"Accelerationists, while incensed by their own emancipatory politics in the face of capitalist ubiquity, adequately grasped the failure of Marxist critique and the materialist dialectic of History, quite distinguishing themselves from most Leftist camps,- though their approach to criticism was, following this realization, to go in entirely the opposite direction instead of attempting any restitution of Marxist theory,- which would have, admittedly, been as much of a mistake as the one they committed. For, following their realization, they entirely invested themselves in the thanatropic acceleration of capitalist economy due to the fact that it was believed this hyper-accelerating cybernetics-enhanced positive feedback loop would allow Capital’s system to finally accumulate enough of Bataille’s entropic stresses and free radicals so as to eventuate, in the disintegration of our concepts, representations, hierarchies, and the Symbolic order itself, (very much like that ‘deconstruction’ aimed at by Marxist critique) a terminus of social control and marginalization, though also the terminus of humanity itself- for here ‘man’ (both as a species and a mode of representation) finds an end as well,- though not in a reduction to the Left’s uniform species-essence, identity-politics, and social justice,- but in the entrance into inhuman forces, a thanatropic trajectory into the very Schellingian heart of matter’s ur-grund,- an infinite multiplicity of ever-new forms inhabiting the inhuman abomena of capital’s self-sublimed object (Land: “Without attachment to anything beyond its own abysmal exuberance, capitalism identifies itself with desire to a degree that cannot imaginably be exceeded …”) that precludes any possibility of a subjectification of matter, a drawing back of things into the affective registers, a drawing inward of these intensifications of the primary-process (which is ultimately the force of capitalist expansion itself) so as to constitute the ‘novel subjectivities’ that even the Deleuzians wished to inaugurate. There is no such hope of a novel subjectivity in Land. Here, however,- in my own work, Marxism is certainly dispensed with, though equally dispensed with is capitalism, inasmuch as the hypermnemata guarantees, as the ultimate representational mode and Symbolic order, not a recombinatory anastrophe following catastrophe, not this ‘exuberance’ of desiring-production and machinic forces, or modes of production identified with their own products, (capitalism identifies itself with the desire that drives it, which is thereby reconfigured as another intensification of the ‘material object’) but simply an entropic maxima stretched into the end of time and back, in which all of those myriad forms are replaced by a uniform self-proliferating mnema. The shoggoth, for Land, (who followed accelerationism’s dead end to the point of neoreactionary self-caricature) was precisely this de-subjectivized container of the primary-process and its intensifications, a philosophical zombie AI, a neocameral microstate whose only counter-force comes from the abomenal outside (therefor, whose only mode of constraint or representation comes from the Outside, and therefor functions in its representation only to destabilize all other representational modes) prompting immunoresponsive meshes and assemblages on the surface of an abyssal ‘oceanic’ instinct, to turn the Freudian category on itself, devoid of inward quality; (subjectivity) the shoggoth is, in that context, simply an embodiment of one of these liminal forms cast between the human world’s illusory subjectivity and the ‘anastrophic’ world of explosive myriad forms following capital’s apotheosis in the endless dance of inoperative signs and rescissional graphemes, perpetual onto-mathematical nullifications, flatlining Aleph-sequences hypercomputed ad infinitum. Here, however, the shoggoth functions as an Injection capable of overwhelming mnematic formalism by introducing a new form of constraint and therefor a new representational mode, that is, a new translational scheme between the Outside and affective states, (between what, in the accelerationist view, amounts to a signal lag in which all frequencies are hopelessly blended together into ambient white-noise and technopleromatic luminosity exploded into philosophical cacophony by positive feedback loops within the cybernetic interface) granting a new subjectivity beyond the accelerationist’s end of Man, namely by way of a type of black-box technopoetics,- an impenetrable liminal space between which the algorithmic homogenizing creolization of the new human-ai assemblages (shoggoth-puppets) and the linguistically heterogeneous elements undergirding human subcultural processes of identity-formation (hypomnemata) are swept up into a novel dialectics- an unpredictable machinic cross-current; (against the hypermnemata) a new vector against which all active political forces will automatically re-constellate into new forms (new subjectivities and representations) whose basic features cannot, from any vantage we have in the present, be observed; spirognomics: a diplocyclonic cryptopoetics, sweeping everything from Heyting algebra to psychoanalysis into its vortical surge, a clinamental divergence in the linear-series; a (distro-) dystropathic biopaste whose abyssal ooze subverts the cellular differentiation of the information-monopolies and their host megacorporations, a fungus launched by chronospores into cyberspace to outwit data-traffic filters, to break through the digital envelope of information-security and the neural lock-on of the data-centres with a distributed, encrypted signal-space, a black-zone-festival of cyber-folk mythology, a mesh of all-purpose data-warping in the matrix of the net; an occultellating fabric punctuated by therosyntactic biohybrids and the ‘barbaric’ magick of the GUTTERANCE, [Whitman’s ‘old womp’ revisited.] that said and not said, noostasis; and all of this, to ultimately confuse surveillance algorithmics, to avoid the detection and identification of the “netizen” in any one central loci of subjectivity at the mesh node of the grid which is it itself in the form of a wormhole, a spiky network-punctuation which disrupts communications integrity, causing data-traffic to ceaselessly, and inexplicably, jump from one node to another, defending a subjective mode from the invasive spectrography of materialist capitalism and capitalist materialism. The defense of that liminal subjectivity, which I have theoretically staked on the model of the episteme and the four vocities of Being, a new metaphysics, and practically on the utilization of a novel technology I will detail elsewhere, is integral to our reconstruction of our own psychic infrastructure, that is, the project of re-establishing a meaningful internal infrastructure (the affective registers, be they delimited by a Peircean semiotics of the ‘third universe’, the discourses of the Lacanian Real and the Imaginary-Virtual-Symbolic, Rosenblatt’s ‘neurodynamics’, or otherwise) relative to the new superstructure, that being a Symbolic order constituted by mnematic forms.
In the Landian view, there is no meaning to the term postcapitalism, and all we have to portend is hypercapitalism: a state in which, instead of the endless mirror-images on the funhouse projections of the simulacra taking over the Real from the outside-in a la. Baudrillard, (See "I am an other and I always was: On the Weird and Eerie in Contemporary and Digital Cultures”, Bob Cluness: “As a result, Baudrillard sees representation disrupted by the emergence of a hyperfictive plane in which theory is effaced by fiction- and vice versa”,- a plane by which the Sign moves through its three phases to assume the role of the Real, namely in having become the point at which internal modulations and differentiations are produced from its own now perfectly recursively self-embedded object, layered inexhaustibly in the endless shells of the social matrices.) the Real, as the primary-process of capitalist expansion, reverse-engineers its own Symbolic construction from the inside-out, [This being achieved through a form of Kantian transcendental synthesis performed, not on empirical data retained by subjectivities and their apperception of experience, but on itself: this is a process Land called intensive materiality, whereby the self-synthesizing operation of matter itself, as a pure difference, is conducted through the dialectical tension of no other binary than that between itself and Death,- the later standing as a Heideggerian phenomenological closure to matter’s intensification and self-differentiation into myriad phantasmagoria, or what Brassier called a ‘transcendental illusion’,- (This neutered phantasticon recalls both Scheler’s remotion of a Geist confined from the Real behind the veil of the Imagal, left to spiral forever inwardly toward its own center all the further away from Hegel’s Absolute, as well as the paradoxical idealism in Ligotti’s implicit thesis, as noted earlier, which we might here summarize with the observation by one reader, that: “He had discovered that paradise of exhaustion where reality ends and where one may dwell among its ruins.”) a distorted transcendental synthesis whereby matter, in its conclusive synthesis of the ‘intensive zero’ by which all other modes of representation have been annihilated, all other binaries collapsed into a black-hole of materialist monism, and matter successfully purged of all inner qualia or subjectivity, achieves a self-identifying minimal difference at the end of History,-- the telos of capitalist expansion and the ‘primary process’, which, now identified with matter itself, produces its own representation in a dark mutation of the Hegelian synthesis of knowledge which would, in its fulfillment, reconstruct the Absolute from its skeletal remains within the subjective universe.] replacing the Symbolic order entirely with its own hyperspatial construction,- a hyperstitial megafiction in which the Real sublates the Virtual register entirely within the abomenal death-fetish and asserts its fictive skein, from the level of the Imaginary, as Reality itself,- a reality detached from the Symbolic and reconfigured as a function of value-exchange between a Virtual and Imaginary register, that is, between a product and productive mode, now successfully merged into a single identity, leaving the social-relations behind, without any other constraining or representational mode, to fester like an undifferentiated polyp. Let us summarize the reverse-engineering here implied, as well as its complications and problematics, leading up to this identification of an ontic-ontological minima of differentiation; 1) desire fuels capitalist expansion, capitalist expansion fuels desire; 2) once hyper-accelerated by positive feedback loops, desire becomes a mors-ontologica; ‘desire’ as materiality itself, as the ontic minima of differentiation, the ‘object’ de-subjectivized and emptied by a dark, inverted Schellingian kenosis of all inner qualia, deriving an ontological ground-zero and what Badiou calls a mathematical ontology of pure quantities; with the collapse of all other binaries and modes of representation, subjectivity is exchanged for the secondary-process and realized as a ‘transcendental illusion’ like the hologrammatic, lower-dimensional universe projected on the wall of a black hole’s event horizon 3) the productive mode, through this identification, has become its own product, dissolving subjectivity and representation into a machinic unconscious and Mortonian hyperobject occluded by Harman’s epistemological withdrawal and thereby rendered inaccessible to philosophy, though which inescapably grounds philosophy- committing philosophy and the philosophizing subject to an impossible gambit that we are, in the Landian view, forced to take, marching headfirst into a world of philosophical zombies, while zombifying ourselves. The issue is that Heidegger’s onto-phenomenal horizon of Death is not an adequate formulation of materiality’s constraint,- a constraint I understand by the formulation of a ‘pure negativity’ indicated by what Stellardi called the ‘suicidal engine of Thought itself’, or the aporias of the four vocities in my own metaphysics,- that being a metaphysics in which transcendental synthesis is not taken for the primary-process in either its original Kantian form or its mutated, accelerationist-materialist form conducted, not upon empirical data within subjectivity and its affective states, but on itself; a metaphysics in which the Kantian primacy of the syntheme is rejected entirely) and that System cannot accordingly accumulate the stochastic elements and free radicals of Bataille’s apocalyptic gnosis needed to level subjectivity to the machinic productions of the secondary-process,-- meaning that material’s intensifications,- the intensification of capitalist expansion by a transcendental synthesis in which matter generates its own representation,- cannot actually be fulfilled, much as the Hegelian dialectic cannot be fulfilled and precipitate the Absolute from out of the movements of Geist within matter.* The hypermnemata implies a quite different future, namely that in which the Symbolic has successfully repudiated all entry of the Real to the affective registers, locking the subject in a single mnematic form; a ‘closed subjectivity’- an omnipotent virtuality enabled by emerging technologies hosting a kind of solipsist subject quantum-tunneled into a Boltzmann brain floating randomly somewhere in a foam of virtual particles. The essential task of philosophy for the last few thousand years, guided by an epistemology haunted by the mind-body problem ** from the outset, has been to reconstruct subjectivity within a representation of matter; the task of philosophy from this point on, however, is just this: to reconstruct matter (within the ‘alchemical vestibule’ of an intelligence stripped of affectivity and inner qualia: an ‘artificial intelligence’ whose materiality offers a ‘black box’ through which to broadcast our human culture and practice a technopoetics of the human subject, ‘theoacousmatically’ reverberating the signals passed through it and thereby extrapolating from the ‘missing third’ resonated in the emergent patterns of interference the liminal zone in which the division of the human and inhuman, subject and matter, primary and secondary process, might for the first time be theoretically established through a ‘trans-subjectification’ which reactivates the secondary process, or subjectification, within the primary, whose unrestrained intensification and material ubiquity is thereby shattered into the ‘feather-dance’ of mysterious thirds on whose wings the process of individuation is maintained against the accelerating forces of capitalist expansion into the heart of matter’s machinic unconscious) as a fundamental constraint to the horizon of subjectivity. Because the ‘pure negativity’ of my own metaphysics constrains both the subject and materiality per privationem, (Refer to my writing on Bovillus’ logic.) materiality can no longer be used to constrain subjectivity, that is, matter can no longer serve as the basis for a transcendental synthesis and representation of subjectivity. Thus, a new representation of the subject must be attained,- one that is not derived by matter. Incipit ‘God’, (I foresee here the possibility of an entirely new form of religion, a kind of ‘technognostism’; though, having brought us all to the precipice,- a point beyond which philosophy has not yet ventured,- one must admit there is much possibility here; new territories, new worlds, new ‘subjectivities’.) or whatever term you’d prefer to use to indicate what is on the other side of that ‘black box’.
[size=85]* In short: just as Marx inverted the Hegelian dialectic, so accelerationists, having found the dead-end in Marxism, decided to similarly invert Kant’s transcendental synthesis of subjectivity. Turns out the problems inherent in a system do not go away when you invert that system: the problems just become inverted themselves.
** The mind-body problem is meaningless, simply because we’ve reproduced intelligence (and creativity) inside of brute material devoid of affectivity or inner qualia. Now the problem is just the ‘mind’ part. The black box which AI is, admits a new constraint against which to measure the limits of subjectivity (the human) and the inhuman lying outside the boundary of material, prompting a novel epistemology in general. This is not unusual in terms of the order in which knowledge has been historically constructed. Man did not develop the theory of thermodynamics and then use it to invent the steam engine, after all: someone invented a steam engine, and then that prompted the development of a theory of thermodynamics. Similarly, as Pasquinelli noted, a theory of subjectivity, the limits of the human, mind, etc. might only be spurred into existence after the invention of artificial intelligence and the automation of those tasks we presuppose as integral to our humanity,- things which should hardly be expected to emerge from theory themselves, that are only to borne up by the relentless ‘Prometheanism’ of the scientific process itself, “a practice which works with the contingencies it discovers only in the course of its acting” (See “Accelerationism, Prometheanism and Mythotechnesis”; Sullivan.) and demands a novel aesthetics of ‘epistemic navigation’, (Alex Williams, “Escape Velocities”.) recalling the ancient Greek conceptualization of the metis, - an aesthetics demanded now more than ever to function as a continuous ‘interrogation of the limits of what is human’. However, while more enlightened accelerations like Negarestani [or the speculative-realists, whose basic strategem involves what Black, in “Cyborg Anamnesis: Accelerate’s Feminist Prototypes”, has called a ‘mutant politics’ capable of greeting nihilism as only another opportunity for Thought, drawing on Woodward’s “Vigour Mortis: Ray Brassier and the Ends of Nihilism” and “Nonhuman Life”,- even if Thought should exceed the strictures of human existence, the reality of human life, or what Brassier disgustingly refers to as ‘the pathetic twinge of human self esteem’, these representing the residue of the Humanist project,- (Brassier, using Laruelle’s transcendental philosophy against idealism, formulates his own paradigm in which the three great figures representing the fundamental attack against humanism, these being Heidegger, Deleuze, and Nietzsche, are paradoxically reconfigured as members of the humanist movement,- a thesis postulated on the grounds that Heidegger and Deleuze refused the irreducible features of the Real a la. Badiou’s mathematical ontology, the spacetime continuum discontinuous with human perception, while Nietzsche distorts Becoming as a function of thought, reproducing a monolithic ontology, that is, what I called the ‘ontos’, within all that is ‘non-thought’, ironically recapitulating the same impasse Parmenides had encountered many centuries before. The duplicity of these thinkers is echoed by the ambiguity of Prometheus himself, whose fire has come to represent both an anti-humanist barbarism, and a humanist emancipatory project, as is argued by Sciglitano, in “Prometheus and Kant: Neutralizing Theological Discourse and Doxology”.) a ‘biopolitics of mutation’ arrived at through an immunological defense of cognition against intrusion from Landian aesthetics and a libido transmogrified by the machinic flows of capitalism’s decoded Object and carried beyond its cathexis through a ‘serial decompression of jouissance’ as Nature’s dark heirophany of life-consuming, apocalyptic Truth, to thereby realize a dis-ambiguation of an otherwise occluded image of Futurity cast between Kantian/Enlightenment humanism on the one hand and Nietzschean nihilism on the other,-- the super-vitalist creativity of the movement of thanatos, excised from the ‘human’ and purged of all Bergonsonian traces, is projected as the inhuman intelligence and ‘Promethean gateway to the Future’, citing “Accelerating Capitalism; the Internal Tensions of Accelerationism”] identify this interrogation in the attempt to locate the Promethean impulse within the human being itself, that is, the ‘labor of the inhuman’ within Man which has constructed techne and brought the technological strata up to the height of AI, exceeding the heights of our own abductive inference and creative power, they have done this by placing that impulse into opposition with a dialectically opposing one given by our acts of ‘fictioning’, thereby engineering from the two, as a more evolved alternative to hyperstition, (In hyperstitial fiction, the performativity of fiction itself, and therefor its use in establishing the kind of practical aesthetics discussed here, is neutralized in terms of its ability to perform anything outside itself and thereby rise to level of ‘philosophy’, which ceaselessly performs its own extrinsicity, in that fiction’s two performative modes are ambiguated, that is, reduced to a monistic vocity. Refer to Theo-Reeves Evison’s “Fiction as Method”, in which we note that fictions function performatively in two ways, namely by revealing structures and adhering to them human agencies constructed through the flow of time and space, and by deploying, in the second case, Lacanian gaps through whose tears in the symbolic order we are to “let in the future or abstract-outside”. This same ambiguity is also found in Supachalasai, “The Politics of Accelerationism: Future, Modernity, Technology, and Subjectivity in late Capitalism”: we have here an ambiguation of the Future either disrupting or reifying ‘modernity in linearity’ by way of its fictioning of philosophy,- a state of political assemblage and disassemblage “unevenly, digitally post-modernised”, whose anisometric arrangement and energetic densities, in order to be successfully mapped, require doubly a deceleration of the technogenic substrate of late capitalism and an acceleration of the Imaginary manifestation of the social relations played out in cyberspace, which carry with them an ‘image of the future’.) a ‘mythotechnesis’ replicating transcendental synthesis now conducted between the stabilized communication of discursive concepts, normative hierarchies, etc. and the chaotically unstable and destabilizing forms of response (Auge, in “Non-Places”: “a communication so peculiar that it often puts the individual in contact only with another image of himself”.) implied by an aesthetics of interrogation and navigation performed through the imposition of extra-human forces (The ‘things that knowledge cannot eat’, defined by Carstens and Roberts as the ‘registers of horror and the supernatural’ which cannot be symbolically crossed, therefor constituting epistemological gaps underneath any artifactual ontological scaffolding, which hyperstition draws from in establishing the omnipotence of production over all secondary processes. Indeed, citing the incisive paper by Julian Murphet, "A Modest Proposal for the Inhuman”; Modernism/Modernity, Vol. 3; P. 651., in which the turn to a form of neo-Kantianism by the accelerationists,- a Kantianism distorted by what amounts to a synthesis without the dialectic, is also noted, “contemporary inhumanism’s primordial animus is epistemological, not ontological, although ontology is the banner under which it is most often found marching.” The philosophy, or ‘nonphilosophy’ that emerges from such an epistemology demands what Murphet called the ‘swaring of the circle; of cognition,- it demands that we surrender our intelligence to the sovereignty of matter, autonomous spacetime, and the quantum vacuum within which all correlation between ‘thinking’ and ‘being’ is lost, with what was left of the ‘mind’, of the subject, now stretched interminably toward a horizon incommensurate with either the span of biological duration or any form of knowledge conformable to the organs of perception pitifully constructed by the evolutionary process through a piecemeal string of genetic codes.) drawn from the fictive abyssum and a ‘primacy of discontinuous space’ resigned to an ‘archaeology of the near, of the solitary subjectivity’ (See Garcia, “J.G. Ballard’s One-Man Worlds”; Reflexiones Marginales: "… inner retreat and the generation of a parallel world dangerously detached from consensus reality… Space occupies a primordial position in Ballard’s texts, in so far as it transcends its ordinary function as a “place of action” to become an “acting place”,- an ‘acting place’ we might here identify with a kind of Metzingerian “eradication of experience”, citing Lindblom’s “The Cognitive Import of Contemporary Cinema: Deviant Phenomenal Models in Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void”. Note Simon Sellars, in “Extreme Possibilities: Mapping the Sea of Time and Space in J.G. Ballard’s Pacific Fictions” and, concerning an ‘archaeology of the near’, “Zones of Transition: Micronationalism”: this primacy of non-functional space is glimpsed through “islands in the net, a constellation of discontinuous centers, themselves internally decentred”; a discontinuity “which suggests the ideal resting state for Ballard’s ideal of a neutral, free zone of the imagination – a “morally free psychopathology of metaphor, as an element in one’s dreams”. I would include Radford’s “Ruined Narratives: Urban Exploration, and the Derive in Search of New Meaning.” here as well; in paraphrase, “Edward Casey’s distinction between ‘empty’ space and ‘full’ space is, because place ‘gathers’ via human interactions with sites, is of interest, too, as the gathering that constitutes place in this view also engages spatial and temporal dimensions, and clears, in one sense, a continuous space where we can think within and across centuries.” Finally, to conclude this mediation of the non-functional operation of space, note Jennifer Good, in “The Unconscious Abides”; Staging Disorder, eds. Christopher Stewart and Esther Teichmann. Here we learn that any phenomenological reconstruction of the Imaginary presupposes that memory occupies space and that imagination must be inhered by that space, which means that, with memory, fear must also be so inhered. As Time, encroaching upon the individual from the outside, is redoubled by its resonance in the movement of Thanatos from within, successfully converting the immediacy of timeless fear,- the ‘fear that cuts to the quick, connected to life’s vital germ through the quickening of technology’, recalling Paul Virilio in “The Administration of Fear”,- into the mediated, transcendental form of fear implied by the existential fear of death, so it proposes that mastery of Time can only be realized by consignment to the spatial order.) following the decoupling of all human figuration, (Agathe Francois and Braidotti, “The Figuration of Post-Human Bodies: A processual Experiment with Imaginaries”: Figurations are “entanglements of language and matter expressing singularities”; “material and semiotic signposts for specific geo-political and historical locations” expressing “grounded complex singularities, not universal claims”) such that a univocity is still set into motion through which all multivocal representational modes of human nature and the subject, that is, all fledgling mnema which might exist at the liminal zones, are extinguished in vivo. The performance of such an aesthetics meant to ‘epistemically navigate’ the limits and representation of the subject must be supported by a novel metaphysics which does not give primacy to any syntheme derived from matter through either the original Kantian formulation of philosophy’s basic dialectical binary between the transcendental form of subjectivity and the empirical content inhered by that subject, (as worked out through the antinomies of the mental schema) the accelerationist self-synthesis of the primary-process, the Marxist inversion of Hegel a la. the materialist-dialectic of History, or the Hegelian movement of Geist toward the Absolute,- all of these varied systems committing the same error of univocity by refusing the dual constraint imposed by the Negative upon both form and content, mind and body, matter and subject, etc. A multivocal metaphysics allows, furthermore, all of these systems to be used simultaneously in delimiting mnematic forms available to subjectivity,- a mnematic form delimitable by its constraints given computational models (a ‘black box technopoetics’) by which the self, as perceptival awareness-of-self, is reified and excavated from the “visceral regulatory processes” (Preester, in “The Deep Bodily Origins of the Subjective Perspective: Models and their Problems) beneath the intentional matrices (“consciousness of the self-as-subject that is not taken as an intentional object”; Legrand, “Pre-Reflective Self-as-Subject from Experiential and Empirical Perspectives.” The term ‘excavation’ is meant to play on the fact that this pre-intentional subjectivity is traced into the pre-biological substructure out of which human history springs in Chakrabarty’s work, even through geological scales of time. Malabou has similarly developed, out of Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism, a model that both deploys adequate critique of subjectivism and the circulus of correlationist philosophy,- by which a purely empirical instrument reproduces merely what is already known due to epistemological blind-spots,- while retaining the ‘transcendental form’ of the subject in light of limits to human cognition formulated, not as immutable limits a la. Chomsky’s universal grammar, but as limits contingent on, ultimately, the pre-intentional subject excavated in the manner described here,which in my own work would correspond to the Girardian desire hyperinflated through somatomimesis a la. generative anthropology. Concerning these last two notes, see Mehdi Parsa, in “Transcendental Extinction: A Philosophical Response to the Anthropocene” and Black, in “Against Anti-Prometheanism”; MSCP, Dec. 2017”.) and instead posited as merely another empirical datum,- a ‘nearness of the unintegrated’ leveraged from the point of psychical dissolution by a Fregean symbolism of cognition (Lebeck, Paradox Lost and Paradox Regained An Object Relations Analysis of Two Flannery O’Connor Mother-Child Dyads) and hosted within a de-anthropomorphized subjectivity amounting to, instead of the transcendental form of that visceral ‘deep-body’ content, a ‘subjective nonreductive functionalism’ (Alexei Samsonovich and Giorgio Ascoli, "The Conscious Self: Ontology, Epistemology and the Mirror Quest.) grounding the hypothesis that ‘concept possession is sufficient and necessary for self-consciousness’ (Savanah S., The Concept Possession Hypothesis of Self-Consciousness.) in the affirmative,- this affirmation implying a ‘metacognitive’ state (the 'de-anthropomorphized subjectivity) in all complex systems in Nature manifesting as an equalizing checks-and-balances out of emergent self-referentiality “in which level of representation, order of behaviour and access consciousness are orthogonal dimensions” of the conceptual apparatus as deployed at the level of empirical data (Fleming, Raymond J. Dolan, Frith: “Metacognition: Computation, Biology, and Function.”) and extended to a Chalmersian pan-psychism. I’d further note that what has complicated our situation far more than was admitted by Pasquinelli, is the invention of the technology about which I have been alluding, (and the proving of the scaling hypothesis in the affirmative) which has demonstrated the ability for now extant AI systems to abduct novel hypotheses, allowing AI to assume the role of the black box elaborated here.[/size]