http://blog.urbanomic.com/cyclon/archives/2008/06/the_weird_is_th.html!
The Horror of Something:
commentaries on the littered universe and the weird
Reza Negarestani
[December 2007 | expanded 2008]
The weird is the destiny of all objects; it bespeaks of the fate of objects in that by
conforming to their ontological constitution or immanent intension, objects relay
and enforce the intention of that which is radically exterior to them. The weird is
universal destiny as twist.
The question of the weird cannot be immediately subsumed under the question of
sense or experience; accordingly, it cannot be captured by statements and
phrases such as I think this is weird, feeling weird, I love weird things, etc. The
weird is not a matter of experience and sensation, for if it were then it would be a
mere by-product of the relation of temporality and synchronicity to sense and
the conditional; and hence reducible to a status of the monstrous or grotesque
whose complete domestication has been afforded from the outset. Now, if the weird
is primarily perpetuated exterior to sense and regardless of our access, then, is
being inaccessible sufficient for being weird? Is the resistance to sense and
experience, or in other words, diachronic disjunction with the synchronicity
inherent to the transcendental enough to insinuate the weird? In being in
contrast to temporality abysmally inaccessible, the object X does indeed
confound whatever transcendental apparatus (consciousness, mystical intuition,
sense, experience) has been designated to access it. In this case, the weird
emerges out of the incompatibility between the futile attempts at access and the
immanent inaccessibility or disjunctive resistance of the object X. By attempting
to latch on to the inaccessible, the subject of access only becomes allergic to its
own existence and the ultimate transcendental task imparted to it. It is in making
sense out of X, that sense or consciousness becomes a dead weight, a corpse-like
burden pressing on its own chest. Yet if weirdness relies upon the
incommensurability between the inaccessibility or the refractory realm of the
1
object and the subject of access, then the weird is indexed by the fatigue of sense,
or in other words, it merely articulates a trauma. This incompatibility between
inaccessibility of X and the subject or the apparatus of access is inexorable and so
is the trauma. However, even if this trauma cannot be undone under any
condition and hence is unconditional and independent of any relation other than
the inexistence of the relation as such (i.e. radical incommensurability) it still
feeds upon the subject of the access or sense.
Whether as the image or the subtle register of this incommensurability, the weird
only endures as long as sense involuntarily or not insists upon its intelligibility,
or as long as the subject of access maintains its existence. Once sense separates
from its presumed intelligibility, or the subject of access fully deteriorates, then
the weird withdraws. Such seizure of intelligibility or determination of access
does not need to happen on the basic or elementary material level, for as
Houellebecq (The Elementary Particles), Juan Rulfo (Pedro Paramo) and Lovecraft
(Cthulhu mythos) have envisioned, the inaccessible, already dead or aimless
objects, particles and stars can haunt the space without any correlation, influence,
relation, warmth of collectivity, individuation or any consolidating narrative
whatsoever. Dead things can indeed roam in the tenebrous vastness of the
universe or even lurch on chthonic superficialities of the earth long after the
destruction of intelligibility, sense or the subject of access. Yet as Lovecraft
insinuates, this vacuous horror does not obstruct the weird; it reinforces it. Even
if all apparatuses of access are eradicated and all manifests of intelligibility cease
to exist, the weird persists. As long as something (anything) endures and remains by,
for or within itself, the weird is perpetuated autonomously and without any objective.
This brings us to three speculations:
The blind cosmos grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something
and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor
knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a
second now and then in the darkness. (The Silver Key)
The conjecture of the littered universe: The weird diagrammed by Lovecraft is
that of a universe which, even though it has been denuded to its bare and
unresponsive
objects,
cannot
help
but
be
weird.
The
universe
is
non-metaphorically a heap of rubbish and garbage whose objects merely remain
amid their own detritus and waste, in unintelligible promiscuity with each other.
The objects exude weirdness just by remaining so and as such and without any
affinity or common border whatsoever with anything outside that is, they roam
aimlessly and litter the universe. If just by remaining so and as such (viz. being
something, anything), independent of any correlation or affinity, the weird
ensues, then weirdness is immanent to the destiny of all objects, the fate of being
something. Given that the weird emanates even when the object is sealed from the
outside, then what is this destiny that not only includes all objects but also
guarantees the perpetuation of the weird? Such all-inclusive destiny, first and
foremost, should be irrespective of the objects properties, attributes and
belongings. For this reason this destiny should be posited under the rubric of
subtraction which presupposes the shedding of belongings or points of access in
order to bring the possibility of remaining in itself or being something.
Remaining-in-itself (being aimless) is only possible by the removal of all
properties (aphaeresis) and the mobilization of non-belonging (subtraction). To
this extent, the destiny (werde) that simultaneously amounts to or develops into
the refractory closure of the objects and their autonomous weirdness is the fate of
all objects, the primary and basic prerequisite of being something that is
remaining so and as such. Yet to speak of to remain so and as such is not possible
without taking into account the priority and the primacy of subtraction. If, as
Lovecraft emphasizes, the weird endures long after the demise of the subject of
access, in its own unrecognizable enclosure, then the source of this weirdness has
something to do with remaining of the object as such, or more accurately, with
remaining as an object or remaining as something. To remain (i.e. the objects
remaining so and as such), however, both implicitly and explicitly suggests
subtraction. Explicitly, because an object cannot remain in itself, or more
accurately, cannot withdraw from correlation, unless all its belonging and
properties by which access or correlation is anticipated are taken away, removed
and subtracted. What can be explicated or developed from the object is that
which should be subtracted so that the object can remain in itself, uncorrelated
and weird. Implicitly, because in order to embody itself as something against the
annihilative vector of subtraction (nothing) that removes all properties, the
remaining must and is only able to perpetuate itself in remaining less. Therefore,
in an ontological twist, in order to remain in themselves, the objects of this
littered universe have to presume an internal vector of subtraction by which
inaccessibility and non-correlatability (viz. remaining so and as such) is only
possible by remaining less. This is the intensive or implicit vector of subtraction
which overlaps with the possibility of remaining in itself and is posited as its
ontological guarantor.
The intensive vector of subtraction or remaining less inherent to the aimless or
blind universe perforated by objects which resist correlation attests to the radical
subversion embedded in the destiny of all objects. This radical subversion or the
source of weirdness can be grasped in terms of ontological intension / intention
(the destiny of objects) and the perforation of such intension (subversion of that
destiny): The weird or littered universe can only effectuate itself once the object
roams aimlessly. This aimless or unresponsive object bespeaks of objects in
themselves and is uncorrelatable. Yet, in turn, the weird as autonomous
senselessness or resistance to correlation attests to the irreducible destiny of all
objects; that they can only be enclosed in themselves by remaining so and as such.
But why do we call the intensive idea of ontology that is remaining so and as
such, destiny (wyrd)? Because remaining so and as such as the universal destiny of
objects and the source of weirdness not only guarantees the inaccessibility of
objects (hence making the universe littered with unintelligibility) but also obliges
the objects to remain in order to be in themselves and evade access. In other
words, the intensive idea of ontology dictates that in order for objects to remain
in themselves and defy access, they need to shed their belongings. For objects,
the continuation of their survival (as an unintelligible) is only possible by
employing the vector of subtraction as an ontological guarantor. To remain is to
affirm the possibility of surviving subtraction, whose annihilative power is
effectuated by the removal of all belongings and properties, and hence the
mobilization of non-belonging or Nothing. For this reason, remaining per se
compels the object to be something as that which remains after subtraction in
order to be in itself and remain non-correlated, namely, unintelligible. The
universal destiny of objects entails that in order for the object to litter the world
with their unintelligibility or inaccessibility and render the universe weird, they
must first be something and mobilize the ontological vector of remaining.
... the ripples that told of the writhing of worms beneath.
(What the moon brings)
The conjecture of problematic intension / intention: Prima facie, this being
something of the non-correlated object signals the triumph of vitalism over
nothing through a subtle trickery short-circuiting Nothing by becoming nothing
outside. However, something, too, can only be something if it remains. To
1
remain and to be something are immanently inseparable. This is where to be
something or to remain as the destiny of the object in itself and the guarantee of a
littered aimless universe is subverted from within. For remaining at any instance
is not possible until the two vectors of Nothing from within and from without
are unconditionally affirmed and complied with: (1) the mobilization of nonbelonging by which attributes, properties, belongings and nodes of correlation
are removed and subtracted (2) the interiorization of Nothing whereby
remaining and its perpetuation (remaining in itself) is not possible other than in
remaining less or intensive diminution. By approximating the interiorized
Nothing, the remaining can continue to remain less, or in other words, remain in
itself.
It is through remaining in themselves (or remaining so and as such) that objects can
break apart from the correlation or the subject of access and withdraw to their
unintelligible enclosure, rendering the universe irrevocably weird: particles,
objects and stars roaming aimlessly in an stygian emptiness. It is the weirdness of
something as an ontological tenacity or a survivalist insistence on remaining that
ultimately points to the horror of something: in order to be something, there is no
other way than remaining for and within itself, or more accurately, sinking into
unintelligibility. The point of being is being unintelligible since remaining as the
ontological medium of something is not possible unless belongings and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!This ontological circumvention can be explained in terms of subtraction / negation: Ontology
evades nothing by utilizing it in the form of the negative which is required for the operation of
subtraction; since subtraction, at least explicitly, is able to employ nothing as an ontological
resource in that subtraction is the mobilization of the negative along two vectors in order to
attributes through which access is made possible are shed. To put it differently, if
something has to employ remaining as its ontological medium, it must also
exteriorize extraneous belongings in order to remain in itself; this is necessitated
by the logic of subtraction. Being something is equal to withdrawal from
belongings or points of access by which the object can be correlated to its outside
and rendered intelligible. More accurately, remaining in being is subtractively
correlated to the shedding of belongings. Unintelligibility of objects is immanent
to this subtractive correlation. The subtractive logic of ontology requires that
objects offer an uncompromising resistance toward access and being is put to the
test by its perpetual evasion of intelligibility. For this reason, although it is
ontology that renders objects unintelligible, it is the weird that takes the
ontological destiny of objects to its cosmic level: to litter the universe with
unintelligibility is the very point of ontology. The intimacy of the weird with
nihilism is not a straightforward one; it is not a token of mere absurdity of the
universe, it is a bond as twist. The entire panorama of the weird infers a twisted
intimacy between something and nothing.
Something can endure in nothing only through yielding to the unintelligibility
which is entailed by remaining in itself, hence withdrawal from any potential
node of correlation or subject of access. Survival is not possible other than by
becoming obstinately unintelligible. Therefore, remaining so and as such, with its
implicit vitalistic ethos, is the destiny of all objects but at the same time it is also
the veneration of unintelligibility on all levels. Vitalism can only bolster the idea
of ontology by sundering the correlation of ontology with any ideal whatsoever,
be it sense, intelligibility or the Ones already there. This is enough to render the
universe littered with objects weird but it is not weird enough; for even the
aimless objects in and by themselves are weird because their destiny to be
something cannot be established except by the emphatic intervention of Nothing
from the inside. To resist correlation perpetuating itself through subtraction or
shedding attributes, properties and belongings the object must withdraw and
remain to and in itself. To remain or survive subtraction is the destiny of all
objects but to remain in itself (required for rendering correlation obsolete) is
indeed equal to persistence in remaining and insistence on survival. For this
reason the weird, as a universe cluttered with enclosed and uncorrelatable
objects which only contribute to unintelligibility, is tethered to a seemingly
vitalistic intension inherent to remaining per se: remaining by and within itself
separated from all that is extraneous (reliquum esse) is impossible other than by
persistence in remaining (superesse) i.e. by surviving subtraction. To put it
differently, in order to remain in itself and thus resist correlation and contribute
to the weirdness immanent to the littered universe, the object has to position
itself in respect to subtraction. Only by eventuating itself through subtraction,
can the object remain within in itself, separated from all that is extraneous i.e.
nodes of correlation and points of access. Only by being subtractively correlated
to its belongings, can the object defy access. This extension of the object to
nothing constitutes the explicit vector of subtraction as previously elaborated.
Subtraction is necessary in order to resist correlation, hence contributing to the
unintelligibility of the littered universe or emanating the weird. However, once
subjected to subtraction, the object cannot remain enclosed within itself other
than by continuing to remain that is, in insisting upon survival. This continuation
in remaining or insistence on survival is the inevitable ontological intention /
intension inherent to the object for emanating the weird by resisting correlation
and access. In short, persistence in remaining or continuing to remain is the
ontological intension of remaining by and within itself which is the guarantee of
uncorrelatablity. To this extent, the weird adds a strong survivalist or
immanently ontological dimension to objects.
However, this ontological intention explicable in terms of persistence in
remaining or survival cannot establish itself other than by submitting to the
intention of that which is radically exterior to it. Surviving subtraction or
remaining is only possible by interiorizing another vector of subtraction or
Nothing whereby to continue to remain (survive) is equal to remaining less (i.e.
approximating Nothing). Thus in a weird twist, as the ontological intension
2
inherent to the object remaining within itself, survival or persistence in
remaining cannot maintain itself unless it unconditionally conforms to the
intention of Nothing. In other words, the object emanates the weird by remaining
in itself, that is to say, persists in remaining under the explicit vector of
subtraction; but by doing so, it becomes the puppet of that which is radically
exterior to its intention i.e. Nothing. Thus the weird is propagated from within
and without the object, in a chain of unintelligible puppetry in which no
intention and hence no puppet or puppeteer can be established unless by
channeling the intension of nothing. To this extent, the weird is not the
cancellation of puppetry in its explicit hierarchy and implicit chaos, for puppetry
in all its forms is the cosmic consequence of nothing in acting upon itself in order
to bring about the possibility of something, and in the survival of something
which channels the intention of nothing. Puppetry is the realization of the ethics
of the weird: in conformity to my intention, I enforce the radically exterior
intention of nothing.
In conformity to its own intension, something can only be something if it
simultaneously prioritizes and interiorizes the intention of Nothing that is, the
implicit vector of subtraction. The basic intention of something is remaining in
itself. Yet remaining as the ontological intention of something is always
remaining less as the result of its subtractive correlation with belongings.
Remaining less, that is to say, remaining per se cannot be guaranteed and
maintained unless the priority of nothing is affirmed. Because the continuity of
remaining which is eventuated as lessening or diminution can only perpetuate
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!To provide a further clarification on how the continuation of the remaining or remaining in
itself is only possible in remaining less subtractive extension and diminutive intention
subtraction can be mathematically albeit schematically demonstrated. Assuming there are two
geometrical magnitudes of A and B where A > B as the ideal ground of the procedure and a
guarantee for its continuation (iterative subtraction). The procedure starts by subtracting the
greatest multiple of the smaller magnitude B (henceforth mB) from the greater multiples of the
greater magnitude A: A mB = R. The result of the subtraction as hitherto a conserved part is the
remainder R which is less than the smaller magnitude B (R < B). Since the remainder R is less
than the smaller magnitude B, the procedure is continued by subtracting the greatest multiple of
the remainder R (henceforth nR) from the smaller magnitude B: B nR = r. The result of the
subtraction is again a remainder but it is less than the previous remainder (r < R). Therefore,
persistence or continuation in remaining viz. to remain can only be perpetuated through rs smaller
than R. Even if r does not become equal to zero, in order to remain less and continue to remain, it
must conform to the priority of zero or no-thing as that which is already there.!
and rectify itself according to nothing or an exterior zero that is Nothing as that
to which nothing can belong or as the indubitable limit of lessening. Something
in itself litters the empty blackness with objects which are something qua
unintelligibility and thereby emanates the weird as a cosmic reality. Yet nothing,
seeping through the intension of something, renders the weird intrinsically and
necessarily problematic. For this reason, radicality of the weird is manifested in
its problematic intension: something can only litter the emptiness without
succumbing to correlation and intelligibility that is, the weird can only be
emanated by some thing, if that thing remains by and within itself. Only through
an utter compliance to nothing both implicitly and explicitly can something
remain in itself, or more accurately, remain less. The remainder at any instance
must correspond to another vector of subtraction whose direction coincides with
the direction of remaining. Here the weird as the destiny of all objects falls back
upon another destiny (werde) the problematic intension.
By remaining in itself, enclosed from nodes of access or abiding to its own
intention, the littering object emanates the weird. Yet this intension cannot be
established other than by approximating nothing or interiorizing the vector of
subtraction whereby remaining in itself (as the intention of something) is
remaining less (the intention of nothing). Therefore, the intention (intension) of
the weird becomes entirely problematic by channeling the intension of nothing.
Once again, the radicality of the weird is guaranteed by the sheer problematicness of the intention inherent to its source of emanation the aimless, enclosed,
inaccessible object. Ultimately, the weird feeds on the power of the insolubly
problematic. The persisting vitalist destiny of the weird is undermined by the
intervention of nothing that is required for such a destiny to establish itself.
Correspondingly, the weird is delivered to the problematic that perforates
something on behalf of nothing as well as establishing something to convey
nothing. The ontological intension of something is alive and vigorous only in so
far as it animates the problematic that bores through it. Neither the weird nor the
destiny of all objects can be invested outside the radically problematic. It is in
fact the weird that is nourished by this problematic-ness; exposing the twist
between the ontological intention and the intention of nothing (as radical
exteriority) to its fullest extent.
To this extent, the weird can be addressed as two overlapping destinies, counted
as two weirds:
1. The weird emanated by the littered universe: uncorrelatable and inaccessible
objects cluttering the emptiness so aimlessly that they cannot be recognized as
anything other than holes, bugs and shifting porosities in the blackness of the
universe. This is the weird entailed by the objects remaining in themselves;
acceding to a causality whereby the withdrawal of objects to themselves exudes
the weird. Through this weirdness necessitated by such causation, everything
inconsistently happens for whatever reason and nothing can consistently ever
happen. For, breaking apart from the correlation and resisting access hence
constituting such causality objects must remain by, for and within themselves.
Once every object remains in itself or withdraws to something qua and as
unintelligibility, then the universe and whatever happens in it (or even if nothing
ever happens in it) is rendered weird. This is the weird connected to the destiny
of objects (weird as werde). According to this weird, ex nihilo infers the vacuity of
ontology in an absurd competition with the superficial nothingness of the
universe.
2. The weird of the pre-emptive problematic: in order to conform to their destiny
and basic requisition, and in order to render the correlation obsolete or to be
radically unsympathetic toward access, objects must withdraw to and remain in
themselves. Even if the object remaining within itself is effectuated as nothing
outside, it indeed denotes surviving a subtraction whereby nodes of access and
correlation are removed and taken away (extension to nothing). However, this
survival from the subtracting vector is only attainable by interiorizing another
vector of subtraction. This means that in order to withdraw to and remain in
itself, the object must abide by its ontological intension which is remaining so and
as such. We already noted that on the one hand, remaining so and as such
corresponds to the continuation of subtraction as what guarantees the cancelation
of all nodes of correlation or access. On the other hand, remaining so and as such as
the ontological intension of something cannot invest itself outside of remaining less
or intensive diminution. In short, remaining is always remaining less. The
remainder cannot continue to remain in itself unless it approximates nothing by
which it can remain less, thus reinforcing the subtraction. For this reason, the
ontological intention of objects in themselves cannot be enacted other than by the
emphatic intervention of Nothing. This is another way to say that by abiding to
their intention for remaining in themselves, the objects are puppetized by the
intention of nothing. Nothing vermicularly looms out of the intended and makes
it problematic. The universe is infinitely weirder when we know, that even the
gimmick of ex nihilo is the perforation of something with nothing, not the other
way around.
In this regard, the second weird is the subversion of the destiny of all objects: in
abiding by their own inaccessible fate that is remaining so and as such, the
objects bring about the intervention of nothing that is, the destiny necessitated by
radical exteriority. The weird as the destiny of objects displays its problematic
constitution and thereby bolsters its irreconcilable disjunction with the
grotesque, fantastic or even uncanny. The second weird is the weird as the
porous, the perforation caused by the worms which squirm and thus enforce the
logic of the void within something. The perforation, the weirdness, depends less
on the resistance of something than the wiggling of the worms. Or more
precisely, the problematic intention is more on the side of the inevitable intrusion
of nothing rather than the resistance of something.
The conjecture of the horror that cannot be culminated: If the weird is the
destiny of objects and objects only need to remain by and within themselves to
emanate the weird, then what genre of horror can effectively channel the weird?
By genre, we mean the causalities or the ways transcendental or immanent
through which horror unfolds itself or is unfolded. In this sense, we can
temporarily ignore the definition of horror. Regardless of the medium (fiction,
cinema, videogames, ...), there are four modi operandi whereby the horror is
exposed or imposed. These four alternatives albeit reductively and fuzzily
connected to each other can be enumerated as follows:
(1) The apotheosis of revelation as related to an intelligible truth, that is to say,
the exposition of the truth associated to an intelligible force or entity. We call this
the horror of intelligibility: Lord works in mysterious ways.
(2) The revelation of unintelligible nothing, or in other words, the blind void
which will be exposed as the autophagic truth underlying everything. This is the
horror of unintelligibility whose imposition is the exposition of the first ones
fatuity and annulment: Rabid Nihilism
(3) The impossibility of revelation or the impossibility of any truth at all be it
unintelligible void or intelligible something. Revelation in itself is indeterminable
because neither the imposition of nothing nor the exposition of something can be
determined the horror of indeterminability (sequelism and video games)
(4) The imposition or exposition of something (anything) be it a truth or not,
temporarily or abysmally is only possible by the intervention of something
radically exterior to it. Solely by abiding to its ontological intention (remaining so
and as such), something passes on the intension of nothing in the form of the
problematic. This is the horror that seeps through only by remaining so and such,
because to survive or to be is to remain problematic. We call this the horror of
problematic intension which, with utter subtlety, blurs the boundaries between the
first, the second and the third horror genres.
!As argued previously, the fourth genre or the horror of the problematic intension
is the genre of horror that transmits the weird. In this genre, nothing needs to be
exposed or imposed because that which endures or remains is by itself weird.
The horror of problematic intension essentially cannot be brought to any
culmination but it does not entail the interruption of the ongoing climax either.
In this sense, the survival horror genre conveys such a horror associated with the
weird: in the lexicon of the videogame, the horror is neither the anticipation of
the boss at the end of the game, nor of his absence; nor is it the supernatural, or
the growing hordes of undead armies; nor the uncanny ambience; it is the very
definition of survival that is pregnant with the problematic from the beginning.
3
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3!In the lexicon of the video game, the AI-based entity (the enemy) which the player has to defeat
or be defeated by in order to progress in the game or finish the game is called boss. Therefore,
boss in video games is usually equal to the points required for changing the level of the game or
concluding it.!