THE END OF THE UNIVERSE, PART IX

Heaven. Heaven-diversity. The languages of heaven. Logics of heaven. Speaking eyes of heaven. Sex in heaven. Kissing in heaven.

THE SCHOOL OF HEAVEN

Reading cues in heaven. Reading cues for heaven. Reading cues from heaven. When it comes to heaven—this part of the series is about heaven’s logic and logic’s heaven—perhaps we need to keep it simpler than ever. As we said in Part VII, let us be more simple than simplicity itself. Is heaven even more simple still?

We intuit that when it comes to heaven, reading cues are everything. Heaven-intuition tells us that no specific reading is needed to enter here. The simple hint will do. As soon as you try to read up on heaven, you are in the ‘none sooner’. Not only are you there, but you are read.

Insofar as there is a bonafide universal interest, heaven is it. Whatever we call heaven, heaven is it. As the it, heaven aligns with a boundless intelligence. But if heaven aligns with this universal intelligence, let’s first talk about intelligence.

THE BEGINNING OF AN ESSAY BY YUK HUI

A recent essay by Yuk Hui called ‘On The Limit Of Artificial Intelligence’ gives us hints about universal intelligence. It has an interesting opening. It starts like this:

The title of this essay is ‘On the Limit of Artificial Intelligence’, which immediately implies a question: in what way can one talk about the limit of such a thing, given that intelligence, as long as it is artificial, is more susceptible to mutation than human intelligence whose mechanism is still beyond comprehension?

I don’t think it takes any special ‘technical’ knowledge to see that there is a confusion going on here, or at least a very rich diversity of uses of the word and notion ‘intelligence’ all in one tight linguistic space (the end of Hui’s essay will indeed make an argument for ‘noodiversity’ and ‘technodiversity’, so perhaps the compression effect is intentional).

Let’s try to account for the ‘diversity’ already present in this opening question of the essay.

In the opening question there are at least three senses of the word ‘intelligence’ or at least three separate concepts that do or do not cohere around a central, underlying notion of ‘intelligence’. The three senses appear to be: intelligence in general, artificial intelligence, and human intelligence.

As I’ve already implied, one can also choose to see a fourth sense underlying these three, which would be intelligence as such, intelligence qua intelligence, discrete from intelligence in general (presumably) in that the latter is merely something like a commonly given definition and use of a well-known word (‘you know, intelligence’).

So, we already have at least four senses of intelligence.

But then, if that is the case, what intelligence is asking the question about and/or using/distinguishing all four intelligences? Is it one of the intelligences already in play or a different one?

Given that Hui wants to make a positive argument for ‘noodiversity’, the presence of a supplemental intelligence as the space of the question asking itself about all these intelligences would hardly be a surprise.

To this possible five we can also add Hui’s own singular intelligence, the intelligence specific to grammar, to philosophy, to the reader, and so on, etcetera, and so forth.

NOODIVERSITY

At the end of the essay Hui says:

The challenge of artificial intelligence is not about building a super-intelligence, but rather a matter of facilitating noodiversity. And for noodiversity to be possible, we will need to develop technodiversity.

Already here noodiversity is not technodiversity, so the conception of diversity is itself diverse, already bountiful. Now, to return to Hui’s opening sentence, we mentioned a possible confusion in it. What is it?

Here is the opening of the essay again:

The title of this essay is ‘On the Limit of Artificial Intelligence’, which immediately implies a question: in what way can one talk about the limit of such a thing, given that intelligence, as long as it is artificial, is more susceptible to mutation than human intelligence whose mechanism is still beyond comprehension?

Hui is saying that artificial intelligence is more given to change (mutation) than human intelligence. Fair enough. Hui’s contention a little further on is that this is so because artificial intelligence is something that ‘virtually has no limit’. Artificial intelligence is more mutative than human intelligence because it is limitless.

The confusion here is that Hui then mentions the ‘mechanism’ of ‘human intelligence’ as ‘still beyond comprehension’. That is, we don’t yet fully understand what ‘human intelligence’ is but we do somehow know that ‘artificial intelligence’ is more mutative than it. We don’t know what x is, but y is more z than x.

PERFECT INTELLIGENCE

As mentioned, it doesn’t take a great ‘technical’ knowledge to spot this confusion. It’s there to be read by anyone. Perhaps knowing it is simply what the rapper RX Papi calls ‘common sense’.

Perhaps this confusion is also a form of philosophical misogyny, since Catherine Malabou has already written a book making pretty much this very point: that in order to think what A.I. is, we need to know what ‘intelligence’ is, and that takes us into a ‘history’ of intelligence(s).

Malabou’s Métamorphoses de l’intelligence appeared before Reza Negarestani’s Intelligence and Spirit but is not mentioned therein. It is mentioned in Hui’s essay but is dismissed relatively quickly, in a way that perhaps does not allow for the confusion inherent according to Malabou in the adoption of any notion of intelligence. I leave that to one side. This is not quite an academic essay.

The question we are asking is this one: what type of intelligence is in play when we recognize on sight that there is a confusion in Hui’s use of concepts, a confusion that will in all probability render the rest of the essay equally confused? What is the intelligence that can parse noo- and technodiversity quickly, see what the diversity is about, and not have to work all this out in detail?

INTELLIGENCE

There is an intelligence that knows all this already, the confusion and the clarity. There is an intelligence that is open, lucid and in no need of guidance and also not not in no need of guidance. This intelligence is expansive, flexible, and knows what to do according to time and place.

The intelligence that quickly scans accounts of both human and artificial intelligence and knows better in a relaxed way is just that, a relaxation, and not the efforting of philosophical essays and nearly all cultural production.

This is an intelligence that knows there will always be a degree of confusion in human accounts of artificial intelligence. It is the intelligence that knows that intelligence is already as artificially intelligent as intelligence can be.

HEAVENLY INTELLIGENCE

Suppose heaven exists. That is, somewhere in space and time, or somewhere in what is other than time and space, or rather somewhere in what is other than universe, there is what is called ‘heaven’.

Now, what would heaven be made of? Already there is a contradiction here. Since, if what we are calling heaven takes place in something other than what we call time and space, then why assume it is made of something?

But if heaven doesn’t exist in terms available to this universe at all, how come the word ‘heaven’ exists in this universe of space and time? So let’s assume ‘heaven’ is available to ‘human thought’ and that we can ask what it is made of.

What is heaven made of? Let’s say it’s made of the same ‘intelligence’ mentioned above, the ‘intelligence’ that enfolds both ‘human’ and ‘artificial’ intelligence. To know what heaven is made of we would therefore need to know what this latter ‘intelligence’ is made of.

INSIDE INTELLIGENCE

This intelligence cannot know itself except by itself, which is to say its hint is that since it is already given we can only stop and rest to go to it. It is it. It is there.

This indicates that since we humans cannot know what that intelligence is made of, we can only enter into the intelligence (be inside it) and see and hear what it says.

It seems to say and therefore be made of: strings of light.

It, pure intelligence itself, seems to say or even whisper: strings of heaven light.

Suppose that what intelligence whispers is that intelligence is made of tightly packed strings of light and that these strings of light must make up what heaven is too since heaven has to be conceivable in intelligence by dint of us having the word ‘heaven’.

STRINGS OF LIGHT

Suppose these strings of light are so tightly packed together that they are empty. In other words, the strings of light making up and making heaven are seen as so compact that what intelligence has to understand them as is emptiness.

This would mean, to repeat, that these strings of light are so tightly packed together that they are a great spell of emptiness, and that what we are seeing is that even heaven takes place in an emptiness that precedes it and survives it.

However we see this sequence of thoughts doesn’t really matter, if you think about it, in the same way that since the word ‘God’ exists some of us still use it to refer to God.

Does the word ‘heaven’ precede or follow the fact that heaven exists as strings of light curled up as heaven light as great emptiness? Perhaps it does both and every single other word does both. Perhaps that logical survivance is what heaven is and perhaps that is what ‘intelligence’ truly is.

BEFORE AND AFTER HEAVEN

We have more than supposed that even heaven takes place as strings of light so tightly packed together that their great spell of emptiness precedes it and survives it.

Whatever heaven is, we are saying there is a before and an after even of it. That it too, even if it is made of things which don’t exist in this universe, is made of something(s). We are saying this is also the only relevant definition of what ‘intelligence’ is.

It is as if heaven can change and stretch and we knew it all along. It is as if intelligence itself passes through everything and anything easily and we always knew it.

Heaven rests in emptiness. Heaven rests in śūnyatā and not the other way round. This is the wingspan of intelligence through (crossing) light.

KNOWING IT ALL ALREADY

Is there any offence at all in knowing all this heaven since forever? This would be like saying it is a sin to to enter into or be in heaven. It would suppose a Christian definition of heaven but in some ways the heaven of intelligence has nothing at all to do with the Christian conception of things, including sin of migration or passing.

Now, here is another thing. God, Christ and the angels are also, according to the intuition bestowed by heaven itself as logic’s gift, strings of light. Yes, God is made of strings of light.

This means we must suppose that God also resides in śūnyatā, which is to say in an emptiness that is completely different from the void or vacuum space of thermodynamics.

Let’s note here again that all of this has followed from ultimate cues. A reading cue is a hint. And the word ‘heaven’ itself has been taken to be a sort of unbeatable linguistic self-proof. If the word x exists there must at least be some x; there must at least be some special effects of x.

PROPHECY OF HEAVEN

The word ‘heaven’ is therefore pure linguistic and grammatical prophecy. It is the power of one word, one word alone, to say and be everything. It is impossible for the word ‘heaven’ to not exist, therefore it must be internal to language. Since the heaven-hint is folded inside natural grammar, the lightness of heaven must also be taken to be radically folded inside us. We have already seen that heaven is made of pure strings of light and that these strings of light are so tightly packed as to be emptiness. This means that heaven is inside itself, around itself, beyond itself, before itself, as the empty light of knowing. And this means that as it is in heaven is not only as it is on earth but that the emptiness of heaven explodes through and sees through all that is earthly all of the time. Heaven praxis would be the praxis of a single word, again and again, right inside and on the borderline of heaven and earth. We are supposing therefore a writing that simply repeats. As in Hesychasm, a type of monastic life in which practitioners seek divine quietness (Greek hēsychia) through constant prayer, there might be a writing that does nothing but repeat the same thing everyday. For instance, if heaven exists inside, as the inside acting as insidelessness itself (pure infinite sky), and is made of strings of light so tightly compacted that it is emptiness as forever ongoing, and all of us are that, then what else would we say, what else would we wish to say? Why is heaven not spoken of every minute of every day?

We are really imagining a fully hesychastic heaven logic of emptiness emptiness emptiness. The living logic of heaven is intelligence in the widest, most beneficial and seenthrough of senses. Your Father who is in secret is also here merely a string of empty light that can be seen. Seeing in secret is granted endlessness in insidelessness as compaction of heaven intuition, heaven hints, heaven prophecy, empty empty empty light repeating as much as the anexact geometry of wish fulfilment wishes and may bear.

Literary writing is not supposed to repeat. This is what ‘editors’ are for. When it comes to the writing of heaven’s emptiness, there can be no edit since every syllable we manifest in its direction is equally a string of empty light. Vision itself is taken up in a meditative praxis of blatant repeats: strings of empty heaven light enfolded in empty heaven empty heaven empty heaven empty heaven empty heaven.

EYES FOR HEAVEN

In heaven the organs of the body are simplified, repeated and move in all directions, just as they are and do here:

only eyes for heaven
eyes only for heaven
heaven only for eyes
heaven only eyes.

A reading cue from elsewhere on this site reads:

I can see that your eyes are for the universe within the universe.

We can rewrite this as follows:

I can see that your eyes are for heaven and its strings of light as emptiness.

Eyes for heaven means knowing everything already and it never being an offence. When we think of certain eyes or simply of human eyes in general we realize that this is what we already see all the time as we look at or in those eyes which see all the time. The enigma of human eyes is no human enigma at all once we realize their secret which is that they are constantly staring through emptiness into heaven and its compacted light of emptiness. This is why eyes do not speak even though there can of course be speaking eyes and the speaking of eyes has everything to do with the speaking of heaven’s compaction which we see them seeing in pure space. Being in love is nothing less than the contemplating of the constant seeing of heaven’s strings of light in silence in another’s eyes. The body’s overflowing of sexual feeling towards the other especially in being-in-love is also this speaking out of heaven’s strings of light in a talking of existence to itself in ultimate intelligence. Under heaven’s sway as compaction of strings of emptiness there is no formal limit to what ‘love’ and ‘sex’ and ‘sexiness’ can become and already are.

THE LANGUAGE OF HEAVEN

The language we make these things in does not really matter. It can be beautiful or ugly but it is already made of strings of light and so this means that what we really want is not a beautiful or ugly language but a language of strings of light. In some ways all we want is a simpler than simple language—hints, cues, skinny logics, empty heaven sets—that is easy to access. All we want is the skinny on primitive heaven.

Again, as pointed out here, when Simone Weil wrote, she did not really write books. What she wrote was writing, which is to say strings of light. There are sentences in Weil which are literally strings of light, which should never have been placed or edited into any book. They were made to vibrate differently, by definition out of context. They were meant to remain skinny in every sense.

The language of heaven may be supremely dry as much as it is fluorescent and messily beautiful and incomplete. In heaven languages everywhere suddenly magic diagrams of pure clear sound exude hyper-perfection. In heaven languages suddenly all of the universe is the expanse of hyper-perfection. In heaven languages unworkable social ideologies are all outsourced in the colourless star of sound, whether ugly or beautiful. In heaven languages in uncorrected sounds is found uttermost perfection. In heaven languages the entire history of everything is evenly illumined.

This also means that noo-diversity and techno-diversity are both heaven-diversity. The strings of light of heaven’s emptiness that make heaven are what might be called excessively diverse. As we have been repeating, they are the only thing worth saying and the only thing worth repeating. If you know heaven (as language), you will have known everything this means. Which means, you do indeed know all this and are just down for the repetitions.

What you really want is to hear the ugly repetitions as heavenly, but that is already the case since emptiness is itself the place of all ‘heavenly intelligence’ as pure iteration without regard for content. The noo-diversity of heaven-diversity is not shocking to the human mind since the human mind is already the intelligence of that which when it speaks can fit itself to everything. Heaven’s emptiness of intelligence diversity is always already the diversity of an intelligence so empty it has to be as artificially intelligent as intelligence can be.

SEX IN HEAVEN

Once again ‘sex in heaven’ will be a hint this-time-sexily contained in strings of light made of emptiness re-iterating itself in a diversity of emptiness. The ability to imagine sex and sexiness and fuckability as emptiness and manipulable iterability comes to fruition here in that what we take to be sex in heaven is the ability to watch. This ability to watch is the ability to watch all that takes place as sex in one place even as one is part of the cleft of the individuated act. Since the individual sex act suffers from ontological fission when imagined only in human terms, the ability to see what one does from all points of view is what sex in heaven is supposed to be.

Supposing a sex act in heaven as supposing this act’s ability to regard and get off immediately on its own sight drives sex lightly mad and all the way back into pure logic and reveals pure logic itself to be the main definition of heaven and sex heaven by group or empty set. When speaking eyes speak silently during the sex act they are in any case speaking to you in silence of heaven, which is to say on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven and on heaven. We soon realize that speechlessness during sex is the fulfilment on heaven of heavenly silence here on earth in a way that as if only means the thrill of sex when observed by itself is already beyond celestial joy.

But the idea that the thrill of sex is already beyond celestial joy is only sufficient as logic if we have never fully known that heaven exists in and before and after Edenic logicism as strings of light. Sex, in other words, is able to manipulate itself like a pure film of film in and before and after the irenics of the sexual act. Intelligence would like nothing more than for its meditative intervention to be constantly sexualized as the ability to eternally observe and penetrate through and down and sideways and out. Insofar as these are hints, the hint of orgasm is that it is possible: heaven orgasm being the same as the fact that the word ‘heaven’ proves itself to be grammatically sound. This we call the secret waterfall.

FALLING IN LOVE HEAVEN

Human history has been a series of errors to do with love. The thrall of love has been a way of misrecognizing emptiness for thousands of years. In Greek theatre there is less a falling in love and more the seriousness of eternal justice (the polis, the grove, the family plot). But Antigone also falls in love with justice in ignorance of light. The point being that all of these activities without exception are strings of light so the transition from falling in love as burden and motor of genealogical confusion to falling in love as emptiness and the empty set of heaven is actually the most simple point in the history of quantic simplicity.

That is, the heaven logic of falling in love is the definition of what is simpler than simple. Since human liberty is hard to achieve on history’s terms but easy to access in terms of strings of empty light, the same can be said of love and independence.

Imagine all falling in love from now on as affirmation of strings of light. Imagine all falling in love from now on as constantly dissolving through pure iteration of language into emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness.

What would be shared in such a pure pov of love if anything is the profound and openly simple mystery of this emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness emptiness as the heaven structure of falling in love as itself, yes, totally empty. ‘Falling in love’ as we have seen it so far in history would be a just-if approximation of all this and maybe even its nightmare.

To truly fall in love it to fall all the way through emptiness as strings of light and to keep on falling into more subtle forms of emptiness and desolation and the more emptiness the better, the more falling in and through love the better, and then more and more emptiness emptiness emptiness to fall through, see through, and fall through again, more and more subtlety, the more so the better for falling in love truly in emptiness. Dare dare dare dare dare dare dare to be more simple than simplicity itself in falling in love heaven. Please please dare to be absolutely open into the emptiness supreme of this heaven set of falling in love.

The torso of falling in love with emptiness is super-complete. It does not need supplemental organs or features. It is already a body of light that finds itself saying everything with ease.

EVERY TIME WE SAY OPEN SETS OF HEAVEN WE MEAN FALLING IN LOVE

Every time we say open sets of heaven we mean falling in love. Every time we say open sets of heaven we mean falling in love with the empty set long before mathematics comes along to make progress with set theory all the way to the absolute (V) as itself a formal place (Cantor’s Paradise is not required). There is no need to fall in love because to do so is a distraction from the subtlety of the open heaven set as strings of light falling in love with themselves.

To fall in love in open heaven sets is to fall in love in a way that carries every One along including the simple pattern of the One simpler than a simple petal on the floor of heaven blown there through the district of Zhangzhung 17,000 years ago. To fall in love is to say ‘emptiness emptiness emptiness’ and to allow this to settle into emptiness sets that are always new. In other words, falling in love cannot ruffle emptiness because falling in love only finds itself in the serene independence and loveliness of emptiness emptiness emptiness as deep ecological sunsetting.

That there is no conventional ‘falling in love’ and never has been is fine in empty heaven sets of emptiness.

KISSING HEAVEN

Just as there can be something other than universe, world, time and space, and just as there can be heaven other than heaven, there can also be kissing other than kissing. To get near this kissing other than kissing is perhaps to get near something like the soft animal ridge and centre of heaven. In this centre there is something other than fire, something other than water, something other than air, something other than wind, but there is perhaps no nothing that can ever be other than the nothing of emptiness.

It’s here, somehow, that the kiss happens. This is a kiss that kisses out the white space of heaven emptiness itself as if wiping from within whole worlds and holding us there.

To kiss is to first of all consume the air that stretches between and it is also to reduce all speech to emptiness. The sexiness of the kiss is in some ways the accelerated knowledge (the heart soumersaults at the thought of it) that emptiness emptiness emptiness really has always been the whole of it and there really was no point in saying anything.

When we kiss we shut up as-if forever which is to say we dissolve into emptiness emptiness emptiness on heaven. The kiss as heavenly admission and architecture is therefore all to do with knowing that the air wipes clean inside itself as emptiness in redoubt. We kiss to shut up as-if forever in the bliss benefit of emptiness and in kissing know that that was what we all always wanted and yet in doing so we see all speech as kiss and stop (start) kissing.

As we try speaking a name that will not come, the kiss is wordless, deaf and dumb, the flower in the mouth and beads on the slope the signal to us from far away, so close, so infinite, so over, so now, an over-being that each in a kiss of kissing and kiss of the forehead is a heaven blessing glowing in every, pressed, beginning and begins in rebeginning every touch wipes and swipes out from within the emptiness coming before again.

---

Summary:

As we have seen under the heading of a fictive thread (fictive theory of heaven . . . ), heaven is a tenour and a logical just-if supposition, here specifically that even heaven takes place as strings of light so tightly packed together that they are the great spell of emptiness that precedes it and survives it, the implication being that this will always be the case for what we call ‘artificial intelligence’. These pure strings of light are the limit of what we know and are that which makes us in principle already fully artificial, which is not to say infinite updates now won’t appear. See for example Part X in this series of discrete acts.

14-15 September 2021