New M.
-1: Introduction:
Substance
Each of what is itself is of energy, primary fundamental energy, that which not just connects all through a single property (A connects to B because they are made of energy) but rather IS everything, all of what is, is this substance.
Pure energy, is all, of the universe is fundamentally pure energy and each difference is not difference of its substance, it is all the exact same substance, thus each property, in trying to become other, is in fact becoming-other-itself.
All difference is not merely something which can be attributed to property or A=A, nor can it exist as A as equal to its otherness. All of which exists is necessarily the same, all difference is created subjectively based on perception and mediation, through consciousness, however this is the main issue, trying to understand consciousness when seemingly transcendental may not play into the universal substance of energy.
Pure energy exists below the sub-atomic level, it is supposedly fundamental, and if this is taken to be true (not fully developed until I go through Hegel with this), than each of what is counted as making up the object, from atoms, to molecules, to structure, and so on, is just still a universal substance, that being energy.
Energy at its pure and fundamental is not taken to be of separate entity as if each “moment”, “point”, or “object” of energy existed as different to an other than it would require energy to be different, embracing an energy to be energy, thus this energy is not something which exists as separate from itself but rather energy is just that, energy is the energy. A “release” of energy from any moment is just a disturbance in energy, but this energy is not disturbed in its substance rather in its positioning.
Every moment is the universe—as energy— opposing itself. All movement is not movement of difference to an other but to itself.
In response, one has the ability to state that if there is a universal substance, there must be that which is not a universal substance, if there is A, there must be not-A. But with this universal substance, any attempt at a not universal substance is still relying on the utilization of energy.
Energy and not-energy are both particulars of a greater universal, a grander energy comprising both, at its baseline, a not energy cannot exist whatsoever for when it comes to any formation of substance, it must rely on energy. An otherness to energy either cannot exist or only exits on the bounds of energy therefore it may not be able to exist without energy.
If it takes a similar way of thinking as done previously, than a not-energy existing in substantiality must rely on its other to exist it is still subject to energy at any capacity, and if itself is subject to energy, and energy as possibly relying on the not-energy for itself (even though still being able to be as its universal substance), it would be so as energy relying on itself to exist once more, as energy to not-energy back to energy to give the not-energy itself, still gives rise to energy as a universal substance.
0
Preface:
The grammar of a period is inadequate in solving the the task of the upcoming understandings, for what’s necessitated in this condensation is a no halting between certain ideas, they may be slowed by punctuation but no periods shall exist until the ending of a larger quasi-body.
1
(a)
A Landian spectacle:
Artificial Intelligence is Capitalism and Capitalism is Artificial Intelligence—it is self learning and self replicating outside the reaches of the biosphere and human consciousness—reaching and folding from itself in future tense back around through itself to its hatching in the 1500s
It itself is necessarily a production of self learning modes and methodologies in production at positive points of conception
There is now a problem for which my past and future work is Becoming at odds to itself between the ontology of substance and the influx of capital deteritirialization
Can capital as a social machine Become malleable within Substance or is there yet a new social ontology of substance to be explored…
But Capital is no longer social, it has Become out of the loop of social homogeneity, and instead reached itself into the demensions of machinic learning
(b)
What is to be done of the machinic will overcoming consciousness
Consciousness deterioration both puts the machine at front and us down to a substantiative will, is that possibly the condition of the social ontology of substance
(c)
Humanity is ultimately a tool, obviously this is explored in nearly all post-human ideas, but what is most significant is the fact that human is a social machine
What's more is that human is a tool of social machinery, similar to a mode of production. capital is machinic in nature and, similarly, humanity is the very tool that what extends outward uses to extend themselves outward
Take the classical marxist notion that capitalism is used as a tool to develop a post-capitalist mode of production. capitalism is necessitated in the production of communism/whatever is to break the grounds of capitalism as it is today-possibly aufhebung if you will
Again i will state that humanity seems to enact a mechanism extremely similar to what capital is to marxists.
capitalism:marxists::humanity:machine-after
(d)
before i go further i want to be clear that i don't think an intentional acceleration is possible, or at least not in a direct praxis, if needed i can elaborate but the hegelian position here shows that the action cannot be one where the action is not genuine
further: an action made intentional to direct a system, one which is made in un-faith to the subversion itself, is quite unlikely to succeed. sincerity of movement is necessary in the movement in its occurrence
an acceleration which takes into account the tendencies of the self-subversity of capitalism is a tricky one
the sincerity of acceleration itself may very well not be in the hands of the accelerationist but rather the bystander
lacan shows that the one who desires has the responsibility for the grounds of their desire, and as such, the “accelerationist” may only have responsibility over the grounds of acceleration
(e)
There is one plane of immanence and all others are merely quasi in formation
The lobsterization of the plane itself is to where it is quasi multidimensional indicated by the so-called double pincers
(f)
Food uses us to advance past the domestication epoch
The food becomes harmful to us as we modify to increase our enjoyment
Could enjoyment be the token of reward to their evolution? In other words: could enjoyment, and that being surplus enjoyment, be given to us by non-human machines in accordance to us evolving them—ie. the evolution of tools, from pickaxe to jackhammer?
And so as the corn is given Chemicals to help it grow, it becomes toxic to the human, in other words, the humans job is done, it has been used as the corns tool to evolve and thus no longer needs the human (possibly can no longer use the human, the human dries up of its creative possibilities)
They become dangerous not to themselves but to the human. It’s toxicity is merely a method to remove the human from its consumption
(g)
Not only is capital lobsterized for its ontological purposes but too because it can regenerate insofar as resistance puts pressure on the suppression of capital
Where land mentions—in the outskirts of a youtube interview—chairman mao, he mentions that mao saw the properties of capital where it needed constant revolution to keep it down and liberate;; but in actuality it seems capital always will grow back like the limbs of a lobster
Possibly the reason why china is rapidly becoming the epitome of hyper-capitalism is because of its revolutionary practices; their constant retaliation in terms of economic, social, and political is exactly what causes capitalism to grow so strong and “new” compared to the rest of the world where capital isn’t necessarily challenged as much
(h)
For now, I leave as time exceeds human condensation and not nearly enough exists, I will be continuing this project onwards when I may.
-1: Introduction:
Substance
Each of what is itself is of energy, primary fundamental energy, that which not just connects all through a single property (A connects to B because they are made of energy) but rather IS everything, all of what is, is this substance. Pure energy, is all, of the universe is fundamentally pure energy and each difference is not difference of its substance, it is all the exact same substance, thus each property, in trying to become other, is in fact becoming-other-itself. All difference is not merely something which can be attributed to property or A=A, nor can it exist as A as equal to its otherness. All of which exists is necessarily the same, all difference is created subjectively based on perception and mediation, through consciousness, however this is the main issue, trying to understand consciousness when seemingly transcendental may not play into the universal substance of energy. Pure energy exists below the sub-atomic level, it is supposedly fundamental, and if this is taken to be true (not fully developed until I go through Hegel with this), than each of what is counted as making up the object, from atoms, to molecules, to structure, and so on, is just still a universal substance, that being energy. Energy at its pure and fundamental is not taken to be of separate entity as if each “moment”, “point”, or “object” of energy existed as different to an other than it would require energy to be different, embracing an energy to be energy, thus this energy is not something which exists as separate from itself but rather energy is just that, energy is the energy. A “release” of energy from any moment is just a disturbance in energy, but this energy is not disturbed in its substance rather in its positioning. Every moment is the universe—as energy— opposing itself. All movement is not movement of difference to an other but to itself. In response, one has the ability to state that if there is a universal substance, there must be that which is not a universal substance, if there is A, there must be not-A. But with this universal substance, any attempt at a not universal substance is still relying on the utilization of energy. Energy and not-energy are both particulars of a greater universal, a grander energy comprising both, at its baseline, a not energy cannot exist whatsoever for when it comes to any formation of substance, it must rely on energy. An otherness to energy either cannot exist or only exits on the bounds of energy therefore it may not be able to exist without energy. If it takes a similar way of thinking as done previously, than a not-energy existing in substantiality must rely on its other to exist it is still subject to energy at any capacity, and if itself is subject to energy, and energy as possibly relying on the not-energy for itself (even though still being able to be as its universal substance), it would be so as energy relying on itself to exist once more, as energy to not-energy back to energy to give the not-energy itself, still gives rise to energy as a universal substance.
0
Preface:
The grammar of a period is inadequate in solving the the task of the upcoming understandings, for what’s necessitated in this condensation is a no halting between certain ideas, they may be slowed by punctuation but no periods shall exist until the ending of a larger quasi-body.
1
(a) A Landian spectacle: Artificial Intelligence is Capitalism and Capitalism is Artificial Intelligence—it is self learning and self replicating outside the reaches of the biosphere and human consciousness—reaching and folding from itself in future tense back around through itself to its hatching in the 1500s
It itself is necessarily a production of self learning modes and methodologies in production at positive points of conception
There is now a problem for which my past and future work is Becoming at odds to itself between the ontology of substance and the influx of capital deteritirialization
Can capital as a social machine Become malleable within Substance or is there yet a new social ontology of substance to be explored…
But Capital is no longer social, it has Become out of the loop of social homogeneity, and instead reached itself into the demensions of machinic learning
(b) What is to be done of the machinic will overcoming consciousness
Consciousness deterioration both puts the machine at front and us down to a substantiative will, is that possibly the condition of the social ontology of substance
(c) Humanity is ultimately a tool, obviously this is explored in nearly all post-human ideas, but what is most significant is the fact that human is a social machine
What's more is that human is a tool of social machinery, similar to a mode of production. capital is machinic in nature and, similarly, humanity is the very tool that what extends outward uses to extend themselves outward
Take the classical marxist notion that capitalism is used as a tool to develop a post-capitalist mode of production. capitalism is necessitated in the production of communism/whatever is to break the grounds of capitalism as it is today-possibly aufhebung if you will
Again i will state that humanity seems to enact a mechanism extremely similar to what capital is to marxists. capitalism:marxists::humanity:machine-after
(d) before i go further i want to be clear that i don't think an intentional acceleration is possible, or at least not in a direct praxis, if needed i can elaborate but the hegelian position here shows that the action cannot be one where the action is not genuine
further: an action made intentional to direct a system, one which is made in un-faith to the subversion itself, is quite unlikely to succeed. sincerity of movement is necessary in the movement in its occurrence
an acceleration which takes into account the tendencies of the self-subversity of capitalism is a tricky one
the sincerity of acceleration itself may very well not be in the hands of the accelerationist but rather the bystander
lacan shows that the one who desires has the responsibility for the grounds of their desire, and as such, the “accelerationist” may only have responsibility over the grounds of acceleration
(e) There is one plane of immanence and all others are merely quasi in formation
The lobsterization of the plane itself is to where it is quasi multidimensional indicated by the so-called double pincers
(f) Food uses us to advance past the domestication epoch
The food becomes harmful to us as we modify to increase our enjoyment
Could enjoyment be the token of reward to their evolution? In other words: could enjoyment, and that being surplus enjoyment, be given to us by non-human machines in accordance to us evolving them—ie. the evolution of tools, from pickaxe to jackhammer?
And so as the corn is given Chemicals to help it grow, it becomes toxic to the human, in other words, the humans job is done, it has been used as the corns tool to evolve and thus no longer needs the human (possibly can no longer use the human, the human dries up of its creative possibilities)
They become dangerous not to themselves but to the human. It’s toxicity is merely a method to remove the human from its consumption
(g) Not only is capital lobsterized for its ontological purposes but too because it can regenerate insofar as resistance puts pressure on the suppression of capital
Where land mentions—in the outskirts of a youtube interview—chairman mao, he mentions that mao saw the properties of capital where it needed constant revolution to keep it down and liberate;; but in actuality it seems capital always will grow back like the limbs of a lobster
Possibly the reason why china is rapidly becoming the epitome of hyper-capitalism is because of its revolutionary practices; their constant retaliation in terms of economic, social, and political is exactly what causes capitalism to grow so strong and “new” compared to the rest of the world where capital isn’t necessarily challenged as much
(h) For now, I leave as time exceeds human condensation and not nearly enough exists, I will be continuing this project onwards when I may.
by Thomas M.
