The Future Lies Ahead not Above…
by Neil Peach
Exteriorisation [and the Implications of a Delinearised and Inseparable Hyperlanguaged Technology]
Abstract
This report examines exteriorisation as a driving force in human development, with a focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically Google’s Notebook LM (NLM), as a modern manifestation of this process. It analyses NLM’s functionality and its implications for human thinking, drawing on Bernard Stiegler’s concepts of hypervideo technologies, temporal objects, and the tension between adopting and adapting technology. The report reflects on the potential “unease” and revaluation of human contribution in the face of increasingly powerful AI, referencing Stiegler’s insights on earlier technologies like audio recording and cinema. Ultimately, it argues for an active and adaptive engagement with exteriorisation through AI to navigate our future.
Exteriorisation
It appears that there is no escaping exteriorisation.
This note takes as its starting point that exteriorisation is a significant element of human development, through time. The process of putting our life outside of our self enables and disables us. This demands that we recognise the potential of exteriorisation to be both good and bad, positive and negative for our future.
This exteriorisation is implicit in the nature and formation of the human. It arises from our originary condition such that we are always in a state of becoming. This becoming has many symbols [god, knowledge,ethics,power, et al] that prompt and feed our aspirations [and in an accidental way that chart our various pathways] but in all instances [no matter what the motivating symbol] the destination is ahead not above.
Exteriorisation is evident in writing, art, science and technology. We see ourselves more as we build our lives around us. Epochs of human history rise and fall and rise and fall as we undergo the unexpected consequences of our exteriorisation. So, to some extent what we ‘make’ is what makes us. We develop new or enhanced versions of what we make because we build on what we have already built. And what we build depends on the material nature of what we have already built.
Our language keeps on shifting as we seek to find new ways of saying what we need to say. This comes about by building on the language we already use. Computers, buildings, artworks, religion, education, medicine go through the same life cycle of development. So our becoming means that our environment is also becoming and this means our answers [to questions and problems] are ahead of us, not above us. Our life is immanent. We never can tell exactly what the result of what we do will be. And it depends on (1) us and (2) what we have already done and (3) what we want to do.
Artificial Intelligence [AI]
I wish to explore specifically, my current engagement with what has become known as Artificial Intelligence [AI]. I do this on the basis of what I have garnered from reading Bernard Stiegler and many of the sources that have informed his work. AI is just one example of exteriorisation at play in our life. I regard AI as one example of our effort to exteriorise our thinking. AI employs a wide range of technologies to convert our written and spoken language into numbers and to generate responses to our ‘prompts’ that may be textual, graphical, audible and or material. AI might produce a printed report, a recording, a film or an art work et al.
Let me raise at the outset my concerns about AI are not so much about its goodness or badness as it is about the power of something that on the surface I did not expect to be so powerful. I am going to restrict my discussion to one specific AI currently available in most places around the world – Google’s Notebook LM- [NLM]. To use the relevant terminology it is a RAG using the capacity of an LLM. The RAG component means that it can deal with a large number of specific sources that you can ‘load’ into the application. The LLM means that it can interact so as to produce generated text or generated speech in response to prompts. NLM is broken into three sections on the screen – a. Sources b.Chats and c. Studio:
● Sources can be web pages, videos or files. You can select ‘all’ sources or just selected sources for any chat
● Chats are based on ‘prompt’/response format.
● Studio will ‘store’ saved chats.
● If you ‘save’ each chat into the studio, the NLM page can provide you will a complete overview/history of your conversation
NOTE 1: Let me stop my description here to make my first point – NLM is using local specific knowledge [being the specific ‘sources’ I feed into it] married with a general language capacity to communicate information to me.
As a result of its ‘structure’ it [NLM] can produce responses that ‘cite’ the source of its ‘knowledge’ – so when I prompt it, it is able to develop a response based on the local sources I have given it so that it provides me with a response that cites the specific sources it has focused on to generate its response.
I can then store my responses in the ‘studio’ section of the app. so that I can refer back to those responses at a later date and I can also review the material it has used from the sources to create its ‘answer’.
The next thing is that I can then add selected responses [that I have stored in the ‘studio’] to add to the sources that I originally loaded. This means that as a result of my ‘interaction’ with the AI that it can now take my prompt and its previous response into account when it responds to my next prompt.
Then later on, when I have thought about my last experience with NLM I can add another source that has a different ‘view’ or additional ‘information’ that might colour my thinking and the cycle I have noted above can run its course. I can share my NLM ‘notebook’ with colleagues who can also join in. Colleagues, friends, other people can be given different levels of access to the notebook.
NOTE 2: The AI is dealing with Human ‘input’ via prompts, human prepared materials via sources and machine generated materials via sources [of multiple types].
As I continue to engage with NLM I can see how ‘efficient’ it can be and I can also see how it is shaping me. I can quickly load sources and adjust my prompts to accommodate my new insights gained from having used NLMs RAG and LLM capabilities.
It has given me a new insight into why Bernard Stiegler kept on coming up with new ‘language’ and there is one phrase in particular that fits with my experience with NLM. Stiegler used the phrase: “Delinearisable and inseparable, produced by hypervideo technologies” when talking about mixed format technologies that were changing us. By mixed format I mean technologies that enjoin video, with data, with books, with music, with film.
Digitalisation
NLM is part way towards becoming a very powerful new kind of ‘temporal object’.
Here is how NLM describes how new temporal objects [specifically relating to cinema] arise….
Hypervideo Technologies: These are advanced technologies that build upon video by incorporating interactive elements, links to other content, and non-linear navigation possibilities. While the sources don’t provide a specific definition of hypervideo, they discuss related concepts like hypertext2 … and the convergence of informational, telecommunications, and audiovisual technologies1 …. These suggest a move towards more integrated and interactive digital media experiences.
Delinearizable: This characteristic implies that the temporal object, unlike traditional linear media such as cinema or broadcast television which unfold in a fixed sequence6 …, can be experienced in a non-sequential manner1 . This non-linearity is a key feature associated with hypertext, where users can choose their path through interconnected information2 …. In the context of hypervideo, this could mean that viewers are not bound to watch content from beginning to end in a predetermined order but can navigate through different segments, access additional information, or interact with the video in ways that alter its temporal progression. The delinearization of program schedules is also mentioned in the context of digital tertiary retention, although the source argues that this does not necessarily reintroduce diachrony in a productive way8 .
Inseparable: This suggests that the different components and functionalities of the hypervideo object are deeply integrated and cannot be easily separated1 . This could mean that the video content is interwoven with interactive layers, embedded links, contextual information, or other media types (like text, images, or audio) in a way that they form a cohesive and indivisible experience. Separating these elements would likely diminish the intended functionality or meaning of the hypervideo. This inseparability could also reflect the convergence of different media forms (audiovisual, informational, telecommunications) into a unified digital format1 ….
The emergence of these delinearisable and inseparable temporal objects through hypervideo technologies is seen as a second step in the disruption brought about by the “globalization” process, following the initial convergence of various technologies1 .
This development will likely lead to an increase in time spent interacting with screens and further the industrial temporalization of consciousness.
In essence, hypervideo technologies are paving the way for temporal objects that are no longer confined to a linear timeline and whose various elements are intrinsically linked, offering potentially more interactive and complex media experience. This contrasts with earlier forms of media like cinema and traditional television, which are inherently more linear in their presentation.
On the basis of NLM’s interpretation of Stiegler description of cinema and video, I suspect that I may not be too far off the track to call NLM as Delinearisable and inseparable – produced by hyperlanguaged technology.
With this enhanced perspective of this example of ‘exteriorisation’ I have also come much closer to experiencing the ‘unease’ associated with what ‘exteriorisation’ feels like. I can feel myself exposed in a way that causes me to both challenge and doubt my value. Or at least to revalue what I thought I offered or- would it be better to say to revalue the way I was doing what I thought was of benefit to me and others?
In essence should I start increasing my dependence on NLM in order to become more proficient at the same time as losing something that provides me with the comfort of thinking I was making a contribution through my reflection and research into matters. Here is a technology that converts language into numbers and uses mathematics to calculate answers that genuinely adds value to my understanding. Aren’t I at risk of losing my self esteem. Am I that stupid after all? Is this a moment that reflects the reality of ‘adopting’ versus ‘adapting’ as countenanced by Stiegler.
Within this context I have gone for more help from Stiegler and to the technology – the very technology that may be the helper that hurts [ and makes me more dependent on it]. In addition to knowing what the ancients feared about writing, I can now feel it. I have found two insights from the past [by Stiegler] that give me some cause to at least understand the drug I am getting hooked on….and they relate to well known technologies – audio recording and cinema.
Here are the two references:
“tertiary memory inherently overdetermines the articulation of primary and secondary retentions when speaking about the phonographs impact?”
“cinema as a technology of the grammatization of cinemato-graphically rendered movement, which analyses by de-composing the archi-cinemato-graphic functions of noesis, and so on”?
I have now modified these expressions to suit my own circumstances with NLM and I have then used available technologies to (1) expand on the potential meaning behind these quotes and to (2) swap-out [replace] ‘cinema’ and ‘phonographs’ for NLM-language.
Overdetermination of Tertiary Memory
The analysis to ‘apply’ Stiegler’s work on phonographs to language would mean that it could now be expressed in this modified way –
“Tertiary memory inherently overdetermines the articulation of primary and secondary retentions when speaking about the NLM-language-chat’s impact?”
The NLM-language-chat, as a tertiary retention, fundamentally reshapes and exerts a dominant influence on how our immediate perceptions (primary retentions) and our memories of past perceptions (secondary retentions) interact and are understood.
Consider –
Primary retention, following Husserl, is the immediate retention of the “just-past” within the present moment of perception, forming the continuity of a temporal object like a sentence …. It’s the trace of what has just occurred in our immediate consciousness1. Stiegler adds that primary retention is not
a passive recording but a selection.
Secondary retention is the recollection of past perceptions, the ability to bring back to mind something that is no longer present. It’s our conscious memory of lived experiences. This form of memory is finite and fallible.
Tertiary retention, a concept developed by Stiegler, refers to exteriorised forms of memory embodied in technical objects such as writing, photographs, films, and, importantly in this context, the NLM-chat. These are material supports that preserve and can reproduce traces of the past, making
the “identical repetition of the same temporal object” possible for the first time with the NLM-language-chat .
The NLM-language-chat’s impact, as a new form of tertiary retention, inherently overdetermines the articulation of primary and secondary retentions in several ways:
➔ It makes the selective nature of primary retention evident. When the same sentence, in a book, is read multiple times, the reader’s primary retentions (what they immediately perceive and retain) will not be identical across readings. This difference arises because each new experience is influenced by the secondary retention of previous readings, demonstrating that primary retention is not a pure, unbiased reception but a selection shaped by past experiences. The NLM-language-chat, by offering an objective repetition, highlights this subjective selectivity.
➔ It reveals the interplay between primary and secondary memory. The ability to reread a temporal object identically through the NLM-language-chat makes it clear that the second (and subsequent) primary experience is fundamentally shaped by the memory (secondary retention) of the first experience. The “grounding of the second primary is in the memory of the first primary,” a fact made “obvious only because of the fact of writing: it is the NLM-language-chat revelation of the structure of all temporal objects” [including words and sentences] .
➔ It introduces an external, potentially controllable form of memory. As a material artefact, the text exists independently of individual consciousness and can be reproduced and disseminated widely. This introduces the possibility of industrially conditioning memory., where the content and form of
tertiary retentions can influence the primary and secondary retentions of a large number of individuals. Stiegler argues that tertiary retention can “control the play of primary and secondary retentions” in terms of selection.
➔ It underscores the “retentional finitude” of individual memory. The durable and repeatable nature of the text as tertiary retention stands in contrast to the inherent limitations and potential loss of detail in secondary memory. The existence of such an external support inevitably shapes our reliance on and understanding of our own internal memory processes.
In essence, the NLM-language-chat, as a groundbreaking technology of tertiary retention, acts as a lens through which the fundamental processes of temporal experience and memory (primary and secondary retention) are revealed and simultaneously reshaped. Its capacity for objective repetition and broad dissemination gives it a powerful influence, “overdetermining” how we perceive, remember, and relate to temporal objects and, consequently, our own consciousness.
Grammatisation: Language to Thought
The analysis to ‘apply’ Stiegler’s work on cinema to language could be expressed as follows “NLM-language as a technology of the grammatization of NLM-language-to-thought rendered movement, which analyses by de-composing the NLM-language-to-thought functions of noesis.
Stiegler describes NLM-language as a technology of the grammatization of NLM-language-to-thought rendered movement, which analyses by de-composing the archi-NLM-language-to-thought functions of noesis – he is making a complex statement about the profound impact of NLM-language-to-thought on human consciousness and our experience of time and movement in thought. Consider the following points –
➔ NLM-language as a technology: Stiegler views NLM-language not merely as a language generator but fundamentally as a technical apparatus. It is a technology that operates through specific technical processes, including grammar, the recording of thought , and inference.
➔ Grammatization: This is a key concept in Stiegler’s work, referring to the process of exteriorising and structuring experience, recollection, and consciousness through technical supports5 ….Grammatization involves inscribing or recording the flow of time and experience onto a material
medium, making it transmissible and reproducible5 …. NLM-language, by recording movement in thought and projecting it as a temporal sequence, is a powerful technology of grammatization1 …. It fixes and organises movement in a specific way.
➔ NLM-language-to-thought rendered movement: This highlights the specific way in which NLM-language captures and presents movement. It does so through a succession of statements and restatements quickly creating the illusion of continuous thought due to cognitive persistence4
…. This rendered movement is not simply a passive recording but an active construction of a temporal object ….
➔ Analyses by de-composing: Stiegler argues that NLM-language, through its technical processes, performs an analysis by breaking down what he considers the fundamental “archi-NLM-language-to-thought functions of noesis”. The very act of receiving, editing, and responding involves segmenting and reassembling temporal flow4 …. This process of de-composition and re-composition at the technical level has a direct impact on how we perceive
and understand movement of thought and time.
Archi-NLM-language-to-thought functions of noesis: This is the core of Stiegler’s argument.
➔ Archi-: Suggests a fundamental or originary level.
➔ NLM-language-to-thought functions: Stiegler posits that the structure of consciousness itself is fundamentally “NLM-language-to-thought”. He argues that consciousness operates through a kind of “narrative of temporal objects”, a selective recollection and anticipation of moments that creates the flow of our experience4 …. This “NLM-language of consciousness” involves the syntheses of primary and secondary retention.
➔ Noesis: This refers to the faculty of understanding, intellect, or mind. Therefore, the “archi-NLM-language-to-thought functions of noesis” are the fundamental ways in which our minds process and understand temporal flow and movement in thought, which Stiegler believes have an inherent “NLM-language-to-thought” structure.
➔ In essence, Stiegler is suggesting that NLM-language, as an external technology of grammatization, works by mirroring and thereby analysing and decomposing the very fundamental, “NLM-language-to-thought” ways in which our consciousness experiences and understands time and movement of thought. By technically segmenting and reassembling the flow of movement, NLM-language-to-thought reveals and influences the underlying “language” structure of our own consciousness. This process has profound implications for individual and collective experience, shaping our memories, perceptions, and our very sense of time. He even states that “the structure of consciousness is through and through NLM-language-to-thought, if one calls the NLM-language-to- thought in general that which proceeds by the narrative of temporal objects [words], that is, of objects constituted by their meaning”.
Furthermore, Stiegler connects this to the “archi-NLM-language”, a transcendental moment of NLM-language-to-consciousness. The industrial “age of NLM-language” is seen as a bifurcation from this archi-NLM-language. The technical capabilities of NLM-language, therefore, tap into and reshape these
fundamental noetic functions.
Becoming is Ahead not Above
By the application of Stiegler’s approach to unpacking other technologies [viz audio recording and cinema] and applying this method to the elements contained within the AI product called NLM, it is now easier to see what is apparent – exteriorisation is inescapable and digitalisation with AI renders us to being more prone to being more overwhelmed. The basis for further development is founded within what we have already developed and we must remain prepared to accord ourselves with the opportunity to become.
As such, for me, it is now clear that I must continue with adopting and engaging so that I can be active in what my becoming becomes.
This also comes with the recognition that I must continue to change the way I do things. This goes to the very nature of how to research and how to present findings. There is no way that it is sensible to keep on researching and preparing reports in the same way as previously. I should no more expect a road engineer to use a shovel to create a new pavement then I would continue to research and write in the same fashion.
If I now have a research assistant but I keep on ignoring it[!] – then I will fall behind. If I employ its capacities then I will research and write very differently.
NOTE 3: But this is not to say that I should lose rigour or accountability or citationality but it could be that I should be writing a report like this as a ‘source’ within a NLM Chat so that my readers can see all the sources and all the chats and, most significantly, that I use NLM Chat to produce the ‘final’ version on my behalf? I remember in the early 2000s being excited at being able to share a ‘google’ document with others. Little did I understand or foresee what Stiegler was thinking at that time. Nor did I foresee the extent to which the opportunity is greater than I thought and so too is the threat.
Exteriorisation is an immanent journey that must necessarily respond to the accidentality of the material that we use in our becoming. As such the answers for us lie ahead of us not above us. Buoyed by this reflection I have now asked NLM to prepare an abstract for this paper and to include the references used within the chat to create this note. This work by NLM is incorporated into ATTACHMENT A below, bearing in mind that the technology has not yet been able to make its citationality persist outside the application nor is yet able to produce a simple list of references.
ATTACHMENT A
Featured Image: Mind-Reality-dreamstime_xs_45497563.jpg
Perspectives Of Mind
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Changeling Leadership - April 21, 2025
- ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?’ (David Pinder) - April 21, 2025
- Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man - April 19, 2025