Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range.
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
Categorization
- XREF: This is the precise theoretical mechanism for the drone’s impunity: the target is within the drone’s lethal grasp while the drone is out of its reach — killing without reciprocal exposure. — connects to: Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence; Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants; A tele-operator’s two presences are layered, so neither fully effaces the other. (+4 more)
- QUESTION: Worth chasing: is this unilateral co-presence the structural ground for the ‘twisted logic’ of imperial impunity the reader is investigating?
Related
- Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants (similarity 0.93)
- Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal (similarity 0.89)
- A tele-operator’s two presences are layered, so neither fully effaces the other. (similarity 0.89)
- Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. (similarity 0.87)
- Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. (similarity 0.86)
- Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (similarity 0.86)
- Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. (similarity 0.85)
- Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible (similarity 0.83)
- Drone tele-technology is engineered to be nonreciprocal in co-presence (similarity 0.81)
- Tele-operators experience a reversible shift of viewpoint without being deceived about their location. (similarity 0.80)
- Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible
#expands(0.65) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954 - Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence.
#expands(0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 948 - Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical.
#exemplifies(0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949 - Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies.
#expands(0.50) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 946