Slime

DynamicsGeneration,Mutation,and

theCreepofLife

Slime

DynamicsGeneration,Mutation,and

theCreepofLife

BenWoodard

Winchester,UKWashington,USA

FirstpublishedbyZeroBooks,2012

ZeroBooksisanimprintofJohnHuntPublishingLtd.,LaurelHouse,StationApproach,Alresford,Hants,SO249JH,UK

office1@jhpbooks.netwww.johnhuntpublishing.com

www.zero-books.netFordistributordetailsandhowtoorderpleasevisitthe‘Ordering’sectiononourwebsite.

Textcopyright:BenWoodard2011ISBN:9781780992488

Allrightsreserved.Exceptforbriefquotationsincriticalarticlesorreviews,nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanymannerwithoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublishers.TherightsofBenWoodardasauthorhavebeenassertedinaccordancewiththeCopyright,

DesignsandPatentsAct1988.ACIPcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

Design:StuartDaviesPrintedandboundbyCPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY

Weoperateadistinctiveandethicalpublishingphilosophyinallareasofourbusiness,fromourglobalnetworkofauthorstoproductionandworldwidedistribution.

IntroductionSlimeAscent

“Aslongashumankindrecklesslyproceedsinthefatefuldelusionofbeingbiologicallyfatedfortriumph,nothing

essentialwillchange.”-PeterWesselZapffe,TheLastMessiah

“Lifeisnotevenmeaningless.”-HermanTønnessen,“HappinessisforthePigs”

Millions of years ago, above a recently hardened earth, gases in the atmosphere reduced and thenwereexposedtosolarandotherformsofenergy,allowingthecreationoforganiccompoundssuchasnucleicandaminoacids,whichwouldeventuallyinteractleadingtothefirstformsoflife.Theseglobsofswarmingproto-lifewithintheprimevaloceans“regulatedbyprinciplesofphysicsforself-organizing systems” provided the template for all organic being and all eventual thought on theplanetEarth.1

Despitethefactthathumansgraduallyascendedfromtheseclusteredpondsofooze,slime,asbothageneralnameforalife-generativeandsemi-solidsubstanceinthephysicalsenseandthedisgustoflife,theostensiblegrossnessoforganicbeinginametaphysicalsense,slimeremainssomethingtobeleft behind and forgotten. This is despite the fact that humans are well aware of the fact that ourindividualbiologicalgenesesconsistoftheunceremoniousmixtureofslimybiologicalcomponents(of spermandegg); sexualprocreationbeinganobviousexampleof thedisgustingyetgenerativearticulationofslime-as-lifeandlife-as-slime.

Whileitwouldbeimpossibletoexhaustivelyexplorethenumerousreligiousandculturalvestigesitcanbearguedthatbothreligiousandculturaldiscourseassertthateitherwearenotslimyor,ifweare,wecanescapeoursliminess throughculture,aesthetics, juridical systems,piety,abstinence,orthenextlifeifneedbe.

The part of this abandonment of slime we will explore results from a misconstrued sense ofevolution: the sense that our sliminess can simply be shed over time, evolution as perpetualbettermentinsteadoflocaladaptation.AsStephenJayGoulddescribes“Thevauntedprogressoflifeis really random motion away from simple beginnings, not directed impetus toward inherentlyadvantageouscomplexity.”2Anassumptionofeventualperfectionattemptstoridhumanbeingofnotonlyanaccidentalbeginningbutofitsbasematerialnature.

Whiletheculturalandreligiousresistanceswouldclearlyobstructanyassertionthatourexistenceasaspeciesisonlymaterialandaccidental,whatissurprisingisthatintellectualadventureswhichsetouttobemorerationalsuchasscienceandphilosophyarethemselvesguiltyofrefusingtoacceptthetenuous andmaterial moorings of humanity. That is, regardless of scientific or other intellectualdiscoveries it seems that humansmust, for the sake of pride or simply life-justification, retain aninherentmeaningfulness.

Thequestionoflife’smeaningleadsustotheproblemofwhataboutlifemakesitlife?Thisopensuptheproblemofemergence—whatisitexactlythatisemergingfromtheslimepools?Emergencecanbedefined as the arisingor generationof complex entities or systems from less complex subsystemsorlesscomplexentities.Or,putmoredirectly,emergenceallowsathingtobemorethanthesumofitsparts.Thatis,atsomepointinorganicentitiescombine(underveryspecificenvironmentalconditions) to create organic systemswhich then interact and become life.Eventuallywe go fromchemicalcompoundstosomethinglikeavirus(selfreplicatingbutoftennotconsideredalive)tolifeasa self contained, self replicatingentitywhichgrowsandchangesbyborrowingenergy from its

environment. Emergence is the theoretical explanation of these jumps. Emergence is generallydivided intoweak emergence and strong emergence.Weak emergence implies that the novelty orchange observed can be traced to the specific results of its component parts.An example ofweakemergencewouldbeexplainingthestructureofasnowballfromthestructureofasnowflakegivenatmosphericchangesovertime.Thereisnothingseeminglynewaboutthesnowballgivenwhatweknow about snow, it is merely an arrangement of smaller parts into something larger. Weakemergencemeansthatnewpropertiesariseinaphysicalsystemarereducibletothecomponentsofthatsystem.

Strong emergence on the other hand suggests a certain irreducibility arising from a system’scomponents.Theprimaryexampleherewouldbeconsciousnessorevenlifeitself.

That is, an emergent account of consciousnesswould argue that consciousness arose from thework of synapses and neurons but would assert, contrary to what reductionists claim, thatconsciousness is essentially beyond thematerial capacities of neurophysiology. Strong emergencewouldholdthatthought,onsomelevel,escapesthelimitsofitsphysicalcomponents.

Atfirstglance,theconceptofstrongemergenceappearsasoneofthelast(andstrongest)bastionsofanthropocentricism,ofdemanding thathumanitydeserves,orautomaticallyoccupies,aplaceofmetaphysicalorspiritualimportance.Rathertheissueistreatingphenomenonontheirownlevel,thatis,explainingaprocessofdigestionchemicallydoesnotexplaintheactivityofananimalactinginordertoconsumefood.3

Engaging with levels of existence can easily lead back to a formulation of existence wherehumanity reigns on high, if for no metaphysical reason, then for our technological or artisticcapacity.

It should come as no surprise that even after the numerous dethronings of Man: Copernicusknockingusoutofthecenteroftheuniverse(intheheliocentricmodelofthesolarsystem),DarwinkickingusfacefirstintothepointlesschanceofevolutionandofFreudunthreadingtherationalityofourownmindsthathumanitystillattemptstoremainresolutelyimmunetothebasenessrealityoflifeandmatter.

Steven Johnson’s text Emergence begins with Toshiyuki Nakagaki’s work on slime molds inwhichhetrainedoneoftheblob-likecreaturestofindthemostefficientpaththroughamazetowardsafoodsourcedespitethegooeyorganism’slackofcognitivefunction.4AsJohnsonpointsout,slimemolds have attractedmuch attention since they function as both individual cells andmulti-cellularorganisms.5Slimemould behavior questions the very division between life component and life assuchespeciallywhentheyappeartoactwithintent,whentheygetbetterandbetteratsolvingthemaze.

Forhumans, themindless functioningof life, oforganismsmoving towardsgoalswithout anyformofintelligence,ofcreaturesthatfunctioninacompletelybottomupfashionreassertsnotonlytheaccidenceofthoughtbutalsothought’sunimportanceforsurvival.Inotherwords,theveryideathatsimplisticformsoflifecanaccomplishwhatseemstouscomplexbehaviorsraisesthequestion:towhatdegreeishigherintelligenceasignificantadvantage?That is, the ideaofcomplexbehaviorwithoutanintelligenceguidingit isostensiblydishearteninginthatchanceandcoincidencesurpasstelosanddestinyandyet,atthesametime,ifemergenceisessentiallypatternrecognitionthequestionbecomeswhetheremergenceismerelyanobjectiveorsubjectivecategory.Doesemergencemerelydescribe shifting patterns of complexity that only appear to us as new or does emergencemake adifferenceintheworld,inanontologicaloratleastnon-sensorialway?

Inregardstobiologyemergencesuggestsanon-intentionalbehaviororsetofbehaviorsbetweenalready constituted objects. Take for example ants in an ant colony which we know as individualorganisms and observe as a swarm of ants.A swarm is a pattern that necessitates an empirically

decidedboundarybeplacedonthemovingobject(thatis,whatcountsasapartmustbedecided).Aswarmmustbeaswarmofsomething.Aswarm’sbehaviorisaresultoftheactionsoftheindividualthings in relation to its proximity to other individuals. A flock of birds for instance occurs notbecauseofanycentralizedcoordinationbutbecausethebirdsfollowindividualneedsinthevicinityofothersbirdsbenefitingthemselvesandoneanother.Whileincollectiveanimalbehavioritiseasytodistinguishthecomponentsoftheswamorflock,theabilitytotellobjectfromnon-objectcentersonthedividebetweenweak(orepistemologicalemergence)andstrong(orontologicalemergence).

Inphysics,for instance, it isamatterofdebatewhethersubatomicparticlescanbedescribedasobjects or whether they are merely points or zero dimensional objects. But is a point, or zero-dimensionalobject,differentfromthenameofthethingitselfasapoint?Thatis,whendoweknowwhenhavearrivedatthefundamentalpartofanyhuman-definedthingorobjectorbody?

Toreturntothequestionoflifeanditscreation,islifeontologicallyemergentorisitanidentityand not a fact since we cannot say why life emerges but only that once a life emerges (and isclassified as human, monkey, etc.) we can then distinguish its identifiable existence from itscomponents.Wemustquestionthenwhatkindofdifferencesare‘real’orwhatisitaboutparticularspecies that have real effectsversuspatternswhichonlygroupmovementsvia categories. In otherwords,theidentityoflifemustbedecided,aswellasthatofun-life.

AsJackCohenandIainStewart(mathematicianandbiologistrespectively)pointoutintheirtextCollapse of Chaos, the difficulty lies in discovering the complexity of simplicity. Emergence iscommonly opposed to reductionism, to the theory that phenomena can be explained by its lessercomponents that “a collection of interacting components can ‘spontaneously’ develop collectivepropertiesthatseemnottobeimplicitinanywayintheindividualpieces.”6CohenandStewartpointout however thatwithout knowingwhat ismeant by simplicity, by simple components, emergencemeansverylittle.CohenandStewartacknowledgethathumanstendtocreatepatternsbysmoothingoutfluctuationsintheirobservableworld7andthatpatternsareafterallideals.8

Ontheotherhandreductionismexplainsthehowbutnotthewhyoflifesinceitdoesnottakeintoaccounttheresultingfeedbackeffectsofexternalityonthedevelopmentoflife.AsanexampleCohenand Stewart compare the eyes of herbivores to those of carnivores. They argue that where areductionistexplanationwouldtellushowtheeyesdevelopedviaDNAandbiochemistryitwouldnotexplainthatevolutionarilyherbivoreswitheyesatthesideoftheirheadtowatchforpredatorsthrivedasdidcarnivoreswitheyesthatfacedforwardandthereforewereusefulforhunting.9

On a large scale Cohen and Stewart point out that evolution and emergence have created alandscapewherespaceandcompetingspeciescreatebottlenecksandbridgesthatleadtoconvergenceoverridingcontingencyindifferingeco-spaces.10TheconclusionsthatCohenandStewartdrawfromtheseargumentsleadtoassertionsabouthumansthatseemtoleantowardsaformofanthrocentrism.Theywrite: “The patterns that our brains perceive are accurate representations of large chunks ofrealitybecauseourbrains and senseorgans evolved thatway.”11This argument seems to shed thehaphazard nature of human evolution in that it assumes that convergence overrides the contingentfactorsofevolution.Thatis,thejumpbetweenanimalshavingstrategicallyorientedeyesandhumanshaving a brain that can understand, even indirectly, the deep structures of the universe, seemssomewhatdubious.RayBrassier,whoseworkwewill engage heavily towards the end of this textcommentsonthisproblemalbeitinaphilosophicalcontext:“Thechiefobstaclestandinginthewayof a proper scientific understanding of the physical world would seem to be that of our species’inbuilt tendency to process information via epistemic mechanisms which invariably involve anoperationofsubtractionfromtheimperceptiblephysicalwhole.”12Inotherwords,humanknowledgeobtainedthroughobservationtendstobecontouredbythefactthatwethinkandobserveaccordingto

ourownperceptibleworldandconcerns.Toreturntobiology,GaryMarcusmakesclearinhistextKluge, thatthehumanbrainisonlya

slapped together piece of faulty machinery, where adaptation and development are a response tothreatsmore than anything and that ourminds are always built upon pre-existing structures.13 ForCohen and Stewart convergence points towards deeper structures since those structures influenceconvergence forMarcus and others, context just as easily leads our brains away from any deeperunderstandingoftheuniversetowardsquickanddirtysurvivaltacticsmeantfortheshortterm.

The issue then becomes one of navigating reductionism, mechanism, and emergence withoutlapsingintoanthropicassertionsaboutthenatureoftheuniverseorunrealisticallycheer-leadingourownepistemiccapacities.Whilewecouldagreethatthemindiscausedbybutcannotbederivedfromfinestructuresandrulesthisfactdoesnottrumpthosefinestructures.14Wecannotsaythatemergenceisontologicalinregardstolifebutonlythatitisepistemological.15Thequestionishowdowedivideourmentalcapacitiesfromtherealityoftheuniverse–orhownaturallyintunewiththeuniverseisconsciousthought,orisitever?

At this point it becomesnecessary (or at least prudent) to step from science to philosophy anddefine the general philosophical approach of the following text as aligned with the emergingmovementofSpeculativeRealism.SpeculativeRealismnamesacollectionofdisparatealternativestothe dominance ofwhatQuentinMeillassoux names correlationism.Correlationism is the assertionthat theremustbea reciprocal relationbetween thinkingandwhat is thought, that“therecanbenocognizablerealityindependentlyofourrelationtoreality.”16

Theanti-correlationist,whatwecouldalsocallanti-anthropocentric,assertionwewillmakehereisonefollowingIainHamiltonGrant(oneoftheoriginalfourSpeculativeRealistthinkersalongwithRayBrassier,GrahamHarmanandtherecentlymentionedMeillassoux)statingthatsomethingmustexistpriortothinkingandthatsomethingisnature.17Inaseeminglybackwardsmoveinregardstothequestionoflife,theapproachtothinkingthisnaturewillbeoneofvitalismnotascenteringonanenigmaticlife-forcebutascenteringon,discoveringand,understandingtheforceswhichoperateonandwithinlife.VitalismprovidesaformalizationofourignoranceandperhapsafundamentalgaporinabilitytocompletelygrasptheReal,theactualdeeprealityoftheuniverse,ofourselves,ofwhatwecallnatureandourplacementwithinit.

Astheguidingthemeofthistext,Iproposeanoddmetaphysicalconstructopposedtoemergenceandthatisatonceasimultaneousresurrectionandmutilationofvitalism.Traditionallyvitalismdoesnot seem too different from emergentism in that both suggest there is something more to life,somethingthatdrivesand/oraffectslifethatisnotpurelyreducibletotheclassifiablecomponentsoflifeitself.Thetwohavebeengroupedtogetherbycriticsandproponentsalike.

Thevitalismwewillbepursuinghereavoidsthisconnectinthat it isnotatheorythatassertsavitalsubstanceorstuffthatpropelslifeforward,butthatthevitalforceistimeanditseffectonspace.Thisatfirstmayseemnotlikeavitalismatallbutthefocusofthisprojectistoprovetheeffectsofthe temporal-spatialconstructionofexistenceon lifeasnotmerely the forceof,buta forceactingupon life that provides a rigorously deanthropomoprhizing way of thinking. We will show thataccounting for time and space does not undo vitalism but pushes it to its logical philosophicalconclusion.

The contemporary philosophical orientation of vitalism is most associated with the work ofGillesDeleuzeandFelixGuattariandit isagainst theiruseof thetermthatwemustfirstsetout tointroduce our own spatio-temporal version outlined above. InWhat is Philosophy? Deleuze andGuattaridescribevitalismassplitbetweenan“Ideathatactsbutisnotandaforcethatisbutdoesnotact.”18

In the first half ofDeleuze andGuattari’s damnation of vitalism, vitalism ismerely a guidingconceptwithoutanysortofmaterialconsequence.In thesecondhalf ithasamaterialsubstancebutonethathasnodiscernibleimpact.DeleuzeandGuattari’sattackcanbetracedtoacommentbytheFrenchthinkerHenryBergsonwhoinhistextCreativeEvolutionnotesthatvitalismaddsnothingtochange or to the emergence of life since life’s stages can be described by heredity. The FrenchphenomenologistMauriceMerleau-PontyinhislecturesonnatureaddedandexpandedonBergson’saccountpointingoutthatoneglaringissuewithvitalismisitsdisregardofspace–thatitisassumedthatsomelively(butnon-physical)substance(anélanvital)wasmovedacrossspace,thatitaffectedorganismswithoutanyconcernforthespatialrestraintsofbiologicalreality.

Summedup,forDeleuze,Guattari,BergsonandMerleau-Ponty,vitalismcannotbeathing(sincegenesarewhatispassedon,notlifeitself)anditcannotbeaforcebecauseitsaysnothingaboutlifeitselfasaforce,onlythatitdevelopsbutnothow.Whatalltheaforementionedcritiquesleaveoutistime as somethingbeyond thoughtwhich is the force of vitalism (life emerges over time) and thesubstance of vitalism is not the germ plasm trumping heredity but space as it is filled by life. Aspatializationofvitalismsimplypoints to the fact that anorganismattempts to extend itself acrossspacethroughgrowth,mutation,andreproduction.Atemporalizationofvitalismlikewisecanbeseenasthefactthatlifehappenswithtimeandthattimemeansthebirthaswellasthedeathofallthings.

H.P. Lovecraft, whose fiction will occupy much of the third chapter, was also disdainful ofvitalism,placingitsomewherebetweenthemythicalandthepoetic.19Thiswasmostlyduetothevitalforcebeingtakenasessentiallyspiritualandnotenergetic,asafundamentallynon-scientificvitalismtherebyopposingLovecraft’sownadamantespousalofmechanismanddeterminism.

FinallytheaforementionedconstructionofvitalismcanbetakenasaresponsetoonemorestrikeagainstvitalismfromthenaturephilosopherF.W.J.Schelling,whocommentedthataforceofnature(vitalism)isaselfcontradictoryconceptinthataforcemustbeopposed,orinrelativeequilibrium,orinperpetualconflict,arguingthatvitalismmetnoneofthesecriteria.20Sincespaceandtimeworktogether and upon one another we can therefore claim that this formulation of vitalism passesSchelling’srigorousrubric.

Howdowefurtherexplicatevitalism,bringitintocontactwithrealityandraiseitfromitsspatio-temporal philosophical obscurity? Vitalism, as it has been articulated here, is a minimalistmetaphysics which operates on reality byway of following an ontological cascademirroring thecosmologicalprogressionof forcesandmatters.At the rootof thisvitalism is the forceof forcesfollowingfromanoriginalOne,aOnenotasapureunificationbutthepossibilityof‘isness’itselfstemming from the original simultaneous explosion of time and space as well as the resultingemanations,immanences,emergencesandtranscendences.

That is, vitalism is a mental shadow of the progression of the universe, from the speculativemomentbefore theBigBang,asahighlycondensedmass, to itsextension into timeandspaceandmatter,tobiologicallife,andfinallytoreflectivethinking.Theabovementionedontologicalcascademoves(inphilosophicalterms)fromtheReal,toMateriality,toSense,andfinallytoExtilligence.Or,put in terms of the levels of the reality itmirrors, from bare existence as only possibility, to theconfigurations of matter and energy, to the interaction of stimulus and sense, ending with theextension of ontic being via symbols, structures, technologies, et cetera. The degenerate take onvitalismandtheNeo-PlatonicOnewillbetakentogetherasadarkvitalism.Butwhatisitaboutthisconceptualizationofvitalismthatmakesitdarkexactly?

Partoftheworkofadarkvitalismisthesickeningrealizationofaninhospitableuniverse,statingthat the production of life as an accidental event in time which is then contorted and bent by thebanality of space, of our particular (and just as accidental) universal geometry and then furtherravagedbyaccident,context,feedbackandthedegradationofwearandage.

Thedarkofdarkvitalismisthusthreefold:

1

–Itisdarkbecauseitisobscuredbothbynature(whoistosaythatwecandivineandcomprehendthedetailsoftheuniversefromourlimitedbrains)andbytime(weareatatemporaldisadvantageintryingtodiscernthecreationofallthings)sincethecauseofmostofthenatureweknowhasfallenbackintothedeeppast.

2

–Itisdarkbecauseitspellsbadnewsforthehumanraceintermsofourorigin(wearejustclevermonkeysthatemergedasaresultofaseriesofbiologicalandcosmologicalluckybreaks),ourmeaning(wearejustmeatpuppetsbasedonourconstruction),andourultimatefate(Earthwilldieandwewillprobablyperishifnotwithittheneventuallywiththeuniverse).

3–Itisdarkonanaestheticandexperientiallevelourpsychologicalandphenomenologicalexistenceisdarkenedandlessfriendlytous,andtoourperceptions,giventhedestructivenessoftimeandspace.

It is the third claim which this text will work hardest to prove focusing primarily on biologicalsciences and biological examples within popular culture through a collection of lurid culturalartifacts.

The first chapter engages the internality of dark vitalism through the unseen and unsettlinginteriorproductivityof life throughmitochondria,bacteria, contagionand the like. I explore filmssuch asOutbreak, survival horror games (Deadspace, Resident Evil, Parasite Eve) and real lifeexamples of viruses to illustrate the terrifying interiority of the microscopic sliminess of humanbeings.IdiscusshowthisrelatestothequestionofimmanenceandemergencefollowingCohenandStewart’sCollapseofChaosandKeithAnsellPearson’sbiophilosophy.

Imove from the interior to theexterior, lookingat the spatial creepof fungoid lifediscussingvariousworksofweirdfictionbyThomasLigotti,WillliamHopeHodgsonandStanleyWeinbaumtodemonstratetheunnervingspatialityofmoldsandfungus.IwilldiscussRezaNegarestani’sthoughtson decay and rot and argue against Michel Henry’s phenomenological and human privilegingconceptualizationoflife.

In the third chapter I argue againstGaia-inspired theories of the earth and how the generativefunctionsoflifearerestrictedbyanthropism.Ilookattheunrestrictedorganicismofsciencefictivemonsters (theZerg,Species8472, theTyranidsandYuuzhanVong)aswellasH.P.Lovecraft’sOldOnes in order to demonstrate the interspatial horror of theorganic. In this section Iwill focus onSchellingIainGrant’stextonhim.

I concludewith a discussion of Freud’s Vesicle, Lacan’s Lamella and IainGrant’s “Being andSlime” as describing the relation of slime to thought calling for an extension of Negarestani’sCthuluoidethicsandBrassier ’sconclusionofNihilUnbound inwhichhe calls for a cosmologicalextensionofthedeathdrive.

The following text aims to be less about slime itself than bout the sliminess of life, of theinevitable biological and physical constraints on living in aworld that, in oneway or another, isalwaysabeing-towards-extinction.Slimeitself,aswehaveseen,isalwaysatossapartoflifemeanttobeleftbehindTherehasalwaysbeenanattempttoexternalizeoozeandslimeandsludgebutthiseffortcannotgraspnorundothesliminessofslimeasinternaltolifeitself.Thisprojectisinsteadavitiationofanyorderlyconceptualizationoflife;itisacelebrationandliberationofslimeinallitsdisgustingflows.

1TheNightmarishMicrobial

“[Diseases]crucifythesoulofman,attenuateourbodies,drythem,witherthem,shrivelthemuplikeoldapples,makethem

assomanyanatomies.”-RobertBurton,AnatomyofMelancholy

“DiseaseistheretributionofoutragedNature.”-HoseaBallou

Inhisessay“TheEvolutionofLifeonEarth”StephenJayGouldtakesissuewiththepopulardelusionthat lifeadvances fromonedominant form toanother, frombacteria to invertebrates, to reptilesetcetera,eventually‘ending’orpeakinginthehumanorganism.21Gouldpointsoutthatwewillneverescapetheageofbacteria,weareonlyanaccidentaloutgrowthasaresultofepisodicandpointlessaddition.22

Hegoesontosay“Ourimpressionthatlifeevolvestowardgreatercomplexityisprobablyabiasinspiredbyparochial focusonourselves,andconsequentoverattention tocomplexifyingcreatures,while we ignore just as many lineages adapting equally well by becoming simpler in form.”23Gould’s point is essentially that complexity does not imply evolutionary success. Despite ourintellectualadvantagesitistheminusculethathasbiologicaldominionovertheearthnotonlyintheexteriorizedmicroorganic nature (theworld out there) but also as that which comprises our ownhumaninteriorsintermsofthemolecular,cellular,andthemicro-organic.Inthefollowingchaptermy aim is to explore the tiniest forms of life and how their behavior alone and across networks(biologicalandnonbiological)runcountertoaphilosophicallypositivearticulationoflife.

To begin, mitochondria, which are often referred to as the power plants of cells, are smallorganelles (parts of the cell) which generate the chemical fuel needed for a cell’s activities.Mitochondriahavemuchincommonwithprokaryeotes,organismssuchasbacteriawhichlacknucleiin their cells. The somewhat alien nature of organelles has led to the development of theendosymbiotictheorywhichassertsthatorganelleswere,atonepoint,separateorganismsthatwerelaterincorporatedintocells.Theseparateorganismsmadetheeventualtransitionfromacooperativenetworktoanintegratedcell.

Thesymbioticisonlyonestepawayfromtheparasitic,aclosenessexploredviatheparasiticandviolentpotentialofmitochondriainHideakiSenai’snovel,andthesubsequentgameseries,ParasiteEve. Senai makes the odd jump of saying that mitochondria form a kind of super organism(somethingwewilladdressfurtheron)andthatwiththeirgenerativecapacitycancausespontaneouscombustion.NickLandelaborates:“Thedifferencebetweenparasitismandsymbiosisisveryslippery[...]Merelycontributingtostabilitycanbeconstruedasacooperativefunction,whilstattheotherpoletherecentmovieParasiteEveanticipates amitochondrial insurgency– triggered at a threshold ofbiomolecularscience–thatunmasksthe‘symbiotic’mitochondriaasstrategicparasites.”24ThemostinterestingaspectofParasiteEveisthatitpoints(albeithyperbolically)tothefactthatthedestructivecapacityoflife’ssmallestcomponentsareindissociablefromitsgenerativecapability.

Given the competitive violence of life’s productivity it seems ridiculous to assume that therewould be any sort of deep downharmony between life forms (whether psychic or not) across theglobeasallcreaturesareallbattlingforlimitedspaceandresourcesintheirindividualbiospheres.The interconnectedness of various life forms on the earth is a tenuous intermeshing based onopportunityandluckandnotduetoanyartificiallyimposedharmony.Fromthedisruptedfamiliarityofmitochondriawemovetothemoreexternalized,(atleastintermsofthebiologicalboundariesof

thehuman,ofournormalfunctioning)yetstillinternalvirustoexplorethehorrorofthenetworkandofinternality,thevirusbeinganobjectwhichpushesthenightmarishcapacityofnetworkedlifetoitslimits.

The virus, the viroid, the deadly bacterium, all crept into center stage prior to the turn of thetwentieth to the twentieth first century. The vague swarming of the deadly microbial and thesubsequent paranoia emerged alongside the rise of a globalized and interconnected world, whereproximityandspeedelevatedthepotencyandspreadofcontagion.Thepoliticalcorrelativetothisisthatthedisseminationofnationstatesandriseofglobalizationexacerbatedworriesoversecurity,ofthepermeabilityofone’sborders.That is,while themicrobial raisesworriesof internalbiologicaldamage,fearsoftheviralplacehumanbeingsinabiologicalecologyfullofunfriendlyentities.

Mediaepisodesofepidemicoutbreakpointtothemagnitudeofviralvoraciousnessbutoftenonlyindirectlyas therealobject in thespotlight is thecapacitiesofgovernmental infrastructure,what isbeing done or not done, to respond to the biological threat.Thus the attention is shifted from thepotential horror of viewing the collective biomass of the human race as only viral food, to thedemandsofourexternalcapabilitiesfoundintechnologygovernmentandreason.Endlessspeculativescenarios have paraded across various fictional stages exemplifying the apocalyptic capacities ofinfection:TheScarletPlague,TheMasqueof theRedDeath,TheAndromedaStrain,28DaysLater,Cabin Fever et cetera. Such mental exercises however do little justice to the realities of AIDS,Tuberculosis,Malaria,andInfluenzatoonlynameafewformsofvirallifewhichconsistentlyevadeeradication.

This interconnected disease-space meant a further stretching and clandestine malformation ofmilitarization, ofmilitary forces as themselvesmoving like small swarms undetected and largelyunseen. The two, the rampancy of the viral and the partial openness of globalization,meet in theschizoid possibility (and reality) of bio-weapons development illustrated finely in WolfgangPetersen’sepidemologicalsci-fifilmOutbreak.

In the opening scene ofOutbreak, a small village is fire bombed to contain the spread of afictional filvirade virus calledMotabawhich acts like Ebola andMarburgh, replicating at a rapidspeedandliquefyingtheinsidesofthevictims.Itsoonbecomesclear that thebombdidnotcontainthe virus and that the colossal systems of themilitary are ill equipped to contain the virus on thewhole.Butinsteadofadaptingtocontainthevirusthemilitaryonlywishestosampleandproducethediseaseasaviralweapon thereby redirecting thedestructionof thevirus rather thancontainingoreradicatingit.Theinterestingaspecthereis that thevirusisfaultyconfronted(bythemilitary)asaformofdeathandtreatedasaformoflifebythedoctorswhoultimatelysavetheday.Inotherwords,the virus and the infected bodies are collapsed inmilitary thinking whereas they are fundamentalseparateinmedicalthinking.Itismerelydestructibleontheonehandwhilecurableontheother.

To return to the themeofnetworkswhichbeganour engagementwith theviral, the closingofnetworkscanproduceresultsasstrangeandunpredictableasopeningthem.DuringtheGreatPlagueofEnglandthesmalltownofEyamquarantineditselfinordertostoporatleastslowthespreadoftheBubonicPlague.ThestrategycosttheinhabitantsofEyammorethanhalfoftheirpopulationbutas it now turnsout, the survivorsof theplaguemayhavepassedageneticmutationonto their kinwhichmayproveimmunetootherdeadlycontemporarycontagions.AsRezaNegarestaninotesinhisincomparable textCyclonopedia, radical openness to other forms of life (viral or otherwise) canbegin notwith an attitude of openness butwith radical closure, that one can be radically open bymakingoneselfatargetfromtheoutsideparadoxicallythroughisolation.25Thisradicalorepidemicopenness exists at thecostof economicopenness (ofbeingopen to a controllabledegree) therebynecessitatingthedestructionofanycleanconceptofsurvival.26AsNegarestanipointsoutsurvivalis

notagivenfollowingtheadventoflifebutis“intrinsicallyimpossible.”27Microbial life becomes an interiorizing network that does not slow or cease in the face of

survival but continually bores into and simultaneously in the name of life. The microbial is thenperhapsaparticularly insidiousexampleofaLatourianhybrid.AsGrahamHarmanpointsoutviaLatour,theattemptatdiscerningahybrid(thatis,anobjectcomprisedofboththenaturalandcultural)istheworkoftracingthecontoursofanetwork.28Orinotherwords,Latourforgoestheexplanatoryfictions of the natural and the cultural preferring to ascertain the nature of an object through itsrelationstootherentities.

This horror is found in the physical framework of the virus itself. The curable/destructableconfusionandthenetworkobfuscationofvirustransmissionmeetyetanotherambiguity–onewhichis within the virus itself. Debate still continues over whether viruses are organic compounds(components of life) or forms of life themselves.One can think back to our ant colony and theambiguitybetweenpartandwhole.WhilevirusescontainRNAorDNAtheyarenotmadeofcellsandreplicateonlybyhijackingcellsoforganismstospreadthemselves.

Wherethequalificationoflifemaybedifficulttoplaceonthevirus’squirmychainedbody,theeventofdiseaseis,asEugeneThackerpointsout,evenmorecomplexasitfunctionsonthemacrolevelasanassemblageof living formssuchas in thecaseof theBlackDeath, “bacillicus-flea-rat-human.”29

Fromahumanpointofviewitseemsunsettlingtoseevirusesasanotherformoflife(orevenanaggregateoflife-likecomponents)asopposedtoaparticularmaterializationofdeathparticularlyasviruses are something that regularly skirt the perimeter of humanity’s technological prowess—technologybeingthatwhichweusetosafeguardourselvesfromanaturesupposedlyseparatefromus and thus theoretically controllable and understandable. Viruses serve as an uncomfortablereminderofhowtenuousourso-calleddominionovernature turnsout tobe.Themicrobial isnotonlya terrifyingmeansofdeath(given its invisiblenature)butalsoakillingofdeath itself, in theputridobfuscationofcontagion.

Contagionbecomesneitherdeathnorlifebutprotractedlife,astateofneverquitebeingdead–anundeadness not of the living dead but of dead living. In his “Death as a Perversion” Negarestanispeaksofan“epidemicopenness”anopennessthatisnotanopentoothers,abeingopen,butabeinglaid open, being splayed open to the swarming perversion of death.30 This infected death31 is adisterminalized death, a darker articulation of the aforementioned protracted life, death becomescrackedopenandendless32asVictorHugowritesinregardstoapitofslimewhichmakesaman’sdeathseemshapeless.Contagionforceslifeanddeathintothesamegenerativeslime.

Viralproductivity anddecayarebothbound togetherby temporality asbothdisplay thehorridinwardaspectof lifewhich,asEugeneThackerarticulates inhisessay“Biophilosophyfor the21st

Century,” spreads across borders and boundaries.33 Thacker further elaborates in his text“Cryptobiologies” when he writes: “Microbes establish networks of infection within a body, andnetworks of contagion between bodies, and our modern transportation systems extend thatconnectivityacrossgeopoliticalborders.”34Again,theviralexercisesthenetworkednaturebetweenlifeandnon-lifeandbetweenpartandwholeunder thenameofcontagion.Therealandfantasticaltreatmentsofbio-weaponryareanindirectattempttoresolidifythemessinessofdisease.

Bioweaponry embraces the aforementioned split of treating contagion like death or life in thatbioweaponryextendstheprotracteddeathofcontagionthroughthebodyasThackermentionsabove.

In his text co-authored with Alexander Galloway, Thacker points out that naturally occurringdiseases are without a cause (besides nature) whereas bioweaponary points to a creator andpropagator.The concept of patient zerobecomes a pivot, or halfwaypoint between an apparently

malicious nature and a salacious human agent.35As the authors points out however, the similaritybetween the artificial and the natural viral outbreak is that neither one can have fully predictableconsequences.36

AgainfollowingThacker,contagionisparadoxicalinthatitdemandstheclosureofbordersandtheharshmanipulationofnetworks,despitethefactthatlifeitself(biologicallyandculturallyinthehuman sense) is defined by borrowing energy from the environment through the openness ofboundariesextendedthroughnetworks.Asalreadymentioned,theviralparticipatesinaradicalstateofbeingopen,anopennesscompletedbytheworkofdecayedlife,decaybeingthespreadingoutanddiffusionof containedor somatic life out into the biosphere as fertilizer.This decay ismolded inredirected with bioweaponry. The oldest known example of bioweaponry is that of catapultingcorpses into fortresses to spreaddiseaseand to smokeout theenemywith thesmellof rotand thedanger ofmiasma.37 In his “NineDisputations onHorror” Thacker points out thatmuch thinkingabouttheviruscentersontheinfectedbodynotonthevirusitself.38Thiscorporealizationreassertsthedivisionbetweenlifeandthevirus,crystalizingtheassumptionthatpathologyistheinverseoflifeandnotapartoflifeitself.39

Thacker ’scritiqueconnectswiththeexampleofOutbreak,inthatthefilmapproachesdiseaseinterm of infected bodies and not the infection itself. That is, it is the function of protracted deathextendedthroughdecaywhichbringstherancidopennessoftheviroidtoitsultimateconclusionofspreadingnotonlythediseasebutdecayandopeningsbeyondthelimitsofthebody,ofthecorporeal.Thatis,thequestionbecomeshowcorporealdoestheviralhavetobewithoutlooseningitscapacityforbiologicalopening,softening,anddecaying?

To move into stranger places – the more fantastically nightmarish microbial (vampire andzombie plagues, mind controlling parasites et cetera) which is tied to science fiction and horrorrealms,easilysuggeststhetemporalinvasionofspacebyadarkvitalismthroughcorrosivelifeinitstiniest forms. In this sense, even the tiniest organism embodies external forces which come frombeyondwhatisunderstoodintermsofnature.

The knot of competing productivity and decay is captured well in theResident Evil series ofgames.ResidentEvilcentersonvariousoutbreaksofbio-engineeredviruseswhich reanimatedeadtissuebyreplacing theonce livingorganism’smitochondria.ResidentEvil is theaffective/aestheticshortcircuitofthestrainofcompletivelifeandtheforcesofdeathanddecay.Thefactthatthegame’sT-Virusessentiallyzombifiesmakingthedead‘living’carriersof thedisease–isonesteptowardsde-materializingorde-corporealizationofthemicrobe,thevirusandsoforth.

As Thacker points out the recent variation of the game Resident Evil Outbreak (the firstmultiplayerResidentEvil)takestheconnectivityofthevirustotheconnectivityoftheinternet.40Thedumb blankness of an avatar gels nicely with the body to the point of death level of zombifiedvirology,beyondthisopenness,inNegarestani’ssensewouldnotberepresentableasbody.

The graphic novel and gameDead Space goes even further in its apt portrayal of such tinymonstersinitsnecromorphs–parasiteswhichtakecontrolandzombifydeadtissue–lifeformsthatactasadisease–asaninfectant–butinfactareanother(conscious)lifeformwhichhasnoconcernfor the fragility of human being(s) while recognizing (unlike the virus, the microorganism) theconsciousnessofhumans.Yet the twocannotbe easily cleaved fromeachother. The necromorphscontortandrefleshtheirvictimsreducingtheirhumanhostsnottozombichungerbuttoafeveronlytospreadtheprotracteddeathofnecromorphexistence.Furthermore,whereaszombiesarereliantonthereducedfacultiesoftheirbrainpointingtowardsatarget(removalofthehead)thenecromorphsmustbede-limbeduntil theycanno longermove.The strategyof combatingnot the center of theorganism but attacking the limbs can be connected to the Jihadi strategy of dieback machinery

articulated in Negarestani’s article “TheMilitarization of Peace: Absence of Terror or Terror ofAbsence?”41 The strategy of dieback which the necromorphs invoke is a self imposed witheringutilizing theexteriorityof thebody toprotect itsownviral interiority.Thenecromorphscannotbedestroyedonlytheirtransmissionvesselscanbehobbledandslowed.

Inregardstothephilosophicalconsiderationofcontagionmuchhasbeensendbutithastendedtowardsthepoetic.Themetaphysicalbattleistowrestthevirusfromitsbio-politcalmoorstothoseof bio-philosophy without falling into a philosophy of biology. Biopolitics is the means whichgovernmentalentitiesregulate,oratleastattempttoregulate,allaspectsofhumanlife(andargablynon-humanlife)whereaphilosophyofbiologyaskswhatislifeinthemostgenericsense.Thackerdifferentiatesbio-philosophyfromaphilosophyofbiologyinthattheformerthinksthe“peripheriesof life” and ontology whereas the latter attempts to think the question of what is life andepistemology.42Biophilosophyassertsthatlifeequalsmultiplicitywhich,asThackersuggests,canbetakenasarenewalofvitalismaprojectwhich,isobviouslyimportanttothetextathand.43

Yet the specter of the rejections and denouncements of vitalismmentioned in the introductionsuddenly appear in regards to the microbial. The work of Keith Ansell Pearson for instance, inallegiancetoitsBergsonianandDeleuzianrootscanbeseenaschampioning(at leastpartially) theknowing(epistemology)andethicsoflifeoverthebeing(ontology)oflifeparticularlyinregardtosmallformsoflife.

In his text Germinal Life, Pearson addresses the future of biophilosophy and yet thisbiophilosophyisseenaswhatmustbeethicalandopposedtowhathedefinesastwonihilisms.44 IntheopeningpagesofhistextPearsonalignshimselfinoppositiontoacertain“biologicalnihilism”whenhewritesthatDeleuze’sthoughtescapes“thegrimlawoflifeimplicitinWeismann’stheoryofthegerm-plasm”thatwouldcondemn‘individual’lifetotheeternalreturnofanihilisticfateandthatwoulddissipatetheforcesoftheoutsideandminimizetheirinfluence.”45

AugustWeissmann, a revolutionarybiologist of the early twentieth century, advocated a germ-plasm theorywhich stated thathereditary informationmoves fromgenes tobodycells (soma)andthat the soma or non-sex cells have no effect on hereditary information. The metaphysicalramificationsofWeissmann’stheoryisthattheessenceofthelifeform,whatisnotlost,isonlygivenin termsof reproduction, that thecreativepowerofanorganism isonlyever sexed.The Freudianconsequencesofthiswillbediscussedintheconclusion.

Following from his resistance to Weissmann, Pearson then sums up the thrust of his text asattemptingtocircumventthe“twonihilismsofmodernity,thepotentialnihilismofWeismann’sgerm-plasmic finality and the perceived nihilism of Freud’s death-drive.”46 The latter nihilism will beaddressedatthistext’sconclusionandinregardstotheformerwecanonlysaythatWeismanndoesnotgofarenough.GiventhefactthatWeissmann’sgerm-plasmsuggestssomeinfinitudetolifewemustanswerwith“morenihilism!”

WhereasWeissmann’sgerm-plasmassertsthediscardabilityofindividualbodiesfortheforceoflife,Pearsonsuggests thatDeleuze isconcernedwithanethics thatworks fromclearlymeaningfulbodies and hopes tomaximize the affective passions between them, to create an odddynamismofjoy.47Thatis,forDeleuzeandforPearson,itisnotenoughthatlifelivesonlytodieandperpetually(tillthedecoherenceofallmatterintheuniverse)refuelotherformsoflife.Inthissenselifeisgivena much more reserved openness than the openness of Negarestani and Thacker mentioned abovesince life needs a pushmore than adaptation and survival and is lamented in an ethics of affectivepassion, in life needing to feel good.48 Life is not a complex transmission of joy, it is a flow ofbiomasssubjecttoforcesfarbeyonditssensibility.

ThelessonofWeissmannthenisthatthereissomethingaboutlifewhichgoesbeyondindividual

forms of life. As Merelau-Ponty points out in his textNature, Jacob von Uexküll’s protoplasmsparticipateinsuchhorror,intheindifferenceoflife,inthattheamoebaisapureproductivitymovedbyandcaught in thepureproductivityofnature, something that flowswith thedynamicsofnatureitself.49

Thedifferencebetweenlife(asaforce,asapropensitytowardstheformationoforganisms)andindividualformsoflifeindexesthelargerproblemsoflifeandbeingwhich,asThackersuggestsarerelatedbynegation.50 In otherwords the problem iswhat is non-being in relation to life, is theresomethinginlifethatislivingbutisnotyetclassifiable?51AsThackersumsupnicely,Lifehasbeenusedconceptuallyyettheconceptionoflifehasnodiscernibledefinition.52

The gap between the viral world and the fungus world, as we will see, is one of seeminglymechanizedorganization–thatistheslimeandoozefromwhichwecameisnotsounsettlingsinceitappears (for us) as that deadmatterwhich iswaiting for potentiationwhereas the slimemold, thefungus,appearsasthesamekindofmatterbutthatwhichisactiveofitsownaccord.Inotherwords,fortheviralthoughtseemsabletoorganizeandsubduethelife-meaningoftheviruswhereas,asweshall see in the next chapter, the fungal begins to escape and contorts the bounds of our way ofthinkinglifeinanexternalfashion…

Thereis,ofcourse,littleifnodifferencebetweentheactivityoflifeintheviralandinthefungoidinanontologicalsense.There isnospecial formof life inoneor theotherasnature is,allalong,interpenetratingeverythingaroundusandourslimyselvesaswell.

1.2FungoidHorrorandTheCreepofLife

“[...]thefungi,whichoccupysoconsiderableaplaceinthevegetableworld,feedlikeanimals:whethertheyareferments,

saprophytesorparasites,itistoalreadyformedorganicsubstancesthattheyowetheirnourishment.[...]Itisa

remarkablefactthatthefungi,whichnaturehasspreadallovertheearthinsuchextraordinaryprofusion,havenotbeenabletoevolve[...]Theymightbecalledtheabortivechildrenofthe

vegetableworld.”HenriBergson,CreativeEvolution,

“Thefunctionofmushroomsistoridtheworldofoldrubbish.”JohnCage

Whereinthepreviouschaptertheuneasyrelationshipofproductivityanddecaywaslargelyhumancentered and interior herewe are addressing the spreadof the sliminess of life in an exterior andmore ecological sense. Historically, fungus played an important geophysical role as an earlyformation of slime corroded the dull rocky surface of the earth leading to the creation of soil. Inpopularculturefungusshowsupassproutingpatchesofmushroomsfromtheblackearthalongsidethe bleakness of gravestones, catacombs, andwithin cracked arcane tunnels.Fungus is ancient andalwaysintheorbitofdeath,decay,anddampness.

TakethefollowingpassagefromweirdfictionwriterThomasLigotti’sshorttale“TheShadowattheBottomoftheWorld”:

In sleepwewere consumed by the feverish life of the earth, cast among a ripe, fairly rottingworld of strange growths and transformation. We took a place within a darkly flourishinglandscape where even the air was ripened into ruddy hues and everything wore the wrinkledgrimaceofdecay,themottledcomplexionofoldflesh.Thefaceofthelanditselfwasknottedwithso many other faces, ones that were corrupted by vile impulses. Grotesque expressions weremolding themselves into the darkish grooves of ancient bark and thewhorls ofwithered leaf;pulpy,misshapenfeaturespeeredoutofdampfurrows;andthecrispskinofstalksanddeadseedssplitintoamultitudeofcrookedsmiles.Allwasafreakishmaskpaintedwithrusset,rashycolors—colorsthatbledwithavirulentintensity,sorichandvibrantthatthingstrembledwiththeirownripeness.53

IntheirRomanceoftheFungusWorld,RTRolfeandFWRolfepointtoanoddattitudetowardsfungiinscientific,literaryandothercommunities,highlightingasweepingcondemnationoffungiaspartofawidespreadfungiphobia.54RolfeandRolfejustifythisphobiathroughabriefsurveyoffungiinfolklore and fiction,which shows a persistent associationwith pestilence, death and as “agents ofdissolution.”55Fungicleartheforestflooroforganicdebrisandsubsequentlyvitalizethenutrientsofthe dead thereby making space for new life. Fungi disintegrate their organic neighbors throughsecretions56aswellasrhizomaticexpansion.57

Beyond the organic, fungus dissolves inorganic structures and is vilified for its damage tomanmadeones inparticular.AsRolfe andRolfe show, stories suchasPoe’s “Fallof theHouseofUsher”arerepletewithdescriptionsofrotandfungi.58Thisde-structuringoffunguscanbespreadtothefalteringspatialdimensionofancienthistoryingeneral,ofthedeteriorationofoldtexts,offadedruins, to the stretch of all civilized space which crumbles indefinitely in time. Jeff Vandermeer ’ssteampunknovelShriekanditsprecursorCityofSaintsandMadmenembracethisthemeclearly.The

setting of both novels, the city of Ambergris, is a place where the original inhabitants, a race ofsentientmushroomscalledthegraycaps,wereforcedunderground.Vandermeer ’sbookisanoddityofformconstitutedbyathriceeditedmanuscriptwhichsuggeststheunreliabilityofallitsnarratorsaswellashistoryitself(historybeingthemainconcernofthetextbothfamilialandonawiderscale).Vandermeer ’stextsinfusegenealogicalhistorywiththehallucinatoryandunpredictabilityoffungusformingadecayingyetgrowingpatchworkformofhistory,ahistorythat,initsveryform,isrottingtomush.59

Thefungoid,thefundamentalcreepinessoflife,displaystheunhingedspatialityoflifeaswellasits rampant ungrounding, of the very surfacewhich seems necessary in order to sustain it and allotherlifeforms.Evident in theaboveepigraph,ThomasLigotti’s talesarerepletewithfungusasasimultaneous operative of gross life and perpetual decay. In the “Bungalow House” the narratorbecomesobsessedwithanoddlocalartistwhodescribesanoldbungalowhouse,witha“threadbarecarpet”of“verminousbodies,”andfilledwith“naturallyrevoltingforms.”60

Furthermore,inLigotti’s“Severini”thenarratordiscussestheoddartistSeveriniandtheworksofhis followerswhichareclassifiedunder theunofficialname“thenightmareof theorganism”61

Themostrelevanttitleofthesefictionalworksbeing“TheDescentintotheFungal.”62

Severinihimselflivesinasmallshackoutinthejungle,describedasa“tropicalsewer”63sittingamidsttreesandvineswheretherewere“giantflowersthatsmelledlikerottingmeat”inthefungusandmuck.64The followersofSeverini dreamof a temple amidst a fetid landscapewith “thewallsseepingwithslimeandsoftwithmold.”65

ThesightofSeverini’sshackisunbearabletothenarratorashestatesthat“Ineverlookeddirectlyintothepoolsofoozinglife”andthat,unliketheothers,hedidnot“wishtoexistasafungusexistsorasa formofmulti-coloredslimemoldexists.”66Ligotti’snarratorpromptlyburns theplace to theground. The characters of “Severini” dangerously short-circuit the generative slime of unboundgrowthandtheslimeasthemorassofthedecayedlinkedtogetheras“thatgreatblacklifefromwhichwehaveallemergedandofwhichweareallmade.”67

Toswingbacktoliteralfungus,theintertwiningoflifeanddeathhaslongbeenamarkoffungoidexistence,with the death and darknesses of forests being populated by funguswhich thrives in thehollowremnantsofmoremajesticvegetativegrowth.Inthissense,fungusisrepresentativeofdeathandnotanotherformof life.Thefungalmarks theunnerving transitivenatureofsomaticism– thefoodofthedeadandthefruitingbodies.Fungalbodiesarethushardlybodiesatallastheystretchtheconceptuallimitsoftheirownbodiesaswellasdestroyanddecaythepurportedlysolidityofotherbodies.Yet such processes are hardly restrictive to themushroom. The first of the four stages ofdecomposition(fresh,bloat,decayanddry)isautolysis–whenthecellsofalivingthingselfdestructasthebodyessentiallybeginstoconsumeitself.Thefungalmerelyaidtheprocessofdecomposition,ofdecay,bythrivinginlayersofgenerativeputrefaction.Whereasdecayisthebreakdownoftissuesfollowingthecessationofanorganism’slife,putrefactionistheaidedprocessoflifebreakingdown.If thereisacentraldisgust tofungus,ortoplant lifeingeneral, it isbecausecreepinglifeisalifestrippeddowntoitsmechanisms,processes,andbreakdowns.

To return to fictional territory, Stanley Weinbaum’s protoplasmic monsters of an impossibleVenus,locatedintropicaljunglesinhisstories“ParasitePlanet”and“TheLotusEaters”expandonthe inherently disgusting nature of plant life and particularly of fungus. The atmosphere ofWeinbaum’sVenusisfilledwith“uncountedmillionsofthesporesofthosefierceVenusianmolds”capable of sprouting “in furry and nauseating masses.”68 The Venusian jungles contain a terriblescene as “avid and greedy life was emerging, wriggling mud grass and the bulbous fungi called“walkingballs.Andallaroundamillionlittleslimycreaturesslitheredacross themud,eatingeach

other rapaciously,being torn tobits,andeach fragment re-forming toacompletecreature.”69 TheoddestofWeinbaum’screaturesisthedoughpotwhichWeinbaumdescibesas“anauseouscreature.It’samassofwhite,dough-likeprotoplasm,ranginginsizefromasinglecelltoperhapstwentytonsof mushy filth. It has no fixed form; in fact, it’s merely a mass of de Proust cells—in effect, adisembodied,crawling,hungrycancer.”70InthesequelWeinbaum’sprotagonistencountersthelotuseaters,strangeveinedandbulbouscreatureswhichstatethattheydonotneedordesiretosurvivebutonlymustreproducewithspores–growingtumor-likeononeanother.Oneofthelotuseaterssayslifehasnomeaning,lifeisnotsomethingtofightfor.71

Weinbaum’s alien fungi are part of a larger tradition of fictional strangeness of fungal forms.Again following Rolfe and Rolfe, this strangeness is found in HG Wells’ The First Men in theMoon72andJulesVerne’sTheJourneytotheCenteroftheEarth.73Inthisvein,butalsobypointingtowardsactuallyfungi,Weinbaum’sextraterrestialextensionofthesporaceousfunctionofthefungaluncomfortablywarpstheinternalinordertopollutetheexternal.

Sporesallowfungallife,asanamorphouscreep,toextenditselfintotheverticalandtosurviveunfavorableconditionsas thickwalledspheresorasmoreparasiticentitieswhichgerminate insidehost creatures or spread from the infected host to further spread again either as an interiority orextended externality. Whereas flowering plants are considered higher life forms working inconjunctionwith nature, cryptogams (fungus) appear to feed on nature itself and are considered alowerorsimplerformoforganism.74

AsNegarestani puts it “The spore, or endo-bacterial dust, is a relicwith untraceable zones ofmigrationand traversal, a swarm-particlecreepingoff the radar screen;a speckofdustyouneverknowwhether you have inhaled or not.”75We could alsomentionBergson’s invocation of life asbeing composed of eddies of dust.76On the theme of inhalation and the senses, some fungi use amalodorous stench toattract insects.These fungi, in the familyPhallaceae, can smell like dungorcarrion to attract vectors of fungal spread (such as flies), again tying the specter of death to thegerminalspreadoflifeaswellasbindingthemiasmiclife-of-deathtothedemonicevidencedinthenames of some fungus such as Devil’s Snuff Box and Devil’s Stink-pot.77 Furthermore, of theminorityoffunguswhichattackwarmbloodedanimals,themajorityinfiltratethroughtheinhalationsofthelungsaddingarealisticsenseofwarinesstotherottensmellofthefungus.

Theaforementioneddark(bio)vitalismofLigotti’screepingnatureisanticipatedbysomeofthefungoid creatures of Lovecraft’s pantheon as well as William Hope Hodgson’s short tales “TheDerelict”andespeciallyhiswellknown“TheVoiceintheNight.”

Hodgson’s“TheVoiceintheNight”tellsthestoryofashipwreckedcrewthatbecomesinfectedand slowly transmogrified by a gray fungus leaving them nodding lumps. Beyond the creepinghorrorofthefungus–italsofillsthevictimswithan“inhumandesire”toconsumethesweettastingmatter, to consume the long dead corpses of others that have been slowly grown over. Hodgsondescribes themiserable island of fungus thusly: “In places it rose into horrible, fantasticmounds,whichseemedalmosttoquiver,aswithaquietlife,whenthewindblewacrossthem.Hereandthereittookon the formsofvast fingers,and inothers it just spreadout flatandsmoothand treacherous.Oddplaces,itappearedasgrotesquestuntedtrees,seemingextraordinarilykinkedandgnarled–thewholequakingvilelyattimes.”78

In “The Derelict” the encounter is far more rapid and terrifying. A ship of men aboard anabandonedvesselfindthemselvesbarelyabletoescapewiththeirlivesasabrownsquelchingfungusattemptstoconsumethem.Theactive/passivedivideof thefungoidhorror is replicated in fictionalfields as a form of trap and an assailant, a trap in its psychedelic spore launching form and anassailantinitsaggressivelyconsumptivemodality.

Thisputridfungalpantheonisformalizedandmaintainedintheliteratureofseveralroleplayinggames such as the Dungeons and Dragons monster manual. Creatures with the names PhantomFungus, ShamblingMound, Shrieker, YellowMusk Creeper and so forth fill the book, creating ataxonomy of fungal horrors that speak to the seemingly endlessmorphology of fungal creep andtoxicological capacity. This fungoid monsters furthermore introduce the uncomfortable notion ofplantmovement,ofthebasecreepinessofthecreep.

Thequestionbecomeswhatisthelimitofthecreepingmechanism,ofthestretchofthecreep?Inthepreviouschapterwesawtheexplosiveinternalityoflifewhereasthefungalappearstobean

infinite expansion of the already extended, an endless development of the odd spatiality of thefungoid,ofthesickperpetuationoffoulmatterbeingsimultaneouslythecauseaswellastheresult.The fungal operates as a counter to the apparent somatism of vegetative life due to the space-traversingcapacityofmolds,mushroomsandothercrawlingbitsofdarkvegetativeforms.Whereaslife inevolutioncanbeconstruedasmerelymutationsonvariationsona form, fungusappearsasonly vegetative variations without form. One could also consider Rolf Sattler ’s take on plantmorphology inwhich leaves are not a plant structurewith processes but the leaves are processesthemselves. Following Sattler, fungi would then be pure materialized process, or materiality assimply the production of production where the distinction between body and intensity or morebasicallymatterandenergyisabnegated.

Fungusthenseems,at leasthowwehaveviewedit thusfar, toembodyextendedmutationtothedegree that it moves and grows in the sphere of nature itself, functioning as a kind of livinglandscape.OneaspectoftheinsectoidZergspeciesinthevideogameStarcraftseriesisanightmarishplayon this theme; theZergmustgrowanorganiccarpet inorderfor their infrastructureandwarmachine (orwarorganism) todevelopand spread.Thebio-matter plane is called the creepby thenon-Zerg–abiologicalplasmathreateningtofill/coverthetotalityofspaceitself.Thecreepgrowsover,butdoesnotextendthrough,‘empty’spaceitself-itfillsthefull, itremainsgroundedyetthesporousallowsnewterrestrialunconnectedzonestobeplaguedbythefungus.

ReturningtoHodgson’sfungus,wesee,ontheotherhand,thatheextendsbiologybeyondsuchabsolutespaceandintroducesthetrulyhorrifyingaspectofbiologyasendlesslyspatialandnaturallymutated,asgrowthunbound.Thedisturbingpossibility thatLovecraftcultivatesfor instance, is thatthere are monstrosities that will live far beyond us; the possibility of a something that “whirledblindly past ghastly midnights of rotting creation, corpses of dead worlds with sores that werecities”79wouldcontinuetotormentus.Putanotherway,Lovecraftextendsbiologytoterrifyinglyvasttemporalaswellasspatiallimits.Wherethemucous-likecreepoftheZergassumesaknowablelimittospacetime,Lovecraftquestionseventhisboundary.

Inhistale“TheDream-QuestofUnknownKadatth”LovecraftdescribesAzathoth(anOutergodlike Nyarlathotep) as “that shocking final peril which gibbers unmentionably outside the ordereduniverse,”that“lastamorphousblightofnethermostconfusionwhichblashphemesandbubblesatthecentre of all infinity”who “gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time.”80Azathoth’snamemayhavemultipleoriginsbutthemoststrikingisthealchemytermazothwhichisbothacohesiveagentandaacidiccreationpointingbacktothegenerativeanddecayedstatusofslimeinLigotti’sworkaswellasWeinbaum’sdisgustingVenusiandoughpot.

To return closer to the topic at hand, Lovecraft engages in his own descent into the fungalespecially in his “Fungus from Yuggoth” a set of sonnets depicting his reality of cosmic horrorwhere the twenty first piece is titled Nyarlathotep and the twenty second Azathoth. In his sonnetsLovecraft seems to move between Ligotti’s horror-of-origins and Hodgson’s monstrousness, butstayingwithmostlyformlesscreations.Lovecraft’sutilizationofthefungalcanbeseenasattemptingan assault on the senses in variousmodes, appealing to themost base disgust of life, of being an

organism(asLigottidoes)aswellasportrayingtheawfulpliabilityofthefungalandthevegetative,as the inevitable creepof life,not as life as alwaysenduringbut as alwaysdying, as alwaysbeingreadytobeconsumed.MichelHouellebecq,whoseengagementwithLovecraftwillweexaminemorecloselylater,pointsthisoutinhisH.P.Lovecraft:AgainsttheWorld,AgainstLifewhenhepointsouttheinherentlydisgustingqualityofLovecraft’sreality.81

FromthefourthsonnetofLovecraft’sFungi:“Thedayhadcomeagain,whenasachildIsaw-justonce-thathollowofoldoaks,Greywithaground-mistthatenfoldsandchokesTheslinkingshapeswhichmadnesshasdefiled.Itwasthesame-anherbagerankandwild”82

Andfromthefourteenth:“WhatfungisproutinYuggoth,andwhatscentsAndtintsofflowersfillNithon’scontinents,Suchasinnopoorearthlygardenblow.Yetforeachdreamthesewindstousconvey,Adozenmoreofourstheysweepaway!”83

Lovecraftplaysonthesethemesintheaforementioned“Dream-Quest...”inthefollowingway:“Inthetunnelsofthat twistedwood,whoselowprodigiousoakstwinegropingboughsandshinedimwiththephosphoresenceofstrangefungi.”84Theranksmelloffungusleadstoitsunnaturaliridescence,partiallylightingthewayforadescentintothehorrible.

Takingaanotherstepintotheswamp,Lovecraft’scompatriotClarkAshtonSmith’sTsathogguaCycleandLovecraft’sown“WhisperinDarkness”discussesthefilth-godTsathoggua.Tsathogguaisanamorphoustoad-likecreatureandhisservitorsareblackformlessspawnwhichresideinarottingbasinofslime.Thesmellofrotobscuredorcontainedwithincreation,reassertsouraversiontonewlife when it is shed of its humanistic shell, Tsathoggua attempts to return us to the cesspool ofevolutionwithout theblanketof telologyordesignedbetterment.FromClarkAshtonSmith’s“TheTaleofSatampraZeiros”:“thoughunsurpassablyfoul,wasneverthelessnotanodorofputre-faction,but resembled rather the smell of some vile and unclean creature of the marshes. The odor wasalmostbeyondendurance,andwewereabouttoturnawaywhenweperceivedaslightebullitionofthe surface, as if the sooty liquidwere being agitated fromwithin by some submerged animal orother entity. This ebullition increased rapidly, the center swelled as if with the action of somepowerful yeast, and we watched in utter horror, while an uncouth amorphous head with dull andbulgingeyesarosegraduallyonanever-lengtheningneck,andstaredusinthefacewithprimordialmalignity.”85

Again, toreturntothebrieflymentionedtheoryofmiasma,wherethecausesofdiseasearetheresultofbadairwhichisoftenthoughtasmerelyanoutmodedtheoryofdiseaseproduction,hereweareconcernedwith theproduction-from/ofrotofwhichmiasma is thestrongest representative.Thetropical sewer of Ligotti mentioned above is fundamentally miasmic as well, where particularstenchesareindicativeoftheproductionofdeathanddecay,oftheexumatematerialsresultingfromorganicformsmovingtowardscreatingneworganismsinthebiosphere.

Theproductionofliferequiresdecayandaclearingawayofthebiospherespacetomakeroomfornewspecies.Aswehaveseen, thesporeproductionoffruitingbodies,of thesexualpolypofaparticular fungus,mirrors the bad air aspect of spreading an infective formof life.The stench ofdeath is also the stench of fertilization, of a turning over in the churning teeth of nature. Thisbiological and geological churning is Vandermeer ’s crumbling history and the horridness of all

creation,andtheinterplexingrelationofdegradationandgeneration.OneofHouellebecq’spoemstiethetwotogether:“Deepinsomewoods,onacarpetofmoss,Foetidtreetrunkssurvivetheirleaves;Aroundthemdevelopsanatmosphereofmourning;Theirskinfilthyandblack,mushroomspushingthroughit”86

Houellebecq’s poem echoes the darker passages of Percy Shelley’s “The Sensitive Plant,” in itsdepiction of the morbid fecundity of vegetative nature.87 The possibility of plant death, of therottennessofpoeticandbeautifulnatureisfollowedbytheemergenceofsicklyfungus.

AsNegarestanipointsouthowever,decayisnotmerelyacleanintegrationoflifeanddeathbutthe summoningof irresolution, of an unsettling and infinite softening.88The fungal, as the spatialextension of unified production and decay is ultimately troublesome as it appears as a corruptingproduction.

Thiscorruptingproduction raisesan interesting linkbetween theorganicof the fungusand theinorganiconwhichitgrowsandspreads.Thesofteningoftheterrestrialwherethefungusregrounds(cracks,andbreaksapartthehardestmaterials)butdoesn’tungroundtheterrestrialcompletely.

Thefungalbecomesthedeathlyembodimentoftheterrestrial-generative,“itwasthoughthesickearthhadburst into foulpustules”89or, inone strangeoutmoded theory, funguswas thecorruptedearthitselfcausedbytheenergydeliveredbylightning.90

Thesofteningofthefungalandthede-andun-earthingofthevegetativebecomestroublingwhenit encounters the livingbodyof humansor other physical creatures intersect the fungal.Whilewehavealreadydiscussedthedegradationoftheorganicbythefungal,whatisextratroublingisthefactthat the fungal threatens to undo the necessity of the body, of the form for life. It was alreadymentionedthatthefungalstretchesthebodilylimitoflifeaswellastakesapartthesolidityofotherformsof lifeand,aswehaveseen,crumbles thepurportedlyonesided relationbetween inorganicnature(suchastheplanet)andorganiclife.Oncethisdistinctionfallsaparttheverylivelinessoflifeisnolongertraceabletotheorganicortoanyidentifiableformoflife,butisimmediatelydebased.Beforereachingthispointhoweversolidityrequiresfurtherdissolution.

Theultimateexampleofsuchhorrifyingunderminingofsoliditypairedwithsomaticisthemuckmonster– thecreatures taken from the traditionof the Judaicgolembutexorcisedof religiosity–suchas theheap,man-thing, swamp thing to thegreat sludgeenemyofGodzilla -Hedorahandsoforth.Muckmonsterswhichrangefromthedumbautomaton(theGolem)tothecomicbookhero,putthoughttooclosetonature,decorporealizingthatwhichissupposedtobeproperlyformedinorderto think.Aswehave seen thedecorporealizingprocessesof the fungal aremetbya recyclingandrebuilding (through spatial expansion) thereby undermining the humanistic solidity of its fixedboundariescomplicatingthedifferencebetweensenseandthought,betweenlifeasboundandlifeascreeping.Philosophicallyspeaking,muckmonstersprovideadegradationofphenomenologyinthatthoughtbecomesanotherobject in thepileofnatureandnot the solemeansofdeterminingnaturethrough the senses. This residue or base connectivity of life can be seen in Negarstani’s briefcomment on theMenstruum or livingmud. TheMenstruumworks as a “communicational entity”betweenelementsandcanbetakenasakindofstuffoflife.91

Again, returning to Lovecraft, his Shoggoth which appears as “a shapeless congeries ofprotoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, andwithmyriads of temporary eyes forming andun-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us”92questions the purportedly necessity of a shape to life and to intelligence, to the necessity of aidentifiableentityasbeingsomethingweneedtorecognize,thesuggestionthatifsomethingthinks,

andevenmore, ifsomethingreasonsand isa formof life itmustnotbeacompleteassaulton thesenses.

Theamorphousnessoffungallifeindexeslife’sreliancenotonthenecessarythinkabilityoflifebut,asevidenceabove,itsconnectiontotheearth,totheinorganic,andthelongstrandofsuccessionofphysicalandchemicalformsleadingtoitsaccidentaldevelopment.Thespatialityoffungallifeasdifferentfromthenetworkedlifeofcontagion(oftimeovercomingspace)isthespatialovercomingoftime,therevengeofanoldearthandoldlifebeingreinscribedandmutatedagainstitselfasinthecaseofIainHamiltonGrant’santi-somaticSchelling.

Againlifebecomesthatofbeingtrappedbetween(bare)matterandmattering(beinggenerativeandmattering, and havingmeaning).Wewill address the possible rampancy of the organic in thefollowing chapter, questioning the possibility of life acrossmultiple biospheres and its relation tonatureonthecosmicscale.

1.3Extra-GalacticTerror

“Theyknewthateverysystem,whethermechanicalorbiological,eventuallyrunsdown[...]Thetyranidshadfoundtheonlypossibleremedyforthis.Theymovedfromgalaxytogalaxy,harvestingfresh,newlyevolvedDNAwithwhichtorenewandreinvigoratetheirown.Theyweretheuniverses’ultimatelifeform.Quitepossiblytheyhadexistedforever,andwouldcontinuetoexistforever.”93

“Thecosmos...issimplyaperpetualrearrangementofelectronswhichisconstantlyseethingasitalwayshasbeenandalwayswillbe.Ourtinyglobeandpunythoughtsarebutonemomentaryincidentinitseternalmutation.”94

Life as we have formulated it so far is subdued by the forces of time and space and yet theintensiveinteriorityoftheviralseemstochallengetheseboundsasdoestheexternalityofthefungal.Thequestionthatremainsiswhatislife,whatistheforceoflife,andwhataretheforcesthatactonlife. The task is to answer these questions without venturing toomuch towards the immaterial orunscientific.Theissuebecomesthethinkabilityoflife,thinkinglife,andthelifeofthought.Or,putinotherwordshowdowedefinelife,whatisitaboutlifethatallowsittothink,andwhatisthefutureofthought’srootednessinlife.Wewillpursuetheseissuesthroughfictionalsuperorganicentities.

The superorganic is conceptually constructed by combining the devastating emergence of theminiscule(suchasthevirus)coupledwiththespatialexpansionfoundinthefungoid–itis,inotherterms,theexacerbatedcapacityoftheswarmonacolossalscale.Aswasdiscussedintheintroductiontheswarmistheformoflifethatpresentsitselfasmostproblematicforthinking;bothbyproducingthe results of thought without intelligence (we observe non-thinking entities acting as if they canthink)andasbeinghardtothink-as-life(wearenotsureiftheswarmitselfisathing),aswesawintheintroduction,becauseoftheindeterminacybetweenthepartandthewholeoflife.

Thehybridizationoftheviroidandfungoid(creatingalifethattransmogrifiesandcreeps)canbetiedtothetheoryofexogenesis.Thetheoryofexogenesisholdsthatlifehasalwaysalreadyexistedandthat lifeonearthhascomefromelsewhere.Atsomepoint in thedistancepastagaiaspore,orobjectcarryingearlyformsof,orthenecessaryingredientsforcreatinglife,wouldhavereachedtheearlyearthseedingit.

Concepts of panspermia have been suggested for hundreds of years: the theoretical biologistFrederick Kielmeyer suggested such a concept in the 1800s.95While romantic notions of cosmicancestry can be taken from such a concept the more troubling suggestion is the possible age ofcertainformsoflifeandtherampancyofanyparticularformofextremophile,ofacreaturewhichcanexistinseeminglyimpossibleconditions.Thefungalsporesoflastchapterandtheviroidsofthefirstbeingexamplesofsuchlifeforms.

Aswehaveseenhowever,empiricalandspeculativebiologyprovidesampleevidenceinfavorofsuch a conceptualization of rampant life. Anxiety about the bounds of a biological life and thefragility of any one form of species-being is unearthed by the extinct traces of animals andexacerbatedby the science fictiveparticularly in termsof an arrayof insectoid superorganisms; atradition begun by the endoparasitoidic (parasitic to the point of death) xenomorph of the Aliensseries.

The xenomorph has a distinctly Lovecraftian genealogy as the creature’s design came from awork by the surrealist artistHRGiger titledNecromicon, named after the central fictional text ofstrange demonological lore by the inventedmadArabAbdulAlhazredwhich describes theCthulumythos, the grimoire of strange ancient monstrousities which populate the universe as well asdimensionsoutsideof it,entitiessuchastheGreatOldOnes.Thexenomorphs imitatehive-minded

insectsastheymindlesslyfollowtheordersoftheirqueenandactonlytopropagatetheirvilespecies.TheLovecraftianinfluencecomesfromtheweirdandamorphousnessofalienlifewhichhecreated;alienswithalmostimperceptibleformsandneargod-likepowers.TheresultofLovecraft’smythosisthe minimization of the human race, a depressive expansion of the Great Chain of Being whereinsteadofanomnipotentgodatoneendwithhumansnotfarbeneath,thereisonlyaneverstretchingstreamof entitieswith humanity lost in its perilous contortion.Or, asGould points out via Freud,eachscientificadvancemeansthefurtherexistentialdethronementofhomosapiensintheuniverse.96

This lostness and dethronement is redoubled temporally following the natural history of CarlFriedrich Kielmeyer who through his focus on extinction events revealed a nature in whichhumanity’splaceisnotonlytenuousduetootherpossibleorganismsbutduetothesmallspanoftimewe have occupied.97 For Kielmeyer a species’ ability to reproduce, to fill time, is what mightguaranteeitsfuturesurvival.98

AsMichelHouellebecqwritesinHPLovecraft:AgainsttheWorld,AgainstLife:“Itispossible,infact,thatbeyondthenarrowrangeofourperception,otherentitiesexist.Othercreatures,otherraces,other concepts and other minds. Amongst these entities some are probably far superior to us inintelligenceandinknowledge.Butthisisnotnecessarilygoodnews.”99

Lovecraftcontortstheveryconceptofataxonomytoitstemporalandspatiallimitssubmittingtous thatorganic life itselfbarelygets in thewayof thecosmiccourseof time (and space)whenhewrites“weimaginethatthewelfareofourraceistheparamountconsideration,whenasamatteroffact the very existence of the racemay be an obstacle to the predestined course of the aggregateduniversesofinfinity!”100

Under Lovecraft’s indifferentism humans become just another form ofmatter in the universe,simplyanotherformofentropicfodderinamechanisticcosmos.Lovecraft’sindifferenceisdeeplyconnected,asSTJoshihasshown,tohiscommitmenttotheworkofErnstHaeckel.101HaeckelwasazoologistinGermanyattheturnofthe20thcenturyknownwidelyforhisrecapitulationtheorywhichstatesthatanorganismindevelopmentwentthroughthedevelopmentsoftheparticularspeciesonthewhole.Haeckel, inat leastpartialagreementwithWeissmann,states that individual life isgenerallysacrificial,asonlyasmallfragmentoflifeatlarge.Lovecraft’smaterialism,againfollowingJoshi,becomesaftersometime,farmoreobscuredthanHaeckel’s.102YetHaeckel’sgermplasmmaintainsaLovecraftianflavorinthatlifeingeneralisaforcethatcannotbereducedtoparticularorganismswithorganismsonlybeinganexcrescence,abudasprout.103

TheimportantpointofLovecraft’sbestiaryisnothedesignatedhiscreaturesasnotsupernatural,butassupernormal,keepingnatureininallitsmonstrouscapacity.104Lovecraftspeaksofthetensionbetween the natural and the unnatural is his short story “TheUnnameable.”He writes: “[...] if thepsychicemanationsofhumancreaturesbegrotesquedistortions,whatcoherentrepresentationcouldexpress or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulousity as the spectre of a malign, chaoticperversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature?”105 Lovecraft explores exactly the tensionoutlined at the beginning of this chapter, between life and thought. At the end of his short taleLovecraftcompoundstheproblemastheunnameableisdescribedas“agelatin—aslime—yetithadshapes,athousandshapesofhorrorbeyondallmemory.”106

Another realmwhere thought insufficiently grasps the rampancy of biological life is the oftenunimaginativework of xenobiologists. As Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart discuss in “Alien Science”much of contemporary xenobiology is so narrow as to exclude organisms that exist on the earth,creaturescapableof thriving inextremeenvironments suchasnearheatventsor fungus inside thelight-less interiorof theChernobylsarcophagus.That is, thecriteria foralien lifewouldpassover

manyspeciesalreadyidentifiedhereonearth.Itwould be safe to say that the speculated xenobiological capacities of life are underestimated

whereas in the science fictive, the organic is exacerbated to the extreme. From the Tyranids ofWarhammer40,000totheZergofStarcraft,toSpecies8472ofStarTrektotheYuuzhanVongofStarWars, the rampant organic becomes the most threatening form of life, as a pure life or life asmutagenwhich is always inadmissible to the intergallactic bodies of government. Furthermore thetransformationof theorganicashidden internality (in thegerminalor theviroid)moving towardsexternalityasonlyakindofunfolding(intheDeleuzo-Guattariansense)isexternalizedasaformoftechne,asanexteriorpaintingof theswarmingabsolute.Putanotherway, thebiological is seenasonly a base that, when overly expansive, is grotesque where civilization is the appropriateexternalizatonofalifeform’screativecapabilities.

Inotherwords,anycontinuousevolutionofanalienspeciesrequiresatechnologicalseparationbetweenuncivilizedorganicismandculturedtechnologizedlife.

In other words the minute ungroundings of the microorganic (growth and decay) meet theplanetaryungroundingsofthemonstrous(whetherorganicorinorganic)inthesciencefictive.

OfalltheaforementionedfictionalspeciestherichestistheTyranids.“TheTyranidsareanalienracefromthecoldsdepthsofthevoidthathungerconstantlyforwarm

flesh.Theyinfestthestarsintheirbillions,arawforceofdestructionthathasbeenlikenedtoalocustswarm.”107WhereasLovecraft’sCthulloidOldOnes programatically tamperedwith the dwindlingdestinyofthehumanracebymanufacturingcertain“protoplasmicmasses”onearth,108theTyranidsare not so patient; treating the human race as merely another form of biological matter to beabsorbed.Thisgelatinousoriginis invokedbyBergson’sCreativeEvolutionwherehestates that ifthereisaconnectivitytoalllifeitisinthisoriginalslimymoment.

In thebackstoryfor thenightmarishracewhichappearsasamassivebodyofclawsandtalons,onceaworld’sdefenseshavebeensufficientlybeatenbackanddeadlysporeshavebeenspreadacrosstheplanet,theTyranidsconsumeallthebiomassontheplanetoidrenderingitinpoolsofacid.Thisgruel forms the fuel andmaterial for futureTyranidmutates, so they can continue their onslaughtacrosstheinhabitedsystemsoftheuniverse.TheTyranid’sunstoppablemarchacrossinhabitedspacequestionsthelimitoftheconceptofeco-systemandofeco-spaceinparticular.Canalltheinhabiteduniversesmakeuponebitofeco-space,canonespeciesfillitall?

By the civilized races of the universe theTyranids are considered amonstrosity, as somethingfundamentallyopposedtoprogressivity.109Thatis,theTyranidsdespitetheirsentience(atleastonahivelevelifnotonanindividuallevel)areconsideredasanon-civilizationgiventheirrabidmutativenature. Tyranid technology is of course non-separable from their biological contours it seemstechnological only in that it seems it should be separated.110 As Henri Bergson notes, one of thefundamental issuesseparatinghumansfromotheranimals is theseparationof technologyfromthebody,frominstinctualbehaviors.111

To connect back to our viral chapter, alien invasion films such as War of the Worlds andIndependenceDay, theviraland/orbacterialistheonlythingthatiscapableofcircumventingalientechnologieswhereastheTyranidsareanextensionoftheviralitself.But,sincetheviralnatureoftheTyranids isextendedto theheightof intergalacticwar, theirgrossmindlessness issomehowworsethanunjustorperversemotivationsforwarbecauseevenmaliciousreasonisstillreason,becausetheoperationofthoughtisontologicallyraisedabovethebiological.

Why is the species-being of the Tyranid nightmarish whereas the war mongering nature ofhumansandotherspeciesisabsolvedofacertainhorriblenessgiventheavenuesofreligion,politics,nationality and so forth. The horrible extended internalness of the Tyranid, that is, the revolting

extension of the biological to the level of what is commonly thought of as removed from us(technology,warmachinesetcetera)becomesonlyanaturalextension.TheprimordialsliminessofbeingisthusreturnedthroughviatheoverextensionofthebiologicalinthespeculativemonstersoftheTyranids.ThissliminessisaccentuatedinthelackoffreewillamongsttheTyranids,asfreewillis thought as an outgrowth of nature that escapes its bounds, a part of nature that is, at its centerunnatural.

Thefollowingpassagesumsthesethemesupnicely:“Tyranidstravelthegalaxiesandthevoidsbetween them in vast, drifting hive fleets. These consist ofmillions of sentient craft, each in turnhometountoldnumbersofmonstrositiesevolvedfromthebubblinggeno-organsoftheirmucous-slickedreproductivechambers.”112

Atsomepointbiology is expected togive in to the forceof reasonas itself exterior to it, inaseemingly impossible way. As Grant says following Oken: “The culmination of Biology is thedestruction of individuals, which is held in check so long as there remains something.”113 Givenhumanego-centricismthissomething isoftenviewedas intelligence.Thequestionbecomes thatofintelligence and in particular reason as taking over the biological but the concept of the swarm(again,ofemergence)causesproblemsforanydeliberatecleavage.

CohenandStewartarguethatintelligenceisauniversalyetsuchuniversalityhasnometaphysicalimplications.114 The issue is not to assert that intelligencemust happen but that intelligence, whatCohenandStewartdefineastheabilitytomanipulateworldmodelstendstohappen.115Extilligence,theabilitytoexternalizeourintelligence,torecordwhathasbeendonesohumansneednotreinventallofwhattheyhavewiththedeathofeverygeneration.116Yethowdoesoneseparatetheexteriorityofintelligencefromextilligence,thatis,isitaclearmatterofseparatingwhatseemswhatmustbearesultofthoughtandthethinkingintermsoftheorganic?

Given the capacities of intelligence, is it possible to avoid the valorization of intelligence, thecelebrationofintelligenceovernature,sinceweneedintelligencetothinkit,orcannaturebesavedas theproductive engineof all intelligence?No one expounded the possibility of the former viewmorestronglythanFichteandnoonepursuedthelattermoreadmirablythenasthenaturephilosopherF.W.J.vonSchelling.

Schelling made motions towards unbinding thought though me must remain cautious of hispotentially romantic inclinations. Schelling argued that nature reflected the work of intelligence(sinceithadtoeventuallyinamerelypracticalway),allowfortheeventualemergenceofthinking.AssoonashumansareseparatedfromnatureSchellingwarned,naturebecomesadeadobject.117

In Schelling’s Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature Schelling posits the Absolute as the unity ofthinkingandnature.118Theunityoftherealandtheidealisbothrealandidealinanidentitarianway,that is in termsof a thought simultaneity but not a temporal or historical simultaneity.That is, thewithdrawnnessofnaturerestrictstheidealbuttheidealalsomovesforwardintime.119

Putmoredirectly,whilenatureprecedes thinking,wecan thinknatureasunifiedboth ina realsense(thoughtisproducedbybrainswhicharetheresultsoflongandslowevolutionaryprocessesandispartofnature)butthoughtisbothideallyunifiedwithnaturebecausethoughtcanproducelikenatureproduces–inaseeminglyuninhibitedfashion.

SchellingisoftenrelegatedasamerephilosophicalsteppingstonebetweentheidealismofFichteand theDialectic ofHegel. Fichte asserted the entire complex of nature as the not-I as that whichmerely opposes itself to the capabilities of the I, of the self.120 Hegel can be seen as taking thisidealismtoitslogicallimit,notopposedtheIandnotIbutbysettingupnatureasakindofexhaustedspirit,spiritbeingbeingwhatpropelstheself,theI.Inbothaccountsnatureisgivenlittleappreciationreducedtoeitheranobstacleorasaby-productoftheworkoftheself.Schelling,ontheotherhand

particularlyinhisearlyworks,isadamantaboutthenecessarymaterialpre-conditionofallthoughtandallbeing.Nature iscompletely indifferent tohumanexistencehowis it then that intelligence isremovedfromthedevelopmentsofnature?121

Howdoestheconceptofvalorizedintelligencemanifestitself?WarrenFahy’sFragmentprovides an interesting accountof theperceiveddivision (in termsof

value) between intelligence and the biological. In the novel an isolated island is discoveredwhereevolution has taken a very different path, producing highly unusual creatures such as disc-shapedants,eight leggedspidercatsandcarnivorousplants.Agroupof scientists speculateas tohave thebizarrespeciescametobewithoneinvokingaradicalizedviewofHaeckle.122

Thehumanvillainofthestory,ThatcherRedmondproposesthat thehyper-violentbiosphereoftheislandisperfectbecauseitisabsentofanintelligentspecies,123histheorybeingthathumansarethe biggest threat to the earth because of their intelligence.124 He states that “Intelligent life is anenvironmentalcancer.”125

Redmond’stheoryfallsapartwhentheexpeditionteamdiscovers(andissavedby)anintelligentlifeformwhichthescientistsdecidetheymustsavefromtheloomingnuclearbombardmentsimplybecausethecreature’sintelligencemakesitmorehuman.126ThenarratologicalshiftinattitudebasedonthediscoveryoftheintelligentapeinthenovelbetraysitsinitialLovecraftianaspects,immediatelybecomingahumanistcelebrationoflifeandofthecapacityofintelligencetostabilizelife127lendingitselftoanuncriticalecologicalpositivity.

Fahy’sdismissalofthecapacitiesofradicalbiologyinthefaceofintelligenceinpopularfictionconfirmsSchelling’smisgivings surrounding thedominant treatmentofnature inphilosophy. Thistreatmentdeniesthatnatureispriortothinking,128thattheidealmustbeexplainedthroughthereal129

andthatmansublatesnature,placingourselvesatthepeakofitsproduction.130Schelling’s genetic philosophy of nature is situated in the romantic era of science creating a

tension between the scientific investigation of life and the aesthetic concerns ofGerman Idealism.Schelling’s articulation of thought however is not blindly romantic in that it ignores, or at leastproblematizes, anthrocentricism, it is unromantic precisely in its assertion that humanity cannotescapethebasematerialnatureofexistence.

AsRobertRichardspointsoutinTheRomanticConceptionofLife,Schellingplacedorganismsatthecenterofhisphilosophyofnatureandsetuptheabsolute,thecentralentityofhisphilosophy,asan organically functioning entity.131 Schelling developed his notion of the organic (and of theabsoluteasorganic)fromhiscontemporariesinthenaturalsciencesnamelyHumboldt,Blumenbach,Keilmeyer,andReil.132

However, as Iain Hamilton Grant points out in his Philosophies of Nature after Schelling,Schelling’s philosophy cannot be reduced to only theorganismandhas its roots in amultitudeofissues and, in particular the issue of temporality.133 As Grant writes: “The philosophy of naturalhistoryfromtheseventeenthtothenineteenthcenturieswasstructuredaroundtheproblemsofrealityasagainstthephenomenalityoftime.”134

ForSchelling,natureisbothproductandproductivity,theproductsbeingformedbytwoforcesopposingoneanother,thenegativeforceretardingthepositiveitintheformofawhirlpool135whichcanalsobethoughtofasaninfinitedevelopmentofidealarchetypesinnaturewhichareattemptedintimeandspacebutareneverperfectible.136InmanywaysSchelling’sphilosophyprefigurespowersmetaphysics in that there are productive and restrictive powers in nature as well as archetypes orpatterns.

Theproductandproduction relationofSchelling’snature shouldnotbe seenas supporting the

somaticismorbody-compositionofnaturewhich,aswesawinthelastchapter,bio-weaponinspiredthought begins to rally against.137 The question which Grant raises in relation to the biology ofKielmeyeriswhethertheuseofaslime,andprotoplasminparticular,alwaysassertsasomaticism,alwaysasserts thatmicrobodiesareadditiveor thatmacrobodies (suchasviewing theearthasoneorganism)aredivisibleinnature.138ForKielmeyer,whilebodiesorpointswithinnaturearepivotal,itisnotbodiesthatarethesourceandmeasureofnaturebutanetofforceswhichoperateonthosebodiesandultimatelyonthought.139

Asmentioned in the introduction,Schellingattackedvitalismforbeingselfcontradictoryasanunopposedforce,healsoobjectedtoitbeingmerelyanexhaustionofmatter.140Schelling’srejectionofvitalismhowevercomes fromaclassicalarticulationofvitalismnecessitatinga rejectionof theeffectofphysicsonlifeassuch,arejectionwhichourformulationherehassoughttonegate.

Our dark vitalism as inherently spatio-temporal should alleviate Schelling’s second objectionsincehisownsystemsoughttoarticulateanaturebetweenmechanismandteleologyorfinalism.141InthissensewecouldsaythatSchelling’snatureappearstobepartiallysimilartoBergson’sinthatbothnaturesstartfromakindofabsoluteandaredividedovertime.Kielmeyer ’sthesisthatspeciesarearetrogressionfromamoreadvancedformfitsintothisconceptionofnatureaswell.142

YetBergsonseemstosituatethedifferencesofnatureprimarilyinthemindwhereasforSchellingthedifferencesofnature, the teemingdarknessof the absolute is spreadover time in an empiricalsense.143TheOneofnaturemustnothoweverbetakentobeanidealformnormustitbeseenasakindofperfect totalityof thecosmos.TheOnemustbe takenasanobscurity,as thefundamentallyunstablebeginningofalltheprocessesandentitiesoftheuniverse.WewilladdressthemetaphysicaldetailsofthisOneinthefollowingchapter,fornowitisthedarknesssurroundingtheOne(thatawfulabsolute)alsobeingthedarknessofourdarkvitalismwhichIwilltietothebiologicalhorroroftheextragalacticTyranids.

InhistextDifferenceandRepetition (a text far toodense to fullyexplicatehere)GillesDeleuzementions a dark precursor as something that exists prior to all differences, differenceswhich, forDeleuze, exist prior to identity, prior to sameness.144 In IainHamiltonGrant’s “TheChemistry ofDarkness”GrantpointstothisdarknessofDeleuzeandtiesittothedarkabsoluteofSchelling.ThisDarknesswhichHegelandSchlegelridiculedastooobscure.Nature,forSchelling,isalwaysatleastpartiallyburiedin“eternaldarkness.”145WecouldalsomentionBergson’sdarkfringe,ofacertainfilmofdarkness surroundingour thinking in relation to evolutionwhereour thinking is aroundasurfacefromwhich theunpredictablespringsupandnevergrasps the internalgenerativenatureofevolution,ofnature.146

Thisdarknessisnotmerelyanobfuscationbutanongoingchallengetothecapacitiesofthoughttothinklife.DarkvitalismisanalternativetoBergson’scombinationofidealismandvitalismandamore realistic take onSchelling’smarriage ofmaterialism (ormechanism)with vitalism.147 Darkvitalismacceptsarealitythatisfundamentallycomprisedofforcesandprocessesbutdoesnotattempttomake this contingencyorprocess-dominated reality something that is immediately thinkable, orunderstandablewithin the limits of reason alone.Dark Vitalism then, is a strange combination ofrealismandvitalism.

Thetroubledrelationofthinkingandnatureisplayedoutthroughtherelationoftheinteriorandtheexterior.AsIainHamiltonGrantwrites:“TheIdeaisexternaltothethoughtthathasit,thethoughtisexternaltothethinkerthathasit,thethinkerisexternaltothenaturethatproducesboththethinkerandthethoughtandtheIdea.”148ForGrant,exteriorityisoffarmoreinterestthaninteriority,ofthefeelingofformsofstratificationratherthanthefactofstratificationitself.149Furthermore, thinking

can never recount all the details of its production since the accidental nature of time makes thisimpossible.But, aswe saw in the first chapter, interiority cannot be equatedwith thought butmustgrapplewiththeexplosionoflifeitselffromthesmallestcomponents.Yetacertaindarknesshangsover thepossibilityof life, it surrounds thedifferencebetween the inorganicand theorganic. Thisdarknesscanbealignedwiththatoftheindiscernabilityofmatterandthematerialmakeuplifeitself.

Evolutionisnotonlythestretchingofourthinking,toabsorbthecomponentsandcapacityoftheoozeoflifebutalsotherecognitionthatthoughtisonlyoneoutcome,onestrataofnatureitselfandnotthenecessaryendofnature’swork-towards-life.Whetherlifecomesfromelsewhereasatrans-galacticspore,orwhetherlife’sindividualconfigurationsonseparateworldsalwaysleadtosimilarresults,thisdoesnotaccountforthefeedbackofspaceandotherformsofexistencebothorganicandinorganic, on howwe think life and how thinking life emerges or fails to emerge fromponds ofswirlingmuck.

Theteemingbiological,ifbeginningfromaunityandmovingoutwards,dividingintoevermorechaoticanddivergent formscreatesacreepingabyssofbiology,where reason isonlyone featureamidstatalonedandtoothedpandemonium.

ConclusionSlimeMetaphysics?

“Ofhumanlifethetimeisapoint,andthesubstanceisinaflux,andtheperceptiondull,andthecompositionofthewholebodysubjecttoputrefaction,andthesoulawhirl,andfortune

hardtodivine,andfameathingdevoidofjudgment.”-MarcusAurelius,Meditations

“A:Thereisnograndschemeofthings.B:Iftherewereagrandschemeofthings,thefact–thefact–thatwearenotequippedtoperceiveit,eitherbynaturalor

supernaturalmeans,isanightmarishobscenity.C:Theverynotionofagrandschemeofthingsisanightmarishobscenity.”

-ThomasLigotti,MyWorkisNotYetDoneOneofthemostpeculiaraspectsofSigmundFreud’sBeyondthePleasurePrincipleishisspeculativecreationofthevesicle.Freud

writesthatthisbitoflifefunctions“initsmostsimplifiedpossibleformasanundifferentiatedvesicleofasubstancethat

issusceptibletostimulation”where“thesurfaceturnedtowardstheexternalworldwillfromitsverysituationbe

differentiatedandwillserveasanorganforreceivingstimuli”asamodelfororganicexperience.150

Freud’sspeculativebiologyispursuedinanattempt toexplain the tendencyof livingorganismstorepeatunpleasantacts,arepetitionwhichFreudassertsconnects theorganism’s initialdivisionintointernalandexternalcomponentsbyamassiveshocktoadrivetowardstheinorganic.Thatis,whilethe sexual instincts of organisms tend towards life, towards the continuation of life by way ofreproduction, this instinct is powerless against the more powerful death drive, the fact that theultimateaimofalllifeisdeath.151

Freud’s “little fragment of living substance”which is beset on all sides by “themost powerfulenergies” is in kind no different from human beings.152 The difference of human being(s) is thereflectivenatureofourthinkingwhetherintentional(conscious)orindirect(unconscious).Thisdoesnotsavehumanityfromtheultimatelydismalendofallbiologicalforms,fromtime’shollowingoutandsofteningoflifethoughwemayattempttointhetimelessnessoftheunconscious,infantasiesanddreamsandsoforth.153

GrantingFreud’sassumptionthatthefantasmaticbastionoftheunconsciousresiststheravagesofbiologicaltimeFreudremarksthat“Whatweareleftwithisthefactthattheorganismwishestodieonly in itsownfashion.”154Thedrive towardsdeath, towards the (in)organicpoolsofourhumblebeginningsrunsagainstthevacuityofthespiritualcosmeticsofmeaningandpurpose.Freudwrites:“It may be difficult, too, for many of us, to abandon the belief that there is an instinct towardsperfectionatworkinhumanbeingswhichhasbroughtthemtotheirpresenthighlevelofintellectualachievementandethicalsublimationandwhichtheymaybeexpectedtowatchovertheirdevelopmentintosupermen.”155

Freudhasnotroublefurtheringsuchabandonment.AsRayBrassierwrites:“Death,understoodasthe principle of decontraction driving the contractions of organic life is not a past or future statetowardswhichlifetends,butrathertheoriginarypurposelessnesswhichcompelsallpurposefulness,whetherorganicorpsychological.”156Thatis,theoriginarymomentoflife’screationcanbethought

ofastheindifferenceofentropyandthedifferenceofnegentropyjoinedtogetherinawaywehavenotyetdiscovered.157Itisourattemptatdiscoveringthiswhich,forBrassier,drivesourthinkingandouracting.The issuehere isdiscerning thepathologyof thehumanorganismwithout reduction toorganism as DNA vessel158 nor externally transcendentalizing the human and shielding it fromphysicalandchemicalprocessesinafruitlessandpoeticgesture.

One largequestion that remainsgivenBrassier ’scosmological inscriptionof thedeathdrive iswhether our concept of life requires a substantive rather than purely identitarian definition.ThroughoutthistextwehaverejectedtheclassicalviewthatvitalismassumesasubstanceandyetthecategoryoflifeinHenry’stermsorthewaylivingorlifestyleisoftenformulated,eschewstheveryquestionof substantive life,ofquestionsof life thatmany thinkers like toavoidgiven thepossibledangerousramificationsofspeakingoflifeitselfandnotmerelylifeassuch.Life,however,cannotbethemetacorporealentityofclassicalvitalism159that is,a trans-speciessubstance,norcanitbeaforcewhichonlyconfusesquestionsofsubstance.AsFreudpointsout,Weissman’smorphologicallivingsubstance160isdividedintoimmortalandmortalpartsaswepreviouslydiscussedinregardstoBergson’sstatementthatindividualformsoflifeareonlybudsofadeeperprocess.

Pearson shows that Deleuze is critical of Weissman’s divide of soma and germ because theexistenceofthegerm,ofthesubstanceoflife,impliesthattherecanbeapartoflifewithoutchange,somepartof life that isnotpureprocess.161But,Weissmandidnotwish toallowforanysenseofinternal development of life aside from its species archetype contained in its germinal (immortal)existence.162Thedeepinteriorofthegerm,thereductionoflifetothesimplevesicleissymbolicallyrecodedinLacan’sadaptationandmutationofFreudianpsychoanalysisinthelamella.

TheLamella(literallymeaningman-omlette) is“extra-flat”and“moveslikeanamoeba.”163AsŽižek describes it, this squirmy bit of life is a rogue organwhich embodies pure life instinct, theaforementioned life instinct as embodied by sexual reproduction. By embodying this processhowever,thelamellaispreciselythatwhichisleftoutofsexualreproductionsincethenegentropyoforganismsisultimatelyimperfect.164The lamella issimultaneously thecore,and leftoverof, life’sproductivityandlifeasasubstance.Lacanrefers to the lamellaasaphantomafterbirth,asamoreprimalformoflife.165Asafragmentofimmortal life, it isdifficultnottoseethelamellaassometransformationofWeissman’seternalgerm.

The lamella is described as “pure surface,” as an inverted organ166 and while embodying theleftover of reproduction it also simultaneously represents the aforementioned death drive, the“uncannyexcessoflife.”167However,onecannothelpbutnoticethattheundeadnatureofthelamellaseemstobeoverlyidealandinservicetothepersistenceofhumansubjects.Thatis,whereasFreud-Weissman’simmortalpieceoflifewaslifeitself,thegermoflife,Žižek-Lacan’sistherepetitionoflife-forms.InthissenseŽižekde-nihilizesthedeathdriveasPearsonstatesthatDeleuzeaccomplishesaswell.168

ItisworthnotingthattheŽižekchapterquotedfromaboveisentitled‘LacanasareaderofAlien’–thefacehuggerfunctionsasthelamella–sacrificingitselftoimpregnateagoo-trappedvictimwithaxenomorph.Thefantasticalxenomorphs,inŽižek’sarticulation,arerepresentativeofthebareandmonstrousnessoflifeandyethesaysnothingabouttheactualcapacityofthehorridnessofnaturebutinsteadswings theburdenof insanity to themindofhumancreatures.Theactivityofall theworld(followingaHegelianstrandofthought, intermsofabsolutespirt,ofanidealdrivingforceoftheworld)ispsychologized,whereallsubstance,whetherbiologicalorinorganicisjuststuff.

But canwe believe that the awfulness (or cosmological indifference) of the generation of lifeitselfisfoundonlyinthedullperceptionofonespeciesnakedapes,orisitinlifeitself?

The question could be put another way; how slimy is psychoanalysis (or for that matter anyphilosophicalformofmaterialism)willingtobe?InhistextŽižek’sOntology,AdrianJohnstonpointsout Žižek’s profound disgust with life stating that he “finds occasions for dwelling upon thesepowerful feelings of deep-seated revulsion, feelings that sustain an aesthetic omnipresent in hisoeuvre.”169

JohnstonpointstoimagesthroughoutŽižek’sworkofputridflesh,disgustinglife,uglinessandotherassortedhorrorssuchas“anobscenemassofraw,palipatingslime.”170JohnstonnotesthatthisismorethanapersonaloddityforŽižekandthatitpointstoahorrorinherenttosubjectiveexistence.Thishorror is rooted in theexperienceof the subject171and not organicity itself.The aversion toslime, according to Johnston, is indicativeof anobsessionalneurosis, a neurosis thatŽižek’susespsychoanalysis to critique in Kant’s critical analysis.172 Despite this Johnston argues that Žižekperformsthepathologieshediagnosesinothers173ashefollowsthespiritof,butcomestodifferentconclusions regarding, the void or meaninglessness of the illusion of immortality overriding thegrossmaterialityofhuman(andallbiological)life.

Thismayseem tobecompletely in linewith thedarknessofdarkvitalism, that life ishorriblestrictly from the perspective of human beings. However the difference is crucial. Žižek’spsychoanalyticphilosophydoesnotseeamaterialexistenceindependentofthehumansubjectwhereherewe are asserting one, this being the fundamental difference betweenmaterialism and realism.Thatis,whilepsychoanalysisappearstobeoneofthestrongerphilosophicalarticulationsfromthesense stage of thought, from subject-centered thinking, it does not take nature on the whole as arelevantobjectofthoughtinanyseriousregard.

AsJohnstonhimselfhasnotedmankind is trappedinaweaknature.174He thengoes todismissFreud’sbiologismstating that insteadofmaterial nature asdisruptedwehave“irreduciblediscordandclashes arise fromantagonistic splits embedded in thematerial foundationsofhuman.”175 andthatnatureitselfis“heterogeneousensemblesofless-then-fullysynthesizedmaterialbeings.”176Theissuebecomesofretainingtheweightofthedrivesonhumanswithoutsufficientlyde-toothingnature,thatisofassertingtheorganicoverthevaguelymaterial.

What is imperative in Johnston’s account of the drives of psychoanalysis, and what seemsperfectly in sync with a strong or non-weak nature, is their temporal dimension. Connecting thedrivestoLacan’slamellaJohnstonwrites“Drivesoftenbehaveasparasites,feedingoffthevitalityoftheirbiologicalhostintheirinsatiablequestforenjoyment.”177Whileitwouldseemthatdrivesareunnaturalparasites(withtheparasiticimagebringingthedeathdrivebacktoitsvesicleorgerminalroots)thatis,psychicconstructs,whatifthedriveswerethoughtofusourownrelationtotimeitself?Thatiswhatif thepureenergyofthedrives,whichFreudarticulatedasakindofpsychicalenergy(whichmightbeseenasinherentlyvitalist)wereseenastheforceoftimeitself,asitisinterpretedbytheorganism.Inthissensedrives,followingfromtheOnewhichweintroducedattheintroductionofthis text, would be another result of the decomposition of the original cloud of cosmologicalmatter.178Whatmorecanbesaidof thisOne,ofaformalnamefor theresultsof timeandspace’sexplosionoverspace?Howistheoozingjuggernautoftimeproductiveinconnectiontolife?179

The neo-Platonist thinker Plotinus provides some clue as he, along with other neo-Platonists,formulatedaconceptoftheOneasacompleteanduttertranscendence.Plotinus’Oneisanon-conceptwhichisknownthroughitseffectaspower,foundationandlocationandisasallthatisandwhatispotential,itemanatesallexistentsandholdsallpossibility.AgainstPlotinus’transcendentOnewhichborders on the mystical and the godlike, our One is merely the generative material sum as thespeculativeepochpriortotheBigBang,thesourceofallthingsbutinastrictlymaterialsense.

In this sense the One is corrupted or degenerate instead of being transcendent, and instead ofbeingeternalandtimelessitismerelythesteptowardstimeandspace,thepossibilityofchange.IainHamiltonGrantconnectsPlotinus’One,andhisgeneraltheoryofanenergizedorspiritualizedworldasnumbersmademanifest,toLorenzOken’ssimilaruseofthezero.180

The invocation of such numbers is only an illustration of an originary eventwhich has set inmotiontheengineofspatiotemporalitycausingproductssuchaslifeand,toconnectbacktoFreud,self-awarelifewhichastocomprehendaforceoftimewhichappearssimultaneouslyformativeandparasitic.

Schelling’suseofStufenfolge(orsequenceofsteps)bringstheissueoftheOneandoftheunsuredivisionoftheinteriorandtheexteriorandthemortalandimmortalpartsoflifetoasynthesis.TheStufenfolgenames theconstant streamofbecomingswhichdonot followfroma formandmerelyattempt to repeat it (the One does not emanate itself) but only processes itself as process181 TheStufenfolgeare thedecomponentsofnature,of theoriginalOnecreatingan infiniteseriesof finitebeings,ofwhatweexperienceasnature.182

Toreturntonumericity,Oken’szero,asIainHamiltonGrantpointsoutin“BeingandSlime”,isthewaveringzero,thegeneratorofallslimewhichtherebyassertsthatsomething(materiality,matteretc) ismerely the repetitionofnothingasan ideal/intensityoras real/extensiveand the reason forall.183Nothingnessisthereasonforall,extendedandintensivewhichpreemptsallthought,allformsofideation.Thatis,thereisnoreasonforwhatisotherthenitfollowsfromthisorthatthingwhichisaresultofthedecompositionoftheOne.Orputmostsimplythingsdonothappenbecausethought,orspirit,orfateguaranteesthattheyhappen,nordoesthought,orspiritorfateitselfhappen(cometobe)because itmust, it is just that thought,orspiritor fate(or itsmaterialeffects)canhappenovertimeastheevolutionofourplanethasshown.FollowingGrant’suseofOken,timeisthegroundofallideation184andhumanbeingsaremerelythinkingslime185caughtintheflowoftime,inaparadeofnothingness.Onecouldtakethemathematicalrepresentationofsuchacosmosisasfollows:

1.00000000000.Wherethe1isthecongealedtimespaceandmatterinherentlyinstable,whichexplodesoutwards

intotimeandspaceinrelationtomatter.Existence,whichfollows,andwhatphilosophyattemptstograsp as “the formal repetition of cosmogony.”186 Our existence is then only a stacking ofputrescence, an infusorial mass or protoplasm or an originative but rotten unity.187 Okenianbiologicalexistencethen,ismerelyoneoftheresultsofthisexplosionoffilth,asagenerativemucusorUrschleim, a collectionof slimepoints (a primordial formof life similar but not analogous toFreud’s vesicle) which combine to form different constructions of life.188 Clark Ashton Smith, asympatheticorganismofH.P.Lovecraft,createdahorrificmanifestationofsuchslimebeingwithhisUbbo-Sathla:

“Ubbo-SathladweltinthesteamingfensofthenewmadeEarth:amasswithoutheadormembers,spawningthegrey,formlesseftsoftheprimeandthegrislyprototypesofterrenelife...Andallearthlylife,itistold,shallgobackatlastthroughthegreatcircleoftimetoUbbo-Sathla.”189

SmithfurthertiesthisgreatmotherslimetotheevolutionaryactionoflifeonEarth:“There,inthegreybeginningofEarth,theformlessmassthatwasUbbo-Sathlareposedamidtheslimeandthevapors.Headless,withoutorgansormembers,itsloughedfromitsoozysides,inaslow,ceaselesswave,theamoebicformsthatwerethearchetypesofearthlylife.Horribleitwas,if there had been aught to apprehend the horror; and loathsome, if there had been any to feelloathing.”190TheaforementionedFrederichKielmeyer suggested that therewere five forcesoftheorganismand thatone increasedas theothersdecreased–oneofwhichwas thesecretive–

onecanimagineClark’sUbbo-Sathlaasabeastwithitssecretivepowerbeyondallmeasure.191Here,againstHenry’spurelyaffectivelife,onecanseelifeasapooloffeculence,asthatwhichhasbeenandwillbewithoutinherentfeeling(withouthorrorandloathinginClark’squote).Thequestionbecomesdoesthebasematerialismofliferelatetotheproblemofethics–aconcernwhichtoooftenthannotisthecenterofcontemporaryphilosophyatthecostofanalyticalorspeculativebreadthanddepth.Anethicswhichmusttaketheproductivityandproductbeingofnatureseriously.

In “Being andSlime”Grant points out that, followingOken, an ethicswithout a philosophyofnature is a contradiction, a non-thing.192 The fundamental challenge of Kantian ethics and ofsubsequent post-modern ethics (following from thinkers such as Emanuel Levinas) is that they setthemselves as groundless, as not following from any sort of nature or material substance. Thisgroundlessness is only half -hearted however, as the dominant form of ethics bases itself on anunacknowledged(orcelebrated)positingoftheimportanceofhumanbeings.

The obvious problem of connecting ethics to any sort ofmateriality immediately suggests thepossibility of ethics, or more generally human action, determining life. This problem is onlylegitimate, however, if life is always taken tobe life as such andnot life itself.That is, amaterialethicsimmediatelysummonsthespectersofeugenics,selectivebreedingracismetceterabecausetheconceptofanaturalethicsisconstruedascomingfromaparticularformofhuman(aparticularrace,religion, etc.) and not from humans as a slimy animal. Contemporary ethical configurations thenwouldseeamaterialbasisforanethicsfollowingfromnatureascomingfromaparticularhumansubject(Nazi,Fascistetcetera)andneverhumanityasaformofanimal.

WhereanOkenianethicsshouldbeviewedasanethicsopentoforms-of-liferegardlessoftheirmaterialappearance,formorfunction,thephilosophicallydominantethicsofthedaywouldseesuchan ethics as determining a particular formof human life as such (that is secretlywestern, eastern,Christianandsoforth)andneverfollowingfrombiologyorthebaseslimeoflifeitself.

Howbettertopursuesuchanethicsofnature,ofthebiological,thantoapproachthealienagain.ThefilmDistrict9takesthealien,theoutsiderandtheconceptofdiseasetherebyunifyingtwoof

ourpreviouslydiscussedadventures(themicrobialandthesupraorganic)withthefungalremainingto feast on the remains. The film follows, in faux documentary style, an aspiring employee of amultinational corporationwho leads an eviction of a shanty town of aliens in Johannesburgwho,twenty years earlier, came to Earth in a barely functioning shipwithout any leadership hierarchy,starving and helpless.During the eviction the employee,Wikus, is exposed to a biological agentwhichslowlybeginstotransformhisbodybutnotbeforecausinghisteethandfingernailstofallout,hisskintodeform,andfeaturestochangeandsoon.

These body horror or gross-out aspects ofDistrict 9may be forgiven if the question of thebiologicalitselfisinquestioninrelationtolife,thequestionofhowbiologicalisourhumanity?Theeaseatwhichthebodyisnullifiedbyseenandunseenagentssuggeststhatitisthegesturesoflivingcreatureswhichcreatesmaterialdifference–evenifinamaterialsensethegesturesare‘justrubbish’inamaterialsense.Wikus,afterhistransformationcontinuestomakepresentsofrubbish,suchasametal flower, for his wife. Connecting back to the introduction, meaning is not inherent butretroactive, caused by the interconnectedness and effects of rubbish, of dumb biology. Scenesthroughoutthefilmwhichrunbecoming-the-xeno-subjectandsicknesstogether(whenthedeplorableprotagonistWikuspullsouthisdeadfingernails,deadteethandsoforth)tiethedangerofamaterialbasedethicstothetenuousnessofthematerialitselfduetodeath,diseaserotandsoon.

Negarestani’salreadymentionedradicalopennesscomesintoplayand,inparticular,hisdepictionofitasbeingopentobeingbutchered.AsNegarestaniwrites:“Thebladeofradicalopennessthirststobutchereconomicalopennessoranyopennessconstructedontheaffordabilityofboththesubject

anditsenvironment.”193Orputanotherway:“Opennessemergesasradicalbutcheryfromwithinandwithout.”194

The treatment of Wikus’ body by himself, by the alien infection and by others illustrates thebutchering aspect of openness, and can be seen in particular in the amputation logic which oftenappearsinhorrorfilmssurroundingalieninfectionwhetherparasiticorviral.ThisamputationlogicisinfulleffectinthefilmtheRuinswherethepartmustbesacrificedforthewhole.ForquitesometimeinthefilmWikus’bodyisapieceoffuturebiotechnology,readyforscrappingandextractionand he himself contemplates ridding himself of his alien arm.Again, thinking back to our viroidchapter,weareremindedofthewitheringofthebodybythealienlifeformsinDeadSpace.

Returning to the ethical, the fact that the reason that the aliens stopped on earth is left opensuggeststhatwhattheyneededitselfwasopenorobfuscated-fuel,food,generalcareetc.Somethingthat could not be provided by their advanced technology – something possibly as the result of anaccident.Thisfactiscompoundedbythealiens’biotechnology,thefactthatthebiologicaliswiredtothe technological and yetwhat ismissing is the odd ethical gesture.Again, regardless of the basematerial,whatislacking,whatisneededbythealiens,isgesturewhichoverlooksboththeneedfortheirtechnologyandthedifferenceoftheirbiology.

District 9 underscores the lack of this gesture in its portrayal of the inability ofcapitalist/multinationalentitiestounderstandtheethical(asifthiswasanythingnew)sincetheethicalfailsassoonasittriestobecomeformalizedintolaw.Theethicalremainstheunformalizableaspectoftheconnectionoftwonetworks.Similarly,thequestionremainsoftheexactcircumstancesofhowthealiensendeduponearth,wasitaccidentorsomeotherexteriorforce?Theaccidentorstringofunfortunatecircumstancesbeingthecounterparttotheunpredictableethicalgesture.

Herewecouldmakeanoddconnection to theracialparanoiaofHPLovecraft.LovecrafthasastrikingpassageinoneofhislettersfromwhenhewaslivinginNewYork.Hewrites:

“The organic things—Italo-Semitico-Mongoloid—inhabiting that awful cesspool could not byanystretchoftheimaginationbecalledhuman.Theyweremonstrousandnebulousadumbrationsofthe pithecanthropoid and amoebal; vaguelymoulded from some stinking viscous slime of earth’scorruption [...] the degenerate gelatinous fermentation of which they were composed—seem’d toooze,seepandtricklethro’thegapingcracksinthehorriblehouses...andIthoughtofsomeavenueofCyclopeanandunwholesomevats,crammedtothevomiting-pointwithgangrenousvileness.”195

As Michel Houellebecq points out, the particular race Lovecraft was talking about is animpossibleone–Lovecraftwasgenerallydisgustedbywhathe sawasnon-westernmodesof life.Lovecraftincorrectlyassumedthatoneformofcivilizationcouldsavehumanityfromitselfandthiswashismistake.HereLovecraft’sindifferentismbetraysitselfashecannotbeopentothesliminessoflifeinhisexistencewhilehisfictionwasrifewiththem,withtheinterpentratingencounterbetweenoddmaterials and and purportedly familiar ones.Compare to the following fromLovecraft’s tale“FactsConcerningtheLateArthurJermynandHisFamily”:

“Lifeisahideousthing,andfromthebackgroundbehindwhatweknowofitpeerdaemoniacalhints of truthwhichmake it sometimes a thousandfoldmore hideous. Science, already oppressivewith its shockingrevelations,willperhapsbe theultimateexterminatorofourhumanspecies—ifseparatespecieswebe—foritsreserveofunguessedhorrorscouldneverbebornebymortalbrainsifloosedupontheworld.”196

The question is that of the human and the non-human, not the European and its other. InNegarestani’sCyclonopediaheproposes thepossibility, following fromLovecraft’screations,ofaCthulhoid ethics which he defines as “A polytical ethics necessary for replacing or underminingexisting planetary politico-economical and religious systems. Cthulhoid Ethics is essential for

accelerating the emergence and encounter with the radical Outside. Cthulhoid Ethics can becharacterizedbythequestion‘whathappensnext?’when it isposedby theothersideor theradicaloutsiderratherthanthehumananditsfaculties.”197ItisimportanttonoteaswellthatNegarestani’sspellingofpolyticsisindicativeofanalternatemeaningtothecommonpolitics,thatofaschizoid,hyperactive forming of strategies to degrade and undue its target by opening it to the untenableOutside.198

Whileopennessasapoliticalethicalcategoryisnonewcreation(goingbackfiftyyearsatleast)Negarestani’sformulation,ashasbeenpreviouslysuggested,makesanimportantdistinction.AswehavebeendeployingopennesssofaritshouldbealltooclearthatNegarestani’sopennessisoneinwhich invites hacking and butchering or worse. It is one not of being open to X but being open,making oneself fully susceptible to invasion, corruption, contagion and death. It is an ethics thatrefuses to letanunacknowledgedandsubjectivelyhumandesignationof theethicalover-determinelifeinitselfwithlifeassuch.

Humans, likeanyotherpolypof livingmatter, arenothingbutheapsof slimeslapped togetherand shaped by the accidents of time and the context of space. The fact that we have evolved self-consciousness shouldnot guaranteeormaintainmeaning.Meaning is only ever the final gloss onbeingwhichwhen removed does not then dictatemass suicide nor pure apathy.Such a suggestionwouldignorethepathologyofhumanexistence,ofthemindasaballoftime,thatbeingpermeatedbyspace and timewe formparticular attachments and drives, things thatwe pursue, construct and soforth without reason or meaning – only as a result of being aware and yet unaware of our owntenuous formation. Tonnesson’s statement from the introduction’s epigraph that ‘Life isn’t evenMeaningless’ is not merely sardonic or misanthropic, but is a critically existential and evenontologicaltruth.

Lifeismerelylife,nottosaythatitislessmeaningfulthanmeaningitself(outsidelife)butthatmeaning itselfmust be negated, rendered in acid.Meaning is additive and herewe have set out tosubtract it.Thismay seem towelcome thehorrorsofbio-metricgovernment aptly consideredandcritiqued by the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, of being reduced to a genome, a finger print, aretinalscan.But subtractingmeaning, reducingontological life tobiological life isonly tounbindpathologywhichseemslikeafarmoreusefulweaponincombatingastructurethenmeaning,thenameaningfulexistenceorsubjectivityintermsofAgamben’sform-of-life.Pathologyisfarhardertomeasure,dressandmaintainthentheconceptofameaningfulortruelife.

Pathology opens the oddness of the accidentality of any creation in time and space therebyspreadingaplagueoftenuousnessacrossallofexistence.Thisisnottosaythat‘anythingispossible’northatinsanitywillsaveus,butthateverythingisdestructibleandthecontraryseemspossiblegivenaparticularutilizationandmutilationoftimeandspace.Everythingdies.Thisintroducesthetensionbetween inactivity between inaction and action, that things will perish but so will I. The strangetemporality is reflected in the symptom, in that particular things in time form our particularpathologicaltrajectorybutthistrajectorycontinuouslyremindsusofitsexistence.

Theissuebecomestheinterplexingexistenceofpathologicallifeandslimelifeinthattheybothadmit our subjectiviation to space and time. That our creationwas a fluke and our articulation ascivilizedbeingsisjustasmeaningless.Meaningutilizestimeandspace(intermsofhistory,tradition,culture etc.) todeny,or sublatepathology.Any structure (groups, governments, bureaucracies) aremerelyhistoricalpathologies,alongrepetitionandvalidationofaparticularpathologywhich,givenitshistory,seemstohavebecomeun-pathologicalorpermanent,usefulormeaningful.

The aforementioned being open, being splayed open, then recognizes pathology but does notlegitimatestructure.Wemust remainopen to thepathologicaland to life itself (tomakepossibleaCthuloidethics). In the epigraph aboveLigotti suggests, throughnegation, thatwe are subject to a

nightmarish obscenity, namely, as I have argued, in that life is drawn and quartered by spatio-temporality.AsLovecraftwasknownforsayingwearemerelyatomsdriftinginavoidbutfollowingOken and Grant these formal points, these zeros, are not without their slime just as the humanexperienceofnothingness isnotwithout its slovenlymatter,notwithout theaccidentalcollisionofmatterthatsupplantsmeaningasitsbirthright.

Thematerialbeingofhumans,andofalllifeisaslimyone.Slimeis thesmudgeofreality, theremainderandreminderofthefactthatthingsfallapart.Theshiningpathofhumanityisonlyevertheverminous-liketrailofourownoozingacrosstimeandspace–thetraceandproofofourcompletesliminessthroughandthrough.Humanexistence then iscomposedof theslimeofbeingconjoinedwiththemindlessanddysfunctionalrepetitionsofpathology.

Slime,intheend,istheproofofcohesionandthehintofitsundoing,theevidencethatsomethingdisgustinghappened,somefoulthingcalledlife.Somethingthatwillfillspacetillthecosmosburnstoolowforanythingtoagaincohere,endingonlywithanoceanofputrescencespillingoverintotheboundlessvoidofextinction.

Notes1 Gould,StephenJay,(2007)TheRichnessofLife:TheEssentialStephenJayGould.W.W.

Norton)p2802 Gould,TheRichnessofLife,p283

3 Cohen,JackandStewart,Ian(2009)“AlienScience”inCollapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopmentUrbanomic,vol.5,p249-250

4 Johnson,Steven,(2002)Emergence,(SimonandSchuster),p115 Johnson,Emergence,p13

6 Cohen,JackandSteward,Ian.(1994)TheCollapseofChaos:DiscoveringSimplicityinaComplexWorld.(VikingAdult)p232

7 CohenandStewart,CollapseofChaos,p2338 Ibid.p2409 Ibid.p24410 Ibid.p335,p36711 Ibid.p435

12 Brassier,Ray(2001),AlienTheory:TheDeclineofMaterialismintheNameofMatter,(Warwick:unpublisheddoctoralthesis),p13

13 Marcus,Gary(2009)Kluge:TheHaphazardEvolutionoftheHumanMind,(HoughtonMifflin)p12

14 CohenandStewart,“AlienScience”p23415 Ibid.,p235

16 Brassier,Ray,(2007)NihilUnbound:EnlightenmentandExtinction,(London:PalgraveMacmillilan)p51

17Brassier,Ray,Grant,IainHamilton,Harman,GrahamandMeillassoux,Quentin,(2007)”SpeculativeRealism”,inCollapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopment,vol.3,(Falmouth:Urbanomic),p334

18 Deleuze,Gilles,andGuattari,Felix,(1994)WhatisPhilosophy?,ColumbiaUniversityPress,p213

19 Joshi,S.T.(1990)H.P.Lovecraft:TheDeclineoftheWest,(BerkleyHeights:WildsidePress)p16

20 SchellingdiscussesthisinIdeasforaPhilosophyofNatureandFirstOutlineTowardsaPhilosophyofNature.

21 Gould,RichnessofLife,p21322 Ibid.p21423 Ibid.p21524 Land,Nick,“PestInterviewwithNickLand,”nolongeravailableonline

25 Negarestani,Reza,(2008)Cyclonopedia:ComplicitywithAnonymousMaterials,(Melbourne:Re.Press)p199

26 Negarestani,Cyclonpedia,p19827 Ibid,p210

Harman,Graham,(2009)PrinceofNetworks:BrunoLatourandMetaphysics,(Re.press)p

28 64

29 Galloway,AlexanderandThacker,Eugene(2007)TheExploit:ATheoryofNetworks,(UniversityofMinnesotaPress)p86

30 Negarestani,Reza(2003)“DeathasaPerversion:OpennessandGerminalDeath,”inCTheoryp4availableonlineathttp://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=396

31 Negarestani,“DeathasaPerversion”,p832 Ibid.p7

33 Thacker,Eugene(2005)“Biophilosophyforthe21stCentury”,inCtheory,p2availableonlineathttp://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=472

34 Thacker,Eugene(2006)“Cryptobiologies,”inArtnodevol6,UniversiatObertadeCatalunya,p3

35 GallowayandThacker,TheExploit,p9336 Ibid.p94-9537 Thacker,“Cryptobiologies,”p5

38 Thacker,Eugene(2008)‘NineDisputationsonHorror,’Collapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopmentvol.4,p67

39 Thacker,“NineDisputations”,p81

40 Thacker,Eugene(2004)“LivingDeadNetworks”,inFibrecultureJournalIssue4,OnlinePublication,p1

41 Negarestani,RezaMilitarizationofPeace,Collapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopmentvol1,p64

42 Thacker,Eugene“Biophilosophyforthe21stCentury”,p343 Ibid.,p4

44 Pearson,KeithAnsell,(1999)GerminalLife:TheDifferenceandRepetitionofDeleuze,(Routledge)p188

45 Pearson,GerminalLife,p10-1146 Pearson,GerminalLife,p1147 Pearson,GerminalLife,p12-1348 Pearson,GerminalLife,p170

49 Merleau-Ponty,Maurice(2003)Nature:CourseNotesfromtheCollegedeFrance,(NorthwesternUniversityPress)p170

50 Thacker,‘NineDisputations,’p8751 Thacker,‘NineDisputations,p87-8852 Ibid.p91

53 Ligotti,Thomas(1994)“TheShadowattheBottomoftheWorld,”inGrimscribe,(JoveBooks)p225

54 Rofle,R.T.andRolfe,F.W.(1974)TheRomanceoftheFungusWorld,(DoverPublications)p3

55 Ibid.p556 Ibid.p7957 Ibid.p116-117

58 Ibid.p2359 Vandermeer,Jeff(2006)Shriek:AnAfterword,(TorBooks)p62-63

60 Ligotti,Thomas(2008)“TheBungalowHouse,”inTeatroGrottesco,(VirginBooks)p20361 Ligotti,Thomas“Severini,”inTeatroGrottesco,(VirginBooks)p23162 Ibid.63 Ibid.64 Ibid.p23965 Ibid.66 Ibid.24267 Ibid.

68 Weinbaum,Stanley(1935)“ParasitePlanet”availableonlineathttp://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601211h.html,accessed6/1/2010,unpaginated

69 Weinbaum,“ParasitePlanet”unpaginated70 Ibid.

71 Weinbaum,Stanley(1935)“TheLotusEaters”availableonlineathttp://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601231h.html,unpaginated

72 Rolfe,p1973 Rolfe,p2174 Rolfe,40-4275 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p9476 Bergson,Henri(1998)CreativeEvolution,(Dover)p12877 RolfeandRolfe,p15

78 Hodgson,WilliamHope“AVoiceintheNight,”availableonlineathttp://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/voicenig.htm.AccessedNov,2011unpaginated

79 Lovecraft,HP(2008)“Nyralhotep”,inH.P.LovecraftTheFictionCompleteandUnabridged,(NewYork:BarnesandNoble)p123

80 Lovecraft,HP(2008)“TheDreamQuestofUnknownKadath”inH.P.LovecraftTheFictionCompleteandUnabridged,(NewYork:BarnesandNoble)p410

81 Houellebecq,Michel,(2005)AgainsttheWorld,H.P.AgainstLife(McSweeny’s)p67

82 Lovecraft,HP(2009)“TheFungifromYoggoth”availableonlineathttp://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/poetry/p289.asp.AccessedNovember,2011.

83 Ibid.84 Lovecraft,HP“TheDreamQuestofUnknownKadath,”p411

85ClarkAshtonSmith,(2006)‘TheTaleofSamptraZeiros,’availableonlineathttp://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/208/the-tale-of-satampra-zeiros,AccessedNovember,2011.

86 Houellebecq,MichelinCollapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopmentvol.4,17487 Rolfe,Romance,p1888 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p18289 Rolfe,Romance,p290 Rolfe,Romance,p290

91 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p228

92Lovecraft,HP‘AttheMountainsofMadness,’inH.P.LovecraftTheFictionCompleteandUnabridged,(NewYork:BarnesandNoble,2008),p802

93 Gascoigne,MarcandJones,Andy(2001)(ed)DarkImperium,(BlackLibrary)p27294 HPLovecraftquotedinSTJoshi,DeclineoftheWest,p33

95 Richards,Robert.(2002)TheRomanticConceptionofLife:ScienceandPhilosophyintheAgeofGoethe.(UniversityofChicagoPress)p248

96 Gould,StephenJay,TheRichnessofLife,p37397 IanGrant,PhilosophiesofNatureAfterSchelling,p12198 Ibid,p13599 Houellebecq,AgainsttheWorld,AgainstLife,p33100 Joshi,S.T.,(1990)H.P.Lovecraft:DeclineoftheWest,(BorgoPress)p13101 Joshi,DeclineoftheWest,p5,11102 Joshi,DeclineoftheWest,p84-85103 Bergson,CreativeEvolution,p26-27104 Joshi,DeclineoftheWest,p89

105 HPLovecraft,(2008)“TheUnnameable,”inH.P.LovecraftTheFictionCompleteandUnabridged,(NewYork:BarnesandNoble),p260

106 Ibid.107 Kelly,Phil,andChambers,Andy,(2004)Codex:Tyranids,(GamesWorkshop)p2108 Lovecraft,H.P.“AttheMountainsofMadness,”p771109 Codex:Tyranids,p43110 Codex:Tyranids,p4111 Bergson,CreativeEvolution,p138-139112 Codex:Tyranids,p4

113Grant,Iain.(2008)“BeingandSlime:TheMathematicsofProtoplasminLorenzOken’s‘Physio-Philosophy’”inCollapse:PhilosophicalResearchandDevelopmentvol4.Urbanomic,p307

114 JackCohenandIanStewart,‘AlienScience,’inCollapsevol5,p278115 Ibid.p279116 Ibid.p281

117 Schelling,F.W.J.(1995)IdeasforaPhilosophyofNature.trans.ErrolHarrisandPeterHeath.CambridgeUniversityPress.,p36

118 Ibid.43119 Ibid.54120 Richards,RomanticConceptionofLife,p133121 Schelling,IdeasforaPhilosophyofNature,p273

122 Fahy,Warren,(2009)Fragment,(DelacortePress)p70.ThankstoKatieKohnforpointingoutthisworktome.

123 Fragment,p250

124 Fragment,p60125 Fragment,p211126 Fragment,p281127 Fragment,p283

128 Schelling,F.W.J.(2004)FirstOutlineofaSystemofthePhilosophyofNature.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,p198

129 Ibid.p194

130 Schelling,FWJ,(2007)TheGroundingofPositivePhilosophy,(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress),p93

131 Richards,TheRomanticConceptionofLife,p138132 Ibid.133 Grant,PhilosophiesofNatureafterSchelling,p119134 Ibid.p125135 Richards,TheRomanticConceptionofLife,p143136 Ibid.p145137 Grant,PhilosophiesofNatureafterSchelling,p126138 Ibid.p134139 Ibid.p136-138140 Ibid.p99-104141 Richards,TheRomanticConceptionofLife,p162142 Ibid.p248143 Ibid.p185-186

144 Deleuze,Giles,(1994)DifferenceandRepetition,trans.PaulPatton,(ColumbiaUniversityPress),p119

145 Schelling,FirstOutline,p98146 Bergson,CreativeEvolution,p46-47147 Richards,RomanticConception,p292-294148 Grantetall,Collapsevol.3,p339149 Grantetall,Collapsevol.3,p340150 Freud,Sigmund(1990)BeyondthePleasurePrinciple,(W.W.Norton)p28-29151 Freud,BeyondthePleasurePrinciple,p146152 Freud,Beyond,p30153 Freud,Beyond,p31-32154 Freud,Beyond,p47155 Freud,Beyond,p50156 RayBrassier,NihilUnbound,p236157 Brassier,NihilUnbound,p238158 CohenandStewart,CollapseofChaos,p308-309159 GallowayandThacker,TheExploit,p80160 Freud,Beyond,p54

161 Pearson,GerminalLife,p116162 Pearson,GerminalLife,p6-7163 Žižek,Slavoj,(2006)HowtoReadLacan,(W.W.Norton),p61164 Ibid.

165 Lacan,Jacques,(2006)“PositionoftheUnconscious,”inEcrits,trans.BruceFink(W.W.Norton)p717

166 Ibid,718167 Žižek,HowtoReadLacan,p62168 Pearson,GerminalLife,p.10-11

169 Johnston,Adrian(2008)Žižek’sOntology:ATranscendentalMaterialistTheoryofSubjectivity,(Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress),p23-24

170 Johnston,Žižek’sOntology,p24171 Ibid.172 Ibid.p22-23173 Ibid.p24

174Johnston,Adrian,(2008)“ConflictedMatter:JacquesLacanandtheChallengeofSecularizingMaterialism,”Pli:TheWarwickJournalofPhilosophy,vol.19(WarwickUniversity)p166

175 Ibid.p173176 Ibid.p187

177 Johnston,Adrian,(2005)TimeDriven:MetapsychologyandtheSplittingoftheDrive,(NorthwesternUniversityPress),p166

178 Johnston,Adrian,TimeDriven,p196179 Grant,“BeingandSlime,”inCollapsevol4,p291180 IainGrant,“PhilosophyBecomeGenetic,”inTheNewSchelling,p145181 Grant,PhilosophiesofNatureafterSchelling,p148182 Ibid.183 Grant,“BeingandSlime”,p302184 Ibid.p321185 Ibid.p305186 Ibid.p321187 Ibid.p295188 Grant,PhilosophiesofNatureafterSchelling,p130

189Smith,ClarkAshton,(2009)“Ubbo-Sathla,”availableonlineatwww.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/224/ubbo-sathla.AcessedNov,2011Unpaginated.

190 Ibid.191 Richards,RomanticConceptionofLife,p243-244192 Grant,“BeingandSlime,”p287-289193 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p197

194 Ibid.p199195 Houellebecq,MichelAgainsttheWorld,AgainstLife,p106-107196 HPLovecraft,“TheFactsConcerning...”inHPLovecraft,TheCompleteTales,p102197 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p238198 Negarestani,Cyclonopedia,p242

Contemporaryculturehaseliminatedboththeconceptofthepublicandthefigureoftheintellectual.Formerpublicspaces–bothphysicalandcultural–arenoweitherderelictorcolonizedby

advertising.Acretinousanti-intellectualismpresides,cheerledbyexpensivelyeducatedhacksinthepayofmultinationalcorporationswhoreassuretheirboredreadersthatthereisnoneedtorousethemselvesfromtheirinterpassivestupor.Theinformalcensorshipinternalizedandpropagatedbytheculturalworkersoflatecapitalismgeneratesabanalconformitythatthepropagandachiefsof

Stalinismcouldonlyeverhavedreamtofimposing.Zer0Booksknowsthatanotherkindofdiscourse–intellectualwithoutbeingacademic,popularwithoutbeingpopulist–isnotonlypossible:itisalreadyflourishing,intheregionsbeyondthestriplitmallsofso-calledmassmediaandthe

neuroticallybureaucratichallsoftheacademy.Zer0iscommittedtotheideaofpublishingasamakingpublicoftheintellectual.Itisconvincedthatintheunthinking,blandlyconsensualculturein

whichwelive,criticalandengagedtheoreticalreflectionismoreimportantthaneverbefore.