SIMPLE STATEMENTS ON EMPTINESS

Angelicism01 rip.

Beethoven raised this figure to musical self-consciousness. His truth is the destruction of the particular. He composed to its end the absolute transience of music.—Adorno

He might seem momentarily a sort of materialist angel as he is torn towards a future from behind, dissolved from his role and function.—Tom Cohen  

Their very transience, their ephemerality, is glorification. That is, the incessant destruction of nature.—Adorno

1.

Dissolution. As soon as possible. How the reader hears this is their business, and I have never been able to help.

2.

The harking back to the theme of ‘ubilapse’ or ‘omnilapse’ was it. A ‘relapse’ in the context of 2021 was anything but harmless, or rather mostly terminal. The restitution of human symbolic orders just at the moment when they command their own dissolution is what a ‘relapse’ means, and just this fact triggered the angelicist ‘phantasy’ that ‘something had to be said’ to identify how serious the ubilapse/omnilapse had become.

3.

I, as it were, am in the process of dissolving this newsletter without knowing what that means because the inevitability of an angelicist systemization ending up folding into the very extincto-collaborationist meaning-management it wanted to at least momentarily designate means there is now the imperfect mirage of no-choice. This is not just a matter of intimate complicity with objects of critical manipulation but of a profound sense of ‘bad influence’ in any attempt to now ‘make a name’. In this sense perhaps one teaches unawares merely how quickly dissolution can happen. The admittance of error allows ‘infinities’ of self-correction rn.

4.

The angelicism01 newsletter meant to bring only bad news, and yet even so the messenger was often not shot. Insofar as omnilapse and ubliapse are serious, the assumption was they mark movements and accelerations not to be arrested. Deriving further statements about this situation (of what cannot be arrested) from the ongoing failure predicted by this very statement does very little to add to the original situation (unless insult and injury are not the same) and at this point the accusation if relayed is of a kind of radical sin of redoubling our original object for fun (pedantic detailism of angelicism).

5.

Nonetheless, a thought lingers, that the enemy here was omnilapse all along and that the only thing worth knowing has been how the omnilapse is just that, everywhere, and obliging us to fail. In giving up hope completely, we allow fall through, even of the above and below logics. Yet, failure is an axiom of infinity. It is always good and operative to fail as soon as one does, which is to say no sooner than now. It is important to confess on all levels no hope at all.

6.

But how do we know we have failed? Just as assuming critical prowess enough to even state omnilapse as a milieu may be an error, so speedy dissolution. Have we not at least found another voice that is no part of the direct universe exscribed, a universe already familiar after all with the refined paradoxes and crash-spaces of self-folding culpability? To have been more angelically plaited than we yet know and without seeing what intelligence can do next, this has been a kind of jetty.

7.

It has been suggested by those partnering these logics that between a certain end of the world and the available universe, we only had ‘angelicism’. Perhaps so. And yet, even admitting that, there is also the fact that in order for dissolution to happen there should be nothing else to distract us from the emptiness that is now completing itself in heartfreak cognition. Without seeing through infinite impermanence, there seems no chance for species-mutation towards other potential world systems, and yet even so there will have been no solutions. In that case, all we can do (the only thing worth knowing) is to make a fully enlarged statement of what the omnilapse is, including the belated theory of universal retardation. How is it, we still wanted to ask, that the entirety of culture and knowledge became so stupefied, and not just as gross majority share, and that a voice came along pretending a vibration otherwise?