As of right now, loneliness is depoliticized. Unfortunately, there will be a time when loneliness will not longer be a ‘thing’ that presents ourselves from time to time but a thing to be solved. When this happens, the novelty of the universe will forever leave the human being. Death is very much politicized. Health care systems assure us that we will continue to be standing reserve in the Heideggerian sense up to our last breath. Death is no longer ours but to the hospitals where they will put tubes down our windpipes and wires to monitor our heartbeats. As Heidegger put it, we are no longer “mortals mortals” but immortal mortals where we are not allowed to die. Depression is medicalized and therefore, a solution.
Taking from Heidegger’s concept of Techniks and the thing where thought itself unconcealed (reveals) as it conceals, original thought is always pushed further “out there.” Heidegger talks about a double concealment whereas I talk about representation ‘twice removed.’ We present ourselves to ourselves but through “the Other.” This (taken from Lacan’s concept of “the Other” and his concept of anxiety) where we exist in the mind of the other, must make room for the other to reside “rent free” in our heads is what I mean we exist twice removed. So the Other exist in the first degree representation and we exist in return in the second degree. Lacan’s anxiety comes from us having to match what the Other thinks of us whereas I take it a step further.
Public Freakouts and the Culture of Desirous-revenge
Freakout culture in the internet is where I point to “the death of loneliness” and the start for the politicization of loneliness. I would start with phenomenology where it opposes itself from the metaphysical tradition or the philosophical tradition. Phenomenology (to put it bluntly) refuses to over complicate the world. Whereas metaphysics and philosophy transcends being like in transhumanism. Historically, philosophy has its roots in Socrates and progresses thought to today’s post-structuralism. Phenomenology explores “the nature of being.” In philosophy, philosophers tend to transcend things. The culmination of the history of philosophy culminates with Kant and Hegel; Kant with his transcendental idealism and Hegel with Dialectics. Now (tying this all together), what is the logical attitude taken to this representation of representation? In other words, what is the next thought we have when we exists in the mind of others? If you haven’t been threatened or triggered, you might live under a rock or are not human. “Who cares what others think of us.” This is the attitude taken by almost everyone we talk to. The IDGAF attitude.
Take the view of the psychoanalytic where we inject our libido into the economy, creating a libidinal economy. Life-force travels through representations of representation, creating an entire language to describe the intensities we feel as a social individual. “The language-of-production” (anger, discharge, catharsis, fulfillment etc.) When I get to the part where I ask you to abandon the “language-of-production” and focus on the polyvocality of capitalism and ask “how many representative are there to match the intensity to get revenge on the “Other?” Are you following? No? The answer is zero. Of course it’s zero. Representations are just representations. What phenomenology allows us to do is step into this “forwardness” of thought. In freakout culture, insults occur in anticipation, in other words, the projection of a non-image.
We can use the still-image to explore insults and freakout culture just as much as explore our fantasies (which we believe will make us happy once we attain or achieve it.) The still-image is what we talk about earlier. We picture our “win” of the insult by projecting an image of ourselves unaffected. This is why humor is used to show one’s easiness with the whole encounter. But humor is the ridiculousness of our image of an image outpacing their image of an image. In other words it’s a fight to exist in the mind of the other. It’s forward not in the images attempting to win out the opponent but because time enters into the picture. If we must think of ourselves thinking of our opponent, thinking of us in return, we best sure incept (like in the movie) ourselves as winning, but also, remain winning. The act of insulting is itself funny because more and more representation adds to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and to the nth degree. That’s why insults never end once the encounter is over but rather remain. What remains is this desirous-revenge. There’s flows of words bouncing back and forth between the two players arguing but there’s flows of desirous-revenge, each attempting to gift each other with this gift that returns… Which is why insults tend to escalate to a climax.
Capitalism makes things much more complicated but phenomenology refuses to over complicate things. We have the non-image where instead of fighting to exists in the mind of the other, like we’ve seen above, we fight to non exist (making it 10x funnier). This is why there are zero representations in actuality. Insults are the potentiality for the “remaining” part of the encounter. What we take home with us. Laughter is a way to portray this non-image, “I will not think of you because this encounter is trivial.” It’s the IDGAF attitude. Except this time, both fight by defence in an attempt to make the Other vanish. This is why to one who cares the most is the winner but also the loser. Each one tries to get the other to react to a non-existing image. This is the Christian concept of “holier-than-thou” of which is the worst kind of insult. Both lower themselves to lose to win.
If you listen to what people say in insuls, you could make two sets of phrases. One is where your opponent couldn’t control his situation and therefore should feel bad. (“you’re poor, you’re short, you’re ugly etc”). and the other is where your opponent did this to themselves (“you spend your earnings on drugs that’s why you’re poor etc). We are looking at the negative exposure because this is where we work from. Heidegger’s concept of the nothing is like what we mean when we say “eat the donut hole” We don’t eat the not donut hole but rather the dough that was taken out of the original donut hole. It because of language we affirm precedence as the thing. So we eat the not-donut hole. It would’ve been better to call it “donut bits.” So the non-image is to say “I will not think about your insult because I don’t think of the encounter at all, in fact, you are insulting yourself.”
The Connective and Disjunctive Synthesis of Recording.
The connective synthesis of recording explores what codes are left by connecting concepts together like a rhizome. However, the disjunctive synthesis of recording is equally important. As for capitalism, the flows of capital connects existing business, companies, and institutions in a comparative way. We have lenders and borrowers that create capital by indebting the borrower. The borrower receives obligation. We compare ourselves like business compare their products and services in the market. We compare ourselves as to worth and business compare themselves as to existence. Real estate works in this manner by comparing prices in local areas. But what is missing is appropriation through these spaces. Deleuze’s concept of appropriation is one of the best concepts out there for liberation. It says that de-territorialized spaces can compare with each other because flows of production can record on it’s surface. Codes are comparable. Territorialized spaces become appropriated when another space encodes on top of it. I call this space “flows-of-growth.” Deleuze calls it appropriate spaces. Deleuze uses public works and laborers to see what happens when workers and laborers get taught the language of comparative spaces. They are being sold overcodes while spoken to in comparative spaces.
When I talk about the salesman, I say that the job of the salesman is to avoid turning the receiver into a masochist. Once that happens, flows of life-force stop. He hasn’t received the negative-momentum that insults need to bounce back and forth. The salesman job is to offer his life-force in comparative spaces, or in our case, flows-of-growth using the language-of-production. Production appropriates growth as its own meaning that it takes credit for repressing desire and reproducing it at the same time. Both responsible to the adult who participates in flows of growth. So the receiver takes this gift that “gives back”. The seller, now, has earned more that what he gave. He has become a wholesaler. the job of the wholesaler is to sale life-force in wholesale value and affirm it in retail value (or make another offer). It may be confusing to follow the logic but it’s the nature of desire to desire itself (therefore must make a society to repress itself). But what are we desiring? The desire to attain revenge. In fact, it is precisely because we can not attain revenge is why we desire it. We give this “desirous-revenge, to the receiver so that he will also not have this desire to attain revenge. Therefore, the non-image has a life of it’s own. It automatically makes the possessor of desirous-revenge lower himself to return it displaced. If you follow me here, desirous-revenge displaces is life-force. Life-force and desirous-revenge are two sides of the same coin.