/lit/ - Literature

>>13151108
>the postmodernist claim of 'nothing is real'
Deleuze is the token realist among the Post-Modernists.
>positing that 'nothing is true'
That's Nietzsche and his epigones, particularly Baudrillard.
>there are only pseudo-histories that are in the process of becoming real. A hyperstition is the point at which a meta-narrative becomes functionally 'true', or rather, the point at which a fiction is able to make itself real
I don't see why would anyone prefer fictions "making themselves" real to the epistemologies of say, a Foucault, or a Peirce without the optimism.

We need to examine whether the powerful believe in the fictions they are propagating, or whether they don't because they consider themselves members of a seperate species like certain readings of Nietzsche. Yes, it's a technology, but the technology has an inventor, a company holding the copyright, and perhaps the CEO of the company doesn't use it all that frequently. Like pic related. And why is that? The victims of said technology aren't equally distributed not only among classes, then, but also nations, etc.

It's not the fiction itself that makes it real.
>hyperstitious "technology" does work
We're still in Nietzsche here. Man needs his delusions in order for himself to function. New values and interpretive frameworks are needed when older ones stop working.

Nietzsche wouldn't join the accelerationist crowd and would seek proper iconoclasts and innovators, definitely not a form of neoliberal fundamentalism.