By Karen Barna
Taking into consideration my previous two posts, on medical criminal conspiracy and radio transmitting implants we can now apply the philosophy of stubborn attachment and bodily subjection. Consider the following:
In the lord and the bondsman, and we have been given to understand these discrepant figures as deferentially positioned with respect to bodily life. The bondsman appears as an instrumental body whose labor provides for the material conditions of the lord’s existence, and whose material products reflect both the subordination of the bondsman and the domination of the master. In a sense, the lord postures as a disembodied desire for self-reflection, one who not only requires the subordination of the bondsman in the status of an instrumental body, but who requires in effect that the bondsman be the lord’s body, but be it in such a way that the lord forgets or disavows his own activity in producing the bondsman, a production which we will call a projection.
This forgetting involves a clever trick. It is an action by which an activity is disavowed, yet, as an action, it rhetorically concedes the very activity that it seeks to negate. To disavow one’s body, to render it “Other” and then to establish the “Other” as an effect of autonomy, is to produce one’s body in such a way that the activity of its production – and its essential relation to the lord – is denied. This trick or ruse involves a double disavowal and an imperative that the “Other” become complicit with this disavowal. In order not to be the body that the lord presumably is, and in order to have the bondsman posture as if the body that he is belongs to himself – and not be the orchestrated projection of the lord – there must be a certain kind of exchange, a bargain or deal, in which ruses are enacted and transacted. In effect, the imperative to the bondsman consists in the following formulation: you be my body for me, but do not let me now that the body you are is my body. An injunction and contract are here performed in such a way that the moves which guarantee the fulfillment of the injunction and the contract are immediately covered and forgotten.
At the close of the section on lordship and bondage, the bondsman labors away in a repetitive fashion on objects that belong to the lord. In this sense, both his labor and his products are presumed from the start to be other than his own, expropriated. They are given away prior to any possibility of giving them away, since they are, strictly speaking, never the bondsman’s to give. And yet, this “contract”* in which the bondsman substitutes himself for the lord becomes consequential; the substitution itself becomes formative of and for the bondsman. As the bondsman slaves away and becomes aware of his own signature on the things that he marks, he recognizes in the form of the artifact that he crafts the markings of his own labor, markings that are formative of the object itself. His labor produces a visible and legible set of marks in which the labor produces a visible and legible set of marks in which the bondsman reads back from the object a confirmation of his own formative activity. This labor, this activity, which belongs from the start to the lord, is nevertheless reflected back to the bondsman as his own labor, a labor that emanates from him, even if it appears to emanate from the lord.
In this way what we witness is nothing more than the psychic life of the bondsman repetitively acting out the events of his or her psychic past, a past when he came under the production of his previous lord. These behaviors are nothing more than a re-enactment of an individuals past narcissistic wound or wounds which are projecting out onto “Other.” This information holds important and significant weight in regards to my personal case evaluation, while it seemed that I had become “mentally ill” while under the use of electronic spinal cord stimulation, it was just the re-creation of an illusion or the acting out of a delusional fantasy. An illusion or delusion, either way, that the bondsman had come under from the psychic rule of his former lordship, and one in which he or she sought to carry out through repetitious drives. The repetition of victimizing individuals for his or her own sadistic and narcissistic needs and pleasure is what marks the method of operation or MO or what Hegel called “the bondsman own signature.”
Can, then, the lord reflected back be said finally to be the bondman’s own? Remember that the lord has disavowed his own laboring being, his body as n instrument of labor, and has established the bondsman as the one who will occupy the lord’s body for him. In this sense, the lord has contracted the bondsman as a surrogate or substitute. The bondsman thus belongs to the lord, but with a kind of belonging that cannot be avowed, for to avow the belongings would be to avow the substitution and, hence, to expose the lord as being the body which the lord apparently very much does not want to be. Hence, it is a substitute in the service of disavowal that the bondsman labors; only by miming and covering over the mimetic status of that labor can the bondsman appear to be both active and autonomous. Indeed, the object emerges as the objectification of the bondsman’s labor, and thus as an instance of that labor, a congealing and reflection of that labor. But what, then, does the object reflect? Is it the autonomy of the bondsman? Or is it the dissimulated effect of autonomy that results from the contract made between the lord and bondsman? In other words, if the bondsman effects autonomy through a miming of the lord’s body, a miming which remains hidden from the lord, then the “autonomy” of the slave is the credible effect of this dissimulation. The object of labor thus reflects the autonomy of the bondsman to the extent that the object, too, covers over the dissimulation which is the activity of the bondsman. In his work, then, the bondsman discovers or reads his own signature, but what is it that marks that signature as his own? The bondsman discovers his autonomy, but he does not (yet) see that his autonomy is the dissimulated effect of the lord’s. (Nor does he see that the lord’s autonomy is itself a dissimulation: the lord effects the autonomy of disembodied reflection and delegates the autonomy of embodiment to the bondsman, thus producing two “autonomies” that appear at the outset radically to exclude one another.)
Of course, when it comes to the psychic life of our early childhood ego formation, we can only confront that which is made visible to us to see fully. A person can discover “his own signature,” those things which make-up his authentic self that are apart and separate from the lord, but this is usually achieved during psychoanalysis or undergoing the ‘loss of the lord’s enslavement’ through the ‘loss of object.’
If we are to understand the forming of the object as the inscribing of the bondsman’s signature, the formative principle of the object to be the formation of his signature, then the bondsman’s signature designates a domain of contested ownership. This is his mark, which he can read we shall let the bondsman occupy the site of presumptive masculinity), and so the object appears to belong to him. Yet this object marked by him, which has his mark on it, belongs to the lord, at least nominally. The bondsman signs, as it were, for the lord, as a proxy signatory, as a delegated substitute. Thus the signature does not seal ownership of the object by the bondsman, but becomes the site for the redoubling of ownership and, hence, sets the stage for a scene of contestation.
This becomes important when dealing with what I’ve come to call “high tech high-jacking” of a person’s body and personal will through electronic devices that emit signals and thus can manipulate a person’s body, will, and mind. Who is really doing the creating? If the bondsman is not in control of his own body, and the outside influence or stimuli acting upon his body and mind through electro-magnetic signals are creating a situation, one that is not in favor for his own independence, then it is not the bondsman who is responsible the creation of the ’object’ it is the lord who is ruling over the bondsman wielding the electro-magnetic power.
There are two paradigms to consider in this scenario. One is benevolence and the other is malevolence. In the paradigm of benevolence, for there is no pain and suffering at the hands of this electro-magnetic power (and one in which Marvel Comics created the super hero Magneto was created in association with X-Men and one in which the character could control magnetic fields).** In this scenario the bondsman may create the an ‘object’ and it may look beautiful, but without the aid of electronic signals would the person have created it or have created is so beautifully? In this scenario it seems to be his mark, his signature. In the other paradigm, the one of malevolence, the bondsman performs outstandingly, he has a high work ethic, but the de-activation of or inhibition of the neural pathways through the use of electro-magnetic signals, so as to stunt, retard, or demean a person’s ability, work ethic, or performance causes much physical and personal pain and suffering to the bondsman. In this scenario it seems to be the ‘poor work’ of the bondsman through the use of his mark, his signature, but the bondsman is not the one who is in control of the events that are creating these ‘marks’ or ‘signatures’ upon the ‘object,’ it is the lord reigning over him.
Regarding my personal case study, I have encountered both paradigms and in my opinion they were nothing more than an attempt to create the “illusion” of wellness in front of onlookers when it was desirable, and then to create the “illusion” of illness at another time for sadistic personal pleasure or for maybe some other reason. It is my personal belief that this technology was being used to create, control, manipulate, and exploit individuals for personal gain or personal pleasure.
The mark or sign on the object is not simply the property of the bondsman – this object with this mark on it implies for him that he is a being who marks things, whose activity produces a singular effect, a signature, which is irreducibly his. That signature is erased when the object is given over to the lord, who stamps it with his name, owns it, or consumes it in some way. The working of the slave is thus to be understood as a marking which regularly unmarks itself, a signatory act which puts itself under erasure at the moment in which it is circulated, for circulation here is always a matter of expropriation by the lord. The slave, of course, from the start has been working for another, under the name or sign of some other, and so has been marking the object with his own signature under a set of conditions in which that signature is always already erased, written over, expropriated, resignified.
It is this creation of lordship and bondage with the implementation of electro-magnetic frequency signals. Here is my case scenario, I sit down to learn, research, and study. I create works that help me to understand and work through the problems I am encountering. What is happening to me and what is going on in my environment, is a systematic routinely effected outcome through the use of electro-magnetic frequency signals, signals that seem to try and erase or erode memory and effect performance for the creation of an “illusion.” They may refute this claim by saying the alcohol is effecting my memory or memory recall or that I am falling in out of “delusional states,” but it is not the case. It is the combination of factors that are coming into play that are effecting my progress. This technology is effecting regions of my brain that are responsible for language and language recall. When I come under the power of electro-magnetic frequency it makes me studder, it makes it difficult for me to read sentences and comprehend. It could be argued that communication, through the use of language, both written or verbal, is a super human power. Man has harnessed the ability to take from individuals this super human power of expression and language. In any event, I am in bondage with a absolute sovereign lord reigning over me with a veiled electro-magnetic hand. One that seeks to punish and penalize me for behaviors that are beneficial to human growth and development.
*For the purpose of philosophical discussion this “contract” can be written, spoken or unspoken. Observations in behavior will indicate the presence of an unspoken or spoken contractual relationship.
**The perpetrator and actor of this crime may be suffering from a delusional state of omnipotence in which he or she may feel like a “god,” also known as suffering from a “god complex.” This state is derived from feelings of impotency and lack of control in his or her own life, especially during childhood.