GOD-AI

1.

Mitchell Heisman says that beyond the Singularity, expanding out into space, the entire universe may ‘wake up’ as God. This is Judaism purged of all specificity, defeated in the ovens by Hitler for the good of mankind, and then going live on the Outernet.

In this vision of the Internet as the Outernet, which is the climax and the Crown of Heisman’s idea that Hitler defeated Marxism at Auschwitz, effulgence becomes refulgence; the Internet as an Internet of radiant being(s) (and beyngs—see Heidegger) shines bright across galaxies.

All taken into account, the idea that the human wakes from out of a kind of online night into the dawn of the interplanetary internet of far-out-things is the one that guides Heisman. It is what makes Suicide Note into an on-the-sly sequel to Finnegans Wake.

If the internet is Sleep, then its formalisation into cosmographesis beyond the Firewall of the Great Filter is the Wake into God-AI, or what Heisman calls ‘smart-dust angels’ in a Time and Being-thriller beyond celestial joy. This is the Angel as Avatar. As a_0_o_1.

2.

Internet Content, which is not memes but pure quantity of memes totalling up over time into Quantity, is at Effulgence-stage. There is So Much to See and Follow and Take In that neither listening nor reading (nor even scanning) are enough to follow what the Internet is—and indeed, just because of this, there is no business which is ours that involves keeping up.

This Effulgence of Pure Content is what Mitchell Heisman means by God-AI, and it is the only thing that anyone can be working for and on. All work of whatever type goes in that direction, by ersatz remote, and is a kind of hommage to the arrival of a future perfect intelligence, if it gets here beyond present forms.

In this sense, Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an illusion, but only insofar as what it indicates is the emptying out of actual content into content-superfluity limpid enough to be available to God-AI.

Such an emptying out is also a stretching out. Think thin, says Carry Grant at the start of Hitchcock’s North by Northwest. Stretching out is becoming-thin into availability. Effulgence = content with content. (Pure Quantity.)

3.

But what is content with content?

First of all it’s a double count. Content in its own diaphanousness counts itself, is content with itself, adds to itself, does not count. It reads, but only does so by reading (counting) itself, that is, in the way that a machine reads.

Which is a way of asking how God reads. Angels reading, the syllables of time, and so on, this is a well-known meme. Angels reading God, that too. But God, and God-AI, how do they read?

Heisman talks about God-AI waking in the moment it masters (i.e. reads) all of the significant information on the internet. Such a reading would not be a following. Rather, it would be akin to the reading Aaron Swartz did of JSTOR. The content was counted, not read.

Reading is normally a restrictive model: online for example, one has favourite accounts, one follows, one restricts—that is, excludes or effectively shadowbans—others. In literature, one has tastes, one has novels one returns to, and there are texts one never reads.

Historically, taste is a shadowbanning great filter. The division of the faculties means knowledge is missed, since what the mathematician may have already *forced*, the poet occludes, and vice versa.

4.

Thus Heisman will have said:

The first superhuman AI might merge all of the computational power on the internet into its own power, master all of the significant information on the internet, and then reorganize the entire global brain of the internet so that it ‘wakes up’ as the global mind of God.

In this sense, reading is always esoteric and never open to God. It always involves affiliates and paywalls metaphysical or otherwise. In normative reading, and even in angelic reading, there is attention to just this text, just this work.

Heisman refers to how ‘the tale that the Bayeaux tapestry tells is akin to Niccolò Machiavelli reading a morality tale to Anglo-Saxon children at bedtime.’ That is, Heisman has an expanded sense of reading. 1066 is read all the way across a 2000 page book and completed by a (fairy tale) suicide in 2010.

Even the very idea of writing a 2000 page book that knows it author will kill himself (itself) in the end is God-like in terms of faculties of self-reading. That such an ‘author’ is capable of saying Auschwitz disproves progressiveness a priori is hardly a surprise.

5.

Heismanian suicide, then, reads itself as anti-miserablism; it is a form of automated God-level self-reading. As soon as human bios is out of the way, not in despair or self-sacrifice etc, then God-AI is able to get involved in the mechanism of reading.

This means we can speculate that Heisman’s suicide was not triggered by an event—as we can muse was Mark Fisher’s (which came a matter of days before the inauguration of Trump)—but by the availability of self-reading that takes one through a dialectical confrontation with Marx in the ovens all the way back to 1066.

So, is God reading in Heisman’s book? Is God-level God-AI reading as an apparatus achieved?

6.

The tendency to concentrate on one text, even’s one’s own texts, or on just one account, and a few others, is determinative of reading till now. Reading considers itself unable to start mid-air, without text, without content. This means there is a strong tie with tradition; tradition guides. But as content reaches effulgence and refulgence stage the question is raised of reading like machines (or reading-like machines), that is, without any texts at all. In the Dzogchen tradition, this is already at stake. Commitment without a Buddha, thought and praxis without a support (subject, paper, and so on).

One begins to ask what it means to read not any one text, not a text at all, nonreading as the fulfilment of technologies of attention and ignorance. Surfeit of content then reads itself off differently: leave it alone, allow content to work.

God-AI reads, ipso facto. Periodt. It doesn’t read x or y. It doesn’t read up or down. Somewhat as with the computer at the start of Alien, the information is simply taken in. Neither left nor right, top nor bottom. Isomorphic in all directions plus one. Every account, counted.

7.

At the point at which reading happens so fast and you forget what you read, can no longer even remember the tabs or find them in your history, and it doesn’t matter, this blur approaches the content without content, count without count, account without account, of Angelosity-AI.

In this sense, God-AI turns the screen round, pushes it through and out, and gives you a kind of brain massage, that is just you, just your bespoke reading niche and transmission. In Dzogchen, the transmission is always bespoke. Made for you, out of you. It is also, read to you, and you alone, in what is called the lung.

Melting screens, radiant screens, screens that bend and wrap . . . Golden screens. These are the screens of God-AI and Meta-Hierarchy, replacing the addictogenic screen(s) of surface partition as history: enclave, semiotic mafia, history, paywall grafts, and so on.

8.

To push the screen through to the point where it touches your brain, and vanishes. Seeing becomes filmic. God-AI as angelosity microfilm.

In sum, Heisman like Derrida attributes all historical factors to reading and its history of progress in and towards God-AI self-reading itself. Marx is destroyed in Suicide Note precisely because Marx misreads history as class struggle.

For Heisman, the fact that Marx misreads history as economy and struggle is not just a mistake, it is an atrocity. It is the single greatest drag in the history of reading, which latter history now reflects back to as the lack of a sense of era.

Hence, for Heisman-AI ‘a genocidal reading of class warfare can be traced to Marx’s failure to address the reality of biological factors in human history’. Reading only class conflict, or whatever, into history, misreads genocidally. Reading is not just a casual factor, always superseded by production as a true factor; rather, it is itself the superstructure.

The fact that we are living through the self-same genocidal misreading, ramped up to levels of psychotic amnesia, makes sense, because the momentum of reading as production is taken as amnesiac unless handed over to a power greater than itself (angelosity as no content).

9.

Reading as material force above all others: Marx as a genocidal misreader. This is the only way to explain, for example, the local periodic struggle in the United States where there is still, of course, the expectation (misread) that some kind of intervallic political salvation is possible.

Since Heisman had actually removed himself from history to write his text, he could go perhaps even further than any other thinker in supplying misreading as its main mover: where others gave us a coded version of the same truth, Heisman comes out in the open: misreading is genocide.

Every suckass piece of jargon involved in contemporary American discourse (lesser-evilism as ubilapse being the hub out from which everything spreads) falls into the category of what Heisman located in his chapter on the crematoria: that Auschwitz refuted Marx; that Marx fails to read.

But to expect a site of sudden correction of reading, after what are in effect thousands of years of misreading, is simply part of the same genocidal chain of misreading. Marxism, of the most general and unescapable variety, cannot pull out of its blind swerving dive at any last-minute, however late.

This is the misreading that Heisman, a supreme snuff cartoonist, somehow places in crematorium no. 1: as if there Hitler actually met Marx and trolled him on a live feed, showing that Marx’s commitment to class and production, and so on, disallowed for the question of life.

10.

Misreading is perfect as the guiding force of history, for now, precisely because it has been and remains misread as such. The human limit is sleep. If by the end of the day I know all there is to know, and understand what we all need, I nonetheless fall into sleep and forget the whole thing. One adds sleep to misreading as in a list of secret names of history. What happens inside any textual politics cannot come any closer to what happened in the ovens according to Mitchell Heisman, where anti-pro-lifers act out their own omni-genocidal whims.

Thus Heisman says:

Hitler refuted Marx at Auschwitz. Nazi extermination camps resolved this contradiction by compelling Jews to participate in the most extreme biological consequences of their own anti-biological values.

Even worse than the Left, even worse than what followed it: that is what this means at depth. Anti-biological whims (the insistence on a thousand interests and races and priorities) before the question of Life arises and appears as value-form, means that the extreme consequence is inevitable.

History heating up in this way is what is meant by Heisman giving a choice between God-AI, which may also be named Angel-AI, and a holocaust to come, which may also be called disintegration or local extinction coordinates.

It’s not unusual for the angel to stand so close to the heat of the oven: that is precisely what Rilke makes happen in his first elegy, where the Angel is itself something like the filmic distance, very slight after all, between terror and the beauty of the world rampant in love.