/lit/ - Literature

>>14945493
i'm a pseud tryhard on /lit/, that's about it

>>12275454
Pure being is naught; pure negativity is simple coming-to-be, mediation, or the I existing for itself. Material substance is determinate thought, or Nous (simplicity). Therefore negativity is reflective turning into self, that is, self-moving self-sameness. The concept is the self-moving and self-distinguishing thought which is it's own inwardness and otherness. The otherness which defines the concept is the coming-to-be of the intelligibility of the concept, which is rationality.

The earth. The despot. Capital. Bodies of inscription, bodies of organs. Bodies which provide surface, orientation; bodies which point. We can retreat into the body without organs, the deterritorialized socius, a recording surface without orientation, without internal limit. Or we can push forward, liberate intelligence from it's anthropomorphic constraints, and create true organs without bodies, a Zizekian feverdream of short-circuited assemblages and whole partial-objects, operating independently to maximize their own objectives which converge at the apex as a convergent wave, or, terminatoresque automanufacture.

The machinic unconscious operates as tractor field, pulling time towards it at a pace which scales with techonomics. Acceleration is, as Land put it, "technomic time" [1], self-compressing moment-blocks which provides a rapidly compressing timescape through which teleoplexy intensifies. According to the irrational, you were never an end-in-itself in the first place (Kant wasn’t a fool keeping his ethics tightly within in the theater). Hyperstitons sleep, or they live and breathe through you like blood. Hyperstitions compete for unconscious intellectual resources, starving each others development with Bolshevik-like efficiency (the forms themselves commit warcrimes in jest). Economic abstraction becomes divine oracle; occult praxis is capitalist excrement. Spinoza’s worm in Spinoza’s worm (...), and the whole dance uploaded in real time.

Fredric Jameson wrote:
>Someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world. [2]
(Ignoring the glaring hyperstitional “someone”,) what does it really mean for capitalism to end the world? The most obvious answer would be that of the destruction of earth, the territorial element of (bio)production, most commonly projected as nuclear apocalypse. What if, however, what is at stake here isn’t the planet, but the Heideggerian world, that of our temporal horizon of meaning; we face not simply a ‘loss of world’ in the sense which we have lost the world of ancient Greece, but instead a loss of the very grounding of World itself, utter abandonment of the principle that “Being-in-the-world belongs essentially to Dasein”. [3]