/lit/ - Literature

>>11922986
>Acceleration itself facilitates a sort of fear of falling behind, but that kind of attitude is necessarily defeatist.
it's a monster double bind. you can drop out but the world keeps going. and Revolution 60s-style winds up co-opted by totalitarian extremists. it's like Weinstein said: the left and right totalitarians can't get along, the left and right libertarians can. i wouldn't consider myself libertarian by any stretch - i think 'anarcho-masochism' is probably about right for me. but this is the thing that keeps me up at night too: you have to keep up with a headless simulation machine, because it still has the possibility of being better than the headless simulation non-machine, which is just chaos. i really don't know why i do this, i got sucked into it because i wanted to write a fucking fantasy novel. and now i've basically become a habitual and daily guest and perhaps volunteer tour guide of the Wild Ride. madness.

>If I had to guess, I would think that the optimization of our decision making systems will eventually rely on reducing the amount of decisions that human minds are required to make and shifting the mental workload to AI and the algorithm. In theory, that would mean the inheritors of the accelerated velocitopia we're making will be, paradoxically, the ones who have meticulously and slowly created a base of knowledge for them to work off of, and not those who have specialized in the rapid-fire profit race that typifies the stratification of modernity.

your guess is fucking interesting tho. this is fantastic. machine-assisted free will is beyond question where things are headed, but i wholly and not partially like your theory about how things can subsequently play out. land talks about this too, the contrasting worlds of short and long time preference, but *all* of this stuff is going to be affected by tech. it would indeed be quite a thing for the rapid-fire profit race as it degenerates ever-further into the true alchemical hijinx of financial experimentation and paranoia to be slowly pushed out in favor of large-scale Collective Mind. and perhaps, if we are imagining positive futures, collective or general decision-making intel that isn't always subordinated to insano-politics. the irony is, of course, that this is kind of thing was - and is - what the internet was supposed to be. but jacques barzun said it, way back when: the web isn't an 'information superhighway' if it duplicates and multiplies all of the extant error and craziness already in the world, and gives you equally fast access to that too. that is what happened, but...well.

also 'velocitopia,' holy shit. i'll be stealing this but i'll give you the credit for a wicked neologism. thank ye very kindly.

>when the world accelerates, we won't have time to be correct.
awesome post, anon.

>>9295589
>>9295599

Yeah, I'm all about primary sources these days myself. When I refer to a stack of PDFs I mean, as much as possible, the ones written by the actual author. I'm with you on w/r/t secondary literature. And the SEP is a good look also.

I got into Heidgger bigly a few years back and did the same thing. Had at least one genuine moment-of-zen experience when what he was saying about the technological mode started to hit me. I felt like I was fucking levitating, it was such a trip. Truly, truly corny, I admit. But maybe that's why I like reading this stuff.

>retreating into an inner exile and reading a couple authors like him, to recuperate from being a complete failure in the normie world.
Yup. This. I'm in that place also. I think this is what was getting me in the Kojeve book: I'm looking at a reality of very boring Work going forward, but there's something appealing about taking the bull by the horns. Rather than be depressed about it, try and get philosophical about it. I've been reading a lot of Lacan too for similar reasons, trying to orient myself towards a world of radical contingency. I hate radical contingency and immensely prefer boredom.

>I meant to add that the way German idealism + Heidegger has helped me to read Hegel is that I find myself "thinking morphologically," in terms of organic and dialectical metaphors. That was a big click moment for me.
Would you mind elaborating on this one? As much as you can, some of this shit is ineffable. But this sounds interesting, am genuinely curious.

>>9243179
Modern science isn't monolithic. It's twelve million guys running experiments and sometimes getting lucky, sometimes creating paradigm shifts, the same way philosophy is done.

Philosophy + computers is going to lead to cool stuff. Refutation is for weenies. Collaboration is where it's at.