/lit/ - Literature

>>13026289
girardfag here. here's my meme take:

/acc = acceleration. Young Nick, Sadie Plant, Fisher, CCRU. original and still the best. start with the reader.
https://www.urbanomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Fanged-Noumena-Introduction.pdf
https://libcom.org/files/Accelerate%20-%20Robin%20Mackay.pdf

l/acc = left acceleration. Srnicek and Williams. basically old-fashioned Marxism with more machine compliance. kinda boring.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/

u/acc = unconditional acceleration. Negarestani. sometimes hard to distinguish from the left version.
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/52/59920/the-labor-of-the-inhuman-part-i-human/
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/53/59893/the-labor-of-the-inhuman-part-ii-the-inhuman/

Yuk Hui is in here somewhere in this category also.
https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179224/on-automation-and-free-time/

r/acc = Old/Xenosystems Nick, everything Dark Enlightenment. think face tentacles. aka the interesting stuff.
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

z/acc = zombie acceleration. post-apoc, post-meltdown, we're all fucked &c. not sure what the seminal work is here when everybody is so fucked out already.

g/acc = gender acceleration. Nyx, Amy Ireland.
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/80/100016/black-circuit-code-for-the-numbers-to-come/
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/

more reading:
>theoryfiction archive
https://www.reddit.com/r/theoryfiction/
find the Overy and Greenspan theses. those will help a lot.

plus when you are doing the deep-dive into the encounter with purest technological hubris you definitely want some atmosphere to go along with it.

Air: Talisman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_wk7PNx_Hk

enjoy senpai

>>12921908
well, i'm glad that these conversations have been a boon to you. they certainly have for me, it's really helpful to be able to talk things out from time to time. and yes, i do try to be open about things, if only because experience has taught me to remain open to the possibility of being really, really *wrong!* so it's a good thing all round, i think to be flexible. and i certainly don't mind being criticized negatively or constructively, so don't worry about any of that. life is too short and things move too quickly anyhow.

as for Land, what i appreciate about his stuff - however dark it is - is that he prevents me from getting too carried away with my own desire to immanentize the eschaton, i think. he reveres Bitcoin like it is the demiurge itself, in the way that perhaps Marx himself and many other Young Hegelians revered the Phenomenology of Spirit. he's given me a new appreciation for a lot of things, however disagreeably they are often presented. his line of thinking is consistent enough to hold my interest over time, and again, i don't ask of my philosophers that they be paragons of virtue, only that they be interesting. i like paragons of virtue also, and have a lot of things to learn from them too! but for some thinkers i prefer that they cut to the chase and do what they, and perhaps only they, can do, and do it really well. Land removed a great many skeletons from a great many closets left over from the 1960s, and i think even would agree that that is more than enough for one intellectual career.

i think it is absolutely wonderful that you have been visiting Land threads for this time and have found your faith in the Church unshaken. good for you! i mean this quite sincerely. i don't think it's easy to have done that, i am much more intellectually promiscuous about things and frankly this sometimes gets me into trouble! i don't know if my various nervous tics and habits can be attributed to anything else...

i agree in many ways with your descriptions of Marx and Hegel also. Zizek often says that the most momentous shift in philosophy is the one between Kant and Hegel, but as a Hegelian (and Lacanian) i don't think he's exactly being objective about this. the Hegel-Marx shift is equally powerful, and for me the Nietzsche/Marx assault on the foundations of Western thought is still an event towering over us today, that in many ways we still haven't really felt the full impact of, although perhaps now people are beginning to understand the implications of some of it by way of the career of postmodernity and what may yet still have to play out. you're also right to point out Land's materialism, altho as you know he wouldn't see this as a flaw: for him, it's basically the only criterion.

(cont'd)

>>12620807
Templexity is a whole other thing (although you can actually find a PDF of Land's book on that in the same mega YH's book is in). i want to say it's something like an irony: the more accurately we learn to be able to measure, chart, use or manipulate time, the more we wind up creating time, a time that seems to be increasingly used to fuel and further technology's automatic production of itself. we create time-spirals out of our desire to know how time works, such that the process of time exploration winds up confirming us as being in some ways necessary parts of a question about time that always needs to be answered.

something like that, maybe...the kinds of things that only Uncle Nick can do.

>§7.8 Though staged as a break from the cycles of time, modernization is more realistically envisaged as a flight into cyclicity. Its primary signature – accelerating change – is itself a product of non-linear functions (epitomized by exponentiation). The modern, industrial economy tends inexorably to the self- exciting circuit of the robotic robot factory, and its autonomization is accompanied by strengthening quasi-periodic oscillations – business cycles, and long waves. As its culture folds back upon itself, it proliferates self-referential models of a cybernetic type, attentive to feedback-sensitive self-stimulating or auto-catalytic systems. The greater the progressive impetus, the more insistently cyclicity returns. To accelerate beyond light-speed is to reverse the direction of time. Eventually, in science fiction, modernity completes its process of theological revisionism, by re-discovering eschatological culmination in the time-loop. Judgment Day. The end comes when the future reaches back, to seize us.

the book is really good, quite short.

>>12578160
but historically this has happened before. and maybe there are things - useful things - that we can do with our brains in the meantime. here's another nice line from RN:

>In so far as intelligence is only intelligence in virtue of recognizing what is intelligible and acting upon it in light of the transcendental excess of the Good, which perpetually dissolves the limits of what is intelligible, if intelligence were to stop at any particular stage and accept it as the totality of what there is, it would retroactively abort its own reality as intelligence. Simply put, an intelligence that takes what is currently intelligible for the totality of reality can never have been intelligence to begin with. The continuity of the line cannot be mistaken for the manifest totality of its segments. The Good, as the expression of this continuity, demands that intelligence dissolve all manifest totalities, suspend itself in ever more bottomless chasms of the intelligible, and, in doing so, transform itself into an intelligence more accustomed to wider domains of intelligibilities and more capable of acting upon what is intelligible. It is only by assimilating itself to the abyss of intelligibilities—ontological, epistemological, and axiological—that intelligence can be realized as intelligence. In the end, it is Plato who stares into the abyss by breaking apart one firmament after another, while Nietzsche rests supine on the ground staring blankly at the given sky above.

>However, as the abyss of the intelligible grows in depth and breadth, as the demands of what ought to be thought and done increase, and as the possibilities of what can be done and thought expand, the leaps of intelligence become riskier. The Good, in this sense, incorporates an ineliminable element of risk. And to the extent that, without the Good, intelligence is neither intelligible nor realizable, intelligence’s concrete pursuit of the better is fraught with risk. Here, ‘better’ does not suggest that which surpasses the Good, but an expression of the Good in the life of intelligence.

shots fired! i mean this is idealism for sure. how to bring these things about in reality? who fucking knows. but it is a very interesting way to approach the problem or question of cynicism, of disaffection, of confusion and frustration, the same old ills we have been struggling with for centuries. i don't think the present view of things is an unpersuasive argument about how postmodernity ends. why not intelligence, general intelligence? my own microscopic contributions to these things comes in the form of a kind of a wish or hope for empathy, if only because the history of ideas says so much, and so repeatedly, about the story of reciprocity, revenge, victimization, scapegoating and the rest. i like Girard (and Whitehead) for these reasons. religion is arguably indispensable to an ordered society (perhaps even an ordered mind).

(cont'd)