/lit/ - Literature

it occurs to me sometimes that the most interesting version of land is the one which is neither Young Nick nor Old Nick. Young Nick goes batshit in the later chapters of FN, and Old Nick is too arcane. but think about what it is both Nicks are doing:

1. it's marx minus hegel. that's one, but it's a big one. true, deleuze also offers this, but unlike deleuze, land doesn't have an equivalent of guattari going on (although i think sadie plant's influence on him is really significant, at least when he was Young Nick).

2. it's marxism minus *ideology.* no freud, no lacan, but also nothing postmodern/poststructural. all of this is covered by deleuze, and then eventually (for him) becomes absorbed as so much feedback data by computers. capitalism is the computer that processes desire.

3. it's marx with a kind of hegel conjured out of the void as teleoplexy. now i don't know how much this comparison works (or how much land thinks about it), but if teleoplexy is a dialectical process itself, wat do? true, it's hard to say how AI intelligence is going to work or develop over time, how they will learn, what they will learn, and much else. i am hoping that other anon (>>11782129) returns to talk more about BTC and intelligence for this reason, because these are actually things we can pay attention to.

4. that new spirit, the spirit of teleoplexy, is an interesting one.

>As blockchains, drone logistics, nanotechnology, quantum computing, computational genomics, and virtual reality flood in, drenched in ever-higher densities of artificial intelligence, accelerationism won’t be going anywhere, unless ever deeper into itself. To be rushed by the phenomenon, to the point of terminal institutional paralysis, is the phenomenon. Naturally – which is to say completely inevitably – the human species will define this ultimate terrestrial event as a problem. To see it is already to say: We have to do something. To which accelerationism can only respond: You’re finally saying that now? Perhaps we ought to get started?

>Capital, in its ultimate self-definition, is nothing beside the abstract accelerative social factor. Its positive cybernetic schema exhausts it. Runaway consumes its identity. Every other determination is shucked-off as an accident, at some stage of its intensification process. Since anything able to consistently feed socio-historical acceleration will necessarily, or by essence, be capital, the prospect of any unambiguously ‘Left-accelerationism’ gaining serious momentum can be confidently dismissed. Accelerationism is simply the self-awareness of capitalism, which has scarcely begun. (“We haven’t seen anything yet.”)

this is the question acceleration asks: what if the revolution is capital itself? then what?

https://monoskop.org/images/a/af/Obsolete_Capitalism_Acceleration%2C_Revolution_and_Money.pdf

http://obsoletecapitalism.blogspot.com/2017/05/nick-land-quick-and-dirty-introduction.html