning and intelligibility. Locks and headphones tell us that “isolated people are possible,” and thus we become “individuals”: a line can be drawn between where one person ends and another begins. Communities then are “really” just “collections of individuals” versus individuals “really” be “members of communities.” And certainly “the story of individuals” might be better than “the story of community” — but that’s a different question — the point is that technologies shape and change our stories. Do we think of technologies as doing this to us? Do we believe that ‘programs also program us?’⁴⁴ If not, then we are likely “captured” and designed without our realizing it.
Fraga describes “envirosell” (which ‘transform[s] shoppers into customers’) and Cambridge Analytica (which ‘generate[s] extremely accurate psychographic profiles of users,’ say for political purposes), meticulously and convincingly making his case that “The War of Ontological Design” is well underway.⁴⁵ ⁴⁶ While we’ve been busy watching Netflix, Cambridge Analytica has already ‘classified the personality of every adult across the United States’ — a staggering realization.⁴⁷ Right now, ‘we are being weaponized and exploited as an attentional commodity,’ and though perhaps today we don’t mind, if tomorrow we do, we might have already been designed out of the ability to do something about it. Possible or not, that’s probably the goal: to Ontologically Design us out of being capable of Ontological Design.⁴⁸ ‘The problem is the solution,’ after all, and eventually we are all ‘eaten alive by what we worship.’⁴⁹ ⁵⁰ And all of us worship.
IV
Fraga discusses the meeting of Teilhard de Chardin, Le Roy, and Vladimir Vernadsky, and their agreement on our world today primarily being “The Age of Mind.” The three reasoned ‘that if the Earth’s evolution had passed through two previous stages — the geosphere and the biosphere — then the noosphere was the third: a new state emerging in the continuation of the former two as a byproduct of human activity’ (the internet is the prime symbol and example of the noosphere).⁵¹ As described in “Experiencing Thinking” by O.G. Rose, the first two ages strike me as primarily “causal,” while our age is primarily “creative.” The world for most of time has followed a logic of basic cause and effect, but now the world can develop along lines of creation, for now Mind plays a key role at directing cause and effect. But most of us are still thinking about lives in terms of causality, meaning we are taking a passive role. But we’re all in the middle of a great and global creative act, and that means we are all in danger. ‘Creativity, after all, is a gamble.’⁵²
To draw this work to a close, I’d like to focus on one of my favorite sentences of the whole book:
‘The emergence of the noosphere can be compared to a massive planetary catastrophe: the simultaneous unification and clash of the human world with another world, that of the Other. This Other is the great Unconscious, and it wants to have a conversation.’⁵³
Brilliant, and one can sense Lovecraft and “The Ancient Ones” in Fraga’s prose. Why is a creative world a world that unleashes our Unconscious? Because if we can create anything, then we are not held back, and that means our Unconscious minds are not withheld from us either. There are no walls. Walls keep us in, yes, but they also keep out. We live in a world which stresses that we shouldn’t build walls, but are we ready for a world without any defenses? Are we ready to confront what lives inside of us? Perhaps, perhaps not: we are free, but we are free because we are defenseless. ‘New times, new problems; nothing new here.’⁵⁴
There are no shields in “The War of Ontological Design,” only weapons. We must be wise about the weapons we use though, because “the spectacle” which seeks to control us ‘is anti-fragile: it benefits from being critiqued.’⁵⁵ Capitalism profits off critiques of Capitalism, and attacking politics is a great way for politicians to climb the ranks. If we are going to fight and prevail, we will have to prove wise and discerning. Furthermore, we’ll have to learn to see things which are hidden. ‘[T]here can be hidden correspondences in things,’ Fraga tells us, which is to say that we can participate in plans which work against us without realizing it, as we can also find and detect patterns which we can use to our benefit.⁵⁶ Victory will not be found on the surface but in the depths, but exploring the depths requires facing the Unconscious. We cannot avoid facing that, but we can avoid being defeated by it. And we cannot choose not to face it and avoid defeat, not now, in the midst of creation.
Our Unconscious has many ways of ruining us as fighters, and only those who pay close attention to the whole gambit of strategies by which the mind self-deceives itself will have any chance of claiming victory. ‘[W]e all know many cases of those who claim to rally against some ‘problem,’ but who upon careful examination betray a secret enjoyment of it not being solved.’⁵⁷ Similarly, our brains would rather confirm than consider, and what our brains want to confirm is what it already thinks. To accomplish this, our brain will throw every tool it has at us to make us believe we are thinking when really we are just preserving our beliefs. Unfortunately, it is likely that our worldviews and ideologies are already shaped by the zeitgeist, technological system, and general power structure of the world today, and that means our brains are in the business of contributing to our “capture.” How do we fight ourselves? Bravely.
In closing, Ontological Design is an excellent book which calls us to take courage and create ourselves. For all the times we claim we want to be freer and run our own lives, the truth is that the prospect existentially overwhelms us. This will temp us to quit, but Daniel Fraga makes it clear that quitting is to surrender our design to a different designer than ourselves. The battle is on, and it cannot be stopped. ‘Technologically augmented ontological design is the precondition for a radically new type of disaster — which simultaneously reveals new, potentially sublime possibilities of being.’⁵⁸ Are we ready to choose a life we design? If so, this book is for us, though we also belong to it.
.
.
.
Notes
¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 9.
²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 9.
³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 9.
⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 15.
⁵Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 15.
⁶Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 16.
⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 17.
⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 17.
⁹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 19.
¹⁰Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 19.
¹¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 19.
¹²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 20.
¹³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 25.
¹⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 26.
¹⁵Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 27.
¹⁶Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 31.
¹⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 32.
¹⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 33.
¹⁹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 46.
²⁰Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 46.
²¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 50.
²²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 63.
²³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 79.
²⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 83.
²⁵For more on this topic, please see “O.G. Rose Conversation, Episode #54: Pae Veo on the Literature and Philosophy of Franz Kafka.”
²⁶Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 91.
²⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 94.
²⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 101.
²⁹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 100.
³⁰Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 100.
³¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 106.
³²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 112.
³³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 113.
³⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 103.
³⁵Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 101.
³⁶Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 118.
³⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 130.
³⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 132.
³⁹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 118.
⁴⁰Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 128.
⁴¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 121.
⁴²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 134.
⁴³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 248.
⁴⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 140.
⁴⁵Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 201.
⁴⁶46Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 207.
⁴⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 208.
⁴⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 210.
⁴⁹49Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 126.
⁵⁰Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 149.
⁵¹Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 157.
⁵²Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 174.
⁵³Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 162.
⁵⁴Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 226.
⁵⁵Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 234.
⁵⁶Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 292.
⁵⁷Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 330.
⁵⁸Fraga, Daniel. Ontological Design. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technosocial Publications, 2022: 333.
.
.
.
Fore more by Daniel Fraga, please visit:
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
