In Presence

April-May 2022

​

Everything that can be said cannot always be said clearly[1], but can always be said succinctly.
Letting you in on something before I have fully understood it.
Transitioning, am I_____new, is me_____ New
is engenred, ___now genre, congratulations! New is a now product.
Crystallising as systemic and becoming rhetoric,
participating in creating discourse
                                      ≈capital≈power≈perception.

As you step out of analysis
And look at the future:
What do people want? What do people need?

People seem not to want discourse but might need discourse. Institutions and institutioning might be inevitable[2]. Meanwhile, such a major number of ‘things’ currently being the case in this world are commonly considered to be — simply — wrong, malicious, perverse, corrupted, collapsing, plain shit.
People want change and need revolt. Every human being is after revolution, at revolving, always, at all times — revolt as the condition of revolution[3] and perpetration of this movement. The equilibrium of revolt being to revolve.

​

Everyone is constantly thinking about change. Change is what we desire and matters most to us[4]. And if already in change and revolving, we want that movement to continue. Keep going. To let the pleasure go on,
People  The individual  Have revolution points.
Presence is that point. Presence is essential for revolving.

(Presence might even just be revolt.)

People wanting to learn how to and see themselves proceed beyond discourse
And not be alone,
Presence is revolution in being, being non-general and localized—Sharply  Softly
localizing Collapsing the general and
at the same time annihilating of that location at each iteration.
 

To intervene in the monadic space of iteration, a space of potential.

To lever on the joint.

How does theory access the joint? (Theory, not analysis). The monadic space of iteration? Theory being abstraction that must not corrupt concreteness. Theory being to describe the world in a non-analytical way (meaning, without up-setting - theory shouldn’t move, shouldn’t go there) by extending our logic unbiasedly through abstraction, maintaining it without needing to become general; respecting, coexisting with specificity; embracing without (dis)solving; holding contrast.
All decisions taken in the world being concrete. All decisions taken in the world being taken by individuals within their monadic reasoning. No system being followed consistently across time. No rationality and no escape from approximated rationality. Iteration being the only discreteness of the continuous. The moment of iteration within a
continuous being moving: iteration being time and thing collapsing into a single such unit of identity, of constituency(: an image?).
Discourse remains collective and general, but the way we are isn’t — we are connected, but this connection is a space, not a string; a space of projection. We are singular and specific environments, projections inbetween, travelling across and through others. (Hold on-to the unrepresentability of such space). Any and every environment being total, in so far as it contains full reality, all interactions; at the moment of iteration, its singularity is what counts.

How do you access the joint?
Theory:
(The idea is for theory to exit a space of analysis and access presence as locus of revolt.)

(Presence is semantically intuitive: its meaning clears in its feeling.)

Abstractly/Theoretically}} What is presence?

​

Presence is the collapse (or the folding, yet not the fold) of iteration into a thing, of definition into an image, of individual into environment.
                         (Now theory being about siding presence with revolt).
Presence as much as revolt, the only thing it can be, is expansion.

Every definition — from the movement of your finger
                          to the dispersion of belief
                          through the beating of his eyelash
                           — can only be and is such in expanding presence[5].

​

Expansion, the pursuing of presence, is equal to diversification. (Otherwise, know you’re cheating). Expansion that engages Being in its layeredness necessarily brings along a
natural inclusiveness that shares nothing with static dialectical oppression and dualism, an inclusiveness presents some bizarreness, biasedness, under-the-aegisness in being
concrete (something spreads and diversifies), in being ‘personal’ and moody, singular in the way diversification is mapped out. This world is so damn specific in its everythingness!

​

in Presence can only be expanded. Restriction is a logical fault at this point, or a necessarily temporary step within analysis.

Within this spectrum, ethics concern systems of behaviour that are after particularity and richness, more than polarized/ing systems geared on survival schemes. Richness is the ethical goal, in being expanding presence, a space of revolt.

Thought/The world begins and ends with an icon[6]: a present image. Everything is representation, formation, for, through and beyond form.
Everything forms and is icon. Imaging and reality are versions of each other. Everything
thinks uni-directionally and expands.[7]
The world can only be discretized in the presence of an image; be formed in and out of its presence.

​

Presence is a name, the name of the unspoken, for what resists and cannot be reduced.
Life-language is naturally coded to leave this space under; to let it breath, undisturbed by discovery.
Get under. Keep under.

​

Presence is not being in the world but being the world.

​

(How to?
Oh Sensibility,
Similar questions yielding us back to a space of analysis. There is no process per se —the ‘process’ is the feeling of the movement, the self-evidence of the contrast itself,
the coexistence of continuum and iteration.)
 

If dying is in fact the only collective reality we are:

Alternative ways of thinking (meaning alternative ways of doing, constructing, mapping out, actioning, representing, materializing, realizing) that have been proposed within
analysis lack the human incentive element — the antideath, to actually be realized, to concretely, sustainibly travel inbetween, across collectiveness.
Posthumanism is cool, but where’s the dough? You cannot cue a collective shift/ transformation without an antideath and cannot hold one from happening with it.
Let us not discard this element. Let us respect and not ignore the reality of death.
A shift in focus within criticism of capitalism might let us stop attending the rites for the rites’ sake. Capitalism sucks, yes, but capital mantains potential. Alternative thinkings are powerful, yet capitalism might well maintain grasp collectively as long as it remains the Antideath, the clearly quantifiably best-performing response to human incentive: to human greed for power and possibility, for power of acquisition, for sex: in short, for anything that dis-appears (the fear of) death. (Adding the fact that any-thing in this world — even if just through the pretext of the feeling of having it — can be bought (because it can): an old problem that remains unsolved(/able?)).
Posthumamist theorists must be able to outline how we can implement new ways of thinking in producing concrete human incentive, i.e. in producing wealth, cuing a switch to a new antideath. They must address wealth production directly, engage theoretically with it at the core level of their thinking. Posthumamist theorists must also be economists. Redistribution strikes as a fiscal-political utopia[8], but new ways of thinking implemented in producing wealth might mean our set of problems could turn out to be of an altogether different kind.

(I too am just hanging my shit out to dry.)

​

​

____________

​

Notes:

[1] through Wittgenstein, Tractatus, prop. 4.116
[2] Levinas, Ethics and Infinity, p. 90
[3] Kristeva, Revolt, especially pp. 85-86, 120-122

[4] And such change is usually featured/characterized as the individual’s gap-bridging action between their life and their desires.

[5] It seems nonsensical to analyse what is or isn’t expansion for a given situation. The moment one tries one steps into analysis, goes into
overdrive: one thinks they’re focusing on actual expanding, but what one is actually critting is a different, already diversified movement -
expansion is actually left before them: outside, around, under analysis.
[6] cf. Steyerl, Too Much World, the whole thing; Kohn, How Forests Think, in particular pp. 9, 30, 41, 51
[7] Ibid.

[8] against Piketty, Capital, pp. 471, 516-526

​

​

​