/lit/ - Literature

>>11733863
good luck, then.

>>11733865
>They're not too different. And it is hard to pinpoint what exactly makes each wrong.
they aren't that different. immanentizing the eschaton in different ways. troubles with god and materialism.

but, it's also reductive to say this. it feels like handwaving (because it is). human beings have always had a dark romance with totalitarianism and the 20C is no exception. aestheticizing politics is damn near irresistable, and as such it tells us something about human nature. but this is what is such a catastrophe about our modern responses to these things: we've created taboos around things that we need to reserve the capacity for disinterested or at least hermeneutic study. we've become hysterical victorians in that sense, with an all-too predictable subterranean affinity for the gothic.

one of the things deleuze teaches us is that politics is still metaphysics, but it's *downstream* of metaphysics. we don't always have to be just bowled over by aesthetics like lost or failed romantics. this is why even a zizek-inspired critique of ideology always winds up back at the same impasse, over and over. you can find oedipus everywhere, at the root of everything. but unless it's possible to look past that, we're only going to repeat ourselves forever. which we do anyways, in a sense, but it would be nice if it were a more enlightened form of difference and repetition.

so, hoping then that you'll return and share more of this later, then. and bumping the thread with one more interesting recent read on deleuze, capitalism, burroughs and societies of control.

https://monoskop.org/images/archive/2/20/20180830170010%21Obsolete_Capitalism_--_Control%2C_Modulation_and_Algebra_of_Evil_in_Burroughs_and_Deleuze.pdf