Clipped Utterances of Shock and Dismay


From the forthcoming The Burning Block No.8

But what... I can't even...

1.0 A breathy reprieve and its implication of easily locatable yet untranslatable horror.

1.1 A hard won indolence is the birthright of society.

1.2 'As a rule, I've vowed to stay away from politics in this blog, but in this case, I have to make an exception.'

1.21 The real estate blog is compromised. The blog about blogging is compromised. The philosophy blog is compromised. The occult blog is compromised. The spiritual and religious blog is compromised. The dating blog is compromised. Everything has entered the political and, in turn, the political has entered everything.

1.211 The relationship between modern politics and everything else has only become enunciated, as it was there all along.

But what... I can't even...

2.0 Group identity cannot but reveal itself as a convulsive graduation from the particular to the essence.

2.1 The individual may thrive as his group collapses, but it is hard for the group to distinguish between a thriving that extends naturally from a sort of flight and quick calculation (or just coldness in the face of a falling structure which cannot be helped even by being propped up just before its final few inches to the ground) and a thriving at the expense of the group.

2.11 The individual lends itself to the vulnerability of scapegoatism. 

2.12 Group identity is had at the expense of the scapegoat.

2.121 The scapegoat is not simply an unfortunate bystander of the group but the very pillar on which it stands.

2.2 Group identity is a relationship with sovereignty.

2.21 Group identity does not serve to replace sovereignty. Where it does so, it becomes a prison. 

2.22 A group identity as a graduation from the particular to the essence may reach the top of its climb by destroying particulars (if not the particular).

2.23 Purity or essence becomes a new particular. The new particular is a new experience.

2.24 The new particular/new experience is just as particular from the perspective of the witness/object as it is from the subject.

2.241 The very distinction of the particular subject as group identity forms the trajectory of destiny as such.

2.242 This can be codified in two directions which we can term crudely as 'negative' and 'positive' direction. 'Negative' direction is the recognition that other particulars cannot be assigned any destiny from the outside; its destiny is ostensibly treated as nonexistent or, at the very most, something to be left to itself if it does, in fact, exist. The positive direction is that of essentializing destiny from within this new group subjectivity.

2.2421 The essentialized destiny, operating in time, takes on eschatological importance. A forward motion toward an essence whose seed has been planted by the subjectivity of group identity becomes the primary object of said subjectivity.

2.2422 This object leaves no room for other objects precisely because it is the object by which no other object needs to be distinguished; it is the complete object par excellance. 

2.2423 The ultimate object can be likened to a place of rest. It has as much to do with the nature of action as it does with space time. The goal is to achieve the dominion in which action itself exists for no more locatable end. This action could be considered to occupy a space which it makes sacred precisely through its sense of completion.

2.2424 As action as we know it is understood to be something which takes place within space time, it is from the outset placed in our minds as inevitably, by definition, analogous to the sequence of cause and effect. To create a space which is sacred, in which the very height of action operates on a level of self-completion, the nature of cause and its relationship with effect must be reconfigured; a revolution must take place. This happens as much in the mind as it can happen in space time. 

2.2425 As this apprehension of sacred space can occupy the mind or the zeitgeist, often with one influencing the other, the distinction between inner and outer is folded together. Out of this dialectic between inner and outer which ultimately resolves itself in the form of a noetic point, a form of gnosis which understands the nature of the 'whole' as object, it becomes evident that the movement of sacred space rests not on the subjectivity of the particular in its individual or its group form, but according to a determination which is finally unlocatable; it would appear to come from beyond.

2.243 Sovereignty enters subjectivity precisely in relation to subjectivity's ability to become an empty vessel for it; it must learn to open itself to the possibility of a relationship with time and space which, finally, is not determined but determines.

2.244 The distance between the act and its effect closes. Act is no longer a starting point which measures an innate deficiency which must be overcome or combated, but rather, efficiency and deficiency are simply products of the central function of the subjectivity which has absorbed determination as its primary function and purpose.

2.3 Sovereignty has more than one relationship to subjectivity.

2.31 Sovereignty can, from the void, create the conditions for identity. 

2.32 Identity can act as a tool to attain sovereignty. It indicates itself as one point on a scale whose ultimate potential for realization is, in fact, the realization of an abstract form of which the one point is a type. 

2.33 The abstract form creates the conditions for the identification of the particular in proportion with just how much the abstract form can define itself at the particular's expense.

2.331 Group identity simultaneously depends upon this tendency for an abstract form to objectify its subjects by appealing to that very subjectivity in the name of an ultimate object. Group identity codifies the dissolution of distinction between subject and object.

2.3311 This dissolution can only ever be, finally, simulacra. The coterminous relationship the subjects of group identity and their abstract object (their sovereignty) see to it that the one does not exist without the other by definition. Even this antagonism is curated for the purpose of securing the connection of subjects to sovereignty, as even in the event that sovereignty self-dissolves, it only does so to appear in another adjacent form.