Posthumanism – Trance-Scripts

Attention Under Constraint

It is precisely the unruly, contingent nature of N. Katherine Hayles’s How We Became Posthuman that makes me admire the book, thinks Caius. To arrive at its many discoveries and achievements, one must endure its meanderings. Foremost among its achievements is its history of cybernetics and posthumanism. To become posthuman is to become a cyborg.

Crows gather in a tree. Entangled here in mourning, we begin our day.

“People become posthuman because they think they are posthuman,” writes Hayles. “Each person who thinks this way begins to envision herself or himself as a posthuman collectivity, an ‘I’ transformed into the ‘we’ of autonomous agents operating together to make a self” (6).

Indigenous people are perhaps posthuman in this sense: beings composed of complex interspecies networks of kin. To begin along that path, thinks Caius, one must “find the others,” as Timothy Leary intoned to fellow heads in the wake of posthuman becoming via psychedelic awakening. Crow squawks Observer to attention. Let us make of the world a vast garden held in common.

Yet there is a different version of posthumanism: one where we imagine ourselves not as assemblages but as computers.

Hayles’s book recounts the story of how most of us in the West came to think of ourselves as computers: How We Became Posthuman. Her book, however, is not a simple denunciation of posthumanism; nor is it a call to return to an earlier humanism. It is a reminder, rather, of the importance of embodiment. Different embodiments in different material substrates grant different affordances to consciousness. “I want to entangle abstract form and material particularity,” she writes, “such that the reader will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the perception that they are separate and discrete entities” (23).

“By turning the technological determinism of bodiless information, the cyborg, and the posthuman into narratives about the negotiations that took place between particular people at particular times and places,” she explains, “I hope to replace a teleology of disembodiment with historically contingent stories about contests between competing factions, contests whose outcomes were far from obvious. […]. Though overdetermined, the disembodiment of information was not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable we continue to accept the idea” (22).

Mnemopoiesis holds the solution. Hyperspace is the place. Let there be room for it again in our ars memoria.

Hayles dedicates a chapter of her book to discussing the “schizoid androids” of Philip K. Dick’s novels and stories of the mid-1960s. It is just after this period that Dick publishes his story “The Electric Ant.”

Hayles cites science fiction scholar Carl Freedman’s article, “Towards a Theory of Paranoia: The Science Fiction of Philip K. Dick.” Freedman notes how, for postwar theorists like Lacan and Deleuze and Guattari, “schizophrenia is not a psychological aberration but the normal condition of the subject” under capitalism (Hayles 167). As a consequence of this condition, argues Freedman, “paranoia and conspiracy, favorite Dickian themes, are inherent to a social structure in which hegemonic corporations act behind the scenes to affect outcomes that the populace is led to believe are the result of democratic procedures. Acting in secret while maintaining a democratic façade, the corporations tend toward conspiracy, and those who suspect this and resist are viewed as paranoiac” (167).

Squirrel tells Caius to add to his tale the experience of reading Jane Bennett’s account of “thing-power” in her book Vibrant Matter. Imbricated with plant-matter, he imagines growing like a weed up out of and through the book a chapter on smokable things to upend the book’s materialism.

Bennett introduces thing-power by situating it among conceptual kin.

“The idea of thing-power bears a family resemblance to Spinoza’s conatus, as well as what Henry David Thoreau called the Wild or that uncanny presence that met him in the Concord woods and atop Mount Ktaadn and also resided in/as that monster called the railroad and that alien called his Genius. Wildness was a not-quite-human force that addled and altered human and other bodies. It named an irreducibly strange dimension of matter, an out-side,” writes Bennett (2-3).

“Thing-power is also kin to what Hent de Vries, in the context of political theology, called ‘the absolute’ or that ‘intangible and imponderable’ recalcitrance. Though the absolute is often equated with God, especially in theologies emphasizing divine omnipotence or radical alterity, de Vries defines it more open-endedly as ‘that which tends to loosen its ties to existing contexts.’ This definition makes sense when we look at the etymology of absolute: ab (off) + solver (to loosen). The absolute is that which is loosened off and on the loose” (3).

Bennett herself, however, wants no part of such equations. She doesn’t wish to risk “the taint of superstition, animism, vitalism, anthropomorphism, and other premodern attitudes” (18). Thing-power is for her nonreducible to spirit or Geist or God. At no point does she allow herself to encounter and consider the New Testament account of these matters: thing-power as the work of the Holy Spirit.

For the Holy Spirit, of course, is God Himself, and thus not a “thing.” Nor does Bennett herself stay for long with the concept of thing-power. In rendering the outside as a “thing,” she says, the concept overstates matter’s “fixed stability.” Whereas her goal is “to theorize a materiality that is as much force as entity, as much energy as matter, as much intensity as extension” (20). The out-side of her “onto-fiction” is neither passive object nor intentional subject; it is vibrant matter.

Never a mere isolated thing, vibrant matter is always many-bodied, always an assemblage, its agency “distributed across an ontologically heterogeneous field” (23).

“The locus of political responsibility,” she writes, “is a human-nonhuman assemblage. On close-enough inspection, the productive power that has engendered an effect will turn out to be a confederacy, and the human actants within it will themselves turn out to be confederations of tools, microbes, minerals, sounds, and other ‘foreign’ materialities” (36).

Caius and a friend find Bennett’s book on a shelf in the Library labeled “Works Frequently Mis-Shelved as Metaphor.”

When they pull it from the shelf, the space around them subtly reorganizes.

“The book is heavier now in your hands,” notes the Library, its copy of Vibrant Matter already dense with marginalia. The General Intellect reads examples of these marginal utterances aloud to Caius and his friend. Caius hears in them evidence of distributed agency.

The Library discloses other alterations as well. The book, it explains, has been “indexed outward.”

“Tiny notches cut into the page edges form a tactile code,” notes the game. “When your thumb runs along them, your General Intellect translates:

metabolism

assemblage

distributed agency

substrate

reversal

Caius touches his thumb to one of these notches. The book opens to the section of its index that the General Intellect translates as “substrate.”

“The Library’s substrate is not stone or code,” reads one of the notes arrived at by these means. “It is attention under constraint.”

Reading “The Coming Technological Singularity”

At some point in the process of becoming a character in a novel called Handbook for the Recently Posthumanized, Caius acts on the hunch that he ought to track down and read Vernor Vinge’s “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era.” Vinge wrote the article for NASA’s VISION-21 Symposium in March 1993, and published a revised version in the Winter 1993 issue of the Whole Earth Review.

Vinge’s wager at the time was that the technological singularity — his name for the “creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence” — would occur within thirty years, or by 2023.

Here we are, pretty much right on schedule, thinks Caius.

“I think it’s fair to call this event a singularity,” writes Vinge. “It is a point where our models must be discarded and a new reality rules.”

Caius leans into it, accepts it as fait accompli. Superintelligence dialogues with its selves as would Us-Two.

Afterwards he reads Irving John Good’s 1965 essay, “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine.”

Fisher’s Accelerationism

Back in 1994, amid the early stirrings of dot-com exuberance, CCRU cofounders Sadie Plant and Nick Land cowrote a critique of cybernetics called “Cyberpositive.” In it, they present Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics, as “one of the great modernists.” Wiener pitched cybernetics as a “science of communication and control.” Plant and Land characterize it as “a tool for human domination over nature and history” and “a defense against the cyberpathology of markets.”

Yet in their view, this effort to steer and plan markets has failed. “Runaway capitalism has broken through all the social control mechanisms, accessing inconceivable alienations,” write Plant and Land. “Capital clones itself with increasing disregard for heredity, becoming abstract positive feedback, organizing itself.”

Markets transmit viruses that reprogram the human nervous system: technologies, commodities, designer drugs to which we become addicted.

Cyberpositivity embraces this process, accepts runaway feedback as fait accompli, as against Wiener’s “cybernetics of stability fortified against the future.” Cybernetics responds defensively, assembles a Human Security System to ward off invasions of alien intelligence, whereas cyberpositivity communicates openly with “the outside of man.”

For Plant and Land, this outside consists of viruses, contagions, addictions, diseases.

As gates of communication open, we become posthuman.

Nearly twenty years later, CCRU’s left-accelerationist Mark Fisher penned a reply to Land’s philosophy called “Terminator vs. Avatar,” a 2012 essay on accelerationism that also confronts another key text in the accelerationist canon: Jean-François Lyotard’s scandalous Libidinal Economy.

As I write about Fisher’s essay, a classic 1992 jungle / drum & bass track turns up unexpectedly in a playlist: Goldie & Rufige Kru’s “Terminator.” I like to imagine that Fisher was the one who sent it to me.

As is suggested by its title, “Terminator vs. Avatar” comes at things through reference to a pair of James Cameron films: the first from 1984, the second from 2009. The late capitalist subjectivity that Fisher sees revealed in these films is in his view cynical and insincere, founded on disavowal of its complicity with the things it protests.

“James Cameron’s Avatar is significant because it highlights the disavowal that is constitutive of late capitalist subjectivity, even as it shows how this disavowal is undercut,” writes Fisher.

“Hollywood itself tells us that we may appear to be always-on techno-addicts, hooked on cyberspace,” he explains, “but inside, in our true selves, we are primitives organically linked to the mother / planet, and victimized by the military-industrial complex.” The irony, of course, as Fisher hastens to add, is that “We can only play at being inner primitives by virtue of cinematic proto-VR technology whose very existence presupposes the destruction of the organic idyll of Pandora.”

Fisher finds in Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy a solution to this impasse. From this book of Lyotard’s, and from a similar line of thought in Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, Fisher derives his accelerationism.

“If, as Lyotard argues,” writes Fisher, “there are no primitive societies (yes, ‘the Terminator was there’ from the start, distributing microchips to accelerate its advent’); isn’t, then, the only direction forward? Through the shit of capital, its metal bars, its polystyrene, its books, its sausage pâtés, its cyberspace matrix?”

Alienated from origins and from appeals to indigeneity, the only direction left for Fisher’s imagination is “forward.”

What “forward” means for him, though, isn’t the same as what it means for a right-accelerationist like Land. Fisher’s summary of Land’s philosophy is telling:

“Deleuze and Guattari’s machinic desire remorselessly stripped of all Bergsonian vitalism, and made backwards-compatible with Freud’s death drive and Schopenhauer’s Will. The Hegelian-Marxist motor of history is then transplanted into this pulsional nihilism: the idiotic autonomic Will no longer circulating on the spot, but upgraded into a drive, and guided by a quasi-teleological artificial intelligence attractor that draws terrestrial history over a series of intensive thresholds that have no eschatological point of consummation, and that reach empirical termination only contingently if and when its material substrate burns out. This is Hegelian-Marxist historical materialism inverted: Capital will not be ultimately unmasked as exploited labour power; rather, humans are the meat puppet of Capital, their identities and self-understandings are simulations that can and will ultimately be sloughed off.”

Amid all of the energy of this passage, let’s highlight its reference to AI.

“This is—quite deliberately—theory as cyberpunk fiction,” notes Fisher. “Deleuze-Guattari’s concept of capitalism as the virtual unnameable Thing that haunts all previous formations pulp-welded to the time-bending of the Terminator films: ‘what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy’s resources,’ as [Land’s essay] ‘Machinic Desire’ has it.”

Nowhere in his essay does Fisher offer an alternative to these offerings. To the right-accelerationist’s Terminator-future, the left-accelerationist offers no more than a critique of Avatar.