Home » Uncategorized (Page 2)

Category Archives: Uncategorized



Image text by Robert Sheckley



The desire for fundamentalist simplicity and insular locality implicit in the resurgence of ‘flat earth’ ideology, flattens the very global ambitions originated by that desire in its imperially expansive mode. The scientific epistemology of actual imperial expansion was global. With the advent of the Internet, a level of electronic homogeneity emerges, both the dimensionality and directionality suggested by the metaphoric of an ‘information superhighway’. Here, at this levelling of information interchange, a communicative superconductivity begins to occur, and epistemology becomes subject to all kinds of cultural reflexivity.


Geometry, is the measurement of Earth (geos).

Whatever the currently dominant geometric figuration of Earth may be, as immediately intuitible, extraterrestrial cosmic shape; such a unitary outline and the epistemology of global responsibility it might suggest, do not account for differential forces of desire residing within the apparent borders of that outline yet not bound to any responsibility for it.


That presidential assent has been given to human exploration and colonisation of Mars, contrasts in a most interesting way with presidential deletion of ‘climate change’ information; the silencing of the ‘call of Earth’. The immediately suggested contrast, is between the Martian symbolics of war and the ‘one world’ ideology of ‘peaceful togetherness’ on Earth.


The actual hegemonic impetus is consumption, with various ideological ‘Earths’ and ‘worlds’ hallucinated in accord with this impetus. Whether the spatiotemporal stability of cosmic process apparently hosting these hallucinations can survive their onslaught; or perhaps require them and their effects, for continued survival; is an open question.

I’m not going to delineate the seemingly destructive factors currently held to be in play. The deep entrenchments of ‘dominion ideology’; various political and religious hysterias; and so on. All of these ideological mechanisms are susceptible to casuistical contextualisations; their essences, natures, and functions, contingent on contextualisation. And as can be seen, at the level of their explicit interchange, concurrence of contexts seems most often to occur as conflict rather than any clarity of unanimous accord. Thus, a complex, multi-dimensional scenario, beyond the flat simplicity of any ideology, and perhaps even beyond the Platonist idea.


Wrote this well over a decade ago, as a text message to Harvey John Brown, the notorious violinist! lol

“It is difficult, now, to understand the controversies that so beset initial performances of the founding works of Unheardism. From the infamous Boulez episode, through to the street protests, the ‘Bring Back Music’ marches, the reactionary critiques. With the decline of such partisan dramatics, a more balanced and measured judgment has come into play, from which, the advances that have been made can be more securely estimated.
  This is not to say that there is a soporific unanimity attendant upon the movement, there are differences, often heated, even amongst the leading proponents of the movement. But the fundamental tenets of the “Revolution of Forgotten Silences” (Schmidt:HRFS, pp.i-vii) are accepted by all, even the soundees, or ‘musicians’, as they like to call themselves.
  We are fortunate today to have the founder of the tradition with us, prior to the inaugural performance of his latest work, and he has kindly agreed to a few words with us before introducing the work.
    The piece is rather short compared to previous works, at two and a half hours long there have been speculations that he is crossing over into the more commercial realms of “Quiet” popularity. He strenuously denies this, and the difficult part writing in the third movement seems to add confirmation to such denials.
  But what is truly revolutionary about the work is the option for the audience to play Bach and Al Di Meola on their m-players, throughout the performance. Some have called it genius. Though, there has been one dissenting voice. The radical Gustavio Zizzo. Although currently conducting a six month workshop in orbit around Saturn (“the hadrons are less noisy there”), he has surveyed the score and declared, unequivocally, “Reactive Dilettante!”, ironically echoing the precise words of the founder when asked about John Cage as a possible precursor.
  AKs response: “Well, Gustavio is a virtuoso, and he has furthered my explorations of molecular noise reduction to an incredible degree, but he misses the point, I think.”   
  Gustavio cannot hear spoken responses at present, as his ears have been surgically removed, a practice he often indulges in to enable fine tuning.”


A compilation of self-quotes,enabling a semantic and thematic clarification, of sorts.


“This is disturbing, it is redolent of other book burning practioners rather than David Hume. Hume’s scepticism emerged out of a genuine philosophic path, rather than the unthinking ‘cult-speaks’ that characterise the epoch of an exploitative ‘modernity’, of which ‘speculative realism’ seems to be the most recent, sub-cultural ‘gang’ argot. A collation of anachronies and out-of-context citations, ‘speculative realism’ attempts to contrive imaginary philosophical contentions by replaying ‘positions’ no one has seriously held for centuries.”
(“Fighting Things You Cannot See: A Quick Response” –

“Modernity brought in a fresh consideration of these issues, applying eminently modernist formalisms, reflexively, to the processes of modernity itself. This has obviously proved too much for those who merely chant ‘progress’ as a mantra, believing in the argot of ‘modernity’, even as it displaced the autonomies of everything contrary to its projects, to the extension of its ‘networks’, and supplied them with the booty, the sp(oil)s?, of this regimentation. But this ‘supply’ has been getting a little uncertain, recently. Time to boost the old ‘self-esteem’, the flagging spirits, let’s run the good ol’ narratives of ‘can-do’, no-nonsense reductionism again, the ones that gave us what we have, the simple ones that we can understand, the ones with heroes like Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud.”
(“Fighting Things You Cannot See: A Quick Response” –

“It isn’t my task to explain anything within such an oneiric regime (”’Oneiric economy’”), in the argots and understandings of a regime necessarily susceptible to the distortions and closures characterising the psychopathology of its governing constitution. One can only ‘show’, as it were.”


Essentially, what you’re saying, is that anything that sounds like critique to you, of whatever you perceive your identity affiliations to be, is invalid mythology for which you can trot out a weak differential and demythologising critique, but it’s okay for you to indulge in pontifications about those not belonging to your perceived affiliations, in an argot dripping with false assumptions, exaggerations, and outright misrepresentations.
This is why Elif Verney-Eliot, and his Communist ‘witch-hunt’ comrades, called you ‘racist’.
You’re not actually racist, though, you’re just not objective enough to transcend whatever personal trauma you’ve experienced at the hands of black authority figures. Instead, you universalise your personal conclusions in erroneous ways. That’s down to lack of raw theoretical ability; and an astounding naivety, considering you live in New York; but not any explicit racism.”

“Losing oneself in the Neoreactionary argot of involuted self-understanding: desperately searching for a mythological precursor: generations who can only see global politics as a computor game of imperialised objects: a networked nightmare on the sports channel. That’s entertainment!
Losing oneself in the Neoreactionary argot of involuted self-understanding: Neoreaction loses itself in a replay of fundamental nostalgias, under the banner of “reality”, attempting to deal with radical technological transformation, through ideological resources (traditional identities) long since rendered redundant by the the emerging technoscenography. The essence of Occidental Modernity is expansion. To backtrack from this ‘expansionary understanding’ is for the Occident to self-destruct ”

Adorno was brilliant. A lot of Neoreactives seem tremendously lacking in critical acumen, to the point of insanity.

Even in your own argot:
1) If a Neoreactionary suggests rampant colonial exploitations, through corrupt and unethical tactics, were justified by a Darwinian ideology, then why should so-called “NeoLiberal” elitism (the “Cathedral”) be denied access to the same justification?
2) Wouldn’t the same Darwinian ideology, carried through, say that Neoreaction is the the most ironic form of defeat? After centuries of privilege, there is a group of disaffected hypocrites, who are unable to prevail in a world of multinational kapital whose very development they worship, but whose functioning they are now unable to withstand without whinging complaint.
3) You’ve been locked out of academic careers because of “affirmative action”? Choose a field requiring the highest IQ, which your HBD mumblings parade so incessantly.
     You’re not popular because you represent a “privileged” group? Wow! That sounds like prejudice! Such bigotry is awful. You must feel terrible. How unfair! But I’m sure the alleged genetic predisposition towards high civilisation can enable a dignified tolerance.
How come we don’t hear the so called “Neoliberal elites” complain? Is it because they’re the winners of the Darwinian race? Or is it because they’re not insane?

“English tendency towards abbreviation reflects the diminishing of personal expression in favour of the argot of socio-corporate activity, utility-speak. It is the language of the ur-user.”

“To what degree, is the telegraphic abruptness of the Neoreactionary style (as shown regularly on ‘Outside in’), an argot of dehumanised abbreviations constituting psychotic reduction as linguistic narcotic?”

“The rhythmics of intensification and release suggested by a “concentration of powers” is largely configured by a deprivation anxiety conditioned by history and a particular ‘evolutionary’ sequence. The notion of an ‘android’, or ‘robot’, is not new, or even a unique characteristic of Modernity. The notion of an artificial being or man goes back millennia, to ancient times. But its contemporary emphasis, and realisation, is a concomitant of larger and ‘deeper’ movements, which can, of course, be aligned in interesting and insightful ways with this or that topoi, ‘metaphysical’ or ’empirical’; but all of these ‘things’, these abbreviations, are in operation; and really, one has to be able to see that, and not ‘reduce’ it to one’s favoured argot of insularity. But this is precisely what the Occident seems unable to do. It has used division and differential classification for so long as weaponry, that it can no longer distinguish itself from its own armoury. The ‘android’ emerges, to the degree that the pretence of this distinction collapses.”


As all definition moves closer towards simply being desire; each definition a dialectic between varying probabilities; between the reliable regularity of alleged certitudes, and the increasingly improbable; that nostalgic conceptual economy, rubricised as ‘world’, grows ever more granularised, into micro-epistemologies, into micro-libidinal epistemologies; vast swarms of sense, in both senses.
In and around this imaginary, of a ‘world-pen’, huge herds of meaning can be observed, their migratory patterns almost instantaneous to a subset of biological perceptions, caught in its global techno-entanglement of electronic light.


If there were no such thing as sound, there would be no such thing as ‘silence’.
The notion of a linguistic silence is inherent to language.
As the expansion of non-selection, non-intention, ‘absence’, ‘space’, etc.; it is the expansion of the condition of selection, intention, ‘presence’, ‘sign’, etc..
This expansion, as emphasis and increased consideration, begins to signify the non-significant; setting a conditional semantics, or semantics of condition; against that of simple, positivist, utilitarian, and habitual, selections; or, more precisely, those selections without non-significant, conditional reflection.
Selecting the non-significant, or more bluntly, signifying the non-significant, might seem to be a blatantly paradoxical enterprise. But this would only be the case, with universalising notions, of essentialist conceptions, of the sign and non-sign.

Just as a sign requires delimitation to function as ‘a’ sign; an amalgam of signs, constituting a code or language, too, require delimitation, to function as ‘a’ code or ‘a’ language. Therefore, the gesture of defining selection is always specifically conditioned; specifying that which is defined, with relation to the necessarily undefined. These requirements and gestures would be the minimal conditions necessary to produce ‘significance’, whether as sign or system of signs.
Without sign, or semiotic system; as specific ‘significance’, or specific system of significance production; there can be no non-significance. Signs are relational, so are ‘non-signs’. If there were no signs at all, there would be nothing to negate.

Naive positivist essentialism, has a tendency to look for ‘things in themselves’, at the expense of any genuine consideration of their conditions. It has a tendency towards axiomatic atrophication of signs, and hallucinating unnecessary incommensurabilities of its own construction. Rather than abandon this somewhat emotive attachment to positivist naivety, it will extend relational non-significance into an essentialist nihilism, under its self-imposed cultural duress of monumental self-mythology. In truth, though, this banal exceptionalist desire only suffers from a monumental lack of relational talent. Such is the condition of commodified consciousness.


This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


TRUMP’S populism is built from the algorithmic trackings of public opinion fluctuation overseen by Bannon and Cambridge analytics. That’s largely why he’s in the White House.

Capitalism being what it is, actual free trade policies would lead to the continued disenfranchisement of uncompetitive American business and labour by foreign competition. There are two forms of protectionism by which the USA has attempted to stem this trend.
One, the various global trade agreements, such as TTIP, etc., which enshrine the interests of corporate capital as prime legislation, handing over all arbitrations to internal, corporate decision. This has the effect of allowing U.S. Capital, as well as all international corporate interests, unlimited and risk-free lattitude in deploying their present capital reserves to fully monopolise all markets and drive out all competition.
Two, Bannon’s ‘economic nationalism’, which in effect does the same thing domestically. Lessening corporate deficits through tax cuts; creating the conditions for subcontractor/small business increase; these simple moves, whatever else they may do, ensure that U.S. corporate capital does not deplete. International trade is then arranged on a piecemeal basis, according to Trump’s ‘art of dealing’.
All of this is fairly innocuous and simple, but it neglects the unpopular military-industrial face of American business which Bannon; Trump, and his supporters; would rather ignore, in their dreams of a U.S. self-reliance, whose every international intervention is a magnanimous act of U.S. beneficence. To reflect this visage in America’s political mirror, would not only be to deny this dream of charitable autonomy; but it would be an explicit acknowledgement of the extent to which the USA configures, calculates, and controls; horror, injustice, and iniquity, around the globe.
No longer would this acknowledgement merely reside in oppositional rhetorics of the populist Left and Right; or in dispassionate political histories of the contemporary era.  The discrepancy between mainstream, official declarations, and the leak of critique, has, with the ascension of Trump’s own indulgence in demonising the U.S. establishment from the White House itself, essentially collapsed that discrepancy.

The speeds characterising high frequency trading necessarily encourage acceleration of linked economic factors and processes, too. Political and media production, cannot help but reflect this. This, together with the hyper-visibility of the Internet, and the international polyvocity it enables; ensures that mainstream authorisation and its critical refutation occur almost simultaneously. In some cases, such refutations actually precede authorisations. Given this scenario, the traditional notion of an independent media reporting on autonomous political events no longer quite obtains. It’s not so much that representation and reference have entirely disappeared. Rather, all factors have collapsed into the singular momentum of pure eventuality, a sphere of self-caused ‘effects’ that mediates only itself, and is no longer susceptible to traditional linear explanations. Such explanations would have been reliant on the worldly distances between traditional categories. With the technological compression of those distances, creating a speed of events beyond the effective processing capacity of mass human reception; traditional categorisation, and the lineaments of world-building sense which it provides; has lost its purchase on eventuality and can no longer quite find the worlds of mundane yet reliable convention it once enjoyed. There is a twisting implosion in which the encoding embroidery of these conventions; the textile of the whole world; has become a mere ‘wet rag’ of reality, wrung ever tighter by Profit’s grip, in Finance’s quest to eke out every drop of unexploited value. This adventure of compressive desiccation, or desiccating compression, has reached the point where all liquidity has left this torso of conventional reality in torsion, dripping and disappearing into the virtuality of offshore, financial fictions. As further twisting tensions are applied, the fabric of reality begins to break, and the masses hang on to the weave of its nostalgia, by a thread. Noticeably fraying and unstitching, at the conclusion of this process not even a single patch of reality is left. In addition, it is no longer certain what is ‘loom’ and what is ‘weft’. For the empire of the real was not only clothed in the threads of imagination, but it was entirely built out of them, too.

On! the Club(s) of Occidental Buddhism

These are quick responses to Matthias Steingass’ “Check out The Imperfect Buddha Podcast => “, FB post, here; & the “9.1 Imperfect Buddha Podcast on the liberating force of non-Buddhism”, there. I’ve only heard about an hour & ten minutes of the podcast, so this responds to the content up to that point.



The desire for ‘commitment’, for a ‘being together with’, whether with an ideology or communitarian sect, is inherently contradictory, if an identified form is sought, whilst at the same time, all ideological identities are proscribed.

[Laruellean Questioner?]: “Tell me something, but don’t specify anything.  If you do so specify, you are susceptible to narrow literal interpretations of ‘sufficiency’; if you don’t, you are susceptible to accusations of vagueness.”

It’s the demand to free the questioner from his/her habits, & to expand his/her mind, but to conduct this liberation in the language of the habitual; which can actually be done; but then, to do this while the questioner engages in deliberate obfuscation & contradiction, whilst demanding that such deliberations not be analysed or critiqued.
This is an enforced framing, calculated to produce ‘non-communication’ & ‘non-commitment’, lol. This calculated militancy preserves, in a farcical way, an obligatory faceted & controlled critique, within tight parameters, as a superficial commodity that can be bought & sold in the Occidental marketplace, whilst leaving all the iniquities through which that marketplace arose, & continues to be sustained, unquestioned.



On transcendence: ‘transcendence’ is always specific; it is ‘transcendence from’; it occurs as a relation, not being bound by, specified identity, or identities.



One of my FB, & SL, friends, has had a ‘white light’ experience, which is often associated with religious or theological ideas. If one wished to absolutise a physicalist interpretation, to totalise the metaphor of scientific phusis, as it were, reducing to anthropically mediated conventional notions of ‘physical process’; it can be said that a ‘white light’ experience is a resonance of being closer to being driven by the liberatory flows of stellar energy, which is an ‘origin’ of the life force coursing through all biological instantiations belonging to ‘Earth’. It could be considered a ‘solar memory’, recalling this ‘origin’; an ‘origin’ we experience, & that is reinforced, everyday.
But to say it is exclusively that, & to identify it as such, is to cut off further contextual resonances & the insights they could bring. To justify such a scission, citing economy of thought in search of some ‘true’ structural necessity underlying an allegedly supervenient ‘phenomenal’ play, is merely to dualise in the service of some ‘purpose’ or expediency, some assumed teleological structure, that equally needs to be taken into consideration, & not left in the slums of unthought dogma. This is precisely what Occidental thought has a tendency to neglect, leaving unquestioned its own animus; & rejecting all other ways of thought, either blatantly, or through some positioning of trivialising exoticism alienated into the Orient or elsewhere, as, let us not forget, an ‘identity’, always an ‘identity’. An ‘identity’ that can then be run through all the regular procedures of an essentially Aristotelian bureaucracy typifying so much Occidental discourse. The algorithm of such bureaucracy, more often than not, stifles imagination & truly effective critique, necessary for the speed of understanding.



Laruelle’s ideas are just obvious restatements of logics already within; Derrida, for instance; & in Buddhism, in Mahayana, Chan, & Zen Buddhisms; & even in prior Western receptions of those.
One has to ask the question, whether or not it is a conflation to contrast the practices of Buddhist institutions with the philosophical doctrines of a Laruelle, whilst avoiding the engagement of critical comparison between Nagarjuna, say, & Laruelle.



Both Buddhist & Hindu institutional interventions in the West, are necessarily going to contain traces of, & be constrained by, the sociopolitical distortions which can affect any other institution, whether in the ‘East’ or ‘West. Using & pointing out these factors, can indeed, constitute critique of a praxis already conforming to Occidental (Christian-Islamic) modalities, but it doesn’t constitute an engagement with actual philosophical doctrine, not even to the level of prior Western receptions. It only continues the venerable tradition of exotic inflations & deflations, where the Occident continues to speak only to itself, whilst repeating the insights of others, which initially it always pretends not to understand, as discoveries of its own.

That, in short, is the business of Buddhism.
But the texts are something else, & they are freely available.
My own awareness of Buddhism comes solely from textual encounters, decades ago. I’m well aware of the fragility of collectives & sects, so have no expectations of them. If one expects Buddhism to be yet another social club, it’s obvious that actual textual encounter with its philosophies is not one’s priority.

Close Encounters of Unkindness

Close Encounters of Unkindness I


Steven Craig Hickman, of Social Ecologies & Alien Ecologies (formerly Dark Ecologies, Noir Real) & Nigel McMillan, an old friend, locally, had an encounter of difference, under a joke FB post.

I’m not going to do a close reading of the encounter, which is not as simple as it might seem. Both participants have their respective positions & understandings of what took place. Depending on the context one chooses, different conclusions can be drawn. Rather than attempt to resolve a delimited encounter, theoretically irresolvable as an abstracted isolation, & susceptible only to the oscillations of irony, it is perhaps more philosophically productive to consider themes which arose during the encounter, & the larger contexts which they suggest; it’s a good chance to explicate the cultural forces lurking in the background.

In both encounters; there was a strong scatological theme, introduced by Nigel McMillan, with the signifiers, “shit”; & “piss”; continued by Steven Craig Hickman with “crap”; & “crapology”, all of these referenced with significant frequency. Whether such universal biological necessity is used as an alleged symbolics of democracy; or as stabilising metaphors of existential authenticity, the anchorings of anatomical waste amid the ongoing, globalised rush of intangibilities, idealisations, & dislocations, constituting the so-called Information SuperHighway; is a significant, sociological resonance.

In this, it is redolent of another semiology of individuation; the tattooing culture, & its inscribing of a personal history of events on the somatic skin-screens of Self; both marking spatiotemporal location, & thereby anchoring Self in such significant localisation, in the meanings of these personalised marks, wherein the body becomes a living monument of the ‘personalised Self’.

The same identifying technology used in tattooing culture, when recapitulated as the ‘Brand’ or ‘Branding’, connotes the various ‘enslavements’ of livestock, slavery, & corporate ownership.

If tattooing is a personalised inscribing of Self, a ‘Self-Branding’ indicating ‘Self-Ownership’; then, both the tattoo & the ‘Brand’, share in the same Hellenic culture of the glorified Name; whether the psychological ‘marks’ of self-reflection, or the imperial ‘marks’ of sociological regi-mentation, there is the same use of ‘significant surface’, as the inscribed interface of symbolic ‘rule’, & other various necessities, of the Name.

As the techno-logics of information increasingly infuse environments with the filigree of Control; the emergent technosensorium has taken centre stage. Always there; history of road systems; Highways of war; the Information SuperHighway, as entire global system, of Oneiric production, is a Dream Machine. Now, every cultural scene, every sociopolitical scenario, public & private, has been commandeered by the filigree of cybernesis. This world, an autobahn of affects; the conveyance & redistribution of engineered sentiments; driven circulation of carefully crafted emotions; in an onward rush of oneiric desire, the desperate transactions of “new worlds for old”, in shakedowns that never end.

It is precisely in such an onrush, one configured at every level by economic & political abstractions of profit governance; an Administration According to the intangibilities of an Asymptotic Idealism; that this regime’s functionaries are reduced to turning towards the rhetoric of the only unpriced tangibility left to them, that of their own biological waste.

Unwanted by the system; rejected & ejected, even & especially, by themselves; absolutely undesired; this last concrete authenticity, uniquely theirs, is the only substance definitively escaping ownership by Kapital & the global system of Oneiric production. As such it serves as the only palpable symbol of freedom & self-grounding, capable of obscuring their own internalised perceptions of desirability/undesirability; their own self-perceived statuses in the contrived hierarchies of Desire, arising from Kapital’s profit system; & of dispelling the Technosensorium’s continual emotional broadcast, the existential feeling of being “Lost in Hollywood”.





Close Encounters of Unkindness II


I wrote the next section, “Close Encounters of Unkindness III”, as YouTube comments in September 25, 2009, in response to this: “Saintly Man? – That Mitchell & Webb Look – BBC Two

I include the piece, as it gives an interesting ‘take’ on the British ‘sense of humour’, a ‘sense’ so strongly & strangely informed by the metaphorics of urinary transaction, in the phrase, “taking the piss”, a phrase which arose in the discussion, on & after, Steven Craig Hickman & Nigel McMillan’s ‘encounter of difference’.

For a contemporary exemplification of this culture, the television programme, “Have I Got News For You!”, is quite typical.





Close Encounters of Unkindness III


“Funny sketch!

Of course, one could say that such humour relies (sic) on the tacit acceptance of a life-sensorium, lebenswelt even, amenable only to “capitalist exploitation” -‘let’s not be too clever, we’re English’, “the nation of shopkeepers”- and innately hostile to any human development beyond it’s powers. As such, the video “takes the piss”, and is merely propaganda for the spirituality of beer and football, which are more social religions and major contributors to the economy, too. Having said that, the guru business in India generates many millions.

Meditation has been practiced in all the major religions, they all have their respective traditions. The video, however, has two signifiers, attire and facial hirsuteness styling, that would seem to connote yogis of the Hindu tradition. Whether sitting on very high wooden platforms was a common yogic practice, I do not know. But it is plausible that two British comedians, nostalgically recalling Monty Python, and overcoming their immense erudition in global spirituality, would conflate stereotypes in order to appeal to a British public who, of course, know everything about everything, and can convert it into a one-liner, between sips, after “taking the piss” out of their mates, who “take the piss” out of them.

England does have a particular talent for marginalising abstract and speculative spiritualisations, so to speak, trying to reduce everything to “common” forms of understanding, the basest of secularisms. It is not alone in this, just the best at it, which is why it had the biggest empire. But that diabolical tactic, “divide and rule”, is at the heart of British culture (“taking the piss”), preventing the highest possibilities of culture from truly realising themselves, trapping the people in a bedrock of satanic negativity, undermining the impolite temerities of any authentic individuality. It’s a control system deep in the English psyche, paranoia of an island nation, perhaps. True indivduality is distorted, coerced into simplistic scenarios of dramatic conflict, endless and farcical replays of the same old emotional vocabularies, the same “variety show”.”





Close Encounters of Unkindness III – Addenda 1


“aardvarkbilly says: September 25, 2009 at 1:43 am

You’re a long­winded tit aren’t you? I think the Empire had more to do with the policy of Naval Supremacy than “marginalising abstract and speculative spiritualisations”. I was going to ignore you, but this comment plumbed such depths of nonsense it reached my “bedrock of satanic negativity”.”

“derritrane says: September 25, 2009 at 1:43 am

Could “the policy of Naval Supremacy” have anything to do with protecting economic interest, or is that too much of a speculation? What was i thinking! It’s because “we do love to be beside the seaside… we do love to be beside the seeeeea”.

It is an achievement of sorts to be able to discern any sort of depth in meaninglessness. But yes, you are right, plumbing the depths of nonsense known as British culture one is then able to discern diabolic geologies. Thank you for confirming that.”

Between Monstrous Accords: the Sound of Solid Decisions

This is a response of sorts, to Dominic Fox’s “Immanence and Objectivity“.
It addresses the now widespread trend of Realist nostagia; within SR; in recent receptions of Deleuze; in Meillassoux’s epic, yet futile, rehabilitation of tradition; & in Laruelle’s essays towards developing rapprochement between long entrenched cultural habits, tacit assumptions hegemonic even in philosophy, & the new outlooks so obviously called for by scientific thought, yet not provisioned by it. It is with reference to Laruelle’s ‘return to the Real’, as inflected by Dominic Fox’s tentative yet clear interpretation, that the following is concerned.





[Dominic Fox]: “Rather than thinking “according to the Real”, or from the premise that both “knower” and “known” are immanent to the same reality (and thus share a fundamental identity), the stance Fox Keller describes is “decisional” in Laruelle’s sense: it begins by making a cut, and by giving itself the authority to repair that cut.”


{AK}: Here, the notion of “the Real”; as an identification; as an identified realm that provisions a “fundamental” habitat; remains within the same range of metaphysical assumptions generating the epistemological duality of Subject/Object.
If ‘Subject’ & ‘Object’ are problematised on the basis of an essential supervenience of interconnection, rendering both as “effectuations”; though it might seem natural to posit an underlying ‘field of interconnection’; the ‘Reality’ of “effectual” ‘Appearances’, corresponding to the missing corollary within the Appearance/Reality distinction that  “effectuation” suggests; this is merely a respondent epistemological gesture of totalising identification, in search of the stabilised, absolute knowledge that “effectuations” are unable to provide. But searching for closure or completion, at greater levels of a superveniency scale, or at least the level accounting for all “effectuations”, misses the point. The point being, that such desire for absolute knowledge, without remainder, is a corollary of, & necessitates, classical identification as an ens, as a self-contained entity; or, in the language of Mahayana Buddhism, as being self-originated (having “own-being”) rather than being dependently originated.
Just supposing, if one followed this totalising or completionary model; hoping to achieve closure, & thus self-containment, at the level of the greatest “metaphysical monster”, that of ‘Totality’ or the ‘Whole’; then such a ‘Totality’ would still require identification, i.e., liminal definition, if it is to serve as a determined foundation.
But there are only “effectuations” available to form such identificatory definitions; thus, it could be thought, that what is required, is a productive algorithm, a key of interlocking representations, the veridical condensation of all “effectuations”; one of such persuasive veracity, that it ineluctably presents itself as an algorithm of absolute knowledge, without remainder; as an ultimate structural reduction, where said ‘structure’ is identified as essential ‘Truth’, as the sufficient set of liminal conditions, accounting for the Totality. But would not such structural condensation, according to this alethic procedure of liminal definition, itself constitute an “effectuation”? Aside from possibilities of recursive & differential ‘feedback’, instigated by its completionary obligation to account for itself & its own operations; would it not, itself, be an artifact arising, essentially, from the same untenable, classical model of dualised epistemological structure, that the holistic notion of “effectuation” was supposed to circumvent?
This, of course, is the result of expecting such a classical model (of dualised epistemological structure) to account for a ‘Totality’ on which it is imagined to supervene; that exceeds or subsumes it in various ways; from which it is held to originate; & of which it is considered to be an ‘effect’. Even if the objection, that such an algorithm of absolute knowledge is not a ‘knowing subject’ or ‘knower’, is perhaps vitiated by its representational function within epistemological economy, whether such an Algorithm of the Absolute, as it were, falls into epistemological duality through its representational function suggesting epistemological economy, is an interesting question. To what extent, can Representation represent ‘Totality’, without the “cut” of “objectification”, without liminal definition?
It seems, though, that the assumption & privileging of some, homogeneous plane of the “immanent Real”, as it were, neither escapes these issues of self-reflexivity precluding liminal definition, nor the attribute of being metaphysical monstrosity.
It can be seen, quite simply, that liminal definition can only obtain when & where there are “effectuations” available to form them. But the scope & logic of liminal definition can only stretch so far, before conventional modes of relevance collapse.
It may not be coincidental that the antimonies of metaphysical monstrosity frustrating secure liminal definition, are given mocking resonance by the behavioural semiotics of the ‘Quantum Mechanical’ realm?
Even if the practical “reality” of quantum mechanical phenomena are simply accepted, cultural & scientific practices blithely continuing on in some ecstasy of imagined immersion in ideological ‘immanence’, such decelebratory backpedalling away from traditional configurations of ‘transcendental’ habit, means very little, if conducted under one polarity of a metaphysical distinction whose fundamental character & wider context have not been understood, & whose other polarity of ‘transcendence’ has become contemporary anathema, repressed in arenas of academic fashion, only to return as various forms of cultural distortion.





Continuing to use the confused, yet received, metaphysical distributions of philosophic history in the same ways; reserving moderate liberatory insights only for arcane specialist contemplations; can only sustain the very forms of ignorance such moderation was designed to entirely avoid, leaving the general culture wholly under the sway of a market culture; under its commandeering of an engineered socio-philosophic history; under the inflationary deployments of the symbolic forms of transcendence belonging to that history; under the sign of an administered Hysteria, the hegemonic rubric of a global theatrics of oneiric consumerism in which all are coerced into finding a role.
In such an ongoing production, administered by an engine of administerial hierographics, running on the sparklines of statistical contemplation, everyone gets to play with the prefabricated beast of socioeconomic dreams.
Over it all, run the the advent(ures) of the geometrick mind, taking measurements of all Earthly bodies, their terres-trial minds held in (c/s)inematic dreams, in the designs of desire issued by a base, yet sparkly, commerce.
Is it here; in this self-consuming ecstasy of metrics; in this distillation of everchanging essence, the perpetual quest & turnover of LCD* transcendence; that resides the final vision of Anthropos?
The last reflections of Man, chasing only after his own Truth, yet only finding that of Others; turned, by the voracious mirror of his own creation; by the inexorable & mechanical intent of his own desire; into a Medusan mineralisation, upon which play disciplined sparks, in his image, eternally cast, on crystalline silver screens?
Here, can be seen, the final resolution of two transcendent orders: the ‘knowing subject’ & the ‘known object’.
Powered by the petrified liquefactions of a prehistoric vitality, a contemporary vitality accelerates its transition to a solid, substantial future form, one whose glistening facets announce a fresh stratigraphic layer; the culmination of a new force of erosion, that called itself ‘Consciousness’; & the lithographic conclusion of the Techno-Geo-Logic Era.

* (‘Lowest Common Denominator’)