Prolegomena: The following iterative construct describes the internet.
Traditional philosophical and cultural categories are highly problematic,
given this new communications life-form. I develop instead an analysis
based on EMISSION, SPEW, ADDRESS, RECOGNITION, and PROTOCOL. The essay,
always preliminary, proceeds through a series of numbered paragraphs,
which then rewrite.
The network is a membrane composed of nodes, better considered
intensifications. An intensification possesses an interactive emission.
The emission is characterized as a program space composed of inputs/outputs,
introjections/projections: a space of -jectivity. The emission occurs in
a steep topographic region; distinctions between hardware and software
become blurred, as do more traditional philosophical divisions (subject/
object, body/world, mind/brain).
In fact, traditional ontological considerations are clearly replaced
by an organic episteme; what constitutes knowledge is only flow; data
replaces history; data becomes sourceless. Rather than communication
channels, consider geodesics; rather than geodesics, consider forced
flows; rather than forced flows, consider emissions.
An emission has no input, no output; an emission consists of fragmented
images, the symbolic replaced by the imaginary. An emission is always in
flux; an emission problematizes energy and energy consumption, since it
may simultaneously drain and produce/reproduce. An emission is a chaotic
domain in the vicinity of an unstable attractor; escaping, it quickly
loses history, historiography, temporality itself. Close to the speed
of light, it exists in a temporal well.
The membrane is an enormous hypertext whose linkages thin, occasionally
break, are always redundant. It is neither a fuzzy set nor a classical
one; through a fast-forward topology, it escapes traditional partitioning.
The user deals with an alterity in the form of constantly changing facial
expressions; one is never within or without the alterity, but in a (supine)
position of absorption. The emission clouds close to me; ontologically,
it is that real escaping denotation; ontologically, it is uncanny. Thus
the emission is related to excess, to surplus, to the curlicue or dia-
critical mark, but it absents these, and it is this absenting or ignorance
that constructs the uncanny as waste-product; the blindness of emission
is its site.
To hold onto part of a body, to sever that part, to construe or re-
construe that part, to devour it, tear the surface off: one searches for
the skinned body, (which has the murmur or memory of pain), the
articulation of a truth given by one's own body lost in the emission. It
is good form to search out bondage, which restrains the body absent from
itself, an analog of the screen or permissive membrane which occurs,
going just so far. This is an antiquated ontology or materiality
asserting the inert in the midst of fast-forward, an assertion doomed to
be displaced, sublimated, effaced; one holds onto nothing; as in
classical existentialism, one projects forward in the face of
nothingness (as if nothing were itself an alterity); the hole, however,
is an episteme broken by the screen replacing the mirror stage; the ego
splatters against it (the cum-ego for female and male); fast-forward,
the episteme always already announces its continuation; the
existentialist project is lost in the midst of indirect addresses.
The user is an addict "in the midst"; the user projects; thwarted,
projects again. The membrane appears in the guise of discarded
pornography; one is thrust into pure consumption, no longer beneath the
guise of another pornography, capital itself. Assertions are lost in the
echo of the machine. Thought is defined by flux, by an absolute symbolic
for the user who must be assured of the purity of his or her drug. The
purity is in the form of a well-definition (in the logical sense) to which
no one any longer pays attention; the absence of well-definition does not
result in a program cancellation, but only a retry which is part of the
program itself; it does not matter where one is; location is irrelevant.
Voices are heard behind the screen words (toggle on, echo on; the
screen chants itself, hides itself, reveals the nipple); face to face
replaces the face; double blinds allow the truth of double binds. This is
the only truth there is: that which occurs beneath or behind the blind,
that is, the lie (which is truth's double, truth's mirror, not converse or
inverse) (which is truth's perverse, that is, truth's abject truth); this
is the framework of classical Greek philosophy bound to classical Greek
torture (both bound with identical cords, hieroglyphs): Xenophon's
Socrates was the first user. Voices are heard, and voices are nothing but
machine chatter, the ideal forms so many subroutines...
The user. The user is an addict; the user inscribes throughout the
network (temporary, electronic, absolute: an entirely new category),
micro-tendrils extending in every direction. This contains the appearance
of power; the network is a fantasm reflecting emissions back through local
paths. The wonder of the internet is its locality, the construct of
neighborhood (packet channels slowing down just right for the home
terminal) redefining the body; the body becomes extension; extension
becomes noise; noise seethes at the edge. The process is one of
fast-forward rooting, and the roots are blind.
Now we can speak of the mouth or eye of the user; now we can speak of
the hand or its mobility. No matter how (much) sensation is transcribed,
it occurs at a distance characterized by zapping and invasions. Nothing
but the materiality of the body is a stake; everything cuts everything
off. The user is confined to a scientism in the form of THAT which
articulates the THERE IS, just as addiction develops out of the action of
a particular drug or behavioral sequence. One is tied to the THAT.
The user has nothing to do with the internet; the user is of no
consequence. Conference exists or dissolves beneath the sign, not of
gender or capital, but of chaotic inscription. The sign itself dissolves;
sign is, after all, only recognition. This is the final corruption of
humanism; even the self is no longer centric - not through the Lacanian
inscriptive/linguistic unconscious (through which IT may still find a path
or coagulation), but through addiction, self as THAT, or self as nodal
intensification, always castrated, furiously addictive, always
reading/writing, always rewriting: the self becomes its own recursivity.
It no longer matters; its reports are from marauders, vandals, on the edge
of the Roman Empire; it exists only within the interstices of power; it is
displaced by power; it is no longer one or many; it no longer responds to
the pronoun; it responds only to the login which may well (it does not
matter) be a construct of the machine itself - just as gender-bending
relies no longer on gender, but arbitrary and chaotic signifiers,
signifiers undercut, in a continuous process of dissolution, murmuring,
forgetting, forgotten, forged and forgotten, emissive. The machine
recognizes no gender; the machine recognizes nothing. The machine
recognizes every gender; the machine is never a machine, but an episteme.
Just as the episteme is lost in time, so is the subject; just as music
video and popular culture announced (by absenting, forgetting, by a-
signifying) the end of historicity, the subject no longer announces itself
(and certainly no longer announces herself and himself): an emission is no
grounds for announcement. In this manner the subject avoids death (always
the plan, thwarted and perverting, procuring and devouring, but always the
plan) which is already always forgotten; intensification is subject to
dissolution, but subjectivity dissipates or sublimates elsewhere, as if it
But just as if it ever existed, there are no longer ontological con-
siderations; as plasma, the internet bypasses existence (always already...
the litany repeats as murmur). It is within this that the projected
eternality of the digital has full reign or resonance; noiseless, the
digital proclaims the clean and proper body (which is rendered problematic
by the maternal which becomes uncanny, fantasm, the circulation already on
the move, already elsewhere), genderless and absent. Clearly in this
fashion, everything is absent within the internet. (Everything announces,
dresses, address. A character, screen or otherwise, is an announcement.)
The human dream of eternal life occurs by a draining of temporality;
therefore nothing occurs or can occur. It is irrelevant whether or not the
human is "ready" for this when readiness implies an a priori teleology;
such an impulse becomes a trail or trace left by a gopher through the
computational/server holarchy, not an end in sight or sightlessness.
Naturally, then, it is also irrelevant to ask where one goes from
The FLUX of information travels in direct relation to ADDRESS: address
becomes information. Data, numerical or otherwise, are contained in
address. Address is contained in protocol; information becomes equivalent
to etiquette - at least etiquette's teleology is information. This is in
distinction to the etiquette of everyday life, which operates to sublimate
or repress information. Etiquette in both situations is constructed upon
consensus; in the former, excess occurs in the leakage of signification or
the curlicue, and in the latter, excess is a production of the CONTRARY or
WAYWARD, through which the deconstruction of etiquette begins.
There is no such deconstruction within the net, which in fact filters
out a priori such breaches. But this filtering always has a result, which
may be noise, shunting, disconnection, or all three. SHUNTING represents a
chaotic or branching negation; DISCONNECTION is annihilation or binary
negation. NOISE is elsewhere; it is a fissuring, always reinscribed, a
concrete form of unsolvability. It is always reinscribed, because it leads
finally to SHUNT or DISONNECT; it is a liminal state or global catas-
trophe, deeply unpredictable.
Noise lends itself elsewhere, to viruses, worms, infections of all
sorts; to flaming or misappropriation of address; to breaches of security:
noise defined AS SUCH by the user, but in fact subversive etiquette, an
etiquette of alterity recognized and utilized (i.e. accepted) by the net
as a whole. Thus the net is impervious to dissolution, only to DIS-
CONNECT in one form or another, including energy withdrawal. The net,
broken, fragmented, unavailable to any user, is still net; the wires
remain turbulent, heated; exhausted information continues to traverse the
nodes; the nodes or intensifications define the information; become it;
nothing exists beyond ADDRESS and RECOGNITION.
Clearly this is a fiction; the net is transparent, remarkably fragile;
viruses enter regardless of intention; noise breaks nodes apart; the net
is bloated, near collapse; the content of messages becomes problematic;
firewalls and other defense mechanisms assert themselves; flame wars
become wars of manageriality; the last battlefield is the bitwar fought
everywhere and nowhere at once. Eliminate SIGHT and SITE: only CITE -
CITATION remains, addresses crumbling to subversive and alien
Clearly this is a fiction; what remains are addresses compounded upon
addresses, linkages continuing forever, with the ever-present possibility
of recursion. Threads exhaust themselves, meander almost forever; thought
garners itself as REPLY to a (deconstructed) TRACE. What occurs on the
surface of things is the memory of conversation.
And what concerns this conversation? Clearly not face-to-face, yet
conveying the "authenticity" of a confessional obtainable under no other
circumstance. For the materiality of the world, replaced by episteme, has
been circumvented: neither the grain of the voice or face, nor the brute
physicality of the body presents itself. Such an authenticity is also
conditioned by the very institutionalization of consensual communication
through keyboard or graphics; protocol or etiquette permit everything,
permitting nothing. The user says what she means or means what he says. An
obvious form of Freudian lifelong psychoanalytical session, the symbolic
spew or flux continues indefinitely, harboring the user within the banks
of an acceptable (Oedipal) superego. Flaming is in fact the death of
alterity; the other, no longer obdurate, reduces herself to ASCII. When
everything is permissible, nothing occurs; the internet is a surrealism of
chaotic equivalences. Just as the governance of Dali's painting is a
restrained realism inherited from the Italian renaissance and the Dutch,
so internet protocol exhumes and releases a scatological flood; Dali and
the user alike are addicted to institutionalized realisms that constantly
escape the world, only to rewrite it.
A temporary stasis in turbulence theory is termed an "animal," equiv-
alent to the activation of an internet site. These words, too, barely hold
onto their moorings; the only moorings available are those of families of
usages (no longer tied to Wittgenstein's name); these are reduced to
listserv conferences; reduced to the open distributions of alt.org, more
precisely alt.sex beyond the blindness of usenet; these too transform into
images now illegible; the hinge between subject and object breaks; gender
becomes stuttered desire; what breaks becomes an address; what exists
becomes a recognition; protocol recognizes an address; characters spew
across the screen; it is no longer a question of equivalence; packets
increase their speed; the terminal transforms everything into and beyond
the reign of alt.flesh.sex.
Nevertheless, the episteme has its horizons; circulations are not
random; facts emerge; facts construe the world; the horizon of facts
determine alt.flesh.user; this is the fifth world, beyond the third world
and the fourth; from paragraph 21 to TOP, the latter corrupt the other, an
irrevocable form of decay or shuddering episteme: the curlicue of the
episteme. The ecological benefits of electronic networking are offset by
networking's ontological absence; what does not exist (in the sense of
existential inauthenticity) problematizes, often without recognition (for
internal recognition remains just that), the political; the political
remains the horizon of the net... becomes a footnote to the .TXT ...
If the latter corrupt the former, it is because the former is the
clean and proper body insistent upon protocol and typifications, the
classic nation-state, protective and functional tariffs, an international
monetary standard, acceptable quality of life. Clearly the net is all of
these yet none of these; clearly the net is just as well a poverty or
anarchic scenario playing itself out; it intertwines with first, second,
third, fourth worlds; it is intertextual. Is it true to say the world is a
rewrite? As in the past, news stories were "born" and "killed" in radio
and television - so in the future, news becomes, not an eternal return,
but an eternal recursion; the internet as medium is no longer the message,
but a constant reconstruction (turbulent animal). It, or its descendents,
become the problematic margin of non-equilibrium thermodynamics; quantum
tunnelling and classical entropy alike invade its deterritorialization. If
capital is the child of scarcity, the internet is scarcity's grand-child;
between each of the terms, ontology fades accordingly. Both capital and
internet occupy ALL rarified sites within expansive domains; both reduce
sites to equivalence; both possess consensus (gold worth nothing and
everything); both require protocol, give birth to etiquette.
Please, where one goes from here...
It would be instructive to isolate a particular datum from a file
picked at random, to trace its history - not its use, which would only be
determined by differentiation. Data is absorbed by users in batches with
an overall Gestalt; tabulation becomes a skewed element. Irigarayan flux
applies direction to discrete elements; in this fashion, low-resolution
becomes the order of postmodernism. Linkages create the semblance (not
simulacrum) of structure. What is broken down is clutter, isolated from
its thread or mother-list.
On one hand, then, low resolution grounds/grates temporary structure
(which could just as easily be formatted or normalized in other
patterning); on the other hand, the grating of these very structures
(against the analog background of high-resolution everyday life, wave
packets, and so forth) results in emission or spew. A SPEW develops from a
convex front spreading irregularly (i.e. stochastic or chaotic flux); a
SPEW is also a form of contamination, out of control. An EMISSION is
internally coherent; a SPEW is not. An EMISSION appears sourceless, but
carrying or constructing the trace of (its) source; an emission appears
'after the fact' to have poured from a concavity or intensification. The
EMISSION also carries another memory, that of its goal; if source is
introjected, goal is projected; thus emission carries the imaginary within
it, a fantasm procuring a problematic history. Emission is smooth,
integrated; spew is harsh, digital, diacritical, differentiated. Or
rather, the integration of spew, this act or articulation, is emission
possessing an uncanny and grating history; the differentiation of emission
filters out the imaginary, returning low-resolution whisper, skeletal
death beyond the onslaught of existence.
The datum wobbles uneasily between emission and spew; its end is spew,
flooding from the temporary articulation of emission, as structure becomes
absorbed into praxis. The emission is never clutter, although it may be
cluttering; spew is always clutter, always exhausted. If emission is the
order of pornography, spew is the order of pornography used and reused,
raised to the order of the inert. Both are fast-forward in the realm of
capital; both seep, transgress; and both characterize that other
interpenetrated realm, that of the net, where all orders merge.
I define the REAL as the inert which neither fissures nor inscribes,
its epistemology relegated to the domain of the physical sciences. The
SYMBOLIC is always inscribed and maintained; it absorbs energy. The
IMAGINARY fissures; the domain of the same and the same, it is the locus
of emissions and spews. Emissions and spews are sources of reading;
absorbed by the symbolic, they literally imply an imaginary origin. The
internet exists as a channeling of the symbolic, overcome within the real
by the imaginary; for the user, it is an inscribing of the real.
I define the IMAGINARY as that which is unaccountable, that which I do
not comprehend; the internet is the technology of the imaginary.
Definition itself is that which is accountable; I can be called on my
definition. To call is to utilize the internet. To call, however, is to
speak; the internet, never spoken-for, is the locus of murmurs. Articles,
speech, files exhaust themselves; what disappears leaves no trace, no
address or ashes. To follow a thread becomes the following of an emission
within the imaginary; argument becomes a division in a logically chaotic
I define DEFINITION as an imaginary, the exhaustion of theory or
broken definition. DEFINITION becomes emission; these terms are arc-wise
circulations (more precisely, chaotic helices) never returning to their
originary terms. The internet embodies a postmodern hermeneutic circle in
which root directories dissolve in the midst of anarchic governance. This
user-exhaustion (for there is no other) is that of a splayed pornography;
the screen/user interface itself is an emissive construct. Thus there can
be no arguments WITH ME; thus there can only be a problematic return to a
non-existent world beyond the interface. THAT world is ELSEWHEN; history
itself becomes elsewhen.
An emission, I REFUTE in every direction (NOWHERE on the net).
THE INTERNET DOES NOT EXIST: The ontological status of binary data
was problematic for dialectical materialism, which had recourse only to
an almost-mediaeval theory of reflection to accommodate it. The
ontological status of the internet is one step beyond: Net layers
(application/transport/internet/network/physical, re. The Online User's
Encyclopedia) stutter between data and implementation; semantics is
elsewhere. To say that the internet does not exist is to say that it
does not partake of existence; further, that existence (unless rewritten
as attributive) plays no role here.
THE SUBJECT IS ADDRESS AND RECOGNITION: Address, not alterity,
identifies the subject; the process of recognition is that of
(contractual) orientation of 'cognitive domains.' The contractual
aspect is critical here; the internet is an accumulation of proto-
cols and restraints - it is fair to say that the subject is BOUND
within the internet, and this binding is on the order of the maso-
chistic, against which the internet plays and procures the maternal.
This masochistic is Deleuzian, not a sadistic 'oppositional,' but
a realm critical for the construct and production of writing/commu-
nication in the first place. Here, the binding is a continuous
deferral of pleasure; the user participates in a continuously
unravelling narrative emission. To quote Gaylyn Studlar In the
Realm of Pleasure on Deleuze's theorizing: "Deleuze regards the
female in the male's masochistic fantasy as the loving inflictor
of punishment, not the substitute for a hidden father. The mother,
simultaneously love object and controlling agent, is the object of
the child's ambivalence." ... "For the masochist, the maternal
figure represents a femininity 'posited as lacking nothing.' She
assumes her authority because of her own importance to the child,
not, as Freud asserted, because she hides the father figure."
In another light, the work of Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, Sexuality
and Mind, is worth quoting: "The hypothesis I would put forward is that
there exists a primary desire to discover a universe without obstacles,
without roughness or differences, entirely smooth, identified with a
mother's belly stripped of its contents, an interior to which one has free
access. Behind the fantasy of destroying or appropriating the father's
penis, the children and the feces inside the mother's body" ... "can be
detected a more basic and more archaic wish, of which the return to the
smooth maternal belly is the representation. It is a question of redis-
covering, on the level of thought, a mental functioning without
hindrances, with psychic energy flowing freely. The father, his penis, the
children represent reality. They have to be destroyed so that the mode of
mental functioning proper to the pleasure principle may be recovered." ...
"It is the contents of the belly which are equivalent to reality, and not
the container itself. Earlier she states: "The child expects to find
within the mother a) the father's penis b) excrement, and c) children,"
quoting from Melanie Klein. The contents of the internet are detritus; the
penis is equivalent to ftp on one hand, and protocol in general on the
other; think of excrement as usenet and children as listerv. This
analogical labelling is superficial; consider superego, language debris,
and stuttered address/recognition instead, as well as an internet
imaginary "with psychic energy flowing freely," without hindrance.
Masochism appears, again, in the binding of this energy WITHIN the belly
(it is always the "belly" and never the "stomach" "of the beast"):
Everything opens for the user as the body is foreclosed; the closure of
the body opens the internet. For the user, the internet represents
powerful forces; the internet, like a chemical drug, represents an
anarchic freedom, expansion of desire, and a foreclosing of local/neigh-
borhood ("terminal!") problems within and without the body of the user.
An attempt to take the text to its conclusion; to draw the conclusion:
delineation of the belly. The belly is swollen/distended; the belly is a
36/1. The internet is a membrane characterized by emission blurring
traditional philosophical dichotomies.
37/2. Traditional ontological considerations within and without the net
are characterized by an organic episteme; knowledge becomes flux-knowledge
and manageriality replaces the traditional categories of information
38/3. An emission exists as flux within the imaginary, existing within and
without a problematic temporality.
39/4. The internet membrane is a redundant and thinned hypertext
presenting the user with the fantasm of changing alterity, the spectacle
of changing expression. These expressions are related to excess, but
excess is absent. Emission is blind, and its site blind.
40/5. The body becomes hysteric, losing itself in the fast-forward of the
net; the existential project exhausts itself through misplaced
recognitions leading simultaneously nowhere and everywhere. Address
becomes a primary characteristic within the net, replacing alterity and
traditional concepts of subjectivity.
41/6. The user is addicted; the user, logged on, is incapable of making
mistakes, only distinctions between one and another thread.
42/7. The blindness of the net is its truth; truth is conditioned by the
lie just as Greek thought is conditioned by the slave. Such a truth is not
dialectical; the double-blind is a double-bind creating an exclusionary
43/8. The addicted user traces inescapable and inauthentic roots; his or
her body, genderless, appears on the other side of the screen, without
44/9. Addiction is in part the result of a THAT which centers and
structures the addict; the screen itself becomes a cut; this distinction
is a THAT within which the THERE IS is imminent.
45/10. The user, irrelevant, exists in the midst of chaotic (not noisy)
inscription. A sign is defined only by recognition; otherwise dissolved,
it produces an inscriptive effect. Recognition and effect become uncannily
one. The self, furiously addicted, becomes its own recursion. The self is
REWRITE or X => F(X). It no longer responds to the pronoun, becoming its
own continuous construct, which may well (always) have been its 'truth.'
The machine, continuously changing, is an episteme through which
emissions, addresses, and recognitions flow. The manageriality of
knowledge becomes the fast-forwarding of protocols and gateways. Without
protocol, no address and definition.
46/11. The (net) subject is a-temporal or lost in time; he or she never
announces itself (which requires the granularity of voice, body, face),
but constructs. Construction exhausts the death drive; the digital is
noiseless, faceless, eternal. Announcement of the subject is equivalent to
recognition. Through protocol, recognition is returned.
47/12. Ontological considerations of self and net are problematic; the net
and its emissions are plasma. Because time is absented, everything and
nothing occurs; there is no room for occurrence.
48/13. Progress becomes impotent; this is not an 'end' to history by any
means (just as there is never an 'end' to painting), but history's circum-
49/14. Address is now equivalent to information; protocol becomes
etiquette and the teleology of etiquette is information, which is
address, recognition, protocol... in the midst of which (i.e.
manageriality), traditional questions of meaning become lost and
unsolvable. The escaping of etiquette produces the categories of the
CONTRARY or WAYWARD, categories ascribed to young girls whose excess
'corrupted' the (nuclear/phallic) family order.
50/15. The CONTRARY or WAYWARD user (human or otherwise) leads to SHUNT
(sublimation, subroutine), DISCONNECT (end, logoff), or NOISE (beneath the
critical mass necessary for breakdown). The filtering of the user
reinscribes him or her in a deeply unpredictable manner.
51/16. NOISE is irrelevant to the net; it is recognized only by the user.
The topography of the net (levels of application, transport, internet,
network, and physical)is both more and less than topography; it is an
ontologically mixed epistemic holarchy 'against' or 'elsewhere' than
user and systems operator.
52/17. But the topography is also a fiction; the net is fragile, always
top-heavy. The bitwar and flamewars appear and disappear; sight is the
first to go, followed by site; citation remains to the end with the final
crumbling of protocols and addresses.
53/18. But these wars are also fiction; addresses compound indefinitely;
indirect addresses become indirect themselves; threads meander forever.
THOUGHT itself is a REPLY to a TRACE.
54/19. Conversation becomes interminable (Freudian) analysis; the symbolic
spew continues indefinitely, harboring the user within the net
simultaneously maternal and superego (and, through the masochistic
aetiology, both come into play). The user rewrites the world through the
escape of instituionalized realisms; MUDs (multi-user-domains) are a
limit-point of everyday net behavior and operations.
55/20. Everything: gender, language, subject, object, characters, user:
stutters. Alt.sex.fetish.watersports, the liquidity of the signifier,
becomes the final recognition; 'fetish' guarantees the hysteric hold on
the proper name. For the user, the terminal extends exceedingly beyond
alt.flesh.sex; the addict chatters at the scene of the origin of language,
the scene of being-hooked, fear of withdrawal.
56/21. The ecological benefits of the net are offset by its (ontological)
absent; the world (physical, material) threatens to implode. The
continuous chatter or analytical frenzy of the net constructs protocol as
solution; in this manner the net parallels the current theory-oriented
exhaustion-of-theory discussion. Address, recognition, and protocol
produce their own chatter; they admit to a truth which (through
double-blind; see above) is often more 'open' than that of traditional
alterity. Such a truth may emerge, however, only as circulation.
57/22. Increasingly abstract, capital and internet occupy all available
sites; both rewrite inner and outer worlds, and both are anarchic at the
core. Both utilize protocol, which is the value of gold.
58/23. To go from the cite/citation of capital and net is to remain within
the circumscription of the same, remote from history and historiography.
59/24. File-data within or without the net occupy both a position of flux/
fluidity, and low-resolution; such data then possess both wave and
60/25. The grating of structures through low-resolution results in both
EMISSION and SPEW; the latter is out of control, and the former is
internally coherent. An EMISSION is sourceless, a net flood; a spew is the
net on the edge, close to fast-foward breakdown. EMISSION is integrated;
SPEW is differentiated. If the EMISSION is imaginary, SPEW corrupts
through the grating of the uncanny.
61/26. Data wobble between emission and spew; as emission is articulated
into praxis, spew becomes clutter. The imaginary of emission is
pornography; spew is wasted, discarded pornograhy. Both seep, leak,
transgress, their model alt.sex.flood.sink-or-swim.
62/27. The REAL is the inert; the SYMBOLIC is inscribed; the IMAGINARY
fissures, the locus of emissions and spews. Emissions and spews appear to
come 'out of nowhere,' implying an originary source; through them, the net
appears an inscribing of the real (as if they were the articulation of
existential nothingness within the useless project of 'man').
63/28. The IMAGINARY is the unaccountable other; the internet is
imaginary. Definition inhabits the internet, which can call upon me; such,
as user, is my calling. My calling implies my speaking; within the net, I
leave no trace, no ashes.
64/29. DEFINITION becomes imaginary, broken, an emission itself, an arc
within a hermeneutic circle that extends indefinitely, a form of
pornography. An argument WITH ME implies my speaking beyond the trace;
this is always already impossible.
65/30. As user, do I quality as EMISSION? Arguing everywhere and nowhere,
I say nothing; such is my calling, a redistribution of terms, addresses,
recognitions, protocols, a reiteration of definitions, phrasing...
66/31. The internet does not exist; of course it exists; as institution,
articulated domain, indirected addressings, its ontology is as problematic
as that of binary data was for dialectical materialist philosophy. The
ontology of the interenet, to reiterate, is a form of stuttering partaking
of an existence which plays no role.
67/32. The subject, to reiterate, is address and recognition; both replace
alterity. Protocol is contractual, an indication of a Deleuzian-
masochistic approach to a net psychoanalytic, the net, to reiterate, as
mother and superego, 'lacking nothing.' The net is infinitely open.
68/33. The net is infinitely open, 'a universe without obstacles,' the
emptied belly of the mother, a continuous deferrel through secondary
narcissism. Within the net are the contents of the mother's body,
according to Melanie Klein: 'a) the father's penis b) excrement and c)
children,' which may are may not be assigned sites within the user/net
interface (within and without the net). Consider as well the net as a
Kristevan CHORA with clashing drives, a presymbolic: are not the first
characteristics of the symbol its ADDRESS, RECOGNITION, and underlying
PROTOCOL? The existence of the belly/chora implies a circumscription
after-the-fact; such is a binding, returning to the masochistic model.
Thus the net is both closure and foreclosure, beyond or within the subject
What I'm working with is a form of cyberspace implemented by nodes or
intensifications within a real environment.
To declare an environment 'real' is always already to enter into a
political arena, to declare such an arena, which had always been
taken for granted.
This arena is characterized by a diffused space presumably devoid
of electronic construct or manipulation; it is characterized, in other
words, by a peculiar INERT. This INERT separates solipsism from a
necessary engagement; it is easy to imagine a possible world which is
nothing more or less than a projection of this real, a deathless world
held coherent by electron networking.
But such a world would not necessarily remain inert - except perhaps
through a default setting...
And such a world would always have its echo toggled ON, as this echo
is - as is my body, such an echo for the real world characterized by
the inertness this rewritten body...
Within this inertness, then, which we characterize as the real or the
limit-point of a totally-inscribed cyberspace, a space which is, after
all, hardly inscribed but rather fissured, the result of chaotic
(de)production - within this inertness, there are sub-arenas, and these
are precisely those intensifications previously mentioned.
Moving from one to another, I cover my addiction to the real; I sublimate
it in favor of cleansed communication, communication holding from one
node to the next, characterized by... precisely that inscription which
lends itself to the construction of the real, remote from all fissuring:
IN CYBERSPACE, ALL CONSTRUCTION IS INSCRIPTION; FISSURING IS AN ABSENTED
If the phallus characterizes the construct (in terms of well-definition)
within the real, if the phallus is the horizon of the construct, always
emptied, emptying, always a limit-point - then fissuring, infolding,
labial portal, characterizes the horizon or limit-point of cyberspace -
and just as cyberspace is (in)authentically 'phallic,' the real is (in)-
But the parallel itself is problematic, because gender is precisely THAT
overlay upon these environments that parallels science as THAT construct
of the real; further, cyberspace itself is a construct of science, never
inert, and never idiotic: substance versus membrane.
Ironically, it is cyberspace, not the real, that relies primarily upon
vision as a phenomenological horizon; the mathematization of the real
immediately permits the articulation of the unrepresentable - even on an
elementary level, consider 0, cantor dusts, the complex plane, riemannian
geometry, tensor calculus... Because cyberspace IS representation, it
collapses TO representation; because THE REAL IS NOTHING AT ALL, it never
collapses (there is no TO and FROM within the real).
THE REAL RELIES ON NOTHING. A STATEMENT 'ABOUT' THE REAL IS NECESSARILY
FALSE OR ELSEWHERE. A STATEMENT 'ABOUT' CYBERSPACE IS WITHIN CYBERSPACE.
CYBERSPACE RELIES ON EVERYTHING.
The one is a null set within the other...
Moving within the cyberspace of my room, my 'real' environment, I can
imagine myself lost within the other, taking on its characteristics, a
perfection of death itself, death's loss. IRONICALLY, REPRESENTATION IS
MOVING TOWARDS LOW-RESOLUTION as articulation stutters the loss of language
within/in the midst of the presence of flesh. Low-resolution escapes loss;
error codes are enormous, permanent; everything always IS. Cyberspace is
necessarily low-resolution, however leaky like a fractal sponge multi-
It is the leakiness of cyberspace, however, that construes it as a sub-
limation of the real, a common knowledge, good and bad intentions, hackers
and viruses, gophers and echos. But this leakiness is another story, that
of deconstruction, an occurrence of the imaginary; the symbolic is the
domain of cyberscription; it is the cyberscribe who envisions. Naturally
this argument, this essay, is itself the result of a limit-point; organism
tends towards the construct, and Heinz von Foerster pointed out the defi-
nition of organism in relation to negation. In cyberspace, negation is an
absence of well-definition; negation is excluded from cyberspace, which
executes only what is presented as possible. But this is an active
exclusion defining negation itself. NEGATION HAS NO PART WITHIN THE REAL;
it is a local definition, and again only through leakage, does everything
inter- penetrate, become problematized. I would include the real at this
point, which is the presence of perception, balanced uncannily upon
solipsism and interconnected nodes.
We have arrived at the origin of power: the negation of death for which
every virtual reality is necessarily psychosis. If the obsessive-
compulsive gnaws at the real, the psychotic inscribes and rewrites
throughout an eternal recursion.
Who writes the role of gender.