Energy and the Object

5.      Energy and the Object

5.1.   A spiritual code of energy is undeveloped and it remains the task of explorers of the currents of the human soul to develop it collaboratively on the network which defies time and space.

5.1.1.      An attempt to begin this has been made in Section 6 below.

5.1.2.      Such a code would not construct systems of belief (which was desire’s task), but methods of relation¾coping constructs for the human as suffering agent, as suffering energy, as energy’s code-making object, as the animal who would believe but simply moves, as the animal who by moving believes, who constructs beliefs from the energy of movement.

5.1.2.1.            Why wears how’s fashion now.  So spirit now constructs how belief is constructed, not beliefs.  And even, by the law of mirrors, how how is made.  Manuals are never-ending; this is energy’s cold joy.  Is the manual on writing manuals the manual?  The one behind it all?  The code?  Can life be so prosaic?

5.1.2.2.            I have written the policy on policy and have seen the hide behind a and a eat its noun and its noun verbify.

5.1.3.      A spiritual code of energy might be written in the mathematics of language, in letters’ dubious law.

5.1.4.      I would like to see vast armies of blind researchers groping in the inner sancta of their souls, building orreries of energy for proud display in the museums of their minds.  Where are the objects?  What orbits what?  Who feels whom?  They grope, they are blind, they build … what more do you want in energy’s enkindling kingdom?

5.2.   Energy and Time

5.2.1.      A philosophical debate should be raging as to whether time is an object or whether it is a form of energy.

5.2.1.1.            If an object, it is becoming a simulation, like all objects.

5.2.1.2.            If a form of energy, it should be disinterestedly used.

5.2.1.3.            It should be raging, but philosophy now has an atomic nose and is on a carbon leash, led by a coat-white man through architected parks.

5.2.1.4.            To turn aside to energy¾this would be philosophy’s salvation and time’s seduction.

5.2.2.      Our lives are primarily comprised of snapshots of concentrated energy.  These snapshots, called memories, plans or hopes, are themselves forms of energy, simulations of the events themselves, which in turn are simulations of the snapshots.  They are like magnetic poles, defining and solidifying each other, but unable to unite.

5.2.2.1.            Humans dream of themselves becoming photo albums of themselves; then they would be real.

5.2.2.1.1.      To look at oneself in a photo¾doesn’t this elevate one’s flesh to truth and justify one’s life?

5.2.2.1.2.      To have someone else look at oneself in a photo¾doesn’t this elevate one’s flesh to Truth and apotheosize one’s life?

5.2.2.1.3.      To have all this looking occur not just in a photo but an album!  This is what lives are made for!

5.2.2.1.3.1.            And this manufacture is humanity striving to see energy, to seduce it to coalesce to a point, even for a flicker of a moment.

5.2.2.1.3.1.1.      Simulation allows the appearance of this coalescence.

5.2.2.1.3.1.2.      Photographs are its visible sign, energy’s incarnation.  The event itself, like the object, has divorced itself from energy and is solely an item buried in the soul’s archaeology; while the digging, discovery, classification, mounting and observing process can create energy, the object itself cannot.

5.2.2.1.3.2.            The camera is energy’s democratic eye.  Even more, the camera of the mind.  But most mental cameras are simply capable of taking pictures of other photographs, an orgy of flashing.

5.2.2.2.            As the energy of a particular human life begins to dissipate, it appears as a single snapshot at consciousness’ limens.  If some strange collector could gather these and form from them a single snapshot, would not God then be resurrected and humanity fulfilled?

5.2.2.2.1.      A recommendation I have for such a collector, which I obtained from energy while dreaming, is to paste each photograph he gathers onto the sky until the heavenly canopy is not stuffed with the archaic materials of clouds and stars, but ourselves¾a collage of simulation.

5.2.2.2.2.      If he should complete his task and the bowl above earth become an album, we might look up and see God again.  But this is not yet a standard methodology.

5.3.   An equal amount of energy is created both through the diminishment or disappearance of the object and the increase and appearance of it.

5.3.1.      One self-proclaimed lover of energy¾and indeed with some legitimacy to his claims¾a babbler in the heights and observer of circuses, a syphilitic child, no anti-Geist but a messy bless of yes, a sacred guess, loved energy too dirtily, despite his boasts of purity.  He was too isolated to justify his love.  But I offer you a polished mirror, one not the same size as your desire, but as the world’s.  He said, go over, and by this he meant, build a lightless closet so you can imagine you’ve gone over.  But I say, go over, and by this I mean, build yourself nothing and go into its light.

5.3.2.      If an equal amount of energy is created from the object’s diminishment and increase, why do humans, including even those who spin words that seem to go beyond the human, seek only increase?

5.3.2.1.            Not only this, but energy is also created from the imagination of the object’s diminishment and increase.

5.3.2.1.1.      Haven’t we only just begun to sense new sources of energy?  And aren’t those of great potency in simulation and absence?  Isn’t the objectless mirror the purest source and isn’t it the one form we have until now avoided?

5.3.2.1.2.      If energy can be created from the simulation of the object, the object loses its historical function, and simulation, even simulation of energy, becomes means and goal.

5.3.2.1.2.1.            As much or more energy can be created from object simulation as from the object itself; this is because the object is a finite set, but simulation an infinite set.

5.3.2.1.2.2.            As simulation of energy is equivalent to energy in a way that object simulation is not equivalent to the object, while the process to manufacture energy changes, energy remains the same.

5.3.2.2.            Isn’t this why the death of God¾the simulated death of a simulated being, the fiction of a fiction, the grandest simulation¾created so much energy?

5.3.2.2.1.      Isn’t this why we had to kill Him?  To discover new forms of energy¾ the energy of the negative, the energy of the non-existent?

5.3.2.2.1.1.            Haven’t we discovered in divine death the vast deposits hidden in iam?  What that grand fiction was trying to hide in summit’s fire?

5.3.2.2.1.2.            Isn’t our discovery greater than the sum of all discoveries to date?  Aren’t all our grand inventions, from the alphabet to the computer to set theory, simply stepping stones in wading pools to the sea of the energy of the non-existent?

5.3.2.2.1.3.            Aren’t we orbiting around this thought like scared curious children around a spacecraft, waiting for its door to open?  For its articulation, its laws, its commercialization?

5.3.2.2.2.      Now what simulation do we raise for future slaying?  Art?  Money?  But rather would we raise daily simulations that we burn¾gods we believe in for a day, then slay on the altar of our needs.  This constant virtual slaying is energy’s future.

5.3.3.      In this dawning age of energy, I say that only those who use energy efficiently will have anything to say.

5.3.3.1.            Efficient energy use means using energy from whatever sources it comes¾regardless of its source.  Whether diminishment, loss, transformation, gain, appearance¾each and all can be used.  Only the cloistered clown calls for one type.

5.3.3.2.            Even waste is energy, thus the efficient energy user uses the waste of others to fuel himself.  It is all the same to him; energy, not objects, subjects, desire or suffering, is his love.

5.3.4.      In the past regime of desire, power and love were frequently taken as opposites.  Perhaps they were.  Perhaps power was love’s absence and love power’s, that hope-hypothesis, God, being the strange conjunction of the two.  But here, with hypotheses in shreds hanging from tattered clouds and hope a bed of clattering worms on which we dream, in energy’s democratic realm (a democracy so fully instituted it inspires only horror among the sensitive), energy is equally in love, power and the hideous exuberant battle between the two.

5.3.4.1.            Is there not more power in power’s struggle to abdicate its power than power on its own?

5.3.4.2.            Is not love’s brute attempt to bring everything to sacrifice an energy that could light a megapolis for millennia or more?

5.3.4.3.            Energy does not care; energy wants itself.

5.4.   The object disappears with sufficient energy.  If we immerse ourselves in energy, there is no object.  Objectification is a result of perception; if we cleanse the eye of perception, the eye disappears.

5.4.1.      Unfortunately, no cleansing agent is available, only those that claim such agency.

5.4.2.      We, however, can simulate this agent by means of letters, which contain within them ruses so capricious and ancient they effectively de-objectify the world.

5.5.   Humans desire nature and god, but the material available to them to strive to fulfill their desire is other than what they strive for; the more they use this material for their striving, the more they move away from their striving toward the material.  To come closest to their desire¾attaining it is impossible¾they must give up on the available material and directly experience their desire.  But this direct experience is equally to encounter madness and death.  This is the unalterable alienated condition of humanity:  to nearly experience one’s desire and die or to strive after one’s desire and lose it.  But energy turns all this to love.

5.6.   Those who side with objectless energy are always opposed to those who side with object-oriented energy; this is duality’s truth.  Those who side with objectless energy are always aligned with those who side with object-oriented energy; this is unity’s truth.

5.7.   We shift from desiring something to desiring and in the disappearance of the object, which is nothing other than the fragmented plenitude of objects, energy is the only commodity, the objectless object, the dream of dreams.  We must pray to energy, not as we prayed to God, but as we prayed before we heard of God.

5.7.1.      The object becomes meaningless and this becoming is what is missed alike by the pompous critics of culture and their vapid contrapuntal others¾the advocates.

5.7.2.      Energy de-invests the object of its objectivity and demands (by not demanding) that objects become fluid pulses in its mystic-physic kingdom.

Energy and the Object: Objects and Subjects

Forgione indirectly attacks the foundations of etiology, ontology, epistemology, political science, journalism, glue-making, dentistry, husbandry, egg-farming, biochemistry and ... well ... practically everything.

4.      Objects and Subjects

4.1.   Whether God (the inaccessible other), another human (the seemingly attainable other), one’s self (the omnipresently elusive other), or an artifact (the cheap other), the object has always circled around desire like an artificial horse around a carousel’s engine.

4.1.1.      The subject has traditionally been said to circle around the object; more recently, around itself by means of a mirror.

4.1.1.1.            Mirror?  Another word for doubt.

4.1.1.2.            The mirror still is necessary, but for what?

4.1.1.2.1.      The mirror transforms something to nothing.

4.1.1.2.2.      The mirror negates construction and negation.

4.1.1.2.3.      The mirror laughs at subject and object by means of silence.

4.1.1.2.4.      The mirror plays with shadows in Dream’s dim purgatory; we think we wake, thinking we’ve been played with; do we laugh?

4.1.1.2.5.      The mirror murders its devotees as dutifully as morning’s mawkish millions moan.

4.1.1.2.6.      The mirror resurrects flesh as spirit and sees this as routine.

4.1.1.2.7.      The mirror wanders in the halls of mirrors, not as trickster or priest, but as darkness peering through itself at light.

4.1.1.2.8.      The mirror beckons, but just to beckoning.

4.1.1.2.9.      The mirror mirrors mirroring and, mirrored, dies.

4.1.2.      Neither subject nor object has the power to center gravity; a more amorphous beast from another realm has done this, one whose tentacles mock proud conquests and flesh’s transient designs.

4.1.2.1.            What is this beast other than that we once thought centered gravity but now intuit is gravity itself?

4.1.2.2.            So desire is grave and wears play and laughter as its clothes.

4.1.3.      With energy, though, there is no center; the carousel continues, but each object and subject is horse, mirror and engine.  This multi-functionality and role-revolving is the source of our exuberance and confusion.

4.1.3.1.            To be centerless is to have everything as center.  But isn’t this a kind of centering?

4.1.3.2.            This contradiction is energy’s, but only we call it contradiction.

4.1.3.2.1.      I see a dancer who refuses to name, not from discipline, but from her love of movement.  She might be like something that we seek.

4.1.3.2.2.      I see the dawn gobbling up the dusk using dusk’s own laws.  This might be a methodology dreams dream of.

4.1.4.      Subject and object move in relation to each other like protons and electrons.  Is there a quark or are there quarks around which they spin?  There may be art and madness and God, but what are these other than subject and object questioning each other?

4.1.4.1.            I think the question is all that remains of nature.

4.1.4.2.            I think quarks are questions, and questions mindless Cronoses of the mind.

4.2.   Discourse about individuality, the ecstasy of communication about freedom, the perpetual tsunami of names¾these are processes attendant with the appearance and rise of subjects.

4.2.1.      This appearance and rise, subjects’ dominance, is the bright face of the two-faced god.

4.2.1.1.            The other face is grief that we must bear ourselves on the carriage of our names.

4.2.1.2.            The other face communes with the one we see at interstices of injustice and incomprehension.

4.2.2.      Would we be human without the constant overwhelment?  If we were taken to the dawn of names, the gentle lapping of that distant sea, would we recognize ourselves?

4.2.3.      The present name-tsunami was caused by an undersoul tectonic shift, whereby newling plates of desire collapsed into ageless pits of energy.

4.2.3.1.            Normally I do not speak of causation and even here the cause behind the cause throws my speaking to the wind.

4.2.3.2.            Even now, the waves are diminishing and names return to their function as markers to guide us on death’s pitch path.

4.3.   While desire always makes its objects desirable, it does not necessarily make its subjects desirable; if the subjects produce, however, their products become more desirable than the objects of desire’s subjects.

4.4.   The more the subject of desire displaces desire onto desire’s objects, the more he moves away from desire’s center or circumference; this process is displacement and it is fatal to desire and the human.

4.5.   Males and females experience objects differently¾the latter as diffused dances that momentarily coalesce into satellites, the former as extensions that blink.

4.5.1.      Male and female are not the embodiment of subject and object, but the dimensions of experience we have in relation to mirrors.

4.5.2.      If you think of male and female as solids, you might extend your name.  If you think of them as liquids, you might know love.  If you think of them as gases, you might see God.

4.5.3.      I cannot will myself to experience the world differently, but if I am receptive to the world, though I may die, I may experience the world the way it is.

4.6.   I see the object, but in a mist.  I hear it, but underwater.  I touch it, but sheathed in letters.

4.7.   The closer one gets to the center of energy, the more one loses oneself.  This is true equally for political and spiritual power, although we associate selflessness with the latter because of the paucity of our vision and the horror of our solitude.

4.7.1.      So politics and spirit were united once; so they are again.  So they have always been, but words have spun and pointed down any avenue that happened to be built.

4.7.2.      We each long to live in this center of loss.  Together we stand and love and kill to bring ourselves united to this space.

4.7.3.      Who though has oneself?  Do those moderately distant, far, from energy’s center?  No.  They have lost themselves less and seem to have even themselves less.

4.7.3.1.            So losing and having are most potent at energy’s center, though this center is itself lost by virtue of its omnipresence.

4.7.3.2.            That Galilean, being a precise articulation of energy in desire’s terms, provided a passable symbol for energy’s vision.

4.7.3.2.1.      If a subject had been his neighbor and observed him, as has been suggested by another of energy’s lovers, would time have lost two thousand years?  For are we not his neighbor, and are we not describing his psychoses now?  Was not Christ the Christ because we were lacking?

4.7.3.2.2.      That symbol, spanning two millennia of human suffering, has collapsed into energy’s hunger and itself been buried under a cross.  Yet its burial has produced energy equal to its life; those spiritual archaeologists and paleontologists who might have received training in these material times should be forewarned.  There is much to do, few hands, and many mines.

4.8.   Energy does not unite or dissolve subjects and objects.  Rather, it makes them interchangeable.  Energy is the code and era of mysticism.

4.8.1.      In the age of energy, everything becomes interchangeable.

4.8.1.1.            As mechanical parts became interchangeable with Taylorism, so spiritual parts are becoming interchangeable.  This is a natural consequence of the commoditization of energy.

4.8.1.2.            As interchangeability becomes the law, so humans object to the law through their proclamations of specialization, uniqueness, and dignity.

4.8.2.      The mirror is the agent of this interchangeability.

4.8.2.1.            While the mirror has not changed, what we see in the mirror has.

4.8.2.1.1.      We once saw trees and kobolds, divine designs etching awe on slaughtered towns.

4.8.2.1.2.      Now we look and see vague constellations of electrons.  Might these be us?

4.8.2.1.2.1.            We are the moon rising in the east, the sun’s death dance.  Will we be too frenzied to be silent in the confrontation of ourselves?

4.8.2.1.2.2.            We are the law that lies within itself, we are the mad transgression that denies.  Will we be too divine to remember awe, love’s last vision?

4.8.2.2.            Nature’s mirror offered the hot comforts of desire:  lust, blood, night, death.  We now see the cold comforts of energy, which are without the mediums of trees.  The priests of trees have died and what have we left between us and nothing?

4.8.2.2.1.      This is the portend of Protestantism, its iconoclastic rage.

4.8.2.2.2.      We could imagine trees were priests, but us?  We are no priests, but all wanderers before the god of night.

4.8.3.      Physics, mathematics, engineering¾these are the codified articulation of the wordy intuitions made by sages intimate with dreams.  We live in the architecture of our visions.

4.8.3.1.            I am the wriggling worm below my eye, below my microscope.  I am the deadened claw.

4.8.3.2.            Miasma of sputum stare at us in what we call reverse through misoscope and eye and this is that again.

4.8.3.2.1.      What detours are made in the labyrinths of time to arrive at an acquaintance of words!

4.8.3.2.2.      How many tonnes of hate are necessary input to produce a gram of love!

4.8.4.      Hasn’t the human been created solely for cold vision on cold current, an eye of awe on death, a wordy tail on God’s random comet, silence struggling not to be itself?

4.8.4.1.            Those who deny teleology are as dense as those who deny chance.  If you know energy, you know we are plans, but blind plans, blind recurrent plans stabbing time’s thick back with tears.

4.8.4.2.            If you can play subject and object like a fugue, you can do the same with intent and consciousness.

4.8.4.2.1.      Too long, human, have you welded words to steel.

4.8.4.2.2.      Let them free to breathe.

4.8.4.3.            Don’t we wish above all else to be energy’s scribe?  Isn’t this what we are?

4.8.4.3.1.      The gap between our wish and our existence is language.

4.8.4.3.2.      The identification of our wish and our existence is vision.

4.8.4.3.3.      Who can speak with vision and who can see with words?  Wouldn’t such a one be God?

4.9.   What really cares if it is a subject or object?  Only the fool.

4.9.1.      Subject and object, like male and female, are ingredients on a recipe list; only an inexperienced cook follows a recipe like law.  Surprises and substitutions are the prerogative of the true chef.  The destruction and creation of recipes are the chef’s delight.

4.9.2.      Subject and object are eye and eye, left and right; who walks around with one eye shut?

4.9.3.      What would be a who, with amputated vision and fossilized name?  Only the one who spurns energy’s infinite mad love and seeks solace in the trade of body parts.

4.9.4.      I would be subject, object, fool, chef, who, what and recipe.  I would be I and thou and it and all and none.