http://www.emory.edu/ANATOMY/AnatomyManual/Etymology.html
autonomic Gr. autos = "self", and nomos = "law". Hence that part of the nervous system which is self-controlled or autonomous.

The Cervical Vertebræ
http://www.bartleby.com/107/21.html
The second cervical vertebra (Fig. 87 and 88) is named the epistropheus or axis because it forms the pivot upon which the first vertebra, carrying the head, rotates. The most distinctive characteristic of this bone is the strong odontoid process which rises perpendicularly from the upper surface of the body.

>>>> The principal function of a hyperstitional carrier is to think what no natural ego can. They are units of artificial intelligence production, dedicated to the consistent pursuit of a cognitive trajectory that would be unsustainable under the socio-biological constraints of human psychic existence ... this function attests to the potentiality of rigorous collective procedures to overcome the compromises demanded of the concrete individual ego, enabling the release of a liberated synthetic cognition, outside real time, which can proceed on the basis of implacable indifference to all criteria of innate or social acceptability, tolerability or balance.

Well, that all sounds jolly radical (in a kind of sci-fi novel blurb sort of way). Rather than asking you how you think you can overcome the sociobiological limits of the concrete human ego (which are what, by the way?) by hanging out in an internet chat-room, donning pseudonymous masks and playing-make believe (also the typical pastime of a huge percentage of today's teenagers, btw), why you seem to think that "collective procedures" are somehow irreconcilable with "concrete human egos", what you think is especially "rigorous" about the so-called "collective procedures" of Hyperstition (which to all appearances consists of a totally uncoordinated jumble of esoteric numerological exercises and random comments/commentaries on very loosely connected issues -- i.e. again, no different from a typical chat-room, except you seem to think that every comment posted is worth preserving and archiving), or pointing out the obvious fact that those responsible for this site have definitely NOT been proceeding "on the basis of implacable indifference to all criteria of innate or social acceptability, tolerability or balance" but have rather been consorial in the extreme (e.g. in recent weeks deleting all comments deemed 'potentially offensive' and betraying the basest of human all-too-human sensitivities when one such 'carrier' performatively challenged the internal coherence and feasibility of the Hyperstitional project) ... instead of getting into all that, I will limit myself to the following simple but pertinent question:

If 'Hyperstition' indeed harbours this kind of radical potential for overcoming the socio-biological constraints which the "natural ego" (whatever *that* is) supposedly imposes upon cognitive experimentation and creativity, could you please point to just ONE example from your archives which attests to this potential (i.e. an example of thinking otherwise impossible/unsustainable by "the concrete individual" [which, of course, has never produced anything in isolation or outside of "collectivites" anyhow])? After all, I could point to innumerable examples of "concrete human egos" (though, naturally, never in splendidly solipsistic isolation) who have radically extended the boundaries of cognitive possibility far beyond what their predecessors ever thought possible or could envisage, and I see no historical, neurobiological or other evidence to suggest that either “the socio-biological constraints of human psychic existence” (are these supposed to be *fixed*?) or the “natural ego” impose any insurmountable constraints (other than perhaps in the form of *conditions*) upon the parameters of cognitive experimentation or discursive possibility. In other words, if you are to convince anyone that what you are saying is anything more than a lot of empty rhetoric and hot air (which a certain proponent of so-called “Cold Rationalism” has conspicuously failed to do, and who in the interests of self-preservation has recently resorted to the rather desperate expedient of closing down all comment boxes [the blog equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting “Look, I’m right, and I you know I am, and I can’t hear you anyway … lalalalalalala …”]), the proof has to be in the pudding. After all, we could speculatively discuss the ‘in principle’ possibility and/or intelligibility of all the revolutionary claims made on behalf of Hyperstition until the cyber-carrier-cows come home, but really … no-one is going to believe any chef who keeps boasting that he has lots of great new recipes but who never actually gets down to any baking or a painter who keeps telling you that he’s found a way of radically transforming the very concept of a work of art but who can’t produce a single canvas. So, in short, please, SHOW ME WHAT YOU CAN DO … or else stop blowing your own trumpet (never a pretty sight, I hope you’ll agree).

nick -

simply, if we take HYPERSTITION and form an equation: HYPER means [over : above : beyond] + STIT [standing : stay : firm : fixed] + ION [action or condition]. HYPER is an IDEA beyond comprehension [[Love is the subtlest force in the world]] - STIT is the incomprehensible form it takes = ADAM [[The truth is that God is the force. He is the essence of life. He is pure and undefiled consciousness. He is eternal. The more efficient a force is the more silent and the more subtle it is]] - ION is the incomprehensible action that is taken by one MAN [[The force of nonviolence is infinitely more wonderful and subtle than the material force of nature, like electricity]]

[[GHANDI]]

Jenni,

You’re obviously just saying all that because you’re a HBM (hot blooded male) and you believe in immaterial souls, because you’re unable to engage in rational discussion without resorting to the ad hominem and straw man fallacies, and aren’t consistent like me. Clearly you, like all other HBMs, are absolutely traumatised by the incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of the subject provided by k-punk’s recent paraphrasing of Beckett’s *The Unnameable* (“I must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on”) that you’re now trying to anaesthetize the unbearable pain by trotting out predictable automatized responses pre-programmed by the Great Kapitalist Machine. Put some ice on your balls and get rational if I were you.

Jenni - this post is an attempt to move Hyperstitional activity in a certain direction, not to "blow trumpets" about what has already been achieved - [though actually such discoveries as the Numogram - worthy of considerable trumpet blowing IMHO but you are of course free to differ - would not have been possible without de-personalized carriers]

TCRK - the generous coating of sarcasm on your comment makes it hard to get your sense, but if you are assimilating the issue of the subject here to that of CR, you are playing a little fast and loose - don't think you would find any 'ontological' assumptions here to object to, just preliminary procedures to create artificial cognitive situations

Jenni (take 2) - the wounded tone you adopt (surely that of a CR burns victim) distracted me from your substantial posts, as did the attendant gestures which seem intended to inflict psychic pain (on the 'natural human egos' involved in germinal carrier production). Your substantive points merit a more extended response

"that all sounds jolly radical (in a kind of sci-fi novel blurb sort of way)" - but actually it's a relatively modest proposition, is it not? Since people can be wounded, and forced into defensive psychological postures, while carriers cannot, artificial cognitive agencies have a margin of freedom to explore lines of thought which would be 'punished' if pursued in the name of a 'natural human ego.' (Do you deny the existence of a will-to-punish in your own remarks?) If this sounds like an SF blurb, so much the better (we don't have to impress any 'reasonable' interests or institutions here - using 'reason' in a vulgar sense, not a philosophically elaborate one).

"donning pseudonymous masks and playing-make believe" - this is exactly the conception of hyperstition the post was meant to call into question, one that has plunged our recent comments into schizi chaos (fun, but productively sub-optimal)

"what you think is especially 'rigorous' about the so-called 'collective procedures' of Hyperstition[?]" - this is the question being raised, with the aim of systematizing carrier production in such a way as to exploit its potentialities in a disciplined way. This will take time and - of course - might utterly fail. Hyperstition is an experimental undertaking. What might certainly be expected is that the explicit rather than merely implicit operation of collectivity, condensed through the emergence of an artificial person without social vulnerability, would attain rigour by dismantling psychology.

"Hyperstition (which to all appearances consists of a totally uncoordinated jumble of esoteric numerological exercises and random comments/commentaries on very loosely connected issues" - Hyperstition is a virtual microsocial pragmatics which cannot simply be identified with what happens on this site. Hopefully, some of the things happening on this site will contribute to its emergence as a systematized social technology.

"except you seem to think that every comment posted is worth preserving and archiving" - double-binding surely? Delete and its paranoid fascism, keep and its trumpet blowing. Seems we're going to basically keep everything - unless it leads into run-ins with political authorities in certain non-Western countries - but that doesn't mean we're endorsing any of it - 'we' clearly do not exist in anything like the sense that would suggest.

"when one such 'carrier' performatively challenged the internal coherence and feasibility of the Hyperstitional project)" - puh-leeze

"I see no historical, neurobiological or other evidence to suggest that either “the socio-biological constraints of human psychic existence” (are these supposed to be *fixed*?) or the “natural ego” impose any insurmountable constraints" - isn't Hyperstition saying exactly that such constraints are not insurmountable? Assuming here that you admit to some degree of bio-social 'molarization' that impedes thought (hence frequent incidence of insanity among those pushing the limits)?

"if you are to convince anyone that what you are saying is anything more than a lot of empty rhetoric and hot air" - our priority IMHO should be so regularize and rigorize procedures among those most keenly involved rather than trying to preach to anyone. Personally my position is: If it ain't your brand of cola, just carry on up the aisle

"which a certain proponent of so-called 'Cold Rationalism' ..." - this site really isn't 'Cold Rationalism Watch' - know its hard to find a place to take CR-related complaints, but they won't lead to anything here

"So, in short, please, SHOW ME WHAT YOU CAN DO" - but this 'performatively' demonstrates everything - shouting, negative psychological engagement, ego manipulation, all predicated on the vulnerability of the 'natural human ego' (singular or collective) to contempt, ridicule and other related ego-challenges. The entire orientation of hyperstition is to escape from this type of tribunal - whose typical effect is dialectical molarization. We are under no obligation to impress you or justify our activities, and carriers will - of course - not even be able to make sense of such a possibility

CRK, you need some c.i.a.l.i.s

i don't know what to say :o). did i have the best time of my life finding more dark cubby holes in my brain than i wished too? is this information helpful? am i pissed right now?

yes.yes.notanymore. (mostly pissed at self)

nick, this is a fine definition of hyperstition, IMHO. and i'm glad to have been part of it.

{sorry i wrecked the sub-basement)

northanger - did anyone accuse you of wrecking the subbasement? You made the goddam subbbasement. Only shame is the amount of stuff that will moulder down there without proper scrutiny (418 posts, good number to end on, but we need a professional archivist to deal with it).
Admit to being in (amused) scold-mode on 'West Diaries' issue - always very aggravating to be on the receiving end of that i know - main thing though, I'm truly thankful to you for your role in forcing me to think through the issues in the post, they were a lot blurrier before.
No hard feelings I hope, sure you realize you're an asset of inestimable value here.
Don't entirely get ":o)" - is that the shrieking really pissed face? *}

Nick,

I agree.

Happy New Year.

>>> did anyone accuse you of wrecking the subbasement?
no nicholas, thanks for letting me use it.

>>> Only shame is the amount of stuff that will moulder down there without proper scrutiny
what's in there is, hmm, about 0.00785% of the unending stream of data i've collected. for the first time, able to make sense of something. again, thanks.

>>> Admit to being in (amused) scold-mode on 'West Diaries' issue
didn't take it personally, lol. was about to post scolding letter from leader of my order: Mizraim, Vangelo delle Streghe, The Order of Amaranthus.

>>> I'm truly thankful to you for your role in forcing me to think through the issues in the post, they were a lot blurrier before.
strongly doubt a tecnosatanist like yourself ever gets blurry. but if you say so.

>>> No hard feelings I hope, sure you realize you're an asset of inestimable value here.
reza, you, hyperstition, Le Numogrammé, bloot, and everyone else = ditto; this has been one of the most dangerous things i have ever done. my experience "verifies" what's said in this post (don't know if "verifies" is the right word). this is quite addictive! i feel i need to stop cold turkey and get back to mundane existence, which, due to my neglect is falling around my ears.

i'm left with several questions though.....

[1] what the fuck just happened?
[2] who in hell are you guys?
[3] why did i become so "addicted"?
[4] (sorry for cursing, honest)

>>> Don't entirely get ":o)" - is that the shrieking really pissed face? *}
please attribute schizy emoticon to extreme sleep deprivation.

>>> I'm truly thankful to you for your role in forcing me to think through the issues in the post, they were a lot blurrier before.

"West Diaries"? strongly doubt a techno ... whatever. *I* was able to get clear on many things - the question i'm asking myself is - what's next? give up magic? what?

pulled two tarot cards after reaching #418 (it's very easy for me to talk to demons and angels, btw). asmodai pulled princess of wands and belial pulled the magus.

apologies for being "omnivorous in passion ... entirely reckless in the means of obtaining gratification, and insatiable"

all any of us were trying to do was to stop the early stages of yet another form of totalitarianism, this time named 'cold rationalism' Nip it in the bud. No hot blooded man could let something like that roam about unchecked. OK, as he has admitted, he's a nutter, so no one should actually listen to him - but what about the ill read fools of dissensus and the like? We must protect them from these life denying protestants.

Spin - OK (hmmm), but why here?

Nick: "Carriers are designed to pursue a line of thought ..."

01 - So you concede carriers are *designed*. But how and by whom?
02 - If I wanted to create a carrier what would the concrete steps be for me, and for others?

I assume I would first have to identify the lines of thought the carrier would explore, since a carrier is *defined* by what it pursues.

03 - But isn't this to delimit the motivational energy of the line of pursuit? Isn't this to constrain the carrier's line of flight to pre-determination?

04 - How open is it for any real person to contribute to the ongoing creation of a single carrier? Can anyone just jump in and add to the line of pursuit?

05 - Doesn't this risk jeopardizing the consistency of the carrier and its line? I mean, the ongoing creation of a carrier and its line of pusuit involves an accumulation of character, history, and directionality - irreversible. I don't just mean the production of one carrier could be trolled - that too - but even with 'good intentions', things can go wrong and out of shape.

Nick, you say this is an attempt to stimulate "preliminary procedures to create artificial cognitive situations" - this sounds right to me.

But I don't think I have seen much, if at all, dedicated thinking from anyone on the site to truly contribute to this experiment.

06 - Not meaning to be down about the site, but what do you think the best achievement of the site has been to date?
07 - And what would the best achievment possibly resemble? If we get this right, we can guide our activities better perhaps.

Nick: "'what you think is especially 'rigorous' about the so-called 'collective procedures' of Hyperstition[?]' - this is the question being raised, with the aim of systematizing carrier production in such a way as to exploit its potentialities in a disciplined way... What might certainly be expected is that the explicit rather than merely implicit operation of collectivity...would attain rigour by dismantling psychology."

I think that we should eschew objections of paranoia and facism to the notion and action of becoming more systematic, selective and organized. All effective and efficient operations, for whatever purposes, involve at least a minimal level of principles, conditions and targets (happy to open up this for a productive discussion if people disagree - as long as it relates to making hyperstition more productive).

And I agree totally that for Hyperstition to work we ought to dismantle ego-centricity and explore how best to stimulate collective, multiplicitous productivity -
08 - But should hyperstition focus its energies on refuting, denying, challenging, destroying ego? Or putting ego to use for the emergence at another level or an entity of quite a different nature altogether?

Best for 2005, Tachi

Obviously some loaded questions there. But seriously concerned about this forum becoming a site of production rather than a place just for clever laughs. I am more of the persuasion of being ruthlessly selective and organized about the site, I do think there needs to be more guidance, however it is executed. Why are people so quick to accuse others of being facist and authoritarian if you want to take a more positive and proactive role in guiding production? I say to these people - provide an alternative. Nothing spontaneously emerges from chaos without some guiding principles. I am not scared of having a recipe or - dare I say the filthy word - a plan; as long as this is just a scaffold to start something off.

The other thing is that we must confuse Hyperstition the site with hyperstition. What we can achieve here is not to be confused with the sum of hyperstitional activity ... and more of the relation between the two should be explored in my opinion.

oops - typo:

The other thing is that we mustN'T confuse Hyperstition the site with hyperstition!

Tachi,

>>> since a carrier is *defined* by what it pursues.

Not necessarily but mainly by the other carriers it criss-crosses, the population it traverses (epidemical dynamism of the carrier) and the way it ‘moves’ (attains a certain dynamism) in different zones ... blending what it carriers to its mode of dynamism engineered by the mutual communication between the carrier and the population it probes. A carrier is more diagramed by whereness (non-localizable ubiquity) than by quiddity, the quiddity of what it carries or where it goes. (more later ... I mean soon)

Tachi - I'll process your remarks very carefully, so just some prelimiary remarks. Hyperstition is in part a social engineering practice, involving a range of messy and complicated issues - essentially about engendering a set of productively co-operative relationships. I have huge sympathy with your agenda, so the question is how to advance it without an excess of authoritarian techniques ('bossing people about') - how can we reach broad agreement between those most dedicated to conducting hyperstitional experimentation, providing a supportive context for the kind of disciplined experimental work you are looking for?
Seems to me one great asset to be exploited is multiplicity, running a large number of simultaneous lines involving different criteria and protocols. If we can sift different modes of hyperstitional engagement into different 'queues' and pursue them all, it will avoid the necessity of having to lay down 'laws' in advance about what will/will not work (think I've already been guilty of transgressing this principle, but what the hell ...)
It would be great if we could avoid the chaotic and disciplined trends from merely opposing each other - I see real potential in both. How then to sustain pools of procedurally rigorous construction amid an unconstrained influx of exuberant commentary?
Hyperstition is experimental, so it is simply erroneous to imagine we have any of the answers in advance - we need some relatively tidy 'lab' spaces without retreating into command mode. Not easy, but if we all put our heads to it, probably feasible.

IMHO (not meant as a criticism [u/c as guilty as anyone], just an empirical observation) retreat into methodological questions is always a symptom of inevitable periodic slowdowns in production. When it's happening, you don't worry about how it's done and whether you could do it more efficiently (which is why philosophy is _always_ worrying about how it's done ;)
the idea 'queuing' sounds nicely algorithmic, but think of all that horrible stuff backing up in the pipework : {

>>>> IMHO (not meant as a criticism [u/c as guilty as anyone], just an empirical observation) retreat into methodological questions is always a symptom of inevitable periodic slowdowns in production. When it's happening, you don't worry about how it's done and whether you could do it more efficiently ...

Well, that's not exactly an "empirical observation" though is it? What, in fact *is* 'happening'? Is Hyperstition simply about 'efficient productivity'? But, then, production of *what*?

In my humble opinion, this site is badly in need of something like an 'Introduction to Hyperstition' page to let people who may have accidentally stumbled across this site know exactly (or even: roughly) what 'hyperstition' is supposed to be and what the site is intended for. Otherwise, it seems pretty inevitable that people are going to be perplexed and are going to simply respond to whatever they see (‘comment’ boxes are so tempting …), because they are provided with no protocols or directions about what to expect or how to behave. Any person who stumbles across this site and scrolls down any of this month’s threads (I’m afraid I haven’t gone back through the archives to see what else may have taken place here) is going to automatically get the impression (apart from utter perplexity) that it’s some kind of deliberately cliquish cult in which only those who know the secret rules of the game can participate. It’s of course fine if that’s what you want it to be, but then why not just close up shop and play on your own (via email or some such)?

The thing is, from what Nick is saying now, I think that this site could indeed become a very promising forum for various kinds of ‘cognitive experimentation’ (or whatever you want to call it) and attract a good number of very talented people to participate, but there’s nothing like a ‘statement of purpose’ on the site to give anyone any clues, so it’s no surprise it becomes a free-for-all food scrap (you must see that there’s a temptation for people to throw food at what appear to be weird folk who sit around playing esoteric number games, especially when they have a tendency to come across also as somewhat pompous intellectual types). Perhaps if you bother to direct people as to the site’s purpose (sorry if that sounds disagreeably ‘teleological’), those who don’t like it will simply move on and those who are intrigued by the idea the idea may be able to contribute in a productive way?

For example, this site has been used to promote a deliberately provocative series of polemical outbursts (I wouldn’t call it a ‘position’ exactly, since that would suggest a minimal degree of coherence) which calls itself ‘Cold Rationalism’, and it’s fairly obvious that a number of people have been directed to this site via the ‘K-Punk’ site. Thus, those who click on the links via said site and find lots of spiel about ‘Cold Rationalism’ are inevitably then going to assume that the site is yet another outlet for Mark K-Punk’s spleen (i.e. his consummate hatred of all earthly existence) and thus respond on this site also -- especially when all comment boxes on K-Punk have been closed down and yet he continues to assault people (now, he seems to be hoping, without any fear of reprisals).

Thus, it’s no good telling people “look, this site has nothing to do with Cold Rationalism” (cf. Nick's above response to Spin: "why here?") because (1) this site has been used to promote the same and (2) it’s entirely unclear what this site *is* supposed to be for (i.e. to those who arrive here out of the blue and who don’t have the patience to go trolling [ooops, I mean, trecking] through the archives – and I’m not sure they’d be any the wiser then, either). Fairly obviously, if there are no clues as to what the rule are and it’s a ‘public’ site (i.e. no passwords required etc.), people are going to use it for whatever they like. After all, they can hardly be held guilty of breaking the rules when they have no idea what the rules are supposed to be in the first place (and the are no unambiguous signposts to direct them). So, how about some a kind of in(tro)ductory piece or mission statement (obviously you won’t call it *that*, but you get the idea)? Perhaps Nick, Reza, Tachi et al. can use Nick’s reflections here as a starting point and come up with something (even if, as would seem requisite, something tentative and open to revision)? Failing that, is there something extant to which you can direct the bewildered?

I think this is the closest thing to what you're looking for :
http://www.cold-me.net/polytics/index.html

also, take some tranquilisers.

"shleth hud dopesh"?!

"Rather than acting as transcendental screens, blocking out contact between itself and the world, the fiction acts as a Chinese box a container for sorcerous interventions in the world. The frame is both used (for concealment) and broken (the fictions potentiate changes in reality).'"

well, i'm certainly experiencing a "[pre]-mystical consummation of uncertainty" right now. i don't know what happens next. certainly, things go back to normal and i'm a carrier of some sort? (actually, serious medication needs to be taken before things go back to normal).

aware that breaking the seal is a tricky bizness on different levels (carrier & host).

hyperstition is ... a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. which fits since the numogram has 3 levels.

i read my journals now with greater clarity and awareness. it's ridiculous. it's very easy for me to talk to angels, demons, or any passing entity who has nothing better to do. it makes me quite uncomfortable, and for quite some time i've been aware of skating the edge of something. hyperstition seems to have kicked me over to the other side. risky bizness. (popcorn is where the inside of a kernel explodes and is now on the outside). i can decide from this moment to believe my personal "fiction" and take action - the seal can be broken on my own reality. it doesn't need to be discussed with anyone. since, "no-one is going to believe any chef who keeps boasting". there's nothing for me to prove or disprove. hyperstition allows me a framework in order to integrate with something larger than myself (HYPER), be convinced of that experience (STIT) and take the necessary action (strategy & tactics) as each new condition arises (ION). i'm a hyperstitional carrier.

Daisy ... I think this is actually a good idea, but details need to be thought through. More pertinent is the process of how this is done - what method to agree? It should allow feedback and change, whatever. And I think this is be done with an overhaul of the site's structure. Perhaps a space for theoretical discussion, a space for 'actual' hyperstitional lines, a space for hyperstition Q&A (of course in process). If we say we can't decide on anything because its an experiment we won't start anything. We have to be bold and be responsive to change, but by being bold first, we can put our decks of cards on the tables and let something take shape.

Northanger, what is this quasi-hippy-cum-cult-initiation experience you are having?

U/C - not sure I agree that 'production' slows down when we reflect on the theoretical underpinning of hyperstition. This kind of reflection only slows down 'production' of inane comments and chat in my opinion. Maybe we can slice off a different zone for so-called theory? Maybe its more like a reflection on strategy.

A good question that hasn't been tackled head on is 'production of what?'.

I agree with Nick that this is a worthy experiment in social engineering; to what extent do we think that this is the artificial manufacture of a social intelligence?

>>> quasi-hippy-cum-cult-initiation
lol! iGnoRe m.e. +b\/t doN't mAKESTH me r3tUrN to sub.b.a.s.e.m.e.n.t.

Lots of really helpful suggestions here - hoping that Undercurrent's point can be met by running a 'methodological' discussion side by side with whatever is already ongoing, even possible a little slowdown along some vectors could be productive in itself
Don't know what to do about the Cold Rationalism issue - it would clear the air in some ways if we could host a discussion of it on one thread, but it would probably just degenerate into a food fight. Still, take Daisy's point on this ... needs some chewing over.
On Tachi's points - also connected comments elsewhere - thinking Reza's processing of the recent West material a useful model. It shows how it's possible to isolate a production module even among a flowing Tohu Bohu of multidirectional commentary. Perhaps we could even innovate some simple tagging codes somewhere along the line, to mark out a comment as part of a (semi-)cohesive but dispersed virtual 'thread'. Anyway, I've given up thoughts of actually trying to impose some rigid segmentary order on the threads themselves - doomed to fail in a multitude of ways and generate unnecessary microsocial friction.
Intro. to Hyperstition - agree we need this, with all properly appended caveats. Let's try to condense some pointers - it would be interesting to see how we all envisage the 'purpose' of the site.

Nick, Reza - Maybe we can make a start on identifying what work needs to be done. Let's not allocate responsibility, but see what comes, what sticks and what flows (no filth intended).

IMHO, we need to think about site structure - zones of productivity; here's a first attempt:

1] Intro to Hyperstition, including:

- What is (and what is not)'Hyperstition'? Principles and motivating factors behind the site.
- Site Map
- Centrality of the Numogram.
- Kick ass diagrams and images.

2] Hyperstitional Lines - broken into identifiable / classifiable themes, topics? E.g:

- The Numogram
- Petropolitics
- ...

*Several important issues here:

i. The function of comment boxes needs to be carefully examined since inputs ought to lend to Hyperstitional production in this zone; a control of irrelevant material important IMHO to ensure consistency, sustainability, scalability, and momentum. My suggestion - meta-narrative at least sidelined, reallocated. This is Hyperstition in action.

ii. How to organise this space so that hyperstitional lines are distinguishable for optimal productivity - eliminating drag factor - but fluid enough to change and inter-relate?

3. Meta(hyper)stition: Discussion of theoretical resources underpinning Hyperstition, including:

- Numerization / Qabbala
- Fact and Fiction
- Subjectivity
- Cold Rationalism
- ...

* This IMHO is the area where differences of opinion can be thrashed out regarding the conceptual backdrop to the site, and arguments can rage re. CR etc.

The key I think is to identify what work needs to be done. Then perhaps we can go about it collectively.

PS If we can't work together to agree on some mode of action, then I don't see it very likely that Hyperstitional lines themselves will attract much collective input and sustainability.

I personally think that more work needs to be done in the theoretical area; certainly there is a communications issue on the site regarding what is going on and what it is to participate. Maybe some rules of thumb should be made explicit to encourage the 'right' kind of contribution?

Space management I think is crucial.

And accumulation, syncretion, cannot happen if the core values of the site are not shared by all.

Tachi -
maybe you need a "quasi-hippy-cum-cult-initiation" room for folks like me.

AQ 210 = COUNTDOWN = INITIATION = NORTHANGER = HAPPY QABBALA = QWER-WOMAN

:-)

Sure we can work towards a formula that has room both for northanger-style qabbalistic free-association and Tachi-style methodical progression (i find both really exciting dvelopments) - for one thing, patience folks! we've come a long way recently and the quality of input of all kinds is definitely on a massively encouraging curve - the very fact we're having this discussion now is a sign that the issues at stake are being taken seriously. Let's aim to have a solid agenda or series of mutually tolerant agendas firming up by the end of the month - if we can move towards building Tachi's 'intro to Hyperstition' resources that would be fantastic (agree strongly with all four objectives detailed here).
Think myself that Cold Rationalism - unless relativized by a carrier (which it isn't at the moment) - is a separate issue without obvious intrinsic link to hyperstition, but open to argument on this ...
"And accumulation, syncretion, cannot happen if the core values of the site are not shared by all." - feel this slightly overstates the point - evidently strays are going to wander in and we can hardly demand they conform to any kind of agenda, think we can realize all the concrete objectives outlined in comments above while still tolerating free transit of random particles ... a secondary sedimentary mechanism (to repeat, note Reza's West recap post above) will allow re-grouping of productively associated components and sifting out of noise

on the contrary, the best way to look at CR may be precisely as an exemplarily ailing hyperstition whose carrier has been 'blown' or wrongly configured.

maybe best thing to do is to split as follows (a)something like hyperstition as-is (free discussion,experimentation and trolling)
(b)a 'closed' site that drily and solemnly publishes 'finished' items in CNN-destined press release format. Otherwise it would seem obvious that the methodologial talk is bound to dilute the focus of the hyperstitional entities. (although nick's recent comments about creating entities 'in public' seems to go against this..?)

Nick - thanks for feedback and glad you sense positive changes afoot/at hand. I agree completely - lets aim for a more solid agenda, as you say, by the end of Jan. This 'agenda' is in my view simultaneously a proposed re-organisation of the site and a proposed dilineation of Hyperstition's activities (the two being totally interconnected).

Northanger - we can accommodate your "quasi-hippy-cum-cult-initiation" needs for folks like you with a dedicated room for hypermysticism if you like ... open to your suggestions as to how best done. Would this, seriously though, amount to a zone dedicated to "qabbalistic free-association"?

U/C - the split you envisage between: "(a)something like hyperstition as-is (free discussion,experimentation and trolling)" and "(b)a 'closed' site that drily and solemnly publishes 'finished' items in CNN-destined press release format" - is this the same thing as my proposed separated zones for "Hyperstitional Lines - broken into identifiable / classifiable themes, topics" and "Meta(hyper)stition: Discussion of theoretical resources underpinning Hyperstition"? - since I do see the value in having a clean zone purely for Hyperstitional accumulation and production (perhaps password protected for inputs?) and a free zone for meta-discussion etc. If your distinction is different, interested how ..

As for CR, I would actually be quite happy to see a designated zone for it in one of the discussion zones, or even not at all.

Nick - maybe there is a way to structure the site - the Hyperstitional production zone, not the metastition / discussion zone perhaps - according to the structure of the Numogram? Not sure how, but it would be cool for topics/themes perhaps to subordinate themselves to aspects of the Numogram. Just a wild, off the cuff thought ..

All my thinking here, by the way, assumes a certain level of technical feasibiity. Not sure if this will hamper efforts to re-think the project.

Undercurrent - CR point a little obscure to me, but methodological suggestion important - my recommendation is multi-tracking (rather than trying to maintain a single 'standard' of carrier polishing)

Tachi - some of your more ambitious site organization ideas will take a while to (collectively) think through / plan, but we've started.
Notion of 'zones' needn't be particularly rigid IMHO, due to potential for virtual isolation / secondary sifting mentioned previously. From a practical PoV, unless we're going to start fencing various spaces off, we have to respond dynamically to 'chaotic contamination' (don't mean this disparagingly, but maybe you think I'm being too relaxed about it?), rather than actually trying to insulate ourselves from it. I'd favour relatively flexible, open-ended and robust methods that can co-exist with Tohu Bohu (plus lots of "Kick ass diagrams and images" of course ;))
Your "04" above: "How open is it for any real person to contribute to the ongoing creation of a single carrier? Can anyone just jump in and add to the line of pursuit?" strikes me as a very important Q. Previous carriers have been fabricated off-line, allowing for lots of discussion and revision, so it has to be essential that nothing gets 'set in stone' merely due to appearing in text on the site. Think there's also a case for germinal carriers to have a single 'trainer' with principal responsibility for their early development, but maybe such 'rules' can be tailored to specific instances. Patience is crucial IMHO. The provisional 'self-organized' response to this quandary has been the tentataive discursive mode ('it seems', 'there are reports', 'according to certain rumours' ... etc) allowing for revisability and back-tracking.

tachi -
>>> Northanger - we can accommodate your "quasi-hippy-cum-cult-initiation" needs for folks like you with a dedicated room for hypermysticism if you like ... open to your suggestions as to how best done. Would this, seriously though, amount to a zone dedicated to "qabbalistic free-association"?

hypermysticism ... ah, a title of nobility. qabbalistic free-association ... ah, the world wide web consortium.

i would say yes.

why here? if someone is trying to gather vulnerable disciples around them and necessarily does not want anyone to pick holes in their discourse, then a serious critic seeks ways to get to them any which way. That said apologies for the intrusion, but thanks for your patience. Hyperstition in action!

Perhaps the whole cold rationalism thing was just about what an annoying prick k punk is. It would probably have been better if someone had simply kicked his head in.

well yeah!

It should be clear that Hyperstition is NOT about CR, is not a platform for Mark to sound off, but nor for his critics to slag him off. The more you make it a space to attack Mark the more YOU look like a bunch of pricks. This is Hyperstition, not Cold Rationalism, not anti-CR ... if Mark got people's back's up I am sure it wasn't intentional.

Tachi - think you might find backing quietly out of this foodfight works quite well ;)

To repeat the substance of Tachi's remarks however, given that CR seems to be a first-order ideological commitment held without a hint of irony or hyperstitional relativization, and also that it seems to have no 'methodological' or procedural implications for Hyperstition whatsoever, it seems entirely random to discuss it here - excepting of course for the 'biographical' accident that a former hyperstitional engineer of the first rank has metamorphosed into the terrestrial incarnation of the Cold Rationalist gnosis

[apologies for grammatical garbling]

"Former hyperstitional engineer" - Mark's exit official then?

Tachi - just meant that his contribution to hyperstition has been huge in the past, but haven't seen any evidence that he's still interested in it for a while now - if I'm understanding Undercurrent's last comment on the subject, Bergman seems to have morphed/degenerated into an enraged and humourless social persona with ensuing microsocial calamity (of the kind we've been witnessing here).

PS. Not trying to have a go at MKP - just disappointed that his talents now seem dedicated to pointlessly winding people up

>>> Not trying to have a go at MKP - just disappointed that his talents now seem dedicated to pointlessly winding people up

Well, I shouldn't worry about that anyway nick - I'm pretty sure he won't take it *personally* (tee-hee, snigger, titter)

>>> if Mark got people's back's up I am sure it wasn't intentional

Again, I think you're right Tachi - only *persons* have 'intentions' ...

There are no subjects, there is only subject-Matter. By now you really shouldn't expect anything more, but the robust intransigence of Human Security in the face of challenges from Cold Rationalism is astonishing.

What Cold Rationalism provokes in the speaking animal is trauma, and the automatic response to trauma is shutdown, anaestheticization. 'This thing that is happening to me cannot be happening to me'. Hence the otherwise inexplicable outbursts of Hot Blooded Males (HBMs) when confronted with Cold Rationalism. You tend to think, 'My god, can't they read?' but then realise that what you are up against is - as, it seems, they will freely admit - not anything rational, but a programmed autonomic response from deep in the Mammalian defence strata. They might as well just bare their teeth.

The great Cold Rationalist lesson is that everything in the so-called personal is in fact the product of impersonal processes of cause and effect which, in principle if not in fact, could be delineated very precisely. And this act of delineation, this stepping outside the character armour that we have confused with ourselves, is what freedom is.

Theism has retreated, not vanished. The conviction that there is a Factor X, some inexplicable, ineffable residue over and above genetics, neurology and social coding that makes you you - this is the 'soul supersition' that Nietzsche rightly exoriated. It is the belief that the human is ultimately explicable in biographical and personal terms which Cold Rationalism emphatically rejects, maintaining, rather, that the personal and the biographical are only explicable in machinic and impersonal terms.

At first sight there would seem to be only one way of recapturing the specifically human within the framework of the scientific image. The categories of the person might be reconstructed without loss in terms of the fundamental concepts of the scientific image in a way analogous to that in which the concepts of biochemistry are (in principle) reconstructed in terms of sub-atomic physics. To this suggestion there is, in the first place, the familiar objection that persons as responsible agents who make genuine choices between genuine alternatives, and who could on many occasions have done what in point of fact they did not do, simply can't be construed as physical systems (even broadly interpreted to include sensations and feelings) which evolve in accordance with laws of nature (statistical or non-statistical). Those who make the above move can be expected to reply (drawing on distinctions developed in section I) that the concepts in terms of which we think of a person's 'character', or the fact that 'he could have done otherwise', or that 'his actions are predictable' would appear in the reconstruction as extraordinarily complex defined concepts not to be confused with the concepts in terms of which we think of the 'nature' of NaCl, or the fact that 'system X would have failed to be in state S given the same initial conditions' or that 'it is predictable that system X will assume state S given these initial conditions'. And I think that a reply along these lines could be elaborated which would answer this objection to the proposed reconstruction of categories pertaining to persons.

But even if the proposed reconstruction could meet what might be called the 'free will' objection, it fails decisively on another count. For it can, I believe, be conclusively shown that such a reconstruction is in principle impossible, the impossibility in question being a strictly logical one. (I shall not argue the point explicitly, but the following remarks contain the essential clues.) If so, that would seem to be the end of the matter. Must we not return to a choice between (a) a dualism in which men as scientific objects are contrasted with the 'minds' which are the source and principle of their existence as persons; (b) abandoning the reality of persons as well as manifest Physical objects in favour of the exclusive reality of scientific objects; (c) returning once and for all to the thesis of the merely 'calculational' or 'auxiliary' status of theoretical frameworks and to the affirmation of the primacy of the manifest image?

Assuming, in accordance with the drift of the argument of this Chapter, that none of these alternatives is satisfactory, is there a way out? I believe there is, and that while a proper exposition and defence would require at least the space of this whole volume, the gist can be dated in short compass. To say that a certain person desired to do A, thought it his duty to do B but was forced to do C, is not to describe him as one might describe a scientific specimen. One does, indeed, describe him, but one does something more. And it is this something more which is the irreducible core of the framework of persons.

In what does this something more consist? First, a relatively superficial point which will guide the way. To think of a featherless biped as a person is to think of it as a being with which one is bound up in a network of rights and duties. From this point of view, the irreducibility of the personal is the irreducibility of the 'ought' to the 'is'. But even more basic than this (though ultimately, as we shall see, the two points coincide), is the fact that to think of a featherless biped as a person is to construe its behaviour in terms of actual or potential membership in an embracing group each member of which thinks of itself as a member of the group. Let us call such a group a 'community'. Once the primitive tribe, it is currently (almost) the 'brotherhood' of man, and is potentially the 'republic' of rational beings (cf. Kant's 'Kingdom of Ends'). An individual may belong to many communities, some of which overlap, some of which are arranged like Chinese boxes. The most embracing community to which he belongs consists of those with whom he can enter into meaningful discourse. The scope of the embracing community is the scope of 'we' in its most embracing non-metaphorical use. 'We', in this fundamental sense (in which it is equivalent to the French 'on' or English 'one') is no less basic than the other 'persons' in which verbs are conjugated. Thus, to recognize a featherless biped or dolphin or Martian as a person is to think of oneself and it as belonging to a community.

Now, the fundamental principles of a community, which define what is 'correct' or 'incorrect', 'right' or 'wrong', 'done' or 'not done', are the most general common intentions of that community with respect to the behaviour of members of the group. It follows that to recognize a featherless biped or dolphin or Martian as a person requires that one think thoughts of the form, 'We (one) shall do (or abstain from doing) actions of kind A in circumstances of kind C'. To think thoughts of this kind is not to classify or explain, but to rehearse an intentions.2

Thus the conceptual framework of persons is the framework in which we think of one another as sharing the community intentions which provide the ambience of principles and standards (above all, those which make meaningful discourse and rationality itself possible) within which we live our own individual lives. A person can almost be defined as a being that has intentions. Thus the conceptual framework of persons is not something that needs to be reconciled with the scientific image, but rather something to be joined to it. Thus, to complete the scientific image we need to enrich it not with more ways of saying what is the case, but with the language of community and individual intentions, so that by construing the actions we intend to do and the circumstances in which we intend to do them in scientific terms, we directly relate the world as conceived by scientific theory to our purposes, and make it our world and no longer an alien appendage to the world in which we do our living. We can, of course, as matters now stand, realize this direct incorporation of the scientific image into our way of life only in imagination. But to do so is, if only in imagination, to transcend the dualism of the manifest and scientific images of man-of-the-world.

>>> HBMs ... The great Cold Rationalist lesson is that everything in the so-called personal is in fact the product of impersonal processes of cause and effect which, in principle if not in fact, could be delineated very precisely.

A deep cold LOL from the Tartarian depths

DSCR - lost all ability to discriminate cruel parody from genuine declarations in this area, but whatever the case: Why should we care about these pompous sermons?

... although plenty of folks obviously do.

Apologies for getting so tediously ratty about this whole question. Missing the old MKP I guess (probably the CR burns victim crowd don't even know what that was)

And sorry Wilfred, but they should tab you up and market the result as an insomnia cure - or are you also part of some bizarre tactical impersonation scam?

Losing it entirely for a change ...

>>> And sorry Wilfred, but they should tab you up and market the result as an insomnia cure

Yes, real philosophers, unfortuately for the MTV generation with its inability to follow a line of argument that is sustained over more than two sentences, don't do 'k-punk' style soundbites and are typically not much cop at bullshit rhetoric. Rather, they reason and argue and painstakingly think things through to their ends, whatever those ends may turn out to be. What they say they say not in order to produce an effect or to shock or to sound 'radical', but in order to get things right. How dull eh? How tiresome? Who would bother reading a book entitled 'Science, Perception and Reality' when they could read one called 'The Thirst for Annihilation'? Hmmm, I wonder from who Mark -K-Punk learnt to do philosophy (I use the word very loosely here) in such a pompous, pseudo-radical sermonizing and dogmatic way ...?

"And sorry Wilfred, but they should tab you up and market the result as an insomnia cure - or are you also part of some bizarre tactical impersonation scam?"

When I said that the individual as a conceptual thinker is essentially a member of a group, this does not mean of course, that the individual cannot exist apart from the group, for example as sole survivor of an atomic catastrophe, any more than the fact that chess is a game played by two people means that one can't play chess with oneself. A group isn't a group in the relevant sense unless it consists of a number of individuals each of which thinks of himself as 'I' in contrast to 'others'. Thus a group exists in the way in which members of the group represent themselves. Conceptual thinking is not by accident that which is "communicated" to others, any more than the decision to move a chess piece is by accident that which finds an expression in a move on a board between two people.

Suppose we are watching the telegraphic report of a chess game in a foreign country. And suppose that we are sophisticated enough to know that chess pieces can be made of all shapes and sizes, that chess boards can be horizontal or vertical, indeed, distorted in all kinds of ways provided that they preserve certain topological features of the familiar board.

Then it is clear that while we will think of the players in the foreign country as moving kings, pawns, etc., castling and check-mating, our concepts of the pieces they are moving and the moving of them will be simply the concept of items and changes which play a role analogous to the pieces and moves which take place when "we" play chess.

Why do we feel that there would be something extremely odd, even absurd, about such a supposition?

Wilfred - google says you died in 1989.

... two years before me.

Snarky biographizing reminds me strongly of our most obnoxious troll to date. Mention of CR draws them out like blow-flied to a rotting corpse.

... flies even ...

--{Snarky biographizing

One of the key elements I took from Deleuze and Guattari’s "Mille Plateaux" was that philosophy should be reconstituted as concept manufacture. Philosophy - Heidegger, Hegel, Merleau Ponty, Lacan - always gave me a headache because it was imponderable. Content manufacture made it more like being an electrician of thinking, trying to find circuit diagrams of the present. D&G were so brilliant when they said: we can’t help it if Proust tells us as much how space time works as Einstein does. We can’t help it if Henry Miller tell us as much about desire works as Freud does. The theory fiction border is utterly permutable.

These ideas came to me in 1994-96, when I met Nick Land, Sadie Plant, and her PhD students Mark Fisher, Steve Goodman, Suzanne Livingston at Warwick’s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit. We were all working on the same thing, the permeable membrane between certain concepts, embedded in science fiction ... the drive towards the utopian and the alien.

Is this all going to try and pass itself off as yet another wonderfully intricate 'performative demonstration' of the limits of hyperstition by next week? If so, can we get the yawning out of the way now?
What is this obsession with turning everything into turgid microhistory lessons? - It's a drive made especially pathetic by its one-sided perpetration through unimaginative and vindicative masks.
My guess is its a kind of foot-tapping tic while waiting (I'm afraid almost certainly vainly) for an opportunity to start yapping at a defender of Cold Rationalism again. They're not exactly thick on the ground here these days, although if anything were capable of triggering a resurgence of snarling CR fanaticism it would be these examples of flabby cowardice and twisted personological fixation.

geez nicky, what is wifu2day?

::snicker::

"There are no subjects, there is only subject-Matter."

Firstly, sorry, somewhat self-indulgently I have to concede being extremely wound up by this equally self-indulgent intellectual fluff about subjectivity.

It makes me want to reassert my individual, no, particularly human character, just to spite. Yes, I eat, drink, piss, shit, fuck, sleep, cry, laugh, aspire to 'moral' behaviour, fail in my endeavours, succeed, and self-indulge; I speculate, plan, judge, assume, assert, theorise, act of of character, and deny ...

By intellectualising about these traits (no, not saying they are innate) and denying 'the' human subject, as if that was the really interesting issue of our day, you are so more the human you deny that it is laughable.

The so-called rational aspect of CR is so exactly what it attempts to refute - theory is so particularly human. Don't say 'but machines can theorise' since saying this is human doesnt amount to saying its exclusively human. To do so would be asserting nothing interesting. After all it is flows that matter, and matter that flows. 'Subject-matter'? Cool soundbite but what does it amount to? You conclude just where the interesting and difficult questions begin. Where is the positive programme?

This is the problem with most fucking philosphy is that it involves people, yes people, creating something that is suitable for them to tear apart. Especially CR.

And what is more destructive than humanity? Before you jump down my dry throat, I am not saying that humanity is the last point of reference for destructivity, but just because life is machinic, it does not therefore mean that human life has no particularly destructive character.

Look for transcendence and you will find something to slag off. CRists = inverted transcendence junkies. Again - where is the creative aspect of CR? So humanly denying humanity, and so teenage-goth passe.

Secondly, this Wilfred, who just want to fight MKP and say nothing constructive - why not just have a proper scrap? I mean fix a time and a place. We can all watch. What rules do you want - what criteria for a victory? Or just a full on NHB (no holds barred)? Just preferably somewhere other than Hyperstition, puh-lease.

Reza, Nick, sorry, not very good at anger management sometimes. Just my *person*ality. Don't mean to conclude sweepingly about human nature by using this figure of speech though.

Tachi - i'm not exactly in a position to get all superior on that front right now ;)
(in northanger's succinct 'word' "wifu2day" - nothing like a grave robbing obnoxious-troll-to-date to pointlessly exercise a random bad mood on)

On a more constructive note - think the early parts of this thread very productive. Following your recommendations, aiming to launch a relatively open-ended 'method issues' thread within a couple of days to provide a space for the next stage of the discussion.

Nick - think its important for relevant questions to shadow us as we trail on. Below is perhaps a useful recap; feel free to junk anything, though IMHO some as yet unanswered questions are important to hold onto.

Nick - "Hyperstition is in part a social engineering practice, involving a range of messy and complicated issues - essentially about engendering a set of productively co-operative relationships".

It seems clear to me that Hyperstition is not to focus its energies on refuting, denying, challenging, destroying ego (prime CR objective), but focus on the creation at a level beyond ego of an entity of quite a different nature altogether. However, ...

01
A- What are these relationships engineering?
B - What is the overall motivation for Hyperstition?
C - In the respect of creating a collectively engineered intelligence - if that is indeed the motivating factor - what would the best achievment for Hyperstition, possibly resemble?

02
A- How are carriers designed and by whom? Concrete steps?
B - Is a carrier defined by what it pursues, given this may shift with what it passes through (Reza's comments) - and is the identification of this line of pursuit necessary to kick start a carrier?
C - What level of flexibility is there to the consistency of character and interest for a given carrier?
D - How open is it for any real person to contribute to the ongoing creation of a single carrier? Can anyone just jump in and add to the line of pursuit?

It appears to me that there is a difference between Hyperstition as something that is done, by writing, and something that happens beyond human subjectivity, principally in world events.

03
A - Is there an important difference between unconscious hypersition - eg market hype and the substantially interlinking phenomena of islamic terrorism, petropolitics, and corporate-state desire - and the textual-based activities of like-minded people sharing a view on the horror and theoretical resources?
B - If so, is this difference a problem?
C - Where does conscious participation in carrier production and hyperstitional production trail off and unconscious production begin?

04
A - Is it worth having separate zones on the site for polished production and theoretical debate?

Tachi - excellent Q.s (of course). I'll definitely take all of this as a guide - in fact (like previous Tachi-inspired post) think it's worth dedicating our next method thread to thrashing through your agenda here - there are also some issues I'd add, but they can wait a little.

Hi Nick, glad you think they are good q.s. Think they can be put into better shape and prioritised though. Don't see why you should wait to add your own.

One useful distinction that I see emerging is the use of the site as a publishing tool and another use as a forum for brain-pooling. I dont see why we shouldnt aim for HP (hyperstitional production) to be mainly a publishing outlet, with interactive content, free of hindering influences. And at the same time maintain a thoroughly lateral thrash pit, with dedicated zones for theoretical debate, methodological discussion, and strategic communications. I guess first we can work through the fundamentals then formulate a set of principles to guide activities. (Like in Chinese martial theory there are no techniques, only principles.) Interested in pursuing this and hope we can remain focused in the midst of any further shit slinging.

:scholarly speaking: the word "wifu2day" appears in the trollictionary.

Tachi - "free of hindering influences" - this is a whole topic on its own really, maybe deserving of it's own discussion thread (know it's a key q. for you) - think Reza will have a lot of input into the discussion, and from both sides (he's both a hyperliberal on comments - who's persuaded me to follow him on this - and an engineering innovator of production spaces)

northanger - highly expressive, but also sort of grotesque (from a qabbalistic PoV of course).
"trollictionary" on the other hand is sheer poetry ... do i need a *}

>>> ... do i need a *}
what is this? a black eyed pea?

>>>> flabby cowardice and twisted personological fixation

what, just because someone happened to mention a book that you authored?! ... really, if you're so embarrassed about having written it that the merest mention of it sends you into fits of anger and paranoia, it's a wonder that you ever agreed to have it published in your name in the first place ...

Surely Wilfred had a point - it can hardly be denied that 'Cold Rationalism' is just one more hideous offspring of 'Libidinal Materialism'? Nick should be proud that he managed to father so many monsters and freakshows. Few academics have that kind of impact on their students these days, so that alone is pretty impressive.

Wilfed/Spin/Posh Spice/anti-CR entity: yawn. Say something constructive or move on down the aisle.

>>> Is this all going to try and pass itself off as yet another wonderfully intricate 'performative demonstration' of the limits of hyperstition by next week?

No, of course not. But then the limits of Hyperstition (at least, as put into practice on this site) need no special demonstration; they are patent for all to see. What was interesting about the ‘obnoxious troll’ incident of some weeks ago was not that the tactics were sophisticated; obviously they weren’t at all, and it would be hoplessly pretentious to claim otherwise. As one would expect from troglodyte, the troll’s tactics were utterly artless, crude, ingenuous, primitive, immature, unimaginative and the rest. So the only interesting question to come out of it, if there is one, is surely *why* such a tactically unsophisticated intervention was able to cause so much damage, such that a principal and founding member of the ‘kollektive’ has semingly deserted the camp entirely? -- Seems to me that you should probably be counting your lucky stars that the troll’s tactics *weren’t* terribly sophisticated!

>>> Wilfed/Spin/Posh Spice/anti-CR entity: yawn. Say something constructive or move on down the aisle

Why? Is 'construction' somehow more inherently valuable and interesting that *destruction*, in you opinion?

I never said construction was *inherently* anything. Don't put words in my mouth. It is of course from an entirely localised point of view -and pragmatic. But if you think that being destructive or obstructive (and being "clever") is a value we ought to share then you are obviously hanging around the wrong place. What is your strange fascination with Hyperstition if you consistently deride it? Why not seek out somewhere where you can exercise your wit and release your destructive wimperings?

Yeah fuck off out of the aisle all together.

posh, you don't need to be sophisticated to scare a bunch of sophists!

OK agit-geek (trumpet-blowing troll for sure) - put your case on the table. Let's see what your problem is. If you don't value productivity or constructiveness, then put the case against. If you have an issue - which is pretty obvious to me - then lay it bare, rather than being snarky and 'funny'. It seems that you are the one who enjoys ripping into CR and Hyperstition ad hoc. If you really can't contribute to the site and cooperate, even if you have serious reasons for dissent, then it will become obvious that you are just a nuisance, a hinderance, and a problem. Engage constructively or make it plain that you are more interested in being destructive. We all need to know where we stand.

>>> We all need to know where we stand.

So here I stand, a European, and cannot do otherwise, so help me God ...

Deserts grow: woe to him who harbours deserts!

Tachi - think you might find backing quietly out of this foodfight works quite well ;)

:backing out slowly:

>>> What is your strange fascination with Hyperstition if you consistently deride it?

Nobody is deriding Hyperstition; nobody knows what the fuck is *is* ... A hindrance? A hindrance to *what* exactly? What is supposedly being *hindered* here, and how? ... Please refer to what my old decrepit mother (Daisy Sturmtrupp) has to say about these things above ...

Spin - "really, if you're so embarrassed about having written it that the merest mention of it sends you into fits of anger and paranoia ..." - this is totally missing the point IMHO, there's any number of things I may / may not be "embarassed about" that would be equally entirely irrelevant - in fact deliberately digressive and countervailing - to the positive stuff happening here, the only 'tactical' function of these references is to attempt to re-integrate natural biographies as a diversion from current activities - i.e. hyperstitional depersonalization and artificialization. I actually think you understand this, at least ueber-troll does. By referring to past biographical facts of any kind - 'remember that party we went to in 1993?' would be equally annoying - the statement is being made: 'I refuse to play this (hyperstitional) game and insist on doing something else instead.' If so, why come here (except to be irritating)?
[Ueber-troll has the honesty to "snicker"]

PS. everybody - make sure you check the emails for every nic - previous 'nick' but one was fake, so annoying impersonations are more probable than usual at the moment.
YAWN = 99

AQ 400 = MECHANICAL IMPERFECTION = SNARKY BIOGRAPHIZING

Posh - "So the only interesting question to come out of it, if there is one, is surely *why* such a tactically unsophisticated intervention was able to cause so much damage, such that a principal and founding member of the ‘kollektive’ [sic] has semingly deserted the camp entirely?"
- one theory: MKP got hacked-off mud-wrestling with trolls and left (not too complicated, was it?)

Posh - "..cause so much damage.." - you would like to think so, but recent events are part of the development of the site's activities and will undoubtedly affect the site's development. As Nick has said, this is an experiment, and we are asking serious questions about values, principles and methods ourselves. If you didn't get something out of hanging out here, then presumably you wouldn't hang out. What is your interest in being here if its not just to be irritatingly destructive?

Dear all,

You'll be happy to learn that I have just had the ueber-troll shot. Trust me, you will never hear from that creature again. It's perfectly safe for Mark K-P to resume his position without fear of attack (at least from *that* troglodyte -- I can't promise a permanent troll-cull, of course).

I hope you all live happily ever after and that hyperstitional practice can now thrive here without interruption from further pests.

nick-
curious, why does mark leaving and the troll issue keep coming up?

nick-
really appreciated what Tachi had to say about the human side of things. personally, i find that emotions, opinions, projections, etc, mess with team environments -- heck, with life itself.

from original post:

"Carriers are designed to pursue a line of thought further than is prudent, decent, or reasonable. They have no need to preserve themselves in the face of natural hazards, avoid unnecessary risks, reproduce, achieve acceptance within a community or prove themselves worthy of social recognition. They maximize the advantages of the ROBOT and the PSYCHOPATH in all these respects." [EMPHASIS MINE]

i don't see "cold rationalism" as something opposed to this objective -- or maybe i misunderstand the whole thing.

northanger - I'm not an expert, but the objection to Cold Rationalism that made most sense to me was that it presupposes as a source of discursive authority that which hyperstition works experimentally towards, that's to say: a 'cold' (destratified-dehumanized) position.
Some might also find the CR formula:
Jesus + Lacan + the National Health Service = Reason
a little troubling.
strangely COLD = HATE, but there's frozen hatred i guess

PS. I kind of liked ueber-troll (the snickering was particularly attractive)

>>> the objection to Cold Rationalism that made most sense to me was that it presupposes as a source of discursive authority that which hyperstition works experimentally towards, that's to say: a 'cold' (destratified-dehumanized) position.

ok, (humor me, plz)

[x] <---------(destratified-dehumanized) position.

[1] CR is already standing on X?
[2] Hyperstition is working toward X?

:scratching head: huh?

ps: "ueber-troll" is also in the trollictionary - but the committee is undecided - where's the umlaut?

pps: committee getting tangled in knots, shouldn't "ueber-troll" be spelt "uber-troll"?

northanger - are you being deliberately obtuse on umlaut question? - 'ue' = 'u umlaut' - all these ridiculous accents are an offense against the hegemonic ambitions of anglophonic qabbalism

other point also nit-pickeroid - there's an evident difference between asserting 'I stand beyond mankind' (provoking ridicule and hostility as we have seen) and a project to explore the inhuman - isn't there?

Definitely a difference, Nick, though 'exploration' would seem to suggest there is something (inhuman) out there to be explored by humanity, when humanity and 'it' surely have an interesting interface.

The CR project seems more bent on debunking human subjectivity (and relying on straw notions of transcendent, hermetic identity) than putting anything substantially useful forward re. understanding humanity's relation to the inhuman.

Hyperstition is, from my point of view, more of a practice, supported by a theoretical framework in which human subjectivity plays no active role. Importantly, it is also a practice in which the denial of human subjectivity is *implied* through its practice, rather than overly emphasised in doctrine.

Where Hyperstition has value, I think, is in examining the ways - from both a positive theoretical and pragmatic approach - in which events are produced machinically *through* social, collective processes.

The most important thing is the immersed quality of exploration that Hyperstition involves - not as cold and rational outsiders from a denied-human perspective, but from an entirely situated perspective.

What is being explored, albeit in fits and starts on this site - and the activity on here in no way amounts to what some of us are interested in developing - are inhuman processes, and how we, as humans, are indeed constituted by, and constituitive of them.

In the sense that the argument isnt really about human or inhuman anymore - let's move on - it doesnt matter if we say we are interested in 'inhuman' processes. We are interested in processes which are independent of yet related to us as humans.

The relation of human beings to the events we are witnessing around us are in one sense so human, in that what impacts on us, what registers to us as important, is connected to our actions, whether or not we are in control. This isnt to say that human beings are the bedrock of explanation for anything, but it is to say that humanity is a crucial part of the unfolding, imploding picture.

It is understanding this role of the human, of humanity as a species but moreso as a crucial part of the processes occuring on the planet, that drives me to understand the very inhuman nature of events. But not just so that I can claim any rationally calculated knowledge of the fact, but to get a more practical grip on how things are actually working.

Why desire to understand, why desire to appreciate how things are 'actually' working? I can't say I know, but at the minimum it is in not being fooled. Which is why the CR thing of attacking the ego is partly right. But we cannot stop there.

There is no solace in the human, but there is glory in the inhuman.

I do think that more work needs to be done on actual unconscious hyperstitional systems before we can artificially induce one. Where are the best examples?

TYPO - should read:

There is no solace in the human, but there is NO glory in the inhuman.

Tachi - "the CR thing of attacking the ego" - some mirth possible here ;)
Actually think that a bizarro Tachi/hyperhippy alliance might be consolidating on this issue - and most terifying of all - it's right. Antihumanist meta-agendas should definitely pushed down into carriers and out of the axiomatic control-room. Will try to deal with this in promised method post.

Nick - "Tachi/hyperhippy alliance"?? Please expand. And on its terifying aspect .. Interested in your views on what I have said ..

PS Where is Reza?

Tachi - don't panic! just mean that the danger of building hardcore antihumanist ideology into the 'axioms' of hyperstition seems to be a concern both you and northanger (quite rightly) share - there shouldn't be any doctrinal axioms of hyperstition, and hopefully our methodological thrashing session will push such agendas down into carrier systems where they cease to operate as potential sources of (pseudo)transcendent pontification ...

Cheers; do you check your mail, Nick? Something in the pipeline ..

I've lost all will to involve myself in further reruns of this discussion, but excellent points well (and amusingly) made, Tachi...and nick:

>Jesus + Lacan + the National Health Service = Reason

ROFL! Although to take into account important late-breaking doctrinal developments one should add '- the Archbishop of Canterbury'.

>>> hegemonic ambitions of anglophonic qabbalism
imperial englishman

>>> explore the inhuman
then, being inhuman, makes sense, neh? how does one create an opening to the inhuman?

>>> tell me the name of God, nicholas

>>> how does one create an opening to the inhuman, nicholas?

No there's true comic genius!

Undercurrent - did you see this: "U/C - the split you envisage between: "(a)something like hyperstition as-is (free discussion,experimentation and trolling)" and "(b)a 'closed' site that drily and solemnly publishes 'finished' items in CNN-destined press release format" - is this the same thing as my proposed separated zones for "Hyperstitional Lines - broken into identifiable / classifiable themes, topics" and "Meta(hyper)stition: Discussion of theoretical resources underpinning Hyperstition"? - since I do see the value in having a clean zone purely for Hyperstitional accumulation and production (perhaps password protected for inputs?) and a free zone for meta-discussion etc. If your distinction is different, interested how .."

Tachi – Really appreciate and respect your thoughts on structuring the site. The fact I am even commenting on this is a very ironic, but I’ve found password protected sections are ultimately troublesome. What exactly do you mean by a “clean zone”? If you “lock out” wouldn’t it hinder unknown lines of flight?

WOMAN=111=OTHER (ironically one of my posts) - not sure *who* you are, but thanks for your comments. What I mean by a clean zone is more like a publishing space. Its best not to think of who is being restricted, but more like what is the mode of publication. Lines of flight do not automatically occur with comment boxes, as we have seen. This is a discussion I am glad to be having since I don't know the answers, but I do think that the site could have different publishing spaces, some with feedback for anyone allowed, some with restricted feedback allowed, and some with none. I don't care about anyone who wants to accuse me of being fascist, since I know that is a knee-jerk reaction to what is ultimately an attempt to provoke some management. No, its not molar control, bla bla bla, its about trying different formats within which content can better connect. Lines of flight may occur with a bit more space management; nothing to do with being liberal or not.

W=O - interested in your thoughts on this, obviously. From your experience ...

oops - wasn't paying attention ... WOMAN=111+OTHER ...

"WOMAN=111+[sic]OTHER" has either made a typo or can't count (in AQ)

Tachi - think your suggestions about varied security structures for different spaces are interesting and will ultimately prove important, but I'm going to basically shunt them aside in the method post because they involve relatively elaborate technical issues that Reza/Boris would have to grapple with - a provisional alternative (you'll probably think this way too soft) would be to try to tag threads in a way that allowed a voluntary herding of comments into thematically cohesive groups - some evidence this trend already underway IMHO.
You're obviously right to ignore 'fascism' accusations, but a more relevant objection might be that installing a more controlling environment will just foster hostility and more dedicated agitation. Seems to me the amount of trollishness has hugely diminished - both quantitatively and qualitatively - since we overtly committed (under Reza's guidance) to a hyperliberal policy on comments. The problem of 'irrelevance' is stickier, but it's also vague (people can 'reasonably' differ on particular cases) and easier to remedy by secondary revision, as exemplified by your recent (emailed) method recap, which will be fed into a post over next few days and thus re-consolidated.
Virtual segregation (by topic) can be quite effective without having to be spatially or technologically instantiated. Maybe there are also search/indexing functions that can reinforce this approach.
All the complex systems theorists said interesting stuff happens at the edge of chaos - excessive organizational zeal could end up being counterproductive.

D26 CJ = WOMAN = [111+OTHER] = BLACK KING = BRANDING = EGO FLARE

Yes, a typo lol! Being woman=111=other, I’m not really concerned with numbers.

In my case, password is a compromise and it would seem that hyperstition doesn’t need to compromise. Nick’s comment that it will just foster more hostility is correct. Guess the point I’m trying to make is that I am obviously “other” - not from the hyperstition world - and in a closed environment we wouldn’t be interacting.

Does hyperstition want me to go away?

>>> Does hyperstition want me to go away?

don't think so...

AQ 661 = Posted by: WOMAN=111=OTHER at January 7, 2005 12:11 PM = SECRET MILITARY SOCIETY OF COL. WEST

northanger - get a blog

>>> get a blog
like this one?

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/2005/01/good_news_2004.html

Guess this is getting pretty tiresome by now, but just a small observation: nick suggests that MKP left because he "MKP got hacked-off mud-wrestling with trolls ... (not too complicated, was it?)", but, as someone who has been quietly following all these threads, it is IMHO undeniable that mark *actually* withdrew from discussion *not* when people were 'trollishly' trying to wind him up for the sake of it, but rather at precisely the point at which serious, principled objections were being voiced against the coherence of his 'CR' position (and these were voiced on a thread entitled 'Blissblog, Surfascism and Cold Rationalism' so you can't reasonably claim that such objections were out of place on this site). In fact, IMHO the objections voiced on that thread were a good deal less 'trollish' and good deal more sophisticated than Tachi's (if I may say so without starting another silly food-fight, somewhat idiotic/risible) assault on CR posted (see his Jan 05, 03.17 pm entry above), so let's not pretend that Mark left because of the antics of obnoxious 'trolls' (unless you're prepared to include Tachi in this company also).

So yes nick, I agree, it's really isn't that complicated: MKP stopped responding when the questions got too difficult (and if you're left in any doubt about this, I suggest you re-read the thread mentioned above).

Apologies for the numerous typos.

"get a blog" - is that the new way of saying "get a life"?

some fingers - try breaking into the northanger security core and then tell me what you think - there's some kind of institutional change going down there - lots of keening and stuff - but it's hard to see past the killer robots

An Observer - hmmm
MKP definitely winds people up, so the arguments get pretty nasty, personal and vindictive. It's hard to disentangle 'principled arguments' (on either side) from the general ambience of blood-flecked loathing

An Observer, that's fine to point out a greater level of 'sophistication' in a line of argument against CR other than what is taken to be an argument by myself - my post was more of a rant, I confess, since I have grown pretty tired of the whole focus on CR/anti-CR.

Though if you do level the accusation to what I said (I know its not personal) of being 'idiotic' then I do think you ought to support this. I am interested in your views, not just to defend myself but for the sake of greater clarity and understanding.

Perhaps also you could make clear what was supposedly sophisticated in your view in that thread, since what I mainly read is an overly academic - exegetical - disputes concerning Freud, Lacan, Spinoza, etc.

Contra-CR/MKP (obv) "flip-flopping between an all-is-hyperstition neomystical idealism and a hardman rhetoric of purified rationalism" (Posh Spice at December 16, 2004 01:41 PM)

Obsever - was this what you meant, re. sohpisticated? ;)

Tachi,

Well, I'm a little reluctant to pursue this just now (very busy), and your time would obviously be better much better spent responding to the issues raised in Nick's recent (and, IMHO, excellent) post on hyperstitional method.

However, let me just very briefly respond to *this*:

>>> "if you do level the accusation to what I said (I know its not personal) of being 'idiotic' then I do think you ought to support this ... Perhaps also you could make clear what was supposedly sophisticated in your view in that thread, since what I mainly read is an overly academic - exegetical - disputes concerning Freud, Lacan, Spinoza, etc.

Ok, here are a few examples of what I above identify above as idiotic/risible':

"By intellectualising about these traits you are so more the human you deny that it is laughable ... The so-called rational aspect of CR is so exactly what it attempts to refute - theory is so particularly human ... After all it is flows that matter, and matter that flows ... Look for transcendence and you will find something to slag off .. So humanly denying humanity ..."

And here is an example (though there are many others on that thread (by, e.g. Bloot, Posh Spice, john effay, henry miller et al.) of what I identify above as serious/principled/sophisticated:

>>> Is it really possible to retain the notion of the “consistency” of a rational position or discourse while dispensing with the entire language of commitments, entitlements, endorsements (and *responsibility* for those commitments, which you yourself have already had recourse to in your brief response above)? How do inconsistencies get “sorted out at the level of reason” except in terms of dialogue between rational subjects (persons) who who in the very act of forming propositions undertake rational commitments for which they are *responsible* in the sense of being under a certain socially instituted normative obligation to justify their entitlement to them? In this sense, a ‘person’ is nothing other than a rational animal (where being ‘rational’ essentially involves being subject to the force of the better reason) and a locus of responsible action. In fact, simply by participating in this dialogue you are constituting yourself as such a locus of responsibility (person) by offering arguments for which you are responsible in the above sense of being obliged to provide reasons for your entitlement to them (i.e. in terms of their inferential implications with your other commitments). Surely one who keeps insisting that people who are unprepared to provide ARGUMENTS and REASONS (see response to henrymiller above) for what they say are unworthy of his time is not now going to deny such things?

Perhaps you deem these questions as "overly academic" (this going along with your apparent scorn for "intellectualising", "rationality" and "theory" as somehow 'all too human'), but I really don't think so. (As a matter of fact, I don't even know what "overly academic" is supposed to mean, but I'm happy to be instructed ...)

All the best ...

"Or putting ego to use for the emergence at another level or an entity of quite a different nature altogether."

So, ironically, 'I Am' comes before 'I Think', and thus, we arrive at the PRO-jection, resulting, commonly, in the natural ego confusing the cart for the horse -- even if the cart IS in front of that stallion. The eradication instincts unleashed upon the artificial, hardened thought -- called creation -- stem from a desire for sleep -- to Think no-more. Security and liberation...

As a PRO-ject, the artificial is the thought itself, an activity creating and merging with 'whatever'. Once attributed to 'be', or 'I am', thought stagnates, petrifies, and leads 'everywhere'. Secure the objective...

You can 'see' it if 'you' are not looking.

Identify your Self...

Who am I? I'm working on it...

Valkator - been hugely enjoying your contributions. The opening quote of your last comment is truly excellent - where does it come from?

Dear Observer (should say, however, that you are becoming Participant now),

Thanks for your response, though I am not sure that merely citing a passage renders it idiotic. Please let me unfold some of my comments in relation to the interesting comments which you identified as being more 'serious/principled/sophisticated'. I think you will find that there is a connection.

Firstly, by saying that "The so-called rational aspect of CR is so exactly what it attempts to refute - theory is so particularly human", what I am drawing attention to is a weakness, or inconsistency, in the CR 'position'. This is that CR seeks to argue for an explicit anti-humanist conclusion - that there are 'no subjects' is one instantiation - by employing theoretical procedures that are at variance with this conclusion.

Why theory - or, more specifically, rational argumentation for conclusions from valid premises, if you like - is so particularly characteristic of being human may indeed be because it depends on individual human subjectivity. This is more or less what your 'more sophisticated' contributor claims, in that s/he argues that rational inconsistencies may only be resolved between responsible subjects. Then, on the other hand, it may not.

The main claim made in the post you cite seems to be that rational consistency depends on "dialogue between rational subjects (persons) who who in the very act of forming propositions undertake rational commitments for which they are *responsible*". But I do not think the problem with CR is that its denial of human subjectivity relies upon rational argument conducted by rational subjects.

This presupposes that the individual is the correct unit of analysis for an explanation of rationality, when evidence from cognitive science and linguistic anthropology has shown that rational behaviour, along with language and the use of technology, is best understood as an emergent property of social groups. Threse are of course comprised of individuals but they are also constituted by, and constituting, 'substantive multiplicities'. The relation between the sum (the group) and the parts (individuals) is problematic, but rationality cannot merely be reduced to a property of individuals. The question of how social intelligence emerged in the history of the human species as a property of populations and not just as a property of individuals, is connected to the emergence of technologized social life/ socialized technology, and many fascinating questions remain regarding how the rational behaviour of individuals and groups emerged as a singularity. How did this feedback loop become triggered in the first place? In any case, I would reiterate that "theory is so particuarly human", but it would be wrong to isolate and exhalt the *individual* as an axiomatic necessity for discursive activity, or claim 'theory therefore individual subjects'.

CR is problematic enough in that it categorically denies human subjectivity, employing theoretical procedures that are in themselves characteristically human. "So humanly denying humanity." Argumentation, however rational and irrational, is characteristic of the human species. Of course the species can be described in terms of individuals, but it is not simply because of human subjects - especially conceived as responsible and rational agents - that reason exists. This presupposes human agency for rationality. CR's denial of subjectivity is not misled because it employs rational argument which depends on subjectivity, but rather because it denies the role of individuality altogether in the concept of rationality it employs.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that CR does not use reason at all. I have heard this accusation levelled at MKP. Even if this is the position taken by CR - that it does not rely on rational argumentation to make its case - it then has the problem of making claims without arguing for them. Perhaps this is tantamount to dogmatism. This is an issue for any philosophical or theoretical position - the ground needs to be fought for, in which ever way.

This is the difference between CR and Hyperstition, in that the former either dogmatically asserts, or humanly reasons for, a position in which human subjectivity is denied altogether. The latter aims to experimentally proceed to a position in which human agency no longer matters for the production of a social intelligence, for want of a better phrase.

When I scorn any post as being 'overly academic' it is because I tire of petty differences in *position* between contributors who either rely heavily on jargon or reference to writers, as if this is a philosophy undergraduate lounge. I don't particularly value ironing out exegetical issues, but am more interested in how the content of any writer's thinking impacts on the world in which we live. I am of course happy to exchange ideas and identify questions which are relevant, and work them collectively through. I don't take to being called an idiot, though I am at fault at times to being flippant. I hope this post is of more interest to you than my previous posts.

All the best ...

Tachi,

Thanks for that. As I said, I don’t have time to engage at length (you’re right, of course, that I am at the moment becoming-participant, but only reluctantly), so I’ll keep this very brief. Firstly, I didn't call you an idiot — after all, I don't know you from Adam. Rather, I said that I found the comments in that particular post 'somewhat idiotic/risible' (of course, even the most capable people sometimes say idiotic things, especially when they’re ranting) by way of contrast to what I still regard as the more sophisticated (i.e. less ‘trollish’) post cited — and, short of your attempt to redeem them above, I still do. But keep in mind the context: all I was doing was pointing out, contrary to nick's suggestion that MKP left because he was tired of 'mud-wrestling with trolls', that he in fact withdrew from discussion (and starting closing comment boxes) just at the point at which principled objections were being levelled at (the coherence of) his position. Thus, whether or not you agree with Bloot’s criticisms is not really to the point (though it might of course amount to an equally interesting, but different point). Also, while I have no special interest in defending what Bloot said per se (I’m quite sure that s/he is more than capable of doing that his- or herself) — again, my point simply being that these were indeed well-considered criticisms rather than mindless ‘trollish’ assaults — I see nothing in the passage cited which “presupposes that the individual is the correct unit of analysis for an explanation of rationality” or that s/he is reducing rationality to “a property of individuals”. In fact, given that the notion of a ‘person’ that Bloot defends here is framed in terms of the language of commitments, endorsements, entitlements, and socially instituted obligations, it seems pretty clear to me that not only would s/he not *deny* your point about the social emergence of rationality, but that s/he indeed *presupposes* it. Perhaps Bloot was merely pointing to a notion of personhood/subjectivity which *doesn’t* require commitment to MKP’s favourite straw-man (i.e. the ‘belief in soul-substance’) and which arguably plays an ineliminable, constitutive role in all rational discourse (or, at least, all rational discourse which is conducted at the level of ordinary/natural language)? Ok, apologies, but I must make that my last comment. Best of luck with working through the methodological issues of hyperstition.