202112222047 🔢 conditions for pure joy

¶1. If we can do any work and make money in return, if we can fulfill tasks and make back cash, then what is the aim of anything?

¶2. Plainly: the cash itself. Secondly: what the cash buys. But what about after this? Plainly: those conditions the purchase furnishes. Second: death.

¶3. Here is the Existential-Capital Circuit: labor, money, possibility. When possibility is actualized, a man needs more labor, at which point L’ begins. M’ is returned, for a new possibility P’. Call this LMPL’M’P’. Call it LMP for short. This repeats infinitely until we die.

¶4. Nothing but redundancy to self-sustenance remains but as incidental to the essential fulfillment of this circuit. Call this the monadic character of the LMP circuit.

¶5. Now there is a dyadic character wherewith M comprehends P as a source of security for another. This is the conjugal love-relation.

¶6. Beyond this the triadic character exists among a monad among a dyad, the former’s capital furnishing a dependency relation of the latter on him. This is the lord-bondsman relation.

¶7. Thus the One always sustains himself. The Other lives with him in love. The second other joins the first, perhaps as a child, perhaps as employee. Whatever the case, the Third joins as mere capital generator who furnishes the furtherance of the powers commanded by the One and his Dyad. In the first place, capital. In the second, his Life.

¶8. This is the bottommost essence of sociality: SUSTENANCE, LOVE, SECURITY.

¶9. War is the battle for sustenance and security. Rape is the battle for love.

¶10. Sustenance is in want due to a priori weakness. Love is in want due to a priori lust. Security is in want due to a priori fear. These are the bottommost a priori conditions for sociality: weakness, lust, fear.

¶11. The aim of man is to overcome these a priori sensations. He does this in a self-maintained security, one which wants nothing of others.

¶12. Conflated with the a priori conditions for sociality is the social-semiotic condition whereby men seek to SHOW their fulfillment of weakness, lust, and fear. The sign of strength: musculature. The sign of lust-satisfaction: a voluptuous woman. The sign of security: wealth. Muscles, voluptuousness, money: these are the signs whereby bottommost sociality is fulfilled.

¶13. These signify the completion of the LMP circuit in a manner which supposed its displacement. The possibilities portended by the labor-money portion of the circuit displace the necessity of further labor and further money. Having-money-now is displayed by the sign, a having which is simultaneous with the sense of its being a having-conquered-fear and a being-secure. Thus, muscles signify triply. They show (1) having-sustenance and (2) having-strength. Thus they signify between these as (3) strength-that-sustains. Voluptuousness: having-love, having-fecundity, fecundity-that-loves. Money: security, power, power-that-secures. (Power enters the money sign only implicitly).

¶13. But if man is to overcome these, then he must live in a state of a priori sustenance, love, and security. Having these a priori, he will not seek them semiotically. Not seeking them in signs, he will not seek their referents — they are already his.

¶14. But why is he to overcome these? Plainly: the LMP circuit lasts forever; signs merely make the belief that it fades. For, even the richest man alive has wants, and even he who could do anything still feels the pull of what he should do. Labor appears before men always, and no amount of the above empirical securities will make it otherwise. Thus, the triadic and dyadic relations are after effects making believe the eternal character of mere temporality — secure labor.

¶15. Suppose a man wants no sustenance beyond what he can accrue for himself. Suppose he wants no greater love than that between himself and one other. Suppose he wants no triadic relation, but is merely open to it. Suppose he wants only his own life and all it can share as given to him. Why ought this man be compelled to enter the semiotic system and the LMP circuit? Suppose he instead sees joy on its own terms, and feels love freely. Suppose he wants only to express and feel this until the end of his days. Why, how in any case can it be, that he ought enter a system of satisfactions which fulfill wants he doesn’t have? A sustenance he doesn’t need, a love he doesn’t enjoy, a security he needn’t feel — each of this is presupposed by the monetary and semiotic systems, yet he feels himself alien to them. Under what conditions can he exit this system?

¶16. Plainly, he can only exit these conditions wherein others which allow him the feeling of his joy purely. What are these conditions? Those in which man has overcome his a priori sensations of want of sustenance, love, and security. Here is why man must aim to overcome the LMP circuit and the semiosis it entails: those who see the endlessness hereof want something else. they know not what it is, but they demand the conditions for its possibility in the determinate negation of both LMP and the semiosis which signifies it. They want neither empty labor fulfilling causes they do not understand, nor money to purchase the actualization of possibilities pregiven to him by the market. Nor does he want to signify his labor-power, his money-having, and his possibility-making. He wants only to live these, exactly as he can see and understand them. He wants only to live his joy as he senses it, without either its presence on a market or its signification by products purchased therefrom.

¶17. What are the conditions for pure joy? Collective sustenance, collective love, collective security. How? The basal recognition of (1) the LMP circuit, (2) a priori wants, (3) semiosis of their satisfaction. For, each of these wants a show of security, security-for-time. What we must do is unleash Eros such that it wants nothing but itself, seeing the groundlessness of its desire and its object. A sublated depression, where everything is seen to be nothing, including desire itself, is what we are after. Only in recognizing this do we become truly free of (1) interpersonal control (2) our immanent otherness (3) that which binds 1 with 2, semiotic inference.

This line appears after every note.