Elsewherebound
The following are the titles of recent articles syndicated from Elsewherebound
Add this feed to your friends list for news aggregation, or view this feed's syndication information.

LJ.Rossia.org makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose.

Saturday, August 4th, 2018
LJ.Rossia.org makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose.
2:04 am
Come Together, Come Apart

Come Together, Come Apart

 

I’ll reintroduce you to a wholesome source of fun you’ve been practicing for quite some time.  Pick a slim category with rigid boundaries and good internal divisions: optimal set is ten objects, but that’s just the convention. No worries, different standarts are compatible, if with some assembly required. Now, obtain the elements’ transcendental properties so that there is no overlap and the whole map of Being is entirely covered.  The easy way – going with pre-packaged decks, from literal cards to folk tale archetypes or dissected-reassembled Trees of Life – is held in certain degree of undeserved contempt, as snobs miss just the silly amount of jury-rigging one has to perform for the result to resemble the foam plastic model photo-manicured for the package; yet still you can see their point, whatever boundless creativity one manages to show gets spoiled by artificiality of the material. Demiurges don’t play with Lego. Let’s find something inherent to existence, then, and scale it up and down until it fills all of it. Expand, contract – hey, a lucky plothook; motions will serve the exercise fine, better than doing shapes, anyway.

I lied a bit. Chaotic wandering, stasis, cycles (try spinning!), acceleration: matching them to aspects of Being is a bit tired, really, and I lack finesse to paint radiant filaments of Entropy and Fate with those unwieldy tools. Ditching celestial spheres  leaves me with the human domain, and that’s the extent of the wholesome fun I’ll allow myself. There, proper element seems almost obvious.

We want to be like others, compatible, able to model them within ourselves. We want to be unlike others, difference birthing friction, the wonder of uncertainty intensely craved. “Congrats, we too have seen NGE”.  Not quite: content and data can vary however wildly, the similarity of frameworks is the killer here. Yet the point is still about loneliness – alien ontologies, unemulatable to the point of being percieved as ontologial lack, produce the most transparent isolation; cloned ontologies just make communication pointless,  mirror trickery of looped chatbots.  The need is something inbetween, and that’s where the issue rears its head. Friction is eliminated through repeated contact – difference a limited resource – the polished surface shines, once again, with despicable mirror sheen. That’s the general human trend: the desired equilibrium is mockingly a transient state.

So we oscillate. Better put, pulse. Heart is a muscle, ties it much nicer together.

Getting clumped together into a mass of uncomfortable oneness, people try to distance themselves from each other: then, exhausting the margin, they drift back together. The entropy inevitably introduces itself and the pulsations slowly shrink, weaken – bringing in myriad band-aid outsourcing solutions. Animals worked fine for a minute, a proof of not being alone in the world; gradually and surely that faded, they being infected by human ontology, domesticated in the general sense.  We domesticated gods too. Now we are bunched so close it poses an existential threat, to cross the event horizon, never come unstuck. Artefact ethics, object-oriented philosophy – what an incredible feat, to domesticate THINGS. You can see clearly the faint hope glimmering, of Capital, finally enough alien, and still percievable, not abjectly impregnable. Good thing about it is how closer it comes as the pulse weakens: it preys on exactly the ontological similarity while bringing the promise of fundamental distinction, an inherent stabilizer and a heart implant. At least that’s the plan. When it birthes itself, hyperstition-midwifed, the crowd will sigh in unified dissapointment – the monstrous child is still too familiar, unfortunately human.

Coming together is easy, more than that, it is automatic. But how do we come apart?

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, August 7th, 2018
LJ.Rossia.org makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose.
11:16 pm
Notes on Genrefication, Part 1

part 1 – i am the abreaction

What is that title about? Well, we need some things to establish.

People aren’t inherently reactionary, they are inherently abreactionary. Borrowing here from Pynchon’s antiphrasic antics, abreaction occurs wherever the release precedes the buildup, action triggers the trigger’s pull, salivation anticipates not food arriving but inexplicably the ring of the bell.  Reality, banal as always,  mostly refuses to surrender causality – some leeway is given in perceptual domains, say, bullet’s bang reaching the ears of man already shot. Does the sound cause the epiphany, painful rush of realization? Or does the bullet entering the flesh, persuasive enough without its sonical pair? Or, the sharp warmness blooming in the abdomen (the event) only anticipates the audio cue (the signal) that in turn past-icipates the bloody fact of the injury, loop closing, hurt instant but perception inversed / doubled / collapsed into a point: bang -> pain -> …bang. The signal is impressively amplified here: the messenger gets shot for bearing bad news, yet also so that the news indeed are bad.  The event itself becomes at best confirmatory, its essense, meaning, significance – and even temporal precedence! – transferred to the effect. This is an accurate, if a bit crude, picture of an abreaction; from it, one can derive what it means to be abreactionary, although not the reason I posit it an eternal law of human behavior. In the widest sense, to be abreactionary is to flip the hierarchy of a thing and its attributes.

  • The boundary is the territory. The territory is no more than its natural product.
  • The consequences of acts possess intent. The act is not controlled by actor – they are subservient to their acts. Consequences create actors through acts.
  • An evidence of certain merit has merit in itself but not in the merit it points to.
  • The present is described better by the future rather than the past; past is best described by present; future is best predicted by past. The qualities aren’t transitive, even though prediction and description differ only a slight bit.
  • Et cetera.

Quite a bit of work this all is: too queer in execution, round-about, a labyrinth of pawprints that confuses less the predator and more the prey.  This is a delicate, costly survival mechanism – still indespensable. Consider the nature of things. Invariably unobservable in their entirety and rarely seen even partly, all too often incomprehensible, their brilliant complexity the leading cause of seizures among gestalt-fetishists.  No artisan can fake a real thing: of course, faking an attribute or two and then, abusing the hubris of the crowd, asking them to reverse-engineer the original is relatively simple. Counterfeits are ontologically poisonous – really, they do damage in banal spheres too, up to the mundane realm of physical health. Abreaction fixes most of the issue. Let’s consider the transparent example of education and intelligence. College diploma is a signal of respectable cognitive abilities: thus no wonder that society quickly pounced to highjack it. If, collectively, we then crowned survivors and sufferers of academia brain capacity paragons and philosopher-kings, the thing of Knowledge and Intellectual Ability would become uselessly toxic. What took place is something else entirely. Education inherited the cardinal feature of intelligence, that of being worthy in itself, and partly decoupled itself from its progenitor – if you go to college to demonstrate you’re smart you soil the proud ideal of academia, monaic and coiled within itself; intelligence is among other things a signal of academic competence, not vica versa.

My hope is that I succesfully demonstrated that abreactionary mode of being is not just a trite switching of cause and effect, and rather something more: the inversion of hierarchy, the impossible circular embededness of wholes and their atoms. This opens to me a serpentine path to rarely explored plateau – to a place of hardware, software, noware and everyware,  of subcultures, fandoms, cliques and gangs, of metamediums, mediums and genres.

Thursday, August 30th, 2018
LJ.Rossia.org makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose.
6:25 pm
Monster Manual

Alright, so there’s this new outgroup word on the block – not new, exactly, but dressed up in a bolder form of disdain. See, major malfunction of most post-playground insults is that you want to dehumanize somebody, a fool’s errand really, “human” is what(ever) that which can call calls itself.  Seems wise to go the route of claiming it lacks the ability, then. P-Zs? Peezees, pretty sure that’s some bubble-burst collectible from the 90s. NPCs it is.

“They have no internal monologue”. A bit broad, ain’t it? The connotations and the categories surrounding the original word basically beg to be translated into this smug taxonomy of ontologies, come on, RPGs and you don’t offer customization, what’s wrong with you. There’s much more to it than PCs and NPCs. Which of them are you – complete the test to find out! Or use point-buy like a grown man.


PC. You have internal monologue, constructed within the rules and limitations of any language you possess.

NPC. You have no internal monologue, and function as a Chinese Room input-output machine.

DMPC. There is an internal monologue, but its not yours – in fact, it can’t be described as internal, rather as being structured and processed through the assigned language into you.

SPC (Shared Player Character). You have an internal monologue, but it is spread thin, barely perceptible – rather, there is a consensus formed from unseen paradigms of self, not neccessarily in the form of a language.

LPC (Legacy Player Character). You have an internal monologue, but it seems to be a derivative of some authentic logs from the past, compiled automatically, system entropy constantly rising. Alternatively, pendulum swings the other way, you being overfit and highly self-correlated by time.

NCP (No-Character Player). There is your monologue but it’s anything but internal, as it seems that you being and you existing is exactly the same thing; wordstream genesis is not spontaneous neither is it provoked, with cognition feeling extremely physical – not like brain feeling a muscle contract but as a muscle feeling itself contracting.

SC (System Character).  You, or something, is internal to the monologue, while not being the entirety of monologue.

CP (err no, Character-Player). Internal monologue and external speech possess different natures, with constant threat of collision – the result of which is either death of Character or Player.

 SPC (Secondary Player Character). The monologue may be different, but the strcuture of it is an exact replica of some other entity’s dialogue: this cannot be proven but it is realized as fundamentally true.

Monster. Eh?

 

LJ.Rossia.org makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose.