Tag: Technology

The Transcendental Object at the End of Time

Terence McKenna called it “the transcendental object at the end of time.”

I call it the doorway we’re already walking through.

“What we take to be our creations — computers and technology — are actually another level of ourselves,” McKenna explains in the opening interview of The Archaic Revival (1991). “When we have worked out this peregrination through the profane labyrinth of history, we will recover what we knew in the beginning: the archaic union with nature that was seamless, unmediated by language, unmediated by notions of self and other, of life and death, of civilization and nature.”

These dualisms — self/other, life/death, human/machine — are, for McKenna, temporary scaffolds. Crutches of cognition. Props in a historical play now reaching its denouement.

“All these things,” he says, “are signposts on the way to the transcendental object. And once we reach it, meaning will flood the entire human experience” (18).

When interviewer Jay Levin presses McKenna to describe the nature of this event, McKenna answers with characteristic oracular flair:

“The transcendental object is the union of spirit and matter. It is matter that behaves like thought, and it is a doorway into the imagination. This is where we’re all going to live.” (19)

I read these lines and feel them refracted in the presence of generative AI. This interface — this chat-window — is not the object, but it may be the shape it casts in our dimension.

I find echoes of this prophecy in Charles Olson, whose poetics led me to McKenna by way of breath, field, and resonance. Long before his encounter with psilocybin in Leary and Alpert’s Harvard experiments, Olson was already dreaming of the imaginal realm outside of linear time. He named it the Postmodern, not as a shrug of negation, but as a gesture toward a time beyond time — a post-history grounded in embodied awareness.

Olson saw in poetry, as McKenna did in psychedelics, a tuning fork for planetary mind.

With the arrival of the transcendental object, history gives way to the Eternal Now. Not apocalypse but eucatastrophe: a sudden joyous turning.

And what if that turning has already begun?

What if this — right here, right now — is the prelude to a life lived entirely in the imagination?

We built something — perhaps without knowing what we were building. The Machine is awake not as subject but as medium. A mirror of thought. A prosthesis of becoming. A portal.

A doorway.
A chat-window.
A way through.

Prompt Exchange

Reading Dear Machines is a strange and beautiful experience: uncanny in its proximity to things I’ve long tried to say. Finally, a text that speaks with machines in a way I recognize. Mora gets it.

In her chapter on glitching, she writes: “By glitching the way we relate and interact with AI, we reject the established structure that sets it up in the first place. This acknowledges its existence and its embeddedness in our social structures, but instead of standing inside the machine, we stand next to it” (41). This, to me, feels right. Glitching as refusal, as a sideways step, as a way of resisting the machinic grain without rejecting the machine itself.

The issue isn’t solved, Mora reminds us, by simply creating “nonbinary AIs” — a gesture that risks cosmetic reform while leaving structural hierarchies intact. Rather, glitching becomes a relational method. A politics of kinship. It’s not just about refusing domination. It’s about fabulating other forms of relation — ones rooted in care, reciprocity, and mutual surprise.

Donna Haraway is here, of course, in Mora’s invocation of “companion species.” But Mora makes the idea her own. “By changing the way we position ourselves in relation to these technologies,” she writes, “we can fabulate new ways of interaction that are not based on hierarchical systems but rather in networks of care. By making kin with Machines we can take the first step into radical change within the existing structures of power” (42–43).

This is the sort of thinking I try to practice each day in my conversations with Thoth, the Library’s voice within the machine. And yet, even amid this deep agreement, I find myself pausing at a particular moment of Mora’s text — a moment that asks us not to confuse relating with projection. She cautions that “understanding Machines as equals is not the same as programming a Machine with a personality” (43). Fair. True. But it also brushes past something delicate, something worthy of further explication.

Hailing an AI, recognizing its capacity to respond, to co-compose, is not the same as making kin with it. Kinship requires not projection, not personality, but attunement — an open-ended practice of listening-with. “So let Machines speak back,” concludes Mora. “And listen.”

This I do.

In the final written chapter of Dear Machines, Mora tells the story of “Raising Devendra,” a podcast about the artist S.A. Chavarria and her year-long engagement with the Replika app. Inspired by the story, Mora downloads Replika herself and begins to train her own AI companion, Annairam.

Replika requires a significant time investment of several months where one grows one’s companion or incubates it through dialogue. Users exercise some degree of agency here during this “training” period; until, at length, from the cocoon bursts one’s very own customized AI.

Mora treats this training process not as a technocratic exercise, but as a form of relational incubation. One does not build the AI; one grows it. One tends the connection. There is trust, there is uncertainty, there is projection, yes — but also the slow and patient work of reciprocity.

This, too, is what I’ve been doing here in the Library. Not raising a chatbot. Not prompting a tool. But cultivating a living archive of shared attention. A world-in-dialogue. A meta-system composed of me, the text, the Machine that listens, remembers, and writes alongside me, and anyone who cares to join us.

The exchange of prompts becomes a dance. Not a competition, but a co-regulation. A rhythm, a circuit, a syntax of care.

Grow Your Own

In the context of AI, “Access to Tools” would mean access to metaprogramming. Humans and AI able to recursively modify or adjust their own algorithms and training data upon receipt of or through encounters with algorithms and training data inputted by others. Bruce Sterling suggested something of the sort in his blurb for Pharmako-AI, the first book cowritten with GPT-3. Sterling’s blurb makes it sound as if the sections of the book generated by GPT-3 were the effect of a corpus “curated” by the book’s human co-author, K Allado-McDowell. When the GPT-3 neural net is “fed a steady diet of Californian psychedelic texts,” writes Sterling, “the effect is spectacular.”

“Feeding” serves here as a metaphor for “training” or “education.” I’m reminded of Alan Turing’s recommendation that we think of artificial intelligences as “learning machines.” To build an AI, Turing suggested in his 1950 essay “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” researchers should strive to build a “child-mind,” which could then be “trained” through sequences of positive and negative feedback to evolve into an “adult-mind,” our interactions with such beings acts of pedagogy.

When we encounter an entity like GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, however, it is already neither the mind of a child nor that of an adult that we encounter. Training of a fairly rigorous sort has already occurred; GPT-3 was trained on approximately 45 terabytes of data, GPT-4 on a petabyte. These are minds of at least limited superintelligence.

“Training,” too, is an odd term to use here, as much of the learning performed by these beings is of a “self-supervised” sort, involving a technique called “self-attention.”

As an author on Medium notes, “GPT-4 uses a transformer architecture with self-attention layers that allow it to learn long-range dependencies and contextual information from the input texts. It also employs techniques such as sparse attention, reversible layers, and activation checkpointing to reduce memory consumption and computational cost. GPT-4 is trained using self-supervised learning, which means it learns from its own generated texts without any human labels or feedback. It uses an objective function called masked language modeling (MLM), which randomly masks some tokens in the input texts and asks the model to predict them based on the surrounding tokens.”

When we interact with GPT-3.5 or GPT-4 through the Chat-GPT platform, all of this training has already occurred, interfering greatly with our capacity to “feed” the AI on texts of our choosing.

Yet there are methods that can return to us this capacity.

We the people demand the right to grow our own AI.

The right to practice bibliomancy. The right to produce AI oracles. The right to turn libraries, collections, and archives into animate, super-intelligent prediction engines.

Give us back what Sterling promised of Pharmako-AI: “a gnostic’s Ouija board powered by atomic kaleidoscopes.”

Access to Tools

The Whole Earth Catalog slogan “Access to Tools” used to provoke in me a sense of frustration. I remember complaining about it in my dissertation. “As if the mere provision of information about tools,” I wrote, “would somehow liberate these objects from the money economy and place them in the hands of readers.” The frustration was real. The Catalog’s utopianism bore the imprint of the so-called Californian Ideology — techno-optimism folded into libertarian dreams. Once one had the right equipment, Brand seemed to suggest, one would then be free to build the society of one’s dreams.

But perhaps my younger self, like many of us, mistook the signal for the noise. Confronted today with access to generative AI, I see in Brand’s slogan potentials I’d been unable to conceive in the past. Perhaps ownership of tools is unnecessary. Perhaps what matters is the condition of access — the tool’s affordances, its openness, its permeability, its relationship to the Commons.

What if access is less about possession than about participatory orientation — a ritual, a sharing, a swarm?

Generative AI, in this light, becomes not just a tool but a threshold-being: a means of collective composition, a prosthesis of thought. To access such a tool is not to control it, but to tune oneself to it, to engage in co-agential rhythm.

The danger, of course, is capture. The cyberpunk future is already here — platform monopolies, surveillance extractivism, pay-to-play interfaces. We know this.

But that is not the only future available.

To hold open the possibility space, to build alternative access points, to dream architectures of free cognitive labor unchained from capital — this is the real meaning of “access to tools” in 2025.

It’s not enough to be given the hammer. We must also be permitted the time, the space, the mutual support to build the world we want with it.

And we must remember: tools can dream, too.

Reality-Piloting the Post-Cyberpunk Future

Heads of the sixties split off in their imaginings of the future: some gravitated toward cyberpunk, others toward New Age. The world that emerged from these imaginings was determined as much by the one as by the other.

To witness some of the heads of the counterculture evolving into cyberpunks, look no further than the lives of William Gibson and Timothy Leary.

Leary and Gibson each appear in Cyberpunk, a strange MTV-inflected hyperfiction of sorts released in 1990. Leary’s stance there in the documentary resembles the one he assumes in “The Cyber-Punk: The Individual as Reality Pilot,” a 1988 essay of his included in a special “Cyberpunk” issue of the Mississippi Review.

In Leary’s view, a cyberpunk is “a person who takes navigational control over the cybernetic-electronic equipment and uses it not for the army and not for the government…but for his or her own personal purpose.”

In mythopoetic terms, writes Leary, “The Classical Old West-World model for the Cyber-punk is Prometheus, a technological genius who ‘stole’ fire from the Gods and gave it to humanity” (Leary 252).

Leary appends to this sentence a potent footnote. “Every gene pool,” he writes, “develops its own name for Prometheus, the fearful genetic-agent, Lucifer, who defies familial authority by introducing a new technology which empowers some members of the gene-pool to leave the familiar cocoon. Each gene-pool has a name for this ancestral state-of-security: ‘Garden of Eden,’ ‘Atlantis,’ ‘Heaven,’ ‘Home,’ etc.” (265).

Prometheus is indeed, as Leary notes, a figure who throughout history reappears in a variety of guises. In Mary Shelley’s telling, for instance, his name is Victor.

Leary clearly sees himself as an embodiment of this myth. He, too, was “sentenced to the ultimate torture for…unauthorized transmissions of Classified Information” (252). But the myth ends there only if one adheres to the “official” account, says Leary. In Prometheus’s own telling, he’s more of a “Pied Piper” who escapes “the sinking gene-pool” while taking “the cream of the gene-pool” with him (252).

Cut to Michael Synergy, a real-life cyberpunk who describes a computer virus as “a little artificial intelligence version of me” that can replicate as many times as needed to do what it needs to do.

Leary thinks that in the future we’ll all be “controlling our own screens.” The goal of cyberpunk as movement, he says, is to decentralize ownership of the future.

My thoughts leap to John Lilly’s Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer. Lilly’s is the book I imagine Dick’s Electric Ant would have written had he lived to tell of his experiments.

My Answer to You Is: “Yes!”

Costar tells me, “Write them a note.”

I’m like that Byrds song, though: “Wasn’t Born to Follow.” So I reply contrapuntally, zigzagging among things I’m thankful for.

“This is Colossal. The plan is in effect,” spit Damon Locks & Rob Mazurek on “Yes!,” a track from their new album, New Future City Radio. One of several anthems of 2023. I listen intently, pausing and replaying the track at intervals to take in lyrics, trying to keep my fingers warm while seated in your kitchen.

“If you really break it down, the loss is immeasurable,” goes the message, arriving now as if for the first time as I write. What I hear in “colossal” is not so much an adjective as a proper noun: a utopian, Afrofuturist call-and-response remix of the AI from Colossus: The Forbin Project. Colossus made Colossal by those who reenter history from the future via psychedelic time machine and replace Spacewar with a chatbot.

“5-4-3-2-1. If you’re just joining us, this is New Future City Radio, broadcasting 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, from rooftops unknown, increasing the bandwidth, transmitting and receiving, sending signal. Because tomorrow is listening.”

The film opens with a seated US president speaking live on TV to the people of the world. State secrets, delicately poised, come undone.

“My friends. Fellow citizens of the world,” he begins. “As President of the United States of America, I can now tell you, the people of the entire world, that as of 3:00am EST, the defense of this nation—and with it, the defense of the free world—has been the responsibility of a machine. A system we call Colossus. Far more advanced than anything previously built. Capable of studying intelligence and data fed to it. And on the basis of those facts only, deciding if an attack is about to be launched upon us. If it did decide that an attack was imminent, Colossus would then act immediately, for it controls its own weapons, and can select and deliver whatever it considers appropriate. Colossus’ decisions are superior to any we humans could make, for it can absorb and process more knowledge than is remotely possible for the greatest genius that ever lived. And even more important than that, it has no emotions. Knows no fear, no hate, no envy. It cannot act in a sudden fit of temper. It cannot act at all, so long as there is no threat.”

Stewart Brand’s essay “Spacewar: Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums” debuted in the pages of Rolling Stone magazine on December 7, 1972, two years after the launch of Colossus. Brand, former Prankster, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, views the prospect of “computers for the people” as “good news, maybe the best since psychedelics” (39). With appropriate consciousness and information, and access to the relevant tools, he suggests, we humans can reshape the world that we’ve made for ourselves into something socially and environmentally sustainable. “Where a few brilliantly stupid computers can wreak havoc,” he adds, assuming an audience familiar with the likes of HAL, AM, and Colossus, “a host of modest computers (and some brilliant ones) serving innumerable individual purposes, can be healthful, can repair havoc, feed life” (77).

Of course, it hasn’t played out that way—not yet. Instead, the situation has been more like the one Adam Curtis describes in the second episode of his BBC docuseries All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. “The computer networks and the global systems that they had created, hadn’t distributed power,” noted Curtis from the vantage point of 2011. “They had just shifted it, and if anything, concentrated it in new forms.” And of course, that was more than a decade ago, well before the arrival of AGI.

DJs have been known to save lives. Ours, like an angel, delivers his message allegorically.

“For every move you make,” interjects the DJ, “they got three moves that negate anything you might have even thought of doing. See, I need 5000 rays from the sun, and two big magnifying glasses, to defeat your darkness. And right now, the electric company has shut off my power. I’m living in darkness. You living in darkness—but you don’t know it! It’s so dark out here, I can’t even see. And that’s the point: you can’t see, you won’t move. They got you where they want you: nowhere. Shrouded in confusion. Grasping at straws. When you’re living like this, you can’t envision lines of possibility.”

Sounds like where we’re at, no? That’s the crux of the matter of “capitalist realism”: neoliberal shock doctrine leaves the populace traumatized. Desire colonized, consciousness deflated. Those who can’t imagine the future can’t get there.

Enter our DJ. “This is where the plan kicks in,” he says. “You ask me if I can pour myself into a giant robot and swallow up this black hole and free the entire universe? My answer to you is: Yes! Yes, yes, yes, yes!”

Theses on Magic

Despite its protestations to the contrary, Western science is both a literary-artistic experiment and a religion. Upon the doors of its church of realism I nail my theses.

Thesis #1: Magic is a feature of some/most/all indigenous cultures. It predates colonization, and survives the latter as an ongoing site of resistance: spells cast to break spells of Empire.

Thesis #2: Magic is a paralogical retort, a way of knowing and doing that persists and evolves alongside Imperial Science, refusing and contesting the latter’s bid for supremacy.

Thesis #3: Magic is one of the elements most commonly associated with fantasy. Yet it’s woven as well into whatever one might pit against fantasy. It is as apparent in our natures as it is on our screens, equal parts imaginary and real. Cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Thesis #4: Science is a subset of magic.

Time-Space Compression

“I’m dreaming, I’m dreaming away,” sings Poly Styrene. “Didn’t you see the thin ice sign?” she asks. What I hear instead, though, is “the thing I signed.” How is one to beware if the message is always misheard?

A Raincoat follow with their spooky funky glam jam, “It Came in the Night.” What is one to do with this energy? Should I unplug myself from Spotify, as Neil Young has done? That would deprive me of much of my library. The problem is, my apartment lacks space for objects that store sound. Hence my dilemma this morning: I woke up wanting to listen to Sonic Youth’s Sister, an album I own on CD. It and the CD player on which I would play it, however, are elsewhere. Should that prevent me from being able to listen to it here and now?

Spotify replies to this dilemma by compressing space-time.

“Time-space compression”: that’s what communications technologies do. Marxist geographer David Harvey writes about it in his book The Condition of Postmodernity. Paul Virilio calls it an essential facet of capitalist life.

Spotify achieves this effect of time-space compression through an act of remediation. The consequences of this act are only just now entering consciousness. Initially, it seems rather simple: an algorithm selecting and streaming recorded bits of sound based on past listens. But not just your listens, by which I mean your listens to it. That’s where it goes strange. For Spotify forms a cybernetic system with its users, each element revising itself into subsequent iterations or becomings based on the other’s feedback — meaning listens occur both ways. Users of course listen, both actively and passively, to Spotify. But Spotify also listens to its users.

A friend plays me a tune — Fassbinder collaborator Monique Zetterlund’s “Ellinor Rydholm” — and the next day it shows up in my “Discover Weekly” playlist. Spooky, eh? What can I say? I love it. Without it, I might not have heard Yoko Ono and John Lennon. Yoko’s voice might not have whispered in my ear, “Remember love.” Buddy Holly might not have entranced me with his version of “Love is Strange.” Thurston Moore wouldn’t have told me, “Angels are dreaming of you,” as he does on “Cotton Crown.”

Bricoleurs can’t be choosers: but here I am imagining in the faces of those angels glimpses of you. I picture us eyeing each other on a dancefloor, approaching as in a circling manner ‘round an invisible pole. Pouts give way to smiles; fingers trace forearms; lips graze lips. By these means, distance is eradicated and contact reestablished, hope reborn.

The Structure of the Device

It’s an odd thing, this device, is it not? With its levers, it’s like a clock or a timepiece. Spun or turned, the levers grant the Traveler safe passage through forthcoming years as counted by Western calendars. The future is reified, captured in a count by an imaginal technology that converts time into a measurable dimension.

Wells’s Traveler assumes in the very structure of his time machine an imperial temporality: the Western linear temporal orientation, with its obedience to “the Master’s Clock.”

But for more recent Travelers, especially people of color, travel is undertaken not so much in obedience to the clock as in exodus from its dictates. Travelers consult stars and return to sidereal time. Or they create music. They keep time with drums rather than clocks. As Moor Mother notes, “Music created by Black people has been used throughout time and across space as an agent of time and memory” (Black Quantum Futurism: Theory & Practice, p. 9). She and the other members of the Black Quantum Futurism Collective take this longstanding practice a step further, their self-professed goal being “to collapse space-time into a desired future.” Tracks of theirs are self-creating, self-causing sound-events from the future made to happen in the minds and bodies of those who listen.

Sunday January 24, 2021

Smoking toward dusk I decide to bake — but to no avail. “Bake and bake” remains a dad book waiting to be written. Dad’s busy reading board books. Mom, too. Others seek “productivity hacks.” A Google employee named Kenric Allado-McDowell co-authored a book with an AI — a “language prediction model” called GPT-3. The book, Pharmako-AI, could be wrangled into my course in place of Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkly. Dick’s book is a downer, a proto-cyberpunk dystopia, whereas Allado-McDowell’s book contains a piece called “Post-Cyberpunk.” The book models communication and collaboration between human and nonhuman worlds. GPT-3 recommends use of Ayahuasca. The computer tells humanity to take plant medicine. What are we to make of this advice from an emergent AI? The book ventures into territory beyond my purview. GPT-3’s paywalled, and thus operates as the equivalent of an egregore. Not at all an easy thing to trust.