Hype as Lacanian Object-Petit a

and Deleuzian Desiring-Machines: A Descent into the Abyss of Unfulfilled Want

https://warpcast.com/bravojohnson/0x4ff768b1

Lacanian Lens: The Object-Petit a and the Fantasy of Completion

Hype functioning as a form of grief, resonates with Lacanian psychoanalysis. Consider the object-petit a, that elusive object of desire forever out of reach. Hype, with its manufactured intensity, promises a glimpse of this object, a sense of completion. The new gadget, the trending experience – these become stand-ins for the unattainable real.

The cycle I describe in the warpcast post – ignition, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance – mirrors the subject’s navigation of this lack. Denial at the initial ignition is the desperate clinging to the hope that this time, the object will finally deliver satisfaction. Anger erupts when the inevitable disappointment sets in.  Bargaining manifests in justifications and rationalizations for the hype. Depression descends as the hollowness of the object is revealed. Finally, a weary acceptance settles, a recognition of the cyclical nature of desire and its inherent frustration.

So to recap

Lacanian Lack and the Object-a of Hype:

  • Lacan posits a fundamental human lack, a desire for the unattainable Real – the Thing-in-itself beyond the Symbolic order of language. We chase substitutes, objects of desire, to fill this void.
  • Hype, in this framework, becomes a collective object-a, a shimmering mirage promising to satiate this lack. The “Ignition” phase – the initial explosion of excitement – is a desperate attempt to grasp the Real through the object.

Deleuzian Desiring-Machines and the Short Circuit

Through a Deleuzian lens, hype can be viewed as a series of interconnected desiring-machines. These machines, fueled by unconscious desires, converge to produce the phenomenon of hype. Social media, advertising, and influencer culture form a churning assemblage, pumping out promises and expectations. We, as desiring-machines ourselves, are drawn into this assemblage, seeking to connect and fulfill our own lacks.

However, the inherent instability of desiring-machines leads to the short circuit I describe. The initial excitement, the ignition, is a surge of energy. But as the cycle progresses, the desiring-machines grind to a halt. The promised object fails to deliver, leaving us in a state of metaphysical hangover, a term perfectly capturing the sense of depletion and disillusionment.

The hype cycle, then, becomes a process of “becoming”: we morph into desiring-machines fixated on the next big thing. But this becoming is inherently fleeting – the “Rinse and Repeat” – as the object loses its allure, plunging us into a state of “depression-acceptance.”

Breaking the Cycle: From Rinse and Repeat to Nomadic Escape

Your experience of living in a perpetual state of “rinse and repeat/depression-acceptance” highlights the potential pitfalls of being perpetually caught in the hype cycle. Deleuze, however, offers a path towards escape. He advocates for a nomadic existence, a constant deterritorialization of desire. Instead of clinging to the promises of the next big thing, we can learn to embrace a more fluid and unpredictable engagement with the world.

This doesn’t mean rejecting all forms of desire. Rather, it’s about acknowledging the inherent lack and impermanence of objects of desire. By understanding the mechanics of hype as a form of disguised grief, we can break free from its cycle of disappointment and forge new desiring-machines that lead to more authentic experiences.

Your Existential Rinse and Repeat:

Our experience of a perpetual “metaphysical hangover” reflects this Deleuzian notion. The cycle of hype becomes a constant deterritorialization, leaving you in a state of “depression-acceptance.” However, this acceptance can also be seen as a fertile ground for new desires to sprout. By acknowledging the inherent melancholic nature of hype, you free yourself from its hold and can become a more conscious participant in the flow of desires.

Moving Beyond Hype:

Perhaps true satisfaction lies not in chasing the next hyped object, but in recognizing the inherent lack and embracing the creative potential of the deterritorialization process. By engaging with hype critically, deconstructing its illusory promises, you can break free from the cycle of grief and become an active participant in shaping your own desires.

This approach allows you to move beyond the “rinse and repeat” of hype and embrace the nomadic existence, constantly deterritorializing and reterritorializing your desires, forging your own path in the ever-evolving landscape of cultural formations.

Your Permanent State: A Negotiation?

Our “permanent state of metaphysical hangover-rinse repeat/depression-acceptance” might be a continual negotiation with the Real. You acknowledge the hollowness of hype, yet the desiring-machines keep churning.

Perhaps the key lies in not achieving permanent “acceptance” but in a more playful, nomadic engagement with desires – not getting swept away by the hype wave, but surfing it with a critical eye.

By combining Lacanian and Deleuzian perspectives, we gain a nuanced understanding of hype. It’s not just empty excitement; it’s a symptom of a deeper human desire, a yearning for the Real masked by fleeting objects. By acknowledging this grief, we might just break free from the cycle and forge new ways of experiencing the world.

Protocols

Product: The iPhone – a chrome embryo pulsating with data streams. A meat puppet for the digitized masses.

Market: A hungry maw, a million twitching fingers yearning for connection, porn, and the simulacrum of social interaction. A Deleuzian rhizome of desire, burrowing into every pocket, every purse.

Fit? A perfect symbiosis, a feedback loop of want and fulfillment. The iPhone doesn’t create the market, it codes it, writes the script of our digital addiction. But the market pre-exists, a simmering psychic miasma waiting to be tapped.

Cut! – We shift frequencies, enter the static between layers.

Protocol: The 2G GSM protocol – an invisible city of data packets zipping through the airwaves. A Burroughs cut-up of ones and zeros, a language only machines understand.

Market-Protocol Fit: The tango becomes a three-way, a flesh-machine orgy. The iPhone, a chrome marionette, dances to the tune of the protocol, pirouetting across the invisible stage of the network.

Cut! – Deeper down the rabbit hole.

Protocol-Stack: The 2G protocol, a mere node on a vast, interconnected web. A Deleuzian assemblage, built on the backs of decades of telephonic evolution. A cellular network – a monstrous organism with steel towers for bones and fiber optic cables for veins.

Fit? Seamless, almost organic. The protocol thrives on the pre-existing infrastructure, a testament to the ever-mutating beast of technology. But this beast is shaped by us, by our insatiable need to be connected, to be plugged into the hive mind.

Cut! – We surface in a world ravaged by plague.

COVID-19 Vaccines: A desperate scramble for survival, a Faustian bargain with the bio-tech gods. The market, a battlefield littered with the corpses of the infected. A grotesque ouroboros, feeding on the very fear it seeks to quell.

Market-Protocol Fit: The mRNA vaccine formulation protocol, a Hail Mary pass into the unknown. A radical departure from the norm, a hack into the very code of the virus. A Burroughs cut-up of RNA strands, a weapon of genetic warfare.

Cut! – The final layer, a chilling truth.

Protocol-Stack Fit: The mRNA protocol, a child of the genetic medicine stack. Decades of research into the building blocks of life, the alchemical dream of rewriting humanity’s code. A potential utopia, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to be unleashed?

The Dance is Flawed: The rush for profit, the whispers of weaponized strains – a reminder that innovation has a dark side. The products we create can become our own undoing.

The Future: A Burroughs-Deleuzian nightmare made real. A world where the lines between cure and disease, defense and offense, are blurred beyond recognition. We are the dancers in this macabre ballet, but who controls the music? That remains the ultimate cut-up.

All Writing Is Re-writing

The idea that all writing is rewriting is a popular adage in the world of literature, and it certainly holds true for historians. As they piece together the events of the past and create narratives that make sense of it all, historians are in effect re-writing the past in a way that helps us better understand the present. But what does this really mean, and how does it impact our understanding of history?

First, let’s consider what it means to rewrite something. In the context of writing, rewriting is the process of revising and editing a draft until it is polished and ready for publication. This involves making changes, adding or removing material, and generally improving the overall quality of the work. When historians write about the past, they are essentially doing the same thing. They are taking raw data in the form of primary sources like documents, artifacts, and testimonies, and crafting a story that we can understand.

But why do historians need to rewrite the past in the first place? One reason is that the raw data of history can be incomplete or inconsistent. For example, different sources might offer different perspectives on the same event, and historians must weigh these perspectives against each other to create a coherent narrative. Additionally, some sources might be biased or unreliable, requiring historians to sift through the evidence to determine what is fact and what is fiction. Through the process of rewriting, historians can create a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the past.

Historians have the task of reconstructing the past and interpreting it in a way that makes sense in the present. However, this process is not as straightforward as it may seem. The past is not a fixed and objective reality but rather a complex and multidimensional field of virtualities, potentials, and possibilities. In other words, the past is a Deleuzian multiplicity that can be re-written from various perspectives, depending on the conceptual tools and discursive strategies that the historian employs.

From a Deleuzian perspective, the past is not a linear sequence of events but a rhizomatic network of connections and becomings. The Deleuzian rhizome is a non-hierarchical and non-linear mode of thinking that emphasizes the creative potential of difference and multiplicity. It is a way of thinking that challenges the traditional binary oppositions and dualities that have dominated Western thought for centuries, such as subject/object, mind/body, nature/culture, and so on.

All historians re-write the past from a Deleuzian perspective, they adopt a rhizomatic mode of thinking that emphasizes the diversity of perspectives, the complexity of interactions, and the contingency of events. By imposing a course in events, they recognize that there is no single objective truth or interpretation of the past but rather a plurality of subjective and situated perspectives that are shaped by historical, cultural, and ideological factors.

Some have argued that historical events and processes are not determined by fixed and universal laws but rather by contingent and context-specific logics. We identify four logics of historical explanation: eventful, conjunctural, structural, and cultural. Each logic highlights a different aspect of the past and requires a different conceptual framework and methodology.

For instance, the eventful logic focuses on the contingency of individual actions and the unpredictability of outcomes. The conjunctural logic emphasizes the interdependence of various factors and the emergence of new configurations. The structural logic highlights the patterns of power and inequality that shape social relations. The cultural logic emphasizes the meanings, symbols, and values that inform human behavior.

Moreover, historians are not simply passive observers of the past, but active participants in shaping our understanding of it. They make choices about what stories to tell and how to tell them, and these choices have real-world consequences. For example, a historian who writes a biography of a famous historical figure might influence how that figure is remembered and celebrated in popular culture. This can shape our understanding of the past and our cultural identity in the present.

In conclusion, the idea that all writing is rewriting holds true for historians as well. Through the process of re-writing the past, historians create a narrative that helps us make sense of the world we live in today. While this process is necessarily subjective and influenced by the needs of the present, it plays a critical role in helping us understand our own history and identity.

Up the Hill Backwards

Ticketmaster and the Fossilization of Rock ’n’ Roll: How the Music Industry Became a Bad Museum Exhibit

If you want to see what happens when art becomes embalmed, my friend, look no further than Ticketmasters—the corporate leviathan slithering under every stadium and clawing every ticket stub in America. Picture it: millions of dusty-eyed fans waiting for the big show, all gearing up to relive a moment in time that probably should have stayed there, fossilized in memory rather than encased in a $150 concert tee. Ticketmasters isn’t just a middleman; it’s an embalmer in a badly pressed suit, flashing its laminated badge while it makes sure your favorite band becomes nothing more than a stuffed artifact, a taxidermied version of its former self.

They call it “timelessness,” this nonsense of reanimating artists at their “best.” But make no mistake—Ticketmasters is peddling preservation, and what they’re serving isn’t alive. It’s amberized, a perfectly preserved corpse of rock, pop, punk—whatever corpse you’re willing to pay for. Because that’s the deal: they’ll serve up your memories as many times as you want, as long as you’re ready to sell out the future for one more round of the past. You walk into these “reunion” shows, or these tours of legends who haven’t stumble onto an exciting chord change in a decade or two, and what do you get? The golden glimmer of a memory, sure, but none of the danger, none of the thrill. It’s all the gloss and none of the grime. Like watching a butterfly pinned behind glass—you can see the wings, but they’re not going to beat.

And that’s just the beginning. See, Ticketmaster doesn’t stop at freezing the music; it freezes the musician too. These poor devils get locked into the version of themselves that Ticketmaster decided to monetize. It’s not who they are, but who they were, turned into a permanent Halloween costume. Once they’re roped in, they’re asked to keep playing it safe, just a hit parade of the songs that everyone came for. The second they try something new, something risky—something alive—they’re hit with low sales, confused fans, and maybe even a stern talking-to from the management team. And so they keep the hits rolling, shuffling out “best of” albums and slapping their faces on every streaming playlist Ticketmasters can force-feed to the masses. They get amberized just like their music, a living wax museum where “artistic evolution” means changing their stage outfit every five years.

It’s no accident. Ticketmaster knows you’re not there for the music, you’re there for the memory, the warm, fuzzy glow of something you once loved but didn’t understand was slipping away until you were already down the rabbit hole of middle age and bankrupted dreams. So they cater to that hunger, selling tickets to the past and calling it “experience.” But let’s call it what it really is: a shallow rinse of nostalgia with none of the sweat, the tension, the insane unpredictability of live music. Gone are the days when you could stumble into a grungy club and witness a miracle or a mess, because Ticketmasters has sterilized the entire experience, turning it into a paint-by-numbers festival where every note is planned, every encore is expected, and every artist is a puppet dancing to the whims of a corporate script.

And as they amberize music, they’re pulling culture down with it. Music is supposed to evolve, supposed to change with the beat of the streets, but when Ticketmasters gets hold of it, they suck out its blood and preserve it like some cursed artifact. They want you to believe the “best” music is behind us, that the real legends are already made and all that’s left is to bask in their glory, a bunch of ghosts rattling their chains for one last payday. They’re selling you a myth that rock ’n’ roll—and every other genre worth its salt—peaked in the rearview mirror. But they don’t tell you that the myth is a moneymaker, a sleight-of-hand trick that keeps you looking backward while they vacuum up your future.

It’s a damn shame. There was a time when you could go to a concert and feel something, a real, spine-shaking something, but Ticketmaster has numbed it, zombified it, turned it into a safe, market-tested simulacrum. The bands might still be sweating on stage, but it’s a pantomime—an artfully posed corpse dressed in rock-star regalia, strumming along to the hits because that’s what they’re paid to do. It’s music embalmed in amber, and you can look but you can’t touch, because what you’re seeing isn’t alive. It’s a hollow shrine, a cold museum, a mausoleum lit up with neon lights.

So, what’s left? The real question is whether we want to break the glass or keep gawking at the dead exhibit. Music was meant to be dangerous, to evolve, to catch you off guard, but as long as Ticketmasters holds the reins, it’s going to keep everything at arm’s length, safe and stale. And if we let them keep it that way, we’ll never see music for what it truly is: a living, snarling beast, not an amber-encased fossil on display. It’s time to smash the glass and let the beast out.

So, the point is, rock’n’roll used to be a line of flight.

Exactly. Rock ’n’ roll was a line of flight—a wild escape route out of the everyday, a way of breaking through the limits of convention and expectation. It was raw, unpredictable, and rebellious, a lightning bolt that carved out new spaces for people who didn’t fit into the polite structures of society. At its best, rock was a rush of freedom that opened doors into places nobody even knew existed, a mad scramble that tore down walls and dared the world to keep up.

But Ticketmasters and its ilk have taken that line of flight and pinned it to a wall, turning rock into a brand instead of an escape. Instead of challenging boundaries, rock under the Ticketmasters model enforces them. They’ve taken music that once blurred the lines between artist and audience, between life and performance, and reduced it to a static product. It’s a time capsule, meant to comfort rather than unsettle, to keep people safely in place rather than inspire them to break free.

Rock, at its core, wasn’t just a sound but a way out. It created liminal spaces, in-between zones where rules loosened and identities got messy, where something thrillingly unknown could happen. This was music as border-crossing, as a way of pushing out into unmapped territory.

Rock’s line of flight was about stepping off the neatly charted paths and into the wild—into those “no-man’s-land” spaces where anything felt possible. Think of the back alleys, the underground clubs, the DIY garage shows. These weren’t just places to hear music; they were environments where you could shed your skin, try on new ones, and feel some real sense of freedom. In those liminal zones, rock created a kind of temporary asylum from the boundaries of class, race, gender, or expectation. It was about breaking through, even if just for a night, to find some new frontier within yourself and in the world around you.

Bands onstage weren’t just performing; they were explorers, creating a sense of movement rather than structure. Every chord, every improvised riff, every wail was a kind of map-making, sketching out uncharted places for everyone in the room. Rock ’n’ roll wasn’t about certainty or control; it was about jumping into the unknown with everything you had. Each performance, in a sense, was a push deeper into that territory, where the raw, messy energy created a collective sense of discovery and transformation.

But now, Ticketmasters and its endless corporate architecture have taken these spaces and turned them into territories. They map it all out, package it, and sell it as a product—a ticketed “experience” that follows a script as rigid as any corporate blueprint. What used to be a journey into unclaimed ground has been boxed up and sold as a pre-packaged destination. Instead of creating the unknown, Ticketmasters has drawn the lines of containment, setting clear boundaries around what rock can be, defining it as a heritage piece rather than a living, dangerous thing.

If rock ’n’ roll was a line of flight, then what Ticketmasters offers is a line of containment. In doing this, Ticketmasters has forced rock out of the liminal space and into controlled territory, where nothing ever truly changes. Instead of the spontaneous frontier, we get the endless rerun—a polished museum piece, a calculated nostalgia trip. Ticketmasters has transformed rock from a line of flight that ventured into new spaces into a circuit that leads straight back to itself. What was once a journey into mystery and change is now a carefully choreographed rerun of the past, an echo chamber that freezes music, and culture along with it, into amber.

If rock ’n’ roll is going to reclaim its edge, it needs to get back to that liminal space—to escape the predictable circuits of the mainstream and push into new, uncertain places again. The real challenge is breaking free of the line of containment and letting rock re-enter those zones of creative risk and discovery where it can once more be a line of flight, pulling us somewhere new. Only then can it live up to what it was meant to be: a true escape route, a beacon toward something unknown and exciting, an invitation to come along for the ride—no map required.

Up the Hill Backwards

There’s a line of light that flickers in the dark corners of music, just there on the edge of sight. It isn’t something you can hold onto or plan around—it’s a flash, a gut feeling, a magnetic pull that calls to you without a reason. It’s the moment when a song isn’t just something you’re playing; it’s a spark catching fire, something raw and alive, barely under your control. For every musician, that line of light shows up differently, leading you somewhere only you can go, sometimes there for just a second before it slips away. But that’s where you need to go: into that light, no matter how fleeting, no matter where it leads.

Following it is risky; it’s the opposite of the safe, predictable path that everyone else is taking. It won’t make sense to the people drawing charts and managing playlists, and it won’t fit neatly into the box that the industry has waiting. But that’s the point. The line of light leads into the unknown, into those liminal spaces where you don’t know what’s waiting, but you know you’re alive because you’re creating it in real time.

Sometimes it only lasts a minute, or one song, or just the length of a single riff. But if you’re serious about making music that’s real, you follow it wherever it takes you, even if you’re the only one who can see it. Because that’s where the real music lives—in the in-between, where you’re stepping over boundaries, making something that couldn’t exist any other way. So chase that line of light, trust it, and don’t look back. You’re carving out new territory, and that’s what makes it yours.