How to Remain Free in a World of Digital Voodoo

There is a human-induced process of equalization at work on earth: transformation of difference into sameness.

From the point of view of the digital masters, there is the belief that it is possible to impose such dissolution of specificity on others without affecting by retroaction the master’s singularity. The idea of the Digital Voodoo is that once beings are transformed into standard bits, they are more manipulable and less recalcitrant, and that, as equalization propagates, it is however possible for the happy few to remain aloof from the dissolution of people into data (which I called “datasein” in Being and Neonness.

The ruse of the digital masters is that they can now discretise all beings into bits without appearing to physically affect their integrity. We help you generate a digital avatar of yourself, and when we manipulate the avatar, it affects you because you are connecting yourself to it every day. Spooky action at a distance.

Many people believe they are at least partly on the side of the master, that they can for the most and for what counts control the process, that they are not ultimately the victim of equalization. This might be partially true, for now, but only if one knows what counts for oneself.

The question is: can the equalization program work? Or is there a singularity feature in each being that prevents a complete discretization? Are we more than data? Can we be free in a world of increasing technological determinism?

It takes a great deal of courage to be free. One needs to be ready for the possibility of losing everything in the process of actualising one’s autonomy. Most people are not ready. We are controlled and limited in innumerable ways, partly by norms, partly by alienated beliefs, but also by our own desires or sense of responsibility. Only an immense faith can be stronger than fear and dependence.

If people new that life was like a videogame with the unlimited possibility to restart the game afresh once you die, then they would take many risks. Death would be a daily sport and after a while an untraumatic event. The fact is that many people believe they only have one life, and they hold on to it at all cost, anxious of the Game Over sentence.

The political question that answers the reductive process of equalization described above is: can we equalize freedom? Can we produce autonomy and freedom faster than we produce dependence and alienation? And for whom?

Given the current status of individualism, we might expect the happy few to conquer autonomy for themselves while capitalising on the lack of autonomy of others. This is the story of the world.

A world in which all beings would be fully free could look like the above-mentioned deadly videogame, unless there is something that limits people’s will to competitive power. For example, a gratitude for being without the need to constantly expand one’s territory, or better, the understanding of what expansion really means.

If expansion means a competitive game with winners and losers, then digital equalization rhymes with real inequality. If expansion means more participative and joyous understanding, then it might be possible to counter the expansion of digital control.

This can not mean that one should want nothing, in Stoic fashion. This rather means, perhaps in Nietzschean manner, that one should want what is. But not the amor fati of renunciation. Not what is in the sense of the phenomena that are, but what deeply is, the noumenon, the essence of the universe.

This is the motto of freedom I propose to your reflection: BECOME THE NOUMENON.

For me the noumenon is the Creal, but you are free to search for your own vision and feeling of the noumenon: that process of searching itself, if perseverant, will protect you. 

Why Once Again a Return to Greek Thought Might Be Needed in Our Panmediatic Times

Question: how is it that the Greeks were so clairvoyant 3000 years ago and what has become of them? Answer: holistic and crealectic intelligence is partly Ancient Greek and we are all Ancient Greeks insofar as we practice philosophical health. “Ancient Greek” or “philosophy” (probably synonyms?) is the name of a mutation in the human psyche, which is being forgotten today as a proportion of humanity is regressing into a pre-Greek state of gregariousness, via the pseudo-innocences of victimisation or arithmomania for example. The Greek mythology often shows more intelligence than the christology in which we are still enmeshed, for example the fact that the goddess Hygeia (hygiene) means wholeness.

One healthy way among others to combat the current panmediatic phenomenon, this lecture by James Hillman:

Crealectics as Method

Crealectics believes in the singularity at the core of each person, and in the possibility for diversity and possibility to be harmoniously attuned to an ideal collective life. In nature, this teleology is called creative evolution. In human groups, this ideal is also creative evolution and we can co-design it. In both cases we have networks of signs which can be configured in multifarious manner into a performative discursivity, a web of practice.

Crealectics as method is a philosophical conversation that is embedded in day-to-day practices, desires, and actions in order to keep us aligned with our highest sense of purpose and actualisation, in harmony with the Creal, the creative becoming of the universe.

It is a deep dialogue and deep listening process between individuals and groups that unveils and transforms a vision into a reality by creating a spirited culture of doing, and slowly generate a second nature of care, inquisitive joy and creative responsibility.

Crealectics transports us from our default modes of doing to a new and freer constancy in practice. This creation of a new constellation of belief and action takes time, because it needs to become a habit of co-creation against less inspired, less holistic or disharmonious routines.

Crealectics is a training towards responsible freedom and effectuality via discursive practices, and first and foremost the oldest tool of humanity: transformative discourse. This method and practice of responsible idealisation, a martial art for the mind, creates within the individual brain or the collective brain of the group an eudynamic neural network that is more attuned with the ever-flowing nature of the cosmos and the new possibilities that are hiding in the older routines. It is an inspired and suspended and metamorphic web of excellence above the normative modes of sleep-walking through life.

A Crealectic brain, group or person is flexible and plastic, capable to improvise and dare while being extremely faithful to her ideal, respect of creation, justice, common intelligence, harmony, peaceful living, inquisitive joy, etc.

Humans are driven by Ideas. We might not be aware of it, but we are ideological animals, and we act according to beliefs and discursive worldviews. Groups or individuals perform better when they are aware of their guiding ideas, and they perform better if they admire their highest principle. Otherwise, they are a collection of disparate individuals who might abide to different webs of belief in a state of chaos, war or competition. Interdiscursive harmony between various groups or individuals can only be maintained via a shared respect for creation as common ground.

The crealectic conversation allows to slowly adjust the collective frequency of understanding and create a culture of caring, daring and harmonious becoming. This does not mean that we create a society that is not diverse, quite the contrary: since the ultimate value is the singularity of our co-creative pulse, this continuous ontological and immanent Big Bang that is the Creal, difference between individuals is maintained as an openness to the unheard-of and a trust in the fact that anything can be said or heard during the crealectic conversation, without fear of being wrong, unrealistic or judged.

A new life is possible.

Crealectics and Personal Singularity

Theorists are rigid when they forget the person, and as such, theories cut through the flesh of life. Professions themselves are unreliable: for every good doctor there is a mediocre one. For every alert philosophical practitioner or bus driver, there is an average one. There is no such thing as a general practice that cannot be spoiled by an unreliable practitioner: an uninspired shaman, a bad parent, a deviated president, a stubborn accountant – parent, shaman, president, accountant: those are empty labels. No social practice, label or theory is good enough that it cannot be betrayed by mediocrity and somnambulism. Conversely, any profession or social function can be represented by genuine heroes: the nobleness of a practice is in fact the nobleness of the person that elevates such and such practice to an active degree of awareness and creative care, no matter how valued or despised the practice is by a given society.

I have been avoiding constructing crealectics as a pure theoretical system without embodied practice, a mere speculative edifice, because this would contradict the very intention of crealectics. Theory and speculation are very pleasant, yet what counts is to detect and awaken the crealectician in each of us. We are the collective body of regeneration and creativity, and each person or node in this collective body may actualise crealectics in a singular manner.

I – among others – dream of a theory which would be embodied, personified, metamorphic, multiplied in diversity and undogmatic. Each person can be a singular flame of inquisitive goodwill, of creal power, or genuine creativity and openness to welcome the new in others and situations. Crealectics is relational and intersubjective.

Spirit is present in each of us as attentiveness and capacity for singularity. This crealectic spark is perhaps what Hegel called the life of spirit, the flame of freedom, and it is the source of love because it generates tolerance for difference. When you are overwhelmed by fear, the crealectician dies in you. When you are governed by conformism, the crealectician dies in you. When you sleep-walk through your daily routines, the crealectician dies in you.

Conversely, when you listen deeply, the crealectician awakes in you. When you question and wonder, and try to see things in a new light, the crealectician awakes in you. When you respect creative difference in others and see the person in front of you as an inspiration for novelty and singularity, you are the crealectician that we all can be: one singular locus or node of a multifarious esprit de corps, an experiential fold on the spatium of the cosmological manifold which is our common origin, the absolute transimmanence of relational singularity I call Creal.

Whiteheadian Crealectics

“‘Creativity’ is the principle of novelty. An actual occasion is a novel entity diverse from any entity in the ’many’ which it unifies. Thus ‘creativity’ introduces novelty into the content of the many, which are the [32] universe disjunctively. The ‘creative advance’ is the application of this ultimate principle of creativity to each novel situation which it originates. ‘Together’ is a generic term covering the various special ways in which various sorts of entities are ‘together’ in any one actual occasion. Thus ‘together’ presupposes the notions ‘creativity,’ ‘many,’ ‘one,’ ‘identity’ and ‘diversity.’ The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the ‘many’ which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive ‘many’ which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one,  and are increased by one. In their natures, entities are disjunctively ‘many’ in process of passage into conjunctive unity. This Category of the Ultimate replaces Aristotle’s category of ‘primary substance.’ Thus the ‘production of novel togetherness’ is the ultimate notion embodied in the term ‘concrescence.’ These ultimate notions of ‘production of novelty’ and of ‘concrete togetherness’ are inexplicable either in terms of higher universals or in terms of the components participating in the concrescence. The analysis of the components abstracts from the concrescence. The sole appeal is to intuition.”

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality (Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927-28) (pp. 21-22). Free Press.