Albrecht Dürer, The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse”

Albrecht Dürer is maybe one of my touch­stones for ever hav­ing con­ver­sa­tions about this. This is an image from his col­lec­tion of engrav­ings based on the Book of Revelations. They were released in 1498, and they were a body of work that brought his name to greater promi­nence in Western Europe.

1498 is a real­ly can­ny moment to pub­lish an edi­tion of the Book of Revelations. Not only is the turn of any cen­tu­ry a real­ly great moment to start spec­u­lat­ing about the world’s end, but it was also a peri­od in time when there’s a lot of stuff in flux. You have a real­ly strange geopo­lit­i­cal thing hap­pen­ing about a decade out from the Reformation. There’s a lot of known unknowns, and you have a cul­ture and a soci­ety that is pret­ty keen to have some­thing that they can believe in, and appar­ent­ly quite keen to believe in the idea of the Four Horsemen being nigh. So that was 1498.

1499, inter­est­ing year, is when this guy Johannes Trithemius, the Benedictine monk sends a let­ter to a col­league of his, a Carmelite monk in Ghent named Bostius. And he’s talk­ing about a text that he’s been work­ing on, a project to inter­face and send secret mes­sages across great dis­tances through com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the spir­it world and with angels. The monk who was sup­posed to receive this let­ter had died before the let­ter had arrived. It was inter­cept­ed by a dif­fer­ent per­son who con­clud­ed from the let­ter that Trithemius was engag­ing with demon­ic spir­its and involved in dark mag­ic. His rep­u­ta­tion was quite tar­nished after that and he end­ed up not pub­lish­ing that work until after his death; or, it wasn’t put into mass print.

Photo of the title page of the Steganographia

The book itself was called Steganographia, and it’s a book about cryp­tog­ra­phy. It’s one of the ear­li­est books of the Western canon of cryp­tog­ra­phy as we know it now. It’s a book about cryp­tog­ra­phy and mag­ic. It’s a three‐volume text. The third one seem­ing­ly is exclu­sive­ly about astrol­o­gy and cab­bal­is­tic inter­fac­ing with spir­its, but if you spend enough time with it you real­ize is actu­al­ly an enci­phered text and in about 1998 some­body actu­al­ly broke the code.

The iron­ic thing is in order to be able to jus­ti­fy cre­at­ing a body of work like Steganographia, to do the kind of work in cryp­tog­ra­phy that Trithemius was able to do, he had to do a lot of work to jus­ti­fy his own prac­tices and did a lot of work him­self in demonolo­gy. He had writ­ten many texts defin­ing dif­fer­ent spec­trums of what demons did and didn’t do, had an unfin­ished out­line for a text that was an ency­clo­pe­dia of demons. Between the 14th and 17th cen­tu­ry you have a lot of inter­est­ing work in demon stud­ies. The Church is always sort of besieged by these crea­tures, and demonology’s a way in which can kind of main­tain a monop­oly on mir­a­cles. They get to decide what is in fact a divine inter­ven­tion and an act of God, and what is out­side of the realm of a one true God and there­fore an act of unspeak­able evil and going to lead to eter­nal damna­tion. Institutions of pow­er are real­ly good at iden­ti­fy­ing and con­vinc­ing them­selves that they are con­stant­ly under siege from exis­ten­tial threats, even if that exis­ten­tial is mere­ly some­thing that they do not under­stand.

There’s a real­ly inter­est­ing thing in some of Trithemius’ work where he talks about how curios­i­ty is a form of lust for knowl­edge which is not nec­es­sary, which I kind of love. Monks must’ve real­ly hat­ed triv­ia night.

So I’m at a con­fer­ence called FutureEverything and I’m talk­ing to you about a 15th cen­tu­ry monk. I’m try­ing to fig­ure out how to explain why I’m doing that to you, and this is going to seem like a bit of a veer, but I think there’s some­thing inter­est­ing about a dis­ci­pline that his­tor­i­cal­ly is tied to polit­i­cal intrigue, to secre­cy, being linked into this debate over what is good mag­ic or true divine mag­ic, and what is the work of demons. And I think there is some­thing inter­est­ing to be said about the moment we are in right now and how states them­selves kind of iden­ti­fy and invent exis­ten­tial threats to jus­ti­fy their own behav­ior. In this case I’m specif­i­cal­ly think­ing a lot about the way that states talk about ter­ror­ism, par­tic­u­lar­ly online cyber‐terror, and simul­ta­ne­ous­ly jus­ti­fy their own rhetoric for a total glob­al­ized mass‐surveillance net­work.

I real­ly love graph­ics like these. I real­ly love these weird clip art‐ty dia­grams that show you how the state believes that they know every­thing, because they real­ly remind me of Medieval maps. They kind of betray so much of their own per­spec­tive that is obvi­ous­ly lack­ing some­thing. But you need that. You need to have that lev­el of con­vic­tion in your own cer­tain­ty and a sense of a total­iz­ing world­view to jus­ti­fy a world­view that looks like that:

Screenshot of a pickup truck being targeted by a drone

As true with states we could also argue goes with stacks. This is most­ly a con­ver­sa­tion about states. But ulti­mate­ly I think we’re still kind of deal­ing with the ques­tion of who gets to have a monop­oly on mir­a­cles. Who gets to back­door and who gets sent to prison for four years for find­ing the back­door? In gen­er­al the options that are pre­sent­ed for how to respond to this kind of state are basi­cal­ly you can either try and walk away, which good luck liv­ing in the world if you want to get off of the grid and how long you can do that. Let me know. Well, I guess you can’t, because you’re not online. The oth­er option would be to resist and engage in some forms of sab­o­tage or attack, which also: have fun in prison when you do that. Or your third option is live with it, work with it, just try and fig­ure out how to exist with­in that sys­tem.

And I’m not sure I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly fond of any of those options for myself. And I’m not sure that I have a good answer for how to fight, but per­haps if how to sur­vive, this tends to be my default form of mag­ic:

I think there is some­thing valu­able about reclaim­ing the lan­guage of mag­ic. (Oh, I real­ly hoped that you guys would appre­ci­ate that joke. I’m so sad.) I think there’s some­thing real­ly trou­bling about the way in which mag­ic can be invoked by insti­tu­tions of pow­er to obfus­cate or deny respon­si­bil­i­ty for their own actions. But I would not say that that means we should aban­don it entire­ly. In fact I think all the more rea­son to reclaim it. Frankly, I don’t real­ly want to build a future where there’s no mag­ic. That sounds quite bor­ing.

I’m going to just wrap up quick­ly with a bit of a detour which is just an exam­ple of a joke that maybe is based on try­ing to show how sub­sti­tut­ing one faith for anoth­er illus­trates the fal­lac­i­es of them. One of the things that the Christians real­ly real­ly hat­ed was when pagans would say Jesus wasn’t actu­al­ly the son of God or per­form­ing divine mir­a­cles he was just doing mag­ic, which I kind of love because it’s like, It’s not your super­nat­ur­al belief that was hap­pen­ing, it was our super­nat­ur­al belief. Get with it.”

So about a year and a half ago I found this mag­a­zine in a book store, and I was pret­ty excit­ed about it. The article…at no point does any­one say, Why is astrol­o­gy use­ful for try­ing to under­stand this prob­lem?” I mean, I guess it wouldn’t, it’s an astrol­o­gy mag­a­zine. They don’t real­ly have to con­vince any­body. And there’s a cer­tain kind of con­vic­tion that goes into writ­ing a text like this. You have to decide when the NSA’s birth­day is if you’re going to build an astrol­o­gy chart for it. Which is debat­able, right? You could say that’s when it was insti­tut­ed into pol­i­cy, or you could say when it’s the first moment that the United States engaged in extra‐judicial sur­veil­lance. It’s ques­tion­able.

Excerpt from the Snowden article with heading "PsyOps and Ritual Sacrifices"

There’s a lot of moments in it that I’m not sure what kind of jour­nal­ism we want to call this. But there was a part of me when read­ing this was like, you know, why not? Nothing that we cur­rent­ly have to artic­u­late these insti­tu­tions seem to to work, and none of it seems to open up the sys­tem any fur­ther, so why not look at the stars? Or why not just demon­strate the short­com­ings of their own sys­tems by try­ing to encap­su­late them in anoth­er one?

So I made these gold seals. They’re about 10″ in diam­e­ter and they’re astrol­o­gy charts for all of the Five Eyes agen­cies. Five was use­ful because then you can make a pen­ta­gram. But also it’s nice to rep­re­sent each one, and they’re sort of sym­bols of a cer­tain kind of infor­ma­tion fail­ure and of the fail­ure of any total­iz­ing faith. It’s kind of as ridicu­lous to believe that you can jus­ti­fy killing a per­son based on phone meta­da­ta as it is to believe that you could make any strong deci­sion based on the move­ment of plan­ets. They’re these cap­ti­vat­ing objects that you’re kind of drawn to and fas­ci­nat­ed by but also can’t real­ly tell you all that much.

They’re not even par­tic­u­lar­ly great charts. I didn’t go to a pro­fes­sion­al astrologer to gen­er­ate these, and if you read the automatically‐generated pro­files for any of these gov­ern­ment agen­cies they’re kind of ridicu­lous and could be about pos­si­bly any­thing. Which is sort of how you could read a lot of what comes out of mass data col­lec­tion. It kind of tends toward a sort of medi­oc­rity that might not actu­al­ly tell you any­thing use­ful.

So those were a bunch of jokes. That’s a very long joke. And I don’t real­ly know… That is not going to stop this sys­tem. It doesn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly rad­i­cal­ly trans­form it. And I think that art often pro­vides a spir­i­tu­al answer to a polit­i­cal ques­tion, and I kind of under­stand where that is maybe not enough. That is what I know how to do. If I knew how to solve polit­i­cal prob­lems, I wouldn’t be speak­ing at this con­fer­ence.

And I guess I’m going to end with this image most­ly because it just cheers me up quite a bit, and is maybe a dif­fer­ent kind of weird mag­ic and/or mir­a­cle, or about kind of learn­ing to live with that which we do not under, which is of Saint Jerome and the lion, anoth­er Albrecht Dürer engrav­ing.

Albrecht Dürer, "Saint Jerome in His Study"

Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome in His Study”

I guess that’s all I’ve got. Thank you.

Further Reference

The Haunted Machines site, where Ingrid has a short piece "Living with Our Daemons."

Dedicated page for Haunted Machines at the main FutureEverything site.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.