Being something of an economic fundamentalist, I've been quite blind to the fact democratic politics - along with commerce and technoscience - involves a massive numerization of social processes. Quite apart from the usual arguments for democracy, there is a 'case for democratization' proceeding entirely from the promotion of qabbalistic cultural decoding.
In striking contrast to every other political arrangement evidenced in history, democracy numerizes power, subordinating authority to number, with would-be dominant ideas compelled to legitimate themselves in terms of quantitative 'ratings' of approval. The incomprehensible complexity of the social whole is subjectively appropriated through simple numerical indices - with percentages overwhelmingly predominant. The individual as democratic 'unit' thus functions as an element of cultural decoding, resilient against all ideological value - this is the 'idiocy' of democracy as perennially lamented by authoritarian intellectuals (is there any other kind?).
The prevalence of percentages in the technocapitalist-democratic cultural code is surely worthy of attention. The second decimal power has attained a remarkable cohesion as the basic semiotic vehicle for expressing social facts, especially in the social arena of political and economic communication. [Ccruoids might recall the seemingly 'bizarre' centonomic obsession of Hyper-C and associated Y2K cults].
To 'democratize' a society is to submit it to the meaningless sovereignty of numbers, extirpating the logocratic-totalitarian satisfactions of intellectual coherence. [This is why 'rationalism' of every stripe requires rigorous political interrogation]
Whatever the moral case for democracy, it has an alternative motivation, allying it to the other tidal forces of cultural decoding and inspiring the righteous fury of every IDEA.
[IDEA = MAN = ADAM = 55]
Posted by nick at December 11, 2004 03:13 PMNick, you say "there is a 'case for democratization' proceeding entirely from the promotion of qabbalistic cultural decoding." Whilst I appreciate you pointing to the "massive numerization of social processes" involved in democracy, it doesn't seem to me enough to amount to a 'case for democratization'.
A case for democracy simply doesn't follow from an analysis of democracy as the subjection of society to "the meaningless sovereignty of numbers". Why should it follow?
Do you think there is something special about numbers, per se, undermining authority? I think this is dodgy - as if numerical social processes are to be celebrated since they are automatically anti-ideolocical and anti-establishment.
The implication here is that authoritarianism does not itself have a numerical quality or dimension. Isn't the difference between other kinds of social processing and democracy one of the kind of numerization involved, ratrher than a lack of numerization in non-democratic systems?
I just think we should explore the numerical quality - not just quantity - of specific socio-economic formations and processes, and see what distinguishes them more specifically.
Furthermore, democratization is not simply one kind of thing or process. I am concerned that by remaining in the abstract, when discussing social processing, we lose sight of the singular nature of particular democratic systems.
Cultural decoding is only one aspect of democratization; what about recoding?
Posted by: Tachi at December 12, 2004 03:27 AMTachi - great questions - I'll try to respond later with a full post on the underlying issue: Can sheer number make a 'politics' (I like Reza's 'polytics' for this of course)
For now - Lemurian Hyperstition seems to be based on exactly this contention (i.e. absolute eradication of all values transcending raw decimal distribution)
On your subpoint (recoding), doesn't the reversion of all democratic political practicality to numerical advantage ensure that recodings are always superficial relative to the primary tide of decoding?
D&G's 'war machine' is close to this topic - without a programme beyond its arithmopraxis (if you'll forgive me for bizarrely hellenizing a basically Asiatic impulse).
Both Reza and I have overlapping issues with the D&G analysis however, which will hopefully emerge over the course of these discussions.
Nick, thanks for your response. I look forward to your post re. the issue of scale relating to politics, but should re-emphasize that I am particularly keen to prise open this issue of the numeric quality of social processes.
Firstly, since I am new to Hyperstition, I am intrigued by the very notion of numerization. Can you elaborate on this basic insight to shift me into the right place where I can see more clearly what you are talking about? Or point me to some material ...
What is 'raw decimal distribution'? And what would a not-raw kind of distribution look like? .. I am keen to get inside this, since this is integral to hyperstition.
In any case, I would guess that arithmopraxis is an entire relatively unexplored space, in which numerization, appied to dynamic processes of a social, political or economic nature, requires careful elaboration. We mustn't lose sight of the singular as we become immersed in the abstract.
Posted by: Tachi at December 12, 2004 10:13 AMTachi - thanks for your involvement - will definitely respond more fully in the way you suggest ASAP.
'Raw' just refers to numbers before their massaging under any 'meaningful' concept, as in 'the raw [unprocessed] figures' (more on this in promised post).
As to singularity - probably something to spend some time zig-zagging around, but it's worth immediately noting that insofar as singularities are to be designated the question is whether they are numbered [by digits] or coded [by language], so any 'fidelity to the singular' that is merely an excuse for words is actually a privileging of the linguistic [intellgible code] rather than a repudiation of abstraction.
Qabbalism emphasizes numerical precision over discursive specificity. That's not to say scientific exactitude (to whatever number of decimal places) is essential. But occultures have to rigorously stick to the digital/cryptographic traits which carefully preserve such features as the product of digital reduction and the Euclidean (arithmetical) properties of natural numbers - features relevant to arithmetical behaviour (divisibility, factorization ...).
Returning to democracy topic, there are obvious limits to the cultural apprehension of singularity resulting from human make-up (e.g. the inability to mentally store and retrieve large quantities of elaborate multi-digit numbers).
Percentages seem to hint at the equilibrium complexity of numbers that are functional as quotidian signs within human societies, that's to say: numbers accessible for democratic purposes such as 'water-cooler conversations' by ordinary citizens. Given the statistical barrage of the election period, any level of finesse beyond 2 digits will probably get eroded-away in the tumult of the mediascape.
Nick, We shouldn't forget to answer the radical question raised by Tachi (why war as a machine?) ... btw, the questions i forwarded to you a while ago are from Tachi.
Posted by: Reza at December 12, 2004 03:31 PMNick, what system do you use to enumerate letters? I'm not familiar with the schema you're using to kabbalistically equate idea, man, Adam, and 55. Is this CCRU stuff?
Posted by: thistle at December 12, 2004 09:12 PMthistle - see Qabbala 101 Part 1 from June 24 2004
(if that leads onto perplexities about the Tic Xenotation, post on that is a little further down)
"Is it Ccru stuff?" - Dunno - it's Atlantean Black Magic
Reza: Nick, We shouldn't forget to answer the radical question raised by Tachi (why war as a machine?) ... btw, the questions i forwarded to you a while ago are from Tachi.
Can I send them to you directly Nick? Not sure where is appropriate place to post if posting would be better. Thanks.
Posted by: tachi at December 13, 2004 05:59 AMTachi - sure. Got them from Reza a while ago - they're the trigger for a forthcoming post (I hope real soon) but just to make sure you're very welcome to post them to my hotmail account - just click on my nic/k
Posted by: nick at December 13, 2004 07:57 AMThanks Nick; will send later, with some other stuff. Not sure where to post this stuff, so grateful for your receptivity.
Posted by: tachi at December 13, 2004 09:43 AMTachi -
"with some other stuff" - looking forward to seeing it
Probably redundant to mention it, but your consistently productive contributions have been greatly appreciated
Nick - thanks a lot. Hope you receive the 'stuff' ok, and looking forward to engaging soon.
Posted by: Tachi at December 13, 2004 11:46 PMTachi - just picked up your Q.s - there's a lot there, so response will require several stages (dividing the topics you raise into clusters).
You can be quite confident everything will be addressed - if often by the emergence of relevant discussions - because your interests are incredibly central to hyperstition. I'm hoping they'll refocus us on the basic issues (making sense of Numogram cartography being especially prominent here).
Think a Numogram post guided by your inquiries and hopefully initiating discussion by interested parties will be the best way to begin.
Hi Nick; glad you got the Qs etc, and that its of interest. For me, these issues are all pretty basic, and are located in an ante-space after which momentum can be built and productive energy harnessed. Happy to chunk up the issues, and re-post as appropriate, splice into discussions as they emerge, but also hope these questions can trigger or guide some posts in which they feature.
Posted by: Tachi at December 15, 2004 12:18 AMHi Nick; glad you got the Qs etc, and that its of interest. For me, these issues are all pretty basic, and are located in an ante-space after which momentum can be built and productive energy harnessed. Happy to chunk up the issues, and re-post as appropriate, splice into discussions as they emerge, but also hope these questions can trigger or guide some posts in which they feature.
Posted by: Tachi at December 15, 2004 12:19 AM