/lit/ - Literature

>>14504907

>>14195596
>How are you coping today?
After I wrapped up my grad school applications I ate a whole box of skittles while watching Rebel Without a Cause and cuddling with my dog

>>14171483
Come on OP, you can do better than that. Nick Land might not appeal to everyone--but anyone living in this age can understand what ACCELERATION means.

>>14164943

>>14022980

>>14006801
>refutes op
nothing personnel kid

>>13768020
>22
>USA
>Difference and repetition

>>12514672
>TFW you're developing the technology.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A PENTA-ZYGON ?

Dude capital LMAO
Dude templexity LMAO
Dude sinofuturism LMAO

No, he is

Why did humanity's greatest living philosopher end up shitposting about immigrants on Twitter?

>>11271253
just bumping

>>11266364
aren't sci-fi philosophers the best philosophers though?

who's feeling a nick land thread?
>me me i am i am

why tho
>b/c machinic desire is retardedly fucking good

>Anti-Oedipus mobilizes a vocabulary of the machine, the mechanic, and machinism. Things are exactly as they operate, and zones of operation can only be segregated by an operation. All unities, differences, and identities are machined, without transcendent authorization or theory. Desiring machines are black-boxes, and thus uninterpretable, so that schizoanalytical questions are concerned solely with use. 'What are your desiring-machines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes?'

>Machinic desire is the operation of the virtual; implementing itself in the actual, revirtualizing itself, and producing reality in a circuit. It is efficient and not aspirational, although this is an efficiency irreducible to progressive causality because immanent to effective time. Machinic desire is operative wherever there is the implementation of an abstract machine in actuality, and not merely the mechanical succession of actual states.

what does it mean tho
>it's fucking brilliant. it might mean *capital-c Capital does not exist until you try to repress it.* which is like a completely bonkers way of going back to lacan updated for the 21C. get machinic, *find circuitry* or prepare yourself for a loop of ressentiment. you cannot be a perfect robot any more than you can be a perfect meatbag. un-stick yourself

makes no sense
>oh yes it does

but he disavowed these writings
>*and that was fucking stupid of him.* young nick was a geeeeeenius. g-g-g-g-unit. i will re-avow said genius to his face. he was so smart. he was so goddamn smart aaaaaaarrrrglblllrlllblblbl

but what about the later writings and Old Nick
>he went past where he could have just stopped. at this absolutely perfect point of disequilbirium:

>it makes no more sense to try to rescue the economy from capital by demarketization than it does to liberate the proletarian from false consciousness by decortication. In neither case would one be left with any thing except a radically dysfunctional wreck, terminally shut-down hardware. Machinic revolution must therefore go in the opposite direction to socialistic regulation; pressing towards ever more uninhibited marketization of the processes that are tearing down the social field, 'still further' with 'the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization' and 'one can never go far enough in the direction of deterritorialization: you haven't seen anything yet'.

tldr
>you can't out-Outside the Outside. you are seduced by your own fantasies of romantic Resistance *as much as by fantasies of ironic Collusion.* . stop trying to CTRL the future. you can't. eppur si muove. the more you try the worse it gets. *take the side of the Outside's inarticulable desires for itself.* they may also be your own.

source:
http://xenopraxis.net/readings/land_machinicdesire.pdf

Where do you personally get to find today's philosophers, /lit/?

If it wasn't for 4chan i would probably never have found out about Nick Land or Mencius Moldbug.

But i was wondering if there's any "spots","pools" or "places" (if you catch my drift) where contemporary philosophers can be found, or at the very least get a higher exposure as to find them out more easily?

>>9641741

>>9582690
>>9582702
>not reading tocqueville and similar entry level stuff in the womb so you can go through the "marxist to accelerationist to landian spooposophy to ethno nationalistic-phase " by the age of 4 and then get an early start on working on becoming the ultra AI basilisk killing all humanity that has ever lived and will ever live over and over again in five hundred simulated realities

The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.
The body count climbs through a series of globewars. Emergent Planetary Commercium trashes the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Continental System, the Second and Third Reich, and the Soviet International, cranking-up world disorder through compressing phases. Deregulation and the state arms-race each other into cyberspace.

By the time soft-engineering slithers out of its box into yours, human security is lurching into crisis. Cloning, lateral genodata transfer, transversal replication, and cyberotics, flood in amongst a relapse onto bacterial sex.

Neo-China arrives from the future.

Hypersynthetic drugs click into digital voodoo.

Retro-disease.

Nanospasm.

I'm trying to remember a word. Here's the situation:

You're making a philosophical argument about something, and you preemptively imagine a criticism that will be lodged against your premise, and you offer an argument against that criticism.

What's this called? there is a word for it, its a *something* argument.

Is there a suggested reading order for all of this? A book chart maybe?
All I know about Land and his I'll comes from memes and now I'm legit interested.

Any essays, journals or books on Relativism/Objectivism that come to mind? Do I need to know about Hume and Descartes for this sort of discussion? I know /lit/ seems to be very anti-scientism, but can you help me understand this from a point other than "Read KJV Bibble"?