Have you found the shape of your life? Probably not. Well, don’t fret, because I am here to tell you exactly how to transport yourself outside of our universe so as to observe Hinton’s ‘fourth-dimensional architect’! One caveat though, you’re gonna have to confront the traumatic decoupling of the signifier and embrace the Abyss along the way, but don’t worry about that right now. Happy face. By the way, I won’t answer any questions asked about anything in this- any questions that are questions. I will, however, very happily answer anyone’s questions that aren’t questions. So feel free to not-ask to your heart’s content.
Before venturing forward, I should note- concerning my literary paradigm, that my writing,- that is, my (‘para-meta-supra academic’) academic writing,- is what CCRU initiates (from their Lemurian graves in the un-time) would call ‘metaleptically charged’, that is, it constitutes an integral swerve in the ‘otherwise linear series’ or a Lucretian clinamen stochastically propagated over the ambient signal and projected over a higher-dimensional manifold in Bloch’s phrase, though it isn’t complex for the sake of being complex. Like the weird-ass sentence I just wrote about clinawhatevers and metaloopsies and such. It is in actuality just as complex as it appears, in fact, it is actually reduced in complexity as much as possible; what you see,- that is the simplification, even though the “simplification” is intractably complex. Like, “somato-mimetic transfer protocols” isn’t me making up a weird sounding term for the sake of it, or for the sake of making it more difficult to understand than it needs to be- it’s already a term used in Robinson’s theory of ecosis, which is involved in my own theoretical construction of the 8-stage model of the subversion of mimesis and the two exchange-functions I have often emphasized, as it is integral in properly understanding the current state of global politics. But that model will be reserved for another schizopost. Or like ‘hypermnemata’, which is an original idea I based on the hypomnemata in Stiegler’s theory of narrative and the emergence of consciousness and intend as a kind of antithesis or response to its critical application. The Steiglerian hypomnemata is an ‘external memory device’, that is, a narrative form, which conditions subjectivity, whereas my hypermnemata is a narrative device that restructures other narrative forms or hypomnemata. I connect this idea to Vico’s conception of myth, history, and the imaginative-universal, which I will eventually get to at some point in this post. At any rate, my writing-writing paradigm is essentially a cyclo-diplozygotic cryptopoetics. But we’ll get to that in a few paragraphs. Because I wasn’t just saying a weird-ass phrase for the sake of it or for the sake of complicating things just now either, that phrase actually means something.
I guess I would “translate” that statement about the clinamental nature of my writing-writing ^ (Just read Lucretius, jerkoffs. I am sick of explaining what the word means.) as basically, concepts and terminology excised from completely disjunct or isolated fields of research are brought together,- a term from biology here, a political concept here, mix in something from membrane computing there, throw in some astrophysical idea there, mixed in with demonology and Barthean linguistic codes, etc.- this is to a purpose however. The ambient signal or adiabatic process must be magnified stochasto-acoustically, in the same way white-noise is used to draw out a latent signal from an audio stream, with the stochastic resonance or white noise being this energetic unstable fusion of disparate signals, meaning disparate fields of study, and the “ambient signal” to be extracted from those resonances is, for the Text, the unknown, what Bloch called a ‘trace’- a new idea extracted in a kind of cyclonic creative process. In fact, that is exactly what it is, my writing-writing: it is, to cite the Poememenon, “An accelerating poetics that pushes against the crumbling threshold of human intelligibility, edging towards the realization of Bataille’s cyclonic prophecy.” This “cyclonic” creative process is also connected with my revision of Plato, wherein I refer to it as an ‘intellective circulus’ instead of cyclone, with further reference to Bruno and Lull, both of whom conceive similar circular processes. Following that train of thought in particular, will be the basic subject of this post,- as well as extrapolating its ‘metacosmology’. I have thus extracted from my own books, a fairly self-enclosed abstract. Thus:
(P.S: the footnotes are pretty important, they’re in really small subscript. Might need to do a zoomie on that. Or you can just fuck yourself.)
What Plato means by “the Good” or the “Form of the Good”, or the form of anything else- the eideia, was completely lost after Athenian culture fell, under whose ruins the Athenian mind most of all was buried. After that point, a very stunted interpretation of what “the Good in itself”, “Form”, etc., actually meant- as seen through the ‘darkened glass’ of Medieval Christianity and modified, more hopelessly, by the Catholic and scholastic philosophers who re-collected the lost Greek works and ‘translated’ them for preservation,- seated itself at the base of a new Western philosophical tradition, inherited by modernity and upon whose false basis most extant philosophers still work and find their point of departure. The history of philosophy is not a footnote on Plato: it is a footnote on a misinterpretation of Plato. The Greeks, whose intellectual culture was culminated in the Athenian mind, attained a certain height of cognitive development, and thus also, the distinction of a highly developed ethos or national identity, for such an ethic remains the product of a developed culture and literary community, for which a language is better attuned to the needs of those united by it,- both a brilliant dialectical fulguration and the technical idiom without which a notion like the “Forms” should prove incomprehensible,- as such notions certainly did in lieu of the misguided attempts at translation and preservation made by the Christian scholastics,- despite whatever good will they might have extended toward the memory of the ancients,- those eremites who, writing from their stuffy cloisters, could admittedly not do otherwise, than distort the soul-tableau of an Epicurean garden, or less esteem those more pleasant conditions under which the Athenian mind worked best and found its natural affinities ‘in amor sapientiae audit toto rerum naturalium.’ [For the love of wisdom were not a passive instinct, but an active one: ‘Philosophia et amor sapientiae audit, est cognitio certa et rerum naturalium.’ Antonius Valcarcelius Murciensis: Probatum Methodum Exactae ex Philosophia Theses. As stated in the first thesis of philosophic method, taken from the lectures of Sperlette, to the effect that the ‘love of wisdom’ demands for her pursuit a heroic subjugation of Nature, within oneself, and without.] Under the pluralist revision of the episteme, the “Forms” are involved in the circular reinscriptive processes of a Bruno or Lull, (a circulation Plato conceived of as cycles of reincarnation tied to the movement of a soul up or down the Hierarchy of Being, from lowest to highest cognition) by which transient sensory impressions are organized into bound structures within the ‘vortices’ of the intellective circulus, whose existence requires an Un-Grund or unsynthesized dialectical negativity (what Plato calls an aporia) around whose null core the circulus might revolve.
This Platonic aporia, the aporetic scissure of discourse, is essentially what, in more abstract and modern language, I call here the ‘un-absorbed metaphysical absence’, the ‘asyntheme’, the ‘un-synthesized Negative/Negativity’. Lacanian psychoanalysis stresses the empty core of a barred-subjectivity, a negativity around which the body is organo-affectively fragmentated and broken down into schizophreniac bursts of stimuli without contextualizing receptive organs; broken into pieces cast into circular orbits around an ontological black hole, whose object-ification remains ungraspable. (Thus the typical effort of psycho-analysis to strip the patient bare, to disintegrate the surface-ego and reveal these empty cores in a person’s defensive-structure and various patterns of desire and his general fantasy-life, that is, his metonyms. This filial presumption underlies one of the few happy agreements between Freud and Jung, from which our ‘depth psychology’ springs.) This endless circling around the postponed desire, around the un-absorbed Negative, is the source of what Lacan calls a metonymy. However, in my pluralist metaphysics, the Negative acts also as a ‘chiasmatic reversal of predication’ capable of converting the idiomatic into the idiographic and the nomothetic into the tychogenetic, and vice versa,- the Negative acts, in other words, as the essential ‘chiasm’ indicated by Kunze, through which the fragmented Lacanian ‘body without organs’ can be re-organ-ized, (pun intended) that is, reconfigured as precisely the ‘shifting meaning’ of the clinamental divergence, (thereby forming a preparatory ‘corpus’ reft from the ‘new body’, the ‘great body’, at last transfigured by what Novalis calls sophianic death) for this meaning can address itself- that is, it can reverse its own predication. The self-reversing property of such a Text indicates an intrinsic operational semiotic (as opposed to the extrinsic modality of common speech, that is, speech at the level of irreversible predicative-logic) whereby an immanently productive machinic code functions as a diplocyclonic-zygosporoidal cryptopoetics * which, veering n-dimensionally between katastasis and anastasis, traces the movements of the spirogram itself at the limits of human intelligibility and the limen opening up to the non-human,- to the cosmicist horror, the abyss. Finally, this recursion offers the possibility of a metaphysics in the form of ‘lossless abstraction’ and thus an escape from Freudo-Lacanian nihilism. (This ‘intrinsic operational code’, that is, the notion of intrinsicity itself, insofar as such a code produces all of our ‘notions’, will be explored shortly, in terms of a ‘temporal-binding’ of informational structures involved in the very emergence of consciousness from a flattened spacetime.)
[size=50]* The diplophase activates meiosis immediately when environmental conditions are met, whereas the haplophase is dominated by selective pressures on the gametophyte, with the implicit analogy signifying the opportunistic ‘hi-jacking’ of disparate studies, different fields of discourse, etc. by the viral activation of the ‘intrinsic semiotic’. Cyclonic refers to the Bataillean cycles whereby system is collapsed from within to discharge excessive libidinal forces and thereby stabilize certain entropic stresses. Recall the ‘diplozygotic spiral’ of the CCRU, a less developed conceptualization of hypermorphism and antimorphic projections, whereby a dimensional collapse of the numerically integrated nummogram, intended to re-visualize certain structural deformations of the decimal continuum, is initialized through a purely diagrammatic combination of decadic ordinancies and 9-sum twinning.
[/size]
CCRU researchers also believed that information-loss (what Barker called “segmented redundancies”,- ie. organizational complexes of suborganizational tic-progressions; concepts like intentionality or subjectivity, by which tics are reified as distinct informational structures and ‘overcoded’) occurred through these typological abstractions or metaformalisms ingrained in both the scientific and philosophical modalities, (“Metaform” suggests a concept borrowed from CMT, a semiotic theory working from ideas present in I.A. Richard’s 1936 “Philosophy of Rhetoric”; refer also to Danesi’s "A Note on the Notion of Metaform and its Implication for Semiotics.) and that the cosmic Ground existed as a singular, great, omnipresent tic-system whose contents were unabsorbable by any mode of binary segregation and thus, decidedly impermeable to any attempted hypo-mnematic digital conversion into a computable structure, that is, an ‘informational’ contents. A conspicuous programme may still be emphasized here: a lossless abstraction is required, if one is to overcome that line of critique,- a criticism amounting to what I elsewhere call a ‘reification of an ontological minima’, whereby difference is cleaved from the eidetic and re-precipitated at the pre-symbolic register.
The lossless movement toward higher levels of abstraction, which we have committed to in the current text, can be conceived in terms of different, hierarchically nested syntactic and semantic levels, * as given in Weizsacker’s informational theory of ur-alternatives and the reconstruction of physics by geometric projections of atomic informational units, as well as enriched all the more by Tononi’s theory of Integrated Information. The entirety of a lower level’s informational content, from the perspective of a higher one, becomes a syntactical information quantized spatially,- as something like the hypergraphic projection of character-strings processed by an L-System or nested Paun-membrane,- (Wolfram has, working from earlier studies of cellular automaton, even extended the iterative processing of a rule through such systems to a general theory on the formation of parallel universes, assuming that the seed-string for the production of a universe equivalent to our own would, if it could be found, thereby reveal to us a perfect knowledge of its derived constants and laws. Note in particular, the idea of firing-squad and ‘intrinsic synchronization in cellular automata’ as applied to the non-interacting convergence of parallel worlds.) while the content of the higher level remains a semantic information qualified temporally, that is, an ‘intrinsic’ informational content tied or ‘bound’ to a certain semantic level of organization particular to its own evolutionary and dynamical structure, within which an enclosed causal chain is auto-propagated until reaching thermodynamic equilibrium and its entropic maxima. An example would be, if asked what a page of printed text said, (upon which the word ‘dog’ had been written) one were to first enumerate the precise molecular configuration of a type of ink used on it, along with the number of atoms constituting it, etc., which would be a syntactic information when opposed to our answering the question from a higher semantic level by simply saying: “the word dog.” The higher, semantic information specifies a structure meaningful only from the vantage of its own specific organizational level, (this vantage being what IIT calls a cause-effect space, although, peripherally, it may prove beneficial to recall what is named in Wolfram’s physics a ‘causal network’, specifically of the type whose evolutionary progression unfolds independently from any applicative rules-schema; see P. 514 of a New Kind of Science) and that semantic level is oriented between other levels, for whose configuration a notion of temporality is required. Higher semantic levels designate a maximal structural collective in the same way the word animal ‘contains’ the word-concept dog, as well as zebra, raccoon, etc. but the word ‘dog’ does not contain the word-concept animal, (nor, by extension, any of the other ectypes if of the concept; zebra, raccoon, bird, etc. etc.) upon which it depends, as lower semantic levels might be translated into spatial quantizations of discrete units for what, in the higher level, is temporally qualified or ‘bound’ as a single structure of such units working upon its own enclosed ‘causal-universe’. At the lowest level of purely syntactic information, there is no time, no structures, and the entire Universe exists as a distribution of informational atoms across an n-fold convertible, through multiple quantization of parabose tensors, into a single complex-valued truth variable devoid of intrinsic content. The interaction of objects over multiple semantic levels can only be described through temporal-binding of the inherent structural collectives within these levels, and this binding is precisely what ‘consciousness’ is. While, from the lowest syntactic level, [Note that, at the level of the urs, which would be the lowest syntactic level, the mathematical continuum (what, at the semantic level, we know as the ‘number line’) is synthesized by way of a purely sequential compilation of pre-rendered interpolative strings whose binary syntax (eg. numerical value or quantitative information) does not correspond to an identifiable pattern or what Land names a linear-positional encoding, for which the basic Kantian conformation of arithmetic to temporality, again recalling Land’s treatment of xenonotated tics, modelling succession progressively in the form of n and n+1, n+2, etc., gives way to a re-conceptualization of continuous operation in the form of a non-progressive synthesis devoid of consistent scalar definition or thus an equivalent vector space in which continuous or quantitative trends could be axially mapped in order to plot a heterogeneous succession as the homogenating progression (of a singular or connected system) intelligible to temporalizing subjects, nor bijectively mapped so as to automorphically derive a group or ring-symmetry, (or again, a vector space) simply indicating that the mathematical continuum itself, at the level of the urs,- along with any sub-set of the continuum,- (meaning any of the binary strings constituting its basic syntax) cannot be mapped to itself while preserving its structure in the morphism to which it has been mapped. That fact means, in other words, that we have truly reached the lowest syntactic level, for it cannot be any further reduced,- it has no isomorphism, just as the Reiger-Nishimura lattice proposes a fundamental limit to knowledge, at least in the form of intuitionistic propositional logic, by exhausting all possible propositions through conformation of their equivalence classes. (The lattice contains an infinite set of formulae, each invested with precisely a single propositional truth-variable,- ie. a free Heyting algebra over a single generator,- disclosing the ‘hidden argument’ of propositional logic in that one cannot choose between arbitrary operators in an arbitrary set vs. arbitrary operators within a larger set over the infinite permutation of basic combinatory truth premises. In other words,- no formulae within this infinite set is equivalent, that is, no isomorphism exists between one set of operators and another.) In terms of the psychoanalytic registers, at this level we are dealing with the Real; the all-dissolving nigredo of the alchemists, the primordial abyss of cosmicism and Lovecraft, the meteoric omphaloplasmate or Gnostic angel whose wings caught aflame while falling back to Earth, the Pandaemonium of CCRU researchers, 1 the spaces between the radiant shells, glowing in the infinite darkness of the ‘divine unconscious’,- the contractions of the tzimtzum reverberating against the abyss before Creation, etc. This abyss occupies the liminal spaces of (and between) the semantic levels, that is, the ‘ontological gaps’ within the fabric of the ‘Imaginative-Real’,- liminal spaces (demonic presences, half-gods and the like) that are only cathartically purified at the highest semantic level,- that of the divine perichoreia, the Gnostic pleroma. Such limens can of course be explored through the manipulation of chiasmatic reversals,- 2 (a crossing of the ‘gaps’) a basic feature of my own cryptopoetics, to which end we must devote ourselves, if attaining the transcendent vision of the highest semantic level is a philosophical priority. Through such a poetics, the Real is ushered forth as a traumatic decoupling of objects formerly connected by our symbolic networks through temporal-progressive or predicative logic,- a rupture in which the symbolic network identifies its own Imaginative gap, thereby reversing the ‘external monstrosity of appearance’ by means of an ‘intrinsic operational semiotic’, (tearing the mask from the strange god) that is, an encoding or the ‘veil of the Real’ taking the form of a god or otherworldly entity,- (Hastur, Melville’s ‘demon god’ and whale, etc.) and finally de-codes its own predications through an internal rupture of the chain of signifiers,- opening up the limen or ‘mental space’ from which the mad prophet, raving Cassandra, or blinded Tiresias utters their incomprehensible prophecies and strange portents of nameless gods,- and that upon whose limit the human subject demarcates some kind of ineffable terminus,- the point at which their mind could not any further venture toward the fulfillment of the perichoreia, toward the transcendental, toward the “in what splendor, it all coheres” of Pound’s Herakles. Hence the Lovecraftian trope, in which the mere sight of a transcendent creature causes madness. This is because the creature represents some fatal limit, the border upon an internal, liminal rupture in the chain of signifiers. Note that, while one might employ an ultimately de-coded xenonotation or reduced syntax to dissolve structure into process, to submerge Form into energeia, to deconceptualize and de-konstruct, etc. it is through endless reversals across the chiasmus that one drives the intellective circulus, retroactivating a vertical-daemonic element (eros) at the moment of ‘apocrisis’, that is, the repulsion of the symbolic border generated by human speech,- ie. the decoupling of the signifier, ascending in this way toward ever higher Forms against the horizontal-diffusive void (thanatos) filling up the space of the limen, until, at some ultimate height, the vision of Transcendence attains a perichoreia outside of a flattened, finite spacetime.] the Universe would simply be the endless permutation of a single atemporal truth variable [Note: Zofia Kostrzycka. On density of truth of the intuitionistic logic in one variable. Fifth Colloquium on Mathematics and Computer Science, 2008, Kiel, Germany. pp.449-460.] (like the semantic logical-matrices in many-valued logic, or specifically the Brujin-torus of a certain alphabet, that being the 1-bit length binary states of the ur-alternatives in this case) composed of atomic informational units in discrete parallelization on the Hilbert space, from the highest semantic level the Universe would be a single temporal catenation or “processing” of maximally complex informational structures, that is- it would be a single “thought” occurring to a single structural processor of maximal complexity, (the measure of such a complexity is specified in Integrated Information Theory) that is, a single ‘mind’. The temporal-binding through which collectives are adhered by structures existing on distinct semantic levels specifies a notion of temporality other than that implied by the ‘time’ of the Eisenstein cosmos, ie. spacetime; the temporal-binding specifies a temporal dimension in intrinsic terms, through which alone any movement from one semantic level to another can occur in a manner describable as information, that is, in terms of yet a higher semantic level. This time dimension is properly, given its intrinsicity, (Note: the intrinsic postulate of Humean ontology states that any point or atomic-object possesses thereby its own potential state,- a binary state in our conjecture,- and is therefor separable from other points within the same spatial continuum.) the dimension of consciousness, whose existence we recognize as the single intrinsic fact available to us, and, because this ‘temporal-binding’ exists as a physical constant emerging from the forces of nature just as much as magnetism or the spin of subatomic particles, we have a version of panpsychism, in which consciousness is described as a fundamental feature of the universe along with the other physical constants. This conclusion demands insight from Koch’s panpsychicism and Tononi’s theory of Integrated Information, (IIT) in which what we call here the 1-bit atomic ur-alternatives indicate the simple 1-bit probabilistic binary elements of a cause-effect space, whereby the possible evolutionary progression (the possible consciousness) of any system is plotted as a singular point in the higher-dimensional projection of that space, ie. what would be a space-time continuity, in the same way that the ur-alternatives plot a temporal progression from a one-dimensional plane describable solely in terms of a discrete syntax or serialized symbol-string, and thereby compose increasingly dynamic, complex structures at higher semantic levels, namely those for which multiple dimensions exist, just as the minimal-potential equilibrium of the Lyapunov function is revealed, from the most transient and microscopic perturbations, to belong nonetheless to well-defined stable geometrical structures within a larger parameter space. Thus a ‘larger parameter space’ by which greater structures can be abstracted from the urs, that is, by which a movement toward a higher semantic level can be achieved, will be explored briefly in the remainder of this essay.
[size=50]* Note that this ‘lossless movement’ toward ‘higher levels of abstraction’ can be conceived of as a kind of evolutionary cosmos. In the phrase of Lyre, “Cosmic Evolution as an Evolution of Information”. Note Holger Lyre’s 'The Quantum Theory of Ur-Objects as a Theory of Information, 1994: "In ur theory a method would be needed to describe the change of semantic levels in a general way. This could presumably be done in von Weizsacker’s procedure of multiple quantization (in German, Mehrfache Quantelung), which has to be regarded as an iteration of complementarity logic. This means that the components of an n-fold alternative correspond to complex-valued truth variables. The question arises of how this procedure can be connected with the parabose quantization to reach higher levels. The first three semantic levels so far seem to be: ur alternatives, parabose tensors of urs, and elementary particles as described above. "
-
The CCRU identifies ‘demons’ as semi-autonomous swarm-collectives emerging from the Grund (the urs) at various abstracted or ‘semantic’ levels, occupying the intrinsic instabilities within the ontological fabric or limen of these levels, yet also for the same reason belonging to larger arrays themselves, for whose subsumption one demon may become the ‘subservient’ or ‘mask’ of another, more integral one. Thus, in Lovecraft’s classification, we have the Old Gods and Great Old Ones, much as we have the Titans and Olympians in Greek mythology.
-
This exploration is also the task of ‘mythology’. Myth is not primordial quasi-religion, or some kind of incubating antecedent for religion, inasmuch as ‘religion’ is not a logically necessary progression in the development of myth. One would do well to fully differentiate the two. Myth, whose modern equivalent is what the CCRU named hyperstition, is an artificially constructed, imaginative-poetic history (Like those for which Lovecraft is infamous. Note his production of false documents, eg. the Necronomicon, as well as false actors, eg. the Mad Arab.) that, when superimposed over ‘real history’, overloads the symbolic gaps, fragments, miss-identifications, contradictions, etc. in such a way as to explain the tears in our own history (This explanatory mechanism is what I call a ‘hypermnemata’. Just as, in Stiegler’s thesis, the hypomnemata is any ‘external memory-device’ or narrative formulae that conditions the subjectivity of those utilizing it to shape their history, so the hypermnemata is an external memory device that conditions other memory devices, that is, the hypomnemata.) that an empirical science, even in principle, cannot,- and even convert them into energetically charged limen capable of propagating a discursive metalepsis across disparate, otherwise disconnected semantic fields, that is, the autonomous or ‘internal semiotic’ discussed in this essay, which we must recognize as properly the secret of the Kantian schematism which Kant himself, unable to properly articulate, was forced to dismiss as an ‘art concealed in the depths of the human soul’, like all philosophers do with regard to their integral but inexplicable premises. Myth achieves this because, as discussed by Heraclitus, (and argued equally in my own “Mythos and Ontos”) it is naturally paired to the reinscriptive processes of the Logos and thereby intimates the direct affirmation of Being, that is, a ‘Doric trace’ reaching back toward some occluded point of origination of the human cultus,- an affirmation from which we are eventually disconnected by the linear development of techne,- a ‘thaumazein’ whose revelatory contents generates the circulus of Vico’s imaginative-universal, which structurally inheres an underlying pattern of material history that no ‘particular’ or empirical science can access. A constructed history that is unable to do this, is simply not a mythology, but only a more elaborate fiction, like that of Tolkien or Star Wars. For this is the function of mythology, as understood by the ancients who engaged directly with the still living mythos themselves,- as opposed to modern scholars. Given the fact that the ‘real history’ of the ancients was so unreliable, the use of such a mythology is evident,- though one might say that our own history is, if in other ways, even more inaccurate than theirs.[/size]
Just as any conceptual structure can be plotted as a constellation of points in cause-effect space, (as what adherents of this theory call stars) so the temporally-bound or ‘intrinsic’ semantic contents of any conceptual structure are derived out of simple spatially-bound ur-alternatives forming what IIT calls a ‘complex’ or ‘maximally irreducible cause-effect structures’, to which they ascribe ‘consciousness’ as a certain probabilistic star-magnitude, (This magnitude represents a cause-effect potentiality, and the intrinsicality of a distinct structure specifies that the structure in question possesses a potential cause-effect upon itself, thereby enclosing its own cause-effect space from any extrinsic agents and establishing an irreducible informational content available only from its own perspective,- establishing, in other words, an intrinsic informational-processor we call ‘consciousness’.) whose exact mathematical value can actually be computed, (IIT indicates it with the Greek letter Phi.) though it demands intractable resources not yet available to us.
In short, the theory of ur-alternatives reconstructs physics from 1-bit informational units, and IIT reconstructs consciousness from 1-bit informational units. Combining the two, one arrives at a theory of consciousness and its emergence from a flattened spacetime, occupying its own ‘intrinsic space’,- an intrinsicity that is, essentially, what we call time, or an as yet ungraspable fourth-dimension. Following the theory of Urs, the first three dimensions appear during the reconstruction of physics: ur-alternatives, then elementary particles as parabose tensors of urs, and finally quantum field theory, in which the particles constituted by the 2nd dimension here considered become merely syntactic elements within a higher semantic content,- namely, the semantic content given by particles which become field quanta, at the third-dimensional level. At this dimension, ur-collectives give way to un-readable (a la. the no-teleportation theorem) quantum information whose continuous-valued trajectory (in terms of the typical representation of spacetime in vector-space, as opposed to the algebraic representation proposed here, or even that suggested by Baylis’ treatment of electrodynamics; in particular, note the following paper: Spinors in the hyperbolic algebra, S. Ulyrch. 2005: “The algebraic representation of geometry has in general advantages compared to the conventional description in terms of column vectors and matrices. …” ) on the Bloch sphere demands a reformulation of emergent ur-collectives as “paracomplex structures on a 2n-dimensional” [See: Cruceanu, Fortuny, and Gadea’s Survey on Paracomplex Geometry.] projective Hilbert space, that is, a correspondence of pure quantum states, by way of Hopf fibration, to spinors on Riemann’s extended complex plane, granting a diffeomorphism of the urs and finally, a model of differentiable manifolds that may be useful in theoretically reconstructing different semantic levels as symplectic manifolds, like those derived from the Hamiltonian definition of the total set of a system’s possible configurations (the total set of a system’s possible configurations would refer here to all the possible ur-collectives which could be structurally bound as equivalent cause-effect spaces enclosed at the semantic level) as modeled by a manifold whose cotangent bundle describes its phase-space. Thus we move toward the fourth dimension, which would arise from the interactions of these fields: this dimension, not yet understood by man, is that in which ‘time’ appears, (meaning, that in which time is syntactically organized from a higher semantic level) and therefor, the intrinsic space occupied by what IIT would call- ‘consciousness’, amounting to an enclosed cause-effect space operating upon itself. The interaction of these fields within ‘time’, given the combination of the two theories, would imply an interaction of enclosed cause-effect spaces, each constituting a certain level of consciousness in the Kochian or panpsychic sense, from the causal universe of the faintest consciousness, that is, the consciousness of a hydrogen atom, to the most developed consciousness in a human being. How exactly these fields interact to produce an intrinsically grounded temporal consciousness out of an atemporal fourth-dimensional composite of interacting and enclosed fields within the third-dimension (quantum field theory) is of course not yet understood, though Hinton long ago proposed that particles moving within the three dimensions we would associate here with the third semantic level of the quantum fields, might be succeeding cross sections of an un-moving, eternal, static fourth-dimensional architecture within a fourth semantic-level consisting of world-lines passing through a three-dimensional plane. Hinton even believed that man could access this eternal fourth-dimensional construct through a kenotic process by which the self might rid itself of ideas like right, left, up, or down by utilizing certain meditative techniques.
While purely neurodynamical theories of mind, (Note the following papers: Cognition poised at the edge of chaos: A complex alternative to a symbolic mind, James Garson. Tim van Gelder: The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.) lacking a more fundamental metaphysics in support of a ‘lossless abstraction’, must return to the far more theoretically limited domain of the purely quantitative and statistical, purely symbolic theories of mind do not consider the more pronounced role for temporality proposed by the former camp in the emergence of consciousness,- (the role of discrete evolutionary progression in the computation of cellular automaton are, along with catastrophic bifurcation-theory and the more general study of non-linear dynamic systems and SOC, all quite useful in further qualifying such a 'Kantian" temporality or ‘schematism’ with arithmetic) like that demanded by any movement between syntactic and semantic (eg. symbolic) levels in the ‘conceptual binding’ phenomenon; [As to this phenomenon, stress must be laid upon the fact that language, contrary to the opinion of the Chomskyians, is not reducible to a single mathematical function, but is ‘semasiokinetic’, continuously relocating itself as an ‘endonomon’ between disparate ‘syntactic’ and ‘semantic’, or neural and symbolic organizational levels. This is not to imply that the mechanistic engine of syntax is, in line with classical linguistics, an autonomous cognitive process amenable to the purely behavioral schemata of empirical psychology and a basic stimulus-response model, (eg. syntactic processes as merely habituated response patterns to adequately repeated stimuli,- nothing but Pavlovian crystallizations of unthinking reflex) yet the basic premise of generative grammar,- namely the total reducibility of syntax to some singular semantic structure from which its ‘field of operation’ could be miraculously reproduced algorithmically and therefor determined by some global ‘semantic argument’, a possessive formula, etc. is quite clearly dispensed with here in favor of what may be readily educed from what has already been said: syntactic and semantic processes are propagated, through the mediation of coded machinic signets operating on pre-linguistic, atomic informational units, by an internal semiotic, and therefor co-determined by certain irreducible feedback mechanisms (what the ancients called ‘mimesis’) through which they influence one another in a kinetic, ‘molecular’ assemblage, or a ‘nomon’. The untold sums of money wasted on graduate research programmes in the misguided attempt to extricate an independent ‘language faculty’ from this molecular substrate, that is, from the underlying cognitive processes and pre-linguistic structures from which language emerges, simply ‘is’ the institutional study we call ‘generative grammar’, just as the faith in such an independent faculty is Chomsky’s universal-grammar.] levels whose interposition might be modeled by an n-dimensional geometrical projection over the Hilbert space, namely as a nonlinear dynamical system toward whose attractors we might associate various macroscopic self-organizational patterns with forms of cognition. One might even utilize the ‘phi-complexities’ of IIT to generate such geometries to serve as do the seed-strings for the initial processing state of an L-system, in that a certain attractor might induce a fractalization pattern, similar to the induction of certain retinotopic disturbances, * that could be broadcast on a monitor, while a human subject’s brain-activity could be recorded, simultaneously, by an EEG and then fed back into the system as new inputs for the computation of the overall Phi-complexity of the now entangled system of the human and external visualizer, and therefor for a modulation of the visible pattern. The subject could be instructed to associate, mentally, various cognitive processes and ideations with various patterns observable on the monitor, so that, as the EEG began to modulate those patterns, the subject’s reactions would provoke new features within them, which would then provoke new reactions from the subject, and so on, influencing the subject’s thoughts in a feedback process for which the signal-noise of that subject, as consequent to any neurodynamical system, might be simulated by the noise of the simulation environment, even to the extent of self-cancellation- (Arrighi, Intrinsic Simulations between Stochastic Cellular Automata. On the simulation of natural phenomena by cellular automata: “Fortunately when both the simulated system and the simulating system are noisy, it could happen that both effects cancel out, i.e. that the noise of the simulator is made to coincide with that of the simulated. In such a situation a model of noise is used to simulate another, and the simulation may even turn out to be. . . exact.”) in this way providing a novel tool for a kind of guided Hintonian meditative process or a cybernetic occultism geared toward a more controlled exploration of altered conscious states.
[size=85]* The retinotopic organization of the cortex, ie. the mapping of visual stimuli through the binary on-or-off receptive fields of overlapping neurons within the retinal stream, can generate geometrical patterns,- an inherent topological structure not otherwise participatory in conscious awareness,- when over-stimulated by something like an epileptic seizure, whereby random discharges of neuroelectrically excited neurons within the occipital lobe introduce perturbatory attractors to the cortical network mosaic, thereby revealing a SOC pattern (the epileptic perceives this usually as geometrical patters, honeycombs, arrangements of cascading circles or other shapes, etc.) observed all across the order of Nature, as noted by Turing.
[/size]
To summarize the metaphysics and cosmology, or the ‘metacosmology’ here proposed:
[i][size=85]1. The 1-dimensional perspective: the ‘infernal plane’, the Real. The domain of the urs, or an expansive, infinitely extended atomic informational structure composed of discrete 1-bit digital minima. All the parallel realities or many-worlds are ‘fused’ here; they are not differentiable. It is what fills the liminal spaces, the ‘site of exception’, across whose chiasmus we invoke our ‘gods’.
-
The 2-dimensional perspective: ‘parabose tensors of the urs’, ‘multiple quantization’, etc. Here, the worlds are differentiated into separate universes, which are essentially massive ur-collectives, or ur-collectives of maximal size but minimal complexity: the many worlds of string-theory and certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. The multiverse. The 1-d plane is given 2-d depth, meaning that it can be subdivided into multiple 1-d planes, that is, multiple universes.
-
The 3-dimensional perspective: We know this one the best, because it’s the one we live and move around in. Here, particles emerge, and with them, the quantum fields. The quantum fields interact in such a way as to produce an ‘intrinsicity’, within which consciousness unfolds… in Time. We cannot, from this perspective, understand how exactly the fields interact to produce this temporality, or consciousness with it: that requires higher-dimensional thought.
-
The 4-dimensional perspective: The universe becomes a flattened spacetime, the observable sphere of our world is transformed into a deterministic loop, a circle. But here, the other worlds become flat membranes as well, all stacked on top of one another, stretching toward infinity. And above our flat time-horizon, and above all the others, there is a… “fourth-dimensional construct”, as Hinton refers to it. It is composed not only of all the matter in our universe, but all the ‘matter’ of all universes. It is the Ontos. It is Being, un-differentiated; eternal, static, unmoving, unchanging; the ultimate; it is the Dragon, the Demiurge, Leviathan and Behemoth; it is Yaldabaoth, Samael, the Blind Lion; the Serpent, the Fallen Angel; the God of Flesh, of Matter, and Time. From it, world-lines radiate, and these world-lines intersect all the now flat planes, which are the ‘many-worlds’. The point at which one of these lines intersects one of the planes, becomes a ‘point particle’, the elementary particles constituting matter, from the 3-d perspective of those occupying the planes. And because the quantum fields overlap, sometimes one of these world lines passes through the plane and crosses two or more fields at once. So the mystery of how the quantum fields interact to produce Time is: they don’t interact. What happens is, the same world-line passes through two or more fields simultaneously, so that the point-particle it produces at its point of intersection has characteristics governed by all the quantum fields that were crossed by that world-line; we see this as an interaction inside an enclosed 3-d spacetime, that is, as an interaction within time- but time is a predetermined circle from this 4-d perspective. At any rate, this is how all the empty spacetimes of the ‘many worlds’ are populated with matter- with particles. This is how the quantum fields ‘interact’ to produce temporality and consciousness.[/size][/i]
Thus we arrive at our conceptualization of the ‘circulus’ and its miraculous agon, a discourse between Abyss and Form, Limit and Limen. We must not fail to keep in mind the opposing viewpoint, for it has indelibly stained all modernity, that is, a disbelief or hatred of Form, of the Transcendent. Freudo-Lacanian nihilism tells us that man thrives on the postponement of desire, not in its relief. To satisfy a desire could even be painful, a hopeless ‘jouissance’ that can do nothing but devastate us- assuming that the desire in question was an actually meaningful one, something integral to our defensive strategy. And this is because the negative, empty core of our artificially constructed personality structure, our human face, our mask- which is really just one gigantic, inflated defense-mechanism, built up by indeliberate habitus, random chance, and unthinking reflexes over the span of an entire life- this hollow core serves for our commanding star, though it were a black star like those about which Heine sung,- a gravitational center for the purposeless orbits of desire; it is the Angel spoken of by the Gnostic mystics falling back to earth, his wings catching fire and burning away in the conflagration of matter, until, from his outer climb, he landed upon the earth as a mere substance, as the ‘nigredo’ of the Alchemists, or what they called the prima materia,- the World burnt down to some primordial uniform substance from which to somehow extract the secret of Immortality; [A maddened faith and profane gnosis encapsulated best by the poet of Kos, Epicharmus: “I were a corpse, and a corpse is but excrement, and excrement is earth. But if earth is a corpse, I am not a corpse, nor excrement, nor earth and dust- but a God!” From the poetical fragments of the Pseudoepicharmeia.] dark, a fallen meteor; this emptiness, a black star around whose inescapable gravitational vortex our bodies are decomposed, broken down into receptive organs and placed into orbits,- endless circulations of libidinal surplus; self-propagating circuits and mindless machinic code; endless orbits, cycles, circles,-- a circulation of desire around a missing object: a circulation around ‘the’ missing object,- an endless wandering orbit around an absent center,- around the fatal image of the woman we love, or around some infantile regression to the salvation of the great Mother; (although, perhaps those two are the same thing) around the lost innocence at the Garden, at the scene of the Fall, the apple of Knowledge and the snake, etc. The prototypal ‘lost object’ of Freudo-Lacanian thought demands a reinvestment of libidinal surplus, [The reification of the ‘lost object’ by a utopian signifier, finally implicated by the logic of capital within the very organic substrate of its subjects, poses to us the fundamental ‘dark pact’ made between the science of 20th century psychoanalysis and 21st century economics.] through which the internal stresses of System are discharged as an entropic force (thanatos) so as to avoid the Bataillean catastrophe, and therefor, even more importantly, the revolutionary reorganization of the anastrophe, indicating a thanatos functioning as an autonomous drive instead of a merely passive repulsion of the ‘global thermodynamic trend’, that is, un-living matter, against the organo-metabolic energies locally transforming (perturbating) it,- and one beyond the merely psychoanalytic categories necessary for preserving the dynamic features of the psyche; a thanatos that allows the logic of capital to simulate a transcendental recession of the body, propagating a demiourgiac antifetish through ‘images of death’ in lieu of an eros thwarted by masturbatory deflation, (images like the emaciated model, etc.) while the true recession or ‘apocrisis’ of the body appears only at the destabilized core of the symbolic network, that is, the limen beyond whose event-horizon the organs have been recomposed to form the ‘meronymos’,- a body of light reft through sophianic death. In so many words, such an entropic force, when adequately magnified, is able to access the logic immanent in the organism and overload it, thereby retrovirally re-encoding itself and converting the organism into another extension of the logic of capital, a locus of magnification for which its own conatus,- its rebellious frenzy against the gravitational influence of the inorganic, that is, its will to survive,- is transformed into yet another mechanism for the perpetuation of System, namely in the image of the emptied utopian signifier, or the mortis imago,- an image of Death as the image of Transcendence.
We have here many archetypes, but they all mean the same thing I suppose, at least from this contradictory perspective,- a perspective we must never ignore, for it is not altogether untrue. My favorite of these archetypes is from Genesis. An angel is said to block the way back to the Garden, sent by God to stop Adam and Eve from re-entering paradise. It was said to have a sword made of fire, that spun around, floating on its head like an infernal halo,- perhaps even in such little details, the ancients intuited still deeper knowledge,- knowledge of this empty center and what Lacan calls the metonymy,- the endless circulation of desire around a missing object. The same absence that the mystics, exalted in their meditative askesis, associate with their God: a “crucifixion of Nature within ourselves”, like that demanded by Fenelon; the self-mortification of the saints; all of this, evincing the same ontological black-hole. Even metaphysics tells us the same story. The story about Samsara, the Wheel of Time, the Recurrence; the circle of desire, the emptiness of whose center is our natural punishment,- a karmic debt to which every soul is returned at the end of its existence until it finally recognizes and understands it, and detaches itself therefrom,- from the cycle of birth and death and rebirth,- finally recycled out of the process of reincarnation to go melt into nirvana and forget its individuality. That’s gnosis; sacred knowledge; to understand it, to pierce the veil of Time and Matter, to be set free by what the Areopagite called, in his theological tracts, the pneuma-spermatikos,- to become a bearer of light, the exalted mind, the ‘mens heroica’ of Bruno’s texts. Death won’t set you free, quite the opposite; Death just draws a border around you,- it marks off the shape of your life from mine and his shape from everyone else’s, and hers from hers,-- it just distinguishes you from me, everyone from everyone. But then I recall Goethe, who sung the opposite… The angels were explaining themselves, in Faust. They said, “Inherent in us there still remains, the smallest fragment of earthly nature, so painful to endure. Our being, even if it were purified by Death, or formed from supple alba, or drew into itself with the mind’s invincible force the ultimate elements- no angel may, or ever could, dissever them, the intermeshed, or differentiate the incomprehensible dyad of self and self, god and man, supernal and earthly, light and dark. It were beyond us to draw the border of things, and only Eternal Love has the Power to truly separate, to distinguish things…” So it is Love after all, that draws the border around your life, and not Death … Eternal Love,- and only at that border can we find our shape, beneath our human mask, and actually know who we are. That is why they always painted the angels on billowing clouds, the symbol of the ethereal substance of pre-creation; smoke, God moving on the face of the waters,- God moving through the spaces between the worlds. The angels, wreathed with this flowing, smoke-like energy, still phase in and out of existence, melt into one another, are from the highest vantage still indistinguishable,- not yet stable, not yet ‘separated’,- a quantum informational state not yet made readable by the collapsing wave-form. This mystery,- the mystery of separation and individuality, of the true face of man and the human mask, is the one about which I have been speaking.
Man must avoid attaching his soul to passing things, yet only by an opening up of the Stoical anima to the passing of the moment can man distinguish the one thing from another- the resilient from the fleeting, the virtuous from the vain, bearing that ‘earthly fragment’ of Goethe’s angels in chaos eadem cernentibus omnibus ipsa, quos privant oculis tempus in omne suis; or, as Pindar said to similar effect, so do we read the shape of our life by shadows, or even the shadow of a dream, for desire is the memory of desire’s every defeat, and love is the memory of all that love has lost and failed to gain, in utilius cunctis animum tenuisse refertum vanitas fugiens. [Petrus Cordinus, Collatio Saporum, ex Sophoclaeum: Utilius cunctis animum tenuisse refertum: cum visio sint haec & vanitas fugiens; atque chaos eadem cernentibus omnibus ipsa, quos privant oculis tempus in omne suis.] Besides, it is more often pathos that reproves us, not reason; desire that thwarts desire, not ethos,- non virtus, fregit voluptas; nec potuit virtus vincere, sed vitium. [Romula non virtus, fregit Campana voluptas, nec potuit virtus vincere, sed vitium. Stephanus Paschasius Iurisconsulti, in Iconum Poemata Liber, No. 42; ad Huraltum Chiuernium Cancellarium.]
