Knowledge is becoming fully quantifiable. In the fourth part of his essay, Eduardo Navas explains how the computer keyboard enables sampling work to create image, sound, and text. An shorter version of this article was published in the Norient book Seismographic Sounds (see and order here).
Knowledge has always been defined by flow and exchange of ideas and their application to specific criteria in which an individual or a collective is invested. But the difference with the current state of affairs is that as opposed to prior periods of history, knowledge is becoming fully quantifiable. The fact that we can assess how a phrase may be generic or specific by using Google for search attests to this. Tools are being developed that enable analysis of all types of activities and in effect measure them as they flow in real-time for specific goals that in the past would have relied upon pure speculation.  Future-trending may be the most obvious example of using the quantification of knowledge in order to forecast what a company could sell with certainty in the future. Cultural theorists in contrast can use the same tools for the purpose of understanding how knowledge is produced. As noted in the introduction, we sample at this point as fast as we write words using a computer keyboard. With the computer we sample image, sound, and text using the same basic action of cut/copy & paste, essentially manipulating data. Thus we speak with samples (phonemes). In media we communicate with samples (digital recordings in all formats).
We can now go back to the regenerative remix to reiterate that it is most evident in software mashups; however, it is most potent when it functions as a binder of recycled material, which can only be of value when it continues to circulate. While circulation of ideas and the forms they take have been in evolving since we developed symbolic language, which in essence is regeneration (reconfiguration of material for new purposes), it is only in the time of computers and networks that all circulation, all flows are being recorded and data-mined. All this said, it is important to understand that to sample does not automatically mean that one is creating a concrete remix (as in a music remix – meaning, an aesthetic object), but rather contextualizing the samples to express a new idea, as previously noted. A remix as an actual aesthetic and deliberate production is a specific composition created with an emphasis on the fact that the material that is recycled and repurposed is pre-existing. One could sample from any song and use that sample to create a new composition, just like we can reuse a word in a new statement to make a different point in a different argument. This is how sampling functioned in early rap. «Rapper’s Delight» is not a remix of «Good Times» by Chic (although many people consider it as such).
It uses a bass line that allegorizes the song by Chic which the producers at the time it was released likely hoped would be recognizable by the listener and thereby potentially be a means to make the song more appealing and consequently popular.
Jamaican dub recordings, also known as versions, which preceded and informed the extended, selective, and reflexive remixes actually laid the foundational aesthetics of remix as a recognizable form in music.
Remix could be thought of as a specific aesthetic form. Much how poetry uses words to present an aesthetic, a remixed work takes any building block (image, sound, text) and enhances them to emphasize remix as an aesthetic. At the same time, remix is not bound to a specific form or medium, and for this reason, it also does not fully fit a concrete paradigm. Once it moves beyond music, it can flow in and out of all creative and practical fields. Having made this distinction, the regeneration that takes place across culture can be considered a regenerative remix (even when the product may not have been deliberately produced to be recognized primarily as a remix, aesthetically speaking) due to the transparent ways in which things are becoming repurposed across the network, while being archived as samples. The software mashup here again serves as an example because it is likely to be recognized for what it can be practically used, not for its aesthetic value (although one may notice this as well, but it is not its primary form of validation).
Social media pushes this further; in this case remix moves past specific forms to flow in all directions through social media platforms, based on constant updates. In effect, the world is turning into a giant recording studio in which people produce culture much how a DJ producer did in the early days of sampling as an act of postproduction to output remixed tracks. People are aware of the ongoing remixing of things, much how one may notice the aesthetics of a particular art form. Hence, the entire space of communication is overtaken by a type of regeneration that emphasizes remix as the aesthetic of daily production.  In this sense, the regenerative remix cannot be assigned to specific forms, but can only be noticed when the act of constant updating based on archives and databases are at play for the sake of constant flow towards regeneration. It leans toward media virality – flowing wherever networked technology becomes pervasive. 
This text was published first in a shorter version in the second Norient book «Seismographic Sounds». Click on the image to know more.
 Twipping is an online example on real-time visualization, accessed May 10, 2015.
 Martin Irvine developed his own term «Remix+» to talk about some of the issues I evaluate under the paradigm of the Regenerative Remix. He uses Lev Manovich’s theory on «deep remixability» to develop his views. See Irvine, «Remix and the Dialogic Engine[…]», 26-33. For deep remixability see Lev Manovich, Software Takes Command (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 267 – 277.
 For a good account on virality see Tony D. Sampson, «Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks» (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.)