/lit/ - Literature

>>12867637
because Deleuze was a god-tier metaphysician and much of the world can be explained in terms of his language and concepts. but he doesn't invent these out of whole cloth sui generis: there is a lineage in him that goes back to Spinoza, who is the precursor to the Enlightenment also. and *that* philosophy gives you the French Revolution. Deleuze and Guattari also leave room for Marx, which is important if you think the Industrial Revolution - or global capitalism - are worth thinking about. but this is a version of Marx uncoupled from Hegel and Freud, but compatible with Nietzsche, and on top of that he represents a serious challenge to Lacan's thought (which includes Zizek). there is also no Land or acceleration without him. Deleuze does a lot of stuff.

as to why you should care about acceleration, well, nobody's holding a gun to your head. i happen to believe capitalism is the true major phenomenon at work in the world today, but it cannot be understood in terms of the late 20C alone for a number of reasons. first of all, after the Cold War, as Land indicates, the Fukuyama blend of social democracy + free markets suddenly finds itself in a quandary: what do we mean by 'social', and how free are these markets supposed to be? on top of that, you have other technological questions that have to be answered: automation, computers, internet finance, and currencies not tied to federal reserves. all of these things show up to my mind a need for a seriously fresh look at the meaning of the polis in a world of planetary capitalism and intelligence and information technologies. for this Land is the absolute best, although his conclusions are dark and grim.

but again, even then, he's not doing this in a vacuum. Land's own thought draws heavily on Deleuze, but also Marx and Kant. it is the shift *away* from Hegel in Land's work that is perhaps most salient, because he just believes that fundamentally Hegelian thought is incapable with free markets owing to the nature of political thinking: nobody can ever be really objective about money, but what does that mean for the world in the long run? on top of that, teleoplexy posits a loop between capitalist production and consumption and the development of automation and computer technologies, things that conventional bog-standard postmodernism are incapable of thinking seriously about. cybernetics really matters today (even Heidegger said so, back in 1966). these are legit questions for philosophy to ask: where is all of this stuff going? what the fuck are we doing with money? Land also crosses the aisle and reads the history of capital from an Austrian perspective also, but the Continental is strong in him, which is why he just doesn't run around quoting from Atlas Shrugged. he prefers Neuromancer and Lovecraft.

so if you think capitalism is a legit planetary force but that it cannot be solved simply by putting on a Che Guevara shirt, Deleuze and /acc are for you.

>>12693495
the real dilemma is pretty well-articulated also i think by Jonathan Israel: you like the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment seems to trend both towards disastrous revolution and to turbocapital eating everyone's face, and in turn to a Woke Capital that ruins Uncle Nick's worst fantasies, and in the most hilarious ways.

with a gun to my head, if i have to pick some kind of political ideology, i would say rebuilding a bridge to the 17C is probably the way to go. being reasonable is going to be hard in an age of unreason, and that an age of unreason would be produced by the dawning sensation that capital and only capital becomes the operating system for the 21C. it's not like i can blame people for wanting to take hard right or far left turns. Wokism drives me insane because i'm a boring centrist by nature, but boring centrism always seems to trend towards fuckface neoliberalism, and, and and.

the human species can do better. i'm optimistic that we will eventually get out of the dark places we are in, and i think it is to Land's enormous credit that he has shown the nature of the paradox that confronts people today. it's there in Mises too, you can see the dilemma: a truly liberal society stands, can only stand, for a kind of libertarianism that invites socialists to ask it questions it can't answer. said socialists in turn inevitably wind up taking the show on the road and we wind up back in the 20C, like Groundhog Day, over and over again.

i think it is enough for us simply to recognize that the wedding between neoliberalism and turbocapitalism just represents a paradox more or less sussed out completely by the French poststructuralists, and that what the situation today calls for is sobriety and lucidity. failing that it's back to the Greeks and brooding on the celestial fire with Heraclitus.

>§0.41 — The Bitcoin protocol is designed as a game. Incentives are built into its infrastructure. It only works when it is played. The distinctive feature of the Bitcoin game is that it produces binding decisions without a referee, or dependence upon prior agreement. Coordination is neither presumed, nor invoked, but produced. The absence of all superior authority makes Bitcoin transcendental in the philosophical sense, and adapts it to anarchy in the rigorous sense this term carries in the field of international relations theory. Any player is welcome to cheat. No moves that are possible are forbidden. Do your worst is its open invitation. This is what trustlessness means.

there is a strong Snake Plissken/Escape from LA vibe in this: Welcome to Human Race. again, lest i be misunderstood in my fanboyism, this is not to score Cool Points for anarchy. i would prefer by far the Getting of Grips to Transcendental Anarchy. however cool Transcendental Anarchy sounds, and it does. the problem with a Transcendental Anarchy is that it will probably only be infinite micro-re-hashes of The Great Metanarrative, that is, the JB Reality Principle and everything else that leads to the same old same old monkey shit-flinging. but otherwise what Land is saying is pretty freaking incredible.

YH writes, in the end of Cosmotechnics, about the need to stake a claim to *another* world history. Uncle Nick seems to be saying something more like, 'no thanks, i will be sticking with the one that produced BTC, and so will you.' for disco balls like me it is objectively impossible to have more fun thinking about philosophy than this. it is just not possible.

>§0.42 — Social analysis is a regional application of game-theory. There is no conception of ‘the social’ extricable from the domain of games. Transcendental philosophy can be hashed into a game-theoretically tractable vocabulary, which facilitates its general social application. The meaning of ‘spontaneous order’ is finally indissociable from, and co-elaborating with, that of ‘games’. In both cases, what is posed is the strategic problem of multiplicity, or primordial non-coordination. War, politics, and formalized commerce stack successively upon it.

i'm already thinking i want to update my journal re: Games in a sense understandable to continental smoothbrains like me. i cannot into Von Neumann or calculus (despite the best intentions of anons ITT to get me to read calculus). i want it in philosophy-ese first. this is dumb as rocks ofc but i still want it. don't mock me for my mathlessness.

>* That the term “occult liberal tradition” conservatively re-phrases crypto-current is not meant as a secret here. Between liberalization in reality (rather than declaration) and the practical history of cryptography, there is no difference. As the Ancien Régime already knew, Illuminism provides the dramatic mask.

there is nothing more fascinating to read anywhere on Planet Meme.