singularity

singularity 🔎

3

Death is a scandal. The machine is functioning, we are all hostages - Elias Canetti

3.1 Network seemingly indestructible and pervasive is the largest extant imaginary totality of machines available.

3.1.1 Network is not just the beehive but also the lion’s skull housing it, not just the drops of honey collected today but also the flowers it was extracted from, the workers that died in procurement etc.

3.1.1.1 Network is the imaginary ratio of all structures applicable and all their functional applications in any production to all those that weren’t.

3.1.1.2 Any image discernible by any observer constitutes a network. Wood is a network (of dead tree cells) in the image that is a piece of furniture, a pool of water is already a matrix.

3.1.1.3 In other words, a collection of connections that retains a functional definition at the micro level and the sum of all connections as a macrocosm.

3.1.2 A machine without network (physically disconnected) is unteneable for the same reasons a machine without feedback (or a ‘private language’) is illogical (2.5.1, 2.5.4), even fictional apparatus is connected to the humdrum of the real via the symbolic and the imaginary.

3.1.2.1 Localised configurations of network are pronounced in micro-networks, shadowed in microclimates, biomes etc.

3.1.2.2 A machine can be transferred from one micro-network (organ, tribe, assembly etc.) to another (jail, hospital, cubicle, chassis etc.), but never moved out of the macro-network, this is the metaphysical counterpart to the law of conservation of energy.

3.1.2.3 Machines isolated from its micro-network, like an isolated neuron, quickly transcend their functional boundaries, often leaving behind only structural ruins serving historical functions.

3.1.2.4 Every quark, blade of grass, and drop of ocean is eternally networked. Even in states of error or retirement, it is never truly disenfranchised royally enough, never out of feedback.

3.1.3 The network is not just the abstraction apparent but also its shadow, the matrix episteme apriori in which epistemological modes first sprout.

3.1.3.1 Abstracted configurations of structural attributes can scarcely be imputed to this purely functional network, yet an inescapably emergent parallax of shimmed epistemic layers is beheld by astute minds.

3.1.3.1.1 If the real is rational, and the rational that which is logical then what confronts the mind is an idealism, implying self-sufficient, symmetric relativities explored by similarly conditioned difference.

3.1.3.2 Each layer shimmed between a lower and higher continuums of mind represents an entire genus of machines.

3.1.4 Network is a monotypic taxon of extension, not a repacement for it.

3.1.4.1 An unobserved column of vacuum has extension but no network on account of lack of feedback which only arises from a gradient of plurality within extension. Nor can a single isolated nephron be considered a network at an equivalent timescale for this reason.

3.1.4.2 Fig: Kidney stone under electron microscope as a configuration of information which escaped shims of epistemic filters.

3.1.4.3 Network is a cloister not a grave, the notion of passivity, or sceptical negation inherent in archaic pantheons of substance and extension is conspicuous by absence.

3.1.4.4 In the residual positivity of difference over this gradient is the emergence of a discipline reflected - consciousness is routine emergent, so is structure whether supporting or sporting.

3.1.4.4.1 Even the incessant turning of the shaft inside the armature yields an output, negation for negation’s sake such as a chain reaction in a thermonuclear explosion yields a positivity.

3.1.4.4.2 In so far as negation is the engine of history, this negation for negation’s sake is purely a functional drive, as an absolute functional reality this would have made whole the machine, but what queers its pitch is the literal sublimation of the crease, making structure the curse of function.

3.1.4.5 Network in as much as it is alive secretes the lubricating grease of corruption - the imaginary, desiring but not biophysical image of disorder. From weathering to war, first to last, network flows squarely downstream the slippery slope of synthesis.

3.1.4.6 The practice of philosophy is itself in the following of a certain protocol, which is not in the act of knowing, but in the arranging, the juxtaposition, syntax, style etc. Philosophy is in the cynical exclusion of the negative.

3.2 Any established slope of feedback is protocol.

3.2.1 Only an idiot or Bertrand Russel would undertake the possible voyage to formally verify that the “square is quadratric”, linearly however, the “rise over run” forms a primitive observer-observed (signified) dualism.

3.2.1.1 The two roots of the equation comprise a tautology. A protocol is precisely such a tautology - the ignition of freedom.

3.2.1.2 Protocol makes or breaks feedback and acedemic rigor is the assasin of joy. Efficient protocols are not rigorous but “good enough” for common sense, one does not need rigor to confirm the ground beneath one’s feet, to keep repeating a tautology for the sake of rigor is the mark of a competitve insanity.

3.2.2 Like all tautologies, protocol too is a duality that mimics the original gradient or its mimetic transmission, squarely or not, controlled or not.

3.2.2.1 A sobriquet, for example is a quadratric protocol, whereas a military rank a linear mark of hierarchy, it is a tautology in that it repeats for a while - considered as movements through history, a protocol is an orbit.

3.2.2.1.1 Deviation from protocol could be lethal for machine and network alike, as anyone who has driven a vehicle can attest to.

3.2.2.2 A year is a subnet of time, a network with a protocol that is the calendar, a second is also a network, but one usually without a corresponding exacting protocol outside of measured radioactive decay.

3.2.2.3 A protocol is what enables a insult to come across as convivial. Protocol makes a ritual out of murder and money out of thin air. Economy is one protocol, magic another; one wrong move and the magician is dummy.

3.2.3 A river basin is a tautology, a binary logos within which run all binary pathologies of networked potential.

3.2.3.1 This inseparability of morphology and physiology is the birth of network. The medium can be separated from the message no more than time can be vaporised out of narrative.

3.2.4 Protocols can make the network shrink or grow in due course.

3.2.4.1 Another point of marked departure from interpretations of substance and extention is in the bi-directional propulsion and promulgation of network, unlike the passivity of substance, networks in feedback are alive and can renovate themselves.

3.2.4.2 These self-destructive functional drives that form pathos cannot be discounted by any emancipatory logos, for chimpanzees have 13 sets of ribs but humans 12.

3.2.4.3 The self-organising organ that is network continually prunes extra addresses of representation and trims the roles of mechanisms within and without observer, regenerating and reconfiguring itself each step of the way.

3.2.4.3.1 Metastatic growths, rusting and corrosion, wearing-and-tearing etc. form part of this protocol of eternal renewal.

3.2.5 Hierarchically, the network forms the downstream subdivisions of declinations, declensions, inclinations, and intentions of difference.

3.2.5.1 These subdivisions create and occupy the rooms of language and meaning. A tree might be a pathology, but the word “tree” is also a morphology - herein lies the extension of word, the innards of the machine called language and the semi-permeable membranes of its protocol - meaning.

3.2.5.2 The emergent function of language thus could well be the creation of space, or structure. The universe is being made and unmade not on the fringes of reason as Kant thought but at its localised center - which is a plurality.

3.2.5.3 In so far as language itself is an unmoored network of meaning, in which any subnet is defined only by the virtue of its internal connections, it is prudent to discern this connectedness as an assignation of integrity to the nebulousness of the otherwise inexpressible and chaotic network.

3.3 Two fundamental functions of network are assignation and association.

3.3.1 Association occurs via structural co-location, assignation through mutual connectivity that assign state to structure.

3.3.1.1 Connections or relations are the modality of network operations (2.3.5, 3.5)

3.3.2 It is a solipsism to say that “information consumes attention”, for attention itself is already information. In objective paradigms, action is redundant for feedback is a mapping which has already occured (2.5.1.4). The lifetime of each piece of information is already encoded within it.

3.3.2.1 Machines consume and excrete machines, networks consume and excrete networks, protocols do the same to protocols. Food chains, families, cultures, civilizations, and empires all proliferate in orders of self-replicating and cannibalistic tendencies of difference.

3.3.2.2 The story of connections starts and ends in this primary self referentiality afforded by network to machine.

3.3.2.3 The first assignation by network, as a matter of protocol of protocols, is a label of containment - a ligne claire excluding the sprite from the background.

3.3.2.4 The fundamental connection called self is at once a configuration, a feedback channel, and a feedback - a closed triumverate of logos, pathos, and ethos folded as embeddings of structural functional dualisms.

3.3.3 Like all things transcendent, the self is a dizzying circularity the linear exculpation of which is the preferable past time of evolution and devolution.

3.3.3.1 Contrary to populist beliefs self is not an intance of will or power, but the throughput of network, the network excercises itself through self, not in it.

3.3.3.2 What is within self is more self, connected all the way to configurations not pre-determined, but para-determined, or simply determined - a certitude discerned locally as the illusion known as “free will”.

3.3.3.2.1 The rallying cry of tired machinery is always “give me liberty or give me death”, but there is no escaping the network, even death is mere reappropriation of states, a reconnection transcendent. As a result of this malfunctioning of identity, one receives neither.

3.3.4 What is without self is a proctored field affording six degrees of separation in n dimensions.

3.3.4.1 The antidistributivity of identity offers itself up to the concomitant delta of feedback, flows into the myriad channels of its own ironic enumeration, discharges into an infinite, unproducable silence determined.

3.3.5 A less ideal self-assimilation happens in production proper, in the meeting of destination with source inside echos distant still. In relations familal amd familiar, which ostensibly are nothing but outreach.

3.3.5.1 Here instead of discharging into silence, information is noisily sluiced into the other (machine), through the other’s orifices of acceptable compromises and ports of lack, in exchange of self-similar confirmations of extant folds and biases, the ceaseless commerce of desire and consequences.

3.3.5.2 Offices of production proper are subnets of opaque beauracracies in which consumption and self-consumption are frequently the only patterns of attention.

3.3.5.2.1 Occasionally (war, natural disasters, industrial sabotage, political intrusions) these subnets produce corruption almost exclusively (3.1.3.5) but usually there is a “surplus” of cleaner production.

3.3.5.3 Under idyllic conditions, the connection is transparent, assigning longevity to the networked entities instead of entropic debt, guilt, and neglect.

3.3.5.3.1 Transparency here implies a clearer intention of the observer towards production, not a theatrical disclosure of “truth” but a conservative estimate of the requirements of production - not using a pen where a pencil suffices and so on.

3.4 Identity or self is the sublimated self-image of network.

3.4.1 Identity is the paracosm of the litany that is network. It is that part of the network which transcends all its restrictions.

3.4.1.1 An identity or self, is an interrupt in an otherwise seamless continuity. If the network is inescapable, it is because of this fundamental trap of a building block.

3.4.1.2 The state of identity is a reification of the network, everything unique is already similar to something recallable in uniqueness, human DNA is already a copy of some original difference.

3.4.1.3 Identity is addressable state in addressable state space, if the state space is dynamic, identity is dynamic.

3.4.1.4 Identity enables the universal machine to interpret itself as a particular machine and vice versa.

3.4.2 A piece of feedback which is at once a relationship, a state, and a network, identity or self is transcendent before other modes.

3.4.2.1 Transcendence seldom transfers from the imaginary to the real however, in that it is possible for the symbol to convey more than what it stands for, but image is absolute.

3.4.2.1.1 Image can mean what it represents, or it can mean something else, but never more than that. All configurations of meaning are embedded in the image but the symbol can mean infinite things.

3.4.2.1.2 Networks are thus limited to the non-transcendent modes, leading to hierarchies of dominance and control, master-slave dialecticals along the gradients of feedback, only one Jesus per Jerusalem and so forth.

3.4.2.2 Sentience and consciousness, unique to certain machine cognitions, are also instances of network identity with single addressable space.

3.4.2.2.1 In superstructures and larger networks the addressable space is dynamic and consciousness changes over time and associations.

3.4.2.2 Motion is identity in a mobile network of the present but history and future are stationary networks identified by rest.

3.4.2.2.1 A network is a distribution of the chaos of identity into the order of form and function. This complementarity is apriori, 0 to 1 is already a network comprising every rational number.

3.4.3 By self isn’t meant mere structural unity, but a structural and functional singularity. A slice of pie is still pie, but not the same pie, neither the whole pie.

3.4.3.1 The network that is self or identity is real as a positivism that is a production or synthesis of a negation of negation. Identity is a double negation because any positivism needs at least a binary system to start with, single negations reproduce subtractively.

3.4.3.2 A hollow pvc tube is a machine that through this kind of additive synthesis shifts into entirely different identities under different networks (drainage, insulation etc.)

3.5 Transcendence of identity implies a stochastic ergodicity.

3.5.1 The opposite of Transcendence is Immanence (1.1.1.4) but most machines are neither available to nor certified by standards of entelechic attainment.

3.5.1.1 The vast majority of ill-configured machinery in the network operates at best in a drive towards the lowest common denominator of efficiency it can find.

3.5.1.2 This linear drive forms the basis of existant modes of production and consumption variously described as “muddling through” or “satisficing”.

3.5.1.3 Satisficing machines live and die in a markovian ergodicity whereby the only avenues of existence explored are the modes of inherited entropic patterns.

3.5.1.4 Transcendent machines do not confirm to protocols, and defy standing instructions of the network by means of immanent interrupts unique to them.

3.5.2 For this reason, public sighting of transcendent machines is an impossibility, for discovery is by and large of and for satisficing - otherwise science would find an end.

3.5.2.1 The stochasticity of the eternal is a line connecting the transcendent to the immanent, and immanence is not to be found in public but in the privacy of structures available only to the self or identity.

3.5.3 Stochastic ergodicity is a thoroughness that turns imaginary networks into real and symbolic and vice-versa.

3.5.3.1 A satisficing machine is one that is limited in its liability to forever. It is a comb that knows more about the hair than the scalp.

3.5.3.2 A transcendent machine is more like a catacomb whereby even if it does not lead to its own exit, it becomes a shrine or a pilgrimage or an adventure for the other.

3.6 Two secondary functions of networks are grounding and decentering.

3.6.1 Decentering is to dreaming what grounding is to wakefulness. If assignation is the proclaimation of a movable feast, association that of a fixed one, then decentering and grounding are their respective moving and fixing.

3.6.1.1 Grounding and decentering translate the actions of assignation and association such that nothing can be overproduced, over-assigned or over-associated.

3.6.1.2 The reason hyperreality is a myth is because there can be no overdeterminations in the network, at the root of all mind-body dualisms is not the imaginary ghost in the machine but the truism of ghost is the machine.

3.6.1.3 Association and assignation form the structural bounds of the machine, whereas grounding and decentering give it functional borders.

3.6.2 Grounding is simply the disciplinary revolution of the already-in-motion wheels of production, the continuity of image without a corresponding object of representation.

3.6.2.1 Grounding is in the assignation of jurisdiction, contituency, domain etc. not too dissimilar from the punishment eponymous or servification bureaucratic.

3.6.3 Decentering is the transitivity of representation, the promotion or demotion of matter or space into hierarchically appropriate locales. It is the transference in the identity that leads to transfer of the identity.

3.6.2.2 Decentering is the association with a new territorial set, while at the same time a translation over and out of a previous set. It is a grounding elsewhere.

3.6.4 Like association and assignation, grounding and decentering can cause each other.

3.6.5 The four symphonic movements thus complete the network quad upon which the identity of the machine composes and decomposes.

3.6.5.1 Network works as a result of all four complementary functions and is self-regulated as a result.

3.6.5.2 If assignation and association make up the shoot, grounding and decentering make the root system of the network that is a tree.

3.6.5.3 There is no last movement in the network, no recurring termination into a single movement but a continuum of emergent interactions, identity is a market of machines - the para-commercial, protocolic enunciation of the eternal middle name.