/lit/ - Literature

>>12921908
>>12921951
and that is how he has chosen to play the game. and yet to call his attitude to capitalism as 'gnostic' also seems appropriate, in a way: he really does have a kind of occult or mystical feeling for it. it's not Gnostic in the conventional sense of the word, but i don't know what other is really appropriate. he really does think BTC is a legit and epochal contribution to the history of transcendental philosophy, and completely in line with his own understanding of Kant and Deleuze as well. like any great philosopher, there are a whole bunch of concepts associated with him, and he's also allowed this whole other reading of capital to take place that lines it up with computer technology, much else. and perhaps most intriguingly, he doesn't give much thought at all to the need to impress or convert anyone else to his own way of doing things. this to me is what makes him quite attractive, particularly given how often people are often led down the garden path by other philosophies which promise them the moon.

>I think Land's error is his assumption that humans are alone in the midst of reality.
i do too. i know for sure that my brain is not wired the same way that his is, i lean way more over towards the sentimental side of things. i appreciate what Land does because, if you are kind of naturally more empathetic by nature, *you can get stung by things* - or, as is often the case, *sting others without knowing it,* or worst of all, sting yourself! the affects are interesting like that, and so there was room for me for an absolutely cold-blooded and ruthless approach to these questions which helped me to parse out a lot of pseudo-social affect-peddling from something methodical and rigorous that i thought made sense. but this is complicated to explain sometimes, not only because Land is a difficult guy to champion, but also because we also don't want to feel like we are tied to somebody else's thought all of the time. eventually we have to work things out on our own, it's just better that way. so i'm grateful to him for having introduced me to a bunch of other writers i might not have explored - Deleuze, Bataille - as much as for having read Heidegger before and made my way to him. now there's a big beautiful horror story slowly self-assembling in my mind, huzzah. there will be life after /acc stuff, but it's all part of assembling the big map, in a way.

anyways...this was a very kind post anon, ty for writing it. i'm glad to think these threads have been illuminating for you (and that your spirits haven't been crushed completely also!) they're always a pleasure for me too. even if i think i'm not going to be quite as active on /lit/ as i used to be, perhaps: it's good to withdraw for a while and reflect on the things you are *grateful* for also. perhaps my favorite of all Land-lines, and it's very Zen indeed:
>what if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing?
that's *such* a good line. so so good.

>If I may simplify, I would say that philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century endeavored to understand human existence ontologically. In the second half of the century, the deconstruction of the concept of the human through the discovery of its dependence on the prosthesis of technics led to the concept of the inhuman or posthuman, but this understanding is still ontological in the sense that it seeks to categorize the inhuman. We can also understand from this perspective the rise, and eventually the triumph, of the phrase technical system over technical milieu. But when we take technology into account, such an ontological understanding doesn’t have much to say besides expelling the human from the center. The fact is that we cannot even derive an ontology of technology, because it may not even exist. It is probably more appropriate to follow what Simondon calls ontogenesis. If this book has succeeded in bringing this point to light, the implication is that a new critique or conceptualization of the human– inhuman should take technical systems into account to analyze them together as relations.

>We can also say that between discursive relations and existential relations, which constitute care, there is a similar relation between forms and ground. Now, because of the technology of digitization, we can easily materialize, analyze, and transform discursive relations into material forms. But for a transformation to be carried out, we should bear in mind how these forms contribute to the ground, both in terms of technical compatibility and the structure of care. The question is, how are we going to identify the concurrent causality between these two orders, and hence to reorganize the associated milieu and its corresponding relations? The details certainly vary from one case to another, but an analysis of the ground is necessary before the forms can be transformed. This could be the general principle for the discipline Simondon envisaged: mechanology.

-- YH/OEDO

D&G announce Mechanosphere in ATP. Uncle Nick has given some insight into how this thing works. but YH's notion of a mechanology to accompany this doesn't seem all that crazy. the question here is about time, and that's why YH is so interesting. the machine has a certain relation to time, and so does the culture or civilization in which it is located. how we choose to use or spend our time is always up to us. and we do always have the capacity to rewire the cultural parameters and priorities of the civilizations in which we live as much as we can change our own behaviour, to some degree, and to follow one set of rules or another. but what YH is contributing by bringing heidegger back into the mix through stiegler and simondon (or maybe it's those guys by way of heidegger) is really something.

again, tho: pic rel, or some version of it, is the way to survive the rage virus perhaps almost invariably produced by societies of control.

>>10197453
>And yet so much worry filled rants about clashes.
true. i'm a snowflake. and maybe just projecting. i'm saddened by the thought of metaphysics fractured by political thinking, though...if only because i feel like i can see the handwriting on the wall...and i'm skeptical about the concept of identity itself. but i live in a world which militantly believes in it and in which that skepticism is seen as provocative. so i have to zip it. and listen to identity-based philosophy i suspect may be based on false principles which i cannot criticize. it's an unpleasant feeling. not to say, it's not good for me...cultivating inner silence and non-responsiveness is highly becoming.

sometimes you gotta vent tho.

>Why not just say it out loud, that you crave that spectacle more than fear it?
no prob. i crave spectacle more than fear it.

>Then you can get over the fact that you will not sit at the left hand of God ever, you not look down from afar. You are here.
sometimes i can't help but look at it from afar, though. right? try and look at it up close...and what the fuck are you seeing? you *have* to take a distant view...so i do. not quite left-hand-of-God territory yet. just far, far from the polis...and not as far as i would like. and maybe feeling it will never be far enough...

>The panopticon is perfect, and the colliseum is beautiful. If you haven't bought a ticket, be careful of the lions as well as some men. All and all, have a good time - this one's on the Emperor.
can't argue with this. you're right. this *is* the correct attitude, no doubt - not mine. being fucked-out at the state of things is less awesome than being able to accept them. i'm with you there.

there's no question: the problem is me, not society. things are how they are. i just have a peculiar hang-up on some things. perhaps more out of envy, even. i'd love to have a fixed sense of identity. i thought i did, once upon a time. now it all seems like a swirly mass of contradictions. i would like to put this into production, somehow. the swirly ball resists this. i choose instead to sit on it. it's uncomfortable. i come here to rant and post weird stuff. it's a cycle.

/lit/ - the 'chans in general - do more good for the world, i think, than is scarcely realized. it's all just venting steam, in the end. i talk about politics so as not to believe in them. i discharge my own false sense of actually knowing what i'm saying so that i can get along in the world as an agreeable and harmless anonymity. which is what i ultimately want: to be no one. to pic rel.

i am working my way, in other words, from a false sense of understanding to a true sense of bewilderment. and my only way of doing this is by building from impressions of certainty i see in the world that simply don't add up to me for which i have no solutions. and indeed, that is my endgame. to stop trying to fix things. including myself...

>Must be building something bigger this time.
what did he mean by this, though.