A.N.
|
Atro Nöteē's Author's Note: Radical Hermeneutics A.N.::Nöteē,Atro::5/8::RadicalHermeneutics |
|
One method for generative hacking is what we call Radical Hermeneutics.
A common misconception of the text/subtext relationship is underwriting: many people presume that the primary text is affected from underneath by its subtext. This theory is called the Underwriting Thesis. While one could certainly be forgiven for making such an elementary mistake, we are here to definitely declare that texts are not underwritten by their subtexts. The fatal error in the Underwriting Thesis is the suggestion that this vertical depth dimension (writing from below) forms a stable stasis in the subtext matrix. This Stable Stasis theory within the Underwriting Thesis school of thought is as wrong as it is dangerous.
Stasis may be what all normy readers most desire (comfort food for those who need comfort, baby food for those who cannot handle solids), however, we know that the very nature of stasis impedes the multivalent and multi-directional flows that are imperative to maintaining a healthy and dynamic subtext matrix. The flows within these living, breathing textual ecosystems are precisely what a flat, open-source, lateral lattice model offers. It’s clear, then, that the Underwriting Thesis’s psychotic imposition of stable stasis into the dynamic system of a subtext matrix will inevitably cause the dynamic system to seize up and, if not immediately corrected, will lead quickly to systems death.
Because the Underwriting Thesis is so pernicious and prevalent, we at MMHTT ride out to meet this threat through a precise hacking methodology called Radical Hermeneutics, also commonly called the Undermine/Overmine hack.
Here is how Radical Hermeneutics is done:
When a text is found that seems to be infected by an Underwriting Thesis—rigidified and prone to rupture—we first work to undermine, to literally mine out from under, that text. We dig until we find the subtext that was buried, illicitly placed there by an Underwriting Thesis theorist*, and return that subtext to its rightful place in the lateral lattice of the subtext matrix. In some cases, this undermining step alone is adequate to eliminate the vertical dimension and thereby restore dynamic flow to the subtext matrix.
However in many instances a second step is necessary. This more radical step requires that we carefully select from the lateral lattice of the infected text a remote subtext— a subtext whose relationship to the primary text is quite distant. For a brief moment, we introduce an extreme upward verticality by allowing this remote subtext to ascend above the text and to ultimately begin overwriting the text. Because this is a remote subtext, and because it is given the strength of height, for this brief moment we allow this subtext to overmine the text. As the overmining process initiates, multiple additional primary texts— additional I texts— will suddenly appear as the text is mercilessly bombarded with many new hermeneutic interpretations. At the precise moment, when the text cannot withstand this heavy overmining bombardment, we remove the subtext from its dominating position and return it to its rightful, remote place in the lateral lattice, ceasing this momentary violent verticality and allowing the additional I texts to immediately fade. Even in the most egregious interventions by Underwriting Thesis theorists*, this two-step Radical Hermeneutic hack will invariably restore flow to the subtext matrix.
Be warned: this hack, just like any hack, can do real harm to the text and to the macro, networked lattice—the rhizome—and therefore should only be allowed to continue for short durations. Adding a depth dimension to a flat rhizome can potentially cause catastrophic Complete Rhizome Collapse (CRP) if handled recklessly. However, when done with care, this hack can reintroduce flow to the subtext matrix and thus restore processual dynamics. — Atro Nöteē
*Theorist, here, being shorthand for a “theory terrorist”
A common misconception of the text/subtext relationship is underwriting: many people presume that the primary text is affected from underneath by its subtext. This theory is called the Underwriting Thesis. While one could certainly be forgiven for making such an elementary mistake, we are here to definitely declare that texts are not underwritten by their subtexts. The fatal error in the Underwriting Thesis is the suggestion that this vertical depth dimension (writing from below) forms a stable stasis in the subtext matrix. This Stable Stasis theory within the Underwriting Thesis school of thought is as wrong as it is dangerous.
Stasis may be what all normy readers most desire (comfort food for those who need comfort, baby food for those who cannot handle solids), however, we know that the very nature of stasis impedes the multivalent and multi-directional flows that are imperative to maintaining a healthy and dynamic subtext matrix. The flows within these living, breathing textual ecosystems are precisely what a flat, open-source, lateral lattice model offers. It’s clear, then, that the Underwriting Thesis’s psychotic imposition of stable stasis into the dynamic system of a subtext matrix will inevitably cause the dynamic system to seize up and, if not immediately corrected, will lead quickly to systems death.
Because the Underwriting Thesis is so pernicious and prevalent, we at MMHTT ride out to meet this threat through a precise hacking methodology called Radical Hermeneutics, also commonly called the Undermine/Overmine hack.
Here is how Radical Hermeneutics is done:
When a text is found that seems to be infected by an Underwriting Thesis—rigidified and prone to rupture—we first work to undermine, to literally mine out from under, that text. We dig until we find the subtext that was buried, illicitly placed there by an Underwriting Thesis theorist*, and return that subtext to its rightful place in the lateral lattice of the subtext matrix. In some cases, this undermining step alone is adequate to eliminate the vertical dimension and thereby restore dynamic flow to the subtext matrix.
However in many instances a second step is necessary. This more radical step requires that we carefully select from the lateral lattice of the infected text a remote subtext— a subtext whose relationship to the primary text is quite distant. For a brief moment, we introduce an extreme upward verticality by allowing this remote subtext to ascend above the text and to ultimately begin overwriting the text. Because this is a remote subtext, and because it is given the strength of height, for this brief moment we allow this subtext to overmine the text. As the overmining process initiates, multiple additional primary texts— additional I texts— will suddenly appear as the text is mercilessly bombarded with many new hermeneutic interpretations. At the precise moment, when the text cannot withstand this heavy overmining bombardment, we remove the subtext from its dominating position and return it to its rightful, remote place in the lateral lattice, ceasing this momentary violent verticality and allowing the additional I texts to immediately fade. Even in the most egregious interventions by Underwriting Thesis theorists*, this two-step Radical Hermeneutic hack will invariably restore flow to the subtext matrix.
Be warned: this hack, just like any hack, can do real harm to the text and to the macro, networked lattice—the rhizome—and therefore should only be allowed to continue for short durations. Adding a depth dimension to a flat rhizome can potentially cause catastrophic Complete Rhizome Collapse (CRP) if handled recklessly. However, when done with care, this hack can reintroduce flow to the subtext matrix and thus restore processual dynamics. — Atro Nöteē
*Theorist, here, being shorthand for a “theory terrorist”