Hacking With Hegel

Expert Level Fallacies

Isn’t it so much better to prove to someone that Hegel’s logic is worthwhile by making use of it as something which exploits a weakness in the human security system by being accepted through conventional logic, than to try to make arguments defending Hegel? It’s more useful and more convincing, but mostly it’s funny and fun (could we even say, based and Hegelpilled?).

Insofar as A doesn’t equal A, one can make arguments in a variety of scenarios where this weakness of conventional logic allows for one to make a highly convincing case which is difficult to refute except through knowledge of Hegelian logic. In the Matrix they say Deja Vu let’s them know that there’s been a glitch, in spoofing the Symbolic Order, it’s more of a, “I guess you’re right, but something is wrong.”

What is it that is wrong? Take a look at the image attached to this article. Let’s think of each of these colors as various points in time, that a variable, “A”, has gone through. In each of these points, A had an entirely different set of qualities and properties attached to it. Hegel’s discovery is the truth of history, which is to say that one can not point at any second of a flower in its life cycle and definitively claim that it is the essential moment.

This pointing to specific moments in time however, is exactly how people are trained to think so that they can communicate at all in the first place. Who would point at a tulip, call it a tulip, and hear back an argument “well, it isn’t the WHOLE tulip.” No, it is simply a tulip. A equals A.

Say if you are required to make “B” but you would rather make “A”, this very same logic can be applied. You can take a certain amount of qualities of “B”, but create the historical function as “A”. Let us examine how this can work.

An architect is required to make something of the modern period, but he would much rather create something in the classical vein because his personal feeling about the project is that the classical structure would better suit the building project. In designing his classical structure, he can add elements of modernism such as negative space, and simple shapes within the structure, and maybe even remark that the piece still has “classical sensibilities.” However, the bulk of what is Actual within the building, along with intent, is the classical architecture structure.

A=A, no?

One is tasked by capitalism to produce, and insofar as we must produce for a system which does not serve us or the people we are supposed to be serving, it is good to have some knowledge of how to hack with Hegel. The technoindustrial machine’s stripped down and open ended pseudo-openness can be the death of it.

Through the pragmatism of the Other, we create their devil.

I Think The Whole System Fucking Sucks: a critical analysis of hardstyle

The aesthetic of hardstyle is aligned with critical thought and is structurally unable to be recaptured by boring dystopia. It is something the left should consider as an aesthetic element.

This is what I love, and can’t stop loving
Get wasted at parties, from 9 ’till 7 in the morning
I live for the music, rolling blunts, feeling high, getting loaded or take some pills and go to La La Land
Spending all my money on dope and extreme high priced tickets
But in the end it’s all worth it
I like to live in my own world
Fuck regular life, fuck a 9 to 5 job
I’m told to enjoy every moment, every hour, every minute
That’s what I do on Fridays and Saturday
Why should I take life so seriously?
I just wanna do what I like to do
Being far from reality, cause I can’t stand society
This is my own world, I just wanna hear the music
I think the whole system fucking sucks
Everybody’s working their fucking ass off during the week
Getting totally fucking stressed out
So what’s wrong, and what’s right?
I live for the weekend, I live for hard styles, I live for hardstyle baby!

Showtek, “FTS”

It is really too bad Nietzsche didn’t get to go to a doof doofer, one can easily see Nietzsche stumbling through a crowd, mustache ajar, pushing through with a couple of his libidinally questionably positioned friends. Hardstyle is the realization of what Nietzsche hoped to find in Wagner, but was disappointed to find it Wagner’s pseudo-tragedy too willingly recaptured by bourgeois society by both Wagner and bourgeois society alike.

There are a few critical theory points which are imminent to the lyrics to anyone schooled in critical theory I would challenge you to avoid. One, is the obvious willingness to engage in work and the hedonism which provides a replacement for critical thought; i.e., the “More Acid than Communism” critique of Acid Communism from the Cosmonaut blog. The second point is the lack of a positive program, and nothing approaching a replacement for capitalism et al. The reason which these are being overlooked is because hardstyle seems to have proven itself as something that can break through the culture of compulsory positivity.

Hardstyle is the death drive cry and the simultaneous demand for something else, a demand for an outside.

If you wander around Los Angeles to electronic music events aimlessly, you’ll notice a distinct strange trend (or you would if you were me and had a similar set of experiences). Famous DJs such as Benny Benassi with famous hits and worldwide stardom are drawing smaller crowds than loud, dissonant, highly accelerated bass drum electronic music. Hardstyle has emerged from rave culture as a replacement of the highly commodified and mainstreamed Dubstep of the late twenty-aughts and early tens. Dubstep artists doing collaborations with Britney Spears and Justin Bieber lead to lukewarm “Yes, of course, I guess this is OK.”

Hardstyle is different, it isn’t something that can be recaptured by any regular neoliberal spectacle. It is distinctly outside, distinctly loud, distinctly unrecapturable except through of course, its means of being produced.

Hardstyle music isn’t for relaxing either, its not something which can be played in the background of a restaurant. It is simply too fast, too pulsing, too demanding, too full of death drive.

The aesthetic revolutionary potential is there, if like all potentialities, it isn’t there in full.

I was put on this earth to make a difference, homie
The world is my playground
The bird’s left the cage, I’m doing things my way now
Man, I’m willing to die for the cause
That’s the difference between me and y’all
To be the best, you have to beat the best
I’m undefeated, my style is everlasting
And I’mma never back down, you fucking clown!
Hahaha, yeah

We win, you lose
We live, you die
The world is mine!

Showtek, “The World is Mine”

It is worthy to note that hardstyle’s resurgence is a historical Actuality present in today’s electronic music, and draws crowds larger than those promoted by television, movie, sports, and relaxation/mindfulness/spirituality culture.

Hardstyle is hypermodernism’s death drive showing itself in culture and as a socially present reaction against pseudo-enlightenment idealism of boring tech dystopia.

Actualization as Non-Actualized Ideal

This is a pipe, so to speak.

Through Actualization, what could be mistakenly called as a reflection or a shell of the actualized event is created. After the Actualization of whatever signifying chain is created however, it is this reflection which passes the truth test, but only as the form of this reflection or Ideal. In other words, the register of truth of Actualization is never Actualized, but present as Ideal.

This Non-Actualized form of Actualization, which Justin Murphy explained of me as what he liked about me, “you don’t LARP,” might better be said, “I don’t LARP without a valid access key.” What is seen is this non-actualized actualization.

Hegel attempted to ground this mad flux into a single Actualization, one as Napolean as World Spirit. However, one might say more accurately that Napolean as Ideal was wielded by both Napolean, the French, the Aristocracy, and so on, which Hegel eventually is stuck in a flux that only Lacan can solve.

The flux Hegel is stuck in does not account for jouissance, or enjoyment because Hegel immediately grasped this in the beginning of the Phenomenology, where Hegel describes ecstacy.

The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, love – these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject-matter, but ferment and enthusiasm – these are to be the ways by which the wealth of the concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Section 7, “Present Position of the Spirit”

The significance of all that is, lay in the thread of light by which it was attached to heaven; instead of dwelling in the present as it is here and now, the eye glanced away over the present to the Divine, away, so to say, to a present that lies beyond.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Section 8, “Present Position of the Spirit”

What could be said of reality is it is inevitably split, and it might always be a LARP. There are truth keys of the symbolic order, Actualization, and the phantasies of the imaginary which may repeat due to systemic structures which create similar and repeating desires for jouissance out of the objectively present symbolic, which can also be known as subjectivity as object.

In other words, subjectivities as objects, as Ideals reflecting phantasy, symbolic truth or access tokens, all are utilized within the register of the symbolic, in the form of ideal. As an object; a LARP.

Was not Napoleon a LARPer? Or as Zizek states, isn’t the obvious fact about Hitler is that he is a guy pretending to be Hitler? This means the symbolic order is still worth fighting for, is still worth a Being-as-LARPing-towards.


The Germanization of us all I fear is now inevitable.

I was at the front. I don’t know where we are now, or if there is a we. I assume there are others, but I do not see them. There has been some development of technology that the Germans have that we were not aware of, this much is clear.

We see what can only be called the perfection of the light bulb, a motorized connection between the operator and a typewriter which illuminates the walls in a most sickening shade of white.  Judging by the humidity, we are underground somewhere. The water given is never enough, it always feels as if we are on the verge of dying.

Then of course there is the whirring.

A pale man dressed not in a military uniform talks about “mining bitcoin” with a wall of motors. We have not seen his superiors, but we believe he is German going by the accent. He looks at us and he smiles smugly. He will not answer our questions, but he has given us this paper to write on. He tells us to write what we want and he will take it to our loved ones, but we do not believe this. I am writing this and keeping it on my person, and am writing a second letter to give to the German.

I believe the war is lost. The whirring lets me know that there is something terrible here, the glow lets me know that something is being held from the world.

We see a light from the perfected lightbulb illuminate the German’s face. He will stare at it for three hours to four hours at a time, reviewing documents we believe. He glances at us and shirks back at the glow. I don’t believe he has seen battle or blood, he winces at prisoners. He is some sort of scientist.

I believe it has been three weeks judging by my sleeping cycles, but as there is no natural light I can not tell.

Only the glow. Only the sickly German. Only the whir of the mining equipment.

He has not struck us, and he has not asked for plans. This is just as well, as I have no real plans to give, maybe the German knows this. I do not like this German. I do not understand this German.

I can feel his sickliness, the German, not like a man in the front, or a man who has lost his wits, but something like a walking consumptive. More of a consumptive than a German. Then there is the whirring along with the consumptive, the glow along with the consumptive.

The consumptive, the whir, the glow.

The glow, the whir, the consumptive.

The whir, the consumptive,

the pale glow. The sickly white glow.

I will sleep. I will write more if there is more to write, but it seems unlikely that there will be more to write on it. This is the essence of it.

What is not to be my concern?

I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Max Stirner

With the will of the other, self-interest entirely comes into question as the extent to self comes into question. Through this question, it moves away from abstract ideal further into objective description.

With the positing of self-interest, we split the world into another two, self-interest and not self-interest. The self becomes itself, and in this self becoming does not posit an unself, for the category of self does not hold in the form of an ideal, but disappears and reappears. Becoming-system and system-becoming-self relegates the self into an amorphous form which does not hold. What can self-interest mean in this context an interest perceived by consciousness as the will of the other.

Insofar as the self is becoming-system, systems must become concerning, which is one must concern themselves with systems. Assuming one has no self-interest, then one does not have to concern one’s self with systems.

At this point, we are out of the realm of philosophical abstraction and into the obvious of the day to day. My concerns! Your concerns. What are you concerned about? The system-concern is taken into consciousness by the self as the other or as the self. The concern of the system can be determined to be one’s own concern or a concern of something from the outside, but nonetheless it infects consciousness.

Becoming-infected, and thus the World-Becoming-Infection for consciousness then becomes my concern. We have no cure for existence, only a knowing of infection. World-infection of the self-interest must then be triaged and determines as inside or outside, or dissolved by the more clever minds.

Eastern practice turns into a dissolving of world-infection in the name of self-interest, as a negation of virus into what the mind reflexively grasps for, which is to say the infection, the world outside of itself. Becoming-infected, becoming-world-sorter, becoming the dissolver of objects into consciousness.

I will attempt to not go into Lacanianisms.

One can not choose morality, only the alienated dynamism totemic obedience. These totems blip in and out of existence in the symbolic as world becomes-totem and self-interest is pulled into becoming-system. Here we attempt to infect the system with our self-interest, as system-becoming-self is taken into consciousness.

Abjection, or the pushing out of system from self and the self out of system mutually interact as autoimmune idealism takes hold. Both are pulled into the signs of self and system, despite their mutual becomings into each other. The one is in fact outside the many of the system, and the system will abject the will of the one. The king is abjected by his kingdom, the serf as well.

Abjection is not to be my concern.

The Analytic Ballistic

Image result for lacan painting

Anything that throws or is thrown is fundamentally a weapon and propulsion is its essential moment. The weapon is ballistic; the very notion of the “problem” is related to the war machine. The more mechanisms of projection a tool has, the more it behaves like a weapon, potentially or simply metaphorically.

Deleuzeguattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 395

Why sex and death? The universality of both systems is undeniable, the containing of moments which are deemed essential repeat or denied to their credit, but death is the primary weapon of this war machine. We can cop out, act as a softening cop, and call it by the name of the coming together and drifting apart, but the signifiers of sex and death are present as the line which is seen as primary. They claim primacy through naturalism but certainly they are simply what towers over within analysis.

The question of the primacy of sex and death or a synthetic object which combines both of these falls by the wayside when the analyst determines their essential moments, prodding back with their weapon, which is to say into the client’s past. What is needed by the analyst is a breaking apart, the idea fundamentally is that there is something which is held together in a certain way that should be broken apart. In contrast, sophistic commonsensical interventions call to the universals of basic day to day civilization as if it was the solution and not the background noise. The background noise is given primacy by cognitive and behavioral interventions. The Analyst War Machine however is a negative of civilization, it breaks it apart. It may claim to be with it, through the law of the father or some other law, but it’s speed betrays it. The call towards sex and death, perhaps not primary, but certainly taking up through the analyst a vanguard of primacy in the form of historical return through the essential moment.

Two weapons, but endless essential moments, or possibilities of the essential moment. Where the survival mechanism shoots on in the analysand, the analyst’s ballistic missile shoots in, throws a signifier, breaks apart. It is the breaking, and this is not to excuse it, but is the quality of an analyst. Sex and death yes, but which takes primacy, Lacan’s synthetic object which is their entanglement is betrayed at least by their signification into two. Establishment of equilibrium, weapons of signifiers, projections and projectiles and projected projects of the analyst and analysand, death takes primacy.

Death takes primacy over sex as the breaking apart is intrinsic to sex itself, but the same can not be said of breaking. Death is an objectively more stable form than sex, which is designed to include death within. The Analyst War Machine ends the session, ends the treatment, ends the line of thought, it is a mechanism of ending, and it is even the ending of ending, as the ballistic signifier breaks apart throughout, the creation of anything new taking place through a breaking.

The human is not the thing that does the breaking but the formal actuality of the analyst, who forms likewise speed to cause a breaking, a masochistic breaking in that it is the analyst/analysand machine and its own parts are breaking. The trust in the formal substanceless thing, the analyst to break itself in the form of the machine, where only the analysand has life, but the machine is of the analyst and his ballistics.