Surely what you are saying is inconsistent?

You demand that I purge k-punk of what you regard as undesirables, but think that hyperstition should be a free for all in which blatant trolling is to be welcomed? You say that what I still maintain is harmless satire on Michael's site is unacceptable? It's all about context; no-one with a brain could have mistaken Michael's attribution for anything authentic, whereas self-evidently Adam's trolling had very intelligent ppl (you and Nick fooled). It's all about context.

We've had this argument before. I absolutely refuse to accept liberal arguments. This is not a democratic forum. If ppl want to mouth off, be dispruptive and oedipal, there are plenty of places to do that, including, sadly, Dissensus.

I will retain the right to purge trolls. There is no possible argument for their inclusion here. They are blocking hypersition-production, if only by diverting energy into a discussion like this. That is what they want, insofar as these wretched oedipal crumbling white males want anything besides destruction and self-destruction.

"You say that what I still maintain is harmless satire on Michael's site is unacceptable? It's all about context; no-one with a brain could have mistaken Michael's attribution for anything authentic, whereas self-evidently Adam's trolling had very intelligent ppl (you and Nick fooled). It's all about context."

Mark, I think you'd do well to consider what one of your fellow 'Cold Rationalists' (viz. Ray Brassier) has to say about this idea that it is 'context' which serves as the ultimate arbiter of responsible and irresponsible, acceptable and unacceptable form of discourse and the guarantor of 'proper interpretation' over on the Whore Cull Site (scroll down on 'Who are the Whores' for Ray's typically incisive and brilliant contribution to the discussion there):
http://www.cinestatic.com/whorecull/about.asp

"Surely what you are saying is inconsistent?"

That's right Mark -- you're getting it now: Reza is under a certain rational obligation to be consistent. Why? Beacause he is a PERSON, like you, and person's are just such loci of responsibility. The question is, in denying the existence of persons as mere "monkey suiperstition" are YOU being consistent?

Mark,

Yes, obviously this is not a free place, you have only the right to purge the comments under your own posts; by the way, no ip banning since people who may look as Troll to you may wish to participate in discussion with other contributors. You are not the boss here, Mark, no one is the boss here. If you want to satisfy your thirst for directorship, you'd better return to your ‘Kollective’ k-punk.

TO HYPERSTITION READERS:

Anyone who has got his/her ip banned, please email me, so i can remove it from the black list of spammers. (negarestani AT cold-me DOT net)

You're not the boss here either, Reza; so please no more equivocation of your own liberal political stance with 'hyperstition'.

I have only deleted comments from my own posts of course. If others want to waste time allowing trolls to 'participate', go ahead.

And it was YOU who wanted me to police k-punk so, when it was your perceived enemies who were to be extirpated, so, please, a measure of machinic consistency. (The last thing we expect from persons is consistency of course).

++This comment was self-censored / repressed by the author aka r. negarestani++

Coming to the reluctant conclusion there just is no simple (perhaps even 'consistent') answer to the troll problem.
What happened to the Chomsky blog was quite informative in this respect. While loathing pretty much everything Chomsky stands for, even I was quite horrified by the vandalistic explosion that erupted in his comments sections, with spamming, long chunks from porn sites, whatever, he had to shut it down. Point being, 'liberal' attitudes become unsustainable under a certain level of aggravation - the enemy will just destroy you and rape your dog.
How bad is too bad when it comes to trollish personalism, smug ignorance and irrelevance? -- No formula available for that.

Maybe we could all chill a little ;)
(Know i've been among the worst offenders in this respect, but getting us annoyed really is a clear troll triumph, of a kind i don't their much vaunted 'tactical genius' merits)

Nick, i agree but: "If you present yourselves to others as a gift, then that is dangerous. The power that this gives people over the individual corrupts them" (a quote from an anonymous source)

this ‘comment purge’ politics, at this time, does nothing but increasing paranoia. So i'm against this comment purge as a tool against everyone who shows his/her disagreement. i have never asked Mark to purge anything at k-punk, i just protested against their Anti-Trigg mafia movement. Bullying people is not something that i can tolerate; you know that i have sacrificed many things here just for this cause. but again, agree with you that maybe i should calm down, but this doesn't mean that Mark can expand his dictatorship beyond his own posts and comment boxes. Anyway, thanks again.

I too am tired of the dictatorship of the Anti-Trolletariat.

PS: And troll posts/debates.

PSS: Please, don't ban me.

PSSS: Back to Lovecraft.

>>> I too am tired of the dictatorship of the Anti-Trolletariat.

PS: And troll posts/debates.

yes, me too. After all, the contribution from readers is the main reason that hyperstition can breathe.

PSSS: Back to Lovecraft.

i crave for this one.

A few thoughts on the Caricature of Pure Reason...

Who's the troll? The 'trolls' here and elsewhere have been directly produced as 'hyperstitional entities' by K-punk's recent bad attitude and inability to answer any question except by means of imperious statements about 'his' own 'impersonality'. I'm sure most of them aren't the total enemies they seem to be, the polarity is an inevitable outcome of factors which I am afraid do relate to a 'person' and his lack of self(yes self)-awareness. Moreover 'we are people' or 'we are not people' are both ridiculous positions: everything interesting comes from the fact that 'we' both are *and* are not stratic beings. But if you act like a stupid self then that's what you'll be treated as.

KP must by now realise that he's fallen into simliar cold-robotic mechanismo-traps as others before him , and that the 'ad hominem' criticisms made of him are identical to those he's (rightly) made about others in the past (basically, the blithe assumption of the position of completely destratified noumenal entity trying nobly to rid the rest of the world of their anthropo-illusions _if only they'd listen to pure reason_). Trying to make critics disappear won't change that uncomfortable fact. Pretending that his position has been produced by nothing but reason won't make it so. And you can't make self disappear by screaming paranoid mantras of persecution and depersonalization all over town.

But also, I don't understand the need of other members of HS to protest so heatedly (particularly nick's weird - if lately characteristic - transmutation into a 14yr old american schoolgirl: "get a life asswipe" LOL!) - if someone uses up 20 lines in a comments box, so what? It's not as if server disk space is a precious commodity. If things are so fragile that you can't take an anonymous comment without it exploding into a hair-tearing community-destroying tragedy, then I would say that's a problem for the robustness of the hyperstitional fabric. Shut yourselves up into a completely private blog, or stop moaning! This is just what happens when you talk asynchronously in text. The medium is the message, so the medium is also part of the 'agency' producing these problems.
And since they are produced by multiple parties, to demonise an anonymous interlocutor can only look like an attempt to cover over the fragility of your own position (furthermore I would have thought such single-person intentional attribution would be anomalous in hyperstitional theory).

Perhaps the cold rationalists should practice more coldness in future and just not reply if it's going to be in self-satisfied mocking slogans that will obviously produce nothing but amplified animosity. After all it is they who are taking on the mantle of authority and priesthood, so it's their responsibility to deal with their errant flock in the most 'rational' way, or alternatively just fuck off and be gnostic in their bedroom.

But as regards purging, why not take your own medicine : Here more than ever Reza's warning about the dangers of an 'affordance-based openness' is totally germane. And why not treat these events, since they seem to attract such 'social' importance (even dragging me out of lurcurdom), as real hyperstitional issues rather than pranks/distractions (or is something only hyperstitional if you've said so....?)

Undercurrent - agree that my splenetic outburst was pointless at best, but think you're underplaying the real issue here (from my PoV) which is personalization.
There's huge difference between making a claim of whatever kind about personhood - no problem, whatever it is - and dragging in a whole mass of biographical content which is gross ad hominem vandalism and (speaking for 'myself') hugely destructive in that it delibidinizes the whole space. I simply don't want to participate in a zone full of bitchy personalized bullshit, so in that sense I'd vote for shutting ourselves "up in a completely private blog" if the only alternative was constant snarking. Hopefully that isn't the case.
The fact that people seem vastly more interested in personal attacks and their attendant hysteria (mea culpa till the cows come home) than hyperstition is an evident fact, the depressing nature of which is scarcely exorcized by a heroic attempt to find some great significance or tactical genius in insults and provocations shielded by anonymity. If I wanted to wreck someone else's blog I'm sure I'd find it relatively easy, as noted above, I've seen it done, and quite honestly I'd prefer chunks of random cut-up porn to tedious person quarrelling.
All this said, I don't find your tone here trollish (though mark might quite reasonably disagree).

PS. flattered that my irate 'ass-wipe' comment (which i tried to delete immediately afterwards but failed btw) gets me compared to "a 14yr old american schoolgirl" - makes me feel i should do it more often ;)

Mark, Nick (please read this one)

I think the best solution in this condition is resting a bit; both Mark and I need some rest.

... mark, just ignore my warning post / or sudden outburst or whatever and take some rest, please! (and don't take this invitation as a means of repression or anything negative) ... let's rest and return to hyperstition in the next few days with some productive posts. Meanwhile, Nick can take care of things. Nick, Chronologics piece is getting longer than i expected, i guess i should cut it into digestible pieces. BTW, i have discovered a new ABJAD in the national library (known as ABJAD-e Saghier: minor or incomplete ABJAD); i'm working on it.

I think the difficulty is that ruling any biographical reference out of court _a priori_ has no particular claim to being a rational or indeed reasonable approach, trying to enforce these rules simply induces a simmering state of animosity ie exacerbates the situation.
Obviously I must agree that whilst punch-ups are and always have been crowdpleasers, that doesn't make them particularly productive or desirable. But I do think the troll issue, and the issue of the extent of personal involvement in apparently abstract reasoning is more interesting than it's been given credit for. Mr Bloot had a point- he made it performatively rather than discursively. Some people fell for it, which was in itself interesting. I don't see why this is _necessarily_ irrelevant or 'childish' just because it got on people's nerves. Something happened, there's no point pretending otherwise, even if not everyone wants to discuss the consequences. Sometimes things have to be pushed to the point of polarisation in order to fracture and split in a new way.

But granted, the troll-debate is obviously going to get circular if we don't just perform a circuit-break now, and in future that could be done sooner and more calmly.

The substantive problem I have with the whole rationalist spiel is that it sounds like little more than a conservative overreaction to the perceived 'liberal' relativism of the crisis of enlightenment reason coming to terms with its own production and limits. As if Nietzsche and everything that follows him could simply be dismissed all at once. It's basically an exalted and disciplinary-minded species of 'common sense' that evades all ambiguity. And IMHO the strained pretence of depersonalization is often a worse source of problems than just communicating without having to police every thought for signs of 'liberal mind-virus'.

Reza - Great! Think chopping stuff up definitely to be recommended, blogs seem to work best in bite-size chinks IMHO.
As to the new Abjad - think we still have our work cut out getting the topic of gematria/qabbala libidinaize at all - know i've still got lots of q.s for various qabbalistic contributions here but suspect (psychologically) the qabbalistic programmes tends to be rather 'jealous'. Any possibility of getting an intro from you on your new discovery that promotes the relevance of gematria generally (to try and suck some more voices in)?

Undercurrent - "ruling any biographical reference out of court a priori has no particular claim to being a rational or indeed reasonable approach" - this may be so, but could I suggest that everyone who shares your opinion on this and acts upon it is actually contributing to turning this into a Cold Rationalism dialectics site?
It's of great credit to mark that his intellectual innovations are proving so extraordinarily provocative, but this is a HYPERSTITION BLOG - refuting (pseudo)rationality has exactly no pertinence here.

PS. and please don't go Freudian on my 'bite size chinks'

>>> PS. and please don't go Freudian on my 'bite size chinks'

lol ... why? was it supposed to be taken as something negative? of course not. ;)

>>> ABJAD

i can't understand why it is incomplete i.e. why it excludes some letters and why it doesn't get its power from general kabbalistic numbers (9 and 10). recently, found a very old family book and rediscovered this system, seems it has been very popular for Summonings, binding spells, and reading Quran.

Reza - obviously huge improvement in tone and direction. All we need is a few snarky personal insults and all kinds of folks will get interested ;)

PS. maybe we should set up a Hot Rationalism or Cold Irrationalism or Lukewarm Snarking About site just to clear the air?

PPS. Tachi had some questions about Hyperstition and the WoT which I left aside for the moment, assuming things would shift into that space quite quickly anyway. Obviously, as Anna noted way back, there's nothing like a religious war to lock hyperstition into current events. Anything connected to reading the Quran plugs all kinds of stuff together right now.

Nick,

>>> All we need is a few snarky personal insults and all kinds of folks will get interested ;)

Doesn’t this fit greatly into a strategy for the more-more infernomatics? ;) Well, have you checked the visitors’ statistics recently?

PS. I just started to purge myself ... see how polytically effective a Freudian self-repression works (see my foaming, seething comment this morning) ... Zoroastrian self-purgation has still a lot to say.

>>> PPS. Tachi had some questions about Hyperstition and the WoT which I left aside for the moment, assuming things would shift into that space quite quickly anyway. Obviously, as Anna noted way back, there's nothing like a religious war to lock hyperstition into current events. Anything connected to reading the Quran plugs all kinds of stuff together right now.

Yes, get ready for the jihad you infidel ;) ... but seriously, there is no better solution to subvert this bedlam than channeling it into a religious war discussion. Only Col. West and Jay Can Save US! btw, i am looking for Anna ... there is a piece I’m writing on Women in WoT that needs her thoughts.

Reza - Forthcoming Col. West piece is based on exactly the dyad you mention - as carriers West/Jay need to rigorously bear the Gog/Magog dichotomy - IMHO we should suspend any tendency to patronize them from a position of integral superiority, but rather allow these 'cases' to express their perspectives to their ultimate consequences without inhibition. 'Perspectives' is not meant as a dismissive relativism, but rather as a potentiality to take something to an extreme without the necessity for artificial 'balance' (or 'reasonableness'?).
Col. West, I 'know' sees the US war machine as the germinal inheritor of the earth - the 'Skynet scenario' - with the US Order of Battle (available at globalsecurity.org) as the compositional description of an incomparable 'Thing' verging on escape from confinement within human/State politics. If he has a problem with the state of contemporary Global Jihad it is disappointment, anxiety that it may not test this entity to the point of radical escape ... 'Freedom' has come to mean something very unfamiliar by this stage ...

PS. Guess we've all been doing plenty of purging recently ...

PPS. Anna's obviously got a lot on her hands right now, so it might take a little patience viz feedback on women/WoT issue.

> Cold Rationalism dialectics site

ugh, point taken. I think the air has been appropriately cleared now with due credit to (..almost..) all parties. (despite the fact that things seem to be lapsing back into the staple hermetic mythocodes that I find mostly incomprehensible...)

>this is a HYPERSTITION BLOG - refuting (pseudo)rationality has exactly no pertinence here.

yes, see my comments on the other thread...

>'bite size chinks'

I hear that this sort of thing can get you chucked out of the PRC!

Absolutely agreed that they should be traced to their omega-zone of insurgency.

Jay (Whore, Witch, Hag, the Un-manned), on the contrary, believes that Global Jihad or more precisely pax islamica is too pestilentially creative to be screened or concluded, its ferocious line of flight is so twisted to be traced by the technocapitalistic tendrils which can be stimulated usually after and during the meltdown, ‘the post-911 Thing’ (and according to the Tellurian pattern of affordance towards the outside), its line of flight is entirely un-manned while it strategically chooses Man (or men?) as its hosts. She believes that the Delta Force’s redemptive answer to its global failures (‘it didn’t work out’) has been channeled to the Col. West’s PoV on ‘Pack Islamica’ and has been rooted as some kind of deterrent module in radically grasping the Cosmodrome.

“It doesn’t work out because it is not supposed to work for you, it works for the Z-crowd, its ‘un-manned journey’ artificializes the illusion of disfunctionality, failure, disappointment or lack of radicalness for man. It is the point.” (Jay, The Codex of Yatu)

I’m sure of something: we should reinvent the fury of the Gog-Magog through these two pest-positive carriers. Don’t you think so?

>>> PS. Guess we've all been doing plenty of purging recently ...

more more self-purgation; Zoroastrian polytics: "it is not enough yet."

Reza - "I’m sure of something: we should reinvent the fury of the Gog-Magog through these two pest-positive carriers. Don’t you think so?"
Absolutely.