A Nonfiction Book
Belonging Again II.1 (Book 1, Chapter III, Section 3A)
Thoughts on “Cosmic Evolutionary Philosophy and a Dialectical Approach to Technological Singularity” by Cadell Last
In 2018, Cadell Last published a paper in Information on the coming Technological Singularity and the need to consider how we define and seek that Singularity, in light of the fact that human subjectivity is structured triadically by the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary (alluding to Lacan). In this section, I will attempt to sketch some of the ideas with which Cadell’s paper gifted me, and if there is anything of value here, it is thanks to him. Please do not assume that I accurately represent Cadell’s views though, for I might be entirely wrong in my understanding, so please read the original paper for yourself. Also, I cannot promise what you are reading now will make much sense if you don’t read the original source material, so again, please consult the original. Also, Cadell makes distinctions between “The Singularity,” “The Technological Singularity,” and “Global Brain Singularity,” while here we will mostly just be discussing “The Technological Singularity” and use “Singularity” less strictly (for elaborations on those distinctions, please see “O.G. Rose Conversation #60”). Additionally, what I say about “observers actively contributing to the formation of the universe” can be associated with the “Ontological Design” discussed by Daniel Fraga, whose work is also enthralling and important.
Currently, our talk of the Technological Singularity is often reminiscent of a Freudian desire to cheaply “return to the womb” or “return to Eden,” both of which are basically a wish-fulfillment to escape feelings of incompleteness, lack, and frustrated desire. The topic of “lack” is expanded on in “The Philosophy of Lack” series, but here it is enough to emphasize that “lack” is that feeling that “something is missing” (which brings to mind “The Weight of Glory” by C.S. Lewis). It is a result of the split in the subject between what is wanted and what is, the Imagined and the Real, and we live and manage that “split” through our Symbolic order (as manifest in our daily lives and in our societies). Now, these categories overlap, for we tend to define “The Real” according to what we Imagine, and we like to believe the Symbolic likewise reflects and participates in the Real, all while we try to avoid experiencing the Real in a manner that forces us to accept that the Imagined and Symbolic diverge from the Real (perhaps radically so). We are strange and paradoxical creatures, and yet a reason we are Afflicted is precisely because we do not acknowledge this reality. Part of our paradox is that we experience it as non-contradictory.
O.G. Rose elsewhere explores the dynamics of “lack” and interplay of the Real, Imagined, and Symbolic in more specific detail, while here we will aim for a broader overview of individual and cosmic development. We will discuss RSIs, which is enough for our purposes, and, to cut to the chase, the argument is that we need to seek a Technological Harmony which doesn’t efface RSIs, but instead helps RSIs “harmonize” by accepting the necessity of “lack” (thus leaving Singularization behind). Technological Singularity would erase “lack,” thus (unintentionally) effacing RSIs, subjects, and us. It is very possible that “harmony” without technology is impossible, so we are not arguing against or demonizing technology. Rather, we need to use technology according to different metrics than metrics which define success as “removing lack” (which leads us unintentionally into A/A and Affliction). There is good reason to think RSIs are essential to human subjectivity and that subjectivity is essential for the universe reaching “highest being.” If RSIs are somehow necessary for there to be “observers,” and if “observers” (or minds) actively contribute to the formation and realization of the universe, then removing RSIs will bring about the loss of the “observers” the universe needs to realize its highest becoming (a point which also aligns with the work of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute).
RSIs create a feeling of “lack” which drives the subject’s development and formation of the RSI. It is “natural” for us to seek to “fill” and satisfy this “lack” (into A/A), and yet the “lack” is what seems to make possible the RSI. There is good reason to think that if we “fulfilled the lack,” we would efface ourselves and our subjectivities (versus negate/sublimate them). Why exactly requires a deeper examination into the field of psychoanalysis (for which I point you again to Cadell’s work), but here I will ask that you just take my word for it that the interplay between the Real, Imagined, and Symbolic are essential to the formation of the subject. Unless subjects can somehow exist without RSIs (which we don’t have much reason to think is possible), then the removal of “lacks” would be the termination of the RSIs which subjectivities need to be structured (even people who achieve the “Absolute Knowing” of Hegel still exist in and with RSI, though they are consciously aware of the paradoxes, limits, and problems of RSI).
Why do we feel the “lack” of some “Ultimate Wholeness?” That’s a hard question, but if we allow extreme speculation, perhaps it is because we are part of a universe which emerged out of a radical point of “Original Singularity” before the Big Bang? Perhaps, and Figure 5 on page 9 of Cadell Last’s paper depicts the movement from “Primordial Order” (Origin) to heterogenous matter, multi-local order (stars, galaxes, planets), and eventually to “The Black Hole Era” of total decay. Moving away from Primordial Order perhaps subconsciously feels like an entropic movement toward “total decay,” and so we are subconsciously primed to desire a return to some supra-unity, some “Original Singularity.” We seem naturally inclined to desire “a return to Wholeness,” perhaps mainly because we were conceived in a womb where “we were One” with our mothers, but perhaps also because there is something about being “part of the universe” which inclines us in a similar way. Again, this is all speculation, but it indeed seems natural for us to seek a Technological Singularity which is “like” our (perhaps imagined) “Original Singularity.”
We can discuss our instincts to suggest that there are drives in humans which are tied to a deep animalistic nature which we cannot escape and that reasoning and thinking often come to serve without our realizing it. Our biological natures are leftovers of evolution; similarly, perhaps we also have “cosmic instincts” which are leftovers of the Big Bang. Perhaps our cosmic instincts make us seek a way to avoid “Total Decay” and “The Age of Black Holes” by “curving the development of the universe back on itself” toward our “Original Singularity,” per se. The universe seems incapable of continuing forward without further entropy, as we perhaps subconsciously realize and so seek to “reverse course” and head back to our origin. No, we can’t actually return to our “Original Singularity,” as we can never actually “return to the Womb,” but that has never stopped us from, with libido-drenched minds, trying subconsciously (even if logic and facticity make it clear that what we desire is impossible, our subconscious minds won’t go down without a fight).89 Ultimately, this all suggests that if we think we’ve intellectually matured by deconstructing Eden and seeking Technological Singularity, we might be self-deceived. We might be under Affliction, believing we are under beauty.
Thinkers from Freud to Lacan have examined how the RSI structure of the human subject incorporates instinctual drives and evolution, and it wouldn’t be farfetched to me to suggest that evolution couldn’t have arisen to human subjects without also arising to RSIs. The RSI is the price we paid for becoming subjects, and though perhaps we might have days where we wish we were animals instead of desk-workers (a theme in Kafka), overall, I would say the costs of RSI are worth it. There is goodness and beauty which we can enjoy as subjects which otherwise we would never know, which would suggest that evolution and the cosmos arising to subjects is a net-positive, especially if subjects are somehow essential for higher universal development. However, if we are to keep this goodness and beauty, we must come to terms with ourselves, and as of this particular historic moment, that requires coming to terms with “lack” and RSI (as mentidivergent Children).
Though we can understand ways RSI is biologically beneficial, what about cosmically? Is the benefit of RSI the possibility of avoiding “Total Decay” by “curving universal development” back toward the “Original Singularity?” That seems to be what we are subconsciously assuming, perhaps not coming to terms with our subconscious minds or doing the work to rightly cultivate it, and this subconscious assumption is being transferred into our efforts for a Technological Singularity, which entails an effort to remove “lack” from the RSI (for if RSI had no “lack,” it would not be missing anything, and thus would be “Singular” and “Whole,” like the “Original Singularity”). In this way, our movement toward the Technological Singularity might be a movement of Affliction, and if we do not come out of this Affliction (Discourse, A/A) into Attention (Rhetoric, A/B), we shall undergo self-effacement. But accomplishing this seems to require addressing “the problem of scale” — perhaps our greatest challenge.
Is all this the right way to think about RSI? Is it dangerous to subconsciously interpret the RSI as evidence that we need to return before the Big Bang (like some cosmic effort “to return to the Womb”)? It’s “natural” to interpret the RSI as something to be corrected (A/A), for at the heart of it is a “lack,” but our natural tendency to view “lack” as something to be “fulfilled” and done away with could be a mistake. What if the “lack” that bothers us is simultaneously necessary for the existence and development of the subject (negentropically)? What if the universe wouldn’t have “observers” without the RSI which emerges thanks to “lack?” If all this follows, perhaps our goal shouldn’t be a Singularity but a Harmony (A/B).
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook.
