I think you guise can handle it, so I am throwing my unabridged text, upon which “Schizoposting 3” was based, on the forum. About 10 times as dense and twice as long, so all I can say is: reader, beware.
While explaining himself to a non-comprehending audience, Schlegel wrote, in I believe something from the Athenaeum journal, concerning his “Essay on Incomprehensibility”: It is a very good sign when the harmonious bores are at a loss about how they should react to this continuous self-parody, when they fluctuate endlessly between belief and disbelief until they get dizzy and take what is meant as a parody seriously, and what is meant seriously as a parody.
And I can see into the mind of those who would pull back and grow weary, claiming that what Schlegel is doing here is just the 18th-century equivalent of shitposting. And I would simply correct you: it isn’t shitposting, it’s schizoposting. Meaning the point is not merely to mess with the reader and to throw them off guard so one can gauge their reaction, their psychic defenses, their emotional weaknesses, etc. (as per a shitpost) Instead, the point is to force the reader to cling to meaning more than ever- by taking that meaning away. Ironic. The point is to entangle the reader in so many layers of irony that they cannot any longer dis-entangle themselves, therefor being swept up into the clinament or cross-current of the text and forced to produce their own irony- against their will; that is, their own meaning. Doubly ironic. So not ironic.
At any rate, I like writing. I like writing about writing. I like how writing looks on the page. So I don’t drop my pre-formatted LaTeX citations at the end of the essay in alphabetical order like a faggot pursuing his little dissertation on whatever trivial grunt-work absolute-bottom-of-the-barrel topic, like comparing how many genital references the Roman poets Lesbia and Catullus made in comparison to one another and how that relates to the patriarchy, or 150 pages on the disparate uses of a single word in 13th century what-ever-the-fuck manuscripts. I want certain authors and works to be connected spatially, within the actual printed text, forming what has been called a “dialogue-network.” Those spatial relationships get destroyed when you extract references out of the main text and just alphabetize the shit, to be inserted post scripta. To that end, and also because I like breaking things down into hierarchies, I developed my own personal notation system, mostly based on medieval texts. Brackets indicate parallel text. Sometimes a sentence, sometimes nearly an entire essay in length, inserted right into a main text, with the intention that it be read side-by-side, much like medieval marginalia. Parallel text does not simply add to the main text; no, the main text and parallel text add to one another, that’s the whole point of parallel text, it’s not unidirectional. Citations are also included within brackets, where a foreign language quotation (as long as it’s a Romance tongue like Latin, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc.) is written in Italics, (Semitic languages, mainly Hebrew, as well as Greek are not Italicized when given in a full quote, though often they are bolded, usually when a specific Greek phrase is used like daimonion or pneuma-spermatikos, etc.) with the name, author, and work always written immediately before or after the quote, without Italics. These marginalia or parallel-texts sometimes have annotations of their own, which are marked usually in small subscript Greek Letters and placed at the bottom of the passage of which they are an inclusion. A parenthesis is just that: a parenthesis, or parenthetical remark to something. Annotations within the main text are marked by asterisks usually, and placed at the bottom of their respective passage as well. However, there are several forms of notation. An asterisk indicates an inessential addendum, like a clarification or further reference or ancillary insight, while a number indicates an essential addendum, usually a full quote too large to include in the main text, or explanatory notes, translations, etc. Nested annotations, that is, annotations to annotations within the main text, are marked by obelisks, (one, two, three. etc obelisks indicates the nested level, so that there might be annotations to annotations to annotations to annotations. I think five nested levels is the most extreme case of that in my books.) while ossia (alternative passages; a notation borrowed from music engraving) are marked by <> signs.
So there’s: , ( ), *, 1, α, †/‡, and < >.
All that being said, let’s get started. There’s some bullshit character limit for a post on here, so I am gonna have to break this into parts.
So, PART I.
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, and out of whose detritus a ghost was thereafter raised and drearily
exorcised, or by following generations only further abased,- be it on the account of either the
certamen Platonicum [All poets must at some time or another struggle with Plato. Augustinus
Bemus Olumucensis, in: Dialogus in Defensionem Poetices.] or the certamen Homericum (in
ingenium extra invidiae) of the poets. [Homeri ejus ingenium extra invidiae metas positum est.
Basilius Fabri Soranius, Thesaurus Eruditionis Scholasticae; P. 1091. Homer sets a limit upon
the envy of the poets.] 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.
[size=85]* We must read the development of such an ethos in quite a different way than that implicitly affirmed in the conceptualization of identity
advanced by the materialist (Marxist) camp, ie. ‘identity politics’, as likewise by the ‘conservative’ or Evolan camp. As indicated by Plessner, in:
“The Limits of Community: A Critique of Social Radicalism.”, “The idol of this age is community.” This portentous reading of the communal
values of the Gemeinschat, be they expressed in a Marxist fashion, that is, by an abstracted ‘fraternity of man’, or more particularly, in the
authoritarian racial brotherhoods grounding a national identity or neo-Evolan ‘tradition’, were doomed equally, to recapitulate the destructive
illnesses they denounced. As Gervase Rosser stresses, in: “The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages”, the opium of collectivist ideology, or any
otherwise passively conditioned modus of self-identity, poses a threat ‘not merely to the external political and economic rights of the individual’,
but to “a vital yet fragile part of the human psyche”, meaning that,- as opposed to the vacuous pseudo-philosophy of ‘individualism’ characterizing
the brunt of Liberal-secular humanist arguments,- the individual is not merely “unique” but, far more importantly, exists in a delicate and
perennial balance between an extroverted public persona on the one hand and a private character on the other, between ‘principles’ and ‘traits’,
whose equilibrium, [A balancing act we find articulated quite well, in juxtaposition to the Kantian formula, by Gene Outka, in: “Agape, an
Ethical Analysis; Agape as a Virtue of the Agent”, P. 139. “Principles without traits (individualisms) are impotent, traits without principles are
blind.”] depends on resources available to us only within civil life, ie. the ‘ethos’.
** C. Anderson, “Hand over First: The Failure of Stoic Rhetoric”. Note the style of the ancient Stoics as a refutation of Grecian aesthetics and a
kind of ‘anti-style’ which, (The Stoa posits rhetoric and, by extension, style, as a philosophical modality, whereas the other schools demeaned
rhetoric,- the study of linguistic virtu,- as merely ancillary to the pursuit of Wisdom, ie. a persuasive techne. By so positing an affirmative
philosophical content to style, the stoics advanced a kind of ‘anti-style’ in the form of a certain σημαινοντα, [Note: ‘symainonta’ is a term
connected both to the siemata and synthemata.] or language as a ‘signifying mode’, (developed out of a Chrysippean psychology hardly
contemporaneous with the more familiar tripartite-soul of Posidonius) as opposed to any particular linguistic signification given by the λεξτυς
[lectus] out of whose un-living tablet lesser minds merely read their compendia of virtue and vice, such that the ‘arete of the logos’, where the
‘emissions of the mind’ signify the dependent logoi embodied by the ‘utterance’, may either fail the demands of the symainonta or succeed. While
contemporaries of the Stoics treated style and rhetoric as merely a means to, in Plato’s phrase, manufacture consent,- namely to some philosophy
or another, or to some political aim,- for which praxis the rhetorician must adopt stylistic devices intended to manipulate the pathos and rational
faculty of the audience to whose standard he must, however reservedly, submit himself, the Stoics recognized only a single standard,- that of
Truth, in whose image they must comport even against the public taste.) by contradistinction and agonistic challenge, led to the later perfection of
Greek ethic and the cultivation of the Athenian mind, which is to say, Athenian literacy.[/size]
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 new 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.) for, by adopting a chiral nature or enantiomer, it obeys the law (of
the Pyramus-Thisbe operator grounding the possibility of extimacy, in Kunze’s vocabulary;
Bataille’s ‘missing third’) that otherwise stereognostic or symmetrical systems cannot be
collapsed down to some reductive form, like that of the diagonalization matrix in physics, within
which eigenvector-eigenvalue pairings are articulated,- [Kunze, Unlimited Semiosis and the
Calculus of Predication. Note that the enantiomer indicates a ‘non-relation’, that is, a conceptual
leap that cannot be repaired by the typical dialectical processes whereby one concept is extracted
from another through a stabilizing adiabasis of an oppositorum, given the fact that the two
concepts here are essentially identical,- a non-opposition or asyntheme,- utilizing the
chrysopoeic imagery of Cassandra’s golden urobour,- unreadable save through its very chirality
or ‘reversal’.] systems between which a symbolic gap therefor persists and, in that very
persistence, open up a temporality through which the gap, or what Lacan specifies as a remainder
not fully incorporated by the Symbolic, (a remainder more intuitively visceralized by perhaps the
most profound metaphor of the female’s psychic integration within the masculine fantasy,
namely the virgin offering to the flame of Hestia, emerging as a goddess from her bed of mortal
ashes) resists conformation, as a machinic syntax, to the mode of abstraction (the ‘semantic’) and
is instead connected to a spacetime construct, ie. materially reified as a product of
value-exchange, destabilizing or ‘interrupting’ the semiological ascription of value (what de Man
calls the intrinsic-extrinsic metaphor in Semiology and Rhetoric) in the constructive efforts of
human cultus by an ‘irreducible spatial interval’ or διαστημα,- ab volubili statu in secretum,
omnium mortalium inaccessible essentiae,- [Valentinii Stanselius, in: Uranophilus Coelestis
Peregrinus sive Mentis Uranicae Extases. Quamuis enim Deus nullo loco circumscribatur aut
indigeas, sed ubique sit: coelum tamen hoc veluti praecipuam sua majestati delegit arcem: ut ab
iis quos in terra producturs erat, tanti loci dignitate et excellentia sanctius diligentiusque
observaretur. Note, Pauli Merulaeus, Astrologia Quaetenus Licita; P. 56 of the Cosmographiae
Generalis. Hoc Coelum ab omni hujus mundi volubili statu in secretum, omnium mortalium
inaccessible conspectibus, essentiae divinae quasi sedes & διαστημα. (diastema) Here we find a
rich symbolism of this “irreducible space”. (The Greek term roughly translates to interval or
space, like that between God and Man, or between the earth and the heavens.) We are told that
the symmetry of the earthly domain demands an affine conformity among the stars, and further,
to the Empyrean. Here, our author displays his rather innovative hermetickal praxis by imagining
a stable point at the center of the mundane universe,- the ‘secretum omnium mortalium
inaccessibile’,- which, much as the toroidal gap of the Lacanian field of discourse reproduces
peripheral tears when unfolded into a lower-dimensional geometry, then sympathetically attracts
him to the center of the heavens through the diastema, or an intervening gap, and then to the
center of the supra-celestial, such that an associative web of parallels begins to unfold (the
“ecstasies”) within the three worlds, (the terrestrial and elemental, the heavenly, and empyrean)
with the planetary bodies becoming the heavenly sacraments, the stars becoming the patriarchs,
etc.] through which any dampening signal must be relayed, [An interval exposed topologically
by the production of peripheral cavities (gaps’, eg. tears, holes) while unfolding a torus with a
central cavity into a cylinder. Note Chattopadhyay, in “Beckett, Lacan and the Mathematical
Writing of the Real”: “The cuts of the body and in the body expose a limit where one body
couples with another, only by maintaining an irreducible spatial interval.”] that is, (interrupting)
the symbolic exchange, and on that account metaleptically charging a cross-current against **
which the Socratic dia-noia or ‘flight of soul’ must labor incommensurately to restore the ‘whole
man’ of a subjectivity now divided from itself out of an epicritic or ‘normative’ temporality
which, presuming a series of interlinked predications within which subjectivity is entirely
drowned by the ‘decadence of nature’, as poeticized by the allegorists, or ‘noia’, (the emptiness of
time) connects the beginning of something to its end,- duplicating the remainder of the ‘material
transaction’ through which, even in the face of more liberal politics and the deconstructive
reduction of metaphysics to a primordial syntax, or any other apparent subversions of the linear,
inter-linking schematism of time, re-deploys itself within the ‘genetic pattern of history’ through
a ‘mysterious connection’ or δαιμονιον between Spirit and Nature, extended by the
self-perpetuation of techne even within the strictures of a ‘global structure’,- *** eigentümlichen
Zusammenhangs von Geist und Natur,- [Refer to: “Subjekt, Information und System: Zur
Atiologie von Prozessen der Transformation sozialer Wahrnehmung in formale Symbolik.”
Helmut Wenzel; Dermstadt, 2000.] and therefor re-asserts the tyranny of the primary-process
over the secondary,- [Note: The Ends of Theory, P. 43-45. Here we find a formula for de Man’s
‘material remainder’. The ultimate test as to whether or not something truly undermines the
genetic pattern of history would be the impossibility of writing the history of that thing, 1 as de
Man says of Romanticism.] of Selbstobjektivation over Selbstverwirklichung,- [Note:
Reflexion und Dialektik im Zeitalter der Kybernetik, by Gunther Maluschke. “Identitat des
Subjekts und des Objekts als Selbstverwirklichung des Geistes, … Wird die Entfremdung aber in
erster Linie als Selbstobjektivation.”] just as the ‘feather-soul’ of the Persian poets or barzakh is
pulled back to earth by the accelerating pneuma of the Stoic continuum of nature, which drives
an expanding universe and, by virtue of some theoretically irreconcilable ‘dark energy’, inflates
the liminal boundaries of things,- the supple aura or ‘magickal’ glow within which such a
feather-soul is naturally compelled to wonder the courses of the stars and the spaces between the
stars,- to their tensile limit. [To recall my own AGR: ‘all that confesses itself to the sands, is
blown away with the sands.’ As to this notion of the feather-soul, refer to imagery borrowed from
Vivek Iyer, in: Ghalib, Gandhi and the Gita.] Managing this remainder, as the basic aporia of
philosophic discourse, must be the first task of a new metaphysics, given the fact that it later
initiates the hyperinflation of mimesis whose problematic I have addressed at length elsewhere.
[size=85]1. I would insert here a note on de Man’s challenge to Romanticism and, by extension, to History. Let us recall the literary programmatics of that
Romantic poet par excellence, Coleridge, which involve an incorporation of historical materials within the process of individuation, that is, the
creative manufacturing of an authorial voice,- especially those related to distant and forgotten lands, which so enraptured the romantic
imagination by dreams of strange Orientalisms and Arabic deserts,- to the extent that this extrinsic historical material, by re-conditioning the
narrative-forms employed in the telling of history, undermines the unconscious presumptions at work in the process of historicalization itself, out
of which the poet (the poet as the true ‘teller of history’, for the ‘keeper of the histories’ was precisely the social role of the poet among the
ancients) discovers his own voice and extracts, from however opaque and distant a substance, a fledgling identity to stake against the encroaching
Heraclitean tides of time unmeasured,- like the ‘child of Aeon’ defending his castle of sand against the threat of age,- of age without history. We
might say that it is just this programmatic, that undergirds the whole phenomenon of Romanticism,- a phenomenon to be read as more of a
cultural event than a historical epoch,- than any one single point in time,- and one that has ineradicably altered the meaning of the very ‘history’
whose inclusion within the creative process it both parasitizes and rejects. The Wasteland of Eliot, the crumbling mounds of Latin and Greek,
much like the Cantos of Pound, would in this case represent not a surpassing of Romanticism, nor even the fatal conclusion of a Romantic instinct
left to its own devices and plundered historical treasures, but simply a ‘de-Romanticisation’ of History,- a re-assertion of the primary-process over
the development of the self,- over individuation, and therefor a kind of cultural regression. Note, concerning this reading of Coleridge’s basic
literary programme: K. Toor, out of Cambridge Scholars Publishing: “Coleridge’s Chrysopoetics: Alchemy, Authorship, and Imagination”. In
particular, “Deliberately alienating himself from his words in order to view the question of a unified authorial subjectivity, Coleridge arrives,
rather paradoxically, at a deeper understanding of the true nature of the self.” … “Coleridge’s prose involves the wholesale incorporation of the
words of other writers to such an extent that we might say it becomes the work that exerts its effects upon it.”
- 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.
** This cross-current functions as an entropic table, stochastic resonance, a ‘digital salt’ or white noise, etc. through which a dampening signal can
be propagated and therefor strengthened, or through which inaudible signals can be made audible. However, the “voice” extracted by this
metalepsis is only the vocity of the material transaction or value-exchange, whose remainder functions as a phantasmatic projection of the
Unconscious or libidinal-surplus haunting the logic of Capital’s ‘utopian signifier’ with de Man’s ‘material remainder’ like the ‘netherworld’ of the
Gnostic contagion.
*** The global structure, ie. the Gesellschaftsstrukturen. Note, continuing in Maluschke’s text: “… nach dem Sinn von Macht und Herrschaft
ebenso, wie nach deren Ursachen. Sokrates, der den Fragen des Daimonion lauschte, seiner inneren Strimme, die ihm Fragen stellte und ihm
gleichwohl niemals gultige Entscheidungen vorgab, die zutreffen er nur aus eigener vernufstiger Reflexion heraus zu treffen bereit war, folgte
diesem Anspruch bis zur Selbstaufgabe.” Corollary to this point, we find, following a certain extrapolation of the Hegelian system, that the logic
of predication re-asserts and perpetuates itself within the “global structure” through an irreversible limit that sublimates the entropic trend of
linear-expansive, (global) reversible predications, while a reversible limit sublates the negentropic, local liberation of productive energy across
the chiasmus achieved by some irreversible operation,- [Note Iniguez, in: Toward the True Second Law, Part IV: A Dialectical Contrast between
the Negentropic Formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Increasing Entropy. “The ‘tug of war’ between the reversible
and irreversible opposites is here shown for a selected number of efficiencies of operation. The total entropy change is in each case determined by
the algebraic addition of their respective contributions.” … “… no description or quantification of the heat-degrading, work-losing characteristic of
real heat engines could be possible without the irreversible limit, just like no description or quantification of its work-producing capability could
be possible without the reversible limit … They are connected by a feedback mechanism that assures that when the contribution of one of these
extremes increases the other one decreases.”] like the ‘paranoiac operator’ of Kunze’s extension of the Bloomian ratios (as formulated in the
Anxiety of Influence) to a calculus of predication, through which activation the subject strives to defend its identity against disappearance into the
all-consuming (conspiratorial) network of interlinkages it is confronted by in social life after having encountered the trauma of the Real,- which
imposes a disruptive decoupling within the subject’s own internal network of interlinked predications,- (the ‘narrative’ of its life-story) as well as
various forms of conversion, by constructing a site of exception within which to extricate itself from ideology’s causal chains,- a site achieved
simply by refusing to discover itself within those chains, to ‘find itself’ through those interlinkages, while still leaving open enough of the Abgrud
to economically materialize the elements of the inner-fantasy, which are thereby rendered palpable to the workings of theory, that is, to the more
complete, liberating efforts of psychoanalysis. The Siren-call of the Hegelian system is to be found, in short, in the fact that the dialectic can
submit itself to the dialectic, that is, the dialectic can synthesize itself with its own antithesis, with any opposing system, thereby drawing a person
back into the dialectic all the more thoroughly for their having resisted it. Only the “self-reversing” property of an established “cryptopoetics”,
following vocabulary outlined in this text, offers the possibility of truly interrupting the linear chain of signifiers, as opposed to the possibility
defended mostly by faith on the part of the Heideggerians, whose idea of the ‘Negative’ recapitulates a deeper Hegelian logic in that the Negative
is presented as a kind of hallucinatory ‘anti-perception’, [We might trace this ‘anti-percept’ of knowledge to Plato’s defense of an independent
category of cognition, that is, a ‘pure contemplation’ or, as Plotinus indicates, an inward turn, (epistrophe) whose destiny were hardly knowable
by mere psychology,- a redemptive instinct (as opposed to the apperception of the Kantian schemata or a kenotic emptying of the abstracted
Descartean cogito to precisely that perceptive field repudiated by the contemplative mode) which must on that account “work itself out within the
heart of the individual”, whose ends could not be reduced to physis, as little as they could to the ‘nihil fragilius terra alit homine’ of a more ancient
cynicism. (Nihil fragilius terra alit homine, ex omnibus animantibus, quae super terram spirant & serpunt. Petri Coelemannus quod Stettinensis
Pomeraniae: Opus Prosodicum Graecum Gnomologici.) To this point, I will cite Frantisek Novotny, in: The Posthumous Life of Plato: “Plato’s
contradiction between knowledge (επιστεμε, episteme) and belief … was removed by Speusippus by applying the epithet ‘scientific’ to both kinds
of cognition … Plato in his younger years would have certainly considered this unification of the notions of knowledge and perception a
blasphemous oxymoron.” The introduction of the “scientific” as a mediating or synthematic discourse between the logos and pathos, the episteme
and sensory perceptions, knowledge and ‘fact’, etc. could, in more modern terms, be compared to the pernicious rise of ‘scientists’ and the logical
positivist doctrine of falsifiability, on which basis other discourses can simply be disregarded, or thrown aside even without a thought of
deference or consideration, despite the fact that the doctrine of falsifiability is not itself falsifiable. The conception of a ‘pure contemplation’
detached from all other modalities of knowledge appears in Christian theology as well. Note J.R. Turner Eaton, in: The Permanence of
Christianity, Considered in Eight Lectures; 1872. P. 109. After citing Smith’s Lectures on the Study of History, “If a man be no higher in his
destinies than the beast or the blade of grass, it might be better to be a beast or a blade of grass than a man.”, we are told that the original purity of
a rational being lies in the uncorrupted will, which is one with the law commanding that being, (for that law is nothing but the image of reason in
which any rational being is formed) such that any theological dispute concerning the “freedom of the will” (like those surrounding modern
discussions of neurology, determinism, etc.) were merely a fallacy or play of words.] as given in the Abgrund of Heidegger,- or Identity, not as
any particular meaning, (be it based in gender, race, nation, etc.) but simply the echographic or resonant expression of the Abyss (Something that,
at least in Heidegger’s estimation, offers a space within which to think the togetherness of Being and Language, and therefor the possibility of
Identity. Note McCoy, “Text Machines: Mnemotechnical Infrastructure as Exappropriation.” The offering of this space, originating in a passivity
to the Abgrund, then compels an activity, namely that of a Dasein thrown into this very space, therefor reinitiating a procession of opposites, the
development of a ‘global structure’, and eradicating the subtle trace of the ‘tantum singularem’.) which generates History, through the unreadable
dialectical veil of its inscription, as a mnemotechnological ascription of “forgetting’s” historiography, [what I have elsewhere described as “the
abortive semiosis of the generative moment of speech itself”; or, “the ineradicable silence of Negativity, … through which alone speech might
reckon with its own finitude and thereby produce actual meaning.” Agamben writes, in “The Idea of Prose”, a quite poetic, meditative
formulation of this idea. As he states, “While nature and animals are forever caught up in language, incessantly speaking and responding to signs
even while keeping silent, only man succeeds in interrupting, in the Word, the infinite language of nature and in placing himself for a moment in
front of mute things.” As Justin Clemens notes, (From “The Role of the Shifter and the Problem of Reference”, P. 51 of: “The Work of Giorgio
Agamben; Law, Literature, Life.”) concerning this passage, Agamben’s thinking must pass through,- in order to reconcile itself, in its emergence,
to the glimmering of the Event, which is Language’s Other,- a certain Negativity not yet diffused by the dialectical process,- the paratactic “veil”
spoken of here, thereby effectuating a radical state of separation, namely from the mute ‘body’ of Nature, within which an “irreducible space” is
established such that the Absolute can rise as a part of the emergence itself, that is, as a pre-incorporated or subducted component of Language’s
own emergence, having been secreted under the ‘veil’ of the inscriptive process; within which an irreducible temporal “interval” is torn open,
recalling Kafka, such that the “last day” or apocalypse,- the catastrophe, ie. the end of time and of the earth,- might differentiate itself from the
anastrophe, ie. from “the very last day” or eschaton, this being the end of the emergence of language to language’s Other and the basic
eventuation of the creative impulse set into motion by God outside of the constraints of temporality, succession, and predication.] by which the
collected resources of our cultural inheritance are dissolved into replicant algorithms, search-engines, neural networks, and training data-sets,
(Big Tech; social media, etc.) re-synthesized in accordance with an obfuscatory dialectical process, (ie. a synthesis with the “Utopian signifier”;
what, in my language, we refer to as the ‘ascription’ par excellence, or, drawing from the relevant psychoanalytic, the ‘epistasis’) and finally
reified at the level of the material transaction or apodosis, (whereby the value-exchange function is self-sublimed as the tautological completion
of capital’s underlying logic; a Landian teleoplexy or “capitalism selling capitalism”) thereby closing the chiasmus or gap (of the
symbolic-exchange) through an inflationary “free-mimesis” and thus also closing off any possibility of the kind of cryptopoetics suggested here.
This closure of the ascription is read as some kind of a salvation of human nature by certain researchers, or to note the abstract of McCoy’s
analysis, which articulates the basic goal of charting the inscriptive process: "… mnemotechnics is the task of thinking the historiography of
forgetting, which is to say, the task of representing or, at least, charting that which might be said to “generate history” by dint of the
“unreadability” of its inscription. … whose infrastructure can only be approached by a “a tautological thinking that constitutes the only possibility
for thinking what dialectic can only veil. … I read the technological “danger” that faces and defaces the humanities as the saving power by which
our collective memory is dissolved and resolved through the mechanism of thematization and citation.” Unfortunately, free-mimesis prevents any
“re-inscription” of the material remainder from taking place after this terminal point is reached, (preventing the re-solution of a technologically
deconstructed collective memory into the kind of trans-national, trans-racial, trans-gender ‘globalized’ identity hypothesized by McCoy, otherwise
invoked in my own texts as the revelatory “anastrophe” of accelerationist doxa) therefor inaugurating the actual technological danger of the
automaton by virtue of a ‘merging’ of inscription and incorporation leading, inexorably, to an “infocalypse”, whereby merely gazing upon the
spectacle of endless virally replicating memes, the indiscernible sprawl of social media posts, etc., or otherwise interacting with it, swallows one
up into it,- forcing one to engage in it,- namely by converting one’s interactions into yet more data, harvested in the service of an algorithm and
added to the ever-expanding storehouse of information upon which it is trained and further perfected. Note Hayles, in: “How We Became
Posthuman, Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics; The Semiotics of Virtuality”; P. 274-276.[/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=85]* 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. Inasmuch as knowledge, that is, the ability to explain, is
itself power, so it was independently discovered around 2015, in no small part due to events surround the US election, that a hyperstition
superimposed on ‘real-history’ in this way, if it could repair the gaps within the later, might be utilized to not only explain otherwise
incomprehensible features of the ‘real history’, but to influence events in that history, therefor offering an alternative source of political power for
those who musingly named this force ‘meme magic’.[/size]
)