7/29 The intended purpouse of every technological advancement is to live like you aren’t even here. The point of technology is to stop existing. Powering up your car, your feet don’t even touch the ground. Working from anywhere like the office doesn’t exist. To make yourself feel like you barely work anywhere. Swiping your credit card it’s like you barely spent any money. You consume content so you’re someone else, not you. consume as much as possible, make everything consumption so you don’t have to exist at all. Build buildings from as little material as possible, from frames of metal and wood with calculated strength so as little as possible is used. It need not be solid or enduring, a small weatherproofing on the margins preserves the barely-there building. The instant tap of water makes you feel as little as possible like you ever felt thirst, felt anything. The air conditioning so as little as possible you are a part of weather. the ultimate goal of technological advancement, the way it is now, will be to not exist at all. The virtual reality or at least the hyperreality. it's not something that starts in the future. The world is, now more than not, in a feeling of not really existing.



the advancement of technology reflects a desire to exist more and more, but a trend to exist as little as posssible.

the object of the human technological desire is to exist as much as possible, but the means is to exist as little as possible

when you're a consumer you try to experience more of reality by experiencing less and less

Technology should be heavy. It should entrench us in reality. To live heavily.




(8/10 addition)
theres something to be admired about the backpackers who have an obsession with the ultralight. in this case the technology is reduced to almost nothingness, unlike in other things it's so that the person exists more. the burden of the heavy equipment is reduced and reduced until it's almost nothing but the weight of water being carried. the weight is reduced to something as little as clothing.
the platonic ideal of the ultralight is the pure human form carrying nothing but culture. the weight of technology is nothing more than the weight of this.

the older and more burdonsome things a person would have had to carry would be themselves a greater aspect of nature itself. The heavier bag from a hundred years ago was heavy because it was made of leather. the cookware was heavy and handmade, hammered copper pocked with human touch, natural forms. the lightweight processed camping food is at some philisophical disadvantage because it must make up for its unnaturalness.
To escape into nature one is philisophically less burdened by the ancient means of cookware and raw ingredients that weighs five pounds than by the 5 ounce processed and freeze-dried meal in a plastic bag.
Artifical meal makes up for it's immediate philisophical lack (quite well to be honest, it can be pretty good) by achieving an impressive portableness that enables the person to have a much more extensive exerience of nature in other ways; the unburdened, further, faster, and higher exploration.
The immateriality here is good because it's bringing people closer to nature, technology can help remove the seperation from nature.

but the more futuritic technology too can embody the natural "heaviness"



(started 8/10 edited 8/15 addition) look at old views of the technological future, and their succesful actualizations of it, or even modern attempts to recapture what's missing from both.
Can you feel what's different? the technology is there for more than to just become invisible. it's not there to stop people from existing. it's there to be technology, to have weight and tangability with people. where this technology does diminish people it does so through its own monumentality, the way natural formations and ancient buildings made of solid stone would, not by being a formless facade dissipating experiences and cowering away from reality and nature of consumption. The technology almost seems to have a sense of respect for itself. Even in where technology was meant to be formidable or immoral it was ultimately cemented in reality. when technology would go wrong it was more than serpentine and shyly manipulative but ultimately overwhelming and strong. Projecting it's own existence so confidently that it created an atmosphere of it's own rather than stepping aside to leech off of a dying cultural energy it would not feed.

even the cryptic and mysterious nature of technology of the past lies in something monumental at it's foundations, like religion of old, but the late world wants to deny everything, even the spectacle of it's own mere potential immorality.







This present world is not alone in this trend, it is the culmination of a historical effort of exponentially increasing power and fine-tuning and social engineering and public relations to escape and deny potential negativity or responsibility of the figures, machinery, culture or symbols that make up pillars of control and power within civilization. The means of doing this is through making things feel like they barely exist at all, things are indifferent and blameless and lighthearted and pacifist. The products and markets are, within the etiquette created by the society, not believed a force of power in civilization, not cultural or philisophical, they do not inbew people with certain values and forces, they're just products and markets. If created to be superficial, then something must not be a cultural force. it is believed that only what is serious can inbew cultural forces in people, and what is created to be superficial cannot be interpreted seriously. The symbols are just symbols, and every politician is just a figurehead. Nothing is anything. Technology becomes the center of the nothing.







10/16 social engineering begins with literal engineering, the grand design with the literal designs, the art of war with the war of the arts

our society is a featureless plane, it interfaces only with the eyes. What is engineered is the central network of the mind, as is what is socially engineered. What art is created is only "content", what we buy are only products, and it is intrinsic in the worldview of their design that we cannot take this world seriously.







related writing;

7/28 government should always actually stand for something, even something unjust. if the government is doing something unjust it should at least stand for it's own values and admit it and practice it and hold an ideology. if a society is unjust and the government just doesnt admit responsibility and doesnt stand for anything or practice anything or have cultural or ideological values or founding principles then it lacks the whole point of a government, it's not a sovereign government, or really even a government at all but instead a corporation. it's only purpouse being to run an economy, an entity with no moral foundation decides what and who the economy is for. It's better to have a government even be tangably unjust so that it's values can be fought over and resolved and society progresses with purpouse and is actually challenged if ever wrong.

what's the point of being a human with ideas and beliefs and philosophy and feelings at all if we choose a society where we try to get rid of all those things and stop them from making any difference

whats the purpouse of having a government in the first place. it's always better to fight over things than to pacify and fake everything and pay eternal lip service and have no purpouse at all
a government must be able to fight for ideas and it must be itself an idea people can fight against



(9/6 clairification) a government that doesnt stand for unjust things isnt necessarly a just government, it's probably a government that refuses to stand for anything, and now you dont even have a way of fighting back against injustice because the government doesnt claim responsibility for anything except the economy and therefore is not actually a government but simply a corporation with a complete and total monopoly on all monopolies. and the board of directors will look to ruin anything they can to appease fellow investors
























8/? When an organization is big enough it should have a physical manifestation of it's existence and power. an oil company, for example, should have a dedicated building, the physical architectural manifestation of it's existence, it's power and it's values, so that it's authority can be legitimate, and so that it can be a target of criticism, protest, or terrorism if necessary. For it's rulings and values, a government should also have statues and monuments and physical archetectural manifestations of itself. Both to legitimize it's power, it's form and it's culture, and also so that in this tangable state it can be challengeable. massive conglomerates dealing in impersonal land and rented office spaces shared with organizations of unrelated values and hiring contractors and banking in offshore accounts is a conspiracy of immateriality, pacification, and domestication -as an admition of lacking legitimacy in it's control. The physical root is what provides vulnerability to illegitimacy and provides a counter-control of the government. By contrast, a legitimate power reinforces it's legitimacy by proving itself with it's physical manifestation, for the very same reason that it would be weakening itself if it were not legitimaite.

(8/20 addition) physicality makes the illigitimate vulnerable and the legitimate powerful, while immateriality makes the illegitimaite powerful and the legitimate vulnerable



8/30 the immateriality of being as a cultural problem also explains economic problems we have, with companies failing to produce anything because they only want to fight over intelectual property rights so they can skim money from the successful markets which require as little actual production as possible, if they even produce anything at all. The money goes into the hands of companies but nothing is produced, because society is socially engineered into immaterially. There is no continual physical investment in the future, even though physical and tangable investments in the future are the only investments we can be sure of. What is produced is complete frail decedance, and not even an impressive decedance but one of cheap plastic, fast fashion, trendy disposability. Where the economy does produce anything it is designed to fade away and leave behind the immateriality. This stimulates a short-sighted economy. The economy is designed to create nothing and leave us with nothing. Money doesnt go into enduring and solid cities that will be of value on their own, it goes into stretching few glass buildings upwards to the limit of their own structural survivability to prove their temporary importance in the economy. "Our house of cards is the tallest in the city, invest in us." We will demand expontentially more from the economy as we struggle to repair and replace everything that was built to be disposable, and the economy will burn through more and more of the earth to sink us deeper into debt. If this path is to continue then it will reach an instantaneous breaking point.


If the decedance alone does not cause society to collapse for cultural or economic reasons then the inevitability of nature will relieve us first of our paper houses and glass cities.


It will happen in synchronicity with a time of weakening of society as economics manifested through the weakened and rotting infastructure. If decedance will not destroy itself then still it will leave us with nothing eventually because it is a refusal to create anything that lasts. If decedance will not create anything to survive because it is so sure not to destroy itself, then it is only a matter of time before a force beyond control shows us we should have thought differently. When disaster hits -even if it starts as the most minor recession- we will find our crops -with their patented genetics which expire with new patented pesticides- and our houses and phones and cars and clothes are not made to survive and there will be nothing left in the world to exploit to replace it all.












(9/10 imagine the historical implications of a society that benefits short-term from having as thin of walls as possible to make wireless technology easier. We don’t even want strong buildings anymore. a little bit of environmental stress and it’s over
also everything else in the world is following the same path because of an urge to accommodate technology, similar principle applies. Everything is now just at the brink of being engineered out of existence. Wind blows a little too hard one day and nothing's left.)



















. 8/30 Through spectacle the philosphy becomes reality. The risks must be taken because they are risks. To do what is bold affirms reality. only within the shadow of the spectacle, where a historical conscious shows itself, do people believe descisions matter.


No spectacle? then this isn't a historical event, this isn't one of the millions of crashes and tens of thousands of fatalities a year, it's just something that happened to you. It's not about the two and a half trillion dollar auto industry or the five trillion dollar oil industry, it's not about the trillions the government has spent on roads in the past century since public transport was phased out for individual vehicles, and it's not about the fact that delays caused by traffic congestion alone cost the U.S economy over $120 billion per year. A few million crashed cars is not a "trainwreck" of bad governance, only an *actual* trainwreck is.

Without the spectacle there are no values, there is only lip service and vauge political sense twoards the events fractured throughout a society. When the course of history is fractured from being a spectacle that matches the scale of the institutions into the small experiences meant to match the scale of an individual- it pacifies and erases itself.

The institutions have come to fear that the spectacle of reality will momentarily liberate us from the spectacle of fiction.
They want to control and adapt the spectacle because of it's philosophical power.

The institutions of power within a society spread themselves thin to blend into the background noise. These institutions and any force that changes society still maintains an endless hubris as they always have, more than ever before society is changing beyond recognition, but any force at play fears to express this through a monumentality.

The world's fair has fallen out of favor as a means of publicity for the institutions of power within society.

Public relations is not a matter of grandeur and action- of showmanship and ambition- but of invisibility. The company, the politician, promises not to exist. In the lack of spectacle, the individuality of tragedy removes us from history, removed from the conditions and course of all things outside ourselves. Anything that happens, it simply happens to *us*.

Apple is a formidable company on all sides, an extremely influential institution in the heirarchy of power within society, but it has no head, it is an empty hole with nothing inside. Where in this building do the people who control everyone else reside? Here is a building that promises not to exist, while promising investors it will control everything.

(the building was built with almost completely with seamless glass walls, the building is so immaterial that employees keep walking into it- look it up)

Without spectacle there is no outside world, with no outside world we lack any individuation of the self. Within any person's experiential world there is nothing but the self, in a direct link to only their own consumption and production, every person is given an individual world which is nothing but a mirror, this isolation ironically means lack of individuality. Without the outside world, the individual is socially engineered to become part of a closed loop. The individual consumes and produces themselves and nothing else and their leader does not exist in this cycle but he controls it and feeds off of it all the same.









The wealthy and aristocratic used to wear jewelry, fine clothes. If this decedance threatened the image of the upper class, it was done anyway. If the wealthly didnt wish for the image of wealth, they would not be wealthy. An ancient king could hide from assasins and revolutionaries by wearing humble sackcloth, but who would recognize him as king without his gold? what was to differentiate him from anyone else? Differentiate him both in the sense that his legitimacy was differentiated by physical means, but also that his literal identity as king and not an imposter could not be confirmed unless he was in possesion of something only a king could own. Barely anyone knew what the king looked like, not every subject of the nation could see their king's face up close or in person, they could not distribute photos or expensive paintings.

" And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!- Nothing beside remains. "

A king could have a statue of himself standing on the public street, but again this made him a target, a statue bargans for legitimacy. A statue waits to be torn down, and the strength of a government comes from the fact it's statues are not. And down through the heirarchy of a society, when someone needed authority, they needed to own something which displayed and proved it. The annexed rural village far from Rome had no idea what the nearest tax collector would look like, they did not have any paperwork to check, they simply knew that a man with servants and guards and an engraved silver chest certainly had enough power that he was to be heeded even if he was lying, and for that reason they knew he had no reason to lie. To even be able to lie, when physical legitimacy is required, implies an equal authority. His authority would be authority all the same.

The destruction of the dictator's statue materializes his loss of power, would the destruction of abstract art outside blackrock bank represent or accomplish anything?

But through technology like always, reality can be erased, immaterialized. The tech millionare can work without showing his face, he can live just the same life a thousand miles away from his company. Verify his identity through an encrypted credit card which does not give away his wealth even to a cashier. He can walk the streets in casual clothing and command the same power while wearing those clothes to a meeting of investors. The company is no longer named after it's founder, because if anything went wrong it would be bad publicity for the name. Instead, companies are given a quippy depersonalized buzzword for a name instead. The purpouse of technology is to erase reality. Nobody knows who anyone is, nobody knows anything. Nobody feels anything. History is made an imperceptible background noise, spectacle is hidden.

But spectacle always exists beyond intention, it lies in wait to become an overwhelming inevitability- anywhere there is hubris.








The institutions of power within a society make themselves an immaterial system because they know they have made the subjects of society into a matter of material. We are consumers, we are defined by material, by their material, so the products and material of the world are reduced as much as possible to domesticate us, meanwhile the power itself eliminates it's own material nature almost completely, while looming over and controlling everything trough it's immateriality.










10/16 its quite ironic that all art and the specific names given to the different mediums have been reduced to the description of being "content". not only is everything just created for consumption, but the word content, more than bening noun is also an adjective for a person who is not necessarly happy but sheltered from harm, who is simply pacified, everything in the world is becoming "content"

""One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing... They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. "We have discovered happiness,"--say the last men, and blink"" -Thus Spoke Zarathustra

we found it best to replace the real world with art, and art with a transaction, with consumption, but one must be careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing.

to create art that is too harrowing is to degenerate from sanity, previously all the world was insane, but we have invetned happiness.


schizophrenic solitude
I've been thinking about the way that the American government successfully deorganized everyone since the 60’s. No real political parties, not political parties in government or grassroots political parties, no protest groups, no militias, no clubs, no societies, no work unions, no art movement organizations or collectives, no communes, not even cults. No more than one person connected to another. There's literally only business organizations which are still completely weak and stupid and pointless, as far as culture is concerned with the organization under financial incentives there are things like “influencer houses” which are just completely stupid and tiny and un-impactful ways to get money for producing garbage for a few months before disbanding.

It's not just America, places like France or Italy may still be known as places of organization, but even they are not what they used to be. The global future is making itself out to be one of schizophrenic solitude across the entire world. Isolation even where people are together.


Society is in need of labor unions, citizen organized political parties, underground movements, militias, even mafias and cults, it needs secret societies, art collectives, town consciousness of any kind, clubs not approved by colleges but made by students, syndicates, anything at all! Anything at all, so that people might do something with life that involves another person, something that isn’t faked and made for them! Something that won’t disappear the moment touch is lost with the higher authority which owns and monopolizes all human interactions in order to subvert and subsume and substitute them and in the end domesticate.


If people cannot organize themselves within a society, then the society will not survive a struggle at the top, it will have a trophic cascade. A college student loses their whole community the moment they leave college, the clubs never belonged to them because they were never real clubs in the first place, not as real as they should be, and so the student is socially neutered. Nobody is capable of connection or self-organization, it has all been programmed out of them. It's an impossibility for the modern generation to imagine their own community, if one cannot believe the idea of creating then others do not believe in joining them which further reinforces the impossibility of anyone wanting to begin to create. Without the official authority to say what exists nobody can exist outside of their own small world, they are only tethered to others and the outside through shared relation to the most official authority that exists on paper.


Stripped from their decedent isolation when the times of disaster hit, Americans will be schizophrenic fearful animals only ready to kill and mistrust eachother where there is no government. Really, much of the world will be like us in this respect.


There is an American idea that without the highest government there is no civilization, the american mythos was an idea of almost purely local government across an entire empire, but there does not exist local government, as lower tiers of organization have been socially engineered out of existence or out of power, primarly by the massive scales of industrialization (which began with much romantic and idealistic futurism that has long since died after the gilded age), so now the post-industrial (and post human) american psyche is one of fearing that on the streets it is human nature that masses are ready to kill you and if the government was not there to contain it you should be ready to kill everyone. Maybe somewhere deeper in the american psyche we fear that if the goverment collapsed people would stop being human altogether. Don't we just rent our human identity with what the central institution owns? It is this fear that makes itself into a self fulfilling prophecy. Maybe one day the schizophrenic American will be right. This principle applies to every level and instance where people have lost touch with the idea of forming something.

people must band together, to fight wars or to dance, people must exist.
























7/30 even if i am an interesting person i spend all day on my computer or in my own mind. my body barely exists.

reading writing listening to music watching movies and youtube videos. it could all be the most interesting curation possible but when your hobby is listening to music it's like you barely even exist

when i watch a movie or something i try to think, instead of this being my hobby, what hobby does the interesting character have, that I'm pretending to be part of instead of actually doing? or when someone makes an interesting video i ask what are they doing that I'm not doing right now? what are they doing instead of watching youtube like me?

my hobbies are biking hiking driving trespassing and exploring listening to music watching videos and rarely movies... thinking about things? writing and collecting and curating what i think about. it all seems okay on the surface but it feels like it's anything except for skills and socializing. there's nothing happening outside myself. it doesnt really even seem like it should all count as hobbies then?

#the entirety of me is trapped inside me