Categories
Futures

Dancing to Bach

When Ray Tanton announced his retirement, it shocked the nation, or at least the many who read his column in the New Yorker. He had just published his most popular book to date, Everyone is Going to Die: Navigating the Imminent Gigadeath through Guided Meditation. The book, as he pitched it, was a roadmap to reconciling with grief and anxiety in the face of a warming planet. It was backed by cutting-edge research into feedback loops, points of no return, and ocean health, and informed by Socratic thought, Zen Buddhism, and his own proprietary musings. 

Despite concerns from publishers about the book’s ominous thesis, audiences proved hungry for a dose of the apocalypse. The book’s sales, as well as the commission from the subsequent book tour, rewarded Tanton handsomely. This is not to imply that he was greedy, or that his book’s admittedly eye-catching title was motivated by the lucrative potential of appealing an already-widespread anxiety. The book was based on real science. He may have only been a journalist, but he had listened to real researchers—researchers who were themselves anxious. It was time to put away the denial and the optimism, Tanton thought, and get real. The end is coming. For me, for you, for everyone and everything. Let’s use what little time we have left and turn ourselves to philosophy; to art; to the self-negating glory of Zen meditation. “You must be terrific fun at parties!” his detractors often quipped. If only they saw things the way he did. Then they would be no fun either. 

But Tanton’s family and friends knew him as warm and attentive. He was, at heart, a family man. Even as he prepared his new book, The End of Happiness: Learning to be Content with Everything and Everyone You Care About Dying or Being Incinerated in Rather Short Order, he managed to find time to attend his son’s college football games, and support his wife’s career as an artisial knitter. 

So when he announced his sudden retirement from journalism, shock quickly gave way to understanding. While his book would remain unfinished, it was clear to both his publishers and his readers that he was doing so to enjoy his family’s company in the latter years of his—and the Earth’s—existence. Then, he made his second announcement: he was moving to a remote cabin in the Yukon Territory to write poetry and die in solitude. His family would not be invited, either to live with him or speak to him. He would leave them the bulk of his savings and keep the remainder for himself, enough to guarantee their wellbeing, and enough to ensure his short-term survival. 

His decision was not well-received, but Ray Tanton did not feel the need to be understood. There were bigger things at stake. It was a serious time and he needed to get serious. No more fluffy non-fiction, no more easy analogies, no more writing for the masses. He would end his days with poetry. He would seal himself in a freezing cabin and squeeze out the poems his mind had silently formed throughout his adult life. Then, having finished his collection, In the Silence of Quiet Spaces, he would promptly shoot himself, if he had not already died of hypothermia or starvation. His possessions would be few. A typewriter and a stack of blank paper. A sack of lentils and a fifth of whiskey. A revolver. A portable turntable and Bach’s greatest, most somber, most epic, most blisteringly human Cello Suite—his Fifth. His final days would be simple, his swan song epic, and having died seriously in serious times, his mission on the doomed Earth would be complete. 

He arrived at the cabin in midwinter. He left his Chevrolet at the bottom of the long driveway, parked sideways, blocking entry, as a symbol of his divorce from the human world. It took him several minutes of awkward wrangling to achieve this, but as he looked back at it from behind the broad windows of the cabin, he felt satisfied with the gesture. He unpacked his few things. In the kitchenette, he ate unseasoned lentils. A shot of whiskey burned his throat. A wooden chair creaked under his weight, and he began to write. 

Ray Tanton had never written poetry before. He had spent a great deal of his career thinking about himself writing poetry, typically in scenes like this. At times, had even considered what those poems might look and sound like. He liked the idea of using spare language to celebrate natural spaces. He liked the idea of writing a collection of poetry that used the word silence and also the word quiet. Hence: In the Silence of Quiet Spaces. Most of all, Ray Tanton liked the idea of a cold journalist with no creative accomplishments sitting down one day and writing a masterpiece. This masterpiece would not roll from under the presses of a big publisher, at least in his lifetime. It would take the form of an unassuming manuscript, left on his desk and discovered after his death. A coda for his corpse. 

So here he was. Sitting in front of his typewriter. About to write a masterpiece. A quiet epic. The wind in the trees. A cloudless sky. All of the ingredients were there; surely the poems would write themselves. He laid his fingers on the keys. Which letter would he press first? A? E? S? What about Q? How many poems began with the letter Q? Maybe he should look one up. But, he reminded himself, this is the whole exercise! The whole point! A remote cabin, in the faraway Yukon. A swan song, entirely free, and authentically uninformed. Childlike. Children. His son. His son who is now a sophomore at Tufts and, last he heard, had done well in his football tryouts. Who might play in varsity. Who might be on TV. The chair creaked again. His throat burned again. 

Back into the chair again, running his fingertips over the plastic keys. He pressed a few. The word The appeared on the page. A noble, if conventional choice. Many great poems had begun with The. Could he remember the titles or authors of any? No, but surely such poems existed. Maybe he should’ve brought a collection of poems with him. Elizabeth Bishop, maybe. But no. This was the whole point, the whole exercise! To be alone, write poetry, to die seriously in serious times with serious poetry. Chair creek. Throat burn.

By this time, the floor swayed beneath him and the writing became mercifully easier. Reaching the second page, he found it easier to push away his intrusive thoughts. Evening came, and he had filled five full pages. He trudged around the tall pines and thought somber thoughts. Another glass. Bedtime. 


He awoke the next morning to find that the latter half of his five full pages, rather than being what one would conventionally describe as “poetry,” had turned out as a breathless, Joycean affair with an abundance of words and virtually no punctuation. 

It was not a complete disaster. It could still be salvaged and reorganised into poetry. But to summon the courage to violate a core artistic principle—no revisions, no rewrites—and to allay his pounding headache, he would need to eat first, and consume what he, in college, had referred to as the hair of the dog. So a handful of lentils, and another drink. 

By the end of that second day, Tanton felt confident. He had tamed the unruly jungle of his unrestrained consciousness into simple, bountiful farmland through a bold slash-and-burn. (He had developed a penchant for metaphor. Precocious in a man of his inexperience!) What had once been: 

The wind coasts through the trees in a silent waltz taking place 
simultaneously all through the world and that too is ending as the 
heat ever rises it is a vengeful God a salacious devil denuding the 
Earth of all Sacred things O Man! Oh Bountiful Lord! Did I fuck up 
when I didn’t tell my family where I am I feel like if a legal matter 
were to come up it’s my name on the mortgage still Oh god if they 
default on the mortgage they’re going to try to find me and 

Was trimmed to: 

The Wind coasts through the trees 
In a silent waltz. 
And through the smoke of the hearth, 
the Earth, 
The temperatures rise, 
Denuding Paradise, O Bountiful Lord! 
We have defaulted on our heavenly Mortgage. 
The Death Pledge is breached 
The Creditor, Creator, is here to collect! 
Flee, Debtor, you cannot!

He rolled the paper out of the typewriter and held it in his hands. Evil thoughts crept into his mind. It’s shit, he thought. I have written irremediable garbage. Worse than derivative, it seemed almost parodic. He imagined children laughing at it. Who was going to read it? Who would be left alive in one hundred years to appreciate the bathos that was his poetic oeuvre? No, Ray. He needed to close his mind and do this. He needed to be the poet in the moonlit shack, who left everyone he knew to be alone and die. It was required to justify ever having taken joy in his brief life. As a young man all he had ever wanted was to be a poet. At night he would lie awake in drafty dorm rooms and dream of scrawling words so intelligent and so devastating that anything else he had ever done in life—anything unremarkable, skevy, or just plain wrong—would be forgotten, not expunged from the law or forgiven by heaven, but simply erased from common memory. 

As he left this reverie and set down his work from that day, he turned his attention to the portable turntable sitting against a wall. He had brought with him a 10” vinyl of Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5. The Rostropovich recording. He loved Rostropovich’s rendition. He loved its grinding slowness, its honesty, and its seriousness. The vinyl left the slip and the needle fell. He poured himself a glass and laid down on the floor, readying himself for a grave intellectual ordeal. But the first notes emitted by the turntable’s small speaker were not the arresting bellows of Rostroprovich’s Prelude but the soft beat of drums. A flute whispered a familiar tune. An orchestra breathed to life. This wasn’t Cello Suite No. 5. This wasn’t even Bach. It was Ravel. It was fucking Bolero. He bolted up and found the slip. Someone put fucking Bolero in the Bach slip. Bolero! Ravel himself had called it a “piece for orchestra without music.” 

Tanton stamped around the cabin. Bullshit, he yelled aloud. This whole exercise, this whole mission, an absolute joke! He imagined hidden cameras, strategically placed around the cabin, broadcasting his miseries live across the nation. He imagined himself on SNL. He imagined Jimmy Kimmel, sipping a cup of coffee, almost losing it while a clip of his escapades played for a live audience. The bottle was now in his hand. Bolero grew louder and louder. The more he drank, the angrier he became. A chair crashed to the floor, a lamp shattered against a wall, and as Ravel’s music without music reached its climax he tore the record from the turntable, waltzed into the snow, and threw the vinyl like a frisbee into the trees. He used the typewriter to smash the turntable to pieces. Then he used the floor to smash the typewriter to pieces. But Bolero, impossibly, still played. From hidden speakers, adjoined to the cameras, that same melody, that same idiotic dance screamed and shook the cabin and Tanton flung the empty whisky bottle against the floor and collapsed into a chair, weeping, nose running, as the brass of the neverending Bolero crashed and deafened him. He squeezed his hands against his ears, drew his knees in close, and fell mercifully to sleep. 


If you made a cocktail of all the miseries Ray Tanton felt the next afternoon when he awoke, it would call for equal parts physical pain and humiliation, vigorously shaken so as to be indistinguishable. The floor was a starry sky of broken things. He was afraid to put his bare feet on the floor. When he had made it to the kitchenette, he peeled a letter E off the bottom of his foot. The typewriter, he thought. I broke the typewriter. And you know what? I didn’t even bring a pencil. 

He cooked the last of his lentils. Out of instinct, his hand reached for the bottle, a bottle now distributed throughout the cabin. He drank water instead. It is all over then, he thought. Today is the day of lasts. Last bowl of lentils. Last gaze into the snowy woods. Last breath of cold Yukon air. Last thought of his family. He would never again hear the somber chords of Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5. 

He tiptoed around the cabin and gathered together his five full pages of poetry. With a piece of string, he carefully bound them together and lay the stack in the center of the table. In The Silence of Quiet Spaces. His legacy. His coda. On the upside, he would never have to write poetry ever again. He would rather kill himself than write another word. Fortunately, this was an option. Today was the day of lasts. 

After trudging through the snow and thinking a few last, serious thoughts, Tanton returned inside and cleared a space on the floor. When he had pictured this moment, he imagined it as a steely ritual, with cascading snow behind a broad window and Bach’s Cello Suite serenading in the background. He had neither. It was a sunny day, and the record he had thought was Bach was now somewhere in the forest. In any event, these were the conditions he was faced with, and now he felt more motivated than ever to get the thing over with and forget that any of this had ever happened. He lifted the revolver from the drawer. He walked over and sat criss-cross in his clean area. A whispered goodbye echoed minutely in the cold cabin. Goodbye wife. Goodbye son. Goodbye world. Goodbye me. He raised the barrel to his temple. His eyes pressed shut, his heart pounded; he stopped thinking and squeezed the trigger. 

A full moment passed before Tanton realized he was still alive. His eyes opened and he burst into tears. Confused, angry, relieved, humiliated, he dropped the revolver and pounced over the debris-strewn floor to the cabinet. He held the box of ammunition to his face. Blanks. Blank rounds. You fucking idiot, Ray, you bought blank rounds. He felt something drip onto his shoulder. It occurred to him that he could not hear in his right ear. Well I’m fixing this right fucking now, he heard himself say in his left ear. He burst out of the front door into the snow, tramped down the long driveway, threw himself behind the steering wheel and, for the next ten minutes, haphazardly dislodged his car from his now-aborted gesture of finality. He raced down the road, windows rolled down, the icy air pushing his tears past his face. At the sight of the first Guns Guns Guns sign he came across he whipped the car off the road and clamoured out of it, throwing open a pair of glass doors and striding up to the bearded man at the counter. 

“Ammunition,” he said, “where can I find ammunition for a revolver?” 

“Sir, are you feeling okay?” His eyes glanced downward. It occurred to Tanton that he had forgotten to put on pants.

“I’m fine, I’m in a hurry, I’m stressed and I need ammunition right now.” 

“Okay then, what caliber?” 

“What? I don’t know… It’s just a regular revolver. Regular caliber.” 

“Sir, you know your ear is bleeding?” 

“Yes, I know. I’m on my way to the doctor, that’s why I need ammunition. Now can I please have some fucking regular revolver caliber ammunition?”

“Can I see some ID?” 

“What?” 

“You need an ID to buy ammunition,” he said, with a little huff that was almost, not quite, a laugh. 

“You need a… I have my passport at home.” 

“A Canadian passport?” 

“No, you fucking fatass. I’m an American.” 

“Well then, I can’t sell you any ammunition.” 

“Well then—I’m going home!” 

“Drive safe, sir.” 

He didn’t. He raced back home, awkwardly manoeuvred his Chevrolet so as to block entrance, and trudged up the driveway to the cabin. Depositing himself in the same clean section of floor where an hour earlier he had intended to die, he resolved that within twenty-four hours his life would be over. 

Short of burning down the cabin with himself inside, he tried everything. By the early morning, he had been burned, gashed, lacerated, half-drowned, hanged both right-side-up and up-side-down. He had even tried to run himself over with his own car, an effort that ended in Tanton yet again wrangling the vehicle so as to block entrance to the driveway. 

In one, last-ditch effort to terminate his existence, he dislodged his car and drove to the nearest grocery store. He piled as much ground beef into his shopping cart as its little wheels could muster and ignored genuinely concerned questions about his health when he reached the checkout isle. “I’m fine,” he said, “and yes, I need bags.” After what he prayed was the last time he would need to inject his car across the driveway’s entrance, he carried the beef to the bathroom and emptied the plastic containers into the bathtub. When the tub was nearly filled with beef, he disrobed and leapt in. The next several minutes were surprisingly exciting. Had he not been expecting an imminent death, he might have recommended such a beef bath to friends and family. He left the bathroom as bloody and pulpy as the moment he had been born and, opening his front door, ran into the forest and fell onto his face. If hypothermia does not kill me, he reasoned, then a wild animal would finish the job. He shortly fell asleep. 


He woke up almost frozen solid. A wild animal had not eaten him, and how he was covered in ground-up, frozen beef. He shuffled back to the cabin like a dejected hamburger patty, ruled unsafe for consumption. A bath, a change of clothes, and a glass of water. He was still deaf in his right ear, and somehow, in yesterday’s innumerable travails, he has lost use of his left eye as well. Perhaps during the ordeal with the car. Or the electrocution. Or a combination of both. None of his other senses seemed to work. The tips of his fingers had been burned away in an outlandish attempt at self-immolation involving the stovetop and several feet of wire. A diet of hard liquor had inflamed his tongue. The freezing air left his nose congested. His body was weak and wracked with pain. He no longer had the energy to want to die, and was satisfied to live, if he could just lie down for a while and not think about anything.

He returned to his clean area of the floor and laid his concussed head against the hardwood. This was the fool-proof, the surefire way to end his life: to do nothing at all. It was a very Zen revelation, he thought. Very appropriate, given that he had spent so much of his life offering  solutions to the public’s anxieties in the form of just let it happen. Here he was, just letting it happen. 

He became talented at waiting. Contrary to intuition, it is a practicable skill. You get better at it over time. And time becomes more flexible. It seemed that his time in the cabin had begun several months ago, when he had really only been there for four days. But now, things seemed to speed up—or rather, events were crammed into a more compact form. He looked out the window to find a green, summer day. Then he exhaled, and it was winter again. He paused to go outside and look at the stars. He went in to rest, and by the time he came back out, the stars had completely shifted, and then shifted back again. He went back inside and saw a shroud of black smoke trailing across the window facing opposite. An enormous fire blackened the forest surrounding him, sparing his wooden cabin by a familiar turn of luck. By the time the trees and grass had begun to regrow, fire returned. The stars shifted more and more, and eventually the forest did not come back. The surrounding landscape resembled dry savannah more than the big, cold forest. The summers were long and hot, and the winters short and snowless. Different animals resided here, crickets lulled him to sleep each night, and mosquitoes hounded him during the day. 

Around this time, he began forgetting that he was alive at all. It shocked him to touch a brass doorknob and found it colder than the surrounding air. This was one of the few things he could still distinctly feel. He would forget to feel and forget how to think. He had no idea what would happen to him during these episodes, but they grew longer and longer, and soon his mind only revisited the plane of the living in select, voluntary moments. He was on a long road trip, and still needed to make pit stops. But the distance between these pit stops was widening, and perhaps, he was getting stronger. First, he would get out and stretch his legs. Then he would simply take his foot off the pedal. Now, he started down the long road and did not foresee ever having to stop again. 

He heard a knock at the door. He stayed perfectly still. The knocking persisted and eventually the door swung open. A man, about thirty years old, stood in front of him, waving a hand in his face.

“Hello? Are you alright?” 

He returned to consciousness. The windows were broken, the ceiling was sagging, and the chair beneath him had warped under his now-modest weight. A thin, young man was standing in front of him. 

“Are you alive?” the young man asked. 

He looked up with his one working eye. “Yes,” he said in a voice he had not used in some time. “I think I am.” 

“Do you know where you are?” 

“I’m in Canada.” 

“Do you know what day it is?” 

“No.” 

“Do you know what year it is?” 

“One of the ones after 2020.” 

“Unbelievable,” he laughed. “You still use the old system. You must be fantastically old! Hold on, let me do a quick conversion.” He pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket and taps his finger against it. “2020 corresponds to, holy shit, 23-9. Your brain must be diseased, or you’re just lying. That was two-hundred years ago! The husk of a car I found outside was at least that old, but there’s no way it belonged to you.” 

Tanton said nothing. Instead, he waved a hand in the direction of the manuscript. “Well, what’s this then?” the young man asked, looking it over, evidently afraid to pick it up. “Real paper, and real ink,” he marveled, “and this string is nearly falling apart. Are you saying that you wrote this?” 

In the Silence,” Tanton recited, “of Quiet Spaces.” 

The other man laughed and repeated the title to himself. “Would you mind if I read it?” he asked excitedly. “As it happens, I am a lyceum instructor. I know you won’t believe the coincidence, but my specialty is the poetry of the early twenty-first century. In fact I’ve developed a number of influential instructional modules on the topic, not to toot my own horn,” he said, adding a chuckle.

Tanton waved him through like a traffic conductor. The string fell away from the papers like ash, and as each page fell face-down onto the table, the man reading would shriek in delight. “Brilliant!” he would say. When he had finished the last page, he gathered them again into a stack and said, “you have to let me take some pictures and show them to my students, these are simply brilliant. This is satire of the highest order and I am astonished to be discovering it only now, in these circumstances! But oh, I should explain why I’m here before I confuse you any further. I am your great-great-great-great grandson. At least, I think I am, if you are who I think you are, and I’m fairly convinced that you are. I was looking at my family records, just out of curiosity, when I came across some archived newspaper columns mentioning that you had gone away to live as a hermit. Of course, I’d already read all of your works. Brilliant, absolutely uproarious comedic works. The way you used yet-uncertain scientific research to play on real, widespread anxiety was, frankly, without precedent, and the gesture was executed perfectly, as I argue in my doctoral thesis. Not that I’m a celebrity or anything. I’m really nobody.”

“But when I read about your departure to this region, I had a feeling that I would find something here, something original and worth sharing with the world. And evidently,” he said, gesturing toward the manuscript, “I was correct!” 

Tanton was quiet for a moment. He appeared to be in serious thought. “Satire?” he asked. 

The man paused. “Well of course. It’s as plain as day. You took the most sickly, fatalistic poetry of your day and force-fed it pseudo-Miltonian bathos until it bled pure comedy. It’s genius!” 

Oh my god, he thought. Satire. It’s funny. He wants to laugh at it. He wants to show it to his students, so they can laugh at it together. He almost started crying, wailing, and beating his frail hands against the punctilious pseudointellectual who stood there slandering the most honest thing he had ever created, the thing that was to justify his existence, that excused, for all time, every instance in which he had ever been a disappointment. But when he looked back up at him, the smile he saw was so undeniably happy, so plainly overjoyed at having read these private words, that Tanton’s own stiff face broke into a smile. 

“Please do one thing for me,” he said, still smiling. “My turntable is in pieces all around us. But you have a car here, right? Some kind of speaker? Could you play Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5? The Rostropovich version? I know it’s a long shot to even assume—” 

“Well of course, I’d be thrilled to!” the man said, taking the piece of paper from his pocket. He lightly tapped it again, and all around them, the walls and the floor and the sagging ceiling, everything began to sing Bach’s aching chords. They listened in wonder as the narrative expanded and assumed an ever-more-dire character before arriving at one, unbearable moment, and then: “The dance begins!” the standing man exclaimed, pushing away the debris and broken furniture around them, making a clear space. “It begins in the grips of the most perilous drama, and then he turns to dance!” he said, taking Tanton’s withered hand.

“What are you talking about?” Tanton had no clue what this man was getting at. But the man ignored him and hoisted his ancestor’s nearly-weightless body up and away, across the impromptu dance floor, and into a practiced step which circled and circled around the sagging chair, swaying to the sharp cuts of the everpresent cello, twirling and laughing, being completely silly, until finally the old man relaxed into his partner’s embrace and died. 

The other man was unsure what to do with his remains. He searched the cabin for personal effects, but only found a passport for a country that had ceased to exist. He buried the stateless remains in the dry grass outside. As he coasted home over the fields, he took the frail manuscript in his hands and began to read again. He laughed the entire trip home.


Cyrus Multhauf is a writer living in Chicago, IL. His interests include words, deeds, and thoughts. If you have a job, please give it to him, as he is likely to fall into a life of petty crime without gainful employment. 

Categories
Futures

After Lucretius

A Naive Program

If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

Ted Kaczynski

The banality of Einstein’s remarks in matters outside his specialty is as astonishing as his genius within it. It seems as though the specialized application of all one’s faculties in a particular area inhibits the consideration of things in general.

Jacques Ellul

Despite being a mathematics prodigy with an IQ of 165, the Ted Kaczynski of Industrial Society and its Future is breathtakingly naïve. To take just one example before we grind our main axe, here is Kaczynski on how the anti-tech “revolutionaries” should approach political power: “The revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries.” Otherwise, he tells us, they risk being voted out!

The Unabomber has tunnel vision. There is so much focus on the gruesomeness of the future of industrial society that Kaczynski never stops to wonder exactly how much future civilisation has left. There are two futures present in the Manifesto,This is how Kaczynski likes to refer to Industrial Society and its Future, e.g. ‘Letter to an Anonymous German’ on the Anarchist Library: “As the Manifesto argues . . .”; “I should add that the remarks about leftism, here and in the Manifesto . . .” one in which the system’s precipitous growth threatens a terrible collapse if it falls, and one in which the system is made stable through the success of cybernetics. Kaczynski’s fear concerns the latter “possibility”, though we must ask whether or not it ever occurred to him to consider external causes of civilisational collapse. There is a vulgar and uncanny Marxism present in the Manifesto, where non-human nature is completely ignored as an object of serious analysis. Instead, Kaczynski focuses on what anti-tech revolutionaries may need to do in order to bring the system down. His recommendations, all laughable, include:

  1. Promote social stress and instability in industrial society to make a revolution against technology possible. Sow division between the power-holding elite and everybody else. Revolutionaries ought not to condemn the public for their consumption habit, but rather explain to them that they are victims of the advertising industry. Avoid identity politics at all costs.
  2. Avoid assuming political power. Any green party would see itself quickly removed from office for crashing the economy. Political power can be seized only when the public understands that the industrial system’s continued existence is worse than the alternative.
  3. Revolt worldwide and simultaneously, defeating the entire industrial system in one stroke. Trying to cut back on a nation-by-nation basis can only lead to nationalist hysteria as the public loses its nerve: “Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do!”
  4. Support measures which bind the world economy into a unified whole. Global economic integration makes the industrial system easier to destabilise—a breakdown in one major nation will cause all industrialised nations to break down.

To be clear, this program is so ill-conceived it doesn’t really need to be critiqued, and I reference it only to demonstrate the truth of Ellul’s assertion that a mathematical genius need not have any particular wisdom in politics. It is obvious that a vanishingly small band of social outcasts and cranks are not going to be able to topple even one nation before the industrial system drives the human race to extinction. Capital is more than capable of recuperating itself, such that even if a systemic collapse occurred, we can reasonably assert it wouldn’t be long before the machines were up and running again. And what is all this nonsense about simultaneous worldwide anti-tech revolution? The communists couldn’t pull it off despite having a world-historic superpower on their side and a utopian vision of the future. What are the anti-tech revolutionaries offering? ‘Well, you’ll die. But at least you won’t be on anti-depressants.’

What Kaczynski didn’t realise is that by the time the system is truly struggling to the extent that it is unable to defend itself, famines, droughts, extreme weather, sea level rise and ecological collapse will have already foreclosed any possibility of a liberated future for the small number of people who may be able to struggle on as runaway warming takes over from industrial activity and pushes the Earth system into an unliveable hothouse state. Kaczynskian eschatology, just like its socialist equivalent, is religious—it consists in crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best, when anyone serious knows to only ever expect the worst.

The Leviathan and the Herd

‘Well, it’s no good screaming now. We’ve already sawn the cap off.’

The scalp dropped into the metal bin with a muted thud. The procedure lasted about five minutes. By the time the inside of the skull had been vacuumed and scrubbed clean, the rest of the cadaver had already been shipped to the putrefactorium for processing.

The workers used to tell morbid jokes as they watched the bodies liquefy in the putrechamber. That was before they were all subjected to genomic lobotomy. CRISPR tech. Delivered by injection one morning at clock-in. It was easy enough for the technicians to design the RNA sequences. In the old days, the managers would have at least needed a pretext to placate the public with, but the class struggle was permanently settled a while ago thanks to gene drives for docility and obedience. Consequently, there is no longer any need for PR.

A good thing too. It just held things up.

In some industries, workers are modified to remove their mortality salience. This is necessary for jobs like mining and construction, where resources have long since become too scarce to be wasted on luxuries like safety equipment and healthcare. You order a few hundred workers with the appropriate base specifications and make the necessary edits on-site. In other industries, mortality salience remains useful, either as a weapon of fear or simple amusement for the overseers. It sounds ridiculously, eye-rollingly sci-fi to imagine torture-as-entertainment, until you remember the lurid glee with which thousands watched ISIS militants torture and murder Jordanian pilot Muath Safi Yousef al-Kasasbeh by placing him inside a cage, dousing him with gasoline, and setting him on fire. There isn’t a whole lot to do during industrial society’s final act but produce the essentials and enjoy the torture. Hence the scalps in buckets, the putrefactorium, and the babbling, neutralised workers, who are good only for repetitive tasks and screaming as they die. Highest bidder gets to take the skull home.

Beats a walk in the desert.


Friedrich Nietzsche thought humankind could go down two routes: either it could become the bridge to the Übermensch, or succumb to its worst—its most human—impulses and drift through the end of history as the Last Man. At our current juncture, it’s pretty clear what path was taken. To say this path was chosen, however, is to make the bourgeois error, to assign agency where there is none, to invoke the obscene notion of the freedom of the will, first principle of the hangman’s metaphysics. Good Spinozists that we are, we understand that there is no room in this world for guilt, evil, wrongdoing, or error—only the chain of necessity of perfect nature.

Still, what a thing it is to be a herd animal. And there really is no question here that you and I both are herd animals. Even the toughest survivalist exists by tacit permission of the state, and would be quickly shot or jailed if they seriously tried to defend their “property” from the sovereign authority. If you think that anything can shield you from the universal becoming-bovine of the 21st century, you are coping. Petty politics is an open invitation to imagine yourself better than others because you happen to have nobler reasons than they do for supporting your ill-thought out policy prescriptions. Great politics is the future’s cynical antidote, a closed invitation for your owners to let you perish—and it is really no good bringing up your rights here, civilised one. As ecological collapse and political dementia bring the system as we know it to a screeching halt, despotic metastasis turns the lights back on, but not before jettisoning the decaying fragments of the liberal-democratic order once and for all—“The time for petty politics is over.”Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, tr. J. Norman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 102; §208.

With that, we enter the age of the Neoleviathans. While we cannot predict what these states will do, being, by their very nature, completely novel, we might be able to get an idea by looking at one of their predecessors, which I call Anteleviathans.

ISIS: A Case Study

Taking advantage of the weakness of Iraq and Syria’s governments, ISIS rapidly became a world-renowned and formidable force, at one point claiming 8 million subjects, with thousands of foreign fighters recruited from across the world with the help of slick propaganda videos—essentially snuff porn with high production values, which the Western media was more than happy to share as long as it brought in the ad revenue. ISIS unleashed genocide against Yazidis, Shia Muslims, and Christians; assassinated political enemies and executed POWs; took control of dams and displaced communities through deliberate flooding and drought;Tobias von Lossow, ‘Water as Weapon: IS on the Euphrates and Tigris’ (2016). “In April 2014, after IS had the Falluja Dam floodgates closed, the retained water flooded large areas upstream and submerged Iraqi government facilities on the banks . . . Between Falluja and Abu Ghraib over 10,000 houses and around 200 square kilometres of fertile farmland were destroyed; almost the entire harvest was wiped out; and livestock was killed. Up to 60,000 locals who had lost their livelihood in the flood were displaced.” inspired numerous terror attacks abroad; and established a widespread, violent fundamentalist state with captured military technology. For a group most people hadn’t heard of before the summer of 2014, and which had lost 98% of its territory by late 2017, this is an impressive and horrific record, one we can nonetheless expect to be outdone by the Neoleviathans of the future without even breaking a sweat.

See, a Neoleviathan has no qualms about making do with whatever falls into its lap. Its soldiers and commanders aren’t scared of international courts or a bad reputation—they know they’d sooner die than face what the enemy calls “justice”. They don’t hesitate or worry, and they know beggars can’t be choosers. Unimpeded by the institutional gangrene that plagues democratic states, that is, unimpeded by a lazy, entrenched, ill-incentivised political class and the capitalists who own them, Neoleviathans and their Anteleviathan counterparts are capable of the sort of vigour and creativity only a starving proto-state or a sovereign territory on the edge of survival can muster up.In truth, the distinction between a Neoleviathan and an Anteleviathan is really nothing more than context. Neoleviathans exist amongst Neoleviathans. When everyone treats each other as if they are Neoleviathans, the process is complete. Until then, for as long as the majority play pretend, there are only good, decent, legitimate states, and the Anteleviathan rogues. This will be elaborated on in a future instalment of my monograph on the subject. There was an unmistakable sense of bloat watching European government leaders wonder how to stop ISIS propaganda falling into the hands of their citizens while ISIS crowdsourced execution methods on Twitter. In the end, foreign powers were able to bomb ISIS back into oblivion, but one has to wonder, as the lights start to go out on globally-integrated, internationalist civilisation, what happens when the power vacuums open back up, and nobody from the outside gives a shit? What happens when all that are left are power vacuums—and the Neoleviathans that seek to fill them?

Irreligious Pessimism

Before they started doing it to everyone, they began by re-cognitising the undesirables, which is what they called the genomic lobotomy back then. The public loved the idea, which was sold to them by the obsequious pro-Neoleviathan cognoscenti. These people had gotten a hold of some book, called Neoleviathan: Political Blueprints for the Post Collapseand were utterly convinced its predictions, painted in broad enough strokes to be almost truisms, would come to pass. ‘We really ought to get ahead of the curve on this one!’ its convinced readers would say. ‘We don’t want the other side beating us to it!’ The Neoleviathan integrates the arms race of the Schmittian political and the cutting-edge of technology to ensure stability by any means necessary, and so the opposition was promptly re-cognitised and put to work on fracking sites, farms, oil rigs—just about anything the respectable majority had no interest in doing. Resources were less scarce back then, there was still enough water for everybody and the grasses hadn’t gone extinct yet. Really what the opportunists were pursuing was only the process of leviathanisation. The Neoleviathans hadn’t truly arrived until even its supporters were being sent down the mines or having their heads split open for the few moments of amusement it would bring to the ever-dwindling ruling class.

There used to be more Neoleviathans. In the beginning, that is, after the end of the old system, there was an incredible scramble for territory, setting innumerable wars and petty skirmishes in motion. This blood-soaked economy of conflict produced much political diversity, though the willingness to use all sorts of chemical and biological weapons, to target and exterminate entire civilian populations, poison water and food supplies, assassinate military and political leaders, and all sorts of previously-frowned upon behaviours quickly selected the weaker Neoleviathans out of existence, as well as the most reckless. Now, a select few exist in a tired stalemate as their outer limits shrink. Deserts claim much of the once fertile land, and nobody is all that bothered about fighting any longer. Most of the time everyone keeps to themselves, and even the fights which do occur are perfunctory, disinterested—nobody bats an eye at another ten thousand dead.

In the night, there’s this eerie silence. There are no vehicles out, of course. The roads have long since fallen into disrepair. But there are no birds, no bats, no animals of any kind—few living people even know there was once something other than cracked soil as far as the eye can see. Everything is grown in repurposed shipping containers with salvaged LEDs. The air is sterile. The sky is brown. “In this way the ramparts of the great world also will be breached and collapse in crumbling ruin about us. Already it is far past its prime. The earth, which generated every living species and once brought forth from its womb the bodies of huge beasts, has now scarcely strength to generate animalcules . . . Already the ploughman of ripe years shakes his head with many a sigh that his heavy labours have gone for nothing; and, when he compares the present with the past, he often cries up his father’s luck and grumbles that past generations, when men were old-fashioned and god-fearing, supported life easily enough on their small farms, though one man’s holding was then far less than now. In the same despondent vein, the cultivator of old and wilted vines decries the trend of the times and rails at heaven. He does not realize that everything is gradually decaying and nearing its end, worn out by old age.”Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Limited, 1951), pp. 94–95.


What comes after Lucretius? After one realises it really isn’t over until it’s over, and that, with humanity, nature has perfected its inner tendency towards self-destruction? It is, of course, ridiculous to imagine that anthropogenic climate change will be reversed—before the age of the Neoleviathans, there will not exist a state concerned enough for the future to try and do it, and after the age of the Neoleviathans has begun, any state which diverts resources to such an endeavour will quickly find itself smashed to pieces. Everybody knows there will not be a worldwide simultaneous revolution as Kaczynski correctly recognised would be necessary for the system (capital, industrial society, whatever you’d like to call it) to be toppled. If you are honest with yourself, you know that we won’t clean the oceans of plastic, suck all of the greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere (and keep them out), decarbonise our economies or otherwise do anything other than business-as-usual. The future looks like a slow winding down, followed by a spectacular period characterised by strange combinations of atavism and modernity, followed by a gradual ebbing, then a rapid crumbling, away. And that’s if we’re lucky.

After Lucretius comes Darwin: the belief that things can always get worse in the absence of a hard limit. The question is not one of revolution, then, but of escape—whether spatially or mentally—of producing a world within the world, of becoming disillusioned but not despondent. Foucault: “Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable.”Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. xiii. And yet, is there really anything to look forward to? Has everything not been burned down to the substrate? No morality and no meaning, no exit and no hope, only the rushing wind of the outside as progress generates extinction? Why bother? What should we do? “The highest values devalue themselves . . .”Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power: Selections from the Notebooks of the 1880s, tr. R. Kevin Hill and Michael A. Scarpitti (London: Penguin Classics, 2017), p. 15; §1. Was this really it? Did you really slog through all that Proudhon just to die for some rich man’s greed? Am I telling you that you shouldn’t have bothered handing out those papers at the student union? And what about the long history of the revolutionary movement? Was it all for nothing? Why are you even here? The crisis of meaning: the great zero, death itself.

Abandoning the Rubicon

Contact with the outside: I am standing amongst the beautiful graves of the Necropolis, taking advantage of the first dry spell we’ve had in days. Along the grassy bank of the exit path stand a queue of elm trees, their skeletal branches gnarled and twisted in petrified supplication, like leprotic beggars, hands around the alms bowl of the autumn sky.

I’m here to visit the departed in their great grand tombs, interned forever by the grace of God. William and his whole family buried together from the looks of it: Christina, Robert—two young kids—Connell, his wife, and Margaret, born 16 days before Connell’s death—dead less than a year later. Mary made it to 21 before she died. Certrude lasted 10 days. Must have remarried.

I can’t look anymore.

It’s hard not to be struck by the ostentatiousness of bourgeois death, the one-upmanship of the grave. Imagine them in their heaven, sucking pipes: ‘My family got me a lovely grave, you know. It’s a good 20 feet tall. Pierces the sky like a javelin. Of course, no expenses were too much. I noticed yours was a little petite—must have been a lean business year for your family, eh? Eh, old boy?’

‘My God,’ some must have said as they saw that light at the end of the tunnel. ‘I am coming home. So what of all this? I am free at last.’

The old cathedral bells chime as I go. A paper windmill spins in the wind. Crisp leaves, burnt brown, trip towards the bridge. Fresh weeds, green and vivacious, shoot up by the memorial benches. Saccade. “Lest we forget.” Saccade. Lest I do. The sunlight blooms diffuse, another beautiful domed church almost seems to swell in joy, like your sunlight-kissed skin on that beach that summer. We were at the edge of the world then, tumbling through space but calm, so calm, by those sweet and sparkling waves. And you, stranger whose name I barely had the chance to learn, on that bench with the world roaring by, how long did we kiss? Four seconds? I swear the world stopped tumbling for that, my body thrown and broken as the Earth hit the brakes. I should wonder if that’s how beautiful death can be—defenestrated out of this world.

So then! A lot of shit I give about your crisis of meaning! Ask the dead if meaning saved them! You think you love life because it has meaning? How dull, how sick, how sad. Tell me: did you ever have a moment where the world stopped tumbling? Did you dare ask at that moment what it meant?


We should never have set up some transcendent goal or all-consummating utopian ideal for ourselves. To do so is to become a slave to a fixed idea, to invite vitrifying passions into our wheelhouse, to lay the foundations for the nihilism of disillusionment. We have had enough of the cop, the moralist, and the dreamer in our heads. “Thou shalt not, thou shalt, thou art.” After all this time, why are you still seeking after commandments?

The only way out is out: strategically calculated withdrawal or running headlong, screaming, into the desert—it doesn’t matter. To stay is to die, for the state will not go quietly. Unbound from the injunction to build the new world, we can perhaps imagine a true existentialism, a true reckoning with what we are: temporary assemblages of organs, machines running strange software, backseat spirits tethered to base matter, undulating modes of God or Nature. To recognise what we are is to lose all fear. Socrates laughed at his penalty—as if death was a penalty, he said, something he could have avoided by playing nice. It comes to us all. What does it matter when? And why? If it matters at all it is because it matters to you, in all your anguish and all your joy, in your desire, for you love life, not meaning! You love the body and its sensations! Disillusionment need not lead to catatonic withdrawal and lifeless miserabilism. You still love, don’t you? Then love! But save yourself the pain of believing in fairy tales, and don’t bother us about the revolution either. We are packing our bags.

Defeatist? Perhaps. But all the time we are running, we’ll be searching for our guns!


Ulysse Malcoeur is a writer interested in philosophical pessimism, the ecological crisis, and the intersection of both. He runs a podcast and posts essays on his Substack, as well as a few other things, including editing this journal. You’ll find him on Twitter here.

Categories
Futures

The monster that couldn’t rejoice in acid techno parties

Gassy -ships

Whenever I share the bed with a human, I hear a gurgling sound coming from my guts. I remember this happening since I moved to Athens for studies eight years ago. It occurs only with humans, no matter if we’re friends or sexual partners. This airy—more likely eerie—sound of fluids circulating inside my empty bowels keeps me from falling asleep for an hour or so. A feather of trust giggles my intestines and, sometimes, my sleepmate’s too. It feels uncomfortable at first, but it gets us out of the observer’s quasi-individual, quasi-whole being and into perceptions of intimate livings. The producers of the monotonous sound coming from my woofer meet another set of multiplayers and form a symphony of experimental noise music. It’s an egalitarian sign—and we laugh hearing it. The gut microbiota within us activate their dynamic functions as they try to push the boundaries. We don’t become One, we don’t wish to anyway. It’s the binding of our in-between openness that becomes sound before we fall asleep.

Maybe the gut microbiota are in slow pace when I share the bed with animals because my observer’s protective shield is already off. I’m not afraid to be silly and play in a childish, non-adult manner. The need for this dimension of games feels unsurpassable for reaffirming trust and intimacy. It’s just that with humans it feels like being among strangers, in the adult manner we’re playing—with words—whereas with animals play is among companions. Trusting takes the image of a continuous, fluid-like, unstable, quasi-floating circuit. Except for recharging it with energy that keeps all the mates within the tracks, there is no other end-point than dying together with intimate companions and strangers.

This is a story about embodied knowledges, entanglements, guts and the microbiota who live there. “Live there” might stick a bit anthropomorphised as an expression. A better term to describe it is in use in evolutionary biology. Symbiosis, coming from the greek verb συμβιώνω [symbiόno], means ‘living together’. Symbionts are those who live together: lichens and trees, insects, animals—including humans—and bacteria, friends and strangers. Same and different species that have physical interaction, even for a limited time of their life, are symbionts.

A debate between auto- and sym-

Bacteria, found in guts—and in most unimaginable places and times—are the motors of life on earth. Symbionts themselves in dynamic relatings of intra-actions, they expanded their boundaries by partially assimilating, partially digesting each other and by this process they invented the nucleated cell—otherwise known as eukaryotic cell. The bedrock of evolution for all animals, plants, fungi and protoctists.Along with bacteria (prokaryotes), these are the five kingdoms. Protoctists are “A kingdom of eukaryotes incorporating the algae and the protozoans that comprise the presumed ancestral stocks of the fungi, plant, and animal kingdoms; they lack the developmental pattern stemming from a blastula, typical of animals, the pattern of embryo development typical of plants, and development from spores as in the fungi. Included in Protoctista are the nucleated algae and seaweeds, the flagellated water molds, slime molds, and slime nets, and the protozoa; unicellular, colonial, and multicellular organisms are included, but the complex development of tissues and organs of plants and animals is absent. The term Protoctista replaces the term Protista, which connotes single-celled or acellular organisms, whereas the basal preplant (Protophyta) and preanimal (Protozoa) assemblages incorporated in Protoctista include many multicellular forms, because multicellularity appears to have evolved independently a number of times within these primitive groups.” Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary. S.v. “protoctists.” Retrieved October 10 2020 from https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/protoctists. See Margulis and Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982). Bacteria were the loves of life of Lynn Margulis who disclosed that long-lasting physical association between strangers and the fusion of genomes are, primarily, the originating processes of viable, stable, complex systems of organisms. She gave microbiological evidence and substantiated this bacterial process that invented the nucleus cell, which she named symbiogenesis, or else known as endosymbiosis, in her paper On the Origin of Mitosing Cells.Lynn Sagan, “On the Origin of Mitosing Cells,” in Journal of Theoretical Biology 14, no. 3 (March 1967), pp. 225-274 (Sagan was the former last name of Margulis, from her ex-husband Carl Sagan) The paper was rejected by fifteen journals before being accepted and published in 1967.Lynn Margulis “Gaia Is a Tough Bitch,” Chapter 7 in John Brockman, The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), pp. 129-151. Her concept was mostly considered far-fetched and it was faced with hostility by the majority of biologists at that time. Themselves neo-Darwinists, they had a “survival of the fittest” approach to evolutionary biology, that favours some species over others by natural selection and claims genetic mutation, therefore inheritance denial, of the favourable species. These approaches make the image of a higher-order-evolution species that are always accelerating at the expense of lower-order species. Lynn Margulis, having her eyes fixed on the inside of things, and not on the heavens, was an ardent critic of neo-Darwinism: “the view of evolution as chronic bloody competition… dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking.”Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors (New York: Summit Books, 1986), pp.14-15.

She was the first to define the concept of holobionts. Holobionts are symbiotic assemblages that form ecological units and are composed of different species inside them, on them and around them. All of the members contribute in some way to the function of the ecological unit. Animals, their tissues, organs, cells and microbial symbionts are holobionts. So are bees, wasps and flowers. Coral reefs are of the most enigmatic holobionts and major literary work has been, and continues to be, conducted on their symbiotic relatings and the contributions of each symbiont. Holobionts are dynamic, complex, contingent assemblages that insist on staying open to involution with other species and other—already complex enough—holobionts. “They make each other through semiotic-material involution, out of the beings of previous such entanglements.”Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2016), p. 60.

There persists, however, a lot of controversy around perceptions of the holobiont. Contrary to its involutionary inception, it is also theorised as a single, well-defined, bounded unit whose maintenance is arranged by the autopoietic and self-regulatory principles of its entity as a whole. The debate derives, among other maladaptations, from a misconstruction of the autopoietic concept employed by Margulis. She incorporated the concept when she was collaborating with James Lovelock on the Gaia theory. Even though she writes that Gaia “is an emergent property of interaction among organisms, the spherical planet on which they reside, and an energy source, the sun,”Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 1998), p. 119. she defines Gaia as autopoietic and self-regulatory. Here, the symbiogenetic inventions of bacteria make a concrete analogy for the origin of Gaia. This could show that autopoiesis merely supplied the universalising conceptual glue in the construction of a theory about global systems. An extra mechanism that simplified a synecdoche of her work with the complex doings of bacteria. I find this sudden jump she attempted the reason why she had so much pain shaping a Gaia theory. During her lifework she gave substantial energy to scrutinizing the veracity of autopoiesis. Knowing where she would get real responses, she gradually drew her appraisal from bacteria.

It is relevant that, like everyone else in the scientific community, she was introduced to autopoiesis by the biological research of Varela, Maturana and Uribe. In 1974 they published Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model,F.G.Varela,H.R.Maturana, R. Uribe, “Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model,” in Biosystems 5, no. 4 (May 1974), pp. 187-196. in which they investigated the model of the nucleus cell. Biology works with and is worked by model systems, whatever responses we extract from them “become the centre for both scientific and political discussions in contemporary developmental biology.”Scott F. Gilbert, “The Adequacy of Model Systems for Evo-Devo: Modeling the Formation of Organisms/ Modeling the Formation of Society,” in Barberousse A., Morange M., Pradeu T. (eds) Mapping the Future of Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, vol 266 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009), p. 57. Their article defined the nucleus cell as self-productive and able to proliferate all alone; subsequently, this property was implied for all living organisms. Margulis, on the other hand, developed the concept further and made it clear that every entity, in order to stay alive, is primarily autopoietic: “An organism constantly exchanges its parts, replacing its component chemicals without ever losing its identity… All cells react to external perturbations in order to preserve key aspects of their identity within their boundaries.”Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos, p. 56. Without this primary regulating process they would not survive to perform reproduction. Therefore, autopoiesis could be replaced by homeostasis and metabolism without any consequences for the continuation of life.

But the term and framework keeps recurring, this time with an approach of community ecology. Continuing to work with the eukaryotic cells she gave a view of intertwined symbionts whose relatings involve regulation, maintenance and reproduction. In Origin of Sex, co-authored with her son Dorian Sagan, they proposed to dismiss the concept of the “eukaryotic individual” in favour of the “component-autopoietic” intra-actions of the ancestral bacteria contained within the plasma membrane of the cell: “All eukaryotic individuals must reserve, in a form capable of continued reproduction, their genetic components, the remnant bacteria in the combined form of the nucleocytoplasmic, mitochondrial, plastid, and undulipodial genomes. If we accept the cell as a microbial community, the germ plasm is equivalent to component autopoiesis: a complete set of heterologous genomes and their protein synthetic systems contained within a membranous package—not the nuclear membrane but the plasma membrane.”Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 175-6. They continue that, “We can apply the principles of community ecology directly to the development of the individual.”Ibid, p. 176. The two sides, bacteria and holobionts—or even maybe Gaia theory—meet right here in the reaffirmation of the crucial role that inter- and intra-actions among components have. Both for homeostasis and metabolism, and for the “drive of necessarily higher-order forms of community self-production and self-maintenance.”Bruce Clarke, “Margulis, Autopoiesis, Gaia,” electronic book review, last modified July 7, 2019,https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/margulis-autopoiesis-gaia/. This essay is drawn from a preliminary version of several sections from Clarke’s book entitled Gaian Systems: Lynn Margulis, Neocybernetics, and the End of the Anthropocene (Minnesota: Minnesota University Press, September 2020). This outcome justifies Haraway in her not-so-elaborative replacement of autopoiesis by sympoiesis. It matters what concepts think of concepts. And even though Margulis was sure to include every part and insist on their non-expandable performances, the concept of autopoiesis and its misinterpretations could not but fall into the individualistic pattern that gives more chances for survival and evolution to higher-order forms, claiming them to be biologically autonomous. The controversy and the debates are still around the topic thirty-four years after the substantialization of the sympoietic properties life’s bedrock has.

A mundane act for the un-rest of holobionts

The problem with autopoiesis, concretely, emerges when the entity it characterises is perceived as a host and all the involved participants are reduced to being dependent on it. No matter how contingently organised, beings do not precede their relatings. Nothing that has come to exist as a unit can seal off its arrangements and proceed happily to eternal, unmodified, proliferation. That’s a lesson bacteria have taught us. When your existence is at stake, play brings new parties to the meetings. “Auto” combined with “poietic”, when it’s attributed to higher-order forms of organisation, is a pure indication of reduction of all the involutions; it presumes immense power for stabilization that, conversely and consequentially, leaves all the participants innocent and without responsibility for any damaging action they might commit.

The feminist point of view and framework in technoscientific knowledge-production is generally, even today, characterised as ideological and biased. It’s really funny, and ironic, to receive a rejection like this from a science worlding that is almost religious regarding individuality, hierarchy of species, and anthropogenic mutilation. Besides being passive aggressive, a counter-position stating that all science and technology is ideologised and biased is the absolutist version of relativism. A zero-sum game in both cases.

A model is a work object—either sex, fungi, or poetry—it requires response-ability. One has to be faithfully intimate with this stranger and be able to embody its view with loving care in order to be response-able. I cannot recite its doings and use it for my purposes without being curious and open-hearted towards its reality. Objective knowledge is situated knowledge according to Donna Haraway. The closest we can get to real knowledge is by getting entangled with. One cannot claim to be something other than her boundaries allow, but boundaries get pushed outwards with inter- and intra-actions. String figures engage us in becomings-with others. Moreover, one should take care of the alterations of the prosthetic embodiments of vision he or she renders in his or her work. “One cannot be either a cell or molecule—or a woman, colonised person, labourer, and so on—if one intends to see and see from these positions critically… Also one cannot relocate in any possible vantage point without being accountable for that movement.”Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Prespective” in Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (Fall 1988), p. 585.

After dismissing the idea of single, bounded units, holobionts will maybe get a postmodern look—ready to adhere to other holobionts of their choice and transform altogether. This is more appropriation, than it is ‘natural selection’. The work of the god-eye, the supremacist observer that exercises authority over others by assuming a higher positioning. Watching everything from above, the self-divinated observer claims authorship over the beautiful and useful ones. It takes credit for inventing their charismatic capabilities and potentialities. It ditches the ugly and useless ones in the lost and found section and it incubates the rest that it now possesses. The god-eye, says Haraway, seems “to have put the myth into ordinary practice. And like the god trick, this eye fucks the world to make techno-monsters.”Ibid, p. 581. Right away, she cites Zoe Sofoulis who calls this “the cannibaleye of masculinist extra-terrestrial projects for excremental second birthing.”Zoe Sofoulis, Through the Lumen: Frankenstein and the Optics of Re-origination (Ph.D. diss. University of California at Santa Cruz, 1988).

This is hardly the case in the end, simply because holobionts rarely have the option of selection. Like bacteria shows us, the fusion of genomes in symbioses is the primary evolutionary motor, followed then by natural selection—with a very modest role kept for mutation which denies genetic inheritance. Holobionts interpenetrate, split, reform and rejoin through partially assimilating, partially indigesting and digesting. They build a diverse monstrous model of viewpoint and practice in place of the individual, masculinist, white, whole, human theories.

Unlike the techno-monsters that assimilate only after a selection of the hypnotising, addictive, power-inflicting, remorse-inducing properties, the female monstrous gaze and living produced by feminist knowledge is a trope for appearances. Multiple partial embodiments, intersections and entanglements make one appear as a monster when she or he renders them tactile. It’s the space of a body, of a writing piece, of an engaged community that embodies diverse prosthetic vision mechanisms. Many different parts comprise these bodies. They invent new kinds of entities in synergy. Monstrous under the male gaze. A mundane act for the un-rest of holobionts.

Showcase of monsters

The monstrous inception and feminist knowledge-production of intertwined relatings that affect the livings and dyings of multi-species are a core entity in the work of Daniela and Linda Dostálková. Linda is a graphic designer and Daniela is a professional photographer specialising in photo-documentation. Together they form a duo of artists, curators, co-authors and commissioners. Since 2016 they are providing services to cultural institutions, and individuals, through Institutional Homeopathy©, an international hybrid social art agency. Their aesthetics and representational strategies slide a gloss of consumerist pleasure on the surface of their work. But from the point of an immersed gaze, this seeming reconciliation with commercial mechanisms is being reversed. The represented agents reveal threatening implications and threatened entanglements that lure one into a critique of the commercial techniques, which build long-lasting structures of gender identity, fetishisation of some species and utilisation of others. The concept turns into a submerged, but forward, attack against the consumerist capitalist mechanisms that construct some “charismatic” behaviours and “cute” appearances over the suppression of everything else that they, perpetually, exclude.

The Order of Monsters, 2019, video installation, 4K video, sound, 8’15’’, dimensions variable © Daniela and Linda Dostálková

Women and animals are the two core agents of the sisters’ work. They exaggeratedly play the roles that appropriation imposes on both of them while, in an upside-down dimension, they reinforce and demonstrate their in-between solidarity. They are moved by the same mundane feelings and desires for coexistence. Prosthetic embodiments are, primarily, prostheses of corporeal sensoriums that get conceptualised through the desire to transmit reasons. Reasons that move response-able actions between intimate companions and strangers, a horizontal affectioning. Gazing from below, while understanding that you are being watched from above, has this very specific string sensation. This ‘above’ is positioned far off from Christianity, as the ‘below’ has nothing to do with ethics of contractual reciprocity.

shuld haue be buryed, aftir my lyf naturel expired, 2019, inkjet-print on glossy photo paper, 100 x 150 cm © Daniela and Linda Dostálková

The Dostálková sisters work with figures that aren’t shy, they don’t hide in their vulnerability. They expose both a cold, distant immiseration—showcased as a trophy of the subjugating rhetoric—and the monstrous figure of feminist rhetoric along with all its nodes of partial embodiments. In their project Campaigne—exhibited at the Cursor Gallery in Prague, and curated by Edith Jeřábková—the artists, with the help of the third-party monster, reaffirm the interconnections among women and “uncharismatic” species and show the consequences that humane hierarchisation entails. One consequence is that the monstrous woman trope emerged even before the inception of feminism, as their interview with Jeřábková reads:

The close associations between women, animals and monstrosity are often linked to romantic ideas and provide a very vital investigative resource of our communication. The stories recounted in novels contribute to the creation of a gender ideology that in our opinion is justified in the case of the protection of animal rights. Generally speaking, women are either marginalised or placed in a subsidiary role, whereas monstrous women in reality occupy the central position in their own stories. We avail ourselves of these positions even though the novel qua genre came into being primarily in order to promote the knightly virtues.

Daniela and Linda Dostálková, “An Interview with Daniela and Linda Dostálková,” interview by Edith Jeřábková, Center for Contemporary Arts Prague, May 2019, https://cca.fcca.cz/en/galleries/cursor-gallery/2/linda-daniela-dostalkova-campaign/.

Daniela and Linda Dostálková spent many years exploring the strategies pursued by animal rights groups in their attempt to inform the general public about the practices of factory farming. “These strategies, however well intended, themselves create monsters because we remain unwilling to face up to reality as such.”Ibid. The livings and dyings of animals in factory farmings are some of the techno-monsters of the cannibaleye. The sight of this extreme utilisation is so repellant that a heavy emotional burden is, instantaneously, charged. We grasp feelings of compassion, commiseration and we may engage with substantially critical thoughts. But for how long? As long as it takes to cease definitely the factory farming of mass production? “One of the key characteristics of a monster is its ability to attract and repel.”Ibid. An activist campaign’s sharp-content image that shows the shame, the perpetual mutilation, the long-lasting deanimalisation of farmed animals’ reality, has the same effect. Like being, for a while, in the naked reality of The Matrix, the shock of mechanisation and ultimate immiseration will likely facilitate the retraction to ourselves, urge us to close our vision so as not to feel pain anymore, nor concern ourselves with response-able thoughts. Safety has been, doomingly, related with individuality and independence. Close within a bounded flatness. Keep mute all the hurting ideas. Another one of the cannibaleye’s techno-monsters emerges right there. We need to un-educate and re-educate ourselves, for we cannot afford any more excremental techno-monster parties.

The Order of Monsters, 2019, video installation, 4K video, sound, 8’15’’, dimensions variable © Daniela and Linda Dostálková
sche were oute of hir mynd and torned in another kynde, 2019, inkjet-print on glossy photo paper, framed, 100 x 150 cm © Daniela and Linda Dostálková

In their search for alternative, more effervescent, gassy campaigne strategies, Daniela and Linda Dostálková superimpose the monster of feminist rhetoric upon the techno-monsters of mechanisation and fearful individualisation. Two photographs of monster women embody prosthetic parts and visions—creating, thus, a holobionts gaze. These figures demand the space that has been refused to them, along with the acknowledgment of their intrarelatings. But then again, they display an acceptance of their given roles: care and concern. Immersed, as they are, in plant lives of absorption from anywhere; soil, sun, water, even pesticides and hormones, they meddle with whatever the “uncharismatic” species are also meddling with.

The female monster could be thought of as too friendly. That’s not undermining. It was friendly already from its inception. What matters is friends with whom? Trusting, long-lasting friendships are complex bonds of a rare kin that work their becomings through semiotic material involution. Things don’t appear as sterile and innocent anymore. As the sisters say: “During a crisis, many species that are customarily portrayed as monsters appear in a new light, one that lies outside the notional hermeneutic circle.”Ibid.

That’s how getting in the muddle looks and what it feels like. Who could manage to keep clear from the muddle when it’s found to be bigger and more mortal than we thought? Filled with polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, bisphenol A, uranium, premarin, pesticides and a load of toxic multi-species exchanges?

Even the loves of Lynn Margulis cannot deal with these syntheses. The bacteria in the guts of mealworms and superworms are shown to biodegrade polystyrene, but it’s more likely a failure than a success. Some of the polystyrene gets out of their system as carbon dioxide, while more than half breaks into nano- and micro-plasticsYu Yang, Jun Yang, Wei-Min Wu, Jiao Zhao, Yiling Song, Longcheng Gao, Ruifu Yang, and Lei Jiang, “Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating Mealworms: Part 2. Role of Gut Microorganisms,” in Environmental Science & Technology 49 (20), 2015, pp. 12087-12093. which are even more precarious for aquatic and marine environments. Moreover, in this process polystyrene goes under depolymerisation which leaves its monomer, styrene, destabilised. Not able to hold on to the micro- and nano-particles, it sticks to living organisms.Albert A. Koelmans, “Modeling the Role of Microplastics in Bioaccumulation of Organic Chemicals to Marine Aquatic Organisms. A Critical Review,” in Melanie Bergmann et al. (eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015), pp. 309-324. Styrene and the rest of toxics cannot integrate in living systems. Teratogeneses, endocrine disruptions, and reproductive disabilities, among others, are ahead of us.Tamara S. Galloway, “Micro- and nano- plastic in Human Health,” in ibid, pp. 343-366.

Toxicological managements should try and do more than feed superworms and mealworms, fed with plastic, to factory farming animals and call it zero waste. The coda is that, as the ones immersed in monstrous appearances, we’ll be there when the future parties arrive—to welcome them and become intimate with them.


Elena Stavraki lives and works in North Greece (Alexandroupolis) during summer and central Greece (Athens) during winter. She studied Theory and History of Art and is currently doing her masters on Culture and Documentary Film Production. Recurring themes of her writing are animal studies, interdependence among friends, the environment and synergy. She has published writings in Paragka zine, the MASS, and NAHR.it. Periodically she curates exhibitions: Crystals in Soil, Athens 2019; 16 mins of love [A New Sentimentalism], Swindon 2019.

Categories
Futures

Outfoxing the Dialectic: A Future of the Same and Ecological Limitation

Temporal forms and the labour of the negative

Historical consciousness within any given epoch is determined by its conception of temporality—the relationship between the past, present, and future. The dialectical development of this consciousness as “geist” occurs within linear time and serves the further elucidation of itself as such. The movement of linear time is the force of annihilation, as the labour of the negative, which is constantly overtaking itself. The “present moment” itself becomes an ungraspable infinite regression, which self-annihilates the moment it is symbolised or, even more fundamentally, experienced at all.

In his book Intelligence and Spirit, Reza Negarestani conceives this development as a component of the development of the general intelligence of mankind as a whole:

“Mind’s consciousness of its history is ultimately the exploration of history as the interface between subjective time and objective time, temporal forms and time’s formlessness. The history of geist, properly understood, is a recognitive-cognitive technology. It is not only a semantic web through which geist’s manifest realizations (self-conceptions and self-transformations) can become transparent and open to analysis, but also a scientific milieu for the development of cognitive means and practical technologies for subjecting what is a manifest realization—the appearance of a totalized history—to a concrete transformation, scientifically suspending what was previously deemed a completed historical totality in an ongoing process of totalization, namely, history.”

Reza Negarestani, Intelligence And Spirit (Falmouth: Urbanomic, 2018), p. 66.

“Temporal form” contains the double meaning of being both temporary and a form of conceiving temporality. The temporal form of antiquity can be summed up as “immediacy”: the world in totality is what exists in the present to be experienced. On the topic of the ancient Greeks, Hegel understands this “immediacy” to be their “being-at-home-with-themselves”. For the Greeks, the analysis of “history” in the modern understanding was not even conceivable. The mistranslation of Herodotus’ magnum opus as “The Histories” as opposed to the more accurate “The Inquiries” is testament to this fact.“Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time . . .” Herodotus, The Histories, trans. by Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 3. The passing from this lack of historical consciousness—in which time is understood as pure presentism—to a higher form occurs through dialectical development, in which any particular “temporal form” is sublated through the very recognition of its particularity, which opens up the past to “scientific” analysis. The word “scientific” is not to be understood in the sense of “an experiment following a rigorous criteria”, but from the Heideggerian standpoint of bringing “present-to-hand”. Any given temporal form necessarily perceives itself as “totalised history”, not in the sense of rejecting the possibility of different societal configurations whether political, institutional, or economic, but by considering its unsymbolisable temporal awareness itself as being “total”. It escapes self-reflection from within its domain, as it is the very foundation from which self-reflection can occur. To bring this temporal form “present-at-hand” is to dialectically negate its “ready-at-handedness” (totalisation) by revealing its particularity, as a mere form (particular) within a greater totality (history). This is what Negarestani understands as the “scientific milieu” created through this moment of negation, as a new possibility of self-consciousness is opened through revealing the totalised history of the temporal form as a mere appearance. From this standpoint one may subject the past to analysis, and the future may be constructed with the past as a reference point. This scientific milieu is to be welcomed as it brings about the possibility of a concrete transformation, but it is not to be dogmatically clung to (which is a common error of modern science). The dialectical movement continues on, and the scientific milieu makes the fatal mistake of considering itself the new “totalised history”. From here there occurs the negation of the negation in which this scientific milieu is found to be merely another temporal form which will itself be subjected to a larger process of “totalisation”. This process is history itself.

Modernity is instability, but it is not unstable!

If dialectical development occurs within linear time—and the evolution of “geist” is a process of understanding time in its objectivity (formlessness, linearity) through the failure of its particular forms—there is no occluding or escaping this process as this would require the very suspension of linear time (or the annihilation of civilisation). However, perhaps something of this nature is possible if we think past the juxtaposition of “bound” and “free”, in which we are either bound to historical development or freed from it. Perhaps there is a way to outfox the dialectic—to beat it at its own game. This has been achieved by modernity: modernity hacks linear time. Modernity is functionally atemporal, it escapes dialectical development through the expropriation of dialectic itself. Through the creation of a complex system of positive feedback loops, the overarching structure of “modernity”—as the democratic political system, the capitalist economic structure, and the individualist Liberal philosophy—propels itself forward through the very failures of its particulars. This logic extends to all of its manifestations, whether they be political, economic, or ideological. Throughout modern history, every temporal form which rears its head pronouncing the end of modernity as we know it (the Communist Revolution and the Fascist takeover being the two primary examples) retroactively becomes components of modernity’s large-scale movement. It is for this reason that modernity is functionally atemporal. The “functionally” aspect must be emphasised, as modernity is not some ontologically unique event which transcends the confines of linear time, but a unique temporal form which has managed to self-propagate through “hacking” the dialectical process itself. Linear time occurs within the “atemporal temporal form” of modernity, meaning the failures of its particular manifestations only strengthen the overarching structure. It is for this reason that every “failure” of one particular temporal form brings about a larger “universalisation” of modernity as a whole. Take the example of “universal suffrage”. In its beginning it is only for men, most likely of a specific class and race. When this “universal suffrage” becomes revealed in its particularity it is negated and sublated by one which includes what was previously left out. In the present day there are even calls for universalising suffrage to allow for convicted felons to vote. It is this constant “universalisation” of its values which characterises modernity: it is a logical development, a process of growth. Modernity as a whole is strengthened through this process, the failures of its particulars act as forms of hygiene. Is this not the very definition of “progress”? In this sense, progress is failure, continual instability and self-overcoming. This logic reveals itself in the political structure with democratic elections, in which every four or so years political leaders become replaced. This is opposed to the stable and consistent rule of a Medieval king. This instability is analogous to the boom-bust cycle of capitalism, something which is inconceivable within the feudal era, which is contingent upon consistency and stability. Žižek explains this nicely in The Sublime Object of Ideology:

“This is exactly how capitalism differs from other, previous modes of production: in the latter, we can speak of periods of ‘accordance’ when the process of social production and reproduction goes on as a quiet, circular movement, and of periods of convulsion when the contradiction between forces and relations aggravates itself; whereas in capitalism this contradiction, the discord forces/relations, is contained in its very concept (in the form of the contradiction between the social mode of production and the individual, private mode of appropriation). It is this internal contradiction which compels capitalism to permanent extended reproduction – to the incessant development of its own conditions of production, in contrast to previous modes of production where, at least in their ‘normal’ state, [re]production goes on as a circular movement.”

Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object Of Ideology (London: Verso, 2009), p. 53.

This same process can occur on a larger scale as well, an example being the twentieth century clash between Liberalism, Fascism, and Communism. The latter two, which both pronounced the end of modernity and the rise of something radically new, would turn out to be failures. These failures, which at the time of their being were taken to be examples of the failure of Liberalism and modernity as a whole, retroactively found their place within the totalising process of modernisation. The role of Communism was to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism, and the role of Fascism was to demonstrate the superiority of Liberal democracy. It is no coincidence that the world “progressed” quicker than it ever had before directly after the greatest catastrophe in world history. Moments of intensity followed by moments of retraction and failure is the logical structure of modernity; this instability is what allows it to maintain its stable hegemony across time. It is the expropriation of the dialectic: every moment of negation and sublation always further “universalises” modernity into higher forms of itself, allowing for its constant self-reproduction. While the dialectic normally functions to produce change, within modernity it functions to preclude the possibility of anything other than itself. Modernity is a complex system, and “among complex systems, stability is typically meta-stability, which is preserved through cycling, whilst growth and shrinkage are often components of a larger-scale, cyclic wave.”Nick Land, ‘Eternal Return, and After’, Urban Future, 2011.

Tarrying with the Impossible

While modernity follows an autotelic logic which systematically universalises and strengthens its domain as time moves forward, this is not to say that modernity and the global technological system which it has engendered is immortal. In fact, there is a definite, empirically measurable limit which constrains the development of society within a certain horizon of possibility. This limit is the energy source which underlies any given civilisation. For the modern world, this source is fossil fuel. In fossil fuel modernity, oil is treated as an infinite substance akin to that of Spinoza’s God. However, there exists a definite moment when the amount of oil which can be extracted from the earth reaches a limit, this is known as “peak oil”. Some argue that peak oil will occur many decades in the future, while others argue that it already occurred as early as the mid 2000s. In any case, the point is not to argue when peak oil arrived or will arrive, but to show that there is a definite limit to the progression of modernity despite its self-propelling logic. This limit is an ecological limitation. Industrial society strives towards what the recently-deceased philosopher Pentti Linkola calls an “ecologically impossible object”, which is, of course, infinite technological development with finite resources. Human subjectivity emerges in a form which is akin to the logic of the resource which underlies any given epoch. It is for this reason that the dialectical development of society and consciousness cannot discount ecological limitation. The following is a passage from the philosopher Chad Haag’s book A Critique of Transcendental Memology:

“The givenness of a crucial resource places the subject in a radically passive position in which the subject cannot make more oil exist on will, for example. One does not make oil exist as an activity; one merely discovers that it exists through passive reception of the contingent state of the world one happens to live in. This is why the resources of Phenomenological givenness in experience are much more relevant to the science of Memology than the Marxist theory of Dialectical Materialism is. Dialectical Materialism largely considers any hard physical limit to be an ideological illusion which the forward march of dialectical movement will negate away in order to reform it into a “higher” notion. Phenomenology, on the contrary, allows the radical passivity to recognise material limits which cannot be negated away by the movement of dialectical progress. Phenomenological passivity is, ironically enough, the fitter account of material conditions’ influence on consciousness.”

Chad A. Haag, A Critique of Transcendental Memology: A Peak Oil Philosophy of Truth (Independently Published, 2018), pp. 9–10.

This phenomenological passivity provides the boundaries of the form of subjectivity within any given epoch. This form is called the “deep meme”, which can be understood as a geometrical metaphor. The geometrical form of fossil fuel modernity is the ascending line, constant progress, which is only made possible due to the continuous extraction of oil from the earth. The ascending line of progress structures the spheres of economic, technological, and cultural development. It structures the modern subject itself. The modern subject operates as if there exists no limitations, as if resources have no beginning and no end but simply present themselves at the push of a button. Consider every day quotidian activities which have become an integral part of modern life: showering, shopping, surfing the internet, and using electricity. In all these cases, the vast majority of people have no knowledge of where the resources which are consumed come from, they simply act under the assumption that they will always be there. This form of existence is impossible in the so-called “third world”, where the water utilised to bathe must be taken from a well. In the “first world” there is the illusion of infinite progress in all its domains, which emerges from its alienation from its ecological context. However, as opposed to the cultural sphere which can develop into infinity, hard resources provide a definite limit which pose a fundamental challenge to the logic of modernity. We must think past Marx’s rather arbitrary bias towards the means of production, as one could argue that the energy source which underlies all of civilisation is a far more important field to emphasise when considering its development. The ecological grounding of civilisation, which provides the conditions for historical development to take place, evidently has precedence over every domain of human life. When the finite resource of oil can no longer support the rampant technological development occurring on a global scale, an inevitable decline will commence. At this point the dialectical development of the mode of production will cease to occur (in the linear fashion conceived by Engels). One could counter that this is dialectics occurring as well, but this would be on a larger scale than the limited imagination of the average Marxist could conceive: the negation of the negation would be the end of industrial civilisation itself.

In the end, the fact of the matter is clear for all those who wish to see; so long as we keep putting off the inevitable consequences which lay in the future, we are simply tarrying with the impossible.


Treydon didn’t give us a bio, but we did get a blog link.

Categories
Futures

Cyanobacteria

or, Curvilinear Analyses of Posthumanist Political Philosophy

Can Proletarians
View the dawning horizons
Of what is to come?
The year is 2020,
Fragments of the micro-entrepreneur,
The others are converging
Towards obsolescence, or Third World.

I wonder what has your dream of
Political Utopia underwent since I
Last saw it, it has been decades.
Seems like cosmological heat death will
Anticipate its arrival (if we’re lucky)
And yet perhaps it is this very Utopia, Prescription
Of mass dynamics that led us to our current State?
Listen closely,
Our cherished socialist state has us on hold,
Midst of a nationwide Finance & Soft Skills course.

The process of environmental reciprocity
Is a game that the System has
Failed tremendously to override.
The miscarriages of anthropomorphic reality in dealing
With existential Threat have proven it to be few more
Than the simplest of prokaryotic-spaces.
Our current ordinal patterns are built on sand,
And everywhere
With enough entropy
Deserts will blossom from their ashes.

Level 1; world-space; diffusion of eco-collapse

Etymological

The genealogy of the English sign “right” diverges from its Latin cognates at a certain point. Rewinding, we trace it back to Old English (riht/ryht), then provide, from comparative evidence, further reconstructions of its Proto-Germanic iteration (rehtaz), and finally hit a limit at the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction: h₃reǵtós. Arbitrarily picking French as an example Romance language, we apply the same process to “droit”; Old French “dreit” is itself a descendant of the Latin “directus”, the perfect passive participle of “dīrigō”. It is composed of a prefix “dis-” and a base “rego”; to direct, to command, to guide, and to administer. In turn, its Proto-Indo-European father “h₃réǵeti” and the previous “h₃reǵtós” share a root; “h₃reǵ-” (right, just, king), which, on one occasion, morphed into the Gothic “reiks”, and finally into two contemporary German signs, “Recht” and “Reich”. Law and Empire. The faint traces of now-defunct nomadic messages—where meaning derives itself from sums of onomatopoeic blabbering and miscommunicated attempts at standardisation; linguistic iteration of a social contract—are alive and breathing to this day.

In Ancient Greek, it was syntactically impossible for a grammatical subject to “possess” a right. Rather “right” was seen as an objective property, a cosmological one—sometimes an ontological one—and, in its more humanistic iterations, a harmonious one. It always referred back to a notion of order, anti-entropy, one which each human (and every above-human) had to obey. Some of us might be superior to others, but one could never transcend this order of things. Yet centuries later, in the freshly hegemonic spaces of enlightened Western Europe, such a conception of right had almost completely vanished, and was replaced by subjective right; one which could be possessed, owned, and appropriated by an invention of recent date: the individual human subject. Pulling on the threads of genealogy, we find his genesis in early monotheism, which posited God to be an all-encompassing Being, capable of free will, One that had the ability to transcend all matter, all ideas. Yet how could He transcend the old ontological harmony, the order to which all beings must be subordinated? Such a notion is irreconcilable with the idea of a greater cosmological order that one must adhere to regardless of personal (or divine) standing, and therefore it must go, superseded by the individual human subject, modelled in the image of a free God. The formation of contemporary “human” rights and liberalism is now complete.

The emphasis on etymology might come across as strange, considering it only focuses on anthropomorphic language. Yet nothing obliges us to conceive of natural language as an inherently humanist construction. Ever since De Saussure, the conception of language as a mental faculty possessed by humans has been challenged by structuralist and post-structuralist semioticians, who understood it instead as a formalised system of signifier-signified pairings, where transformational grammars approximately function as a base predicate calculus, notwithstanding a handful of quirks out of single-sorted first-order logic’s reach. Yet these formalised systems, once stripped of their Boolean artifacts, are not necessarily incompatible with the former phenomenological view of language; the mind roots itself in consciousness, and consciousness is little more than a factory, one which produces (and is produced by) material flux, flows that can be divided down into smaller and smaller units of matter, which mirror formal systems still. At the smallest scale accessible to current technology, the quantum realm, formal logic continues to operate, albeit in a modified, many-valued form: quantum logic, or a non-commutative, non-associative, and many-valued iteration of propositional calculus. Here it appears we have an escape route at our disposal, one where language and consciousness, effectively coupled to logic, are stripped of their anthropocentric defects; the first steps in constructing durable instances of environmental reciprocity. Yet with formalism comes abstraction, and with abstraction the possibility of a remaining humanist artefact still lingers, one which risks plunging the thought process back into mundane rehashes of our current European canon: Platonism.

Anti-Plato

The goal of any formal system is not simply to represent concrete thoughts, but also to adequately manipulate their abstractions. And abstractions have a long history in Western thought. The shift in “right” from the attributes of objective harmony to the possessions of individual subjects, human abstractions, may find its origins within Christianity, but Christianity itself has its own unique roots. What is Platonism? One might define it as a metaphysical antidote to the alleged anarchy of Athenian democracy, the belief that abstractions not only point to things that escape the boundaries of space-time, but to transcendent essences, ones that lie beyond matter, beyond ideas, time, beyond phenomenological experience. In the Dialogues, this is mythologised by “Socrates”, who attempts to murder two birds with one stone—Meno’s paradox and the One over Many issue—leading to the formation of an immortal human soul (that remembers even as an imperfect copy), and in turn paving the way for contemporary monotheism. Yet, despite the incessant whining of some New Atheists, the undoubtedly bloodstained career of organised religion does not stem from some backwards, primitive spirituality, nor from an illiberal clique trapped in the Middle Ages; it stems from Platonism, the doctrine of a metaphysical binary, where one belligerent (abstracted) substance transcends and dominates the other, the foundation of all true world theories, where one rips apart “true” and “false” forms, essences and their repeated copies, with a philosophical crowbar, Boolean overtones. And, to the dismay of many secularists, Platonism will live on in the liberal State, no matter how much it attempts to separate itself from the Church. 

Arguably the first who truly shook Platonism to its core (in the “West”, at least) was the architect of immanent ontology: Spinoza, who, in his Ethics, managed to construct a sprawling and deterministic assemblage, on par with Marx and Darwin in its systematisation, and he would pay for it with a heavy toll. The Cartesian dualism (and substance dualism more generally), which traces its roots to Plato’s Phaedo, was overridden by an uncompromising materialist monism, the undivided unity of Being; natura naturans, a god-Machine relying on no more than seven axioms to operate universally, is immanent to everything, and nothing may transcend it. “God is the immanent cause of all things and not the transitive cause.”Baruch Spinoza, Ethique (Paris: Librairie Generale Francaise, 2018), Prop 18. This univocity of being later became the foundation of Deleuze’s metaphysics of difference, one that tries to redefine difference as a relation rather than a negation; the spaces in between two “distinct” objects or subjects, rather than the mere reversal of a Platonic opposition. Laid out at first in fragments within his historical monographs, then more systematically in his seminal text Difference and Repetition, this differential ontology does not attempt to bury Plato in the sand and play dumb, but rather to turn the very machines which fuel Platonism against themselves; the simulacrum is reinterpreted not as a mere imperfect copy, but rather as a product of difference in and of itself, as something which undermines and destabilises these very notions of “original” and “copy” that form the bedrock of the theory of Forms. Taking a noticeably different approach, Derrida too attempts to turn transcendent dualism against itself, with a linguistic tint; his oft-misrepresented method of Deconstruction, once defined as a criticism of Platonism and its hierarchical oppositions, stemmed from a particular contradiction within language. As it stands, written language hierarchically dominates oral speech: academia excludes the majority of oral knowledge outside Western tradition (often to its own detriment), literacy is demanded as a requirement for social progress, and the “correct” use of spoken language is determined by written rules. It has long been noted that this division between the two couples itself to the civilisation-savagery binary, as the development of writing co-occurred with the stratifications of early sedentary polities. In the exergue of Of Grammatology, Derrida cites Rousseau and Hegel as examples of this:

“The depicting of objects is appropriate to a savage people; signs of words and of propositions, to a barbaric people; and the alphabet to civilised people.”

Johann Gottfried. Herder and Jean-Jacques. Rousseau, On the Origin of Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).

“Alphabetic script is in itself and for itself the most intelligent.”

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline, ed. by Klaus Brinkmann and Daniel O. Dahlstrom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Yet a closer glance reveals this opposition to be nonsensical, as it is arguably written language which should be seen as the inferior side of the binary; the imperfect transcription, or copy, of a more ideal Form, that of spoken language. In many of its forms, Deconstruction often consists simply of this; reversing these hierarchical oppositions in order to undercut them, and reveal their arbitrariness. Taking the supposedly essential Forms of Platonism and subjugating them to their immanent displays. But whether we attack Platonism on metaphysical or linguistic terrain, one thing is unchanged: the uncountable set of new concepts, virtualities, processes that are at once real potential, now that we have detached ourselves from eternal well-defined essences, little more than obsolete concepts. Here, things finally begin to unfold. 

Origami; non-integer geographies

Platonism has been abolished in this provisional ontology, as has any possible form of transcendence. Nor are we in a position to describe “creation”, in the sense of distinct objects producing wholly new ones, ones distinct from their progenitors. What we have to reckon with is an ontology where the distinction between continuous processes (flows) and discrete objects disappears; the gaps in between flows fold into objects, the “void” in between objects is folded into flows. Substance does not create new substances or transcend existing ones, nor does it create spatially distinct attributes of itself. The process of origami, where paper is folded into recognisable objects, expresses this beautifully. The paper does not transform into the object: such a statement would imply that something distinct from paper now lies within the object, and yet materially this is far from the case. Rather its substance is folded (differentiated, through the creases that divide sections of the paper, and angles that define a certain difference between two lines) to manifest as the object. And, with the appropriate formal system, origami operates on all scales.

Spinoza was not the only continental rationalist to be reimagined by Deleuze. Today Leibniz is most known for independently discovering calculus, the mathematical study of continuous change, after Newton, and it is his notation (df/dy, as opposed to f’(x) or ) that is conventionally used all throughout mathematics today. It is much less well known that he was also an active metaphysician, and yet his mathematical work is not so far off from his philosophical inquiry. One will not find the same metaphysical immanence seen in Spinoza’s Ethics (his theology still posits a transcendent God, in the vein of Abrahamic monotheism), but one will regardless experience a noticeable (albeit incomplete) shift in focus; from the rectilinear to the curvilinear. In his analysis situs he paved the way for topology, a field concerned with radical distortions of geometries: twisting, deforming, homeomorphisms, homotopies. Deleuze’s reiteration of Leibniz lies on the following fundamental premise: “The unit of matter, the smallest element of the labyrinth, is the fold, not the point which is never a part, but a simple extremity of the line.”Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque (London: Athlone, 1993), p. 6. Once again we run into the procedural origami (contrasted to the fixed point) which here becomes the foundation of all matter, and thus, to the materialist, all substance. This is a surprisingly intuitive proposition, semantically speaking: matter is of course a tangible substance, but also a verb (to matter), and therefore some sort of flux, as the verbal perspective implies an operation emanating from the grammatical subject in question. This not only mirrors our various topological spaces (manifolds), but also the formalised “limits” on which calculus was founded; after all, an infinitesimal only has meaning through the continuous operation of approaching a certain value, getting closer and closer (but never reaching a final point), and any apathetic attempt to tightly lock it to a single real number is not “truth”. It is only approximation. 

There remain nevertheless two bugs in Leibniz’s machine, otherwise sublime in terms of sheer logical validity. Firstly, though he was critical of the mind-body dualism of Descartes, his theological presuppositions backed him into a corner of monist idealism, in contrast to the monist materialism of Spinoza. Secondly, his frenzied and vain attempts to prove the parallel postulate, resulting from his incomprehension and even outright aversion towards non-Euclidean systems, should be considered obsolete. The parallel postulate functioned as a concept only in providing the necessary logical foundations to Euclid’s Elements, and nothing more; once exploring geometric systems devoid of the postulate, one is propelled into an full “organless” array of geographies, the virtualities that enclave traditional geometry. What is directly above you warps down to face you head on as you converge towards it (elliptic geographies), or; on the other hand, perhaps the liminal spaces of the circle you are mapped to scatter and disperse themselves on the sides as you press forward (hyperbolic geographies). With the removal of transcendent theology, one cures Leibniz’s assemblage of its malicious optimism (the “best of all possible worlds” of his making was only made possible by the deportation of any imperfections to segregated “inferior” worlds, where they would be out of reach). The idea that dissonances and virtue can enfold themselves into One totalising scheme, rather than having one banish the other to outside-space, is what turns the convergent monadic subject, founded on Leibniz’s metaphysical component, into Deleuze’s divergent nomadic subject, who opens himself up to full immanence precisely because no “organism” encloses or organises him, in the aims of intercepting any rogue atonalities. Our enfoldings are the banal sources of post-structuralist geography; pointillism is obsolete.

Non-Euclidean worlds were not the only thing Leibniz shied away from. In his studies on recursive self-similarity, he accidentally stumbled upon fractals, a concept far out of reach for the formal sciences at the time, yet one that once again paves the way for enfoldings upon enfoldings of novel terrains. The concept of a “fractional dimension” (1.5D, 2.4D, log(5)D, etc.) might seem nonsensical: topological dimension, after all, only applies to the domain of the natural numbers. Yet through the introduction of “roughness”, the Hausdorff dimension, one unfolds the uncountably infinite number of dimensions that lie between the usual discrete n-dimensional spaces, and extends the more classical definition of dimension to continuous non-integers, through fractals. The bio-cosmological implications of this are staggering, and we will soon explore them further. Yet it is rather ironic that Leibniz shied away from this, as his “monads” themselves are, in a way, recursively self-similar. For his project of rationalist epistemology and his “truths of reason” to function, it must be possible for the mind to acquire all knowledge without requiring any outside empirical experience, and, since the mind is a monad, each monad must contain a totalised picture of the cosmos in all its potential states (or in Leibnizian terminology, each monad must be “windowless”, that is to say no empirical experience can pass into one); the most fundamental component of the universe contains all of it in itself, and therefore our world must, by this premise, be recursively self-similar, a universal fractal.

Level 0; prokaryotes; civilisation-savagery

Polity, structural Teleologies

Before getting carried away in our newly-unfolded spaces, liberated from the shackles of Platonism, we must first unearth the politico-material roots of this philosophy. 399 BCE. The polis incorporates the urban city into the State, and classical Attica’s genealogy leads us to rather uncertain origins, more relevant to the domain of anthropology than history. Gens formed into phratries, then tribes, confederations of tribes, and the earliest historical records give us a glimpse of a society in flux, one fast approaching patrilineal monogamy, the dissolution of what Marx and Engels termed the “gentille constitution”,Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (London: Penguin Books Limited, 2010). and in turn one where private property begins to emerge. The “noble savagery”, which would later mythologise the genocidal removal of indigenous peoples throughout colonial spaces, did not last long in Athens, and was overridden by sedentary agriculture, domestication of animals. Let us explore a strange intersection of formal systems; the aforementioned structuralism of signifier-signified pairings and the process of natural selection, taken from Darwin: On the Origins of Speciesism. Arguably the first major structuralist thinker (though not the first structural linguist) was the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss, and he traced the general exploitation of man by man back to an “Original Sin” of speciesism: 

“. . . Is it not the myth of exclusive dignity of human nature that made nature experience its first mutilation, of which more mutilations would then inevitably follow? We began by cutting man away from nature, and by granting him sovereign rule; we thought then that we had erased his most indisputable character, namely that he is first and foremost a living being. And by staying blind to this common property, we had given free reign to all abuse. Never more than in the last four centuries of his history has Occidental man managed to grasp that by granting himself the right to radically separate humanity from animality, by granting to one what he refuses to the other, he was opening up a vicious circle, and that this same border would soon be used to separate men from other men.”

Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale Deux (Paris: Pocket, 2003), p. 56.

This autocratic lust that seeks to administer environmental spaces in totalising fashion is not some sorry defect of civilisation: it is civilisation, it is no accident, but instead the “valid” logical conclusion of Darwin’s natural-selection-machine. And civilisation is the motor of Platonism, because it fooled us into thinking we could transcend nature, when in reality we were always destined to be immanent to it. Food surpluses have been increased through the progressive coercion of ecosystems, and prisoners of tribal war prove to be more valuable alive than dead; we find ourselves at the emergence of slavery, the backbone of the Greek city-state, and the genesis of private property. Over centuries, the Occidental form of private ownership has dispersed and scattered itself throughout the dominant epistemic atmosphere of a given time period. To become as embedded into doxa as the air one breathes, it has referred back to the “befores” of an ongoing paradigm shift, in an attempt to legitimise itself. The feudal serf is thought or thinks himself to be free from exploitation because prior acknowledged forms of exploitation (chattel slavery) robbed the victim of human status, a property now conceded to him by his new masters. This is reiterated for the capitalist wage-laborer; supposedly free, as unlike the serf he is not tied to any particular plot of land, instead having the freedom in theory to choose his employer, and yet it is this employer who will exercise a discipline staggeringly more punishing, administrative and all-controlling than any imaginable in feudal systems. Of course, one must avoid granting too much teleology or stagism to this process, as has mistakenly been done so by many. What is it that orthodox Marxism, a body of theory particularly guilty of this, converges towards? Some may say the upper stage of communism, or “the development of the productive forces”, but this remains vague. It cannot be egalitarianism: Engels fully recognises the existence of a “primitive communism” in The Origins of the Family, one which preceded the formation of class society and where egalitarian gift economies were largely dominant. The unfortunate truth is that a vast majority of orthodox Marxist theory has unwittingly kept the very roots that produced liberalism’s most horrendous crimes: the mythology of progress, which has and continues to torment millions of people living beyond state control, including those in Marxist-Leninist states. Of course, Marx himself did not necessarily endorse this kind of stagist “progress” vision. In a polemic against N. K. Mikhailovsky, he states: 

“[Mikhailovsky] absolutely must needs metamorphose my outline of the genesis of capitalism in western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course, fatally imposed upon all peoples, regardless of the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed, in order to arrive finally at that economic formation which insures with the greatest amount of productive power of social labor the most complete development of man.”

A Letter on Russia – Karl Marx

Some teleological defects no doubt still lie in dialectical materialism, but a passage like this suggests that, at the very least, it is likely that Marx’s thoughts on the matter were far more nuanced than those of his successors. Yet the fact that subsets of such a politically subversive ideology were unable, both in their theory and in their practice, to escape the hegemonic chokehold of progress-theory; such a fact can only be a glowing testament of the sheer all-encompassing supremacy of civilisational thought. And all of it loops right back to Platonism. Not back to Plato; such a claim would only rehash those monotonous great man theories that plague our histories (which are themselves Platonic in many ways), but back to civilisation. Platonism is transcendence, transcendence is the civilisational assemblage, and the eco-suicidal civilisational assemblage, climate dementia, yearns for transcendence’s obsoletion.

Ecological

It is worth noting that climate change is not the first instance of a colossal extinction event produced by biological organisms. Prior to industrial society and carbon-induced collapse, the cyanobacteria had mastered a separate, yet strangely similar process of production; photosynthesis, which maps input-fluxes of carbon dioxide and water to output-fluxes of glucose and, more importantly, dioxygen. The accumulation of this latter chemical in the atmosphere led to a mass extinction event now known as the “Great Oxidation Event”, wiping an innumerable amount of species away, approximately 99.5% of all life on earth. The danger of an excess of oxygen is hard to fathom in the Anthropocene, where greenhouse gasses pose a much greater threat, yet the consequences of such an excess are just as terrifying, if not more, than contemporary anthropogenic climate change. Oxygen toxicity for individual humans would mean tinnitus, nausea, dizziness, tunnel vision, cell damage, and eventually death. A heavier lithosphere would lead to mass oxidation, turning the water in oceans into hydrogen peroxide.The very same chemical once injected into mentally ill prisoners during early phases of the Holocaust. But more importantly, overwhelming amounts of molecular oxygen in the air would engender the perfect conditions for generalised exothermic redox reactions; the mere act of lighting a match could ignite massive fires, even explosions. Previous atmospheres, richer in oxygen, demanded larger tracheae: from this colossal insects (ungeheures Ungeziefer; Gregor Sasma)Franz Kafka, Metamorphosis and Other Stories, trans. by Michael Hofmann (New York: Penguin Books, 2008). roamed the face of Earth. And all of this from nothing but prokaryotic-spaces. 

The prokaryote is the monad of a human organism. The collection of humanist thought, and in fact the collection of all biological information in the universe of which it is a subset, is embedded within it. Eukaryotic cells, that form the majority of contemporary multicellular life, are composite substances; our current hypotheses on their origin suggest them to be either mutations or combinations of existing prokaryotes. To understand what this entails, we must return to Leibniz, and begin tracing the sketches of his generalised fractal-machine (in analogy with Spinoza’s god-Machine), a machine which embeds a fully complete set of potential or actualised states into their own indivisible parts or, in other words, turns all that is discrete into something continuous and introduces self-similarity into the equation. Here we are, of course, playing a dangerous game: this machine’s unstated premise is an idealist metaphysics, and therefore one can not apply it to tangible matter so simply. The required axioms are clear: a rationalist epistemology that needs no external empirical experience to self-correct, and an ontology where all of reality is in some way mind-dependent; the mind is a monad, and the monad is the windowless foundation of reality. From this, the only valid logical conclusion is our fractal-machine. If reality is nothing but aggregates of fundamental constituents that ontologically depend on the mind, and the mind has the theoretical potential to epistemologically decompose every possible aggregate, then the monad must contain the entire universe, in all its potential states, within itself. Not an “image” of the entire universe, nor an illusion of it, but the universe as it exists in the human mind, which, for Leibniz, is synonymous with the universe. Centuries after, with the knowledge of the mind’s material roots in mind, we cannot entertain such an anthropocentric notion. If the fractal-machine is to be of any further use, it must be brought into the material world at once.

Firstly, our machine requires a mind-dependent ontology, but we can swap this ontology with one generalised to any substance. It currently operates in the Leibnizian framework because epistemological information and ontological substance function in the same way, in that they are both mind-dependent. We already know our ontological substance will be a material one, independent from the mind, which itself is only a patterned network of biological matter. Therefore the same must apply to epistemological information, as it is “contained” within a mind, and therefore simply prescribes a more specific instance of this patterned network: a particular set of activation values mapped to neurons. This first premise, that connects knowledge to substance, is preserved by virtue of monism; the fractal-machine functions not because knowledge and substance are both necessarily mind-dependent, but rather because both are aggregates of the same fundamental component, the monad. Secondly, to fully materialise the fractal-machine, one must substitute a matter-oriented concept in lieu of our rationalist epistemology, and for this we must proceed in two phases; firstly grounding the human mind in pure material substance, then generalising it to systems beyond anthropomorphic thought. The former already allows us to outline biological fractals; the latter will sharpen these to a staggering scale.

We shall limit ourselves to a biological domain of discourse as of now, rather than the full universe, for the sake of keeping things relatively concrete. Here, a return to Darwin’s formal machine, a function which acts on living organisms and naturally selects them according to a handful of axioms. The non-logical signatures of “life” act more as vague descriptions than a rigorous definition, unfortunately. We can nevertheless identify seven attributes: homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. The set of entities that generally tend to display these characteristics (which we shall soon discover is far from limited to biological organisms) serves as the domain of the natural-selection-function, and from there the formal system kicks into gear: input-organisms are encoded in variation, heredity, and “sorted” through the use of differential reproduction. Enough iterations, enough deep time, and the process produces seemingly infinite forms of magnificence. But there is no creation. Only processes, flux, and unfoldings. No new biological information is materialised by natural selection; variation depends on the randomised exchange of existing genetic information, mutations, or more rarely polyploidy. None of these three are “guaranteed” to happen in any specific way, and common doxa has determined via induction that the latter two won’t. You don’t wake up and go to work expecting a life-threatening mutation to occur, or live in fear of giving birth to someone with three pairs of chromosomes. But difference is not simply a negation, the opposite of the “expected” scenario. It is the relation between these innumerable genetic potentials, and therefore an ontological agent in its own right. The summation of all biological potential is embedded within every existing organism precisely because one now focuses on the relations between all potential output-organisms—output-organisms that are already enfolded within the Darwinist machine, or perhaps immanent to its input-organisms. Why stop at a full body without organs? It is not as if you will ever reach it without dying. Why not also consider a cell without organelles, a genome without DNA, a colony without organisms? Everywhere, biological assemblages that lack an image. They do not actively seek to antagonise their machine-parts, just as the body without organs is not a body against organs: it is a body against organisation. The collection of possibilities that are suppressed by this organisation is what it aims for, but just like Leibniz’s calculus it is a process, not a final destination. If you stop, you can only ever hope for an approximation. If you push forwards, you will never stop converging towards.

Let us shift the biological fractal’s scale, to the anthropomorphically-scaled constructions we know so well. What are the seven characteristics of a nation-state? It maintains its internal “territory” at any cost (homeostasis), it is structured by various arborescent branches of repressive organs (organisation), it oversees flows of currency, labour and energy (metabolism), it must grow economically and strive for efficiency (growth). It must shift and morph in response to external or internal threats (adaptation), reply with repressive force to any contestation of sovereignty (response to stimuli), and every day it must be reborn from its past self, the midwives being its civil servants, officials (reproduction). Was political theory always just biology at a human scale? If we take liberal theory at its word, when it claims the individual human to be the atom of society, then we confirm self-similarity: nation-states are aggregates of humans, which are aggregates of cells, and all three organised systems display our seven characteristics of life. The third, we have seen, caused a mass extinction event in its prokaryotic iteration (the cyanobacteria); today the eco-fascist accuses the second of plunging his fellows into a new one, whilst the eco-socialist levels this charge against the first. Here the question is not one of eco-pessimist civilisational collapse or solar-powered reciprocal utopia; you will always have the chance to tend towards either as a mathematical limit, if you wish so. Rather it is one of agency. Could the cyanobacteria have stopped the drastic oxygenation of the atmosphere? Perhaps by ironing out a few kinks in the System, by voting Biden, or by forming some Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties? Such a notion is profoundly absurd, but the alternative is terrifying. Perhaps our consciousness, our language, and our civilisation-thought were never going to stop the very biologico-social systems of our “making” from progressively annihilating life on Earth. Were we as deluded, in thinking that we could, as those who personify microscopic bacteria? The answer need not be one that “relegates” humans to an inhumane status devoid of free will. We can on the contrary, if we wish, anthropomorphise the cyanobacteria; humanise them not from above, as some hierarchical civilising apparatus, but instead let them humanise themselves on their own terms, because anthropomorphic possibilities were always immanent to them. 

Entropy

First the materialisation of that sublime rationalist epistemology, the arrayed network of synapses, and electrical signals; next is to separate it from this anthropocentrism, and allow it to fully function on its own terms. We must generalise epistemological information beyond the material network that forms the mind. And as it so happens, we have already done so. The formal systems of logic earlier mentioned, those that coupled themselves to cognition, did so to anchor anthropomorphic language into the material world, to detach both it and themselves from jaded humanist thought. There is no reason not to do the same for anthropomorphic knowledge, which, once no longer dependent upon the human mind, is the perfect substitute for Leibniz’s truths of “reason”. All formal systems are immanent to natura naturans. All their unfolded potentialities lie embedded within material substance. And the totalised cosmos is always a possibility of a formal system, indifferent of its state. As you zoom into the univocal fractal, you hit the realm of quanta; uncertainty, therefore folded possibilities, becomes a fundamental aspect of the cosmos. And yet it mirrors formal systems still. Commutativity and associativity no longer operate, true, we also have additional values; but the rest still works. No syllogism can escape matter, nor can it leave its closed formal system in which it is embedded, and all scales make it so in our universal fractal. But once more, we must be wary of pointillism. It was long hypothesised that the cosmos was a fractal in terms of spatial organisation specifically; yet a recent large-scale galaxy redshift survey suggests this not to be the case.Michael J. Drinkwater and others, ‘The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Final Data Release and the Metallicity of UV-Luminous Galaxies’, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474.3 (2018), 4151–68 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2963. If one can talk of a univocal fractal, it is one where only processes are self-similar across scales, rather than geo-cosmological patterns. Seems like the universe itself tries to construct an organless cosmos. 

All these “systems” gradually tend towards entropy. All our systems are gradually tending towards entropy. This entropy does not limit itself to the second law of thermodynamics, but permeates many domains, as varied as quantum information science, sociology, algorithms, cryptography, and ecology, to name only a few. It has a special raison d’être for biological and artificial organisms, acting as an unconditional and unavoidable threat to our existence: old age, decay, disintegration of biological life, and the progressive corruption of data for man-made neural codes (accumulations of non-critical failures in hard drives, bit rot). Current conjectures on the end of the Universe extend this entropic threat to all matter: heat death, a universal lack of thermodynamic free energy, where flows between systems and their surroundings are no longer possible, and maximum entropy grinds all to a halt. Such a scenario is anthropomorphically unappealing, at least in comparison to its quasi-Manichean alternatives (the Big Rip, the Big Crunch), precisely because putting the universe on eternal pause is much stranger to us than simply ending it. What is “annihilated” within heat death is not any tangible object, but the processes and flows that can no longer operate, and they had always been the main ontological agents in the factory. The paper once molded into vibrant origami itself lives on, as nothing will ever transcend it; yet it can no longer be folded. 

The sedentary experience of private property within the polity is “Order”, the nomadic experience of an unlimited hunter-gatherer is “Disorder”. But is the contemporary turmoil of an overpopulated urban slum in the Third World “order”? And is the egalitarian thermal state of a free-flowing nomadic system “disorder”? Did state apparatuses progressively assemble new arranged structures out of scattered tribal archaisms, or were they the disorganised product of an inevitable entropic increase ? Even today, there are still human spaces beyond state control; they do not await the eager arrival of the civilising mission, because they had once fled it, and they were, in part, born in opposition to it. Our posthumanist politics are nothing but meek theology today, but it will not take long before they assemble and fulfil their functions. There was one Platonic opposition that few have truly attempted to dissolve: that of civilisation and savagery. It has been experimented, throughout Western thought, to flip this binary on its head: we cited Derrida earlier, Montaigne, Diderot. But it was never dissolved. Only reversed. Savagery-civilisation. In the final cosmological scheme of things, entropy leads us to one place and one place only, and that place is neither nomadism nor sedentary control. The disorder of a failed state, the disorder of state capture, neither can be the final destination. Our upcoming heat death is as uninterested in a cosmological civilisational conquest as much as it is in civilisational collapse, just as climate collapse does not discriminate between planetary leviathanisation and nomadisation, between the state-sponsored plunder of the Far North and the nomadic flight away from failed states of the Global South; all flows grind to a halt, and the purpose of civilisation was to administer flows (economic flows of markets, information flows of communication, fecal flows of sewage under the city-state), and the raison d’être of nomadism was to let flows run free, but neither ever considered the possibility that something could freeze them over. Temperature differences, identities, still have the potential to spatially exist, but once maximum entropy is reached, no thermodynamic system will ever exert a flow, a difference, unto its surroundings again.