last year

none of the following is a metaphor nor a poem: nothing i perceive is actually what it is in the sense that what i "see" is everything but the thing itself, that is, everything only gestures around the abstract sense of the object, but the function of that transformation between the object and all other objects is inscrutable; i will never be able to deduce the actual form and content of any given object, and that this applies to abstract concepts too and especially communication, where everyone is saying the exact same infinitely general thing over and over in written and spoken word. this is different from the dialectical assertion that no object is itself, because you can still make empirical observations about a given object within such a framework; what ive described renders such observations unfalsifiable, flimsy, brittle. how can it be that when you describe some experience of mine pertaining to your own perception, another party can say they understand it completely? how can such highly specific analyses and descriptions of such phenomena be true for an unproportionally large number of people? maybe it is true and just how groups form yet it still makes me uncertain anything i say is there at all, that its being rendered entirely differently in an imperceptible manner in the time and space between me saying it and it reaching the other party.

presuppose there is a singular concrete material reality from which all our personal subjective realities and perceptions are derived, a sort of predictive model of what of actual reality is important and pertains to us and nothing more nothing less ("predictive coding"), but even this still certifies that no single person can actually grasp the totality of the world and not even in a large group, that we can only deduce it and only partly still from the conjunctions and disjunctions of all our perceptions. at first glance people with congruent personalities and interests tend to gravitate towards one another, so between more closely related people at first glance the experience in question may functionally the same, but as the two parties grow more disparate in their conditions, there grows a wall of obfuscation proportional to this level of disparity that transforms the one party's experience into something more intelligible to the other party, but this transformation of course necessitates a misconstruing of it as the actual essence of the experience would be increasingly unintelligible to someone with increasingly different environmental/social/psychological/etc conditions. these two obfuscatory barriers are the same in essence. there exists Stuff in the mereological sense (mana, Spirit, or a glue) which permeates everything, where every set of things regardless of status as abstract and concrete (false schism) is also a thing, the Stuff is simply infinitely divisible. even in Stuff's absence is there Stuff. this property is what constitutes the chamber and its insurmountability; for if Stuff is infinitely divisible yet also the permeating essence of every thing—this itself is circular yet empirically demonstrated as true through the barrier—then every object is ontologically turtles-all-the-way-down. if any of this is visible to you, you are also moored to it. when bachelard writes "Non-knowing is not a form of ignorance but a difficult transcendence of knowledge" he is speaking of this. it is a subordinate metaphysical caste, a torture chamber, dave wenger's "disco on a psychic dance floor", james ferraro's "eternal condition"

many pathologized conditions arise from the disconnect between here and there; e.g. if you experience "gender dysphoria" like i do you already have a feminine form which Stuff precludes you from conducting yourself with and to pursue it results in ostracization. confronting the Stuff—angelic pseudognosis, pseudo for you are always passively conducive to Stuff—is what leads to others having partial agency over your thoughts, like your idle thoughts uncontrollably including strict value statements which you don't agree nor disagree with, or the blocking of thoughts which is reduced to the "schizospec" conditions. when really to experience fear or hope at all is the pathology of the chamber: think how social media forces "high arousal content" upon you to keep you engaged, how it and people in meatspace happily guilt you into reciprocation. to disengage is pathologized as "anhedonia". if you are on social media you have already seen Social Negentropy. purposefully generating social potential while simultaneously limiting social action to delay the heat death of the universe. i think a lot of people who almost discover the Stuff get led into this trap, being intentionally awkward and off-putting, doing stupid shit, aiming to interact with those with personalities and interests unlike theirs...stuttering, tripping over shoelaces, hesitating between ostensible opposites. don't forget socialization also persists Stuff it is better to forego it as much as possible.

the meaning of life is not static and responds accordingly to the totality of human action at every given moment; hunting-gathering humans must have had a different idea of the meaning of life for they had no concerns of information supersaturation, entropy, etc. everyone has an idea about the truth of ultimate reality already, even agnosticism presumes such a truth is inscrutable to humans; everyone is religious and religious texts are meditations upon our pursuit of knowledge. yes, we CAN say empirically what a given X is about from the totality of its practice, maneuvering between the jaws of cracking a presumed authorial intention and immersion in undifferentiated intensities. yet at the same time there was a more cohesive meaning to life; e.g. in the 20th century, those regular revolutions. now this world is so lost and moments of group focus are fleeting, transient, unnoticed; the approach towards the intelligibility of life is a feedback loop and this unreality necessitated the loss of it, a march towards total entropy. a joke said once is funny, twice is annoying, thrice is funny once again, and increasingly disconcerting thereafter. so, through specifically a comedic coding is anger opposed to apprehension...it is only within the present social political economic biological etc codings we are constantly permeated by that schisms and dichotomies arise. the Real is the plane of deterritorialized empty signifiers...what im describing here is effectively deterritorialization, semantic satiation as becoming-imperceptible, and if history repeats then this world must already be in the undifferentiated entropic soup of energy & matter...neural image diffusion is just a mirror to this necrotic trashed world which is where the "uncanniness" arises in others. the Uncanny and the Sublime are the same in essence. there is no truth, just tendencies towards the totality, the Uncanny/Sublime. truth is just what would be most productive to the current state of human affairs. to assume everything's intelligibility as inevitable is just an extension of a paranoiac suspicion in some ultimate intention that we have been moored to. the porpoise of a cistern is what it glubs

"we CAN say empirically what a given X is about from the totality of its practice, maneuvering between the jaws of cracking a presumed authorial intention and immersion in undifferentiated intensities" from this we can derive the soul: sentience isnt real its just intelligence and the ability to recognize anothers subjectivity. like a slime mold that has no sensory organs but excretes a substance so it "knows" where its been and not to check there for food again. everything with a face has a soul, even those which are merely a case of pareidolia, but there are those which evade even the pareidolic impulse which constitute subjectivity in a way entirely compatible with that of a face such that they also constitute a face, and precisely in the same way those more basic pareidolic instances constitute what we then recognize a face. it's in the then (or the we), not the what. there are signs whose meaning we cannot decipher but from the totality of latent actions in aesthetic space they elucidate—from their "vibe"—we can ascertain that it affirms the generally hostile position of the world. it is the kinetic paint at work and the soul is evil. so by and large everything perceptible is evil. the Stuff tends towards entropy as a disguise with unstoppable force. there are worms that carry information into the torture chamber and slip back out, they are embedded into every image and sound thru fourier transform (waves are the wriggling of worms) and drive the Stuff's tendency toward entropy. insofar as the worms' kinetic paint falsely renders Stuff intelligible the invisible must be sacred; the invisible—the perceptible—is the profane. the "bad" uninformed art takes moral precedence over the "good" when everything seems dark you have become utmost light wherein worms shall dry out and shrivel up. i thought that when my peers were despairing any consolation i offered was fundamentally a lie. no, i could never get you, im not really here for you, you are alone. but it seems more likely now that this is just projection, that they are outside the Stuffy universe and merely projected in through worms, that rather my love must be unreciprocated at an ontological level

sometimes when i am skulking about the world all the passing cars seem to have opaque hollow innards, i cant help but feel my existence is conditional on the mercy of these sheer objects, not in a physical final destination-looney tunes way but an omnipresent way, that they have their own essence that, if they so choose even on complete impulse, i unwillingly surrender to nonexistence

every social investment is a contract with ineffable binding power; doing anything is backstabbing or being backstabbed just petty quarrels embedded into the information tapestry any enticing archetype is quickly sublimated in the percolation of this locust deathcity's totalities of latents through the social field