/lit/ - Literature

>>12498793
>This is a great line.
ty anon. honestly tho i'm really just the messenger. i read all these guys and kind of built them a hotel in my head and now they fight with each other and i just record the notes and get coffee and unplug the toilet when it overflows. every now and then i take a cigarette break and bitch and complain about this weird job i have and that is more or less what this is. i am the caterer for a micro-Blood War between continental philosophers in some backwater country no one will ever visit. or demented lighthouse keeper. something to that effect.

>Have you ever considered an academic career, trying to get published, etc.?
academia just seems like the wrong place for me. as for trying to get published i just got stuck on fantasy fiction. that didn't happen either.

>Or would that ruin a way of thinking that for you seems to at least approximate freedom/joy?
it feels good sometimes to get stuff out, and ofc when other anons say, 'you know, i kind of feel the same way.' and of course to read things other anons post and go, hey, i feel that way too! and the relative anonymity of the board is kind of cozy also.

>If you organized your thoughts a little, you could at least have a great blog.
seriously, if i did have one it would just have entries that were placeholders and then an infinite comments section like this one.

>Maybe posting insane blocks of text that few people read and that will soon disappear is the ideal medium for this kind of thinking.
the demythologization of publishing and fame, of being some kind of literary celebrity? especially when one has no real talent? certainly part of it.

>But at the same time, it feels like there are lines of thought here that are practically begging to be systematized and disseminated.
meh, just give a shout-out to the schizbros on /lit/ and make some in-jokes that we will appreciate. enjoy the Wild Ride for what it is. and if it brings a little joy, well, that's just gravy.

>>11867512
3/9

>§00. 'Acceleration' as it is used here describes the time-structure of capital accumulation. It thus references the 'roundaboutness' founding Bohm-Bawerk's model of capitalization, in which saving and technicity are integrated within a single social process-diversion of resources from immediate consumption into the enhancement of productive apparatus. Consequently, as basic co-components of capital, technology and economics have only a limited, formal distinctiveness under historical conditions of ignited capital escalation. The indissolubly twin-dynamic is techonomic (cross-excited commercial industrialism). Acceleration is techonomic time.

>§09. Teleoplexy, or (self-reinforcing) cybernetic intensification, describes the wave-length of machines, escaping in the direction of extreme ultra-violet, among the cosmic rays. It correlates with complexity, connectivity, machinic compression, extropy, free energy dissipation, efficiency, intelligence, and operational capability, defining a gradient of absolute but obscure improvement that orients socioeconomic selection by market mechanisms, as expressed through measures of productivity, competitiveness, and capital asset value.

>§10. Accelerationism has a real object only insofar as there is a teleoplexic thing, which is to say: insofar as capitalization is a natural-historical reality. The theoretical apprehension of teleoplexy through its commercial formality as an economic phenomenon (price data) presents accelerationism, at once, with its greatest conceptual resource and its most ineluctable problem. Minimally, the accelerationist formulation of a rigorous techonomic naturalism involves it in a triple problematic. complicated by commercial relativism: historical virtuality; and systemic reflexivity.

>§11. Money is a labyrinth.

source:
https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

in brief, this is less marx meeting hegel or freud than marx meeting *copernicus* by way of ada lovelace, norbert wiener or alan turing.