version

Well-known member
This one's been bubbling lately with the bumping of the Borges thread and that Land interview where he discusses 'hyperstition':

"I am not 100 percent confident of what Reza is saying in that text. I wouldn’t want this to be treated as a commentary on his thought. But hyperstition did arise in a certain milieu that definitely rhetorically emphasized a certain type of collectivity and even more than that. What’s being referenced is not primarily universality at all, but something much closer to an anonymity or the problematization of attribution. Any hyperstitional unit—and what’s now called a meme is very close to this—that can be confidently attributed to a particular act of individual creation is originally disabled. H.P. Lovecraft seems to have understood that the whole production of the Lovecraftian mythos was very much an attempt on his part to subtract his own creative role. It’s only when that is subtracted that these things are released. Cthulhu becomes a kind of hyperstitional term to the point that it’s not simply something that has been invented by Lovecraft. The fact that he weirdly, often a bit hamfistedly, weaved his social network of friends, namely their names, into his stories, is part of that recognition. What’s more at stake in this notion of collectivity is something like a breakage of attribution, the original subversion of it. I don’t think it’s just a tactic. It’s precisely the things where you have no idea where they came from, it’s exactly those elements about whose genesis you have least confidence, that are the ones that have the greatest hyperstitional momentum."

Now boiling over after a YouTube recommendation which may have been composed in '84 or '22 by an artist who doesn't exist:



444.png

555.png

666.png

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of who "Satoshi Nakamoto" is? How about "Q"? The question of authorship's a big part of the mystique with this stuff. The same goes for the (semi) anonymity of groups like Tiqqun / The Invisible Committee and Luther Blissett / Wu Ming.

As mentioned above, Borges and Lovecraft are two of the daddies as their work's layered with fictional (?) scholars and sources.
 

version

Well-known member
thats what i was saying about conspiracy theory. it's a collective fictional enterprise.

And the search for the author/s only furthers the conspiracy. The two layers begin to blend, merge and knot into one another.

AI being introduced into the mix could prove interesting too. You'd then have to question not just who wrote or generated something, but what. The members of the collective may not even know after a while.
 

version

Well-known member
The backrooms / skibidee toilet material we've discussed elsewhere's one of the frontiers of this stuff, Corpsey mentioned SCP Foundation too.

It's an obvious point, but one of the pros of these setups is how much energy's generated when you've got groups of people firing back and forth and acting as a giant feedback loop or network. You only need a fragment from one source to set off a chain reaction and get everyone whirring up and that can keep spinning off and generating more and more.
 

luka

Well-known member
shared universes do get established at all sorts of scales. when for instance you see two people at the very early stages of a relationship, they are working out the shared parameters of that space, working out how much, how soon, in what key. you can see it happening, in the resturaunts, parks, bars, etc
 

version

Well-known member
thats what i was saying about conspiracy theory. it's a collective fictional enterprise.

Another point of interest's how conscious participants are of the fiction. A sizable chunk of Q followers seem as though they felt they were "revealing the map" rather than drawing it whilst constructing the territory.
 

version

Well-known member
"A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation."


The Nord Stream story's entirely focused on authorship at this point. That it was blown up's almost trivial now. That we still don't really know's what gives it legs.
 

version

Well-known member
In regard to anonymity and questions of attribution, it can all be totally deflated by being answered. The reality rarely lives up to the fiction and, even if it does, can't be sustained in the same way. The floating label of Q or Satoshi Nakamoto's vastly more compelling than pulling away the mask and confronting the pasty, middle-aged proprietor of 8chan.
 

luka

Well-known member
this ones a bit too hard for me. but batman works in the same way as what land is talking about obviously. someone invented him but loadsa people write him.
 

version

Well-known member
this ones a bit too hard for me. but batman works in the same way as what land is talking about obviously. someone invented him but loadsa people write him.

That applies within the comics too as most of the characters don't know he's Bruce Wayne. He's a collective fiction of Gotham's.
 

version

Well-known member
The lack of an author can obviously place more emphasis on authorship too; the author being more present by their absence.
 

mvuent

Void Dweller
for me there's an appeal to the idea that authorship could be a kind of pareidolia. a hallucinated face you see in the work. in way, maybe the western canon is built on this impulse, with homer's existence/authorship being called into question—at some point people thought wouldn't these two stories floating around seem even more powerful if they'd been told around a campfire by a really old blind guy?

i've done that a lot ever since i was a kid. pretending something i like was made by a fictional person, pretending unrelated works were all created by a single person at different stages of their life, etc.
 

version

Well-known member
The hallucinated face reminds me of Ahab's talk of the mask in Moby-Dick:

"All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event—in the living act, the undoubted deed—there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there’s naught beyond. But ’tis enough."

Always pictured this almost literally, like the scene from Nightmare on Elm Street when Freddie appears behind the wall.

9-no-agency.jpg

That sense of things beneath a sheet or layer is a really strong one for me in general. I first picked up on it at an indoor skatepark about 20 years ago. Something about the way they put it together looked like they'd positioned all the ramps and boxes and whatnot then just draped a huge continuous layer of plywood across the top, like a giant tablecloth. The features being things protruding and shaping the top layer rather than discrete obstacles.

I picture Beckett's conception of language similarly:

"As we cannot eliminate language all at once, we should at least leave nothing undone that might contribute to its falling into disrepute. To bore one hole after another in it, until what lurks behind it - be it something or nothing - begins to seep through."

Deleuze has a concept called The Fold that comes to mind too. I don't understand it yet, but, in the Deleuzian spirit, I've nicked it and used it for my own ends by plugging it into the above and Pynchon's conception of 20th century history in V. as gathered and rippled fabric:

“Perhaps history this century, thought Eigenvalue, is rippled with gathers in its fabric such that if we are situated, as Stencil seemed to be, at the bottom of a fold, it's impossible to determine warp, woof, or pattern anywhere else. By virtue, however, of existing in one gather it is assumed there are others, compartmented off into sinuous cycles each of which had come to assume greater importance than the weave itself and destroy any continuity. Thus it is that we are charmed by the funny-looking automobiles of the '30's, the curious fashions of the '20's, the particular moral habits of our grandparents. We produce and attend musical comedies about them and are conned into a false memory, a phony nostalgia about what they were. We are accordingly lost to any sense of continuous tradition. Perhaps if we lived on a crest, things would be different. We could at least see.”

Also the scene in Lot 49 where Oedipa cries looking at a Varo painting of women trapped in a tower, weaving the world:

" ... a kind of tapestry which spilled out the slit windows and into a void, seeking hopelessly to fill the void: for all the other buildings and creatures, all the waves, ships and forests of the earth were contained in this tapestry, and the tapestry was the world."

Now I've this image of the world, universe, whatever as this single, continuous membrane, marked, folded, gathered, rippled and given form and texture by something pressing up against it.

Screenshot from 2023-11-12 16-52-40.png
 

version

Well-known member
I just read an interview with Gaddis from '96 were he was lamenting the emphasis on the author over the book. His criticism was of the writer as celebrity, whereas nowadays it feels as though the identity of the author remains paramount, perhaps being viewed as more important than ever, but the author isn't necessarily a celebrity.
 

droid

Well-known member
This one's been bubbling lately with the bumping of the Borges thread and that Land interview where he discusses 'hyperstition':



Now boiling over after a YouTube recommendation which may have been composed in '84 or '22 by an artist who doesn't exist:



View attachment 16613

View attachment 16614

View attachment 16615

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of who "Satoshi Nakamoto" is? How about "Q"? The question of authorship's a big part of the mystique with this stuff. The same goes for the (semi) anonymity of groups like Tiqqun / The Invisible Committee and Luther Blissett / Wu Ming.

As mentioned above, Borges and Lovecraft are two of the daddies as their work's layered with fictional (?) scholars and sources.

We did a thing about this on the show a few months back the most puzzling thing about it is that the music is really good and would easily have garnered attention without the fraud.
 
Top