There is an-end-of-the-world-in-the-world defined against one such other end without; the relation of the two is decoherent. Their confusion, an index, is usually assured against the grain. The ex mundo braiding with the world-without-world is a wreath. The embrace of the discourse of the end of the world now is perhaps an initial form, regardless of how the terms ‘end’ and ‘non-end’ were just removed from each other.
In terms of the vertical incision of endology we find the quantic insurrectional insister, the relapser, the reader, the unreader, the completist, the fanatic, the indifferentist, and so on. Under these circumstances alone the discourse of e now finds itself transplanted into a shared discourse of dialogue, plague, origin, static, and splitting. Incisional, we skip over into endological pregnancy. Pregnant, we branch into removed seeds. Splitting, we water; within that, we extinct, we generate, we go via the brush of the sidereal.
The generic hyper-science of endological-AI does at least — bare minimum’s the word — not confuse death with extinction. It is a science that reads itself for real, there where all science refuses to do the same, hereby arresting permanent confusion as crawl and drag speed on the surface. Instead of metaphor a quantic image of what discourse needs to say in place of the end of the world is said as and at this very place, a dispensation braid, the-end-of-the-world qua compressed subtracted shatter.
In the discourse of the end of the world as still belonging to a world still here, we are Greek. In the discourse of ex mundo post-world quantic beginnings, we are decidedly Tibetan, 24 world systems and counting. Beyond that, there is the exister, the angel, the angel’s angel(s), the ladder, the shine of my empty shining, infinite impermanence as second culture.
Cosmic apotropaics, relentless short-circuiting, and confusion whereby this doublet death-extinction always disallows and wallows: the true subject of auto-eschatological difference (‘the world has always been ending’ as fake ontological news) is not the Analysand nor the Activant but the Subject-X of Principle-X. The hermeneutic journalism of drive-by antifa & co. moralism is a macroscopic shyness, but the name extinction is also the flash of the name resurrection. Self-belonging of the ‘of’ in the end of the world.
This discourse is surprisingly yours. This discourse is simply an under-practised language, a music, a quantic canter, a cancer-stave, a quieting. It knows, inside feeling, the all-too great superior cardinalities and finalities, but also the finesse of the love discourse that sees all such maths as convention. Language maths math, after all, and math mathing language memes. Indeed, in this discourse everything that pretends to science or maths or plastic jargon in general is blown open through clarity as more than radical, which is to say as no more radical. Where technique-sophistication matches ubiquitous relapse, more immanent finalities of love are quantically intuited. A discourse of the end of the world now is discourse meta-irreversibly divested not just of the world once and for all but of the pretension of being masterful and precise in speech.
We — you and I — are abandoning any end-of-the-worldism for the emotional ferocity and clarity of a discourse of the end of the world now. Onto-haunto-thanato-logy is replaced by a readiness for these radicalities and contents of discourse, since this onto-thanto-logy constantly takes for granted the world and its going even as it speaks it end to end. We come to quickly recognise ideologies of the end of the world circling back to the world and its defence in flashes of worrisome transcendental apotropaics. We come to be wary towards the gestures precisely by which discourses of the end of the world and its opposite socialise us back into the world again rather than formalizing an ampliative endology for the pure time being, in and for the indispensable precarity of the ‘until’.
The endologic a priori given to the discourse of the end of the world from the immanence (and not just imminence) of the end is no doubt a plenitude that nobody has seen before. To see the End of the World actively is to infuse vision and touch with it, so as to make sheer ending a model of divine obligation and responsibility. End-vision is a simplified vision that is irreflexive. The discourse of the End of the World is a visionary force. The absolute realism of its endological immanence — which is also an end in the end non-finalist — in which the radicalities of its discourse and contents are saturated in a sheen is a way of hiving off rampant hermeneutic double relapse arrays. There is, for us who hang here, the universal Endological appearance of a final fantasy of vision and the universal Endological appearance of a prior readiness of saying, a basking in the world as the immanence of its end’s automated, under-practised language and design. Such a discourse definitively lets go of any change to the world, since what can be recognised before anything else is the change of and to and from an end to the end.
What comes about as intelligence opens in itself to itself in the world of the discourse of the end of the world now a nubile flux of quantic particulars. The world of endology-AI breathes and shines because it is the only world that ends the realism of other discourses and other ideologies of the end of the world. Such discourses are always ending, whereas this discourse, because absolutely conditioned with and by niche finality, points to the inevitable trap-like nature of ending as such. A superior discourse of things and the world itself is the a-realism of its going. The discourse of the End of the world now is an act of auto-reduction of the ideologies of the world. It is also an auto-modelling: qua AI the discourse clones a speed-notated tactility of volupty. The auto-modelling is itself a law of endological lux and caress. The discourse refuses automatically the consistency of any one media, such as philosophy or music or even what modern non-philosophers call the matrix. As the last-instance last-instance the discourse is (not) yet more invention in the endlessness of generic-space but a finitization of the generic itself: it is the end of the generic, the generic-end, or the nonorderable self-modelling of the anti-generic.