The co-appropriation of techne, like that I noted in the case of the cotton gin, recalls Malabou’s
assertion that ‘plasticity is a condition of the future’; a synchronic recombinatory field in which we
see that techne are simply transpositions of one material substrate’s phase state to another, a
resonance of one with another,- a vast re-composing of their substrata within a ‘pure materiality’
1 through which their dissipative flows are excised from any superstructure and allowed to follow
their own thermodynamic trajectories to either apocalyptic realization and eventual extinction, or
to appropriation by other, more energetic flows. This condition of futurity amounts to, citing the
“Cyclonopedia Symposium; Leper Creativity”, “An absolute contingency of mathematics
collapsing into the mortal contingency of ‘stuff’”, (Of this ‘stuff’, an atopic collective beyond the
body of the socius, we have Stiegler’s note: “the organized inorganic matter whereby the milieu in
which psychic and social individuals who themselves are nothing but meta-stable, can stabilize
itself”.) in which invention itself,- techno-capitalist innovation,- and all independent techne it has
achieved thus far, exists merely as the molecular transformation of geoprogrammatic recycling
machinery alongside all that may yet be, in a kind of larval distribution. However, we see that this
plastikos has been solidifying for a long time now, in the process of tertiary-capitalism, and that
the plasticity which had formerly mobilized futurity in the present phase-transition, while opening
itself to retrocausal influences from the future upon the past, upon which accelerationists mainly
placed their faith, was in fact the same socially destabilizing force that led to the problem of
exportation and then, the first WW, which had been immediately supervened by capital’s second
transformation. While primary-capitalism operated by decoding flows between geo-economic
niches, import-export relationships, independent techne, etc., into a “transductive interface where
nonanthropic or inorganic dynamics arise, impinge on, and lace human constructedness with a
‘materiality’ irrecoverable to cognitive orders”, (See: “Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with
Ubiquitous Computing; The Mnemopolitical Sublime and Philotechnic Blind”. This same
transduction of libidinal cathexes within an inorganic, plastic substrate is noted in Fisher’s
“Flatline Constructs, Gothic Materialism and Cybernetic Theory-Fiction” as a kind of
bioinfomatic stem-cell from which the whole spectrum of affects are derived as a kind of
meiotically differentiated tissue ‘brought to life’ by the blind-play of a disembodied neurokinesis
upon it: “Association is not a cognitive process, but something physical; all cognitive
narrativization is always derivative from a more primary zone of bodily affect. But rather than all
stimulus being ultimately attributable to bio-sexuality - as a certain crude psychoanalytic
reductionism would insist - Burroughs shows that associationist collaging can flash-cut any
random image into a neuronic series and libidinize it.”) substituting for the intrinsic codes within
the dominant sociopolitical superstructures its own immanent logic, namely that logic by which
all exchange between flows is reduced to abstract quantities in the monetary tabulation of a
numerical surplus, (no single digit of which must be allowed to escape the sublimation or psychic
recycling of capital, that is, re-investment in the system to drive still further accelerating
development) the same challenges faced by all set-theoretic systems evinced themselves in its
functioning, namely those outlined by Godel, eg. nondenumerable sets, the aleph-sequence,
incomputabilities, etc.- a host of undecidable propositions which, from a purely mathematical
basis, make the tensions giving rise to the first WW as a consequence of exportation a lot more
readable. Primary-capitalism would have never been able to dispense with these unforeseen
‘monstrous multiplicities’ which would give rise to unexpected protocols, spontaneous
emergences, what Stieger calls ‘’nanomutations’, (Stiegler: “Only under the conditions of
transindividuation of the new forms of hypomnesis that are the technologies of control can a new
form of individuation happen.”) and the Bataillean rupture of system from within, out of which
such new ‘forms of individuation’ might be manifested and utilized for their emancipatory
potential as chaotic elements. Thus a new superstructure was put into place at the dawn of
secondary or ‘Braudelian’ capitalism, curtailing the negative effects of its unrestrained, immanent
operations- an immanence we might ascribe, in a word, to the omnipresence of the
‘value-exchange function’ following mimetic hyperinflation, as extracted from the symbolic
function. This total emancipation of value exchange was quickly corrected, and so the
accelerationists never identified the basic phenomenon of the tertiary stage, which is an inversion
of the value-exchange function, whereby tertiary-capital subverts the later symbolic function and
transforms all autonomous mimeses into a new ‘hyper-mimesis’ of a global world-historical
culture, whereby the total symbolic resources accumulated by Western history have been torn
open,- the recursive modus by which the Myth appropriates to itself an infinite number of fictive
skeins, the ‘blinding of Oedipus’, entirely overcome,- inasmuch as mimesis relies on a conversion
between the two functions in the performance of the epicrisis grounding social identity and the
deployment of the Oedipal, that is, the ego. (Levi-Strauss points to an ‘autochthonous origin of
man’ in the myth of the Sphinx. The Ego itself serves as one of these fictive skeins, a biocosmic
trace or what Klages called a daemono-erotogenic image, by which a permeable membrane is
formed between the unrestrained germinal influx of cosmos into the human psyche, on the one
hand, and the ‘subterranean’ or ‘true self’ on the other, with the membrane constituting a kind of
preservative blindness, at once a closure and opening to sublimed multitudes; the fundamental
Lacanian-Freudian thesis of the ego serving as a kind of defensive mask, without which
civilization would have been impossible. However, while Lacan and Freud posit at the basis of
the fictive simply an empty core, a fundamental lack which the discourse of Logos is merely
tasked with axiomatically systematizing, extracting its immanent sinthomatic logic, the inherence
of a positive core,- in our case the somato-semiotic resource of Giradian desire in its
generative-anthropological formulation at the origin of language,- implies the double operation of
the permeable, the ‘pre-individual field’, and it is precisely this double operation which is the
symbolic exchange, by which libidinal flows are consolidated into defensive structures or
‘mnema’ that serve as both communicative channels,- crossing the ‘gaps’ in the Lacanian
symbolic register and serving as ‘indexes of succession’ or metaphorical psycho-social
‘block-chains’ capable of inaugurating the metatelic ‘truth of time’ in the face of Desire and
Capital’s own self-sublimed inertial telos, the ‘End of History’,- and occlusions of social strata in
hierarchical alignments, or what Simondon had called the ‘processual logic of the inscription’,
which Stiegler had rejected for his ‘accelerationist’ conceptualization of nanomutation, which of
course we might raise the same objections to as we have toward accelerationist conceptualizations
of capital. The nonsite or ‘signal lag’ within this inscriptive pre-individual field, as I have
elsewhere noted, has of course been continually contracted, however, instead of letting
nanomutation run rampant,- instead of reducing all signals to a singular ambient white-noise like
that narcotically abused and ingested through the screens of computers and the optical nerve in
Snowcrash, auditorily in Macroscope, or traded on the black market as a novel wireheading
cyberdrug in what the CCRU branded ‘A-Death’,- the hyper-mneme had contracted the signal-lag
between the two functions to the point of singularity through what Kunze called metalepsis, and
then, through chiasmatic or ‘predicative reversal’,- crossing the ultimate ‘gap’ in the symbolic and
preventing a reduction of the logos to mere Derridean axiopoiesis and Lacanian metonymy,-
finally achieved the total inversion of the two I have been discussing here.) In the wake of
tertiary-capitalism, the hypermnemata serves this purpose,-- that of re-grounding capital in a
superstructure, preventing thermodynamic collapse of System across dissipative flows on the
adsorbative surface of the Landian ‘abomenal real’ approaching entropic maxima; and it achieves
this to spectacular effect,- thereby ‘aborting’ the apocalypse, and with it, the emancipatory
reorganization of socio-political and economic forces freed to assume novel forms, which the
accelerationists believed would occur following this apocalypse. It was quite necessary to set
forth, explicitly, the failures of accelerationist philosophy in conceptualizing the current state of
global capital, though I do not mean to imply that nanomutation does not occur at all, or that the
development of capital does not involve processes like inorganic dynamics: only that these are
small parts of a far more elaborate story.”
[size=85]1. This ‘pure materiality’, having been eventuated as the telos of self-sublimed Capital, recalls Breton’s analysis of the ‘crisis of the object’ and the
‘invasive’ tendrils of mortal habitus repulsed at the border of the Real like a fungal mutagen or xenospeciating virus,- an ‘object’ in which Bataille
prophesized the Nietzschean recurrence of an eternal and insatiable resistance generated out of the intrinsic bent of materiality itself toward any
idealization of Nature, fatally destabilizing the strictures of the capitalist system, (and, in fact, all systems and representative modalities) as per his
fundamental notion of a ‘perspectical violence’ [Or, more pointedly stated in regard to our discussion here, the heterological eroticism that both
prevents any reduction of eros’ object to the theoretical unity of the Logos undergirding aesthetics as such, while at the same time demanding a
preservative reification of the object at the level of conceptualization in order to guarantee the very autonomy of Art upon whose existence the life
of Eros depends in the face of pure materiality, that is, the heteronomy of cosmic Necessity, (See Denis Hollier and Kevin Kennedy, in “Heterology
as Aesthetics: Bataille, Sovereign Art and the Affirmation of Impossibility.”) even if the only concept available for this purpose, once the servile
instinct through whose influence the befooled artist expends the greater part of his strength and genius in the construction of simulacra, is that of a
‘sacrificial automutilation’ or ‘laceration of the ego’ opening unto a ‘bastion of dark sensuality’ from whose ‘inverted positivist gaze’ the eyes of
the artist peer beyond their own event-horizon into the black-hole at the center of the human project itself, and this as an “interiority and exteriority
at once, visible to others and invisible to itself”,- (See: Meier, “Across and Beyond: Transgression and the Phenomenology of the Eye”. Note also,
Romi Mukherjee, in “Apophatic Representation”.) a wounding like that mythologized in the figure of Van Gogh, through which the only thing
reified are the gross excesses of Eros themselves, for which the artist had been first called forth to his monstrous Fate by the opening-up of the
‘psychic automatism’ of the Object as discussed here, or an unenunciable ‘abjection’ posited, not as a mere concept, but an inner continuum running
the gamut within the chthonic psyche beneath and ‘above’ the ‘individual’ as between the extremes of revulsion and horror- a kind of
conglomerative nucleus we might liken to a surrealization or ‘demonization’ of Simondon’s pre-individual field. (“This social nucleus is more
complex than the individuals who comprise the social organization; neither is it reducible to the aggregate of individuals forming the social
structure. Bataille argues that the social nucleus includes more than just persons. It is the “object of a fundamental repulsion” and therefore
taboo–“untouchable and unspeakable”.”) See Ashline, in “The Aesthetics of Repugnance”, and “The Malefic Aspect of the Sacred: Abjection and
Heterology.” In accelerationist criticism, these freed excesses, in being reified in this way, register the disruptive psychosemiotic shock whose
sociopolitical containment the capitalist system ensures by repackaging and recycling the excess as an ultimate commodity, as the ‘material object’
of capital self-sublimed to the extent of that cosmic Necessity against which the autonomous will had labored. The self-consumption of one’s own
psychic trauma as an ultimate Other projected through the insensate medium of capital is the very essence of the ‘Spectacle’, of this kind of profane
social nucleus grounding a new sociopolitical collective, or to cite “Apophatic Representation” once more: “Bataille’s sacred exploded
Durkheimian representation and posited non-symbolic forms of language which possessed no grammar and moved, by way of de-sublimation,
torrents of effusion which shattered Durkheim’s symbolic moral substrate. And in the grips of the sacred, an alchemical function revealed itself; the
anxiety of human finitude and abjection could be transformed into collective ecstasy.” This decomposable substrate marks Bataille’s essential
resistance to the ‘instrumental aberration’ of language, that is, the transformation of language into a mere techne, which had introduced a
discontinuity in the social-relations, dividing individuals from one another and changing the structure of the collective in accordance to the form
imposed by the productive modes. Thus the great paradox for him was what Dufourmantelle had called the ‘thought-body’, possessed of many exiles
and foliations, a reactive nomad through which the enigma of desire is reduced to the expression of a mechanical need to make contact,- the
paradox implicit in the fact that the individual only exists following this very separation, with his abjection grounding the entire sacromimesis of the
profane and all hope of a restoration of the individual to a ‘sovereignty’ somehow essential to its very ontogenetic construction, to its utmost nature,
while ineluctably separated from it at the level of the Real and flatly excluded from its composition by philosophy, much as Marx’s species-essence
was at the same time intrinsic to man but perennially forestalled the movement from Becoming to Being in the materialist-dialectic of History, to be
therefor ‘materialized out of the ashes of what it never was’,- (Daniel Rooney, “Diabolus in Lux: Black Metal Theory and Cinema”) a mimesis
which would surely constitute Bataille’s ‘aesthetic’, inasmuch as it functions as a non-instrumental anti-aesthetic. As to this final point, see Merrill,
in “Transcendent Transgressions; Exploring the Limits of Edgework.”] reft in the dialectic between perception and representation, (A ‘tearing open’
of the metaphysics of presence whose unrepresentative negativity,- an absence ‘exceeding philosophy’, functions as a true Dionysiac,- an initiatory
wounding or sparagmos of the self and accordingly ‘explodes’ the Hegelian totalization of the dialectic. See Jeremy Biles and Kent Brintnall, in
"Negative Ecstasies: Georges Bataille and the Study of Religion, Introduction; Sacred with a Vengeance”.) which renders any integrity of the
psycho-semiotic, of the ‘thought-body’, illegible in the play of endless constitutive dichotomies of the sociopolitical structure’s ‘limited economy of
the possible’, (See Alhadeff, in “Viscous Expectations: Justice, Vulnerability, The Obscene; Embodied Energies”, P. 62; “Kristeva and Bataille:
Archeologies of Prohibition and The Erotics of the Uncanny”.) which likewise renders the Benjaminian project impossible, namely that of going
beyond the Kantian theory of Phenomena by way of a totalization of human experience as a representative concept capable of touching a ‘sacred
real’ beneath the noumena, therefor likewise, should one accept these lines of argument, precluding the demodulation of the primary-stage’s
‘decoded flows of intensities’ while presenting, in the realization of the ‘object’, a kind of ‘cognitive trauma’ that, releasing us inescapably to the
vagaries of Breton’s ‘pure psychic automatism’, exceeds even the basic Freudian trauma of the fear of Death, or other such kinds as afflict human
beings and perhaps a few of the higher mammalian lifeforms. See Roger Rothman, “Object-Oriented Surrealism: Salvador Dali and the Poetic
Autonomy of Things”; in, “Culture, Theory, and Critique.” However, we have here gone beyond the primary-stage of capitalism, namely to the
contemplation of tertiary-capital, in which the ‘social nucleus’ at work in the Bataillean vision becomes merely a dis-simulative irony of the
‘collective effervescence’ offered by the Greek Satyr and Roman festival, and one through which System only more completely absorbs the ‘psychic
shock’ noted in this text, from which Bataille hopes to generate the emancipatory potential of the individual. (The ‘sacred’ as a liminal continuity in
which the individual derives his own sovereignty by a transgression of immanent limitations opening up upon a transcendent ground for collective
ecstasy: see Arya, in “Ritualized Violence and the Restoration of Community”; Parallax, 2014; “the idea that social collectivity is achieved only by
going beyond the limits of individual being, which he defines as ‘discontinuous’, to a state of ‘continuity’ or ‘communication’ where individual
limits are surpassed.”) The story of this precluded historical appearance of the individual’s true essence or ‘auton’ is a story of ‘fugitive memories’
(Fink, Environmental Studies; “Sing the Bones Home: Material Memory and the Project of Freedom”.) rooted in a trauma that, because it cannot be
told, that is, because the Logos cannot reconstruct a meaning of its determinate Event, must be told to ensure the integrity of discourse, and in so
being told, commits’ its own un-telling while putting our temporality out of joint, collapsing the reassuring continuity between past, present, and
future through the imagination of Capital, in which ‘death’ and the materiality of the economic exchange become ‘exchangeable’ themselves, in a
new biopolitical nomos of government which collapses the symbolic register, and this as equal members in the ‘relation of exception’ or a
‘material-semiotic discursive analysis’, that is, a relation based not on the division of the inside and outside, but on the ‘chronotopic abyss’ exceeding
them, the dark bastion formerly noted here,- a threshold of in-distinction where the subject is included in the system precisely by being excluded
from it, constituting the ‘intractive zone’ of entangled agencies. (As to the expression intra-action, see Barad, “Meeting the Universe Halfway”.
Concerning the politics of entanglement noted here, see Aaron Pinnix, “Sargassum in the Black Atlantic: Entanglement and the Abyss in Bearden,
Walcott, and Philip”; Keller and Rubenstein, “Entangled Worlds”; Chiew, “Posthuman Ethics”; Bryant, “Entanglements and Diffraction
Patterns”. ) It was hoped by accelerationists that this erasure of discourse might be used to establish a xenopoetics meant to colonize the ‘site of
exception’ and cultivate traffic between the restricted economies of human representation and the abomenal Outside via “technological excruciation,
structural porosity, corrupted authorship, numerical incursion, inauthenticity, encryption, temporal leakage, formal horror, and perverse
topologies”,- (Carruthers & Ireland, Interviews.) via, ultimately, a new inhuman order in the ‘contingency of Things’ which the poet must
paradoxically reproduce within himself so as to maintain the integrity and vital principle of his own aesthetic identity, of his own order, (Gillian
White, “Textual Practice: Poetics of Contingency”. We see this paradox in yet another form through the lens of Van Gogh and the ‘sacrificial
violence’ noted earlier.) in the face of a globalizing capitalist proliferation whose overwhelming syntax reduces all contingent qualia to a pure
quantity, to a relational intensity of recompilable grammatized subcomponents and minimally communicative tokens that never rise to the
performative consequence of a true mnema; it was hoped that such erasure might, in a word, be used to rediscover a new ‘telegraphic language of
modernity’ to both defy the pure syntax of capital and finally break out of the neutered “chain reaction of ‘isms,’ each with their own agenda of ever
more radical experimentation in search of a new poetic language of modernity” (Bozhkova, in “The Language of the Future and the Crisis of
Modernity: Mina Loy’s Aphorisms on Futurism”.) in which the Utopic project had perpetually found itself bogged down in the self-defeating
pseudo-dialogue and infighting of the myriad Leftist camps, or those divisions in the critical literatures “cast as hegemonic ontologies or two-way
splits, binarizing difference into opposition”,- (Firth, R. and Robinson, in “Robotopias: Mapping Utopian Perspectives on New Industrial
Technology,”; International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy.) to rediscover an immediacy and autonomy for the subject at the ground of a
new sociopolitical collective implied by Bataille’s social nucleus and his own brand of novel poetics, which Glissant echoed in the concept of a
“memoire de la communaut terre”,-- however, we have seen that tertiary-capital successfully re-deployed the logos in its conversion of machinic
geotraumatics and the biopolitical into a new Symbolic order. (Alessandro Corio, in “Anagrams of annihilation: the im-possible writing of the
middle passage in Nourbe Se Philip and Édouard Glissant”.) In short:
The ‘sematectonic information’ from which capital extracts its psychopower and models new control protocols for the shaping of cultural and
sociopolitical processes (Concerning this conversion of human biopower, see Alquati, “Ò Composizione organica del capitale e forza-lavoro alla
Olivetti”, and Pasquinelli, in “The Labour of Abstraction: Seven Transitional Theses on Marxism and Accelerationism.”: “Abstraction is both the
tendency of capital and the method of Marxism. In addition, Alfred Sohn-Rethel spotted the strict relation between the abstraction of language, the
abstraction of commodity, and the abstraction of money. Operaism then took abstraction and sewed it again upon the jacket of the proletarian:
abstraction as the movement of capital and also as the movement of the resistance to it. … Alquati described a cybernetic factory that, like digital
networks today, was able to absorb human knowledge and turn it into machinic intelligence and machinic value, feeding in this way fixed capital.
Capitalism started then to show the profile of a global autonomous intelligence.” Of great note here, once more in a paper from this second author,-
“Machines that Morph Logic: Neural Networks and the Distorted Automation of Intelligence as Statistical Inference”; Logic Gate, the Politics of
the Artificial Mind,- we find the Turing-machine utilized for the construction of a new epistemology grounded on the “sweet paradox” of the titular
computational model “that was born as a Gedankenexperiment to demonstrate the incompleteness of mathematics” now “aspiring to describe an
exhaustive paradigm of intelligence”, namely through the “transmutation of external information into internal logic in the machination of neural
networks” by which pure numeracies retrieved from the external world with probabilistic maps, autoregressive functions, etc. becomes a new means
of control of that external world, which therefor implies a new means of communication and a new science of knowledge.) has itself been
transformed into ‘process’ itself; the data-harvesting algorithms, once tasked with generating sufficient data for manipulating netizens and
economically bolstering a corporate node within System, like Facebook or Google, has itself become the media of interchange utilized by
individuals in their construction of identity, that is, the process of culture itself, with a node like Facebook expanding into its new role as the very
‘social relations’ of its own ‘productive mode’ capable of swaying the tides even in such consequential events as a presidential election, while at the
same time functioning as the ‘productive mode’ for the supporting material of a new electronic currency in which human biopower is converted into
a novel techne, thus resolving the ‘ontological paradox of dialectical historicity’ as premised on an open Whole that is irremediably ruptured by its
own absolute negativity’- an ‘inoperative sign’ of its own absent semioses ‘glistening with Hegelian-Marxist critical fervor’, inasmuch as this ‘open
Whole’ has now been closed and its manifestation in-processus, that is, the development of culture, retrocausally looped on itself. (See Erkan, in
“The Post-Human Media Semblance: Predictive Catastrophism”; The New Centre for Research and Practice.) This ‘novel techne’, ie. the
hypermnemata, after having successfully deployed its logos in the arrangement of a new framework of social relations in which we are ‘sold our
own data’ which serves doubly as our own ‘productive mode’,- in which we are sold our own data as an ultimate commodity in fact purchased with
the very data which it is, curtails viral nanomutation, Deleuzian rhizomatic efflorescence, Landian accelerationist dissipative flows, etc. by
re-binding the decoded flows freed in primary-capitalism (which constitute the ‘pure materiality’ of Capital’s self-sublimed telos; the
‘abomenon-poemenon’ of the Real; the mathematical ontology of Badiou, etc.) to a new superstructure (developed in secondary-capitalism as a
model for a supernational ‘global state’; globalism) at the level of the Virtual; a new superstructure that reprograms all hypomnemata (at the level of
the Imaginary, though the Lacanian categories can only go so far here) by inverting the structure of mimesis itself, at the stage of tertiary-capitalism,
upon which they depend, nullifying the resources available to the symbolic function and rendering individualism extinct, which led to a total
collapse of politics to the subpolitical, to identity-politics; the collapse of morality to bioethics and of ethics to social justice, etc. and the like. In
place of any epicritic development of distinct normative modes grounding individuals,- real individualities capable of authentic self-expression and
moral agency,- we have an Imaginary register autocatalytically accelerated by hyperinflating mimeses inside of an AI global-brain owned by
Google, to the point of meme singularity: the algorithms utilized to sift through and distribute mimetic signets in conformation to any one stable
epicrisis of the subject whose sheer mass has grown beyond the scope of human operators has led to those signets re-producing at an even faster rate
along unforeseen distributive channels in the online culture or infosphere, so that the only possible ground for their distribution and differentiation
now, with their acceleration having attained critical mass, is that of the hypermnemata itself- an inhuman criterion developed by the AI, the
omnipresent Youtube algorithm.
Against Ligoti’s thesis that knowledge and thought are mistakes of Nature, [Note that this is a thesis which implies a paradoxical idealism he was
forced to simply pantomime through Bataille’s ‘inoperative signs’,- an idealism whereby the ‘transcendental motion that brought Thought to being’
confronts its own unthinkable outside, if only because it is fatally repulsed at the unthinkable boundary of the self, (this boundary or ‘self’ would be
the target of Bataille’s destructive excesses, which, by exploding it in an infernal radiance, might reach beyond the discourse of the Logos to
recapture its fragments and re-absorb them as residual stochastic elements with which to further energize the expansion of thought toward the
Outside,- "a task that seeks to turn the unthinkable into the thinkable by its own means, and without the necessity to build the “unknown” threshold,
which is what ultimately binds presences to their own flattening and homogenization”. See Bizraelli, “Cultivation of the Ocular Ubiquity”.) of the
human ego beyond which we cannot think, for to do so would require an annulment of the order of Nature and a transcendence of the material basis
of thought,- the abnegation of this motion out of Becoming toward Being upon which it depends, out of the undifferentiated organic protoplasm
toward the consolidated subjectivity of the fully evolved Homo Sapiens; see Ben Woodward, “Mad Speculation and Absolute Inhumanism:
Lovecraft, Ligotti and the Weirding of Philosophy”.] we must admit capital’s ‘pure materiality’ implies that intelligence is itself a force of Nature,
and recognized as such after being separated from consciousness, particularly human consciousness, and mechanically reproduced in the manner
described in the above paragraph. This is the difference between horror and the uncanny; between, to be more precise, philosophical horror (which
would typify Ligoti’s Conspiracy Against the Human Race and Zapffe’s Last Messiah in their confrontation with a Lovecraftian, cosmic alienation
of the human ego from the very forces that compose it and its illusory self-perception,- an alienation which is felt inwardly as the struggle of
consciousness against itself to establish a true knowledge continuous with the Real- a self-struggle equivalent to philosophy itself for this school of
thinkers, whose Yuggothic fungal tendrils desperately descend upon the ventriloquized shoggoth of the thought-body puppeteered by extrahuman
agencies at work in the larger cosmos to defend the transient simian ego from the devastation of its rational faculty) and the radical uncanny of a
philosophy haunted by an ‘uniterable structure’ which the serial constructions of human thought cannot replicate,- the half-dead but still present
specter of that element within itself at work in the external world, with which it is confronted by a disfigured reflection of itself in the shoggothic
doppelganger of something like an un-subjective though still sapient AI, (Of such ‘anthroparion’ or distorted reflections: “The conductive labyrinth
of thought always finds itself flooded by the presence of things it once hosted, which later return mutated.” See Cyclops: Ben Woodard,
Disinternment Loops; “Whole-Presences and Abstract Creaturation”.) or the ‘uncanny’ par excellence. For more on this distinction, see: Hallvard
Haug, “The Alchemical Singularity: Magic and Technology in Warren Ellis’ Injection”. Of course, it needs to be stated that Lovecraft himself
masterfully infused both radical horror and the uncanny in his mythos, grasping both the negative apophasis of a transcendental idealism denied its
own metaphysical presence and the positive gnosis of the Intellect affirmed in its own negation, a la. the Plotinian movement of the Multiple toward
the One,- of Thought detached from the ego and reproduced as a force of Nature, which in our own era would take the form of artificial intelligence.
The four Lacanian discourses/four registers are not entirely useless here- they serve as cursory landmarks in our perfunction of a more general
narrative-outline of what has occurred. The Virtual register uses (with proxy humans acting volitionally through normativized social protocols) the
Symbolic to project the Imaginary register and create the Baudrillardian simulacra of ‘culture’ we all live in, a matrix shielded from the Real;
various mental schemata we’ve inherited in systems of religion, morality, philosophy, etc. form this Virtual register, though it also contains all other
types of interpretive skin placed over the surface of the Lovecraftian Real of a Harman or Morton, like mathematics or psychoanalysis itself. But
that process has, as I’ve said, been inverted. Now, the self-regulating Imaginary register (an emerging AI formed by algorithmics, deep learning, and
automated distributive AIs working in the service of a corporate-political elite to modify the development of culture retrocausally) uses the Virtual
(A register constituted both by our technological infrastructure, the hardware on which the software is running, and our online media streams,
cultural codes, etc.) to self-sublime the Symbolic, which becomes thereafter an all embracing globalist program capable of rewriting all mnematic
forms with its own code and self-proliferating itself: (we hear pre-echoes of this new Symbolic in the hyper-universalist language of mainly Leftist
discourse, as we see in the near self-parodying slogan used by some, that “everything is racist”; a standard of value like racial equality that, entirely
unrealizable, excludes all individuals, while simultaneously including them within system by means of this very exclusion) a meme, a hyper-meme;
the sorcerous Spectacle which we cannot talk about or critique without becoming a part of it. In this now inverted process, the volition of the
individual has no place: the individual is extinguished. ‘Culture’ now,- the legacy of Knowledge,- is writing itself, without us, and it is also writing
(and re-writing) our history as a species. This new inverted Imaginary register, having gave rise to a Symbolic-function completely detached from
the value-exchange function and freed from any ‘material remainder’ of the economic transaction, (the ‘pure materiality’ of the accelerationist
formulation of capital) has made accessible the third ‘imaginal matrix’ I expanded from the Lyotardian thesis, as I elaborated elsewhere.
For biopolitical thinkers and systems-theorists alike, whose faith was couched upon a ‘shard of messianic time’ available to the present Zerrissenheit
in the form of Burroughs-esque cut-ups and hallucinatory remixes of culture intended to provoke the stimulus-response by which human behavior
might be modelled and transformed as mere reactive patheme-matheme assemblages, Deleuze’s ‘larval selves’, or the ‘libidinally engineered’
solidifications of a liquid fiction adhered by the strictures of both Myth and Science, (Simon O’Sullivan, “Myth-Science as Residual Culture and
Magical Thinking” and "On the Production of Subjectivity: Five Diagrams of the Finite-Infinite Relation. "… larval subjects, which constitute the
system of the self are involved in a primary affirmation; … with a kind of auto-affection, or self-enjoyment, characterizing their mode of existence
as well as their very cohesiveness.) inasmuch as a person’s behavior is, for such thinkers, modeled as a function of the environment, both
socio-political and genetic-ecological. (See Kasper Opstrup Frederiksen, in “The Way Out - Invisible Insurrections and Radical Imaginaries”.) Now,
however, the field of human behavior has become an entirely synthetic virtuality maintained without intercession by the Real and grounded solely
in the Symbolic, inaccessible to both critical engagement and any statistical analysis that might offer some predictive model of the biopolitical
assemblage,- inaccessible, in a word, to the ‘transversal synthesis’ of capitalist semiotics driving the system of globalization in the ‘incorporeal
transformation’ of signs redistributed in conformation to the paraphilic map cartographically imposed by the dominant power-dimensions on the
‘distributive channels’ of Guattari’s a-signifying ecology. (David R Cole, Joff Bradley: “Principles of Transversality in Globalization and
Education”.)[/size]