Abstract An ambiguity haunts the modern concept of positive law: it is contingent law and posited law — contingent because posited law. In the face of this ambiguity, the question about the emergence of legal normativity becomes urgent: how to make sense of the normativity of lawmaking if Kelsen’s basic norm, social contract theories, and discursive theories of law are not up to the task of addressing this question? Drawing on Husserl’s and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the lived body, this paper explores how the ‘is/ought’ distinction in law emerges through abnormal disruptions of the norm of legal normality. Abnormalities render the norm of legal normality thematic in the mode of contingency: what appears ought to appear otherwise than expected, challenging the expectations that have governed what ‘we’ take ourselves to be — the very experience that leads to foregrounding the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Even if the normal world is neither grounded nor groundable, abnormal occurrences can give way to the emergence of legal normativity as the creation of the given.

Abstract Blockchain’s disruptive potential finds a compelling expression in decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), which deploy smart contracts to automate core functions and displace traditional forms of governance. This paper offers a critical interrogation of the DAO phenomenon, examining capacity of DAOs to reconfigure organisational structures and challenge entrenched paradigms of human cooperation. Drawing on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of the rhizome, a dynamic and non-hierarchical network that fosters continuous growth and transformation, it explores how DAOs embody rhizomatic principles through token-based membership, decentralised governance, and global interconnectivity. Yet even if DAOs gesture towards radical democratic possibilities, they are equally saturated with ideological investments that reproduce rather than rupture dominant paradigms. The analysis emphasises the tension between the rhetoric of decentralisation and the often-consolidated realities of power embedded in code and protocol. Situating DAOs within a rhizomatic ontology reveals both their insurgent promise and the structural constraints that temper their emancipatory aspirations. This paper calls for a sustained critique of the normative assumptions and developmental trajectories shaping these emergent organisations.

Abstract Can the subject be reduced to a set of metrics? This article seeks to address the challenge of reducing complex social issues to easily commensurable values, examining the implications and potential drawbacks of this approach. To obtain these values we use various measurements, calculations, techniques, and similar natural sciences. The author reflects on the rational nature of such reductive solutions, emphasising their ability to bring clarity to the complex world around us. Seemingly free of ideological overtones and external influences, they present us with hard facts to rely on. But what if this ‘quantitative turn’ in law marks the possibility of ideology becoming stronger than ever? The author concludes that the pervasive ‘ideology of metrics’ in public discourse demands critical examination and provides considerations for the fostering of a nuanced perspective, urging a cautious approach as to what may seem like self-evident laws of computation.