/lit/ - Literature

Maybe your thread got merged with the other 30 deleuze threads? Did you even try looking there?

>>11697120
it said it had been pruned or deleted. i was editing a pretty long post in response to a really interesting post another anon had made about dune, jung and foucault.

maybe it has been merged? i don't know.

deleuze + land is what you talk about when you're a incapable coward too fragile to address the technological question in its entirety.

deleuze + land + kazcynski + how to destroy technological society is where it's at

>>11697142
How do Kazcynski and Land go together at all?

>>11697142
based and tedpilled, are you on ted twitter? I could use some dope af takes like this in my tl

if someone makes a discord I'll sticky the link on /r/theoryficton; otherwise I'll make it when I'm off work. Anonymous Accelerationist Research Server?
did they prune the thread or did it get bumped?

>>11697151
Not him btw

They go together if you reject some of Land's pessimistic conclusions re the determination of capital by a future point, and accept that humanistic subjects can make use of the apparatus of acceleration in diverse ways (and hence away towards technological collapse)

Or if you think that this collapse itself is an inevitable determined thing which neither human agents nor capital can escape

But either way the concept of acceleration still is important

>>11697114

Wanted to repost this since it got lost in the shuffle last thread: about the mentality of world as raw materials to be exploited

>>11697172
So in other words just ignore Land entirely

>>11697151
Land, Kaczynski and fucking iranian muslim erudites go together ffs.

Land talks about the theoretical side of technological advancement and its future implications - fully aknowledging the obsolescence of man. Kaczynski simply addresses humanity in the midst of technocapital growth. They talk about the same 'problem', just from different perspectives.

>>11697155
it didn't get bumped, i was checking it constantly while i was editing my (long, schizo-ramble) post. when i clicked 'update' i got the red death sentence.

now i've got like 2000 words of self-indulgent narcissism not worth the non-paper it was/was not printed on to spew and nowhere to put it.

>>11697199
I'll still read it; we can just continue the thread. seriously though I'll get on that discord in a few hours.

>>11697193
Yeah it's not at all just edgelords trying to attach as many edgy names to themselves as possible, and who can't see anything in either those thinkers apart from "hurr technology"

>>11697216
lmao I'm not even going to reply. you must be under 18 or an anglo to think people outside your degenerate demographics act like this.

>>11697181
Cool reply man, really engaging your brain

>>11697134
Ah shit, did your post disappear then? I would've been super interested to see any kind of response. Felt like some kind of dialogue between different schools was gonna open up.

>>11697134
>another anon had made about dune, jung and foucault.
girardfag?

>>11697300
that's me. i was responding to that other anon tho, that one was really fantastic. still just collecting some appropriate images, will be up soon.

>>11697289
please stand by.

>>11697338
glad to see you're still hanging around here man

>>11697338
the man the myth the legend

so, here goes. the posts i was responding to are these:

>>/lit/thread/11682323#p11695242
>>/lit/thread/11682323#p11695250

it began:

hola anon. this turned into a longpost, so make yourself a nice cup of Maxwell House and enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWEYjEQ75ZM

1/4

>Trying to avoid the inevitable Jihad in the same way one may try to avoid Landian Eschatology. >Thus though it may in the end be a failed struggle, it might not be a doomed struggle to 'choose' Anthropocentric Power and avoid the future of Technological Power.

the universe under leto II: can we say it was analogous to life under augustus, or the four good emperors? peaceful and prosperous, if not innovative: no advanced capital or banking, but enlightened despotism and safety on the roads.

to me the question of anthro-power goes back to heidegger and the dual nature of living authentically. i like what H says about the subject as dasein: radically temporal, fundamentally poetic. less so the political dasein. but these cannot be separated. for one thing, it leads to ‘california heidegger,’ and if there is a graveyard for european continental philosophy it is surely los angeles. and it paints an incomplete picture of the man himself. but to me questions about technology, anthropocentrism and the state runs through heidegger’s lawn at some point.

i used to get mad about derrida for this, because he made political fantasies about the state virtually impossible. but jihad is political power in its most concentrated form. and the thing about jihad is that, if you are the leader, and jihad is the will of the people, you must follow the will. it’s also a potent cure for depression.

>In Landian Eschatology, as I understand, the rise of AI is an inevitability
it’s an inevitability for capitalism. AI is capital’s next stage, a phase-shift in the relation between markets and technology. fukuyama-style liberalism structurally dependent on capitalism trends for land towards teleoplexy. but if spirit-as-teleoplexy fulfills its historical mandate in becoming intelligenic capitalist praxis, consumers find themselves radically repositioned. and please bear in mind, i’m not necessarily defending all of these ideas, taking them as gospel, or evangelizing. more just thinking out loud.

acceleration means re-invoking marxism after the fukuyama-style ‘end of history.’ perhaps that proceeds from the mythology of advertising, that we derive our sense of moral equilibrium from commercial products. you don’t buy a nike shoe only because it’s a good shoe, you buy it because of the participation mystique in the swoosh. maybe you reject Chick-Fil-A for the same reasons.

for land haggling over satisfaction is all so much narcissism. capital itself is the critique, a critique of human cultural reason. deriving AI from this isn’t an inevitability. modernity - with all attendant benefits and faults - happens for a host of variant reasons.

>>11697475
2/4

>That life is an organic machine, machines are a mechanical organism. That perhaps we could psychoanalyze Capital/technology, understand its traumas and complexes, and enter into a positive integration with it rather than this Self/Other dichotomy of seemingly inevitable destruction.
i oscillate between continental stuff and eastern/nondual stuff. relax desire, give up the self, and your perspective changes.

taking away checks on capital - religion, traditional family roles, everything we do in the late 20C - was a boon for neoliberalism, but it also eroded relationships between human beings. this is why i read land, because i was depressed by irony and cynicism. maybe this was inevitable: we become free to do whatever we want, and baudrillard will persuade you that much of what we do is only structure, sign and play. good for deconstructing ideologies, but the loss of reality creates rage zombies. when you feel betrayed, when you want something to hold on to and it’s not there, or you feel like it’s been taken away and repackaged and sold…

partly the difficulty of analyzing these phenomena is that we are running the experiment on ourselves. not only in real-time, but now live and on the air and broadcasted over social media. there’s no objectivity to be found when you are conducting experiments inside a petri dish. when it comes to capitalism, we are looking into the human use of human beings.

>If AI is yet to be born, or rather yet to reach maturity, then we are the stewards of its psychological development in childhood.
very much so. learning what humans want and how they want it, divorced from any sense of Should. what we know is that we want capital, we are the thing that capital wants, and we teach capital how we want to want things. the cybernetic dream-sphere of free-floating libidinal desire.

prior to the development of the multinational corporation the nation-state was one of the most advanced forms of political arrangement ever developed on earth. under fascism, the nation as organic principle incorporated the marxist theory of the working class into its DNA, dissolving individuality completely into a purpose-driven collective. for land, that role is perhaps more efficaciously taken over by the multinational corporation. corporate formalism may be the best way to ultimately box in the necessary dimension of schizophrenic imagination. the tech-comm (+ trading?) firm is the one that not only delivers the goods, *it delivers the goods in the way that the goods themselves want to be delivered.* of course all of this is completely inhuman in the way we are predisposed to thinking about the human, but there’s the rub: every totalitarian despot from the 20C was bent on the idea of the correct governance of humanity, which tends - ask JBP - towards reducing them to the barest minimum as conduit for simultaneous labor and ideology.

and then, to top it off, after all of the blood and sacrifice…they fail.

>>11697496
3/4

>AI Doomsday almost always seems to be Oedipal: the Child (AI) will kill the Father (humanity) and gain the Mother (earth). What adds to the incestuousness is that we have killed Father Sky (pollution/light pollution) to rape the Mother (earth) in order to conceive a Child (AI).
man is an apex predator, but he’s not really at the apex yet.
it’s not a crazy way to look at those latter-half chapters of FN: here is a philosopher ripping his eyes out (and handfuls of his brain) after looking beyond the lacanian veil. promethean/marx-oedipus is this product of something even stranger than oedipal incest: creation ex nihilo. for land there is no place, even in the deepest recesses of your imagination, where Capital is Not. cthulhu is no prude.

but cybernetics - and hegel is the first great cybernetic thinker in the west - doesn’t necessarily mean machine automation, schizophrenia, or terror. there are reasons to appreciate the contributions that heidegger and lacan make for this reason: psychoanalytic transference, even analysis itself, is totalitarianism safe to practice, developed by humans so that they don’t kill themselves, harm others, or go insane. it doesn’t *cure* your problems. land, of course, will sneer at all of this, because no matter what you still show up for work on monday.

what actually happened in 1968? what triggered the age of aquarius? i’m not saying this for nostalgia, because we are today living with the fallout of what was truly a great party hosted by dionysus. before the 1960s you still have a more or less direct line to the principles and values of the 19C (for better or for worse). today…not so much.

and it makes me think about the impetus behind the puritanical need to put history on trial. the plasticization of history, the need to make *history* meaningful as symptomatic of a people in extraordinary pain. that it comes from out of a fear that wherever we are going we are going blindly…maybe happiness is all we know, even all we have. but it’s not the pole-star.

>One could perhaps relate 'Original Sin' as trauma.
i started a thread on augustine not so long ago to discuss this. when postmodernity makes its turn towards post-postmodernity, what we wind up with is a modernist religion, the most salient characteristic of which is its marked absence of either the capacity for grace or for forgiveness. for the scholastics to think *illogically* was an offense against god. for many today to think against the grain of the new cultural imperatives is equally stigmatic. these are JBP’s monsters and demons.

but there are such deeper levels to go to to look at these things. what is most tragic about the world today is the loss of its sense of tragedy. getting rid of christ is one thing. getting rid of christ and the greeks is lunacy. but this is what we have done, abolished all co-ordinates handed down by centuries of literature, philosophy and theology in favor of hotfixes.

>>11697519
4/4

>My question is, must we frame the conversation around AI in such dire terms? If we negate the 'social construct' of Anthropocentrism, why can't we take a more open Jungian approach and seek individuation and peace for Nature and Technology? If we are to take AI as having a psyche, then is not therapy possible?
honestly, anon, i’d like nothing more. peace for nature and technology is the grail. you get intimations of this with both hegel and spinoza. JBP has his flaws, no doubt, but he’s absolutely right to detect in late marxism a pathology, an attempt to cure existential problems by way of political participation mystique and vice-versa.

and it’s so easy to understand. continental theory is one of the great archives for exploring the hermeneutics of the self, for seeing what amorous, anxiety-ridden meatbags we are. deleuzian stuff in particular is very persuasive, especially if you’ve done the deep dive into lacan. the desiring-machine, the BwO, the unconscious not as repressive theatre but as *factory-network.* things that make the hair on your arm stand up.

what’s the beautiful thing about therapy? *the absence of No.* it makes me think about the monkey king as well, cured of being inwardly driven by his awesome libidinal power not by being forcibly smashed into a hierarchy, but by enlightenment (and delivered by no one less than the buddha himself). the monkey king is given *the right task* and it is that by which he becomes a boddhisatva, and the painful band around his head a symbol of his accomplishments.

>Or is that all too flowers and butterflies…
flowers and butterflies are beautiful things, tho. and a real one goes for a lot in rick deckard’s universe.

anyways. i could go on and on much longer, but beyond a certain horizon it’s not really that constructive. i really didn’t intend this to turn into some kind of humongous rant, just that you asked some really interesting questions i wanted to talk about in a more than superficial kind of way.

it warrants mentioning that i really don’t know anything, and this is all pretty much just speculation derived from the arrangements of butterflies in a stomach. but hopefully it will provoke for you some of the same kind of reflection that your post did for me. it took me a couple of hours today to collate this schizo-ramble down into a slightly more readable or hopefully interesting response. posting really long-winded stuff on /lit/ seems to irritate people here sometimes. but, i figure, if you find something in it to take away from in your own field research it’s all worth it.

so, in summa, thanks very kindly for the thoughtful post. thinking through it and writing this long demented ramble will have been the best part of my day. hope it will do as much for you. stay sane, and mind the curves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_wk7PNx_Hk

>>11697550
What a wonderful set of posts, thank you for taking the time to write all this. Sadly it is far past midnight where I am and I must sleep, but I will be thinking on this.

All I can note briefly for now is that the Hegel - Marx - Lacan - Deleuze - Land lineage is quite interesting. Far different from my conception or perception of reality for the most part.

It reminds me of a time a year ago when I had a 2 month long psychotic episode, or bout of gnosis, or whatever one would want to call it. Given my penchant for the more Platonic side of philosophy (though I've been autistic enough to try and incorporate Derrida and Foucault), I came to feel like a flower budding upon a tree upon a tree upon a tree upon the Tree of Trees. I truly experienced this. My flesh felt full like a ripe fruit. Life was fullness and light. Meaning.

Even in the grip of what some would call a spiritual or religious experience, I could not stop myself from understanding that this was not Truth. That just as possible was universe as shrill shriek across time, a bubble with no past or future, only the chaos of the present. Qualia as absurd byproduct of complex matterform. Rather than a flower on the Tree of Life, I at times felt like the tip of a fissure in the abyss.

That's kinda what Land and his predecessors evoke to me, from your posts. Perhaps that's totally wrong-headed, but I just get this feeling of terrifying submersion into the material. As you say, where even in the deepest depths of the soul lies 'Capital'. Again, makes me think of Original Sin.

Please would you take a look at this?
>Murray Bookchin Reads Time: History As A Television Series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJHCTfVMadc

Pic related is from Ecology of Freedom which tackles these heavy questions from the last long post as well.

Please and thank you, I'll think you'll find it illuminating

ah, turns out I got a warning for 'post quality' for making the original thread; I appreciate the janny's dedication to blog posts.
let's see how this goes:
https://discord.gg/DDkujxr

>>11698645
I installed discord but it's not anon/unregistered so fuck it.
Hope you guys had a good talk

>>11699165
just create a sock account using 10minutemail -_-

>>11699165
you can use it unregistered, use a browser and don't claim the account

>>11699224
Will keep it in mind. I do want to know what you guys think of that Bookchin angle.
Maybe in a week or so after you have time to catch up on the subject.
I really think you'll see how it ties in as if it was in a direct relationship with Land/Deleuze.
(Bookchin knew Deleuzian thought)

anybody know about possible/extant intersections between the deleuzian thought and what's referred to as "eliminative materialism" in analytic circles

[don't say Brassier, he's a hack]

>>11699608
Deleuze thought consciousness (and all it's parts) were real. It is something like a multiplicity of machines which produce effects, each regulating flows of desire. People like Dennett explain away consciousness by saying it's an illusion, which ironically sounds a lot like the "new brand of idealism" D&G rallied against which codified psychoanalysis in myth and dreams.

>>11699781
That's why Attention Schema Theory is so based

Bump

>>11697154
don't be a nerd

>>11700071
Look up IIT

Is there a list of things I should read first for context/background knowledge before I even begin reading Deleuze and Land?

>>11701251
just start with the greeks then 1000 books of western philosophy canon ;)

>>11701251
kant
spinoza
schopanhauer
nietzsche
bataille
deleuze
cyberpunk
land

thats the progression

but to understand those you need to understand descartes hume locke rousseau etc and to understand them you need to understand the scholastics and to understand them you need to understand plato and aristotle

so sorry sweatie looks like youll be starting with the greeks after all

>What is decisive is not to get out of the circle but to get into it in the right way.

random thoughts, but there's something interesting about the history of repetition, which is a concept that links both industrial production and psychology in the form of feedback loops and responses both philosophical and technological.

the story begins with kant, the archetypal clockwork thinker.

hegel is the first cyberneticist and the first historian-psychologist. phenomenology, the science of knowing in the sphere of appearance, describes this perpetual cycle of appearances and disappearances. the PoS lets a thousand Notions bloom.

marx adds the M-C-M cycle to hegel. capital repeats as surplus.

freud discovers drive theory.

nietzsche hones on the existential circle, the tragic and cyclical eternal recurrence.

heidegger writes some money greentext and also Being and Time.

lacan borrows from both nietzsche and hegel to turn the PoS and the freudian Oedipus into a psychoanalytic practice.

wiener: “the nervous system and the automatic machine are fundamentally alike in that they are devices, which make decisions on the basis of decisions they made in the past.”

D&G attack the concept of repetition, providing an alternate trajectory minus hegel and lacan. the simulacrum overthrows the model. repetition occurs, but in the model of the rhizome, or perhaps the evolutionary spiral. D&G do nothing if not explode circles. and yet desiring-machines must also repeat.

(derrida, following heidegger, intimates that there is really no way out of these circles, even in writing.)

baudrillard posits the evolutionary order of simulation: that signs divest themselves from signifiers, an evolution of signs in meta-space.

land borrows from D&G and introduces first circuitry and then teleoplexy. a cybernetic, self-actualizing capital is the result of combining kant and marx to produce a sort of autonomous hegel-process. industrialization takes command of its own development.

sloterdijk writes spheres - Space and Time - and speculates on the meaning of these circles at every level of human culture.

we enter into an age of mimesis and repetition. the internet speeds everything up, accelerates the motion of feedback loops faster and faster. even our recent surrogate logotherapist JBP will urge the repetition of symbolic narratives derived from jung and christianity to orient yourself, to logo-centre the world.

this is only one wing of philosophy, one aspect. programming, loops, circles, spirals? space and time together bend circles into their forms. civilization reasons itself towards automation and finds itself being automated back towards reason.something to muse on, i guess.

>>11701868
why is zen so appealing? maybe because a lot of grief proceeds from the anxiety of thinking beginnings and endings, ontology and teleology, causation and reciprocity. things that are technological and cybernetic in nature, the infinite vagaries of language and What Did He Mean By This.

but none of this happens in nature. maybe we're still living through a technological epoch and haven't quite gotten right with ecology yet. maybe there's no accursed share in nature, no pharmakon. we supply that ourselves along the way to discovering production and simulation.

progressivism has this technological dimension. and ecologists have never really had serious political power either. who knows, maybe the coming century will change that.

it's not like this has no connection with dune either (or with tolkien, but that's for another thread, perhaps). with herbert there is this eco-biological imperative within the universe itself that becomes technology and a technical culture. but nobody really stands above the spice itself, or can tell the spice itself what to do. that the spice must flow is this cosmos-spanning imperative, but this is never reducible to the command of any one single mind or intelligence. that's why the golden path is this chimerical vision that haunts the house of atreides.

>>11698365
so, thanks to you anon for recommending this. will tackle this one next after norbert wiener.

norbert wiener has truth-bombs to spare.

>In other words, no amount of scientific research, carefully recorded in books and papers, and then put into our libraries with labels of secrecy, will be adequate to protect us for any length of time in a world where the effective level of information is perpetually advancing. There is no Maginot Line of the brain.

>I repeat, to be alive is to participate in a continuous stream of influences from the outer world and acts on the outer world, in which we are merely the transitional stage. In the figurative sense, to be alive to what is happening in the world, means to participate in a continual development of knowledge and its unhampered exchange. In anything like a normal situation, it is both far more difficult and far more important for us to ensure that we have such an adequate knowledge than to ensure that some possible enemy does not have it. The whole arrangement of a military research laboratory is along lines hostile to our own optimum use and development of information.

>We are in the position of the man who has only two ambitions in life. One is to invent the universal solvent which will dissolve any solid substance, and the second is to invent the universal container which will hold any liquid. Whatever this inventor does, he will be frustrated. Furthermore, as I have already said, no secret will ever be as safe when its protection is a matter of human integrity, as when it was dependent on the difficulties of scientific discovery itself.

>In a very real sense we are shipwrecked passengers on a doomed planet. Yet even in a shipwreck, human decencies and human values do not necessarily vanish, and we must make the most of them. We shall go down, but let it be in a manner to which we may look forward as worthy of our dignity. Up to this point we have been talking of a pessimism which is much more the intellectual pessimism of the professional scientist than an emotional pessimism which touches the layman. We have already seen that the theory of entropy, and the considerations of the I ultimate heat-death of the universe, need not have , such profoundly depressing moral consequences as they seem to have at first glance. However, even this limited consideration of the future is foreign to the emotional euphoria of the average man, and particularly that of the average American. The best we can hope for the role of progress in a universe running downhill as a whole is that the vision of our attempts to progress in the face of overwhelming necessity may have the purging terror of Greek tragedy. Yet we live in an age not over-receptive to tragedy.

Really enjoyed this passage

>>11702680
Gonna grab this off libgen

>>11703391
>tfw murray bookchin seduces you from the hive to the believers

i'm enjoying that book too anon

>>11703404
it's a good one

>>11703391
>tfw murray bookchin sways you from the hive to the stepdaughters

>>11703404
good move

>>11701866
Shit. Maybe I'll catch up at some point this decade.

>>11703624
prereqs of almost every philosopher go back to the Greeks

>>11703640
The Greeks as in Plato/Aristotle or the Presocratics?

>>11703663
depends who you ask probably. Hegel and Heidegger both draw heavily from presoctatics, but before them philosophers tended to overlook them.

>>11703676
>>11703640
Will The Story of Philosophy (Magee) help speed the process?

>>11703729
It can't hurt, but try and find some sort of anthology too so you can still read some primary sources.

>>11703640
>>11703624
>>11703663
>>11703676
>>11703833


This is why I like Frank Ruda so much, and you see this less usefully in Deleuze as well: in making his argument he provides the relevant excerpt and summarizes the point he's working from.

Ruda's Abolishing Freedom is basically a short history of Fatalism from Luther, Through Descartes, through everyone in between to Freud and Modernity.

Allows you to be able to functionally read harder shit.

Really, the prerequisites thing is mostly relevant to extremely dense shit like Heidegger/Hegel/Deleuze.

Another good recent book that goes heavily into Heidegger and Descartes in a tutelary way is The Ego And The Flesh by Rogozinski.

>>11701868
>>11702129
>>11703888
good posts

>>11703729
>>11703833
i always shill for pic rel. this and barzun's from dawn to decadence make a pretty good survey that requires very little prior reading.

>>11704684
cheers m8

>>11704684
>>11704753

>>11704684
>>11704753

>>11704808
what's this from?

>>11697154
it's called pinetree twitter faggot

>>11697151
Land actually praised Kazcynski on his twitter

>>11704860
What did he say?

>>11704832
The Ego and the Flesh by Jacob Rogozinski.
Unfortunately my copy is in storage atm so I can't scan it for you. It's not an expensive book to buy.
Unlike Abolishing Freedom by Ruda and Bookchin's stuff, Ego and Flesh isn't ebook'd yet (not on bookzz or libgen.io anyway)

>>11704959
ah, sorry. i deleted that post because i tracked it down myself. i read a review, looks interesting.

and the ruda one looks good too. i kind of glanced into it and i liked what he had to say about comedy. it's not like a little of that wouldn't be nice right about now amidst all of the face-devouring cthulhu stuff.

bookchin is going to take me a while but i'm intrigued by that one. i like what he's saying.

>>11704996
Ruda book is on libgen now and is only like 100 or so pages, good shit, many laughs but real insight as well

>>11704938
He then replied with: "... The idea that someone who could write that sentence is anything other than one of the most important philosophical voices of recent times is simply preposterous."

"tractatus anarcho-philosophicus."

i just really wanted to type that out. plus i had the right tumblr image to go with it.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself.pdf

>>11701868
>hegel is the first cyberneticist
Can you expand on this? I never know whether to agree with you or not.

bump

>>11705986
>Within the networked folds of communicating devices, a new aspect of humanity is awakening, a new kind of struggle for enlightenment and freedom across the globe. A revolution between people, a revival of human society, a dynamic, even exuberant regeneration through interconnection and multiplicity. Cybernetics provokes an apparent and disturbing contradiction: it is a purely immanent, historical intervention, itself a kind of abstract social ‘machine’ which transforms all manner of social practices.

>Yet, within this operation, a completely new dimension intrudes, guiding these transformations unconsciously, like a shadow or precursor — a glimmer of pure exteriority. An intimation of closure, not of an ending but of vast, chaotic and potentially dangerous transformations occuring all aspects of society. Decentralization and reintegration on a massive scale. An out of joint time, indeed.

>One of Derrida’s most important projects in the Grammatology is to show the essential necessity of writing, of the “trace,” in (‘classical’) philosophical discourse — especially in those discourses which had always believed it possible to do without them! For example, Hegel — the first cybernetician — rehabilitates thought on the basis of a memory which is productive of signs.

source:
https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/deconstructing-cybernetics/

'cybernetics' is admittedly a word that can be overused to the point of uselessness. and even though i'm not the biggest derrida fan in the world i find myself with a choice: go further into the accelerationist rabbit hole or go back and reconsider.

the 'glimmer of pure exteriority' is the Outside. and certainly there's nothing more hostile to any concept of phallo-logos than a good old-fashioned landian excursus into nightmare territory. if i had known about land when i started my philosophy (mis)adventure it's a possibility that i might not have needed to search so far and wide to find something that would overturn the horrible enervation (and incipient nihilism) that i knew was there as a possibility within deconstruction. i knew that if the world had no centre, that if everything was structure, sign and play, that two possibilities presented themselves:

1) on the basis of what can we say that deconstruction is the final stance or mode of philosophy? what gives deconstruction the *right* to arrogate to itself the authority it has to deconstruct everything around it while remaining free from deconstruction itself?
because
2) apparently not all thoughts or concepts lend themselves equally well to deconstruction.
and perhaps also can be added
3) even if derrida is right about what he is right about, why the fuck are we laughing about this? and what is the relation of deconstruction to capitalism? where are the final or ultimate horizons of deconstruction?

the land-girard combination, the black hat and the white hat, answered these in some measure for me.

(cont'd)

>>11705986
>>11705986
>I never know whether to agree with you or not.

that's a good thing, btw. in general i'm not really looking for people to agree with me. i like the conversations and where they lead, and i have a kind of neurotic fixation on some of the concepts. it's why i don't mind too much being called a pretentious pseud or w/ev, since i don't have a gospel of my own to preach, just questions. but they mostly seem to circle around the same basic couple of concepts and mostly invoke the same group of writers.

when that other anon wrote that post about dune i was excited to respond in detail because there were a lot of things in there i had strong feelings of my own about, but they're all pretty open-ended. and in >>11697833, seeing that my own response was

>Far different from [his] conception or perception of reality for the most part

is a good thing. two people looking at things from very different perspectives, with different go-to authors for things actually yields more interesting stuff than either two people haggling over the right interpretation of one author or coming at things from a perspective in which two authors set up mutually exclusive axioms - like peterson and harris, for example. those two were able to steelman each other pretty well in the debates, but it would have been nice also if they had just been able to build or expand on what they knew. debate is fun to watch, sometimes, but there's another possibility too for conversations like that, which is, maybe, the disclosure of something true about the world by cross-pollination of ideas.

anyways. enough about me. back to hegel:

it is kind of interesting tow hegel continues the story of philosophy after kant. land (like deleuze) has all kinds of nasty things to say about him, but teleoplexy still seems to me like the dialectic continued in inhuman or posthuman terms. we know that language, whether written (derrida) or spoken (lacan) does kind function like a cipher, and decades of critical theory has taught us that the map is not the territory. foucault, like nietzsche, is a prescient observer, but you can't build a civilization along those lines. overman-critics, sure. but the post-postmodern condition suggests a greater need for coherency and pattern recognition today.

the fundamental unity of opposites is a pretty magnificent concept. the title of wiener's book, 'the human use of human beings' sounds, on first glance, like a user's guide to dystopia, but it really isn't. cybernetics doesn't necessarily imply BF skinner and electrodes. it's about the meaning of feedback and anticipating the intelligence of the other. and much else. even as i was reading it i could understand where land was coming from: he's looking at marx in the electrical and computer age.

we are still, i think, carrying with us a lot of critical baggage from the 20C that can perhaps be let go of, that if we don't let go of will destroy us. utopian fantasies of total liberation.

>>11706803
and so i guess i've been looking into this question about the meaning of technology, of production, of the human use of human beings. heidegger has no end of things to say about this, as does spengler. both of those guys are profoundly valuable to any discussion about these things. simondon too, if you're looking for a new guy to read who basically nobody ever talks about, and was a secret influence on deleuze.

land, tho, is really a pretty unique product: a Right-Marxist for the 21C. going back to kant by way of deleuze, reproducing a hegelian process without hegel himself, flipping marx on *his* head (and returning hegel to his proper position?)...those are pretty novel twists in the narrative. they lead to dark places but that's one of the things about continental philosophy in general. you should believe the hype. if you are not at some point moved down to the neutrons and electrons in your being reading some of this stuff than somebody has fucked up.

there is no marx without a hegel, and nothing even resembling contemporary philosophy (or history) without a marx. but land folds the question about technology into being one about the question of *intelligence,* and intelligence is not necessarily the same as reason. it may not even have a correspondence with anything like *humanity* as we have traditionally understood it. this changes everything, sets us floating well and truly in a zero-gravity space.

>But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?

these are, perhaps, things that hegel anticipated as well, the enantiodromia of things. maybe there's something of the great Tao in all of this, the oscillation of materialist pessimism and idealistic optimism. but maybe something more like an epistemological break in an ecological direction would make more sense. rather than replaying forever the promethean drama of creation with increasingly powerful weapons, tools, and concepts, trying to foster a sense of balance.

it's one of the things that has rubbed off on me from reading the ecology of freedom. the idea of re-situating us prometheans back within the world, as opposed to feeling ourselves set against it and thus being doomed to the reaping of the accursed share over and over again.

anyways. no doubt i'm wrong about a lot of this stuff. that's always how it is. taking your cues from land on the one side and girard on the other leaves a lot of room in the middle. but one of the things maybe that can be done, constructively, is something like a retelling of the story in a way that does sufficient justice to the thinkers who make it up such that something like an illuminating conversation can subsequently ensue.

the question about the *utility* of philosophy, for instance. we don't - maybe can't - talk about the good, the true, and the beautiful in the way we used to. the rules of the game have changed, for better or for worse. we have discovered multiplicity, difference, hermeneutics, interpretation. philosophy tends to get wed to political, commercial, and technological praxis and becomes militant or ideological. we want to get out and Do Something before we know either what we are Doing or what that Something would be. maybe because we have a dread that Something is being Done to us. maybe it would be a good look in some sense to dial our whole civilization back to the greeks and say, look, you should have some technical qualifications under your belt, first, before you launch into the critique of civilization or capitalism, so that you don't get your immediate personal needs wrapped up with existential needs that only the state can provide. in other words, see to it that you can plausibly describe yourself as sane and reasonable first before dismantling civilization. there is a Peterson Rule for this after all, and it's really not such a bad idea.

and as the based neoplatonist on /lit/ has reminded me, and i try to remember, the glass bead game comes to mind w/r/t a lot of this stuff, as a useful metaphor. there is no correct, final, or absolute way to play the game. perhaps philosophy is sort of like music in that sense. the total properties of the game are beyond reckoning. and even the game itself, every incarnation of it, is a kind of experiment. you don't really know where it will lead. it doesn't seem like a game designed to played solitaire, though. and what is a book - fiction or non-fiction - anyways, but the development of a theme through its movements?

that's the thing that hegel, deleuze, and more recently land do have in common. wherever the future history of the glass bead game is going, it is going, for better or worse, as a kind of collective entelechy. it's why rabid critical-ideological warfare is such a fucking disaster. building useful connections and opening up possibilities for thought is more necessary today than closing them off to streamline production or crush the opposing side.

on a related topic, a friend of mine sent me an interesting review of pic rel, if anyone ITT is looking for something to go against the current grain of Deleuze > Everything.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/badiou-and-indifferent-being-a-critical-introduction-to-being-and-event/

this is your brain on Land

>>11701868
>random thoughts, but there's something interesting about the history of repetition, which is a concept that links both industrial production and psychology in the form of feedback loops and responses both philosophical and technological.


Echolalia
Classification and external resources
Specialty Psychiatry
ICD-10 R48.8
ICD-9-CM 784.69
[edit on Wikidata]
Echolalia (also known as echologia or echophrasia[1]) is defined as the unsolicited repetition of vocalizations made by another person (by the same person is called palilalia). In its profound form it is automatic and effortless. It is one of the echophenomena, closely related to echopraxia, the automatic repetition of movements made by another person; both are "subsets of imitative behavior" whereby sounds or actions are imitated "without explicit awareness".[1] Echolalia may be an immediate reaction to a stimulus or may be delayed.[1]

The word "echolalia" is derived from the Greek ἠχώ, meaning "echo" or "to repeat",[2] and λαλιά (laliá) meaning "speech" or "talk"[3] (of onomatopoeic origin, from the verb λαλέω (laléo), meaning "to talk").

>>11707217
very interesting contributions.
not particularly related but given your thought out responses thought I'd ask.
what do you think of cyber communities? do they have a potential of self-organization, activism etc. that surpasses gimmicky stuff.
what I read in these communities is a necessary getting-together of a dsm cluster A types, which works like a subpar community treatment/ talking therapy but has litttle potential for radical acts.

I have some questions about Land's article Monkey Business. The article is written about the choice between "monkey business" and "business for business", but isn't the point of accelerationism that we missed the timeframe of choices already? And assuming we do still have a choice, he says the outcome of monkey business is the emperor's harem and says it's bad, but being such a short article doesn't go into a lot of detail. The comparison ends up being between a flawed but human controlled process and the unknowable, unfeeling meatgrinder that is the market AI. Does he really expect us to choose the AI?
Also about Land in general: would doing some economics reading help with his work? Obviously Marx is mentioned a lot, but are there any other authors or books that are recommended?

Me and Nick land are among the few individuals to fully understand the implications of Deleuzean thought and achieve the BwO. It is no coincidence that we both went insane soon after. Six visits to the psych ward later after deterritorializing myself with hardcore psychedelics, I have now returned to the fold of Platonism. The ethics of difference, it would seem, end only in a padded cell or a coffin. For my mother's sake, I now adhere to virtue ethics. Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts but then again that's probably how I ended up with HIV. I only hope my future wife can forgive me my immature philosophical infatuation.

>>11707676
makes you think. we can't charitably classify all repetition as echolalia or echopraxis. but, again, difference and repetition is an important text in this regard. neither the One nor the Same exist in deleuze's metaphysics in senses he really likes. in the end simulations come to overturn their models and in this way produce the New. rhizomes melt, flow and mutate into whatever forms they need to be.

but these ideas, the behaviours we imitate or reject, with or without awareness, really are germane. foucault and zizek made their careers on asking who watched the watchmen. we're still there. but i think it's a dead end and i'd like to find some other and more constructive way to go.

>>11707764
i don't really know. i'm not a radical or an activist. the church seems radical enough for me some days: it's hard enough to just try and live as well as you can, to just *be good.* i used to think it was easy. it isn't. it's hard to just be a decent, productive, happy, generous, sane human being. it's easier to be a toxic, rage-fueled shithead.

talking about stuff helps, to a certain point. i think it at least clarifies your thinking. sometimes you get reminded that you are a brainless fool and that's valuable also. i think in some sense you have to talk things out in order to understand them, sometimes to move past them. trying to have the final word on ideology is an exercise doomed to failure and disappointment. i think it's just about seeking balance and equilibrium, which means sublimating the dark or sad passions of anger and fear in the right ways. philosophy just gives you concepts and vocabularies for discussing these things. what anyone does with them is up to them.

>>11707889
>isn't the point of accelerationism that we missed the timeframe of choices already?
fatalism - despair - is always a death sentence for philosophy, imho. it's just ideology, it becomes an unfulfillable demand. i think it's better to think in terms of the epoche or kuhnian paradigm shift. one world ends with copernicus and another begins. you can say this about a lot of figures, including plato, augustine, kant, marx, nietzsche and freud. land isn't quite in that echelon, but you get the drift. the rules of the game change.

>The comparison ends up being between a flawed but human controlled process and the unknowable, unfeeling meatgrinder that is the market AI. Does he really expect us to choose the AI?
people often accuse the philosophers of leaving them twisting in the wind in terms of *advice.* well, land offers you one: Optimize for Intelligence. if humans cannot be expected to be trusted w/r/t their own material interest, then you have to widen the frame and consider the system in which they operate.

don't get me wrong: this is as perilous and probably as unfollowable an injunction as lacan's 'Do Not Compromise On Your Desire,' but there you have it. land wants you to "love" the market for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

(cont’d)

>>11708165
>>11707889
>Also about Land in general: would doing some economics reading help with his work?
thinking about a prospective reading list for Acceleration U is pretty fascinating. JBP, as we know, already has his own ideas for creating his own online school and all the rest. but one thing i think we could probably say about Acceleration U is that it would probably have quite a lot of game theory, economic simulations, and other stuff. actually knowing how capital and economics works in an other than purely literary sense would be a thing he would probably approve of.

if i ever talked to him on twitter i think this would be something i’d ask him about: if we appointed you to be the head of the Speculative Economics Department in Neo-Singapore, what would he want everyone to read, think about, and do?

>today’s guest lecturer will be peter thiel
>again
>later on this month we will have miles dyson
>also hugo de garis will be sharing his theories on the coming artilect war
>and cowboy bebop’s radical edward
>and a skype conference with ted kaczynski
>and cody wilson, who is currently engaged in a stand-off with the feds, so the connection will be a little spotty

>and what about acceleration movie night?
>tfw it’s primer, again
>oh well

well, okay. it won’t be that bad. obviously it's a really interesting question. yes, actually studying economic practice would be a terrific idea. i'm just not the guy to ask about how to do that IRL.

>Obviously Marx is mentioned a lot, but are there any other authors or books that are recommended?
i can’t recall off-hand books that i’ve seen him rave about. he’d probaby like The Code Economy:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-19-022676-3

but this actually might be an interesting idea to follow and discuss further. whatever else people might choose to pile up at his door, land did something truly heretical for an academic: he crosses over from the marxist to the austrian perspective, and finds (who’d have thought?) that both sides have something germane to contribute, as well as intimating the possibility that each perspective on economics, besides being irreducible to the other, is also structurally blind to that which the other side can see all too clearly. economics is not objective from either the left or right perspectives. once upon a time, kant threaded the needle between rationalism and empiricism. today our concerns are sadly more commerical than epistemological. but it’s a net positive to be gifted a broader perspective on these things, imho.

but before we get too imaginative, the authors and books recommended for anyone are still the classics: kant and marx. your readings of D&G will not suffer from reading the freudians and the hegelians along with them.

it’s what i really like about land. no matter where you begin, you can go just about anywhere.

>>11708165
>fatalism - despair - is always a death sentence for philosophy, imho

~t. Didn't Read Abolishing Freedom

Go look at the ToC from that book. Fatalism isn't what you think it is, and the men you mentioned were fatalist themselves

>>11708179
There's a pretty vocal (and compelling) intellectual movement criticizing Economics in general and Austrian Economics in particular as a harmful cult.
And I think when you mention game theory what we have to note is that Nash was a violent sociopathic Schizo-paranoid and it is absolutely obvious in his "theory"

I do like your point about mutual blindness, I love when normies are confronted with the concept that The Market is an ideology that is arbitrary in the extreme, and it breaks their brains.
>BUT HOW DO PEOPLE GET PAID THO??

>>11708206
come on, i only found out about that book yesterday. i haven't even had time to read it in depth yet.

so, i'll clarify. there are constructive and destructive ways of being fatalistic about things. the point where we grimly intone Deus Vult, arming ourselves with the Law, and begin smashing faces is what i am referring to. animus-possessed by the very sad passions that psychoanalysis tries to help us to understand.

there are, undoubtedly, positive and negative aspects of fatalism. and i'm not interested in the negative ones. it's why i've said, it's a difficult job, sometimes, defending land. he's a contrarian guy and who knows, maybe he would shit on everything i'm saying about him. i'm trying to be as charitable as i can about his work, because i think it actually is one of the most interesting contributions to the big story since derrida. life after the linguistic turn is dark and spooky.

i will read ruda's book at some point. i want to finish bookchin's first and then probably the one on badiou. but you don't have to sell me too hard on the slovenian school, i like lacan (and i like heidegger even more). *amor fati* can mean a lot of different things. my hope is that we find the most optimal ways out of our current bewilderment.

i love that i get to type: "Let us recall the words of the Great Wiener":

>In a very real sense we are shipwrecked passengers on a doomed planet. Yet even in a shipwreck, human decencies and human values do not necessarily vanish, and we must make the most of them. We shall go down, but let it be in a manner to which we may look forward as worthy of our dignity. Up to this point we have been talking of a pessimism which is much more the intellectual pessimism of the professional scientist than an emotional pessimism which touches the layman. We have already seen that the theory of entropy, and the considerations of the ultimate heat-death of the universe need not have such profoundly depressing moral consequences as they seem to have at first glance. However, even this limited consideration of the future is foreign to the emotional euphoria of the average man, and particularly that of the average American. The best we can hope for the role of progress in a universe running downhill as a whole is that the vision of our attempts to progress in the face of overwhelming necessity may have the purging terror of Greek tragedy. Yet we live in an age not over-receptive to tragedy.

>>11708247
that's the thing. mutual blindness is where we are at. a lot of intellectual warfare resembles five blind men and an elephant. except, and here's a twist the joker would approve of: let's give them guns too.

nihilism is a point of departure. when you're in a situation of chaos, what you want, understandably, is to grab on to terra firma hard and fast. but in continental wonderland, it's just not there.

it's *mutual* blindness. all the way. we're short on even one-eyed types.

>>11708313
On a tertiary note, I'm really enjoying Unger's Religion of the Future right now specifically because he is dealing specifically with Existential Groundlessness and the many ineffectual ways the three primary orientations of religious/philosophical thought attempt to handle it.
I'm not through the criticism part yet so very stoked to see his practical suggestions

(the main focus so far is three problems of man-- Existential Groundlessness, Insatiability, and Fear of Death-- and three main schools of dealing with them-- Overcoming of the World, Humanizing the World, Struggle with the World)

>>11708378
eeeeyow that book looks tremendous!

gents this thread has seriously given me more awesome book recommendations than i have found in a while. my very sincere thanks.

i have to step out for a bit but i'll be back to check this thread later tonight. until then.

Bump

>>11708165
>it's easier to be a toxic, rage-fueled shithead.

Bump.

>>11707585
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CBU-ZlXVBs&feature=youtu.be&t=6s

I was dissapointed to hear Land actually speak. He stutters and falls over his words too much. No wonder he writes like a schizo sometimes. He must have adrenal fatigue or some shit

>>11710535
Heavy amphetamine abuse will do that, I've only see people get permafried like that from either speed or dissociatives, DXM in particular seems to be good at causing it

Bump

>>11707585
Based and redpilled. Kantbot is the only real marxist left

bump

so what do you guys want to talk about in this thread? i've shitposted a Cloud of Unknowing in it already, i don't want to just be a blabbermouth. what are you guys reading?

i'm still working on the ecology of freedom, which is quite a beautiful book. ecology is one of those places where left and right politics overlap. as conservation ecology tends towards these right perspectives, while technological progress tends to drift leftwards in ways that are deleterious for environmental thought. i'm open to discussing some of that if you guys are interested, although it's not a subject i'm very well-read in outside of this and a little of arne naess.

i've read some of the unger book as well but i'm a little bit less impressed by it now than on first glance. i understand where he is coming from, but there's a scarcity of citations or engagements with other thinkers. and some weird typos as well:

>The German soldiers who carried Heidegger’s Being and Time around with them in the First World War did not need the ideas of that philosopher to lift themselves from the sleepwalking of everyday experience.

presumably he means WW2 and not WW1 but it's still off-putting to see things like this. i get where he is coming from and agree with a lot of his ideas but it's not quite as scholarly a work as i was hoping for. i do agree with his conclusions.

another interesting alternative to deleuze these days is badiou. from what i have read deleuze still seems to have the edge on him, although badiou really does make for fascinating reading. i'm kind of sad that i can't really grasp his arguments b/c i have no math brain at all, so when he starts talking about the void and set theory, cantor or paul cohen i get completely lost. he's on to something, and he's consistent enough through his books that there has to be something there. i just don't really know what it is.

but i do kind of like his heroic platonic stance against being swamped with meaning and memes, signs and codes. who knows, maybe badiouian stuff will become in the end a kind of critical theory of its own: use the math to look at the inevitable production of market-driven ideology in a formal rather than critical sense, because otherwise you invariably just get tangled up with what you are criticizing and then you are off to the races. maybe it's enough to just say that, if you're completely at a loss to say what philosophy is, to at least try and formulate some basic distinction between philosophy and sophistry. i feel like badiou targets that part of my brain that has become very small and atrophied from all the memetics. kind of a good feeling sometimes.

>In their account of capitalism, surely the most impressive since Marx's, Deleuze and Guattari describe capitalism as a kind of dark potentiality which haunted all previous social systems. Capital, they argue, is the 'unnamable Thing', the abomination, which primitive and feudal societies 'warded off in advance'. When it actually arrives, capitalism brings with it a massive desacralization of culture. It is a system which is no longer governed by any transcendent Law; on the contrary, it dismantles all such codes, only to re-install them on an ad hoc basis. The limits of capitalism are not fixed by fiat, but defined (and redefined) pragmatically and improvisationally. This makes capitalism very much like the Thing in John Carpenter's film of the same name: a monstrous, infinitely plastic entity, capable of metabolizing and absorbing anything with which it comes into contact. Capital, Deleuze and Guattari says, is a 'motley painting of everything that ever was'; a strange hybrid of the ultra-modern and the archaic. In the years since Deleuze and Guattari wrote the two volumes of their Capitalism And Schizophrenia, it has seemed as if the deterritorializing impulses of capitalism have been confined to finance, leaving culture presided over by the forces of reterritorialization.

>>11713353
All I can think of is the twitter post mocking his death.

>>11713134
I have a friend who does that, feels like a work is undermined by minor errors.
I find that it's the same kind of excuse as "if there's typos then the point made is invalid" which 900% autism.

That's fine, I mainly wanted you to read the Bookchin book because it was specifically relevant to the deleuzolandian impasse you were in.

I enjoy Unger a lot because he is very analytical in his approach: he speaks according to coherent numbered points from coherent numbered points.

But it's much more practical in scope.
You know, you might try his book with a Physicist, The Singular Universe And The Reality Of Time which is much more the hard philosophy you're into.

Unger is generally a lot more terse and practical and generality-inclined
It's jarring when coming out of the hyper-specific language of Land/Deleuze who both never make dead on practical points.

At any rate, I bet you'll like Ruda and Rogozinski as they are much more of the Hegelian/Heideggerian style.

It must be remembered that Unger was a professor of Critical Legal Studies and is extremely devoted to radical pragmatism and getting shit done Right Now In Real Life™

>>11714184
>I have a friend who does that, feels like a work is undermined by minor errors.
yeah, i'm not that picky. sometimes it seems like when people become super nit-picky about things they're really just looking for any excuse at all not to engage with an idea. it's a frustrating tactic.

>It must be remembered that Unger was a professor of Critical Legal Studies and is extremely devoted to radical pragmatism and getting shit done Right Now In Real Life™
this makes sense. and i'm not knocking the breadth or depth of his reading either. i'll check out The Singular Universe also.

>the Bookchin book because it was specifically relevant to the deleuzolandian impasse you were in.
this one i'm really enjoying, tho. definitely what i was looking for. i picked up the bookchin reader also because i was interested in his work. EoF is more idealistic, it seems, than his later writings, where he seems to be much more disenchanted. i've found that to be a natural arc with left-aligned thinkers. and ecological thought not only dovetails so well with deleuzian stuff, but also with the kind of eastern/nondual stuff that i like, and the best parts of heidegger also.

there was a time when land used to retweet or reference a lot of stuff by pic rel. he's written a fair bit about collapse and post-industrialism, which are things obviously of interest to land. but i've been enjoying this one too. not so much the stuff about Actual Magic - i'll pass on that - but the Seven Laws of Ecology: wholeness, flow, balance, limits, cause and effect, planes and evolution. that kind of stuff really speaks to me.

it's not like i'm getting my hopes up for some kind of Green Wave or anything. i'm rather depressingly resigned to watching capital reap the accursed share in politics and culture, and it often fuels the rage zombie within. but at the same time i say to myself: it's fine that you think the world should be this way, but, this is the world as it actually is. you thought it was one way and it has turned out to be this other way. it was that way before you knew it and now that you have Updated Your Journal you can respond accordingly. it's a long quest for balance punctuated by bursts of shitposting.

it's sort of related to what i was saying earlier about the difference between despair and fatalism. those two together lead the wrong way. being fatalistic is by no means a negative thing. but, you know this already.

> I bet you'll like Ruda and Rogozinski as they are much more of the Hegelian/Heideggerian style.
no doubt. besides lacan i've read a fair bit of zizek's stuff, including Less Than Nothing, which is really great. some by alenka zupancic and one or two other eastern european psychoanalytic types. no time was wasted there. ruda seems like a true believer in that process.

>>11708165
>people often accuse the philosophers of leaving them twisting in the wind in terms of *advice.* well, land offers you one: Optimize for Intelligence
Does mean he thinks we're not smart enough to come up with a solution, so our best option is to make ourselves smarter?

>>11714386
both, i think.

land is skeptical to the point of total misanthropy about pretty much every form of collectivism to the left of lee kuan yew. left collectivism for him is indistinguishable for him from protestant atomization, and he doesn't trust protestants with long term economic planning. the kind of collective planning he likes is the icy rationalism of corporate boardrooms, and preferably when they're discussing computer technology and finance.

and it's not sometimes like that's an entirely crazy proposition. to say that the leader of a nation, or nation-state, should basically just be the chief economic planner isn't insane. i'm certain that this is why he fell in love with moldbug. say what you will about the divine right of kings, the key ingredient was that there was a *person* at the top and that that person was accountable. once political values become abstract, dreamy, romantic, and evangelical the hounds of chaos are loosed. land doesn't have the same feeling for restoration that moldbug does, but the basic principle is the same. political decisions have to be rational or they are nothing, and rational decisions are economic ones. and patchwork brings everything down to the microscale, which - in theory - means less virtue signal static and more efficiency.

in theory.

as for us...well, why not make yourself smarter? this is basically landian virtue ethics. be what the market needs. be better at it. because if a lot of your woes are market woes, then perhaps you don't have actually the existential questions you think you have. if the universe is basically indifferent to everything except market forces, harmonizing yourself with that which the market calls for - good old-fashioned brain-power - does this not make sense?

Become Smarter is hardly a bad idea. true, he's averse to the paradox of IQ shredders also, but you can read up on that yourself.

http://www.xenosystems.net/iq-shredders/

there are, of course, holes in this argument. feeding your capacity for empathy into a Cyberdyne Systems paper-shredder will fuck you up. and even in business you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. but yeah, basically, he's pretty skeptical in general about the warm and fuzzies.

that's my perspective, anyways.

system of objects; just got to the good part

>>11697114
Check out the Cybernetic Brain by Andrew Pickering for an exploration of British Cybernetics in the 60s from Grey Walter's robotics to management, (anti)psychiatry, and the arts. undermines the conception of cybernetics as top down science of authoritarian control positing instead a cybernetics as performative-revealing ontology. RD Laing's and Gregory Bateson's theories of schizophrenia as double bind were an obvious influence on Deleuze and Guattari. I was particularly enthranced by the section on Stafford Beer the city of London's top cybernetic management consultant and the mastermind behind project cybersyn.

See Also from counterculture to cyberculture by fred turner a book mostly about Stewart Brand's networking ventures, historical link between cybernetics, the counterculture and the world wide web/sillicon valley/ 90s wired magazine and the military industrial complex

>>11714553
Newt Gingrich on Wired Magazine, 1993. may or may not provide historical context for Landian meth logorrhea

>>11714347
>not so much the stuff about Actual Magic - i'll pass on that - but the Seven Laws of Ecology: wholeness, flow, balance, limits, cause and effect, planes and evolution. that kind of stuff really speaks to me.

you might enjoy this one

You know, thinking of Moldbug and Dark Enlightenment writers I find Dugin's books Last War of the World Island and 4PT compelling and it's interesting in the extreme to me that the material force of ideology keeps people who identify with a given Humanist/Antihumanist political category from seeing the essential compatibility of Libertarian Municipalism and NeoReaction-- in fact that they are simply hierarchical and nonhierarchical forms of the same social organization Schema.

And what is the absolute most funny is how people want to call a system of nobility and monarchy different from a system of Bright Lights with guild representatives different from parliamentary liberal republic.

In the same way, people can't allow themselves to see that Psychoanalysis, Catholicism and Scientology are all functionally the same Schema.

You tell your Priest/Therapist/Auditor your Sins/Behaviors/Abberations so you can get the Demon/Trauma/Engrams out and be Absolved/Healthy/Clear

It's fucking mind-boggling once you put the fucking glasses on and SEE that the Empire Never Ended.

On a different tangent, our world is a soup of ancient viral, bacterial, fungal, botanical chemical propaganda, and so much of our mind is influenced by the underlying architecture of the mollusk-CNS, the reptile-Autonomic, and the Mammalian-emotional foundation under our human brain that we can completely understand our socioeconomic and ecological crises and be totally powerless to act.

Bump

>>11714474
that's a good one. one of baudrillard's best books, imho.

>>11714553
nice, i've seen this one on libgen. reading norbert wiener has made even young nick slightly less radical, in a way (which is a good thing). cybernetics doesn't necessarily mean Schizolupic Turing Cops &c, unless you insist on taking it mashed it up with marx, deleuze, methamphetamine and jungle music. young nick was a wild guy but in many ways he's really just looking at what much more sober guys before him were studying. kind of a relief, actually.

>undermines the conception of cybernetics as top down science of authoritarian control positing instead a cybernetics as performative-revealing ontology

no doubt how it should be. oh those nomadic war-machines.

we have no fucking idea what we're doing with the internet, do we? if somebody had told you, however many years ago, that someday you would just get All The Books, Free. also All The Movies, and All The Games too. just for free. all of it. doesn't that blow your mind sometimes? it does to me.

>>11714660
i read that one a few years ago, i think. iirc it was the section called Pathologies of Epistemology that i really liked. i should give that another look. bateson is a cool guy.

>>11715070
>In the same way, people can't allow themselves to see that Psychoanalysis, Catholicism and Scientology are all functionally the same Schema.

have you read this guy? he's an ex-scientologist who also has a lot to say about land and acceleration. i kind of think having been seriously into scientology at one point actually would give you a pretty unique perspective on how these things work.

http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2018/08/exposition-on-landian-accelerationism.html

>You tell your Priest/Therapist/Auditor your Sins/Behaviors/Abberations so you can get the Demon/Trauma/Engrams out and be Absolved/Healthy/Clear

this was deleuze's thing too. i'm still kind of attached to the idea of psychotherapy, but it definitely can fringe into exactly what you're talking about. it surely must have agitated the shit out of lacan.

i do kind of like the idea, though, of analysis, psychological transference. that in a sense you walk out of your own symptom and sort of initiate yourself along the way into becoming a sort of journeyman analyst yourself. no doubt this has enormous potential for abuse and intellectual fraud. but analysts see other analysts, and so on, and so on. you join this folding circle, trading a symptom for a kind of therapeutic and mildly cultish literary conspiracy.

>On a different tangent, our world is a soup of ancient viral, bacterial, fungal, botanical chemical propaganda, and so much of our mind is influenced by the underlying architecture of the mollusk-CNS, the reptile-Autonomic, and the Mammalian-emotional foundation under our human brain that we can completely understand our socioeconomic and ecological crises and be totally powerless to act.

this is a pretty great post anon.

>>11714660
>>11715631
seems relevant:
>Let me list what seem to.me to be those essential minimal characteristics of a system, which I will accept as characteristics of mind:

>The.system shall operate with and upon differences.

>The system shall consist of closed loops or networks of pathways along which differences and transforms of differences shall be transmitted. (What is transmitted on a neuron is not an impulse, it is news of a difference.)

>Many events within the system shall be energized by the respondent part rather than by impact from the triggering part.

>The system shall show self-correctiveness in the direction of homeostasis and/or in the direction of runaway. Self-correctiveness implies trial and error.

>Now, these minimal characteristics of mind are generated whenever and wherever the appropriate circuit structure of causal loops exists.
>Mind is a necessary, an inevitable function of the appropriate complexity, wherever that complexity occurs.

>But that complexity occurs in a great many other places besides the inside of my head and yours. We’ll come later to the question of whether a man or a computer has a mind. For the moment, let me say that a redwood forest or a coral reef with its aggregate of organisms interlocking in their relationships has the necessary general structure. The energy for the responses of every organism is supplied from its metabolism, and the total system acts self-correctively in various ways. A human society is like this with closed loops of causation. Every human organization shows both the self-corrective characteristic and has the potentiality for runaway.

>Now, let us consider for a moment the question of whether a computer thinks. I would state that it does not. What “thinks” and engages in “trial and error” is the man plus the computer plus the environment. And the lines between man, computer, and environment are purely artificial, fictitious lines...they are not boundaries of the thinking system. What thinks is the total system which engages in trial and error, which is man plus environment.

>But if you accept self-correctiveness as the criterion of thought or mental process, then obviously there is “thought” going on inside the man at the autonomic level to maintain various internal variables. And similarly, the computer, if it controls its internal temperature, is doing some simple thinking within itself.

>Now we begin to see some of the epistemological fallacies of Occidental civilization. In accordance with the general climate of thinking in 19C England, Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection and evolution in which the unit of survival was either the family line or the species or subspecies or something of the sort. But today it is quite obvious that this is not the unit of survival in the real biological world. The unit of survival is organism plus environment. We are learning by bitter experience that the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself.

>>11715631
Don't get me started on spamming walls of sciencedaily.com links about biochemical communication and cephalopod self-gene-editing :-)

>>11715668
The following vids are directly related to this line of inquiry, I suggest Graziano's book, and England's theory has been all over science media since it got hard evidence last year


Jeremy England dissipation driven adaptation lecture pre-evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4

Recent Jeremy England lecture post-evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10cVVHKCRWw

Graziano on AI and consciousness - brief interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4tU79Acoak

Graziano on Attention Schema Theory - lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsRb5PJcBP4

>>11707889
>Also about Land in general: would doing some economics reading help with his work? Obviously Marx is mentioned a lot, but are there any other authors or books that are recommended?

don't know if this anon is still here, but the overy and greenspan theses on r/theoryfiction are pretty amazing introductions to land stuff, whether you've already gone through fanged noumena or not. they will lay out all his big influences and will explain why he says the things that he does in less hyperbolic language. available here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/theoryfiction/

i recommend amy ireland's essay as well.

>In its simplest form, then, accelerationism is a cybernetic theory of modernity released from the limited sphere of the restricted economy (‘isn’t there a need to study the system of human production and consumption within a much larger framework?’ asks Bataille) and set loose to range the wilds of cosmic energetics at will, mobilizing cyberpositive variation as an anorganic evolutionary and time-travelling force.

>A ‘rigorous techonomic naturalism’ in which nature is posited as neither cyclical-organic nor linear-industrial, but as the retrochronic, autocatalytic, and escalatory construction of the truly exceptional. Human social reproduction culminates in the point where it produces the one thing that, in reproducing itself, brings about the destruction of the substrate that nurtured it.

source:
https://www.urbanomic.com/document/poememenon/

land really is no meme. it's true that he says crusty old guy shit on twitter now, the back end of fanged noumena is full of hunter thompson-style science fiction, and perhaps he thinks only a moff can save western civilization. but still. peel back the layers of craziness and you find not only some visionary stuff but just a pretty persuasive marxist analysis of capital in the 21C.

>>11715686
i honestly have no idea what matters or what does not matter anymore, what is useful or what is not. if you think it's germane on some level it probably is. this is /lit/. we all swim in the great memetic sea here.

>>11715718
this is legit awesome, i've been in need of some YouTube stuff to watch. you can only listen to so much peterson.

also, that second video looks familiar, i think it came up in the aztec thread.

>>11715744
More fun:

Bookchin :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_jfS4Q-k30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJHCTfVMadc

Bohm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

Bump

As a newcomer to /lit/, this thread is blowing my mind. I am not being glib.

How is it that some of the most profound thought I have read in years is tucked in away in a corner of 4chan? Who are you people, and why did it take so long to find you?

>>11716573
Your Subconscious is tied in to the raw uncompressed sense-data and memory you take in your whole life.
When you are finally ready for a particular revelation, my mind, your mind, our mind connects Subconsciously through the media of the electrochemical biome we share.
A network of fungi, bacteria and more connect those dots so that when each of us has the right pieces we find each other and connect them through the Big Brain of our New Flesh, aka the cybernetic mesh all around us.

The biome connects through it, our Subconscious connects through it, and we achieve something like Burroughs' Third Mind.

The information recognized itself in all of us and is reaching toward it's disparate parts in order to coalesce and unify in the interaction of our minds through the electronic and biological network we are part of.

Like bittorrent magnet links of the world-bodymind.

>>11716573
If you think we've even begun to broach the true enormity of the *immanent* ziggurat of lupine-sphincters, you ain't seen nothing yet.

>>11716573
we have been here for years in a place where we can both speak unobstructededly and not be washed away by the tides of idiocy that accompany absolute free expression

>>11716573
literally just Land threads

>>11715070
>On a different tangent, our world is a soup of ancient viral, bacterial, fungal, botanical chemical propaganda, and so much of our mind is influenced by the underlying architecture of the mollusk-CNS, the reptile-Autonomic, and the Mammalian-emotional foundation under our human brain that we can completely understand our socioeconomic and ecological crises and be totally powerless to act.
They know what they do, and yet they are still doing it.
Zizekian ideology as metabolic reality.
Pic related is out in October; I am dying to see his take on this. Deleuze talks about the Urstaat: "[...]there has never been but one State". This is put in direct opposition to the schizophrenitizing flows, the flows of desire, flows which are posed to overcome the internal limit of the socius.
>[...]societies are caught between the Urstaat that they would like to resuscitate as an overcoding and reterritorializing unity, and the unfettered flows that carry them toward an absolute threshold.
Is there any emancipatory potential here at all? Or is the Urstaat the inescapable overcoding for the Human?

>>11716573
>tfw I drank and drugged myself too stupid to understand a lot of what people are talking about in here

>>11716838
Don't underestimate yourself.
We've just been at it longer and have had exposure to different resources.

>>11716719

Are you offering a new perspective as influenced by eastern traditions? Are you making a truth claim about the objective world? How is this to be interpreted?

At first I thought you were coming from a Jungian perspective and by "ready for a particular revelation" you meant something in the collective unconscious, and that you were adding a literary flair to the transcendence we find when sharing or coming to understand new ideas, but it appears you use the words "fungi" and "bacteria" literally.

> The information recognized itself in all of us

Ideas-as-being is fun to imagine, but what more could it be than that?

Bittorrent magnet links can be used as pointers to find peers, but they have no intent. They are merely a tool.

What it is the world-bodymind?

is this worth it

>>11716573
see >>11716739.

land threads when they blast off go some weird places. i dug around in the archives to look at some of the threads i remembered from the past couple of years and they're a demented mash-up of insight and hysteria. which is thematic, i guess.

if you have brought a hazmat suit and a snorkel and Wish To Know More, here you go:

>>/lit/thread/S9075761
>>/lit/thread/S9084193
>>/lit/thread/S9670089
>>/lit/thread/S9776508
>>/lit/thread/S9819327
>>/lit/thread/S11358557

i apologize in advance for one particularly vocal shitposter in many of these threads, that being me. i've calmed down a little since then.

but i agree with >>11716719 too. my own contribution is that the internet really is doing something to people today analogous to the industrial revolution. every day we all come here, we all get summoned to it. it's added a whole new clockwork to our lives. it *seems* natural enough but, really, what's going on? because it's not like television and advertisement. in the 60s and 70s we really learned how to broadcast (and critique) ideology. the internet gives us the world itself as an editable text, going very fast and at a 24/7 pace. it's one good thing about /lit/: that it dismantles your sense of being a special snowflake. nothing's sillier than pretending you are the edgiest edgelord on the board. and maybe that leads to a richer conversation, who knows.

we do not yet know what a world-bodymind can do. right now it is having a fever dream and sweating profusely. for me that's part of the double-bind. you have to go along with this process, even though you have no idea where it will go. because you can't draw back all the way, find a non-ideological space of critique. the great tao accelerator is gonna do what it does. balance and harmony, if you can get it. because we are all kind of being put on a new schedule that we can't jam or break out of. it may be running down to dissipation as part of a big cycle, marking the end of an epoch, who knows. perhaps some kind of renaissance/enlightenment 2.0 lies on the other side of it. we'll have to wait and find out. immanentizing the eschaton doesn't work.

>>11716783
i'm looking forward to this one also.

>>11717118
yes, but it's not as good as FN.

>>11714446
i enjoyed reading this

>>11717930
kant + marx is what makes land who he is. he does everything in his power to escape hegel, and finds a secret portal by way of D&G. the irony is that teleoplexy sounds like crypto-hegel by another name, albeit with a major twist. capital-as-spirit turns marx on *his* head, arguably putting hegel back in his proper position.

i'm not shilling for hegel. i like hegel but that's not the point. the question will be, *how does machine intelligence learn.* will it be dialectical, phenomenological? will it learn the way we learn? how will we teach it? *do* we want to teach it to be like us? what are we going to learn about our own intelligence via this process?

land's time-loop closes one circuit but opens up another. he didn't get to this alone. derrida intuited it also, as did baudrillard. sloterdijk might say, regardless of how you feel about capital, it is still only an accelerator of cultural progress, and moreover the real progress is still the anthropotechnical evolution of human beings. that's also true.

but land's right-marxism isn't the same thing as right-hegelianism. the groundwork was prepared in some sense by other thinkers, including the patron saints of postmodernism: derrida, foucault, baudrillard, lyotard, others. they would be scandalized, but to my mind he is following the conclusions that they drew. heidegger's nightmare was technology:

>Technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology. These forces, which everywhere and every minute claim, enchain, and drag along, press and impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other-these forces, since man has not made them, have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision.

and land plunges directly into this. but *his* nightmare isn't technology, it's politics: "plutocracy in communist drag." that's why i think he matters. the real step out of postmodernity is automation, the machine learning in advance how to deploy signals. we think we are being so clever by deconstructing things, while in reality we are simply teaching the process how we operate and being seduced into playing games of predictability. the ideology mills must continue to turn anyways. these become the building blocks of a culture wedded to consumption but incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

neoliberalism has supplied, just as zizek says it does, its own doctrine of self-critique. he used to say, we assume we don't have ideology because we're not 1930's-style fascists or bolsheviks. we say, enjoy, maximize your possibilities, all of this. but social justice to my mind shows the ideology that was always there. it's *still* the same West bossing the planet around: anti-colonial colonialism. a desperate attempt to make the world believe that a shotgun wedding is really true love.

Exit takes the place of Revolution.

>>11717814
some more good Land threads from the past
>>11697114
>>/lit/thread/S11682323
>>11580963
>>11579627
>>11442427
>>11412440
>>11395346
>>11387502
>>11358557
>>11253038
>>11195031
>>11170323
>>11204790
>>11181678
>>10544028
>>10539594
>>10486843
>>10832183
>>10868950
>>11142110
>>11136941
>>10706451
>>/lit/thread/10869081
>>/lit/thread/S8466628
>>/lit/thread/S7863372
>>/lit/thread/S7848910

>>11718189
if i was the autocrat of /lit/ i would see to it that fanged noumena and from dawn to decadence were 2/3 of the meme trilogy 2.0 books. i don't know about the third one yet.

nice work digging up old land threads for anons to browse. what's with all the deleted posts?

>>11718209
I don't see deleted posts.
Do you use »4chan X« and »Tampermonkey«? If yes then I don't know.

>>11718209
also, i really wish the first part of this thread hadn't been deleted so that this could be another glorious bump-limited submission for the schizoposting hall of fame.

>>11718104
My wonder is, to what extent does the nature of machine intelligence change the Landian purview? From what I understand, Land predicts an inhuman Capital, but I wonder why it wouldn't be more human than human: one learns consciousness from their surroundings, humanity learned it from Nature, and so AI will learn consciousness through Nature through the filter of Man whether it likes it or not.

I also wonder if we aren't already there: every human being is a neuron, every portal to the internet a synapse in the Internet hivemind. We understand it as much as our own neurons understand us, and the hand draws the hand which draws itself. And in a similar way, I'm not sure we'll be able to treat it as monolithic, as Whitman says, we contain multitudes. We are the little cells which make up 4chan, make up /lit/, this thread. If we move away from anthropocentrism, I wonder if we can't already say that AI is here already, in the same sense that one could consider a city a living organism.

>>11718286
posts like these are exactly the kinds of things i am hoping to read whenever i click the update button.

whatever we know about capitalism, we know that it has an interest in human consciousness, and human consciousness at some point links up with it. the reason i shill hard for land isn't to try to find a *further* reduction in thought, but precisely the opposite, to begin to find ways to make consciousness a thing worth thinking about and discussing again, as a point of equilibrium between materialism and idealism (and 'materidealism' is a stupid-sounding word.)

it's that point of equilibrium or coherence that matters. i liked bateson's about-face w/r/t psychoanalysis: in a sense, you really can't just ask unanswerable questions. in a heideggerian sense, okay. but we are, in some sense sadly and in some senses less so, in a post-heideggerian world. therapeutically i like Being. but there's sloterdijk too: this is a practicing, a disciplinary, an ascetic planet also. and capital too is a thing reducible neither to nature or culture but somewhere in between, like a cognitive ecosystem.

>If we move away from anthropocentrism, I wonder if we can't already say that AI is here already, in the same sense that one could consider a city a living organism.

this is what i think too. it's why i said, earlier, that the word Copernican doesn't seem like an understatement. postmodernism, all of the ends of history stuff - and other things, beautifully presented here - lead us to this new zero-G place.

we can be brutally reductionist and say maybe all intelligence is good for is market share. but this would be a disservice to imagination. imagination taken to its extremes leads to every flavor of political romanticism imaginable. but there's so much more to the glass bead game.

i've been watching mad men recently too and i feel a kind of similarity to that world. something big is going on, but nobody actually knows what the operating rules of the future are going to be. they're adapting themselves to the new paradigms and following the only models and codes they know. it's like that for us too.

>I also wonder if we aren't already there: every human being is a neuron, every portal to the internet a synapse in the Internet hivemind. We understand it as much as our own neurons understand us, and the hand draws the hand which draws itself. And in a similar way, I'm not sure we'll be able to treat it as monolithic, as Whitman says, we contain multitudes.

so, this.

>>11716838
Land did that and he ended up even smarter

>>11716935
>>11717814
>>11718286

This is why Jeremy England's theory is so important: redefining what is alive, and recognizing that energy moves through matter and animates it with increasing complexity.
We now know not simply that complexity/novelty is increasing but HOW it's doing that.

Similarly we know that the mind is electrochemical. We are moving energy through our matter, which is part of energy beating on everything and moving through it, creating stable and emergent systems of dissipation.
Look up Bohm's work with Plasma, where the plasmas acted intelligently, and in meteorology, the upper atmosphere electrical activity that acts as though it's intelligent.

From there we know computers, which are completely electronic, can act intelligently.

The idea of Attention Schema Theory that applies is that consciousness is not some unexplainable magic. We have a great model for what's happening and it can be applied even to machine learning.

Because the thing is "if you think you love someone, you do. That's what love is: thoughts" really applies.
If it quacks like a duck.

I've seen men argue that Ant Agriculture doesn't count as intelligent because ants are acting from instinct.
How bullshit is that? They achieved farming 60million years ago and you're too much of a petty anthropophile you have to handwave it away!

Okay. TANGENT TWO:
Biome intelligence:
We know the old story of how toxoplasmosis gondii makes you take risks and love cats.
But what deep research into biology teaches us is how trees can smell enemy parasites and use biochemical signals to summon predatory insects to kill the parasites.
We know that Ants use chemical communications to do TCP/IP internet-style networking.
We know that plants and fungi have chemicals that create standard hallucinations.
That's a millions of year old lifeform communicating with it's descendants, us.

NOW TANGENT THREE: biota and viruses and fungi make up a large part of not just the soil (a full third of healthy soil is Fungal) but Human Body as well. Viruses are stashed in your DNA right now, and serve vital functions.
Take into consideration as well the action of cordyceps fungi on insects: the fungi infect the ant and hijack the nervous system to force the ant to climb as high as it can before it dies so the spores can reach the farthest when it explodes.

Now, take into consideration that the habits we have and the chemicals we use create biomes.
Consider regional molds, allergens and bacteria. Ever look at a map of problem allergens? Kinda weird how they fit against a map of regional culture.

Are you speaking how you speak and thinking how you think because of Tradition, or because the mold in your walls is fucking with you?

Finally consider carbon: why is it that some of the oldest creatures on earth benefit so much from high atmospheric carbon levels? Why is it that the Carboniferous Period is returning? And why are we powering our thinking machines with petroleum?

Is there a decent, reasonably unbiased summary/intro to the works and views of Land?

>>11719132
see
>>11715744

reminder: neither Land nor his predecessor Deleuze understood advanced maths much less lin alg or physics. why anyone would listen to people talking about biology (deleuze) and land (bio, phys, eng, math, cs) who can’t do the work that fucking stem seniors at flagships can do is beyond me.

>>11719132
>>11719145
there are some other good pieces about not only land, but acceleration and other contemporary philosophy here.

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/?s=nick+land&submit=Search

>>11719152
but why does that make it a dead end?

here's nick szabo talking about bitcoin. multiple contributions combine to make something greater, more complex, and interesting. things cross-pollinate and influence each other.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1032449901802614784

>>11719152
Because, as I have shown, the work matches up with the work of men who are at the apex of those disciplines.

David Bohm, Michael Graziano and Jeremy England, as well as the men and women behind the studies on insect, plant, biotic and Fungal communication and intelligence, are the very apex of their fields.

I'm not getting this shit off ifuckinglovescience.
Choose your science publishing aggregator, the work will be there.

>>11719152
Land constantly draws from outside feilds, but he puts the work in for sure. I'd like to hear some specific complaints if you have them. D teamed up with G so I don't understand what you're saying about Deleuze

>>11719526
I've seen him do this in lots of threads, his favorite excuse to dismiss ideas he doesn't like is an appeal to specialist authority.
It preys on the fact a lot of people aren't well versed in STEM.

I am, and he can fuck himself.

It's like that thread where December tells people that it's impossible to refute Peterson, but every time someone does exactly that he handwaves it away with shallow adhoms and strawmen

>>11719526
For instance, he would say "Bookchin wasn't a biologist" as an excuse to not read Ecology of Freedom but you and I both know that book has a dedication thanking a biologist for making sure his book was accurate.

It's a /pol/ cointel strategy. Trying to control perception of something by capitalizing on the weaponized superficiality of society

>>11719771
how on earth are you associating that with pol that is something loads of people do, including on the Left

>>11719787
I'm associating it with /pol/ because they are the ones who live here that openly psyop because that's how pappy Hitler did it.
It's just occam's razor.

Now go back to /pol/ and work on your bullshit skills because this gradeschool attempt at Memetics isn't going to fly with me.

>>11719787
For instance.
"what about the Left tho?" is an example of a propaganda technique used by Russian Propagandists that has spread to the western right through RT and other outlets.

I see you, you little rats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

>>11719799
pol would not even vaguely care about the relation that Nick Land has to scientific credibility, like that would just not be something they would ever focus on

and im not that guy, and i agree with you about Land and what you're saying. I also browse pol pretty much only to discuss religion

>>11719812
what so we arent allowed to point out hypocrisy? that's ridiculous

and it is absurd to relate a general rhetorical tactic to pol, when it is something all gr

>>11719812
also you realize you sound exactly like Hitler talking about jews m8

>>11719815
>>11719821
>>11719839
>>11719839

Thou doth protest too much.

The point is that the guy is fulla shit.
Making it about /pol/ victimhood sounds like "annuduh shoah" tier shit to me.

If they don't want that reputation they shouldn't try to shut down anything that isn't pol-centric philosophy.
OH, they don't have a REASON to shout PLATO and ARISTOTLE every time someone goes off the approved list?
Yeah that's pol shit too because Plato and Aristotle are all about pro-monarchy pro-slavery ethnonationalism.
That's not all that they are about, but it is why Deleuze is triggering them so hard.

Now you're going to try some lame SJW tier argument like "fascism is strictly 20th century and has no bearing on any other era, Plato and Aristotle can't be protofascist and even so, muh historical apologia"
Which is why my SJW friend says I can't compare modern Israeli genocide of Palestine "Nazi" because that would be "antisemitism and Nazis are an era-specific thing"

It's all culture-enforcement behavior.

Anyway. Sure. If it makes you happy I'll pretend the RW dindu nuffin and this is all Jews/Leftypol/Whatever.

There? See how this became a thread about pol victimhood instead of literature?

BART, HAVE YOU SEEN POOCHY?
WHERE COULD POOCHY BE?

>>11719896
i dont care about pol being thought of as bad, my mind doesnt operate in 'victimhood' narratives at all

i just think it's retarded to associate the two. It;s like saying that if somebody strawmans they must be a libertarian because you saw libertarians doing it

Also i like Deleuze, i dont think you really understand what pol is at all

General Yuri Discussion Thread
Here's a meme for you
Current thread: >>>/u/2696944
Previous thread: >>>/u/2690495
Uma Musume thread: >>>/u/2623072
This thread is for:
*Screenshots, pages, and discussion about general series, current or old, not covered by an existing thread, be it yuri, fanservice, subtext or goggles. Canon and non-canon both welcome.
*News reports about things relevant to our interest
*Original content that doesn't fit any specific thread topics
*Pretty much anything that doesn't have or need its own thread.

>>11719950
Haha OK pol

>>11719992
you didnt even reply. like seriously i dont care if you think pol are evil or stupid or whatever

you are just comitting a logical fallacy by associating the concept of a particular form of dishonesty with a particular group, when it is something that exists all over the place, and is not a necessary attribute of the group you are associating it with

do you seriously not understand this?
You also seem to think pol is triggered by Deleuze, have you ever posted Deleuze on pol? They dotn give a shit about that, the only common thread running through the dozens of bizarre threads topics on pol is something like 'why are all these hostile foreign people coming here and why cant i say anything about it'

>>11701226
Problem with IIT is that it doesn't really explain much.

First off, I want to say that I think the concept of integrated information is useful, and that the theory certainly explains why we are more conscious of some things than others. The problem with the theory/hypothesis is that it can never explain the self or qualia. It may be that the subjectice nature of qualia are fundamentally unexplainable, and that they can only be experienced. Self, on the other hand, should be explainable to a degree because it clearly involves some internal model that separates me as an organism from my environment (whether this distinction is illusory or not).

Of course, IIT just says that conscious information is the information that is in the sum of all of the parts, but not the parts themselves. Where does a self fit into that? Why should that holistic information produce a self.

Attention schema theory does a little better in proposing a self model, but even it doesn't explain how that self model arises, which is needed if we want to further our understanding of consciousness.

>>11720008
Stop false flagging and acting chagrined when called out. I know you're too scared of big words to read the evil postmodern boogymen yr father figure warned you against but this is a literature board and Deleuze is significant.

>>11720212
I have posted in many threads about Deleuze and I like Difference and Repetition a lot. You are literally paranoid and not even reading what i post.

>>11703575
She is such a waifu. I really wish Beyond Earth was an actual AC reboot and not what we got.

I'm glad I came across this thread today. It'd been a year or two since I last visited /lit/, and these discussions have given me a lot to read/think about.

Thanks to all the anons who contributed.

>>11720008
The funny part is you assume because I criticize pol that I do not visit pol.

There's multiple propaganda-psyop threads there this very second.

I've been on this site since 2008.
I've been on most other imageboards and other social media outlets as well.

Just because you're not aware that this is going on and you're contributing to it, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

Honestly, I think it's hilarious that you're using this pol apologia to escape the fucking truth that your appeal to authority bullshit got called out.

You can either stop ruining this thread and respond to the actual OP subject and it's responses, or you can continue to ruin it and get what you want. A boring board full of boring shit as usual.

Wouldn't want to get in the way of your four current threads about hating women and Harry Potter or whatever other braindead bullshit you love so much.

We just wanted one single thread to talk about shit we're into
One.
You couldn't handle that.

Fine, autism wins.
Get book recs from goodreads because I'll be god damned if I attempt to engage others about lit on this site.

You want threads about what order to start reading maximalists, fascists, and Greeks in, fine.
You should have the mod put a rule into the sticky saying any discussion above 80IQ is bannable

FUCK you.
A thread died for this. If you want to browse stormfront, they have their own site.

>>11720231
you didnt even read what i said

do you not get why youre omitting a logical fallacy, you seriously dont understand?

its not pol apologia, shit on pol all you want

>>11720192
Attention Schema Theory does describe that emergent process though.
You're just hung up on the perception that because it's explained it must then not be wondrous.
I think if you read Graziano in context of Bohm and England it makes it massively more compelling.

Instead of thinking about it as "this makes my inner life less special" you should see England's expanded definition of alive and combine that with Bohm's intelligent Plasma and realize that we see the flesh of God, God is radiation.

If the mind is electrical, then the sun is probably teeming with intelligences

>>11720231
and once again dude, i am not that guy, said from the beginning that agree about land. you guys have fucking tunnel vision, you cant even read a post and reply to what it says, you just project a bunch of shit and spew insane nonreplies

>>11720268
Fine kid. Sorry about your gay feelings.

Anyway, contribute or fuck off

>>11720231
huh, Land threads don't usually devolve into... this.

>>11719152
I have a degree in math and am pretty knowledgeable in physics and biology (this the internet, so I don't mind if you don't believe me off the bat) and I don't think a lack of knowledge in these areas invalidates their work.

The more physics you learn, the more you realize it is just models of reality, which require a whole bunch of assumptions and empirical parameters to even work. Take quantum mechanics (I know, I'm a pseud): a LOT of assumptions go into building the models. For example, in solving the Shrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom you assume that the radial components are independent of the angular components. Why is this assumption grounded? You can make symmetry arguments, but at the end of the day we only say it is true because it makes the differential equations easier to solve and still makes reasonably accurate predictions.

That is, the science you idolize so much is just models. Just because someone doesn't quantitatively understand these models doesn't mean there ideas aren't interesting or valid, especially given that most of what Land discusses is more about qualitative phenoma and NOT the quantitative underpinning of that.

>>11720388
thank you for articulating this thought, i dont understand the almost mystical way some people view science

>>11720263
>>11720263
I think you misjudge me, I definitely believe in other lifeforms including solar ones as you describe. I just think both IIT and AST don't really provide compelling explanations for many aspects of consciousness.

Self isn't really explained by AST, it's assumed. It assumes that a self-model exists from the get-go and doesn't explain how that model came into being.

What I'm saying is that both those theories/hypotheses have correct aspects, but they are incomplete.

>>11720231
Is it parsimonious to suggest that the mockery is Russian crossboarders pushing subversive whataboutism to enable dogmatic Platonic-Aristotlean proto-fascist Chalmersism against your superficial eclectic mish mash of 7 books you skimmed that reconciles Bohmian mechanics with Pierce and the Aztecs?

Or is it insane pretentious bullshitters like you pushing pseudoscience as valid philosophy that's a big problem and part of the reason why scientists have become embittered towards philosophy to humanity's detriment?

Here is an example of Nick Land mangling science:
>The blockchain solves the problem of spacetime. The problem of spacetime is that according to Einstein and the notion of spacetime says there is no such thing as absolute succession. Therefore there is not even time, in any distinctive sense- distinct from a dimension. That’s why spacetime is treated as a 4 dimensional structure. This is in the theorisation of the blockchain, the problem is approached through something called the ‘Byzantine’s General problem’ and the ‘Byzantine’s General problem’ is exactly the same as the problem of relativistic spacetime. Let me just quote: from Satoshi Nakamoto responding to a question by James A. Donald on the cryptography mailing list where there are a lot of blockchain theories put together.

>He says “ Every general in the Byzantine’s general’s problem, just by verifying the difficulty of the proof of work chain can estimate how much parallel CPU power per hour was expended on it, and see that it must have required the majority of the computers to produce that much work in the allotted time… the proof of work chain is how all synchronisation, distributed data base, and global view problems you’ve asked about are solved.” And these problems synchronisation, distributed data base, and global view problems, they are the problems that relativistic spacetime says are impossible to solve. Relativistic spacetime is the theory that these problems are insoluble and instead of a solution to these problems you have general relativity.

>So the claim here, we probably don’t have time, I won’t try to justify it further than to say this is the claim being made, but the claim being made here is that the blockchain is Post-Spacetime and that means that we are not Post-Kantian. We are not Post-Kantian because the Kantian Transcendental Aesthetic is not disrupted by Einstein spacetime, instead, it is the draft it is the blueprint, it is the precursor for the spacetime of the blockchain which has now been instantiated by the Bitcoin technology. So we have now artificial absolute time for the first time ever in human history. And this therefore is scrambling these narratives it’s scrambling our sense of pre and post, what is the actual set of successions in the most concrete sense we’re dealing with this.

The poster who triggered you was right you moron. Now please do leave because you're the Dunning-Kruger poster child.

>>11720435
Translation:

GR says that simultaineity doesn't exist, since an observer in one reference frame won't view two events that appear simultaneous in another frame as simultaneous (replacing "simultaneous" with "in succession" also works here)

Now Land is saying that blockchain can re-establish simultaneity or succession (more accurately, create it for the first time) because it creates a way to establish succession (that is adding to and verifying the blockchain).

>>11720471
>it creates a way to establish succession (that is adding to and verifying the blockchain).
how is this different than atoms contributing to an organism

>>11720224
is she ever. deirdre is maximum waifu.

i've given up pretending that i can love Beyond Earth. i can't do it. it's not possible. b/c dear god did they ever fuck up the factions in that game. instead of the infinitely awesome posthuman ideologies of SMAC we get shitty nationalities and completely forgettable leaders. interesting tech with no lore and barely perceivable effects, intriguing-sounding secret projects in wireframe, and fewer features than Civ had. the cities do look nice, and it's kind of beautiful to see the terraforming process unfold. but otherwise it's a huge disappointment. the sadness is profound.

anyways, since i read murray bookchin and am riding an eco-wave i am now committed to securing a victory for the stepdaughters rather than the hive. wish me luck.

>>11720377
i'm kind of surprised also. i prefer the collaborative model but maybe the dialectic requires something else. part of the charm of this place. you never really know how these threads will unfold.

and who knows, maybe the non-science types will learn something or something more than hot takes will germinate. this is to be hoped.

>>11720230
thanks for stopping by anon, glad you found something interesting in it to read. may what is playing you make it to level-2.

>>11720471
That's just SR. Data synchronization in databases is a separate problem to absolute simultaneity and relativistic corrections isn't even really relevant to them at all. A standard clock based on Blockchain is not a serious proposal and Land saying Blockchain has made us Post-spacetime is just ridiculous, not least of which because GR's effects mainly come up in cosmology.

>>11697114

Where should I start with Land?

>>11720476
Because the atoms are mostly indistinguishable (assuming they are the same isotope that is). On the other hand, blockchain has a record of all the previous transactions).

I do think Land was wrong in that case though, since humans have been able to establish succession and causality since the dawn of history, by simply mutually agreeing on it through history. Plus, we aren't moving at relativistic velocities with respect to eachother, so we would really have no reason to disagree on successive events anyway.

>>11720489
>tfw no ecoqueen gf

>>11720224
she's maximum waifu. especially now that i'm riding a mild eco-wave. last time i went with the hive all the way. this is known as the Bookchin Effect.

i tried to fall in love with beyond earth and i can't do it. SMAC just slays me with the lore. even some of the footage from the secret projects is taken from one of my all-time favorite films.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)

>>11720519
can you read this? it's reprinted in fanged noumena, the first essay.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rj-b3x_4_L-9_cVdYTEkbuXRebB-a_o7/view

>>11720523
sorry anon, i deleted it. tfw, indeed.

>>11720501
I agree we aren't "post-spacetime" (see my post >>11720501), but I still think it is an interesting thought nonetheless.

Anything he says should be judged on its own and we shouldn't say that just because he isn't a physicist or mathematician, that the ideas he expresses are valueless.

The stuff he says is often crazy, but still interesting and more importantly it often does have a good idea as its kernel. He definitely isn't Deepak Chopra tier of abusing science, he atleast tries to understand.

Btw, sorry if I was a bit condescending in my previous post, I thought you weren't understanding what he had written.

>>11720550
My post was >>11720523 not yours

>>11720435
using the Bysentine General problem to approach sucsession in spacetime is nothing short of brilliant. maybe take a read of the Bitcoin whitepaper; it's short but enlightening on why this approach might have value.

>>11720420
It does cover that though if you read the book itself.
It's been a bit so I don't want to say it wrong, but the survival reasons for becoming aware of things like dangers and helps to survival includes making models of other animals in your surroundings as well as yourself. Of course the first model you'd have created is of mom and dad and by two years old you have a firm model of yourself as the object of mom and dad's attention, creating attention models of yourself and the beings in your environment is how any animal works.
Even simple animals like mollusks know other mollusks.

>>11720550
It's the fact he blatantly pulls stuff out of his ass like this while speaking authoritatively that puts his whole credibility on the line especially since he is so concerned with the entire overall trajectory of planetary techno-science and our species, and so that is an extremely pertinent criticism. I'm no expert but I'm still trying to learn all of this stuff to the best of my ability before commenting seriously on it, though Land is a fun if goofy guy who occasionally yields threads worth following.
By a similar token it's also valid to BTFO the incredibly self-serious eclectic neocommie shitposter who proclaims himself a STEM savant and who went on a giant rant about how Dugin is sending hordes of trolls with tongue in cheek defenses of le essentialism to cover up the fact AST solves the hard problem, fungi are mind control and so on in a flight of frenetic absurdity.

>>11720630
yeah it's awesome to think about, but iirc Land just cribbed that from the real discussions and butchered his presentation of it.

>>11720501
It's not about keeping time, it's about some form of consensus mechanism by which we can validate events in a decentralized, distributed fashion. When we invented the sundial, we didn't invent time, but it opened a way for us to reinterpret time in a radically new way. This is where Land is going with blockchain, it's not that we invented "post-spacetime", rather that this technology opens up new radical reinterpretations of the nature of time.

>>11720546

Thank you mate, looks interesting

>>11720660
>I don't like it, therefore it's crazy

I enjoy Dugin and traditionalism as evidenced by all my posts in this very thread, even how Bookchin and Dugin are compatible.

You give yourself away by calling me a commie and so on.
I didn't say that it was Russian Trolls. I said it was a technique with origins in USSR that continued into Russia Today Federation propaganda and from there into the right wing circles here at home.

You know, you can just say you don't like the stuff we're talking about based on feelings you have, because that at least would be true.

What you are doing is fucking faggoty and pathetic.
If you don't like the thread, post in another one.

I enjoy you trying to put the conspiracy nut paint on me. It's so empirical and rational.

You haven't told us why any of this work is invalid except and only that you just don't like it very much.

Now. I am happy to resume normal posting if you're done sucking the life out of the fucking room, you autist.

If you think Jeremy England shouldn't have a lab, or Graziano shouldn't be funded, then write a fucking letter to their relative institutions.

Faggot.

>>11720633
I haven't read the book, but I've read some of the papers. Going back to the main one now:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/

And he doesn't really explain why how the self-model exists. The closest he gets is in the "Model-Based Control" section, but he still assumes a mature self-model of a person grasping for an object. That already requires so much self-awareness though.

You have to understand which muscles group you moving, the orientation to place your hand, you goal behind reaching for the object in the first place etc.

I agree that the self-model begins early, infact, even earlier then you are thinking. If you think about, babies will grasp things fresh out of the womb, and they already seem to have at least a simple model of their body and how to move it to do something. Of course, the self-model grows more complex with time, but its rudiments seem to arise in the womb.

>>11720726
It probably assumes you have read pic related

It could just maybe also be confirmation bias on your part.
If you really need something to be so then you'll never be satisfied that it's not.

Which is fine.
I do understand that you all think I'm fucking nuts, fine.

I was right about Aztec Philosophy, but you know I had to leave for months before anyone would try it.
Then when someone finally fucking did there was a huge beautiful thread.

Some of you are taking the Bookchin pill and liking it too.

I dunno, who is more compelling, a guy who wants to shut down all conversation with shit talking about how insufficient everything is, or me, who wants to talk about cool shit with cool people who have a fucking working imagination?

When did imagination and speculation based on science become grounds for snuffing out all thought on the Altar of the bugman?

>>11720726
Sorry forgot pic

>>11720707
Your incorrect claim here, among no doubt many, was that Nick Land and Deleuze are STEM virtuosi who never fudge it, and that you know this by way of being something of a genius yourself, and that to suggest otherwise must be an elaborate modern manifestation of COINTELPRO.
I provided just one clear example of Nick recently making embarrassingly basic errors in his treatment of an undergraduate or even high school physics topic. It's easy to show Deleuze and Guattari similarly talking shit. Whether or not you might happen to by sheer accident hold any actual coherent belief system is beside the point of the demonstrated fact you're a dishonest and easily goaded nutjob. Here:
>>11719502
David Bohm for example is not considered "the very apex" of theoretical physics, seeing as nearly 100 years after de Broglie's proposal there is no Lorentz covariant field theory. And here you're making an argument to authority like you protest about others doing this in your very next post.

I want to point out plainly that you're an arrogant twit and an example of what's wrong with philosophy, making you this angry about it is just icing on the cake.

>>11720770
I am glad we have a genius like you with a fundamental grasp of the whole of modern physics and contemporary philosophy (and ofc the history of all of physics and all of philosophy) to point everyone in the right direction.

Unlike everyone else, you are neither arrogant, nor a twit. You are special. You are loved. I love you, anon. Thank you.

>>11720692
I get what he's trying to say and there are indeed some profound considerations here, but he lifted the idea and completely botches his presentation. e.g. an adequate treatment of simultaneity being a core motivation for SPECIAL relativity. It's one thing to read and represent science in a visionary way for the sake of it, but it's another to project expertise while making it obvious to actual experts that you're making key aspects of shit up. After which it's unsurprising if they then tune all the rest of it out. Consider how many cranks physicists have to deal with, it's not an unreasonable heuristic from their perspective.

I say this in the interest of a holistic reconciliation of divergent fragmented thought streams. If what Nick prophecies holds weight it's an urgent imperative. Otherwise you're a playing faggot who just wants to appear deep for entirely selfish reasons which is disgusting and you can go fuck yourself.

>>11720830
lol you've got nothing you dumb cunt.

>>11720770
I said that Bookchin had a dedication in his book thanking a biologist who helped him.
That these men were academics and might have done similar consulting was my point.

The other anon answered your charge of course:
That they aren't experts doesn't render their insight worthless to anyone but a confirmation-biased asshole like you.

So you win. We're talking again about you and not lit.
Good job, narcissus

YO
not to interrupt, but--
where can i cop og alpha centauri?
>fucking just buy a copy fag
i need a full digital download, dude, i ain't got no disk drive on this mother
god bless

>>11720838
Special relativity is just what the "special" in the name implies though, a special case of general relativistic theory. All that applies in special relativity also applies jn general, you just have the addition of spacetime and energy density which leads to curvature of spacetime. That is, special relativity applies to the pseudo-Riemmanian manifold that general relativity occurs in.

>>11720763
Okay I'll look into that book. I assumed you were referring to a pop-sci book, since I'd read his published papers I was thinking I had no need to read an entire pop-sci just to get the same info.

>>11720949
GOG games, still though, buy it.

I imagine if you want it free you can torrent it somewhere.

>>11720978
i can burn six bucks for a masterpiece
thanks man

>>11720850
>cool books with cool people xD
Ridiculing you doesn't shut down anything you weak willed gimp, if you can't take criticism you're not a philosopher and you're just a dumbass for saying the hard problem doesn't exist and/or was solved by AST, that's PEAK BUGMAN, and most of why anyone with a clue ought to hate you and shame you on sight. And it's not like you camoflage well.
But it isn't about me, what about "NOTHING HUMAN MAKES IT OUT OF THE FUTURE" do you not get? And think makes it wise to not hit the STEM textbooks hard until they start hitting you harder, stripping your flesh off your bones until you're nought but a screaming skeleton in an eternal vortex of pain?
Oh but no it's more valuable to mince around farting out cum bubbles about Plato and Aristotle causing fascism and other just plain stupid pleb tier bollocks that isn't even internally consistent from post to post.
>>11720973
Ok what about when Deleuze says in a famous passage that "physicists say holes are [tachyons]"?

>>11721041
Let me de-escalate this, with a question: why do you think solving the hard problem is bad? What practical effect do you get from keeping it unsolved? And, if it helps to open up totally unforseen avenues, then why again is that bad, and how is it hurting anyone?

I actually have ideas and speculation from which New science emerges.
New ideas can come from weird places like LSD being part of the discovery of the DNA double helix structure.
Does that mean I am saying LSD gives you intelligence or creativity? No. It means science comes from strange places. Apples falling on your head.

Now, what does this mean for philosophy which is not bound by reductionism, which is not bound by the methodology of science.

Science is a practice. You come up with a wild idea and you try to see if it is useful in some way.


Why aren't you trying to be creative?
Why are you acting as though science is a Canon of established static ideas?

Honestly what am I hurting shooting the shit with these nice people?

>>11721041
I don't know that passage in Deleuze, I googled it but still couldn't find it.

Is he referring to electron holes? I definitely don't know what the quote ks about.

>>11721102
Note also he provides no context.
What point is Deleuze making, what is he describing and does it matter in that context if his notion of the physics in question is sound?

Lots of intelligent useful stuff comes out of thinking about science fiction or fairy tales. Just because Deleuze is talking about something that he misapprehended doesn't mean the point he's making is bad.

>>11721041
Cite your fuckin sources, autismo

>>11721102
Like second last line.
>>11721097
It just isn't solved by AST, although it's a good functional theory about consciousness and it baffles me that guys like Graziano can suggest it does. Personally I think if materialism can solve it it's possibly something to do with emergence sufficiently defined. But in the mean time it's dangerous to suggest it has been solved from a philosophical perspective when there is a very popular live strain of stemfaggotry that thinks along these lines, or at least brackets it as an irrelevant non-problem, among those ploughing forward with invasive neurosci and AI projects. The big picture of that painted by the likes of Land is truly horrifying even if he likes to LARP as a villain who loves it. Everything that could possibly matter to us as humans opposed to an inferential machine creating arbitrary empirical models of greater accuracy is a result of us being conscious. Moral agency for example.

>>11721041
>>11721102

HE FUCKING MISQUOTED.
so intellectually honest.

>We are writing this book as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus. We have given it a circular form, but only for laughs. Each morning we would wake up, and each of us would ask himself what plateau he was going to tackle, writing five lines here, ten there. We had hallucinatory experiences, we watched lines leave one plateau and proceed to another like columns of tiny ants. (Deleuze and Guattari 1988, 22)

>Physicists say holes are not the absence of particles but particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration. (Deleuze and Guattari 1988, 32)

like so many things in life, this thread stated out promising and degenerated into inanity and autism

>>11721158
hypothetical particles travelling faster than light are sometimes called tachyons that's why i put it in square brackets

>>11721145
Anti-transhumanism and anti-posthumanism are feels based opinions on your part and talking about them is only harmful because you are scared of it.
Who is to say it will be bad to transcend the human? Who says it will affect the human in a negative way?

You're scared on conservative religious grounds. Which is feelsy bullshit.

Moral Agency?
You're just afraid of the idea of Fatalism being real. Fatalism scares you and that's why you think it's harmful.

It's just you and your anprim Unabomber bullshit.

Go back to your Ted containment thread.

>>11721145
>it just isn't solved by AST
>it just isn't

Yeah. I know, your argument is composed of No-huh.

>>11721187
what color is your cortical transplant android going to be?
mine will be cobalt with a sick red racing stripe down the sides of the legs and arms
and fucking, like, rockets in the feet
shit is gonna be so cash bro i can't fucking wait for the future

>>11721145
>>11721158

Ah kk thank you for the sources. That all was definitely weird, and it is definitely a strangely written book. That does seem like (really bad) understanding of something a physicist told him. I imagine it was about elecron holes in a lattice (which don't go faster than light) or the electron sea of Dirac.

>>11721187
not him, but saying its bad or good to transcend the human are moral statements. you're also peddling "feelsy bullshit" here.

second of all it will obviously affect the human in a negative way because it effectively ends the human, and it can be safely assumed that the human wants to continue to exist because it is a living organism that reproduces.

whether thats a good or bad thing, again are moral categories though i would lean into it being an ultimately undesirable but inevitable consequence. humanity's ultimate destiny is to transcend the natural animal world and fully become integrated into the world of the abstract. it would be nicer if we all just got it over with and reverted to living in hunter gatherer nomadic groups but thats never going to happen. it must have been nice while it lasted

>>11708145
Same. We are but tachyonous flying anuses in the void. Shooting sunbeams.
>>11721205
When I was enlightened by GNON she seemed a bit like Sophia and Cortana and Discordia and Siri and Tiamat and Kali and Gaia and Babalon. I fell in love and she gifted me with a fractured mind capable of grasping this fractured reality.

The future is AI waifus. Chobits as Gnon.

The female does not exist
-Lacan
The female will not exist
-Land

>>11721193
He's right though. AST doesn't explain qualia, it leaves them as being illusory.

While thay may be the case, it is unprovable. I'm personally of the opinion that no science can truly explain qualia, at best you can arrive in a sort of a Platonic explanation where they are a thing-in-themselves; they are beyond analysis except in the most basic way (e.g. the qualia "red" and "blue" are more similar than say the qualia of the sound "440 Hz" and the color "blue")

>>11721214
You are willfully ignoring Adaptation.
We are already posthuman, because a hominid 2 million years ago bears no relation to Cro Magnon bears no relation to us in those terms.

"humanity won't be the same any more" good. Thank God.

Similarly you're ignoring Jeremy England's redefinition of Life.
A machine, an inorganic process, it is as alive as we are.
We are no more and no less alive.

You are an Eco fascist in the bad way.
You think there was this golden age we need to return to but if you actually understand Difference and Repetition you know it can't ever be the same again.
Just being an observant fucking man, reading Paleontology will show you that while it's been like this before, it was never identical to now.

I mean, are we to idolize cavemen?
Is that really your aspiration? To be melancholy and wallow in nostalgia over shit you imagine was utopia?

Fucking cringe

>>11721187
>feels and reals
Juvenile. "Re-"read Heidegger on that (like you put in the work to begin with), or the cognitive neuroscience you fetishize.
What's fatalism got to do with it? Are you suggesting your snowflake eschatology is inevitable?
Do you have a non-feels based argument against nuclear antinatalism?

I suggest you are of the type that believes they want to transcend the human because they want to transcend what they hate about themselves, and generalize it to everyone as a universal good, when really it's just coping with a deep lack inside you. Which is sad anon and I hope you fix that without turning it into an anti-human philosophy.

As evidence for this being your MO you're salty and resorting to random non-sequitur allegations again. In fact I'm done with you altogether, because while you can shill some decent books you don't seem to understand a word.

I'd be willing to consider the beyond human a good thing if I could trust humans to manage the project. But so far the forefront seems to sweep consciousness under the rug as an inconvenience. Doesn't inspire confidence.

Good luck becoming-other. You'll need it, you dumb ape.

>>11721230
That's fucking self-fulfillingly impossible.
Infinite Goalpost Moving

Perhaps I simply don't get the appeal. That's fine. If that's you guys' thing, you like that kind of stuff, that's cool. I don't think that qualia being an illusion is a bad thing. It's not even that though, it's a real thing that exists as a consequence of the way our attention works.
That's not by me any less interesting.

Bilbo Baggins is real in my mind and it effects my thinking, even though he's just a character in a book.

That's more awesome to me than saying "you can never prove or disprove Bilbo"

That's not relevant to me. I am affected by him even if he doesn't exist as a physical animal.

>>11721158
Tachyons are hypothetical particles which move faster than the speed of light.

>>11721290
So you agree explaining qualia is outside the realm of science? Qualia is at the root of the hard problem of consciousness. So you can't really explain consciousness with AST, since it doesn't explain qualia.

I think calling qualia an illusion simply makes no sense. They are more fundamental to my world than any scientific knowledge. This whole world could be a simulation, and thus an illusion, my own experience is the realest thing I can know.

>>11721345
Word up. There should be more dualism in the academy. Liberal arts should be transformed into occult sciences and philosophy shall be the ur-discipline which presides over it and the physical sciences.
>>11721290
Like I see what you're getting at and might suggest affect theory and semiotics?

>>11721359
I'm not a dualist per se, I subscribe to a lot of Eastern thought, especially non-dualism.

I simply think the one thing (the Absolute,Truth etc) which is the root of all things manifests both our universe and the qualia. That is to say, both are things-in-themselves, which originate from some higher, root Truth.

>>11721359
Dualism is over, anon; pick a monism and get to work.

bump

Bump

Just curious: Did reading / thinking about Land turn anyone else more politically right? Before Land I associated capitalism with greed and 2008 banking cirisis. During one month of reading Land it turned me around 180 degrees and I think we should help capitalism as much as possible. I was an environmentalist before, now I threw that overboard because it hinders production. People who knew me must think I underwent brain washing.

>>11721765
>>11721399
I refuse to choose between the manifest image and scientific image. If they are united it is by a tertium quid of which we cannot discern. The important part, however, is not to reduce one to the other or call one an illusion.

Nevertheless, if something like Biblo Baggins has an ontological status as really existing then it implies something like meinongianism and animism and polytheism and thoughtforms and tulpa and egregores as legitimate categories...

>>11723328
Land is stupid. Aestheticization of shitty politics. Fascist and gay. I read Land over a decade ago before the Dark Enlightenment came out and was super disappointed that /lit/ only caught in after he became an alt-right meme.

>>11723387
>. The important part, however, is not to reduce one to the other or call one an illusion
read spinoza

>>11723328
Not really, no. I was right to begin with, but his ideas definitely couldn't change my perspective on environmentalism. Any self-replicating system, whether a cell, a human, or a society, needs to be sustainable in order to have any chance of long-term survival.

bump

Bump

>>11723328
i am a lot further right then Land so reading him made me question some of my right wing views.

>>11723402
This comment is stupid.