OK, this is massively interesting obviously but hyper-dense. Can we try some decompressing?
1. What is Genesis Project? I have the basic idea I think (pro-Creatonist vitalism?).
2. Wd like you to explain the connection between Genesis Project and the virtual-into-actual pantheon of Bergson/ Massumi/ KAP.
3. Anonymous-until-now. Know this is vast but can you explain this a little? Why anonymous? What is it abt 'Now' that entails nomination?
Posted by: mark at June 29, 2004 10:19 PMMark i'm very delighted you find this interesting (i'm afraid if i begin to reexplain them, we'll fall into new terminologic pits, etc.) ... your answers are already at cold-me website ... two articles which are the keys in understanding what i'm saying here. therefore, i really ask you to read them and then we can discuss the whole panorama:
1. cata: remarks on depth and darkness. (http://www.cold-me.net/text/cata.html)
2. pestis solidus: this one is a bit complex both in its structure and diversion of theoretic lines. (Nick, i invite you to join the discussion too) ... http://www.cold-me.net/text/pestis.pdf
i think the Pestis Solidus piece is my answer to all D&Gon virtual/actual/becoming appropriationists.
i'd love to discuss all the issue here.
Posted by: Reza at June 30, 2004 03:47 AMFive basic elements of Genesis Project (all discussed at cold me):
1. Methexis / affordance (economical participation ... constructive openness)
2. Concrescence process (metronic ultra-dynamism ... Deleuzian appropriationists tend to call this becoming)
3. Slope processes (the economy of pseudo-flux and solidus-in-circulation ... they are tactically anomalous processing carriers and engineers of pseudo-flux ... you have already read about them in Libidinal Economy [p. 28] and Deleuze on Francis Bacon [Baroque polylines])
4. grund
5. Survival Economy
These five elements creatively compose the dynamic network of an ever-refreshing / ongoing economy named Genesis Project.
Your suggestion of Genesis Project as ‘pro-creationist vitalism’ is itself a third grade insignificant production assembled through this economy, or when the dynamism of Genesis project slows down and starting to leave sediments (creationist agencies). Aristotle mainly realized how the Genesis Project can be double-appropriated and con-solidated as the cycle of pro-creationist vitalism through the ‘Rotation of the Elements’ panorama.
---------------
on the connection between Genesis Project and virtual/actual: please follow Pestis solidus and the slope process (cata: remarks on depth and darkness is merely a prerequisite text here).
---------------
Anonymous-until-Now cannot be segmented as anonymous, until and now ... it’s an ungrounding space (please read Cata) ... anonymous more in the sense of cryptogenesis vortex or ungrounding machinery .... ‘Now’ is more corresponding to contagious WHERE (both Cata and Pestis Solidus) rather than chronologic sequential NOW; it has the role that Moby Dick plays for Ahab.
Hope to discuss all of the above as soon as you exhume the texts. And apologies if I chart all these references ... they incredibly smooth the process.
Mark, here more hints ... hope they make some initiating vehicles for moving through Cata: Remarks on depth and darkness and Pestis Solidus:
(1) Exhumation (even as disinterring or digging up [the dead?]) is not a contemporizing or a cold and inhuman modernizing operation over the things grounded (the dead?) but it is a process introducing qualitative collapse into surfaces, dimensions, spaces and the facial affordances (or the stratified events) to crack them open not on the politico-economic chronosphere of Now but now as where, the defiled and artificialized earth (and its tellurian labyrinths), the ungrounded(ing) depth, a vermiculated space or the corpse-of-solidus.
(2) Don’t mistake WHERE as a questioning ‘where?’ but a space coiled by contagious lines, epidemic multiplicities, mess of traces ... it’s similar to Ahab’s favorite question whose answer is ‘being infected by the white whale itself’: “WHERE IS MOBY DICK?” ... Moby Dick is Now for Ahab, in the sense of becoming whose germinality does not extinguish into Zero but runs on Zero merely to go further and further, germinate an epidemic space, an unground.
(3) P/0 is a model of Anonymous-until-Now (in which p is anonymous even to Zero but not external to it). from “Death as a Perversion: Openness and Germinal Death”
(4) This is the unground machinery of 'Where', namely, the anonymous meshwork of contagious lines, contamination of solid and void (scarring mess), epidemic openness (whereness), becoming imperceptible, base-participation or p 0, before which the tectonic modulations of dwelling /
accommodating systems are transfixed and slimed in horror. 'Where' is rats, slithering rats, with their proliferating rates of speed, unnamed plasticity, crypto-rhythms, chains of contagia, electric rabies; They exhume caverns, catacombs, hills, plains and traces; They are on the course of katabasis (experiencing the depth and rendering the depth as an experience) at all times: feeding on dimensions, propagating scales on a fraction whose denominator has been uncoated by Zero and never originates as One through multiplicative inverse, though it is anonymous even to Zero; it is death-mess. Rats germinate two kinds of surface cataclysm as they travel and spanning different zones, one is the static damages in the form of the ruptures rendered by internal splits, uplifts, dislocations and thrusts which expose the surface to paroxysmal convulsions and interruptions (the fold of split physiology); the other is the dynamic anomaly of seismic waves dissipating as the rats flow in the form of tele-compositions: while their compressions / decompressions proliferate their rates of speed, their replacements and permutations in the composition (pack) forge a de-contouring machine marring the elevations on given references, setting rats free, giving them the ability of a miniature flight. That is how, as they run, they appear evaporating both surfaces and themselves. Aristophanes and Bacchylides speak of the birds flying through Khaos, this unrestricted
enthusiasm to flow (kheisthai); but, no one asked what kind of birds they are; Wingless? Taxidermized? Metallic? Decapitated? Eyes evacuated with a penknife?... No, they are rats, thousands, millions of them. Rats write a molecular epic.
It is the Night of 'Where' by whose virulent mutations the questioning where? can be enunciated and vocalized, then again as an enfeebled noise through Possession ... 'Where' is the spellbound horror of Becoming; as becoming is the metallurgic blade-edge of where, its slaughtering, contaminating edge, both immanent to each other. ...
(5) "Where is Moby Dick?"(Moby Dick, Herman Melville) inter-connects with the twisted nether of becoming. All questions are infested by Where; it is the gaseous spirit of all questions, a vermicular horror crawling freely in the brain of all questions and finally dangling as their nervous system. 'Where' can only be experienced as a pandemic disease or more precisely the Unground through which epidemic openness and its contagious lines spread and multiply. Each line of openness is a venereal affirmation toward where, the meshwork of contagions and epidemics lines as well as the platform for their dynamic anomalies and tactical lines (lines of infection), or the unground. WHERE germinates as Now for all becomings, for all plagues and possessions and contagious vehicles, as an immanent space they can traverse and becoming more radically epidemic than ever.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Moby Dick as WHERE and Now for Ahab: [Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 243-250] [Francois Zourabichvili, "Six Notes on the Percept (On the Relation between the Critical and Clinical)", trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, in Paul Patton (ed.), Deleuze: A Critical Reader, Oxford & Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1996, pp. 188-216.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Exhumation is imminent function of Anonymous-until-Now. Exhumation proliferates surfaces, dimensions and spaces through each other (scarring cold and hot surfaces of a grave), introducing architectures to speeds of becoming -- becoming hot, becoming cold, being revolutionized by the dead and in the end becoming the indubitable cold; it transmutes architectures and the ground into excessive scarring processes (fibrosis ... fibroproliferation of surfaces) rendering off (colding them) the solid economy of membranes, of tissues and surfaces, engineering the corpse-of-solidus whose dimensionality blurs not to the point of a fading out terminus but to vermicular defunct coils of dimensions which cannot resist what crawls in and out; they cannot keep on negating each other any longer: ( )holes, ( )holes, ( )holes, ( )holes (but not holes) with liquidated and now evaporating 'W's, the reeking crypts of the Old Ones.
Reza,
Thanks very much. I've read these texts before, naturally, and re-read them over the last couple of days --- but I do feel I need a little more help with them.
I was hoping that you might be able to dumb things down a bit for me to provide with some entry points. I feel I'm getting the hazy lineaments of something, but - and this is no doubt my fault - I still feel a little adrift. (Not necessarily a bad thing of course).
For my own benefit - and maybe for other readers too - I wd really like to slow things down a little.
I'm confident that you'll agree that one of the most important and fascinating aspects of what 'we' (Ccru/ Cold Me/ Iain Hamilton Grant) are doing is articulating an alternative D/Gonetics to the prevailing Deleuzian virtuo-vitalism of the Bergson-derived KAP/ Massumi tradition. You have almost certainly done the most rigorous thinking in this direction - I'd just like to thrash through what you're saying at a slower pace...
Posted by: mark at July 1, 2004 06:45 PMActually Reza, another reason for 'slowing things down' is that to do so could become intrinsically productive, by generating hyperstitional fabric.
From an H. perspective, getting straight to the 'insight' might easily be less mythogenic than the route taken to get there.
Partly i'm understanding Mark's q.s as saying that you're much better placed than we are to positively dismantle the result down to its genetic pathway(s), which can then serve as germ-nodes for hyperstitional sedimentation.
E.g. How did a carrier ever get to the A-Now hypothesis? What led to it / stimulated it? What 'pseudo-biographic/intellectual' precursor states fostered its emergence? What stages/steps did the inculcation process take?
Even if Schwa-masked thing-tendrils from Tellurian Omega grafted it directly and already entire into the 'subject's' neural tissue, there has to be a story there.