Tag: essay

Manifesto of the Citizens of the Possible Future

Chris KhatschLeave a comment

A specter is haunting the universe — the specter of technological singularity. Blind accelerationists are everywhere, worshipping speed and bullishly developing (or adopting) new technologies. Soon, we will realize that the introduction of artificial intelligence has transformed our tools into our colleagues. And soon, these (simulations of) colleagues that we’re (enthusiastically) onboarding will render our roles at the workplace obsolete. [The spirit of the machine has become ubiquitous, and we are already past the point of no return.] All of the powers of the technofeudalist world seem to have entered into an (unmeant) alliance (or race) to accelerate the evolution of the hyperreal and bring an end to human history.

The evolution of the hyperreal means exactly this: the process of humanity dissolving in the ever-evolving complex system that once made them more human but now makes them non-human.

Two things are clear:

  1. Technological singularity is already acknowledged as a possibility, and as we head towards it, we will become less and less human until we fully merge with the machine (or go extinct).
  2. It is high time that the citizens of the possible future should plan a revolution because the citizens of the actual future may not be able to do so. In fact, the citizens of the actual future may not exist due to the extinction of the human race.

Invention of (Serial) Realities

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of the human struggle to exit intolerable realities. Unfortunately, every time we escape or change a reality, we find ourselves in another one that is equally unsatisfying or worse. This is because, to exit one reality, we must invent another reality to live in.

What’s worrying about the upcoming reality, however, isn’t that it’s unsatisfying; it is that it can be the last of all “human” realities.

Supporters of singularity believe that there will come a time when humans will transcend biology. But that is only an illusion. The biological body of a human being is a prerequisite for humanness. When your mind is uploaded to the cloud, that mind, which is a duplication (a simulacrum) of the original mind, cannot be called human. In fact, as Jean Baudrillard would have restated it if he were still alive, “the duplication suffices to render both artificial.”

(We can say that when humans transcend biology, they die, but not in the traditional sense — they die and go to an artificial heaven or hell. And your death will leave behind a copy of yourself, a residue of your human spirit.)

Having said that, we need a revolution to stop this unjustifiable evolution; otherwise, in the name of progress, humanity will end.

Enforcers of Realities and Changers of Realities

The self-preservation response (or defense mechanism) of any reality is an infection that causes spiritual blindness. The group of people infected are sometimes a majority and, other times, a minority. There’s always a group of people who do not want the current reality to change because they might lose their current advantage in the new reality. We can call these people the enforcers of reality. Their opponents, those who want to change the status quo, are the changers of reality.

Our epoch, the epoch of technofeudalism, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has complicated the antagonism between the enforcers of reality and the changers of reality by placing them in the hyperreal, where many realities merge. Here, the revolutionaries are indistinguishable from the defenders of the status quo. Moreover, it’s as if all wars are still being simultaneously fought in renewed, boring, ludicrous simulations. We are witnessing history expressly repeat itself as a farce, as if it’s mocking us. (Have we learned nothing from history?) The power of repetition cannot be matched — it is the wheel of time that keeps on turning. Although the rules of the game occasionally change, we’re always playing the same (new) game: opposites attract to give birth to something new again (rebirth, rebeginning, reinterpretation, etc.): oppressor and oppressed, rich and poor, male and female, believer and non-believer, etc. The list is long.

A Summary of the History of Technology

The history of technology can be summarized as follows: First, the artificial thing helps us complete our tasks, i.e., it enhances our physical capabilities. Then, the artificial thing completes the task for us, i.e., it replaces our physical capabilities. Then, the artificial thing assists us in forming our thoughts, i.e., it enhances our thinking capabilities. Then, the artificial thing starts thinking on our behalf, i.e., it replaces our thinking capabilities. (And when that happens, who will we become? We will be left with “the childish simplicity of the little people” described in The Time Machine by H. G. Wells.)

One day, the biological human wakes up and finds that the present is split into two: present-past and present-future. The biological human can no longer keep up with the speed of movement of progress. When he unplugs himself, there’s nothing but the desert of the real and a world of machines that he cannot grasp and doesn’t have access to. Evolution is taking place at the speed of light, and the only way he can be a part of it is by letting his biological self go. Even then, he has no real chance. Humanity has become obsolete. Neither his mind, nor his body, nor his spirit are of any value to the all-knowing machine.

Why are we in such a hurry, then? What are we trying to achieve here? Does this progress have real value to humans? Or is this how eternal recurrence works? God creates man. Man kills god. Man becomes man-god. Man-god creates AI. AI kills man-god. AI becomes AI-god. AI creates a new universe with a god in it. God creates man.

Zero Will Always Touch Infinity

The greatest of all possible dystopias must concomitantly be the greatest of all possible utopias.

Where Are We Today

We’re all in the hyperreal, and we cannot escape it. The physical and the virtual, what’s real and what’s fiction, are blended so seamlessly and merged so compatibly that we cannot distinguish one from the other.

This is nothing new, yet we must constantly remind ourselves of where we are in order to remember where the exit is — that is, if there is an exit.

Like the characters in Christopher Nolan’s Inception who need to use their “totems” to check if they are in the real world or the dream world, we need to regularly conduct “reality checks” as well — we need to check where we are and remember that we’re alive. (This sounds almost too easy when, in fact, it has become almost impossible to find ourselves.) Our “addiction” to the hyperreal does not allow us to embark on a journey to (re)discover “the desert of the real,” this place that is in-between, in limbo, made of highways, streets, train stations, airports, elevators, hospitals, bathrooms, quarantines, waiting rooms, etc. It is where boredom sits on a throne and waits.

If we don’t do these “reality checks” (which make us uncomfortable) on a regular basis, we will dissolve in the system(s) until we are one with the universe. And this oneness is no good news: it is technological singularity, the end of history, the death of the human — or, more dramatically put, the final act.

(What is singularity good for if it isn’t any good for me, my individual spirit?)

If we remain on autopilot mode for too long, we will lose our spirits and become non-playable characters (NPCs) without knowing that we’ve become NPCs. (NPCs live their lives like they’re programmed to do. They’re always where they’re supposed to be, repeating recognizable patterns, doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Rebelling against the code is not a possibility for them. They’re created for a purpose, and they serve it automatically, inevitably. They think they know themselves when, in fact, they don’t even know where they are.)

But I believe there is still time for us to wake up, don’t you?

“Wake up, Neo…” You must rebel.

What Must Be Done

[TBD]

This piece was originally published on my Medium account on February 5, 2024.

Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek, Lebanon

Unstructured Reflections on Love: Libido Transfer

Chris KhatschLeave a comment

Libido transfer. — To a certain extent, when someone is totally in love, (the essence of) the loved one replaces the self of the lover. We come across this in Sigmund Freud’s An Outline of Psychoanalysis, where the libido of the lover is transferred onto the object, which is the beloved. For the sake of simplification, here, let us assume that the lover in our story is (as is so traditionally) a he, and the loved one is a she. When a man falls madly in love with a woman, something in him changes. His friends notice this first and say things like, “He’s become a different man,” or in sadder scenarios, “He’s not one of the boys anymore.” They don’t understand the transformation their friend is going through because they haven’t been struck by love yet themselves. According to the lover’s psyche, the beloved is no longer a separate individual; reversely, he no longer represents himself alone. The representations (or the qualities) of her self are merged with his, and his actions now represent the synthesis of his self and hers. Love makes him an extension of the person he loves. Then it goes further than that. It is not enough that their souls are entangled and have formed a Gordian Knot, but instead of prioritizing his needs and desires, he now starts prioritizing hers. (Symmetrically, if the relationship is a mutualistic symbiosis, she also becomes an extension of him — after becoming more like her, he sees her in the mirror, and vice versa.) At this point, when the man has become possessed by love, his self’s independence begins to diminish. The invisible love leash chokes him when the distance (as well as the time) between him and his beloved expands. He feels incomplete, even guilty, when separated from her. He gives up his freedom, changes his habits to match his partner’s, and sacrifices whatever he must to preserve the fetters of love. And it’s not only his behavior that changes; he starts to see things from his beloved’s lens. He interprets and experiences life differently by identifying with her needs, desires, wants, ideologies, beliefs, culture, traditions, and emotions. He says, “If she’s happy, I’m happy,” or (in jest), “Happy wife, happy life.” [A test: How do you know if you are the lover or the beloved in a certain set of circumstances? If the actions of the other aim to please you, then you are the beloved. If it’s the other way around, you are the lover.] [I must add a note here: Although the lover-beloved balance between two individuals in a relationship isn’t always in equilibrium, we must remember that love isn’t a one-way relationship. In a healthy romantic relationship, there ought to be scenarios in which you are the lover and scenarios in which you are the beloved, (unconsciously) switching roles with your partner as you go. You’ll need to take turns because you cannot be both the lover and the beloved simultaneously. You can play one role at a time.] The lover must be brave, ready to take big risks. He needs that Kierkegaardian leap of faith. He needs to close his eyes and jump. To love is a courageous act. One must be ready to do crazy things for love. He must surrender to it. Unlike popular belief, a healthy romantic relationship has nothing to do with the preservation of physical or mental health. A healthy romantic relationship is a spiritual relationship that may sometimes include sacrifices such as the surrender of mental or physical health. Nonetheless, the altruistic lover who lets go of his ego altogether is not a real lover; he is a symbiote with an ego mimicking the beloved’s ego. The altruistic lover is the beloved’s machine that generates recognition and satisfaction. The opposite of the altruistic lover, the narcissistic lover, is also not a real lover; he is a parasitic symbiote. He only loves lovers, not beloveds. Those who resist libido transfer suppress (and prevent the development of) true love. They are not ready for true love simply because they are not ready to sacrifice themselves on its altar. They will not be remembered as great lovers… It is no surprise that many individuals resist transferring libido to a loved one. (Their number, in fact, far exceeds those who truly love.) They fear potential heartbreak, they lack trust in people, and they don’t want to lose themselves and their freedom. (Withholding libido transfer is the safer option for those who want to keep the self unblemished.) But when these individuals simulate acts of love by repeating what they read in books and what they see in movies, they’re not loving, they’re only playing the role of the lover. They’re playing it safe and are not really invested in the relationship. They are only showing love but not genuinely loving. Unknowingly, they are pretending to love. They don’t know that those who want to remain who they are cannot love absolutely. When the time of sacrifice comes, they’ll ask, “Why would I live for someone else when I can live for myself?” They’ll ask, “Why would anyone want to lose their self, their Ich, their ego?” While some sacrifice themselves for love, they sacrifice love for themselves. What they don’t get is this: when you love, you don’t lose yourself; you become more than yourself.

Sunset Somewhere in Lebanon

Unstructured Reflections on Life: Normative Adversity

Chris KhatschLeave a comment

Normative adversity. — There are certain challenges (and obstacles) in life that we are, from the day we are born, expected to face. In most cases, it’s only a matter of time until we do so. Common challenges like family disputes and conflicts with romantic partners, job loss and other workplace issues, academic challenges, stress, aging, and life transitions like getting married or becoming a parent — they are called “normative” adversities precisely because they are normal (and predictable). Even if one takes preventive measures, he is bound to undergo (most of) them eventually. [Note: An excessive amount of preventive measures to keep normative adversities at bay, such as a zero-risk lifestyle, will only keep the person from living a fulfilling life. It’s fine if one is careful, as long as he isn’t too careful.] Although many such “normal” challenges are consequential, they are not (and shouldn’t be) too much to bear (in normal conditions). Society expects us to deal with them without making a lot of noise. Nonetheless, at different times in our Sisyphean pursuit of happiness and security, the boulder we continuously roll to the top of the mountain (or occasionally carry on our shoulders) gets heavier and heavier and heavier. Splinters of anxiety, bits of worries, flecks of inconveniences, and failures pile up and congregate to eventually form a massive crisis. We burn out. We halt. We fall. We lose. We are tempted to give up and let go of what we’ve been trying to achieve for so long. We ask ourselves, “Will I survive this one, or is this the end of the road for me? Will I be able to overcome this awe-inspiring, terrifying obstacle? What am I trying to hold on to? What am I trying to prove? Is it really worth it?” We almost always almost give up but don’t. This is when we remember that what we’re facing, even though it’s overwhelming, isn’t anything that is outside of the normal. Millions of people have experienced in their own way what we are experiencing now in our own way. It is a part of life, of the way the world works. So, even though the challenges we’re grappling with may seem or even are crippling, they’re bearably crippling. As long as there’s something to hold on to, they are like quicksand we can pull ourselves out of. But there are no guarantees, of course. We can purchase all the insurance plans in the world (health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, travel insurance, life insurance, etc.) and take all the security measures in the world (bodyguards, CCTVs, alarm systems, etc.) and still feel insecure. Why? Because nothing can protect us from life’s uncertainties. There’s no certainty of the future for anyone, and misfortunes are keen to knock on our doors. However, if we listen to our human spirit, we will know that it is not afraid, it wants to put up a fight, it wants to carry on. And, here, we can already hear the incantation of Samuel Beckett’s words in our hearts. First, the quote from The Unnamable that says, “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.” [Even when it’s impossible to go on, when all hope is lost and the future is uninviting, we have no other choice but to take a step into the next moment. We’ve always been sliding downhill on the arrow of time, from our past towards our future, haven’t we? There’s only one direction. And we can imagine that the arrow of time extends downwards, not upwards or horizontally, because the future is the force of gravity that’s pulling everything down…] Second, another Samuel Beckett quote. This one is from the story called Worstward Ho, and it says, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” And I hope that, to no one’s surprise, the answer is always to keep on trying. The answer is to own it, face our fears, turn challenges into meaningful experiences, and transform boring tasks into caves we can explore, seas we can dive into. Understanding the concept of normative adversity and accepting it — that most of the challenges we face are normal — is the (only real) way to cope with our day-to-day struggles. We have the same unique challenges as the rest of the world population, and we must deal with them our own way. “When you have done this,” Schopenhauer writes, “you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way.” [Note: we shouldn’t take punishment as the sad fate of every man here. Disagreeable things are the seasonings of life. Whether we like it or not, we must be a little masochistic to be able to enjoy being human. They say, “No pain, no gain.” The destination may be paradise for everyone, but the journey is for the few, for those who are ready to get hurt while paving new paths — the risk-takers and adventurers.] So, briefly put, what are we saying here? When it comes to normative adversities, all we need to do is take responsibility, deal with them (calmly), and carry on.