Anonymity is demonstrably possible, but unfortunately it takes hard work. The default outcome – even when contributing to a blog dedicated to the radical impersonality of Lemurian Hyperstition – seems to be a continual re-emergence of sordid personalism of a kind that would make a tabloid gossip columnist proud.
While fanatically editing-out all biographical indices is probably unrealistic here, it might still be worth thinking about how the intrinsic anonymity of hyperstition could be promoted. More sustained attention to the function of avatars? More rigorous adherence to collectively endorsed methods and principles? Perhaps the intellectual integrity of the blog itself – which is hopefully more than a crash-site for a random set of perturbed egos – could be incrementally consolidated (my worry is that the opposite is occurring).
Ccru’s functioning as an anonymous motor of cultural production seems to have stalled, but it is worth noting that for several years socially identifiable proper names were almost entirely effaced from it’s activities – despite the Oedipal machinations of various social agencies (media prominent among them) to re-install normal ego functions. However imperfect, the anonymity of the Ccru was correlated with the virtual emergence of a Ccru-entity (or strategic hyperspace singularity of some kind) which provided the true source of ‘agentic consistency.’ The point of this reminiscence (apologies for those with a blurry or worse sense of what the hell this is about) is to emphasize that there is nothing fundamentally impractical about side-lining the personal dimension of cultural production.
Given the sad stock of neurotic resentments that make up the psychic aspect of the human animal, there will always be plenty of people taking snide satisfaction in the regeneration of Oedipal squalor. That’s no excuse for those of us with an interest in the success of this space as a source of cold hyperstitional fertility from collaborating with such impulses.
Does Lemurian Hyperstition exist, as a virtual-abstract Thing, in complete independence from human ego-structures and neurotic will-to-power?
If it doesn’t we’re probably all wasting our time.
If it does, let’s try to consolidate it, comply with it, replace ourselves with it, and spread anonymity on the web.
Hi Nick, anonymity is possible, but what is at stake here is not simply anonymity; its connective synthesis, surely.
Sure, fanatically editing-out all biographical indices is unrealistic, but also unnecessary. What is required is a way of maintaining relationships between the components so that they interact productively.
Imagine each of us uses a different name for every post we make. That would be one way of, at least on the surface, maintaining anonymity. Or just take out the name field and avoid signing. There would be the IP issue of course to differenciate posts, but that could be worked around.
But how would this help? I imagine that it would affect the process of establishing relationships, strengthening productive resonances between the components, as befits any natural/material system of composite parts which display some level of consistency and durability.
What matters, I think, is not the effacement of individuality for the sake of being anti-unitary or anti-egoistic, but rather the sustainability of productive links between individuals, or better still, between posts on the blog to form currents, which on another level generate a force or greater flow.
I am not quite sure why you think anonymity is what needs to be promoted, when you said yourself that what needs consolidating is the intellectual integrity of the blog. Surely this can be done without anonymity?
"More rigorous adherence to collectively endorsed methods and principles?" - Maybe. But its a question of 'how?' You are forced to question the limitations of the medium and the perhaps idealistic notion that the blog is an open system and doesn't require selective participation. I think that the irrelevant needs to be weeded out, plus the downright obstructive.
I agree that "there is nothing fundamentally impractical about side-lining the personal dimension of cultural production" but I do question the value placed upon the impersonal dimension of CP you think anonymity would ensure.
First, why is the impersonal aspect of CP so important? Is this because you think the viral propagation of hyperstition relies upon it? What is the driving force within this? Is this a personal drive you, Nick, have for hyperstition to become something ..? Surely you should value the impersonal drive taking up hyperstition, and this is something that you, and none of us, can manage.
Second, even if we all agree that the impersonal aspect of CP is so important, why can't the personal dimension be appreciated as a key feature of it? What is to prevent the emergence of a social singularity from the work of people with names? I worry that you are seeking a unmanned ship to take nobody very far.
Surely its not the faceless front of hyperstition that is so important, but the faceless driving force within it, which may already have infected those of us with names who are co-producing on this blog?
Don't get me wrong = its not that I value ego, but I am just not so sure it can be so easily side-lined. I would hope, rather, to see how it can be used, employed, for collective synthesis.
Totally agree with all this obv.
No need for apologies -- after all, in no sense were you talking to me. ;-)
Posted by: mark k-p at December 12, 2004 03:41 PM