Some Notes on CCRU's 'Barker Speaks'

It’s interesting to point out that the introduction given to Barker in the printed text of his interview with the CCRU – that hes a polymath geo-scientist gone rogue - could  easily describe Professor Challenger of Deleuze and Guattari’s third plateau of A Thousand Plateaus, 10,000 B.C.: The Geology of Morals (Who Does the Earth Think It is?) [see my piece on Professor Challenger and Landian Acceleration].

'Who does the earth think it is' is in fact the question for Barker. 

Barker’s work is solely about decoding anorganic codes, or stratoanalysis.

MIT represents an attempt to signify, appeal to what Deleuze and Guattari referred to as royal science (don't forget Chomsky, who Guattari opposed most if not all of his ideas to, is the posterchild of MIT and their structuralist linguist propoganda). MVU is a shadow of MIT, and resonates with the anorganic, that which can’t be signified but which acts on reality (hyperstition). 

In line with this reductive MIT-MVU binary, technological advancements bound up with accelerative cultural vectors (See Nyx Land's genealogy of MIT) and creepy sexually deviant tech-giants (Dollar ‘Bill’ Gates from the CCRU's 'Who’s Pulling Your Strings’) are modern instantiations of demons (see my piece on Techno-Moloch). Remember, the rich are occultist weirdos who meet at secret villas in Cali.

Along these binary lines of critique – no signification, only hypermaterialism, geotrauma - we're forced to ask: 'what is the difference between “intelligent communication and complex…nonintelligent pattern…” or signal and noise, anways?' As Barker says, it's a misguided question. There is none, or at least none that 'means' much. In fact, meaning is out the window. Diagrams are in. Feedback only uptakes signal. It flattens things out (see Mark Fisher’s dissertation Gothic Flatlines).

Following from these conceptualizations, intelligence is purely anthropomorphic. Barker’s project breaks free of MIT and ventures into the MVU precisely when it ceases to care about agency, subjectivity, intelligence, humanity, etc., and in doing so gets sucked up in outside flows of anorganic, autopoietic organization. Feedback oscillates and locks into resonance with itself, producing systems that preference A or B, while also being A and B. This is seen in the tension between the therapeutic aspects of psychoanalysis and its uncanny, cybernetic speculations as seen in Freud’s 1920 Beyond the Pleasure Principle.

As Deleuze and Guattari rightfully points out, Freud oedipalizes his own outside flows.
***

If this post does not clarify a thing, it's done its job...