the question of the two apocalypses part I

content warning: the question as posed originally, the question refracted, proper burial, vanity of vanities, and the “place of direct threat to ourselves”

posed originally

The question of the two apocalypses was first posed as such here:

⏤𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚒 𝚑𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚑𝚘𝚠 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚜  𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚜 𝚐𝚕𝚘𝚋𝚊𝚕 𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜
…𝚒𝚝𝚜 𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚗𝚎𝚎𝚍 𝚐𝚕𝚘𝚋𝚊𝚕 𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚎𝚡𝚒𝚜𝚝 𝚜𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚌𝚊𝚗 𝚕𝚒𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚌 𝚕𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚜
….𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚒𝚗 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝, 𝚐𝚕𝚘𝚋𝚊𝚕 𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚕𝚒𝚟𝚎 𝚞𝚛 𝚜𝚝𝚞𝚙𝚒𝚍 𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚖𝚞𝚝𝚞𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚎𝚡𝚌𝚕𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚟𝚎. 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝, 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚌𝚊𝚗 𝚋𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚢𝚎𝚝 𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚒𝚜 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚑𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜

⏤𝗂𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒'𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗌
​
⏤𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎. 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚒𝚖 𝚜𝚊𝚢𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚒𝚜: 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚔 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚊 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚕 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚢𝚙𝚜𝚎

⏤𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖾...

⏤𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚕𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚢𝚙𝚜𝚎

⏤𝗈𝗁 𝖿𝗋
⏤ғᴀᴄᴛs

⏤𝚠𝚑𝚢? 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚒𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚌𝚌𝚎𝚙𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚕𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚢𝚙𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎, 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐, 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚋𝚘𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎:

𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚕 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚘𝚐𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚢𝚙𝚜𝚎

⏤𝖿𝗋 𝗈𝗄

⏤𝚠𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚐𝚘𝚍 𝚊𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍 𝚕𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚕𝚜 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚠𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚎 𝚜𝚘 𝚖𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚒𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚏𝚎𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚕𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚠𝚎 𝚌𝚊𝚗 𝚘𝚗𝚕𝚢 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚐𝚘𝚍
….

⏤𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑥100000000000​​​

⏤𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌 𝖺𝗐𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗁𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗌 𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝖻𝖾𝗒𝗈𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗉𝗉𝗅 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗍

⏤𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚍𝚘 𝚞 𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚗….𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚡𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚏 𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚒𝚊𝚕 𝚒𝚜 𝚕𝚘𝚋𝚘𝚝𝚘𝚖𝚒𝚣𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎? 𝚢𝚎𝚊𝚑.

⏤𝖼𝗎𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖾𝗉 𝖼𝗈𝗉𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝖾𝖽𝖾𝖽

⏤𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚗 [𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎] 𝚎𝚡𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚓𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚍𝚎 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘

⏤[𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗇𝗈𝗐]

the question refracted

The question of the two apocalypses refracts (appears in different directions, and at different intensities under different conditions) like this, becoming the questions plural:

a. Has the life of culture faded from its eyes because terrestrial life will-has ended?

or, alternatively, b. Will terrestrial life has ended because the life of culture faded from its eyes?

or, alternatively, c. Is culture the life in terrestrial life’s eyes which has faded, in anticipation of the end of terrestrial life?

or, alternatively, d. Will terrestrial life has ended because culture lived on?

or, alternatively, e. Will terrestrial life have ended because culture is dying?

or, alternatively, f. Will terrestrial life have ended because culture is living on?

and, g. If the end of terrestrial life, though subject to delay, was already assured, then can humankind observe its own proper burial? Will it live out the end of a unique world in lucidity or die in a coma?

The morbid thought comes to me here: that angelicism is Antigone to all human culture, arrived to shroud the dead culture in white, and sprinkle “the dirt” on it. Or, if culture “lives,” though in a coma, then angelicism buries it “alive.”

The day before i began this angelicism01 wrote:

“you don’t have to be retarded to see how ‘retarded’ all current culture is (no exceptions at all).

….i, as angelicism01, lol, which is your postsubjective position too, should you wish to accept it, have no interest at all in the entirety of culture.

That nothing is new under the sun is nothing new; see Shakespeare and Cioran for more on how all is vanity, and will be vanity in the spring, summer, fall, and now winter of human life.

On the sources of this unending vanity, 01 says that “everything we do and make” is guided by “structural unreading.” A univeral “cleft” in the human mind casts overwhelming distortions; these distortions manifest in “structural unreading.”

01 includes a dramatically beautiful example. Envy, 01 says, is “simply the best proof” of this structural unreading:

envy is a temporal disorder loop occasioned by imaging the time others have in their own life as compared to our own. the other appears to have more time and more thoughts, and to be worthy of deep envy and obsession, not because they are any more free from the democracy of time than us, but because they are free, within us, of our own monad of space-time. envy, in this sense, is simply the best proof we have of the deep success of structural unreading. envy is envy of everything i contain and misread absent an outside occasion. envy is self-envy.

In this example of structural unreading, the failure to appraise the other’s time-bound existence creates envy, envy which motivates empty exertion. The exertion’s emptiness, its vanity, lies in its attempt to compensate for what is already there in oneself. It is vain because it is impossible, and vain because self-absorbed; vain in both senses.

The restoration of time then requires accepting the vanity of all plays within the crab bucket. In stating that life has been enough, and in developing “endology,” the discourse of the end of the world, angelicism restores lengths of living-time to anyone with the capacity to read.

But if humankind has been trapped in a great redundancy since the birth of writing, then the entirety of culture is not simply dead or dying: it was stillborn. And if this is true, then the world’s advance into its own ending becomes itself redundant to the fact of a culture that never lived. For example, in my understanding, Cervantes wrote the first novel ever out of a restive indifference to the entirety of culture, which is where we find ourselves again now.

so i add another articulation to the question: h. was culture stillborn?

Was the culture of an envious species ever anything other than an “extinct culture?” Is the failure of culture overdetermined by the combined weight of envy and extinction? (I will consult Girard later on).

I asked whether the vanity of human exertion would obtain on a superhabitable planet in the earlier post “did Cioran know”.

the confusion

angelicism is written outdoors, under the sun, under the moon, under conditions of elemental and permanent confusion.

angelicism01 is under conditions of confusion on the ordering and answering of the questions of the two apocalypses. angelicism is not a dogma premised on any answer to these questions, but a space where these questions are considered in a light-grave manner. angelicism is not the culture hospital; if you have a “diagnoses” and “interventions” then you are pedantic, a fed, and better off acting on instinct. btw, i add that one of the ugliest things about the entirety of culture now is that it has itself merged with the culture hospital alias the culture parasite alias the culture cash cow.

i’m doing this for the head rush, so here is the confusion.

angelicism is the feeling that never has there been a cultural artefact that the universe could not do without.

….

“you don’t have to be retarded to see how ‘retarded’ all current culture is (no exceptions at all).

….

culture from one end as abbreviation to the other as expansion is merely a set of tropes that act as occlusion triggers and feints. culture may be in the middle of a stage of technological perfection, for example, and yet the difference made to extinction qua extinction will have been next to nothing.

Corretc, that there has never been a cultural artefact that the universe could not do without. But every new cultural artefact adds itself to the entirety of the universe for better or for worse. If culture is redundant and superfluous to the universe before it, this is because culture is always behind the times of the instinct. The greater the production value, the more ‘retarded,’ the later it “is running” “to the game.” And yet “the difference made to extinction qua extinction will have been next to nothing.” Which means that extinction qua extinction is a space outside of culture, independent of culture, untouchable by culture because it annihilates the premises of culture.

For another head rush, more confusion:

we know that writing as such and the whole of culture has ‘brought us to this’ i.e. to near-side imminent extinction qua extinction.

….

we might say instead that the refined art of omnilapse is itself the cardinal technology that now places us in the place of direct threat to ourselves. text produces itself like a machine and grammar more than ever.

This makes no difference to extinction qua extinction itself, except for bringing us nearer to it through occlusion and distraction. The stupidity of accelerationism tells on itself really hard in this space. I have to go now, but will be back always.

To forget that we are in the winter of the golden age of the universe is THE POLLUTION OF TIME ITSELF.