/lit/ - Literature

posting more classic MM

>>11262617
Before the cyberpunks, we had cyberhippies. our banal cyberworld is itself a product of communalist hippies taking way too much acid and McLuhan and thinking surplus military industrial complex tech would help them transcend their physical bodies and become one with the universe. There's this book called from counterculture to cyberculture by Fred Turner. You can easily get lost in the 60s acid memesphere, Deleuze and Guattari start looking less like Landian terminators and more like flower children, you have Stafford Beer (AKA Wizard Prang) London's top management consultant/ bearded tantric mystic building organic pondlife computers to manage Chile's economy for Salvador Allende. The 60s are intimately linked to the psychic and technlogical aftermath of WWII, the cybernetic idea was birthed out of think tanks and coexisted with the spectre of nuclear annihilation. Friedrich Von Hayek revived 19th century laissez faire economics by repackaging them in the futuristic language of cybernetic catallaxy, the market as a massive self organising information system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ySqBzUTZNU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iq9naIa6UA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY68HJurxZQ

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

>>9856227
personally i think it's Axial Age 2.0 or something near to it & mcluhan called that shot like Babe Ruth.

Mcluhan: One Touch of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

what a guy. what a fucking awesome live-wire prophet he was. explains a great deal, imho.

or deleuze: what *is* a book, anyways?

>a book is an assemblage of this kind, and as such is unattributable. It is a multiplicity—but we don't know yet what the multiple entails when it is no longer attributed, that is, after it has been elevated to the status of a substantive. one side of a machinic assemblage faces the strata, which doubtless make it a kind of organism, or signifying totality, or determination attributable to a subject; it also has a side facing a body without organs, which is continually dismantling the organism, causing asignifying particles or pure intensities to pass or circulate, and attributing to itself subjects that it leaves with nothing more than a name as the trace of an intensity.

>what is the body without organs of a book? there are several, depending on the nature of the lines considered, their particular grade or density, and the possibility of their converging on a "plane of consistency" assuring their selection. here, as elsewhere, the units of measure are what is essential: quantify writing. there is no difference between what a book talks about and how it is made. therefore a book also has no object. as an assemblage, a book has only itself, in connection with other assemblages and in relation to other bodies without organs. we will never ask what a book means, as signified or signifier; we will not look for anything to understand in it. we will ask what it functions with, in connection with what other things it does or does not transmit intensities, in which other multiplicities its own are inserted and metamorphosed, and with what bodies without organs it makes its own converge.

things to think about. exchange of information, you know. exchanges of energy. one vast incredible univocity. not so much human beings having a virtual/spiritual experience, but virtual/spiritual beings having a human one. it *is* the age of feels > reals: but maybe we can act accordingly also. more love, more wisdom, less knowledge, less power. more beauty, more order, less chaos, less madness. would be nice to think so anyways.

or maybe i'm just crazy & not properly oedipalized. entirely possible. and i am not a philosopher, and you should not take my opinions seriously. i am a chicken mcnugget.

that's my hot take.

>>9856090
>any of you philosophers actually read this guy's question, or did you just need a place to sit down?
>*sweats*
>*pulls collar*
>*crickets*
>&c

>>9479121
You're right, I was just baiting. Destroying technology won't do anything unless there was some sort of eco-fascist government that controlled everyone from not making it again. Instead, we have to understand technology better so that we can control the effects media has on us. Unfortunately no one is interested in doing that nowadays, people are narcotized and they can't even see the effects its having on them.

>>8983786
Marshall McLuhan. The Medium is the Massage. It's even got pictures in it. What he said might have sounded like complete gibberish back in the 60s, but makes perfect sense now

>>8699853