March 30, 2005

Fictions and Number: Social and Material Hyperstition

In Nick's post "Goodbye USA" Nick and I touched upon some issues relating to different but important aspects of the Hyperstitional program: prophecy, belief, and number. Below are the two entries from that post and what follows are some preliminary thoughts and questions designed to provoke some discussion on these key issues and thus the Hyperstitional program.


Is prophesizing hyperstitional? Guess that would depend on whether prophesizing can bring about the reality of what is prophesized. Yet how would this possibly occur? Through stimulating belief in masses? Whether this is the correct formulation of "fictions that become real" - ie. reality emerging through generation of *belief* - there would seem to be a limit to the extent to which belief can affect the advent of natural phenomena, such as tidal waves.

So to tease out, firstly how is prophecy related to hyperstition? A theory of hyperstition must account for belief. Secondly, where are the outer limits of hyperstition - is it possible to have a hyperstitional earthquake?
Posted by: Tachi at March 30, 2005 07:27 AM

My latest on this (should be implexed into a carrier of course): The crux of hyperstitional consistency, when reached, will address ('resolve'?) the basic problem of the philosophy of mathematics -- why do mathematical patterns prove so applicable to empirical reality? (OK, sure I've phrased that totally craply, but carry on ...) Hyperstition thus achieved would forestall the continuous relapse into atavistic Platonism that typically bedevils the issue (without obviously subsiding into some kind of Humean fuzz on the other side). That's to say, hyperstition postulates an as-yet uncondensed materialist response to the intrinsic 'realism' of numbers without sacrificing either mathematical exactitude (/infinitude) or the resilient non-ideality (empiricity) of nature.

It is from this 'crux' (= time disturbance) that your question about self-fulfilling prophecy and its limits could be adequately addressed, since these q.s concern the efficient interlinkage of mathematical intelligence (or at least pop-nomic culture) and natural causality - hence their proximity to (and the necessity of an adamant refusal of) speculative religious ideas.
The D&Gon War Machine is one postulated interchange mechanism situated in this hyperstitional space, for instance, converting its numbering pragmatics into vortical 'physics'. On my extremely tenuous understanding of Laruelle, his 'science' (= 'man') satisfies the same function.
Can Numbers (not 'quantities') cause an earthquake? Hoping the H. jury still out on this ...
Posted by: nick at March 30, 2005 08:27 AM


1. If the value of Hyperstition is in its (as-yet unreached) resolution of the question why "mathematical patterns prove so applicable to empirical reality" then interesting things follow. I accept that such a resolution of the philosophical issue of number would need to maintain mathematical exactitude and empiricity.

2. But how is this related to the 'propagation of fictions that become real' - indeed, how is this necessarily related to the program of H-propagation? It doesn't seem clear how H-propagation, as an activity, has to follow from a rigorous theory of number. H-propagation is a chosen micropolitical program based on motivations quite independent from a philosophical understanding of number, is it not?

3. This may be the connecting point I am missing: what is "this 'crux' (=time disturbance)"?

4. I am interested in dilineating the effective space within which Hyperstition can operate - can Hyperstition cause a natural disaster? - but think the primary issue needs to be to clarify a concept of Hyperstition in relation to conscious / unconscious activity, and belief / unbelief. This clarification rests upon a deeper clarification of Hyperstition in relation to social / natural systems. This, I anticipate Nick saying, in turn boils down to number.

5. Let's come back to this. But first let's return to what I considered Hyperstition's starting point: Hyperstition as the phenomena of "fictions that make themselves real". I guess this is pretty misleading. This formulation tempts one to reduce Hyperstition to the level of human agency, in that fictions are products of human beings that later in time become actualised. It seems to automatically limit the notion of hyperstition within the human / social sphere of activity, which is why we are tempted to ask questions relating to the importance of belief and consciousness. But I guess this is all very diversionary from the real core of Hyperstition, which is number.

6. Hyperstition might in one sense be considered very human, social and based upon the collectivity of individual's beliefs. But if hyperstition is to appreciate a philosophy of number, then questions of belief, consciousness etc miss the point, or at least some of the point. In all natural (or 'material') systems, including geological, biological, social systems, debates about the empirical mode of self-reinforcing reality production (help for better phraseology please) have to deal with questions deeper than those relating to belief and consciousness.

7. Hyperstition as the process of 'fictions becoming real' is thus limited to the human level of reality, when this itself requires greater explanation at a base material level, so its misleading to talk of 'fictions' at all. What we are looking for, whilst fumbling for a rigorous and exact theory of number, is a non-anthropomorphic concept of speculation or anticipation, in which the expectations of artificial agencies may play a role in causing the effects anticipated.

8. This is more about grasping a concept of systemic self-reinforcement than playing around with fictions. Creating 'carriers' to propagate fictions and hoping they become real seems pretty naive in the context of the far more ambitious program of grasping the numeric quality of reality production and the non-anthropomorphic characterization of expectation and therefore artificial agency.

9. Should Hyperstition not start from number and micropolitical programs proceed from there? Is it not too early to say what the best micropolitical path would be without first resolving the question why "mathematical patterns prove so applicable to empirical reality"?

Posted by []:{⊃ at March 30, 2005 05:21 PM | TrackBack




since this intersects neatly with my current labours...afraid this isn't going to help at all, more an terroristic set of demands really :)

1. (Leaving aside intriguing identification of Laruelle's "man" with NWM) can we put together a basic account of how NWM
>convert[s] its numbering pragmatics into vortical
? ie how does numbering number operate concretely in examples of NWM (necessity to get beyond vague D/G mumblings about 'occupying smooth space' and demonstrate in what way these operations exceed state-mathematisation) there any more that can be said on the

>as-yet uncondensed materialist response to the
>intrinsic 'realism' of numbers without sacrificing either
>mathematical exactitude (/infinitude) or the resilient
>non-ideality (empiricity) of nature.

beyond a tantalising mention of its latent possibility? What is the 'realism' of numbers – the fact that they can't be escaped as abstract-real entities, or their 'applicability' to 'things'? And how does 'empiricity' consist beyond all possible numerical analysis (if not a generic phenomenological 'experience-ness')?

Posted by: undercurrent at March 30, 2005 08:29 PM



Tachi - what you raise here intersects massively with certain issues brought up by a Ccru-UK agent visiting Shanghai. Does hyperstition have an intrinsic numerical orientation? There's room for stimulating controversy on this, but I'm assuming my biases don't need elucidating.
The Ccru perspective on hyperstition obviously skewed by its own microhistorical situation, but within that field the importance of the Numogram (and attendant numerical commitments) was marked out by the fact that 'fictional' embedding functioned to propagage the Numogram without compromising it. In other words, the abstraction of number (uniquely?) survives the blizzard of unbelief unleashed by complete subsidence of any empirical 'reality principle' (replaced by merely tactical considerations (resonant with 'taqqiya')).
More on your specific points ASAP.

undercurrent - provisional responses to your points:
#1. Much to delve into here, but very crudely seems that the compositional numeracy of the NWM is taken by the D&Gon to be both logistically and strategically efficient (consequential) - to such a degree that it even compels State warmachines to undergo a degree of compensatory (or re-animated) numerization in response. The 'numbering' of the numbering number is a type of behaviour (not an ideal organization) indistinguishable from the conflictual performance of the NWM, the essential features of which (in the D&Gon analysis) seem to divide into two broad categories:
1) Deterriorialization, by radical decoding of tribal/territorial markers and thus operationalizing a power of free deployment / distribution / assimilation.
2) Cryptographic, by ciphering culture, dismantling significations and diffusing the convergence of authority.
Agree all of this is highly (frustratingly?) abstract, and in the key D&Gon texts extraordinarily cryptic. IMHO it will keep coming up, so needs a focused assault at some point.

#2. This is totally promissory, of course (either just annoying or, arguably, perfect carrier territory).
'Realism' of number is intrinsic, essential or autonomous exactitude (refusal of every attempt at derivation from approximate magnitudes, while emphasizing precise arithmetical / compositional / number theoretic relations). Same issue approachable through topic of infinity (since exactitude is an infinite property). Factorization rather than vague divisibility.
Empiricity IMHO nothing at all to do with phenomenology, but rather associated with contingency, vagueness, measurement, chaos, indeterminacy and everything that makes Platonic/Pythagorean reductions of nature to number violently inappropriate.

Finally for now - thoroughgoing dissociation of number from measurement key to D&Gon approach and absolutely crucial to theis topic. This dissociation reciprocally liberates rigorous compositional numeracy and indeterminable intensive magnitudes - an unzipping of geometrized space (perhaps?) indistinguishable from the practical impact of the NWM.

Posted by: nick at March 31, 2005 07:00 AM



Tachi some disagreements about your insistence on “fictions as products of human agencies”; I assume what you define as production here is mapped through ‘abutment’ modes of connection through which fiction can be produced and ‘discerned’ from human agencies but fictions are anomalies i.e. they come out of participation in which we have a series of overlapping modes of connection (bordering overlapping, tangential overlapping, etc.), as soon as a part of X overlaps Y you can’t easily put them into such a categorization with crisp boundaries. This is why delineating human being or human agencies cannot be genetically detached from fictions, any definitional extraction is problematically overlapped by fictions, partly, tangentially or completely. (we have seen complete overlapping in The Thing-Polytics, an islamist under Taghieh or Taqyiah where event-as-entity itself becomes POLYTICS)

I have a lot of technical discussions on these modes of connections between abutment (which I assume the production you discuss mereologically come from) -- by which Y can be discriminate from X as a production [1] -- and overlapping (whether incomplete overlapping or radical overlapping which both belong to participations and result in unlocalizability and synergism).

[1] Here Y is either an advent-event (nothing of Y has been available prior or synchronous to X), or Y as an extensio-event (Y is purely located in space that X gives to it, or in other words, Y is purely genetical extension of X in space).

Fictions are not dissociated from anthropian agencies, nor they are their productions (in the way that criticized); they constitute two fields of the same ( )hole complex, with underlying and interconnective meshworks of clandestine and mutual manipulations, crisscrossing itinerant lines, unlocalizability and synergism of Nemat-space.

More about these issues in a piece I’m writing about Carpenter’s The Thing.

Posted by: Reza at March 31, 2005 08:38 AM



yes, empiricity needs somehow to be decisively decoupled from 'lived experience' (except insofar as one attributes 'lived experience' to every piece of the mechanosphere: deleuze does so but in current conditions to repeat this imho a mistake inviting badiousian and other – wholly inappropriate – accusations of 'vitalism', etc. Bettter to find other terms.) Certainly related to locality/globality distribution, virtual/actual, and pure sequencing/calendrical numericity vs measurement/quantitative, ordinal/cardinal. The question of how to demonstrate the non-trivial nature of a reduction of nomad to state number is the same as demonstrating the unconditional persistence of the real. Unfortunately, if some cartesian headcase affects to need that demonstrating to them, you've got a tough task ahead (maybe a heavy iron bar would do the job ;)

Can only agree on frustrating abstractness of Dogon NWM

Posted by: undercurrent at March 31, 2005 08:40 AM



>>> Tachi: “Is prophesizing hyperstitional? Guess that would depend on whether prophesizing can bring about the reality of what is prophesized.”

On the contrary, IMHO, if prophecy ever punctuates the reality of its prophesized objective, it can hardly be regarded as a hyperstitional machinery. The hyperstitional vector of prophecies is not supposed to feed ‘what is anticipated’ but disseminate marginal events, autonomous events which diverge from the target; otherwise, Prophecy is mainly the instrument of Belief and its monopoly. Hyperstitional vectors of each prophecy either potentiate the emergence of events whose connections to the objective of prophecy do not follow the logic of the prophetic hegemony, or open a chaos space of events which (unexpectedly) have not been predicted or anticipated by the prophecy, or more accurately, they have not been captured ‘yet’ by the authoritative head of the prophetic crystallization process (which impregnates the event with the reality that it designates through foreordination, chronologic monopoly, or the inviolable dictation of the divine).

Monotheistic threads take such fulfilled prophecies as legitimating tools of their Belief. The Quranic literature is full of such Belief-validating prognostications (perhaps the apex of monotheism in this regard). And this is exactly for the same reason that Islam is the most exceptionally proper field for heresy-engineering in connection to veridical prophecies that it uses to legitimate itself: replacing or altering (with stress on its illegitimacy and disobedience: the word Tahrif that is used in islamic literature) the fulfilling prophecies with divergent and insurgent prophecies which betray their utilized and authoritarian objective in the first step, and diverting themselves from Belief-consolidating / authorizing chronology of Prophecy to the chronopolytics of event. Prophecy as hyperstitional vector makes events ‘Polytical’* rather than working on the paths leading to its destination.

* In connection to ‘Polytics’ we have delineated on the

Posted by: Reza at March 31, 2005 11:01 AM



PS. see my reply to Nick (under ‘Goodbye USA’) which is somehow relevant to hyperstitional vectors of prophecy.

Posted by: Reza at March 31, 2005 11:15 AM




> ever punctuates the reality

punctuates, LOL! [private joke..]

Posted by: undercurrent at March 31, 2005 04:29 PM



LOL ... obv. was intentional, even was going to mention the source but it spoiled our private joke. ;)

Posted by: Reza at March 31, 2005 05:44 PM



Reza - highly sympathetic to your approach here, but agree with Tachi about the centrality of the question. Hope we get opportunities to detail the discrepancy between H. and prophecy (also other kinds of 'forecasting') in a more extended way.
Also, not only discrepancy, but also parasitic modes of exploitation and no doubt other exotic relations.

Posted by: nick at April 1, 2005 05:35 AM



Reza – grateful for your replies and thanks for urging a conceptual shift relating to the concept of fiction. This does move the ground somewhat significantly, since I was under the impression that Hyperstition is the process or operation of “fictions making themselves real”, which, when added to the notion of creating carriers, does make one think of fiction as a ‘non-truth’.

I think some clarity is sought, then, between fiction, anticipation, speculation and latency – all seem to have a relation to hyperstitional processes and procedures.

One problem, however, is that ‘fiction-as-anomaly’ is a concept based on (since it is a result of critically denying) the notion of unattainable hermetic unity and transcendental reality. Sure, we can consider entities "fictional" if they are not whole, not delineated, or not delineable (though these themselves all very different criticisms).

But the human body is not a true hermetic unit, for example, human identity can never be consummated, and, in fact, any kind of unitary identity is fraught with the same problem: so is everything fictional by virtue of not being truly hermetic, unified, or "real"?

I see how hybrid entities attract the term ‘fictional’ – not merely since they are a product of human imagination but because they do not conform to models of purity, unity and identity. But by positioning fiction as an anomaly, we would implicitly be buying into a binary notion of delineable identity or truth (‘normal’), and non-delineable bodies / fuzzy truth (‘anomalies’).

Surely we want to get away from this axis, since we are concerned with transversals, becomings, transgressions, communication, process, dynamics etc – all which are not explained with a reactionary (anti-, un-, contra-) approach which ‘anomaly’ suggests.

Coming back the premise that Hyperstition is the term for “fictions that makes themselves real”, if we were to accept fiction-as-anomaly then it would seem to follow that Hyperstition is “anomalies that makes themselves real.” Does this mean non-delineable entities that make themselves delineable? This is surely self-organization or stratification. And what would Hyperstition add that D&G haven’t already elucidated in this area?

Or does it mean fuzzy truths that makes themselves distinct? This might apply to the ‘hype’ of hyperstition, but is so broad it is probably rooted in number, which seems to be the crux of hyperstition.

In a nutshell, I am not saying that fictions are just products of human agency and that Hypersition is following the wrong path if it solely concerns itself with generating fictions and fuzzy facts which obtain a reality of their own. I am trying to grasp how this is embedded in something more fundmental.

The problem IMHO shifts from a simple phase change (from one latent state to another manifest state - e.g. fictional and real) to the thorough qualification of ‘fictions’, the kind of ‘realities’ which they traverse upon becoming ‘real’, and what ‘real’ ultimately implies. Maybe these terms ‘fictional’ and ‘real’ are pretty redundant since they carry so much baggage, particularly in connection with the human imagination – and thus with a notion of agency that the whole program attempts to avoid.

Posted by: Tachi at April 1, 2005 06:21 AM



>>> will try to extract our prophecy-oriented discussion and post them separately (even might hint at what we discussed a while ago in the chat about a possible attack on iran)

Posted by: Reza at April 1, 2005 06:24 AM




>>> does make one think of fiction as a ‘non-truth’.

I didn’t suggest that fictions are truth so ‘fiction not as a non-truth’ is still not relevant to what I said. In truth we are not engaged with communication but with ‘an authoritarian consolidation of communications’ (solidus-in-circulation). What is at stake here is real as process-communication-multiplicity. Think truth has nothing to do with hyperstition unless it is sabotaged or exploited by hyperstitional vectors.

>>> Coming back the premise that Hyperstition is the term for “fictions that makes themselves real”, if we were to accept fiction-as-anomaly then it would seem to follow that Hyperstition is “anomalies that makes themselves real.” Does this mean non-delineable entities that make themselves delineable? This is surely self-organization or stratification.

In this regard, I cast my vote with D&G that ‘real’ (as a process) comes from the polytics of an-omalie. An-omalie doesn’t mean ‘non-delineable’ as DG suggest, it is about the zone that a participative entity-as-event traverses (by which it retain a differentiating rate of speed) and the connections it makes i.e. a set of positions to a multiplicity. Self-organization belongs to affordance-based participation (methexis) directly functioning as a more flexible apparatus for maintaining the survival economy of the liveware; anomal is germinated where affordance (so the capacity) is transgressed. I think there is a misunderstanding here in the term anomal. Anomal in a DGon sense doesn’t mean fuzzy or non-delineable or atypical and is not developed on reactionary processes (which all belong to the realm of characteristics and generic or specifications) (see ATP pp. 243-48 for more elaborations on An-omalie)

Posted by: Reza at April 1, 2005 07:19 AM



>>Is prophesizing hyperstitional?

of course it is. least i think so. thought of jonah when i first read your question. god asked jonah to go to nineveh & inform them of his great displeasure. they had 40 days to get their act together or it was fire & brimstone. jonah's response was interesting: he immediately ran away. after one sea voyage, a violent storm, being thrown overboard & eaten by a fish—jonah finally agreed to go to nineveh & give them their 40 day notice. upon receiving the message, the ninevites replaced diamonds & pearls with sackcloth & ashes. they believed the message from jonah was from god. the city of nineveh was spared. in anger jonah lashed out at god. he was mighty pissed off that god showed compassion to this once evil city. god told jonah to get a grip.

>>Guess that would depend on whether prophesizing can bring about the reality of what is prophesized.

AFAIK, it's always what jonah says & does that everyone seems to focus on—however, was the king being prophetic? because {a} the king patterns the behavior everyone needs to follow, and {b} says what actually becomes "reality". i'd say the king holds the hyperstitional key. maybe jonah indicates when/where hyperstition needs to occur?

Posted by: northanger at April 1, 2005 10:01 PM




how does a smaller, ill-equipped, disadvantaged & unempowered group defeat a superior force? if i were the superior force i'd want focus always on my game: every strategy & tactic devised has an immediate parallel with my s&t. isn't that the art of magic? slight of hand, distraction, knowing how the human mind works.

however smaller forces defeat larger forces only, imho, when they focus on their game. guerrilla warefare is asymmetrical and does not parallel the opponent—actually, you don't want your opponent to tightly parallel you either.

another question: does everyone play the same hyperstitional game? my guess is no.

Posted by: northanger at April 1, 2005 10:44 PM



oops: warefare is warfare.

Posted by: northanger at April 1, 2005 10:45 PM



Much to respond to here. For now, interested in prophecy-as-hyperstitional issue, and your remarks Reza that it is not, since - as far as I understand you - prophecy is teleological whereas hyperstition is not. This to me is only if we look from the POV of those prophecizing. Shouldn't we looking from a more abstract POV?

Posted by: Tachi at April 2, 2005 05:12 AM




Perhaps a misunderstanding, prophecy IS hyperstitional (esp. from the angle of polytical events, artificial futures and A-Now) but if it affirms the objective anticipation of its own, it has ‘already’ been captured by authorization agencies but even then it can be exploited by clandestine hyperstition vectors [Z.crowd has shown the teleological is even more suitable for Tahrif, hyperstitional exploitation and polytical strategies]. I guess I should unfold my PoV in this regard soon. But guess Nick followed what I meant.

Posted by: Reza at April 2, 2005 05:42 AM



can hyperstition prove or identify (believe someone asked this ages ago) any "fiction" now viewed as "true" by the masses?

kinda tricky ain't it?

Posted by: northanger at April 2, 2005 08:07 AM



I return to a point I made ages ago when last we had this 'what is hyperstition' discussion (the castaneda post): I think we need to distinguish:

(a) "By saying that things will happen, you can make those very things happen" : utterances which somehow make the states of affairs they refer to happen (strong hypothesis, or prophecy in the traditional sense)
(b) "By saying that things will happen, you make things happen" : utterances which make _something_ happen (weak hypothesis, or the general materiality of utterances)

If hyperstition can be usefully defined, it will be neither of these. The manufacture of desire by capitalism is the best example : the relation between an ad that says 'everyone wants an x, they're really desirable', and the fact that within a month, everyone _does_ want an x, is obviously not of the 'prophetic' type ((a) above) because of the effective (cybernetic rather than referential) link between ad and consumer trend. However it's stronger than (b) because there isn't just an arbitrary relation between the advertising utterance and the events that follow it (in that case, the advertising would be said to have failed).
Also lovecraft : where 'descriptions' of cosmic fear are also effective motors of cosmic fear in the reader.

Posted by: undercurrent at April 2, 2005 01:36 PM




A few shots in the dark:

>>> (b) "By saying that things will happen, you make things happen" : utterances which make _something_ happen (weak hypothesis, or the general materiality of utterances)

[1] I think this axiom has the presumption that this ‘something’ is although not the very objective of the prophecy but still within the border of prophecy; otherwise, how can you ever know (or how do you know) that ‘this something’ has anything to do with the prophecy at all? Therefore, IMHO, this axiom can’t be suggested for a prophecy and posed as an alternative or the second axion unless you consider prophecy as an event-mining machine working through chronopolytics of events not a chronologic network ‘by which you can locate the occurrence of the event, either associated or dissociated from the prophecy.’

I think what is more important about prophecy is not ‘fulfillment’ or the happening but the artificial anticipation it engineers and works as a time-traveling machine on chronopolitical lines of emergence rather than linear domination of chronologic events. (this needs elaboration). The artificial anticipation is a vector or a probe-head for potential events which have already been repressed by chronologic regime and everything connected to it.

>>> [...]things will happen[...]

[2] Why always WILL? There is a general belief (which can even work as a restrictive function upon the machinery of prophecy) that prophecy targets the future. But a major part of prophecies (the old and new Testaments, Zoroastrian books, etc.) are ‘Vaticinium ex Eventu’ which aims at both Now and the Past, for either consuming the past (functionally distorting it: Tahrif) or politically multiplying it, thus giving rise to an artificial Now as well. (here, parallel functions of prophecy to Anonymous-until-Now). The 911-Thing is partly exhumed from such prophecies. [again needs discussion]

[3] What is traded at prophecy and multiplied is Event(s) not an object that can be easily directed, exchanged or economized. Once prophecy probes an event, the event becomes ‘polytical’.

PS. Promise to post something focused on Prophecy v. soon.
PPS. Could you elaborate your ‘Lovecraft remark’ a bit (needless to say, hungry for this one)?

Posted by: Reza at April 2, 2005 03:00 PM



(REZA) Tachi: “Is prophesizing hyperstitional? Guess that would depend on whether prophesizing can bring about the reality of what is prophesized.” On the contrary, IMHO, if prophecy ever punctuates the reality of its prophesized objective, it can hardly be regarded as a hyperstitional machinery. The hyperstitional vector of prophecies is not supposed to feed ‘what is anticipated’ but disseminate marginal events, autonomous events which diverge from the target; otherwise, Prophecy is mainly the instrument of Belief and its monopoly.

(TACHI) Ok, so hyperstition isn’t simply the process of fulfilling predetermined ends. But insofar as prophecy involves the anticipation of something, and in that this anticipation can bring about what is anticipated, then surely prophecy can be considered as hyperstitional. For it doesn’t have to be a simple linear step from prophecy to prophecy-fulfillment – what is anticipated can change as the effects of anticipation feed back into the machinery of anticipation.

... (REZA) Tachi, Perhaps a misunderstanding, prophecy IS hyperstitional

(TACHI) Ok, I know you are preparing a post for us, so will anticipate this to shape up our discussion and shed a little more light.

... (UNDERCURRENT) I think we need to distinguish:
(a) "By saying that things will happen, you can make those very things happen" : utterances which somehow make the states of affairs they refer to happen (strong hypothesis, or prophecy in the traditional sense)
(b) "By saying that things will happen, you make things happen" : utterances which make _something_ happen (weak hypothesis, or the general materiality of utterances). If hyperstition can be usefully defined, it will be neither of these.

(TACHI) Valuable distinction U/C. This is an interesting POV on the possibility of hyperstition-as-prophecy (as opposed to prophecy-as-hyperstition). And I agree that it cannot be either if we want to define hyperstition usefully. What I think we need is an account of hyperstition beyond utterance, or less focused at the level of questions of belief, and more in tune with non-anthropomorphic processes. I am trying to work towards “a non-anthropomorphic concept of speculation or anticipation, in which the expectations of artificial agencies may play a role in causing the effects anticipated.” And is not number the non-anthropomorphism we are looking for? But then this brings us back to the questions raised earlier in the thread:

(UNDERCURRENT) how does numbering number operate concretely in examples of NWM (necessity to get beyond vague D/G mumblings about 'occupying smooth space' and demonstrate in what way these operations exceed state-mathematisation)?

(TACHI) but is hyperstition simply the same as numbering number? Does it proceed “by ciphering culture, dismantling significations and diffusing the convergence of authority” (NICK, ref to NWM numbering number) If so, what is the added value of the concept of hyperstition to numbering number? How essential is the production of anticipated reality to the concept of hyperstition –is this its distinguishing feature? If so, then we are looking an interesting notion of causality: how can number create through anticipation and speculation?

Posted by: Tachi at April 3, 2005 06:26 AM



Lots of great stuff here (isn't discipline fun?)
IMHO, as far as 'analytical hyperstition' is concerned (differentiated from methodical or 'synthetic' h.), there are two megasystems of special prominence (both touched on by various comments here).
1) Apocalyptic Monotheism and attendant prophetic traditions, constructions of history, retro-consolidation of faith and snow-balling material efficacy (as historical forces).
2) Technocapitalism with its hypersensitization of the planet to speculative investments, its excitational hype-guided cyclicity and its anticipated potentials (Cyberpace, nanotechnology ...) fusing science-fiction with feed-forward historicization.
- Are there any other broad hyperstitional domains of comparable pertinence?
- Do these megasystems have distinguishable abstract dynamics?
- How are they interrelated?
- How does hyperstitional analysis modulate critique?

Posted by: nick at April 4, 2005 02:40 AM



Good questions Nick. Its a shame to let this drop since depsite the silence on this today, it is totally key IMHO.

I would say it’s pretty difficult to identify additional domains since planetary techno-capitalism, as far as I understand this term, incorporates all human social, political and economic activity. Since it is not an ideological choice of a politically-driven system, but rather a planetary singularity, an irreversible historical trend, apocalyptic monotheism needs to be conceived within this context. Would you agree that it is precisely within the ambit of techno-capital – or bio-capital as some prefer – that monotheism is revealed as an archaism, an internal resistance mechanism within the overall system? It’s not like techno-capitalism arose as a contingent and alien threat to prevailing religion – a human choice - since all makes sense within the singular trajectory. Nothing is external, or transcendent. I would situate apocalyptic monotheism as a sub-system within an overall systemic drive – as a subsystem which IMHO is in the process of being rendered obsolete but is resisting vigorously through viral adaptation and intensification.

So, my answer would be that we either we should look more closely at threads, currents, within the overall flow that is techno-capitalism – and treat apocalyptic monotheism as one of these system incompatibilities.

Or we consider something more base / inhuman than techno-capitalism and look more abstractly – i.e. non-anthropomorphically. I think it’s a question of nested systems, and I am particularly interested in how number connects to this.

I still ask whether hyperstition can be couched in non-anthropomorphic terms, and whether hype, speculation, etc are actually only relevant concepts in human matters or if there are base-material (numeric? digital?) equivalents to 'fictions making themselves real.'

Posted by: Tachi at April 5, 2005 01:39 PM



>>> Are there any other broad hyperstitional domains of comparable pertinence?


Both techno-capitalism and uncompromising monotheistic apocalypticism (my stress is on xerodromic militarization of Islam which is constructing a synergetic bond with techno-capitalism through WoT) have latent repressing functions (tactical setbacks) which may turn the entire panorama of ‘the flight to the outside’ to some kind of ‘irrevocable reterritorialization process’ which can be defined as accommodation or even colonization of the outside (and preserving macropolitical entities in an affordable / economizable micro state of volatility [volatilis : grounded flight] without a radical change in micro-interactions or feeding multiplicative molecularity). Do you think the third hyperstition pathway (cosmodromic capitalism, or the cosmodrome?) should be a path to obliterate ‘all activities towards the accommodation of the Outside’ on both fronts (techno-capitalism and Monotheistic apocalypticism)? If it should be so, then the third pathway should be external to the planetary function-space, but how is it possible to engage with such a pathway diagrammed through radical outsideness? Think the only polytics of engagement at this point should be conveyed not through the programmable openness (‘being open to’ by which Techno-capitalism must configure its itinerant heads before it reaches full autonomy), this polytical engagement should focus on composing strategies to draw the cutting-function of openness from the Outside (planetary agencies are not carriers or tactical lines of this openness but the attractors of its cutting, decoding functions) and explore the non-anthropomorphic but participative [1] space of ‘being opened’.

[1] Although anthropomorphic agencies attract this openness but they cease to afford and consequently dwell and accommodate when it reaches them. Cracked by this outsiding openness, the capacity required for utilizing the outside is nullified; any instance of ‘power’ projected on an entity with a decoded(cracked) and nullified capacity retains an unbound potential to diffuse and unfold (p/0), to communicate and perpetuate itself epidemically.

Posted by: Reza at April 5, 2005 09:09 PM



Reza, interesting very abstract perspective but appreciate a bit of clarification (until 'Hyperstition for Dummies' comes out):

- What is "the entire panorama of ‘the flight to the outside’" and can you give an example?

- What are "‘all activities towards the accommodation of the Outside’" and what would their obliteration look like in reality?

Posted by: Tachi at April 6, 2005 01:41 AM



Tachi this needs a full elaboration (fortunately written already):

(but you should read from the first chapter (scroll down to see the links; this however requires ATP as the major reference.)

(a). just a few hints: composite processes of lines of flight in DGon sorcery and Bataille's solar economy (Nick obv. has a lot of great stuff on this).

(b). there is a difference between communication (communicating with the outside) and affordance and its politico-economical machineries (accomodating, dwelling, niche-engineering, all primarily supporting existence and survival economy not polytics).

Also check the first couple of comments in the '( )holey space' thread to see a digestible definition of affordance as the coupled trellis-taxis machinery (or ground) of all instances of 'being open to' by which planetary agencies (take warmachines for instance) are supported and fueled but also forced to take certain lines of dynamism which are prone to reterritorialization, capture, affordance-based communications, grounding processes and fertilization of highly advanced organizations in unconventional ways (being turned into masters of Pseudo-flux).

Some ‘oversimplifications’ necessary to move forward: You see, techno-capitalism needs a political/economic platform as a groundwork before it turns into a total Shoggotic insurgency (as Nick put it; or an autonomous flight whose operation is total ungrounding of the Earth and its agencies), it needs fresh air, resources, fuels and a furious propulsive body which are only accessible through ‘openness’ but at the same time, this openness should be intrinsically appropriated as ‘being open to’ developed on ‘affordance’ otherwise it can be easily arrested by other planetary agencies, etc. This openness which guarantees its dynamic survival however is the ultimate obstacle before its full autonomy or Omega-insurgency. The question: how is it possible to crack this politico-economic openness? - Via a third hyperstition pathway which perceives (and merely runs through) the other side of openness (being opened) – external to affordance.

Posted by: Reza at April 6, 2005 05:55 AM



Tachi, was reading your previous discussions:

>>> all which are not explained with a reactionary (anti-, un-, contra-) approach which ‘anomaly’ suggests.

this is mainly the 'philosophic' invention of deconstructionists and their associated ilks. Anti- and un- should not be reduced to reactionary processes or mapped on the logic of negativity. (Nick is v. helpful to exlain this).

Posted by: Reza at April 6, 2005 06:17 AM



Tachi, Reza - think the articulations you both suggest (viz Tech-cap / Apocalypticism) extremely productive - expecting there to be a variety of modes of cross-coupling with different consequences and implications.
Cosmodromic / Xenodromic Capitalism deserving of thorough thrash-through at some point (soon?) - with relation to WWIV possibly quite intricate and multifaceted (which is not to rule out a predominating trend).
Technocapitalism = K+ artificialization (with potential to connect to / retrogenerate from an absolute outside)
Apocalyptic Monotheism - could use some additional suggestions about Xenodromic potential (currently running West-style through Renomu provocation, so Jay angle especially (+ urgently) welcome).

Finding this discussion crucial and overdue - we should try to (productively) slow and prolong it.
[Technohell here gumming up my response rate, apologies for that]

Posted by: nick at April 6, 2005 07:23 AM



UPDATED: The question: how is it possible to crack this politico-economic openness? (should the process of opening / cracking be synchronous to the propelling body of techno-capital?) - Via a third hyperstition pathway which perceives (and merely runs through) the other side of openness (being opened) – external to affordance.

Think this is also very pertinent to the bonds between warmachines and War-as-a-Machine, with warmachines take tactical openness (being open to) to synthesize their coupled diffusion-escalation

In short, what does guarantee that the driving force of techno-capitalism (both emerged from synergetic participations with its adversaries and internal functionalities: poly-tics, flat numerization, etc.) will never be utilized or accommodate the outside (constructing its own overlord utopia)? There should be a cosmodromic / xenodromic machine to reduce the risk of any serious setback or domestication to zero without annihilating the techno-capitalist planetary processes: a contemporaneous affirmation or guarantee from the outside.


IMHO, the West-Jay connection must be fully opened through the ( )hole complex of diffusion-escalation (the coupled process you mentioned a while ago); we have already traced a few threads in this respect (Taqyiah-commandos, (Re)nomadization of the US army in connection with petropolitics and desert-militarism, and the technical side of the ( )hole complex as the most prominent space for passing the chain communications between diffusion (Jihadism mostly pursues and practices it via Endo-militarization of Peace, petropoltical nexuses and heresy-engineering of its own burning body) and escalation, and finally the way they push all planetary agencies towards tellurian-omega whose body is composed by xerodromic capitalism coming from outside and all types of insurgencies through the planetary body.)

Let’s continue the diffusion-escalation thread (with full elaboration) before scrambling it in the abysmally possessed minds of Jay and West (but this doesn’t mean we should avoid the fun of playing with their puppets, exhuming their tapes, notes and whatever.) what do you think?

Posted by: Reza at April 6, 2005 10:09 AM



Reza - this thread doing just great, I was just prodding (both of us) to escalate the Blob saga elsewhere
On 'requirement' for a cosmodromic machine - absolute agreement (after all, it's the ultimate polytical principle) - but how this is assembled, dissimulated, deposited / fabricated, remains intensely cryptic and cuts across every other line of investigation

"constructing its own overlord utopia" - yes, precisely the Metatronic agenda in other words (AOE guide to history)

Posted by: nick at April 6, 2005 12:33 PM



... having said that, prodding myself right now is pretty much like playing with a mouldering corpse ...

Posted by: nick at April 6, 2005 12:51 PM



you can't be a mouldering corpse in here. that's off topic! (why are you mouldering anyway?)

Posted by: northanger at April 6, 2005 01:00 PM




>>> AOE guide to history

Seems the AOE guide to history rises from the attribution of power to planetary inevitability (death-principle?) in a way that time is programmed to architectonically distribute events on concentric spheres (concentric spheres is the architectural geometry of the AOE’s chronologic, while pyramid is the order of its activities and influencing governance); only on ‘diametric’ and ‘concentric’ connections (as a result, on a line which presupposes the occlusion of the other spheres) one can reach the next sphere in an initiation from periphery to the core, with enveloped and tractable spaces between spheres or annuli, playing the role of initiatory-pylons to the next order. The outside is always accommodated by another order; movements continuously enmesh dwelling / accommodating spaces to integrate Being with the architectonic order (Bauen, Wohen, libban).

Every event on this chronologic order is occluded to other events based on its radius from the core; movements become discontinuous (while holding a predefined constancy towards center) through switching orientations of the coexistent concave-convex regime (in the order of concentric spheres). The chronologic space of AOE should ultimately provide the Order with a point where the core, inevitability, death and the Tetragrammaton coincide efficiently, designating time and every event it passes. (see and

Both techno-capitalism and monotheistic apocalypticism are mobilized and at the same time confined by the necrocratic inevitability of death which canalizes all machinic activities even prior to their initialization (in planetary becoming death comes first then it is enveloped within the becoming, waiting to unfold). The cosmodromic machine should be a much broader hyperstition pathway to unground the planetary inevitability either by overlapping the cosmic inevitability (whose function is ‘outsiding’ not accommodating the outside which is the politico-economical approach of planetary inevitability to the Outside) on the planetary inevitablism to neutralize its guiding system and predefined fields of dynamism (every becoming envelopes a becoming-death), or breaking it into diverging particles. [will return to this later]

Posted by: Reza at April 6, 2005 05:55 PM



For those unfamiliar with AOE:

AOE (from CCRU glossary: The Architectonic Order of the Eschaton, an ultra-hermetic metamasonic white- brotherhood at war with lemurian influences. The AOE progresses by way of chronic internal schism, each resulting in an ever more interiorized inner society. Its traditions are therefore refracted through various - apparently conflicting - front organizations (which include the Heliopolitan Hierophancy, Roman Catholic Church, Knights Templar, Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, and Axsys programme).

Posted by: Reza at April 6, 2005 06:14 PM



>Roman Catholic Church

btw, why no hyperstition obituary!?

Posted by: undercurrent at April 7, 2005 09:22 AM



On Technocapitalism / Apocalyptic Monotheism cross-couplings (in no particular order, and including topics touched on elsewhere on this blog):
1) Monotheistic usurpation of Western Capitalism. (Why is there no market-based political platform (of consequence), but instead (in the most extreme cases (US 'conservatism' and affiliates)) a religious platform?)
2) Marxian critique of capital as a secularized Judaeo-Christian eschatology (and in China today the substitute for explicit religion viz #1 above). Multiply modulated, e.g. as D&Gon schizopolitics (explicitly described as 'eschatology').
3) Prohibition of usury (riba) as anticapitalist law intrinsic to the Abrahamic tradition (virile monotheism as inhibitor of K+ financial machinery).
4) Transhumanist / extropian antireligion promoted by technocapitalist dynamics and ensuing abominations 'against nature', 'Karl Darwin' (as he's known in Texas) etc. (basically Nietzschean scenario?)
5) WWIV conjunction (militant antiglobalization become Jihad, with ensuing perverse (cosmodromically excitational?) dynamics). Obviously we're all over this one already, and will continue to be ...
6) Cyberspace theology, Teilhard de Chardin etc ...

#s 3 + 4 above most germane to Tachi's comments above, #5 closest to Reza's here
#1 really bugs me, and seems highly relevant to this discussion - is the formation and perpetuation of planetary technocapitalism essentially parasitic upon the monotheistic construction of (apocalyptic) history? and its enemies likewise (#2 + 5)? sure makes the whole trajectory seem a little sulphurous ...

Posted by: nick at April 7, 2005 09:57 AM



Post a comment:

Remember personal info?