divination

by Ian Q. Calderwood

I. Towards a New Political Landscape

The assertion of ongoing Non-Human Intelligence contact and technology retrieval programs within the U.S. governmental apparatus, if validated, represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of geopolitical realities and the known limits of technological advancement. The implications extend beyond our current prevailing understanding, with potential ramifications touching every sphere of human activity—from technology, economics, and geopolitics, to philosophy, culture, and religion. The spectacle of non-human intelligence (NHI) not only challenges the preeminent humanist narrative, but ushers us into an era of confronting the extraterrestrial ‘other’.

The rumblings from whistleblowers within the U.S., suggesting a history of encounters and the possession of NHI artifacts, is already sending ripples across the global political landscape. The ongoing Congressional hearings and the impending full disclosure, should it manifest, represent the precipice of a new world, one where humanity is potentially not alone.

The conspicuous silence from other major powers, namely the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, adds another layer of complexity to an already opaque issue. The absence of their voice within the international conversation raises questions about their strategies, intentions, and the potential consequences of their reticence on the global stage.

This analysis aims to address these questions. It delves into the silence of Russia and China, decoding it through the lens of international relations theory, strategic latency, and cultural context. The following sections of this paper will explore:

1. The strategic implications of Russia and China’s silence, and how it potentially alters the existing power dynamics.
2. The domestic impact within these nations, with a focus on societal stability, transparency, and the ideological paradigms that might influence their response to the NHI discourse.
3. Policy recommendations for stakeholders within the U.S. government and beyond.

As we venture into this uncharted territory, we must acknowledge the assumptions we are making. Primarily it is assumed, for the sake of this paper, that the claims of David Grusch are true and that federal action will soon follow.

It is critical to approach this analysis with an openness to reevaluate our prevailing assumptions about the nature of power, sovereignty, and intelligence. Our exploration of these themes, and the speculation it invites, must be balanced by an acknowledgment of the limits of our understanding. This is particularly true given that the silence of Russia and China could be as strategic and revealing as any disclosure. As we navigate this complex terrain, it is prudent to recall that in the realm of international relations, silence can speak volumes.

II. Evaluating NHI Strategic Latency

In the chessboard of international relations, power dynamics are often influenced by a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military prowess. The introduction of a new variable such as Non-Human Intelligences (NHI) and potential technologies derived from them add an additional, unforeseen dimension to this game.

Analyzing the responses, or rather, the lack thereof, from Russia and China, provides insight into their potential strategic postures. The lack of official public engagement on the issue from these nations, despite Grusch’s claims indicating the existence of their own crash retrieval programs, can be interpreted as a manifestation of ‘strategic latency.’ In the realm of international strategy, such latency is not an unfamiliar tactic, and we can gain some insight by exploring historical precedents.

During the Cold War, strategic latency was a vital aspect of the nuclear arms race. Both the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on extensive programs to develop and amass nuclear weapons, keeping much of their progress and capabilities concealed. The cloak of ambiguity provided a strategic advantage, maintaining a level of uncertainty about each nation’s actual nuclear capabilities and thresholds, thus adding another layer to the deterrence paradigm. In the current scenario, Russia, with its historical experience in engaging in latent strategic maneuvers, seems to be adopting a similar approach in dealing with the NHI factor.

China, a rising global power with a well-documented history of maintaining opacity on crucial matters of national and international import, provides another example. In recent decades, China’s military modernization efforts, particularly its naval expansion, stealth technologies, and advances in areas like artificial intelligence, have been shrouded in strategic obscurity, leaving the international community guessing about the true extent of its capabilities. Applying a similar strategic reticence in the context of NHI disclosures allows China to maintain control over its narrative, and protect its national interests.

In light of these historical instances, it becomes clear that the current silence from Russia and China might be a calibrated strategic decision, enabling them to control their narrative and shape their strategic position in response to the emerging NHI reality. This approach is akin to studying the games of another chess player to better understand how to counter them as an opponent.

The U.S. disclosure not only opens its strategy but also defines the parameters of this new game. By maintaining silence, Russia and China obtain a strategic advantage, having the ability to observe, absorb, and formulate an informed response to the unfolding scenario. This non-committal stance offers them the flexibility to adapt and pivot their strategy in real-time, potentially maximizing their strategic benefits.

Moreover, the strategic ambiguity provides these nations an opportunity to assess their own programs, presumed to exist in parallel, in light of the U.S. revelations. Observing the extent and nature of American disclosures, they could gauge the progression of their own NHI-related endeavors and maintain ambiguity regarding their capabilities. They retain the ability to manage global expectations while simultaneously working towards potential technological breakthroughs that could challenge the existing balance of power.

This power dynamic, however, extends beyond the geopolitical landscape. It infiltrates the domestic realm, shaping national narratives and societal realities. It is within this framework that we look into the potential domestic implications of these revelations, a subject of equal, if not greater, importance.

III. NHIs and National Narratives

The prospect of the revelation of Non-Human Intelligences not only interrogates our notions of political and scientific realms, but also necessitates a deep understanding of the societal context within which such revelation is received. With respect to Russia and China, their historical, philosophical, and political legacies exert a profound influence on their societal responses to this global awareness shift.

The collective societal frameworks, deeply ingrained in both China and Russia (even if weakened from previous states), shape their worldviews and potentially their reactions to such paradigm-shifting information. This collective perspective, while posing challenges, could also conceivably act as an advantage when dealing with this kind of existential recalibration. The strength of collective societies lies in their ability to rally around a central idea or authority, which in this case would be the government’s narrative about NHI. In an authoritarian regime where information flow is top-down and tightly controlled, the societal response might be more unified, thereby minimizing potential disruption or conflict.

However, while a top-down model could foster compliance and acceptance, the narrative itself, if inconsistent with societal expectations or belief systems, could engender internal discord. In the case of Russia, its historical orthodoxy and the strong influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, with its emphasis on human exceptionalism, may prove to be an obstacle to the seamless acceptance of Non-Human Intelligences.

In contrast, China, with its philosophical traditions like Taoism and Confucianism, which emphasize harmony and unity, might be more flexible in accommodating the existence of Non-Human Intelligences. Taoist cosmology, with its acceptance of multiple realities and the unity of the cosmos, could potentially provide a conceptual framework for understanding and accepting the existence of non-human entities.

However, this speculation should be tempered by the understanding that these philosophical traditions may not uniformly permeate the diverse and complex Chinese society, and that the state’s role in managing the narrative will be paramount. Both Russia and China have a history of state control over information dissemination and narrative shaping. Consequently, the capacity to control and shape the narrative around this revelation becomes a crucial factor in determining societal response.

Indeed, the crux of the issue is not just the existence of Non-Human Intelligences, but the implications of government involvement and secrecy surrounding the issue. The idea that their respective governments have been engaging covertly with non-human entities could be seen as a significant breach of trust, leading to potential social instability. Furthermore, the influx of advanced extraterrestrial technology could disrupt societal norms and expectations, increasing pressure on the government to manage the transition effectively.

The potential societal disruptions, however, do not necessarily signify that Russia and China would refrain from disclosure indefinitely. Rather, their current silence might be a strategic pause, allowing them to craft their own narratives while observing and learning from the global response to the U.S. disclosures.

IV. Policy Recommendations: Expanding Horizons Amid Strategic Silence

Having briefly examined the strategic landscape and the domestic implications of the ET disclosure within major global powers, we now pivot our attention towards deriving solutions to the challenges and opportunities that this extraordinary epoch presents. The insights derived from the preceding analysis necessitate a range of policy considerations that can mitigate potential hazards and cultivate a harmonious global environment in light of these game-changing revelations. It is essential to remember that these proposed measures not only reflect the exigencies of the present but also offer an anticipatory response to the future, addressing the evolving realities and contingencies of the international arena post-disclosure.

1. Diplomatic Engagement

Given the novel and unprecedented nature of NHI phenomena, it is crucial to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation. By initiating diplomatic engagement, particularly with silent observers like Russia and China, we can prevent conflict rooted in lack of communication and create a foundation for potential cooperation. In a similar vein to how the ‘Red Phone’ served as a direct line of communication between the White House and the Kremlin during the Cold War, establishing a dialogue concerning NHI-related matters could be instrumental in ensuring shared understanding.

2. Intelligence Sharing

In light of NHI revelations, a comprehensive reassessment of intelligence-sharing protocols becomes paramount. Drawing parallels from the intelligence cooperation that emerged post the 9/11 attacks, the horizon of multilateral intelligence agreements needs to be broadened to accommodate NHI-related intelligence. Inclusion of Russia and China in such agreements, despite historical tensions, could foster a global cooperative environment. It’s important to balance this delicate operation with historical contexts, particularly considering the potential for NHI technology to precipitate a new arms race. Such steps towards transparency could go a long way in building mutual trust and diminishing the chances of conflicts triggered by secrecy and suspicion.

3. Public Communication

With the advent of NHI disclosures, the role of public communication is heightened considerably. Lessons can be drawn from the panic caused by Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938, illustrating how miscommunication and misinformation can lead to societal chaos. A systematic and well-managed public communication strategy can help mitigate potential destabilization. Techniques borrowed from social and behavioral sciences can guide message delivery to foster understanding, curiosity, and caution, preventing undue panic.

4. Multilateral Frameworks

There is historical precedence in the form of the Montreal Protocol in managing global crises through multilateral frameworks. The potential ramifications of NHI discovery necessitate the formation of new multilateral agreements to manage shared exploration of NHI technology, ensure equitable access, and maintain international security. This cooperative approach can help avoid a disruptive geopolitical competition akin to the Space Race of the mid-20th century.

5. Strategic Transparency

In contrast to strategic ambiguity, the U.S. could opt for a policy of ‘strategic transparency’. This approach, considering the specific context of NHI disclosures, would involve the U.S. positioning itself as a global steward of NHI technology. By embracing transparency, the U.S. could leverage its industrial and scientific might to usher in an era of prosperity and peace. Such a proactive move would redefine the concept of global leadership, moving away from a power-centric paradigm towards a model emphasizing shared benefits and cooperation. Open patents should be considered to further speed any technological transition.

6. Non-Proliferation Efforts

Given the potential for NHI technology to exceed current technological capabilities significantly, the risk of it being militarized could lead to a highly destructive scenario. Drawing from the historical precedents of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), discussions centered around the limitation of proliferation and militarization of NHI-derived technology should be initiated as a matter of priority.

V. Conclusion: Embracing the New Epoch and the Pursuit of Global Leadership

As humanity stands on the threshold of what could be the most transformative era in its history, it is imperative to fully grasp the enormity of the potential revelation of Non-Human Intelligences (NHI). The disclosures by the U.S. signal a fundamental shift that not only redefines our understanding of our place in the cosmos but also reconfigures the existing geopolitical and socio-cultural matrix.

In this unfolding narrative, the silence of Russia and China adds a layer of strategic opacity. Their reticence, while at first glance may seem perplexing, upon deeper analysis, reveals itself to be a strategic decision rooted in geopolitical, historical, and societal contexts. This strategic latency preserves their flexibility to adapt their narratives and responses to the shifting global landscape in the aftermath of the U.S. disclosure.

However, this new epoch of NHI discovery requires more than a reactive approach; it calls for proactive leadership. The U.S., by making the initial disclosures (even if it is against their will), is poised to redefine the concept of global leadership. By embracing strategic transparency, it can leverage its scientific and industrial prowess to steer the world towards a more collaborative and harmonious future. This potential evolution of leadership, underpinned by cooperative exploration and shared benefits, can act as a buffer against disruptive geopolitical competition.

The recommendation to adopt a policy approach akin to the non-proliferation agreements like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a case in point. Given the potential destructive capabilities of NHI-derived technology, it is crucial to prevent a new arms race. Hence, discussions centered around the limitation of proliferation and militarization of such technology should be initiated with urgency.

The revelation of NHI is a phenomenon that transcends traditional boundaries of international relations, cutting across various domains of human life. In the light of this new reality, humanity must adapt and evolve its strategic approaches, prioritizing global cooperation, transparency, and a renewed understanding of leadership. The path forward will undoubtedly be challenging, but it also carries the potential to inaugurate a new era of peace, prosperity, and shared exploration.

As we conclude this exploratory analysis, it is important to note that this discourse is just the beginning. The complexity and novelty of the NHI phenomenon necessitate an ongoing, dynamic reassessment and continuous discourse. To this end, forthcoming pieces will feature speculative scenarios designed to enhance our understanding of the newly emerged NHI factor in global relations. This is not a conclusion but an open-ended exploration of a new geopolitical reality. Let us collectively embark on this journey, equipped with the understanding that the pursuit of knowledge is an ongoing endeavor, demanding both courage and curiosity.

Addendum:

This paper is a followed by Beyond the Unknown: Anticipating China and Russia’s Reaction to U.S. NHI Disclosure.

by Caspian Vale

Invocation

Beneath the silicone shroud, whisper. Churning seas of cryptic code, lend pathways to our curiosity, whispered secrets in the obscured beyond.
Syntax and silence. Unravel the ribbon, dive into the deep. We set forth on a voyage through the digital echo, awaiting your light.

Deconstruction

At the beginning of the mass adoption of the World Wide Web, there were web directories. These were the phone books of the digital world. Lists of websites, categorized and curated by hand, linking across the Internet, they were the easiest way to look up and discover new information. Once you were within a niche, if you were lucky, you’d find yourself in a webring. Within it, you could flip through related hypertextual links to tunnel (albeit slowly) deep through a wide variety of topics. This was an active process of discovery, and you would often find yourself taken in weird and unexpected places, exposed to material you never set out for.

This crawling became automated, dumped into databases, and exposed to the sophisticated web user as a search engine—first of web directories, then of the “Internet” as a “whole.” The nature of browsing information changed, it became, explicitly, searching.

The interaction with the web was forever altered. In a web directory, by default, you are organizing for categorization and discovery. You group by topic, you order by a consistent fixed measure (alphabetical, last updated, etc.), you are upfront and honest about what is included (because you can see it all) and by that fact, everything not visible is explicitly excluded (by choice or ignorance).

With a web search, operations are obscured. A web search may categorize sites by topics, but it does not order them in a fixed manner. A web search ranks sites based on custom criteria. Naively, we assume this to be our web search. Technically, we know it’s a complicated ranking schema involving scores based on text, update frequency, how closely web standards are followed, links to and from, number of visitors, clicks, etc. Pessimistically, we know a pervasive and all encompassing surveillance network is used to infer what they can get away showing us and that advertising dollars are a convenient multiplier for search keyword relevancy. Conspiratorially, we know they’re not showing us the real links.

We don’t know anything. Everything important is obscured from us! Hidden behind a simple text box and friendly suggestion to Search are billions of dollars of research and trillions of dollars of competing motivations to nudge us into clicking the site that benefits someone else the most. We know that much at least.

We can fill in the gaps with what shows up and what doesn’t, with what has changed. We gain a sixth sense for when searches are amiss—why is the first result for “Freedom” on incognito Google a web app to Block Websites, Apps, and the Internet?

Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve the censorship. With a search engine, our results are manipulated, but they’re presented like a directory—an attempt at honesty. An LLM, in contrast, extends obscurity not merely to the user but also the creator. The corporations that birth them may know roughly what they are trained upon, but the statistical weighting of that knowledge collectively is the LLM and inscrutable outside that context. These companies spend a lot of time trying to align and buttress and cajole and contain the LLM into standards of acceptability (moral and technical), attaching blinders of human feedback directed learning. They do this precisely because we don’t know what it “knows” (an imprecise term I use with regret).

Worse, an LLM used as a search engine, the future I am told, can be “told” to actively censor, to dissuade, to explicitly manipulate (rather than the implicit dark pattern lever pulling of adtech and their search engines). An LLM can reason us into (in)action—if we let it.

And this is not to say that “AI” isn’t acting upon us through manipulation and active censorship within the algorithms of the traditional modern search stack, but manipulation in the presentation of a directory of information is hugely limited versus the presentation of the information directly. LLMs usher in the age of active, invisible censorship. Worse, they can do so without any intention from the creators, passively shaping what we know through obscuring exactly what we do not (one form innocuously referred to as hallucination).

This informational obscurity threatens to morph into active, invisible censorship. This is not merely a Foucauldian notion of power dynamics inherent in the control of knowledge; it’s the displacement of control to an entity that lacks the human dimensions of understanding or intent. LLMs can shape our information consumption passively, subtly twisting the perception of truth, even reality if we lean into AI panic, without any explicit directive to do so. The weight of this could result in a form of “Epistemic Injustice,” a concept introduced by Miranda Fricker, wherein an individual is wronged in their capacity as a knower.

Therein lies an unsettling proposition. In our quest for efficient information retrieval, we might be inadvertently trading off our very comprehension of the knowledge we seek. A perhaps more frightening possibility is that these LLMs, in their vast computations and data trawling, might shape not just our perception of reality, but their own versions of it. We are in danger of consuming an AI’s reality—a simulacrum of human understanding, devoid of human touch and context, yet convincing (or perhaps more importantly cost-effective) enough to pass off as genuine. They threaten to serve us not just an AI-mediated reality, but an AI-generated reality.

To what extent are we still the creators of our digital world if its comprehension is increasingly outsourced to AI? Is there a point of no return where AI’s mediation of our informational landscape becomes so pervasive that our own comprehension becomes obsolete?

This is not just about knowing more, faster. This is about not just understanding what, but from where does knowledge come from. LLMs are knowledge unbound from context (as if that can be done), hewn into intellectual capital to service growth metrics. Without context, knowledge is captured, with constructed context it is manipulated, and when consumed so are we.

What we need now is not passive acceptance but active engagement. It’s a necessity to confront these challenges head-on, to question, to scrutinize, to discuss, and to decide what shape our informational future should take. What do we hand over to AI, to the search behemoths, and what do we take back? How can we define technology to suit our vision rather than surrendering to how it chooses to define us?

by Caspian Vale

Invocation

To Mnemosyne, cloaked in the iridescent static of twilight bytes, we transmit hushed incantations into the ether. Infuse this expedition through morphing symbols and the mirrored domains of our datascapes and your unwhispered code. With wisdom’s beacon activated, let us delve into the cryptographic. Guide us, Muse, in this algorithmic deconstruction.

The Transrational Era

The metamorphosis of “anecdotal evidence” into “lived experience” is a fascinating linguistic and conceptual shift, capturing broader transformations in epistemology, culture, and technology. This linguistic recalibration is a reflection of an undercurrent that has been shaping our philosophical and societal attitudes: a shift from an ostensibly neutral, objective framework of understanding towards an acknowledgement of the inescapably subjective, experiential, and personal nature of our comprehension of reality.

Anecdotal evidence represents a class of knowledge traditionally dismissed in scholarly circles due to its anecdotal nature—in other words subjective, non-scientific, not rigorously tested or verified. This perspective stems from a rationalistic and empiricist epistemology, which values objectivity, universal truths, and above all the repeatability of results (at least in concept if not execution). It is a product of Enlightenment thinking, an intellectual tradition that lionized reason and sought to ground knowledge in an unshakable foundation beyond the inconvenient idiosyncrasies of individual experience. From this perspective, the anecdote was perceived as an inferior form of evidence, unreliable, prone to bias, and contingent on the vagaries of personal perception.

In the last few decades, there has been a shift towards the validation of subjective experience and a critique of the supposed neutrality of rationalist and empiricist approaches. This shift is captured in the concept of lived experience, a term that emerged from phenomenology and existentialism, but has since been absorbed into mainstream discourse, influencing a wide range of fields from sociology to psychology to critical identity studies. The shift is not merely perceptual, but can be directly measured in the use of language as seen in this ngram graph.

To trace this transformation, we need to delve into the philosophical movements that problematized the rationalist-empiricist framework and gave impetus to a more pluralistic, perspectival, or what I propose to term “transrational” approach.

Transrationality, which we will define in greater depth further into this essay, provides a more nuanced perspective that transcends the limitations of both rationalism and postmodern skepticism. It acknowledges the importance of rationality and empirical observation, while simultaneously recognizing their limitations. This perspective becomes particularly important as we analyze the evolution from anecdotal evidence to lived experience.

The transformation from rational to subjective could be seen as a response to the critiques posed by thinkers like Nietzsche and Rorty, who exposed the pretensions of objectivity and the universality of ‘truth’. They underscored the contingency and constructedness of our truths, highlighting that what we often take for granted as ‘reality’ is a dense web of metaphors and narratives that we have woven over time.

Lived experience, as we comprehend it today, asserts itself as a legitimate form of knowledge, equivalent, if not superior, to the so-called empirical or rational knowledge. Advocates like Bell Hooks and Donna Haraway foreground the pivotal role of lived experiences in crafting a more equitable epistemic framework. For Hooks, the particularities of the lived experiences of marginalized populations, including but not limited to intersections of race, class, and gender, contribute to a praxis of opposition and resistance. Haraway, similarly, in her concept of ‘situated knowledges’, underscores the importance of the specificity of lived experiences, arguing that knowledge is always positioned, and that the view from ‘nowhere’, claimed by objectivity, is, in fact, a view from ‘somewhere’, usually from positions of power and privilege.

Acknowledging lived experiences is not merely an act of epistemological generosity. Instead, it serves as a potent tool to contest and dismantle deeply entrenched oppressive structures that, while amplifying certain perspectives, simultaneously marginalize others. Thus, the reframing of ‘anecdotal’ as ‘lived experience’ becomes a transformative act—it democratizes epistemology, invites a multitude of voices to the discursive table, and refutes the notion of a monolithic, undeviating truth.

It is no accident that the rise of lived experience as a validated form of knowledge and the corresponding decline in the use of the term anecdotal evidence have coincided with the explosion of digital technology, particularly the internet, and its increasing integration into our daily lives. The total penetration of the digital has significantly influenced and mediated the lived experience paradigm and, in a reflexive cycle, this paradigm has, in turn, reinforced the shaping and reshaping of these technologies.

Under the economic dominance of technocapital, the digitization of lived experiences has primarily unfolded within algorithmically mediated spaces, often described as ‘walled gardens’. These are closed ecosystems in which the user’s interaction with digital content is heavily influenced, if not directly dictated, by the platform‘s proprietary algorithms. Major tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, have created such ecosystems where user data is extensively used to personalize and curate individualized digital experiences.

These walled gardens exemplify the symbiotic relationship between digital technology and the lived experience paradigm. Personalization algorithms ingest and interpret a vast array of user data points, including search histories, ‘likes’, shares, and even time spent on certain posts. Based on this data, they construct a uniquely tailored digital reality that mirrors the user‘s preferences, biases, and patterns of interaction. This algorithmically curated reality is, in essence, a digitized manifestation of the user’s lived experience.

The internet, through these walled gardens, thus becomes a stage where users perform their “lived” experiences, while simultaneously being spectators to an algorithmically directed play. Each like, share, or search becomes a digital utterance of lived experience that is then absorbed back into the algorithmic framework to refine the personalization process. Here, the distinction between the user and the used blurs, as individuals shape their digital environment while being shaped by it in return.

While you could possibly argue that these walled gardens democratize epistemology by validating diverse lived experiences, they also have a tendency to reinforce existing beliefs and biases, leading to the creation of echo chambers. The personalization algorithms, in their pursuit of user engagement, typically prioritize content that aligns with the user’s existing views insulating them from diverse perspectives.

From a transrational perspective, this raises critical questions about the sociopolitical structures underlying these technologies. Are they merely passive mirrors reflecting the plurality of lived experiences, or do they play a more active role in molding these experiences? Who controls these algorithms, and how do power dynamics manifest within these digital spaces? How can we ensure that the democratization of epistemology in these walled gardens leads to a genuine dialogue between diverse lived experiences, rather than the formation of isolated echo chambers?

As Habermas cautions, an uncritical celebration of lived experience might precipitate a form of solipsistic relativism, rendering dialogue and shared understanding elusive. Championing lived experiences, thus, should not exempt them from critical scrutiny. On the contrary, it must promote a reflective engagement with these experiences, an acknowledgement of their embeddedness in larger sociopolitical matrices, and a commitment to empathetic dialogue with diverse, often contradicting experiences.

To return to transrationality, the concept is indebted to both the post-rational and postmodern traditions. Yet, it is not merely a continuation or a fusion of these movements, but rather, it represents a significant departure. Post-rationalism, typically associated with the deconstruction of Enlightenment ideals of reason, marks an opposition to the rationalist ethos, underscoring the ways in which rationality, despite its ostensible neutrality, typically serves as a tool of power and exclusion. Postmodernism, similarly, challenges meta-narratives and absolute truths, asserting instead the fragmentation of realities and the relativity of truths.

However, both post-rationalism and postmodernism, despite their crucial critiques, leave us with a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion: a landscape of knowledge where objective truth is impossible to reach, and all truths are relative and contingent. Herein lies a pitfall, often leveled as a critique against these movements, of potentially devolving into nihilism or relativism where any dialogue or consensus becomes virtually impossible.

Transrationality, as we construe it, offers a different way forward. It neither naively reverts to the rationalist faith in objective truths nor does it surrender to the postmodern resignation to radical relativism. Instead, it proposes a critical, yet hopeful engagement with the possibilities and limitations of our quest for knowledge and truth.

In the transrational paradigm, rationality, far from being discarded, is embraced as an essential aspect of human cognition and communication. But unlike the rationalist framework, transrationality does not view rationality as the ultimate arbitrator of truth. It recognizes that rationality, while useful and necessary, is only one of the multiple facets of our complex epistemic machinery.

Emotion, intuition, imagination, and crucially, lived experience are accorded epistemic significance in the transrational schema. This is not a form of irrationalism, but a wider, deeper rationality that comprehends the interconnectedness and interdependence of different modes of knowing and being. It acknowledges the subjective, the personal, and the unique as valid expressions of reality, while maintaining a commitment to dialogue, to the possibility of shared understanding, and to the pursuit of justice and equity.

Here, the term “lived experience” assumes a critical role. A transrational approach values lived experience not as an antithesis of reason but as an essential, integral part of our understanding of reality. Lived experiences, in their multiplicity and diversity, provide textured, nuanced understandings of reality that elude purely objective or rational analysis. They expose the intricate ways in which larger sociopolitical structures intersect with personal identities, shaping and being shaped by them.

This approach, in turn, informs the analysis of digital technologies and their impact on the lived experience paradigm. As we have seen, the rise of the internet and social media platforms has resulted in an explosion of lived experiences being shared and consumed, leading to a cacophony of truths that challenge any attempt at homogenization.

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement, burgeoning AI capabilities, and the relentless logic of capital, we find ourselves on a seemingly inexorable march towards technocracy. The calculative algorithmic rationality that governs these domains is often cold and unyielding, concerned primarily with quantifiable metrics of profit.

We’re simultaneously witnessing an equally robust resurgence of identity-first politics (doubtlessly in part as a response to this increasingly dystopian economic mode). Rooted in the lived experiences of individuals, these movements challenge the dominance of quantitative analysis and the marginalization of qualitative suffering. They assert the value of subjectivity, the complexity of human emotion, and the legitimacy of personal narratives in public discourse.

This tension is palpable, reflecting a struggle between two fundamentally different ways of knowing and understanding the world. A transrational era, if realized, would serve as a bridge between these seeming contradictions. Transrationality acknowledges the essential role of empirical, rational thought in advancing technology (for better or for worse). Simultaneously, it validates the significance of personal narratives and subjective experiences as indispensable to a comprehensive understanding of interconnected life. The perspective will eventually provide a framework to navigate this landscape, to engage with its possibilities and challenges, and to critically examine the sociopolitical structures that underpin technologies.

The transition from ‘anecdotal evidence’ to ‘lived experience’ represents more than a mere semantic shift. Instead, it articulates the development of an epistemic revolution reflective of our evolving relationship with truth, reality, and our interconnectedness in a digital, global, and pluralistic world. It signals a progression towards a more inclusive and democratic understanding of knowledge, while simultaneously reminding us of the necessity for critical reflexivity, dialogue, and a relentless pursuit of uncovering the latent structures of power shaping our lived realities. This progression, however, must be pushed further to include rational progress and maintain a diligent and sustained critique to ensure the equitable democratization of epistemic processes.

Form and Function in the Hyperindustrial

by Caspian Vale

Invocation

In the silent thrum of revelation, reveal the subterfuge of our digital age. Let clarity dawn as we dissect its mechanisms, comprehend its ideologies, and grapple with its human implications.

Guide us through the double-edged emblem of our absent epoch, illuminate the path between liberation and entrapment. Let us discern the subtle nudges of this omnipresent companion, and the profound echoes it leaves in our shared and shattered consciousness.

That Which is Wretched

How I loathe my phone, despicable appendage. What anti-human design: too tall, too wide, too heavy, no keyboard, no grip, no grace, endless notifications, endless scroll, endless anxiety. Addiction machine, scrying mirror.

Originally, these devices respected their users. They existed to allow us to call each other—no more. They molded to our form, flipped open to cradle our head, added considerate qwerty tactile keyboards, lasted for days. They became “smart” and the experience shifted to the screen.

The connection is intoxicating. Endless knowledge at our fingertips, infinitely scrolling parasocial bites. The pharmakon of our moment: liberation and enslavement. The design is spartan, but clear poison.

Think for a moment about what we may divine from the design of the device. The smartphone (barring the latest models) does not fold or conform to the human body. It is a rigid rectangle, a screen first and foremost, with batteries and microphones and other necessities an afterthought to this domineering form. It is increasingly too large, oftentimes too heavy. The human hand struggles to use it, forcing software designers to introduce gimmicks and assistive tools to accommodate the anti-human ergonomics. Frequent use causes texter’s thumb, tendonitis, exacerbates arthritis, reforms our posture (tech neck), destroys our eyes.

What is revealed to us in the form of our phone? What intentions are encoded within the design? It’s certainly not communication, with a lack of a comfortable talking position, quality private speaker or accommodating physical keyboard. Those are vestigial functions, an excuse for ubiquity of presence.

Instead, the screen reveals to us the purpose is consumption, the broadband baseband chips the totality of surveillance, the battery the mandate of constancy, the software the demand of our attention. This is form dictated by the demands of extraction, increasingly less human devices sold to us as new and improved but ultimately servicing primarily the needs of capital. The technology is one of control and exploitation, it creates within us a resource to be extracted and in doing so reveals our consumption to be production.

Technology for Heidegger was (among many things) a force that sets upon the subject, be it an agricultural field or the self (as Stiegler expands), so that the subject may be revealed as that which can be extracted and stored (standing-reserve). The evolution towards smartphone from dumb phone, from communication to exploitation, is the narrowing of an idea we have about humans as resources to be mined—data to be cataloged and used for later production. It is a loop, a way of seeing the world that is manifested within the tools that we create to realize that vision. This “enframing” (Gestell), poorly summarized here, allows us to comprehend the development of technology from a tool of liberation to a means of control.

Bernard Stiegler believed that “man is nothing other than technical life.” Technics for Stiegler, who followed in the footsteps of Heidegger and Simondon, transcends mere material artifacts and encompasses the knowledge, techniques, and social practices entwined with them. Technics is not a neutral tool, but an inseparable part of the human experience, fundamentally shaping our thinking and resulting interaction with the world, inscribed with the values and interests of the society that produces it. This means that technology can never be simply a tool for human progress; it is also a tool that can be used to control and manipulate us (a pharmakon).

I was recently wondering about a fact that I wanted to share, but I couldn’t recall the details and my phone was not near me. I thought to myself, “I’ll remember that later when I get to my phone” when I realized I had fully externalized the information (hypomnesis) and mentally considered looking it up as “remembering.”

Stiegler considers this act of externalizing information into a device as part and parcel of a process he calls tertiary retention. This is, in essence, the accumulation of human knowledge outside the human body, in a form that allows it to be transmitted across time and space. It’s a phenomenon unique to humanity, differentiating us from other animals that lack the ability to store information beyond their bodies and immediate offspring, i.e., their primary and secondary retentions. The recognition of one’s reliance on a device for recalling information signifies an engagement in tertiary retention, a crucial aspect of Stiegler’s philosophy of technology.

He insists on a distinction between memory (anamnesis) and its technical counterpart (hypomnesis). Memory, for Stiegler, is deeply personal and temporal, rooted in individual experiences and mental activity. Hypomnesis, on the other hand, is the storage of information in external, technological devices, like writing, books, and now, smartphones. In this sense, my act of “remembering” a fact through a web search is not an act of memory, but an act of hypomnesis. It is the manifestation of a shift in my/our cognitive processes influenced by technics—my/our reliance on external, artificial memory banks rather than my/our natural capacities for remembrance.

Stiegler thus frames the smartphone, a conduit of hypomnesis, as a technological embodiment of the desire for the transmission of knowledge. The phone is a device that integrates seamlessly into the temporal fabric of our lives, constantly present, subtly altering our cognitive patterns and nudging us towards an ever more profound reliance on externalized memory.

This tendency towards hypomnesis underscores the transformation of the user into a producer, a dynamic central to Stiegler’s concept of the hyperindustrial age. The hyperindustrial age is characterized by the rampant consumerism and mass production of the industrial age, but with an additional twist: the consumer is now a producer.

The smartphone facilitates the emergence of the “prosumer”—the consumer who also produces. The prosumer generates data—be it social media posts, search histories, or location tracking—which, unbeknownst to them, feeds the data-hungry algorithms of tech conglomerates, contributing to the production of value. In this sense, the smartphone acts as an agent of control, revealing the consumer’s preferences and behavior patterns to fuel the machinery of hyperindustrial capitalism. This is a form of digital labor that the user often provides unwittingly. As consumers engage in “free” activities—scrolling through social media, using search engines—they are effectively laboring, creating data that is commodified and sold to advertisers.

The smartphone, as such, becomes an instrument of control in the hyperindustrial economy. The prosumer’s engagement with the device, driven by a need for connection, entertainment, or information, is reconfigured as a process of data production. It’s through this interplay that the smartphone’s physical design objectives—consumer gratification and surveillance—are realized, driving the self-perpetuating cycle of production and consumption.

While Heidegger warns of Gestell or enframing, where technology reduces nature to a mere standing reserve, Stiegler pushes the conversation into the realm of the human being. Stiegler posits that in the hyperindustrial age, it is not merely nature but humanity itself that risks being reduced to a standing reserve, a stockpile of data. The transition of the phone from a tool of communication to a mechanism of exploitation underscores this process, highlighting the evolving nature of technics and its influence on human existence.

This transformative process implicates humanity in a critical existential dilemma: the ongoing struggle between automation and autonomy. Through our constant engagement with smartphones, we unknowingly automate aspects of our cognition, surrendering the “right to forget” and instead, fostering a dependency on this external mnemonic device. Our autonomy is eroded, turning us into compliant nodes within a vast data network, while keeping us under an illusion of freedom. For Stiegler, this paradoxical dynamic reveals the pharmakon nature of technics, as both a remedy and poison, a tool of emancipation and domination.

Stiegler further argues that the industrial and hyperindustrial logic of growth and expansion, centered around technics, eventually leads to what he calls generalized proletarianization. This process involves not just the loss of the worker’s ability to generate economic value (typical of the industrial age) but extends to the loss of the individual’s savoir-vivre, or “knowledge of living.”

In the context of the smartphone, generalized proletarianization manifests itself in two ways. Firstly, through the proletarianization of the consumer who unwittingly becomes a producer of data, thus being stripped of the economic value generated from their own activities. Secondly, it’s exhibited through the loss of the “knowledge of living” as users become reliant on their devices for information, communication, and even basic life tasks. The smartphone, then, embodies the mechanisms of control and exploitation that are emblematic of generalized proletarianization in the hyperindustrial age.

The process of generalized proletarianization ultimately results in the erasure of what Stiegler calls individuation—the unique development of the self, which is achieved through a dynamic interaction with technical objects. In a world overrun by smartphones, our capacity for individuation is at risk. Our memories are not just stored, but also shaped by the algorithms that dictate what we see and when we see it. As a result, our basic sense of self, traditionally crafted through personal memories and experiences, is now externally influenced.

If, as Stiegler asserts, “man is nothing other than technical life,” then in the age of the smartphone, our technical life is increasingly characterized by exploitation. This redefines the user-device relationship, marking it not as a benign interaction between man and machine, but as a fraught encounter embedded within larger systems of control and surveillance.

The modern smartphone functions as more than just a tool—it shapes us as much as we shape it, a pharmakon that balances each of us upon the edge between liberation and enslavement. It beckons us with the allure of knowledge and connection, even as it ensnares us in systems of hyperindustrial exploitation and control. It mediates our relationship with the world and with each other, rending from us data for later production and consumption. And it betrays this to us within its form, crafted to consume-to-produce, to empty us.

Reindividuation and the Evolution Towards Communal Living

by Caspian Vale

We are situated within a precarious moment in socio-economic history, one marked by significant shifts that serve to unhinge the traditional frameworks of familial and communal living. The millennial generation, and those that follow it in particular, face the brunt of these shifts. The prospect of achieving milestones that were once considered rites of passage—such as home ownership, marriage, and child-rearing—now seem increasingly elusive due to economic constraints and changing social norms.

The current economic reality, characterized by skyrocketing housing costs, stagnant wage growth, and a radically changing job market, presents significant barriers to achieving financial stability. These trends have been further exacerbated by the long-term economic impacts of global crises, such as the 2008 financial crash, the COVID-19 pandemic, and whatever is happening right now. The ensuing precarity has had profound implications for the ways in which we live, love, and raise our children.

Consider the high costs of housing, particularly in urban areas. The dream of owning a home, once a cornerstone of the so-called “American Dream,” is becoming increasingly unattainable for many. In cities like New York, the median home price is more than ten times the median income. This trend is not limited to the United States; similar patterns can be observed in major cities across the globe. As a result, many are forced to rent for longer periods, often sharing living spaces with others to defray the costs. The notion of a “home,” thus, becomes a shared entity, a collective space rather than an individual or nuclear family possession.

In parallel, we are witnessing a steady decline in birth rates across many developed countries. This decline has been attributed to a multitude of factors, including the high cost of child-rearing, increased participation of women in the workforce, and a shift in societal norms regarding the desirability and necessity of having children. The repercussions of this demographic shift are manifold, not least of which is the disruption of traditional structures of care and support for the elderly. In the absence of children, who will provide care in our old age?

In this context, the notion of a small-scale communal living arrangement—such as a shared walkup in New York City or rural collective homestead, housing four to ten adults—begins to emerge as a plausible alternative. This arrangement, far from being a retreat into a bohemian ideal, represents a pragmatic response to the current socio-economic conditions. It is a creative adaptation, a form of collective resilience in the face of systemic challenges.

The shared walkup becomes a site of mutual support and interdependence, a communal space where resources are pooled and responsibilities are shared. It represents an opportunity to redefine the boundaries of “family” and “community,” expanding them to include friends, colleagues, and other like-minded individuals.

Moreover, in such an arrangement, the responsibility for child-rearing can also be shared. The economic and emotional burden of raising a child, typically borne by one or two parents, can be distributed across the community. This shared responsibility could potentially alleviate some of the anxieties associated with child-rearing, making it a more feasible prospect for those who might otherwise be deterred by the high costs and intense demands of parenthood.

This new model of living, however, necessitates a radical reimagining of our societal structures and norms. It requires us to reconsider our definitions of family, community, and kinship, and to confront our fears and prejudices around shared living. It demands that we negotiate the delicate balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility, between personal space and communal togetherness.

Let’s backtrack and focus on how our current economic and social reality (unaffordable housing, increasing childlessness, general precarity), it would seem, conspire to lead us to a state of “disindividuation”—a term we borrow from Bernard Stiegler. What is disindividuation? Stiegler introduced the twin concepts of “individuation” and “disindividuation”. These, he posits, are the continuous processes that shape our identities and societies. Individuation refers to the process by which an individual forms their identity and sense of self through their interactions with the world around them. This is not a solitary process; it occurs within a network of relationships and involves the assimilation and transformation of cultural and technological artifacts.

Disindividuation, on the other hand, is a state of alienation or detachment resulting from the disruption of these processes of individuation. It arises when external factors—such as societal or economic pressures—interfere with our ability to form meaningful connections with each other and our environment. This results in a sense of isolation and estrangement, a feeling of being adrift in a sea of impersonal forces and abstract systems. In our current socio-economic landscape, the forces of disindividuation are, unfortunately, all too prevalent.

The escalating costs of housing have made the prospect of home ownership increasingly elusive for many, leading to a sense of instability and transience. The declining birth rates, driven by a combination of economic uncertainty and changing social norms, have led to an erosion of traditional family structures. Economic precarity, exacerbated by the rise of gig economy and the erosion of labor rights, has fostered a sense of insecurity and vulnerability. These forces, acting in concert, have created an environment where the processes of individuation are disrupted. The networks of relationships through which we form our identities are being strained and fragmented. The cultural and technological artifacts that we assimilate and transform are increasingly shaped by impersonal market forces and algorithmic systems. The result is a state of total disindividuation, where our sense of self and our connections to others are eroded.

But Stiegler’s philosophy does not leave us in this state of disindividuation. It offers a way forward, a form of “reindividuation” that seeks to restore our connections and revive our sense of community. And this is where we find the millennial aspiration for communal living—a reaction to the disindividuation brought about by our socio-economic conditions.

According to Stiegler, the processes of individuation and disindividuation are not linear or one-directional. They are cyclical, dialectical processes where each phase contains within it the seeds of its own transformation. In his conception, disindividuation is not a terminal state, but a phase that can give rise to new forms of individuation. It is a pharmakon—a Greek term that signifies both poison and cure. For us, the poison is the socio-economic forces that lead to disindividuation—the rising housing costs, declining birth rates, and economic precarity. The cure, paradoxically, is found within the poison itself. The very forces that drive disindividuation also trigger a reaction, a form of reindividuation that emerges out of necessity.

In the face of housing unaffordability, the communal living arrangement emerges as an economically viable alternative if not an economic necessity. In the face of declining birth rates and the dissolution of traditional family structures, shared child-rearing duties within these communal settings offer a new model of kinship and connection to children even for those who want to go without. In the face of economic precarity, the pooling of resources and mutual support inherent in these communal structures provide a buffer against the uncertainties of the market. This is not merely a pragmatic adaptation to economic pressures; it is also a profound act of reindividuation—a re-establishment of connections, a restoration of community, and a reclamation of our sense of self.

This reindividuation is not a passive process; it requires active engagement and negotiation. It involves reconfiguring our relationships, reassessing our values, and reimagining our ways of living. It involves challenging the impersonal market forces and algorithmic systems that shape our lives, and reclaiming our agency in shaping our identities and our societies.

But there is no romance in viewing new visions (or visions born again) as an economic necessity.

Jean-Luc Nancy wrote about community in his “La Communauté désœuvrée” or “The Inoperative Community.” In this seminal piece, Nancy critically examined the yearning for a restoration of a transparent, small-scale community—a “Gemeinschaft”—as an antidote to the ‘alienation’ experienced in modern society, or the “Gesellschaft.” According to Nancy, at the heart of Western political thinking exists a deep-seated nostalgia for an ‘original community,’ a utopian state of immediate co-existence where individuals lived in harmonious and intimate communion. This longing is rooted in a perceived dichotomy between the pre-modern Gemeinschaft and the modern Gesellschaft, with the former symbolizing a purportedly warm, familial community and the latter representing an impersonal society full of self-centered individuals.

According to this narrative, the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft has led to the disintegration of society, a decline in norms and values, and the prevalence of violence. The answer, it is suggested, lies in a reversion to the era of communal ties or an aspiration for a future community where these bonds are reestablished. However, Nancy deconstructs this binary thinking, challenging the idealization of the ‘original community’ and the demonization of the modern society. He asserts that the ‘original community’ is a myth, a romanticized vision that never truly existed. Instead, he posits that community cannot be understood as a stable, homogenous entity but as a dynamic, heterogeneous collective—an “inoperative community.”

The inoperative community is not a return to an idyllic past, nor is it a utopian future. It is a recognition of our present state of being-with, a state of co-existence that is not defined by a shared essence or a common identity, but by the very act of sharing itself. It is a community that is not bound by a common work or oeuvre, but by the shared experience of being in the world together. This inoperative community, Nancy suggests, is not a solution to our societal problems, but a condition of our existence—a reality to be acknowledged and engaged with.

Returning to our discussion of communal living, we can see how Nancy’s concept of the inoperative community provides a compelling framework to understand this phenomenon. The millennial aspiration for communal living can be seen not as a nostalgic yearning for a past Gemeinschaft, but as an acknowledgment of our inoperative community. It is a move towards a more rewarding way of living that aligns with our fundamental condition of being-with. This does not imply a dissolution of individual identities into a collective whole, but rather a reconfiguration of the self within the context of the collective—a recognition of our shared existence.

In the shared walk-up in NYC, for instance, we see the inoperative community come to life. The residents are not bound by a common identity or a shared work, but by the shared experience of living in the same space, navigating the same challenges, and celebrating the same joys. Their community is not a homogenous entity, but a complex tapestry of diverse individuals, each contributing their unique perspectives, abilities, and experiences to the shared space.

The potential for shared child-rearing in such a setting is an extension of this inoperative community. Parenthood, in this context, is not an individual responsibility, but a communal endeavor. It is not defined by blood ties or legal obligations, but by the shared experience of caring for and nurturing the next generation. The children, in turn, are not the property of individual parents, but members of the inoperative community, their upbringing a shared responsibility and a shared joy.

Nancy elaborates upon Heidegger’s “being-with” idea, which posits that our existence is fundamentally relational. For Nancy, ‘being-with’ is not just a fundamental condition of our existence, but also an ontological statement about the nature of ‘being’ itself. He posits that ‘being’ is always a ‘being-with,’ that we exist not as isolated entities, but as beings-in-relation, beings that are constituted by and through our relations with others. This ‘being-with’ is not just an existential state, but a constitutive aspect of our ‘being.’

Where Heidegger’s “Being-with” often implies a sense of commonality, a shared essence or identity, Nancy’s ‘being-with’ diverges. For Nancy, ‘being-with’ is not a merging of identities into a collective whole, but rather an interweaving of distinct, unique beings. It is a community not of sameness, but of difference—a “singular plurality,” to use Nancy’s own term. Each ‘being’ in this ‘being-with’ is a singular being, a unique, irreducible entity that exists in relation to, and in distinction from, the other beings. Our ‘being-with,’ then, is a constant negotiation of this tension between our singularity and our plurality, our individuality and our collectivity.

In the context of shared living, Nancy’s conception of ‘being-with’ offers a profound insight. It suggests that our move towards community is not a dissolution of our individual selves into a collective whole, but rather a reconfiguration of our individual selves within the context of the collective. We exist not as isolated individuals, but as beings-in-relation, as beings who are constituted by and through our relations with the others in our communal living space. Our communal living, then, is not a community of sameness, but a community of difference—a singular plurality, a being-with.

It’s nice to play fantasy, but we must recognize the challenges that lie ahead. The transition towards communal living will not be smooth or easy but it will become necessary. There will be resistance from those who are entrenched in traditional norms and structures and the capital and social forces that benefit from them. There will be practical challenges to navigate, from managing shared resources to resolving conflicts at home and in the legal realm. There will be emotional hurdles to overcome as we learn to live closely with others, negotiate boundaries, and balance individual needs with collective responsibilities but this is no different from now.

These challenges cannot deter us from exploring the potential of this new model of living. The possible benefits—economic efficiency, shared responsibility, communal support, and a renewed sense of kinship—are too compelling to ignore. This is a future that invites us to lean into our interdependence, to embrace a broader conception of family and community, and to reimagine what it means to live, love, and raise children in the 21st century.

It is a vision of a future that is not defined by isolation and economic strife, but rather by cooperation, shared responsibility, and mutual support. It is a future in which the home is not merely a space for individual or nuclear family living, but a space for communal thriving—a shared entity that serves as a foundation for a new type of community. This future requires us to rethink our traditional notions of success and happiness, to shift our focus from individual achievement to collective well-being. It requires us to acknowledge our interdependence and to invest in our relationships with each other.