[NetBehaviour] 29 and information

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Wed May 10 00:39:24 CEST 2006

The following ends the text which may be found in full at:
http://www.asondheim.org/philosophy.txt ; images may be found
at http://nikuko.blogspot.com/

"The condition of the age." "Organism inhabits the symbolic; the symbolic
is not a matter of consciousness; a manner of consciousness; the symbolic
is a manner of worlding; of inhabitation." Of steward and the symbolic,
the emergence of ecology. The fundamental ground of ecology: non-existent,
function in relation to ethos. Ethos is always already consensual,
boot-strapped; ethos is implicated in, implicates, the Emblematic. The
ecological presupposes states of innocence, states of the pre-symbolic;
language corrupts, is corrupted; violence coheres to language. The
steering-mechanism of the ecological is survival; you might argue as well
for the symmetry of beauty; for the inherency (rights, behaviors,
cultures) of organisms; for any functional attribution (medical
discoveries, cleaner air): these are framed, frameworked, farmed-out. What
can be drawn from all of this? What lessons? That the world possesses an
Ought: that X or Y ought to survive? Every X or Y is contested. That I
agree, that I agree violently, is irrelevant; only that my violence might
impinge on your design. I desire the presencing of a world with few
intruders; I will argue that, but I cannot found that. That I argue that,
is happenstance; is a decision in which belief, not Belief, plays a role.
The trick is to drive out transcendence, ignore immanence, violate the
slightest appearance of the Absolute; the trick is the sublimation of the
sublime. Do I need to argue this? Must one fight?

Do animals have rights? Do humans? What constitutes the "have"? What
constitutes inherency, granting? What designates the social? What
designates the "natural-social"? Rights are ad hoc; situational; communal;
group-identified; legislated; unjust. I cannot appeal to justice; to
justice = Justice. Must I fight?

Such issues are articulated; self-organize; within a structuralist
territorialization; disappearing outside or beyond (they are beyond) any
emblematic. When I = ego = Ego appears within this, this short-circuits.
The I is always present; now it is surface, ""my" violence" "on "your"
design". This is normal philosophy, non-paradigmatic; philosophical
biography is not far behind. The text corners the text; self-references;
deconstructs. Retreat. (I emphasize the shame of writing, the
written-tawdry, the embarrassment of presence. Let production produce
production. I withdraw.)

Beyond or external to mathematics, mathesis, 0 and 1 are situational; they
are discursive tokens, floating signifiers. What one presents, the other
exculpates; what one withdraws, the other absolves. 0 is already a
multiplicity; just look at it. Articulation leads quickly to power sets,
cellular automata chaos, differentiations, growth: differentiation to the
degree-zero of substance, the analogic. What is ruptured at close sight,
smoothes at farther; both are latent, developed much as a photographic
plate. Set-theoretical paradoxes are the rubble of mathematics; the
mathematics of ideal forms remains in light of them. The continuum
hypothesis is subject only to choice outside of the continuum hypothesis;
someone does something one way or another with mathesis, axiomatics,
infinities. Mathematical ontology is the structure of the world; sets of
parameters define all that there is; such parameters may be ab nihilo,
virtual, real, stochastic, chaotic, fuzzy; given certain dimensions,
certain tolerances, they exhaust. A message from elsewhere is a message by
virtue of structure and interpretation. A lesson: the I withdrawn in favor
of; as a result of; as a consequence of; the eye. And the eye withdrawn,

Philosophy as philosophy of organism-situated-in-the-world, as human-
thus situation; philosophy elsewise as that of ultimate species: both
employ the emblematic or Emblematic. What is to be done with the human?
Farmed-out the answers are in part ethos-dependent, ethos dependent on
disciplinary values. Ultimate species: To the extent that philosophy is
concerned with ulteriority, exteriority, the being of the world, beings of
the world; then is philosophy intrinsic; then is the Emblematic always
already employed; limit phenomena are Emblematic phenomena: give a name to
universal containment / containment of the universal. Philosophy is
nothing; philosophy does not veer; philosophy is veered. Philosophy is
concerned with nothing; organisms are concerned; concern is a
characteristic of organism; negation is a characteristic of concern;
concern is a characteristic of negation. It is the concern of organisms
that is filtered into philosophy, farmed-out, of living. What is the
concern which is filtered? The concern is a disturbance. The concern is
either circumlocution or its problematic; recognition or misrecognition of
the same. The concern is the deconstruction of circumlocution;
circumlocution, circumscription ==> a presentation of the world as-if
Emblematic. This philosophy is the withdrawal from (not of) the
Emblematic; the withdrawal is a tendency towards defuge, towards
discomfort and its problematic. Defuge is that which is simultaneously
absorbed and negated, simultaneously cathected and decathected; defuge is
the shame of the organism, the transformation of the pornography of the
world, through usage, into waste. The inverse of the Emblematic is defuge,
which presences presents no name, no characterology, no tropology; the
being of granite is the being of the organism upon reflection. Reflection
is the doing of philosophy, its accoutrements. Reflection is
reflection-upon; "upon" does not require an intentional object, state, or
process; "upon" may be decathected. What is neutral is of no interest

"How to begin philosophy, how to begin the process of philosophizing, an
activity, a form of labor, the philosopher and the production." Nothing
can be done that has not been done, here. Nothing can be cleared that has
not been cleared, here. Having begun, how to continue; of summary or
conclusion: how to avoid both, the result rag-tag description, farmed-out
explanation, epistemological flattening, local ontologies, adjudication
and circumlocution of the Emblematic, the Emblematic found wanting. The
tread of writing visible, indiscretions; appearance of textuality, fear of
self-reference, defuge. There is nothing here to guide by stars. There is
nothing of faith, nothing for the faithful. The world is the world as
such, thetic, mute, flattened. One speaks, writes, as if something has
been accomplished; nothing has been accomplished, neither declarative nor
performative. The granularity of the world, pixellation, dominates those
texts which might otherwise nourish the dark night of the soul. No soul,
no spirit, no variegated ontologies, local ontologies, fecundity of local
epistemologies, framing. One says one thing; one says another; puns
undermine both; belief is of little consequence; belief = consequence =
Belief. Consider this a writing of the world; rewriting of the world;
writing worlding; writing of presence, present, present writing. This is
the construction of this. Within the future anterior: this will have been
appearing; this will have appeared; this is appearing. (This is online
writing; this is being-online; this is a procurement of a description of
the world; by organism; by veer or swerve; by disturbance; this is
disturbance. This is history.)

(By flattening I do not mean flattening; by disturbance I mean disturbance
of meaning; all meaning, the procurement of meaning, is disturbance.
Within the future anterior, this will have been completed.)

[none forthcoming]

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list