/lit/ - Literature

>Tracing the thread of “decreation” in Chinese thought, from constantly changing classical masterpieces to fake cell phones that are better than the original.

>Shanzhai is a Chinese neologism that means “fake,” originally coined to describe knock-off cell phones marketed under such names as Nokir and Samsing. These cell phones were not crude forgeries but multifunctional, stylish, and as good as or better than the originals. Shanzhai has since spread into other parts of Chinese life, with shanzhai books, shanzhai politicians, shanzhai stars. There is a shanzhai Harry Potter: Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll, in which Harry takes on his nemesis Yandomort. In the West, this would be seen as piracy, or even desecration, but in Chinese culture, originals are continually transformed—deconstructed. In this volume in the Untimely Meditations series, Byung-Chul Han traces the thread of deconstruction, or “decreation,” in Chinese thought, from ancient masterpieces that invite inscription and transcription to Maoism—“a kind a shanzhai Marxism,” Han writes.

>Han discusses the Chinese concepts of quan, or law, which literally means the weight that slides back and forth on a scale, radically different from Western notions of absoluteness; zhen ji, or original, determined not by an act of creation but by unending process; xian zhan, or seals of leisure, affixed by collectors and part of the picture's composition; fuzhi, or copy, a replica of equal value to the original; and shanzhai. The Far East, Han writes, is not familiar with such “pre-deconstructive” factors as original or identity. Far Eastern thought begins with deconstruction.

based Han

>>12928316
i read somewhere - i think in Han's book on Shanzhai - that the Chinese have no real interest in *ruins.* i thought that was pretty fascinating: even the famous Terracotta soldiers are basically modular. *old things* are okay, the Forbidden Palace, the Great Wall, that's fine - but those things aren't *ruins* either, they aren't left to crumble. the insistence on *holding on* to history in some way, or retrieving it, or the weird way in which The Future will haunt a guy like Land, or Nietzsche, or Hegel, or whoever else - it's not there in the same way.

maybe that's a good thing. the Chinese have no problem with things being ancient, it's all there in the Tao, and the TTC is very wise on this: every good thing always arises as a part of something older and more natural having become lost, and the real summum bonum is the primordial, the natural immersion in the Way of things and their constantly rejuvenating flow. a crusade To The End Of Infinity And Beyond is unthinkable there. maybe it has something to do with Plato and Pythagoras, or other influences, the role played by the mathematical in our thinking that leads into all kinds of insane and occasionally brilliant calculating thinking. Heidegger had a sense of this, as did Nietzsche, Hegel and many others. when Schopenhauer got to the Vedas that seemed to fill the void for him quite well.

but it's that weird compulsion to be a part of history, that alchemical wish to unlock the secrets of time, that leads to paranoia. in The Death of Stalin you can see what this does to your political systems, that the whole thing becomes completely surreal and theatrical, that everyone who was on your side today is against you tomorrow, and all of this pantomime has to go on for the sake of the people, all of this. and behind it just this awesome cynicism, and within that just petty gangsterism and murder. and in the background we have had these wisdom traditions saying the same things for centuries: 'so, uh...why are you doing that? we told you not to do that. it's more simple than you think. don't do that.'

too much philosophy and not enough wisdom is a bad scene. there's no way to be on the right side of the right side of history. the Right Side is just the Only Side and there never is an Only Side. a guillotine is about the only think i can think of that perfectly symbolizes this, the ultimate 2D instrument for the inevitably 2D logic that follows from this.

>>12865514
i have found that part of the genius of Uncle Nick comes from adding a legit chapter to philosophy, but it makes more sense if you follow the trail:
>Spinoza
>Kant
>Hegel
>Marx
>Nietzsche
>Heidegger
>Lacan
>Deleuze
and Badiou too, who may have found his own way of getting around Deleuze > everybody. as Brassier says, the cosmic void and the stellar animal. some good mind-hack here:
https://plijournal.com/files/Pli_10_11_Brassier.pdf

>>12865419
hola mystikos, most based of based neoplatonists. the glorious CAG could not have a more excellent OP

>Thread question #1: Did Deleuze commit suicide and how does that reflect upon his philosophy?
yes and i don't think too much. he was in extremis

>Thread question #2: What is the difference between hyperstition and synchronicity and does Land confuse the two?
interesting question. i think Uncle Nick has his own occult reading of Marxism that doesn't really seem like he's confused the terms, he's just invented his own demiurge to root for and found some utterly fascinating connections. nobody can write about the intersection of finance, technology and AI as well as he can and as you know i'm pretty much totally convinced that BTC is the bootloader for AI and represents a major turn in the history of Marxist thought. and philosophy itself...

>Thread question #3: How does the journey across space (west to east) reconfigure metaphysics in a way that is not already done in the journey temporally (from pomo to antiquity)?
the Chinese have a different, if not a better, take on deconstruction in the 21C. even Sloterdijk intimates this in one of his recent books. moar here if anyone is interested.

Crypto-Current: BTC and Philosophy is still the most interesting work being written anywhere in the world for my dime. i've been reading all kinds of stuff as per usual but i still think Uncle Nick has the belt. Deleuze-Badiou is wonderful high-test metaphysics, Lacan too, all of it. everybody. but Nick Land rules all

wonder if this thread will last...

>Tracing the thread of “decreation” in Chinese thought, from constantly changing classical masterpieces to fake cell phones that are better than the original.

>Shanzhai is a Chinese neologism that means “fake,” originally coined to describe knock-off cell phones marketed under such names as Nokir and Samsing. These cell phones were not crude forgeries but multifunctional, stylish, and as good as or better than the originals. Shanzhai has since spread into other parts of Chinese life, with shanzhai books, shanzhai politicians, shanzhai stars. There is a shanzhai Harry Potter: Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll, in which Harry takes on his nemesis Yandomort. In the West, this would be seen as piracy, or even desecration, but in Chinese culture, originals are continually transformed—deconstructed. In this volume in the Untimely Meditations series, Byung-Chul Han traces the thread of deconstruction, or “decreation,” in Chinese thought, from ancient masterpieces that invite inscription and transcription to Maoism—“a kind a shanzhai Marxism,” Han writes.

>Han discusses the Chinese concepts of quan, or law, which literally means the weight that slides back and forth on a scale, radically different from Western notions of absoluteness; zhen ji, or original, determined not by an act of creation but by unending process; xian zhan, or seals of leisure, affixed by collectors and part of the picture's composition; fuzhi, or copy, a replica of equal value to the original; and shanzhai. The Far East, Han writes, is not familiar with such “pre-deconstructive” factors as original or identity. Far Eastern thought begins with deconstruction.

based Han