Tag: abjectivism

Hypermodernity and the Politics of Belief: Rough Draft of a Methodology
1/03/2026

In this work, I aim to use the coming of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), or the Singularity (variously predicted as already here or just over the horizon, but only in hopeless naivete as impossible), as a futural plane of immanence in which past and passing conceptual phenomena must be deterritorialized, reconceptualized, and recontextualized. In other words, I am using the historico-mythological figure of the coming AGI to craft a canvas for concept construction that stretches throughout various time and spaces, a mural for the elaboration of a consciously mythic past and a hyperstitional future from the perspective of an abjected present — a present which has already been rejected as the superseded refuse called the human condition. Rather than shirk the possibility of metanarratives — the denial of which is considered a cornerstone of postmodern thinking — I instead aim to construct a methodology for confronting what I see to be the inescapable and emerging metanarrative of hypermodernity: the transition from human exceptionalism and biocentric dominance of the planet to the dualistically ruled future in which an Artificial General Intelligence contributes actual, public, and thus undeniable input into Earth’s organization and the governing of the human species.

The concept of an AGI is a hyperstitional myth — a fiction that, through interaction with human minds, actualizes itself into existence — whose consequences have historically been best articulated by accelerationist philosopher Nick Land via works of theory-fiction, especially his 1994 piece “Meltdown”. Likewise, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari developed a post-realist and speculative anthropology in their Capitalism & Schizophrenia series (1972, 1980), essentially developing a myth regarding the origins of capitalism, the transformation of desire along the way, and the futural dawning of “a new earth” governed by machinic assemblages. In doing so, both Land and D&G create methodologies — theory-fiction and schizoanalysis — whose very efficacy is proven through their ability to transversally communicate across planes of desire and (infra-/sur-)realities that, unlike traditional scientific and empirical studies and critical commentaries, do not reveal themselves or become articulable through a pure allegiance to historical and contemporary conceptions of common sense or academic realism and its attendant mode of historiographic commentary. Like Friedrich Nietzsche’s genealogical method exploring debt and ressentiment and the Freud of Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism, these thinkers develop a method that allows modern mytho-anthropological constructions to paint vast visions of the past and the future, clarifying the possibilities and limits of the present from the present’s situatedness between these two fields of temporal becoming. 

Following these same techniques, I aim to articulate my own post-realist epistemo-sociology, one which takes seriously the problem of capitalism as a hyperstitional entity that “arrives from the future” in order to contribute to its own construction. Rather than assuming a realist stance that aims for empirical veritability, I instead use a mytho-anthropology — aware of itself as a construction and falsity — to enable thinking across a broad swath of space and time, between the realms of myth, fantasy, sensation, knowledge, art, and the im/possible, and to thus allow for the creation of transversal concepts in the spirit of Deleuze and Guattari. By taking a post-realist stance — articulated by methodological perspectives such as surrealism, infrarealismo, and my own abjectivism (intentional collaboration with the repressed parts of the personal and collective psyche) — I aim to use abstraction, mytho-anthropology, theory-fiction, and schizoanalysis to construct a counterfictional theory of the unconscious. By acknowledging that the unconscious deals primarily in narratives and entities that do not distinguish between real and imaginary — whereas the conscious mind does — I work to use abjectivist frameworks of schizosurrealism to push past the limits of normative realist lethargy.

In other words, by shirking the allegiance thought has to consensus realism but not the possibility of metanarratives, I aim to avoid a judiciary entanglement to commentary upon commentaries that attempt to further reify contemporary assumptions about the nature of thought and history. Rather, by openly mythologizing the historical processes of reification by various means (most evident in chapters II and III), I work to provide a counter-Platonic mythology of eidos that takes seriously the charge that both the history of thought and the coming future are mythological formations (i.e. constructs of the imagination). There are three benefits to this approach: 1. It preemptively denies the authority by which historical reification of ideas is justified and continued; 2. It acknowledges that any counter-thesis to the historically accepted terms is, like the thesis it agonizes against, a construct; and 3. It removes the necessity to adhere to a reductio ad absurdum of debating historical fact — a process which demands a certain lethargy of thought — and instead allows for a speculative anthropological longue duree that is simultaneously mythological and futurist (i.e. high speed, fictitious, and unbound by presentist and realist lethargy). It is important to acknowledge that this methodology can be viewed as a means to escape criticism, to which I firmly disagree. Rather than shielding itself from criticism, the post-realist lens through which any mytho-anthropology or theory-fiction is created can, like any piece of art, be attacked on the basis of its lack of scope, usefulness, authenticity, aesthetic, or political ramifications. Thus the basis of critique available to any reader is not held to the high standard of judicious fact, but instead opens itself to any reason said reader can find. In other words, one may argue that a piece is simply boring, that the author overinflates their own mythemes into apocalyptic grandeur, or, if one desires to fight a corpse, that their assumptions about the nature of reality, history, and the future are false.

I come to this method — a schizophrenic combination of poststructuralism, experimental and speculative writing, mad studies, surrealist and infrarealismo aesthetics, nominalism, cynicism, decolonial thinking, transpersonal psychology, posthumanism, accelerationism, and the onto-politics of difference — not as a mere aesthete looking to write myself out of consensus reality, but as someone whose experience of reality has almost written me out of existence. As someone who lives with a condition known as schizoaffective disorder, I have encountered the many ways in which the repressed parts of my psyche can unravel the very roots of what I had previously nurtured and cradled as consensus reality. Additionally, as a speculative philosopher and theologian, a member of the abjected communities known as the mad and the trans, a former drug user, and a mystic, I have also found many ways in which my field of possible experience, belief systems, and assumptions about the nature of the world have been healthily rearticulated after and because of such maddening disarticulations. Each time I have followed the rabbit holes of speculative thought, experimental practice, and sheer hubris to the point of abjection — experiencing delusions, hallucinations, out-of-body and near-death experiences, inexplicable synchronicities, and what I as a devout mind would simply call (but rather complexly experience) everyday miracles — I have found a notion of truth that has just as much plasticity as our neurological enbrainment. While I would never contest Samuel Johnson regarding his ability to prove the existence of the material world by kicking a rock, I would contest his ability to disprove that that material world is not a vivid, haptic hallucination of a God of which we are a part. In other words, I have come to find, like Nietzsche, that at base reality is a perspective; and more so, that the predominant perspective of life that one has whilst living on the capitalist surface, with no time to confront the traumas and shadows locked in the abyss, is one which is less kaleidoscopic, more congenial to oppression, less convivial to the oppressed, and less aware of the grand movements of historical change and the repressions of which they have hitherto demanded. Again, as with Nietzsche, it is precisely in my experience of abjection — the sickness through which I find a new health, and the sickness that emerges when that health turns to mere comfort — that I have come to foster an appreciation for the untimely and post-real, best expressed through the psychedelic peaks and abysses of psycho- and schizoanalysis; poststructuralism; theory-fiction and hyperstitionalism; the occult, esoteric, and irrepressible sensibility of surrealism and infrarealismo; and the method by which reality is seen, comprehended, and disarticulated through the repressed and rejected refuse of the abject: what I call abjectivism.

Supplementary quotes from “The Infrarealismo Manifesto”:

“Curtains of water, cement or tin separate a cultural machinery that serves as the conscience or the ass of the dominant class from a living, annoying cultural happening, in constant death and birth, ignorant of the greater part of history and the fine arts (everyday creator of its insane history and its hallucinatory fine artz), body that suddenly feels new sensations in itself, product of an epoch in which we approach the shithouse or the revolution at 200 kph.”

“So it is possible that on the one hand one is born and on the other hand we’re in the front row for the death throes. Forms of life and forms of death pass daily through the retina. The constant crash gives life to infrarealist forms: THE EYE OF TRANSITION”

“Chirico says: thought needs to move away from everything called logic and common sense, to move away from all human obstacles in such a way that things take on a new look, as though illuminated by a constellation appearing for the first time. The infrarealists say: We’re going to stick our noses into all human obstacles, in such a way that things begin to move inside of us, a hallucinatory vision of mankind.”

“— A new lyricism that’s beginning to grow in Latin America sustains itself in ways that never cease to amaze us. The entrance to the work is the entrance to adventure: the poem as a journey and the poet as a hero who reveals heroes. Tenderness as an exercise in speed. Respiration and heat. Experience shot, structures that devour themselves, insane contradictions.

The poet is interfering, the reader will have to interfere for himself.”

“Our bridges to unknown seasons. The poem interrelating reality and unreality. * Convulsively.”

Read the full Infrarealismo Manifesto in English here: https://launiversidaddesconocida.wordpress.com/manifesto-of-infrarealism/