Sticking with Vitanza’s three counter theses (see the previous post) but stepping out a little further. Here are the three theses which Vitanza counters

(1) the will to systematize (the) language (of composing), (2) the will to be its author(ity), and (3) the will to teach it to students. In short, they are counterresponses to the field’s will to control (this) language (specifically, its modes of representation) for the general ends of both traditional and modern rhetoric(s) and, hence, for a (homogeneous) community. These ends, as commonly accepted, are noble. And yet, I irrepressibly ask, are they? I would think other(wise): These rhetorics-their modes of representation are insidious and invidious. (140)

These can be put easily into the context of Deleuze’s three temporal synthesis. The first is contractive. It gathers language together and bounds language from non-language. The second is extensive and provides language with its history and identity, including the role of the speaker/author. The third is the act of repetition (with difference), the reproduction of the self in the other. [Yes I’m cutting corners there, but these days frontier AI are more than happy to help you flesh it out.]

The step out further is articulating language and writing as features of collective assemblages of enunciation. If we select that step, then writing can be articulated within the operation of time-critical media. That is, in brief, if time is relational and subjectivity/consciousness are relational, they co-emerge (for us) in the constructed now of controlled and consensual hallucination. Writing, as symbolic action, cuts the world in its relational emergence, producing timelines (and time liens, debts that must be accounted).

It is in this context that frontier AI’s pre-dictive capacities proleptically precede our speaking, though it is a twisted, necropolitical timeline and time lein reanimated from the internet’s archival detritus of dead, phatic utterances–utterances that become increasingly uncanny as AI stumbles up to the karaoke bar mic one too many times to belt out that we’d look good on a bicycle built for two.

My question is “two what?”