/lit/ - Literature

>>11831988
>>11832027
>I would like to know better how you think this connects with technology.

two super-good recent posts on this here that answer this better than i could.
>>/lit/thread/S11817687#p11830150
>>/lit/thread/11817687#p11830156

the question is about technocapital and its relation to intelligence, more specifically superintelligence: an intelligence greater than ourselves inasmuch as we think ourselves as individuals. if there's anything we take from postmodernity, mimetics, dialectics and cybernetics it's that we aren't purely discrete thought-particles in a void. everything's connected, for better or for worse. and this will take you in all kinds of directions. namely, the need to re-think the question of alienation. we're living in mcluhan's global village, but the global village is not necessarily cozy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

>what I wanted to ask you is whether there is space for mind (individual and collective) in the world your accelaration readings and how do you think it is articulated.
i think it's the world of extended network-cognition; deleuze knew this. the fundamental work of crowbarring the individual away from their attachment to language was done in my case by heidegger, but there are other ways. Dasein is a radically temporal being and ungrounded. but this doesn't have to annihilate mind either collectively or individually, it inaugurates the subject into an ungrounded world. for heidegger this is profoundly unsettling, and it is for us as well, but attempts to claw back reality lead imho to futility and disaster and neurotic reactivity. we have to find a better way. either as dividuals or interbeings. whether this leads to resacralized communities or interior transformation is up to us. but we should handle the sacred with extreme caution; this is girard's fundamental lesson.

>thinking of mind as a compositional principle of the universe, either as being part of it (as being part of some fictional story told by a mind) or being wired into it (writing the fictional story of the world as minds wired in the superior mind which is writing it) seems much more pleasant to me.
me too.

>Han is probably the closest person we have to my knowledge (haven't read Yuk Hui or Land or others you have mentioned yet) who can figure all of this out.
han's cool, ofc. YH is way cool also. land is one of the original visionaries of this stuff, but like everyone he comes up in a milieu, and there are ways of considering these phenomena in less horrible ways than he does, however much he really does work as a sort of defibrillator for a kind of philosophy gone completely spectral under the influence of the deconstructionists and post-structuralists.

>The paradigm shifted from us maintaining the system to the system maintaining us!
yep. the original guy here was heidegger tho. but recently i find myself thinking that whitehead is perhaps the guy forward.