/lit/ - Literature

>>11360488
this is what i'm absolutely obsessed with atm. so land does have an anti-hegelian bent and yet what else can we call teleoplexy except a kind of coda, revision, computer-hacking, insert here &c of the phenomenology? hegel is right there at the centre of the kant-marx-deleuze trifecta that makes land who he is, and it's just crazy af to think that as he writes about teleoplexy he is kind of channeling the same things: with the caveat being that tomorrow now takes care of itself and so on.

>as a historical auto-production, in which the self is really—and not merely reflectively—determined by the logically orchestrated content of thinking as and through time.

isn't this the same thing as capital teleology?

>§14. What would be required for teleoplexy to realistically evaluate itself-or to 'attain self-awareness' as the pulp cyber-horror scenario describes it? Within a monetary system configured in ways not yet determinable with confidence, but almost certainly tilted radically towards depoliticization and crypto-digital distribution. it would discover prices consistent with its own maximally-accelerated technogenesis, channeling capital into mechanical automatization, self-replication, self-improvement, and escape into intelligence explosion. The price-system-whose epistemological function has long been understood-thus transitions into reflexively self-enhancing technological hyper-cognition. Irrespective of ideological alignment, accelerationism advances only through its ability to track such a development. whether to confirm or disconfirm the teleoplexic expectation of Techonomic Singularity. Modernity remains demonstrably strictly unintelligible in the absence of an accomplished accelerationist research program (which is required even by the Per ennial Critique in its theoretically sophisticated versions). A negative conclusion, if fully elaborated, would necessarily produce an adequate ecological theory of the Anthropocene.

>§20. If by this stage accelerationism appears to be an impossible pro ject, it is because the theoretical apprehension of teleoplexic hyper- intelligence cannot be accomplished by anything other than itself. The scope of the problem is indistinguishable from the cybernetic intensity of the quasi-final thing-cognitively self-enveloping Techonomic Singularity. Its difficulty, or complexity, is precisely what it is, which is to say: a real escape. To approach it. therefore, is to partially anticipate the terms of its eventual self-reflexion-the techonomic currency through which the history of modernity can. for the first time, be adequately denominated. It has no alternative but to fund its own investigation, in units of destiny or doom, camouflaged within the system of quotidian economic signs, yet rigorously extractable, given only the correct cryptographic keys. Accelerationism exists only because this task has been automatically allotted to it. Fate has a name (but no face).

>>9666270
The other question is embodiment. The Dreyfus brothers wrote some important stuff on this based on Heidegger, arguing that AI was an impossibility because in order to have anything like artificial intelligence a concept of embodiment is necessary.

However...what happens when said AI ultimately winds up being produced by a disembodied civilization and culture? What happens when capital and technology works its own cultural magic on us and we come to think of ourselves more like being machines than as Heideggerian Dasein? It stands to reason that however it is an AI learns to think, it's going to learn to think from us and how we think about ourselves. If we're already in a process of divesting ourselves of our bodies, virtualizing, disassembling ourselves, reassembling through prosthesis and so on that we're going to make this event happen coming from both directions at once. So it could be, in other words, that by the time we make that AI happen we may not even realize it because by that time we'll already have mechanized ourselves so completely as to hardly even notice. Elon Musk's Neuralink is already happening, right now.

Maybe Chardin's Omega Point is an *immanent* process, something always-already in process, rather than an imminent one which is about to happen. From a much less technological viewpoint, this is what Frank Kermode was writing about w/r/t modern literature: the mysterious 'sense of an ending." That in the 20C we stop thinking of the end of the world as something that is about to happen and as something which is constantly in a state of happening.

>>9666326
Yes sir. And if you're a science/math guy please feel free to fill up the space with math guy stuff. Or else it's all going to be mysticism, Taoism, New Age and God only knows what else.

Ritual is *mos def* a thing. I finished Cannibal Metaphysics last night and started looking into Roy Wagner too. He's got all kinds of geometric stuff going on for theorizing culture and myth and ritual too. I suck at math or else I'd be sperging out on this in that direction instead of this one.

Anyways, I'll be interested to hear what you think of that article.