This article is based on a lecture given by the author at the forum held by the China Academy of Art "Century: A Proposal," Strasbourg, France, 2017.12.02

Good evening, it's my honor to be a part of the “Century: A Proposal” symposium.

I chose 1984 as a point of reference for reflecting on the past century and offering a proposal for the future, not merely because it was mentioned prophetically and allegorically in George Orwell's famous novel 1984. In the novel, the omnipresent “telescreen” functions as both a mechanism for brainwashing and monitoring, and the immortal “big brother” resembles a virtual image that can only exist within these “telescreens.” Vocabulary and semantics fluctuate according to the needs of the ruling class, whereas the “newspeak” has arbitrarily changes the meaning of words. The governing technology implemented by the ruling class is not only a form of hardline discipline but also provides dissidents with The Book With No Name, supplying them with the “why” and “how” of rebellion against the authoritarian regime. This thereby leads the dissidents to fall into a modeled rebellion that can only be conducted within the loop of positive and negative logic—an outcome that has become one of the governing techniques of the current ruling class. Compared to the hardline, totalitarian form of government envisioned in 1984, the actual 1984 was also the year Steven Paul Jobs released the first personal computer with a graphical interface, which promoted the first step toward data dictatorship and the current man-machine state of human existence. It was also the year in which Margaret Hilda Thatcher, while pushing for neoliberalism, carried out a bloody crackdown on striking miners at Orgreave. Many events took place during 1984, using it as areference point helps clarify how the current ruling class produces and propagates “historical narratives” and “future scenarios,” revealing the development of various techniques for Total Global Domination that penetrate the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

As we all know, the “historical narratives” and the “future scenarios” never resemble the static past or future tense found in grammar. Instead, they refer to the multitude of different desires, perceptions, and imaginations embodied in a dynamic field of mutual confrontation and debate.

In countless science fiction novels, films and the imaginations of trend experts, we can see various “new imaginations” concerning technology. Due to the explosive development of technology, we have already become preliminary cyborgs or testers whose role is to improve and expand the level of penetration and capability of technology. It has already become very difficult for the physical body and consciousness to break away from the techno-network dominated by capitalism in its current multinational state. On the other hand, it is easy for us to see from these “new imaginations” and “new inventions” that there is always an ancient desire hidden at the core of these new forms of technology—that is, the desire for “man” to become a ruler who controls and manipulates the consciousness and imaginations of others more effectively, a desire to become Ayn Rand's “Randian hero.” Technology will continue to develop at an accelerated pace, but the desire to become a “Randian hero” is always a desire to pursue a form of feudal hierarchy.

At least a thousand years ago, in the depiction of the Ten Courts of Hell featured in the funeral rituals of ancient China, this ancient desire is paradoxically portrayed in pictorial form. In the first painting of the Ten Courts of Hell, there is a depiction of a dead person kneeling before a “Karmic Mirror,” which plays back all the sins the person committed throughout their life in the form of a moving image. This Karmic Mirror also exposes all the desires and fantasies seen as inappropriate during feudal times that the deceased harbored before death, serving as evidence for the judge of hell to convict them. If we re-read this depiction of the Karmic Mirror within the context of the current reality, it not only appears as a paradoxical tool defending the feudal system, but also reflects the contemporary state of multinational financial sector/techno-capitalism, and the right-wing technocrats upon coming to power in various nations. The ongoing monopolization of the relationship between the ownership of Karmic Mirror and the desire to become a “Randian hero” becomes evident.

As we all know, the core reason for the various “toxicities” caused by contemporary technology isn’t technology itself, but rather the multinational financial sector/techno-capitalism which is increasingly gaining legality by monopolizing ownership of technology and solidifying their control over production. This solidification of power homogenizes the once complex desires, imaginations, and perceptions of people, and rapidly erodes the diversity of these elements that were once expressed in the domain of mutual debate and confrontation.

When we propose an “alternative proposal” toward the “future,” perhaps we should first reflect on how to extricate ourselves from the homogeneity of desire, rather than merely utilizing the current “reality” as a point of departure for imagining the “future.” For instance, when we use words such as “Century,” “AD,” etc., which are “pseudonyms” for the sake of communication convenience, we must also be wary of the fact that these were only unified and widely adopted in the last century. The way to measure time not only contains many contradictions but is also a byproduct of ideology. It not only arbitrarily uses the birth year of Christ as the starting point for measuring time but has also become the only standard recognized by the United Nations and adopted by various civilizations worldwide. Compared to other civilizations, in which there used to be various methods of calculating time. For example, the traditional Chinese calendar is based on the Jiazi (a unit to mark the cycle of sixty years). Buddhism uses the kalpa (eon) and kṣaṇa (instant) to express both the cyclical and incalculable nature of the universe's time. All were eliminated during the last century, when we transitioned from a complex world composed of diverse temporal systems to a singular temporal cosmology, forcing us into a homogenous pursuit of desires and leaving us in the problematic disposition of having one and only “heaven.” Furthermore, this homogeneity of time and desire has more or less “formulated” the imagined future courses of action on both the left and the right during the last century. Given the time constraints, I will only briefly expand on this point. The so-called cyclical time concept is not a closed-loop theory. Instead, throughout the flow of time, it allows for a spatiotemporal cosmology that permits collective reflection on past events and the possibility to “re-start.” As for the homogeneity of desire and its internal correlation with the multiculturalism so popular in today's society, I will not delve further into that here.

After the “failure” of the communist experiment in the last century, the linear view of time has left us with an only upgraded version of capitalism—neoliberalism—as the imagined “heaven” proposed by both sides of the same body. Thus various out of the ordinary projects and proposals put forth by proponents with anti-neoliberal and nonlinear views of time have become the mainstream trend in philosophical circles and social movements. But when we look back at the reality of the situation, the financial sector/techno-capitalism continues to accelerate at an ever more alarming rate. And what is even more paradoxical is that the main support for the continued rapid development of financial/techno-capitalism is that it is being financed by financial/techno-capitalism itself. The workers who are no longer able to level up and upgrade by themselves are cast aside—this, of course, refers to “us,” the hoi polloi.

Before discussing this paradoxical phenomenon, let us briefly review the Singles' Day (November 11th), which has now become a global carnival shopping festival created by Alibaba's multinational e-commerce group. In just one day, they managed to sell 168.2 billion RMB worth of goods—this is the largest amount of sales on a single day in human history. The technology behind this shopping festival naturally employs a variety of artificial intelligence, big data machines, robots, fully automated assembly lines, global logistics networks, online payment systems, and countless movie stars who in sequence take the enormous stage to be a part of this colossal spectacle of show and entertainment.

According to Wikipedia's data from June of 2017, Alibaba's largest shareholder is Japan's Softbank Group Corp (29.2%), and the second largest shareholder is the US-based company Oath (which holds a 15% share). In other words, within a single day, the working class willingly fed Alibaba's multinational capitalists 168.2 billion yuan. Although numerous articles have analyzed this super-consumer spectacle show from different angles, it is still crucial to ask a very basic question: why the countless unsustainable working class, who are unable to automatically level up and upgrade to meet the demands of the financial/techno-capitalism, willingly take part in this illusive show put on by a few transnational capitalists who are going to eventually strip them of their living space? Even more preposterous is that this crazy super-consumer spectacle takes place in a socialist country that once spoke of liberating the oppressed people of the world.

Shortly after the end of this super-consumer landscape show, there was a massive flux of migrant workers being evicted from the city. We don't know the total amount of migrant workers, who are also consumers and support this super-consumer spectacle, but we can reasonably deduce that behind these two seemingly unrelated events, technologies like big data are being utilized. Perhaps, while we unwillingly sink into the trap of becoming consumers of transnational capitalism, aiding its continual growth, we are also unable to prevent the possibility of being evicted at any time. Moreover, the real culprit at the core of this paradoxical phenomenon is the the homogenization of our desires. We are inseparable, at the same time in this world domainled by “global” technologies of manipulation, there was no looking back a long time ago. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, so how are we supposed to provide a practical “alternative proposal” for the “future?”

We all know that there is no simple solution to this problem, but perhaps a series of dialectics from the Dharma discussion on desire can help us find a long-term strategy. It is mentioned in the Mahayana Abhidharma: “To transcend dye does not mean to flee from dye altogether, transcendence of desire lies within desire itself, only by learning and comprehending desire does one know non-desire, to understand desire is to enter the Dharma.” That is to say, instead of contenting ourselves with criticizing the homogenous view of desire shaped by the financial/techno-capitalism, it would be better to rediscover, create and reproduce all kinds of cluster-like breaks and fissure spaces within the world of “global” manipulation technology, in order to produce different tension fields that allow different desires, different perceptions, and different imaginations to continuelly confront and question each other. In this world of “global” domination technologies, this approach not only  prepares us for the possibility of qualitative and re-qualitative changes but also represents an “accident” that purposeless art can offer. More importantly, it is a way to make the concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), which has been suspended for a long time, become once again a method of “purification of desire by desire.”

This article is based on a lecture given by the author at the forum held by the China Academy of Art "Century: A Proposal," Strasbourg, France, 2017.12.02

Good evening, it's my honor to be a part of the “Century: A Proposal” symposium.

I chose 1984 as a point of reference for reflecting on the past century and offering a proposal for the future, not merely because it was mentioned prophetically and allegorically in George Orwell's famous novel 1984. In the novel, the omnipresent “telescreen” functions as both a mechanism for brainwashing and monitoring, and the immortal “big brother” resembles a virtual image that can only exist within these “telescreens.” Vocabulary and semantics fluctuate according to the needs of the ruling class, whereas the “newspeak” has arbitrarily changes the meaning of words. The governing technology implemented by the ruling class is not only a form of hardline discipline but also provides dissidents with The Book With No Name, supplying them with the “why” and “how” of rebellion against the authoritarian regime. This thereby leads the dissidents to fall into a modeled rebellion that can only be conducted within the loop of positive and negative logic—an outcome that has become one of the governing techniques of the current ruling class. Compared to the hardline, totalitarian form of government envisioned in 1984, the actual 1984 was also the year Steven Paul Jobs released the first personal computer with a graphical interface, which promoted the first step toward data dictatorship and the current man-machine state of human existence. It was also the year in which Margaret Hilda Thatcher, while pushing for neoliberalism, carried out a bloody crackdown on striking miners at Orgreave. Many events took place during 1984, using it as areference point helps clarify how the current ruling class produces and propagates “historical narratives” and “future scenarios,” revealing the development of various techniques for Total Global Domination that penetrate the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

As we all know, the “historical narratives” and the “future scenarios” never resemble the static past or future tense found in grammar. Instead, they refer to the multitude of different desires, perceptions, and imaginations embodied in a dynamic field of mutual confrontation and debate.

In countless science fiction novels, films and the imaginations of trend experts, we can see various “new imaginations” concerning technology. Due to the explosive development of technology, we have already become preliminary cyborgs or testers whose role is to improve and expand the level of penetration and capability of technology. It has already become very difficult for the physical body and consciousness to break away from the techno-network dominated by capitalism in its current multinational state. On the other hand, it is easy for us to see from these “new imaginations” and “new inventions” that there is always an ancient desire hidden at the core of these new forms of technology—that is, the desire for “man” to become a ruler who controls and manipulates the consciousness and imaginations of others more effectively, a desire to become Ayn Rand's “Randian hero.” Technology will continue to develop at an accelerated pace, but the desire to become a “Randian hero” is always a desire to pursue a form of feudal hierarchy.

At least a thousand years ago, in the depiction of the Ten Courts of Hell featured in the funeral rituals of ancient China, this ancient desire is paradoxically portrayed in pictorial form. In the first painting of the Ten Courts of Hell, there is a depiction of a dead person kneeling before a “Karmic Mirror,” which plays back all the sins the person committed throughout their life in the form of a moving image. This Karmic Mirror also exposes all the desires and fantasies seen as inappropriate during feudal times that the deceased harbored before death, serving as evidence for the judge of hell to convict them. If we re-read this depiction of the Karmic Mirror within the context of the current reality, it not only appears as a paradoxical tool defending the feudal system, but also reflects the contemporary state of multinational financial sector/techno-capitalism, and the right-wing technocrats upon coming to power in various nations. The ongoing monopolization of the relationship between the ownership of Karmic Mirror and the desire to become a “Randian hero” becomes evident.

As we all know, the core reason for the various “toxicities” caused by contemporary technology isn’t technology itself, but rather the multinational financial sector/techno-capitalism which is increasingly gaining legality by monopolizing ownership of technology and solidifying their control over production. This solidification of power homogenizes the once complex desires, imaginations, and perceptions of people, and rapidly erodes the diversity of these elements that were once expressed in the domain of mutual debate and confrontation.

When we propose an “alternative proposal” toward the “future,” perhaps we should first reflect on how to extricate ourselves from the homogeneity of desire, rather than merely utilizing the current “reality” as a point of departure for imagining the “future.” For instance, when we use words such as “Century,” “AD,” etc., which are “pseudonyms” for the sake of communication convenience, we must also be wary of the fact that these were only unified and widely adopted in the last century. The way to measure time not only contains many contradictions but is also a byproduct of ideology. It not only arbitrarily uses the birth year of Christ as the starting point for measuring time but has also become the only standard recognized by the United Nations and adopted by various civilizations worldwide. Compared to other civilizations, in which there used to be various methods of calculating time. For example, the traditional Chinese calendar is based on the Jiazi (a unit to mark the cycle of sixty years). Buddhism uses the kalpa (eon) and kṣaṇa (instant) to express both the cyclical and incalculable nature of the universe's time. All were eliminated during the last century, when we transitioned from a complex world composed of diverse temporal systems to a singular temporal cosmology, forcing us into a homogenous pursuit of desires and leaving us in the problematic disposition of having one and only “heaven.” Furthermore, this homogeneity of time and desire has more or less “formulated” the imagined future courses of action on both the left and the right during the last century. Given the time constraints, I will only briefly expand on this point. The so-called cyclical time concept is not a closed-loop theory. Instead, throughout the flow of time, it allows for a spatiotemporal cosmology that permits collective reflection on past events and the possibility to “re-start.” As for the homogeneity of desire and its internal correlation with the multiculturalism so popular in today's society, I will not delve further into that here.

After the “failure” of the communist experiment in the last century, the linear view of time has left us with an only upgraded version of capitalism—neoliberalism—as the imagined “heaven” proposed by both sides of the same body. Thus various out of the ordinary projects and proposals put forth by proponents with anti-neoliberal and nonlinear views of time have become the mainstream trend in philosophical circles and social movements. But when we look back at the reality of the situation, the financial sector/techno-capitalism continues to accelerate at an ever more alarming rate. And what is even more paradoxical is that the main support for the continued rapid development of financial/techno-capitalism is that it is being financed by financial/techno-capitalism itself. The workers who are no longer able to level up and upgrade by themselves are cast aside—this, of course, refers to “us,” the hoi polloi.

Before discussing this paradoxical phenomenon, let us briefly review the Singles' Day (November 11th), which has now become a global carnival shopping festival created by Alibaba's multinational e-commerce group. In just one day, they managed to sell 168.2 billion RMB worth of goods—this is the largest amount of sales on a single day in human history. The technology behind this shopping festival naturally employs a variety of artificial intelligence, big data machines, robots, fully automated assembly lines, global logistics networks, online payment systems, and countless movie stars who in sequence take the enormous stage to be a part of this colossal spectacle of show and entertainment.

According to Wikipedia's data from June of 2017, Alibaba's largest shareholder is Japan's Softbank Group Corp (29.2%), and the second largest shareholder is the US-based company Oath (which holds a 15% share). In other words, within a single day, the working class willingly fed Alibaba's multinational capitalists 168.2 billion yuan. Although numerous articles have analyzed this super-consumer spectacle show from different angles, it is still crucial to ask a very basic question: why the countless unsustainable working class, who are unable to automatically level up and upgrade to meet the demands of the financial/techno-capitalism, willingly take part in this illusive show put on by a few transnational capitalists who are going to eventually strip them of their living space? Even more preposterous is that this crazy super-consumer spectacle takes place in a socialist country that once spoke of liberating the oppressed people of the world.

Shortly after the end of this super-consumer landscape show, there was a massive flux of migrant workers being evicted from the city. We don't know the total amount of migrant workers, who are also consumers and support this super-consumer spectacle, but we can reasonably deduce that behind these two seemingly unrelated events, technologies like big data are being utilized. Perhaps, while we unwillingly sink into the trap of becoming consumers of transnational capitalism, aiding its continual growth, we are also unable to prevent the possibility of being evicted at any time. Moreover, the real culprit at the core of this paradoxical phenomenon is the the homogenization of our desires. We are inseparable, at the same time in this world domainled by “global” technologies of manipulation, there was no looking back a long time ago. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, so how are we supposed to provide a practical “alternative proposal” for the “future?”

We all know that there is no simple solution to this problem, but perhaps a series of dialectics from the Dharma discussion on desire can help us find a long-term strategy. It is mentioned in the Mahayana Abhidharma: “To transcend dye does not mean to flee from dye altogether, transcendence of desire lies within desire itself, only by learning and comprehending desire does one know non-desire, to understand desire is to enter the Dharma.” That is to say, instead of contenting ourselves with criticizing the homogenous view of desire shaped by the financial/techno-capitalism, it would be better to rediscover, create and reproduce all kinds of cluster-like breaks and fissure spaces within the world of “global” manipulation technology, in order to produce different tension fields that allow different desires, different perceptions, and different imaginations to continuelly confront and question each other. In this world of “global” domination technologies, this approach not only  prepares us for the possibility of qualitative and re-qualitative changes but also represents an “accident” that purposeless art can offer. More importantly, it is a way to make the concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), which has been suspended for a long time, become once again a method of “purification of desire by desire.”