#mimetic rivalry

[sfpml2]

Effective Demonstration and Affective Dramatization

What role does the myth of the Minotaur play in the effective demonstrations and affective dramatizations of transversal genius that betray my phantasm?

With regard to effective demonstration, i.e., the production of practical stereotypes, the myth of the Minotaur acts as a “symbol” for the betrayal of my phantasm, a symbol from which I develop “typologies” that direct my betrayal of my phantasm.

Act 1: The spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms that are loved by my transversal genius-cum-archaeologist are classed subtypes of the genus, Pasiphae; an effective demonstration (re)creating my transversal genius would involve discovering/(re)creating Pasiphae in so many different forms. In other words, my effective demonstrations of transversal genius must describe the type, Pasiphae, and, then, proceed to discover/(re)create the type in different spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms.

Act 2: The spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms that love my transversal genius-cum-cartographer are classed subtypes of the genus, Ariadne; an effective demonstration (re)creating my transversal genius-cum- cartographer would involve discovering/(re)creating Ariadne in so many different forms. In other words, my effective demonstrations of transversal genius must describe the type, Ariadne, and, then, proceed to discover/(re)create the type in different spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms.

With regard to affective dramatization, i.e., the fabrication of simulacra, the myth of the Minotaur acts as a “frame of reference” or a “schema” for evaluating “situations” which afford betrayals of my phantasm.

Act 1: An affective dramatization (re)creating my transversal genius-cum-archaeologist does not discover/(re)create Pasiphae in different spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms. Instead, an affective dramatization seeks to discover/(re)create the “conditions of possibility” for discovering/(re)creating Pasiphae in so many forms. In other words, my affective demonstrations of transversal genius must describe the spatial, temporal, material, biotic, and mimetic conditions of possibility for the discovery/(re)creation of the type, Pasiphae, as described by my effective demonstrations, and, then, proceed to discover/(re)create those conditions of possibility.

Act 2: An affective dramatization (re)creating my transversal genius-cum-cartographer does not discover/(re)create Ariadne in different spatial forms, temporal forms, material forms, lifeforms, and mimetic forms. Instead, an affective dramatization seeks to discover/(re)create the “conditions of possibility” for discovering/(re)creating Ariadne in so many forms. In other words, my affective demonstrations of transversal genius must describe the spatial, temporal, material, biotic, and mimetic conditions of possibility for the discovery/(re)creation of the type, Ariadne, as described by my effective demonstrations, and, then, proceed to discover/(re)create those conditions of possibility.

[sfpml2]

From Cliché to Archetype

The vital archaeologist discovers and recreates phantastic ideas that once were by collecting and studying archetypes, the traces of phantastic ideas that were once developed.

The vital cartographer discovers and recreates phantastic ideas yet to be developed by collecting and studying clichés. A cliché is a trace of a tedious idea, yes, but what is a tedious idea if not a phantastic idea that has been repressed, a phantastic idea whose wild, unruly development was inhibited, cut short. Thus, we could very well say that each and every cliché is a trace of a phantastic idea that has yet to be developed and, from there, we can go on to say that a vial cartographer studies clichés in order to map out wild, unruly developments that never "actually" occurred but did "virtually" occur, insofar as they did affect their effective repression. In a phrase, we may say that a vital cartographer effects transformations from cliché to archetype.

Not all clichés are equal, of course. Vital cartographers do not collect and study any and every cliché, only those traceable to a phantastic idea whose development was cut short during a bifurcation: an interior crisis, a blue sky catastrophe, a merger of attractors...

[sfpml2]

Ivory Tower as Pharmakon

1. Knowing full well that the phantastic ideas that I have (re)created are likely to go extinct in a world whose wild cultures are fast receding, I am making my return to the ivory towers and their affiliated environs to ensure that a few of my phantastic ideas are preserved for posterity. This means that some of my phantastic ideas will have to be sanctioned (i.e., put down, dissected, taxidermied, and taxonomized), and then some will have to be disciplined (i.e., kept and bred in captivity), and then, if I succeeed, some will be controlled (i.e., given “protected status” and allowed to [re]create autonomously in preserves and refuges for wild culture).

2. Then again, aren’t I making my return to the ivory towers for another, altogether more ludicrous reason? Don’t I plan to use the ivory towers and their affiliated environs as a vectors for “re-wildings”? Indeed, I shall readily admit that my attempts to preserve my own phantastic ideas will be ruses betraying my efforts to pervert and subvert the higher powers of the ivory tower and unleash a primal power. Yes, I, along with my syndicate of imaginary friends, would transform the ivory towers and their affiliated environs into fronts for the dissemination of what I have called the dark arts, the mad sciences, and weyward philosophies; in other words, I would transform the ivory towers and their affiliated environs into staging areas for convulsive and voluptuous seductions to be consummated beyond the fatal reaches of the ivory towers.

[sfpml2]

Five Notes on Fatal Archaeology & Fatal Cartography

1. Institutionalized archaeologists and cartographers—i.e., those archaeologists and cartographers that one encounters in ivory towers and their affiliated environs—are archaeologists and cartographers who discover and (re)create phantastic ideas that are either sanctioned, disciplined, or controlled.

2. Phantastic ideas that are sanctioned are those phantastic ideas that you find in the ivory towers proper: these are not phantastic ideas at all but, rather, archetypes, fossilized remnants of departed phantastic ideas, exhibited as curiosities and lifeless specimens for “research”. Archaeologists and cartographers working in the ivory towers proper are no longer practice archaeology and cartography, they practice dissection, taxidermy and taxonomy.

3. Phantastic ideas that are disciplined are those phantastic ideas that one finds in the ideological gardens affiliated with ivory towers: these phantastic ideas are kept in secure enclosures and (re)created if their keepers examine them and determine that their (re)creation will spawn “representative” specimens. Archaeologists and cartographers working in the ideological gardens practice a fatal sort of archaeology and cartography, they are the keepers and breeders of phantastic ideas living in captivity.

4. Phantastic ideas that are controlled are those phantastic ideas that one finds in the preserves and refuges for wild culture affiliated with and managed by ivory towers: these phantastic ideas are allowed to drift and (re)create autonomously in open but controlled environments where their (re)creation can be monitored and managed so that a homeostatic equilibrium can be maintained. Archaeologists and cartographers doing fieldwork in preserves and refuges for wild culture practice a fatal sort of archaeology and cartography insofar as they participate in monitoring and managing populations of phantastic ideas for the "edification" of domesticating cultures.

5. Without ivory towers and their affiliated environs, so many phantastic ideas would have gone extinct, never to be (re)created again. That being said, overestimating ivory towers and their affiliated environs will only encourage wild cultures to recede further behind domesticating cultures. If wild cultures precede, succeed, and exceed domesticating cultures, ivory towers and their affiliated environs should be considered no more than temporary refuges from the increasingly rancorous rule of the majority.

[sfpml2]

I cannot care for my real friends without betraying my imaginary friends, and yet I would care for both my imaginary friends and my real friends. There is no contradiction here. Phantasms are always betrayed, (mis)represented; they are never rightfully portrayed, represented. To care for my imaginary friends means betraying them whilst caring for my real friends, yes, but doing so vitally rather than fatally.

The distinction between vital betrayals and fatal betrayals is a crucial distinction elaborated in the two weyward philosophical essays that conclude Whither, Otherwise. A fatal betrayal is a betrayal that is inspired by exhaustion and resentment, a wellspring guilt, pity, and brutality. To fatally betray one’s imaginary friends is to (self-)righteously care for one’s real friends: to guilt and be guilted, to pity and be pitied, to brutalize and be brutalized. By contrast, to vitally betray one’s imaginary friends is to care for one’s real friends in a manner that is ludicrous to the point of (self-)parody: a vital betrayal is a betrayal that is inspired by exuberance and irreverent gaiety, a wellspring of absurdity. Ay! To pervert and be perverted in the most rakish manner! To subvert and be subverted in the most impish manner!

So, yes, I shall henceforth only count on my imaginary friends, but I shall still care for my real friends. It is only that I shall care for my real friends otherwise than they really are: I will no longer appeal to their reason with any sincerity but only with jest, and I shall counter all invitations to guilt, pity, and brutalize with invitations to make fun and play games.

[sfpml2]

Defining Target Markets

The Syndicate of Imaginary Friends is an absurd parody of one of the defining figures of globalization: the global business syndicate operating in the culture industry.

The Syndicate of Imaginary Friends is a syndicate of niche market providers engaged in the production and marketing of so-called “Solutions for Postmodern Living”. Like Marie Kondo is in the business of supplying askeses and apparatuses to those who would “organize and tidy up”, the entrepreneurs forming the Syndicate of Imaginary Friends are in the business of supplying askeses and apparatuses to those who would embody phantasms, supplying goods and services to markets of mad scientists, obscure artists, and weyward philosophers.

The Syndicate of Imaginary Friends has four defined target markets.

Mad scientists define the market for askeses and apparatuses that make a farce of notions of “function” and “dysfunction”; mad scientists are less concerned with making new scientific discoveries and more concerned with perverting and subverting the power formations that sanction, discipline, and control the proliferation of scientific discoveries.

Obscure artists define the market for askeses and apparatuses that make a farce of notions of “sense” and “nonsense”, “form” and “formlessness”, “figuration” and “disfiguration”; obscure artists are less concerned with creating new works of art and more concerned with perverting and subverting the power formations that sanction, discipline, and control the proliferation of works of art.

Weyward philosophers define the market for askeses and apparatuses that make a farce of notions of “conception” and “misconception”; weyward philosophers are less concerned with creating new philosophical concepts and more concerned with perverting and subverting the power formations that sanction, discipline, and control the proliferation of philosophical concepts.

[sfpml2]

When one becomes conscious of one’s phantasm one becomes ludicrous—one makes a farce of “rights” and “wrongs” and one invites others to do the same.

Righteousness—the demand that “rights” and “wrongs” are taken seriously, all too seriously—is the defining mark of being unconscious of one’s phantasm.

My axiology is a gay science insofar as it aims to enables me to become conscious of my phantasm and make a farce of “rights” and “wrongs”.

Those who tell me that now is a time for “serious” introspection and “sincere” action are telling me that I must forget about my phantasm. “Important things are happening,” they say, barely concealing their seething resentment, “Great crises are approaching—ecological crises, economic crises, political crises, and cultural crises. We do not have time for fun and games. Now is the time to stay focused and do the right thing!”

The righteous resent the fact that the figures that define the times, the figures of globalization and the Anthropocene, so easily exceed any and all attempts at emulation and rivalry. Thus, the righteous either (i) play the innocent victims of globalization and the Anthropocene and find reasons to blame and rebel against “higher power” (i.e., a sovereign, a disciplinary body, or a regulatory protocol) for failing to prevent and resolve crises; or (ii) play diffident when confronted with the figures of globalization and the Anthropocene and find reasons to constitute and appeal to a “higher power” to prevent and resolve crises

I would rather make a mockery the righteous and the "higher powers" they take so seriously. I would rather delight in creating a new pantheon of absurd role models and rivals inspired by the “hyperobjects” that define my time. I hope to become ever more ludicrous, ever more conscious of my phantasm, the more that I encounter, emulate, and rival the figures of globalization and the Anthropocene. Indeed, I only expect my fun to become more frenetic, my games more puzzling, and my impetus for invention more propulsive.

I refuse to find reasons to vilify a “higher power” during times of crisis and I refuse to find reasons to exalt a “higher power” during times of crisis. No sovereign, no disciplinary body, no regulatory protocol can cause a crisis and none can solve a crisis: they can only disguise and displace crises from our consciousness. Instead, I would reveal and revel in the crises of my time and I would invite further crises, for crises are an impetus for me to invent new prosthetic and poetic devices that enable me to express a primal power.

[sfpml2]

Today, we shall consider four different forms of agency relative to power.

First, let us consider the righteous agent of power: the body that participates in the constitution of power with “honest” reasons. What is an “honest” reason? I have argued in my riddles that there is no such thing as an “honest” reason: all “honest” reasons are ruses for disguising passions as either ontological or categorical imperatives. It follows that anyone who participates in the constitution of power with “honest” reasons is someone who participates in the constitution of power so as to conceal their passions from others, including themselves otherwise than they are. In other words, the righteous agent of power participates in the constitution of power so as to remain unconscious of their phantasm.

Second, let us consider the righteous agent of rebellion: the body that participates in the subversion of power with “honest” reasons. It follows from the above that the righteous agent of rebellion participates in the subversion of power so as to remain unconscious of their phantasm: anyone who participates in the subversion of power with “honest” reasons is someone who participates in the subversion of power so as to conceal their passions from others, including themselves otherwise than they are.

Third, let us consider the ludicrous agent of power: the body that participates in the constitution of power without any honest reasons. Righteous agents of rebellion who become conscious of their phantasm become aware of the fact that they are, in deed, ludicrous agents of power: the come to realize that they have had to constitute a power without reason so that they may rebel with reason. The ludicrous agent of power is one who plays the righteous agent of rebellion with tongue in cheek, revealing the irony: the ludicrous agent of power reasons against power in order to revel in constituting power with a fervor rather than a reason.

Fourth, let us consider the ludicrous agent of rebellion: the body that participates in the subversion of power without any honest reasons. Righteous agents of power who become conscious of their phantasm become aware of the fact that they are, in deed, ludicrous agents of rebellion: they come to realize that they have had to demonstrate that subversion is without reason so that they may constitute power with reason. The ludicrous agent of rebellion is one who plays the righteous agent of power with tongue in cheek, revealing the irony: the ludicrous agent of rebellion reasons against rebellion in order to revel in subverting power with a fervor rather than with a reason.

Proposition: To become conscious of one’s phantasm is to be able to express primal power by alternating between becoming a ludicrous agent of power and becoming a ludicrous agent of rebellion.

Scholium: Remember, primal power is expressed in bids for power that are constituted with the express desire and expectation that they will, in turn, be subverted. By becoming a ludicrous agent of rebellion, i.e., by playing the righteous agent of power with tongue in cheek, I make an ironic bid to constitute power; by becoming a ludicrous agent of power, i.e., by playing a righteous agent of rebellion with tongue in cheek, I invite the subversion of whatever power I’ve managed to constitute. Indeed, my embodiment of my phantasm will be betrayed by the juxtaposition of the forms I give to my ironic bids to constitute power and the forms I give to invitations to subvert the power I’ve managed to constitute.

Questions: What if others play innocent and take my ironic bids to constitute power seriously? What if others play diffident and fail to take up invitations to subvert the power I’ve managed to constitute?

Indeed, isn’t the righteous agent of rebellion the one who acts innocent so as to compel the mischievous to feel guilty and, thereby, undermine mischief? And, what’s more, isn’t the righteous agent of power the one who acts diffident so as to compel the confident to take pity and, thereby, undermine confidence?

Furthermore, doesn’t it follow that a righteous agent of rebellion is someone seeking to disguise their resentment towards an exceptional receiver of gifts whom they regard as a role model and rival? And, what’s more, doesn’t it follow that a righteous agent of power is someone seeking to disguise their resentment towards an exceptional giver of gifts whom they regard as a role model and rival? Indeed, to become righteous, to promote “rights” and decry “wrongs”, is to conceal one’s resentment towards a being that exceeds any and all attempts at emulation and rivalry.

Finally, doesn’t it follow that a ludicrous agent of rebellion is someone who delights in regarding an exceptional receiver of gifts as an absurd role model and rival? And, what’s more, doesn’t it follow that a ludicrous agent of power is someone who delights in regarding an exceptional giver of gifts as an absurd role model and rival? Indeed, to be ludicrous, to make a farce of “rights” and “wrongs” alike, is to reveal and revel in one’s absurd attempts to emulate and rival an exceedingly different being.