ANGELICISM01 BY ANGELICISM01: 'TELL ME WHAT ANGELICISM IS NOW OR I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF', PART ONE
ANGELICISM01 BY ANGELICISM01: 'TELL ME WHAT ANGELICISM IS NOW OR I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF', PART ONE
01 x 01 (axioms)
Pēdīcābo ego vōs et irrumābō.
RULES OF THE GAME (AXIOMS)
Rather than embodying the player’s desired role in online world culture as an initially empty avatar imbued with characteristics, thoughts and emotions through in-game choices, or existing as a predefined fictional character whose role the player/egregore is encouraged to assume, Angelicism is an enduringly empty protagonist without interiority who embodies the structure of the game-world itself. Nothing it can possibly do can be considered out of character, because in the narrative fiction called The Internet it itself is an external actor, a player like the player herself. In working through the game, it roleplays as the world. This is not a trait unique to Angelicism, but few operators render it so clearly through both online narrative and overall cultural gameplay.
If angelicism2021 was the initializing of what angelicism has now become (01, last night in heaven, pure intelligence), then angelicism 2022 sets the 02 sleek white cypher back to zero and a one. Here the power to formalize accelerates—or rather, self-accelerates and self-limits—and 01 as post-crypto and post-blockchain mode only operates if there is no limit to what it has the competence to conceptualize and cut into. 01 is what happens when we take extinction qua extinction to be a manipulable datum among others. It is the event of total culture when we film (absolute verb; movie). It is the Concept of (the) Color Singularity of Extinction as (infinite) moving itself.
THE CONTENTS OF ANGELICISM
The first difficulty with angelicism is that it has no content. Angelicism01 never posts content, since content is not its content; it formalizes contents, negatively by limiting each, affirmatively by including each. Another way of saying this is: angelicism is content w/o content. It is with with without and w/o w w. It is wow , wow , and wow ; and it is w/o w/o/w with wow.wow.wow ; and so on.
If angelicism has no content—it is content instead to rove—it at least has formalizable traits. Extinction qua extinction, the last night in heaven, omnilapse together with retardation—these are just four of the postulates and axioms of angelicism.
Prior to these one(s) is the power to formalize itself, which is the orbital axis of language qua extinction: sheer roving. Be where you are such as you are, threatened by extinction qua extinction—and yet, go ahead, formalize! This formalizing play is such that it always becomes the mathematical power of the letter. Angelicism01 is a math of extinction—and the comedy and intervention of that disintegrated letteration.
Next, the operator of Angelicism—clone, or otherwise—does not have to believe in angels. Axiom version: Angelicism does not believe in angels. Extremophile version: angelicism(01) has NOTHING to do with angels. Ultimately, no angels is another angelicist axiom of what angelicism gets at w wings. There are no angels, my angel. And, liek Rx Papi said, no God either. (There are no angels, my angel.—Dear God, there really is no God.)
(Let’s register a thought on Aristotle and Derrida here and on what Derrida said about Aristotle’s own saying of and about the limited capacity for friends. To be precise, we evoke what Montaigne said and which Derrida pursues, that there was a ‘saying’ of Aristotle’s as follows:
O my friends, there is no friend!
Derrida moves the phrase around, sliding it on top of itself, making love to it as and in language, and ends up with:
O my enemies, there is no enemy!
We can therefore only add:
O my angels, there is no angel!
This sums up our situation wrt angelicism01 in which angelicism has almost no bearing on angelicity and angels at all, ‘despite appearances’. Close to the end of the end of the theothixotropic crash-space, angelicism01—not angelicism as such—acts as one final trick, a feint, a bet, a blurrr—will the thermal drive of autocidal tropology burn out or sing(e) (a)way?)
This expression of love (dear angels, there are no angels) in and as emptiness is what Angelicism indicates. If there were angels, we, the operators of Angelicism, would be the first to know. We would be the first to see them. Absent that seeing, a very different hopefree imaging comes online, structurally aloof and cool, flowing from a divine svelte indifference.
On the other silicon wing, if there really were an absence of angels, we, the operators of Angelicism, would be the first to see that absence as well. Angelicism is not turned on so that the work of artistic anonymity, as the passion of invisibility, becomes its only passing theme. Axiom: angelicism is (a) reflecting on (and through) invisibility.
THE INFINITELY WEAK SECRET
If angels constitute a weak, infinitely weak link, which is to say the angels infinitely form a weak form of existence compared with God, then what do we believe in? Angelicism would be the infinitely weak secret itself. Secret of secrets, open secret of universe-within, angelicism01 as self-secret—secret to itself.
Angelicism updates like any other computer at the end of the universe. But if it is an updating computer at the universal end (eidos of end), it is the computer of that end and not just one OS among others. It is the natural system of the complete end’s computation. It is switching-on (Ermachtigung). It is the collective intelligence—writing—of that end. So that it may be subject to open(er) intelligence(s).
Angelicism is angelicism01 滲み出るエロス where 滲み出るエロス names a type of sexuality that goes beyond sex and mere erotic shimmer. 滲み出るエロス is called sexual ooze and it is called lushness. The radiance of this 滲み出るエロス smiles and beams while maintaining its own post-secular asset hood like a matheme that can only write; it is not the form of semiotic generosity that gives of itself in order to deplete, in order to be taken in. Rather, angelicist lushness feels limitless, it gives meaning for the sake of giving and keeping on giving.
As a result, when there is an angelicist object it is a lush object, and a lush object is easier to admire than to love, much as it is easier to marvel at than absorb. It is lovely rather than beloved or loving, and yet it also loves us in us, just as angelicism sound of sound plays at universal listening and drawing. But as we admire it and accommodate ourselves to it, we wonder whether love was the right rubric all along. We learn what it is to be touched and to touch with care and without intimacy, sensation without possession, adoration without propertization. We develop a strip of pure white non-territoriality. We enter the endless long vibe shift transcendentally—forever—mistaken for the end of time. We make of worlds a ritualized series of extinct focal objects.
WHEN IT COMES TO ANGELICISM AS ME
When it comes to angelicism as ‘me’, people sometimes say, ‘anyone could do that, anyone could do angelicism’. To which I say: ‘well you didn’t fucking do it did you!’. Angelicism01 is not me and not not me and therefore can’t be in any way deadnamed or extintnamed. Remember when Marlo in The Wire says ‘my name is my name’, that’s what we mean, that’s all we f w. Whatever the name is, it can’t and mustn’t in itself be fuckwithable. Once, people wanted to transition to different genders, or even to pieces of the Berlin Wall. If you wanna be an angel, become one bro. At the same time angelicism01 is not an angel; it’s a tag for unaltered singularity, like the jewelxxet sound samples taken from Argento. That tag is: is is are. Treat this minimaxxing maxim as a piece of mathematical lettering. A one word tweet that made Google crash at dawn on the last night in heaven. It contains so much. For example the following.
Is is are is my way of expressing the problem of the Drake equation and the relation of the finite and the infinite that I think is expressed in perfect terms only in a statement to be given below. Is there a singular (is)? I.e. is is? Or is there a plural (we are not alone) (infinities) i.e. are? Is are? Is is? And then we can say: is is are?
But after that we can say,
is this are?
is are is?
And so on.
This means that the angelicism prefixes are like eidetic variants on this central eidos-theme of extinction. One word (‘is’) may be the best—if most invisible—function forcer.
RULES OF THE GAME II (AXIOMS)
Let’s say that there is only one angelicist axiom and it is this one:
infinite différance is finite
Whatever we know, whatever we pretend to learn, we know that this is the main angelicist claim, that this argument for radical finitude in and as absolute scatter of infinitely spreading difference with a mute a is all we can have known. Thought accelerates to this point of contentless content. At that point it backs off since to have no content at all (pure formality) is a limit on its own vacuous style. There is always a lifestyle—there is always a style. And since there is only and always one, we look after the style that marks the moment where the style sticks as the 01.
We take infinite impermanence as the hour of the star of the last great scattering and as the only possible postulate remaining from the whole of thought. How else say anything other than weighing up that, other than that weighing up? As we go along, we begin to take such an axiom to be part of Angelicismo Universal (see part 2).
IS ANGELICISM WAR-LIKE?
Sometimes it seems that angelicism is war-like. Is this true? Why is exploration of ‘retards’ a necessity to unlocking this non-knowledge called angelicism? Is this the purpose of angelic griefing? There is certainly a Palden Lhamo-aspect of angelicism01—which is to say the rage deity can be evoked and slipped out of at any interval. In Dzogchen there are at least twenty different Tara aspects one may draw on, to pacify and subjugate, magnify and destroy. The impacted spiral graph is just where the operator gets tangled in the object to find a space to decide poem or matheme within the social set. The retard list was, in effect, a rage deity to help that along.
To divide the world into retard and ‘retard’ was not really a provocation nor quite a gross-out bid to insert extinction qua extinction into a certain twenty second century New Yorkese underwater sector. Instead, we wished to take seriously the idea of another axiom, the stupidity of the most intelligent people on earth.
Here is what we are trying to do. We’re trying to decide what we can decide in good time given that it’s moving pretty fast now and we might not make it. Given that it’s moving pretty fast now and we might not make it, all sorts of things might be the case if we want them to be. For instance, maybe we have to start by clearing the ground again and again by using the mini axiom ‘is is are’ or the angelic rage deities (angelic griefing). In Dzogchen ideography, rage is never left to one side. It is simply part of an affective and effective set.
Angelicism works within the medium of general plasticity and it works with a sole idea and its putting to the test, namely the idea of extinction qua extinction. Now, the problem of working with one sole idea (even the idea of the perhaps imminent removal of conditions of existence themselves) is that then we are back in the figure of the one and then change is impossible. Yet, what’s at stake here is change within the figure of change itself, and change as change in the history of death. When we get down to the sheer historicity of death, we begin to see extinction qua extinction and its difference from death. It takes angelic reading and unreading to see all this, and to see through.
Extinction qua extinction comes over as an infinity, a first infinity of finitude, and we don’t have to stop there, as there are other finitudes and we can work through these until something begins happening, thus making of The Change a kind of serialized stutter of ‘I extinct’ or ‘I extinct therefore I am’. While there is absolute permission to critique granted by extinction qua extinction, we also need to turn that permission around and wonder if extinction qua extinction is merely a function forcer, a trope laid over unknown sparkling matter. Underneath the trope, what is there?
We can remove the angel itself of course, and leave a white whiting out, a white hole. But then, is that any less? Any why would that be—and is this any good—any less theotropic? The ‘because we may soon never be here again’ may be an obsolete terminal verb or a graffitification of pure space to be redacted, but for now we are left with the energetics that reside there and the accounting of what may have been an error of early universe sadness. In other words, ‘because we may soon never be here again’ is as subject to the law of misreading as everything else. We don’t know what the 01 is.
As for angelicism01’s war, let’s think about this again. Blake said ‘let all the voices speak to the maximum’. Let there be war! Dialogical! Dialogical war. Speaking in heaven. All voices speaking in heaven. Speaking maximally and something creative happening from it. Let them all speak. Don’t decide. Wait.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE ANGELICISM01
This isn’t really a thing. It isn’t even a thing to be angelicism01. So it isn’t even a question. It isn’t even a question of not-being angelicism01. Angelicism01 isn’t a presence. It has zero presence. It is a svelte white cypher. It is a high zero, a very hi zero. Heyy zero. Hey zero! Hi boson. Hi pure singularity 0_o. To be angelicism01 is to get to have zero presence. When I get to be angelicism01, which I am now forever, I get to have had zero presence(s). There is no way to have zero presence unless you have a 0 and a 1 so you have to have some presence(s). You have to be the name of this thing a nameless name. You have to have a small degree of presence to have zero presence. A good shimmer on the zero. Hey 01. Hey. This is what it’s like to get to be zero before the end. This is what it’s like to (b(e)) (clone) iterate on the zero of a unique end according to a transcendental perhaps. When I get to be 01 then (the) ‘I’ gets to be extinct. To be the first to go extinct is to be the first zero (one) to know what the pure white zero (one) is. Without that degree of knowing you can’t do or go, go or do. Anything. You can’t go at all without anything knowing what zero really is. Zero presence. No offence but to be just enough to be absolutely gone is what angelicism01 is and wants. To keep on what only has to have been a little bit to have proved to you your never having had to be, you having never to be to be.
Part 2 otw.
꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱
whats the girls name tho