Logicの復習

logic, exercises
1.モーダス・ポーネンズ

一番… もし、大声と話したら皆さんがその声を聞こえます。/ 私は大声と話します。/ 皆さんが聞こえます。

2.モーダス・トレンズ
二番…もし、野球のゲームをやるので勝ちます。/. 勝ちませんから。/ 野球のゲームをやりません。

3. 加減的三段階論法 (かげんてきさんだんろんぽう)
三番…もし、お天気がいいので嬉しいです。/
もし、嬉しいですからパティーをしま     す。/  もし、お天気がいいのでパティーをします。

4. 宣言的三段階論法 (せんげんてきさんだんろんぽう)
四番…  高さか安さ / 高くないので / 安いです。

5. 建設的な窮地 (けんせつてきなきゅうち)
五番…  (もし、グダグダので寝ります。)と(もし、ぴんぴん(元気)ので起きます。) / グダグダか元気 /  寝るか起きる。

6. 同化 (どうか)
六番…もし、惨めなことは友達と時間を過ごしています。/ もし惨めなことは惨めなことは/ 惨めな事と友達を過ごしています。

7. 単純化 (たんじゅんか)
七番…赤と緑 / 赤です。

8. 接続詞 (せつぞくし) 
八番…青 / 青と黄色いです。

9. 足し算(たしざん) / 加法 (かぼう)
九番…石 / 石か木

10. ディーモーゲンズ定理(ていり)
十番… 〜(愛と嫌う) <> (〜愛か〜嫌う)

11.  関連付け (かんれんづけ)
十一番…  (買うと売る) <> (売ると買う)

12. 結合し (けつごうし)
十二番…  (歩きと(走ると泳ぐ))<>((歩くと走る)と泳ぐ)

13. 配布(ハイフ)/分布 ( ブンプ) 
十三番… (言うと(話すか喋る))<>((言うと話す)か(言うと喋る))

14. 否定の否定(ひていのひてい)
十四番…無 <> 〜〜無

15. 転位(てんい(する))
十五番…(笑うー>微笑) <> (〜微笑ー>〜笑う)

16. 含意 (がんい(する)) / 内含(ないがん(する))
十六番…(夏ー>冬)<>(〜夏か冬)

17. 等価演算(とうかえんざん)

十七番…(秋<->春) <-> (秋->春)と(春->秋)か(秋と春)か(春と秋)

18. エクスポーテーション
十八番… [(飛ぶと乗る)->座る] <-> [飛ぶ-> (乗る->座る)]

19.同語反復 (どうごはんぷく)
十九番…居る<-> (居るか居る)

[This writing is a review of Logic. Recently, the content of the former university I want to remember in the far and near future so I can use. Everyone on the internet, maybe this post is useful I think. Of course, if you have an opinion that logic is interesting. この文章たちは論理の復習します。最近、前の大学の事は覚えたいですから未来と将来また使えますね。インターネットの皆さんは多分このプォストを便利と思います。勿論、もし倫理を面白さの意見だたらねー]

Papers From My Peer’s

Philosophy @Leuven in Belgium; & a Necro-psychoanalyst

The following is a quick and too speedy review of the writings of some of the wonderful individuals I studied with in Leuven. Each person’s paper’s topic will be briefly explored; its ideas summarized and elaborated on so as to share and place this interestingly informed information into the streams of human energy traversing the internet. I hope they travel far…and feed the minds of others…

[I have linked to the original essays where possible otherwise if you wish to speak to the authors then the link goes to their Facebook profile’s]

 

#Ross Williams, (‘A Certain Kind of Sadness’)

A comparison of the thought of Arthur Schopenhaur and Eckhart Tolle. Starting by showing how a scholar called Warburton suggests this poodle lovers pessimism as not absolute only partial. According to Schopenhaur happiness in an unstable world is inconceivable when William’s quotes Schopenhaur’s Buddhist dependency this makes me smile.

 

‘“It must be pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that most of men on earth hold as their own, for this numbers far more followers than any other”

(Schopenhauer 1844, 169).

Schopenhaur is interesting because his fondness for Buddhism is a fondness for the oldest kind of Buddhism; the belief system that arose from within the womb of the Indian Brahman. Then, Tolle is referenced referring to how, ‘the dream of a symbolic world allows our consciousness to interpret or interact with the world’(Tolle, 1997, 128). This sounds like Tolle is an exponent, a supporter of the idea that our reality is holographic; After this the paper describes dangerous desire, wish fulfillment being a delusion, and then similarities between the two thinkers. The evidence that Schopenhaur’s pessimism is not absolute is taken from the writer Fernandez who describes it as conditional. Which is where the paper leaves us: as a part of a whole. Choosing to forgo the ‘will to life’ in favour of liberation through our very material suffering.

Arthur-Schopenhauer

 

#Marlieke Bender (‘The Object “is” the Other’)

This writing explores the performance ‘Rhythm 0’ by Marina Abromovich and what it has to tell us about freedom, human nature and abstraction, violence, and their relations to Emmanuel Levinas and Jean P. Satre. I had heard of Abromovich before from a brilliant documentary film made for her retrospective at MOMA, in NYC, and I had understood that this was a very famous performance but I had no idea what it precisely entailed. Reason no.1 to have enjoyed reading this.

The artist was invited by a gallery in Naples Italy to perform “Rhythm 0”. The gallery was Studio Morra in which visitors to the performance where invited to do whatever they want to the naked being of Abromovich; perhaps encouraged by the 72 suggestive objects on the table. One of these objects was a handgun with a bullet. We all like to think that we are calm collected cultured animals, but given a smidgen, a filament of freedom, and we get a little weird.  The last few hours of the performance regressed into violent chaos with one visitor encouraging the artist to use the bullet. Of course (we are not all monsters) a fight with the guilty individual broke out. But, when the performance was over we are told that the moment the artist resumed active agency again and walked towards her audience everyone fled the gallery.

Bender’s interpretation is an interesting one she traces and mines some of the potential philosophical implications of the performance. Referring to Satre’s idea that we are always both subject and object; involving a wholesome process of becoming an object. Exemplified in Satre’s reflections on a waiter in a cafe. Including the pressure of not being someone, but of being an object for others? What is made apparent is the power of a gaze of perception itself. Especially of that of the creator; is this evidence of the artist possessing a gaze apart from others?

Next up is Levinas who suggests that a moment of contact between two beings, between one and the other, is not necessarily a connection between human beings but culminates in an “other”. Marlieke’s choice of thinkers and citations is telling and reveals the greatness of Levinas, ‘speech becomes serious only when we pay attention to the other and take account of him and the strange world he inhabits. It is only by responding to him that I can become aware of the arbitrary views and attitudes where my uncriticised freedom always leads me, and become responsible.’(Levinas…?). Leaving is considering the very nature of responsibility. Who is responsible when those in charge frequently relinquish responsibility?

Abromovich, judging by her words in Marlieke’s essay, does so; saying that her purpose in performing is to create a stage for people’s fears. Maybe her admission is that if we all perform more actively, more intently, with more vitality we may free oneself from our fears? Eventually, our lack of personal completion results in a kind of “involuntary debt”; we are indebted to an otherness that is wholly other to us as active subjects and objects. I enjoy attempting to use art to explore philosophy and visa versa philosophy to explore art; and you can clearly see the possibility of philosophy arising and being authored by art.

performance-artist-stands-still-for-6-hours-4

 

#Mathew Devine (‘Suffering the Eternal Remorse and Melancholia Through the work of Vladimir Jankélévitch’)

 

A masters thesis, reading of Bergson’s Padawan the French philosopher Vladimir Jankélévitch’s work distinguishing remorse from regret and melancholia and mourning in his phenomenology of psychopathology after Freud. Devine characterises these interestingly as experiences. In many ways Devine’s writing is a commentary on the impossibility of nothingness and how this impossibility is embroiled in processes of regret, remorse, despair, melancholia, and mourning. Questions that lurk at the beginning the Devine’s exploration: when does remorse tell us about the eternal within us? Is remorse really timeless? Devine begins by describing Jankélévitch’s own stance, ‘Consciousness is the moment by which the self splits into two. The “I” (le soi) becoming an object of an “I” (le moi )’, a kind of gap, and a drop of Kantianism, ‘perfect happiness would only be possible if one knew nothing of one’s happiness’. We should all make an effort to contemplate these things.

Moving on Freud’s thinking is referenced when he describes the phenomena of ‘mourning’ and this is used by Devine to situate the reader before he articulates remorse and melancholia. Freud saw how work itself can come to replace the searing pain of loss and mourning. Writing in On Transience describes how the loved and lost object is allowed to rest when work is seen as being successful. Furthermore, the individual suffering from melancholia may suffer more because of its a-temporality. Freud’s characterisation of melancholia as a disturbance of self-esteem is absent in mourning. Devine draws our attention to the harshness of Freud’s ego split and how one part goes after the other, ‘we can not easily judge the degree of correspondence between the two versions of the self.

This is also why remorse can be said to be a feeling and guilt as a state. If I have read the paper correctly than this statement may also be so: for Jankélévitch repentance creates a distance between the wrong doer and the wrong. This in turn creates this necessity to suffer the eternal that we can locate within ourselves, that part of each and every one of us that is indeed eternal. Turning remorse into a virtue is dependent on how true the remorse may be thought of? There are many virtues in this study but one I find particularly interesting is a struggle to locate and anchor suffering as a phenomenon; what is the relation between impersonal or personal suffering. Devine resolves this with the help of a different French philosopher called Levinas and his stripping away the (human) world. Does his ilya (anonymous being) lead to an exposure to infinite eternal existence? Jankélévitch’s answer to this is the same as Achille’s speaking to Odysseus, ‘what good is eternity if it is not for living?’ a very good answer indeed, and it is here that Devine concludes successfully arguing that choosing an existence in finitude over an inexistence in eternity.

Vladimir Jankélévitch_ 

 

#Jens Van Steerteghem

Next up we have the Flemish physics fiend. Studying with Jens and his (“Jensing” a kind of Lensing; a way of seeing”) is awesome and very rewarding always on hand to discuss any and all topics. He is originally trained in Biology and is currently engaged in the critical creation of the European Union’s scientific policy making. His essay I found very rich “Escaping Technology a Dissidents Perspective” is an essay written on the infamous American Unabomber; and his manifesto “Industrial Society and its Future” (1996). Van Steerteghem begins with a good question; as every essay should do: Why did the serial bomber want to escape technology and is such an escape even possible?

Unabomber believed in a power process only satisfied by living as primitive man. Under technological society this process was disturbed according to this terrorist manifesto writer. Steerteghem rightfully questions this and initially makes a connection to thinking of Heidegger. But, a writer called Bijker is also cited and it is here the criticism begins in earnest,  ‘the socio-technological ensemble, where technical success consists in tying together different preexisting artifacts with different preexisting social elements in productive ways.’ (Steerteghem, Ku Leuven, 2018). I think this is a good statement to begin resisting Unabomber in the face of his accelerated technological telos.

To counter act the glum view of the Unabomber’s thesis Steerteghem points us towards network theory and the mathematical structures of advanced connectivity; saying that manipulation of the hubs can lead to control over technology. Then Bruno Latour’s ‘Actor Network Theory’ is discussed. Taking a holistic view of ANT and this culminates in clusters of ‘”Black Boxes” that represent the successful integration and acceptance of new technology and/or a scientific theory. The conclusion of this paper takes Unabomber’s own notion of a ‘power process’ and using it to show how it supports the opposite of anti-technological reality. Technology is in itself a power process and therefore can not be separated from other such processes hastily deemed as natural.

But, this Flemish author has forgot his Marxist potentiality and in the concluding remarks succumbs to a notion of society (“the clusterscape”) that is still an imprisoning one, and overlooks the global revolution’s potentially technological heart.

unabomber

 

# Albin Van Latum

Albin is a Dutchman and a dynamic thinker. I enjoyed the conversations we all had; with Jens, Anne, Peyton, Marlieke, Marren, Ross, Alirazor, Amin, and others.

Albin wrote his paper on a very interesting subject the antagonism between myth and science. Beginning with the ancient propensity of creation myths having order being a process of moving away from a prior chaos. Latum will argue that rather than the modern understanding of myths as “a miss-representation of truth.”, myth under Latum’s pen will be shown to be the fundamental bridge between humans and an otherwise chaotic reality and how Science’s modernism is itself a myth. After remembering how chaos is first born in Hesiod’s Theogony; we are then introduced to a beautiful ancient myth about chaos originating from ancient China. In the Zhuangzi Chaos (Hundun)  ) is seen as ‘the creative spontaneity that ceases to exist once one meddles with it by attempting to impose order’. So, in this Chinese myth we see Van Latum’s initial thesis clearly: myths help humans order Chaos into meaning. But, not via means of control rather appreciation.

In the discussion on the relation or development from mythos to logos an interesting point is made, ‘whereas both Plato and Aristotle concerned of different levels of mimesis of reality this plurality went through a process of reductio ad unum (an argument that rests on the absurdity of the opposing argument) the result of which is modern realism.’ It is with the reductio that one feels a kinship with this Dutch brother’s writing and thinking; I feel that many people would agree that this modern realism has a major problem in that it occasionally appears as mythless; leaving us a task to really nurture an cultivate the opposite. Such a line of thinking was also followed and developed by Mark Fisher in his Capitalist Realism (2009). Latum also paints a more useful picture of the philosopher of science Karl Popper; in that his ‘falsification theory’ is seen on preserving a mythical science. Instead of the Popper who unsuccessfully attempted to refute the work of Marx and Freud.

This paper really finds its rhythm when numinous Nietzsche is referenced as Latum starts discussing contemporary Chaos … some much needed Socrates bashing ensues… Overall, the claims of science to rule over the entirety of nature are shown to be unhelpful myths. These claims came into being as the Christian paradigm, or scientific dominance over western thinking began to loose its huge influence. That is why we are still learning from Nietzsche, ‘Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions, warn-out metaphors without sensory impact’, and we readers are forced to admire this papers conclusions, ‘Chosmos is chaos, of interpretation on the back of a selective process’. Eventually we are left with one certainty if we embrace the myth making capacity of chaos we can see our openness to the pure potential of artistic creation.

sevensages

 

# Juste Keturakyte (The Critique of Buddhism and Christianity in Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy)

In an ambitious dance with Nietzsche Keturakyte explores a supposed superiority of Buddhism over its Western counterpart Christianity. Nietzsche’s opinion is well expressed and articulated; as is his appreciation of Buddhism. Reading this text we encounter Buddhist Dukkha (suffering). Then its cause the craving after transient things Trishna; and also a path to the elimination of this suffering ashtanya manga. Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics is characterised as being one of revenge. That Christian Moralities explained as the one life is littered and scarred by revenge. That the mere essence of metaphysics is the denial of and revenge over becoming and time as the expression of decadent and declining life. So, Nietzsche’s admiration for Buddhism is written to be centred around its capacity to be truthful to the meaninglessness of human existence however he does not like its self denying aspects seeing them as too passive.

slide_5

I find that Keturakyte’s elegant exploration of the Buddhist influence on Nietzsche to be accurate and refreshingly honest, and very well positioned for  future development. Especially the idea of ‘Euro-Buddhism’ but to offer but a small critical note. I think Nietzsche’s criticism of this passive nihilism of Buddhism is not thoroughly separated from Schopenhaur’s Indian reading and so does not do Chan Buddhism full justice. Keturakyte’s points about the a-temporality of Nietzsche’s ‘Eternal Return’ as transcending both Buddhism and Christianity is not quite attainable. For the reason that in Chan Buddhism especially its passivity is to explicitly do away with distinctions that seek to differentiate. Resulting in an appreciation of how things are: endlessly coming to be and passing away, manifesting and re-manifesting, and all is just inter-being including eternity and its return.

Nietzsche and Buddhism

 

 

# Sam Bunn & Grussgott, an artificial intelligence from the future (Imagining an Institute for eUtopia)

Sam along with this A.I have constructed an impassioned defence of how artistic practice can and ought to be used to build the “good place” in contrast to the non-place we so usually are confronted with. Bunn’s Master’s thesis is very interesting and eclectic, yet ordered in its creative energy. I like the format of the study, and the interplay between A.I and human really creates with the material and topic matter very coherently. Beginning by pairing off Sacral art and Fine art Bunn or Grussgott and showing how exactleeeeeeeeeeeeeee this sacral can be seen as a “twisted tear drop”; half a way. There are seven chapters in Sam’s study and I will list them before drawing out some of the highlights that caught my attention when I first read. The contents include; ART or art?, Stories make Sense making Sense, Grasping Utopia, Eutopia as a Tool, Re-imaging Infastructure, eUtopia Explored and Attempted, and the conclusion.

I am not sure about Art confirming the American Dream this feels like it gives to this particular dream too much. But, the conversation discussing the persistence of filmic ideology (ideology is persistent as film? Or, ideology is a film?) moving through this notion that American cannot separate the idea of liberty from liberalism. From this constitution to Adam Smith’s marketised version; here the A.I reminds the human that America is not just full of capitalists, ‘Remember Jameson (influential Critical Theorist) is American.’

Reading through the next section on storytelling and sense, I am reminded of Walter Benjamin’s texts and how this study is a little bit like a new project from the Arcades? Discussing the potentially vegetative state of humans if they fail to grasp Bertold Brecht’s reality shaping hammer. But, Bunn or Grisbott pick up this hammer with a sub-hypothesis, ‘what if this main residue of watching a film is: lasting images?’ This branch is interesting its difficult to interpret but it could be that film’s deep realism is like a hammering of images; like the way a blacksmith would gradually craft a refined metal. It is also interesting that this involves an element of forgetting and remembering: forgetting to remember is absolutely what I do…

Then an utopia lists many influential authors and Ernst bloch keeps the concept of utopia firmly in the everyday rather than just a literary form. I love Darko Suvins/Surins’s idea of a ‘novum’ and I skip Thomas More’s well cited definition of utopia; a non-place. Then we continue to move through the good places of some films and their lasting images.

On page 59 Gussbotts and its human friend find agreement and I think I have stumbled upon the essence of this text and its true purpose; what it really engenders and supports. The A.I asks, ‘you are talking about popularizing socialist politics in mass consumable story form, aren’t you? The answer is yes; we now need to find our second yes to affirm as indeed the true aim of this paper, the formal desire of this intellectually creative event. I like how part of this discourse throughout this study is its cautious character; it permeates an awareness of the pitfalls of over-stating content and one’s thinking.

This and the idea of “socialist politics in a mass consumable story” is really evident in one of the many artistic projects Bunn completed as part of his time in Linz. The project Reise in die Zuhunft a journeying into the future with today’s children, and art’s radical potentialities are immediately enacted as social reality is seen as uniformly and universally creative in the artistic sense. Such play is then carried on into a ride of sorts; the brilliantly named ‘Far-see-er’; a series of interconnected rooms exhibited together as a ride designed to be ridden, of course, at the Architektur Forum in Linz. Overall, one, everyone should journey through and re-experience this journey that Sam Bunn and the A.I took because this study is refreshingly in its diversity, honesty, and creativity. The Agent Author’s humility is constantly present in this study; a good example is the response to the dilemma that the discussion on eUtopia might be unresolvable and we may be forced to accept the Utopia the negative option.

‘perhaps one should just learn to live with the dust that is stuck to the word utopia and not to confuse people with this ‘eu’. Generally they just think that I make some kind of obscure comment about the European Union.’

I wish this creator and fellow lover of art all the best for his future eUtopian film making.

artificial-intelligence-feature

# Julie Reshe (Beautiful Monsters: On Destructive Plasticity)          

Julie Reshe is the necropsychoanalyst par excellence and one half of the directorship of a new educational model for the future. Operating within a Post-Lacanian landscape Reshe is constantly expanding on the richness of Freud’s brilliant Venetian verisimilitude. I am not entirely convinced the notion that humans are “living dead” can overcome the negative imagery of the Zombie; yet one thing is more certain Freud’s Thanos remains important as ever for today’s epoch. Below are some thoughts on Reshe’s essay on ‘Destructive Plasticity’.

The essay is written as a critical response to the great French philosopher Catherine Malabou; who years ago introduced me to the idea of epigenetics (how feelings encode meaning and trauma can be distributed across generations biologically via way of the genome). Homing in on the scientific neurobiological conception of synaptic plasticity Reshe wants us to reflect on the negative side; the formalism of synaptic connective via way of destruction; and in attempting to hastily attribute a “cure” to such a destructive plasticity, Reshe reminds us of Foucault’s insight: that, the concepts of illness and health are socially constructed.

Running, both with and against Malabou, Reshe reformulates the notion that the child, can be a little monster, and therefore after encompassing a kind of destructive plasticity or a Lyotardian ‘primordial susceptibility’ – the child that remains throughout life. Yet, this writing really on one level is very comforting considering the biographical and important personal references to real lived experiences. This is then complemented by the text’s desire to critically think through psychoanalysis. Freud’s idea and its Greek influence is referenced that, ‘Psychic traumatization is understood by the analogy of physical traumatization.’ A difference imposed by the foreign body entombed with the local body.

After rightfully questioning the ease at which a disorder may legitimate the presence of an illness. I find Reshe’s conclusion compelling and ripe for much more development. If we are all beautiful monsters then we are all still susceptible, still receptive to these powers that are both organic and inorganic; power that we still marginally understand. Yet if we join Reshe in refelecting on our beautiful little monstrosities then we may increase such a thing.

medieval-angels-in-florence05

A Hypnotic Hysteric Prefix: The “Hyperspectrums” of Logos

computronium

optical-illusion-see-more-on-visualizingmath.gif

Here in the West philosophers use logic in many different ways, yet they all share in a desire for certainty, and a need to describe and visualize arguments. But, how many of them after learning how to use logic understand their belief in it? In this short essay one will explore this question because within logic itself there are ruptures, splits, and frictions between different logic’s and their languages. One may express this as saying that there are two categories: Logic requiring the certainty of math, and logic in favor of the uncertainty of number. Such a distinction is well and truly a battle ground and living individuals are fighting for supremacy, yet this fight is also something marked by the philosophy known as Accelerationism and its cybernetic thinking.

What is now becoming widely influential, originated from the university of Warwick where an explosion of shared thinking centred around a research body known as the Centre for Cybernetic Research and Culture. The CCRU encompassing individuals such as Sadie Plant, Steve Goodman, Mark Fisher, and Nick Land. All working on producing and documenting new ways of recording and exploring the impact of networked technologies. The Centre was soon to be seen as rouge and unwelcome and was disbanded and shut down in 1997. This did little to usurp its growing influence which just migrated and mutated onto the very material it had been studying. Mark Fishers blog paired with the collection of Nick Land’s writings put contemporary culture under a more severe lens, and Steve Goodman took his understanding of digital media into the realms of sonic fiction. It is in Land’s work that we see a change in the use of Logic and a desire to re-formulate the use of number toward greater creativity and uncertainty.

The United Kingdom in no way can be said to have a monopoly on logos, the country is acknowledged to have significantly contributed to its central location and thus plays a pivotal role in what one wants to invite the reader to explore today: the uses of logic and how they relate to an increasing complexity of technological innovation marred by a slower progression in social and political behavior. Encompassing questions like: ‘Does logic, is logic culpable for the persistence of Ideology? However, let us stick with our first question; the understanding of a continuation of a belief in Logic. Consider the following argument in its entirety: It has a nice simple name Barbara.

 

All truth trees are mechanical / All truth trees are an argument /

All Arguments are mechanical.

 

Now consider a mere complex argument:

 

If all truth trees are mechanical then the truth of an argument is also

Mechanical. / But, if the truth of a truth tree is mechanical then truth

is also mechanical. / Therefore, we can conclude that truth can not

be in the form of a tree because a tree is not mechanical it is organic.

 

  

 

 argu 001

 

Such a conclusion was most strongly felt and one could say discovered by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Who famously ran up against the formal logic of his day as it was conceived by the logical positivists towards a Rhizomatic; lines of flight based form. It is in Deleuze where we first glimpse and read the conceptual routes of the CCRU and especially Nick Land’s practice of counting number which we might comment on later. However, although Deleuze may have expressed a disdain for the tree of logic. I find it hard to believe that he despised actual trees?

Truth tree Truth Tree

 

When we look at this example truth tree perhaps we may appreciate why this great philosopher had a disdain for the truth tree. Maybe, we can say in support of Deleuze that this destroys desire and causes suffering because its mechanics are geared towards digging deeper and deeper, into the ground. But, for Deleuze, who here follows Zarathrustra, ‘remain faithful to the earth.‘ we can say that Deleuze’s belief in on the one hand being against strict formal logic, but on the other hand he offers no consolation for the contradictions in life. (1) This then is his point and contribution, that the process of becoming should be naturally seen as involving desire that is not controllable.

It almost certainly is and therefore when we continue to look at the organic tree; we see how Deleuze’s fascination with affect and effect can be associated with the growing of a tree. Here Deleuze shares another fascination with the object called a seed; with that crazy German animator Hegel. These two philosophers differ in one has a deep distrust and suspicion of immediacy, and the other a love of immanence. The organic or natural tree assists in explaining Deleuze (even though there is much I do not understand about this great thinker and I look forward to positively looping back to…). One troubling thing this image of the tree helps to explain is Accelerationism.

The idea being that once a seed, let us say the seed of a tree in a forest receiving energy in the form of water, and then as a sapling in the form of light. Once given the water the plant experiences not only an explosion of growth but  is also a quotable example of how competition for access to the right information or the luxury of light drives the organism to its inevitable demise. This association of luxury with life is sometimes morphed into a ‘Luxury Communism’, and I prefer Mark Fisher’s ‘Acid Communism’ because it is truer to the corrosive elements of this belief, and I believe if an acidic kind of Communism were to have existed; who knows in a speculative sense perhaps it would have burnt Capitalism to reveal the Socialism behind this toxic veil?

The need for a kind of Socialism is self-evident; even though it can not really be said to exist today? But, strangely enough logic has followed suite in that if it attempts to explain the increasingly complex world it becomes so abstract that it can not be said to exist? In our everyday use of the word. In the sense that the algorithmic operating and coded complexity of machine parts like that of the Google search engine and deep mind A.I are often unreadable, and indeed frequently seen as unthinkable. But, the Deleuze/Land hybrid did think through, among, and within these new phenomena coming to the conclusion that desire is metaphysical and necessarily is forced out and through bodies due to production itself being a process we all are trapped in producing.

One admires Deleuze and Guattari’s description of the “I” the subject in Anti-Oedipus (1972) how they suggest its real but its strange and ‘wondering around the body without organs’.(2) The use of logic in this text is very intriguing bearing in mind the author’s intentions. First in nature there is a conjunction comprising of a flow (“and, and then …), then these coupling desiring machines that are busy grafting production fail and break down. Here the BwO (Body without Organs (a kind of reality)) intervenes and transforms the conjunctive flow into a disjunctive synthesis resisting triangulation and allowing for that which is numinous; i.e desire to be freed from its imprisonment. If we are Freudian readers we might reject this on the grounds that it is more than likely this Deleuzian disjunction is actually exclusive and a strict one, and so we can not be or replace our parents! The moment this can happen, Freud and many others would say that we would no longer be human.

Here we see Nick Land’s and other Accelerationist beliefs; that because of the very presence of Capitalism we are trapped within the logic of Deleuzian intensities; that intensity itself is within matter and Capitalism is the most efficient mechanism or machine that releases this intensity in ever more speedy, complex, and predominantly technological forms. For Land any attempt to control or escape this process of expansion and “intelligence increase” is bound to this inhuman dynamic; an energy that according to this philosopher is not within our control. Before we can continue describing Land’s fluctuations in his logical beliefs. I feel that it is important to express and explain the title of this text. The prefix hyper- is now questionably one of the most creatively vogue word components. A quick glance will reveal: Hyper-normalisation, Hyperdub, Hypochondria, Hyper-lapse, and Hyperstition. All uses of the prefix have manifested and entered the public lexicon in the last two decades.

The first stems from a documentary of the same name directed by Adam Curtis. Charting the alarming rate that things such as torture, racism, and all manner of evils have become normalised in a post truth world, and how this post truth reality has been manufactured by powers resisting change. Opposing and responding to such a horror Hyperdub the record label of a Kode called 9 consistently accelerates sonic fictions that wage war against any comfortable or overly stationary understanding of what comprises dance music. The record label name is apt, speeding up dub, the b-side, the side that is wholly other to mainstream music production’s anthropocentric slant, a side that embraces the voids within electronic sounds. Steve Goodman the man behind this behemoth of independent London based musical culture used to and I imagine still does operate with a logic taken from the philosophy known as Rhythm Analysis; a perspective on reality constructed and immersed in rhythms.

The last three show yet more potentials to see a logos, but if anything its beginning to feel like the ancient Heraclitus’s belief that there is such a thing as logos but man is mostly unable to grasp it. Is this because like in antiquity the word carried three interchangeable meanings? Surely it carries more, this well worn philosophical word? Most philosophers are fidgety uncomfortable beings and so sometimes appear subject to the apparition of being disease free and this is the condition called hyperchondria. The last two are fascinating processes to discuss, write, and think about. But, I am going to explain why they suggest the use of the adjectives hypnotic and hysteric are warranted when describing this prefix, and in what sense can we discuss speedy spectrums of logic? Are they accessible open systems or inaccessible?

Oh, I almost forgot about Timothy Morton’s Hyper-objects; these things that resist human objectification that is they can be thought but not really understood or experienced: planets, global warming, humanity, black holes, the Sarah, the amazon rain-forest, and many more. According to Morton’s dark stance on ecology, ‘humans and all entities are shy, retiring octopuses that squirt out a dissembling ink as they withdraw into the ontological shadows.’ (3) I enjoy his description of me as an entity I have felt quite at home in the ontological shadows. Alas, I have not read Morton yet but I will as the need to think less about humans is really current and important and Morton’s book certainly talks about it. But, I am wondering to what extent this philosophers thinking is somewhat defeatist in that it reads the Anthroprocene as this inevitable logical end and therefore his thinking may (I am only surmising) do away with prior thought that is still very useful and alive and so should be still considered valid. Buddhism, art, phenomenology, language, and psychoanalysis, all have something to add in furthering not a centric but a more anthropic re-assessment. But, I think Morton’s Mereology is great and may have a lot to say about the effects of technology on phenomena.

Hyper-lapse is the most hypnotic advancement in optics and a filmic manner of recording that the internet hid from me, and I have a youtube Vox video to thank for the introduction. This technology is a very direct example of how technology literally alters the material of time on a scale quite unimaginable over two decades ago. Now with this quicker mode of editing light and what we record a viewer may find themselves traversing an entire city in a matter of moments. The distortion of scale is interesting, it makes the metropolises of the modern world seem more accessible than they actually are for the majority of us. It encapsulates that modernist magic of the camera lens taking us to places that we are usually not able to visit. When I first saw Hyper-lapse I was completely captivated by the idea that this is partial evidence for humans being cable of doing something, that for decades since the birth of relativity in physics has been seen as impossible: altering the speed of light.

One’s thinking about this is perhaps a little dreamy and “out there” because I realise that both general and special relativity are grounded in Einstein’s mathematical excellence and the speed of light is considered universal because c  is the speed that all information and matter in the known universe can possibly travel. But, here we have two things: the extent to which the universe is known and the association of this speed with light. Hyper-lapse’s extreme distortion of this natural phenomena makes it behave abnormally and this very abnormality interests me a great deal. It’s original meaning might stray and mutate towards a quicker alternative lapse. Accelerationism’s discussion of feedback loops and always alternative uses of number makes re-positioning this filmic technology possible. In a discussion conducted by the CCRU with professor D.C. Barker a man who once worked for Nasa streamlining the process of information analysis; during the conversation Barker’s speech feeds my hyper-lapsed dreaming.

‘They cannot see the machine for the apparatus, or the singularity for the model. So tic-systems require an approach that is cosmic abstract ̶  hyper-materialist ̶ and also participative, methods that do not interpret assemblies as concretizations of prior theories, and immanent models that transmute themselves at the level of the signals they process.’ (4)

Barker uses this prefix to pre-fix materialism and this is why it is hypnotic. When we say that I am human we are bound by Barker’s reference to time. The ticking of time is evidence itself that it is not quite true that we cannot see differences and Barker explicitly asserts that we humans as matter are a kind of hyperactive material. What is more hypnotic is that the methods systems of time require chime to the clock of social perception; that our body has a direct relation to the wider social entity whether it be a small community, city, or nation. (5) So, with this abnormal possibility of the hyper-material called time we are encouraged to free theory and embrace a process within the signal itself.

Imagine our perception placed at the very moment of a lapse in time, a tic, a click, its all too slick. Time and information are weird things; recently I was reminded by the great Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli that the relation between these phenomenon create this mysterious thing called now. But, Rovelli draws our attention to this signal’s strangeness. That for now to exist information has to be ordered in an organisation in the past and in the future it will be chaotic; otherwise the second law or principle of thermodynamics would be false, and it is not. As an animator I am perhaps somewhat closer to time and therefore the belief that it has its own matter is something strongly lodged in my own beliefs and so I am looking forward to the moment this concept is fully embraced by a culture. In other words I am looking forward to the time when it becomes a Hyperstition. Again, a body accepting something alien to it?

Hyperstitions are a little hard to determine but beginning with a nice pleasant one: we could start with Walter Benjamin’s ‘dialectical images’ accepted into wider cultures of the Anglo-saxon part of existence with assistance from various outstanding and inspiring individuals throughout the 90’s. It is with Benjamin that I want to wrap up this short but eclectic discussion on belief. But first there are of course other Hyperstitions because they come in many forms, shapes, and sizes. As a matter of fact Hypernormalisation is a Hyperstition, every successful design movement embraced by a market, new technologies such as the Light emitting diode, Abenomics (the system of economics expounded by the leader of Japan), and hopefully in the near future universal basic income will become accepted into the global cultures of this world. With this Accelerationist # we are faced with a confusion regarding our original topic; the dynamic between mechanical truth and organic truth needs carefully thinking through, and perhaps rather than truth I should be using the word belief. However I think truth is fine because we tend to believe something if we are certain of its truth, if it seems as being self evident to us.

Such certainty does not just arise if our systems of belief are generated by our intentional authoring of them and so Land’s enthusiasm for the idea that today’s living beings, the current human population is destined to live its life out in a kind of enslavement to capitalism I still find worrying although I think his appropriation of Kurt Gödel’s numbering to be interesting and important. It takes us to the final aim of this paper and that is to have demonstrated the vast spectrum of possible logics and the belief in them in today’s contemporary culture. One last demonstration of this would be to embrace the notion that the diversity of language supports the diversity of logic; a liberal notion but one that has some use. Doe it really matter if our truth is mechanical or organic, and what does one actually mean by such distinctions? Well depending on where you look and who or what you talk to {…} you might agree with the post-humanists that humanity has a predestined fate.

Or, you might agree with that of a Hegelian inspired history culminating in what Benjamin famously described, ‘history breaks down into images’. and that is what we have for belief: images. It is in the curation and care for these images that we may resist the nasty unwelcome belief of right-wing Accelerationism (escape from mass inequality is for the non human). I have not really spoken about hysteria, about how this use of hyper is ‘hysteric’ but I feel that one does not need to because ‘hyper-‘ matches the differing definitions of the word. In fact, whether or not your pro or against this philosophical/capitalist belief one should be aware of its hidden hysteria in that it may well be just a brief symptom, but an important one. We ignore it at our peril and instead of being more and more, marginalized by inhuman forces; I for one would prefer to grow a forest of truths nestled within the landscapes and valleys of a hyper-spectral kind.

‘The wildness of the beast is not swallowed by the forest; instead it gives to the forest a margin. But, this margin is not a fixed demarcation and is not illuminated by the light of day. The shadowy animal, trembling with uncertainty in the evening wind, is man.’

(To)Tm)ToorTm).

Organic Truth and not Mechanic Truth and not Organic Truth or Mechanic Truth. (I still believe in organic truth what ever this entails{…}).

 

 

 


1/Nietzsche. (2006). Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, Cambridge University Press. 6 

2/ Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 16

3/Timothy Morton. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After The End of the World, Post-Humanities 27, University Of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London.

4/CCRU, (2015). CCRU Writings 1997-2003, Urbanomic, Time Sprial Press. 156

5/See Hegel or a Hegelian like Emile Durkheim in Moral Education: The Elements of Morality.

6/For a brilliant explanation of this visit: https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/kurt-godel-number-theory-and-our-programmatic-future/

7/Walter Benjamin, quoted in Susan Buck-Morss. (1991). The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project, Cambridge MA; MIT Press, 220  

8/Nick Land. (2012). Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987 – 2007. Urbanomic, 91.