Reflections of the Machine

"Instead of narrowing your world… you will have at last to take the whole world into your soul.”

Category: Forages

“That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die”

God, if there is such a thing, has lived long enough to know that everything is permissible.  God as the united, abstract machine that computes itself.  It has no raison d’etre.  It is a snake swallowing its tail, the self-concentrating vortex.  It subsists in motion and duration alone.  It is completely without choice; it simply must do.

In dream and hallucination the unconscious mind becomes the focal point of simulation, the amnesiac traveler of a constantly forgotten voyage.  The dreamer has no alternative to movement, this is what characterizes both dreams and life.  At night, in the quiet dark, we throw our cores into the fire, testing, probing, simulating ourselves innocent like children and removing them of all or most memory.  Neural patterns during this time are recorded most minutely onto the physical substrate of the brain – the whole idea of information embedded in architecture.  The mind lives itself in utero as an inexorable output of its own internal stimuli.  This is like god, this is what god does – dreams.  Lovecraft arrives at this truth with his Cthulu mythos, as does Herbert with the pearls of the God-Emperor Leto’s awareness, cast to the void to one day become the collective dream of a more comprehensive being.

A Thousand Plateaus – An Introduction

A Thousand Plateaus… I feel like I’ve read this book a thousand times. It can be a bit disorienting for a newcomer, so I’ve added this little intro to help you acclimate.

Deleuze and Guattari were a French and Italian intellectual team productive between the third and fourth quarters of the 20th century.  Deleuze was a lifelong and academically distinguished philosopher with a knack for ingesting information and spitting it out transformed, unrecognizable, and tinged with his style of mad genius.  His philosophical predecessor was Henri Bergson, perhaps most famous for his explication of the “élan vitale” or vital impetus, in addition to his examinations of time, consciousness, memory, and alternative forms of causality.  From Bergson, Deleuze adapted his concept of “multiplicity,” which describes an object incapable of being frozen in time (by the processes of mind) and sliced into finite parts.  The multiplicity is indivisible, it constitutes a state of becoming rather than a state of being (verb/action structure instead of noun/object structure), and can be most readily conceptualized by imagining yourself drawing an arc on a sheet of paper with a pen.  There is a continuous movement made by your body (your arm and wrist) that cannot be divided into smaller and smaller parts while still remaining sensible and faithful to the end product of the arc.  This is one of Deleuze’s deepest ideas, and it’s important because he begins to reveal examples where we’ve historically and intellectually treated indivisible entities as though they were deconstructible and reconstructible and fallen into dangerous error – for example, the human mind in Freudian psychoanalytic theory.  For Deleuze and Guattari, the system of thought espoused by a culture is inseparable from the culture itself, its politics, philosophy, sociology, and psychology.  Thus, if we retain this egregious error of attempting to divide indivisible entities with our thoughts, we incorporate it into our society where it has all kinds of tangible, material effects on the psychology and structure of the society.  Enter Guattari.

Guattari has been described as a “militant psychoanalyst” though I’m not sure what that means other than that he wholeheartedly rejects many of the norms in psychiatry and psychoanalytic theory of his time, most notably the Oedipal “daddy-mommy-me” triad that Freud embedded into Western thought and human governance.  Freud is sometimes regarded as an enemy to the natural human condition due to his rather superstitious and convoluted interpretations of his patients’ conditions.  Guattari found that the process of psychological “healing” in his time often left patients more neurotic than they started by plugging one set of malformed psychological structures into a second, overlapping set – Freud’s.  Guattari can be viewed as a materialist, meaning he thought psychological phenomena could be analyzed for disjointedness by physically mapping the mental workings of a patient to a sort of structural diagram – Schizoanalysis.  He thought the same structural rules that apply to physical materials also apply to abstract materials like thought, information, and psyche.

The general theory of Schizoanalysis is that capitalism as a societal economic structure works by always driving toward an upper limit (think limits in trigonometry and calculus) before fragmenting and carving off a space, and repeating the process on the newly segmented territory ad infinitum, down and down and down.  In this way it extracts maximum efficiency from every single subdivision of the whole, the system is always worked to its very limit from top to bottom, large to small.  If you remember what I said earlier about the thought structure of a society influencing it intimately and there being errors in dividing the indivisible, capitalism is a thought structure that works by ruthless subdivision all the way down to the entirely abstract form of capital itself, the dollar/coin.  Capitalism as a machine shapes the society in its own image and creates subdivisions where none in objective reality exist, subdivisions of labor, of value, of material, of exchange, of class and social hierarchy.  In turn, those born into a capitalist society bear its psychological hallmarks and begin to subdivide themselves internally in a quite similar manner and end up with a fragmented, subdivided thought process that operates at the upward limits of what it can achieve and still hold form.

Until, of course, the psyche can no longer hold its form and the individual’s psychology ruptures and destroys all subdivisions completely (the fabled long, dark night of the soul that haunts the early lives of most artists, while they figure out how to live themselves as part of this world), including those divisions that serve to separate the internal realm of thought from the external realm of experience.  The increasingly global saturation of capitalism into the quotidian of our lives is how Deleuze and Gauttari explain and rationalize the upward trend of schizophrenia and schizoid characteristics in modern society.  The afflicted individuals break as cohesive, coherent entities due to their attempts to impose the structure of capitalism onto the structure of their thoughts.  Another beautiful idea to be found, “the sublime sickness,” takes place when a schizoid individual ruptures the Oedipal structure of his cultural upbringing and lives himself completely.  “He experiences and lives himself as the sublime sickness that will no longer affect him.”  What society considers his mental illness has become his greatest boon, the inviolable aspects of his identity that will sustain, energize, and drive him.  It is his spark of life, of chaos.  When I’m feeling very down, I try to think about the sublime sickness and how to live my own “sickness” more fully.

Deleuze and Guattari speak of reality in terms of flows and valves.  Food is a flow of material that the valve of your mouth opens up to ingest while the valve of your anus opens to excrete a flow of shit (phrasings and subject matter lifted completely from A Thousand Plateaus).  Living creatures are then essentially flow controllers, selectively opening and closing various valves to stop or enable a flow.  Sometimes D&G like to think of flows as things that are constantly moving, perpetually in flux, and instead of us being selective flow controllers we are actually selective flow breakers.  Wherever we go a flow is stopped and diverted. The flow of shit would be nonstop if not for the selective opening and then closing action of the anus, just as the semen would flow endlessly if not for a similar valve, the ejaculatory duct, to break it and make room for a flow of urine, which would also flow endlessly if not for another bladder-related valve, and so on.

Finally, take this underlying metaphysics, of flows and valves, of multiplicities, of abstract rules governing all collective dynamism, of Schizoanalysis, and turn it outward on the body of human knowledge.  That is what A Thousand Plateaus is.  Did you know that geological strata provide both an excellent metaphor and a model for understanding history and the accumulation of information of all forms?  That wolves should be analyzed as a multiplicity, as a pack, because a lone wolf occurs rarely in nature?  So, too, we start to look at humanity.  Do we psychoanalyze the individual or the society, for the individual almost never occurs in isolation and as an end product develops and exists in relation to society?  I won’t even attempt to describe the “Body without Organs” in detail because I don’t even fully understand it yet, but it can be thought of as the least homogenous, most differentiated substrate possible, on which grow and operate tiny, abstract machines.  If you get anything out of A Thousand Plateaus it should be a concrete understanding of reality as an infinity of abstract machines plugged into an infinity of abstract machines (think flows and valves), all interlocking and functioning in parallel to create a massive supermachine (or multiplicity) out of their own asynchronous interactions. It’s a stunning book.  I’ve had moments of clarity like lightning strike through me, and I’ve spent hours with very little understanding.  The point of this book is patience.  What you bring to the table is exactly what you’ll get out of it, though D&G supplement your efforts with clever wordplay and concepts that will give you a nudge here and there when you need it.  Always remember – A Thousand Plateaus was written before the Internet and most of modern computer science, which makes its clarity and breadth all the more stunning.

A Thousand Plateaus is a revelatory work for its readers and for thought as a whole.  The next couple hundred years will be spent unfolding its questions and answering them, forming new questions on what still cannot be answered.  Without a doubt A Thousand Plateaus is one of the most important works of 20th century philosophy.  Its structure is in the form of a multiplicity – it is intended that the reader can start at any chapter, as one would sample a record, read them in any order, and still make sense of the larger idea.  Because of this structure, A Thousand Plateaus does not follow the typical discursive (linear) pattern of most literature and could be said to be recursive or even regressive in the sense that it continually loops back upon itself in ever larger circles.  Readers must not wait for D&G to spoon feed answers to them – D&G would have laughed at anyone who thought they could learn by simply being told answers.  Instead, the structure of the book forces the reader to engage with it on a very personal level and take a different path through the book every time depending on whimsy and current interest.

On Taboo Knowledge

I’d like to discuss something that is a disconcerting topic and an ethical black hole.

Much of the foundation of modern medicine was realized through research assimilated from Nazi and Japanese scientists after World War 2 in exchange for the lives and freedom of the scientists involved – Scientists who, by all accounts, were war criminals and indifferent torturers. From the Nazis we learned things like how long it takes to die from exposure and methods of resuscitation; effects of surgical transplantation or removal of nerve, muscle, and bone; deliberate infections of tuberculosis, malaria, gangrene, etc. in order to test the effectiveness of various treatments; effects of various poisons on the human body; how to treat chemical burns; effects of low pressure conditions on the live human brain. The list goes on and on. Important to note is that all of this experimentation took place on living, feeling, and conscious humans in a systematic and amoral manner. The Nazis catalogued spreadsheets similar to what we make nowadays in Excel with reams of data carefully categorized for analysis. In their experiments with the effects of exposure on the human body, scientists tracked information such as water temperature, body temperature at death, time in water, time of death, etc, which allowed for a very rigorous statistical analysis of the data.

The Japanese performed their own unique brand of human experimentation just as brutal and amoral as the Nazis (and at times worse due to their utter indifference to infliction of pain in their method of operation), though less publicized and on a smaller scale. Take this passage from Wikipedia:

“To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim’s upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogen experiments.”

Further detail is no longer necessary though there is much more. From what you just read, you get the point. In Japanese culture it’s normal to “eat everything on the fish except the bones,” but this is extreme. It demonstrates a true dehumanization, a devaluation of life and of the sanctity of the object to the extent to break it up, fragment it functionally, according to the most efficient study of the body’s response to harm inflicting agents. Fortunately, we can say, the hopeless suffering endured by millions to birth the marvel of modern medicine has been put to good use saving millions upon millions more lives, alleviating pain and easing death. But to imagine, let alone immerse yourself in what it took to get us here… I find it easier to accept that we are a species unsure how to move forward with itself. We have impossible knowledge of our bodies. We have seen so many of the ways a body can be reduced and still remain a person, so many mechanistic responses to stimuli.

We have developed an outsider’s view looking in at ourselves. We’ve seen the biological objectivity of it all, and since then have had great trouble looking for anything further or anything less. The necropsy on the human, on life perhaps, has already been performed. The organism has long since laid itself bare to dissection. “I am a biological machine driven by some sort of who-knows-what, upon and within which other machines form assemblages.” Because the “who-knows-what” that drives the machines appears to be a lot more mysterious than what the machines do, we tend to look toward mechanistic, Aristotelian, and concrete explanations to our topics of inquiry.

Occam’s razor says none of this should exist. You really think pillows and dildos are the most probable outputs of the universal substrate? But what to make of it all? Does this taboo information we possess fundamentally alter the outcome of civilization? Is it of any importance at all that much of what we accept naturally as part of our every day lives comes from such unnatural means of discovery? Or is this merely another function of nature’s amorally inquisitive aspect expressing itself perfectly naturally? So many questions from this.

Equipoise

To begin with, I must admit that I am all but obsessed with examination of representation.  In technical terms representation deals with the modality through which information is expressed, the set and type of symbols of which it is composed.  This is personally relevant because I am constantly attuned to the gap between what people signify and what they intend to signify.  Either may reveal more complete information as to the motivations of an individual.

We passively probe the social environment for subtle disparities between behavior and words.  Baudrillard would agree the illusion of words is that there is a truth.  There is no doubt meaning to words but they lack relation to universal truth.  Humans seem to have a difficult time understanding that universal means impervious to human perceptions or unframed by them.  As such, we must be extremely careful to avoid the assumption that every signification enfolds a meaning.  Did she frown because I upset her or because she had cramps?  To attach every perceived relation to oneself is just as much folly as to attach none at all.

We happen upon an interesting question.  Does every signification have meaning?  Does the expression 2 + 2 = 3 have meaning?  Yes, it has false meaning, but meaning nonetheless.  To even inscribe the abstract act of addition requires the precession of a vast array of mental (read: memetic) technology and verbal machinery.  Meaning is implicitly expressed through the representation or the medium of a message.  x + y = z, completely devoid of its singular content, implies the notion of equipoise, that two opposing forces resist each other in equal proportion.  This is, of course, the central dogma of arithmetic:  x = z – y. In other words, there will always be a way to “balance the checkbook.”  Notice the operation is energy conserving – the x, y, and z may be juggled around ad infinitum and still produce the same set of relations.  But, can I compose a signification that is utterly meaningless?  Even “asdfr sdfi dfeokm” wears the symbolic veil of letters, an entire layer of assembled and organized machinery buried within the signifier.  I still believe it is possible to transcribe the meaningless, but I will return to this point at a later date.

The dogmatic arithmetic relationship negates entropy, ignores completely the vital impulse that leeches energy from the circuit into divergent, emergent territory.  Circuits transverse circuits and form gears, molecular entities.  Rudiments of materialist thought are founded upon the recognition that entities inevitably form dynamic relationships with other entities and nothing exists in isolation, which is to say the notion of brownian motion applies to corpuscles of all forms, physical, ethereal, or noetic.

When we study representation we attempt to define one or several abstract relationships between entities in the human perceptual system. We understand first and foremost that anything represented is rendered such by our neural and cultural hardware.  The shockingly recent emergence of computer science represents mankind’s most profound attempt to date to develop a dynamic metaphysics.  Like most modern studies, it has fallen victim to a romanticism of sorts with its obsessive progression toward a deistic perfection.

Error does not exist in this realm, there is no distance between what the machine signifies and what it intends to signify.  Isn’t that space precisely where we subjectively reside, always vacillating along a continuum girded by what we convey and what we intend to convey?    This dynamism reveals an implicit molecular relationship that may not be readily accessible to machinic dissection by means of symbols.  It is partially soluble to symbolism or likeness, perhaps, but not to symbols.  The space between the sign and the signified contains indifferentiable intrusions of meaninglessness, that which is signified but contains no particular significance or that which expresses remnants of the asignifying.  Of all things we should be most interested in that which does not signify, the asignifying, as it seems to constitute the dark energy of our metaphysics.