The Mechanics of You
The term “network of processes” is already another disguise-object, smuggling in a unity where there may be nothing but loose processes.
The word “network of processes” is seductive because it preserves a kind of order, a coherence that feels safer than chaos. But that word may be nothing more than a linguistic wrapper, a disguise-object. Call something a “network of processes” and you’ve already implied a bounded unity, an architecture, a whole. Yet when you press into the workings of this “network of processes”, you find not a single machine but a sprawl of processes such as neural firings, hormonal shifts, memory fragments, learned habits, cultural scripts. None of them report to a central “system.” They collide, override, and dissolve.
So yes, the term “network of processes” smuggles in unity where perhaps only assemblage exists. A temporary clustering of processes, holding together until entropy or trauma or death disperses them.
Push this far enough and even the name Anna is revealed as marketing shorthand, a convenient label pinned onto a flux of phenomena. And once stripped of “network of processes” and Anna, what’s left? Not chaos in the romantic sense, but impersonal mechanics, arrangements without owner.