/lit/ - Literature

>>12073911
It does sound like we see things similarly, anon.
Over the past couple years when I reached all these conculsions I decided that what I want more than anything else in the world is to elaborate on all of this in a book, but I also realize that I don't have the talent or opportunity to even get such a book published, let alone have it actually reach a wide audience and show people all of these things. I don't know how to come to terms with that. All it's resulted in so far is a kind of withdrawal and dull apathy.

I really wish I'd known about him back when he was (semi-) actively writing, and I absolutely wish we could see how he approached things today. All of the problems he focused on have only accelerated since he disappeared. He may arguably have focused too strongly on narcissism, but I think he was right in saying that society as a whole has shifted towards an incredibly strong embrace of it. I hope he didn't drink himself to death.

>>11906626
He's very repetitive, you can jump into any of his posts really. After a few you can probably guess what his main points will be in other articles as soon as you figure out what they're about.

>>11260746
not that i want to reply to myself too often, but it warrants mentioning that that first sentence really is about as close to a summation of land as you can hope for: capitalism is a computer that processes desire. and he's pretty much just going to leave it at that as well. which is fine.

>>11260919
>"human" is an abstraction of some use to us at this moment, but not necessarily in the future. the point at which a consciousness no longer requires that abstraction, humanity can be transformed and so become noble - as there is no basis for its nobility currently.

you got it. anthropocentrism is not necessarily good - this is what idpol is, regardless of what political form it takes - and the attraction of trans/posthumanism proceeds from a departure from this. but we can't go all the way, i don't think. the more we try to do this, the more we still wind up trying to capture or recapture that missing piece, whether it belongs to ourselves or to some other. it's why i often prefer cozier (neo)confucian-style harmony ethics &c. which is a kind of freer-floating world, but less jaded and fucked-out than baudrillard. lonely and lost, but functionally getting along, occasionally mystified in all the right ways.

>Therefore, clad yourself in dragon's scales and wage war on humans?

maybe you could explain this one a little further? i'd prefer to divest myself of those scales and be kind to humans, and that everybody else did likewise. govern through virtue, says master gong, and the rest takes care of itself. it's an appealing argument. war not required. contingently occurs, but maybe not necessary. but.

>omniism assents to all belief. it is the sun in your sky amongst the endless stars of the universe. that one should shine on you and signal your praise and give you the possibility of having a personal meaning in that relationship, also shows you that nothing sets it apart from the rest of the stars except the occasion in which you find its likeness not as a god but as a common type, a thing known to be without uniqueness.

this makes a lot of sense to me. i like relative uniqueness, snowflake theory.

>You know ancient Chinese medicine is about to undergo a reevaluation which will change that nation forever, once again.

explain

>>11226466
well, if it were me, i'd probably make it just about discovering those poetic little moments, the details of what made a given period of history interesting.

i would want to get rid of The Narrator entirely, but avoid turning it into a history lesson. i find GRRM is pretty good at doing this actually. you're seeing things through the eyes of his characters, but there's always a lot more going on than what they see, and even then you don't even realize what it is that they're seeing until you go back and read the story again yourself.

it's always tempting to want to bludgeon the reader over the head with the pathos of things but this is to be avoided. it's that haunting feeling that i would try to evoke, the sense of floating in zero-g. you can often see it done in films but it's hard to translate those episodes into literature. and trying too hard to emulate film kind of ruins what it is that literature actually can do, which is talk about psychology and the relations between human beings and the world.

so, i don't know anon, there's no real easy answer for it, but for me at least if you could pull it off you'd be doing what is for me the holy grail of fiction, finding the mono no aware of things. i'm a big weeb like that i think so take that as you will.

>The true genius of cyberpunk is to cash-out the utterly alien into commercially-driven bionics (without in any way domesticating it).

Was he right?