## Performance Ontology

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Performance Ontology

Performance Ontology or the Hyper-reality of the Humanarchization of VO

To Affect VO effectively to address the cancer industry of today's society, one first needs to be clear on what this cancer is in the first place. While hedonistic subjectivists, anarcho-primitivists, libertarians, etc. will argue it is the monopolization of the valuing of self-value by bourgeoise capitalism and other dominating ideological structures that Marx had limited the horizon,,, Baudrillard of course, shows the cancer industry of today does not revolve around forces of unremitting production per se, but precisely around the production of subjectivities,, in other words of consumption. While the new Humanarchy makes the claim that production of subjectivities is because of the divorce of value from the valuing subject and Sloterdijk is hijacked to make the argument, systemic thymotic curbing alienates the conditions necessary for the valuing of the valuing subject,,, this is still within the banal paradigm of the market-place and the liberal's idea of Diversity for its own sake:

Alain de Benoist wrote:"The only thing remaining is what Freud called “the narcissism of petty differences” — differences that are unessential and that are being projected on the system of objects (one has the “choice” between Shell and Chevron, Windows or Apple, Renault and Peugeot, Coke or Pepsi). This is a fake diversity, based only on differential purchasing power. “Diversity,” as a form of euphemism, is in reality just another word for indistinctive mixture. The ideology of miscegenation, which has become widespread today, must be understood as going well beyond the mixing of bodies and cultures only. One could use the word “in-mixture” (mélangisme), in the promotion of general indistinctiveness as a moral imperative and as a normative project that must be achieved. Although “miscegenation” of any kind (be it cultural, ethnic, artistic, linguistic, and so on) and “diversity” completely contradict each other, the “miscegenation” is hailed as a method of salvation, lending itself thus to the redemptive fusion on its path toward the undifferentiated.

The apology of nomadic life everywhere, the deterritorialization of all problems, the dream of “world governance,” a systematic removal of all roots, the encouragement to all kinds of hybridization — the fantasy of the One who has finally landed in the field of mandatory in-mixing — becomes the rule. “The global hybridization, writes Pierre-André Taguieff, resembles the steamroller which brings about the homogenization, levels all cultures and finally abolishes every cultural diversity.” Shuffling and blending everybody with everybody and everything with anything – this is the final and ultimate form of indistinction today." [Indistinction]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

"The production of use values is really only an ideological formation which transposes itself into a moral ideal.
The crucial theoretical discussion however begins with a systematic
critique of homo economicus, especially the assumptions which revolve around the notion of the sovereign individual consumer who functions to maximize pleasures in relation to a finite but uncoordinated set of needs. Modern affluent society appears in this perspective to be driven by the full action of individual wants now given complete freedom of action in a situation of great abundance. This general conception, for Baudrillard, is both theoretically unacceptable (the individual appears to want what he needs and needs what he wants), and empirically unable to account for the specific proliferation of goods and objects.
Although apparently made up of empirical components, the notion of homo economicus is a metaphysic, and has to be replaced with a more incisive social theory. So too he says in a move which breaks with humanist Marxism, does its alternative, the notion of the alienated consumer, a ‘pseudo-philosophy’, itself only part of the mythology of consumer society (1970:100).

In this light, he argues, it is important to consider consumption not as some slight addition to the circuit of capital (an alienation), but as a crucial productive force for capital itself. The very instance in which the individual realizes his or her own pleasures is in fact the site not only of a new consciousness but, more fundamentally, of new disciplines running parallel to apparent emancipation— disciplines which carry their own forms of systematization, concentration, seduction, gratification, and repressive desublimation— in other words, he notes, alienation correctly understood (1988b:43).

Following Lévi-Strauss, he argues that what occurs is a kind of meta consumption. As differences are structured into objects, it is precisely the differential social relations which are consumed.
Social status is therefore reproduced principally in the consumption of object differences, and it is at the level, a second, unconscious level, of its inner relations that the code itself functions as an unconscious ideological apparatus (dispositif); and it is highly effective as a disciplinary structure because it is desired, pleasurable, gratificatory (1970:136).
It makes its appearance in the form of involved emancipation and free choice, under the power of the individual will, yet the code determines this process effectively, perhaps inducing the deepest form of social control.
But this general process is also intensified by the action of the new mass media. According to Baudrillard, this works through the construction of cultural models, which like the exterior forms of personalization of objects, come to exercise new personalization effects on consumers. His main example here is the catastrophic turn in the form of the masculine and the feminine in consumer society. His argument has three basic steps. First, modern advertising induces a change in the relation to the subject itself, in the general direction of increased narcissism, even a ‘personalized narcissism’: the ideal ‘referent’ is the buyer, the purchaser—actually a collective social process which diffracts itself towards each subject as it interpellates them. The system ultimately induces a form of subject auto-seduction: the self-consumption of the subject." [Mike Gane, Baudrillard's Bestiary]

In other words, Production attains an ontology of its own, which is then used to explain or to produce production, to (re)produce it.
Production does not infuse the object with value, but now value pre-exists the object and is already infused with it, leading to it being produced, as an effect of the value already present in the worker.

Value precedes the emergence of the object, the phenomenon. no longer a juxtaposition of one with an other, within the context of the environment, in this case the human system, but now a juxtaposition of a human need (natural, drive), with an artificial projection of a hypothetical object/objective that promises to satisfy this need, or needs.
This creates the artificiality of a want, the production of desire connected to primitive instinctive, organic needs, but in an abstracted, indirect way...as symbol, code - "iindividuality", "freedom", "being human"... and such feel-good goods.
The value of the desired, the want, is presupposed, within a system of relationships, and social hierarchies, accentuated with marketing (repetition, symbolic references to natural needs).
Once value precedes the production of the object it has already presupposed the work, sacrifice, required to bring it about as something detached from this effort.
The work must now rise to meet the value present.
And value can be manufactured.
Culture becomes manufactured.

It is now not a juxtaposition between phenomena, but between a need/want and a projected idea...a noetic, abstracted, juxtaposition.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

This reflects the general nihilistic inversion characterizing Modernity.
From a psychological perspective the individual's value is already presupposed, forced only to meet an idealized standard which is artificially produced, and reflects socioeconomic hierarchies.
It is the value that brings about the organism, not the organism that evaluates self and otherness in relation to self and otherness.

In Baurdrillard's thesis on the consumer society it is consumption that brings about production, and not consumption that must adjust to production, creating value.
Manipulating consumption by creating needs, wants, desires, is the driving force of this new world Capitalism.
Exploitation reversed, or call it Reverse-Engineering.

Humanarchy determines VO, than VO creating an arche.

Secular Humanism is hedonistically pre-posited as an apriori - the ideal of society that man must gear towards, is fore-determined.
VO Serves human rights,,, instead of the Right to being "Human" being determined by VO.

The detachment from probability opening up possibilities that Satan or Lucifer represent, is where the only rule is systemic: the only limit being that one's projected beliefs do not interfere with those of another.
The world which restricts the healthy rational mind is what they consider cultist, because the world limits what interpretations of it are useful and which ones perish, creating a convergence of perspectives where belonging to the same species is the deciding factor.
With moderns there is no such limiting factor, other than this systemic one. Systemic secular-humanism opens up possibilities to almost anything, from the reasonable to the absurd, from the demented to the noble.
When all is plausible, ignorance can continue to be mistaken for courage/confidence, and nihilism can continue to be a viable, constructive, social standard...for internal consumption.
If in Marx's times, money 'overrides the laws of nature and abolishes the distinction between fantasy and reality',, today we see, it can be any symbol - word, number, abstracted ontologies of value; the noumenon replaces the phenomenon by detaching from it and looping back upon itself and referring back to another noumenon.
Masturbation, solipsism, the comforting liberation from a world that remains indifferent to our contrivances, where it is enough to say 'I am what I am' because 'I am what I am'.

Modern multiplicity is really a byproduct of institutional protection; the natural, indifferent, world kept outside its hedonistic premises.
This increases permissibility, within the confines of social rules. The individual grows up to believe that only the system, or other people, is what limits his activities, his beliefs, his tastes and preferences.

The appeal to Diversity is still only one more manufacturing of value, namely, that of 'market of value-maximizations'.
This is not self-valuings, but self-idolizings.

The paradigm of Satan's clash with God as exemplifying the new human freedom and its inspiration is again, still stuck in the same Manichean paradigm.
Manicheanism begins as an internal quarrel with J.-Xt., positing the Devil as the artist who animates idols and icons as an independent creator, while the J.-Xt. God as the 'evil' who keeps his creatures enslaved within morality; where the Devil as the true God promises true Godhood to man and unlimited powers by 'setting free' the material powers like modern day credit is 'set free' from tangible gold and holds unlimited purchase power.

"The opposite of this kind of work is not leisure or free time. Its opposite is the total and immediate sacrifice. The liberation of the slave or serf has made possible the free worker; he is the slave ‘liberated’ for work." [Gane, Baudrillard's Bestiary]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

Goethe's Faust was trying to address the Baudrillardian simulacra in Manicheanism that had already begun since Plato;

"The Roman mass is idolatrous because it attributes efficacy to the sign itself. The Catholics denied this allegation, pointing out that they regard the ceremony as only the instrumental and not the principal cause of grace, but Luther believed this defense was refuted by their practice of not administering the sign of the wine to the laity. This reveals, he claims, that they actually believe the sign to be the most important element, else they would not so jealously guard the exclusively priestly access to it. The Roman view of the sacrament, according to Luther, is indistinguishable from a magical ritual performed by a restricted circle of illuminati. The Latin mass is experienced by the laity as “secret words,” and even the priests conceive of their utterances as magical and efficacious. The replacement of a denotative sign (whereby the mass is an external promise or testament of interior faith) by a performative one (whereby the mass is effica- cious ex opere operato) facilitates the ecclesiastical market economy which provoked the Reformation, and in Luther’s view, the church’s commodification of salvation has obscured mankind’s instinctive awareness of the immortality of the soul. We are now in a position to appreciate how the Lutheran argument that belief in performative signs constituted a demonically inspired alienation, or “sale,” of the soul inspired the earliest versions of the Faust myth." [Hawkes, The Faust Myth]

Value to value self-valuing is only an extension of that Lutheran fetishization, doing away with the priest and becoming the magician oneself.

"The original Faust-book takes a consistently Lutheran attitude toward semiotic issues. To that end, it defines magic as the belief in the efficacy of per- formative signs, and it attempts to demonstrate that such a belief necessarily involves an agreement with Satan.
One function of money is to store labor-power in symbolic form. To possess money is to possess stored-up, efficacious power.
The gold is magical, it embodies labor-power in concentrated form, and because of this it is more potent than the actual labor that produced the pyramids.
Only by translating labor-power into representation can value be stored without regard to its physical, natural manifestation.
The incarnation and money are mirror images, one being a divine and the other a demonic mode of fusing the spiritual with matter. This dialectical opposition between logos and efficacious rep- resentation is given figurative expression in early modern Christianity as a conflict between God and Satan, and Milton’s epic is the most intricate analysis of this contradiction.
The assumption that money and magic are homologous forms of objectified labor-power, fetishized as autonomous representation, and existing in a hostile relationship to both humanity and nature is so deeply embedded in Paradise Lost that the precise mode of connection between them is sometimes hard to discern.
The objectification of the subject (carnality) and the subjectification of the object (idolatry) are different aspects of one process which Milton, like later philosophers, calls “alienation.”

Hans-Christophe Binswanger, points out that interest-bearing capital is a continuation of alchemy by other means:
". . . the attempts to produce artificial gold were abandoned not because they were futile, but because alchemy in another form has proved so successful that the arduous production of gold in the laboratory is no longer necessary. It is not vital to alchemy’s aim, in the sense of increasing wealth, that lead be actually transmuted into gold. It will suffice if a substance of no value is transformed into one of value: paper, for example, into money. We can interpret the economic process as alchemy if it is possible to arrive at money without having earned it through corresponding effort . . . in other words, if a genuine value creation is possible which is not bound by any limits and is therefore, in this sense, sorcery or magic."
The liberation of financial value from gold bullion constitutes the ultimate triumph of alchemy. Alchemy did not disappear because it failed but because, certain elements within it having succeeded, it was no longer deemed necessary." [Hawkes, ib.]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

How do you persuade anyone of anything if he is addicted to what he's already decided is best for him, given the circumstances?
When emotion, how he feels about it, is the deciding factor, the standard of evaluating quality is not shared, and because it is not shared, it is just as plausible as any other;
Why extra- and additional-Ontologies have to be purchased and fit in to a working model, a scheme of assemblages that keep the system "functioning smooth" from "disturbances".

The need for RM:AO to reduce the megalomanicalness of infinite possibilities into probabilities:

James Saint wrote:"Other than a very abstract morality, morals, goods and evils, must not be taken as anything but relative to the situation and orientation. They are subjective, not idols to be worshiped. The same is true of relativity and positives and negatives in Science.
Now my "theory" (always open to be verified) is that once you examine what nature had already instilled into what we call "Life", you will find that the essential conceptual components that make up the entire (100% complete) activity and need that was already 98% provided by nature, is simply stated as;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony".
And all that is required to cause the "family unit", aka "The TEAM", to adjust into being that slightly improved version is theconscious effort to do that very same thing;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"

Much like the original self-replicating cell, it only takes ONE. After a single "proper anentropic family unit" is formed, nature takes over and does the rest. No one needs to try to force the entire world into some scheme. As one scripture put it, "Just live right and let God/Reality handle the rest", let nature do what it does.

Joy is the inner perception of progress. And certainty adds to that perception. You don't go out and celebrate because you got a 2% chance of doubling your salary. You wait until you see the check. And thus it is the certainty of being able to get what one wants that registers, and that means the power to ensure that he gets it. And that means, in most minds, the certainty of control beyond any real or imagined adversary. It is the removal of doubt.
It is the certainty of cooperation that is sought. Unfortunately to most people, when they say "now we have the power to...", they misconstrue that "we" to include them... jokes on them. The "progress" of one, generally means the decline of another.

The intent of the Biblical God in Genesis was altruism (which is why Jesus stated that he (in spirit) was "in the beginning"). Evil is about control through killing the adversary." [Humanarchy]

Likewise RM needs VO to allow for de-deification and the space for fruitful errors...

Hedonistic Xt. metaphysics [HM] by any other means...
Nothing is ever bad and there is no hate when the war can be redefined as one between different powers of positives. All is love ultimately.

When AO meets VO, God/Christ meets Satan/Lucifer within the manichean paradigm.

Pre-standardized Ontologies and their Quality Controls are like app. markets for Preference Upgrades now offering alchemical browsers seductive magic and the promise of opening up unlimited possibilities.
This is not efficiency, but efficacy.
No longer VO or AO, but HM:PO - the magician's Performance-Ontology. The world as a magic theatre and performance...

It only has to Perform, then any magic trick is good
, and beauty only in the eye of the beholder, why not?

"And the will to the economy of the great style: keeping our strength, our enthusiasm in harness..." [N., Antichrist, Preface]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

There is something intriguing stuff in here.

Could you clarify a few things for me?

Lys wrote:While hedonistic subjectivists, anarcho-primitivists, libertarians, etc. will argue it is the monopolization of the valuing of self-value by bourgeoise capitalism and other dominating ideological structures that Marx had limited the horizon,,, Baudrillard of course, shows the cancer industry of today does not revolve around forces of unremitting production per se, but precisely around the production of subjectivities,, in other words of consumption.

I haven't read Baudrillard, and the post below on his writing doesn't clarify my query. What you call "the production of subjectivities" sounds like what is implied by " the monopolization of the valuing of self-value by bourgeoise capitalism and other dominating ideological structures that Marx had limited the horizon" when those things are taken as active processes rather than monolithic structures which impede one's step to a 'beyond'.

Is the implication that the other theories had not accounted for capitalism's production and implementation of ideological as well as material/environmental systems? If that is so, then nevermind. If you mean something else, could you please clarify?

Lys wrote:While the new Humanarchy makes the claim that production of subjectivities is because of the divorce of value from the valuing subject and Sloterdijk is hijacked to make the argument, systemic thymotic curbing alienates the conditions necessary for the valuing of the valuing subject

The latter part of that quote would seem to imply a recognition of the implementation of material and environmental systems to curb thumos, which would presumably be enforced strictures. Without the ability to personally create value, it would seem that the adoption of some externally available (most likely pre-composed) value system would be inevitable.

Lys wrote:this is still within the banal paradigm of the market-place and the liberal's idea of Diversity for its own sake

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "Diversity for its own sake". Isn't the advocacy of diversity from the perspective a capital accumulator and producer for the sake of increasing a target market as well as creating precident for new fashions or models so that production could increase, in other words, ultimately for the sake of capital accumulation and not for its own sake?

From the point of view of the consumer, on the one hand diversity might be advocated and celebrated by any member of a 'marginal' group for the sake of their effective integration, and consequently access to power and other perceived goods, and by others not members of a marginal group because of its association to the periced good of peace?

As you quoted here:

Lys wrote:The apology of nomadic life everywhere, the deterritorialization of all problems, the dream of “world governance,” a systematic removal of all roots, the encouragement to all kinds of hybridization — the fantasy of the One who has finally landed in the field of mandatory in-mixing — becomes the rule. [Alain de Benoist]

the ideology has ties to that of world government, and in one early advocated form and technique (namely Immanuel Kant) the means (and end) of world government was peace, one of the conceptual tools being his famous categorical imperative.

Lys wrote:Secular Humanism is hedonistically pre-posited as an apriori - the ideal of society that man must gear towards, is fore-determined. [...] Modern multiplicity is really a byproduct of institutional protection; the natural, indifferent, world kept outside its hedonistic premises.
This increases permissibility, within the confines of social rules. The individual grows up to believe that only the system, or other people, is what limits his activities, his beliefs, his tastes and preferences.

It appears you have an issue with hedonism. Do you hold hedonism to be the striving for pleasure in total, or pleasure as encapsulated by the senses (sensual hedonism), that is to say, do you have a contention against for example the pleasure gained from the increase of knowledge or the obtainment of fame or honor?

If so, what do you hold to be the highest good?

The Artful Pauper

Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

The Artful Pauper wrote:There is something intriguing stuff in here.

Thanks for your interest. Its too long, so I'll reply them each separately.

Lys wrote:While hedonistic subjectivists, anarcho-primitivists, libertarians, etc. will argue it is the monopolization of the valuing of self-value by bourgeoise capitalism and other dominating ideological structures that Marx had limited the horizon,,, Baudrillard of course, shows the cancer industry of today does not revolve around forces of unremitting production per se, but precisely around the production of subjectivities,, in other words of consumption.

I haven't read Baudrillard, and the post below on his writing doesn't clarify my query. What you call "the production of subjectivities" sounds like what is implied by " the monopolization of the valuing of self-value by bourgeoise capitalism and other dominating ideological structures that Marx had limited the horizon" when those things are taken as active processes rather than monolithic structures which impede one's step to a 'beyond'.
Is the implication that the other theories had not accounted for capitalism's production and implementation of ideological as well as material/environmental systems? If that is so, then nevermind. If you mean something else, could you please clarify?

Baudrillard's implication is the former; for clarity:

Baudrillard wrote:"The goal of the economy is not the maximization of production for the individual, but the maximization of production linked in with the value system of the society' (Parsons). Needs are directed not so much towards objects as towards values, and their satisfaction initially has the sense of signing up to those values. The fundamental, unconscious, automatic choice of the consumer is to accept the style of life of a particular society (it is, therefore, no longer a choice(!) and the theory of the autonomy and sovereignty of the consumer is refuted)."[The Consumer Society]

It is no longer labour per se, but Values that are now exchanged.

Baudrillard wrote:"Beyond stacking, which is the most rudimentary yet cogent form of abundance, objects are organized in packages or collections. Almost all the shops selling clothing or household appliances offer a range of differentiated objects, evoking, echoing and offsetting one another. The antique dealer's window provides the aristocratic, luxury version of these sets of objects, which evoke not so much a superabundance of substance as a gamut of select and complementary objects presented for the consumer to choose among, but presented also to create in him a psychological chain reaction, as he peruses them, inventories them and grasps them as a total category. Few objects today are offered alone, without a context of objects which speaks' them. And this changes the consumer's relation to the object: he no longer relates to a particular object in its specific utility, but to a set of objects in its total signification. Washing machine, refrigerator and dishwasher taken together have a different meaning from the one each has individually as an appliance. The shop-window, the advertisement, the manufacturer and the brand name, which here plays a crucial role, impose a coherent, collective vision, as though they were an almost indissociable totality, a series. This is, then, no longer a sequence of mere objects, but a chain of signifiers, in so far as all of these signify one another reciprocally as part of a more complex super-object, drawing the consumer into a series of more complex motivations. It is evident that objects are never offered for consumption in absolute disorder. They may, in certain cases, imitate disorder the better to seduce, but they are always arranged to mark out directive paths, to orientate the purchasing impulse towards networks of objects in order to captivate that impulse and bring it, in keeping with its own logic, to the highest degree of commitment, to the limits of its economic potential. Clothing, machines and toiletries thus constitute object pathways, which establish inertial constraints in the consumer: he will move logically from one object to another. He will be caught up in a calculus of objects, and this is something quite different from the frenzy of buying and acquisitiveness to which the simple profusion of commodities gives rise."[The Consumer Society]

Baudrillard wrote:"One of the strongest proofs that the principle and finality of consumption is not enjoyment or pleasure is that that is now something which is forced upon us, something institutionalized, not as a right or a pleasure, but as the duty of the citizen.
The puritan regarded himself, his own person, as a business to be made to prosper for the greater glory of God. His personal' qualities, his character', which he spent his life producing, were for him a capital to be invested opportunely, to be managed without speculation or waste. Conversely, but in the same way, consumerist man [I'hommeconsommateur] regards enjoyment as an obligation; he sees himself as an enjoyment and satisfaction business. He sees it as his duty to be happy, loving, adulating/adulated, charming/charmed, participative, euphoric and dynamic. This is the principle of maximizing existence by multiplying contacts and relationships, by intense use of signs and objects, by systematic exploitation of all the potentialities of enjoyment.

There is no question for the consumer, for the modern citizen, of evading this enforced happiness and enjoyment, which is the equivalent in the new ethics of the traditional imperative to labour and produce. Modern man spends less and less of his life in production within work and more and more of it in the production and continual innovation of his own needs and well-being. He must constantly see to it that all his potentialities, all his consumer capacities are mobilized. If he forgets to do so, he will be gently and insistently reminded that he has no right not to be happy. It is not, then, true that he is passive. He is engaged in -- has to engage in -- continual activity. If not, he would run the risk of being content with what he has and becoming asocial.

You have to try everything, for consumerist man is haunted by the fear of missing' something, some form of enjoyment or other. You never know whether a particular encounter, a particular experience (Christmas in the Canaries, eel in whisky, the Prado, LSD, Japanese-style love-making) will not elicit some sensation'. It is no longer desire, or even taste', or a specific inclination that are at stake, but a generalized curiosity, driven by a vague sense of unease -- it is the fun morality' or the imperative to enjoy oneself, to exploit to the full one's potential for thrills, pleasure or gratification.

Consumption is social labour. The consumer is required and mobilized as worker at this level too (perhaps as much today as he is at the level of production').
The ideological force of the notion of happiness does not originate in a natural propensity on the part of each individual to realize that happiness for himself. It derives, socio-historically, from the fact that the myth of happiness is the one which, in modern societies, takes up and comes to embody the myth of Equality. All the political and sociological virulence with which that myth has been charged since the industrial revolution and the revolutions of the nineteenth century has been transferred to Happiness. The fact that Happiness initially has that signification and that ideological function has important consequences for its content: to be the vehicle of the egalitarian myth. Happiness has to be measurable. It has to be a well-being measurable in terms of objects and signs; it has to be comfort', as Tocqueville put it, already noting this trend of democratic societies towards ever more well-being as a reduction of the impact of social misfortune and an equalization of all destinies. Happiness as total or inner enjoyment -- that happiness independent of the signs which could manifest it to others and to those around us, the happiness which has no need of evidence -- is therefore excluded from the outset from the consumer ideal in which happiness is, first and foremost, the demand for equality (or distinction, of course) and must, accordingly, always signify with regard' to visible criteria. In this sense, Happiness is even further removed from any collective feast' or exaltation since, fuelled by an egalitarian exigency, it is based on individualistic principles, fortified by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen which explicitly recognize the right to Happiness of everyone (of each individual)." [The Consumer Society]

In sum, what I call Performance Ontology of HM,, when values become detached and what is being produced is the subject-who-values as per codes, signs, valences reinforced by the system through this production of the code-consuming subject:

[quote="Baudrillard"]"So far as production is concerned, it is no longer the Earth that produces, or labour that creates wealth (the famous betrothal of Earth and Labour): rather, it is Capital that makes the Earth and Labour produce. Work is no longer an action, it is an operation. Communication is operational or it is nothing. Information is operational or it is nothing." [The Transparency of Evil]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

When man losses himself in his own contrivances he begins to believe his symbols and codes are more real than reality (Hyper-reality), or that they can affect reality without being translated back into a phenomenon. This is call the "efficacy of performance" as opposed to the "efficiency of magic" (a rich metaphor that affects vast complexes without disconnecting the noumenon from the phenomenon is an example of this).

Words begin to acquire their magical force when detached. They exit the time/space continuum.
Words are seductive because they can be used to suspend reality, and the laws that govern it.
He begins to take with words and numbers literally rather than figuratively and as representation, art-forms, simulations, codes of translating and transmitting experiences.
This is what inevitably results in the Nihilism of Modernity, where numbers acquire a magical power, along with words.
Taking the word/number literally means that one replaces the phenomenon with its reference to a noumenon, an abstraction.
The word/number is n o longer a representation, a symbol, but it replaces the referenced phenomenon, and because words are malleable, controllable, man feels like he is gaining control over the world.
Living in a noetic world, a solipsistic self-referential paradigm, where the meme disconnects from the real, creating a memetic alternate reality entirely willful, is how the nihilistic paradigm becomes viral.
Everything is about human choices: sex, race, beauty... everything a matter of human choice.
Man chooses his own tastes, predispositions... nothing is determined for him.
He is "free" from the past/nature.

"First came the word..."
God as word, which precedes reality.
Man projects himself in the place of God, using words to declare himself whatever he wishes were true.

But language has its own logic, and numbers are no different.
When we speak of mathematical logic we speak of an internally validating model.
1+1=2 is a "logical" mathematical phrase once we've accepted the magical quality of one, implying a nil, both of which have no reference outside the human brain.
They are magically conjured up as real, and transmitted to the other as self-evident.
The mode of transmitting data becomes the message being transmitted; how to translate the data is contained in the method of its own transferring.

When the mind has been integrated, assimilated, into the shared code, accepting its premises as a given, then the common logic follows.
How the words/numbers are reconfigured into thoughts is part of the translating and transmitting.
This is how words and numbers become instruments of magic.
When a magician does his tricks he is drafting the other into his premises.
The other participates in the magic act; he is a part of the performance.
He is letting him trick himself, using slight of hand, redirection, repetition, and so on.
The ones integrated into the "logic" of words and numbers are willing participants in the conjuring power of these symbols.
By learning a language you become a participant in its magical effects.
Now reality can be inverted, convoluted, invented out of thin air, without any phenomenon to refer to – pure noumenon, pure abstraction, words with mystical powers.

McLuhan told us that “the medium is the message”,,, meaning the medium of code, of words and numbers is its own message... it has its own innate logic which is transmitted to the brain, as one programs a computer using software.
The brain cannot think outside these premises.
It is trapped in its logic.
The code is the intermediating translation, simulation that can then be re-translated into any other form.

It can be thought of as the fabric of reality, as something to heal cancer, or to explain everything...
The flexibility of a detached noetic device lends itself to any magical trick.
It is not bound by any indifferent reality.
Linear time does not stop it, because it is not limited by phenomena.
And so Will to Power can imply a willing of will... and God can create himself, or love can precede the organic sensation and its survival advantages, and pleasure can be made into an end rather than a sensation of satisfying needs... value can precede the emergence of a brain to pass judgments and to value in accordance with its own needs, and beauty can be chosen with no connection to anything organic and so on.
The applications of this magic are endless, and the one talented in its ways is the shaman, the magi, the priest; the translating conduit between noumenon and phenomenon.
Anything is possible when the noetic abstraction is no longer attached to a phenomenon.
It is magic... pure and simple.
A trick played upon the mind with its participation, willful or not.

The word's magical power is found in its freedom from reality, symbolizing the brain's ability to constructs its won reality.
It is a noetic device, a technique, a translation that need not apply to a reality, but remain magically detached and mystical.

"First there was the word..." is a declaration of war against reality.
The noumenon annulling the phenomenon.
Part of the counter-measures can only be the reattachment of words to their original reference points in the world.
Only then is the word demystified losing its magical effects.

PO:

Gane wrote:"It is the world of trial/error, of the personality test, of the referendum, of functionality in life through a reduction of everything to the yes/no.
It is as though ‘the entire system of communication has passed from that of a syntactically complex language structure to a binary sign system’ (1976; 1983f: 116–17).
As everything is pre-structured, social life becomes formed into a continuous stream of tests. These are always found to be ‘perfect forms of simulation’ and the ideal instruments for the conjuring of a new substance, public opinion. This substance is not, however, like the old abstract essences which were formed in relation to systems of imagined real or natural worlds. The intrusion of the binary schema, the 0/1, the yes/no, question/response, begins, effectively and dramatically, to render, immediately, every discourse inarticulate.
It crushes the world of meaningful dialogue, of representation, of the formulation of questions which may be difficult, even impossible to answer: a golden age of discourse based on the play of real and appearance is abolished.
From now on the media determine ‘the very style of montage, of decoupage, of interpellation, solicitation, summation’ (1976; 1983f:123).
Contrary to all expectations, as McLuhan alone has pointed out, says Baudrillard, this new age is not visual but tactile; everywhere it is the test, the prestructured interrogation, that is the manipulator and formulator of the new consciousness." [Baudrillard's Bestiary]

Pleasure/Pain, Yes/No, Positive/Negative, 1/0... HM revolves around performance and functionality with minimal disturbance.
What matters is that there be Efficacy of performance and the trick works, is operational.

Value, for the modern, is tied-up in numerical values, and quantities; standards based on symbols and codes which often have no reference to anything outside the mind’s simplifications.
Given that the code can be abstracted to where it can be purchased, symbolically, by anyone who serves and services the one who protects and cocoons it away from reality, value can be nothing more than a matter of subjective perspective, and market fluctuations: demand, and production.

What runs the cancer industry today is not the forces of production, but the forces of Seduction.
What could be in more demand today in the rising fad of instant-individuality that can be kick-started with identifying with the right signs and packages, than creating that consuming subject which values subjectity and self-valuing. Humanarchization of VO is the Magician's Seduction to offer the conditions of self-idolizings, not value, as Satan to Faust.

Language has one function: to symbolize a mental abstraction.
A mental abstraction, an idea, being the product of sensual data, collected and processed by the brain, and then simplified/generalized, into an image, at first in its most primitive form, or a concept, attaining the height of a numerical value.

This is where it can acquire a secondary function:
To detach, dismiss, avoid, correct, detach, from the sensual input used to construct it.
This is solipsism at is rawest form. A self-reference begins, as the word, symbolizing an abstraction, can now be looped back to refer to another abstraction.
The real, collected as input, and interpreted (simplified/generalized) as mental-models (abstractions), falls into the background.
Baudrillard refers to this process as a simlacrum of a simualation.
I go further and connect it all the sway back to the Bible, and its obsession with the word.
It's not that there is a God (an absent absolute, referring to an absolute order, a complete past), but that with the bible the word IS God.

The word is authoritarian because it demands total obedience to its shared definition.
It is determining because it shapes and limits human thinking.
It demands loyalty because the sensual must be denied power - it is cast as the Devil.
The word is malleable and so it is comforting, it offers salvation from the real, to minds who must escape their past/nature.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

HM becomes clear in the following;

Baudrillard wrote:"Ecstasy of the social: the masses. More social than the social.
Ecstasy of the body: obesity. Fatter than fat.
Ecstasy of information: simulation. Truer than true.
Ecstasy of time: real time, instantaneity. More present than the present.
Ecstasy of the real: the hyperreal. More real than the real.
Ecstasy of sex: porn. More sexual than sex.
Ecstasy of violence: terror. More violent than violence. . . .

All this describes, by a kind of potentiation, a raising to the second power, a pushing to the limit, a state of unconditional realization, of total positivity (every negative sign raised to the second power produces a positive), from which all utopia, all death, and all negativity have been expunged. A state of ex-termination, cleansing of the negative, as corollary to all the other actual forms of purification and discrimination. Thus, freedom has been obliterated, liquidated by liberation; truth has been supplanted by verification; the community has been liquidated and absorbed by communication; form gives way to information and performance. Everywhere we see a paradoxical logic: the idea is destroyed by its own realization, by its own excess. And in this way history itself comes to an end, finds itself obliterated by the instantaneity and omnipresence of the event." [Vital Illusion]

This "pushing to the limit of total and only positivity" of self-idolatory is being sold in HM:PO as Satan's dream of 'Human' realizing his highest potential.

This is of course bullshite when Secular Humanism has already preset what Human is and Humanarchy simply platonizes this as a given within which VO then operates.

Hawkes wrote:"Social change is replaced by a change in images. The freedom to consume a plurality of images and goods is equated with freedom itself. The narrowing of free political choice to free economic consumption requires the unlimited production and consumption of images." [The Faust Myth]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

Lys wrote:While the new Humanarchy makes the claim that production of subjectivities is because of the divorce of value from the valuing subject and Sloterdijk is hijacked to make the argument, systemic thymotic curbing alienates the conditions necessary for the valuing of the valuing subject

The latter part of that quote would seem to imply a recognition of the implementation of material and environmental systems to curb thumos, which would presumably be enforced strictures. Without the ability to personally create value, it would seem that the adoption of some externally available (most likely pre-composed) value system would be inevitable.

Correct. And so it reloops. The value-systems themselves produce the subject that consumes the subject-producing value systems.
From the forces of Labour to the Production market, we have now the forces of Seduction to the Consumption market.

The act of violence has been removed and replaced with seductive methods to persuade you, similar to giving candy to a baby.

Mission has been used in a similar way in the past, but with a different context, such as a religious one with aim to convert you. Modern mission has a material context, something you shouldn't miss out on, you should buy in and get yours. The rewards are more tangible and attractive, and the benefits are instant where everybody wins, or at least thinks so.

A mission that only requires you to purchase, even purchasing the struggle and hardship, but never directly being involved. This modern mission has a capturing mechanism which results in sedation. The status factor acts as pressuring providing the way for capturing.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

Lys wrote:this is still within the banal paradigm of the market-place and the liberal's idea of Diversity for its own sake

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "Diversity for its own sake". Isn't the advocacy of diversity from the perspective a capital accumulator and producer for the sake of increasing a target market as well as creating precident for new fashions or models so that production could increase, in other words, ultimately for the sake of capital accumulation and not for its own sake?

Observe how HM:PO operates within the efficacious category of "Success" that while raising the illusion of Diversity and the value-maximizing of the valuing individual and freedom,,, is actually curbing and depleting its thymotic release as mentioned earlier:

Sloterdijk wrote:"Greed is the affect that refers to the ontological assumption that it is possible to sustain a permanent asymmetry between giving and taking. If taking gets the upper hand in a capitalist player for a long enough period of time, one usually calls it success. The common understanding of success sees it as a phenomenon of overcompensation—often accompanied by a tendency to repeat the unlikely.

Stabilized overcompensation creates claims to elite status.

Those who have been chronically overcompensated develop the talent of taking their premiums to be an appropriate toll for their effort—or, in the case of a lack of effort, for their mere eminent existence, or even for their physical appearance. Part of a fully developed greed system is typically also the elevation of being good-looking into a good reason for expecting overcompensation.

It is characteristic of the unfolded greed culture that its agents assume that they will be compensated most for what they are responsible for least. It is not accidental that the ‘lookism,’ this religion of ingratitude, is on the rise globally. Youth culture has been announcing the good news for a long time that in order to be successful, it is enough to look like someone who is known through the mass media that sustain that very culture.

The capitalist form of eroticism unfolds bit by bit the paradox of an ‘overcompensation for everyone.’

Through it the human right of greed without limits is proclaimed. Consequently, the market of appearance becomes the market of all markets—in it potential objects of desire are transformed into greed subjects by the drug of overcompensation." [Rage and Time"]

Money’s compensatory adaptability was ideal in a world where culling had no place, and exploitation of weakness became a cardinal sin.
The overcompensation Sloterdijk speaks of is the extension of gluttony.
All genetic factors erased with a few codes.
The smaller the self-esteem was, the higher the needed compensation to make it appear larger. Secular Humanism operates on this same over-compensation that is in reality the individual's thymotic curbing of real self-valuing.

Systemic thymotic curbing is Feminization by another name - the retention of man in a state of adolescence - retarded development. Feminization is a symptom of this updating of humanity's greed to what is most necessary in the current - HM:PO.

Money is just a code that can be replaced by any other cancerous dream disconnected from phenomenon in the greed-culture of possibilities...

Hawkes wrote:"Hawkes, David wrote:

"Money, in short, is the power that transforms human beings into objects: death. As Marx puts it:

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities—the divine power of money—lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species nature.
Money is the alienated ability of mankind. That which I am
unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not—turns it, that is, into its contrary. (3.312)

According to Marx, the effect of money on the natural, physical world is precisely magical: it overrides the laws of nature and abolishes the distinction between fantasy and reality: it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence—from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power. (ibid.)
Money is the medium of representation, when that medium has achieved the practical power of transforming essence by changing appearance.
It is the force which turns things into what they are not.
To possess money is to possess this antinatural, magical power.
Furthermore, quite apart from its innate capacities, money is ontologically the most unnatural force of all, because it is an externalized representation of human activity, of human life.
Money is the objectified form of subjectivity, at once the cause and the effect of conceiving of human beings as things." [The Faust Myth]

Having reduced qualities to quantities, and then accepted them as valuable metaphors, all human traits can be reduced to money...purchasing and selling qualities as if they referred to the actual quality, built in the past/nature.
And not only money but symbol, word, number, abstraction....the noumenon replaces the phenomenon by detaching from it....looping back upon itself and referring back to another noumenon.
Masturbation, solipsism, the comforting liberation from a world that remains indifferent to our contrivances.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

What is the Current Currency that promises human its worth, its dignity in the updative consumption?

- Secular Humanism promising the rational subject the right to self-value was an arbitrary currency that had simply effaced the Judeo-Xt. God's image on the coin with the face of Human in the name of enlightened reason, science, progress, etc. Humanarchization via VO tries to stabilize that arbitrariness. Not one among many currents, but the superior Currenc-y...

Sec. Humanism in itself is based on the J.-Xt. Currency of equality. The notion of 'equality' is directly linked to the codification of reality and its detachment from the aesthetic world of experience.
The tautology that 2=2 or that a=a refers to an ambiguity, a symbol referring to a mental construct with no connection to anything outside the mind, unless one draws the symbol on paper or on some material surface.
The symbol can now refer to anything in the real world, and its only consistency can be found in its strict adherence to a definition, which is itself encoded symbolically. This practice of providing a written definition is necessary because the symbol may lose meaning, being understood differently by every mind, since it has no shared reference point outside the human mind.

This stringent adherence to the code, the written down words, which enforce an intellectual consistency for the understanding of concepts which may or may not have a sensual reference point in space/time now creates the illusion of parity.
Because the word "human" must always be equal to itself no matter how many times it is replicated, or in what medium, or colour, or general linguistic form it is replicated, therefore the concept 'human' becomes a concept which implies equality for everyone it is used to describe.
The code must remain true to the definition, the book of definitions, and so the concept the word describes can now also remain constant and uniform no matter how many variation of the same is replicated.

Marxism is a variance of secular humanism, a variance of judeo-christian nihilism.
All are reduced to workers, producers/consumers.
Marxism emphasizes the production end; Capitalism the consuming end.
Both are part of the same mind-set.
Sex, race, heritage, do not matter within the economics where all is reduced to a number, a code, a market share.
In both the individual only matters as a part of the code: numbers being a linguistic symbol, a code, an abstraction of appearance.

The "us" is a construct.
Transhumanism proposes to surpass it through technologies, which are no more than extensions of memes, the physical projections of ideal(s).
The problem is the container: Earth.
It forces compromises, one of which is liberalism.
There are two methods:
Burn it or integrate it into a collage, a weave....requiring processing.
This "processing" part is what we call nihilism, feminization being a symptom of it....but it is better known as indoctrination, dumbing - down, humbling, eliminating identity, being methods. . .

Humanarchization of VO typically seduces with maximum Freedom as the new human currency...

Freedom, as a concept with no definition not related to human constructs, becomes, for the Modern the highest virtue.
For the modern Nihilist freedom means liberty form the past, from nature, from self as it has been determined.
The concept fills the mind with terror, and over time the first excitement turns to a sense of emptiness, and desperation, seeking for something to attach one's self to, something to light the path towards an object/objective.
The most terrified are the simplest minds; the ones who are the least able to cope with an idea they have no thought through. These simple minds are the first to attach themselves to a new dependence.
Their original overestimation becomes a desperate cry for an alternative incarceration.

Independence is not possible as an absolute.
The moderns dream of detaching themselves from the past but they can do no more than forget, and deny its effect upon their presence.
They mistake their choices as free choices, when the very degree of their options is limited by the past, as it projects itself forward.
The consequences of this delusion is the loss of self, a denouncement of ego; self-hatred becoming a rejection of one's inheritance, a resentment of presence/appearance, and the desperate attempt to castrate one's body from one's mind, as if mind were not the product of brain processes.

This is nihilism twisting a self-annulment into a "positive" value, by projecting it as some coming future state and by refusing to define the word used to represent the feeling the ambiguity gives the brain.
American "individuality" is the most popular manifestation of this drive to self-negate.
Its social purpose is to disconnect the mind form any supporting sources that would increase its resistance to indoctrination.

No, the Christian God didn't die.
He changed his name, tore off the toga, shaved the beard, and came down from the sky.
He still calls Himself Love/Hope/Freedom...after a short phase where He was also called Jesus in the west...and He now resides in the future, the immanent, or in some magical realm of Platonic Idealism.
God also adapts, or else He really does die.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

From the point of view of the consumer, on the one hand diversity might be advocated and celebrated by any member of a 'marginal' group for the sake of their effective integration, and consequently access to power and other perceived goods, and by others not members of a marginal group because of its association to the periced good of peace?

As you quoted here:

Lys wrote:The apology of nomadic life everywhere, the deterritorialization of all problems, the dream of “world governance,” a systematic removal of all roots, the encouragement to all kinds of hybridization — the fantasy of the One who has finally landed in the field of mandatory in-mixing — becomes the rule. [Alain de Benoist]

the ideology has ties to that of world government, and in one early advocated form and technique (namely Immanuel Kant) the means (and end) of world government was peace, one of the conceptual tools being his famous categorical imperative.

Yes, it does, but now as an inversion. What you point out is what Zygmund Baumann called pomo. "Liquid Modernity" - this is not Diversity:

Baumann wrote:"As David Bennett recently observed, 'radical uncertainty about the material and social worlds we inhabit and our modes of political agency within them... is what the image-industry offers us...'.
Indeed, the message conveyed today with great power of persuasion by the most ubiquitously effective cultural media (and, let us add, easily read out by the recipients against the background of their own experience, aided and abetted by the logic of consumer freedom) is a message of the essential indeterminacy and softness of the world: in this world, everything may happen and everything can be done, but nothing can be done once for all -- and whatever happens comes unannounced and goes away without notice. In this world, bonds are dissembled into successive encounters, identities into successively worn masks, life- history into a series of episodes whose sole lasting importance is their equally ephemeric memory. Nothing can be known for sure, and anything which is known can be known in a different way -- one way of knowing is as good, or as bad (and certainly as volatile and precarious) as any other. Betting is now the rule where certainty was once sought, while taking risks replaces the stubborn pursuit of goals. And thus there is little in the world which one could consider solid and reliable, nothing reminiscent of a tough canvas in which one could weave one's own life itinerary.

Like everything else, the self-image splits into a collection of snapshots, each having to conjure up, carry and express its own meaning, more often than not without reference to other snapshots. Instead of constructing one's identity, gradually and patiently, as one builds a house - through the slow accretion of ceilings, floors, rooms, connecting passages - a series of new beginnings', experimenting with instantly assembled yet easily dismantled shapes, painted one over the other; a palimpsest identity.

This is the kind of identity which fits the world in which the art of forgetting is an asset no less, if no more, important than the art of memorizing, in which forgetting rather than learning is the condition of continuous fitness, in which ever new things and people enter and exit without much rhyme or reason the field of vision of the stationary camera of attention, and where the memory itself is like videotape, always ready to be wiped clean in order to admit new images, and boasting a life-long guarantee only thanks to that wondrous ability of endless self-effacing."[Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodernity and its Discontents]

Consider also what Zizek says Diversity means now:

Zizek wrote:"Reflexivisation has transformed the structure of social dominance. Take the public image of Bill Gates. Gates is not a patriarchal father-master, nor even a corporate Big Brother running a rigid bureaucratic empire, surrounded on an inaccessible top floor by a host of secretaries and assistants. He is instead a kind of Small Brother, his very ordinariness an indication of a monstrousness so uncanny that it can no longer assume its usual public form. In photos and drawings he looks like anyone else, but his devious smile points to an underlying evil that is beyond representation. It is also a crucial aspect of Gates as icon that he is seen as the hacker who made it (the term ‘hacker’ has, of course, subversive/marginal/anti-establishment connotations; it suggests someone who sets out to disturb the smooth functioning of large bureaucratic corporations). At the level of fantasy, Gates is a small-time, subversive hooligan who has taken over and dressed himself up as the respectable chairman. In Bill Gates, Small Brother, the average ugly guy coincides with and contains the figure of evil genius who aims for total control of our lives. In early James Bond movies, the evil genius was an eccentric figure, dressed extravagantly, or alternatively, in the grey uniform of the Maoist commissar. In the case of Gates, this ridiculous charade is no longer needed – the evil genius turns out to be the boy next door.
The superego inverts the Kantian ‘You can, because you must’ in a different way, turning it into ‘You must, because you can.’ This is the meaning of Viagra, which promises to restore the capacity of male erection in a purely biochemical way, bypassing all psychological problems. Now that Viagra can take care of the erection, there is no excuse: you should have sex whenever you can; and if you don’t you should feel guilty. New Ageism, on the other hand, offers a way out of the superego predicament by claiming to recover the spontaneity of our ‘true’ selves. But New Age wisdom, too, relies on the superego imperative: ‘It is your duty to achieve full self-realisation and self-fulfilment, because you can.’ Isn’t this why we often feel that we are being terrorised by the New Age language of liberation?" [You May]

Fluidity is the new freedom, but Only within the paradigm of the already pre-determined frame of Sec. Humanism as the highest value; this fluidity being sold as Diversity.
Consumption as a "Must" is Efficaciously marketed as a "May"...
Therefore, you'll find the political Right and Left are merely two sides of the same coin of nihilism: "conservatives" only conserve the change that "liberals" push the conserved limit. A continual self-dialectic.
The turning of reality upon its head, the reversed pyramid, indicates an overturning of hierarchies.
The "meek shall inherit the Earth" but only if they buy into a world where definitions are altered - a world of artifices created for them, seducing them into its promised liberation from their condition, using feminine tactics of word-play, verbal manipulation, selling a "positive," emotional, product by negating, nullifying reality - a process of seduction and emotional manipulation - the Grammatology of Modern Dialectics slowly shelling the world into a Human World and embedding and displacing reality with human reality, human needs, human desires, human concerns of comfort and pleasure.
When a Modern speaks of the world he most often speaks of the world of man.
Even when engaging reality, nature, it does so through a mediating human proxy.
The world is never something it engages directly, and whenever the term "world" is brought up it is always a reference to human artifices, the world of man.
The human world rather than being a tiny part of the world at large, now becomes the all-encompassing paradigm swallowing up reality into its human simplifications.
The world becomes malleable, less stressful, more predictable, simply by incorporating it within human abstractions, expressed with numerical or linguistic codes.
The practice of using the term “world” when referring to man-made artifices, in time, and through constant repetition, becomes established as a norm.
The world can only be engage via a human proxy, or a humanitarian agenda – perceiving must wear the glasses of humanism and see the world through its self-serving decrees.
Having no proxy which would dare offer one which contradicted social conventions, the words are left to describe a subjective perspective.
No attempt is made to refer them to real phenomenon, in the fear of losing control over the words themselves, by placing the standard outside human artifices - artifices which can be controlled and altered at will.
All definitions must be filtered through proxies, referring and deferring to human needs.
When the need is based on the socio-economic, cultural paradigm trying to establish and maintain internal harmony (The Feminization of Mankind), then all definitions which connect words to a reality outside this paradigm are rejected, or judged using the most absolutest, stringent, standards so as to ridicule and then dismiss them out of hand.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

It appears you have an issue with hedonism. Do you hold hedonism to be the striving for pleasure in total, or pleasure as encapsulated by the senses (sensual hedonism), that is to say, do you have a contention against for example the pleasure gained from the increase of knowledge or the obtainment of fame or honor?

If so, what do you hold to be the highest good?

A hedonist is a typical utilitarian who thinks in terms of pleasure as the innate good with his instinctive hatred of reality and reduces judgements of reality within this sheltered telos that he has pre-posited. A hedonist cannot make value-judgements on par with reality; his preservation and self-maintenance only and can only exist within a bubble.
Epicurus had a 'Garden'. These Bubbles may come in different names. To a Master [in the sense Nietzsche meant], the hedonist is a decadent; to the hedonist, a certain kind of hedonist is a decadent. Ethical Hedonism like his which takes for granted Pleasure as the innate good automatically or Bentham's Quantitative Hedonism changed into some quality for the common good, Aristotle's Virtue Hedonism which cites excellence as the highest pleasure/good, Sloterdijk's Sphere of Immunology are all variations within the same branch that posits Pleasure as an ends.
Good, Strong, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Power, Beauty, Self, One, all words describing the same absent absolute.

Each defining the individual striving towards it as an object/objective.

Pleasure = diminishment of need, a partial and temporary alleviation of the consciousness of existence.
Need = consciousness of Flux, a temporal attrition on an ordering/becoming emergent unity.
Suffering/Pain = need left unsatiated, the increase in stress, as the unity begins losing cohesion.

When any decadent mind can make anything that counts as pleasure as his or her end, then HM is an inferior indiscriminate outlook - Reality simplified to a sensation, and turned into an ideal.
A hedonist discriminates by *already* moralizing pleasure is good in terms of pleasure/pain. When discrimination itself is not an objective assessment, but a 'pleasuring oneself', then his reality is skewed, cut off from the sensation of pain, need, suffering, and he indulges in the pleasurable act itself. Hedonism is not 'that' noble asceticism where endurance of pain and building tolerance produces a consciousness of power [experienced as pleasure], of what one can do without - which is the opposite of that hedonism which avoids life *to* indulge in pleasure, or those Xt. asceticisms that engage in painful self-mortifications to repress, numb, and deaden the body so life can become tolerable...

The Master's asceticism is about cultivating 'indifference' which does not mean living carelessly, but a steadfastness of undisturbed inner order manifesting as calm - it is being indifferent to fate to be able to love and affirm life for what it IS!, Reality for what it IS.

To put it simply within my HM:PO context here, it is abstracting the conception of good/bad within the human environment, and does not touch deriving value-standards outside human systems and life at large. The limitations of my reality and my good/bad does not limit reality at large.
HM is equivalent to the phrase "Just Because" - no explanations necessary when values detached from reality are pre-posited as the innate good or highest end. In HM:PO, Sec. Humanism presets the "us", or humanism as the innate good already - "just because"...

The highest good is Knowing Thyself which is a continuous regressive process into the past, where I and AM are not separate since life is continuous self-(inter)activity... and there is no embedded telos.
"Knowing Thyself" is a be-coming,... a continuous looking back that does not end in some "built-in purpose" - That, would be a nihilism.

Nietzsche wrote:""Toward a critique oj the herd virtues.- Inertia operates. ...in the sense of truth. What is true? Where an
explanation is given which causes us the minimum of spiritual effort." [WTP, 279]

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

Jacob? James? Any reaction?

And if Lys is willing to bring her thoughts about nihilism down into the world of actual flesh and blood human beings interacting -- interacting in a world of conflicting goods viewed from the perspective of dasein -- I would like to participate in the exchange as well.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 41693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Performance Ontology

That is a big response, I'm going to need some time to read and absorb it all and formulate a response, if I have a response to make.

The first quotes from Parsons and Baudrillard are very good and throw a unique light on the fate of philosophy in (post)modern society. Much appreciated.

The Artful Pauper

Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

The first quotes from Parsons and Baudrillard are very good and throw a unique light on the fate of philosophy in (post)modern society. Much appreciated.

I have collected some of the relevant aphorisms and passages on/by Baudrillard here and here

Sloterdijk here

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

A very keen analysis, and perhaps implicit why James would be reluctant ,(perhaps?) to engage. The symbiosis of the production with the product, with the end result that VO becomes a new Dasein, where the thing is, not, that probable distinctions of
marketability no longer apply, but simply,...that they have reached their limit, and they have become nearly indistinct in probative value. Proba translates
into 'test' and the literal transformation of the Badrillard type tv test of various comparable products, have become integrated within the idea of what a test is all about. The simulacra eats up any semblance of logical distinction which may occur to the ordinary consumer. Advertisers, like Bill Gates know how it is easy to manipulate the image as a logical equivalency
with the modus operant of the product as reduced VO into it's image. What is being done, is, that the product becomes a necessarily logical choice from then on. But there is a critique that could be introduced here, and Bill Gates would be the first to jump on that bandwagon/ vis, the emergence of generic prodicts appear to violate this almost totally accepted procedure. Perhaps, that is, the very reason that generics was allowed, to give the impression of a stable laissez faire.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance

sincere, the centre of
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers

Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

### Re: Performance Ontology

I'm going to respond to this little by little otherwise I think I will lose my train of thought entirely.

First, since I am not very familiar with VO or RM:AO, I can't speak for them or really much about them, so to be clear I will be answering on my own terms.

From your first two responses (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187106&p=2507627#p2507609 and http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187106&p=2507627#p2507611) —

—what I gathered was that you were saying due to the mode of action (or performance) of the capitalist system which comes to deal in value by imbuing objects through an alchemical process (not sure if I'm using the right metaphor here — but the process would be ideological education, advertising (both of which deal with things like social arrangements, norms and so on) as well as with psychological processes, like cognition which guides us through an environment...) with a "significance" which divorces them from the traditionally understood capitalist system of production to meet needs.

A philosophy based around valuation, and which posits value as the measure, would be either ineffecacious or frivolous (again, since I am not familiar with VO or RM, I am just writing what I have gathered based on my own preconceptions and reading your comments).

I am not sure if I have this correctly, but it seems like you are proposing that the ontological measure of reality must be a measure of the act, because values, being represented by words have an infinitely malleable nature allowing a given subject to remain in the world of simulacra, whereas an ontology based in the act would reveal such a situation and make it amenable to interpretation?

Perhaps you could inform me whether I am on the right track here. I will proceed to read the rest.

Your description of an alternative to hedonism here (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187106&p=2507643#p2507619) is intriguing, but again I need clarification.

When you say:

Lys wrote:HM is equivalent to the phrase "Just Because" - no explanations necessary when values detached from reality are pre-posited as the innate good or highest end. In HM:PO, Sec. Humanism presets the "us", or humanism as the innate good already - "just because"...

Are you saying that at the bottom, valuations arise just because?

Earlier you wrote

Lys wrote:The world can only be engage via a human proxy, or a humanitarian agenda – perceiving must wear the glasses of humanism and see the world through its self-serving decrees.

Having no proxy which would dare offer one which contradicted social conventions, the words are left to describe a subjective perspective.

No attempt is made to refer them to real phenomenon, in the fear of losing control over the words themselves, by placing the standard outside human artifices - artifices which can be controlled and altered at will.

it seems you are trying to point to a reality outside of the human interpretation that humanists reject, but how could we ever have access to such a reality if all information must be filtered through our minds? It would seem that this obstacle is what gives impetus to humanism to declare the human as the ultimate measure, even the measure of phenomena.

I am just anticipating that an objection that might arise is that, because as humans we are 'condemned' (so to speak) to our own minds through which and into the mixture of which we perceive, the positing of any interpretation or valuation (including Being-in-itself, and so the pain, the suffering and all else) would be just that, an interpretation from the human and an attempt to encapsulate reality in our terms — and the expansion of our ability to encapsulate through terms or even to drop the boundaries of applying signs (while I might agree is a good) would again be an act of the human will to interpret the world, and in that sense at least control it.

Again, I will need clarification to the first questions about what you are proposing as performance ontology, but isn't all performance of the human an attempt to control the world, or at least some aspect of it? Even the reinterpretation of the capitalist system into something which necessitates doing away with it or otherwise circumventing it would in that sense be a controlling nature so that the destiny of humanity could be channeled in a certain direction.

I'm just wondering, when you say

Lys wrote:For the modern Nihilist freedom means liberty form the past, from nature, from self as it has been determined.

how can you have a problem with the manipulative tendencies of the capitalist system and yet not wish to liberate yourself from the situation, which would subsequently become past, which is at present determining?

I would also like to ask, it seems like you are using nihilism in a moralistic sense, but I wouldn't mind if you made it clearer exactly how the things you have spoken of (humanism, hedonism, etc.) are nihilism, and how you've come to the conclusion nihilism is a bad thing in such a way that the term is applicable to the other terms.

Lys wrote:The highest good is Knowing Thyself which is a continuous regressive process into the past, where I and AM are not separate since life is continuous self-(inter)activity... and there is no embedded telos.
"Knowing Thyself" is a be-coming,... a continuous looking back that does not end in some "built-in purpose" - That, would be a nihilism.

Isn't knowing oneself a humanism? The focus being on the human (oneself). It seems like you take something like Mirandola's treatise Origin on the Dignity of Man to be the core expression of all humanism, but as I see it, humanism is just the beginning of taking the interpretation of the world away from divine revelation and centering the persuit of knowledge in the human. To my mind, the foremost figures of humanism are Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and Rabelais.

I say this because it seems that your criticism of what you call nihilism would ultimately be for the sake of the human, unless you are positing Being as a quasi-revelation? Even if the latter was the case, by what authority would the revelation be followed, because prior revelation was demanded under the sight of God (or gods), whereas Being only asks what is, and what is possible, and so capitalism at bottom would not be in breach of Being's revelation (I am trying to understand your argument against humanism and 'nihilisms').

The Artful Pauper

Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

iambiguous wrote:Jacob? James? Any reaction?

And if Lys is willing to bring her thoughts about nihilism down into the world of actual flesh and blood human beings interacting -- interacting in a world of conflicting goods viewed from the perspective of dasein -- I would like to participate in the exchange as well.

As far as I can tell, all of this has very little, if anything, to do with RM:AO or VO.

VO is the serpent in the tree.
RM:AO is the garden.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Performance Ontology

This is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 9691
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: Performance Ontology

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Jacob? James? Any reaction?

And if Lys is willing to bring her thoughts about nihilism down into the world of actual flesh and blood human beings interacting -- interacting in a world of conflicting goods viewed from the perspective of dasein -- I would like to participate in the exchange as well.

As far as I can tell, all of this has very little, if anything, to do with RM:AO or VO.

VO is the serpent in the tree.
RM:AO is the garden.

Okay, but it would just seem that you would be eager to set her straight. After all, like you, she seems mostly interested in going about this as a serious philosopher might. She deduces certain assumptions based on the manner in which she defines the meaning of particular words set in a particular order. And then her argument is either right or wrong depending on the extent to which you share these intellectual assumptions about what either is or is not logical.

In other words, she seems to go about asserting things that are said to be true in much the same manner as you do.

Or so it seems to me.

It's just that, while I did not understand much of the science that you exchanged with Eugene Morrow a while back, I still enjoyed following the exchange. I thought perhaps that this might become another one of those.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 41693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Performance Ontology

Value has always preceded the emergence of a man made object.
We do not cause objects to emerge, only to then consider if we can find a use for them or not.
The very value of an object is originated by the need for it.
How is that a cancer industry?

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

phoneutria wrote:Value has always preceded the emergence of a man made object.
We do not cause objects to emerge, only to then consider if we can find a use for them or not.
The very value of an object is originated by the need for it.

Reality is broader than the utilitarian reality that is typical of HM.
"Need for it" is what being manufactured.

How is that a cancer industry?

Baudrillard wrote:"We are now governed not so much by growth as by growths. Ours is a society founded on proliferation, on growth which continues even though it cannot be measured against any clear goals. An excrescential society whose development is uncontrollable, occurring without regard for self-definition, where the accumulation of effects goes hand in hand with the disappearance of causes. The upshot is gross systemic congestion and malfunction caused by hypertelia - by an excess of functional imperatives, by a sort of saturation. There is no better analogy here than the metastatic process in cancer: a loss of the body's organic ground rules such that a given group of cells is able to deploy its incoercible and murderous vitality, to defy genetic programming and to proliferate endlessly.

This process is not a critical one: crisis is always a matter of causality, of an imbalance between cause and effect to which a solution will be found (or not) by attending to causes. In our case, by contrast, it is the causes themselves that are tending to disappear, tending to become indecipherable, and giving way to an intensification of processes operating in a void.

Deficiency is never a complete disaster, but saturation is fatal, for it produces a sort of tetanized inertia.

The striking thing about all present-day systems is their bloatedness: the means we have devised for handling data - communication, record-keeping, storage, production and destruction - are all in a condition of Idemonic pregnancy' (to borrow Susan Sontag's description of cancer). So lethargic are they, indeed, that they will assuredly never again serve a useful purpose. It is not we that have put an end to use-value - rather, the system itself has eliminated it through surplus production. So many things have been produced and accumulated that they can never possibly all be put to use. So many messages and signals are produced and disseminated that they can never possibly all be read. A good thing for us too - for even with the tiny portion that we do manage to absorb, we are in a state of permanent electrocution.

There is something particularly nauseating about this prodigious useless­ness, about a proliferating yet hypertrophied world which cannot give birth to anything. So many reports, archives, documents - and not a single idea generated; so many plans, programmes, decisions - and not a single event precipitated; so many sophisticated weapons produced - and no war declared!

This saturation goes way beyond the surplus that Bataille spoke of; all societies have found some way to dispose of that through useless or sump­tuous expense. There is no possible way for us to spend all that has been accumulated - all we have in prospect is a slow or brutal decompensation, with each factor of acceleration serving to create inertia, bringing us closer to absolute inertia. What we call crisis is in fact a foreshadowing of this absolute inertia." [Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil]

This is the blind and extreme potlatch... unhooked to any person-ality and spilling cancerously beyond any borders.

Deleuze can then thus speak of, "Since desire produces reality, social production, with its forces and relations, is "purely and simply desiring-production itself under determinate conditions." - PO.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

### Re: Performance Ontology

James S Saint wrote:As far as I can tell, all of this has very little, if anything, to do with RM:AO or VO.

VO is the serpent in the tree.
RM:AO is the garden.

That's exactly what I said about HM:PO --- When RM:AO meets VO, it is God meets Satan within the same manichean paradigm in the hedonistic promise of maximum self-realization or self-valuing, but only is self-idolizings. When Anentropy is an ends in itself, an innate good, that is one more variant of hedonism.

If you have a concrete intro. thread here to RM or any other forum, do link me to it if you care to.

Lys
Thinker

Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

Next