/lit/ - Literature

>>10232721
interesting
as
fuck
good
sir

>Symbolically, the question could be compared to rocketry: Is Capitalism a Space Shuttle or a Ballistic Missile.

yup. this. and in a sense, we're in the cockpit and unable to tell, watching the thing assemble itself and tell *us* what to do. or is it only the *critics* who do that, while the builders are just building...whatever the shuttle/missile seems to require (and reward them for contributing to)?

in my can't-make-up-my-mind sense it seems to be both: a mysterious Project that requires the total mobilization of the earth to remain in permanent alpha build. but this is what a disaffected literary slob would say, if only because i feel i have little else to contribute to it.

you might find negarestani interesting: for him we sort of consent to building whatever the most intelligent thing seems to be and allow it to reveal itself to us (can we be, for instance, bizarro-heideggerians about technology? what if tech is a form of inhuman aletheia?)

hickman:
>...the forecast of those trends toward Cyborgization and eventual transcension of the organic altogether may not be science fiction in the century(ies?) to come, but rather part of the very naturalizing processes of technicity which has always already been there at the origin of the human. This disconnection of mammalian brain from the natural world, this long detour into abstraction and externalization of memory and culture has been neither an accident nor a mindless evolutionary process but a part of some wider impetus at the heart of the cosmos. Not some naïve telos in the Aristotelian sense, and not something that is part of some ever progressive movement to some final end, but rather an inherent part of the technicity at the inhuman core of the human itself

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/daily-thought-memory-technicity-and-the-post-human/

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/reza-negarestani-what-is-philosophy/

sometimes i imagine a view of capital that has a gentle David Attenborough narrator. of course to do this would be insane (imagine David's kind, grandfatherly voice laid overtop of a microchip processing plant or a sweatshop in Manila, for example). theorists can't seem to talk about what capital is without implying what it *should be*, which is of course the question nobody can answer, because it's so all-encompassing, includes actual human lives. but under acceleration, of course, we can see that capital - fueled by our desires - is completely inhumane.

>one ends in utopia and the other cataclysm.
maybe it's our desire for escape that fucks us up. failing to get the future we want, we grimly anticipate the nightmare we think we deserve. the secret and dark hope at the heart of cataclysm is that it will wipe us out too. but it would be far worse to survive it.

it's why i find post-apoc and cyberpunk mirror images of each other, the disaster externalized in the former and internalized in the latter.