My un/basic cl/aim is that we take actuality into virtuality. And that ain't good. We left the New World to go to the Newer, Virtual World to build new cities and we bungled it. And still are, in my humble opinion, bungling it. 

We build a virtual world and model it after our house. Or cave or sprawl. Or institution! We have people enter through the closet, only to exit the closet (Ha!) into the living room, only to chat with the language of actuality and party in the living room, and to rape etc. etc. in the living room. 

We take actuality into virtuality. In our actual-virtual house, we make objects such as rooms, bookshelves, desks, chairs, plants, pens and pencils, paper, and perverse bot puppets. We pick up and hand these objects to others. 

Sometimes people intentionally steal our objects or say nasty things to us or worse. But we have @gag, @boot, etc. And then very righteous, we set Directions. New Directions. Newer Directions. Yet Newer Directions. Ad infinitum ... tum-tum tum! 

But the repressed, as in actuality, always already virtually returns. The repressed is irrepressible. "They say ... that nothing's really changed." All's in Jest. And then a Vitruvian Bungle sleeps. And each actual-virtual day we suffer indejestion. 

Perhaps we are all Bungles, always already repeating the UR-bungle. And yet, I cannot accept such an august conclusion, for there would be no hope acceptable to me. And if I come to discover that there is no hope, I will have invented whatever 'hype' I can with the help of com_plex_ity and per_plex_ity so that I can continue 'to think the (deleuzian) virtual' but without the aristotelian actuality that predetermines our beginnings and endings. I would rather muddle in the middle. 

Somewhere, someplace, sometime, 'noones' will have taken their leave of actuality. Taken their leave of objects-oriented. Taken their leave of the Platonic, the Aristotelian, even the Leibnizean negative, the sign of the lack. Taken their leave of what would or could be thought the Best of all possibilities (that would be Helhaven), and embraced the excesses and intensities and the concommitent risks of compossibility without any good, better, best, but with a value revalued as nonpositive affirmatives. Setting aside resentment. In other words, with a value of compossibility leading us to infinite incompossibilities. 

We will have realized: How we have placed des/cartes before the horse! 

And will have undestood how(l) Deleuze com_pli_cates: the multiple comes first before the one. And thereby ... "noones" ... will have _will_ed a constructionism yet un virtualized. Will have _will_ed to take up with a different logic of development. Playing the game of chance. But not the way that Pascal made his wager predicated on previous origins and ends--all predetermined by the negative initiated by the one, but by the waves of how Nietzsche and Mallarme played the game embracing compossibility and numberless incompossibilities. The way that Borges would have us live our lives within multiplicities. Even IF with a trickster God or gods! Embracing radical singularities. Embracing the conditions for com_plex_ity and per_plex_ity, for com_pli_cation and im_pli_cation. I love the conceptual starting places of _plex_ and _pli_. All initiated by 'noones.' 

And you ask, How(l) will all this have come to pass? And I would answer: These "noones" will have taken the leaves and directions, the constructions, of "anyone." Of the Anyone Corp. And in doing so, the "noones" will have asked the question 'What will have been virtual w/riting, building, constructing?, What will have been a virtual anarchitechture? Will have asked in terms yet in currency. Yet having presented themselves. The "noones" live within the conditions of new theories of invention. Instead of Universalists, the "noones" are reversalists, "where the plan of construction must be always built anew, since it is never given in advance through a preset system or unbending rules" Once when it is realized that everything has been said and un/done, the "noones" will have "then start[ed] to investigate 'virtualities' unseen in the present," with the what will have been (Rajchman Constructions 2). The "noones" too, however, will have passed.