Eliot Rosenstock discusses Warren’s bizarre DNA test, and how it relates to the architecture of neoliberalism.
The proof is not always in the pudding. In a delightfully dystopian move, Elizabeth Warren decided to prove she wasn’t an invalid by getting a DNA test and sharing it with the public. Why did Warren get the DNA test in the first place? To better understand this event, let’s have a look at some architecture critique.
Brutalist housing projects have recently come back into vogue in the public eye (if not in the building industry itself) in a call for more housing for more people, and a guess here, a general disgust reaction towards all things luxury branded. Neo-brutalism pitches itself with its name as an updated version of the famed soviet matter-of-fact housing style. Views on Neo-Brutalism are polarized. The first quote below is a disavowal of an entire architecture style as being…
Will in and for itself is a failed symbolic placeholder due to the infinite regress of Will in and for itself. Will must be a Will towards something, and thus a Will which is in and for itself as the primary value will cause anxiety to the organism which holds Will in this place. This is to say, Will eventually penetrates all around it and disfigures it until the subjectivity whose Will is doing this experiences anxiety, during this “disfigurement” of the signifier which is the object cause of desire.
Nietzsche continues Schopenhauer’s theme of the idealist viewpoint of reducing the world into a series of moving parts and signifiers, and ultimately deeming the signifiers as a lesser form of the Will, which contains more reality than the signifiers. The transvaluation of all values is an act of Will in and for itself against its placeholders, but when the Will is left on its own, it contains nothing, and thus the conclusion of nihilism in the form of transvaluation is reached.
Fear and Fucking: The Double Failure
Desire finds its home in signifiers and Will. When the signifier is reached out and grasped more fully, the signifier is further articulated as signifier, and the Will as Will. Because the signifiers of desire, that which is the cause of desire, is necessarily not fully articulated, signifiers become linked with signifiers which are no longer recognized by the desire as desire. Thus, the signifier turns into something which is no longer desire, and the Will which is no longer serving a purpose, turns into the memory of itself. This can be seen most clearly during “the little death” of orgasm, but also in the knowing of the object cause of desire in a way which expands signifier linkages to something other than Desire.
Desire is an idealist proposition, which can benefit from some undermining, some stripping down to its parts to see what’s inside, so to speak. Desire as will is subject to its own infinite regress, because the symbolic holders which hold desire become transformed into signifiers, and thus have an elusive quality to them as they gain connections with other signifiers.
Triplicate Phenomenology and Picking up the Penises
To pick up the pieces of the disastrous failure of desire from the internal contradictions of Will as well as the amorphous nature of the signifiers, I have a proposition. An idealism which is in flux between systemic function, its detailed nature, and finally, the intuitive grasp of the thing. Between logically looking at the component parts of the thing, one can adjust to its use in various symbolic orders which are not immediately intuitively understood; which is to say one is in anxiety regarding due to the flux of the knowledge of the thing (S2) which one is trying to grasp and the intrinsic failure of Will in and for itself, which is a major component of desire.
The focus of the Triplicate Phenomenology would be the individual subject, and the flux between two logics, and intuition. Logic 1: component parts, or scientism. Logic 2: systemic functioning, or pragmatism. Intuition: what is immediately the fleeting impression of the thing being grasped. Intuition is an open vessel which accesses our impression of the thing immediately through as much of the unconscious as one has access to, if not necessarily an accurate or useful impression of the thing in order to describe the thing. If what is important however is the individual subject; that is to say, the human as an individual subject with a grasp of language, and the grasp itself as a method of dealing with the component of desire which is the infinite regress of Will-as-connected-to-fluxuating-signifiers.
Intuition ultimately guides from the use of scientism, pragmatism, or intuition itself. The intensities of these three things keeps the individual subject in contact with the fluxuating signifiers as the subjectivity itself becomes in flux in order to engage with flux.
Subjectivity’s flux between the Logics of scientism and pragmatism with intuition differs from OOO’s disavowal of scientism and pragmatism as negative states of Idealism. Here we are grasping at the subject themselves rather than the object, and as the subject understands through signification, and the significance is in flux, the subjectivity’s method for grasping with these things also become in flux. Here we grasp at the Real of subjectivity itself, which is to say its voids, and try to account for them with triple mining. More specifics of how to do such things in books, posts, etcetera, or you could look up pragmatism, various natural sciences, philosophies of science such as OOO, Zizek’s Parallax View for how exactly two logics interact with each other.
Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a Czech-born German-language writer whose surreal fiction vividly expressed the anxiety, alienation, and powerlessness of the individual in the 20th century. Kafka’s work is characterized by nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority. Thus, the word Kafkaesque is often applied to bizarre and impersonal administrative situations where the individual feels powerless to understand or control what is happening.
In Kafka’s “Amerika,” our hero is confronted by the wide open spaces and a constant sense of alienation as he tries to fit into one job to the next. A public or private sector job is still a job, and there is some level of accountability. A socialist approach which works tirelessly to democratize, automate, and to de-alienate is only possible through the Kafkaesque gaze. (We could say that Kafka may not have been possible without Marx, but we couldn’t be sure.) That is to say, the recognition of all that is alienating, pointlessly crushing, cruel, and unfair, can only be engaged with via the playful horror of Kafka, who was known to laugh maniacally while writing. Those who lack the eye to gaze simultaneously at the hilarious absurdities of the world spirit on horseback as they’re getting kicked in the face by it will undoubtedly identify with their injury itself. One can escape through isolation, but even then one must leave the house and confront humanity to get basic essentials. If you can sustenance-farm, keep yourself alive by yourself, you’re so off the grid of modern mental health that you keep doing what you’re doing, but society will be in waiting for your return.
Absurdity is not the same thing as irony. Irony suggests a sincerity which is not being grappled, which the person with the ironic gaze already has direct access to, outside of the symbolic order. The Absurd Gaze has a much more difficult task, which is to mediate and order the simultaneous necessity of what exists with what is contradictory. Mark Fisher’s critique of Noir could be given a child with something like Absurd Noir, although it would be a bastard child. Absurd Noir would actively point out contradictions between systemic processes and continue to work through them until they proved themselves too powerful to overcome or they collapsed in on themselves.
The Absurd Noir detective is an impossible figure. Normal Noir, or “Normie Noir,” takes on the evils of the world and provides themselves with an aesthetic backdrop that brings into use the libidinal forces of evil and repurposes them. Absurd Noir fundamentally brings into light that the forces of evil are president in the system, then enacts them.
“The Great Dictator” can be looked at as an example of the Absurd Noir genre. Charlie Chaplin embodies Adolf Hitler to destroy him by enacting a Hyperhitler, a Hitler whose most visible characteristic is his contradictions.
Hyperhitler versus Hitler
Hitler bursts onto the set of The Great Dictator and demands Charlie Chaplin to stop this at once. Charlie does not know what to do, he is an Actor, an Actor playing a Dictator with great success! The Dictator himself is unamused, as the Actor shows the Dictator all of his contradictions, not for the Dictator himself, but for a third party! The Oedipal Child of Hitler and Hyperhitler, the imaginary future audience of The Great Dictator.
Security guards from the studio simply grab Hitler, and take him off the set. Some people on the set were Nazi sympathizers, but they can’t make out what is happening. Why is their hero Mr. Hitler acting in such an undignified way? Charlie Chaplin as Hyperhitler is looking serious.
Hyperhitler’s flux capacitor is going off, it’s processing. Charlie’s hands begin to fade in and out of existence. He grabs his iodine and he throws it on himself and rubs it in. Charlie Chaplin stumbles out of the studio, he is nauseous as he repeats to himself, “I am Charlie, I am Charlie, I am Charlie, the Actor.”
Hysterics, Power, and the Idea
The hysteric position is the one that creates new knowledge in Lacanian theory. The new knowledge is subversive to what is already accepted in the discourse as knowledge. The agents of knowledge, the hysterics, sometimes are missing the point, sometimes are not.
Charlie Chaplin in embodying a Hitler which is not Hitler, a Hyperhitler, is able to maintain his identity to some extent, but brings into radical question his own identity. The discursive loop of Absurd Noir is authentically an infinite regression, and one gets to the fact that there is flux in identification. The Flux is authentically relegated into a conflict of Ideas, which is to say, it is a projection.
Hyperhitler aka Charlie Chaplin and Hitler have a categorical conflict, which is ultimately a conflict of Idea. Which is the better vessel for the Idea, the Dictator or the Hyperdictator? Only the system decides, but only the hysteric Hyperdictator has the flux capacitor working, and suffers its radiation poisoning. The power struggle continues, and the Idea vessels continue to bite each other.
I. Idea and Nothingness II. Being and Being III. Fidelity to the Idea
I: Idea and Nothingness
21. Territory-in-and-for-Idea confronts its non-universality in the form of the questioning of Actual Territory as Actual Territory, “Is this Actual Territory of the Idea?” In confronting what holds a super positional stance towards it, Territory-in-and-for-Idea is confronted with Nothingness.
22. Insofar as Idea is carried through Territory-in-and-for-Idea as mediated by Dictate, the Idea itself is confronted by Non-Idea, or Nothingness of the Idea. Nothingness of the Idea is a sign of Nothingness in its inversion of the Idea as what is not Idea. The Non-Idea as a result of the original Idea, confronts the original Idea and necessarily presents itself as irrelevant to the Idea, or as a more evolved form of the original Idea. Thus Nothingness holds a positive quality.
23. The positive quality of the Non-Idea is its binding of something which is superior to the Idea, which is necessarily outside of the Idea in order for the Non-Idea to maintain its existence as Non-Idea rather than as general Nothingness. The ends of the Non-Idea hold ends which are by necessity outside of the original Idea, or what the original Idea has struck as Nothing. Insofar as Dictators of the Idea make what is not yet Idea, Idea, Nothingness which is teleologically rooted within Idea is a source with indeterminate frequency for Idea which is not yet Idea.
II: Being and Being
24. Nothingness of the Idea has Being in the form of the exact negative of the Idea, insofar as it contains a positive quality as the Non-Idea-in-and-for-Itself which is by definition apart, but rooted in the Idea, which is necessarily the past of the Non-Idea. The Non-Idea when it becomes engaged with a second Idea and knows itself not as Non-Idea or the Nothingness of the Idea, but as Idea, the Non-Idea partially sublates into what is Idea-in-and-for-Itself, as sorted by Dictators of the second Idea, it can be said to have Being.
25. The Non-Idea, or the Nothingness of the Idea, and the Idea, have a quality of positive Being. Insofar as both the Non-Idea and Idea are existent as Being, the interaction of the Idea with its exact Negative is an interaction between Being and Being produces a change in either the Positive or Negative qualities of each Being as containing the Non-Idea of themselves. As Being and Being interact with each other, Being redefines Being, and is once again confronted each with the Nothingness of their respective Being through the posit of something which is not yet Idea as Idea.
26. Because the Non-Idea is confronted with Nothingness from itself, the Non-Idea then identifies spontaneously with Idea, be it the original Idea or a second Idea. When Non-Idea which returns to the original Idea no longer is against the Idea, but against the Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator of the Idea, against the agent of the Idea but not what is Idea itself, and is a secondary quality to the Idea, and is overwhelmed by the Idea.
III: Fidelity to the Idea
27. Non-Idea, which is to say the negative form of the Idea necessarily functions either as a secondary piece of the Idea which it is the direct Negative of, and maintains itself as the unhappy inverse of the Idea. Necessarily as to not be a secondary form of the Idea, Non-Idea lets go of itself as Non-Idea and takes up the form of Idea.
28. The Non-Idea being the exact negative of the Idea, then becomes the Idea itself, insofar as the Idea-is-Being through agent or territory, and thus a necessity for a dictator of the Idea to maintain the Idea as the Idea, in the form of what is not the Idea. The Negative Force of what is Non-Idea pushes the Idea which can only be held by a pin in the form of Fidelity to the Idea, or the Negative Force would pull the Positive Force of the Idea and make the Idea-in-and-for-something-else.
29. Fidelity to the Idea then comes in the form of the question of “Is this Idea or Non-Idea?” Once something is brought into the scope by purpose or chance into the realm of the Idea, an agent of the Idea mitigates it as either Idea or Non-Idea. The quality of the agent as Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator of the Idea becomes a Necessity in order to maintain Fidelity to the Idea.
30. As the historical Idea is never self-certain, Idea which is certain as Idea, or Idea-in-the-World, must necessarily be an Idea which is engaged with in the form of the questions, “Is this Idea or Non-Idea.”Fidelity to the Idea is thus maintained through Territory-in-and-for-Idea, which is the questioning “Is this Idea or Non-Idea,” by Dictators of the Idea coming into conflict with each other. The Socratic observation that in a Polytheistic society Gods must necessarily disagree with each other, so do Dictators of the Idea. Hence, what is qualified to be Dictator of the Idea is closely guarded, so as to maintain Idea-in-the-World which is what is determined to be Idea by Dictators of the Idea. Expertise in the form of a Dictator becomes a requirement in order to maintain an Idea which is certain as itself, Idea-in-the-World, within Spirit. If Actors or those who have little to know knowledge in the Idea are allowed to determine the Idea, the Idea will no longer know itself as Idea-in-the-World.
I. Real Territory II. Virtual Territory III. Actual Territory, Territory-in-and-for-Idea
I. Real Territory
11. Insofar as civilizations crumble, so do territories and their usage for the Idea. Territories in space which have been previously used for the Idea do not necessarily contain the Idea, and thus do not necessarily contain being-for-Idea. If the territory is still used by human beings, the territory is still being-for-Spirit, but not being-for-Idea.
12. Real Territory, in so far as it is not nor not not being-for-Idea, nor is it Virtual nor mapped, will none-the-less contain being-for-Spirit. Being-for-Spirit is a separate mediating quality of the Real Territory as the container of multiple Ideas, mediated through world-in-and-for-Spirit. Insofar as Idea interacts with itself, the Idea takes into account and brings into frame a second Idea, through the Real Territory, when Idea sees an aspect of self whose Absolute is outside of the Idea, insofar as its end is indeterminate.
13. Being-for-Idea is thus dirempted, insofar as Spirit through the Real Territory comes suggestion of territory for a second Idea or Absolute. The content of this second Idea is brought into frame by human agency, and a determination is made as to the relation of this content in the Being-for-Idea which is subject to mediation in the world-for-Spirit, as grounded in Real Territory, which has connection to the Idea.
II. Virtual Territory
14. The map is not the territory insofar as the territory being described is not a map. If a territory for a craft is taken to be simply an all encompassing plurality containing both the machinations of human beings as well as its use for animals, plants, and so on, the Territory is no longer being-for-Spirit, and is primordial Nature. In so far as a territory has a map, it can said to being-for-Spirit, and thus, in and for the mediation of the Idea through Dictate.
15. Thus, Virtual Territory must necessarily come into contact with the primordial nature of the territory, and is mediated via the Will of the three technocratic subjectivities, Actor, Craftsman, and Dictator (of the Idea). While the three technocratic subjectivities are in contact with what is primordial, all offer up interpretations which are for-Idea, but whose fidelity-to-the-Idea varies based on the relationship to the Idea.
16. The mediation of the map then, is the determiner of what will constitute Actual Territory, which is to say the map is the territory in its Actuality, and is not able to be seperated from its being-in-and-for-Spirit, nor its being-for-Idea. Agency then, and determiner of whose agency constitutes a Dictator in so far as something which is not yet Idea becomes Idea, determines the Actuality of the World.
III. Actual Territory, Territory-in-and-for-Idea
17. When the map becomes inseparable from the territory and new territory for an Idea is created, the Territory becomes Territory-in-and-for-Idea. In so far as the new territory is in-and-for-Idea, both being-for-Spirit and being-for-Idea mediates the new territory. Thus, the Idea is in constant threat of being redefined by second Ideas, insofar as the second Idea determines the first Idea to be a better use of the Territory in a different form.
18. Being-for-Spirit then is suppositional to being-for-Idea, and constitutes a Mortal Danger in regards to the fidelity-to-the-Idea. The Mortal Danger to the Idea is the world which is in-and-for-Spirit, not in-and-for-Idea. Spirit being a mediation of the Idea as it relates to other Idea, must then be broken in some manner by Dictator, if is to become Territory-in-and-for-Idea.
19. Technology, in so far as it is utilized by a Dictatorial Will which is for-Idea, then becomes what affects being-for-Spirit, and creates Actual Territory for the Idea. The Idea, which is always secondary to Spirit, then gains a piercing quality, in which the inferior in position Idea is now in a place to change Spirit through Dictatorial Will.
20. Dictatorial Will comes up against Spirit, but is necessarily also Spirit Itself. Insofar as it comes up against Spirit, Dictatorial Will is fighting against all that is not yet the Idea. Territory which is not yet Idea challenges Dictatorial Will which necessarily puts for the territory as being-in-and-for-Idea. If the Territory is recognized outside of the agent who initially describes the territory as in-and-for-Idea, it can be said to be Actual Territory of the Idea, whose catalyst was the Dictatorial Will. The result is not a Dictatorship which contains a place for a singular Dictator to rule at whim, but an Actual Territory of the Idea, and a reflection of Territory-in-and-for-Idea which becomes a part of Spirit.
I. Idea and Actor II. Capital and Craftsman III. Technology and Dictator
I. Idea and Actor
1. The Actor chooses an Idea which is already in the world, and is already mediated through law, capital, and history. The Actor is fundamentally becoming accustomed to the Idea which is already present in the world and mediated through Spirit. This is to say, the Idea comes into contact with Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators previous to the individual engagement with the Idea.
2. The Actor comes to know the Idea as Spirit, and the interrelations that people at various stages of engagement come to know the Idea. The Actor is one who contains primordial self-knowledge, and passes through various stages of engagement with the Idea. The Idea is suppositional to the Actor, and the Actor while determined to be solidified within the Idea, is cast out when their engagement with the Idea is seen as rudimentary, and does not pass with ease through the Idea, inhabiting different necessary roles for the singular human being within the Idea.
3. Students find themselves in the role of Idea and Actor, and are often asked to play a role and engage with a particular Idea as a method of being trained to engage with Ideas-in-and-for-themselves. Student is the fundamental novice-nature of the Idea and Actor, as a buyer could be a Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator. The Actor is marked by failing self-certainty, and an inability to generate the craft in a manner which could generate capital.
II. Capital and Craftsman
4. The Craftsman engages with the Idea to a level in which they have some skill in engaging with the idea in a manner which to Craftsman and Actors, are deemed an Authentic Engagement. The Authentic Engagement is what separates the Craftsman from the Actor; however, due to the necessity of Authenticity dialectically engaging with Inauthenticity, the Craftsman also finds himself in unhappy consciousness by necessity due to the striking of the self as Inauthentic in order to produce Authentic Engagement. Only through the striking of the self as Inauthentic can one refine to the level of Craftsman and have Authentic Engagement with the idea.
5. Authentic Engagement, in itself containing Inauthenticity as a dialectical supposition, is Engagement which tests itself against itself, and against Actors, Craftsman, and Dictators. The Dictator, by necessity being one who becomes something higher than the original Idea itself as they are the points of creation for the Idea, inevitably shapes the Craftsman to the Dictatorial Will.
6. The Craftsman, due to the necessary unhappy consciousness from striking themselves as Inauthentic in order to better engage with the Idea, will inevitably come up against a Dictator which they see as not engaging with the Idea as the Craftsman engages with the Idea, but is flawed in a way in which the Craftsman then presupposes themselves to want power, power which is to say, the ability to generate aspects of the Idea which is not yet Idea. This power is obtained through the Craftsman creating something which generates Capital as the Craft, which is not yet the Craft. In generating Capital, the Craft now becomes registered as the Idea, in so far as it is desired to be part of the Craft by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators who are also engaged with the Idea. The Status of Craftsman differs from the Dictator in that the Craftsman-as-Craftsman is rarely challenged, while the Dictator-as-Dictator is challenged via any challenge of the Dictate, which is by its nature a generation of the Idea.
III. Technology and Dictator
7. When the Craftsman can generate Idea through Capital, it can then go into Law, and History of the Idea. Once a Craftsman does this, he is now a Dictator of the Idea. The Dictates of the Craftsman now manifest as the Idea. When Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators challenge the Dictator, they are challenging both the direction of the Idea and the Dictator’s self-certainty as Dictator, which is to say, the Dictator’s ability to generate the Idea through Law, History, and Capital.
8. The Dictator is necessarily challenged in order to preserve the fidelity of the Idea. The Idea is mediated by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators, and thus if the Idea is not to degenerate into another form entirely, the Idea is held true through the challenging of individual actors who engage with the Idea.
9. Conflict is the necessity of fidelity to the Idea as mandated by the Dictator. The Dictator comes into conflict with those moving the Idea, and thus are the determiners of the Technology of the Idea. Dictators necessarily engage in Technology which is utilized to shape the Idea.
10. The two technologies the Dictator utilizes are the Technology of the Idea, and Technology to Communicate the Idea. The Technology of the Idea is specialized for the Craft, and is reflective of the Craft itself. The Technology to Communicate the Idea is more general, and is what Dictators and Craftsman use to Propagate the Idea at large, and through which Actor’s engage with in order to discover the idea, and is more reflective of Time itself.
Before a brief intro on Nick Land’s theory of capital and it’s relation to Lacanian theory, a briefer primer on a Lacanian concept. A key dialectic in Lacanian theory is the Mother’s Desire and The Name of the Father, which is how Lacan posits a third subject, the child, as a resultant conflict of these two forces. The mother’s desire is the force which melts all of the father’s machinations into nothing, but as the Lacanian pun goes, The Name of the Father (nom-du-pere), and the non-dupes err (non-dupes-errant).
Land’s theory of capital as a positive force shows the desire within The Name of The Father. Capital according to Land carries with it a fungal potentiality, something which crops up everywhere. This is because its potentiality is something which does not act within a previous social code necessarily, but rather as something which sees an opening, a phallic force which pierces what was trying to contain it.
Capital in Land’s universe functions in the same way as The Name of the Father, both crop up from some unknown depth, and have written in their code a destructive force. This destructive force is separate from the mother’s desire, which melds all things into a single actor. Ayn Rand’s capital functions with this Mother’s Desire, into the primary unit of one individual. Nick Land’s capital is something else entirely, something that is its own end.
Lacan with Land would be to recognize the posit within the Name of the Father as something located outside. The human subject may be only a machine part in the will of something else entirely, and it is with this Lacan with Land we can see The Name of the Father as both something that can come from self-consciousness (the one) or something else entirely, the human as the bit player (a cybernetic node).
This is the liberatory potential of Nick Land’s theory of capital, which is not the humanist capital of Ayn Rand, but the inhuman capital of acceleration, of cybernetic logics, of algorithms.