/lit/ - Literature

>>11557860
land is not postmodern by any stretch of the imagination anon. and i don't understand what the positive axiom you're referring to is or how you understand it. i'm sure we can eventually find some common ground but atm i'm just very confused by how you can say acceleration is somehow a postmodern phenomena.

if you said post-postmodern, i might agree with you. it is that. if you include the history of modernity within postmodernity, and then acceleration as a radical critique of that - given that, for land, capitalism itself *is* the critique - then fine. but there's very little of the collective overcoming of anything in his thought as it is generally understood to mean in the classical marxist sense.

there *is* a tremendous, cthonic faith in the possibilty of capital/teleoplexy to 'overcome' in its own way, but that is a very different thing. but in no way, shape or form can land be called a postmodernist in a sense that would do justice either to him or to the that movement. even some thing we make up - hypermodern, whatever - would make more sense. but it's not really necessary.

the critical distinction that land makes is the inhuman one. true, themes of posthumanism and transhumanism and so on can also be grouped in, i suppose, under the label of postmodernity. but only because basically *everything* can be grouped under the label of postmodernity...and thus depriving it of any actual critical usefulness. and that is i guess in a sense why i am hesitant to have the dreaded pomo label put on.

but we can continue to talk this out, if you like. certainly i'm no expert and i'm not preaching any evangel.

bumping with art b/c why not.