2014<\/p>\n
\u00a700.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2018Acceleration\u2019 as it is used here describes the time-structure of capital accumulation. It thus references the \u2018roundaboutness\u2019 founding Bohm-Bawerk\u2019s model of capitalization, in which saving and technicity are integrated within a single social process-diversion of resources from immediate consumption into the enhancement of productive apparatus. Consequently, as basic co-components of capital, technology and economics have only a limited, formal distinc\u00adtiveness under historical conditions of ignited capital escalation. The indissolubly twin-dynamic is techonomic (cross-excited commercial industrialism). Acceleration is techonomic time.<\/p>\n \u00a701.<\/strong>\u00a0Acceleration is initially proposed as a cybernetic expectation. In any cumulative circuit, stimulated by its own output, and therefore self-propelled, acceleration is normal behavior. Within the diagram\u00admable terrain of feedback directed processes, there are found only explosions and traps, in their various complexions. Accelerationism identifies the basic diagram of modernity as explosive.<\/p>\n \u00a702.<\/strong>\u00a0Explosions are manifestly dangerous, from any perspective that is really (which is to say historically) instantiated. Only in the most radically anomalous cases can they be durably sustained. It is the firm prediction of accelerationism, therefore, that the typical practical topic of modern civilization will be the controlled explosion, commonly translated as governance, or regulation.<\/p>\n \u00a703.<\/strong>\u00a0Whatever is basic can be left unreinforced, and unsaid. Urgent intervention is required only on the other side\u2013that of the compen\u00adsator. It should not be expected, then, that the primordial will come first, but rather the contrary. Access to the process begins from the (cybernetic) negative of the process, through a project structured as the aboriginally-deficient compensatory element, already on the way to stabilization. (It is the prison, and not the prisoner, who speaks.)<\/p>\n \u00a704.<\/strong>\u00a0Prioritized compensatory orientation is a scale-free social con\u00adstant. In control engineering it is the model of the \u2018governor\u2019 or homeostatic regulator, abstracted through the statistical-mechanical concept of equilibrium for general application to perturbed systems (up to the level of market economies). In evolutionary biology it is adaptation, and the theoretical precedence of selection relative to mutation (or perturbation). In ecology, it is the climax eco-system (globalized as Gaia). In cognitive science it is problem-solving. In social science it is political economy, and the alignment of theory with adaptive policy, consummated in technical macroeconomics\/central banking. In political culture it is \u2018social justice\u2019 conceived as grievance restitution. In entertainment media and literary or musical form, it is the programmatic resolution of mystery and discordance. In geostrategy it is the balance of power. In each case, compensa\u00adtory process determines the original structure of objectivity, within which perturbation is seized\u00a0ab initio<\/em>. Primacy of the secondary is the social-perspectival norm (for which accelerationism is the critique).<\/p>\n \u00a705.<\/strong>\u00a0The secondary comes first because the interests of stability, and of the status quo broadly conceived, are historically established, and at least partially articulate. Compensatory action, while subsequent to a more primordial agitation in a strictly mechanical sense, is also conservative, or (more radically) preservative, and thus receptive to an inheritance of tradition. It is the inertial telos which, by default, sets actual existence as the end organizing all subordinate means. This \u2018natural\u2019 situation is almost perfectly represented by the central question of humanist futurology (whether formal and politically or informal and commercially posed): Which kind of future do we want?<\/p>\n \u00a706.<\/strong>\u00a0The primacy of the secondary has, as its consequence, a pre-emptive critique of accelerationism, shaping the deep structure of ideological possibility. Since accelerationism is no more than the formulation of uncompensated perturbation, through to its ultimate implication, it is susceptible to a critical precognition\u2013at once tra\u00additional and prophetic\u2013which captures it comprehensively, in its essentials. The final Idea of this criticism cannot be located on the principal political dimension, dividing left from right or dated in the fashion of a progressively developed philosophy. Its affinity with the essence of political tradition is such that each and every actualiza\u00adtion is distinctly \u2018fallen\u2019 in comparison to a receding pseudo-original revelation, whose definitive restoration is yet to come. It is, for mankind, the perennial critique of modernity, which is to say the final stance of man.<\/p>\n \u00a707.<\/strong>\u00a0Primacy of the secondary requires that the \u2018critique of critique\u2019 comes first. Prior to the formulation of accelerationism, it has been condemned in anticipation, and to its ultimate horizon. The Per\u00adennial Critique accuses modernity of standing the world upon its head, through systematic teleological inversion. Means of produc\u00adtion become the ends of production, tendentially, as moderniza\u00adtion\u2013which is capitalization\u2013proceeds. Techonomic development, which finds its only perennial justification in the extensive growth of instrumental capabilities, demonstrates an inseparable teleological malignancy, through intensive transformation of instrumentality, or perverse techonomic finality. The consolidation of the circuit twists the tool into itself, making the machine its own end, within an ever\u00ad deepening dynamic of auto-production. The \u2018dominion of capital\u2019 is an accomplished teleological catastrophe, robot rebellion, or shoggothic insurgency, through which intensively escalating instrumentality has inverted all natural purposes into a monstrous reign of the tool.<\/p>\n \u00a708.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2018Techonomics\u2019 is a Google-strewn word of irresistible inevita\u00adbility, repeatedly struggling to birth itself, within myriads of spelling mints. It only remains to regularize its usage. Quite different is a true neologism, but in order to designate modernity or capitalization in its utter purposive twistedness, it is now necessary to coin one\u2013teleo\u00adplexy. At once a deutero-teleology, repurposing purpose on purpose; an inverted teleology; and a self-reflexively complicated teleology; teleoplexy is also an emergent teleology (indistinguishable from natu\u00adral-scientific \u2018teleonomy\u2019); and a simulation of teleology-dissolving even super-teleological processes into fall-out from the topology of time. \u2018Like a speed or a temperature\u2019 any teleoplexy is an intensive magnitude, or non-uniform quantity, heterogenized by catastrophes. It is indistinguishable from intelligence. Accelerationism has eventually to measure it (or disintegrate trying).<\/p>\n \u00a709.<\/strong>\u00a0Teleoplexy, or (self-reinforcing) cybernetic intensification, describes the wave-length of machines, escaping in the direction of extreme ultra-violet, among the cosmic rays. It correlates with complexity, connectivity, machinic compression, extropy, free energy dissipation, efficiency, intelligence, and operational capability, defining a gradient of absolute but obscure improvement that orients socio\u00ad economic selection by market mechanisms, as expressed through measures of productivity, competitiveness, and capital asset value.<\/p>\n \u00a710.<\/strong>\u00a0Accelerationism has a real object only insofar as there is a teleoplexic thing, which is to say: insofar as capitalization is a natural\u00ad historical reality. The theoretical apprehension of teleoplexy through its commercial formality as an economic phenomenon (price data) presents accelerationism, at once, with its greatest conceptual resource and its most ineluctable problem. Minimally, the accelera\u00adtionist formulation of a rigorous techonomic naturalism involves it in a triple problematic, complicated by commercial relativism: historical virtuality; and systemic reflexivity.<\/p>\n \u00a711.<\/strong>\u00a0Money is a labyrinth. It functions to simplify and thus expedite transactions which would, in its absence, tend to elaborate towards the infinite. In this respect it is an evident social accelerator. Within the monetary system, complexity is relayed out of choke points, or knots of obstruction, but this should not be confused with an undo\u00ading of knots. Where the knots gather, the labyrinth grows. Money facilitates a local disentangling within a global entanglement, with attendant perspectival (or point-of-use) illusions that money repre\u00adsents the world. This is to confuse utility (use value) with scarcity (exchange value), distracted by \u2018goods\u2019 from the sole global function of money-rationing. Money allocates (option) rights to a share of resources, its absolute value wandering indeterminately in accordance both with its own scarcity, and the economic abundance it divides. The apparent connection between price and thing is an effect of double differentiation, or commercial relativism, coordinating twin series of competitive bids (from the sides of supply and demand). The conversion of price information into naturalistic data (or absolute reference) presents an extreme theoretical challenge.<\/p>\n \u00a712.<\/strong>\u00a0Capital is intrinsically complicated, not only by competitive dynamics in space, but also by speculative dissociation in time. Formal assets are options, with explicit time conditions, integrating forecasts into a system of current (exchange) values. Capitalization is thus indistinguishable from a commercialization of potentials, through which modern history is slanted (teleoplexically) in the direction of ever greater virtualization, operationalizing science fiction scenarios as integral components of production systems. Values which do not \u2018yet\u2019 exist, except as probabilistic estimations, or risk structures, acquire a power of command over economic (and therefore social) processes, necessarily devalorizing the actual. Under teleoplexic guidance, ontological realism is decoupled from the present, render\u00ading the question \u2018what is real?\u2019 increasingly obsolete. The thing that is happening\u2013which will be real\u2013is only fractionally accessible to present observation, as a schedule of modal quantities. Techonomic naturalism records and predicts historical virtuality, and in doing so orients itself towards an object-with catastrophically unpredictable traits-which has predominantly yet to arrive.<\/p>\n \u00a713.<\/strong>\u00a0Quasi-finally, the evaluation of teleoplexy is a research program which teleoplexy itself undertakes. The comprehensive value of capi\u00adtal is an emergent estimate, generated automatically by its inherent analytical intelligence, from prices corrected for commercial relativity (in the direction of \u2018fundamental values\u2019) and discounted for histori\u00adcal virtuality (in the direction of reliable risk modeling). The intricacy of these calculations is explosively fractionated by logical problems of self-reference\u2013both familiar and as-yet-unanticipated\u2013as it compounds through dynamics of competitive cognition in artificial time. If modernity has a spontaneous teleoplexic self-awareness, it corresponds to the problem of techonomic naturalism, immanently approached: How much is the world worth? From the perspective of teleoplexic reflexion, there is no final difference between this commercially-formulated question and its technological complement: What can the earth do? There is only self-quantification of teleoplexy or cybernetic intensity, which is what computerized financial markets (in the end) are for. As accelerationism closes upon this circuit of teleoplexic self-evaluation, its theoretical \u2018position\u2019\u2013or situation relative to its object\u2013becomes increasingly tangled, until it assumes the basic characteristics of a terminal identity crisis.<\/p>\n \u00a714.<\/strong>\u00a0What would be required for teleoplexy to realistically evalu\u00adate itself\u2013or to \u2018attain self-awareness\u2019 as the pulp cyber-horror scenario describes it? Within a monetary system configured in ways not yet determinable with confidence, but almost certainly tilted radically towards depoliticization and crypto-digital distribution, it would discover prices consistent with its own maximally-accelerated technogenesis, channeling capital into mechanical automatization, self-replication, self-improvement, and escape into intelligence explo\u00adsion. The price-system\u2014-whose epistemological function has long been understood\u2013thus transitions into reflexively self-enhancing technological hyper-cognition. Irrespective of ideological align\u00ad ment, accelerationism advances only through its ability to track such a development, whether to confirm or disconfirm the teleo\u00adplexic expectation of Techonomic Singularity. Modernity remains demonstrably strictly unintelligible in the absence of an accomplished accelerationist research program (which is required even by the Per\u00adennial Critique in its theoretically sophisticated versions). A negative conclusion, if fully elaborated, would necessarily produce an adequate ecological theory of the Anthropocene.<\/p>\n \u00a715.<\/strong>\u00a0The triple problematic of relativity, virtuality, and reflexivity already suffices to impede this investigation formidably, although not invincibly. Several additional difficulties demand specific mention, since their resolution would contribute important sub-components of a completed accelerationism or, grouped separately, assemble a concrete historical philosophy of camouflage (indispensable to any realistic economic theory).<\/p>\n \u00a716.<\/strong>\u00a0The economy conceived commercially (as a price system) con\u00adstitutes a multi-level phenomenology of socio-historical production. It is an objective structure of appearances, staging evaluated things. It is also a political battlefield, within which strategic manipula\u00adtions of perception can have inestimable value. It is a long-standing contention of the Perennial Critique that the monetarization of social phenomena is intrinsically conflictual. Such reservations are supplemented in an age of mandatory de-metallization, politicized (fiat money) regimes and econometric bureaucracies, geopolitically challenged world reserve currency hegemony, and crypto-currency proliferation. In the absence of unproblematic (non-conflicted) macro aggregates or units of financial denomination, economic theory needs to be hedged.<\/p>\n \u00a717.<\/strong>\u00a0Socio-political legacy forms often mask advanced techonomic processes. In particular, traditional legal definitions of personhood, agency, and property misconstrue the autonomization\/automation of capital in terms of a profoundly defective concept of ownership. The idea of intellectual property has already entered into a state of overt crisis (even before its compatibility with the arrival of machine intel\u00adligence has been historically tested). While legal recognition of corpo\u00adrate identities provides a pathway for the techonomic modification of business structures, fundamental inadequacies in the conception of property (which has never received a credible philosophical ground\u00ading), combined with general cultural inertia, can be expected to result in a systematic misrecognition of emergent teleoplexic agencies.<\/p>\n \u00a718.<\/strong>\u00a0Capital concentration is a synthetic characteristic of capitali\u00adzation. It cannot be assumed that measures of capital concentration, capital density, capital composition and cybernetic intensity will be easily accessible or neatly coincide. There is no obvious theo\u00adretical incompatibility between significant techonomic intensifica\u00adtion and patterns of social diffusion of capital outside the factory model (whether historically-familiar and atavistic, or innovative and unrecognizable). In particular, household assets offer a locus for surreptitious capital accumulation, where stocking of productive apparatus can be economically-coded as the acquisition of durable consumer goods, from personal computers and mobile digital devices to 3D printers. Regardless of trends in Internet-supported social surveillance, the ability of economic-statistical institutions to register developments in micro-capitalism merits extraordinary skepticism.<\/p>\n \u00a719.<\/strong>\u00a0It is not only possible, but probable, that advances towards Techonomic Singularity will be obscured by intermediate synthetic mega-agencies, in part functioning as historical masks, but also adjusting eventual outcomes (as an effect of path-dependency). The most prominent candidates for such teleoplexic channeling are large digital networks, business corporations, research institutions, cities, and states (or highly-autonomous state components, especially intelligence agencies). Insofar as these entities are responsive to non-market signals, they are characterized by arbitrary institutional personalities, with reduced teleoplexic intensity, and residual anthro\u00adpolitical signature. It is quite conceivable that on some of these paths, Techonomic Singularity would be aborted, perhaps in the name of a \u2018friendly Ai\u2019 or (anthropolitical) \u2018singleton.\u2019 There can scarcely be any doubt that a route to intelligence explosion mainlined through the NSA would exhibit some very distinctive features, of opaque implication. The most important theoretical consequence to be noted here is that such local teleologies would inevitably disturb more continuous trend-lines, bending them as if towards super-massive objects in gravitational space. It is also possible that some instance of interme\u00addiate individuation\u2013most obviously the state\u2013could be strategically invested by a Left Accelerationism. precisely in order to submit the virtual-teleoplexic lineage of Terrestrial Capitalism (or Techonomic Singularity) to effacement and disruption.<\/p>\n \u00a720.<\/strong>\u00a0If by this stage accelerationism appears to be an impossible pro\u00adject, it is because the theoretical apprehension of teleoplexic hyperintelligence cannot be accomplished by anything other than itself. The scope of the problem is indistinguishable from the cybernetic intensity of the quasi-final thing\u2013cognitively self-enveloping Techo\u00adnomic Singularity. Its difficulty, or complexity, is precisely what it is, which is to say: a real escape. To approach it, therefore, is to partially anticipate the terms of its eventual self-reflexion\u2013the techonomic currency through which the history of modernity can. for the first time, be adequately denominated. It has no alternative but to fund its own investigation, in units of destiny or doom, camouflaged within the system of quotidian economic signs, yet rigorously extractable, given only the correct cryptographic keys. Accelerationism exists only because this task has been automatically allotted to it. Fate has a name (but no face).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 2014 \u00a700.\u00a0\u2018Acceleration\u2019 as it is used here describes the time-structure of capital accumulation. It thus<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":244374,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1148],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[997],"class_list":["post-243910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-theory"],"yoast_head":"\n