pasquinelli transforms the history of the concept more than he transforms the concept itself. once he conceptualizes the divsion of labour through babbage, he frames around it and then lets it passively progress through its own history and ends on a brief contemporary note. the remarks are interesting as historical material, but he does nothing to comment on the concept itself. a) he never considers what the concept does for babbage through his own viewpoint today or try to warp it at all b) try to reconsider alternative ways babbage himsefl at the time couldve seen it (not necessary, but would've been an angle) c) doesnt consider using the concept as a direct retrospective rather than a broad social thematic at any point.

mental labour serves the role of clarifying the division of labour when it comes to how factories instrumentalize it or how it impacts the worker, as well as the ways in which it differs between the working and thinking class. an interesting set of observations isn't supplanted by any conceptual development, which for example should naturally arrive out of this analysis, as it's re-contenxtualization of labour could have pushed pasquinelli to consider how the segmentation of labour affects the way it overcodes the nature of labour from within the perspective of the concept itself (for example what do differing and unsettled historical interpretations of mental labour suggest for the concept itself?) no such analysis is committed and the concept remains sparse

only used outside of prior mentioned contexts one time to refer to a historical repport on babbage

makeshift term for how babbage conceived of the machine theory of value, the term only works aesthetically and historiographically to paint a certain correlative image, does not have a functional purpose

this feels so intrinsically connected to how mental labour and division of labour are used in this writing that it feels academically offensive to be its own seperation

only used four times, inherently connected to the maximal amount of individual vs. distributed labour possible for a task, and pasquinelli continously uses the most laboriously summarizing voice ("ultimately, this shows us that") for this term

only used one time, and then compared with the babbage principle anyways, a generalized formulation of a generalized formulation of an already barely analyzed tendency

interesting formulation by pasquinelli that the automation of tasks is related to how an analysis of the division of labour is itself superior to an existing scientific observation of industry and its analysis, apparently appears in later chapters and is only referenced here once, being the only time this term is used with any significance

interesting term with a very compelling and powerful synthesis by pasquinelli, noting that it is almost as if abstract dynamic diagrams of machinic processes is the actual flow of relations machines can make come about, or that it is actually a digital process itself, if i was to paraphrase, the "movement" of machinic processes from static equivalences to an active process. unfortunately, it remains only very vaguely accented by pasquinelli, nothing generative

interesting referentialization, nothing substantial about the concept itself outside of two remarks (software-hardware + abstract manipulation of any entity)

one of only two conceptual terms that occur as a noun rather than a verb, and it emerges across enough contexts to be paradigmatic, but the intepretation always regards it rather than uses it for something else

the other conceptual noun, this one, even worse, has an amazing rhetorical formulation by babbage, even an ideological one, where calculation is an estimated new formulation of laws of things in the world literally manifesting. pasquinelli contributes to none of it other than pasting paragraphs

interesting construction, but occuring rarely, extremely insubstantial to the rhetorics of the piece even if formally cruical

same thing

evaluated elsewhere

only mentioned substantially one time, important into the smith transition, definitely belongs here, but is cut way too short and in passing

he is only mentioned to be contrasted with babbage's supposedly better theory, but feels extremely substantial in a chapter so sharply focused on one particular problem that theres a weird feeling of substantiation or overlap that doesnt actually exist, making his apperances feel stronger or more recurring than they are

useful for various reframings of babbage, but honestly, his comments are so unmemorable that i forgot what he said even right after just reading what he said. something about accenting how machinic intelligence is really related to the division of labour and basically underlining how britians working class substantially shaped the main intellectual theory of computation at the time

the whole article is really based around only a few of babbage's comments, on divisions of labour, calculation, notation, machinic intelligence and general labour analysis including a few scientific paradigms like science of operations, but all of them fit in very nicely and the analysis isnt surface level. that being said, not a lot of babbage actually appears, given a lot of his ideas are foregrounded by others, a lot of his life is hardly contextualized, and a lot of why his ideas matter are only barely touched on by pasquinelli

another foregrounded commentator like schaffer, useful but extremely peripheral and ultimately banal for any one large point

only appears like twice and both t