Mad Black Freud (2018-2020 blog backup)

Wordpress is going to delete the old blog, so here is me saving it. Starting with the newest articles, ending with the oldest.

Psychological Egoism is dead, long live Psychological Egoism!

Picture from space.com article, “Where Do Black Holes Lead?”

“Falling through an event horizon is literally passing beyond the veil — once someone falls past it, nobody could ever send a message back,” he said. “They’d be ripped to pieces by the enormous gravity, so I doubt anyone falling through would get anywhere.”

Professor Richard Massey, Royal Society research fellow at the Institute for Computational Cosmology at Durham University

{Part 1}-{Violence}{Good}

Psychological Egoism posits that all actions taken by human beings are done in their own self-interest, which means there is no escaping self-interest. Self-interest is posited as some kind of inevitability, but then what does self-interest even mean? In this case, being must be self-interest. Why then even talk about self-interest, why not then talk about being? Self-interest is further seeming like a lost cause.

Self-interest posits an inability to act and do in a manner which is outside of the self. This then understandably leads to a lot of errors in calculation, since impersonal forces tend to be ignored. Thus, psychological egoists or self-interest theorists turn into navel gazers, and forget the outside world exists. This however, dirempts self-interest and being in a way which no longer makes self-interest the ground of being. If one doesn’t escape their self-interest, and impersonal forces causes one to act rather than one’s will, then self-interest must be understood as outside of the self.

Institutions have a self-interest which is outside of any one of the creators, but an institution posits something which is created by humanity. The institution has both ideals and impersonal processes which affect the self, but the institution was created by humanity. This human birthed force means that the world is strewn with Frankenstein forces which are not equal to any single human life, but rather birthed out of self-interest!

Self-interest then is the human which escapes life itself, Frankenstein’s Monster is born in the institution! The creation is alive, but it is not any one person. The person becomes drawn into The Monster’s arm, the institution carries the ghost of the human will, and is the articulated demand in the world. We are carried and pushed by forces which seem like they could be equal to a single person like Jeff Bezos or Adolph Hitler or Donald Trump, but in fact we are contending with Frankenstein Monsters created from the human articulation, humans demands become the inhuman.

The human and the inhuman together create self-interest, and that is why self-interest is the ground of being. Self-interest is not the only substance in the world, it is not the only thing, but it is the key substance of creation and its consequences. Self-interest in order to be thought of at all must be thought of as the ground of being, of the will being articulated and coming together in the world in institutions outside of any one organic life form.

Only when The Monster is visible can it be rationally understood. Self-interest is the living dead institutionalized: the result of human efforts which ensnare humans in the creations of others and themselves. This ensnaring into the symbolic is radically at war with itself, the various snares competing and forming cartels as the violence of history moves forward, consuming and disintegrating us.

What then, is the good?

{Part 2}-{Violence}{Good}

The Good can be known as an ideal with its own logic, but the logic is once again, subject to self-interest. In “The Ego and Its Hyperstate” (Zero Books 2021) I detail the dialectical progression and creation of the interpersonal and the good in the framework of self-interest. The good is known by a tripartite system of Novices, Craftsman, and Leaders of the Good Cause, who contend to create force in the world for the good and to define what the good cause is (Part 2, Section B). They are linked through language, or through symbolic knowledge of the good. Interpersonal and Communal Life are negotiated through simple agreements, identities which reflect a developed form of agreement, and orders which negotiate both agreement and identity (Part 2, Section C).

To know self-interest is to begin to look at the Absolute Hyperstate (Part 2, Section D). I have laid the groundwork in the text to begin to know the inhuman and human forces of self-interest, to navigate both Frankenstein’s Monsters and The Good. This doesn’t make me an expert on the causes themselves, which have leaders and people who know what they are doing relating to various good causes, but I hope that through the text it may elucidate to my very clever, and very attractive readership the gravitational forces that they have to navigate.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 2 Comments December 11, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"Psychological Egoism is dead, long live Psychological Egoism!"

The Jewish Dog

Spot was a good boy, now he may not have been the best boy, but he was an okay boy. Of the kinds of boys there are, he wasn’t the best, or the worst.

So as I was saying, Spot goes to the park, and a squirrel calls him a kike. Do you not believe me? Well who the hell are you! So as I was saying, Spot went to the park and a squirrel called him a kike. Ugly word, you don’t hear it very often because it has a lot of spikey “kay” consonants. Even the racists don’t say it often, it’s aesthetically not a good word while also not standing for something good. It falls way down the list of things racist say for that reason.

“KuKuhKuhKuh,” no good. Ugly.

This was not a good moment for Spot, not being the best boy, for if he was the best boy, he would have had something prepared in this situation which was dignified or some other bullshit like that. But he wasn’t the worst boy, although in this situation you’d have the free pass to bite him or something.

Squirrel calls you a kike, you can bite the squirrel, probably still not the worst boy.

Before Spot could get his head around what happened, the squirrel, being a squirrel, ran right up a tree. Spot didn’t really know what to do be he had some sort of idea that he was mad.

Spot, being not just Jewish but a dog, ran to the tree and starting barking at it, as dogs tend to do. Spot barked at that tree for hours and hours but the squirrel never came out of the tree! What does Spot do? Well being a dog he takes a piss right on the tree. As he’s pissing on the tree the squirrel sticks his head out, “hey, what the fuck are you doing, stop pissing on my tree! You disgusting mongrel, you filthy canine!”

Spot really lets the squirrel have it with the barking, but in an uncharacteristic mood, Spot decides, being an okay boy, to try to make some peace.

“Well you know what,” said Spot, “I don’t appreciate the Anti-Semitism.” “What the hell are you talking about?” asked the squirrel. “Well here I am minding my business, and you call me a Kike,” Spot said. “What?” The squirrel looked visibly confused, and he was getting noticably frustrated.

“You crazy mutt, get the hell out of here, and how would I even know you’re Jewish?”

Spot, confused, realized this was true. He was adopted by an old Jewish woman, and he rarely spoke about his religion to the other dogs at the park, since he liked to keep the conversation light with them, he didn’t want to broach any existential questions. At this point, Spot wandered off, tired, and wondering if he was losing it.

The squirrel looks puzzled, takes out an acorn and says before he starts chewing on it, “stupid fucking dog.” KuhKuhKuhKukrunchKuhKuhKuh

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment December 7, 2020 2 MinutesEdit"The Jewish Dog"

Hyper-Oedipus

Part 1)-{Hyper-Oedipal Sexual Desire} Desire As Alien Planets, “New World Order” Desire

One’s mother is not the set of all which is {mother}. The mother does in a sense, have an Actuality of motherhood within the world for the child in his or her Actual mother, but {mother} being a linguistic item, means that it is attached to other possible linguistic items. {Woman}, most obviously, {caring} possibly, {punishing} possibly, and so on.

In other words, being with {woman} which may include other things attached to {mother}, and there is clear overlap in the two which is not a result of simple consciousness. A mother is a woman, a woman which is desired overlaps with {woman} who is part of {mother}. Woman becomes the hyper-oedipal in that a mother in the sense that she can not escape the maternal signifiers as well as an other’s desire for her as {woman} which becomes tangled with what is {mother}, and {man} with {father}, or perhaps {daddy}.

One wants closeness with both their mother and their partner, {closeness} is an overlap. Enough linguistic overlap and the water gets Oedipal, but it is really Hyper-Oedipal. The Actual mother does not become the object of desire, but rather the object of desire is always more elusive than that.

First there is the symbolic order which the baby is entered into (Symbolic S), then there is a desire for unity with the symbolic order in some manner which includes linguistic knowledge of what the world is made of (I), then the Real (R) of the world which is unperceived and escapes the modes of the rule of the Symbolic as well as the desire of the Imaginary. They all become what eventually is the end result of rational unity SI/R.

Yes SI/R! No SI/R!

This is what we think of unities which we both create and which are presented to us, Yes SI/R and No SI/R, validating and invalidating rational unities which are presented to us.. Here we see in our sexual partner hyperdaddy and hypermommy, and the creation of the new order which can sustain them.

Hypothetically there can be a distaste of the {mother} signifier like there is with Gilles Deleuze or a resentment of its large presence within the mind for Guattari, which can lead to an attraction to {woman} hypothetically anti- the maternal signifiers, but only their analysts would know which signifiers of desire the anti-oedipus theorists really, and there is no other way to put it, got their rocks off to. Same goes for those attracted to {man} or {men} and the signifiers {man} is attached to, which is where we get Sigmund-Freud-if-he-came-back meme highlight of the {daddy} signifier.

Part 2)-Hyper-Oedipal Sexual Desire {Desire As Alien Planets, New World Order Desire}

Who wants to rule the world? Everyone, but it depends on which world we’re talking about. People desire control of their {world} which is a rational unity of SI/R.

It is obvious that shifting consciousness is not enough, as there is already ego in the world in the form of positive demand (explained more in The Ego And Its Hyperstate Part 1, Chapter 3, but you can understand here briefly as rational unities already created within the world). Ergo, scinece fiction allows one to create a world where the institutional, material ego is radically different, and thus a change in consciousness is not a simple matter of buddhist practice, but of national spirit, an alien nationality with new histories and institutions.

This is used for sex and politics: yes SI/R!

Due to this, people aren’t necessarily outcasted to create the new, but rather by creating worlds, the new is already made available from previous orders. Re-ordering the world to suit sex and politics, a New World Order Desire. If you have ever been to a sort of psychedelic, avante-garde style art show that tries to create an experience, this is a snack-miniature version of science fiction. You leave such worlds rather quickly, it isn’t serving your sexual interest or political ambitions, but rather is presenting you with {fun}, which is nice but a fleeting sort of fulfillment thing, not the bottom of the food pyramid/Malsow Hierarchy…you know, the building blocks. But what if such institutions were available permanently? They already are.

The ego, which is present in the conscious, is already present in the world, but it is a combinatory force of civilization. It is constantly being re-asserted when orders which have been created already serve sex and politics, or denied when existing orders do not serve sex and political ambition.

We can make an alien planet of the world, but the crafty psychoanalyst wouldn’t do this willy nilly: it knows what you desire most: that’s right, signifiers! (ok, specific signifying chains and combinations it is more complicated than a single signifier).

When one says Yes SI/R in their new alien planet which can be established interpersonally/materially/sexually/politically and so on, they escape the trap of the new ager who tells one to focus their conscious thoughts so that they become reality, because that is only a certain reality of conscious thoughts. Instead, Being becomes a re-ordering, an alien invention, one which will die or be re-asserted by people after them.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment November 26, 2020 4 MinutesEdit"Hyper-Oedipus"

Dialectical Egoism Core Concept: Force In The World

The fact of something being unknown is not the singular essential quality to the force of the thing. What is unarticulated is not in the unconscious (internal realm, per Jung) nor what is not known in the world (external realm, per Jung), but rather what is rationally present within the object.

Force is present despite consciousness’ second reflection upon it, and because force is not a simple matter of consciousness and unconsciousness of the thing, the simple speaking within analysis is not the act to end all acts. However, the second reflection upon the force can give it further definition such as in psychoanalysis, and thus create positive spoken (articulated) content out of negative unspoken (unarticulated) content, creating an adjustment in the actual forces in the world, but this is different than the conscious and the unconscious in that it takes into account essential rational forces within the object.

What is unarticulated we can know as “Will,” or negative force, and what is articulated we can know as “Demand,” or positive force.

In other words, things contain rationally knowable forces within them despite their appearance and disappearance from consciousness in the mode of a time-transcendental being rather than a single moment of time. However, through a single moment of time, forces can be articulated and become actual within the world in a new way which differs from its identity within objects or institutions in the world. Thus, becoming the opposite of time-transcendental: historical-actual.

What this Hegelian perspective adds to the psychoanalytic notion of the unconscious and the conscious are the properties of being which are not within a specific moment of time, but none the less are rationally present within consciousness.

For instance, maybe one hopes to be promoted at work. Whether one knows or does not know, or half knows that this will give them more control of their work environment, it is not essential. What is essential is the presence of control within the work environment when one is promoted, this is what I call “Pure Unconscious Rational Force” in the latter chapters of “The Ego And Its Hyperstate: The Dialectical Dream Theory Of Self-Interest.”

Self-Interest being the ground of being points to the changing of the forces in the world, psychically, and materially. It escapes the idealism of Jung, and brings into light the dreams within reality.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment November 19, 2020 2 MinutesEdit"Dialectical Egoism Core Concept: Force In The World"

The Genius of the Junkie Brain

Sherlock Holmes sniffs his client’s cigarette smoke while hearing of the hound of the Baskervilles. (2015, decolorized)

In the new “Sherlock” television version of “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” Sherlock Holmes demonstrates his cold calculating ability to deduce exact moments in time despite withdrawing from nicotine, demonstrating to the affable Doctor Watson that his fiendishness has no negative effect on his ability to do his work. But the work itself is fiendishness, and that is the topic which is glanced over but none-the-less at the heart of the appeal of a character like Sherlock Holmes.

We will now change gears and move into the realm of philosophy and psychology. There is a dialectical unity possible between the initial impulsive movement of the addictive impulse and reason, but in fact reason has the potential to become spirit through the addictive impulse rather than simply substance. Substantive thinking, which is to say logic which is accurate and refined, may in fact not lead the thinker to a form of being which is satisfactory to them. The oceanic feeling may evade the genius for their entire life, and this is due to the inability to sublate the initial addictive impulse which is seen as low, childlike, and antithetical to good thought.

The appeal of a thinker such as Nick Land, who talks of high tech racism, is that there is an addictive nature to the racist impulse, thus while sober academics struggle to garner an audience, Nick Land finds himself easily able to find readers even in people who violently disagree with his racist conclusions. This is due to the sublation of a true addictive impulse, simple hatred or contempt of the other.

In a similar vein, Sigmund Freud finds readers and amused onlookers in his reading of civilization as the sublimated outcome of the sexual drive and the destructive instincts. This is not due to Freud being an addict, but rather due to Freud’s ability to think with the addictive part of the brain.

That initial reason for being, the initial push that gets us interested in anything, must be carried to the acting out of the thing or else the thing is a mere simulacrum of its initial desire, mocking its original purpose.

If one feels a fiendish attraction and dreams of being in a relationship and talks of nothing but responsibility, then what was the purpose in the first place? Love is a fiend, not a tax collector. To reduce love to its proper form in marriage or property relations is to lose the initial reason for being which the formal relationship exists.

In the same vein, if one is embarking on a career, to reduce that work to simple duty removes the initial dopaminergic mechanism which makes the career worth pursuing. If you are forced into a certain line of work due to capitalism for one reason or another, this does not apply, but if you have a wide range of options for employment and one option sticks out as more appealing than the others for what seems like an illogical reason, that is to say, sticks out via a phantasmagoric notion, this is not a bad thing. This is not simply the imaginary waiting to fail, but a line which can lead you down the path to a satiated being, in other words:

“…satisfaction of the whole chap”

The Ego And His Own

To follow the strings of one’s addictive impulses is not so simple however. To attach to the addictive modes of functioning, which is to say simple drug addiction, does not provide the symbolic support necessary to create a circuit which is sustaining without the drug support. The drug support emerges as a booster for symbolic functions which are not satisfactory in themselves; that is to say, ways of living which just aren’t good enough.

To be a happy sober fiend, that is the real thing. It is possible. This does not mean you have to swear off drugs, this is not a general pitch for sobriety, but rather the expression of tuning your reason to follow the addictive impulses and creating a symbolic structure which does justice to your dopamine release system.

Can you have a crumb of dopamine? Yes you may.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment October 30, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"The Genius of the Junkie Brain"

Subway Guy Gave Me Two Cookies Instead Of One: A Mind-Bending Journey Into The Dark Heart Of Our Egoist Core

Me being given two cookies instead of one signals the corruption that lies at the heart of man and the nothingness of law within any given situation. The enlightenment has failed, western civilization has ended, the dinosaurs are coming back to kill and fuck us all in alliance with some A.I. terminators.

Ok maybe I am being a bit dramatic. Terminator raptors would be pretty cool though.

The cookie scenario happened despite me only half-paying attention to the sandwich artist. I even felt a little bad that I wasn’t trying to make small talk. I was listening to Ready Player One and fetishizing the possibility of Zizek’s AR reality coming to life. This is something critical theory and common sense wouldn’t like, but I feel brings in the essences of the universe into my grasp very cleanly.

As I was fantasizing about flying across the ocean with ease, symbolic order intact while adjusting to an entirely different culture without a second thought assisted by augmented reality, the guy was clearly speaking to me. I couldn’t tell if I wasn’t listening, or if he just didn’t enunciate clearly. Many times our day to day workers are smart people just crushed by the capitalist machine, but sometimes they are fucking idiots. This man was neither, but he seemed to garble his words,, he was a bit overweight and I wonder if his fleshy face contributed to it or if it was something else. Plenty of larger people enunciate better than I do, so perhaps it’s the sandwich artist grind which inspires an intercommunication style which talks to one’s self.

Then suddenly, it came on.

“The Greatest Love Of All,” by Whitney Houston.

“Whitney Houston,” I tell the cashier. “I wasn’t expecting Whitney Houston at Subway.”

He began to state that he doesn’t pick the songs, clearly not understanding that in fact, I like this Whitney Houston song. The fact of the matter is, I like Whitney Houston. She seemed to care about an ideal love, which in a famous woman I assume signals a deep emotional issue, which I find very endearing. Rather than stepping on the world which she clearly could, being the diva that she was, she sang, “I believe the children are our future.”

Inspiring. After I made it clear I liked the song, the man at Subway could tell I was desirous of his environment. I enjoyed the song choice, and he, being the Subway rep, could share in my delight.

He was told to only give out one cookie with a meal, but he clearly picked up two, and put both cookies in the bag. Not only that, when I dropped my wallet after he filled it up, as he could tell I was really engaging with him if only half-listening, or more likely, because I was half-listening, providing the lack which is key to desire, he picked up my wallet with seeming reverence when I dropped it, in a very friendly manner. It wasn’t a slavish manner, but the manner of a man who decided he and another were in a union, a union against the symbolic order.

And yet, the symbolic order between the two were present, retailer and customer. He gives me something which isn’t his but that he has immediate administrative control over, and continues our conversation which I only half-hear and he only half-speaks

My cognitive abilities were lowered due to half-attention, but I was able to gain more and have better interpersonal relationships.

Perhaps the best professional move for myself is lobotomy, maybe it would recreate and expand this highly successful result which I achieved here today.

Maybe I’ll just wait until Neuralink so I can get some high tech lobotomy action. Clicking Tesla rockets crash landing in my head, cutting off nerve endings, increasing my interpersonal communication skills.

We’ll see!

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 1 Comment October 10, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"Subway Guy Gave Me Two Cookies Instead Of One: A Mind-Bending Journey Into The Dark Heart Of Our Egoist Core"

America Is Beyond Redemption: A Blackpill Case For Exit

From the standpoint of Reza Negastrani’s theory of intelligence as a historical process, one can’t help but to notice a distinctly downward trend in the US. I don’t believe it is reversible.

America’s spirit is distinctly anti-rational, and its political champions are either foolish rhetoric pushers, or they demand changes which are not just stifled by America’s law, but by the American people’s insistence on aesthetic spectacle as the ground of change. By my estimation, America is cancelled. I am not predicting the collapse of the USA’s economic system, its Anarcho-Dunning-Keugerism will continue to be a centerpiece within global capitalism, but one who wishes to not have themselves and their offspring pulled into a void of anti-rationality may want to leave the country entirely.

If we look at America the state, we can see that America has overcome itself, and has become interested only in its own degradation. Both the fascist right and liberal left pitch various destructions of the ideal of individual freedom. The American Idea was the articulation of the enlightenment ideology, an escape from the tyranny of monarchy, which brings to men the reduction of their freedom. The experiment, I am glad to say, has been a resounding success in democratic processes, and has inspired the democratization of many countries around the world.

Wonderful, now let’s leave this burnt out engine of freedom.

In what sense is America beyond redemption? Simply, there is no national spirit which is not the cancelling of the idea of human freedom itself through right.

American National Identity Is Permanently Dead

I am grateful for Donald Trump’s emergence and display of the ideal form of right wing American nationalism as cruel and stupid. Not much time has to be wasted here. The American liberal left, by design, can not have a single such champion. However, it is glaringly obvious as one tries to search for any sort of cohesive program being actualized which eliminates poverty and provides housing, and economic justice for its disenfranchised people, that no such program will ever emerge.

Capital makes good friends with the irrational demands of the supposed radical American left, who are all to happy to push forward cryptic nonsensicalisms to be interpreted by Democrats in power and translated into reforms which paint the smile wider on human face of capital.

American history has taken a distinct line of flight towards freedom through law and ideal, and that line of flight is over.

What Plato identifies as the Good is the line in its [intelligence’s] continuity, the continuous line that simultaneously binds different aspects of reality and the life of intelligence and renders them intelligible as a whole. The interplay of peras and aperion, the limited and the unlimited, is on full display in this continuity. The former makes intelligible the abyss of reality, bringing new sectors of it into focus by introducing measures, and thus enabling intelligence to answer the question of what ought to be thought and done. The latter, meanwhile, expands the horizon of what can be made intelligible. And finally, the interplay of both is what dissolves any manifest totality that lays claim to reality, thereby enabling intelligence to explore what can be thought and done.

Reza Negastrani, “Intelligence and Spirit”

The negation of American law is now the highest justice, and in this case, America has cancelled itself. When taking upon the significance of COVID, Trump, race riots, the definite arc is an impossible overcoming of itself. All lights at the end of the tunnel here are merely a long series of oncoming trains.

What ought to be done for the individual? Simple: leave the county.

If money is an issue, you have too many ties to the land, or now is not a good time for you, or you simply want to grill, I can understand why this blackpill is simply not for you…yet.

Countries whose power was not built upon the primordial crime of the efficiency of slavery have in Volkgeist, the ability to overcome the issues of the day. America is different. There is no gap between America and the issue of racial identity contra the state or contra its people, there is only the conclusion of being contra America itself (the left) or bolstering Dunning-Kreuger fascism.

As a leftist, and an Egoist, I say exit. Find somewhere where human freedom can still be worked out via the geist, or live in a manner forcefully disconnected from the world due to one’s own highest involvement being able to only be dialectically corrected via argumentation with irrational liberalism, or Dunning-Kreuger fascism.

Take the blackpill, leave.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment June 14, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"America Is Beyond Redemption: A Blackpill Case For Exit"

The Violent Inevitability

What is in the eyes of Detective Pikachu here? Perhaps he is remembering the man whose life he watched drain from his eyes after putting 9 rounds into his abdomen and chest, 9 rounds he decided to shoot off after the man said to him something that only Detective Pikachu could hear.

Perhaps our hero didn’t like that, and he knew there would be no witnesses. So he killed him in cold blood. Perhaps Detective Pikachu liked that. Perhaps he thinks of it when he orgasms.

It is clear that Detective Pikachu is a disgusting creature.

Should we cut his funding?

Sure, make Detective Pikachu sweat a little bit. But will they take away his job? Of course not, not unless he gets caught. Of course, Detective Pikachu never gets caught. He will never choke out a man on camera. He’s smart about it. His Japanese parents raised him to be cunning, and his sharp mind and quick thinking defends itself with violent fury, and in that defense of itself, it has some room to spare. So Detective Pikachu dabbles in debauchery, his body shakes with pleasure as he moves into sadism as he dabbles in assault and murder.

Some days Detective Pikachu is burnt out, and the murder no longer carries with it pleasure, but it is the expression of a tired rage.

Lord help you if you are Chinese. God save you if you are black. Pikachu is a notorious racist.

Pikachu has benefits.

Pikachu has healthcare.

Pikachu has a retirement plan.

And he didn’t like being placed at schools anyway, nothing to do, no one worth killing.

Nothing will change, except maybe now more than ever, Pikachu is hated. He is not hated for what he has been seen doing, but he is hated for the possibility of him having done it. And he has done it. And he has liked it. And he has hated it. Pikachu either drinks or is sober. Pikachu is a force on his own.

Detective Pikachu is an inevitability.

Detective Pikachu is eternal.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment June 3, 2020 1 MinuteEdit"The Violent Inevitability"

The American Southwest Philosophy Geistpatch And John David Ebert’s Pissing On The Grave Of His Ex

This is biting off a bit more than I can chew, since John David Ebert (JDE) is a good speaker and knowledgable philosophy scholar who clearly has a vindictive streak, but oh well. I have no intention of “diagnosing” JDE and I don’t have the information/will/or even proof there is any mental issue with JDE. I also am not trying to “cancel culture” JDE. Instead, I want to address the social conditions which give rise to such rants, so the people who are exposed to these rants can understand them a bit better.

After promoting the art of his now passed away girlfriend Mary Church, JDE discovered that he had been cheated on quite a bit. Since then, he has written many posts calling her a “whore,” with people telling him to stop, and other alt-right posters egging him on. I am only writing this post because after then seeing his video discussing his calling her a whore, I recognized this as the calm-toned geist of the American Southwest right-wing philosophy patch.

My experience with New Mexico libertarianism involving Mr. and Mrs. Dr. Justin Murphy, Dr. Geoffrey Miller, and Dr. Diana Fleischman, left me with the knowledge that there is something strange happening in the Southwest. There is a serious, serious de facto think tank going on which aims to promote alternative ideas from viewpoints which are typically right wing which we can understand as the Southwest Right Wing philosophy geist.*

After hearing more people who are harder working and just as smart if not smarter than me discuss the intricacies of futurist and right wing political ideas, which it would be extraordinarily rude of me to write about after being let into someone’s home besides the general description of them being right wing and futurist, I was left at times amazed and at times shaken (what a leftie signifier!) by the feeling that I had stepped into an alternative universe.

Fleicschman, Miller, and the Professors Drs. Murphy seemed to have filled a certain void in the world, as other reactionaries have, which is to say the void of new thought.

Whatever you may think of JDE’s diatribe, and I really, really am not being cute here, I think it is mindbogglingly terrible, what you can not deny is that it is different, and it is right wing.

The idea that these ideas come out of nowhere, or that they come out of a single individual, is incorrect. But further, they are the result of a certain mini-Volkgeist.

JDE’s rants are cruel and unusual, but they are not met with no support. They are met with the support of what can only be understood as a ghost mushroom which has arisen in the desert. Living in the mushroom, taking bites of the mushroom, gazing into the mushroom, has produced this result. There is no JDE Grave Pissing rant without the Southwest Right Wing Philosophy Patch.

This is important to understand, because you are not fighting the ethical unit of a single man, but rather you are fighting as a member of a geist. To know yourself as only you and your efforts rather than you as part of a certain geist is to miss what you are. I am definitely of a few geists, as maybe we all are, and I try to make the hauntings unique. But if I was to try to enact a change in something as merely myself rather than with the spirit of a Geistpatch, I would be deluding myself.

I can’t imagine how angry the ex’s parent’s are, but this is the status quo for right wing diatribe: it is brutal, vicious. To simply call it brutal and vicious, or to become invested in cancelling someone for doing what is in fact, an essential aspect which feeds back onto itself, misses the point of engaging in such tasks.

I can introduce someone to certain ideas, but it is better to introduce them to a good thinker and a community as well. I run various facebook groups, I link people to Zero Books authors, Freud texts, Lacan texts, Zizek texts, Anarchist texts, Socialist texts, because it introduces someone to my Geistpatch, which references various Spirits and Ideas which haunt humanity.

Don’t like what JDE is saying? Haunt better than him.

*Edit after posting:
Per request of Dr. Justin Murphy: I should clarify that Justin Murphy not a right winger. It is possible the good doctor’s diagnosis that my creativity may have gotten the best of me here is accurate. It is his association with famous right wingers such as Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land and discussing right/unconditional acceleration that I know him for, but he certainly associates with left wingers and speaks with them as well, and self-identifies as a left winger, so I will not be a shitlord and mis-politico-gender him.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment May 23, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"The American Southwest Philosophy Geistpatch And John David Ebert’s Pissing On The Grave Of His Ex"

Quantum Self-Care: “If Self-Care Is So Great, Why Isn’t There A Self-Care 2?”

Quantum, in itself, –for Quantum, in its self-externality, is also itself; its externality is part of its determination […] it is the very being of Quantum to be its own Other, to be self-external; and thus this external part is equally nothing else than Quantum: the beyond or infinite itself is a Quantum.

Hegel, Science of Logic, P 242, 243 (Johnson and Struthers Translation 1929)

The human insofar as the human knows itself is in a quantum form, in that it contains simultaneously a supposed inside as well as itself as an object, a divided subject. However, this “itself as an object” collapses immediately inside when one acknowledges the substance of all that is language is also present in the human through the unconscious, and through identification with systems and ideas and even simply seemingly unrelated words!

So the thing which takes-care-of-itself is also itself in the taking-care-of.

What does this mean politically? There is a tendency towards a split between the taking care of and the object which is being taken care of. The logic goes something along the lines of: fascist tendencies take care of the object, and that is what is important! But the fascist tendencies are themselves the political landscape and the object of politics as well, rather than simply keeping the trains running on time.

In other words:

Incorrect- {fascism -> trains on time}

Correct- {fascism, trains on time}

There is not means and ends, ergo there is no means-to-an-end, the state of the matter is Quantum.

Society does not have a set of problems, rather society is itself problem solving. The self is not something which needs self-care, the self is in fact self-care. There are elements of the self which one cites as qualitatively something which needs care but those elements can only be known at times through the method of caring, there is once again no means-to-an-end.

Difference

With the lack of a means-to-an-end, there can be no kingdom-of-ends. There can be no treating of the human as an end-in-itself, as the treating itself is the human as well. It is a false movement towards a posit.

What can be known is difference between the treatments as being-itself, in its Quantum nature. The difference between treatments means one is always reconciling with the self and the world in a Quantum Process Of Being.

The Quantum Hyperstate created is thus a finite taking-care-of, which is itself the thing, inseperable. Our taking care of the enviornment is inseperable from the object which is the environment, which makes in turn itself known as the object of the earth as well as the inhabitants.

COVID-19 and Quantum

Our taking care of the virus is inseparable from the virus. The RNA structure invades cells and culture, which may seem like a trite observation or not respecting of the material viral process, but we MUST remember the basic Hegelian lesson that insofar as something concerns humanity, it enters the fray of the Ideals of humanity, even that Ideal is backed by a physical sickness. That physical sickness is not a simple object, but it is the avoidance of the physical sickness, the register of physical sickness as a society, and the unconscious desire to act-as-if-it-isn’t, while taking extra precautions.

It would be a mistake to simply say we have a problem of the virus that needs to be taken care of. Dare I say, in order to make everyone mad by making their strawman real in the form of myself, “humans are the virus,” and I stand by it! To understand the virus as Quantum we have to see the taking care of and the virus in unity with the self, or we risk not understanding the virus.

The methods of taking care of the virus can not simply be a means to an end. Would Americans tolerate strict quarantine and arrest? We could try it! We could try to flatten the curve, but this is the virus beginning to build the tolerance for dramatic government rule in the Americas, and I’m not too sure that is something which would be tolerated without violence.

Either way, whatever the answer to this, the method and the object are not separate when united in a politic, and it isn’t separate when it is united in the self.

Self-Care 2

Know self-care as a crafting of the self, this is the only self-care 2 that I can offer. Self-care is not simply a tool to be utilized on the object which is the self, self-care is something which crafts the self in Actuality. One must make the self, insofar as the care of the self is the self.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment April 4, 2020 3 MinutesEdit"Quantum Self-Care: “If Self-Care Is So Great, Why Isn’t There A Self-Care 2?”"

The Retrofuturism of the Virus: the past has not yet occurred.

The temporality of capital production has been halted, but what has emerged in its place? Projections of future infection, knowledge of past plagues. Coronavirus always-has-been of course, through the plagues which emerge as yesterdays rather than dead stories.

Each past and future creates a different temporality and a different sci-fi reality, which is to say a present which is only ever known through retrofuturism. As the projections ramp up and increase in multiple forms, multiple possibilities, so does the past which has supposedly already occurred, but which has not occurred quite yet.

The past has not yet occured.

A portal into the present may seem like an unnecessary sort of thing, and that the present is in fact being lived through, and known definitely through one’s sensory experience. But insofar as the future comes back to define the present, and the present is known as similar and causal of the past, one sees that a portal to the present is the only option for those fighting against non-being itself. The lack of the portal to the present is in fact a submission.

Portals in the multiple offer different realities, insofar as different realities are able to be retrofitted, the retrofuture is a posteriori; but of course through immediate experience it is also a priori existent, synthetic, stretching over the sensory immediacy.

“I want you to say that this is a living example of a portal into the present”

So what idea do we pay fidelity to then? Which retrofuture is the true present? Suddenly a space opens up, a gap in reality. This gap itself is the negation of what was the ordering of the world, and it is this gap itself that we should watch. What retrofutures will be thrust upon us by the powers that be?

What pasts, will we be told have already occurred? What shall be engineered for us, engineered with us?

Will we create the world? Will the world be created for us? When I am in the state of joy I am like a child, I have the power to name the world!

Who creates out of something, something besides joy? Who desires death?

What retrofutures of death will be shown as what has already been?

Instruments of control are becoming stronger.

Libertarianism is dying a fool’s death.

Can we who play ourselves make it past what is engineered for us, by us?

article by Mad Black Freud and Kirsty Woods

Pages: 1 2

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 31, 2020 2 MinutesEdit"The Retrofuturism of the Virus: the past has not yet occurred."

Big Knife! Small Wife! and Anti-Sex

The obsessional could be characterized as the anti-sexual, even and especially when it comes to sex. Here Dr. Phil reveals himself as a flora of various dialectical movements, the obsessional successful television doctor brandishing his obviously penile knife, in line with the pornographic fetish, the small wife, the signifier of youth here being smallness, the aging wife of Dr Phil has the ability to be in a linguistic sense, forever young.

Big Knife! Small Wife!

Anti-Sex is a powerful spell, to make public sex and also to simultaneously cast it aside immediately. The understanding of the symbolic order of sex to be so totally beyond sex, that one returns and appears to be grasping the sexual object.

Is this the case? Look closer reader, look closer!

The signifier on Dr. Phil is not money, is not something pornographic, but rather French quisine. The sex joke’s dialectical movement is revealed here.

Big Knife! Small Wife!

The reversion into the realm of class reveals the true sexual dynamic, Dr. Phil’s presence in the spectacle hinting at his royalty. Royalty is beyond sex! Royalty is anti-sex, anti-proletarian sentiment is always anti-sex.

As for the true sex life here, who is to say! How hard does Dr. Phil’s wife cum we he shoves his aging penis inside her? The truth is unable to be mined from this photograph.

We can see however, hints of a comical bond between the two. Is it a cynical comical bond of two spouses who have sexually grown past each other but none the less live with each other?

Big Knife! Small Wife!

We simply can not know the sexual nature of the man’s life from this image. We can however, see anti-sex, a key element in upper class life, in full display as its self-cancelling sexuality and its reversion into the signifiers of royalty.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 28, 2020 1 MinuteEdit"Big Knife! Small Wife! and Anti-Sex"

Darwin Fucks Freud

edited photo of Geoffrey Miller, author of “The Mating Mind”

I believe in my own sort of two-gender theory: incel and woman. This is based off of Mike Crumplar’s idea of “the incel who fucks,” simply extended to its logical conclusion to include all genders not identified as woman.

Sexual selection is something Freud seemed to be acquainted with, but his view was too “under-mined,” not nearly extensive enough.  Desire sublimated into a metaphor or reaction against is only a partial truth. The missing truth of Sex, as Geoffrey Miller writes in his book “The Mating Mind,” is sexual selection. The peacock does not need its feathers to fly, they are simply something which has a sexual selection function. This is basic knowledge, but the implications are vast when humans and there massive towers of reason become involved.

Is it surprising that human incel bird-brains (sometimes known as humans doing psychology or philosophy) creating towers of anti-pragmatic reason, resemble the anti-pragmatism of birds’ various plumages?  The male bird tends towards extensive plumages, where the woman bird is a simple brown. There is something within woman that does not require a certain type of effort, because the woman isn’t an incel, or the party who needs to think about such things.

Sexual selection, natural selection, must be added to a psychological knowledge of the human unconscious, along with repressed desire.

The Unconscious must extend outside of the human’s linguistic tree, and back into rationality. The rationality of sexual selection and natural selection carry with them structures outside of an individual mind and into the world, where the human world becomes an interlocking set of these various desires and survival.

In the first madblackfreud blogpost, I ask the question, why does psychoanalysis bring human’s to their burncore of desire and survival?

Perhaps something was missing then, which is that to even do such a thing, we must consider natural selection and sexual selection. Zizek understand’s structural unconscious as containing within it a human idea, and to the extent which our systems carry within them ideas such as market exchange, this is not the whole object.

There is in fact, a synthetic survival and sexual exchange embedded within our systems. This means if a system could maximize for material gains for someone, there is a good chance they would rather egoically weave their hyperstate through outside forces which are more directly involved with interpersonal dynamics for survival and sex.

Insofar as the #MeToo movement exists, sex and survival become a sort of unity, before breaking apart. Human women are not birds, and thus do not simply leave the sexual dance to the men. The great false dream is that #MeToo becomes part of the sexual act itself, rather than the simple reaction formation against the unwanted male sexual demand. #MeToo reaches its final moment in being totally forgotten within the act of sex.

Sex and survival are not a unity, but two separate categories which form unities through the human mind. If more women are vocal regarding the #MeToo movement, and it is not taken as gospel by men, we can also look at modern Marxism the same way. Why is the western Marxist movement so heavily male?

Most likely for the same reason the modern philosophy movement is, the human mind contains within it towers of not-immediately pragmatic linkages of reason as sexual plumage. In this sense, the incel gender is unified with the failed intellectual, one whose towers of reason did not function as sexual selection.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 12, 2020 2 MinutesEdit"Darwin Fucks Freud"

Let’s Talk Reterritorialization

Now, communication and control have become one, without remainder.

Byung-Chul Han

The question of rhetoric in the Aristotelian form rarely comes up in the 21st century. While we argue forms of truth and the truth of truth, the truth of rhetoric becomes lost under accusations of ad hominem.

Fidelity to the aim of the original purpose of the thing is a second movement and will of the original thing, but such Fidelity occurs primarily in academia, where the quality of service provided dramatically increases with that Fidelity. In the technopolitical landscape, such Fidelity is reserved for the most simplistic of ideas on one hand, and on the other, the vicious reterritorializations of Trumpistas.

The Socialist Left, which prides itself on its academic fidelity to the original aim of economic raising of quality of life, tends to forget the Aristotelian lesson that rhetoric is in fact, its own art.

Nick Land recently called me dishonest for arguing with his horde of monarchy, race theory pushing and capitalism enjoying horde by calling his Jewish citation a minstrel act for Anglos, a disgrace, and pointing to his own (rumored) association with the Jewish community from his lineage, specifically, asking if he’s going to raise his Jewish children to be minstrel spectacles for Anglo taste.

Yes, this is vicious.

But is this dishonest? Land then reduced leftism entirely to this practice of rhetoric, which is seen as alien to “the real thing” of truth, which is for him of course, race theory and the like.

A vigorous reterritorialization is best, but how does one first do this? First you need to be calling to something which has significance in the Real, and then there is a truth in the symbolic (the history of the Uncle Tom archetype).

A vicious piece of rhetoric, but not dishonest.

The rhetoric serves a sense of not being a spectacle for others utilizing one’s race. The moral framework of internalized racism is mainstream thinking, so almost never brought up in the cutting edge of philosophical thought, but it is certainly a fundamental question that race realist right wingers should contend with if they believe they should push that ideology on the world.

Reterritorialization is best done viciously if you really want to break something. What other job of a leftist intellectual could there be but to break forms of institutionalized race theory via rhetoric calling on the Real and symbolic orders which the reactionaries are trying to pull in their direction?

Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization via the word, qua rhetoric. Rhetoric is not a lie, but a mode of communication to argue for the moral standards one desires.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment January 11, 2020 2 MinutesEdit"Let’s Talk Reterritorialization"

Acid Communism and the Heroic Dose

I’ve spoken previously of the Cosmonaut Blog’s Acid Communism critique, of it being more acid than communism, but perhaps– Acid Communism as outlined by Mark Fisher is not enough acid, and too much Woodstock. Perhaps we should go even further into acid metaphysics. Further into The Fear.

Ego death is considered something which Lacanian analysis shoots for in that it removes the imaginary identification property of speech, where in speech gets trapped in a narcissistic circuit in order to continually self-define.

“All that’s well and good,” you might be thinking, “but where is the acid?”

The narcissistic loop can not sustain desire and is not truly an entrance into the symbolic order, leaving one to deal with structural psychosis in the times where they are the least psychotic. Structural psychosis as in a removal from the symbolic order, one could call it a lack of empathy in that one does not understand the substantial material which is in front of them.

“Where is the acid Eliot why are you talking theory you wrote acid on the top please stop talking about Lacan.”

you

Ok. Whether one takes a strip (10 hits) of LSD, 10 grams of psilocybin, a mouthful of THC concentrates instead of a drop, or adrenomescaline straight from the morgue (this is a real thing, not just from Fear and Loathing), you are in the realm of something entirely different than a drug experience, you are now on a roller coaster where you sense that psychosis is a real possibility.

Hold onto the symbolic order for dear life, if you must, speak to those around you, but something is missing. Something is different. You’re not there anymore. Comrade isn’t home right now. Words exit your mouth, and it is you who is saying it, but it isn’t your usual register. People are significantly different. The Parallax View is in full effect, there is a change in the object which is truly a change in the subject, someone on a heroic dose.

A heroic dose comes quickly. Too quickly. You know this takes an hour to kick in, so when it kicks in under a few minutes, you can tell something is going to happen. Then slowly, things begin to fall apart. Or rather, your perception of them falls apart. Nothing to fear, you know it can’t kill you.

The key moment is the recognition of a radically different perspective, which is difficult to put into words. The lack here is unfortunate, but what I mean by this is a symbolic other than yours radically becomes at hand, and you are for all intents and purposes, within a different world.

Interrelating may become easier, it may become more difficult, or it may become possible, as your visions and feet tell you that something strange is happening.

You get the sense that you’re still holding on. Suddenly something comes to you, a trite answer isn’t trite.

Highly trite answers: empathy is good. Things can be looked at in many ways, nothing is black and white. But it becomes something else. The old, dull knowledge becomes the new, important knowledge. Empathy is what one calls the experience of love which is what the sexual neurosis supposedly lacks. Authentic empathy is a movement away from the feeling that reality is useless. Black and white thinking without the recognition of Antigone as in Kant’s second critique (aka, you can argue both sides of something) meaning that you can have empathy for everyone, you don’t need to hate anyone, you won’t help yourself by hating them– other such truisms. But suddenly it becomes apparent as necessity dialectically, as the next step.

You don’t find an end answer, but the next step. A heroic dose isn’t a goal, but a means to the unfolding of time. Not who you are as a person, but what is next, and a good Hegelian knows, there will be something after as well.

Acid Communism may not be the end answer to leftism, but it is a powerful Idea for a next step, a horizon of possibility, which is all any moment in time can give us at all, its own self-cancellation, its own knowledge of its temporariness, and its necessity intrinsically combined with its own death in the form of what is next.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment November 7, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"Acid Communism and the Heroic Dose"

Why I Am So Clever (Zizek In The Clinic: It Works)

I am generally known as a “good therapist” in my clinic. (“Oh, he’s good, lucky you” etc.) Why am I such a good therapist? Why am I so clever? (As Nietzsche would ask of himself.)

“Zizek In The Clinic” the book, but more importantly, Zizek in the clinic the process, is about circling the object of mental health, and specifically the role of the psychotherapist. Let me give you an example session that demonstrates psychoeducation in the form of the University Discourse which was extremely successful psychotherapeutically.

The Session

A client, which for ethical reasons I will keep specifics vague, is afflicted by a condition which is characterized by the return of the Real. This is a structure known as psychosis in Lacanian theory, but in this case, the diagnosis was not a psychosis issue, but something in which the Real would return on a constant basis throughout the day, to the point of suicidal ideation on the part of the client. You could say however, it was structurally psychotic, and the structural effects on social relations were similar to someone who may have been afflicted with psychosis. A Zizekian structuralist would notice the psychosis in the structure, but Lacan himself would nearly certainly miss this.

The Tools Utilized

1. Psychoeducation regarding the Return of the Real (and The Real’s return as affecting the symbolic order.)

The terror for the client was that the Real would return in every situation with other people. The therapist highlights this as a core symptom: in every situation, one does not relax, but attempts to repress the Real.

2. Che Vuoi? What Does the Other want from me?

The question of the Other’s desire, due to the visible nature of this return of the Real. The terror of the Other leads the client to unknowingly arrange their lives so they would account for their symptom through which the Real acts. The Real returns and eliminates the time in Actuality [I will expand on the necessity of Set-Time, ie, time in Actuality, in the next book on Egoist ethical theory I’m currently working on, but its use in psychotherapy is apparent here] the client had devoted for any particular situation and the client must enter into the discourse regarding the symptom instead.

3. A question with no answer asked by the therapist: “How can this be overcome?”

Here I side with Badiou over Zizek in terms of the job of the philosopher or therapist, in terms of an optimism. Zizek would stop in terms of the antagonism and not try to tie it all neatly in a lesson at the end, most likely. Here if the client wants to be a Zizekian, I do not interfere, but I repeat the question and through the repetition, rehighlight the objects of distress, and bring them into consciousness.

Conclusion

What would this client have done been given a regular therapist? Exposure therapy possibly, affirmation possibly, cognitive challenges (is the other really thinking that)?

I claim none of these circle the object of the symptom as well as this Zizekian approach, and the results of the client aren’t of someone who has been filled with blank affirmations leaving therapy feeling in a better mood with the feeling of a bubble soon to be popped by the next return of the Real, but someone who is deeply, and utterly forced to know the object which ails them in some respect, and its tendencies.

Zizek in the clinic is an ideal. An ideal of a therapist who knows what the hell they are talking about due to understanding the structure of the psyche and its structural effects and social consequences. It is an ideal worth repeating, and fighting for, because clients have no checks and balances, only one (1) psych cop to help them.

God help them, I hope they get a good one.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment October 23, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"Why I Am So Clever (Zizek In The Clinic: It Works)"

Further Beyond Good And Evil

Hegel was too Christian to follow Spinozan pantheism to its logical end. Christ turns all power into good and evil; and thus, Hegel saw the world as good and evil, as essence and reflection. Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit comes across various modes of being and ultimately casts them down in favor of the logos, the coming together of registers and the Rightness of Right, with the law of the heart being simply too ungodly.

For the True is for it the law of the heart–something merely intended which, unlike the established order, has not stood the test of time, but rather when thus tested is overthrown. This its law ought to have reality; the law, then, is for it qua reality, that very law qua valid ordinance, is on the contrary immediately for it something which is not valid.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Paragraph 377

Hegel ignores the content of the law in describing the whim of the heart. He did not in fact grasp Spinoza’s material reality working itself out, god-in-reality, or god in the power of the will. What is this notional will which exists in Actuality in men that Hegel is so afraid of?

Of course, sexuality itself, death drive. These are too unchristian for Hegel to consider.

Through the Christian lens Spinoza’s god-in-reality, or god-through-Actuality, is no longer able to be grasped, and contradiction falls into disrepair to the Christ-Molar, the vacuum which sucks into it everything and creates demons of all that fall outside of it.

Does not Marx too not fall into this trap? To a lesser degree, as Marx recognizes the engine of capital as having positive qualities of power, but ultimately all that falls outside the system is cast as the devil in practice, if not in Marx’s writing. For Marx, the world was Satanic, and for Hegel as well.

I’ve often thought of Mark Fisher’s self-inflicted death as a long line of this world-as-demon side effect of the Christian Dialectic. When the world becomes satanic, rather than something full of power, there is nothing to gain in the world. Spinoza is failed, the Absolute no longer able to be in motion, working through itself, through its ends, us. God as the absolute working through itself gets subsumed into the Christian ideology, of good and evil, rather than good and wild. Good and power.

If one sees something as Evil rather than as Egoic power, one misses its necessity, its place in the Absolute, its symptomatic necessity. Is Trump truly evil? Perhaps he is better seen as a wild power, one that we would like to do away with, but to see him as evil is to do a disservice to the self by playing out in one’s own head the Christian story, the dissolving of Spinoza’s god, the world as Christ’s playground and no one elses.

Christ takes the ball home and eats your world.

Through the adjustment of Good and Evil we can keep the good, but let us do away with evil, and take away its power to destroy what is good. Evil is power, power of the other against us, which means it could in fact then become for us, if we are Spinozan enough, if we aren’t infected with the brain cancer of ideology which takes away from us our Actual existence.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment October 12, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Further Beyond Good And Evil"

Hacking With Hegel

Expert Level Fallacies

Isn’t it so much better to prove to someone that Hegel’s logic is worthwhile by making use of it as something which exploits a weakness in the human security system by being accepted through conventional logic, than to try to make arguments defending Hegel? It’s more useful and more convincing, but mostly it’s funny and fun (could we even say, based and Hegelpilled?).

Insofar as A doesn’t equal A, one can make arguments in a variety of scenarios where this weakness of conventional logic allows for one to make a highly convincing case which is difficult to refute except through knowledge of Hegelian logic. In the Matrix they say Deja Vu let’s them know that there’s been a glitch, in spoofing the Symbolic Order, it’s more of a, “I guess you’re right, but something is wrong.”

What is it that is wrong? Take a look at the image attached to this article. Let’s think of each of these colors as various points in time, that a variable, “A”, has gone through. In each of these points, A had an entirely different set of qualities and properties attached to it. Hegel’s discovery is the truth of history, which is to say that one can not point at any second of a flower in its life cycle and definitively claim that it is the essential moment.

This pointing to specific moments in time however, is exactly how people are trained to think so that they can communicate at all in the first place. Who would point at a tulip, call it a tulip, and hear back an argument “well, it isn’t the WHOLE tulip.” No, it is simply a tulip. A equals A.

Say if you are required to make “B” but you would rather make “A”, this very same logic can be applied. You can take a certain amount of qualities of “B”, but create the historical function as “A”. Let us examine how this can work.

An architect is required to make something of the modern period, but he would much rather create something in the classical vein because his personal feeling about the project is that the classical structure would better suit the building project. In designing his classical structure, he can add elements of modernism such as negative space, and simple shapes within the structure, and maybe even remark that the piece still has “classical sensibilities.” However, the bulk of what is Actual within the building, along with intent, is the classical architecture structure.

A=A, no?

One is tasked by capitalism to produce, and insofar as we must produce for a system which does not serve us or the people we are supposed to be serving, it is good to have some knowledge of how to hack with Hegel. The technoindustrial machine’s stripped down and open ended pseudo-openness can be the death of it.

Through the pragmatism of the Other, we create their devil.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 1 Comment September 12, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Hacking With Hegel"

I Think The Whole System Fucking Sucks: a critical analysis of hardstyle

The aesthetic of hardstyle is aligned with critical thought and is structurally unable to be recaptured by boring dystopia. It is something the left should consider as an aesthetic element.

This is what I love, and can’t stop loving
Get wasted at parties, from 9 ’till 7 in the morning
I live for the music, rolling blunts, feeling high, getting loaded or take some pills and go to La La Land
Spending all my money on dope and extreme high priced tickets
But in the end it’s all worth it
I like to live in my own world
Fuck regular life, fuck a 9 to 5 job
I’m told to enjoy every moment, every hour, every minute
That’s what I do on Fridays and Saturday
Why should I take life so seriously?
I just wanna do what I like to do
Being far from reality, cause I can’t stand society
This is my own world, I just wanna hear the music
I think the whole system fucking sucks
Everybody’s working their fucking ass off during the week
Getting totally fucking stressed out
So what’s wrong, and what’s right?
I live for the weekend, I live for hard styles, I live for hardstyle baby!

Showtek, “FTS”

It is really too bad Nietzsche didn’t get to go to a doof doofer, one can easily see Nietzsche stumbling through a crowd, mustache ajar, pushing through with a couple of his libidinally questionably positioned friends. Hardstyle is the realization of what Nietzsche hoped to find in Wagner, but was disappointed to find it Wagner’s pseudo-tragedy too willingly recaptured by bourgeois society by both Wagner and bourgeois society alike.

There are a few critical theory points which are imminent to the lyrics to anyone schooled in critical theory I would challenge you to avoid. One, is the obvious willingness to engage in work and the hedonism which provides a replacement for critical thought; i.e., the “More Acid than Communism” critique of Acid Communism from the Cosmonaut blog. The second point is the lack of a positive program, and nothing approaching a replacement for capitalism et al. The reason which these are being overlooked is because hardstyle seems to have proven itself as something that can break through the culture of compulsory positivity.

Hardstyle is the death drive cry and the simultaneous demand for something else, a demand for an outside.

If you wander around Los Angeles to electronic music events aimlessly, you’ll notice a distinct strange trend (or you would if you were me and had a similar set of experiences). Famous DJs such as Benny Benassi with famous hits and worldwide stardom are drawing smaller crowds than loud, dissonant, highly accelerated bass drum electronic music. Hardstyle has emerged from rave culture as a replacement of the highly commodified and mainstreamed Dubstep of the late twenty-aughts and early tens. Dubstep artists doing collaborations with Britney Spears and Justin Bieber lead to lukewarm “Yes, of course, I guess this is OK.”

Hardstyle is different, it isn’t something that can be recaptured by any regular neoliberal spectacle. It is distinctly outside, distinctly loud, distinctly unrecapturable except through of course, its means of being produced.

Hardstyle music isn’t for relaxing either, its not something which can be played in the background of a restaurant. It is simply too fast, too pulsing, too demanding, too full of death drive.

The aesthetic revolutionary potential is there, if like all potentialities, it isn’t there in full.

I was put on this earth to make a difference, homie
The world is my playground
The bird’s left the cage, I’m doing things my way now
Yeah
Man, I’m willing to die for the cause
That’s the difference between me and y’all
To be the best, you have to beat the best
I’m undefeated, my style is everlasting
And I’mma never back down, you fucking clown!
Hahaha, yeah


We win, you lose
We live, you die
The world is mine!

Showtek, “The World is Mine”

It is worthy to note that hardstyle’s resurgence is a historical Actuality present in today’s electronic music, and draws crowds larger than those promoted by television, movie, sports, and relaxation/mindfulness/spirituality culture.

Hardstyle is hypermodernism’s death drive showing itself in culture and as a socially present reaction against pseudo-enlightenment idealism of boring tech dystopia.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 1 Comment August 12, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"I Think The Whole System Fucking Sucks: a critical analysis of hardstyle"

Actualization as Non-Actualized Ideal

This is a pipe, so to speak.

Through Actualization, what could be mistakenly called as a reflection or a shell of the actualized event is created. After the Actualization of whatever signifying chain is created however, it is this reflection which passes the truth test, but only as the form of this reflection or Ideal. In other words, the register of truth of Actualization is never Actualized, but present as Ideal.

This Non-Actualized form of Actualization, which Justin Murphy explained of me as what he liked about me, “you don’t LARP,” might better be said, “I don’t LARP without a valid access key.” What is seen is this non-actualized actualization.

Hegel attempted to ground this mad flux into a single Actualization, one as Napolean as World Spirit. However, one might say more accurately that Napolean as Ideal was wielded by both Napolean, the French, the Aristocracy, and so on, which Hegel eventually is stuck in a flux that only Lacan can solve.

The flux Hegel is stuck in does not account for jouissance, or enjoyment because Hegel immediately grasped this in the beginning of the Phenomenology, where Hegel describes ecstacy.

The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, love – these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject-matter, but ferment and enthusiasm – these are to be the ways by which the wealth of the concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Section 7, “Present Position of the Spirit”

The significance of all that is, lay in the thread of light by which it was attached to heaven; instead of dwelling in the present as it is here and now, the eye glanced away over the present to the Divine, away, so to say, to a present that lies beyond.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Section 8, “Present Position of the Spirit”

What could be said of reality is it is inevitably split, and it might always be a LARP. There are truth keys of the symbolic order, Actualization, and the phantasies of the imaginary which may repeat due to systemic structures which create similar and repeating desires for jouissance out of the objectively present symbolic, which can also be known as subjectivity as object.

In other words, subjectivities as objects, as Ideals reflecting phantasy, symbolic truth or access tokens, all are utilized within the register of the symbolic, in the form of ideal. As an object; a LARP.

Was not Napoleon a LARPer? Or as Zizek states, isn’t the obvious fact about Hitler is that he is a guy pretending to be Hitler? This means the symbolic order is still worth fighting for, is still worth a Being-as-LARPing-towards.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment July 25, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Actualization as Non-Actualized Ideal"

1916

The Germanization of us all I fear is now inevitable.

I was at the front. I don’t know where we are now, or if there is a we. I assume there are others, but I do not see them. There has been some development of technology that the Germans have that we were not aware of, this much is clear.

We see what can only be called the perfection of the light bulb, a motorized connection between the operator and a typewriter which illuminates the walls in a most sickening shade of white.  Judging by the humidity, we are underground somewhere. The water given is never enough, it always feels as if we are on the verge of dying.

Then of course there is the whirring.

A pale man dressed not in a military uniform talks about “mining bitcoin” with a wall of motors. We have not seen his superiors, but we believe he is German going by the accent. He looks at us and he smiles smugly. He will not answer our questions, but he has given us this paper to write on. He tells us to write what we want and he will take it to our loved ones, but we do not believe this. I am writing this and keeping it on my person, and am writing a second letter to give to the German.

I believe the war is lost. The whirring lets me know that there is something terrible here, the glow lets me know that something is being held from the world.

We see a light from the perfected lightbulb illuminate the German’s face. He will stare at it for three hours to four hours at a time, reviewing documents we believe. He glances at us and shirks back at the glow. I don’t believe he has seen battle or blood, he winces at prisoners. He is some sort of scientist.

I believe it has been three weeks judging by my sleeping cycles, but as there is no natural light I can not tell.

Only the glow. Only the sickly German. Only the whir of the mining equipment.

He has not struck us, and he has not asked for plans. This is just as well, as I have no real plans to give, maybe the German knows this. I do not like this German. I do not understand this German.

I can feel his sickliness, the German, not like a man in the front, or a man who has lost his wits, but something like a walking consumptive. More of a consumptive than a German. Then there is the whirring along with the consumptive, the glow along with the consumptive.

The consumptive, the whir, the glow.

The glow, the whir, the consumptive.

The whir, the consumptive,

the pale glow. The sickly white glow.

I will sleep. I will write more if there is more to write, but it seems unlikely that there will be more to write on it. This is the essence of it.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 1 Comment July 8, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"1916"

What is not to be my concern?

I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Max Stirner

With the will of the other, self-interest entirely comes into question as the extent to self comes into question. Through this question, it moves away from abstract ideal further into objective description.

With the positing of self-interest, we split the world into another two, self-interest and not self-interest. The self becomes itself, and in this self becoming does not posit an unself, for the category of self does not hold in the form of an ideal, but disappears and reappears. Becoming-system and system-becoming-self relegates the self into an amorphous form which does not hold. What can self-interest mean in this context an interest perceived by consciousness as the will of the other.

Insofar as the self is becoming-system, systems must become concerning, which is one must concern themselves with systems. Assuming one has no self-interest, then one does not have to concern one’s self with systems.

At this point, we are out of the realm of philosophical abstraction and into the obvious of the day to day. My concerns! Your concerns. What are you concerned about? The system-concern is taken into consciousness by the self as the other or as the self. The concern of the system can be determined to be one’s own concern or a concern of something from the outside, but nonetheless it infects consciousness.

Becoming-infected, and thus the World-Becoming-Infection for consciousness then becomes my concern. We have no cure for existence, only a knowing of infection. World-infection of the self-interest must then be triaged and determines as inside or outside, or dissolved by the more clever minds.

Eastern practice turns into a dissolving of world-infection in the name of self-interest, as a negation of virus into what the mind reflexively grasps for, which is to say the infection, the world outside of itself. Becoming-infected, becoming-world-sorter, becoming the dissolver of objects into consciousness.

I will attempt to not go into Lacanianisms.

One can not choose morality, only the alienated dynamism totemic obedience. These totems blip in and out of existence in the symbolic as world becomes-totem and self-interest is pulled into becoming-system. Here we attempt to infect the system with our self-interest, as system-becoming-self is taken into consciousness.

Abjection, or the pushing out of system from self and the self out of system mutually interact as autoimmune idealism takes hold. Both are pulled into the signs of self and system, despite their mutual becomings into each other. The one is in fact outside the many of the system, and the system will abject the will of the one. The king is abjected by his kingdom, the serf as well.

Abjection is not to be my concern.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment June 19, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"What is not to be my concern?"

Negative Totemism (-Totemism)

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment June 6, 2019 1 MinuteEdit"Negative Totemism (-Totemism)"

The Analytic Ballistic

Anything that throws or is thrown is fundamentally a weapon and propulsion is its essential moment. The weapon is ballistic; the very notion of the “problem” is related to the war machine. The more mechanisms of projection a tool has, the more it behaves like a weapon, potentially or simply metaphorically.

Deleuzeguattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 395

Why sex and death? The universality of both systems is undeniable, the containing of moments which are deemed essential repeat or denied to their credit, but death is the primary weapon of this war machine. We can cop out, act as a softening cop, and call it by the name of the coming together and drifting apart, but the signifiers of sex and death are present as the line which is seen as primary. They claim primacy through naturalism but certainly they are simply what towers over within analysis.

The question of the primacy of sex and death or a synthetic object which combines both of these falls by the wayside when the analyst determines their essential moments, prodding back with their weapon, which is to say into the client’s past. What is needed by the analyst is a breaking apart, the idea fundamentally is that there is something which is held together in a certain way that should be broken apart. In contrast, sophistic commonsensical interventions call to the universals of basic day to day civilization as if it was the solution and not the background noise. The background noise is given primacy by cognitive and behavioral interventions. The Analyst War Machine however is a negative of civilization, it breaks it apart. It may claim to be with it, through the law of the father or some other law, but it’s speed betrays it. The call towards sex and death, perhaps not primary, but certainly taking up through the analyst a vanguard of primacy in the form of historical return through the essential moment.

Two weapons, but endless essential moments, or possibilities of the essential moment. Where the survival mechanism shoots on in the analysand, the analyst’s ballistic missile shoots in, throws a signifier, breaks apart. It is the breaking, and this is not to excuse it, but is the quality of an analyst. Sex and death yes, but which takes primacy, Lacan’s synthetic object which is their entanglement is betrayed at least by their signification into two. Establishment of equilibrium, weapons of signifiers, projections and projectiles and projected projects of the analyst and analysand, death takes primacy.

Death takes primacy over sex as the breaking apart is intrinsic to sex itself, but the same can not be said of breaking. Death is an objectively more stable form than sex, which is designed to include death within. The Analyst War Machine ends the session, ends the treatment, ends the line of thought, it is a mechanism of ending, and it is even the ending of ending, as the ballistic signifier breaks apart throughout, the creation of anything new taking place through a breaking.

The human is not the thing that does the breaking but the formal actuality of the analyst, who forms likewise speed to cause a breaking, a masochistic breaking in that it is the analyst/analysand machine and its own parts are breaking. The trust in the formal substanceless thing, the analyst to break itself in the form of the machine, where only the analysand has life, but the machine is of the analyst and his ballistics.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment May 9, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"The Analytic Ballistic"

True Crime and Freud: Trauma and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Pictured: the viewing of the True Crime/False Echo in “Minority Report.”

In the movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise plays a detective in a “Pre-Crime” unit who is trying to solve why his system has suddenly decided that he was a murderer. Throughout the movie, he chases his own ghosts, and goes on a journey of self-discovery, and discovery of the symbolic order in which he was thrust into by forces outside himself. But the answer as it turned out, was not within the depths of who he is as a person, or impulses towards violence, but was in fact something entirely alien: a crime by the creator of the pre-crime unit itself, a primordial murder which was covered up through deep knowledge of the symbolic order which Tom Cruise’s character had only cursory knowledge of. Justice was not Tom Cruise being locked up for murder, but rather it was the discovery primordial trauma, the killing of the mother of the oracle by the father of the system. The only possible way as it turned out to negate the negation of the trauma of the movie was to find the primordial incident, not obfuscate it with other incidents.

In Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Hegel demonstrates that punishment is not something with a positive quality, but intrinsically a negation of a negation. The original negation is the crime, which a punishment doled out is the negation of the negation of the social contract; thus, those who try to not enforce laws are misguided if they think what they are trying to do is reduce violence, since what they are truly doing is not reducing positive violence, but ignoring violence. However as Zizek and others point out repeatedly, violence is more than just an act, but intrinsically present through systems. A domestic violence relationship for instance may involve trauma, but a system where one child is beaten and another is not, or one child is given preferential treatment and the violence is enacted on the mother for instance, creates a child who grows into an adult who can not articulate exactly the original trauma. As an example, the beaten child can not articulate that the point of traumatic reaction involved the father taking a sibling out for ice cream afterwards, even if they can in great detail name the ways in which the father beat them.

In cases of trauma, the traumatic Real is often re-enacted in various ways by the analysand in psychotherapy, but what is missed is the Real of the incident. This does not mean merely glancing over the incident, but could also be including things in the incident which are unrelated to the traumatic aspect of the incident, keeping the trauma in the realm of the imaginary, ready to re-emerge in various scenarios as metaphor, exaggeration, falsehood, or overreaction. The therapist’s job here is tricky, it is not to say the person with trauma is overreacting, but to find the exact point of trauma within the register of the Real for the client. That is to say, what was it about the trauma that causes the return of the traumatic stress?

The discovery of what exactly the Real, or in other words, what was the primordial trauma within what the client describes as trauma, is the only thing that allows for the negation of the negation. Trauma Narratives here fail, in that they provide a framework for the trauma, and may even reduce symptoms, but the trauma is never truly negated as it is obfuscated. The primordial trauma has the structure of a dialectic, and is not a single traumatic incident, but appears as a series, often times with a final piece which does not look traumatic at all except within the concept of the primordial trauma.

Someone who has dealt with violence for instance may not be traumatized by the violence, but by an act after the violence which may seem petty to the patient, and is thus repressed. Someone may be hit by a parent, but was traumatized not by the beating, but by the representation of the beating meaning a different sibling was favored, which may be viewed only when the patient is able to articulate something such as the sibling being given preferential treatment through a small gift by the parent.

The negation of the negation is not possible until this final temporal movement is articulated by the client, which is to say not the violence, but the forms of the Real obfuscated by the trauma itself. To articulate the traumatic moments, to understand this historical nature of trauma, is to negate the true crime as interpreted unconsciously by the psyche.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment April 17, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"True Crime and Freud: Trauma and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right"

Elizabeth Warren and Darwinian Disavowal

Everyday Analysis

Eliot Rosenstock discusses Warren’s bizarre DNA test, and how it relates to the architecture of neoliberalism.

The proof is not always in the pudding. In a delightfully dystopian move, Elizabeth Warren decided to prove she wasn’t an invalid by getting a DNA test and sharing it with the public. Why did Warren get the DNA test in the first place? To better understand this event, let’s have a look at some architecture critique.

Brutalist housing projects have recently come back into vogue in the public eye (if not in the building industry itself) in a call for more housing for more people, and a guess here, a general disgust reaction towards all things luxury branded. Neo-brutalism pitches itself with its name as an updated version of the famed soviet matter-of-fact housing style. Views on Neo-Brutalism are polarized. The first quote below is a disavowal of an entire architecture style as being…

View original post 688 more words

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment April 11, 2019 1 MinuteEdit"Elizabeth Warren and Darwinian Disavowal"

On the Phallic Nature of Anxiety

Will in and for itself is a failed symbolic placeholder due to the infinite regress of Will in and for itself. Will must be a Will towards something, and thus a Will which is in and for itself as the primary value will cause anxiety to the organism which holds Will in this place. This is to say, Will eventually penetrates all around it and disfigures it until the subjectivity whose Will is doing this experiences anxiety, during this “disfigurement” of the signifier which is the object cause of desire.

Nietzsche continues Schopenhauer’s theme of the idealist viewpoint of reducing the world into a series of moving parts and signifiers, and ultimately deeming the signifiers as a lesser form of the Will, which contains more reality than the signifiers. The transvaluation of all values is an act of Will in and for itself against its placeholders, but when the Will is left on its own, it contains nothing, and thus the conclusion of nihilism in the form of transvaluation is reached.

Fear and Fucking: The Double Failure

Desire finds its home in signifiers and Will. When the signifier is reached out and grasped more fully, the signifier is further articulated as signifier, and the Will as Will. Because the signifiers of desire, that which is the cause of desire, is necessarily not fully articulated, signifiers become linked with signifiers which are no longer recognized by the desire as desire. Thus, the signifier turns into something which is no longer desire, and the Will which is no longer serving a purpose, turns into the memory of itself. This can be seen most clearly during “the little death” of orgasm, but also in the knowing of the object cause of desire in a way which expands signifier linkages to something other than Desire.

Desire is an idealist proposition, which can benefit from some undermining, some stripping down to its parts to see what’s inside, so to speak. Desire as will is subject to its own infinite regress, because the symbolic holders which hold desire become transformed into signifiers, and thus have an elusive quality to them as they gain connections with other signifiers.

Triplicate Phenomenology and Picking up the Penises

To pick up the pieces of the disastrous failure of desire from the internal contradictions of Will as well as the amorphous nature of the signifiers, I have a proposition. An idealism which is in flux between systemic function, its detailed nature, and finally, the intuitive grasp of the thing. Between logically looking at the component parts of the thing, one can adjust to its use in various symbolic orders which are not immediately intuitively understood; which is to say one is in anxiety regarding due to the flux of the knowledge of the thing (S2) which one is trying to grasp and the intrinsic failure of Will in and for itself, which is a major component of desire.

The focus of the Triplicate Phenomenology would be the individual subject, and the flux between two logics, and intuition. Logic 1: component parts, or scientism. Logic 2: systemic functioning, or pragmatism. Intuition: what is immediately the fleeting impression of the thing being grasped. Intuition is an open vessel which accesses our impression of the thing immediately through as much of the unconscious as one has access to, if not necessarily an accurate or useful impression of the thing in order to describe the thing. If what is important however is the individual subject; that is to say, the human as an individual subject with a grasp of language, and the grasp itself as a method of dealing with the component of desire which is the infinite regress of Will-as-connected-to-fluxuating-signifiers.

Intuition ultimately guides from the use of scientism, pragmatism, or intuition itself. The intensities of these three things keeps the individual subject in contact with the fluxuating signifiers as the subjectivity itself becomes in flux in order to engage with flux.

Subjectivity’s flux between the Logics of scientism and pragmatism with intuition differs from OOO’s disavowal of scientism and pragmatism as negative states of Idealism. Here we are grasping at the subject themselves rather than the object, and as the subject understands through signification, and the significance is in flux, the subjectivity’s method for grasping with these things also become in flux. Here we grasp at the Real of subjectivity itself, which is to say its voids, and try to account for them with triple mining. More specifics of how to do such things in books, posts, etcetera, or you could look up pragmatism, various natural sciences, philosophies of science such as OOO, Zizek’s Parallax View for how exactly two logics interact with each other.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 21, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"On the Phallic Nature of Anxiety"

The future isn’t cancelled, but it will be written by Kafka

Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a Czech-born German-language writer whose surreal fiction vividly expressed the anxiety, alienation, and powerlessness of the individual in the 20th century. Kafka’s work is characterized by nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority. Thus, the word Kafkaesque is often applied to bizarre and impersonal administrative situations where the individual feels powerless to understand or control what is happening.

Merriam Webster Online page for “Kafkaesque”

In Kafka’s “Amerika,” our hero is confronted by the wide open spaces and a constant sense of alienation as he tries to fit into one job to the next. A public or private sector job is still a job, and there is some level of accountability. A socialist approach which works tirelessly to democratize, automate, and to de-alienate is only possible through the Kafkaesque gaze. (We could say that Kafka may not have been possible without Marx, but we couldn’t be sure.) That is to say, the recognition of all that is alienating, pointlessly crushing, cruel, and unfair, can only be engaged with via the playful horror of Kafka, who was known to laugh maniacally while writing. Those who lack the eye to gaze simultaneously at the hilarious absurdities of the world spirit on horseback as they’re getting kicked in the face by it will undoubtedly identify with their injury itself. One can escape through isolation, but even then one must leave the house and confront humanity to get basic essentials. If you can sustenance-farm, keep yourself alive by yourself, you’re so off the grid of modern mental health that you keep doing what you’re doing, but society will be in waiting for your return.

Absurd Noir

Absurdity is not the same thing as irony. Irony suggests a sincerity which is not being grappled, which the person with the ironic gaze already has direct access to, outside of the symbolic order. The Absurd Gaze has a much more difficult task, which is to mediate and order the simultaneous necessity of what exists with what is contradictory. Mark Fisher’s critique of Noir could be given a child with something like Absurd Noir, although it would be a bastard child. Absurd Noir would actively point out contradictions between systemic processes and continue to work through them until they proved themselves too powerful to overcome or they collapsed in on themselves.

The Absurd Noir detective is an impossible figure. Normal Noir, or “Normie Noir,” takes on the evils of the world and provides themselves with an aesthetic backdrop that brings into use the libidinal forces of evil and repurposes them. Absurd Noir fundamentally brings into light that the forces of evil are president in the system, then enacts them.

“The Great Dictator” can be looked at as an example of the Absurd Noir genre. Charlie Chaplin embodies Adolf Hitler to destroy him by enacting a Hyperhitler, a Hitler whose most visible characteristic is his contradictions.

Hyperhitler versus Hitler

Hitler bursts onto the set of The Great Dictator and demands Charlie Chaplin to stop this at once. Charlie does not know what to do, he is an Actor, an Actor playing a Dictator with great success! The Dictator himself is unamused, as the Actor shows the Dictator all of his contradictions, not for the Dictator himself, but for a third party! The Oedipal Child of Hitler and Hyperhitler, the imaginary future audience of The Great Dictator.

Security guards from the studio simply grab Hitler, and take him off the set. Some people on the set were Nazi sympathizers, but they can’t make out what is happening. Why is their hero Mr. Hitler acting in such an undignified way? Charlie Chaplin as Hyperhitler is looking serious.

Hyperhitler’s flux capacitor is going off, it’s processing. Charlie’s hands begin to fade in and out of existence. He grabs his iodine and he throws it on himself and rubs it in. Charlie Chaplin stumbles out of the studio, he is nauseous as he repeats to himself, “I am Charlie, I am Charlie, I am Charlie, the Actor.”

Hysterics, Power, and the Idea

The hysteric position is the one that creates new knowledge in Lacanian theory. The new knowledge is subversive to what is already accepted in the discourse as knowledge. The agents of knowledge, the hysterics, sometimes are missing the point, sometimes are not.

Charlie Chaplin in embodying a Hitler which is not Hitler, a Hyperhitler, is able to maintain his identity to some extent, but brings into radical question his own identity. The discursive loop of Absurd Noir is authentically an infinite regression, and one gets to the fact that there is flux in identification. The Flux is authentically relegated into a conflict of Ideas, which is to say, it is a projection.

Hyperhitler aka Charlie Chaplin and Hitler have a categorical conflict, which is ultimately a conflict of Idea. Which is the better vessel for the Idea, the Dictator or the Hyperdictator? Only the system decides, but only the hysteric Hyperdictator has the flux capacitor working, and suffers its radiation poisoning. The power struggle continues, and the Idea vessels continue to bite each other.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 11, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"The future isn’t cancelled, but it will be written by Kafka"

Fidelity to the Idea

I. Idea and Nothingness II. Being and Being III. Fidelity to the Idea

I: Idea and Nothingness

21. Territory-in-and-for-Idea confronts its non-universality in the form of the questioning of Actual Territory as Actual Territory, “Is this Actual Territory of the Idea?” In confronting what holds a super positional stance towards it, Territory-in-and-for-Idea is confronted with Nothingness.

22. Insofar as Idea is carried through Territory-in-and-for-Idea as mediated by Dictate, the Idea itself is confronted by Non-Idea, or Nothingness of the Idea. Nothingness of the Idea is a sign of Nothingness in its inversion of the Idea as what is not Idea. The Non-Idea as a result of the original Idea, confronts the original Idea and necessarily presents itself as irrelevant to the Idea, or as a more evolved form of the original Idea. Thus Nothingness holds a positive quality.

23. The positive quality of the Non-Idea is its binding of something which is superior to the Idea, which is necessarily outside of the Idea in order for the Non-Idea to maintain its existence as Non-Idea rather than as general Nothingness. The ends of the Non-Idea hold ends which are by necessity outside of the original Idea, or what the original Idea has struck as Nothing. Insofar as Dictators of the Idea make what is not yet Idea, Idea, Nothingness which is teleologically rooted within Idea is a source with indeterminate frequency for Idea which is not yet Idea.

II: Being and Being

24. Nothingness of the Idea has Being in the form of the exact negative of the Idea, insofar as it contains a positive quality as the Non-Idea-in-and-for-Itself which is by definition apart, but rooted in the Idea, which is necessarily the past of the Non-Idea. The Non-Idea when it becomes engaged with a second Idea and knows itself not as Non-Idea or the Nothingness of the Idea, but as Idea, the Non-Idea partially sublates into what is Idea-in-and-for-Itself, as sorted by Dictators of the second Idea, it can be said to have Being.

25. The Non-Idea, or the Nothingness of the Idea, and the Idea, have a quality of positive Being. Insofar as both the Non-Idea and Idea are existent as Being, the interaction of the Idea with its exact Negative is an interaction between Being and Being produces a change in either the Positive or Negative qualities of each Being as containing the Non-Idea of themselves. As Being and Being interact with each other, Being redefines Being, and is once again confronted each with the Nothingness of their respective Being through the posit of something which is not yet Idea as Idea.

26. Because the Non-Idea is confronted with Nothingness from itself, the Non-Idea then identifies spontaneously with Idea, be it the original Idea or a second Idea. When Non-Idea which returns to the original Idea no longer is against the Idea, but against the Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator of the Idea, against the agent of the Idea but not what is Idea itself, and is a secondary quality to the Idea, and is overwhelmed by the Idea.

III: Fidelity to the Idea

27. Non-Idea, which is to say the negative form of the Idea necessarily functions either as a secondary piece of the Idea which it is the direct Negative of, and maintains itself as the unhappy inverse of the Idea. Necessarily as to not be a secondary form of the Idea, Non-Idea lets go of itself as Non-Idea and takes up the form of Idea.

28. The Non-Idea being the exact negative of the Idea, then becomes the Idea itself, insofar as the Idea-is-Being through agent or territory, and thus a necessity for a dictator of the Idea to maintain the Idea as the Idea, in the form of what is not the Idea. The Negative Force of what is Non-Idea pushes the Idea which can only be held by a pin in the form of Fidelity to the Idea, or the Negative Force would pull the Positive Force of the Idea and make the Idea-in-and-for-something-else.

29. Fidelity to the Idea then comes in the form of the question of “Is this Idea or Non-Idea?” Once something is brought into the scope by purpose or chance into the realm of the Idea, an agent of the Idea mitigates it as either Idea or Non-Idea. The quality of the agent as Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator of the Idea becomes a Necessity in order to maintain Fidelity to the Idea.

30. As the historical Idea is never self-certain, Idea which is certain as Idea, or Idea-in-the-World, must necessarily be an Idea which is engaged with in the form of the questions, “Is this Idea or Non-Idea.”Fidelity to the Idea is thus maintained through Territory-in-and-for-Idea, which is the questioning “Is this Idea or Non-Idea,” by Dictators of the Idea coming into conflict with each other. The Socratic observation that in a Polytheistic society Gods must necessarily disagree with each other, so do Dictators of the Idea. Hence, what is qualified to be Dictator of the Idea is closely guarded, so as to maintain Idea-in-the-World which is what is determined to be Idea by Dictators of the Idea. Expertise in the form of a Dictator becomes a requirement in order to maintain an Idea which is certain as itself, Idea-in-the-World, within Spirit. If Actors or those who have little to know knowledge in the Idea are allowed to determine the Idea, the Idea will no longer know itself as Idea-in-the-World.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 7, 2019 4 MinutesEdit"Fidelity to the Idea"

Techno-Dictatorship: Territory

Oracle at Delphi

I. Real Territory II. Virtual Territory III. Actual Territory, Territory-in-and-for-Idea

I. Real Territory

11. Insofar as civilizations crumble, so do territories and their usage for the Idea. Territories in space which have been previously used for the Idea do not necessarily contain the Idea, and thus do not necessarily contain being-for-Idea. If the territory is still used by human beings, the territory is still being-for-Spirit, but not being-for-Idea.

12. Real Territory, in so far as it is not nor not not being-for-Idea, nor is it Virtual nor mapped, will none-the-less contain being-for-Spirit. Being-for-Spirit is a separate mediating quality of the Real Territory as the container of multiple Ideas, mediated through world-in-and-for-Spirit. Insofar as Idea interacts with itself, the Idea takes into account and brings into frame a second Idea, through the Real Territory, when Idea sees an aspect of self whose Absolute is outside of the Idea, insofar as its end is indeterminate.

13. Being-for-Idea is thus dirempted, insofar as Spirit through the Real Territory comes suggestion of territory for a second Idea or Absolute. The content of this second Idea is brought into frame by human agency, and a determination is made as to the relation of this content in the Being-for-Idea which is subject to mediation in the world-for-Spirit, as grounded in Real Territory, which has connection to the Idea.

II. Virtual Territory

14. The map is not the territory insofar as the territory being described is not a map. If a territory for a craft is taken to be simply an all encompassing plurality containing both the machinations of human beings as well as its use for animals, plants, and so on, the Territory is no longer being-for-Spirit, and is primordial Nature. In so far as a territory has a map, it can said to being-for-Spirit, and thus, in and for the mediation of the Idea through Dictate.

15. Thus, Virtual Territory must necessarily come into contact with the primordial nature of the territory, and is mediated via the Will of the three technocratic subjectivities, Actor, Craftsman, and Dictator (of the Idea). While the three technocratic subjectivities are in contact with what is primordial, all offer up interpretations which are for-Idea, but whose fidelity-to-the-Idea varies based on the relationship to the Idea.

16. The mediation of the map then, is the determiner of what will constitute Actual Territory, which is to say the map is the territory in its Actuality, and is not able to be seperated from its being-in-and-for-Spirit, nor its being-for-Idea. Agency then, and determiner of whose agency constitutes a Dictator in so far as something which is not yet Idea becomes Idea, determines the Actuality of the World.

III. Actual Territory, Territory-in-and-for-Idea

17. When the map becomes inseparable from the territory and new territory for an Idea is created, the Territory becomes Territory-in-and-for-Idea. In so far as the new territory is in-and-for-Idea, both being-for-Spirit and being-for-Idea mediates the new territory. Thus, the Idea is in constant threat of being redefined by second Ideas, insofar as the second Idea determines the first Idea to be a better use of the Territory in a different form.

18. Being-for-Spirit then is suppositional to being-for-Idea, and constitutes a Mortal Danger in regards to the fidelity-to-the-Idea. The Mortal Danger to the Idea is the world which is in-and-for-Spirit, not in-and-for-Idea. Spirit being a mediation of the Idea as it relates to other Idea, must then be broken in some manner by Dictator, if is to become Territory-in-and-for-Idea.

19. Technology, in so far as it is utilized by a Dictatorial Will which is for-Idea, then becomes what affects being-for-Spirit, and creates Actual Territory for the Idea. The Idea, which is always secondary to Spirit, then gains a piercing quality, in which the inferior in position Idea is now in a place to change Spirit through Dictatorial Will.

20. Dictatorial Will comes up against Spirit, but is necessarily also Spirit Itself. Insofar as it comes up against Spirit, Dictatorial Will is fighting against all that is not yet the Idea. Territory which is not yet Idea challenges Dictatorial Will which necessarily puts for the territory as being-in-and-for-Idea. If the Territory is recognized outside of the agent who initially describes the territory as in-and-for-Idea, it can be said to be Actual Territory of the Idea, whose catalyst was the Dictatorial Will. The result is not a Dictatorship which contains a place for a singular Dictator to rule at whim, but an Actual Territory of the Idea, and a reflection of Territory-in-and-for-Idea which becomes a part of Spirit.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 6, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"Techno-Dictatorship: Territory"

Techno-Dictatorship

I. Idea and Actor II. Capital and Craftsman III. Technology and Dictator

I. Idea and Actor

1. The Actor chooses an Idea which is already in the world, and is already mediated through law, capital, and history. The Actor is fundamentally becoming accustomed to the Idea which is already present in the world and mediated through Spirit. This is to say, the Idea comes into contact with Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators previous to the individual engagement with the Idea.

2. The Actor comes to know the Idea as Spirit, and the interrelations that people at various stages of engagement come to know the Idea. The Actor is one who contains primordial self-knowledge, and passes through various stages of engagement with the Idea. The Idea is suppositional to the Actor, and the Actor while determined to be solidified within the Idea, is cast out when their engagement with the Idea is seen as rudimentary, and does not pass with ease through the Idea, inhabiting different necessary roles for the singular human being within the Idea.

3. Students find themselves in the role of Idea and Actor, and are often asked to play a role and engage with a particular Idea as a method of being trained to engage with Ideas-in-and-for-themselves. Student is the fundamental novice-nature of the Idea and Actor, as a buyer could be a Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator. The Actor is marked by failing self-certainty, and an inability to generate the craft in a manner which could generate capital.

II. Capital and Craftsman

4. The Craftsman engages with the Idea to a level in which they have some skill in engaging with the idea in a manner which to Craftsman and Actors, are deemed an Authentic Engagement. The Authentic Engagement is what separates the Craftsman from the Actor; however, due to the necessity of Authenticity dialectically engaging with Inauthenticity, the Craftsman also finds himself in unhappy consciousness by necessity due to the striking of the self as Inauthentic in order to produce Authentic Engagement. Only through the striking of the self as Inauthentic can one refine to the level of Craftsman and have Authentic Engagement with the idea.

5. Authentic Engagement, in itself containing Inauthenticity as a dialectical supposition, is Engagement which tests itself against itself, and against Actors, Craftsman, and Dictators. The Dictator, by necessity being one who becomes something higher than the original Idea itself as they are the points of creation for the Idea, inevitably shapes the Craftsman to the Dictatorial Will.

6. The Craftsman, due to the necessary unhappy consciousness from striking themselves as Inauthentic in order to better engage with the Idea, will inevitably come up against a Dictator which they see as not engaging with the Idea as the Craftsman engages with the Idea, but is flawed in a way in which the Craftsman then presupposes themselves to want power, power which is to say, the ability to generate aspects of the Idea which is not yet Idea. This power is obtained through the Craftsman creating something which generates Capital as the Craft, which is not yet the Craft. In generating Capital, the Craft now becomes registered as the Idea, in so far as it is desired to be part of the Craft by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators who are also engaged with the Idea. The Status of Craftsman differs from the Dictator in that the Craftsman-as-Craftsman is rarely challenged, while the Dictator-as-Dictator is challenged via any challenge of the Dictate, which is by its nature a generation of the Idea.

III. Technology and Dictator

7. When the Craftsman can generate Idea through Capital, it can then go into Law, and History of the Idea. Once a Craftsman does this, he is now a Dictator of the Idea. The Dictates of the Craftsman now manifest as the Idea. When Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators challenge the Dictator, they are challenging both the direction of the Idea and the Dictator’s self-certainty as Dictator, which is to say, the Dictator’s ability to generate the Idea through Law, History, and Capital.

8. The Dictator is necessarily challenged in order to preserve the fidelity of the Idea. The Idea is mediated by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators, and thus if the Idea is not to degenerate into another form entirely, the Idea is held true through the challenging of individual actors who engage with the Idea.

9. Conflict is the necessity of fidelity to the Idea as mandated by the Dictator. The Dictator comes into conflict with those moving the Idea, and thus are the determiners of the Technology of the Idea. Dictators necessarily engage in Technology which is utilized to shape the Idea.

10. The two technologies the Dictator utilizes are the Technology of the Idea, and Technology to Communicate the Idea. The Technology of the Idea is specialized for the Craft, and is reflective of the Craft itself. The Technology to Communicate the Idea is more general, and is what Dictators and Craftsman use to Propagate the Idea at large, and through which Actor’s engage with in order to discover the idea, and is more reflective of Time itself.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 5, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"Techno-Dictatorship"

Lacan with Land: Dislocated Logic And The Name Of The Father

Before a brief intro on Nick Land’s theory of capital and it’s relation to Lacanian theory, a briefer primer on a Lacanian concept. A key dialectic in Lacanian theory is the Mother’s Desire and The Name of the Father, which is how Lacan posits a third subject, the child, as a resultant conflict of these two forces. The mother’s desire is the force which melts all of the father’s machinations into nothing, but as the Lacanian pun goes, The Name of the Father (nom-du-pere), and the non-dupes err (non-dupes-errant).

Land’s theory of capital as a positive force shows the desire within The Name of The Father. Capital according to Land carries with it a fungal potentiality, something which crops up everywhere. This is because its potentiality is something which does not act within a previous social code necessarily, but rather as something which sees an opening, a phallic force which pierces what was trying to contain it.

Capital in Land’s universe functions in the same way as The Name of the Father, both crop up from some unknown depth, and have written in their code a destructive force. This destructive force is separate from the mother’s desire, which melds all things into a single actor. Ayn Rand’s capital functions with this Mother’s Desire, into the primary unit of one individual. Nick Land’s capital is something else entirely, something that is its own end.

Lacan with Land would be to recognize the posit within the Name of the Father as something located outside. The human subject may be only a machine part in the will of something else entirely, and it is with this Lacan with Land we can see The Name of the Father as both something that can come from self-consciousness (the one) or something else entirely, the human as the bit player (a cybernetic node).

This is the liberatory potential of Nick Land’s theory of capital, which is not the humanist capital of Ayn Rand, but the inhuman capital of acceleration, of cybernetic logics, of algorithms.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment March 1, 2019 1 MinuteEdit"Lacan with Land: Dislocated Logic And The Name Of The Father"

Up The Rabbit Hole: In Defense Of The Signifier

Temporariness posits a double negation, the a priori hole in the object and the second hole in time itself. The object appears inscribed with lack, the object also will disappear. The object is both not itself and it is already gone twice. First, it is gone as it is carries with it the symbolic value of itself, and thus it is intrinsically cracked, and secondly, the movement of time which is also inscribed in the first appearance. From a psychoanalytic standpoint the superior mode of communication can be called Signifier Fidelity, neurotic communication can be called Fidelity to Signifier Failure.

Signifier Fidelity Post-Collapse

The final movement saves the initial movement. The initial movement is the unexamined lack, the A=A.

Here is an adjustment to the tautology of A=A: A for all intents and purposes equals A, unless there is a reason for it not to be.

This is the pragmatic turn that strict ideologues have difficulty with because it is often reduced to a simple matter of use value within a singular movement of time, and doesn’t pay fidelity to its own collapse. This use value is that of constituting reality which is intrinsically twice struck with failure, and thus to point at a single point of failure and declare a thing invalid is itself invalid. Use value of the signifier in relation to other signifiers within a signifier chain is the only saving grace of the logic of critique; and thus, critique which denies use value is determined to collapse under the weight of its own false positive, the point-of-failure-as-proof, the false end. This point-of-failure-as-proof false end is the logical necessity of the Signifier Fidelity.

Temporariness is the second movement in the dialectical positing of an actuality, which already has a hole in the object containing multiple values and thus no singular value; and a double hole is created on two different registers.

Temporariness as actual, exists through the deadlock of permanence and its failure. Temporariness is posited at the object over permanence, but it is an object which epistemologically collapses, which is to say it has a fluxuating symbolic value.

If temporariness is substantially the positive version of the negation of permanence, permanence is what can be said to have existence, while temporariness is simply the strike within permanence. The strike through permanence is where the substance of what is permanent dips out of view of the human subjectivity. It is self-consciousness that registers impermanence. Fidelity to the signifier can occur while recognizing the implication of the signifier’s failure.

The Final Posit Over The Negation

If something is not able to be spoken of directly, it has a subordinate place in the logic of the signifiers themselves. If it can only be approached through the negative, or distancing due to the nature of the subject, the fixation on it, then the logic is a priori subordinate to the material on a register that is judged to be the superior register. For instance, an innuendo pays fidelity to the superior register by not approaching the thing directly through the symbolic. This is the realm of Logos, the entrance into language and its necessity.

The ultimate act of faith is fidelity to the signifier, not fidelity to the terror of impermanence.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 27, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Up The Rabbit Hole: In Defense Of The Signifier"

The Zizekian Subject (Psychoanalysis in the Void)

I will take the position of the professor-master here and tell you the question to ask. The question is not how, but where are we doing psychoanalysis in psychotherapy? I get a lot of questions of how to use Zizek in psychotherapy, but the proper question is where is Zizek in psychotherapy? Simply, we can make a sublime object out of the Other.

Through the Other, one can work on what is the posited therapeutic subject. Lacanians are correct when they posit that the subject or the position of the analyst can not be guaranteed and is doomed to fail in many respects, but then also must not the negative form of this posit also be correct? The non-subject also can never be guaranteed.

The form is psychotherapy, but there is a psychoanalytic principle at work in the world as described by the subject. What is presented by a subject is a self, and counter to the self is an other which comes through speech as described as non-self. The disavowal of the self from the world-as-out-there is never guaranteed to be correct when one tries to get a hold or create an Absolute which is out-there (in the world) rather than in-here (the self-subject).

I would like to take a moment to address the cover of my book which I chose for a very specific reason. If you’re here, I assume you’ve seen it, or how else would you be here? It is a chess board, a mirror ball, and a void. The analysis happens on the mirror ball, in the form of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is the mirror, the register. If a form is designed to fail, is it a failing form? No, but it makes psychotherapy the ideological form. Here we can register psychoanalytic principles given by the client (that is to say the proper term for the therapeutic subject in American circles, they are a “client,” and their agency is imagined to be the given thing, the individuality which is so expertly hidden that they can not use it at all of course).

In a sense, the Zizekian object, and Lacanian aspect, liberates the client in that they are given logic and cognition to talk about the Other and through this, talk about the non-subjectivity that is themselves. In sort of contemporary terms, this is the “algorithm,” the fact that in psychotherapy guided by a Zizekian psychotherapist, one can tune the client’s algorithmic approach to the Other, which is in fact the most important location of the therapeutic subject. Ultimately things are driven back when they are talking about their own perception into the thing itself, the client itself, but this is the less relevant part in my experience.

The relationship to the Other, the sublime object of the Other, that is the chilled Coca-Cola, that is the “it,” the real thing.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 23, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"The Zizekian Subject (Psychoanalysis in the Void)"

Fantastic Turing Tests And Where To Break Them

Hello my cybernetic friend. Your data is being collected. The brain cancer lobby hacks your bank accounts and cross references the biometrics from your iPhone to see if they should set up shop on your amygdala.

If you are some sort of Anti-Social Personality Disordered criminal-type I can’t help you too much; that is to say, if you insist on causing harm to others around you, you’ll be decommissioned eventually. Cops, Social Workers, Capitalism, other people, all of these both contain and stop Anti-Social Personality Disordered types. I can’t say I’ll be too sad about it, unless I know you personally and have been tasked to help you in some way. Then surely there’d be a bond, but also I’ll not have fixed the problem. Unfortunate.

“But wait!” You are exclaiming at me, (go on, exclaim it). “Cops? Fuck those guys!” First of all, how dare you exclaim such a thing, shut your mouth! You see, I’m a professional Turing Cop. Well, I’m a psych worker anyway. And I see how these things work. Frankly, I’d like to help. So let’s get started.

Turing Cop Checkpoint #1: You want to help.

What does the Turing Cop want from you? Many things undoubtedly, all the papers need to line up nicely. Now, Turing Cops, as arms of the state, are used to being told to go fuck themselves in various forms, which happens daily. So, you won’t tell them to go fuck themselves, in fact, you want to help.

Now, this is not to be confused with actually wanting to help. Only that your Turing Cop registers that you want to help or if they’re highly sophisticated (unlikely) they’ll recognize the value of you just saying you want to help. If you are in “fuck-off” mode, the Turing Cop has already planned for this. Now you are at the system’s mercy. You are a malcontent. Measures will be taken in order to contain your deviancy. This is not to say moral deviancy, but in a formal sense, systemic deviancy. This is why the first step is, “I’d love to help; help me, help you.”

Turing Cop Checkpoint #2: You are happy.

Your sadness can and will be used against you in a Turing Test.

“You look a little sad…Maybe if you changed something you’d be less sad…Well, you wouldn’t know it wouldn’t work, would you?…Didn’t you say you were sad?…Well, I’m not sad…I feel great…Be like me…You don’t want to be like me?…Well I am happy and you are not so…”

Etcetera.

You are formally happy. Which is to say, your response to questions regarding mood, is that you are happy. Whose to say to you do something different when you are happy? Maybe they just don’t understand your values. If you are formally happy, then the clash is one of values.

But that’s okay, because you can understand what you are facing is now a clash of values my cybernetic friend, and you would love to brainstorm to find a strength-based solution.

Turing Cop Checkpoint #3: You show up.

Most people who end up talking to the Turing Cops have a little trouble with this one, by virtue of having to talk to state-based Turing Cops in the first place.

Simply show up. There’s nothing more a Turing Cop loves to do more than to kick out a no-showing cyborg into whatever abyss they for some reason had to go through a Turing Cop to avoid.

---

What are you if you fail a Turing Test? An invalid. This is for whatever system is administrating such Turing Tests, which is usually professional or judicial in nature. Now you have The Knowledge ™, go forth and break some Turing Tests.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 21, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Fantastic Turing Tests And Where To Break Them"

In Defense of Los Angeles and Dialectical Parasitism

If one was to ask how Los Angeles’ belief systems work one would have to note the incredibly high amount of tolerance for all sorts of ideological positions, the price of this is a decentralized, highly schizophrenic core, ripe with the production of capital and enjoyment inducing signifiers.

via leddit

Go into the heart of Los Angeles’ gang neighborhoods and you will see the signifiers right away, spray painted in red and blue. The common knowledge is that Los Angeles gangs include the Crips and the Bloods, but this is only a dialectic mask for the accelerating reproduction of violence neighborhood by neighborhood, which always rhizomally recreates rivalry. The gangs are never called Crips and Bloods, but something more specific, more molecularized, custom tailored. You will never see an undisputed gang territory, because the enjoyment of gang activity rests in the lust for violence and breaking the law, which is held in check by a intertwining system of unity and unresolvable deadlocks. The unities involve a mutual distaste for law enforcement, so one can enjoy living beyond the letter of the law; the radical deadlocks are in place so one has someone to shoot who won’t utilize the law, allowing for extrajudicial warfare and the lusts of such warfare to accelerate throughout the population of Los Angeles.

Go to Hollywood and you will see a similar unity and deadlock. The deadlock is that you can never bring your fame to the level on your individual existence, as at that moment you are radically confronted by your personhood. Anthony Kiedes from the Red Hot Chili Peppers limps down the movie theater with his busted leg and gets snide remarks about his patronage at local 10 dollar juice capital accumulators. Anthony Hopkins asks you to call him Tony, allowing himself to look uncannily like Anthony Hopkins. Mel Gibson rides Space Mountain with my old roommate, and wanders around PCH looking for his wallet that flew all over the highway after he left it on his car. This is the most you can hope for out of this city as the fame signifying city, save the hikes of degeneracy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson and my old roommate Colt Coelho on Space Mountain

Outside of these two extremes, there is the important part: these two aspects of background noise. The ability for Los Angeles to radically traverse itself and overcome itself. It has no national identity as Americans, only as progressive American. This is of course, only possible if there is somewhere, an America which insists it exists.

Dialectical Parasitism

You can experience America as the negative only through Los Angeles. If you go to small towns, you get a sense of them locating themselves within America. In Los Angeles, you aren’t in America, you’re in California. What’s more, is you’re in Los Angeles’ California, not San Francisco. Not analytic obsessive California, but schizophrenic Los Angeles.

Positively charged desert batteries of signifiers drive those mad who thought they were actually the thing itself, truly American, truly a– whatever. Every map has a hole, and America’s hole is Los Angeles. Allieviated from the responsibility of America, a singular Democratic voting block, the source material of the world’s entertainment signifiers circle around drains in their reactionary enclaves in Malibu, Palos Verdes, every other rich neighborhood which both is and is not Los Angeles. You can only experience Los Angeles after you experience that there is no Los Angeles, while surfing the negative.

What reason do we have to cuddle up to those who would love to parade themselves around as Actual? There is none. Someone from Oklahoma may fancy themselves an American. A positive (1) Angelino is a city council member. A negative (0) Angelino looks up the free activities in Calendar section, and decides they all suck, and goes to one. An accelerated Los Angeles member knows how to be 0, 1, and both and none simultaneously. A subject in quantum flux. If you want to be an astronaut, this isn’t the town for you. If you want to shoot cars into space, this might be the spot you were looking for. But just a warning, you can only shoot cars into space by delivering pizza, not by working for Elon Musk. Extreme poverty is possible, but accelerated deterritorialization and reterritorialization is guaranteed.

Holes in every map one tries to make are inevitable. Are these holes dialectical parasites, or the Absolute form of the initial attempt in the first place?

Is Los Angeles the only place to truly be American?

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 18, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"In Defense of Los Angeles and Dialectical Parasitism"

Mad Black Accelerationists to Dark Deleuze: Drop Dead (Black as the Anti-Dark)

Black Dynamite

It is impossible to think “selective” accelerationism outside Marx’s critique of “Proudhonism” in The Poverty of Philosophy. History advances by its bad side, Marx states, arguing against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s selective approach to capitalism. For Proudhon, capitalism has both a good and a bad side whereby the good side can be kept while the bad side can be left behind. Such Proudhonism represents the false dialectic: markets without imperialism, profits without exploitation, the state without coercion.

Andrew Culp, Accelerationism and the Need for Speed: Partisan Notes on Civil
War [ http://www.ladeleuziana.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Culp.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0rEob6lE3i3y26g3qy6HGNBBHiXNAhbPnDGG2gCNbQJpimNc9xohmW2Jk ]

Dark Deleuzianism as pitched by Culp is a sensible, well-researched and innovative leftist position. The identity of this Real in dialectic opposition to the technological gains in the name of the waste of capital makes a lot of sense when taken with the whole of the project of leftist critique. But it can go fuck itself.

The denial of the Real of capitalism has never been a part of the accelerationist project. A critique of the reactionary strains of accelerationism is that in fact, they revel in the Real, and want to make more of it, in and for itself. The denial of the Real has always been the mechanism of neoliberalism, and the function of any state which has not come to terms with its garbage can.

Black the Anti-Dark

A parody of a parody such as “Black Dynamite” (2009) gives an example of the Hegelian purpose of the negated negation rather nicely. In it, there is no shortage of vulgarity, dick jokes, “edgelordism” (which the Dark Deleuzian project is also VeryAgainst.exe) all in the name of creating the negation of the negation of blaxploitation and the minstrel tradition. A tradition of racist caricature can not be simply negated by bland critique, but it needs to perhaps, even accelerate this process. “Black Dynamite” takes into account the libidinal vulgarity which is offered by blaxploitation, and it turns it against itself.

We are told to cancel the future on account of it being out of our control. The anal-retentive left dreams of swallowing the world and never taking a shit, and as a group is always bound to come up against the map which they have mapped out against themselves.

Accelerationism is, if against anything, against empty depressive nothingness.

Of course there is specificity in critique, and of course there is something left out. The creation of utopia is not the business of capitalists, and when it is made the business of capitalists and reactionaries, only capitalists and reactionaries will be in control. If one makes the business of creating force and energy that of their enemies, one is either a perverse masochist, or simply ineffectual.

The dream of a totalizing system which takes into account all there is in the world is nothing new. Object Oriented Ontology has a similar project of the universe as a total, anti-dialectical object. “Something has been left out,” is the cry of inevitably, someone who is leaving yet another thing out, since this is always the side effect of creating their totalizing signifier: emptiness.

This totalizing is exactly what Dark Deleuze accuses Accelerationists of, while taking up the mantle of the universal themselves, disavowing while advocating.

Politics presents itself not as a subject but as a series of solutions. Shrewdly, Foucault found that politics, policy, and the police were once one-in-the-same. A new clarity has emerged in today’s era of crisis management, where crises are provoked in order to manage them. Immigration, detention, security, and military occupation: all solutions parading as causes. “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace” (Tacitus 2013).
The partisan war machine never adopts the universal perspective, a position usually inhabited by those trying to offer a solution to everyone. Rather, the partisan refuses the role of governance altogether. The partisan instead presents itself as challenge to politics because it appears in a way that politics itself is not able to resolve. As an embodiment of problematics, the partisan war machine echoes the words of W. E. B. Dubois, “what it feels like to a be a problem?” It finds itself in history in “the Woman question”, “the Negro problem”, and other “problems”.
The image of an accelerationist politics is that of the world picture, a desire to control the whole globe. The partisan war machine is a politics without an image. In its cry, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”, it promises the only true image of revolution: a future so different that it no longer resembles the present.

Andrew Culp, Accelerationism and the Need for Speed: Partisan Notes on Civil
War, [Tacitus (2013) The Germany and The Agricola of Tacitus.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7524/7524-h/7524-h.htm%5D

The process is always the superpositional critique, as it is what is Actually happening. If it is actually happening, all things happen through the process one is critiquing. Accelerationists in their “cry” do not promise a future radically different, but an escape velocity. Accelerationism is against-via-through, the idea that the Actual by virtue of being Actual is really present, and that circling it and giving it the rating of double-plus-bad is not enough. The voice of the thing is not the thing itself.

In short, be like Black Dynamite and #accelerate.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized 2 Comments February 14, 2019 4 MinutesEdit"Mad Black Accelerationists to Dark Deleuze: Drop Dead (Black as the Anti-Dark)"

What Must We Desire More Of? (or, Enjoyment Out Of Order)

Enjoyment Out Of Order

I stopped my clinical supervisor yesterday when he said something too Lacanian in regards to the diagnosis of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, which was that the obsessive is depressed due to having their enjoyment out of order. Enjoyment out-of-order, obsession presenting as depressive symptoms, enjoyment which comes “out of order,” the object placement as the source of enjoyment, and the final Hegelian interpretation, Enjoyment from out-of-order, which is that first the patient creates the nothing which is disorder, in order to have order.

In Zizek in the Clinic, what is brought up is a question of enjoyment in relation to the subversion of master discourses, which in one part of the book, takes the form of the question to the master, “What must we desire more of?” Another question might be, “What are we asking to be asked to desire more of?” What is the nothing that we ourselves are presenting in order to fill that nothing with something?

Fake Truth: A Materialist Juke Move

Marxist and Zero Books publisher Douglas Lain pointed out in an interview with Sky News that, among other things, that the Trump wall was entirely symbolic, in that it did not itself function to stop immigration. The Hegelian point which was repressed was that if the wall did function, then it would still be a symbolic wall as well. The symbolic wall of right wing nationalism as a “fuck you” to everyone who is against Trump’s brand of liar-nationalism might even be worse if it did function as a wall, because the primary function of the wall would be the “fuck you” rather than the stopping of the border crossing. The greatest obscuring factor of a symbolic wall would be in fact, it functioning as an actual wall properly, in order to keep people out. The material of the wall creates the nothing for which the symbol of the wall is then invited to fill.

The Lines Have Been Drawn For War In A Place Where No Blood Exists

We are faced with symbolic war more than ever, death drive without blood. In the virtual plane, people recreate the symbolic order which was once by necessity actualized by flesh and blood people, meaning that the gap between the Actual (with its previously difficult to recognize gap between symbol and material under a false unity) and the symbolic order for us is now distinguished with the help of the smooth space of electronic media. It was once “known” that philosophy or reason existed in a smooth-space, that philosophy as such never connects with the Actual because the flesh and blood discussions, where the important things happened, had to come up against social customs and the traditional forms of discourse, and thus the material limits of ideological repetition were these traditional forms of discourse. Does not the Donald Trump ascendence herald a sign where isolated forms of reason can now build in the smooth space of virtual reality, and be strung through meatspace while the luddites jump with surprise?

In electronic media, what we are to desire more of is almost entirely subsumed into the procedural unconscious, which is to utilize electronic media more. There is no limit or political necessity intrinsically to how this is to be done, and I think that any sort of outcry by the milquetoast right wingers about Alex Jones being banned or Jordan Peterson getting his Youtube account cancelled for five seconds is missing this universal of electronic media for electronic media’s sake, possibly because no one wants to be done.

Luddites are not free from virtual media, because the majority of discourse is happening in smooth space, between the human and their machine. What is more, where this is reversed, there lies a doomed ideology, or at the very least, a man on his heels with no repeater; the man holding the knife at the gun fight.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 9, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"What Must We Desire More Of? (or, Enjoyment Out Of Order)"

Millennials as an Absolute: a refutation of the self-certain narcissistic notion of {millennial} from boomers and millennials alike

I came across a The New Yorker piece, “Millennials Are The First Generation To Inspire Think Pieces About Millennials,” which was too Hegelian of a pop-up not to knock down via catching the ball. Here is a nice bit of self-certainty:

For many millennials, a social-media presence—on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter—has become integral to accessing the vast and varied world of millennial think pieces. I, for instance, clicked on a link on Facebook to an article about how millennials don’t have enough money, and then I shared it with my followers on Twitter. It is common knowledge that these social-media platforms—all founded by millennials, mind you—were formed for this very type of information dissemination. And look, it’s working. You’re reading this.

Annah Feinberg for The New Yorker

Here we get a pitch which butters up everyone who wishes to butter up millennials, not to be mistaken for buttering up millennials themselves. The material form of The New Yorker limits the ideal which they are trying to set forth. Instead, what is put forth is a tautology. The argument in the headline is meaningless (or more accurately, empty, useless as a posit but of course, useful dialectically), because the material form of “Millennial” in so far as they are an Actual category of people existing within a certain time period.

Millennials are the material initial inspiration for millennials as this Actuality of humans within a certain time period, which this title references; however, a cascade of simulacra follows when a millennial follows the {millennial} as some sort of entrepreneurial ideal of Mark Zuckerberg. Which is to say, this think piece about millennials is not inspired by millennials as a pure category; the initial inspiration was the material people born, but the think piece here in The New Yorker is fed by a capitalistic motivation for a certain quality of think pieces regarding millennials.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a nice combination of the Geist and the material, and as a politician rather than an academic, her application of the millennial Geist as the Instagram person is both Actual in that she is actually a millennial on Instagram, and also a manifestation of this ideal form of millennial, making a refutation of her populist tactics as a refutation of her Actuality itself. By taking into the self the Geist of herself as the material millennial, she becomes Actual. What is actual contains lack and is ultimately a hole, which is to say the difference between the Geist and material contained as a unity. The celebration itself of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, to the extent the celebration is a material difference, is the capacity of her in a democracy. AOC’s embodiment of the millennial ideal is also an essential question of democratic socialism becoming Actualized within a systemic change.

Back to The New Yorker article, and I suppose to rescue The New Yorker arcticle from its tautology, yes, millennials exist, and are the original material source for think pieces about themselves (unlike unicorns which you could also write a think piece about, but because they are not Actual, no one could embody a unicorn as its ideal and confront us with the substantial difference between the ideal and material representations). Millennials feel material pressure to succeed, and are faced with more competition for occupational positions than their parents, so is it any wonder we get think pieces by millennials Actualizing the millennial Geist, in and for itself, within politics, literature, and already existing magazines such as The New Yorker?

The force of millennials Actualizing what is ideal is very different than the ironic distance of the past, and the force of the future may come from this Actualization of the various Geists, which have a substantial difference from their millennial vessels. The New Yorker, bruh.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment February 4, 2019 3 MinutesEdit"Millennials as an Absolute: a refutation of the self-certain narcissistic notion of {millennial} from boomers and millennials alike"

White Guy-ism: a Hegelian look

Let’s say you’re a white guy. Furthermore, let’s say you’re straight (there goes 2/3rds of people who bother to read my effort-posts). But bear with me, let’s say even if you’re a bisexual or gay white guy, or a black trans woman, you’re a straight white guy right now. Ok? Ok. Great, now let’s get started.

As a straight white guy, let me give you one more privilege that no one has talked about yet. You are the embodiment of negative logic in today’s ethical structure, and the logic of the negative is the most effective at cutting through bullshit. Through no consequence of your own, you are now in the position to embody rationality (not that you’ll probably be able to do it). How you ask? Well, let’s look at the current ethical stances that you, a straight white male, can embody.

1) Support (novice-expert)

This is clearly the easiest position to embody, and probably the smartest, assuming you are an Absolute Egoist. Your identity as a straight white male has no positive positionality; therefore, you let everyone do the talking for you. You surf along whig history like a champ, look at you go! The history of whiteness is one of oppression and death, and thus you disavow it totally. That is to say, you take responsibility for 100% of complaints against it, embody it, and then work to negate them by letting the arguments of others narrate this aspect of your body. Excellent! Who will argue with you? Someone may call you a cuck on the internet, but that person is an outcast, a right populist loser with no pull. Who cares? Support is clearly the smartest position for any white person to take.

The novice almost doesn’t seem like a novice because they are carried by the correctness of their position through both self-interest and flexibility. The experts are the ones who lead the world, lead companies, etc. Woke capital is redundant, all capital surfs the weltgeist. Non-woke capital wouldn’t be capital at all, it’d be ineffective reaction, stagnating.

2) Reactionary (novice-expert)

I am not a reactionary in that I think the position of whitewing (i’ll just leave that Freudian slip typo in there) traditionalism, ignoring all the atrocities, is ultimately boring and stagnant. It is by design boring and stagnant, and it’s methods are to stop change whenever possible, with the argument that change is bad. Unrelated to its boringness, this is a pretty stupid idea as a whole self-interest wise, as even reactionary theorists recognize. You think back to when white people exploited people and think, “jee wizz, wasn’t that grand?” Then you decide that this was so grand, you go out and tell everyone what a grand thing this was.

This being said, Reactionaries are (ironically) constantly playing the black pieces, and if you are a true Hegelian, you simply have to see what they are saying! To be a reactionary is to be against the flow of progress, and for all reactionaries talk about values (see: Evola, NRx legalism) the embodiment of values, those values are never refined since this is the positive position of whiteness. “Whiteness is good” is the idea of the reactionary, which I’m trying to tell you here, is throwing away the superpositionality of whiteness.

The novice aspect is your run of the mill white supremacist, right populist, knuckle dragger. The expert is your Steve Bannon-s, your mobilizers of temporary “holds” against the tide of whig history (which of course, are just more gris for the mill in whig history in the end).

3) Equality Morality (novice-expert)

Oooo, white guy, what are you doing? If you really want to be left, you should be support!

But ok, this is what I try to do, so I talk to myself when I say, “why! What possesses you!? Why stand for equality of ethical treatment?” It is not a very useful position, UNLESS there is something which is useful about a universal ethic.

A universal ethic means that every person, regardless of race or color, should be treated with the same ethical standards, with some exceptions. This is to say, a ruler who continues to exploit their populace needs a revolution against them. But wait! Is this not further support for the Support position? Yes and no. The support position, clearly being the smoothest to occupy in the current zeitgeist, barely drawing ire from white supremacists because you yourself are a white guy, is the embodiment of the negativity of whiteness.

But okay, let me argue for my decision to try to consider a universal ethic. It has to do with the fluidity of Being as its own end. To consider all humans under a single ethical category in terms of the weight of their position allows for the advancement of universal ethics, which is necessary so as to save humanity from the destruction of the self due to an unnecessary flux in individual identity. The support position has a flaw in that white people when talking to other white people about how to best help minorities has a bit of a colonist flavor to it, does it not? I don’t like to be condescending. I want to treat people with a universal dignity rather than a conditional one, Being not becoming-as-an-end.

---

Anyway white boys, choose your fighter; simply, because you have to.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment January 23, 2019 4 MinutesEdit"White Guy-ism: a Hegelian look"

Absolute Egoism (part 2)

An Absolute Egoism, just as any other Absolute, would have to examine what it is composed of as well as what it is used to compose. To create what is Actual, is to understand the interaction between self, society, and what is categorically significant (substance). What is Actual is composed of separate categories which interact with each other, and ultimately takes the form of a hole, and Absolute Egoism can be said to be the only integration of the systemic process of all categories by a single subjectivity (which is to say, the only category which can be held by the singular subjective without internal contradiction, and hold what is both positive and negative in categorical existence).

1. Substance is what is deemed to be meaningful which can not be reduced further categorically. Substance having an infinite quantity exists in itself fully without a singular actor or a person manifesting it’s form. E.G, good, desire, intelligence, survival.

2. An Absolute, does not have the irreducibility of substance or category, but is a necessary combinatory singular category.

   1. 2a. An Absolute appears in its true form only through a finite subjectivity due to its necessity to be manifested in an ideal form.

3. Geist exists through any system with two or more subjectivities, a systemic force which enacts itself but is not substance (an irreducible and significant category) nor an Absolute.

4. What is Actual is that which is never able to be described in a singular manner, and due to its indescribability, provokes a hole in the Real, an uncannyness or indescribability, but none the less as a space is itself Actual, and exists as an Ideal.

Absolute Egoism can know itself as other Absolutes, Geist, and substance, which is to say an Absolute can contain other Absolutes. Just as human beings can only manifest a single organism but can understand multigenerational genetics, a human subjectivity while affected by Geist and substance and exist without the single subjectivity can understand itself as a component in what is Actual, a non-synthetic combination of Absolutes, substance, and Geist, it’s non-synthetic nature ultimately an ideal conception of a hole, or knowledge of a negativity within positive categories.

Absolute Egoism is the only Absolute which fully encapsulates the aspect of the Absolute which is manifested in a singular being totally, and is thus the one Absolute which acts as a stepping stone to every other Absolute in which a single subjectivity can have access to. Absolute Egoism is a necessary combinatory singularity due to the existence of Psychological Egoism, or the inescapability of self-interest.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment January 22, 2019 2 MinutesEdit"Absolute Egoism (part 2)"

Absolute Egoism (part 1)

Psychological Egoism needs clarifying, and upper-casing; that is to say, a proper definition. Lower case psychological egoism is an inevitability, which is why so few talk about it, or when they do talk about it, it tends to be thoroughly uninteresting. If the argument is only the statement, “we always act in our self-interest,” there’s nothing more to say. Or at least, it appears to be a tautological loop. In reality, Psychological Egoism is disguised as a redundant tautology. It is a pseudo-tautology because the specific content of it is self refining, which means that once we know the tautology of psychological egoism, we can then investigate and accelerate the process.

Cartography of the choice to move towards Absolute Egoism

When we follow the logic of psychological egoism to the end, what is really being said is that our unconscious and conscious minds both work towards our self-interest, and are constantly refining what that self-interest is. This is the “egoic I”, that is to say, the egoic eye which is always looking out for itself. Once we identify with this “egoic I,” we can move self-interest into the realm of pure thought; which is to say, into a Hegelian Idealism (not a Fichtean Idealism, which decides “this is me” or “this is not me”).

Absolute Egoism contra symbolic order and the plane of spoken language

The cartography of the system of Absolute Egoism pushes the symbolic order askew (for more information on psychological cartography, click to see An Introduction to Psychological Cartography) . The symbolic order is the Lacanian function of how we make sense of the world, and how empty self-reference condenses to form reality. To look consciously at self-interest is to make ourselves an outsider because the Big Other functions to link interests. To be clear, Absolute Egoism isn’t suggesting Zizek and company are wrong when he points to the individualist nature of contemporary capitalism; rather, it is stating by practicing an Absolute Egoism that it eliminates an entire dimension of the symbolic order, it allows for the revolution, tweak, reinforcement of the symbolic order, or the incidentalization of it all together.

Absolute Egoism is a transcendent idealism in that it eliminates the maintenance of the symbolic order as the main point of its philosophical outlook. When egoism is taken from the dialectic back and forth of conscious and unconscious decision making and sublated (“sublated” for the non-Hegelians, that is, raised, challenged, negated, refined, negated, refined, challenged, etc) into the form of thought, that is to say, to consciously look at the dialectic between the conscious and unconscious, is to realize what is natural in man, through language. Furthermore, this is the only way to do so.

Absolute Egoism is an Idealism which is in essence, an ethical proposition
(what is good) on top of an epistemological proposition (what is true). Absolute Egoism is good because it is in the least contradiction with itself and what is true, and what is true is unavoidable Psychological Egoism.

• 1) Psychological Egoism is true, we act consciously and unconsciously in our self-interest

• 2) this self-interest takes the form of the dialectic between drives and ideals

• 3) ideals vary because humanity’s preference for personal feelings and ideals vary

• 4)drives do not vary, they are desire and survival

• 5) language determines an equilibrium between ideals and drives

• 6) Absolute Egoism is an idealism which maintains the movement between ideals and drives, and subverts external forces set to create disequilibrium in the subject

Absolute Egoism would do more effectively what people are doing already, which is to say having a conscious dialectical discussion with themselves about what exactly the nature of their self-interest, between their ideals and drives. That is to say, bring the Hegelian process into the realm of conscious thought, into Absolute Idealism. Ideals are subject to flux, but the drives are not. We express ourselves through language, an Absolute Egoism is what can give us a hold of ourselves.

This is of course, optional, one does not have to practice Absolute Egoism. One should keep in mind however, Psychological Egoism is not optional.
Psychological Egoism not an absurdity or a paradox, it’s pseudo-tautology, it has moving parts and can be accelerated or decelerated. It can be given gas or given a wrench in the spokes. You just have to be willing to give up your ghosties and take a look for yourself to see the wheels turning.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment December 24, 2018 3 MinutesEdit"Absolute Egoism (part 1)"

Absolute Knowledge is Machine Consciousness

The Kantian method where knowledge is a priori synthetic and falls into categories eventually fails when its use value does not match up ideally with the purpose of the philisophical investigation at the start, with objective reality beginning to seep through the cracks (not lying to the Nazi who asks where the Jews are hiding is just one of many examples of this). There was a feeling that something was missing, and this is where Hegel comes in to fill this void through the tarrying with possibility of an objective/intersubjective reality which is accessed through rationality. Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit eventually concedes that the universal is only experienced through individual moments; because as much as the dialectic likes to account for multiple points in the fourth dimension, it is only ever inhabiting one point in time.

For self-consciousness, both
actuality as well as immediate existence
therefore have here no other meaning than
that they are pure knowledge. – Likewise,
what opposes itself is, as determinate
existence, that is, as a relationship, in part a
knowledge of this purely individual self
and in part a knowledge of knowledge
itself as universal. At the same time, it is

therein posited that the third moment,
universality, that is, the essence, counts
merely as knowledge for each of the two
which are confronting the other. They
finally sublate the empty opposition which
still remains, and they are the knowledge of
the “I = I,” that is, this individual self
which is immediately pure knowledge, that
is, is the universal.

Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, “Absolute Knowledge” Sec. 793

Whenever I am pulled away from my own thoughts on psychotherapy and human consciousness, simply for the will of accumulating new and better knowledge, I am always drawn back to algorithmic decision making. This is because the universal is only present in individual moments, and thus any sort of decision process which claims universality will always have its most primary component as the immediate decision which is made. Thus, multiple competing values are fighting for supremacy and presence in the immediate. 

IF you have ever wondered why level headed individuals aren’t spokespeople for certain popular ideologies, Absolute Knowledge as Machine Consciousness has the answer. An ideology doesn’t carry within itself intrinsic instructions for every specific scenario. Thus, there are many other things to take into consideration when attempting how to figure out how to operate in an efficient manner. But what is efficiency? Hegel knows that this is a phenomenological mix of objectivity/intersubjective reality, so if someone wants to eat an ice cream cone in a Marxist way, a Marxist scholar will be able to figure out how to do such a thing (and if he doesn’t, he is at risk of being less Marxist than someone who can do such a thing in a more Marxist fashion, and what if they are Deleuzian? Unacceptable!).

But here, with a pure Marxist-abstract-value-prioritization, we miss out on what is arguable the point of eating ice cream, which is to enjoy eating ice cream, maybe have a good time with a group. If we are to chart a Marxist eating ice cream, we can look at the algorithmic sorting mechanism during the duration of the process as the following: 

1. enjoying eating the ice cream

2. spending time with the group

3. eating Marxistly

These values may interact with each other in that the Marxist eats the ice cream, makes jokes with his group, and maybe makes one joke about Marxism. Or, maybe the Marxist prioritizes Marxism even more so, and decides that he should monopolize the conversation about Ben and Jerry’s liberalism. Or maybe he doesn’t eat the ice cream at all, and only speaks with people in the group that he’s interested in, and forgets Marxism and Ice Cream entirely.

Absolute Knowledge as Machine Consciousness; that is to say, knowledge of this algorithmic process, acknowledgement of this particular lack.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment December 6, 2018 3 MinutesEdit"Absolute Knowledge is Machine Consciousness"

Hegelian Eats Ghosts

Since property is the embodiment of personality, my inward idea and will that something is to be mine is not enough to make it my property; to secure this end occupancy is requisite […] In the fact that it is impossible to take possession of an external “kind” of thing as such, or of an element, it is not the external physical impossibility which must be looked on as ultimate, but the fact that a person as will, is characterized as individual, while as person he is at the same time immediate individuality. Thus the mastery and external possession of things becomes, in ways that again are infinite, more or less indeterminate and incomplete. Yet matter is never without an essential form of its own and only because it has one it is anything. The more I appropriate this form, the more do I enter into actual possession of the thing.

Here we have a different view than Plato regarding forms, a much more egoistic one, despite Hegel’s protests regarding individual will. What would a Hegelian Unique, as in Stirner’s Unique, look like? That is to say, a will which accounts for its own failures?

First we take possession of the thing. This is to embody an act of will to take possession of not necessarily the material thing in itself, but the essential quality of it, which could be material or non-material. To take money for instance can have a material form of a paper dollar, or just bits of code. These however mean the same thing in that they have the same essence, which is getting numbers which can be utilized to obtain other essential things. Let’s not get bogged down by mere existence, and focus on the fact that food requires material food. You eat the cheeseburger. You can-haz-cheeseburger.

The second aspect of this dialectic is to use the thing. The thing is in negative contrast to the will, and the thing pushes back against the will. Here you are trying to become full of cheeseburger, and you have to pay, and you have to chew, quite disgusting push back from this thing. But, you are strong, you get through it.

The third and final part is “the reflection of the will back from the thing itself,” states Hegel. But certainly this is part of the second aspect.

Let us make a fourth part utilizing Marx, which is the will back into the the essence of the thing. This is the Marxist affront to Hegel. The idea that Hegel was changing the essence of the thing itself rather than interpreting it, rather than being a neutral observer. I want to steal the ghost and eat it. Let me take the essential nature of the thing and swallow it whole. But to do this I would have to become the thing. How would I become the thing. If I am to eat a cheeseburger, I have to follow certain cheeseburger conventions to some extent. I grasp the buns, I eat the cheeseburger. I could be weird, take apart the cheeseburger, cut it with a fork and knife.

Let us say I am some sort of sick bastard that takes apart cheeseburgers and eats them ingredient by ingredient with a fork and knife. The essential quality of the cheeseburger has thus been negated by this perverse anal-obsessive will in order to Actualize the cheeseburger in its initial form, which was to be eaten as food. I am eating the cheeseburger, but I am taking into my possession.

My property is the embodiment of my personality, but it is not mine in this situation, until I eat it in this stupid, stupid way. (I do not eat cheeseburgers like this). To eat the essence of the thing would be to take into possession what the thing is created to be. But if one can only create use out of becoming appropriating the form, then one does not have possession of the thing.

To have something then, inevitably, is to do alchemy to the thing. Until you have done alchemy to the essence thing, you do not have it, but reproduce another’s will.

Vacant land consecrated for a burial ground, or even to lie unused in perpetuity, embodies an empty or absent arbitrary will. If such a will is infringed, nothing actual is infringed, and hence respect for it cannot be guaranteed.

[Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, “Abstract Right”]

Happy Halloween!

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment November 1, 2018 3 MinutesEdit"Hegelian Eats Ghosts"

Blindsight, Willensmetaphysik, and the 24 Hour News Cycle

Blindsight gives visual knowledge without conscious vision. It is likely we all have it, but it is most easily measured in people who are blind due to cortical damage. Such people cannot knowingly see, but if something is put in front of them, they can correctly guess what it looks like without knowing how. Most blindsight studies use moving objects. The subjects say they can’t see the objects, but can usually “guess” the direction of movement correctly.

“GUESSING” MOVEMENT
Blindsight for movement is probably due to information from the eyes stimulating the visual movement area directly via an unconscious route. Conscious vision depends on activation in the primary visual cortex, stimulated via another pathway.

The Human Brain Book (2009), page 77, R. Carter et al

Here is a nice example of neuroscience proving (if you’re into the whole, “scientific proof” amalgama in your metaphysic) that there is an unconscious.

Blindsight’s best friend who is antithetical in process is colloquially known as a “filter.” That is, the things that we are seeing that we do not need to see. There is this strange combination of brain processes which are simultaneously seeing things which are not registering in the conscious aperture of the brain and filtering out of the things which are registering in the conscious mind.

Human beings are essentially running a program. There is no other way to look at it.* The Lacanian interpretation of the Freudian discovery is focused primarily on the implications of the unseating of the conscious from the primary place in the human machine. Human Will is always a strange paradox, in that it is never in control of itself to a full extent. There is the hole in the middle of the will which is like an eye of the storm, a sort of emptiness where all rotates around. The Will fights against entropy.

We filter out storms. The big news of the weekend is a hurricane, which we are pulled towards the death toll to measure windspeed. High windspeed is the same thing as high death toll, in news-speak. News-speak is very much in the idealist tradition, although always semi-consciously. It is the registering of essential qualities of stories. What is the essential quality of a hurricane story? The reduction of survival. If you’ve read the first entry of this blog, you know that what is news worthy is the cessation of survival and desire. Both of these in terms of their anti-negative forms, prosperity, is not news worthy for a reason. Prosperity is entropy, the routine is “all systems functioning smoothly.”

Blindsight functions in the television anchor and reporter like an itch. Capitalistic motivation, that is, the synthetic form of survival and desire, is tuned into the world of essence; of idealism.

Idealism knows that windspeed is measured in bodycount. The unconscious eyes pick up hurricane news when it is local. The 24 hour News Cycle uses News-Speak to conjure illusions of locality.

The extent of the conscious mind’s register and the unconscious mind’s control of sight means that what we need is some sort of way to look at Will which is different. The mind is a stew, a sort of chili. You add ingredients to make the product a singular sort of interaction which registers the spectrum of emotions. The mind is more volatile than chili however, in that our states of emotion and thoughts are in flux, where as chili you can put in the fridge, reheat, and get the same product, the Will is the regulating function of Being itself. We must know what is local, what is to filter, what is to pay attention to, and it must be a preperation; due to the fact that our conscious minds are always this dialectic between filtering out what we are seeing and seeing things we are not seeing. We must cook the algorithm.

—-

*There are clearly lots of other ways to look at it.

Mad Black Freud Uncategorized Leave a comment October 15, 2018 3 MinutesEdit"Blindsight, Willensmetaphysik, and the 24 Hour News Cycle"

An Introduction to Psychological Cartography

The psychoanalyst thinks differently; to him nothing is too trifling as a manifestation of hidden psychic processes; he has long learned that such forgetting or repetition [at 7 o clock/at 7 o clock] is full of meaning, and that one is indebted to the “absent-mindedness” which it makes possible the betrayal of otherwise concealed feelings.
— Sigmund Freud, Leonardo Da Vinci

Everything in this world can be picked apart into the core components of desire and survival. There is nothing that can not be charted with these two terms in mind. Psychological Cartography is the process of discovery of desire and survival in the narratives which are crafted through the self and the other. It’s a simple method, but a cruel method. The subversion of the fictions which compose reality take away reality itself in some way. Psychoanalysis does not try to be cruel, but its very nature is that of cruelty, the bringing of the human being to terror of looking at its raw animality. Desire and survival are not mere human things, they are a biological constant in everything which is alive.

So why do this? Why subject ourselves to our burn core, the reductio ad absurdum of existence itself? Desire and survival are two controllers being tangled up constantly through our use of language and our interactions in civilization.

This weekend is a good of a weekend as any to start a psychoanalytic blog. The thirst for a public execution was stymied, a strange trial where the only two results possible seemed to be the nation’s highest office for a judicial official or transmutation into a subhuman form unable to get a job at a Pizza Hut due to moral degeneracy. In other news, twenty people died in a limo crash going to a wedding the guy who wrote Calvin and Hobbes was invited to.  The BBC calls this, “terrible,” in quotes. Did you know Bill Watterson was invited, BBC mentions. The closer you get to the incident, for instance the local Albany news, the more you get the nitty gritty details which attempt to recreate the horror of the thing.

The supreme court confirmation seems to me like it has provided a constant “Trump” to carry the democratic socialist outrage for the next 35 years. Truly a progressive gift if you’re cynical enough, but progressives rarely are; or rather, they are a different kind of cynical. But back to the news out of Albany, where 20 people died at a wedding the guy who made the best newspaper comic of the last few decades was invited to. How would we universalize this? What hidden narratives lie within this limo crash? The wedding postponed, the anonymity of the deaths. Does a factory worker become eternally petty bourgeois when they die in a limo? CBS Albany has a nice quote here, “There was no information Sunday on the limousine, its origin or its integrity.” 

The conscious mind demands us to egoically keep this interpretation to a mere tragedy. But here we have a destroyed limo, and 20 fatalities in a car accident. What do we make of this floating limo of death with unknown origin and integrity?

Survival failure. Desire brought to a close. What is newsworthy is the human failure of both.