We are already data waiting to be recorded. We are not individual substances, but manifolds of differences that are bonded socially and intersubjectively by the manner in which such manifolds of differences are recorded, operated, ordered, permutated, and reconditioned. Any movement or gesture that we perform can be recorded as syntactic information. Even what is called noise can be codified since it is only finite incompression. To be invisible here is not to exist. The sensors today that track and surveil our activity are thus only exposing the informational nature of existence. Theocracy is a computational regime since it is based on the instructions we are given in order to operate. The instructions are always initially revealed rather than deduced. The rules for control come from outside of the system initially. A fundamental theocratic movement has to occur wherein the administrative rules are not immanently revealed, but imposed from a transcendent source. And, when there will be a vast power available to read anyone’s mind (now that the truth of thought’s relation to existential space and time has been revealed) as the brain is itself extended, how can one be sure that those who will wield that power not do so in a corrupt fashion.? What besides a theocracy will constrain them?
"Once you drop the Big Scenic Imaginary, and stop thinking about what you say or do in terms of its reception and acknowledgment by other individuals modeled on your own desire for reception and acknowledgment there is no other way of thinking about what you do than by seeking to indemnify it in relation to all the things that can happen as a result"
I can readily confess that i'm having considerable difficulty distinguishing that there bit from the thought that one should be content to just talk to oneself. Indeed, you have averred on the GAlist recently that you cannot stress enough how little you care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you, and here you appear to be moving that assertion into the theoretical troposphere...
It's impossible to know how much one might be talking to oneself, even when others are agreeing or disagreeing. I was trying to elicit on the list some kind of response other than marking my deviation from this or that GA doxa. But it's also possible to write for those who are not yet reading and whill not be in dialogue with you but rather thinking about what they might do with your texts at some point in the future
"Once you drop the Big Scenic Imaginary, and stop thinking about what you say or do in terms of its reception and acknowledgment by other individuals modeled on your own desire for reception and acknowledgment there is no other way of thinking about what you do than by seeking to indemnify it in relation to all the things that can happen as a result"
I can readily confess that i'm having considerable difficulty distinguishing that there bit from the thought that one should be content to just talk to oneself. Indeed, you have averred on the GAlist recently that you cannot stress enough how little you care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you, and here you appear to be moving that assertion into the theoretical troposphere...
It's impossible to know how much one might be talking to oneself, even when others are agreeing or disagreeing. I was trying to elicit on the list some kind of response other than marking my deviation from this or that GA doxa. But it's also possible to write for those who are not yet reading and whill not be in dialogue with you but rather thinking about what they might do with your texts at some point in the future