By Stefan Paulus

In Achim Szepanski & Palais Sinclaire (Eds.), Ultrablack of Music (2). Zero Books: London (pp. 233–250)

Introduction

“…the steam engine runs all day long, the wheels, belts and spin­dles purr and rattle in his ears, and if he wants to rest for just a moment, he immediately has the supervisor with the punishment book behind him. This condemnation to being buried alive in the factory, to constant attention to the tireless machine, is per­ceived by the workers as the hardest torture. But it also has the most deadening effect, as much on the body as on the mind of the worker.”— Engels (1972: 397f)

The narcotic drone of machines in factories since early capitalism has been enhanced in late capitalism by the clattering of keyboards and the unwanted listening to business talk in open-plan offices. Workers are familiar with the effects of the unwanted sounds of work noise, which range from psychological effects such as anger and reduced concentration to psychosomatic illnesses caused by noise stress. The effects of noise stress certainly depend on inten­sity, exposure time and frequencies, but the degree of adaptation, dulling and lethargy can also make work noise bearable or not. The undesirable developments of the capitalist mode of produc­tion can thus be found not only in the exploitation of people and their nature, but also in the design of soundscapes. The coupling of work tasks through a soundscape—for example, through the beeping and vibrating noises of digital feedback mechanisms on smartphones, laptops or wristbands—not only increases mech­anised access to people’s attention and their cognitive capacities; such feedback, triggered by error messages, requests, likes, etc., also produces requests for action, which can increase stress in a dynamic feedback loop of stimulus-response (Paulus, 2023a).

“You don’t need science fiction”, writes Gilles Deleuze in his Postscript on Control Societies (1992: 261), to imagine electronic neckbands that not only control people’s position, but also their actions. Even on the radio, TV, social media, in the supermarket, in the parking garage, there is constant babbling and attempts to con­trol everywhere; in the babbling of pop music, the songs of praise for products or services in advertising, there are invocations every­where to recognise a certain symbolically structured and structur­ing capitalist order.

Ultimately, the aim is to create a memory for people, a mem­ory of identity-stabilising meanings of the self as a consumer, as a citizen, a memory of “signs and no longer of effects” (Deleuze & Guattari 1977: 184). Again, it does not take science fiction to imagine how such content slowly accumulates in individuals and how they are conditioned by the soundscapes of recreational and cultural industries. Recognising the opening melody of an adver­tising anthem triggers a stimulus: thoughts of beer, pizza, cars. Per­haps this is why sound fictions are needed in order to imagine what a soundscape sounds like beyond being buried alive, beyond indus­trially coded patterns of perception and aesthetically conditioned sensations.

To address this question regarding a non-ontological perception of reality, it is therefore necessary to create fictions that describe the beyond, the in-between, the other. François Laruelle’s concept of non-standard aesthetics and their associated philo-fictions can be used for this purpose. At the heart of his concept of non-standard aesthetics is the assumption that a phenomenon cannot be identi­fied through existing interpretations, or by means of ontological distinctions or aesthetic concepts, as such epistemological processes lead to images, copies or duplications of experiences, terms and concepts. Copies allow the phenomenon to become a clone of reality, a fetishist realism. Instead, the reversal of this order can be made possible by means of a non-standard aesthetic. The means for this are philo-fictions or hyperspeculations, philosophical hal­lucinations, fictional characterisations (Laruelle, 1989: 239f ); experiments with hypothetical assumptions and conjectures that go beyond tangible reality in order to be able to found a life of their own—independently of common scientific or philosophical assumptions (Laruelle, 2014: 22f ). Such a rejection of interpreta­tion, this non-standardised aesthetics of phenomena, also means a rejection of found justifications of what is perceived, because cog­nition is not traced back to existing codings (Laruelle, 2014: 67; Gadamer, 1999: 274). Laruelle’s concept of non-standard aesthetics can thus be used to describe in detail the process of appropriating reality via a “standardised” (onto-senso-logical) and “non-stand­ardised” (non-onto-senso-logical) perception (Laruelle, 2014: 13, 57ff).

In relation to the image-based world—e.g., in the photorealism of passport photos, product photos (fashion, food, cars), etc.—rep­resentations of the world are created, which function as copies of reality. These copies help to organise the perception of reality in such a way that it becomes an incontestably fixed idea, because images take the place of the real. With such an onto-photo-logical perception, one observes the real itself through a photograph—not the object, but a representation of an identity (Laruelle, 2014: 43; Paulus, 2023b). Accordingly, onto-photo-logical perception has a symbolic dimension: it is not based on the voluntary decision to interpret an object, but on the pre-reflective classification of what is seen. It is based on memories that classify what is seen and make it identical with reality. This in turn leads to the problem that we become incapable of discovering new things, creative processes, the becoming in the world, because we are trying to discover the known in the unknown.

The same can be applied to other sensory perceptions. Hear­ing, for example, is based on a subjectivity that leads to auditory experiences being evaluated by given meanings. Hearing a certain sound can represent a certain situation, identity, reality, trigger a certain memory, a stimulus-reaction, which classifies, categorises and determines what is heard accordingly (Holzkamp, 1983).

Experimentation with fictions plays a role in the perception of a non-onto-logical perception—an “as well as” or an “as-if ” representation (Vaihinger, 1986). By means of philo-fiction, the generic science of hyperspeculation and contradictory assump­tions, phenomena can be de-subjectivised and subtractions can be made from the material (Laruelle, 1989: 230). The term “generic” can be used to describe a practice that does not aim to produce the specific, but instead produces models and hypotheses that remain philosophically indeterminate as indeterminants (Laruelle, 2013: 69ff). Since fictional statements are neither true nor false, but can be thought “as-if ” in order to develop—through indetermina­cies, theses, antitheses—a complex of possibilities that need not be unique or original, the results can remain open in the synthe­sis, since they can always be de-subjectivised and subtracted in the sense of philo-fiction (Laruelle, 2014: 142ff).

In the following, the experimentation with philo-fictions is trans­ferred to hearing and the effects of sounds and soundscapes. The central assumption of non-standard aesthetics that sound fictions do not produce copies of the world, but rather indeterminants and unilateralisations, also applies to sound fictions. Sound fictions are therefore to be understood as practices that:

1. perform theoretical operations to produce soundscapes in the context of a radical immanence (Laruelle, 2013: 165f );

2. develop their own non-auto-positional rules to suspend an industrial-cultural authority of interpretation;

3. adopt a chaotic universe of multiple “as-if ” representations (Laruelle, 1998: 99).

 

In the following, the process is described of how this variable, multiple, and at the same time, the only thing in sounds—the all-connecting, the one-in-one, the not-one; “(Non)-One” (Laru­elle, 1989: 97f)—can be recognised as such. For this purpose, the following procedure is outlined:

First, in the examination of sound fictions, techniques and prac­tices are described for obtaining or producing acoustic sound fic­tions (§1), in order to identify subsequently the effect of sound fictions by means of hyperspeculations (Laruelle, 1989: 99, 235ff) (§2). In an open synthesis, the aim of this approach is to describe sound fictions as simulators of reality, as non-onto-senso-logical scenarios of reality (§3).

i. Production of sound fiction

A non-standard technique of producing an acoustic phenomenon begins by “distinguishing the ideal appearance and the empirical appearance by removing the object-form itself ” (Laruelle, 2014: 60). The removal of the object form or the representation of a sound can be produced by isolating an element, by decontextualisation, or by artistic techniques such as masking, stretching, morphing with effects, as well as by n-fold superimpositions/superpositions. Sound assemblages and soundscapes, in particular, offer the possibility of both defusing the empirically ascertainable in its object-form and diffusing the sensory perception of it.

The term soundscape encompasses more than individual sound events, such as a singing bird in the forest, but refers to the orches­tration and composition of diverse sound events as an assemblage of noises (Paulus, 2023b). As soundscapes always contain com­positional elements—which microphone, which distance, which weather atmosphere influences the recording?—they also have the status of fiction, in that they already negotiate different modes of factuality and factitiousness through unconscious distortions in recordings of phenomena, or in deliberately set fictitious, con­tradictory or false representations of reality. Instead of translating scientific findings about phenomena into philosophical analogies when analysing such soundscapes—the bird in the forest sings because…, or this particular songbird does not have its habitat by the ocean, etc.—the experimental non-philosophical work does not interfere with a particular scientific theory, but models it in favour of the principle of inner self-similarity, in which recur­ring structures and objects of fractalisation can emerge, creating an open ensemble, a universe of fractal knowledge of transversal connections.

To understand the function of the bird’s twittering, I have to become a bird. I can only become a bird if I become not-me. If I am not-me, then I am outside of me. If I am outside of me, then the inside is empty, because there is nothing inside of me when I try to put myself into what I am on the outside. If I have the outside inside and I can be on the outside, then everything is in everything and everything becomes everything. Being everything is in every being, etc. (cf. Laing, 1972: 88f ).

Such artistic as well as non-philosophical experiments with sound objects have the property of withdrawing the onto-senso-logical causality from the object-forms by mixing and merging the sound objects (Paulus, 2021). This can create an epistemological and sen­sual in-between, a non-standard aesthetic, as a space of possibility for imagination and experience. This means that connections and diffusions of sounds can be used as artistic, as well as non-philo­sophical, means to identify sound phenomena in the context of a radical immanence, to bring about a change in sensual cognition and to produce a chaotic universe of multiple “as-if” representa­tions. With the medium of the material, it is thus possible “to wrest the percept from the perceptions of an object and states of a perceiv­ing subject, to wrest the affect from the affections as the transition of one state into another. To extract a block of sensations, a pure being of sensation” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1996: 196).

Such partial controllability of the conditions and meanings of perception are indeed pre-structured by social meanings and indi­vidual experiences, but the partial controllability simultaneously opens up the possibility of recognising the constructedness of the perceptions and their social integration. A chain of communication is inherent in the process of meaning: from sensory experience to imagination, to memory, to thought (Deleuze 2007: 189). Sound fictions can thus produce an inner listening, an audition-with­in-one, by detaching objects from their peculiar sound or original territory and identifying them through their own non-auto-posi­tional rules in order to emerge the sound in a single surface, with each sound element becoming a transversal component of another (Laruelle, 2014: 67ff; Deleuze & Guattari, 1977: 406, 437f, 505).

The artistic production of a sound fiction is therefore nothing special. Sound fictions can be produced with field recordings, a sampler, a VST host or a mixing console. However, it is more dif­ficult to reach sound spheres that are not determined by industri­al-cultural sounds and stimulate specific perception patterns. This is basically a pataphysical endeavour: “One must play death off against death” (Baudrillard, 1991: 12f.); i.e., one must play off being buried alive in the company, the factory, the family, the state, in all these enclosure milieus, against the danger of falling from heights, of wandering on ridge lines, between boulders, water, mudflows, on firn crests and sedimentary rock, against drowning in oceans or dying of thirst in deserts, lurking in the undergrowth, in a hollow, in caves, against the sudden “transition into an empty space that is not anyone’s thinking” (Baudrillard, 2002; Paulus, 2022). Until one then hears insects, water molecules, winds, frictions; the raw, intense of one’s own nature, the pulsation and roar of the internal; listening to or understanding sound fiction through a non-stand­ard aesthetic requires that a soundscape of empty space be treated as an entity in its own right, removing representations and object references and not confusing the essence of the composition “with the conditions of existence in perception, in the history of styles and the development of techniques” (Laruelle, 2014: 14). Instead of imagining non-civilisational soundscapes as a fetishistic realism based on a perceptual objectivity of things, fed by memories from the zoo, mountaineering films, etc., sound fiction is the reversal of this order. It is not the soundscape that reproduces realities, but the experience of non-civilised sound spheres that simulate as-if realities.

ii Hyperspeculations

If one now wishes to identify indeterminants by means of the sup­port of sound fiction, listening experiences are examined below for epistemological fictions and fractality in order to be able to remove ontological monocausalities and multiply meanings. With a view to the sensory perception of auditory experiences, and in accord­ance with the description of this, experiments are first carried out at the level of the acoustic perception of sounds (sense of hearing), and then at the level of the acoustic experience of the localisation of representations (sense of space), in order to provide feedback to the previously established theses and antitheses on the sense of hearing and sense of space in an open synthesis.

a) Sense of hearing: the noise

Hearing is not a purely cerebral process in which one can simply identify linguistically the meaning of what is heard; rather, hearing begins with a fundamental encounter with the outside that pene­trates the inside. In the seemingly subjective origin of perception, social conditions emerge as the basis of an individual-centred, psychologising meaning of the environment, which strength­ens the falseness of selective thinking that is primarily oriented towards sensory experience and, in relation to the perception of the environment, becomes mentally reproducible as conscious knowledge. This means that perception is a “making it true” (Holz­kamp, 1973: 34) and frequencies are assigned an identity. How­ever, when sound objects and their frequencies emerge through superimposition and diffusion in a single sound, a noise arises: a disturbance in the identification of an object due to unspecified frequency spectra.

If it is now also assumed that matter is not a passive substance that is only brought into existence through the intentionality of the listener, but through co-construction (Haraway, 1995) or intra-action, this means that an agency of matter and the existence of independent entities can be assumed (Barad, 2012a). With this assumption, we can further speculate about a flat ontology of sound objects as a model for an acoustic reality, in which sounds do not stand in hierarchical relationships to each other, but rather influ­ence each other in assemblages of organic and inorganic sounds (Bennett, 2010).

Phenomenologically, the perception of sounds is interesting insofar as they can be understood as intra-acting agents (Barad, 2012b: 19), which are ontologically intertwined with the perceiv­ers and thus limit the production of meaning itself. Sound objects are created “without realism and external determinism” (Laruelle, 2014: 167). In contrast to the “dual system experience” of oppo­sites in auditory perception—such as loud/quiet, highs/lows, etc.—disturbances of ontological determinacies arise in the transversal connections and diffusions.

Noise can thus be understood as a sound fiction, as a “listening device for immanence”, in that boundaries between nature/cul­ture, man/machine, sense/matter, cognition/reality are disturbed and the auditory experience is oriented towards the mingling of matter, individuals, the dead and the living, entities and emer­gences. New qualities develop in the noise: as an indifference of forms arises, the noise masks the idea of the real and an in-between arises in the coupling of sensations, in that impre­cise determinations, unreflected, spontaneous or phenographic meanings (Holzkamp, 1976: 21), and indistinguishability arise. This does not result in copies or codes, but in their dissolution. What remains—or rather, the materialisation of the noise—gives rise to ambiguous percepts. The lack of signal completion forces the listener to complete an imagined image. The noise makes the clear sound object disappear in favour of the things that draw attention to themselves in the listener’s imagination through the disturbing frequencies. This in turn creates the non-copyable, and the non-copyable brings out the contingency (Deleuze & Guattari, 2000: 109f ). The fades and transversal connections in the noise initiate a non-standard perception that is porous enough to explore infinite spaces of possibility with infinite pos­sibilities, whereby their parts in turn become a unity: distribu­tion surfaces, intersections of all sound forms, whose dimensions increase with the multiplicities of the singularities they intermin­gle. This means that, in noise, everything multiple becomes one as an infinity of modifications.

It would be worth considering further whether precisely this property of the non-onto-logical auditory experience, the dissolu­tion of coding, the experience of the One-in-All, the phenographic and directional effect of sound brings another ego into the world, which becomes capable of transcending into immanence without remembering the real.

b) Sense of space: the echo

Everyday perception attempts to find the familiar in the unfamiliar by comparing and reproducing the ideas of reality stored in mem­ory. This is also the case with spatial perception. Spatial perception concerns the phenomenon that, depending on a person’s point of view and distance from the object, orientation and a description of the spatial dimensions become possible.

This means that the perception of spatial relations is established as the localisation of one’s own body in relation to objects. Stere­oscopic vision, spatial depth, shadows, visual angles and the per­ception of relative sizes support the comparison of objects. Even a non-Euclidean perception of space can be experienced via the sense of sight (e.g., tesseract, 4D hypercube). In this respect, visual perception can be used to develop a spatial ontology of fields of meaning that causes the functional ontological difference between fields of meaning and objects, and individuates objects as func­tional specifications (Gabriel, 2016: 326).

For the acoustic perception of space, the echo, as an echo of the familiar in the unfamiliar, serves as an orientation for developing a spatial order. An echo occurs when, for example, reflections of one’s own voice are delayed by a room in such a way that they can be perceived as an independent auditory event. An echo has the same pitch but becomes less strong over time. This makes it possible to recognise room sizes, distances and the nature of rooms (a ravine has a different echo than a cave). But what can be heard when there is no echo?

In Earth’s atmosphere, the gaseous envelope of the Earth’s sur­face, wind penetrates and crosses space in an indeterminate way, without fixed barriers, boundaries or hierarchies. Stratospheric winds blow chaotically, continuously, immanently, silently, because they do not encounter any objects without interruption and inexplicably change direction without any higher order or superordinate control. Only with different air masses, air pres­sures, when winds hit dust particles, airplanes, birds, blow through narrow gaps, around obstacles or through trees and plants, do frictions and vibrations arise that become audible sound waves. When wind hits the ego and its body, it becomes directly present in the sensory field and manifests itself as noise, whistling, hiss­ing, crackling, howling, pressure or spatial resistance. Wind can also cause objects or structures to vibrate—it moves trees, shapes landscape, creates sounds—but wind itself is noiseless, formless, invisible, and the wind kills every echo.

The wind is therefore the perfect sound fiction. Wind offers a multi-sensory spatial experience that is not limited to the sense of hearing, but includes synesthetic experiences as it penetrates sen­sory openings, and can itself cause body molecules to vibrate. The body thus becomes the wind’s resonance chamber. If the echo, the reverberation of the object-forms of the world, is no longer in the foreground of the experience, but rather the experience of the boundless, formless, endless that passes through without echo, a borderline experience with the ego also arises, because the percep­tion of the boundless, formless and endless dissolves the sensually tangible. Listening to empty space harbours the infinite possibili­ties of encounters with everything. If sound objects are no longer in the foreground of the experience, but the emergent of the bound­less, formless and endless, a borderline experience with the ego also arises, because the simulation of the absolute unknown bursts the sensually tangible. In this state of de-spatialisation and des­ubjectification, there is not one truth, one code, but n-numbered experiences, whose manifold and infinite reflections become super­impositions, the infinite, a total irrealism or independent auditions of the One (Laruelle, 1989: 114).

If no ontological distinctions or aesthetic concepts are used in sound fictions in order to find an image or a doubling of the world in sound, then a rejection of the interpretation of what is heard as an echo of the world also means a rejection of the justification of what is perceived. A sound fiction, like a photo fiction, is not a technique, but a conception of the nature of sound and the practice that results from the erasure of the mode of representation (Laruelle, 2014: 12, 67). It is an experiment that consists not in receptively taking in and processing what is heard, but in letting it act directly and molec­ularly, as a unique experience, as part of a comprehensive creative dimension in a state of emergence that is “constantly upstream and ahead of itself” and thereby develops an emergent capacity that “grasps the contingency and the contingencies of all the projects of transforming immaterial universes into being” (Guattari, 2014: 129). Just as photo-fiction is seeing with closed eyes, “through which we take the excessive measure of the world and master the intensity of its hallucinatory sight” (Laruelle, 2014: 152), sound fiction is lis­tening with closed ears in order to allow the soundless and formless, the inaudible, to resonate within us.

iii. Open synthesis: the feedback loop

By the standards of non-standard aesthetics, sound fictions are not copies or duplicates of sound objects, but signals that enable unilat­eral events because object-forms are removed (Laruelle, 2014: 60). In this respect, the aim of speculations on auditory experiences is to contribute to the representation of the one-in-one, the non-identi­cal, the radical immanence (Laruelle, 1989: 70f ), in order to con­struct models for a reality in which elements and substances are not in hierarchical relationships to one another but can connect transversally n-fold in structures. In contrast to the sound clone of the real (nature recordings, audio samples, samples, genre music), many realities penetrate a single surface in artistic or epistemologi­cal sound fictions. The pervasive is not transparent or transcended by the other, only to be perceived again as a copy; the non-on­to-logical aesthetic filters out ontological determinacies by creating sounds or concepts that identify the appearance of the world in its deterministic relationship. It does not overdetermine objective appearance, but under- or indeterminate it (Laruelle, 2014: 140ff).

Noise as transversal connections and as a disruption of pre-coded cognitive processes refers to the speculation that different elements are connected and can influence each other, even if they are not ontologically related. In a state of noise or in noise, the basic building blocks of reality interact with each other, such that their properties and states are not clearly separated from each other but are rather in a superposition of several possible states. Superposi­tions open up a multitude of new experiences: new not because experiences are encoded with new meanings, but because hearing or recognising something new itself becomes a process of giving meaning. Thus, subject and object, hearer and what is to be heard, can no longer be clearly separated. The listeners are part of the audible and the audible is part of the listeners.

This means that different properties or states can exist simul­taneously in the noise, and are fused together, or opposite prop­erties are present at the same time, emphasising the instability of meanings and identities. In this sense, noise can be seen as the simultaneous presence of several properties, as a kind of inter­mediate state in which different processes are fed back. Noise becomes an expression of indeterminacy and unpredictability, as it contains various possible events, and their continuation is not clearly determined. In materialisations of noise, the real there­fore does not appear as an onto-senso-logical appropriation, as a copy of the outside world, but as an agentive disturbance within the ontological and semantic indeterminacy inherent to the phe­nomenon (Barad, 2012b: 20). The abolition of onto-senso-logical perception thus leads to the abolition of the pre-reflexive classifi­cation of what is heard, which classifies what is heard and makes it identical with reality.

If artistic or epistemological sound fictions are now not limited to imitating the real—musical genres, etc.—but develop on an absolute level—not in the form of sound objects, echoes, imagina­tions, etc., which produce phantoms or doubles, but as a structure­less or formless plan of immanence, as a disorganisation of sounds, as a perception of the degrees of transition in the molar structure, as a perception of communication contents that reveal empty spaces (Deleuze & Guattari, 1992: 387f )—then sound fictions also become a “sensation of the absolute”. The perception of this would not be the hidden principle of a transcendent plan of organisation, but would appear as part of an immanent level of consistency, which, during its constitution, refers to itself, feeds back on itself, as an unplanned, chaotic synthesis, as noise, as feedback without reason and stability, following no higher order of being or orchestration.

In contrast to the onto-photo-logical appropriation of the world (Laruelle, 2014: 43)—which interprets in categories and whose connection within a transversal is accompanied by separations, decouplings, consolidations—the non-onto-senso-logical appro­priation of the world can be understood by listening to the form­less, objectless, endless, which does not echo in categories. Thus, “the whole as part alongside parts” can lead to unfinished syntheses that lead divergent communicative contents, non-communicating elements to transversal connections, in that the emergent whole is not perceived as coexistent with its parts, but the parts are per­ceived as similar to themselves (Deleuze & Guattari, 1977: 11f, 55; Deleuze, 1980: 104). The perception of such feedbacks extends to the infinitely small, are infinitesimal, because they follow the excitations and intensities that set the body into vibration. Such intensities drive the incommunicable in countless feedback loops in uninterrupted interactions with material vibrations (Deleuze, 1993: 95f ). Crucial would be the assumption that the feedback of the emergent whole on its parts, as self-reinforcement, is con­structed and described as a “metabolism of the infinite” (Guattari, 2014: 21), in that the molar organisation schemes of the perceived are replaced by indeterminants and unilateralisations, and sounds are assigned the status of an entity.

Which perceptions develop in and through sound fictions depends on the immediate elements, differences in intensity and the energy flows through which a certain organisational dynamic of perception is set in motion. Self-dynamic cosmic orders, but also chaotic orders far removed from equilibrium, can emerge. Just as mathematical alternative models, based on string theory, quantum mechanics or quantum cosmology, assume 2-dimensional orders of the universe and speculate about holographic fields or many-worlds and multiverses (Kaku, 1995; Sheldrake, McKenna & Abraham, 1988; Susskind, 1995; Turner, 1995), it is also possible to speculate analogously with sound fictions about whether the cosmos is not composed of “elementary particles” or sound elements, but is an unbroken, undivided whole in which each sound element carries the information of all elements as an implicit order on a universal field (Bohm, 2020: 311ff).

Analogous to Mandelbrot’s fractal geometry of nature (1991) and the self-similar behaviour in the development of the organic (plants) or inorganic (turbulence in wind, water, development of coastlines or galaxies), sound fictions could also be used to spec­ulate on whether an “enlargement” or “reduction” of frequencies or resonance frequencies or frequency distortions preserves the original entity. If cells, tissues, organs, organisms, even inorganic substances or energies, such as wind, have their own information for the formation of form (morphogenesis), and these develop­ment programmes for the formation of form are oriented towards forms of similar objects from the past, sound fictions could be used to further speculate about whether the development of a sound is in resonance with countless earlier forms of being. Ulti­mately, all forms of being of the sound would then be parts of that “one” field and capable of feeling the morphogenetic reso­nance of all other parts (Sheldrake, 2011: 145ff; Ciompi 1997). What is heard would find itself self-similarly in n-fold variations. Sound fictions could thus be used as “immanence simulations”, in which the absolute unknown/unconditioned forms are the basis on which reality is identified as a model. Sound fictions thus become a way of thinking of a world that is not bound to ontological assumptions or dualistic ideas, in which reality is not seen as something given, but as an endless field of possibilities. With such simulations, even speculations about matter can be generated by the individual, in which a “continuity of echoes, resonances, vibrations between the different levels of reality, between man and himself or his image are recreated” (Laruelle, 2014: 110).

References

Barad, K. (2012a) Agentieller Realismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

—. (2012b) “Interview with Karen Barad”. In R. Dolphijn, & I. van der Tuin (eds) New Materialism. Interviews & Cartographies: 48–70. Michi­gan: MPublishing.249 13. SOUND FICTIONS. NOISE, ECHOES, FEEDBACK

Baudrillard, J. (1991) Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.

—. (2002) Pataphysik. Online: ZKM. https://zkm.de/de/jean-baudril­lard-pataphysik.

Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bohm, D. (2020) Die Implizite Ordnung: Grundlagen eines ganzheitlichen Weltbildes. Amerang: Crotona.

Ciompi, L. (1997) Die emotionalen Grundlagen des Denkens. Entwurf einer fraktalen Affektlogik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck/Ruprecht.

De Landa, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.

Deleuze, G. (1980) Dialoge. Translation by C. Parnet. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

—. (1992) “Postscript on Control Societies”. October 59: 3–7. MIT Press.

—. (1993) Logik des Sinns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

—. (2000) Die Falte. Leibniz und der Barock. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

—. (2007) Differenz und Wiederholung. Munich: Fink.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari F. (1977) Anti-Ödipus. Kapitalismus und Schizo­phrenie (I). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

—. (1992) Tausend Plateaus. Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie (II). Berlin: Merve.

—. (1996) Was ist Philosophie? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Engels, F. (1972) “Die Lage der Arbeitenden Klasse in England. Nach eigner Anschauung und authentischen Quellen”. In MEW, Band 2: 225–506. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Gabriel, M. (2016) Sinn und Existenz. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Gadamer, H. G. (1999) Hermeneutik I Wahrheit und Methode Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: UTB.

Guattari, F. (2014) Chaosmose. Vienna/Berlin: Turia & Kant.

Haraway, D. (1995) Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Frankfurt: Campus.

Holzkamp K. 1973. Sinnliche Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Athenäum.

—. (1983) Grundlegung der Psychologie. Frankfurt: Campus.

Kaku, M. (1995) Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension. Cottonwood: Anchor Books.

Laing, R. D. (1972) Konten. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Laruelle, F. (1998) Dictionary of Non-Philosophy. Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.

—. (2010) Non-Standard Philosophy: Generic, Quantum, Philo-Fiction. Paris: Kimé.

—. (2013) Philosophy and Non-Philosophy. Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.

—. (2014) Non-Photographie / Photo-Fiktion. Berlin: Merve.

Paulus, S. (2020) “Deterritorializations – Field Recordings, Recipes, Smooth Spaces and Body-without-Organs”. In Szepanski, A. (ed.) (2020) Ultrablack of Music: Vol 1: 171–181. Frankfurt/Main: Mille Plateaux/ NON.

—. (2022) “Der organlose Körper – Hineingehen in den glatten Raum und Spekulationen über die Leere”. Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenome­nology, and Practical Philosophy 14(2): 402–430.

—. (2023a) “Erschöpfungsdepressionen: Zur zeitlich-dynamischen Erfas­sung von Krankheitsverläufen”. Psychotherapie-Wissenschaft 13(2): 39–45. https://doi.org/10.30820/1664-9583-2023-2-39

—. (2023b) “Assemblage and Non-Standard Aesthetics”. Performance Philos­ophy 8(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.21476/PP.2023.81420

Sheldrake, R., McKenna, T., & Abraham, R. (1988) The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on Science, Imagination and Spirit. New York: Monkfish.

Sheldrake, R. (2011) Das Gedächtnis der Natur. Das Geheimnis der Entstehung der Formen. Munich: Fischer.

Susskind, L. (1995) “The World as a Hologram”. Journal of Mathematical Physics 36. arxiv:hepth/9409089

Turner, D. M. (1995) “Exploring hyperspace”. Entheogen Review 4(4): 4–6.

Vaihinger, H. (1986) [1922] Die Philosophie des als Ob. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.