Speaking Back, the Circling Cypher and Centering of Negative Space, and Proposing Hope
Inspired by "Dialogos on Hope //Guy Sengstock, John Vervaeke, and Chris Mastropietro"
I was very taken by the format in which Guy Sengstock, John Vervaeke, and Chris Mastropietro explored the topic of hope: they began with a proposal, then a response, then a reaction to that response, all of which finished with a moving appreciation of what transpired and emerged. I appreciate the work of all three of these gentlemen, and seeing them together always proves fruitful and visionary.
I
During their “Dialogue to Dialogos,” Mr. Mastropietro would sometimes say something that Mr. Sengstock or Dr. Vervaeke would say back to Chris, and it was fascinating to see how the very act of “repeating something back to someone” transforms how the person experiences it. If I said, “Hope is about meaning,” and someone replied, “That’s wrong,” I’d likely get defensive and more adamant in my perspective, but when that person repeats back to me, “Hope is about meaning,” I can easily pause, think, and shake my head (“Wait, wait, let me think about that”). It’s as if I can’t really hear what I said until I hear it back, and that requires someone to be a kind of vessel or medium through which my words can travel back to me (versus just trail off into the air or inner corridors of their heads). This is arguably an act of love, for it is loving to let someone speak “through” another, and in this way we can see “repetition” and “love” as connected, and if repetition is more likely to transform a person than disagreement, we might see love as more transformative than aggression.
Similar points to these arose in my discussion with “High Root,” as recorded in the piece “Negation, Repetition, and the Tensions Between Writing and Speaking” by O.G. Rose, but in the context of Circling, the dynamic between repetition and negation manifested differently in ways worth noting. It’s funny, but it makes me think about we cannot tickle ourselves or don’t really feel embarrassed about being naked unless someone else sees us: our experience of ourselves and what we physiologically feel is utterly transformed and changed by “the other.” I mean, I find it fairly bizarre that I cannot tickle myself: am I not touching the same nerves, the same sensitive parts of flesh—why is it when “an-other” touches me there, the experience is entirely different? And please note I don’t “will” for the experience to be different, it just “is,” almost as if by magic. So it seems to be whenever someone repeats back to me something I said; mysteriously, it’s as if I hear it for the first time and start to consider it critically, as possibly “a map that isn’t the territory.” Yes, I “know” that no map is the territory, but it seems like I need someone else to really “get” this, as I can “know” I cannot tickle myself but don’t really “get” the strangeness of this until I experience the contrast.
Perhaps there are many more examples beyond tickling, nakedness, and someone repeating something back to me that “points out” this strange possible reality where the involvement of “the other” profoundly transforms the experience, even though the act which occurs is entirely the same in both instances (I hear x; I move my fingers in my armpits; I stand around without clothes on). Please note that if we experience something once in our entire lives, then it is forever something that can happen, and the world is forever a place where such a thing can occur; likewise, the fact “I cannot tickle myself” means the world is a place where “the other” can do things to us that we cannot do to ourselves, even though the act is entirely the same.
Considering the possible unique power and role of others, as Guy and I discussed, we need to “hark” ourselves more so that we fully experience “the other.” “Hark” is a fascinating word, for it suggests a need to “listen,” to “be still,” and “to summon.” “Harken” means to listen, but it can also “harken back” to something in the past, which suggests that there is a connection between “summoning” and “listening.” What do I “summon out of myself” when I really hear the other? Well, some kind of power, it seems, that makes possible Dialogos and “emergence,” but this also requires me to be “still” enough so that I fully experience “the other” without that other being interpreted or distorted. This is very difficult, but succeeding in this undertaking seems to summon something out of myself if not reality itself.
“Harkening,” in this way, seems to be a deep form of “listening,” a term that’s use I fear throws us off, for the word “list” is in it, as if we “listen to someone” when we learn how to make a list of the propositional statements which they share with us. If we can “list out” what someone said, we “list-ened” to them, but though there is truth to this, I think it is incomplete. We need to hear others to the point where we participate in them and their world, somehow, not just stand back like a social scientist gathering data. We do not really engage with someone if we are overly “objective” and “outside” of their world, but at the same time if we are too subjective, we don’t really “receive them” because we are too busy considering our own subjectivity and subjective take on what is said. None of this is easy, but “harkening” others (versus just “list-ening” to them) is necessary for Dialogos, I think, and please note how closely Hip Hop artists listen to one another in Cyphers so that they can respond to what arises. Indeed, I think the Hip Hope Cypher might be similar to Dialogos, both of which might ultimately lead us into considering how “all circling is centering.”
II
Words have power, and there’s a way in which it seems that speaking to someone who really hears us puts that power in them. Given the strange “emergent” nature of Dialogos, it does not seem crazy to me to suppose that a kind of “metaphysical power” is generated in discussion, like a wheel that generates power by speeding up, and that this “power” is behind the “emergence” that occurs. Furthermore, the power “goes through” the people participating in the Dialogos, which can heighten their creative and mental faculties to the place where they become able to generate new ideas they never thought about before “on the fly.”
“Off the dome” is another phrase that describes what happens in Dialogos, and the great Bernard Hankins would often point out how conversations are like Hip Hop Cyphers, that a given business meeting participates in Hip Hope far more than it realizes—it’s just that freestyle Cyphers are accelerated to such a point that it no longer seems like “the same in kind” to a meeting or conversational dialogue. It would seem that thanks to Zoom and faster internet, which allows people who are philosophical to meet who otherwise would have never crossed paths, is helping generate a new kind of “Philosophical Cypher,” which of course has always existed, but its existence is becoming more vivid and apparent thanks to the internet and Zoom (the record function also allows “the Dialogos experience/event” to be shared and witnessed by hundreds who were not able to be there directly or in person). There have generally not been “Dialogos Events” where people could watch philosophical discussions beyond a classroom setting, where grading and social pressures can inhibit the “emergence” of anything (though the probability of something “emerging” in the classroom can increase the more a person heads toward Grad School), which is to say that (in my view) a new kind of “event for spectators” is arising. There have generally been places where people could go and watch Cyphers, but not so much Dialogos, but I think that is changing, and with that is also increasing the demand for them. Given this, intellectual and philosophical development might be heading into an age of radical and profound acceleration. Hard to say.
I think there are notable similarities between Cyphers and Circling, and again what we see in both is a kind of “power” that moves around the participants. Black artists and musicians for decades have spoken about the “spiritual power” of Cyphers and improvisational jazz, and it seems to be the case that this revelation is starting to spread to the wider public, thanks to Zoom and the internet. Bernard Hankins and I have discussed “Cypher Mentality,” which seems to be a mindset that trusts creativity and the power of “something just happening” (“emergence”). In my opinion, the spread and growth of Dialogos only indeed suggests the coming of a “Cypher Age,” which is also an age where a main form of organization will cease to be “from the ground up” but instead favor “orbiting in a circle.” “Centering” is becoming something that results from circling versus something we do in ourselves by “standing still.”
III
Moving forward, I would like to point out how all “circling” and “cyphering” are a kind of “(negative) centering,” in that circles are only possible around a central point. If I form a circle, I form a circle around something, even if that something is an invisible point. This cannot be helped, and so the act of “circling” is inherently always also an act of “negative centering,” in that a center is created as a secondary effect of making a circle. In a chaotic world, there is often talk about the need for us to “find a new center,” but perhaps instead we need to talk about organizing ourselves in terms of “circling a center” (which is perhaps “practically indistinguishable”). To “find a center” suggests locating one directly, while “circling a center” is “making a center”—there are distinctions, but both might equally be ways to give ourselves “a center” (a place).
For centuries, philosophy and theology were generally in the business of finding “a transcendental grounding,” which is to say something good, beautiful, and true to organize and justify our beliefs. After Heidegger and many of the 20th century thinkers like Kurt Gödel, this effort seems finished, but perhaps there is still room for “a negative circling around a transcendent center?” A circle cannot enter its center without ceasing to be a circle, so the center is “transcendent” in that way (or “lacking”), and at the same time “the circling” provides motion and action to those in the circling. Now, the downside is a person could “just be going in circles,” but here we could perhaps introduce “a spiral” to suggest that though horizontally we aren’t advancing, vertically we are—perhaps suggesting the wisdom of Dante (and the only true advancement might be “vertical” anyway, but that would have to be explored and considered elsewhere).
“All circling is centering,” though please note that I don’t necessarily create “a circle made of negative space” if a draw a dot in the center of paper. Also, a dot lacks motion and tends to occupy a single spot: a “positive” is very similar to a “constant and transcendent grounding,” and brings with it all the same problems and possible pathologies. For me, this suggests why the circle and cypher are uniquely valuable to metaphorically consider our new forms of organization today: a circling provides movement and direction, while at the same time making a clear shape (and hence logic) in the “negative space” around which the circling occurs. A dot does not shape “negative space” like a circle, and so a dot cannot organize us or “give us directed movement” like “circling” can: dotting would either be in place or generate points that do not connect. In this way, both cyphers and circles are uniquely able to provide structure, movement, and organization.
To stand in “a center” is to stand on “a transcendental ground,” and that today is not readily an option. And arguably many religions and philosophers which we can associate with “transcendental grounding” already knew that, hence why we see Dante describing spirals and orbits around stars. God is what we can never fully access, thus God is a “lack,” made clear by the end of Dante’s quest where “his wings fail the lofty fantasy.” I stress, “lack is not nothing,” and so this simply means God is apophatic, which is to say only God can know Godself (for God is not apophatic to God). Regardless, we today are seemingly appreciating more how humans organize and movement is best depicted and understood in terms of a cypher or circle, and indeed we can see the angels circling and spiraling God while worshiping Him as engaged in a “Hip Hop Cypher”: the form-al overlap is profound and critical.
Anyway, the work of O.G. Rose discusses “lack” often and how “lacks are not nothing,” and indeed when we are presented with “the negative space” of a circle, we are given a choice on if we interpret that “negative space” as a “lack” or as nothing. Precisely because something irreducible seems to “emerge” from Dialogos and “circling,” I think this provides reason to think that the “negative space” isn’t nothingness, but instead a “lack” which “points to” something which the circle cannot incorporate without ceasing to be a circle (and even if the lines and curves “bent into the center,” the “negative space” would move away and change location). But, to consider a counterpoint, perhaps Dialogos is a “filled-in circle” versus a circle that is more like an outline around a “negative space?” A fair objection, but I think metaphorically we must view “circling” as a “negative space,” seeing that the participants don’t merge together and become the same being, while a “filled-in circle” would suggest just that (in my view). Thus, I think there is reason to think of “circling as center-ing” (as “creating-a-negative-center”), but even if we were dealing metaphorically with a “filled-in circle,” that “filled-in color” would also be a kind of center, so either way I think the point stands: to circle is to center.
All circling is also centering, and I would note that we also create a “clearing,” considering the “negative space” which arises in the circle. Heidegger stressed the need for “clearings” so that we might be struck by being anew, and I have also written on the subject, inspired by Andrew Luber. At “The Net,” we’ve also discussed regularly the need to consider “the apophatic subject,” the role of “lack,” the need for myths and/or “truths” to structure rationality that leave something alone (like “The Tree of Knowledge” and/or “The Meta-Question,” as discussed by Samuel Barnes), and the nature of metaphysics today, all of which involve “clearings,” “circling,” and “centering” in ways similar to what has been described here (I also argue that “negative space” suggests the reality of “free will”). All of these are different topics for different times, but I wanted to note the prevalence of language which refers to “negative space,” “lack,” and the like, all of which suggests that philosophy has developed (Hegelian) to a place where “circling” and the cypher are necessary meta-structures.
Lastly, we discussed at the start of this work the role of “repetition” in us undergoing “negation,” and it should be noted how “circling” and “cyphering” are like orbits in that they entail repetition in their structure. When I circle something, I keep coming back around to a place I have already been, only to do it again and then again. If repetition entails the possibility of negation/sublation, as evident in conversation, then perhaps some form of “circling” is the only way to undergo “sublation” (and “true infinity”)? I’m not sure, but it is interesting to note how much theological and religious imagery entails circles and spirals, as if there is no other way to realize or climb a “Jacob’s Ladder.” Perhaps only circles can be new? If so, then not only might “circling” help us overcome the problem of “lacking a transcendental ground,” but it might also help us encounter life anew.
IV
To close, the main subject Guy, Chris, and Dr. Vervaeke discussed was hope, and I really like the direction the exploration led the trio (I highly suggest their talk). There seems to be a difference between “hoping here” (present) and “hoping there” (future), and it’s also interesting to consider the differences between “faith” and “hope,” which seem very similar, and yet we also seem to need to consider distinctions for the triad of “faith, hope, and love” to make sense (which will lead us into considering “beauty, truth, and goodness”).
For me, I find it useful to hope in what is currently present so that I increase my ability to see wonder in it, while at the same time having faith that doing so will organize me toward the future in a manner that is best. I then think it is good to bind myself with love to that cultivation of wonder through hope, while having faith in that commitment. “Faith, hope, and love” are interesting to compare with “beauty, truth, and goodness,” and it seems to me that love should align primarily with truth, goodness with faith, and that leaves beauty to align with hope. Now, obviously, all these overlap and should overlap, but “loving the truth” seems very important, while “putting faith in goodness” is paramount, which suggests that “seeing beauty with hope” might be an angle to consider. Since we love what we find beautiful, hope then causes love, which then summons us to have faith in this beauty as good. Furthermore, what we find good is what we also experience as true, and “good truth” can also strike us as beautiful. Considering this, it would seem that faith leads into love and hope as hope leads into faith and love, as goodness leads into truth which leads into beauty—on and on.
All this can lead to a way in which “all of time is brought together” into the present, for the true is what has been the case (past), the good is what should be the case (future), while the beautiful regards what is currently the case (present), and so a new orientation to time can emerge. “Gathering time together” is another profoundly religious and theological notion, and I think we now see three triads emerge here in which, when brought together, “a new experience of time” becomes possible. To list out what we have discussed so far:
I stress, all of these blend, so these categorizations are not meant to be rigid. Still, I think the past is easiest to identify with “the truth,” for the past in fact occurred (not that it’s easy to determine what in detail or particularity occurred), while the present is something we can align with truth “a second later,” after it becomes part of the past. Loving the truth of the past aligns with Nietzsche’s “Amor Fati,” which though “a love of fate,” suggests that “we love what happens to us,” which is to say we are committed to loving what befalls us (that which will one day be what “befell” us). Having faith in the future suggests that we believe the future will be good (which seems necessary for us to hope in it), which easily shapes the future that we experience. And if we don’t find the present beautiful or reason to derive hope in it, then I think it will be difficult for us to have faith in the future to make it there or care to love the past. On this point, finding beauty and hope in the present might be central for us bringing these three triads together into one.
To make now the ground of my hope (as “hoping here”), while I place my faith in the future (“faith there”), seems paramount for bringing all of time into the present, and in that stage a meta-model of “circling” can help us to continually submit the present to “negation/sublation” precisely in the act of repetitively orbiting the present, which in itself is an act that declares that I indeed have “hope” in the present. I would not “circle” what I did not hope in, and if I see hope in something then I believe there is goodness and beauty to be found in it. Furthermore, “circling” suggests a spirt of love and “openness,” for I am always giving something or someone “another chance.” I don’t give up; I keep coming back around, believing that something can emerge. I hope. I keep my eyes on the possible truth of the unseen. I believe it is good, and I believe that it will be beautiful when it emerges. This level of disciplined and constant attention can be associated with love and “care” (in line with Heidegger), I believe, which would suggest that the “meta-model” we need today is essentially personable and subjective—“object-ive” and “indifferent” models will no longer suffice.
“Circling” seems the best meta-model for finding beauty and hope in the present, which in turn motivates us to love the truth of the past and to have faith in the goodness of the future (“hope” and “motivation” are strongly connected, and a central concern with the present is to assure we derive motivation from it). This is because “circling” keeps us “negating” and “seeing anew” what is around us, ever-training us to see and experience more beauty in it, which in turns helps feel hope and see goodness. Also, if all ideas eventually fail (if every “map” eventually proves “not to be the territory”), then isn’t “circling” the best we can do? No idea or system of ideas should be something we “settle on,” precisely because no idea can be “complete in itself,” and so “constant movement” and “constant reconsideration” seem paramount and the best for which we can hope. “Circling” is a meta-model that owns this reality, and perhaps no other meta-model really takes seriously that “the map isn’t the territory.”
It is in the mode and “toward-ness” of “circling” that I think brings together the conditions needed for “emergence,” which makes it possible for the Dialogos thinkers like Guy, Christopher, and Dr. Vervaeke often stress, which also brings in the topic of “The Phenomenology of Voice” (as I have spoken about with Tim Adalin), and all of this suggests ways to contain and avoid the “mimetic desire” which Girard warned could hurl us into the Apocalypse, in that “circling” could help negate/sublate (the “lack” of) desire into “flow.” Also, if it is the case that things can “emerge” with others that I cannot make “emerge” on my own, this might suggest that the world is a place where “deepest reality” is a “unified multiplicity” versus a “mono-entity” of some kind. Dialogos in this way could entail significant ontoepistemological ramifications, for even if “the emergence of Dialogos” happened once in human history, the universe would forever be a place where it was possible—the horizon of being would forever change. But all of this must be elaborated on in Belonging Again; for now, I will end by expressing my gratitude to Guy, Christopher, and Dr. Vervaeke. The world is better thanks to them.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, Facebook, and Twitter.