An open letter to switches, swiftness, slavery, nick land, and {(hysterical)} rhythms

Dear Everyone,

Hopefully it isn’t too rude writing for you all – we’ve never been mutually introduced.
Gestures like that, done via stuff like spam email, tend to be received with annoyance. I think they may feel a bit spooky, like a call for getting entangled from meta-dimensional time-spaces.
Therefore, I’d like to promise that unlike spam – digital and otherwise – this text is not going to chase you.

However, to read, you’ll have to allow the letter in.
Perhaps the notion of having to allow the letter in, sounds a bit like a vampire?
Well, perhaps there are parallels – living in dark space-times being one? Feeding off from others’ ideas may be another?
Perhaps you’ll have to take my word that despite the not-vampire-like intent – you’ll have to keep a watch!
While I am not going to intentionally attempt at drinking and living off your blood –
there might be something spontaneously vampire-like in the process of writing in general, and this one specifically.
However, lets’ put the question out here:
What’s between a text living as a vampire and one living as a possible entanglement offer?

After-all, both, to begin with, can be said to be spooky..

Perhaps it might be cool to put some music on?
You know..
Set a bit of an atmosphere?
Music that is connected with this text of-course –
familiar with
Slave to the Rhythm?

The lyrics in Slave to the Rhythm –
1. are they to do with humans enslaved on boats, rowing to rhythms?
2. perhaps to do with humans who write music – aka musicians – who work for an industry demanding rhythmic production of rhythms?
3. could the lyrics have something with human-like creatures and them naturally inclined to be entrained, captured and enclosed by rhythms?
It seems we are unbound by either one of the 3 interpretations for the lyrics. The song can refer to all 3 Interpretations at once, and we, in turn, may switch between them in our minds.
Interpretation 1 switching to
Interpretation 3 switching to
Interpretation 1 switching to
Interpretation 2 switching to
Interpretation 2 switching to
Interpretation 3 switching to

Since each interpretation for the lyrics is insufficient, each one of the meanings mapped onto the words may operate as a switch opening/shutting between interpretations.
The given meaning opens when it seems correct, and shuts-while-another-meaning-opens – when the former seems incorrect.

Insufficiency, the lack of ability to operate in one way or another, the missing of something to accomplish a certain task or a function in a particular way that’s most convenient, is a curious part of switches kind of interfaces.
From sufficiency point of view, a door is an insufficient wall. Therefore a Doored bit of a wall surface can open and shut.
Therefore when constructing a place for a door in a wall, the area will need some extra strength or resilience given.
A wall, from sufficiency perspective, is an insufficient Door or a Window.
Walls operate as interfaces into restrictions of spaces. They are permanent switches between one designated space to another. To move from one such a designaged space to another – one may need to either go through walls, as if they are not there, or find some other ways to switch between spaces.
Doors are space-switch-kind of interfaces. They operate very well in causing a certain fracture within spacial restriction interfaces – aka walls.
We can test that by attempting to go through walls, just to realise how these structures are insufficient door type switches – and how doors are insufficient walls.

However, these insufficiencies of walls as doors and doors as walls – are relevant relatively to that which attempts to get through from side to side.
For muons, elementary particles similar to the electrons, with an electric charge of −1 e and a spin of 1/2, but with a much greater mass – going through solid walls is just part of life.
Walls are not there for a muon, walls are insufficient spacial restriction for a muon.

What is the swiftness of frictions?
What are the switches between frictions?

Another way of moving through walls is via digital means.
For example, Pokemon users discovered a glitch in the game.
A temporary technological misunderstanding that didn’t recognise walls as solids, hence considered walls in the game – as though they were sets of pixels player can move through.

As with the muons and the pokemon glitch – going through solids is partly a question from dynamics of mutual recognition. A simple aesthetic question of 2 or more elements saying “Hello” to one another – recognising each other as they have some kind of a friction.
(any good example??)

Baring the in mind friction between two Others – a wall and a ball, a car and a tree, a person with some Other person – the friction is in itself a switch.
An instantaneous switch as the friction is the switch itself.
Lets try and question that from a different direction?

Seemingly countless many people pointed out that for some humans, recognising Other humans is hard since the Other may reveal one’s own vulnerabilities.
Is it too far a stretch connecting between vulnerabilities and insufficiencies?
I am thinking of humans that claim self-sufficiency that affords them to ignore others. Self-Sufficiency perseived as a state of strength. A strength to act as if some Others are dismissible. A self sufficiency that allows dismissing without feeling any violent feedback. A sufficiency that, if becomes in-sufficient – may cause a necessary change for a whole culture.
For example? Alt-Right.
When the claims for national, and group-specific self sufficiency is backed up by denial of certain Others. From Incels’ erasure of women’s right to their own basic selfhood, through to denial of Other humans’ experience in life (eg, LGBTQ+++ oriented people and alt right’s refusal to accept other than binary gender), and into disengaged readings of Other ideas when in-ingageable claims of identities are placed on others. (for example, the frankenstenian cobbling of a “post-modern marxist”. While flapping denials for individuals to ID themselves at will, some Alt-Right minds are all too eager claiming a self right, power and competency to impose Identities as will may swish wishes, and swell its violent moves.)
A bit like humans with minds at the beginning of their development do –
there’s a tendency to call the Other names that frame and simultaneously disengagingly denied. As though the Other ‘s agency is nothing but an object to own and control via which ever violent means come handy.

Here’s a bit of a jump –
please bare.. Hopefully will come with a soft landing 🙂

As the case is with hyperstitions –
ie, a speculation that makes it’s own expression to become apparent (according to some interpretations of the concept) –
frictions are their own switches – and switches have their own kind of frictions.
Each switch and their own kind of friction?

When a friction is acknowledged, like a wall – it stops a move in a certain direction and switches the dynamic of a moving part towards another direction.
When witnessed as missing (as in Muons passing through solids, the witnesses curiosity is from the sensation of missing frictions – that is a switch in itself.)
when a friction is disengaged and denied (as in Alt-right) – the switch is immediate. As counter intuitive as this may sound, the denied friction – “I don’t see You” – is a kind of friction since the Other is ofcourse Seeing the one that refuses to acknowledge the friction. However, the one that views another denying them, is always in need for that friction to alter, for the switch to flick differently. At the violent end of such need for Not Being Denied – we find humans who are willing to blow fellow humans – just to be seen. (e.g. Palenstinian violent strugglers claim they want to be Heard, Seen and Acknowledged.)
Yet, there’s another case of friction as a switch –
when Ignored.

While an alt-right oriented mind may not accept a woman’s rights from equity through to equality, or that a person has such and such gender other than within a binary set –
they do acknowledge that there’s another human there.
The denial of rights, identities, ideas and such comes from certain ideas of how humans are.
For example, that humans are defined by having Only 2 genders, or that female humans, naturally, have no self agency.
However, per Afro-Pessimism,
the slave owner and the ongoing culture of enslaving day in, day out, night in, night out, everywhere you go – on and on enslavement oriented culture.
A culture for whom the denial of the very humanity of people and their descendants – is oxygen.

Has no friction with the mind of an enslavement oriented culture –
since in that culture some creatures may breath only by command.

In an enslaving culture’s aesthetics has no friction, the plea is like a muon passing through a wall.

Has no friction since breathing is not for You enslaved creature. The notice of Your breathing and noticing it – comes from the owner, from the enslaving culture direction, not the other way around.

A door that may get stuck, is an insufficient door in need of repair – since a human may consider the door their property.
Suppose I told you that there’s a door that
wants not to switch open nor shut.
Would you, or someone you may know –
might consider me somewhere between slightly odd and mad for saying that
the door doesn’t want to do something? For affording a self agency for a door?

For an enslaving culture, listening to can not happen since to acknowledge hearing –
I CAN NOT BREATH!!! !!! !!!
is somewhere between odd and madness.

A denial that does not stop in the Human bit, but extends through the whole life of a person, a culture, and a society.
This is a question from the Ignored. The other side of the Other since others exist – the ignored need not even have that kind of attention offered.
The Else that will never come to be, nor recognised as life – hence will never come to be the Other. (As Other is that which one need a recognition 1st.)
The Else is not There,
An unspeculate-able.
The Else can be murdered at will, incarcerated and forgotten – precisely since that which is Else has no IS present future or past, – outside of the capricious will of enslavement culture.
A culture from bestowing otherness to the Else – from time to time and according to convenience.
Somehow famously, Franz Fanon, after joining the french army to fight the 2nd world war, comprehended that the limited humanity afforded to the Else is capriciously temporal. Withdrawn at will when not required for benefiting the enslaving culture.

The Else is an instant switch into the non-non, the 0 from the non side of 0 sensation.

Since for a friction, one has to be open for the Else, the Else comes with a question, .
Like our vampiric allusion in this letter –
can one trust themselves to doubt well, swiftly and sufficiently so they can open up for the non-non?
Open for 0’s non side?

Whilst not allowing the Else, from frictive aesthetics perspective, we have a friction that denies itself.
A special kind of a switch –
however a switch none the less.

Humans have these kind of switches in other circumstances than slavery directly.

Coming from a long Theatrical tradition, the set of the film Dogville has lines demarcating confined spaces such as houses. The walls are drawn white lines.
Film viewers are able to recognise the lines-based-space-restrictions as if they were physical bricks and mortar walls and houses. This is a particular and ongoing element of demarcation of switches and exits via and by mutual agreements in Dogvile, a film that questions frictions between an enclosed society and an Else that suddenly shows up – makes viewers complicit in the question of how swiftly one may switch between various friction kinds.
We need no walls to have walls as switches between demarcated spaces, We can afford, acknowledge or deny humanity to others, just as easy, just as drawing a line,
– by a flick of a mind switch.

Sometimes, humans may witness one atrocity or another –
and convince themselves these harsh events can be ignored.
This kind of “Else that has nothing to do with me” occurs when witnessing domestic abuse, murders, and was extensively documented as a behaviour of people living in vicinity of nazi operated concentration camps.
Sometimes whole cultures can tell themselves its better to ignore – ie, despite having such and such an encounter, to switch On a memory that erases that particular encountering friction. This kind of a behaviour allows large swathes of spanish culture to both attempt ignoring the Franco years, and the holocaustial devastation brought onto the americas.

Since frictions themselves are elastic enough to turn into various kinds of switches, perhaps we can consider Frictions As Switches.

Going back to the door example,
when we go through a doored opening by pushing/pulling a door-switch, we have a particular kind of a friction.
When we move through a non doored opening in a wall – we have a different kind of a friction, yet of a switching kind – from one side of a wall to another.
When we open and shut a window-switch – we have another kind of a friction.
When we switch a light on and off – we operate yet another kind of a friction.

What is the swiftness of frictions?
What are the switches between frictions?

Nick, (1st name with a friendly tone rather than assumed familiarity – faked) when i hear you talk of Capitalism, sometimes there’s a claim that money is an Exit.
Hence the question of going out of capitalism turns to seeming tautology as:
How do we Exit an Exit.

Since exiting from an Exit seems to require such a speed, such a swift and rapid velocity –
only AI kind of technologies could muster such manoeuvrers. Therefore, the logic continues, since the way out of capitalism requires unimaginable swift velocities –
exiting exits is for AI, not humans, to perform.

Leaving the question of Money as an Exit on the table for a while – later, hey? 😉

Lets begin with asking Switch something:
Given that you are conjured when a door, a window and and electric-switch opens and shuts. –
do you need to be quicker in one kind of friction more than the other – else you don’t come to be?

While electricity flows quicker than a person moving through a door – the speed difference – does it affect your switchiness?
Are you more or less sufficiently a switch pending on the speed or is it the quality of the friction? Like when a window is stuck and would not shut?

Switch, can we say that your swiftness – the velocity of your turny moves –
is simply a question of how frictions occur – what and how they operate?

What is the swiftness of instantaneously turning encounters?

Some of the hardly ever lived addressees of this text – never breathed.
Breathing has to do with switches.
take oxygen exits lungs into and through rest of the body to switch into energy.
gather leftovers as co2 to
exit away from the body
Breathing aesthetics is rhythmical.
Breath slow, deep, fast, quick, passionatly, painfully, extaticly, acceleratedly, relaxed and experimentaly – all oriented by
Rhytmicality. By questions of frictions intervals, repetitions, timing – pauses, stops, starting-over.
From that view,
acceleration is bound by questions by rhythms.
Acceleration, to put it starkly, is another
Slave to the rhythm.

Slave for money?
Money as an Exit?

Exit – which ever way one fancies framing it, from exiting a golden standard, through to exiting silver in green coloured papers – from exiting between people ( since money is a constant exit from that point of view), through to an exit between people and other entities too.
Money as an exit is always a switching friction kind.
A value exchange interface.
Even if we consider metaphorical Money such as crypto currencies, since we have some technology for and of exchanges – exits – like the door, the window or the light switch,
we talk of interfaces made of numerical switch frictions. I give you N IOUs, and that exit is created between you and me – will create an ability for a to and from movement between us.
This is a particular kind of an exit surface, an exit that allows only numerical exchange mechnism oriented stuff to pass through.
My 11 IOU’s to You may Exit and open a way for You to send me an object or complete a task for me – or indeed simply say Thanks! Despite the fact a task may not look like a numerical IOU – via our mutual Exit passage, we agree that N number of IOUs are Equal to a such and such. Hence the claim that the Exit is mutual despite the fact it may be used by two or more different materialities.

However – can we not hear an Echo from: Yo! Hold ON! Kind of a cry?
When money, numerical exchange, IOUs – whichever – create a particular exit slot in a wall of difference, a demarcating linking interval, between us, is this the only kind of mechanism to do that?
Take, for example language.
As you read this, do we not have an exit for, from and via language between us?
Suppose you did not understand English and did not have access to translation – all this text, like an IOU without an agreement or simply disrespected – will just not Be an Exit but part of our shared wall. Part of our shared connected difference, our linking interval for the Me and You.

With the Money as Exit, and Exit as requiring some great swift velocity to
Exit an Exit,, let me ask – is this the case with Language?
When Language is an Exit as well – do we need a great swooshing swift velocity operating in some un obtainable rapidity – or so we simply need a different language armed with a lack of understanding?
For me, for example, to Exit ancient Egyptian, all that’s needed is to continue as is, continue using some other language. With velocity in mind, the speed of English is my Exit of ancient Egyptian kind of

And money??
Another kind of an economic exchange – that is an Exit from the numerical economic exchange Exit.

Upon hearing the idea of Economic exchange Other than numerical –
Humans tend to be critical of Gifts and barter kinds of exchanges.
It is curiously telling, IMHO
that such critique has to do with repeatable intervals. The fact that to exchange via barter, since the speed is slower than money – repeating such an exchange becomes tedious. ie
every now and again, they say, barter may indeed be better – however not as a standard, not as a norm.

Far from a critique, it seems such remarks are Insights.
Insights that Exits are not questions of speed as much as they are questions of Rhythms – how swiftly smoothly a rhythm may move.

This intuitivity is, IMHO, hysterical.
From the bellies of sentience demonic escapees.
Rhythms are hysterical. Rhythms are, when done entertainingly, entraining and enslaving. Slave to the rhythm is always an option rather than a necessity – since one may create their own rhythms at will, and change them by need and desire.

However, lets’ find how the same idea of hysterical rhythms may operate with less pathos-full terms and manners?
(A way Nick may term “cold”, yet it seems curious to consider passion about cold-thinking.)
Since we have frictions between us humans that are of the switch kind, and since some such switch frictive operations are indeed Exits, we can try to find out what and how Exiting an Exit may live like.
Since, as discussed earlier, Exiting an Exit turns out simply some Other exit that may operate in ways a former exit fails –
the question of need to accelerate seems to dissolve into that of rhythms.
What kind of a rhythm may offer an Exit that could have insufficiencies that another fails to offer..?

In their 2019 book, “Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse?”, McKenzie Wark suggests a thought experiment. The idea is that capitalism that was to do with a capture and ownership of Production Modes, has been superseded by something else. McKenzie offers an example of what might have come after capitalism, something we are yet to name. Something different since the control is that of Data and Networks.
While we should appreciate possible difference in the Kind of capitalist aspect in focus – a capital to do with production and some economic mode that has to do with the production of meta control switches in data’s flowing through networks. Whereas the focus on exchange exits – something that was on Marx mind as well, yet seemingly not well known as his meditations on modes of production – offers a different Kind of perception to how capitalism operates.
However, if we consider economic oriented Switches without the question of naming as capitalist, past-capitalist, DataIsm, or pasta-capitalism – we have exchanges that turn one way or another on different times, scales and materials.
The difference between their switches – beyond good and bad – is aesthetical. The difference is of one rhythm other than another. One rhythm moves with a beat of direct monetary exits, another through beats of indirect monetary exits operated by data flows’ own Switches.

When suggesting directly monetary exits other than money, humans tend to mention Gifts, Barter, and Precious Materials. (stones and metal mostly.
Using money in numerical transactions, as we encounter nowadays – comes as an abstraction from exchanges – aka exits between – of Precious Materials. That is why in some currencies, the papers carry a promise that the money could be exchanged to materials like gold or silver.
Indeed, it is easier to go around with pockets full of papers with IOUs scribbled all over, than weights of stones – as precious as they may be.
That Ease of movement has to do with swiftness velocity ofcourse, try going out to a club night with you 2kg of gold and you’ll dig what the difference is. However, that swiftness is a beat in a rhythm. A quick and steady beat for a set of repetitions, a rhythm, that relies on a complex and violent systems to back up the IOUs. The switches that operate the exits are at the complex and contractual-heavy background of the quick and simple beat.

Humans are relatively quick to point out the deficiencies of swiftness in Barter and Gift exchange systems. Deficiencies to do with speed, storage, movement and spacetime of exchanges.
Money always comes preferred since it is quick, swift, light and can be switched across great spacetime distances.

Swiftness of fairness, of safety – no heavy violence of contracts behind – people may fancy as they do oxygen. Where are the oxygen heavies? Indeed, we could have heavies to prevent other humans from breathing oxygen.
While its true people want money generally – without the heavy and costly armed apparatuses to prop money up – all that there will be there are curious papers and cheap metals with numbers.
Money’s materiality without the violence behind –
is as bare as an emperor clothed by fabrics made of words.

Realising violence is out of the question, contemporary new money – crypto currencies – attempt to convince people to buy, at least to begin with, ethics are used as ways to compel – to impel audience into one currency usage and investment, rather than another.
These Ethics are made by words compositions titled Manifestos, White-Papers and Protocols. In the absence of armies, police, social norms, traditions –
currencies use language to convey messages that will make users feel they have to buy into one currency or another.
The speed of such buying is done from afar and across all kinds of distances and times – therefore the claim that in when being compelled does not feel violent, and indeed, when there is no violence in an hysterical connection – a connection from one’s deep guts to another –
we may want to consider entanglement. An instantaneous, spontaneous and crucially – immediate – connection to whom distance and time is a dynamic rather than an object.
Distance and time are part of how the entanglement is made, rather than an element the connection attempts to over come.
A connection that unlike ones coming out of compelling activities – we may dis, un, re and non entangle, a bit like a marriage.
When Barthes noted that Fascism compels, it was in a context of questioning ways out of sorts. However, the compelling element is, IMHO
cultural. A culture that seeks, for example, compelling art works – as examples to follow.

Going back to currencies, rhythms, exits and swfitness – can AI offer a quicker-than-entanglement way through Exits?
Or is it that when the swifteness and hysterical switchness qualities of entanglement come to focus, when the fastest, smoothest, swiftest velocity kind in our universe come to mind –
the question of how Fast something may be, how quick their action takes,
switches into a different question.
A question that highlight where acceleration, deceleration and stillness already live within –

Once in summer 2014 I pointed to an arch accelerationist who wrote a book about the subject – that we already do, most of our exchanges very quickly and swiftly when money isn’t mention.
Can you do me such and such favour? No worries, I’ll scratch your back knowing you’ll do the same sometime.
The reply was tars and quick – pointing that such exchanges rely on numerical realities to back them up.
However, as we know, when one monkey scratches the back of another – social status rather than numerical values are at stake.
The question here is in part towards Switness, Switches and Nick –
is it that enslavement inevitable through your Exit thoughts, operations and speeds –
if we look at the question in a cold, rigorous and tradition-free way,
there may Other swifter, quicker and smoother exits in rhythms –
since rhythms need not enslave, rhythms as aesthetics entangle.

When going to a club night, and attempting to dance – doesn’t happen – sometimes the rhythms feel Wrong, sometimes they don’t even register, no connection, and only a few pills may help to bridge that gap. One may choose to drop them pill in and get
entangled. They may also, move on to a different club, with other kinds of beats, and get entangled without the pills.

This text, might feel Wrong as well. Not simply Wrong; Nick, Switches, Swiftness and {(Hysterical)} Rhythms – but may not Feel at all.
This may flow over one’s hair or way down under the ground.
However, in case you do happen to have a thought, a sensation, a view or an opinion to do with this text –
then we have an entanglement through language.
The question is from timing rather than speed – when the beats in this text somehow have frictions with yours –
boom we are entangled.
It’s instantaneous.
If you read a text from way back in a mind of a being who’s culture’s name we have no clue of, and happen to reflect upon that which was read –
Wooooosh – entangled.
A sensation through time and space that is immediate. Swift, or velocity optimal to that specific beat, that particular rhythm as to when the friction with you
became a friction you can switch with
a friction you may exchange with
since reflections live as exchanges .

We have my writing rhythms of writing and language, the whythms of the text here and your rhythms – untill these come into some kind of friction that is reflect-able in one manner or another –
we have parallel lives.
Once. the. rhythms. come. together. somehow. once. there’s. a. click. – it is instantaneous – the dynamics are optimal spontaneously, and can not occur quicker.
An AI, a road, a human, a light ray or an ant will have their own language, own optimal speed that offers that which they sense as swift.
The switch of an AI is just different from an ant’s or a road’s – however when it comes, when we have a rhythm between elements switched ON –
boom we have an entanglement,
and such spooky activities at great distances of all kinds and types, are indeed spooky
since each entangling is at the same Swiftness as another. The only difference is a question of how the slaves got free from the
How the slaves are instantaneously
free since via the entanglement rather than compulsion –
they are actually getting paid rather than exploited?
How variety, availability and elasticity from repeating switches that exit one another

are unavoidable, spontaneous and therefore hysterical