Negarastani — ()hole complex and Deleuzo-Guattarian strata
Reading notes loosely disguised as a blog post.
In Cyclonopedia, Negarastani develops the notion of ()hole complex / holey space: the notion of a ‘degenerate’ wholeness, wholeness without the w. The question is, what does this add to (or excavate out from) the notion of strata developed in the Geology of Morals by Deleuze and Guattari?
Definitions
Strata
Double articulation
We only get, to begin with, a loose example: sedimentation and then folding. We go from unformed matter (the bare place of consistency, substance in the Spinozistic sense/God/BwO, the Real in a physical sense), in the first articulation, to substance, to a loose form, decided by the type or the statistical interactions between the substances. This is the creation of molecules from bare particles/atoms for example, and the subsequent arrangements of these molecules; or the layering of sedimentation and subsequent sorting or layering, where finer grains fall toward the bottom of the layered sediment. You have a loose determination of form based on the physical properties of the substance.
The second articulation is the folding. The formed substance created/articulated in the first articulation is shaped, ‘formed’ more strongly (although this is not always the case). In undergoing this process, the substance undergoes molecular change, and the substance changes. This would be the initial sedimentation undergoing tectonic shifting, pressure, metamorphosis. Or heating of a particular molecular substance into gas, liquid etc.
In the first articulation we go from substance to form; in the second we go from form to substance.
Wikipedia discusses double articulation in relation to language. The first articulation is the development of loose phonemes, sounds. You have the formed substance, as specific noises formable by the human larynx chosen out of the wider range of possible noises; which then assume a loose form as possible or joinable — “the meaningful English word “cat” is composed of the sounds /k/, /æ/, and /t/” — you can’t go directly from a /k/ to a /t/ without some kind of joining phoneme. The second articulation forms these distinct sound objects into morphemes, strings with meaning. In doing so it changes the substance of these phonemes — no longer are they purely selected physical noises; now considered together they become units of meaning.
These are two examples only, and Deleuze and Guattari say double articulation applies to all strata, it is not unique to language. To finish, it needs to be stated that the first articulation is the development of content, and the second the development of expression.
Content and expression
In a single strata there are always content and expression, expression built out of content and content incorporated in an expression. However, this is just the beginning. It needs to be said that any expression may from the point of view of other expressions assume the form of content; and vice versa, that any content from the point of view of other contents assume the form of expression. In fact, each articulation (first and second) is always already double, and assumes the form of the other immediately in relation to either content or expression. Then there are levels of both expression and content in a strata, where each articulation may serve as either expression or content to varying degrees, either in the same strata or other strata entirely.
Mileux: interior, exterior, and associated
A stratum gets its materials (not pure matter from the plane of consistency i.e. BwO, but stratified contents and expressions) from substrata (which are every bit as stratic as the strata itself — no hierarchy). These materials are then formed into susbtances for use by the strata. The formed substances of the strata, the already existing compounds, contents, expressions, form an interior milieu of the strata, while the “raw” (already stratified remember) materials coughed up by the substrata form an exterior milieu for incorporation into the interior. The example given is the seed of a crystal, which moves out toward the medium (exterior milieu), forming lattices and crystallising the exterior (interiorising the exterior). What is important to note is that the interior moves outside — or the exterior moves inside. It depends on perspective.
Next, it has to be said that both the exterior and interior milieu are of the stratum, are part of it. The exterior can be said to be the exterior of, not exterior to. The materials here are chosen, are specific to the stratum. It is not the World.
Finally, it is impossible to say ‘in the final instance’ where a milieu is located, exterior or interior, as material always flows between the two, assumes new forms, goes from centre to periphery and generates a new centre and a new periphery. This dynamism generates a whole zone which Deleuze and Guattari call the epistrata, the region where interior and exterior fluctuate.
Then we get to the associated milieu, which is perhaps more ‘exterior’ to the stratum than the exterior milieu. It is the capture of new energy sources, new compounds. It is like perception, reaction, engagement with the world in order to ‘plug in’ to a new exterior milieu. Deleuze and Guattari connect it to the umwelt. What is important is that the general ‘form’ of the strata (the overall definition of it) is deeply connected with the associated milieu. If for example, you choose an organic strata, an animal, it can only develop in a given associated milieu which shapes it (natural selection). The term parastrata is given to the relationship between the form of the strata and the associated milieu, the changes and layerings a strata undergoes in relation to its associated milieu. For example, in terms of evolutionary theory, the parastrata applies to the expression/content of an entire population of an organism in relation to its associated milieu.
So you have an interaction where the parastrata develops or shapes the epistrata on a statistical level — yet for the individual the epistrata interacts with the parastrata on a perceptive/active individual level.
Inside and outside
Preempting ()hole complex, it needs to be said that nowhere is there a ‘gap’ in the strata. We have formed substances, connections, flows between epistrata and parastrata, building blocks and articulations, connections. Everything “works” — and this is connected back to the general notion of a desiring machine, in that it functions even when it breaks down.
What are the edges of the strata? The interior and exterior milieu are not precisely edges — the interior goes by way of the exterior and the exterior by way of the interior. This is the process whereby the strata stratifies itself. Both are exactly part of it.
But maybe the associated milieu forms an exterior. It is still selective, still specific to the strata, that is true. But there is not direct access. It is more an external pressure, tectonic action in relation to a particular sedimentation for example. From the perspective of the earth this forms one strata, but from the perspective of that layer, tectonics are exterior. In the parastrata there are codes, indexes i.e. signs to the strata of things that are important to it, things that it could absorb into its exterior milieu.
Another candidate for an exterior is the plane of consistency, the BwO, absolute deterritorialization. Strata are always shifting, the relationship of parastrata and epistrata always changing, accumulating different substances, letting go of old ones. This is a perpetual state of relative deterritorialization, where materials shift between strata and take up new positions. Yet there is always the possibility of absolute deterritorialization, the return to zero (where zero is defined as the teeming BwO, perhaps the most positive/infinite in a sense). Yet this relative deterritorialization is the exact same as the absolute deterritorialization possible, it is always a question of how this absolute process gets caught up constantly in strata.
This second case grows more interesting, since this absolute deterritorialization is always immanent to the relative action occurring within the strata at all times. The shifting epistrata, the parastrata, the way they change are exactly what the strata is. In a sense then it is already possible to say that the strata is defined by its outside, is exactly a particular ‘twist’ on the absolute outside. In this case the absolute outside is positive, is the BwO but not the catatonic full body, rather the schizzing and sparking plane of the Real, where everything happens. Could it be said that a given strata is then a selection, a refinement or a particular filter of the Real? This is a simplistic but useful visualisation.
I also understand strata as an explication of all phenomena and also noumena. This is what things are made up of. Organisms, physical structures (stars, crystals, the earth), concepts, social movements, the State, war machines and nomads, language. Strata are a metaphysical concept.
()hole complex
Whole, solid and void
Negarestani understands whole always as a composition of solid and void. In any whole, it is the solid which you get to interact with. It is in the solid that the void generates interesting anomalies, dynamisms, that you can interact with.
If the Whole exists as a ground, a structure, a given, then the solid is exactly “the tectonic expansion or the sprawling politics of the ground itself”. The ground or Whole par excellence is the earth itself. This gives the notion of Whole or ground a clarity, since it is only upon the solid part of the earth that we make our lives. (Not the caverns or depths beneath).
We must ensure that it is clear the solid is “the sprawling politics of the ground itself” but the solid is not “the ground itself”. This remains the domain of the Whole understood as a composition of void and solid. This is how the solid acts as a conduit for void — it is through solid that effect and affect are registered, even if the totality of the cause lies in the Whole. (Solid as a channeling mechanism, consolidation, a paranoic agent — remember this for later).
Void is the other part of Whole. Without it, solid has no dynamism to channel, there is precisely no Whole, no cause. Yet interestingly it has to be said that solid hates the void as much as it depends on it, and that void plays the role of a trap. The more solid attempts to rid itself of void, to consolidate itself and ‘exclude the exclusion’, the wormier, the more entangled void gets. Nemat-functions, worms, rats, acidification, plague: all synonyms for void.
As void digs out hidden tunnels and cavities in solid, it ungrounds the Whole itself, but never destroys it (see incomplete burning / excursus I). By succumbing to the survival instinct of solid but becoming so entangled in void, the Whole persists as ()hole complex.
Surface dynamics and the outside
The first thing that comes out of the solid/void interaction are surface dynamics. A surface exists in two places — at the precise but fuzzy limit between underground cavity and ensconcing solid (cave walls), and at the ‘surface’ of the solid, i.e. directly overhead the cavity (picture an underground nuclear explosion and the ‘hump’ generated above ground as a result of the cavity it digs out momentarily).
Considering the solidus as a hegemony, something akin to the strata, a given political repression or binding of power. Surfaces are precisely where new ‘polytical’ activities can take place, where consolidation becomes disrupted. Most importantly, surfaces never reinforce or reconsolidate existing structure, rather they always countermine, eat away or dig in to the solid. (Even above ground).
Surfaces do not completely betray the solid and the ground, and thus offer two tendencies, taxis and trellis. The trellis is the lattice or the existing structure of the solid, where the taxis is the dynamic distribution of the trellis. The surface faces the void (or another solid, one might assume, at ground level). Yet the distribution or the interaction of the taxis is with the ecology of the Whole, that is both solid and void taken at a compositional level.
This is an important point. Surfaces are exactly where solid or composition become open to decay or breakdown of structure. However they are open to the Outside only insofar as the Outside is already part of the Whole as void. Key point in Cyclonopedia: the Outside is always already immanent, digging its way out.
Void is also impure i.e. it has its own relationship to solid beyond absolute purging. It digs cavities in relation to the already existing structure of the solid, reacts to the consolidation of the solid. It is not so much that it does what the solid wants, but it does not do what it wants either, it reacts to the solid and cannot help but react to the solid.
Logics or inconsistency
Essentially there are two levels to the Whole, each operating independently. From the perspective of solid, the political sprawl of the ground, effects depending on void make no sense. They are essentially running on a schizoid logic, making connections and flows depending on the topology of holes and caverns dug out by the void (and hence nonunderstandable for solid). The solid communicates (but does not understand) some effects of the void to the surface, i.e. the void creates a disturbance that runs up through the body of the solid to the upper level. This is a paranoiac tendency, as the solid consolidates or channels the inner effect of void logic without understanding its origins. Coming down from the surface, descending through solid, is the only way to get to the tunnels and channels piercing the solid. Hence why Negarestani says you have to traverse a plane of paranoia to get to the schizophrenia inside. And that the only things represented at the surface can be paranoid.
It is still important to remain firmly anti-dualistic. As we said before, void is diluted by solid as much as solid is consumed by void. Each depends on the other and assumes characteristics of the other.
This politics of emergence, or the inconsistent line between void and solid, is what makes ()hole complex so important, and what causes it to have the effects it does. For Negarestani, ()hole complex makes itself known in the middle east. I will briefly describe his examples, but I am not well-versed enough in the politics of the middle east to understand them myself in depth. After this I will move to a more abstract discussion of the interaction and potential resultant cross pollination of ()holes and strata.
The Battle of Tora Bora was built on the paranoid consistency of the US and allied forces, reacting to perceived sub-surface fortresses and holey complexes. These forces built tactics, strategies, essentially a new solid, a new ground, based on a perceived inconsistency in that of the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces hiding in Tora Bora. It demonstrates the impossibility for circumferential surface emergence to accurately detail whatever schizoid logic happens below ground. US guesses, guesses wrong every time.
Similarly, the holey/porous distribution of oil fields in Saudi Arabia leads to new interactions between the sedentary state and desert-nomads employed/enjoined to the oil fields. And indeed, the relationship between state/solid and nomad/void represents a ()hole complex. Evidence that ()hole complex is a phenomenon applicable to physical, social, temporal organisation.
Summaries
Organisation/consolidation
Let’s be boring and start from the top, from the classic model of structure and identity. Despite his beseeching that void infects solid, that solid remains nothing without void, Negarestani’s solid seems to have a stronger organisation form than the strata. It is decayed by the void, it’s paranoiac consolidation is eaten away by worms. This language implies a rigidity, a whole body, a pseudo-completeness. Even insofar as structure is nothing, has no dynamism and no affect, without void, that part of it which is solid is solid. Even if it can only disseminate its economy, its politics, at surface carved out by void, it wants to hold on to itself. Negarestani writes exactly that it is solid’s survival mechanism that pushes it into ()hole complex, unground. Even as it is entirely hollowed out, it clings to some sense of identity with itself, some core that it cannot let go. At this point solid becomes nothing more than a mask, overlay, empty temple complex for the ‘real’ motion of hole inside; hence the connection to Hidden Writing.
Despite what Negarestani implores, there seems to be a strong dualism between solid and void, even if each often portrays traits usually assigned to the other (for example the solid is false, flimsy, weak, and void is the real operator, void gets things done).
Contrast this with Deleuzo-Guattarian strata. The strata is complete in itself (it has links to the outside of course, but they are conceptualised as a part of it). One cannot perceive gaps in the strata. Even the line of flight is an immanent potential, which if taken, transforms it entirely. Strata have no delusions or qualms about changing. Of course, they operate on raw materials based on a particular organisation, but they are always shifting. The plane of consistency forms an absolute outside to the strata, but it has none of the connotations that void does — it does not aggress toward the strata, it does not make a home in it or claw its way out. Strata are always flexible, always able to disintegrate into the plane of consistency and always able to reform spontaneously.
Negarestani introduces the notion of a radical and inter(but also in-)dependent outside to structure and organisation, but in doing so characterises structure as rigid, clinging to its self-identity. In contrast, Deleuze and Guattari lose a more radical outside, but conceive of structure as already slippery in itself, ready to reform at a moments notice depending on the flows of raw materials and articulations it undertakes. That is, strata are always building, growing, consolidating more mass, but in doing so destroy their original organisation. Solid attempts to remain stable but in doing so allows in void and loses itself entirely.
Outside/escape/disorganisation
Void is Lovecraftian, full of things squirming and coiling beyond the logic of solid, but self-consistent and very much alive. Void logic is still logic. It feels possible to say that so is the plane of consistency, but the relationship is somewhat reversed. Deleuze and Guattari say “The question is not how something manages to leave the strata but how things get into them in the first place.” The plane of consistency has to be considered as prior to, immanent with, and underlying all strata. They then develop on top of it, trap its flows (it is not unstructured chaos. It has particular flows and designs, plans, even structures all happen in the plane of consistency) into particular strata. The escape, or line of flight of particular particles from any one strata back into the plane of consistency is always a ‘memorable’ one, that is, it is resuming its previous state as stateless.
Compare this with the outside as void. Void is not an underlying plane, it is certainly something separate to solid. Yet both depend on each other. Void is precisely the part of the ground where solid becomes inconsistent, untheorisable based on only itself. Let’s put it this way. One might imagine the plane of consistency alone, prior to any stratification. However, one cannot envision void except as part of an already extant solid. This is the main difference. Void always exists in any so-called structure, and only exists as part of that structure.
And where strata, as structurations, have being i.e. create some impact on the world, bring materials into themselves and form sub-strata, form abstract machines; it might have to be said that in ()hole complex it is only void that really has being. Any ‘event’ in ()hole complex is a result of solid surface in contact with void. At these faces you have a failure in the power distribution of solid. This failure to distribute power does not merely disseminate into air, into nothing — rather it is swallowed up by void and has concrete effects on the ground and structure. Negarestani discusses this in relation to Hidden Writing. Essentially, the solid, the ostensible plot, is no more than a cover for the covert operations of void, whose plot(hole)s are where the story really takes place.
We could consider the plane of consistency as an overflowing of materiality, prior to but over and above any strata, whereas void is something inside solid, a desperate and ever growing lack which takes over the solid, hollowing it out while forcing it to maintain its identity. (Imagine the wasp who lays its eggs inside a spider, who, still alive, suffers while the wasp larvae eat their way out. Except in this case the spider can never expire and the larvae will never stop eating). The question then is what is the relationship between solid and strata?
Pollination
It is clear that both the strata and the solid are forms of organisation. Deleuze and Guattari’s strata are perhaps more metaphysical — it is the basic blueprint for any kind of organisation; whereas ()hole complex strikes me as a particular kind of organisation, one that arises from a certain positioning of a strata.
Bringing it back to Anti-Oedipus even, might not the solid represent a kind of strata which has become closed in on itself, an illegitimate use of the conjunctive synthesis? Here we have a strata which no longer brings itself into relationships with an associated milieu in the sense of an epistrata — it does not respond to environmental pressure, or precisely does everything it can to resist this. On the level of the parastrata, it also refuses to replace its centre and its periphery. Its interior membrane does not fluctuate. Particles seeking to rejoin the plane of consistency, and flows trying to get in, are firmly locked in/out. Catatonic, it almost represents the full body without organs, an enclosed and self-consistent structure clamping down on any and all lines of flight emanating from itself. It clings to a self-identity, a single core.
What Deleuze and Guattari might have to say is that such a catatonic strata will always fail to do this completely. It will no doubt leak materials and allow certain new flows to be smuggled in from the plane of consistency. It will come into connection with other strata regardless of its catatonia.
But reconceptualise this catatonic, solid, strata along the lines of ()hole complex. Suddenly the catatonic provides an avenue for a new outside, an outside that associates itself not with the plane of consistency, but with something below or even prior to that, a teeming hole in being. So long as strata are open to change, to shift and porosity on the level of the plane of consistency and substrata, Negarestani’s outside is locked out. Power is distributed throughout the system, and any blockages, disruptions, etc. are handled or rerouted. Strata are affective. But as soon as we enter lockdown mode, the power of this strata to affect its surroundings is turned inward — positive feedback. Suddenly you have a massive increase of pressure over a small area. All this power needs to go somewhere, and when it is precisely turned toward ensuring it doesn’t go anywhere, you get internal cracks, fissures, holes. But of course these holes cannot turn out onto the plane of consistency, they need to go somewhere else: the Lovecraftian void, which, by the way, has always been there, a shadow to the vitalist plane of consistency, an undeath drive that is purely positive and growing.
Void, horror, only emerges at that point where survival becomes paramount, where letting go becomes impossible. It represents the necessary space required for catatonia, a super-/pre-natural gap.
But what exactly is void, if it is something behind even the most deterritorialized flows that operate on the surface of the plane of consistency? (“What’s more deterritorialized than being absolutely deterritorialized?”) And what disastrous consequences might there be when we realise how many strata are currently operating as solids puppeted by void? Is there anything left of non-solid strata on the earth at present? Does it seek to replace the plane of consistency with something even more horrifying to self-identity?
