/lit/ - Literature

>>12330564
just gotta believe

>>11597821
>A problem I have with r.acc/l.acc (which I believe I've expressed in a similar way in a previous thread) is the focus on prescriptive politics. The proper approach to Landian Capital isn't to try and guess what the Outside wants. It isn't about consciously shaping (or shaving) society to fit into your theoretical accelerationist box. Your box is in the Inside. Your interpretations are anthro. You do not know what's best for Capital, and, what's more, if you think Capital has made a mistake or needs your help, you have turned Capital into something contingent on Human input.

this absolutely. you nailed it. i mean, isn't the basic takeaway of deleuzian thought being that very abolition of prescriptivism? ideleuze will talk about the despot in AO, the 'stage' of capitalism or whatever, and sometimes you feel as though this is a really subtle point that sometimes land is perhaps missing - that in his desire to deal this Finish Him deathblow to philosophy that he has missed something about the idea of the BwO as deleuze understood it, that it wasn't supposed to be like this, it wasn't supposed to be horrorcore capitalism. after all, the idea of torpedoing psychoanalysis was to stop giving people the disease in terms of the cure, no? and yet, that is what happens with acceleration, although viewed in the right way, horror can still be affirmative...

spinoza has always been a kind of Black Magic, it seems, for rationalism (and certainly for hegelianism). he does go some wild and crazy places, but getting marx involved in that process...i mean, deleuze has no problem being a marxist and a spinozist at the same time, but with land it's a very different thing. deleuze seems to be able to stick to a version of marx without hegel, freud or lacan, which is really unorthodox, while land seems to re-install Capital itself in the place of the unconscious: a true BwO from hell.

i still find his writing seductive as all hell tho, in whatever stage. and apologies, this post is kind of all over the place but it's almost 2:00 AM over here and i should really turn in, however much i'm enjoying this thread. and forgive the rambling, i'm not saying anything you didn't already say in that post, just agreeing with you. it's very well said and really important w/r/t not mischaracterizing land's thought.

>>11597930
i'm well aware that they are not my own - this much i discovered in lacan (and heidegger) even before reading girard. but girard put lacan's insight in an anthropological context that was invaluable, as well as expressing a justifiable concern about the nature of escalation in war. and he was also the first christian philosopher i took seriously.

>That's why it was never meant to be divorced from theology, friend. It was to remain its hand-maiden as aquinas asserted.

and a beautiful thing it is. but hey, nobody told me these things. i basically foraged my way through philosophy like the wild man of borneo.