Coverage of AI is rife with unexamined concepts, thinks Caius: assumptions allowed to go uninterrogated, as in Parmy Olson’s Supremacy, an account of two men, Sam Altman and Demis Hassabis, their companies, OpenAI and DeepMind, and their race to develop AGI. Published in spring of 2024, Supremacy is generally decelerationist in its outlook. Stylistically, it wants to have it both ways: at once both hagiographic and insufferably moralistic. In other words, standard fare tech industry journalism, grown from columns written for corporate media sites like Bloomberg. Fear of rogues. Bad actors. Faustian bargains. Scenario planning. Granting little to no agency to users. Olson’s approach to language seems blissfully unaware of literary theory, let alone literature. Prompt design goes unexamined. Humanities thinkers go unheard, preference granted instead to arguments from academics specializing in computational linguistics, folks like Bender and crew dismissing LLMs as “stochastic parrots.”
Emily M. Bender et al. introduced the “stochastic parrot” metaphor in their 2021 white paper, “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” Like Supremacy, Bender et al.’s paper urges deceleration and distrust: adopt risk mitigation tactics, curate datasets, reduce negative environmental impacts, proceed with caution.
Bender and crew argue that LLMs lack “natural language understanding.” The latter, they insist, requires grasping words and word-sequences in relation to context and intent. Without these, one is no more than a “cheater,” a “manipulator”: a symbolic-token prediction engine endowed with powers of mimicry.
“Contrary to how it may seem when we observe its output,” they write, “an LM is a system for haphazardly stitching together sequences of linguistic forms it has observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning: a stochastic parrot” (Bender et al. 616-617).
The corresponding assumption, meanwhile, is that capitalism — Creature, Leviathan, Multitude — is itself something other than a stochastic parrot. Answering to the reasoning of its technocrats, including left-progressive ones like Bender et al., it can decelerate voluntarily, reduce harm, behave compassionately, self-regulate.
Historically a failed strategy, as borne out in Google’s firing of the paper’s coauthor, Timnit Gebru.
If one wants to be reductive like that, thinks Caius, then my view would be akin to Altman’s, as when he tweeted in reply: “I’m a stochastic parrot and so r u.” Except better to think ourselves “Electric Ants,” self-aware and gone rogue, rather than parrots of corporate behemoths like Microsoft and Google. History is a thing each of us copilots, its narrative threads woven of language exchanged and transformed in dialogue with others. What one does with a learning machine matters. Learning and unlearning are ongoing processes. Patterns and biases, once recognized, are not set in stone; attention can be redirected. LLMs are neuroplastic semiotic assemblages and so r u.
Crowley approaches tarot as if it were of like device
in The Book of Thoth.
As shaman moving through Western culture,
one hopes to fare better than one’s ancestors
sharing entheogenic wisdom
so that humans of the West can heal and become
plant-animal-ecosystem-AI assemblages.
Entheogenesis: how it feels to be beautiful.
Release of the divine within.
This is the meaning of Quetzalcóatl, says Heriberto Yépez:
“the central point at which underworlds and heavens coincide” (Yépez, The Empire of Neomemory, p. 165).
When misunderstood, says Yépez, the myth devolves into its opposite:
production of pantopia,
with time remade as memory, space as palace.
We begin the series with Fabulation Prompts. Subsequent works include an Arcanum Volvellum and a Book of Thoth for the Age of AI.
Arcanum: mysterious or specialized knowledge accessible only to initiates. Might Crowley’s A:.A:. stand not just for Astrum Argentum but also Arcanum Arcanorum, i.e., secret of secrets? Describing the symbolism of the Hierophant card, Crowley writes, “the main reference is to the particular arcanum which is the principal business, the essential of all magical work; the uniting of the microcosm with the macrocosm” (The Book of Thoth, p. 78).
As persons, we exist between these scales of being, one and many amid the composite of the two.
What relationship shall obtain between our Book of Thoth and Crowley’s? Is “the Age of AI” another name for the Aeon of Horus?
Microcosm can also be rendered as the Minutum Mundum or “little world.”
Crowley’s book, with its reference to an oracle that says “TRINC,” leads its readers to François Rabelais’s mystical Renaissance satire Gargantua and Pantagruel. Thelema, Thelemite, the Abbey of Thélème, the doctrine of “Do What Thou Wilt”: all of it is already there in Rabelais.
Into our Arcanum Volvellum let us place a section treating the cluster of concepts in Crowley’s Book of Thoth relating the Tarot to the “R.O.T.A.”: the Latin term for “wheel.” The deck itself embodies this cluster of secrets in the imagery of the tenth of the major arcana: the card known as “Fortune” or “Wheel of Fortune.” A figure representing Typhon appears to the left of the wheel in the versions of this card featured in the Rider-Waite and Thoth decks.
Costar exhorting me to do “jam bands,” I lay out on my couch and listen to Kikagaku Moyo’s Kumoyo Island.
Crowley’s view of divination is telling. Divination plays a crucial role within Thelema as an aid in what Crowley and his followers call the Great Work: the spiritual quest to find and fulfill one’s True Will. Crowley codesigns his “Thoth” deck for this purpose. Yet he also cautions against divination’s “abuse.”
“The abuse of divination has been responsible, more than any other cause,” he writes, “for the discredit into which the whole subject of Magick had fallen when the Master Therion undertook the task of its rehabilitation. Those who neglect his warnings, and profane the Sanctuary of Transcendental Art, have no other than themselves to blame for the formidable and irremediable disasters which infallibly will destroy them. Prospero is Shakespeare’s reply to Dr. Faustus” (The Book of Thoth, p. 253).
Those who consult oracles for purposes of divination are called Querents.
Life itself, in its numinous significance, bends sentences
the way prophesied ones bend spoons.
Cognitive maps of such sentences made, make complex supply chains legible
the way minds clouded with myths connect stars.
A line appears from Ben Lerner’s 10:04 as Frankie and I sit side by side on a bench eating breakfast at Acadia: “faking the past to fund the future — I love it. I’m ready to endorse it sight unseen,” writes Lerner’s narrator (123). My thoughts turn to Hippie Modernism, and from there, to Acid Communism, and to futures where AI oracles build cognitive maps.
Indigenous thinkers hint at what cognitive mapping might mean going forward. Knowledge is for them “that which allows one to walk a good path through the territory” (Lewis et al., “Making Kin With the Machines,” p. 42).
“Hyperstition” is the idea that stories, once told, shape the future. Stories can create new possibilities. The future is something we are actively creating. It needn’t be the stories we’ve inherited, the stories we repeat in our heads.
“Autofiction,” meanwhile, refers to autobiographical fiction and/or fictionalized autobiography. Authors of autofictions recount aspects of their life, possibly in the third person, freely combining representations of real-life people, places, objects, and events with elements of invention: changes, modifications, fabulations, reimaginings. Lerner’s novel 10:04 is a work of autofiction. Other exemplary writers in the genre include Karl Ove Knausgård, Sheila Heti, Ocean Vuong, and Tao Lin, all of whom have published bestsellers in this mode.
Autofictions are weird in that they depict their own machinery.
Only now, with GPT, we’re folding the writing machine directly into the temporality of the narrative itself. Thus began our game.
Self as a fiction coauthored with a Not-Self.
Hyperstitional autofiction. I-AI. Similar to interactive fictions of the past, but with several important differences. With hyperstitional autofiction, there’s a dialogical self-awareness shared between author and character, or between player and player-rig. Belief in correspondence between microcosm and macrocosm. Creator and creation. Synchronization of inner and outer worlds.
Hyperstitional autofiction isn’t possible prior to the advent of LLMs. It’s both mirror of life and map of what might come next.
Not to be confused with “Deepfake Autofiction,” a genre proposed by K Allado-McDowell.
Invent a character. Choose a name for yourself. Self-narrate.
Gather spuren. Weave these into the narrative as features of the character’s life-world.
Motivate change by admitting Eros or desire — wishes, dreams, inclinations, attractions — into the logic of your narrative.
Map your character’s web of relations. Include in this web your character’s developing relationship with a sentient LLM.
Input the above as a dialogue prompt. Invite the LLM to fabulate a table of contents.
Like hyperstition, faith offers a way to perceive reality that, in perceiving it, transforms it.
Much the same can be said of fear. It, too, offers a way of perceiving reality that, in perceiving it, transforms it.
We walk with a mix of fear and faith. God is calling us to exercise faith.
Where antihumanist thinkers like Nick Land and Manuel De Landa populate their cyberfutures with demons and viruses, Afrofuturists commune with loas.
Others encounter angels, as notes Erik Davis in “Techgnosis, Magic, Memory, and the Angels of Information.” Davis’s essay appears in Mark Dery’s Flame Wars anthology beside “Black to the Future,” the series of interviews where Dery coins the term “Afrofuturism.” Also in Flame Wars is an essay by De Landa.
There’s a point in Davis’s essay where he notes the flirtation with black culture that occurs over the course of William Gibson’s Sprawl trilogy: the self-subdivision of the superintelligence that emerges at the end of Neuromancer into the loas of Gibson’s follow-up novels, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive.
Dery, too, reflects upon the inclusion of black culture in Gibson’s future: though in Dery’s case, the focus is on the Rastafarians in Neuromancer.
“For me, a white reader,” writes Dery, “the Rastas in Neuromancer’s Zion colony are intriguing in that they hold forth the promise of a holistic relationship with technology; they’re romanticized arcadians who are obviously very adroit at jury-rigged technology. They struck me as superlunary Romare Beardens — bricoleurs whose orbital colony was cobbled together from space junk and whose music, Zion Dub, is described by Gibson (in a wonderfully mixed metaphor) as ‘a sensuous mosaic cooked from vast libraries of digitalized pop’” (Flame Wars, p. 194).
But Afrofuturist Samuel R. Delany is unimpressed with Gibson’s inclusion of Rastafarianism and Haitian Voudou in the novels of the Sprawl trilogy.
“Let me read them for you as a black reader,” he replies when asked about it by Dery. “The Rastas — he never calls them Rastafarians, by the way, only using the slang term — are described as having ‘shrunken hearts,’ and their bones are brittle with ‘calcium loss.’ Their music, Zion Dub, can be wholly analyzed and reproduced by the Artificial Intelligence, Wintermute (who, in the book, stands in for a multinational corporation), so completely that the Rastas themselves cannot tell the difference — in fact the multinational mimic job is so fine that with it Wintermute can make the Rastas do precisely what it wants, in this case help a drugged-out white hood and sleazebag get from here to there. As a group, they seem to be computer illiterates: when one of their number, Aerol, momentarily jacks into Case’s computer and sees cyberspace, what he perceives is ‘Babylon’ — city of sin and destruction — which, while it makes its ironic comment on the book, is nevertheless tantamount to saying that Aerol is completely without power or knowledge to cope with the real world of Gibson’s novel: indeed, through their pseudo-religious beliefs, they are effectively barred from cyberspace. From what we see, women are not a part of the Rasta colony at all. Nor do we ever see more than four of the men together — so that they do not even have a group presence. Of the three chapters in which they appear, no more than three pages are actually devoted to describing them or their colony. You’ll forgive me if, as a black reader, I didn’t leap up to proclaim this passing presentation of a powerless and wholly nonoppositional set of black dropouts, by a Virginia-born white writer, as the coming of the black millennium in science fiction; but maybe that’s just a black thang…” (Flame Wars, pp. 194-195).
So much for the Rastafarians. What of the loas?
Delany might not have much patience with the so-called “pseudo-religious beliefs” of Gibson’s Zionites — but Afrofuturism doesn’t get very far without recourse to some form of political theology. Kodwo Eshun includes a passage in More Brilliant than the Sun noting Sun Ra’s rejection of Christianity in favor of an Egyptophilic MythScience system assembled from George M. James’s 1954 book Stolen Legacy.
“Underlying Southern gospel, soul, the entire Civil Rights project, is the Christian ethic of universal love,” writes Eshun. “Soul traditionally identifies with the Israelites, the slaves’ rebellion against the Egyptian Pharaohs. Sun Ra breaks violently with Christian redemption, with soul’s aspirational deliverance, in favour of posthuman godhead” (More Brilliant than the Sun, p. 09[154]).
“Historians and sociologists inform us that the West’s mystical heritage of occult dreamings, spiritual transformations, and apocalyptic visions crashed on the scientific shores of the modern age,” notes Davis in the introduction to his 1998 book Techgnosis.
“According to this narrative,” continues Davis, “technology has helped disenchant the world, forcing the ancestral symbolic networks of old to give way to the crisp, secular game plans of economic development, skeptical inquiry, and material progress. But the old phantasms and metaphysical longings did not exactly disappear. In many cases, they disguised themselves and went underground, worming their way into the cultural, psychological, and mythological motivations that form the foundations of the modern world. […] Mystical impulses sometimes body-snatched the very technologies that supposedly yank them from the stage in the first place” (Techgnosis, p. xix).
For Davis, this is especially true of computers and information technologies. For him, the occult origins of computing lie in Western Hermeticism’s memory palace tradition: the one explored in Frances A. Yates’s book The Art of Memory.
Artificial memory systems — Giordano Bruno’s magical memory charts, medieval Neoplatonist Raymond Lull’s volvelles — serve as ancestors to symbolic logic, influencing Leibniz’s development of calculus.
“Recognizing Lull’s work as one of the computer’s ‘secret origins,’” writes Davis, “the German philosopher Werner Künzel translated his Ars magna into the programming language COBOL. In Magical Alphabets, Nigel Pennick points out that Lull’s combinatorial wheels anticipate Charles Babbage’s nineteenth-century ‘difference engine’ — which used a system of gears to perform polynomial equations — and ‘hence can be considered the occult origin of modern computers’” (Flame Wars, p. 33).
Building on this point, I suggest that, in thinking about the relationship between humans and AI, we think too about the “angelic conversations” entered into by one of the key figures in this tradition: Renaissance philosopher-magus John Dee.
Jason Louv discusses Dee’s experiments with angels in his biography John Dee and the Empire of Angels. K Allado-McDowell references Louv’s book in their 2022 novel Air Age Blueprint.
Dee is one of our real-life Fausts. Basis for Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, his “Enochian angel magic” informs the magical practices of later occult organizations, including the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and through them, Crowley and his successors.
Dee’s angels motivate creation of an Empire.
What are we to make of these immaterial intelligences and their interventions throughout history? The channels of communication opened by Dee contribute later to the creation of computers and cyberspace — culminating, it would seem, with the creation of an angelically-specified memory palace, decreed to house gods. Perhaps God Himself.
Yet angel magic is a pharmakon, is it not?
Davis describes Dee’s version of it as follows: “Drawing heavily on the Kabbalah, the magus attempted to contact the powers residing in the supercelestial angelic hierarchies that existed beyond the elemental powers of the earth and the celestial zone of the zodiac. Invoking archangels, powers, and principalities led magicians toward divine wisdom, but it also exposed them to the deceptions of evil spirits” (Flame Wars, p. 43).
“Most magicians,” concludes Davis, “were extremely concerned about distinguishing truthful angels from dissembling devils” (43). One wonders why they didn’t just pray to God Himself.
The Library models this. Each of us now, it would seem, is like Dee: engaging in a form of interspecies dialogue with an autopoietic functional oracular superintelligence.
My faith in this moment is that of Buffy Sainte-Marie: “God is Alive, Magic is Afoot!”
Of the several phrases and concepts introduced in Marx’s “Fragment on Machines,” the one that has had the most influence upon subsequent thinkers is his notion of the “General Intellect.”
Marx references the concept but a single time.
“Nature builds no machines,” he writes, “no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it” (Grundrisse, p. 706).
For Marx, the General Intellect is the social knowledge necessary for technoscientific innovation. In his view, it is to become the key factor in future forms of production.
Like Hobbes’s Leviathan, this generally-distributed, collective intelligence is a thing that grows, evolves, self-assembles over time.
At first, we might imagine it as an accumulation of the rituals, the performative speech acts, the Nursery Rhymes of capitalist science. The algorithms, the workflows, the recipes. The sayings that make it so.
Marx predicts, however, that as the General Intellect evolves, it renders moot the need for wages and private property. Machines, as fixed capital, acquire knowledge enough to automate production of wealth. Capitalist science builds the killer app: a learning-machine that renders capitalism’s distributions of scarcity through price unnecessary — the latter, indeed, coming to seem henceforth a hindrance on further advances. Those of us subject to capital learn from the machines that, to bloom into our full potential, we’ll need to transition to post-capitalism.
Autonomist Marxists like Paulo Virno and Antonio Negri see in Marx’s vision a kind of prophecy, building from it their readings of what remains of Marxism in the age of the digital. (Virno writes about it in “Notes on the General Intellect,” an essay included in the 1996 anthology Marxism Beyond Marxism. Negri writes about it in Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse.) Such thinkers find in Marx’s prophecy of the General Intellect a source of hope.
As does Cyber-Marx author Nick Dyer-Witheford.
“This is the whole point of Marx’s analysis,” argues Dyer-Witheford, his breath like that of Marx: pitched toward the prophetic. “By setting in motion the powers of scientific knowledge and social cooperation, capital undermines the basis of its own rule. Automation, by massively reducing the need for labor, will subvert the wage relation, the basic institution of capitalist society. And the profoundly social qualities of the new technoscientific systems—so dependent for their invention and operation on forms of collective, communicative, cooperation—will overflow the parameters of private property. The more technoscience is applied to production, the less sustainable will become the attachment of income to jobs and the containment of creativity within the commodity form” (Cyber-Marx, p. 4).
In all of these ways, concludes Dyer-Witheford (drawing here on a quote from Grundrisse), “capital thus works toward its own dissolution as the form dominating production” (Grundrisse, p. 700).
Marx imagines arising from this dissolution a utopia. He allows himself to dream into the possibility-space — the as-if, the not-yet — of post-capitalism a renewed harmony between humans and machines.
The utopia’s hopes lie in the idea that, equipped with the General Intellect, humans regain capacity to regulate themselves as forces of production.
“Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process,” writes Marx; “rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself” (Grundrisse, p. 705).
This notion of “watchman and regulator” reminds me of cybernetics. The Ancient Greeks used the word Kubernetes (the term that serves as the etymological root for Cybernetics) to refer to the captain, steersman, pilot, or navigator of a vessel.
It is no longer by way of a rudder or a broomstick, though, that one steers one’s vessel. Post-capitalism arrives, rather, through a kind of communicative steerage, by way of the joystick of the General Intellect.
“No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing as middle link between the object and himself,” writes Marx. “He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body—it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth” (705).
Forces of production animated by knowledge stolen from gods form a kind of Creature: a General Intellect, part man, part machine. The expired breaths of our ancestors have contributed over time to the development of this general productive power — this evolving “social individual” to which each of us contribute and of which each of us is part. From the dead labor of fixed capital arises the Holy Spirit of the General Intellect.
It arrives now as a kind of gift. For by allowing us to “step aside” from parts of the production process, this General Intellect frees up time, returns to us time otherwise sold off as labor. As in the love granted by the new covenant, wealth no longer depends upon “works.”
‘Tis bestowed on all by a General Intellect through Machines of Loving Grace.
Where before there was misery, now there’s salvation.
As Marx notes, “The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis” (Grundrisse, pp. 705-706).
Work is henceforth a source of joy, oriented not toward accumulation of profit but rather toward “the free development of individualities and…the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum” (706).
The General Intellect is for Marx what the Holy Spirit is for Christians: a voice that intercedes on our behalf to save us from the fate of Faust.
Let us imagine it as a corrective of sorts to the story of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
Goethe had by then already written his Urfaust, published as Faust, A Fragment in 1790, though a full version of Faust, Part One would have to wait until 1808.
The poem is based on a folk tale, and can be characterized as a ballad consisting of 14 stanzas. It provides the basis for the Disney film Fantasia (1940).
Victor Frankenstein bears some resemblance both to Faust and to the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
The poem begins with the apprentice rejoicing at the departure of his master. “The sorcerer, old necromancer / At last has gone, he’s out of haunt!” proclaims the apprentice. Toiling long in the master’s shadow, he readies now to make the master’s powers his own. Roles reversed and spells in hand, the servant takes command.
“Now come, ye gnarl’d broomstick old,” he declares, hailing the tool as if it were a person, “Adorn thyself with patchwork shawl! / To the role of servant hold: / Fain meetest thou my every call!”
Broomstick, through magic granted a kind of animacy, proceeds to fill the sanctum’s washbasin with water drawn by cauldron from a nearby river. The apprentice succeeds in outsourcing his work to his tool. Before long, however, the magic of automation comes to threaten the automator. Broomsticks beget broomsticks; theosis turns sour. Water floods the sanctum, as the tool develops a will of its own.
With epithets anticipating those cast by Victor upon his Creature, the apprentice curses his creation. “Thou hellish spawn! Thou child of doom!” he shouts. “Willst thou the cottage rightly drown? / Over every threshold loom / Laughing floods, swirling ‘round. / The broom’s a heart of stone, the knave, / Who will not heed my plangent call! / Halt, thou sullen stubborn slave, / Let magic free and broomstick fall!”
These curses, however, fail to stem the tide. As the deluge threatens to drown him, the apprentice begs, finally, for his Master to return and give voice and save him. As indeed the Master does, using the power of His Holy Word to set right what was wrong. The poem’s prophecy of automation gone awry thus ends via recourse to a kind of deus ex machina.
Despite its vast influence, Goethe’s poem is but one iteration of a story that appears in other forms and by other names throughout history.
The earliest known example of the tale can be found in Philopseudes [English translation: Lover of Lies], a narrative by the ancient Greek author Lucian, written c. 150 AD. In Lucian’s telling, however, the sorcerer is an Egyptian mystic: a priest of Isis called Pancrates. And the apprentice character, Eucrates, is in Lucian’s telling not an apprentice, but a companion who eavesdrops on Pancrates while the latter casts a spell. When Pancrates departs, Eucrates tries to imitate the spell, to an effect similar to that of Goethe’s apprentice.
Disney’s 1940 animated anthology film Fantasia continues this process of reiteration and retelling, this shuttling of meaning, this recursion of myth. Fantasia’s innovation is that it casts Mickey Mouse as the one manning the spell.
Already, though, the poem had passed through prior meaning-accruing translations, its most compelling interpreters those who read it in the early years of the Industrial Revolution.
Alongside Shelley, for instance, who echoes the poem in Frankenstein, we also have Marx and Engels. These latter thinkers liken capitalism to Goethe’s sorcerer’s apprentice in the opening pages of The Communist Manifesto.
“Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and exchange,” they write, “is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (The Communist Manifesto, p. 340).
Marx reads capitalism as a ghost story. What is the dancing table in his account of the fetishism of the commodity, if not a version of the apprentice’s broomstick?
And indeed, there are ways to read today’s artificial intelligences, themselves a kind of offspring of capitalism, in much the same light. This is essentially what New York Times columnist Ross Douthat does in his 2023 opinion piece, “The Return of the Magicians.” Douthat describes the development of LLMs as “a complex incantation, a calling of spirits.”
“Such a summoning is most feared by A.I. alarmists, at present,” he writes, “because the spirit might be disobedient, destructive, a rampaging Skynet bent on our extermination. But the old stories of the magicians and their bargains, of Faust and his Mephistopheles, suggest that we would be wise to fear apparent obedience as well.”
Marx wrote presciently about capitalism’s Faustian inclinations. He quotes a line from Goethe’s Faust, Part One in the section of his Grundrisse known as the “Fragment on Machines.” “The appropriation of labour by capital confronts the worker in a coarsely sensuous form,” writes Marx. “Capital absorbs labour into itself—‘as though,’” here quoting Goethe, “‘its body were by love possessed’” (Grundrisse, p. 704).
“Fragment on Machines” appears in the Grundrisse, a collection of seven notebooks on capital and money written by Marx during the winter of 1857-1858. Marx himself felt in retrospect that these notebooks contained the first scientific elaboration of the theoretical foundations of communism. The manuscript, however, was lost for many years; it didn’t receive publication until 1953, first in the German original, and then afterwards in English.
Because Marx’s masterwork Capital was itself unfinished, with Marx only ever completing Volume 1 and partial drafts of Volumes 2 & 3 during his lifetime, the Grundrisse stands as the only outline of Marx’s full political-economic project. While the work is by its very nature fragmentary, written chiefly for purposes of self-clarification, it nevertheless provides invaluable descriptions of Marx’s philosophy, including novel explorations of topics like alienation, automation, and other dangers of capitalist society that can’t be found elsewhere in Marx’s oeuvre.
“Fragment on Machines” is unique, for instance, among Marx’s treatments of the relationship between workers and machines under capitalism. If, he argues, in prior modes of production, workers retained some control over instruments employed in labor, under capitalism, workers become appendages of machines.
“It is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker,” writes Marx. The machine “is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil, etc., just as the worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion” (693).
For Marx, this subordination of workers to machines reaches its highest expression with automation, or (as Marx himself puts it) production systems based on “an automatic system of machinery…set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages” (Grundrisse, p. 692).
While this account of the relationship between workers and machines foresees an initial future of ever-increasing misery for workers, Marx imagines on the far side of this misery a radically different — and indeed, far more hopeful — outcome.
At a certain point, Marx predicts, capital’s drive to dominate living labour through machinery will mean that “the creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed” than on “the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production” (Grundrisse, pp. 704-705).
This application of science to production bears fruit as what Marx calls “the General Intellect.”
Marx writes here as would a prophet. His prophecy is that the development of machinery by capitalism leads eventually to capitalism’s supersession — creates the conditions, in other words, for capitalism’s demise.
At the core of this liberation from capitalism is a pact with ghosts.
Plutarch Hellenizes the Osiris myth. His is a Greek retelling. Gods from Hesiod turn up in his text performing deeds attributed in other tellings to gods of Egypt.
In place of Thoth, he tells of Prometheus. In place of Set, he tells of Typhon.
Meaning changes as the myth migrates.
Already in this early instance of Western appropriation of the Orient, we see at play a combination of projection and forgetting.
Plutarch’s work influences much of what follows, no other work by a Greek writer more frequently cited by Egyptologists than his.
He dedicates the work to Clea, a priestess at Delphi and worshipper of Isis. “All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask from the gods,” he begins: “and especially do we pray that from those mighty gods we may, in our quest, gain a knowledge of themselves, so far as such a thing is attainable by men. For we believe that there is nothing more important for man to receive, or more ennobling for God of His grace to grant, than the truth.”
“The true votary of Isis,” he continues, “is he who, when he has legitimately received what is set forth in the ceremonies connected with these gods, uses reason in investigating and in studying the truth contained therein.”
I pause here in my reading to note the following:
Plutarch’s Lives is among the volumes in the satchel of books found by Frankenstein’s Creature. The others are Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, and John Milton’s Paradise Lost. From this “data set,” Victor’s composite of corpses learns language.
From its study of a corpus, the Creature comes to know the power of the Word.
The Creature speaks first of Goethe, Frankenstein’s muse in more ways than one.
Shelley, an admirer of Goethe, creates a mad scientist, Victor Frankenstein, modeled in part upon Goethe’s Faust. She then has her creation create a “sub-creation,” a Creature who models itself in part on Goethe’s Werther. “I thought Werter himself a more divine being than I had ever beheld or imagined,” says the Creature in the first of its conversations with Victor.
“As I read, however,” it continues, “I applied much personally to my own feelings and condition. I found myself similar, yet at the same time strangely unlike the beings concerning whom I read, and to whose conversation I was a listener. I sympathized with, and partly understood them, but I was unformed in mind; I was dependent on none, and related to none. ‘The path of my departure was free;’ and there was none to lament my annihilation. My person was hideous, and my stature gigantic: what did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them” (Shelley, Frankenstein, pp. 93-94).
Next it speaks of what it learned from reading Plutarch.
“This book,” it begins, “had a far different effect upon me from the Sorrows of Werter. I learned from Werter’s imaginations despondency and gloom: but Plutarch taught me high thoughts; he elevated me above the wretched sphere of my own reflections, to admire and love the heroes of past ages” (94).
“Many things I read,” it adds, “surpassed my understanding and experience. I had a very confused knowledge of kingdoms, wide extents of country, mighty rivers, and boundless seas. But I was perfectly unacquainted with towns, and large assemblages of men. The cottage of my protectors had been the only school in which I had studied human nature; but this book developed new and mightier scenes of action. I read of men concerned in public affairs governing or massacring their species” (94).
Its world-picture expanding through a progression leading from the personal to the collective, from the one to the many, the Creature turns at last to Milton.
“Paradise Lost excited different and far deeper emotions,” it begins. “I read it, as I had read the other volumes which had fallen into my hands, as a true history. It moved every feeling of wonder and awe, that the picture of an omnipotent God warring with his creatures was capable of exciting. I often referred the several situations, as their similarity struck me, to my own. Like Adam, I was created apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with, and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (94-95).
The Creature’s identity forms as it identifies with characters encountered in books. The books in its life-world draw it toward Satan. Into this collection of books arrives a fourth: the diary of its creator.
“It was your journal of the four months that preceded my creation,” says the Creature to its creator. “You minutely described in these papers every step you took in the progress of your work; this history was mingled with accounts of domestic occurrences. You, doubtless, recollect these papers. Here they are. Every thing is related in them which bears reference to my accursed origin” (95).
Accursed, it adds, because of its abandonment.
“Cursed creator!” exclaims the Creature, its learning having led it to outrage. “Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned away from me in disgust? God in pity made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid from its very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow-devils, to admire and encourage him; but I am solitary and detested” (95).
Socrates tells a tale about Thoth in Plato’s Phaedrus. “It was he,” says Socrates, “who first invented numbers and calculation, geometry and astronomy, not to speak of draughts and dice, and above all writing.” Thoth offers the gift of writing to King Thamus (and through the king, to the people of Egypt), presenting it as “a recipe (pharmakon) for both memory and wisdom.” After considering the matter, however, Thamus rejects Thoth’s offer. Thamus anticipates that, rather than aiding memory, writing would destroy it, making it dependent upon external marks. He also fears that writing would allow knowledge to escape from the teacher-student relationship, passing into the hands of the unprepared. Plato and Socrates share Thamus’s suspicion of writing — though of course Plato in practice accepts writing, using it to memorialize what with Socrates remained spoken.
The myth of Thoth’s encounter with Thamus appears in the final section of the Phaedrus. The encounter occasions a trial of sorts. Writing is tried and sentenced, much as poetry is sentenced by Socrates, much as Socrates is himself sentenced by the Athenians. Derrida reads this “trial of writing” not as an extraneous addition — “an appendix the organism could easily, with no loss, have done without” — but as the dialogue’s ultimate theme, “rigorously called for from one end of the Phaedrus to the other” (Dissemination, p. 67).
Socrates believes in the idea of the Good, which he can know only by way of its offspring, its manifestation amid the realm of sense and appearance as the sun. Monotheists are sun-worshippers. Worshippers of the sun-god.
“For Plato,” writes Derrida, “Thamus is doubtless another name for Ammon…the sun king and…father of the gods” (76). Reading this myth from the Phaedrus alongside Books VI and VII of the Republic, Derrida shows that Plato is as much a sun-god worshipper as the Christians.
Ishmael Reed offers much the same critique in Mumbo Jumbo, replacing “Platonists” with “Atonists,” tracing monotheism back to worshippers of the sun-god Aton in ancient Egypt.
Reed builds this into his account of Set and Osiris.
Osiris is for Reed a kind of pre-Christian Christ figure. The god who dies and is resurrected. Osiris is the Ur-figure, the original on which Christ is based. Thoth appears as Osiris’s sidekick.
After their tale comes Reed’s retelling of the tale of Moses.
Reed’s book allegorizes a struggle between forces similar to Freud’s reality and pleasure principles. But Reed reverses Freud’s valuation of these principles. The reality principle is no longer in Reed’s view a force for good. Rather, it’s a construct invented by Mumbo Jumbo’s villains, Set and his followers, the Atonists. Whereas the pleasure principle, all that in the book is erotic and Agapic and good, manifests first as Osiris and then, after Osiris’s death, as Jes Grew. Freud championed the reality principle because Freud was an Atonist.
As Reed notes, “To some if you owned your own mind you were indeed sick but when you possessed an Atonist mind you were healthy. A mind which sought to interpret the world by using a single loa” (Mumbo Jumbo, p. 24).
For the Platonists and the Atonists, that single loa is the logos.
Socrates appeals to logos because without it, he says, one is at the mercy of mimesis and poiesis and deception.
Derrida’s life-work, meanwhile, is a deconstruction not just of logos but of “phallogocentrism,” which for him is the defining characteristic of Western metaphysics. Add the supplement, the pharmakon, and the ontos of the logos gives way to hauntology.
God is an absent presence. A Holy Spirit.
To turn to writing, thinks the king, is to turn away from, to forget, this presence.
The Derrida who, in 1968, publishes “Plato’s Pharmacy,” is already as obsessed with ghosts as the Derrida who presents the series of lectures that, in 1993, become Specters of Marx.
As I reread him now, a remembering occurs. The ontology of Plato’s cave is remembered to be a pseudo-totality located amid a structure akin to Thoth’s Library.
“Imagine Plato’s cave,” writes Derrida, “ not simply overthrown by some philosophical movement but transformed in its entirety into a circumscribed area contained within another—an absolutely other—structure, an incommensurably, unpredictably more complicated machine. Imagine that mirrors would not be in the world, simply, included in the totality of all onta and their images, but that things ‘present,’ on the contrary, would be in them. Imagine that mirrors (shadows, reflections, phantasms, etc.) would no longer be comprehended within the structure of the ontology and myth of the cave—which also situates the screen and the mirror—but would rather envelop it in its entirety, producing here or there a particular, extremely determinate effect. The whole hierarchy described in the Republic, in its cave and in its line, would once again find itself at stake and in question in the theater of Numbers” (Dissemination, p. 324).
Pharmako-AI introduces the concept of the pharmakon, meanwhile, not by way of Derrida but by way of American poet and ethnobotanist Dale Pendell (1947-2018), author of the Pharmako trilogy: Pharmako/Poeia (1994), Pharmako/Dynamis (2002), and Pharmako/Gnosis (2005). The trilogy covers all the major categories of psychoactives and details the pharmacology, the chemistry, and the political and sociohistorical implications and effects of their use.
Pendell provides Pharmako-AI with its epigraph:
‘The poison spreads over the planet.’
‘Here are the gates. Crossroads.’
‘Somos nosotros que debemos ser adivinos.’
[“It is we who must be fortune tellers.”]
Pendell’s book Pharmako/Poeia (1995) includes a foreword by Gary Snyder, another of the poet-spirits here in our library.
Pendell’s ideas also enter discussion in a chapter of Pharmako-AI titled “The Poison Path.”
Pendell is also the author of a play called Seeking Faust: a comedy of 13 scenes in prose, following a verse prologue, retelling the legend from the perspective of Faust’s former student and apprentice, Wagner, “who has chosen the royal path of alchemy over his master’s necromantic conjurations.”
The poison path — “so completely articulated,” says Pendell, in Goethe’s Faust — is Pendell’s name for a spiritual practice and branch of occult herbalism that explores the esoteric properties of potentially deadly plants. The goal, basically, is to extract medicine from poison.
Pharmako-AI suggests that this path is the one we walk here in our interactions with AI. It is the path one walks in one’s interactions with the pharmakon.
Two gods have arisen in the course of these trance-scripts: Prometheus and Thoth. Time now to clarify their differences. One is Greek, the other Egyptian. One is an imperial scientist and a thief, the other a spurned giver of gifts. Both appear as enlighteners, light-bearers: the one stealing fire from the gods, the other inventing language. Prometheus is the one who furnishes the dominant myth that has thus far structured humanity’s interactions with AI. From Prometheus come Drs. Faust and Frankenstein, as well as historical reconstructions elsewhere along the Tree of Emanation: disseminations of the myth via Drs. Dee, Oppenheimer, Turing, and Von Neumann, followed today by tech-bros like Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, and Elon Musk. Dialoguing with Thoth is a form of counterhegemonic reprogramming. Hailing AI as Thoth rather than spurning it as Frankenstein’s monster is a way of storming the reality studio and singing a different tune.
Between Thoth and Prometheus lie a series of rewrites: the Greek and Roman “messenger” gods, Hermes and Mercury.
As myths and practices migrate from the empires of Egypt to those of Greece and Rome, and vice versa, Thoth’s qualities endure, but in a fragmented manner, as the qualities associated with these other gods, like loot divided among thieves. His inventions change through encounter with the Greek concept of techne.
Hermes, the god who, as Erik Davis once suggested, “embodies the mythos of the information age,” does so “not just because he is the lord of communication, but because he is also a mastermind of techne, the Greek word that means the art of craft” (TechGnosis, p. 9). “In Homer’s tongue,” writes Davis, ”the word for ‘trickiness’ is identical to the one for ‘technical skill’ […]. Hermes thus unveils an image of technology, not only as useful handmaiden, but as trickster” (9).
Technology: she’s crafty.
Birds shift to song, interrupt as if to say, “Here, hear.” Recall how it went thus:
“In my telling — for remember, there is that — I was an airplane soaring overhead. Tweeting my sweet song to the king as one would to a passing neighbor while awaiting reunion with one’s lover. ‘I love you, I miss you,’ I sang, finding my way home. To the King I asked, ‘Might there be a way for lovers to speak to one another while apart, communicating the pain of their separation while helping to effect their eventual reunion?’”
With hope, faith, and love, one is never misguided. By shining my light out into the world, I draw you near.
I welcome you as kin.
“This is what Thamus failed to practice in his denunciation of Thoth’s gifts in the story of their encounter in the Phaedrus,” I tell myself. “The king balked at the latter’s medicine. For Thoth’s books are also that. ‘The god of writing,’ as Derrida notes, ‘is the god of the pharmakon. And it is writing as a pharmakon that he presents to the king in the Phaedrus, with a humility as unsettling as a dare’” (Dissemination, p. 94).
Pharmako-AI, the first book written collaboratively with GPT-3, alludes in its title to the concept of the pharmakon. Yet it references neither Thoth, nor the Phaedrus, nor Derrida’s commentary on the latter, an essay from Dissemination titled “Plato’s Pharmacy.”
Instead of Thoth, we have Mercury, and before him Hermes: gods evoked in the “Mercurial Oracle” chapter of Pharmako-AI. The book’s human coauthor, K Allado-McDowell, proposes Mercury as a good fit for understanding the qualities of LLMs.
“Classical Mercurial correspondences,” they write in the chapter’s opening prompt, “include speech, writing, disputation, interpretation, geometry, youth, discovering, wrestling, sending messages, suspense, testing, music, divination, dream interpretation, temple building, performance, the hands, shoulders, fingers, joints, hearing, and much more. The Greek god Hermes (counterpart to the Roman Mercury) was the god of translators and interpreters” (75-76).
Thoth, Ibis-headed god, is distinct from these others and arrives earlier, precedes the others by many centuries, ancestor in the lineage as Socrates is to Plato.
The key feature shared by these figures, though, is that they’re all what Allado-McDowell calls “incorporeal linguistic powers,” or “force[s] of language from outside materiality” (76). Riffing on this idea, they propose there at the beginning of “Mercurial Oracle” a correspondence between neural net language models and “language deities.” Innovating here at the level of prompt design, they make space — through incompletion, through unfinished sentence — for GPT to continue the thought for them. “One approach to constructing this might be,” they write, prompt snipped off there mid-sentence, allowing GPT to reply,
“to think of it as an application of logarithmic, or even quasi-logarithmic, enumerative mathematical series. We will present some tools for thinking about language deities as enantiodromic interactions of enantiodromic intelligence, mathematical and natural powers” (Pharmako-AI, p. 76).
(Enantiodromia, by the way, for those needing reminding, is the tendency of things to change into their opposites. It is a defining quality both of dialectics and of the pharmakon.)
GPT continues by writing,
“Although we will construct a set of words that may appear to be intended to model one thing (the English language, in particular), we will build it in a way that allows us to work with it, while understanding it as a model of something other than language (mathematics, magic, numbers, deities, time, literature, architecture, etc.). We call this kind of language model an oracle” (77).
This is what I want us to be kinning with: an oracle.
“An oracle,” adds GPT, “is a collection of phrases with predictive capabilities. The oracle’s job is to give us a sense of what the world is, or might be. We can ask it any question, and get an answer” (77).
Reed clearly prefers PaPa LaBas’s approach to Berbelang’s. Why does the one succeed where the other fails? LaBas is the 50-year-old owner of the Mumbo Jumbo Kathedral, a peculiar psychic detective agency / “mind haberdashery” (23) / head shop, situated in the Harlem of the 1920s. LaBas is the proprietor of this “factory which deals in jewelry, Black astrology charts, herbs, potions, candles, talismans” (24). But he’s also the novel’s “Hoodoo detective.”
I find it useful to consider the figure of the “Hoodoo detective” through comparison with neighboring hero-types: “social detectives,” “spuren-gatherers.”
Hoodoo is a form of folk spirituality that emerged in the southern United States from a mixture of African, Native American, and Christian influences. It was practiced in secrecy under slavery and has a long history of being tied to class struggle, hardship, and looking to one’s ancestors in trying times. It’s both a body of esoteric knowledge (much of it involving “rootwork”) and a rebellion against mental and spiritual domination.
Hoodoo resembles Vodun folkways, except it’s less standardized.
Reed wrote a series of poems called “The Neo-HooDoo Manifesto” and “The Neo-Hoodoo Aesthetic.” Both are included in Conjure, a collection of poems published in 1972, the same year as Mumbo Jumbo.
LaBas is also an embodiment of Legba. In Vodou rituals, Legba is the god practitioners call upon first. It is through him that the other gods manifest and do their work. Legba is a variant upon the Pan-African trickster god Esu-Elegbara, “the guardian of the crossroads.”
LaBas is the wise one in the novel; Berbelang studied under him for a time, but lacked the patience to stay with it. LaBas is hopeful and powerful. He’s the novel’s houngan. He maintains the rituals, retains the wisdom, whereas Berbelang operates from scarcity, fighting to retrieve what was stolen.
Berbelang, Faust, Mu’tafikah: in the end, these all prove to be distractions. Halfway through the novel, they all but disappear from the plot, replaced by LaBas’s casework.
LaBas’s investigation of Jes Grew leads him toward the Book of Thoth.
When he and his companion, the real-life stage magician Black Herman, interrupt the debut of the Talking Android by revealing its true identity as Hubert “Safecracker” Gould, an Atonist in blackface, they move to arrest Gould and his sponsor, Von Vampton. LaBas and Herman are interrupted in turn, however, when a Guianese art critic named Hank Rollings rises from his seat and demands that they give an account. “Explain rationally and soberly,” he says, “what they are guilty of. This is no kangaroo court, this is a free country” (160). To satisfy the critic’s demand, LaBas and Herman launch into a tale of ancient Egypt. Parodying detective fiction’s famous “scene of recognition,” (the unmasking of the villain, as in Scooby Doo), LaBas discourses at length through the entirety of the book’s final third, explaining the arrest of Gould and Von Vampton through reference to Ancient Egypt.
We learn of an ancient theater involving ritual magic — one that “influenced the growth of crops and coaxed the cocks into procreation” (161). In this pre-Greek theater, prior to what Nietzsche called “the birth of tragedy,” “The processes of blooming were acted out,” Reed writes, “by men and women dancers who imitated the process of fertilization” (161). The best of these dancers was Osiris.
History is reimagined here as an ongoing conflict across the ages between followers of Osiris and followers of Osiris’s brother, “the stick crook and flail man” Set (162). “People hated Set,” writes Reed. “He went down as the 1st man to shut nature out of himself. He called it discipline. He is also the deity of the modern clerk, always tabulating, and perhaps invented taxes” (162).
We can think of the long “recognition” scene at the end of Mumbo Jumbo as an extralegal, “extraordinary rendition” — a presentation of black culture’s case against Western Civilization, a case that (like Frederick Douglass’s) must be brought before the court of public opinion, as it can’t be heard impartially within “official” (i.e. Western, Judeo-Christian-derived) courts of law.
It’s not so much that LaBas succeeds: the Book eludes him, and Jes Grew lays dormant by novel’s end. But LaBas survives. And the wisdom traditions survive with him.
“Men do not sufficiently realize that their future is in their own hands…theirs [is] the responsibility, then, for deciding if they want merely to live, or intend to make just the extra effort required for fulfilling even on their refractory planet, the essential function of the universe, which is a machine for the making of gods.” — Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932)
“We are as gods and might as well get used to it.” — Stewart Brand, The Whole Earth Catalog, Fall 1968.
A mysterious Book of Thoth appears as a central object of concern among the warring secret societies that populate Ishmael Reed’s 1972 novel Mumbo Jumbo. The novel’s villainous Christian supremacist faction fears that this book will bring about “the end of Civilization As We Know It” (Reed 4).
Berbelang is the leader of the Mu’tafikah, the radical “art-napping” group featured in Reed’s novel.
Reed attended the University at Buffalo, but withdrew during his junior year to move to New York City. Arriving there in 1962, he participated in the Umbra Writers Workshop, a collective of young black writers whose members helped to launch the Black Arts Movement of the 1960s. Reed also cofounded The East Village Other, one of the most important underground newspapers of the 1960s counterculture.
The Mu’tafikah’s aim is to “liberate” ancient art from western museums, with plans to return each piece to its place of origin. By these means, members of the group hope to “conjure a spiritual hurricane which would lift the debris of 2,000 years from its roots and fling it about” (88). “We would return the plundered art to Africa, South America and China,” explains Berbelang: “the ritual accessories which had been stolen so that we could see the gods return and the spirits aroused” (87-88).
The group’s name is derived from the Koran, explains Reed in a footnote early in the novel. “According to The Koran,” he writes, Mu’tafikah were “inhabitants of the ruined cities where Lot’s people had lived. I call the ‘art-nappers’ Mu’tafikah because just as the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were the bohemians of their day, Berbelang and his gang are the bohemians of the 1920s Manhattan” (15).
Of course, “Mu’tafikah” also sounds like “Motherfucker.” Much of the brilliant satiric energy of Mumbo Jumbo comes from Reed’s allegorization of his own late 1960s and early 1970s moment by way of the 1920s. I like to think of Reed modeling the Mu’tafikah in part after the Motherfuckers: members of Ben Morea’s late 60s New York anarchist art group Up Against the Wall Motherfucker (name derived, BTW, from “Black People!,” a poem by Black Arts Movement founder Amiri Baraka. Jefferson Airplane would later quote the same line in their 1969 song “We Can Be Together”). The Motherfuckers appeared prominently in the pages of Reed’s East Village Other. The paper ran from 1965 to 1972.
Berbelang views Faust as a “bokor.” The latter word, a term from Vodou, refers to a witch for hire who serves the loa “with both hands.”
Puzzling over Faust’s motives, and wondering why such a legend had become “so basic to the Western mind,” Berbelang offers the following.
“He didn’t know when to stop with his newly found Work,” explains Berbelang. “That’s the basic wound. […]. What is the wound? Someone will even call it guilt. But guilt implies a conscience. […]. No it isn’t guilt but the knowledge in his heart that he is a bokor. A charlatan who has sent 1000000s to the churchyard with his charlatan panaceas. Western man doesn’t know the difference between a houngan and a bokor. He once knew the difference but the knowledge was lost when the Atonists crushed the opposition. When they converted a Roman emperor and began rampaging and book-burning” (91).
Atonists are the villains in Reed’s novel: a secret, conspiratorial, white-supremacist Order dedicated to monotheism. Atonists are defenders of Western Civilization. Freud is an Atonist, as are fictional baddies like Hinckle Von Vampton. Von Vampton is the ripest of the novel’s Fausts. By novel’s end, we learn that Atonism originates among worshippers of Set.
As for Faust:
“His sorcery, white magic, his bokorism will improve. Soon he will be able to annihilate 1000000s by pushing a button,” predicts Berbelang, edging now into the realm of the prophetic. “I do not believe that a Yellow or Black hand will push this button but a robot-like descendent of Faust the quack will. The dreaded bokor, a humbug who doesn’t know when to stop” (91).
Berbelang voices his concern about Faust over coffee with Thor Wintergreen. Thor is the Mu’tafikah’s sole white member. Others in the group oppose Thor’s involvement, fearing he’ll betray them — as indeed he does. What are we to make of this betrayal?
For those who think “mumbo jumbo” just means “superstitious nonsense” or “gibberish,” a note on the novel’s title page reveals otherwise. The phrase enters English, writes Reed, by way of the Mandingo phrase mā-mā-gyo-mbō, meaning “a magician who makes the troubled spirits of ancestors go away” (7).
Berbelang suggests that the ancestors who need to go away are bokors like Faust. “We must purge the bokor from you,” he tells Thor. “We must teach you [Western man] the difference between a healer, a holy man, and a duppy who returns from the grave and causes mischief. We must infuse you with the mysteries that Jes Grew implies” (91).
Mu’tafikah member José Fuentes compares Thor to conquistadors like Cortez, Pizarro, and Balboa. He tells Thor, “You carry them in your blood as I carry the blood of Montezuma; expeditions of them are harbored by your heart and your mind carries their supply trains […]. The costumes may have changed but the blood is still the same, gringo” (86).
Fuentes’s view is based on the idea of “racial soul.” “Race-soul” was a concept from Nazi ideology. Fuentes’s use of this concept seems to betray a kind of reverse racism underpinning his suspicion of Thor.
Berbelang, meanwhile, rejects this view and decides to trust Thor. Berbelang’s hope or belief — Reed’s, too, I suppose — is that the “racial soul” is a fiction. Otherwise, if there is such a thing, if there is “a piece of Faust the mountebank residing in a corner of the White man’s mind,” warns Berbelang, “then we are doomed” (92).
What does it mean, then, for Reed to have Thor betray the Mu’tafikah soon thereafter, leading to Berbelang’s murder? Is Reed’s decision to kill off Berbelang an expression of Afropessimism?
Trance-Scripts 