In a forensic investigation, interrogators use mental exhaustion to get suspects to confess. Lying takes a considerable amount of effort and it can only be sustained for a while. Interrogators use this strategy to get the suspects to surrender their front. In order to deal with lying, interrogators would place a suspect in a position where they allow him or her to relax. Then, they would speak as if they were friends in order to build rapport in a non-threatening way. Causal conversation induces mirror neurons to fire, thus, build a sense of security around them. But all of a sudden, interrogators would switch up to induce mental fatigue and apply pressure to the suspect’s sense of security. Once a threat is detected, the suspect’s awareness goes off like an alarm. This on and off repeats until the suspect lets his guard down completely.
Societies of Control
We live in ways in which we are constantly exposed to mental fatigue. Societies of control offer rest from all this mental exhaustion. However, humans are skeptical about letting their guard down. So, societies of control make the relaxation worth any resistance to surrender. But they must also convince people to accept their own oppression. It would seem that society primes individuals to the “requirements” needed to undertake. It seems that the same ticket that offers the anxieties and neurosis is also the cure.
The human body has a limit to the trauma it can take. But the mental world gets stretched and pulled beyond its limits. Most people think of the unconscious or couscous world is an infinite, world without boundaries. That’s because the mental, infinite world is invisible.
Enjoyment as a case against life
There’s a type of individual that must account for all the expenses that incur around his surroundings. He is capable of storing up the expenses that others spend as enjoyment. And this individual places himself in between the flow of codes that inscribes when every transaction takes place. And so, he must account for all transactions by remembering levels of enjoyment. This takes a toll on his mental strength and will begin to feel resentful from observing others enjoying life. He is the accountant type where he accounts for all the costs in life. If life seems a bit wrong, it because he hasn’t undertaken the right sacrifices in life. This accountant walks barefoot with shards of glass everywhere. He must walk carefully or else he could slip. If he slips, he could slice his foot with a shard of glass. If blood gushes out from his wound, then individuals will collect his blood and infuse his blood as life-force.
The poetic side of Deleuze gives us a picture of a world that is fragmented and partialized. The disjunctive world is partialized with partial objects. Every time the accountant must walk through time, he must walk through fragmented partial objects “forced to communicated with non-communicative vessels.” Every drop of blood gets siphoned-in by others who desire to enjoy life. No one will give up their life-force and societies of control are developed to be libertarian. This means individuals are given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to donate life-force. This means that cruelty is creative more than ever. Language can get a victim trapped in limbo. So people walk around without a “feeling” subject. They are only seeing, hearing, or smelling subjects.
The application to mental exhaustion is a little different in a society of control. Many thinkers come to the conclusion that the comforts of life are arranged into the circuit as a way to make people desire them. But Deleuze convinces us that there’s a little more nuance than that. Desiring-machines aren’t placed within us because of malicious intent. They are taken before the formation of the “real.” Within the circuit, desiring-production works by desiring-machines constantly breaking down. This breaking down places us in a suspension of voluntary and involuntary purging of instincts: anger, rage, vengeance, competitive drives that capitalism brings out of paranoid individuals. Desiring produces weather or not people places the “real” out of the immanent realm of production. The “impossible real” is non-representable, which means that the real is constantly produced by desiring-production. But the social formation can globalize people to condition us to produce desires that are superimposed.
On occasion people will speak to somebody in a distasteful tone that insinuates conflict. One such tone is achieved by speaking condescending. The condescending speaker speaks as if he’s coming from a higher place. The listener refuses to accept his position as lower, thus brewing up conflict. Speaking in a patronizing manner is another example. A patronizing tone puts the listener above the speaker for the purpose of ensnaring them as soon as it is convenient. As soon as space collects its debts, the patronizing speaker betrays his listener to space. His subject is left feeling shortchanged.
We owe our existence to space. Space demands to be given what is worth. Enjoyment incurs benefits but it also incurs debts. These expenses incur in the virtual field, but they are immediately accrued as soon as enjoyment is affirmed. This means that a “winner” and a “loser” is automatically chosen in the actual field. The winner enjoys life, and the loser pays for it. It also makes enjoyment a case against life. It makes the one who witnesses somebody else enjoying life to take it away for himself. In order for the exchange to happen, a gift of space is given as a form of ensnarement. Speech can betray subjects by ensnaring them to space. Then the subject can pay for the enjoyment of the other. This can happen in two ways
with an offer
What is an offer? An offer is a gift where the receiver has the option to accept it or not. When the gift is accepted, it registers onto a surface fromed by its own intensity. It is an immanent surface that forms in order to in-script all those exchanges. The layer (or surface) homogenizes these exchanges as comparative codes. Transactions flows smoothly because they are comparative with one another. When codes move fast, effortless, and frictionless, it is productive. The nomadic movement describes the first productive codes coming out from paranoiac investments from within the nomadic subject.
Nomadism first laid out developing territories from productive codes. A successful territory means that intensities within the nomad found closure by exhausting it. This means that development in nomadism never went past beyond closure. Developments ended as soon as the exchanged inscribed itself as a surface. This was the entire operation, to build a territory and then to abandon it for another. This is what it means for codes to be productive; value is exchanged with an equal and matched intensity found along the surface. Then, they move towards its own end because it exhausts itself into its own surface. This is how nomads territorialized one society after another before migrating to another. The surface (space) demands all costs because it was accrued for in the virtual field
The intensities from the natural, raw Earth must to return back to the Earth eventually. Nomads used productive codes to territorialize their land from raw resources. They knew that one day, the Earth will come and claim its debts. Death was imminent. When tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes, they forced their productive codes into developed codes. This is called growth. Growth takes on the movement by appropriation. Productive codes no longer wish to vanish into its own surface which means that the despotic machine must create a new surface that falls back to the original one and it must perpetually grow off of paranoiac investment.
Tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes by force. The despot forced productive codes into developed codes because they wanted to purge paranoiac investments out into the social field rather than have them exhausted back into the original body of the Earth. So, once in the social field, these investments continued to grow. Once developed, growth codes grew off of their own growth. Whenever someone insults somebody else, the intensity first travels in the nomadic kind. Then, is returns in the despotic kind. For someone to enjoy life, they must first take it from someone else. But capitalism forces codes to return to their original state. They must pay for enjoying life off of their expense. The offender must do this before capitalistic forces reterritorializes developed codes back into productive codes. Otherwise there won’t be an offence. He will come off too forceful, brutish, and cranky “old Mr. Stingy.”
The despotic machine forces comparative (homogenous) spaces into non-comparative (heterogeneous) spaces. This causes developed codes to all back to their original productive codes. Ironically, non-comparative spaces make codes compare with one another. But the developed surface is a quasi-cause because when developed codes fall back to their original surface, they appropriated productive ones. In other words, the despot takes the comparative codes and forces them to be non-comparative so that his victims can exists in both surfaces. The operation can now proceed as an insult by forcing paranoiac investments to be willed out from the victim by his own voluntary will. In capitalistic spaces, the despot can lose the operation if he undershoots his attack. Capitalism reterritorializes all codes back to productive codes. Before this happens, the investor must set up his pre-insult as a gift that travels in one surface and returns at another. All while standing in at the same surface as the victim but speaking to him as above him or below him. This is the tone that comes out as condescendingly or patronizing. The patronizing tone is the investor offering deterritorialized space while the condescending is receiving the gift back. He receives it back because the developed codes are already over-coded. It is often the case that the person who insults first or brutally over attacks his victim is the loser. This happens because capitalistic spaces muted the reterritorializing attempted from the offender to by getting there first.
The paradox is observed when a one receives the gift of knowledge. The learner is better off than before because he can now grow in a developed economy. Afterall, one must be in the wrong before being in the right. The goal is to shortchange the victim before capitalism returns developed codes back to productive ones thereby effectuating a Sadomasochistic relationship. When the insulter turns his victim into a masochist, the flow stops because the insulter now becomes a sadist. Both purges paranoiac investments into each other. To form human currency, it happens by placing the victim into a double bind. The gift of knowledge i not free. A common phrase uttered in altercations is “I want to teach you a lesson.” Once returned, the gift contains overcoded intensities that can be purged by watching his victim in misery. Thus, an insult has occurred
What does it mean when a county has a developed economy? Do developing economies fall under the appropriate mark? Developed nations often spend more than they can earn. It faces a paradox. It is the social formation that paranoiac forces must represent as the case against life. But it is enjoyment itself that is the case against life. And people fight to attain enjoyment even if it’s from other. All trauma, all dissatisfactions, all depression is conditioned under the eye of developed nations. This is why insults are the purest form of offers. It allows one to stand with the victim in growing or developed codes, all while speaking in productive language. This forces everyone to be a salesman by selling deterritorialized space in order to purge paranoiac investments into he social field. Failure to do so will involve the social formation as the reason to complain about life. The terror of capitalistic space befalls on the subject who failed to wholesale deterritorialized space before capitalism deterritorialized non-comparative codes back to their productive codes. If individual within capitalistic spaces refuses to be in the business of wholesaling life-force, the individual must will himself out of a will-to-will. He keeps falling behind productive spaces. The vary own social formation becomes the reason to blame the individual for his own lack of success. Because every code must be intermediated by the social formation, all psychic repression becomes secondary. This means that oppression only exists within himself.
The double-bind works because the capitalistic space demands the victim has a choice. The problem comes when the despotic machine gives no choice but forces the gift to return. The solution is the have the gift return by productive codes. So he places the individual above him through condescending language. He gifts the gift through those measures, the individual is forced to give it back involuntarily because he was placed anti-positioned to space thorugh condescending language. But the victim also has choice in developed codes. The measure of one’s adultness by maintaining compose. It is giving oneself to emotion that the composure is lost. This is how the victim becomes trapped in the double-bind. If the victim gives into this emotional and “snap” back at his aggressor, he voluntarily returns the gift. But it would’ve return though the despotic machine nonetheless. But the still has the option to not return; This would make to difference.
We will describe the main ideas involving the 4 insults that occur.
And workplace reprimands
Public Freakouts are confrontations between two strangers, non-politicized. Here, the miraculating-machine function between disjunctions and thus, the limit lies here – where the schizo lives and it become the greatest stressor. The aggressor must incept the subjected as “loser.” And the insulted must incept his aggressor as “winer.” This means that both parties split each other in two, 1) the physical subject and 2) the imaginary-subject. Here, we can play with Hegel’s reciprocal-recognition in that both subjects overstacks images on each other conducting inceptions within inceptions. We can not see clearly observe the formation of the pseudo-telekentitic apparatus from the limit.
Arguments follow the Aristotelian debates where the arguments themselves win and not subjects.
Alliance insults are encounters between two family members, friends, or accomplices. With freackouts, the nature of them being strangers means that the insult does not end once the encounter is over. In fact, the encounter was the pre-insult phase where the imaginary-battle dramatizes into the psychic operation at home. It is about what return home. With alliances, each are near to each other if not at home. Thus, where we need to add intensity at the top of the production-machine where the separations between players produces residuum that form intensities (anger, resentment, revenge, etc). The intensity is the life-force that must travel all the way down the representations. Because it consumes alongside the production-machine freakouts must occur via anticipation because every valence level up “resets” the meraculating machine. With every image over-stacking upon each other, the intensities provide the “fuel” in order for the final product (life-force) to arrive at the original destination (level 0). That is the winner.
With alliances, we introduce the idea of love as sacrifice. This is why when a fight erupts between two old couples, it is often about petty things. Once the emotions cool down, the feeling of “getting back at each other” is sacrificed with feelings of being shortchanged at first. The production-machine required more intensities but the operation was pre-maturely abandoned. Life-force was exhausted somewhere along the way and never reached the bottom.
Outrage culture represents the politicized operation. Here, we must distill every party (right, left, middle, centrist) into subject and subjected-groups. The purpose of subject groups is to recruit subjected-groups. The subjected-individual must resist from identifying as fantasizing joining the subject-group but nonetheless, ends up joining.
We introduce anticipation (non-expectation). That evolves in 3-phases
Parody. A child rebells against his parents only to become a parent himself. Then, he raises a child who rebels against him and the cycle repeats
Allowance (permission) – the parent anticipates the cycle and allows his child to rebel to “get it out of him.” The parent provides a space for the child to rebel in a safe manner.
Concealment – Here, we observe a gift that is meant to return. The insult is a gift in the form of desirous-revenge. Because the adult can not self-feel desirous-revenge (Christian, desire already arrives negated), he must pass it off as a gift. The gift is an empty package that contains negative momentum or, in other words, the insulted suffers a double-bind. He must return it voluntarily in productive-codes and, at the same time, return it involuntarily in growth-codes. This is what being “triggered” feels like
The work place represents the center of the meraculating-machine where centrifugal forces oscillates back and forth. An insult in the workplace is a non-personal operational meant to assign libidnal forces into the
The social salesmen lies at the heart of the entire pseudo-telekentitic operation. During the paranoid era (the 2000’s) the way the salesmen self-deprecated himself, the more rejections he suffers, the more hours he works, the less job security he endured, marked the success at the end of his journey.
The 2010’s made the switch from the paranoid salesmen to the schizo salesmen. The harder one worked, the more he’s doing it wrong. We observe that the sales funnel or a click funnel made it to the English vernacular. Everybody know that money is just a piece of paper. Absurdities are more visible than ever. A salesmen who is selling a course on how to sell perfectly describes Deleuze and Gutarri’s notion of a product being consumed as soon as it is produced. A business that runs in a way that it builds other businesses is called a consulting business. Meraculating machines changes by the process that is inscribes on. This means that the limit sits under shifting ground. An eBook that reads “how to make and sell ebooks online” online. A podcast dedicated to create podcasts.
The Social salesmen
Success itself is the prof-of-concept that business plans are written on. The social salesmen is everybody. Everybody is a business. When we insult, the social salesmen makes an offer. It simply returns. But how does it? The code (intensity) must be transferable. This means that comparative spaces (keeping up with the Joneses) are where business can compete with each other. Capitalism frees up codes so that they become even more comparable. Productive-codes represents the resistance to keeping the codes non-comparable. This is appropriative spaces that is flows-of-growth. The social salesmen makes an offer on flows-of-growth but uses the language-of-production to overcode them. Of what use is the insult someone if they “learn their lesson?” Insulting someone in simply means that the insulted is left in a better place to grow
The wholesaler then, must be creative to escape the forces of capitalism. The rise of passive-aggressive insults or condescending comments is visible among workplaces because of the accelerating rate of capitalistic-spaces. The package returns then, to the salesmen in productive-codes, meaning that he was conceived in productive spaces the whole time. The salesmen successfully wholesaled life-force and can now enjoy it in retail value (or make another offer).
The broker can outsource the wholesaling process that he can disappear in presence. He builds a psychological structure to where life-force is syphoned in a hierarchical manner.
When a subject is said to be in a state of enjoyment, it is because flows of enjoyment passes through him. An-Other appears to take that enjoyment away from the subject. A duel between the both subjects marks the beginning of the insult. The subjected is that which enjoyment flows out from and the subject is that which enjoyment flows into. This is the intuitive understanding of the modern altercation – two subjects fighting to obtain enjoyment from each other. The insult serves as a key. A kind of acknowledgment to let the other know that the duel has commenced. The subject becomes the aggressor as he attaches himself to leach off flows of enjoyment. The subjected retaliate in return, making him a sucking-machine, attempting to win back the enjoyment. The subject also retaliates, making him a sucking-machine as well. The classic image of the tug-o-war of both subjects “pulling the ropes” this model is very limited because it cuts off the external world operating behind it.
When a subject is said to be in a state of enjoyment, it is because flows of enjoyment passes through him.
First, enjoyment doesn’t automatically make it the state of pleasure most people associate with the word “enjoyment.” Enjoyment can also be this idea of the lack of any foreseeable discomfort. Or it doesn’t have to be anything at all. A subject that is unbothered in a thoughtless stupor can also be said to be in a state of enjoyment. The problem is that enjoyment lacks any history. It simply appears as soon as it is on its way out. It is impossible to be in a state of enjoying one’s own feeding off of the external environment that brought the subject into a state of enjoyment. It isn’t until someone else tries to take it away that the possessiveness of this enjoyment takes the subjected ahold. This paradox illustrates that the limits of enjoyment as it exists as a representation. It represents a repression “– the repressing representation itself-”  as D&G puts it. “Enjoyment” limits our understanding of machines, flows, and attachments.
We will abandon “enjoyment” for desire because desire has history. Desire already comes negated.
Going back to Plato and the Greeks, desire was seen as a tragedy. The tragic sense of desire moved hands to Kant’s sense of delirium. Desire went from being tragic to a disease. Freud followed up Kant’s delirium of desire and added that desire could or should be repressed. Desire injected into the libidinal economy, with proper sublimation, could be turned into something useful and practical. So, the libidinal economy was built from the scientific method. It was thought that the unconscious could be coaxed into proper channels. Of course, this has several implications about freedom and freewill.
Desire was experienced as lacking and by splitting desire and the object-of-desire, one merely desire desire itself. The object-of-desire carries it’s “essence of lack” and desire is left to repress itself [2, p. 25].
Here’s where adults repress desire, but the question becomes, if desire desires itself, how are adults produced to repress it? We’ve learned how desire already comes in its negated form by investigating history in the philosophical tradition. When the adult receives this negated form of desire, he rejects it, disapproves of it, curses it, and by doing so, he reproduces it. But how can something that must be repressed can also be reproduces at the same time?
The Growing Adult
We must understand what an adult is. The question is not what the function of an adult is. But the question becomes where does the adult comes from and who produces the adult? We can speculate whether an adult is someone who takes up responsibility. We can determine if that means the taking up of sacrifices. He places needs ahead of desires. Adults places favor of something more noble. The question of what makes someone a grown-up is not an interesting question because the answers are already known. (An adult is someone with authority, responsibility, places need in favor of desire, etc.).
Desire was experienced as lacking and by splitting desire and the object-of-desire, one merely desire desire itself.
When an adult gives away desire in its repressed form, he expects it in return. Not that he anticipates the delivered package in return, but the package was set up by history to come back. – The receiver receives the package as an empty ‘void’ in which its cavernous and vacuous gravity pulls the subjected individual into it. (The package carries a negative momentum meant to head back to its original giver.) – By history, we mean that it came from the original body without organs or, the full body of the earth, coded all the way back. In today’s molar aggregate, the absolute limits represent the economy where these values are stored or released. The package was dressed up to appear unconcealed. What was concealed was the entirety of history in the philosophical tradition. The dialectical method unaffirmed and vengeance.
The entity is desirous-revenge. Desire as an antiflow and revenge as a flow of words. Desire is an antiflow because adults must repress desire. When an adult denies desirous-revenge, psychic repression holds him responsible to “bit the bullet.” Deep inside, he is raging and ravaging in anger. But psychic repression is all just a wild guess. It is childish at best and irresponsible at worst. Adults can gift desire it as an order (voluntarily)… as if it’s the right thing to do. When the subject receives it in return, again, psychic repression holds him to be affirmative of the returning. The feeling of sacrifice is all just repression (or representational repression). The feeling of the sacrificial desire is itself engineered from within the Modus Operandi. It is “living capitalism” that grows with psychic repression. When this occurs, desirous-revenge is displaced into life-force, it gives the adult permission to self-feel.
Only adults can do this successfully.
When subject participate in flows-of-growth, they are called growing-adults. Growing-adult are Global Persons representing someone else. It is said that the youth learn by growing. And they grow into adulthood as if it is something that everyone aspires to do. This growth is not the usual time-centered growth that comes with time passing by, it is a compounding of time where time overcodes into individual’s body without organs. Growth is done by becoming absent from the psychic repression in the world. Production, which comes from the philosophical tradition of territorializing smooth spaces must now be de-territorialized with growth instead of production but growth imamates at the same time production take growth-codes as its own and appropriates it for its own use. Both adults and youth who engage in flows-of-growth, are called growing-adults. Growing-adults are tasked with repressing desire but because desiring-production is the same as social-production, desire must be reproduced as it’s being repressed. Only adults can do this successfully. They do so by imposing the language-of-production.
This causes a couple of problems. Adults are discouraged to self-feel desirous-revenge. For an example, we’ll look at parody to explore this concept. An adult who insults a young person inadvertently puts the youth in a better place than when he has found him. Because the youth also participates in flows-of-growth, the youth “learned his lesson” The youth actually gained something that he never intends to return. But psychic repression would call for the adult to take it back. This is why when the youth retaliate in return, it is given back, but the price has gone up. How? Well, psychic repression calls for the youth to retaliate voluntarily and by paying the price on top of what the growing-adult has given it by. The growing-adult gave it in a canceled fashion using the language-of-production. The gift was actually overcoded but in a concealed manner. The concealment was done by flows-of-growth. It is because it was done in flows-of-growth that the transaction (flow) was allowed to pass through. But don’t think that the growing-adult anticipated the return because if he did, the Modus Operandi would account for the anticipation. (And remember, the youth must return the gift voluntarily). However, because psychic repression reigns supreme in modernity, the returning happens because the language-of-production deems the return involuntary. Astoundingly, this is how growth can happen according to growing-adults, “it is for your own good.” The adult is said to participate in “loving capitalism” when he takes advantage of the life-force that goes all the way back the full body of the earth. We are continuedly indebting the Socius from the front end (or the limit), causing everyone to anticipate in return, causing a cascading effect of anticipation all the way down the present moment. Codes then begin to fall through and overcode themselves by the future. That is how psychic repression works, by insisting that obligation follows growth. To obligate someone means that they must indebt themselves to them by getting the thing up front.
By definition, if money is used to make more money, money begins to be useless. This is inflation at its basic understanding. What is at work here is an obligatory force that is tangentially synthesized from the markets that fluctuate up and down. When money is printed into existence at the present moment? Where do intensities that are passively synthesized come from. By money obligating itself to be “invested” in the first place. Is what gives money its value. Deleuze mentions in his Ant Oedipus that the meaning behind “God is dead” is not some psyche altering apparatus that unlocks a certain way of being from the modern mind. But rather it is the time it takes for the phrase to be uttered, and the realization that it makes no effect whatsoever. Whether it comes from an actual deity or a made up one, Nietzsche, who obviously did not believe in the Christian God, utters “God is dead” for a God that cannot die because it doesn’t exist. But it requires an entire series of efforts needed for a non-existent investment, not of money, but at a basic level, a necessary transaction of appropriate sacrifices.
1. Deleuze, Gilles and Guatarri, Félix. AntiOedipus. New York : Penguin Group, 1977, p. 164.
2. —. AntiOedipus. New York : Penguin Group 1977.
3. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. AntiOedipus. [trans.] Helen R Lane, Robert Hurley and Mark Seem. New York : Penguin Group, 1977, p. 25.
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.
For more, subscribe!
If you’re interested in a book I’m writing about these concepts, consider contributing for my eBook that I’ll be releasing soon in the next month or so!
We are witnessing an explosion of freak-outs on social media. Has it always been this way? Has social media, particularly the live-feed apps, reveal to us an unfortunate nature of human beings. Or does it exacerbate it by engaging in feedback loops where the viewer gets ready in so someday, find themselves participating in an encounter, only to be recorded by someone else. I will propose a Pseudo-telekinetic phenomenon where we really do harm each other using our minds. Yes, a form of an ‘imaginary voodoo doll’ that we form of our enemies and enact our vengeance in the imagination. All it needs is an apparatus of capture and a language that can “cover up” or appropriate it. Capitalism is a form of maintenance to keep congruency through time. Without the proper language, it can be difficult to articulate how this apparatus work.
However, the case can certainty be made that social media does operate with this Modus Operandi. All the moving parts and components are there: the apparatus of capture, flows of desirous-revenge, Comparative spaces, appropriative spaces, growing-adults, flows-of-growth, and flows-of-production. It’s almost intuitive and obvious that this is how it works. but in a loosely, partially connected a-priori way. Individual compare themselves to find “worthiness” to life. Their “soul” is what individual use to measure themselves. This cardboard cut-out of a thing is orphan-ized, truncated. It never honers the flows-of-growth the individual is participating in. That’s why adults fight over trivial things that could easily be left by being “the bigger man.” Unfortunately, growing-adults are signing up for their own condemnation. In capitalistic spaces, they are short-changed whenever they negotiated. By what? money? A business deal? A relationship? An encounter? Everything must be about “a learning experience.” No longer do we produce for the sake of producing. Every job must lead to a career. Every relationship someone has to “find themselves.” Negotiation is a term of The Language of Production. The language of production always refers back to itself because it’s all about utility. Growing adults however, are engaged in flows of growth. The ‘negotiation’ was never about money at all but life-force. It is ability to affirm life as is. No one can do this while indebted by someone they hate. That’s why is say that the problem of Freakout Culture is a Catholic problem in that it’s fueled by hate. Hate has nothing to do with indebtedness but it must be forgiven in the same way sins are forgiven: one by one in detail. The sinner must pay with guilt. This is the Catholic practice of Penance. The solution imposed on us the Christian in the sense that all sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ. This ‘solution’ is becoming less appropriate because capitalism, or rather the “sprit of capitalism,” engages flows of production to create more capital. This is done by obligation someone with through debt.
We all fantasize about novel things. Yes we get those occasional lustful fantasies from both man and women, For men, they are those passionate sex scene with that girl we’ve been thinking about (if your not gay). For the most part, we fantasize about our immortalization in the symbolic realm. What distinguishes fantasy from desire? Well fantasy for the most part, is not real. Fantasy is generated hallucination. When we want to become apart of a group, that group is thinking about us thinking thinking about becoming apart of it within their minds. Why wouldn’t we want to become apart of a group of people with similar interests? Life becomes easier with friends because joining forces against the realities of life makes enduring worth it. The external field that influence wants and desires have initially set up parameters to make them desirous. Or rather capable of being enticing.
The subject group is already connecting individuals through the Body without Organs and fluctuating intensities emanate from them. Their fantasies tend to align with each other. Because we live in the 21st century, groups need not be actually present in real time. We can group-up cybernetically to create an extended conscious. The individual then fantasises about being apart of this group for the benefit of him.
But Oedipus is two sided or in Deleuze’s term: “double binded.” Because the group has to get the individual to want to become apart of the group, the subject group has to cast an allure of desire. That is to solve the individual’s existential angst. Death is the soul’s greatest frustration, therefore a calling to live for greater principles or to give up the life of pleasure becomes so appealing to the subjected individual. This is Nietzsche’s ascetic principle which states that the nihilistic individual will further deny life by giving up pleasure to cleanse his soul. This ascetic principle is the salvation to his wretched life. But the other side of Oedipus, that “double bind,” is that the subjected individual will also depart from the group as he is becoming apart of it. It establishes a tension that keep them connected. The individual resist the subject group from thinking that he is desiring to become apart of the group. Why? because that is the subject group’s main goal. The subject group resists the individual from thinking about revolution or overturning of the group. Both the subjected individual and the subject group have eachother or each other’s mind. A psychic economy is born.
We all praise scientists. History says science progresses human society the longer we keep doing it. Scientists attribute the qualitative aspect of forces to its own identity and label it quantitative force. How? By measuring the world, piecing it and partialize it. Yes it is necessary to measure, scrutinize, and experiment. I would say it is necessary to measure the world to do anything. But it is how we proceed. Do we nihilistically strip the world down to it’s numeric essentials? Digital age is doing this by making everything binary, a one or a zero. Or do we flip to affirm human quality?
The parts of life worth living are cowardly movements that crawl under subterranean battlegrounds. That’s why living life to the fullest is cowardly at it’s core – one always takes advantage of another soul’s flow of life-force. I’ve said that the life-force is the life one takes away from someone else’s “soul” in order to self-feel. Self-feeling is the feeling of worthiness. Let’s say someone insults you (and for argument sake, you got your feelings hurt). We’ll talk about symbolic dying latter. If that person who insulted you wins the argument, then that person has the luxury of self-feeling off of your humiliation. And the sociatital contract is that you must recognize the transaction under the assumption that he or she was owed life-force. There’s was an impasse somewhere and someone had to take on the job of losing. So then if you believe you had nothing to do for you to accrue your opponent’s life-force, why then isn’t being the better man (or women) a viable option? To simply walk away like these mature adults say they do. Or pretend to feel offended while in fact your just playing the part for the sake of moving on? Why can’t you simply walk away and bite the bullet?
The infinite hell
You can walk away. The incorrect answer always attributes walking away to emotional intelligence. The reasoning goes like this: “as long as you are physically alive and well, you’re fine to just walk away and let him or her deal with the problem. It’s their problem, not yours” says the psychologists. If you look into today’s self-help literature, recent trends urges people stay honest like in the book “Radical Honesty” by Brad Blanton. Meaning you don’t walk away if you genuinely feel insulted. Radical Honesty instructs readers to show true emotion and stay with the uncomfortable emotions. Otherwise, this argument rests on yielding to emotional outrage. This is where the rationalists come up with a scientific explanation of using emotional intelligence. While they got the science of the emotional brain right, it’s merely a quantitative symptom of the reactive brain. The science takes credit for the underground battle that genealogical dose at a societal level. The adult will try to investigate the motivation of the aggressor to go off on him. This is exactly what the aggressor wants. The aggressor, bully, or sadist savors on this type of hell. Hell of infinite regression
Everybody wants the same thing, nobody wants to want different things anymore
All successful self-feeling happen within the Modus Operandi. That’s why the default route of western civilization is the capitalist one. The only reason why someone would want socioeconomic status, is to stand objectively in a world in order to understand it. This understanding of the world is robust enough to assemble a modus operandi. These operations are reactive spiritual revenge but on a deep powerful level. But why would anyone want to do this? This is the same question rationalist ask when they learn about sociology. Their reasoning goes: “someone insulted you? Who cares… As long as you’re physically alive, your feelings shouldn’t matter…” Or worse, “you got your feelings hurt?? Oh boohoo, grow up.” What they fail to understand is that self-feeling is necessarily cowardly at its deepest… Look at my post on vitalism. Except that in an individualist society, being cowardly is not highly regarded as. So cowardly moves must assembled and regarded as worthy. That’s why someone who wants to be worthy of life must make his life harder on purpose. He wants a worthy enemy.
The only solution is the IDGAF solution.
Animalistic determinism is binary. In nature, the winner of an encounter would kill or seriously injure an intruder, competitor, or a predator. This is nature’s equivalent of remaining worthy. Remaining worthy indicates the organism is alive. An organism doesn’t get to experience loss as they’re already dead or eaten up by the time they get “depressed”. Primitive societies gain social intelligence but there is still a binary system. The bigger male gets the resources, food, and mates. There are no “if, ands, nor buts” and if someone challenges the alpha male, they must win by force. As societies progresses into hierarchies, then states, then to current civilization, this binary disintegrates and worthiness can be won by arguments. Socially intelligent mammals like humans and chimpanzee stop going after their natural enemies and create artificially complicated ones. Intelligent animals learn how to read each other and regard the future as well as the past. They must brace themselves in order to survive. They internalize their instincts and recognition are stored in their symbolic inner self. This is what is known as the materialization of the soul
What the State does with life-force and how commerce collects it
But what does this look like? It’s not that there’s an imaginary health bar at the top of each person’s head during a verbal argument. Or a conveyor belt between two people’s soul in a tug-o-war fighting for life-force. The life-force transaction is instantaneous. It’s like a one time payment. To the contenders, it is a fight to the death. Taking it back to Nietzsche’s hypothetical credit-debit system, when the creditor inducess pain onto the debtor, then the creditor can self-feel as the torture incurs. Once the creditor self-feels, the creditor has received the debtor’s payment. This movement of life-force is so intrinsic to us that it is responsible for our species ability to live peacefully in society. When these forces “spill out,” we experience contention and spiritual instability. With the Death of God, the state allocates the same amount of life-force at the start of life with no discrimination. Commerce works with altruism to manipulate dignity to hold on the this life-force. The more capitalistic a society is, the more communistic the life-force is felt. Everyone is worth something and no one should be treated inferior, because that’s a cowardly move.
It is in territorialized space that people give up their permission to be treated with respect and allowed for supperiors to insult them so they could “learn to be better men.” If someone insulted you and a person receives pleasure off your bad-hurt, he or she is called a sadist. But in territorialized space, where everyone acts like an adult, the insult would train the one who was insulted to become more resilient, in other words, there is no such thing as words that can hurt you, only ones that build you up. So the sadist became an altruist in territorialized space. This is the spirit of capitalism. This spirit is desired by everyone that wants to injure a person without them knowing. This is the insult at it’s finest. Being able to injure a person internally is the stencil of modern day revenge. But to do it in a way that the plane of which their enemy’s inner city, crumbles as time moves on. There’s a catastrophic calamity that puts the enemy into a depressive state where the initial conditions where set up by the sadist. The capitalist drives oscillate around sado-masochism. The relation between the sadist and the masochist become more creative as the life-force necessary moves between winner or loser, never communally shared.
The will-to-power drives life-force into souls necessarily, that’s why successful insults are always cowardly and unfair. In territorialized space, this dynamic is clear. There is no arguing back because the insult is treated as a lesson, as a way to build up an average person in the presence of a high status person. There’s a teacher-student dynamic. The active force is the capitalist drive. Capitalists make the world go around. Capitalist are responsible for the flow of resources to impressively hold 7 billion people. Capitalists are creative about their flows of money and capital. They are responsible for the prosperity more people than ever. The unequal distribution relay in their work ethic and their production. Very few capitalists sacrifice most if not all of their lives for the benefit of the average person. They are more altruistic than all the charitable forces and the welfare forces combined. But Deleuze realized that active forces can become reactive-becoming by reactive forces impeding active forces from continuing to produce. The unequal production of flows of the capitalist to the average population is also their blindspot. As the capitalist work to advance civilization to a level no one has ever seen before, the average person who doesn’t even match their work ethic are capable to bring it down. Despite having themselves benefited by the capitalist for generations, the average person will overthrow and claim credit for all the work the capitalist sacrificed for. This is how history has always unfolded. Unfairness beats unfairness. For now the capitalist can love altruistically, meaning all the sadists who recieve pleasure from watching the average person with envy losses this ability to self-feel in territorialized space. Capitalism builds up their workers, civilians, and enemies to their level. Only those with the will to power can tug on the plane, just give it a little nudge to induce rage onto a person. With enough codified feedback loops, socioeconomic status, wit, and whim, the sadist can conduct an inception to just about anyone he or she wants.
This memory that the loser has of himself is informed by the collective negative feedback loops society codified starting from a homeostasis at the beginning of humankind
Everything feedback loops back to the present. Pretending your feelings are not hurt will just upgrade the system to take that into account. It ruins it for everyone else once enough people contribute to the feedback loop. The way people can genuinely self-feel in this complected chess game of life is to use a buffer strategy. An example would be when someone clings to an ideology. There, you can join a winning group and the combined forces of the group can win life-force from another groups’ souls. A political group, a religion, an institution, an ideology, or culture are buffers. A business is not a buffer because businesses and commerce produces physical currency. People are looking to materialize their souls. This roundabout way did not appear intentionally. This is the consequences of negative feedback loop from the weak, those who protect themselves against the wolves. Those who study the reactive brain. Those who hoard the life-force to themselves and poison the entire well. Those with ressentiment.
Let’s say someone identify with an ideology because they want to be on the winning side where they can catch their opponents in a stupid moment. They want a moment where they can humiliate their opponent losing face and self-feel off of their humiliation. As mentioned before, this humiliation can serve for the loser as a learning opportunity. Sadists do not want this transaction to serve as a learning opportunity. The sadists in the community or group want to conduct an inception. Like mentioned in one of my previous posts, an inception is where a memory is formed in the mind of the loser in that he is branded a loser, stupid, or an idiot. Society’s coded contractual agreement has it that the loser recognizes himself inside the mind of the sadist. The sadist agrees to recognize the loser inside of him. The sadist continuously humiliates his opponent through pseudo-telekinetic torture and perpetually self-feels. This memory that the loser has of himself is informed by the collective negative feedback loops society codified starting from a homeostasis at the beginning of humankind. The loser perpetually losses life-force because he is locked into an inception that the sadist implanted in him. Recognition is defined as, “you bear[ing] obligations to treat her in a certain way, that is, you recognize a specific normative status of the other person” As mentioned in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. But if the loser becomes a masochist meaning that he genuinely self-deprecates, then the sadist is revealed too much of a coward and no life-force transfers. At its core, the conflict is proper. The conflict is fair in that it is written contractually that the humiliation is welcomed as form of learning experience. The sadist would rather have a worthy opponent in that the opponent is mentally stable and inept so that things naturally unfold. A play where the opponent is willing to self-deprecate indicates the person is mentally unsuited for an inception. So the sadist must build his opponent up before conducting an inception. This is where capitalistic altruism is born. The true capitalist love is building a person mentally well enough for him to torture himself to the fullest.
Stephen Jenkinson is a modern day sage for the youth. He works in palliative care counselling the elderly on dying in their last few moments of life left. The profession of preparing old people to die has levels of condescension to it. (So you mean to tell me that the undying can give advice to the dying on how to die…?) Yet counselors like Jenkinson are still sought after by many dying people. Jenkinson gripes about having people pedestalize him as if he’s an authority figure of dying. He refuses titles, awards, and accolades and aggressively denies being a modern day spiritual guru. Even though he counseled more than 1500 of people who have died, he doesn’t sugar coat it. He still believes death is the all terrible, all frightening horror it’s supposed to be. Just imagine all your worst fears of death and have it increased by a thousand! He isn’t vocal on politics but the very few he does voice out are political inquiries related to The Death Trade. During an interview at LondonReal, Brain, the host asked him about the consequences of living in a culture that denies death and are death-phobic. Jenkinson responds that the proper way to die in a death-phobic culture is a death where one is killed. In other words, one dies when one feels ready for it. My thesis is that modern day dying (and the legacy from which we got the modern medical system for the dying) fuels this sickness of preparing to grow up into adulthood is a resentment of being alive. This insidious feedback loop instills in youth-culture a disparate paranoia for having to live out their childhoods on time, making their entire growing process a longing for their missing childhood. This longing then keeps moving on into not having their toddler years lived properly, then their tween years missing, then their teenage years, their late teens, early adult, mid adult and so on. The unquestioning virtue of more life gave this generation a disastrous run for catching up to their lives not yet reached.
Somewhere, someone robbed us of our opportunity to live freely. But what we really lost is the ability to give honor to our enemies. This is the consequences of more life, more experience.
One of Jenkinson’s big assertion is that we are all orphans. On the London Real podcast, he states that westerners have no real heritage. It is all left over there. Westerners are running away from something in the same way ancestors who crossed the atlantic ocean to get here were also running away. We stare back at them through stories, picture frames, or genealogy relics from a different era.
The Death Gaze
After the all funerals we feel obliged to attend, we are advised to mourn, grieve, and do whatever we have to do move on. “Leave the dead with the dead” as there’s work to be done on this earth. This advice reflects the unchallenged notion of life, more life, more experience, more success in life is always better. But in the spiritual realm, it betrays our heritage. When it comes our turn to die, as we lie down at our deathbeds with our children and family members looking down at us, we realize that in between those smiles, tears, and gazes, just as we were in that same position of looking down at those who were dying, now that it is our turn one realizes how easy it was to move on and forget him. Just as we were advised to move on, forgive, forget and live our lives, it stares at us in the face and there’s nothing we can do but push up daisies from the ground 6 feet above us. Give it 3 or 4 generations, and we too will join this death gaze of being a mere photo sitting on the ledge to be used as memory for all the others to see. This is why we are truly afraid to die. Our success, our power, our legacy, our wealth are what will remain after we die. In the modern era, we die even before our physical death. When all these projects we set for ourselves fail, we take a hit to the soul. As we age, the glory of youth and endurance, and strong minded fades away more and more.
Our life momentum is losing inertia. It’s forward focused. Not in the time shooting in one direction like an arrow. But retroactively in an aggregate-generational direction. If we think about what the word “intergenerational” means, we immediately think about the conflict. We think about the conflict between boomers, millennials, and newer generations to come. The aggregate-generation would be the generation of a boomer if he or she were to be born in 1884 instead of 1984. Would live dramatically different lives? What would the equivalent of generation z would be in the 1880’s? There are negative and positives forces that move up and down within the aggregate-generation. The very top is where the life-force momentum begins. Which would be the the the latest generation alive, baby boomers. To begin at the last few moments of life is most important because “how you die, is the next generation’s teacher” (Jenkinson, 365). One can only imagine the experience of living the very last moments of life. Some say the fears death is irrational, but to me, it is the last unknown. Jenkins points in his book Die Wise that most of the elderly in critical condition are sedated and given antidepressant (Jenkinson 184). What do you think happen to those who see grandpa or grandma in this condition? Imagine those in assisted living realizing that they are next, “this will be me.” Nobody wants to be on the borderline of life and death with tubes sticking out of their orifices and family and friends watching them as they lie there. Why not just get it over with? Here is where we take this life-force one step down the intergenerational ladder. What would those who retired in their 60’s or early 70’s think of those in assisted living. Nobody wants to be abandoned by their own child put into an assisted living facility by their 80’s, and having a nurse attend to their basic needs. Their grown child would rather have their parents in a facility somewhere only to come by on Thanksgiving for a week. Possibly a guilt felt though families where the parent feels an obligation to get out of the way and not move in with their child out of the respect of giving their children a chance to live a “full life.”
The Hourglass: Gentrification of the Life-force
From taking an anecdotal look at history, retirement used to be the dream life. The American Dream benefited those 20 years in between the working family man and assisted living. The “greatest generation” who came out of two wars just wanted to retire for a good 20 years. The next step down the ladder was the generation who enjoyed the American dream in the 1950’s: The Working family man. Everybody wanted to be the stable worker in the 1960’s and 70’s. The America of back then experienced liberation, counterculture, hippies in the greatest country in the history of the world. The American Dream started to take form. But Jump down another ladder, everybody wanted to be the hip yuppie working on wall street in the 1980’s. Look at what is happening? Flip the hourglass and realize that as time progresses forward, the life-force (life worth living) is retrograding to the bottom. As the life-force trickles down the intergenerational timescale, the aggregate-generational timescale experiences a negative feedback loop with the life-force gentrifying itself to those experiencing life. The stable hardworking man who moves to the suburbs to settle down with a wife and kids lost it’s flair during yuppie culture, the “American Dream” of retiring lost it’s flair during the technological revolution.
This is where my generation, the late millennial, born in the digital revolution, has the gift 20/20 hindsight vision
Jump down another step and people can feel the acceleration weighing down on them. Living in the 1990’s was the last greatest time bearable enough to walk through deterritorialized space in major cities. Being in your 30’s meant floating around not really knowing where to go but still contributing to one’s family and the community while one find oneself. One can take a few breaks here and there and have manageable anxieties about the future. One has ability to move around, experiment, try out things, and move to the outskirts of the city if things didn’t work out the way one thought. With the help and support of friends, it was a pleasurable time lost in nostalgia. But the thought of choosing one stable path was suspicious to the 30 year old. Looking forward to your 40’s had its upsides like money, stability, and freedom. But no 30 year old man was looking forward to aging during the rise of smartphone in the digital age.
20’s are the new 20’s
This is where my generation, the late millennial, born in the digital revolution, has the gift 20/20 hindsight vision. Being in your 20’s will be the best years of your life. The effects of living in today’s era is experiencing the madness of leaving your 20’s. Fewer and fewer people want to leave their 20’s even to start a family. More celebrities are in their 20’s. Careers are chosen from people in their 20’s. Parents are making their child go to dance, boxing, hiking, singing, learn an instrument, learn fashion, go on dates, have fun even before they turn 20. There’s a sickness being felt, a guilt somewhere. People are feeling the effects of institutions taking the joy out of simply existing. One can not even stand and not have their dignity insulted for “being lazy.” There can’t be a break anymore. Having gaps in your resumes will deter employers from hiring you. There must be movement somewhere. We are feeling the effects of accelerationism. Even today, teenagers at 15 years old are becoming celebrities though their smartphones from apps like Instagram, Snapchat, and Tik Tok. You’d think we need to wait another generation for this to happen but there doesn’t need to be a 15-20 year wait to go down the intergenerational ladder anymore. As I write this, Lil Tecca, a 16 year old rapper from New York got signed by Republic Labeled after a break out single “Ransom” that hit number 4 in the Billboards Hot 100 (Fu). More and more young people are getting responsibility. A 30 year old would represents everything that a 20 year old doesn’t want to be.
The Rise of the Black-pill
A teen can’t have real responsibility right? WIth technology and the help of their parents, teens and even tweens becoming famous personalities through their smartphones. Undergrad college is the new University experience of the 90’s. Kids can experience stardom that an established songwriter in the 1950’s could only dream of. Pretty soon, it will be high school that will be the last greatest time to be alive. The life-force is being pushed to the front-end not in a life affirming way, but a running away from the responsibilities of having to grow up. If you’ve read my post on vitalism, a necessary majority must be present at the bottom to sustain an exponential rise of a shrinking minority. This insidious feedback loop has one conclusion to those unfortunate enough to be a majority.
The Rise of the Pre-parent
Molecular technology will be what moves the universal novelty out of humans as a species entirely. We will be what atoms and molecules are to living bodies. With genetic splicing technologies, pre-parents can pick the attributes they want for their children. No doubt it will be through an app, where parents can have their babies custom made. Even before an infant is born, they will have their body shape, personalities, gender, fitness, and every attribute selected for them through the touch of a screen. I think of a Black Mirror scenario where a cartoonish toddler programed into a smartphone will be the sensation of the world. The toddler will have cute freckles, playful personality, colorful clothes chosen for them and a funny voice to be auditioned in America’s favorite toddler. Once technology catches on, the toddlers will gain sentience of their own. Then it will be time for the toddler’s data to be transduced into genetic information. This will be the new way of being born. Injected with information, outside the uterus, in an artificial womb created from a 3D printer. Being a toddler will be the last great time they’d have.
I can’t imagine how things will turn out if an entire cyber-community of data realized that “being born” will mean taking on responsibility and suffering. Wouldn’t they try to rebel as teenager rebel from their parents?
Jenkinson, Stephen. Die Wise: A Manifesto for Sanity and Soul. North Atlantic Books, 2015. Print