A tele-operator’s two presences are layered, so neither fully effaces the other.

Evidence

The span of the respective reaches of the individuals or entities involved may also vary. Typically, the field of vision of the one may be more extensive than that of the other. As a result, the paradoxical consequence may be that, if I have a better view, I may, so to speak, be in the presence of the other before he is in my presence. That is a paradoxical consequence because it amounts to saying that co-presence is not necessarily reciprocal. The prey and its predator lurking in the shadows are co-present even if the former is not yet aware of this (or even if the prey cannot yet see the predator). For there to be co-presence, all that is necessary is that one of the terms involved should be included in at least one field in range of the other. There are paradoxical forms of unilateral co-presence in which entity A can act upon or be affected by entity B, while entity B is not in a reciprocal position. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949 (#expands, via linked claim)

These devices thus affect both the diverse character of the dimensions of co-presence and also their structure so that, depending on the choices that govern their technical architecture, they produce new forms of experience: experiences of damaged presences, blind presences, non-reciprocal co-presences, etc. These transform the forms of co-presence by rendering certain configurations not only possible but necessary or else impossible—configurations that were not so in the immediate past. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954 (#expands, via linked claim)

Whereas local presence is defined by the relation between an entity and a place (a relation of localization), co-presence is defined solely by a relation between entities (whether beings or events). To be co-present means to be in the presence of one another. As a general rule, of course, co-presence presupposes co-localization (to be co-present means to be in the same place). However, that is not always the case; in fact, it is at precisely this point that the major break introduced by tele-technologies occurs. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 946 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Tele-operators experience a reversible shift of viewpoint without being deceived about their location.; Drone operators live with two stacked presences rather than mistaking one for the other.; Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954 (+3 more)

Related

• Tele-operators experience a reversible shift of viewpoint without being deceived about their location. (similarity 0.91)
• Drone operators live with two stacked presences rather than mistaking one for the other. (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. (similarity 0.87)
• Drone tele-technology is engineered to be nonreciprocal in co-presence (similarity 0.86)
• Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible (similarity 0.85)
• Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal (similarity 0.82)
• Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible #expands (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954
• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. #expands (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. #expands (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 946
• Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence #expands (0.50)