constant escape
winter withered, warm
Still a stranger here, no doubt, but I do find this place to be a sort of haven. Much of the talk of music floats past me, but I very much admire the sustained curiosity and intellect on show here at dissensus. Presumably like many other latecomers, I drifted this way thanks to the enduring orbit of Mark Fisher.
I'm a young and insular one, which may explain the zeal and naivete here, but I do get the sense that developing new ways of being, of moving through the world, is not only possible but perhaps perpetually necessary. How long can we remobilize and reanimate our inheritance before it ossifies?
I want to throw something out there, for anyone who may be interested in theorizing new(ish) systems (of thought, of being, what have you). Any opinions on this in general? This is of interest to me, in and of itself. The following is just an attempt to articulate certain theories I am working on.
The working concept is "nootopology", which would be a study of the disciplinarity of the intellect. For the proof of etymological labor: "nous" is taken as intellect/organ-of-understanding, "topos" balances both place and subject matter, and "logos" is taken as reasoned discourse.
The hope is to create a sort of "motherboard theory" that can be forward-compatible, to whatever extent, with future implementations and developments of, so to speak, "daughterboard theories". It would, in principle, allow for two levels of innovation.
Perhaps the primary axiom is that there exists (virtually? As in, Deleuzian virtual?) a potential for infinitessimal complexification, and that we, as subject-processors, preconsciously project the very throughput (objectivity?) that we consciously process, resulting in a kind of auto-cybernetics (?), a system whose environment is a sort of functional hallucination. That said, our processability is measured by how effective our account of our apparent world is, a precision that is always climbing.
The species-intellect would be a sort of rhizome / proto-plenum (I take plenum as the pure rhizome - but I'm only a skimmer of D/G, and I suspect much of this work as already been done by them), the negative space of which takes up almost all the space, so to speak. This negative space could be figured as Apeiron, and the species-intellect, as a spreading structure, would be an "apeirotropism" that "turns" or grows toward this negative space. This could be elaborated further, with the "head" of each "branch" of the species-intellect representing a psychic singularity, embodied in human wetware (?), which metabolizes Apeiron into the body of the species-intellect.
I wonder if anyone has thoughts on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and of this notion of the Omega Point. If I were to appropriate this into the aforementioned terminology, the Omega Point would be the point of "near-infinite growth in a finite time" along the exponential trajectory by which the intelligence system comes to a (psuedo-)complete understanding of its environment, a sort of cosmic oneness. If, on the other hand, we take this trajectory to be arithmetic (if I understand that dichotomy correctly), then we can see how there can be a recursively scaling chain of intelligences that each boast a complexity orders of magnitude "more" than the "lower" intelligence.
More on the disciplinarity aspect. The term I am currently using for the mode of understanding specific to a given discipline is "epistechnics". Thus, the discipline takes as its manipulandum a certain topos, to which it applies a more or less unique mode of understanding, an epistechnics. We can, perhaps, frame the scientific method as an epistechnic genus/motherboard, in which is nested some number of fuzzily defined species epistechnics. Mereology, I would imagine, would be a crucial approach to much of this.
I've seen the word autotelic here and there, but I haven't seen "allotelic", which I would take to mean "having a destiny/end in the other" rather than in itself. This kind of circuitry, which could be called circular, might be necessary in order to implement such any such psychic revolution (if you will humor the grandiosity here, although I am, perhaps predictably, all too serious). For this, something of an "Ouroborology" might be in order (or at least fun to say), which could also apply to circular systems or circular elements in systems more generally.
Perhaps the ultimate goal here is to render complexity more palatable - the front to push would be the compression, transmission, and decompression of concepts. Decentralization of complexity-processing, yada yada. The "daughterboard" theories could include a political praxis oriented around the optimal processing of Apeiron - although, the haunting question is: how can this be reconciled with egalitarianism? Mass allotelization, accelerating insularization (or perhaps that will only make us more depressed).
At the very least, I'll have had a grand old time tinkering with words. I thank you for reading this far.
And I must say, I'm not quite sure where to turn for feedback here. I figure, and hope, that this may be the place. If not, I will gladly resume my lurking tendencies. After all, I'm no local.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potentially useful newish concepts
Nootopology - The study of the disciplinarity of the intellect.
Epistechnics - The means/methods, particular to a given discipline, of understanding a given subject-matter or topic. An epistechnique would be a knowledge-extension device or tool.
Fuzzeme / Fuzzemble - A system for ambiguous constitution, a mereology of fuzzy objects. If something can be considered-distinct (considered-distinctly?), it qualifies as a fuzzeme, the base unit. If multiple fuzzemes can be considered-en-masse as a collective object, that collective object is a fuzzemble (fuzzy ensemble). If a fuzzeme can be dissected into more elemental fuzzemes, it becomes a fuzzemble. Thus, the fuzzeme is the provisional element here. Fuzzembles can be combined into fuzzembles, without requalifying anything. Not quite sure about the practicality of this system yet, but it takes as axiomatic that there is no absolute base element.
Perhaps a lead here might be the "psychon" as a unit of thought (?) as proposed by Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch ("a psychon can be no less than the activity of a single neuron.")
Ouroborology - The study of circular progression/logic/substantiation/causation/etc. The study of circularity, that bane of science. Applications? For making sense of autotelic being/knowing.
Autotelos - The end in itself. Teleological autonomy. Concentration of telos into an inner singularity?
Allotelos - The end out of itself, in the other, in the environment. Diffusion of telos across the cosmos?
Apeirotropism - Something which turns/grows toward the unknown. For instance, if we figure the species-intellect as a hive-mind rhizome, expanding within a sort of matrix, and if we figure its negative space to be Apeiron, the species-intellect would be an apeirotropism if it "grows", even asymptotically, into the territory of Apeiron. If we argue that the negative space is infinite, and we argue that the growth-rate of this apeirotropic species-intellect is exponential, then there must be a point at which the growth rate (which would also be the fill-rate) of the species-intellect achieves nearly infinite growth in a finite duration, at which point the rhizome would nearly purify, nearly becoming a plenum, nearly unifying intelligence with its world.
I'm a young and insular one, which may explain the zeal and naivete here, but I do get the sense that developing new ways of being, of moving through the world, is not only possible but perhaps perpetually necessary. How long can we remobilize and reanimate our inheritance before it ossifies?
I want to throw something out there, for anyone who may be interested in theorizing new(ish) systems (of thought, of being, what have you). Any opinions on this in general? This is of interest to me, in and of itself. The following is just an attempt to articulate certain theories I am working on.
The working concept is "nootopology", which would be a study of the disciplinarity of the intellect. For the proof of etymological labor: "nous" is taken as intellect/organ-of-understanding, "topos" balances both place and subject matter, and "logos" is taken as reasoned discourse.
The hope is to create a sort of "motherboard theory" that can be forward-compatible, to whatever extent, with future implementations and developments of, so to speak, "daughterboard theories". It would, in principle, allow for two levels of innovation.
Perhaps the primary axiom is that there exists (virtually? As in, Deleuzian virtual?) a potential for infinitessimal complexification, and that we, as subject-processors, preconsciously project the very throughput (objectivity?) that we consciously process, resulting in a kind of auto-cybernetics (?), a system whose environment is a sort of functional hallucination. That said, our processability is measured by how effective our account of our apparent world is, a precision that is always climbing.
The species-intellect would be a sort of rhizome / proto-plenum (I take plenum as the pure rhizome - but I'm only a skimmer of D/G, and I suspect much of this work as already been done by them), the negative space of which takes up almost all the space, so to speak. This negative space could be figured as Apeiron, and the species-intellect, as a spreading structure, would be an "apeirotropism" that "turns" or grows toward this negative space. This could be elaborated further, with the "head" of each "branch" of the species-intellect representing a psychic singularity, embodied in human wetware (?), which metabolizes Apeiron into the body of the species-intellect.
I wonder if anyone has thoughts on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and of this notion of the Omega Point. If I were to appropriate this into the aforementioned terminology, the Omega Point would be the point of "near-infinite growth in a finite time" along the exponential trajectory by which the intelligence system comes to a (psuedo-)complete understanding of its environment, a sort of cosmic oneness. If, on the other hand, we take this trajectory to be arithmetic (if I understand that dichotomy correctly), then we can see how there can be a recursively scaling chain of intelligences that each boast a complexity orders of magnitude "more" than the "lower" intelligence.
More on the disciplinarity aspect. The term I am currently using for the mode of understanding specific to a given discipline is "epistechnics". Thus, the discipline takes as its manipulandum a certain topos, to which it applies a more or less unique mode of understanding, an epistechnics. We can, perhaps, frame the scientific method as an epistechnic genus/motherboard, in which is nested some number of fuzzily defined species epistechnics. Mereology, I would imagine, would be a crucial approach to much of this.
I've seen the word autotelic here and there, but I haven't seen "allotelic", which I would take to mean "having a destiny/end in the other" rather than in itself. This kind of circuitry, which could be called circular, might be necessary in order to implement such any such psychic revolution (if you will humor the grandiosity here, although I am, perhaps predictably, all too serious). For this, something of an "Ouroborology" might be in order (or at least fun to say), which could also apply to circular systems or circular elements in systems more generally.
Perhaps the ultimate goal here is to render complexity more palatable - the front to push would be the compression, transmission, and decompression of concepts. Decentralization of complexity-processing, yada yada. The "daughterboard" theories could include a political praxis oriented around the optimal processing of Apeiron - although, the haunting question is: how can this be reconciled with egalitarianism? Mass allotelization, accelerating insularization (or perhaps that will only make us more depressed).
At the very least, I'll have had a grand old time tinkering with words. I thank you for reading this far.
And I must say, I'm not quite sure where to turn for feedback here. I figure, and hope, that this may be the place. If not, I will gladly resume my lurking tendencies. After all, I'm no local.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Potentially useful newish concepts
Nootopology - The study of the disciplinarity of the intellect.
Epistechnics - The means/methods, particular to a given discipline, of understanding a given subject-matter or topic. An epistechnique would be a knowledge-extension device or tool.
Fuzzeme / Fuzzemble - A system for ambiguous constitution, a mereology of fuzzy objects. If something can be considered-distinct (considered-distinctly?), it qualifies as a fuzzeme, the base unit. If multiple fuzzemes can be considered-en-masse as a collective object, that collective object is a fuzzemble (fuzzy ensemble). If a fuzzeme can be dissected into more elemental fuzzemes, it becomes a fuzzemble. Thus, the fuzzeme is the provisional element here. Fuzzembles can be combined into fuzzembles, without requalifying anything. Not quite sure about the practicality of this system yet, but it takes as axiomatic that there is no absolute base element.
Perhaps a lead here might be the "psychon" as a unit of thought (?) as proposed by Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch ("a psychon can be no less than the activity of a single neuron.")
Ouroborology - The study of circular progression/logic/substantiation/causation/etc. The study of circularity, that bane of science. Applications? For making sense of autotelic being/knowing.
Autotelos - The end in itself. Teleological autonomy. Concentration of telos into an inner singularity?
Allotelos - The end out of itself, in the other, in the environment. Diffusion of telos across the cosmos?
Apeirotropism - Something which turns/grows toward the unknown. For instance, if we figure the species-intellect as a hive-mind rhizome, expanding within a sort of matrix, and if we figure its negative space to be Apeiron, the species-intellect would be an apeirotropism if it "grows", even asymptotically, into the territory of Apeiron. If we argue that the negative space is infinite, and we argue that the growth-rate of this apeirotropic species-intellect is exponential, then there must be a point at which the growth rate (which would also be the fill-rate) of the species-intellect achieves nearly infinite growth in a finite duration, at which point the rhizome would nearly purify, nearly becoming a plenum, nearly unifying intelligence with its world.
Last edited: