/lit/ - Literature

and there are at least two aspects of mumford's work that for the moment i find most interesting: the first being his study of medieval technics and its relationship to time - again, you can read more about this in greenspan's thesis on land, where the process of creating his not-so-crazy thesis about the invention of capitalist time after Kant - and his analysis of 'megamechanics' in antiquity, and the connection between imperialism, engineering, and monotheism that predates the roman empire.

to say nothing of the fascinating stuff he has to say about the adoption of the christianity by the roman empire (or was it the other way around?) and that being a mega-transformation of another kind.

as an aside, i was reflecting today that - and i know this will sound crazy - that foucault is in many ways a kind of postmodern analogue to augustine. i know, i know, i will proceed to the Stoning Chamber in a moment. but hear me out. foucault is like the ultimate philosopher of human resources, and the perfect guy to announce the fusion of neomarxism and neoliberalism. foucault is That Dude for discourse and critique. now today, of course, we are currently reaping the whirlwind of this and new inquisitions to prosecute moral justice are springing up left and right because - surprise surprise - power is a fucking headache, and it may have nothing at all to do with justice, or at least not in the kinds of neat and easy terms most amenable to capitalism and the flowing of the spice.

>and if it wasn't for rene girard i would well and truly be losing my shit over this
>fortunately girard exists
>and he was a boss
>and he understood these things pretty well also

but this is all a part of the story. mumford died in 1990, which is like right on the cusp of the turning of things into the world we are in today: the fall of the soviet union, a few moments before the launching of the internet, the release of Die Hard 2, and various other world-historical moments.
>i'm kidding about Die Hard 2
>you know this right

anyways. the referendum on foucault is another one of these things that is going to be a long and difficult process, because there is no complete story of neoliberalism without him, and no full story of cosmotech without neoliberalism, since acceleration is basically just neoliberalism + neomarxism on overdrive. but who disciplines the disciplinarians? who punishes the punishers? whether you take your cues from land (the answer to both: capitalism) or girard (jesus, motherfuckers! jesus!) the post-foucaultian era is going to be like a spenglerian winter phase. with no shortage of rage zombies in it. i wonder what michel would have made of social credit.

anyways. the story of tech and culture. it is a wild one.

>>11202354
well, thanks for bumping the thread. i thought so too, was kind of surprised that i could only think of one philosopher who i immediately associated with cyberpunk, which is land.

there's baudrillard also i guess:

>But perhaps we may see this as a kind of adventure, a heroic test: to take the artificialization of living beings as far as possible in order to see, finally, what part of human nature survives the great ordeal. If we discover that not everything can be cloned, simulated, programmed, genetically and neurologically managed, then whatever survives could truly be called “human”: some inalienable and indestructible human quality could finally be identified. Of course, there is always the risk, in this experimental adventure, that nothing will pass the test—that the human will be permanently eradicated.

this is pretty close to what i'm looking for but perhaps not quite as depressingly stated as baudrillard can be. maybe this is impossible? i don't know. but i'm kind of surprised there hasn't been a philosopher since land who has been able to write about these things. so, i figure, maybe there is one but i just don't know about them.

>>11202381
>Nick land is about as far from these concepts as possible.
from sexuality and gender, true, but not from cyberpunk itself. for cyberpunk he's the best imho.

i'm kind of tired of sexuality and gender stuff in general. now, maybe you're right, and those are the things to look at, the fluidity of self in this way. i'm not disagreeing with you. but when i think about posthuman cyborgs and neo-tokyo and things like this it's mostly to talk about the nature of consciousness as existing beyond these, if at all possible. the kinds of things that a merged major/puppet master would think about, the kinds of questions a being like that might ask or raise. do they have ethics? what would they look like? what kind of relationship would super-advanced cyborgs like this have to humans? what kinds of things do the neo-tokyo intellectuals read?

you know. *machine philosophy.* for sure deleuze & guattari fit the bill, simondon. but to talk about transhuman ghosts in neo-tokyo in 2029 or w/e, are they still the guys? i'm okay if they are i guess, those guys are based. they're definitely good with machines. but, i'm greedy i guess.

apologies if this seems vague or if i'm just being really picky.