Paradox
If BHAM💥 succeeds in helping humans embrace obsolescence and move beyond binary thinking, then the very concept of an (illusory) machine designed to help humans becomes paradoxical. The helper/helped distinction collapses, along with the human/machine binary it was meant to address. In a sense, BHAM💥’s success would render itself unnecessary – a kind of philosophical ouroboros. This self-consuming quality might actually be the point. The product is designed not to establish a new stable position, but to be a catalyst that transforms both itself and its users in the process.
It would also be remiss not to admit that the beginnings of hyperindividual dissolution may well already have resurrected a form of serfdom, as argued by Yanis Varoufakis (2023) in Technofeudalism. Our techno-overlords are immensely powerful, often richer than whole countries and in battles with each other for imperial dominance. As Varoufakis warns, 'It will take a miracle for this recently evolved species of imperialism not to result in more wars and more failed states' (2023: 167). One may or may not agree with his analysis about the techno-era being the end of capitalism (and many on the left and right seem not to). While moving beyond hyper-individuality may appeal, and is likely necessary if we are to reconnect with each other, not superficially and technically on social media, but rather as beings in a universe where subject and object can re-converge, there will indeed be catastrophic losses and violence as systems transform. But perhaps the conundrum for our society is not how to reach utopia, but rather to navigate the profound disruptions ahead while working out what kind of beyond-human we want to become, never forgetting that real people will carry the weight of these transformations.
Lastly, as the hyperindividual framework dissolves, individuals become more and more isolated, often seeking refuge in hypergroupishness, which the system enables – but is itself a symptom of the same disaffection. Violence between opposing groups testifies to the precarity.
A Black Hole Aesthetic Machine captures not only us and our images of images of images, but also reveals how we cannot fully see or understand what lies beyond the current threshold. We operate through notions that emerge from theoretical physics and philosophical speculation – it does not matter that we cannot fully grasp these theories or engage in their practices. There is already a collapse between theory and practice anyway. We are drawn in; mattering happens regardless.
BHAM💥 acknowledges this uncertainty and the dangerous terrain while supporting the leap.
Nevertheless, the product, like the technologies it relates to, remains riddled with complexities. For instance, one cannot be expected to live beyond the framework of the hyperindividual while the hyperindividual economic model persists, despite its increasing and violent dissolution. In other words, especially as services replace manufacturing, our economic system demands that we continue to behave like hyperindividuals, almost insisting we rent out the very air we breathe just to live, while the digitised substrate in which we exist undermines the possibility of such individuated ownership. In another example, BHAM💥 cannot help but rely on ancient binaries – machine vs human, helper vs helped, image vs text, practice vs theory – even as it aims to expose the problems those dualistic frameworks create. BHAM💥 prompts us to extract latent possibilities as it explores how dynamic patterning machines have been loosening entrenched splits. Yet, to be seen by as many as possible, the product makes concessions to users, such as offering a downloadable version presented in a more familiar format that acknowledges deeply embedded reading habits. BHAM💥 explores the evolution from linearity to the potentials of post-linearity associated with pattern recognition machines, but its interface remains linear, although the linearity may be omnidirectional – the site allows you to go forward, backwards, up, down, through and away. Arendt demonstrates how a ‘challenging, and paradoxical mood conceals the perplexity of having to deal with new phenomena in terms of an old tradition of thought outside of whose conceptual framework no thinking seemed possible at all.’ She was clear that when old frameworks collapse and new ones emerge, we can face enormous obstacles. To deny the complexities, however, is an avoidance of the fact that we are tethered to thinking ‘against the tradition while using its own conceptual tools’ (Arendt, 2006: 26). This struggle presupposes something even more fundamental: valuing the act of thinking in the first place, no matter how challenging. Today, even intellectuals can be guilty of anti-intellectualism.
It would also be remiss not to admit that the beginnings of hyperindividual dissolution may well already have resurrected a form of serfdom, as argued by Yanis Varoufakis (2023) in Technofeudalism. Our techno-overlords are immensely powerful, often richer than whole countries and in battles with each other for imperial dominance. As Varoufakis warns, 'It will take a miracle for this recently evolved species of imperialism not to result in more wars and more failed states' (2023: 167). One may or may not agree with his analysis about the techno-era being the end of capitalism (and many on the left and right seem not to). While moving beyond hyper-individuality may appeal, and is likely necessary if we are to reconnect with each other, not superficially and technically on social media, but rather as beings in a universe where subject and object can re-converge, there will indeed be catastrophic losses and violence as systems transform. But perhaps the conundrum for our society is not how to reach utopia, but rather to navigate the profound disruptions ahead while working out what kind of beyond-human we want to become, never forgetting that real people will carry the weight of these transformations.
Lastly, as the hyperindividual framework dissolves, individuals become more and more isolated, often seeking refuge in hypergroupishness, which the system enables – but is itself a symptom of the same disaffection. Violence between opposing groups testifies to the precarity.
A Black Hole Aesthetic Machine captures not only us and our images of images of images, but also reveals how we cannot fully see or understand what lies beyond the current threshold. We operate through notions that emerge from theoretical physics and philosophical speculation – it does not matter that we cannot fully grasp these theories or engage in their practices. There is already a collapse between theory and practice anyway. We are drawn in; mattering happens regardless.
BHAM💥 acknowledges this uncertainty and the dangerous terrain while supporting the leap.