Manuel Schilcher | マヌエル•シルヒャー 博士

Any technology you don’t understand is magic for the subconscious’s. Communication is the expression of consciousness itself. When Writing was invented by priests who couldn’t have done so unless they had not a religious ideology. Now the internet is the edge of the wedge of communication technology and in a sense its also a combination or terminal condition of writing itself. For that reason a lot of affect that was formally stored in this tradition called religion is now stored in a box called technology. Deep issues of consciousness and unconsciousness of individual and society are performed out in this arena called technology. In the performative aspect of communication. On top of that the internet by its very structure is a kind of mirror not only for media as a whole but also for capital as a whole . So global media becomes a pure representation of capital . Capital itself can be represented as chaos and therefore the internet becomes this mirror of capital , not an adequat symbol of capital but an expression pattern of discourse. The whole question of meaning starts to play itself out in the arena of technologies.

Inventing of writing
Its quite clear that writing involved the controlling elite of Sumeria and Egypt, its not that the king is master of writing but the king is the master of the masters of writing. And this is the class out of which writing emerges.

There is a pre-state human society its not just a concept. 
Writing, as the first communications technology clearly emerges as a deliberate construct, they could have invented something else, towards a specific social class through a specific social situation.
This global media image which contains everything reduces and eliminates all opacity in favor of the universal transparency which Baudrillard calls obscenity.
Now everything which begins is already recuperated, and this produces a feeling of panic.
The dissemination of the global image is also the realization that all you do is sucked into this global image, this is why we have such a big questionmark over the whole issue of tactical media or alternative media.

There are plenty of channels for the image of dissidence – you make a smart little underground film and if its good you get a Hollywood contract – Everyone who thinks they are working in alternative media are all to likely to wake up tomorrow morning and discover what they are really doing is providing a nice cheap little alternative channel to suck off all the energy of possible resistance into a passive relationship towards of global image of hegemonic capital.
If you look at capital as chaos and therefore it is capable of absorbing absolutely everything as representation.
So where then is the tactical effect of the tactical media going, in my view it often is vanishing into a void, its energy expanded for no return. When the entire event is limited to the room of representation and never leaves the room of representation than this makes resistance impossible.

This new way of organizing space , hierarchical organized space, arrived 6000 years ago, its the space of civilization.  
The attempt of the occult -philosophers of the renaissance to decode the hieroglyphs led to a philosophical understanding of the occult control system nature of writing itself. It became clear that writing itself had a hieroglyphic nature. They never managed to decode the hieroglyphs. But they are, for me a key to the philosophy of communication. Out of this came the idea of the emblem book, a combination of picture and text. Basically you looking on the same discovery Walter Benjamin made centuries later and in fact on the basic of hermetic philosophy. 
To a philosopher like Giordano Bruno it was like magic. The nature of this magic was what he called vincular chains or bonds and in the hermetic philosophy the only motivating force in the universe is desire. The magic for Bruno we would explain with psychology.
The offshoot of it is, as Joan Culiano the romaine philosopher pointed out that the modern equivalent to Bruno’s text-image magic is precisely advertising , public relation spin doctoring, in a broader sense also the media itself. Not everyone who writes a text wants to achieve occult control over the reader but the whole system is embedded in that technology from the start, and that technology is to be understood with this hieroglyphic theory as a system of occult control. Entering the system without knowing what it is, you simply going to be an ineffective practicant .

There is an outside of the text, not as postmodernism says you can read the world only as you read text because the world itself is text, civilization is only 6000 years old writing is only 6000 years old, so for a start there is 6 million years outside the text, its called prehistory. Just the fact that only180 generation are this 6000 years this is not an evolutionary period, this stuff is not hardwired in the human DNA

I just red Eric Havelock, he pointed out: why did we have to wait till the 20. Century to realize that there was such a thing as primary orality, why does this discovery come so late in history of civilization. He thought that the key to that was the development of non textual forms of communication notable the radio. Because it seemed like a return to orality actually it was earality and that’s where they made the mistake I think.
But Havelock pointed out: radio could only been invented by text-based society, most what appears on is text based even our speaking is text based especially when we speak over a public medium. So radio is not a non-textual medium, but the problem to know what radio was keyed of all the scholars to think about what was literature before writing.

All media are text based, Internet appears as a special terminal case of textuality. Text is like a spatial glue, action at a distance.
Well, Bruno thought the magician thought that you could use this knowledge not to enslave people but to liberate the self. In other words they didn’t stop writing books when they discovered this and they didn’t sell their services to kings, a few among of them did that, Bruno included. But they made this emblem book in order to bring their magic enlightenment to people who study them with closer tension and make this books for real life experience for them. And above that they tried to enliberate themselves by making the book in the first place

The answer to the question, what resistant workers in media could do, the utopian hermetic answer would be: Make text which break down the occult power system rather than to re-enforce it.

According to Pier Klaast primitive warfare has the opposite meaning to modern warfare, its not a better cumulation of power but a better dissipation. The fact is if you have a society and you don’t want hierarchy to emerge than that society must have certain institutions that will disperse power, destroy it when it appears and disperse it. And for many so called primitive societies this institution is war. War is not better cumulating goods its not even good killing the enemy, it’s a way dispersing wealth, redistributing it. The primitive warrior is never rich, never accumulates, because generosity is absolute part of the code in this case to the extend where the primitive warrior dies always poor. So it’s the opposite of war in civilization, Apparently it’s the same thing, people kill each other drop down dead but the effect is completely different. It’s going towards centralizing wealth and capitalizing the state.

This is the problem of the romantic program all along, the virtual text in a sense. If you want to look back to romanticism specially German romanticism, than it’s a critique of civilization pretty much the same occultist ground that Bruno would have made it. So the whole romantic thing right up to Rimbeaud, the Punks and the Situationists and who ever it is today has all been this search for this poisonist text. 

The state is just a word with which we used to describe the entire structure of civilization or as Gustav Landau said the state is an internal relationship, it’s in us. It’s not something you can just simply put on a stick and shake into the trash, it’s human relations-ships it’s the form the social toke 6000 years ago. And now we look at a situation that that particular paradigm is changing in such a way that money which was always just one part of the triangle is moving in the upward position and is no defining everything and makes the old fashioned view of a nation state impossible.

It a necessity, here’s the way I see it: up in 1989 when the world of the spectacle divided the two evil empires, all sorts of new ways could be tried out. But as soon as one of the poles disappears then all the third ways disappeared and that’s why the institutional collapsed in 1989, there is no more third world. Tito’s Marxism, Gaddafi’s Islam become meaningless because they cannot call themselves third way anymore. Because there is no second way anymore, there is only one way the way of global capital. Even capitalism is disappeared in this situation. The Tangs or Taz do not have any theoretical importance anymore as a third way but if they are viewed as the only possible alternative to global capital than they have an even greater importance than in 1989.

By asking that way you imply that it is a question of media . Q: Yeah, cause that’s the only system where we have a certain control Because there is nothing to be controlled there, the illusion of control is there not control itself., it’s precisely the emptiness of control, the emptiness of power that particular matrix that allows everyone to participate in it. I say no to an autonomous zone that is purely conceptional, that only takes place in the media. It has to be physical along with other things. What’s lacking today is a kind of global response to global capital, a context in which all the resistance would have meaning, in which Tangs would have meaning, in which secret societies and autonomous zones would have meaning. 
There has to be an outside. Otherwise we are finished, Disneyland forever.

We are heading for the lite ages.
We are heading for a period of such blinding transparency of data, such total banality and meaninglessness of every value that possibly could be attached to that data. To turn it into knowledge. The tactic which I am envisioning than is, like in the dark ages with the little spots of light on the map, the little monasteries and places where they collected the manuscripts and saved Plato. It looks to me that in the coming lite-age we need little spots of darkness on the map, and I call this Anti-Epistemology, its like creative ignorance, areas of delivered opacity, a map which is obscenely transparent, little points of mystery. And if you would think of this at Tangs, autonomous spatial units. It would be like a reinvention of the social.