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.

True Crime and Freud: Trauma and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Pictured: the viewing of the True Crime/False Echo in “Minority Report.”

In the movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise plays a detective in a “Pre-Crime” unit who is trying to solve why his system has suddenly decided that he was a murderer. Throughout the movie, he chases his own ghosts, and goes on a journey of self-discovery, and discovery of the symbolic order in which he was thrust into by forces outside himself. But the answer as it turned out, was not within the depths of who he is as a person, or impulses towards violence, but was in fact something entirely alien: a crime by the creator of the pre-crime unit itself, a primordial murder which was covered up through deep knowledge of the symbolic order which Tom Cruise’s character had only cursory knowledge of. Justice was not Tom Cruise being locked up for murder, but rather it was the discovery primordial trauma, the killing of the mother of the oracle by the father of the system. The only possible way as it turned out to negate the negation of the trauma of the movie was to find the primordial incident, not obfuscate it with other incidents.

In Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Hegel demonstrates that punishment is not something with a positive quality, but intrinsically a negation of a negation. The original negation is the crime, which a punishment doled out is the negation of the negation of the social contract; thus, those who try to not enforce laws are misguided if they think what they are trying to do is reduce violence, since what they are truly doing is not reducing positive violence, but ignoring violence. However as Zizek and others point out repeatedly, violence is more than just an act, but intrinsically present through systems. A domestic violence relationship for instance may involve trauma, but a system where one child is beaten and another is not, or one child is given preferential treatment and the violence is enacted on the mother for instance, creates a child who grows into an adult who can not articulate exactly the original trauma. As an example, the beaten child can not articulate that the point of traumatic reaction involved the father taking a sibling out for ice cream afterwards, even if they can in great detail name the ways in which the father beat them.

In cases of trauma, the traumatic Real is often re-enacted in various ways by the analysand in psychotherapy, but what is missed is the Real of the incident. This does not mean merely glancing over the incident, but could also be including things in the incident which are unrelated to the traumatic aspect of the incident, keeping the trauma in the realm of the imaginary, ready to re-emerge in various scenarios as metaphor, exaggeration, falsehood, or overreaction. The therapist’s job here is tricky, it is not to say the person with trauma is overreacting, but to find the exact point of trauma within the register of the Real for the client. That is to say, what was it about the trauma that causes the return of the traumatic stress?

The discovery of what exactly the Real, or in other words, what was the primordial trauma within what the client describes as trauma, is the only thing that allows for the negation of the negation. Trauma Narratives here fail, in that they provide a framework for the trauma, and may even reduce symptoms, but the trauma is never truly negated as it is obfuscated. The primordial trauma has the structure of a dialectic, and is not a single traumatic incident, but appears as a series, often times with a final piece which does not look traumatic at all except within the concept of the primordial trauma.

Someone who has dealt with violence for instance may not be traumatized by the violence, but by an act after the violence which may seem petty to the patient, and is thus repressed. Someone may be hit by a parent, but was traumatized not by the beating, but by the representation of the beating meaning a different sibling was favored, which may be viewed only when the patient is able to articulate something such as the sibling being given preferential treatment through a small gift by the parent.

The negation of the negation is not possible until this final temporal movement is articulated by the client, which is to say not the violence, but the forms of the Real obfuscated by the trauma itself. To articulate the traumatic moments, to understand this historical nature of trauma, is to negate the true crime as interpreted unconsciously by the psyche.

Elizabeth Warren and Darwinian Disavowal

Everyday Analysis

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…

View original post 688 more words

On the Phallic Nature of Anxiety

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.

The future isn’t cancelled, but it will be written by Kafka

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.

Merriam Webster Online page for “Kafkaesque”

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.

Absurd Noir

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.