/lit/ - Literature

>derrida
the fundamental issue i have with Derrida - there is more than one - lies in a) the issue of a democracy-to-come (and it is the same issue i have with Zizek), and b) the sense that irony will be anyone's saviour. it will not. and, as Peterson has said, social constructivism is itself a social construction. ofc, the ultimate rejoinder to social constructivism is not academic, it is the election of 45th president of the United States in 2016.

what does a koan do? it *confounds expectations.* that is its purpose. and a Taoist sensibility does not have anything like a sense of the future in anything resembling linear or historical terms, which is what makes Hegel, Hegel. the dialectic has exploded, and produced an entire cosmology of warring metanarratives, which gives rise to an age of instant hyperfeedback and mimesis under capital and McLuhanesque media. it very much *is* the Gutenberg Galaxy, and we are in a state of free-fall through it, without oxygen.

i suppose in a perfect world we might wind up with something like the Horatio of Endless Space, a species composed entirely of clones. such a world would undoubtedly have its flaws, but it would be predicated on a fundamental similarity rather than a fundamental difference. my hope would be that it would be governed along Neo-Confucian/Neo-Augustinian lines as such, because *what else is there.* especially if Uncle Nick is basically single-handedly corralling everything that follows from life after the linguistic turn under the sign of Temporalization and machine intelligenesis.

and yet those machines will not save us by themselves. they will only be as smart as we are. everything reflects everything else in this way: it's an entelechizing process. and it calls for

>mutually co-creative perspectives among all things. "Every creature both houses and pervades the universe," the interiority of an occurrence comprised of its relationships to everything else. Matter is made of energy which is a relationship between occurrences, but as these occurrences are made up of energy, which is made up of relationships, the universe is a strange loop of relationships of relationships of relationships. The implication is a synthesis of the dead nouns of creator and creating with an immanent creativity, the death of art as the process of reality itself is a creative process, a tapestry of co-creation among all strands that it contains - not as a whole relating the many to itself, but as the many becoming one in a novel subject, and increased by one.

we can't *rush* to the ending. the path, as Zhuangzi says, is made by walking on it. political utopias are always one step removed from reality, as difference *in time* and not between temporalized individuals. true, that also happens; but it's a much more general Enlightenment that is called for, rather than the prescriptive codes and laws of the society to be.

>>11998790
>Accelerationists are on the side of the monistic metaphysics, ultimately believing that anything that happens is historically justified in the perspective of either some end or purpose that the world, intended as a process, ultimately has. Therefore technology is seen not as a detachment or derailment from history but as part of its natural evolution, and the effort of many of these authors seems to me just that of including technology and capital in a natural perspective as part of how things naturally evolve in the direction of the end of history.

i can't disagree with this either. Capital is in a sense technical evolution - Stiegler will argue for this also, that civilization is commensurate with technical progress - and yet that is the ongoing challenge for him, Simondon, YH, and even Land - what would a true *mechanological culture look like?* Land always has the mad love for Singapore, because that brand of authoritarian capitalism bore fruit. the question to be asked, however, is how *scalable* this process is. we're going to see this play out in China, for instance, v/social credit. i find Social Credit completely horrifying and also seductive. incentivizing "positive sociability" isn't even an exclusively Chinese idea either, it's also something Sloterdijk has talked about - in brief, the return of patronage. incentivize the wealthy and powerful to *do good in their home country,* find a flaw. the problem is that in the world of transnational capital, the *logical* thing to do is always just to follow the money and play Sorcerer-Alchemist, as things have been done ever since the renaissance. The Spice Must Flow, and so, you just go wherever the markets are. and yet this seems to increasingly Return To Sender in all kinds of fascinating (and horrible) experiments in disruption, upheaval, general other bullshit, and particularly because it leaves the members of those cultures with the strong suspicion that nothing at all fucking matters except money, and that is why they return to ideology to solve their problems (and, frankly, as they should). but Zizek's communism-to-come is just as impossible as Derrida's democracy-to-come. in the end it just results in hysterical meme shitshows between cynics and con artists. and that isn't the dialectic, either.

>That the human being was something to be surpassed was already said by Nietzsche - and in a sense by the Platonics in that they believed that to become his best possible self man should stop being himself and become god (namely, that evolution into something non-human or post-human was in order in our search for the good).

in Sloterdijk's reading of Nietzsche the Overman isn't an artist-visionary, it is a process. the meaning of it will be *the production of acrobats.* this is a good look. this is an incredibly good look. we live on the practicing and disciplinary planet. Git Gud is a fine mandate for me, but i like to soften the anthropotechnics with the cosmotechnics also.