Bill of goods

This is what asemic horizon presents itself to be in its asema chromata phase:

1. A claim and a stake on theory as an activity and a conceptual mode of world-disclosure that’s autonomous from empirics, praxis or general philosophical considerations: this is summarized in the infinite regress of theory is the theory of the theory of the theory of…the theory of generic structure.

2. Quability as a peculiar, nonplatonic (really, nonphilosophical in the genericmost sense) mode of claiming access to abstraction. The grammar of quability theory comes from loose and partial parallelisms with probability theory, but its actual content stretches from a Deleuzean kind of “virtual” (the quability conditions of Becoming), a Heideggerean-in-style claim to disclosure of such precedent factors and a modern systemlike approach to the world as solution (the SATPLAN story). Ultimately the only use of quability theory that’s deductively sound has to do with the quability conditions on quability conditions; everything else flows from a kind of vatic authority yet to prove itself by fire.

3. A revision of the quability conditions of experience grasping towards the utterly concrete. In this way we have settled on idiosyncratic theories of time and ambit — apparent digressions that hold two keys to the shift in thinking necessary to reach General Axiology. Namely, two keys: the mode of thinking that precedes the grand ambition of redefining time itself, and the products of time redefined and reevaluated. None of this is optional.

4. The axiological turn. Axiologies are theories of what’s valuable and what are the valuable means of obtaining them. In the axiological turn, axiologies come to precede praxis and epistemics (an alternate term that castrates the logos from the absurd quest for knowledge of knowledge of knowledge…). Again quability theory provides the core strategy: the quability conditions on praxis lie within their axiologies. Sure, patronage, but with what?

5. Ecstatic scenarios rather than ecstatic states. For this to make any sense, the twin theories of diegesis and physique du role. Ecstasy (to be besides oneself) is ego death in small drops; ego death is a secret precondition of General Axiology — albeit one that doesn’t really need to be foregrounded to work.

6. The praxical distinction between chrematistics (at the kindergarten level the theory of how one acquires great wealth; but so, so much more as one walks the tightrope of genericity) and chromaticity (the very general space of “thought shifting”, paradigm breaking and all such). Chrema and chroma, chroma and chrema, so neatly generalizing so much of the drama in lower axiologies. We’re in the thick of working this stuff out right now.

7. General Axiology. A very rough take on theory may resort to describing this as “universal agreement”, but the point of making theory so intricate and overflowing with idiosyncrasy is that we need to be flooded with chroma-thinking at least to the point where it starts to somatize (the nosebleed). Theory differs from “critical theory” in that it doesn’t lend any structural status to conflict; rather, it points, for its version of an “infinity vector”, to the systematic replacement of actual apparent sociomaterial relations with their quability conditions. Ultimately, in General Axiology theory is false but ecstasy is true.


This is again all going very fast and without backlinks, to boot. But, it turns out, asemic horizon is well indexed by Google (however poorly ranked) and saying something like “alice glass site:asemic-horizon.com” works.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s