As Featured in The Map Is Indestructible by O.G. Rose
Considering Conspiracy & The Subject by Hunter Coates
Mr. Hunter Coates of Dissatisfied Philosophy has gifted us with a much needed book connecting conspiracies like QAnon and the work of Lacan, and I completely agree that we need psychoanalysis to understand what forms and drives conspiratorial thinking.
As considering “madness” a state of irrationality keeps us from having to face the more disturbing reality that madness is a product of rationality (as described in Belonging Again), so considering conspiracies as a product of “losing touch with reality” saves us from facing the truth that our natural experience of (A/B) reality makes us vulnerable to conspiracies. Rationality cannot objectively “ground” itself and must settle at best with an “Absolute Knowing” of its own limitations (as we learn in Hegel), and that means it is also possible for rationality to find itself seeing connections between a hand sign, a government official, the Vatican — and thus a conspiracy be born. In other words, rationality is limited from not being able to see connections anywhere and in everything (after all, there is no “absolute grounding” to stop this “unbound connecting”), and so once Pandora’s Box is opened (as we spoke about with Lorenzo, Ep #36), rationality never sees reason to close it. In fact, just the opposite: once the box is opened, connections start to appear everywhere…
I
As Lacan discusses, ‘courtly dating is the recognition from a man that the woman must deny him immediate satisfaction so that they attain love,’ and conspiracies do something similarly: they know they must deny us an immediate understanding of the truth so that we commit to that truth.¹ But as love easily turns out not to be what we thought it was, so it goes with conspiracies: they often turn out to orbit nothing at all or something banal, just as love turns out to never be “the final resting place” we easily imagined it to be. There is no “final unity” or “final truth” that unveils everything about the world, its governments, and our lives: life is living with unknowing, but conspiracies precisely tempt us with a “solution” to this unknowing. We will know good and evil. All it takes is one bite.
Aided by Britannica in merging it with Lacan, Mr. Coates defines a “conspiracy” as:
‘an attempt to explain events as mediated and contingent on a non-lacking Big Other which doubles itself in the subject’s assumption of (D)eception on behalf of the Big Other.’²
Conspiracies are possible because we believe in a Big Other who can be known, and the (supposed) existence of that Big Other is strengthened by our very faith to the conspiratorial framework in which we live and breathe. Belief in the conspiracy makes phenomena “toward” us as evidence of it (as described in “Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment” by O.G. Rose), and eventually it seems crazy not to believe in the conspiracy (as for many it can seem crazy not to believe in God). We lock ourselves in a sealed and self-relating hermeneutic in which it becomes incredibly natural to interpret everything as evidence that we are in the right place at the right time, that it is everyone else who is “locked inside a lie” and “outside the truth.” And paradoxically this state is obtained in the subject ‘plac[ing] faith in the belief that the Big Other is all-deceiving, rais[ing] deception itself to the status of a Big Other (“deception” hence becomes capital-D-“Deception”).³ This is a brilliant point from Mr. Coates, and it means that the very existence of deception comes to be evidence of the existence of Deception, thus legitimizing the conspiracy. Believing in Deception, if someone tells us that we are “deceived,” we smile and nod: we have finally advanced from being the child asking, ‘Where do babies come from?’ to the parent who knows the answer.⁴
In the conspiracy, God is Deception, and so we cannot learn the truth without killing God, and yet the hope of a conspiracy is precisely to learn the truth. We are thus prone in the conspiracy to end up in a “self-relating negativity,” as a ‘snake that eats itself,’ but we can easily interpret this as “the noble sacrifice” needed so that the conspiracy is uncovered (conspiracies can address “The Meaning Crisis,” I fear).⁵ And if it never is uncovered, we still went down fighting. And didn’t some conspiracies turn out to be true? Indeed, some did, and so others cannot readily say that we are necessarily wrong to consider “this” conspiracy (after all ‘what else might be’ hidden from us?).⁶ “The Opioid Crisis,” “Gulf of Tonkin,” “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” even “The Replication Crisis” — all of these suggest that we can be deceived, and so belief in capital-D-Deception is not necessarily crazy (‘the conspiratorial subject gains a degree of its investigative drive’).⁷ ⁸ And that “opening” is all we need to give our lives to Deception. After all, there can be nobility in it (in taking “The Pynchon Risk,” as discussed in The Conflict of Mind), and what if we save some innocent people from a horrible syphilis experiment? Belief in Deception can save.
Mr. Coates points out that “the other” and “Big Other” in Lacan are not identical and ‘maintain[] a difference,’ that there is a difference between “the other” who is my wife and the “Big Other” of the idea of what constitutes “a wife” and/or “marriage.”⁹ “The other” suggests the Big Other, but I don’t need to have a wife to live aware of the capital-W-Wife (per se) and to organize my actions accordingly: though “wife” always suggests “Wife,” there can be “The Wife” without “a wife.” This suggests why conspiracies are so powerful, for even if we discover that a given conspiracy is false, the existence of Conspiracy and/or Deception is not necessarily overturned in the same act: just because “this conspiracy” is absurd, it doesn’t follow that “all conspiracies” are false. In fact, perhaps the Conspiracy intentionally created some absurd conspiracies precisely so that we would think that all conspiracies are bogus, thus protecting the Conspiracy from investigation and deconstruction? Deception wins.¹⁰
II
Deception blocks us from the truth, which means Deception naturally generates desire in its favor, for ‘desire is a blockade towards enjoyment,’ which means that we desire precisely when there is an obstacle, which is what Deception can (uniquely) always provide.¹¹ As long as we believe in Deception, we will never be bored and always have meaning, for the blockade guarantees that we can always generate ‘fantasy’ regarding what is across that blockade (if God is veiled, God is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing…).¹² Deception will never leave us, and if someone tells us that we are deceived, Deception proves its faithfulness. Our faith is not in vain.
Though ‘[w]hat Lacan means by the drive is often debated,’ Mr. Coates suggests that ‘the drive is the subject’s mechanism which provokes enjoyment through sacrifice — the short circuit of itself.’¹³ And blessed Deception can always provide us means for self-short-circuiting and self-sacrifice (perhaps there is no other way to gain “meaning”), both in that we can easily believe that Deception could try to throw us in jail, in that researching Deception could cost us friends, in that discussing Deception is rejected by our coworkers — all of this “confirms” we are on the right track. Others are deceived, after all. Deception is afoot, for our lives are being ruined. Deception plots. We must stop it, or are we immoral and cowardly?
‘[I]ncompletion is that which provokes enjoyment,’ and Deception is always incomplete, and perhaps only Deception is so readily and clearly incomplete and “honest” about its incompleteness.¹⁴ Deception is precisely that which denies us “completeness” (“the truth”), and so when we suffer “incompleteness,” we don’t feel disappointed (such as we might when anything else proves “incomplete,” like a career, love, etc.). In this way, “the incompleteness of Deception” might provide a paradoxical “(in)completeness,” per se, which is perhaps uniquely appealing in a world that increasingly suffers what Dr. Vervaeke calls “The Meaning Crisis” (and all the other psychological tensions described in Belonging Again) The average person seems to be increasingly forced to face the reality that, in this life, “completeness is impossible,” and we can either face that fact and head in what I would argue is a Hegelian and/or Nietzschean direction or turn to Deception. It would take another paper to justify, but I would argue that “the completeness” we find in Hegel and Nietzsche is in fact an “(in)completeness,” so Deception offers us a “mirror image” of what is actually best for humans, hence why it is so tempting. Unfortunately, in only understanding conspiracies as “irrational,” we have failed to identify this threat — all the more reason to be grateful for Mr. Coates’s work.
III
‘Conspiracy relies on an ever-encompassing Other but is also paradoxically situated as an Other which questions the nature of the Other […] Thus, the Other of the conspiratorial subject is the Other of the deception by the Other.’¹⁵ A beautiful articulation by Mr. Coates, and it makes me think how the danger of the Pentecostal God is precisely that God is never the God we think “God” is — God is always alive, active, and doing something unexpected, which unfortunately means that God can always be a source of paranoia. Protestants aware of this problem have perhaps tried to emphasis Sola Scriptura to keep God from becoming a source of conspiratorial thinking, but then the risk is that God “practically” becomes a premise and philosophical notion, which means God can be more easily “used” (thus the tension between “givens” and “releases” which concerns Belonging Again). Between God being a source of paranoia and God being controlled for our benefit, there is great risk, but the risks of “God” are the risks of “truth” in general, and so we can see why it was not entirely irrational for science to try to replace philosophy. Science failed (as hopefully made clear throughout O.G. Rose), but we shouldn’t be quick to celebrate this: overturning reductionism to regain “meaning” is to open ourselves back up to the risks of Deception. (Perhaps nihilism isn’t so bad?)
Anyway, the great Žižek is famous for helping us understand ideology in light of Lacan’s jouissance, which Mikey at Theory Underground has done great work on, and here we can see Mr. Coates as connecting jouissance and conspiracies (personally, I think the structure of “ideology” and a “conspiracy” are identical as “internally consistent systems,” as described in The Map Is Indestructible). Matthew Stanley also explains jouissance at Samsara Diagnostics (“What is Jouissance? Enjoyment, Pleasure, Pain”), but basically we can understand it as how humans find pleasure in pain and pain in pleasure, which makes us prone to self-sabotage, self-deception, and a whole host of ironies.
We can enjoy not being able to access “the thing-in-itself,” which means we can enjoy Deception because it is Deception — capital-T-Truth might be less enjoyable (which we cannot ever directly say, or Deception would lose its enjoyment as Deception, for it would become a Distraction that we would have to experience as a Distraction — self-deception only works when we don’t know its self-deception). Brilliantly incorporating Hegel into his argument, Mr. Coates makes the point that all of reality is always mediated to us (‘the object in immediacy is never a whole or complete object’), but that means everything can be influenced by jouissance.¹⁶ Indeed, everything can be incorporated into Deception. Deception abounds.
Mr. Coates explores ‘psychosis and psychotic foreclosure,’ the role of ‘the symptom,’ and many other concepts from Lacan that can help shed light on conspiracies and their operations.¹⁷ ¹⁸ Lacan teaches us that there is ‘a void in all social bonds,’ so why not make our main social bond the void itself?¹⁹ Hence, the appeal of Deception and why it is a “rational” response to being increasingly forced (by Modernity, Globalization, Pluralism, etc.) to face the realities of Lacan’s thinking and inescapability of “lack”: if we must be “incomplete,” then let us make “incompleteness” a Deception which can give our lives direction and suggest there is something “holding the world together.” Hence, we enclose ourselves in Deception and find meaning in that enclosure which we enjoy — “The Meaning Crisis” is solved. To further secure our “meaningful enclosure,” we can add some ‘scapegoat[s]’ who either ‘withhold[] enjoyment from [us]’ (ergo, who deny Deception and the conspiracy and thus work for the Deception and/or are deceived) or who are the masterminds of the conspiracy (like the Jews who ‘control the media,’ etc.).²⁰ ²¹ And thus we are saved.
Mr. Coates tells us that ‘capitalism has an unholy alliance with conspiracy’ today, and indeed Capitalism learns how to channel our enjoyment of Deception in its favor.²² Hollywood will give us all the movies about conspiracies we want, which further makes us feel like conspiracies might be real (all while giving us the cover of saying “it’s just a movie,” which itself feels like Deception), and at the same time Capitalism lets us serve and consider Deception so that our lives feel meaningful, like we belong to a community of seekers, etc.: Capitalism likes Deception for Deception can help us feel appeased so that we participate in Capitalism peacefully and “like a good worker.” Paradoxically, conspiracy can also isolate us into the ‘world of ego,’ and yet in that ego we feel “part of something”: Deception atomizes us into smaller and weaker units while at the same time pacifying us as if we aren’t so isolated.²³ It’s all Capitalism could ever ask for, perhaps.
The system probably loves being seen as evil by the Deceived, for then others will likely see “opposing the system” as absurd, and so the system will not be opposed by anyone but a small group of the Deceived (who almost by definition must be relatively small, for it doesn’t feel like we are opposing a conspiracy if everyone knows about). On this point, I will go on a limb and say that the January 6th insurrections were perhaps beneficial for Capitalism and the State (which are now in bed together), for it made opposing both look like the actions of absurd and brainwashed “conspiracy theorists.” Who wants to be associated with those people? And so the system breaks the world into those who are pacified by their “secret knowledge” and meaning of and from Deception, and if those “followers” rebel against the system, they make opposing the system seem absurd. And so those who don’t follow Deception see reason not to oppose the system, for that is what the Deceived do. And thus the system wins either way: either people are trapped in conspiracies which render them irrelevant, or people accept the State so that they aren’t one of the Deceived. Deception wins.
IV
The book covers much more than I have reflected on in this short work, with wonderful considerations of Baudrillard, Freud, Ye West, and Hegel, elaborations on Q and Trump, the explanation of “Un-Conspiracy” — I highly suggest the text. Here, I will close with considerations of Hegel, which I think can help us understand why conspiracy and Deception are so powerful. Mr. Hunter makes the point that Hegel understood that if we say “a thing is a collection of properties,” we have ‘fall[en] into a contradiction,’ for there is no “thing” to be properties, just properties being properties.²⁴ There are just properties “be-coming together” as a ‘contentless being of negativity that holds existing properties’ — a strange and paradoxical state that Hegel suggests defines all phenomena.²⁵ And it seems to me that conspiracies are the same and a revelation of how all phenomena are actually like. Deception is a great “lack” which holds together properties, ideas, pieces of evidence, notions, etc., and yet there is nothing, only Deception; likewise, “things” are a great “lack” which holds together properties, ideas, pieces of evidence, notions, etc., and yet there is no-thing. Every-thing is like a Deception, and perhaps this means that we are trained by our very phenomenological experience of the world to be vulnerable and susceptible to conspiratorial thinking. To be conspiratorial then and fall into Deception is simply to operate according to our rationality which has been trained by (our experience of) “things.” Deception reigns because we have been in the world and of it.
Mr. Coates writes:
‘In this sense, the tree is a jumble of opposing properties (shape of the leaves, the color brown, the color green) yet somehow it stays composed and together. This somehow is the point that we have arrived at since the medium of the tree is not a property but still an existing aspect of the tree. So, what is it that holds all the properties of the tree as an Also?’²⁶
This sounds like QAnon, yes? Somehow, all the ideas, images, symbols, plots, celebrities, pizza parlors, etc. ‘stay[] composed and together.’²⁷ The power of Deception is ‘the unbound Also,” which is to say any and everything can be incorporated, which is to say nothing must necessarily unveil the Deception to in fact be deception. Mr. Hunter points out that ‘Hegel says we must move outside the representation of the tree in immediacy to what is not the tree’ (which suggests for me the need to move from A/A to A/B, though that is another topic for another time), and this is arguably the move that happens with conspiracies: when we read the QAnon Wikipedia page and it sounds absurd, the Deceived would tell us “we cannot look there” but must look outward, for what we see is by definition not the truth of the Deception but a mechanism of Deception.²⁸ Of course, the Deception is precisely a Deception because there is no truth, but the Deception is also precisely a Deception because it acts as if there is a truth (and so the Deception is consistent with itself, which perhaps makes it honest and trustable, funny enough). Anyway, in this, we see that the act which keeps Deception alive parallels the act we must carry out in our understanding of “things” for Hegel: what is “there” is not what is “there’ (A/B), and so we must look on. (In this, as discussed throughout O.G. Rose, we see the dramatic danger of A/B-thinking, and hence my sympathy for those who sought A/A and “autonomous rationality” — but unfortunately this will not work. We must see Hegel through.)
Conspiracies might work because they are structured like reality itself (A/B), and as we experience things as “not what they are,” so we are trained to believe in Deception, that things are “not what they are.” A consideration of “Absolute Knowing” in Hegel only furthers the point; Mr. Coates writes:
‘Here, I insist on Žižek’s interpretation of Hegel’s absolute knowledge […] as the recognition of the big Other’s inexistence. Therefore, each ‘moment’ in history limits itself, but this supposed ‘external limit’ is not a Kantian blockage which prevents us from the totality of being (noumena), it is the Kantian horizon of ‘ontological finitude’ which undergoes the further Hegelian step and transcribes into itself the (once) external limit by means of the dialectical process. This transcription into itself continues the movement of history.’²⁹
With every declassification of documents by the CIA, a conspiracy previously denied to us becomes a “limit” which is part of our knowledge, and then it turns out that the conspiracy was hardly a Deception, but just the everyday, boring activity of the US government doing what it always does. Conspiracies are often banal: learning their truth does not unlock the mysteries of the universe or cause the sky to roll up like a scroll. There is a disappointment in conspiracies, as there can be a disappointment in love, in fame, in achieving a goal, and the like (“there is no Big Other”). And yet the next conspiracy might be different — it always “might” be. Thus, with each conspiracy and prior “limit” incorporated into history, Deception lives on, and the previous, “boring” conspiracies actually help keep the Deception alive (as if “necessary sacrifices”), for if they were true what else might be true?
Mr. Coates tells us that ‘Absolute Knowing recognizes three points [in Hegel]:
‘1. The inability or limitation of seeing the world as whole or in-itself.
‘2. The inability to see beyond the now.
‘3. The inability to see beyond the immediacy in self-consciousness of the ‘I.’ ’³⁰
These are principles according to which Deception also operates: Deception and “Absolute Knowing” mirror one another. As in Christianity evil is a privation of the good, which means the “substance” of evil must be good (gluttony, which is bad, must be a disordered relation to food, which is good), so the “substance” of Deception is “Absolute Knowing,” which is to say the ontological condition of “Absolute Knowing” is precisely what makes Deception possible. And so the very rationality which can lead us to “Absolute Knowing” is also what leads us to Deception. Avoiding Deception is not a matter of being “more rational” (as I fear we often believe), but in fixing a “disordered relation” of rationality with the world. Since “Absolute Knowing” is true, which is to say the world is “ontologically (in)complete’ (A/B), we are always at risk of Deception, as the existence of food means we are always at risk of gluttony. The only possible “management” of the problem is addressing ourselves as subjects: we must train ourselves to use rationality and thinking well — but what that means will require many pages to describe.
V
To review, Deception teaches us that the truth is that we are denied the truth, and so when we do not find the truth in Deception, it feels as if Deception told the truth. And so we keep trusting Deception, and perhaps become addicted to “the enjoyment” Deception faithfully provides us. Deception teaches that we are always denied the truth, and indeed we are (“there is no Big Other”), a truth for which we are thankful, for we are given constant enjoyment. Belonging Again speaks of “confusion’s masterpiece,” alluding to Macbeth, and here we can see why Deception and conspiracy are “desire’s masterpiece.” Deception is honest that we never reach the object, a state which “is” reaching the object (and so Deception is “practically indestructible”), and so we never have to worry about our fantasies being destroyed. We are always deceived and “complete” in deception, and so we are always enjoying.
If we investigate a Deception (as we must to some carefully curated degree to convince ourselves of the legitimacy of the Deception) and fail (as we must), this is evidence of the Deception: we didn’t find anything because we are being kept from finding anything. If someone tells us that we are deceived under Deception, this will likely strike us as absurd, for we are in the conspiracy and under the Deception precisely because we want “to know the truth” — we want to get to the bottom of what the (Deep) State is doing, what the government is plotting, etc. For someone to tell us that we’re deceived when were are committed to the truth “wherever it leads” (even if it leads to us being called “deceived”) — how absurd. And so those who tell the Deceived that they are deceived are likely to be met with “knowing smiles” and nods — signs that a “masterpiece of enjoyment” is present.
We ultimately cannot obtain the objects kept from us by Deception, but this only proves the Deception. The ultimate failure of Deception is the structure of Deception: the failure is evidence the structure succeeds. And in this, we see how similar Deception is to “Absolute Knowing,” but while Deception is “incompletely complete” (epistemological), “Absolute Knowing” is “(in)complete” (ontoepistemology) — a subtle and slight difference that makes all the difference (demons are fallen angles). Deception entails a “lack (of the truth/whole)” which we never gain, but this lack is outside of us in the world (epistemological), kept from us by the State, whereas in “Absolute Knowing” the “lack (of the whole)” is part of us (ontological) (Deception still follows A/A but is “always practically” A/B, while “Absolute Knowing” is A/B throughout). To suggest “(W)hole Hope” by O.G. Rose, Deceptive gives us “an always present lack” that can always be a source of fantasy (an ever-“hole”), but this “lack” is not “essential” but “accidental” (to allude to Aristotle), which is to say it is “always about” to be filled with the truth/whole (and so never is), while in “Absolute Knowing” we receive “an always present lack” that denies being a source of fantasy for it is reality (A/B) — our challenge is to become “(w)hole” with it. Deception is a false “integration with lack” in keeping the “lack” external in the conspiracy and Deception, while “Absolute Knowing” can be a true “integration with lack” in bringing the “lack” internally into us (ontological). Deception places an “ever-lack” in the world but not in us, while “Absolute Knowing” places an “ever-lack” in the world and/as us. Paradoxically, the “lack” of Deception is “always incomplete-about-to-be-complete,” while in “Absolute Knowing” the “lack” is “(in)complete,” which strangely negate/sublates the “lack” into a feature (and hence not a “lack,” in a way). Though perhaps less “enjoyable,” “Absolute Knowing” is more (in)complete — though perhaps “(in)completeness” makes possible a special kind of joy (as perhaps found in “intrinsic motivation”).
Conspiracies are “complete in incompleteness” (that is always about to be complete) (epistemological), while “Absolute Knowing” is “(in)complete” (that is never about to be complete) (ontoepistemological). In Deception, we come to enjoy the “lack which is always about to be filled,” and so when it isn’t ever-filled we’re fine with it, while in “Absolute Knowing” we must hope in a joy of “(w)holeness.” Like Deception, Kant’s “noumena” is also a “masterpiece of desire,” for if we can never “reach things in themselves,” they can always be sources of enjoyment — perhaps we dislike Hegel because he makes limits something we control (and thus cannot guarantee us an infinite source of fantasy)? Kant makes limits something outside our control, which means we can enjoy fantasy without being responsible for it (we are victims of fantasy — a dream come true), while Hegel makes limits something we are responsible for, which means we are responsible for our fantasies — a curse. A part of fantasy is the fantasy that fantasy “does what it wants with us” (we’re imperfect and thus would mess it up, and we can also consider Girard’s thinking on sadism and masochism here), and in Kant we can find that fantasy, while Hegel makes fantasy ours — a burden. Perhaps we have wanted to treat Hegel’s writing as impenetrable to stay in the enjoyment provided by Kant? Hard to say.
Anyway, the conspiracy of Deception is the revelation of the structure of all worldviews, and as Hegel teaches must make “the contradiction” central to thinking (following Todd McGowan), so we need to make “the conspiracy” central to world-viewing. As “othering” contradiction has hurt philosophy, so “othering” conspiracy has hurt our understanding of ideology, and as a result politics, society, and the like have suffered. It seems absurd to treat “contradiction” and “conspiracy” as essential, but both suggest the essence of reality as A/B versus A/A. They are not outliers and mistakes, but “glimmers” of how the world actually is, which is according to the ontology of Hegel more than Kant. Ultimately, “the map is indestructible” because reality is “(in)complete,” which means every worldview (because of the ontological nature of the world-they-all-view) is at risk of falling into a Deception from which nothing ever necessarily escapes. This doesn’t mean escape is impossible, but it does mean that we need to take seriously the problem we find ourselves in just by virtue of thinking. Fortunately, with the work of Mr. Hunter Coates, we have resources for facing and managing that great challenge of life.
.
.
.
Notes
¹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 5.
²Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 8.
³Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 8.
⁴Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 9.
⁵Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 9.
⁶Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 10.
⁷See “The Authority Circle” by O.G. Rose for more.
⁸Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 10.
⁹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 11.
¹⁰Lacan makes the case that the break between “the other” and “The Other” is at least partially garnered from the very use of language, such as the break between the meaning of a word and the meaning of a sentence and the meaning of a paragraph…and if language structures the subconscious, then language structures us to interpret the world as full of “meanings within meanings within meanings…” — which means we are vulnerable to conspiracies, “nested networks” of signification.
¹¹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 13.
¹²Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 13.
¹³Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 15.
¹⁴Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 17.
¹⁵Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 21.
¹⁶Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 23.
¹⁷Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 24.
¹⁸Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 27.
¹⁹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 29.
²⁰Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 31.
²¹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 34.
²²Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 41.
²³Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 41.
²⁴Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 23.
²⁵Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 24.
²⁶Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 24.
²⁷Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 24.
²⁸Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 24.
²⁹Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 62.
³⁰Coates, Hunter. Conspiracy & The Subject. Oak Park, IL: GGV Publishing Company, LLC. 2023: 62–63.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
