One way of thinking about computational archives and new forms of abstraction they produce is the specific ways in which they manage the ‘derangement’ of knowledge through distance. I can only gesture towards this derangement by way of the theological concept of the coincidence of the opposites that ‘comprehends all else in undifferentiated and unlimited unity’ ‒ the notion that, from the standpoint of infinity, all difference is reconciled (in contrast to the dialectical notion of aufhebung). This is similar to the notion of the aesthetics of singularity that Fredric Jameson describes as particular to postmodernity. Flat design could, for instance, be said to place the user-subject in a similar position of infinity/singularity: it enables the reconciliation of multiple fragments not by having one element replacing all the others but rather by using a metaphor, such as glass, in order to allow palimpsest-like inscriptions to be stacked in an infinitely thin laminate of computational surface. This particular technique of ordering extends to many aspects of computational design that facilitates the collection of diverse objects as well as their ordering, calculation, and reconfiguration. As Derrida argued, archival technology ‘conditions not only the form or the structure which prints, but the printed content of the printing: the pressure of the printing, the impression, before the division between the printed and the printer. [It] has commanded that which even in the past instituted and constituted whatever there was as anticipation of the future Indeed, through the new modes of computational ordering, a new de-archived archive emerges, one that is tightly coupled to information systems and instrumental principles of making things ‘stand by'

···