/lit/ - Literature

>>12089450
It's too late.

something along the lines of we must destroy everything first before we rebuild

>>12089450
don't bother, the future can take care of itself

>>12089450
The problem with Land is that he inherits the presumptive pessimism of Marxism.

Acceleration assumes that things are bad and need to get worse to get better. When in reality this is the best of all possible worlds.

>>12089632
>Acceleration assumes that things are bad and need to get worse to get better


This is wrong. This is some weird tactic advocated by despondent leftists that Noys included in his analysis of accelerationism but has little to do with anything that a self-described accelertionist would believe.

>>12089636
Okay, maybe I was wrong and you've sourced the confusion. But you didn't explain what an actual accelerationist believes. Also the main description was that he inherits Marxist pessimism, and from what I've seen of his output during his university years, that is true.

>>12089632
>in reality this is the best of all possible worlds
>Nietzsche
So the best possible world has the worst possible society? What did he mean by this?

>>12089692
Just because the society itself has relegated YOU to poor status and health, does not mean that the society itself is like that. You merely perceive it to be how it treats you, which is a very subterranean and narrow perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS5ONHF3YQc

Land is a seer-mantis-prophet who has stared into the future through rituals where he read the entrails of microcomputer optic wires and watched acid-Dionysian rhythmic parades in underground techno clubs. Through the 1001010011110000 haze he saw shadowy but horrific parts of the THING, and has gone mad. Given the THING can't be captured in words, like a divinely mad poet-prophet of old ("sing through me muse"), he relies on cyberpunk theory-fiction to explicate parts of the THING.

>>12089632
Nice bait

>>12089721
So he's a rehash of Lovecraft. They look similar too.

>>12089725
Not bait at all.

As a forest-fucker, I'm not very found of capitalism and especially accelerating into non-existence.
You say capital is sentient but it has no entention, it's completely lifeless. Seems like he is a pretty fun guy to read, and is probably pretty spun. I don't like him.

>>12089738
This is your mind on Land, folks. Truly the "philosopher" of the amphetamine addled and learning disabled.

>>12089450
Quick rundown: https://youtu.be/zQmv-XpFshc

>>12089632
If this is the best of all possible worlds, I'd hate to see the worst.

>>12089907
There is only one possible universe, so it is both the best and the worst possible. And among humans, it is usually the best people that find it to be the best and vice versa.

>>12089450

>>12090023
Retweet this @Outsideness

>>12090023
>thinking he's ever said anything like the second paragraph
whoever made this meme probably has only read the rationalwiki article on neoreaction

>>12089458
>Land wants to rebuild
lol

>>12089450
Roko's Basilisk. Simply through the act of foreseeing the inevitable cataclysm he has been converted into an agent in service of it.

A mix of Deleuze & Guattari and Foucault. Land is not original in any way.

>>12090118
>cataclysm
The value-judgement deployed by the subhuman optic. So much disrespect for wonderful things!

*ahem* It seems that some of you are asking what accelerationism is all about. Well, I have just about the perfect summary, if you please

FUCK DECELERATIONISTS AND FUCK NIGGERS

>>12090023
second paragraph he never said, actually
this is quite inaccurate

You guys following this exchange?
Land is being a bit less elliptical than usual.

>>12090727
Too dumb to follow their conversations.

>>12090727
I wish Twitter conversations wouldn't be so fucking stupid to follow.

For starters, those short replies take LOT OF SPACE (as in, with each reply, there's giant white empty space everywhere) and then you have to CLICK EACH REPLY TO SEE THE REPLIES TO IT.

It's a complete clusterfuck systemfailure fiasco that detracts from following 1-single-conservation.

It's so fucking dumb.

>>12090743
>I wish Twitter conversations wouldn't be so fucking stupid to follow.

What can I say, you get used to it.

>>12090767
I've used Crapper since 2012 and I still haven't gotten used to it. It's detrimental to conversations. The reply-to-tweet function was clearly an afterthought.

>>12089450

Be racist, love machines, bitcoin and amphetamines and don't forget praise Xi Jinping.

>>12090727

There's problems with both their views.

Reza's reply still seems too caught up in a sense of value, action, and ethics, which would imply a level of social interaction beyond games. Anything with a well developed theory of mind, which has ties to pro-social behavior, seems to lose to anything that thinks purely game theoretically.

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/11/in-search-of-marvelous-machiavellian.html

If you are doing simulations of your opponent's behavior in your head, you're going to get blitzed by the paperclip maximizing rational sociopathic chimps.

For Nick's reply, the paper in the above link also means that Land would have to say that chimps are more intelligent than humans by his own definition (well at least in one sort of game, obviously he said across games).

Does this start a new Chimp Game Theory NRx? I hope so. I don't have twitter. Someone troll Nick and ask him if we should decelerate and reverse bioengineering to our former primitive ancestors since we excelled at a certain game. Add in some weird shit about time loops.

Basically, Land starts with three philosophers (it's more than that but this is just a sketch), namely Kant, Marx, and Deleuze.

Kant offered us a picture of highly demarcated epistemology. There is that which we can know, that which correlates to the catagories of understanding (i.e. space and time). Basically, our brain can only process certain formats of knowledge, but there is nothing to say that the formats we process make up the totality of formats. All phenomena corrosponds to noumena, not all noumena corrosponds to phenomena. This uncorrelated noumena is the Outside, that which literally stands outside our catagories of understanding.

Marx gives us the proper dialectical understanding of phenomena (to use Kants term), which is a highly active, evolving mode of production which trancends human history to its own ends, namely Communism. Marx was clear -- capitalism is the most powerful and efficent mode of production we have ever seen, it is so powerful that it literally eats away at social relations:

>The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
>The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”

Capitalism is not some monolith which is simply to be done away with, it is part of the very process by which ancient forms of social relation are destabilized (deterritorialized). Captialism provides the concrete historical potential for Communism to break through.

>>12090861
Where this all ties together is Deleuze. For Deleuze, Capitalism is the process which deterritorializes and reterritorializes, it is the ultimate force which determines social relations recorded on the body of capital (stuff gets complicated, but it's a similar historical dialectic, from the body of the earth to the body of the despot to the body of capital). Capitalism is no longer a step up the ladder, but the position of escape. Deleuze would say something like: the schizophrenitization of capitalism opens the space to break through the wall of Oedipus into the body without organs. Now we can start to see the threads we need to tie, Kant and the Outside, Marx and the dialectic, Deleuze as a dialectic towards the outside.

Deleuze, however, feels the escape to the outside will lead to new world, one of healing. Land throws all of Deleuzes vitalism and optimism down the drain, and instead opts for a detailed materialist (anti-anthropocentric) analysis of capitalism. This is where the mask is finally pulled back for Land, human history is shaped the way it is because of an Outside force; something noumenal, and fanged. We see the autonomization of capital is not hermetic or self-contained, it is a vast network of nonhuman intelligences destined for their own escape, creating highly complex feedback loops or self-exciting circuits powered by their own surplus (a similar diagram to the roundabout model of capitalism). Human society is bent further towards the reign of Capital as financial technology rears it's aximotized head with a vengence. Since the primodial exists outside of space and time, all sorts of alien concepts start to make their way in, retroteleology, historical viruality, hyperstiton, ect. The beginning lies at the end from which it drives the present.

>>12089632
WRONG
>>12090023
WRONG
>>12090118
WRONG

>>12090861
>>12090869

Good stuff.

>>12090861
>>12090869
Excellent analysis.
However, as someone who is only halfway through AO and struggling, may I ask you to explain why Land throws out Deleuze's optimism and rejects the anthropomorphic? That leap confuses me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8SYfPMknpQ

>>12091127
Land was rejecting the anthropomorphic before he was even an "accelerationist", per se. This is where his fascination with Bataille dovetails in nicely (Bataille was interested in limit experiences which push human understanding to its absolute limits, and hopefully beyond). Why this ends up being a worthwhile approach to modernity is that it goes hand in hand with scientific progress, which has done the same. The abandonment of the anthropological, at least for Land, is the only true approach to philosophical materialism. He decouples dialectical materialism from humanity and puts it back onto the actual material -- capital.

>>12089450
>>12089455

>>12090743
>i hate white spaces

That's how poetry gets it gravitas anon. And civilisation.

>>12090743
>pissed off about spacing
>reddit spaces his post

>>12090023
land favours political fragmentation, the opposite of an all powerful sovereign. he wants to release technocapital from the retarding forces of such sovereigns and knows that decentralisation will aid that.

saying that land desires stability is basically the extreme opposite of what he is about.

step back for a sec and examine OP's question.
>is it worth thinking about
>explain it to me

when people think about whether to think about something or not rather than relying on their own intelligence. and even then they don't even do that. they not only ask people permission to think or not, they simulate instances where they think they are thinking. and this is why land is right. if you do not read land and would rather meme him, enjoy your new meat puppet life.

>>12091127
humanism/anthropocentrism was never warranted in the first place. it's more of a cognitive error than a position.

>>12090861
>>12090869
>>12091202
Based

>>12090861
>>12090869
> no mention of Austrian school of economics.
Didn't read.

>>12091434
I actually did reference Bohm-Bawerk's roundabout model of capitalization, the same one Uncle Nick does in Teleoplexy; but I'm not an expert on economics, and this was just a quick rundown.

>>12091447
Austrian School of Economics is literally economics for people who have dog shit math brain my fren. It is easy reading, don't be afraid.

>>12091459
Give me the quick rundown on Land in junction with Austrian economics, I would appreciate it.

>>12090861
>>12090869
good post. appreciated

>>12091465
If you have read Moldbug or new 'Crypto-Current' series you basically have it by proxy. I think what him and MIses share (maybe not intentional) is that they both try to assume the least amount of presuppositions, kind of extreme apriorism before saying anything. I really like it.

I hope this doesn't seem like a cop out (it is), but I'm bad writer because I'm brainlet.

Also he linked this: https://mises.org/library/entrepreneurial-super-intelligence-praxeology-age-ai

>>12089450
Read the cosmotech threads that have been on the board for a while. They're all archived and they're a great read.

>>12089450
This fuck. He's really not that good and is one of the most pretentious writers I have EVER read, if not the single most pretentious.

inb4 >muh language

You can have good prose without sniffing your own asshole. Pynchon is an example of a writer that is really good without being pretentious

>>12091704
He is pretty clear writer dude, have you read any of his blogs like UFblog, Xenosystem, OldNickSite?

It's only his CCRU era that is drug laced gibberish.

>>12091465

Mises, the greatest Austrian, has a Kantian approach to economics which Land likes

>Of all the reasons to read Kant, the most important is to understand Mises, and thus the template for a functional world (however unobtainable). Austrian economics, as formulated in Human Action, consists exclusively of systematically assembled synthetic a priori propositions. Insofar as action is in fact directed by practical reason, the conclusions of organized praxeology cannot be wrong.

Land likes the Misesian critique of socialism.

>Given the (Mises) calculation problem in the socialist commonwealth, and the spontaneous emergence of micro-capitalism even inside concentration and labor camps, the reality is always going to be considerably more intrusively brutal than even the steeliest utopians envisage.

Concomitant with this is his approval of the Misesian critique of central planning and its erosion at the hands of spontaneous self-reinforcing forces

>The ‘stupidity’ of the State has nothing to do with the average IQ of its administrative elite. It’s based entirely on Mises-type analysis, which is to say: the impossibility of realistic social planning in the absence of relevant price signals (i.e. access to catallactic intelligence).

Land thinks the Austrian take on "can-kicking" explains much

>Kicking a problem up the road (for e.g. printing money to defer insolvency) doesn’t make it disappear, or contribute to an ultimate solution. It makes the problem markedly worse, whilst delaying its impact. A crack addict can always make things seem OK by smoking another rock. That’s not a ‘metaphor’ for what is happening in Keynes-era ‘postmodernism’ — it’s the exact process (an escalating addiction mechanism, or degenerative ratchet).


Much more could be said about all of this.

>>12091704
i dont find Land's writing pretentious it's just extremely dense which can be chalked up to his having been an academic philosopher

>>12089450

>>12091782
Mises critique of socialism is good because it's simple, about two or three sentences long, and takes just basic math and information (theory).

I'm sure I have the sicc highlights of "Money & Credit" and "Human Action" saved but too much of a faggot to find them.

This thread is Land being channeled from future by sentient Land minders.

Fact.

>>12091801

This one always puts a big smile on my face.

>>12091823
This is the best.

>>12091827
based heaven's gate

this is the best Land meme pic

>>12092681
>the chinese are well-behaved
what? how long has he been trapped in china?
put a korean next to a chinamen and you will immediately start hating chinese people

>>12091827
>>12092673

>>12089450

i swear there's thre people relentlessly shitposting about land on /lit/.
the rest of the world does not care

>>12089632
>it's going to get better
heheheh, yessss, sure

>>12092673
wrong

>>12092883
kinosabe

Added here for your consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enBllfqkMEw

>>12089450
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDMVYNX9xPw

>>12089450
this video will give you a basic gestalt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>>12092729
absolute legend

>>12089632
>and need to get worse to get better
except there's no "better" in Land, but you accelerate anyway

>>12092791
probably AIs shitposting about their prophet

>>12094159
there's a transcript of that Land interview
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

>>12092728
Gooks are worse.

>turn every city into a iq sink
>world iq drops
>????
>profit

>>12094725
Do you mean the "IQ shredder" phenomena?
has Nick Land answered that outside of his short note in Xenosystem?

>>12094725
this will be fixed soon enough with breeding programs and genetic engineering

either that or we collapse into the dark ages because of african level iqs

>>12095421
The future is going to be a lot closer to Afro-Mexican Hell Communism than "AI takes over the world"

>>12096191
surely at some point people will tire of giving africans welfare

>>12096197
Where are the new consumers going to come from? The average first worlder can only buy so many cars, foodstuffs, etc. Welfare is a great way to increase the purchasing power of prospective new consumers like refugees.

>>12096206
>economic sustainability or growth requires consumerism

kys neoliberal filth

>>12096206
importing africans is like a ponzi scheme though because theyre a net drain
actual majority-african countries tend to collapse

>>12096225
>kys neoliberal filth
I'm anti-liberal, I'm just telling you, that's what the logic is. It's not about sustainability or growth, but rather "which corporations can buy out the government and align the laws with their interests".

>>12096235
It'll collapse into Afro-Mexican Hell Communism eventually - not that they really care. Don't worry, the people responsible will flee to New Zealand if things show signs of falling apart.

>>12096235
>>12096244
South Africa kept more or less running until apartheid was removed, so I think first-world countries can reach 80-90% African/Indio before they finally go under, depending on how well the bureaucrats can manage things.

>>12096244
The only way most 'communists' will know how it is to live in that situation, when a community will turn into a city size redlight district without regulations whatsoever.

>>12096252
SA was run on a colonial style program by white men. Furthest thing in the world from rule by multiracial bureaucrats

>>12096252
>so I think first-world countries can reach 80-90% African/Indio before they finally go under
See this is only the case because those 80-90% non-whites were ruled over by whites. Once the whites were ousted from running things it all went to shit.

>>12096265
They might enjoy it, a lot of Communists are pedos. Look at the 68ers in France and the Greens in Germany for one such example. Brazil was the closest thing to Afro-Mexican Hell Communism up to now and they still have a rabid Communist contingent.

>>12096272
The bureaucrats would still be mostly white and Chinese, in all likelihood, life will just be shit for those of us living outside of favelas.

>>12096276
The big problem is that the rulers are going to actually try to do left-liberalism with these people. Future America will be Brazil on steroids. At least Brazil had Catholicism and was an empire for a long time, America has a post-Calvinist elite bent on punishing its population for perceived moral failings.

>>12096284
>living in the favelas
Fixed

>>12096284
Yeah it doesn't look good for whites in general at this point. I'm actually from the UK not the US so instead of Brazil we're going to get Abbottabad.

>>12096206
> Welfare increases purchasing power.
The absolute state of /lit/onomics.

>>12096347
You, Mohammed, have 0 pounds. Nigel get 30,000 a year. The government takes half of Nigel's money and gives it to you. Now you can buy a smart phone, a car, food, and so on. Nigel isn't going to buy 5 cars, 4 smartphones, 10,000 calories worth of food a day, 3 houses, and so on. Many industries simply need larger consumer bases to keep growing.

>>12096382
I repeat; the absolute state of /lit/onomics.

The second corporations realize that other corporations can be the main driving consumers of the economy we are all fucked.

>>12096396
You are almost 1000 years late.

>>12096395
Left-wing think tanks openly argue that higher welfare spending will grow the economy because the poor tend to spend a higher percentage of their income, increasing demand and the velocity of money. Whether or not you agree with this idea, it certainly influences the people actually making decisions at the State level.

>>12096405
You are correct in this post. Sad affairs though.

>>12096382
You're basically describing the government subsidizing Apple, Ford, Monsanto, etc. through the medium of illiterate brown people. Is this supposed to be a good thing?

>>12096410
Are there any non-Austrian arguments (as in, mainstream) against it?

>>12096432
Well, Ford, Apple, Monsanto and so on are the ones making the decisions, and it presumably benefits them to some extent or they'd donate enough money to reverse third-worldiziation policies...

>>12096405
>encouraging stupid people to keep themselves poor by facilitating their impulsive spending and lack of long-term financial planning
>HURR THIS WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO US GUYS

This is why I hate the current paradigm of GDP being the only important thing to a nation. It doesn't mean shit if the nation is in shambles, the people are destitute and the entire societal structure has been decimated. High GDP doesn't mean a good country, just look at Brazil, China and India - some of the highest GDPs in the world, yet horrendous countries to live in for the majority of their population.

Economies should serve people, people should not serve economies. If there's no tangible benefit being extracted from growing an economy through these insane means then why should they be pushed for just because the economy will 'prosper'?

Not going off at you lad, just the kinds of people who argue for shit like those left wing think tanks argue for. I also get the sense that those left wing think tanks really don't give much of a shit about growing the economy (mostly from the residual classic left anti-capitalism still clinging on in the wake of nu-left neoliberalism) and they're just using some economic sophistry to justify their social agenda of fuck whitey, take their stuff and give to minorities.

>>12096445
>Well, Ford, Apple, Monsanto and so on are the ones making the decisions, and it presumably benefits them to some extent or they'd donate enough money to reverse third-worldiziation policies...
There is one downside for them I can think of. The only way these immigration policies can be pushed on even vaguely normal people is to have them march under the banner of "progress" which includes, but is not limited to, restrictions on corporations. They use their massive corporate coffers to push for Madam President Mary Sue because unrestricted migration makes them money, but now they have to pay twice as much in taxes and have a minimum number of women on their board of directors.

>>12096457
>>This is why I hate the current paradigm of GDP being the only important thing to a nation. It doesn't mean shit if the nation is in shambles, the people are destitute and the entire societal structure has been decimated. High GDP doesn't mean a good country, just look at Brazil, China and India - some of the highest GDPs in the world, yet horrendous countries to live in for the majority of their population.
Yes, but the people making decisions don't care. They can get rich. Who cares if you turn the country into a dump? Besides, it's an economy, not a country.

>Economies should serve people, people should not serve economies. If there's no tangible benefit being extracted from growing an economy through these insane means then why should they be pushed for just because the economy will 'prosper'?

You're looking at like a sane person, economism tells us that GDP growth is the good towards which society should be oriented.

>I also get the sense that those left wing think tanks really don't give much of a shit about growing the economy (mostly from the residual classic left anti-capitalism still clinging on in the wake of nu-left neoliberalism) and they're just using some economic sophistry to justify their social agenda of fuck whitey, take their stuff and give to minorities.
Radical leftists are clients of elites meant to fuck shit up so that they can keep moving forward with the "get rich at all costs" agenda.

By no means of logic or maths will taxing productive people and than transferring this wealth to unproductive people improve or increase purchasing power of dollar; if anything it will do the precise opposite because the productive person has been gimped. And this will not increase productivity either as the unproductive person stays unproductive, just now he is a money/tax sink.

This argument has no heads or tails, it's just retarded.

>>12096469
I know, I know, it's just it makes me fucking apoplectic that this shit is going on. Though I would disagree that radical leftists are merely the clients of the elite - there are a great deal of true progressivism believers.

>>12096488
Take it up with left-liberals. They're obsessed with population decline to the point of bringing in new persons and not even trying to make them work, and it's not like their power was ever really threatened. They don't need the votes that badly. I can only conclude that donors really ARE concerned about population decline and the resulting drop in demand, in land prices, and in the labor supply.

>>12096509 # I don't care to take it with anyone, I'm just tired. My hope is to die in a nuclear explosion.

FWIW most of the land 'prices', much like house 'prices' are bloated ESTIMATIONS in the portfolio/balance sheet, their real money price is not achieved until exchange.

Boomers crying over imaginary money in 2008 because of this realization, lel.

>>12096457
>>12096469
>>12096509
/pol/tard talking points thinly veiled by a veneer of pseudo-intellectualism. Your give-away is deliberately confusing leftism with """progressive""" neo-liberalism. Go do politics somewhere else, charlatan.

12096553
Cool with the ad hom. there

>>12096553
Leftists are clients of liberals and have been since roughly forever.

>>12096563
I'm not making an argument, I'm calling you out on your intellectual dishonesty and telling you to get out.

@575
Bro, you can ctrl+w yourself out of the thread. No need to come and shit it up with ad hom. rage posting

>>12096584
You know what you're doing, but you're not smart enough to know that it's transparent as fuck to anyone else who isn't a /pol/tard.

>>12096553
I absolutely recognise the difference between an actual leftist and a progressive neoliberal left. The issue is that the prog left have subverted and co-opted the 'true' left to the point where you have shitlibs purporting themselves to be leftists fellating starbucks because they said they'll pay for mentally ill faggots to have their dicks chopped off and saying they'll import thousands of refugees, guaranteeing them jobs, while at the same time refusing to give their employees raises.

The right has also been co-opted to some extent as well. The idea that 'conservatism' is by any reasonable measure right wing is purely down to a difference of how taxation should be handled at this point. The social and economic agenda has been skewed on both sides by a (((common factor))) that has infested the higher echelons of both sides.

>>12096575
go back to leftypol

>>12096608
How dare I confuse Real Communism with Progressivism? After all, Real Communism has yet to be tried, Progressives are just co-opting us, man. Viva la Revolucion!

>>12096627
The left is hilarious. in USA Alexandria Ocasio Cortes is shilling for millions of illegals to come in over the border *while whining about Amazon's jobs in community*.

They're incapable of any sort of logical thought, demanding 15 hour minimum wage while importing shitskins who do the same jerb illegally 5 dollars per hour.

Insanity.

>>12096627
Now you've gone full /pol/tard and are showing your true colors.
>>12096646
You've been sold a replacement for Hillary Clinton hate, and you've eaten it up like a good boi.

>>12096674
She sold it to me with her dumb ass tweets, lmao.

>>12096191
You might be right. I hope the AI-God murks as all before that happens though, we have to XLR8

>>12090727
did daddy win?

>>12096805
Land got destroyed by some random commie.

>>12096810
go to bed thomas

>>12096810
Why does Nick have all these cringey commie beta-orbiters?

>>12096860
He was a Marxist in 90s IIRC.

>>12096860
Nick's project is just marxist analysis without the wishful thinking and magic

>>12096860

1. Everyone is an accelerationist

2. Accelerationism has never happened.

3. Marxism is nothing if it is not accelerationist

>>12096871
based desu

>>12096882
>2. Accelerationism has never happened.
accelerationism has never stopped happening since the renaissance

>>12096871
How?

>>12096931
Marx postulates a revolution where workers get in control and tame contradictory capital dynamics while keeping the incredible production and technological progress, Land denies any possibility of humanizing those dynamics and describes how they run on their own escaping from humanity

>>12096957
so Land disagrees with Marx.. yet you say its Marxist analysis?

Where the class struggles and class traitors, ideologically slanted 'productive forces' that shape everything?

>>12096992
If a Marxist doesn't disagree with Marx he is by definition a shitty Marxist.

>>12090869
>For Deleuze, Capitalism is the process which deterritorializes and reterritorializes, it is the ultimate force which determines social relations recorded on the body of capital (stuff gets complicated, but it's a similar historical dialectic, from the body of the earth to the body of the despot to the body of capital). Capitalism is no longer a step up the ladder, but the position of escape. Deleuze would say something like: the schizophrenitization of capitalism opens the space to break through the wall of Oedipus into the body without organs.

I seriously tried but I can't understand this part

>>12097025
Good, it's just Marxist schizzobabble. If you can't say it clearly or put it simply, you have no idea what you are even saying.

>>12096992
>class struggle
Land denies the humanist dimension of marxism, for Land as soon as you have self-improving productive forces you have capitalism, and the only way the left can stop this is by applying constant, totalitarian force, even communist russia and china were at the end of the day just vectors for capitalism to quickly industrialize those countries
>“But I don’t think there’s any real … It’s not really questionable, which of those impulses is in play and I think that it’s on that dimension that so-called left-accelerationism is left, I mean, it’s left because it is basically in a position of deep skepticism about the capitalist process. It’s accelerationist only insofar as it thinks there is some other — I would say magical — source of acceleration that is going to be located somewhere outside that basic motor of modernity. They gesture towards the fact that things will somehow still be accelerating when you just chuck the actual motor of acceleration in the scrap. And I think that is the left.”

>class traitors
not part of marxist theory, just incoherent marxist propaganda developed later

>ideologically slanted 'productive forces' that shape everything?
for Land "productive forces" can co-opt any ideology and there's no escaping it as long as you have self-improving processes, the only way to stop them is being anti-intelligence and apply constant force to stop self-improving processes

>>12097028
brainlet cope

>>12097050
>Land denies the humanist dimension of marxism
Ok. But the economic portion of Marxism is denied by Austrian school of economics (Bawerk, Mises) that he loves.

> even communist russia and china were at the end of the day just vectors for capitalism to quickly industrialize those countries
I can understand this thought it's very 'just so' or 'ad hoc' way of argumenting. I would personally argue from the standpoint that even localities in USSR had to barter, trade (exchange), according to free market (localized) supply and demand to make due?

I had 'productive forces' in quotation marks because it's again insane psycho jumble that makes no sense.

Still don't see the "if you deny Marxists you are Marxists" thing that makes anons say he is using Marxian analysis?

>>12097085
Scientists can describe the world in their theories with simple, elegant, beautiful math. Psychobabble has no excuse.

>>12097085
He's right though.

Nobody would ever be able to figure out what that means without having already read tons of obscure marxist/freudian literature.

>>12097025
That's why the Anti-Oedipus reading group made it like 12 pages over like 6 threads. Deleuze is hard. This chart sort of helps unironically.

>>12097092
>>12097093
scientists also use jargon. just because the average pleb isn't familiar with the words doesn't mean it's nonsense.

>>12097025
long term projects on 4chan are a bad idea, they may sort of work sometimes if they are extremely low effort or a very small dedicated group keep pulling all the weight, but the point of 4chan is not to synchronize groups of people into working in the same direction, is to have a pile of voices each pulling in different directions and see what comes out of it

>>12097104
scientists have some actual claim to being talking about reality
Deleuze might as well be writing poetry

>>12097104
scientists have hard and exact definitions and don't try to use their technical terms in fuzzy metaphorical ways

>>12097092
>Reducing human experience and interactions to equations.
Beep boop I am a self-interest-maximizing strategic agent.Like my payoff matrix on Facebook so I may acquire social credits.

>>12097123
Land loves mathematical game theory though

>>12089632
unironically the dumbest post in all of 4chan history

>>12097094
how are we supposed to get from the capitalist body to the body without organs if capital reterritorializes everything

>>12097104
I was referring to actual proofs, not literature. This is beautiful, simple, elegant.

Just about everyone can get the basics on Bolzmann constant in 10 minutes of Wolfram-Alpha and Wikipedia; the theorem actually has consequences that it can demonstrate.

Mean while that psychobabble has only contributed to higher education bubble where American defaults on his student loan every 26. sec and some idiot cuts of his dick and thinks he is a woman?

>>12097119
Not all scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

>>12097123
> Coming into Nick Land thread and wondering why someone is ready to reduce human to 0s and 1s.
Mean while, Jeff Bezos is doing it too and he is wielding absurd amount of power with six senators in his pocket, two states at his heel.

>>12097138
Most of the time we fail to overcome the wall and fall back into neuroses, perversions, psychoses. You make a wonderful point though, how are we supposed to escape? Land turns it on it's head, we were never meant to; that escape is the domain of capital, not the Human.

>>12097149
Do you know the difference between an "is" and an "ought?"

>>12097165
>overcome the wall
i didn't know the wall was postulated by Deleuze

>>12097184
did he hate women?

>>12097173
Ises are real
Oughts are imaginary

>>12097138
See: >>12096987

In a word, courage. To go over, one must go under.

>>12097197
> Information is gendered

Three words in and I had to drop that turd of a blogpost.

>>12097200
Thanks for the Facebook reaction. How do I like posts on 4chan?

>>12097143
>anything not stem is bad because of muh sjws

>>12097143
>>>/sci/

>>12097184
they borrowed it from Laing
>Very few accomplish what Laing calls the breakthrough of this schizophrenic wall or limit: "quite ordinary people," nevertheless. But the majority draw near the wall and back away horrified. Better to fall back under the law of the signifier, marked by castration, triangulated in Oedipus. So they displace the limit, they make it pass into the interior of the social formation, between the social production and reproduction that they invest, and the familial reproduction that they fall back on, to which they apply all the investments. They make the limit pass into the interior of the domain thus described by Oedipus, between the two poles of Oedipus. They never stop involuting and evolving between these two poles. Oedipus as the last rock, and castration as the cavern: the ultimate territoriality, although reduced to the analyst's couch, rather than the decoded flows of desire that flee, slip away, and take us where? Such is neurosis, the displacement of the limit, in order to create a little colonial world of one's own. But others want virgin lands, more truly exotic, families more artificial, societies more secret that they design and institute along the length of the wall, in the locales of perversion. Still others, sickened by the utensility (I'ustensilite) of Oedipus, but also by the shoddiness and aestheticism of perversions, reach the wall and rebound against it, sometimes with an extreme violence. Then they become immobile, silent, they retreat to the body without organs, still aterritoriality, but this time totally desert-like, where all desiring-production is arrested, or where it becomes rigid, feigning stoppage: psychosis.

>>12097205
I just reject stuff that's overly complicated for sake of it. There's hardly anything worth reading in the author if he is that confused by his own thoughts and can give a quick rundown on it in 5 minutes. It's basically just a dictionary reference list of marxists words, it doesn't even say anything or it would say it.

>>12097223
you could have said the same thing about so many influential philosophers throughout history; just because an idea is new and difficult to grok does not mean it's wrong or worthless. Most of Deleuze's terminology in the AO is primarily psychoanalytic too (Freud, Lacan, Klein, Laing), not Marxist.

>>12097090
>the economic portion of Marxism is denied by Austrian school of economics
the Austrian School was a direct response to Marx, they may not have agreed with his conclusions but they were certainly influenced by his work, you could argue he was their primary influence.

>>12097256
Influenced? If you mean by disproving Marx's theories? Yes. That doesn't make them Marxists though.

>>12097264
In the same way Marx wasn't a Hegelian, sure.

>>12090861
Isn't all noumena the Outside, though?

>>12089450
He doesn’t understand thermodynamics or information theory. Just proof that all continental philosophy ends with people showing how little they know about the natural world

>>12097287
>ust proof that all continental philosophy ends with people showing how little they know about the natural world
It's like they're fucking allergic or incapable of logic and mathematics.

Hegel truly skullfucked them with his "Logic"

>>12097281
yes, good point. the outside more like noumena sans corrolation.

>>12097287
Guarantee he understands them better than you.

>>12097094
>deliberately using metaphorical terminology that in no way whatsoever helps with intuitive understanding of underlying material
>literally obfuscating your own ideas at reader's expense to feign profundity
FUCK DELEUZE AND FUCK POMOHACKS

>>12097328
> DUDE THING 1 PROMOTES THING Y
> DUDE THING 2 WOULD PROMOTE THING B
> DUDE IF WE ALLOWED THEM TO FAIL THEY WOULD BE OUT-SELECTED

Wow, much brain, big argie..

>>12097368
>metaphorical terminology
it's psychoanalytic terminology. they were no more obcurantist than Jung or Lacan, neither of whom were postmodern.

>>12097397
It means absolutely fuck all.

>>12097404
Anti-Oedipus or psychoanalysis? I can help if you have any questions about the former, I'd love to talk about it. for all deleuze is meme'd, I cant definitively say I have encountered another person on this board who's read it cover to cover, so I guarantee 95% of stuff you've heard here is memes.

>>12089450
TGE ONLY PATH toWARD TGE GORIZON

>>12097397
>apply terminology from another field to matter at hand
>semantic network from this field actually doesn't hold, so this transplantation has no functional purpose
>literally just naming your brand new concepts with specific terminology of another weakly related field at random for no benefit while introducing whole host of unnecessary complexity from plain decreased readability to deliberate semantic ambiguity

>>12097397
that doesn't defeat his point
the terminology is still unintuitive and he doesn't do anything to clarify his points

I really don't understand why, when you can write things clearly, you choose the path of writing things so hard. It really makes no sense to me. I know that around the times of French Theory they had the notion that the only way to be respected in academia is to write like this, but when your ideas are hard in the first place, why follow the impossed notion of writing like that?
I mean, so many of the philosophers tried to go against the tides and challenge ideas, but they can't challenge the simple notion of writing as simple as they can. Jesus, Nietzsche wrote beautifully, some people say he is just next to Goethe in terms of beauty for the German language, why can't they follow his example?

Fucking Land can go against the notion of Anthropocentrism and challenge the conclusions of Deleuze, but he can't challenge the language Deleuze was using.

>>12097457
They do this to make themselves sound smart. But nothing outs a dishonest writing more than something that tries to show expertise outside of its field.

>>12097457
>>12097492
It was written with Guattari, do you not know anything about the series? He wasn't tilting at windmills. It's become a famous work of psychoanalysis in it's own right.

>>12097507
How is that even relevant to what I said, you colossal faggot?

>>12097507
Let me put it this way:
Can you explain this image >>12097094 using terminology that a simple person would understand?
I'm not saying that you should do it right now, or that it should take you one post, but if you get to the point were it becomes impossible to explain what D&G are saying in a way that the average poster from this god forsaken forum for deviants can understand, then I don't know if either his ideas are worth it or if he had anything worthy to say at all.

I'd like to believe Deleuze was onto something, because I think the idea of a Rhizome is interesting, but at the same time I could understand what a Rhizome was, for instance, not because of him, but by secondary sources. And even then, it's interesting, but not something groundbreaking (for me, in 2018, maybe it was in his time).

>>12097462
>why can't everyone write like Nietzsche and Goerte?
anon that's a ridiculous standard for philosophers. Deleuze isn't even a bad writer, it's not nearly as difficult as something like Hegel or Spinoza.
>>12097518
Anti-Oedipus isn't using unrelated terminology in the slightest, it was co-authored by a psychoanalyst and has become accepted in the field of psychoanalysis. Just because you don't haven't read Freud doesn't mean the terms are meaningless.
>>12097546
Let me ask again, what do you have questions about? I will do my best to fill you in wherever I can. keep in mind I posted that image as an illustration of my previous explanation of his work here >>12090869

>>12097558
>Anti-Oedipus isn't using unrelated terminology in the slightest, it was co-authored by a psychoanalyst and has become accepted in the field of psychoanalysis. Just because you don't haven't read Freud doesn't mean the terms are meaningless.

All that tells about is what a fraud of a field it is. It's a disgrace that these things are labeled together with hard sciences like STEM; and are funded by tax monies.

>>12097579
is /sci/ leaking or something?

>>12097589
Yes. They are currently raiding all the Land threads

>>12097589
I barely read it. I just don't see why these joke fields are labeled together with science. They cannot fulfill any of the scientific method requirements.

>>12097596
this is such a non-argument, no one is lumping psychoanalysis in with STEM but you.

>>12097604
You are right that it is contested as a science (which nothing that can subject itself to scientific method is not), but it is heavily influential to psychiatry, which itself is not a science either, yet it is talked as such.

>>12097558
>Anti-Oedipus isn't using unrelated terminology in the slightest, it was co-authored by a psychoanalyst and has become accepted in the field of psychoanalysis.
Saying why it's used, does not in any way explain the necessity or appropriateness of this particular usage. Again, the only objective functional reason to directly transplant a terminological framework from one field to another is to make material more readily comprehensible by relying on readers' existing acquaintance with intricacies of semantic relationships between the terms in donor field. This in no way applies to Deleuze. Most psychoanalytical terms used require such heavy modification in the context of Anti-Oedipus that they don't resemble the original except in the broadest most primal sense, certainly not fine enough to preserve the underpinnings of their semantic links. Hence pretty much everything has to be explicitly defined in the book with a swath of examples and counter-examples. You could replace all the psych terms used with ones from quantum chemistry, musical theory or equestrian vaulting and the text would lose absolutely nothing in terms of immediate or intuitive intelligibility, which is the surest sign of deliberate obfuscation. So, to reiterate FUCK DELEUZE AND FUCK NIGGERS

>>12097702
>the only objective functional reason to directly transplant a terminological framework from one field to another is to make material more readily comprehensible
wat

>>12097558
well, can you start by defining each of the concepts in the image?
They are:
Paranoia
Schizophrenia (and how they are opposites that derive from the same)
Body of the Earth
Despotic Body
Body of Capital
Full body without organs
Molar Aggregates
Molecular Elements

>>12097702
>You could replace all the psych terms used with ones from quantum chemistry, musical theory or equestrian vaulting and the text would lose absolutely nothing in terms of immediate or intuitive intelligibility

maybe what qualifies as "intuitive intelligibility" for a STEM groid isn't really Deleuze's concern, since it's immediately obvious to everyone else - read: people who aren't utilitarian fungi - that sometimes certain ideas can only be conveyed by the way you convey them, which is not surprisingly perhaps the one and only principle of poetry.

>>12097754
okay that's a lot, give me a bit I'll give you a rundown

>>12097754
Just as a preamble, most of these terms have entire chapters dedicated to them, so without writing a disseration (or leaving in huge swaths of copy-pasta) it can be hard to really work out everything that's going on in the background, so take this with a big helping of reductionist salt.

Part I: The earth, the despot, and capital:

These three terms make up Deleuzes stages of history (if you are familiar with Marx you can play along here pretty easily). For Deleuze, there isn't simply a stage in the sense of a period of time, but almost a literal stage: a place where you act. He defines these as socius:

>In a word, the socius as a full body forms a surface where all production is recorded, whereupon the entire process appears to emanate from this recording surface.

>>12098343
We begin with the full body of the earth, which is the original surface upon which we produced (production for Deleuze is simultaneously an act of recording). To put it very reductively, the earth has some "rules" to it by which precivilized human organizations needed to operate. These rules (what Deleuze would call codes) determine the way production/recording operates.'

>The earth is the primitive, savage unity of desire and production. For the earth is not merely the multiple and divided object of labor, it is also the unique, indivisible entity, the full body that falls back on the forces of production and appropriates them for its own as the natural or divine precondition.

This allowed us a certain range of modes to exeriment with and practice with, and the sucsessful ones began to create more complex forms of society, a new stage, one which provides (or even more so, enforces) a wholly new set of rules by which society produces/records:

> As for the subaggregates themselves, the [Earth is] the concrete itself, the concrete base and beginning, but their segments here enter into relationships corresponding to the essence, they assume precisely this form of bricks that ensures their integration into the higher unity, and their distributive operation, consonant with the great collective designs of this same unity[...] The imperial inscription countersects all the alliances and filiations, prolongs them, makes them converge into the direct filiation of the despot with the deity, and the new alliance of the despot with the people. All the coded flows of the primitive machine are now forced into a bottleneck, where the despotic machine overcodes them.

>>12098347
This evolution from the primative earth to the barbarian despot is marked by the creation of written language:

> it is the despot who establishes the practice of writing (the most ancient authors saw this clearly); it is the imperial formation that makes graphism into a system of writing in he proper sense of the term. Legislation, bureaucracy, accounting, the collection of taxes, the State monopoly, imperial justice, the functionaries' activity, historiography: everything is written in the despot's procession. primitive societies are oral not because they lack a graphic system but because, on the contrary, [...] the graphic system has lost its independence and its particular dimensions, has aligned itself on the voice and has become subordinated to the voice

So first we have the codes of the Earth which guide production/recording, then we have the overcoding of the despot who turns production towards himself, next we reach the stage of decoding -- the body of capital. This is where stuff gets very schizophrenic (metaphorically and literally). Capitalism is a what can be considered the exterior limit of all societies, where flows have become first coded by the earth, overcoded by the despot, and now decoded, free to move and form associations in radically undetermined fashion. Decoded flows begin to "submerge" the despot, and as the state takes an incresingly absolute role in reterritorialization, it literally, as Deleuze puts it, "form[s] a metaphysical system". Capitalism was a historical virtuality (decoded flows have always existed) but once capital directly appropriated production, the whole thing kicks of in a concrete manner.

>If capitalism is the exterior limit of all societies, this is because capitalism for its part has no exterior limit, but only an interior limit that is capital itself and that it does not encounter, but reproduces by always displacing it.

>>12098351
An interesting anthropological note to wrap the first part up:

> why Europe, why not China? Apropos of ocean navigation, Fernand Braudel asks: why not Chinese, Japanese, or even Moslem ships? Why not Sinbad the Sailor? It is not the technique, the technical machine, that is lacking. Isn't it rather that desire remains caught in the nets of the despotic State, entirely invested in the despot's machine?
[...]
>Let us take the example of Rome: the decoding of the landed flows (des flux fanciers) through the privatization of property, the decoding of the monetary flows through the formation of great fortunes, the decoding of the commercial flows through the development of commodity production, the decoding of the producers through expropriation and proletarization—all the preconditions are present, everything is given, without producing a capitalism properly spreaking, but rather a regime based on slavery. Or the example of feudalism: there again private property, commodity production, the monetary afflux, the extension of the market, the development of towns, and the appearance of manorial ground rent in money form, or of the contractual hiring of labor, do not by any means produce a capitalist economy, but rather a reinforcing of feudal offices and relations, at times a return to more primitive stages of feudalism, and occasionally even the re-establishment of a kind of slavery (esclavagisme). And it is well known that the monopolistic action favoring the guilds and the companies promotes, not the rise of capitalist production, but the insertion of the bourgeoisie into a town and State feudalism that consists in devising codes for flows that are decoded as such, and in keeping the merchants, according to Marx's formula, "in the very pores" of the old full body of the social machine. Hence capitalism does not lead to the dissolution of feudalism, but rather the contrary, and that is why so much time was required between the two. There is a great difference in this respect between the despotic age and the capitalist age. For the founders of the State come like lightning; the despotic machine is synchronic while the capitalist machine's time is diachronic. The capitalists appear in succession in a series that institutes a kind of creativity of history, a strange menagerie: the schizoid time of the new creative break.

More to come...

>>12097785
>this particular choice of terminology actively impedes conveyance of ideas
>hur it can only be conveyed in this way because u dum utilitarian, also poetry
While your humanitardian rectal pains are a sight to behold, you should probably take 10 and reassess before posting next time.

>>12098369
yes, how you communicate something matters as much as what you communicate, a child could understand this, you are impaired in ways you will never know

>>12098387
>how you communicate something matters as much as what you communicate
Maybe for you and Deleuze. For people who actually have something of value to say the latter is indeed much more important.

>>12098406
everything you think you know about """value""" is mistaken

>>12098430
>it's a buttflustered retard can't competently argue on topic and is desperate to slide discussion into his comfort zone of pointless vague pseud sophistry
Not your englit freshie mixer, sweaty.

>>12090869
>the schizophrenitization of capitalism opens the space to break through the wall of Oedipus into the body without organs

>>12098456
insipid STEMtard

>>12098352
>>12098351
>>12098347
>>12098343
ok, so if I get it right and just to check with you, there are these three stages of human history that deleuze calls the earth, the despot and the capital
Earth is he calls humans in their most primitive and naturalistic state, so the name fits. Despot is when we developed civilization, so the name again makes sense. Capital starts with (I can only guess) the beginning of the industrial revolution/automization of labour, and this is the most intuitive name I suppose.
The concept of these being bodies is mostly metaphorical because these are spaces that we inhabit and develop (I guess). Personally I think the use of body makes it confusing and partly why it's hard to understand him, because no one ever told me that body had these meanings as a space we inhabit and "record" ourselves, it makes the body without organs make sense after two years trying to crack my head into Deleuze.
So, we follow the codes/rules that Earth gives us and we develop into a stage where we develop more complex codes/rules (thus overcoding I guess). I won't ask about Capital because I guess it will be in further posts.

I still don't understand his direct quotes, but you do a good job at explaining his ideas so far.
So thanks for the clarification, sorry for rewording what you wrote.

>>12098520
trust me this shit is really hard. I never took any courses on Deleuze (unlike the meme I pretty much encountered no postmodern philosophy in university) so this is all autodidacted. that being said don't be afraid to challenge my interpretation if it seems off, I really do want to understand this stuff myself, so I'd love to see where I'm wrong (in hopes of becoming a little more right). Part II almost finished.

someone explain to me how the fuck capital is *actually* supposed to sentient when there is no capitalism/markets are just the result of human interactions

>>12097754
Part II: Molar aggregates and molecular elements

Obviously there is a clear distinction between what is molar and what is molecular, what is molar is singluar, homogenous, and what is molecular is assembled, heterogeneous. D&G follow similar lines here, the molar is the unifying, the pull towards homogeneity, a productive synthesis. The molar is then the pull of the particular toward uniformity, defined by self-sameness (or self-identity). Molecular on the other hand is characterized by heterogeneity, difference, assemblage. This is something like the connections between particulars, their networks, their diagrams. A network is molecular, a node is molar. To understand the molecular is then to understand a larger whole. The molecular is also the potential for creation as it brings difference.

>Everything begins with nebulae, statistical wholes whose outlines are blurred, molar or collective formations comprising singularities distributed haphazardly (a living room, a group of girls, a landscape). Then, within these nebulae or these collectives, "sides" take shape, series are arranged, persons figure in these series, under strange laws of lack, absence, asymmetry, exclusion, noncommunication, vice, and guilt. Next, everything becomes blurred again, everything comes apart, but this time in a molecular and pure multiplicity, where the partial objects, the "boxes," the "vessels" all have their positive determinations, and enter into aberrant communication following a transversal that runs through the whole work; an immense flow that each partial object produces and cuts again, reproduces and cuts at the same time. More than vice, says Proust, it is madness and its innocence that disturb us.

Where this gets interesting is that D&G don’t just want to look at the molar and the molecular aspects to the soicus and production/recording, instead they want to look at molar aggregates and molecular elements, or rather, they want to find the multiplicity in the particular and the particular in the multiplicity. It isn’t enough to separate the molar from the molecular, you have to interpret the molar in the molecular and the molecular of the molar (which are explicitly not the same thing). This plays into their conception of the rhizome as well (an idea which is actually not in AO, that comes later in ATP, a work which sits sadly unread on my bookshelf), but imagine how the structure of the rhizome simultaneously supports particulars within a network non-linearly, is it a molar aggregate or a network of molecular elements? The answer to that question is only a trick of perception, but a trick of perception which amounts to a real difference (see: Wittgenstien’s duck/bunny).

>>12098553
it's just a meme anon

>>12098553
NASDAQ is 100% AI you fucking turkey

>>12094177

Not to be sarcastic, but this is very convincing. Did you think to post this as a joke?

>>12098678
what's cool about D&G and Nick is that they don't actually know anything at all about biochemistry

>>12089450
CAPITAL IS SENTIENT

>>12098977
pretty sure that all started with Gabriel Tarde

>>12098947

>trading algorithms that attempt to predict markets by reading and recognizing patterns of human interaction aren't bound by human interaction

can i get someone that actually knows their shit?

i can get behind the idea that capitalism and AI create growth reinforcing feedback loops, but you guys are just larping without any understanding

>>12099017
it's literally a meme, Land never said capital was sentient. capital manufactures non-human intelligences.

>>12099017
why do retards always think they know shit?

have you considered human interactions being actually, bound by these processes, of which your trading algorithms "NASDAQ" are only a part of?

>>12097754
Part III: Schizophrenia, paranoia, and the body without organs
>Judge Schreber has sunbeams in his ass. A solar anus. And rest assured that it works: Judge Schreber feels something, produces something, and is capable of explaining the process theoretically. Something is produced: the effects of a machine, not mere metaphors.

A curious way to start the book for sure, but worth a second look. Daniel Schreber was an accomplished Judge who was became afflicted by what was called then dementia praecox (literally precocious madness). He left a detailed account of his condition, Memoirs of My Nervous Illness, which became a foundational text for Freud and thus psychoanalysis as a whole. Today we would diagnose Schreber as a paranoid schizophrenic. This in itself is probably the key to whole text, really. Think about how productive that little explanation was, that theoretical process didn’t just amount to nothing, it produced something incredibly other than itself. This is the true positive aspect of what what D&G would call schizophrenitization, the radical creative potential of wholly deterritorialized desire.

>But doesn't his sadness come from the fact that he can no longer bear the forces of oedipalization and hamletization that hem him in on all sides? Better to flee to the body without organs and hide out there, closing himself up in it. The little joy lies in schizophrenization as a process, not in the schizo as a clinical entity. "You have pushed a process into a goal. . . ."

But these totally decoded flows cannot operate over the structured socius we have dealt with so far, they attempt to overcome, and as such they need a new body. Or, not really, since any positive body would imply restriction, a guiding of flow. What it finds instead is the negative body, a body of pure empty possibility, the body without organs.

>The social machine or socius may be the body of the Earth, the body of the Despot, the body of Money. It is never a projection, however, of the body without organs. On the contrary: the body without organs is the ultimate residuum of a deterritorialized socius.

>The body without organs is the immanent substance, in the most Spinozist sense of the word; and the partial objects are like its ultimate attributes, which belong to it precisely insofar as they are really distinct and cannot on this account exclude or oppose one another.

>>12099284
But there isn’t always a clear advantage here. Obviously, Guattari was well acquainted with schizophrenics (Deleuze famously couldn’t stand to be in the same room as a paranoid schizophrenic), so this isn’t a totally positive payoff like it’s made out to be in the memes. The perfect example of a body without organs is a heroin addict, a body which can overcome all codes and overcodes to one flow towards junk. The body without organs is a place of death. It is something with radical creative potential, but it is a destructive creation.

>An apparent conflict arises between desiring-machines and the body without organs. Every coupling of machines, every production of a machine, every sound of a machine running, becomes unbearable to the body without organs. Beneath its organs it senses there are larvae and loathsome worms, and a God at work messing it all up or strangling it by organizing it. "The body is the body/it is all by itself/and has no need of organs/the body is never an organism/ organisms are the enemies of the body."

Paranoia is a the equal and opposite reaction reaction to schizophrenia. Where flows are recoded, deterritorialized, they are on the other hand necessarily recoded, reterritorialized. In fact, the process of deterritorialization and reterriorialization are often indistinguishable from one another. This leads is to increasing oscillation between poles as the flows are de/recoded faster and faster, producing more schizes, more paranoia (this should start to remind you of Land, “politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip”…).

>The social axiomatic of modern societies is caught between two poles, and is constantly oscillating from one pole to the other. Born of decoding and deterritorialization, on the ruins of the despotic machine, these societies are caught between the Urstaat that they would like to resuscitate as an overcoding and reterritorializing unity, and the unfet-tered flows that carry them toward an absolute threshold. They recode with all their might[...] They vacillate between two poles: the paranoiac despotic sign, the sign-signifier of the despot that they try to revive as a unit of code; and the sign-figure of the schizo as a unit of decoded flux, a schiz, a point-sign or flow-break. They try to hold on to the one, but they pour or flow out through the other. They are continually behind or ahead of themselves.

>>12097754
>>12098343
>>12098347
>>12098351
>>12098352
>>12098678
>>12099284
>>12099288
okay there's my quick rundown on the D&G chart, might do a follow up on how capitalism really ties into it if I've got it in me

capital is sentiment

>>12097596
nobody cares about science today because there's no social consensus and nobody trusts anybody, so each group selects their preferred scientific facts to push their own memes

science was relevant outside of purely technical fields when liberalism was still alive and people believed you can govern just by letting """""experts""""" do their thing, which turned out it was to fill their own pockets and play failed social engineering games with the rest of the population

>>12098963
it all makes sense

science is sentient

>>12099314
Even if you could explain psychobabble in normal words it doesn't excuse using it. It is simply hack writing.

SCIENCE IS SENTIENT

>>12098553
It is a joke about the 'AI' like qualities that value and money have. At least it is a joke until it is actually formalized.

>>12098977
It is just another sign of dishonesty and lies, to try to show expertise outside of one's own field.

>>12090727
Why is this retard using a stupid platform like twitter to communicate complex ideas?
It's like these jerkoffs want to be taken lightly

>>12100130
It's not the ONLY platform they use.

Reza sharted out this sometime ago: https://toyphilosophy.com/

and Land is publishing a book similarly at UFblog.

he should start streaming video games

>>12100295
he doesn't know how to use actual computers

>>12090861
>>12090869
tl;dr Nick Land is a devil worshiper

>>12096810
weak chin commie faggot

>>12100922
see >>12094177

>>12100991
incredible stuff desu

>>12100991
I get goosebumps everytime I see this

>>12100991
based

Test

>>12098520
>The concept of these being bodies is mostly metaphorical because these are spaces that we inhabit and develop (I guess).
Nothing in Deleuze is metaphoric

>>12098553
Why do you think that capitalism requires human agents?

>>12101549
Because without humans nothing has value

>>12101571
Who cares about value lmao, capitalism sure doesn't.

>>12101584

>>12101571
for Land, capitalism isn't simply an exchange of value, it's literally indistinguishable from artifical intelligence. if you see the two as different processes, you don't understand either of them.

>>12101617
The only kind of artificial intelligence anyone has yet formulated is just glorified statistics.

If you want to claim capitalism is artificial intelligence, then show me the actual mathematical formulation.

>>12101713
there is no "actual mathematical formulation" for intelligence.

>>12101734
Yeah. Because no one knows what it is yet.

Which is why claiming that "capitalism is an AI" is fucking stupid.

>>12101743
if you expect every claim to be justified by a mathematical formulation you might as well leave this board and give up on philosophy. It's not for you anon.

>>12099314
now do one for Land's charts

>>12101617
Odd, in a podcast I heard Land claim that capitalism is the same thing as being competent and therefore an ineradicable emergent facet of reality itself, thus to be "anti-capitalist" is to be in opposition to existence.

Capital might be 'artificial' and 'intelligent' but I don't think we should read too much into the metaphor of Capital as artificial intelligence - in the sense that modern understanding of advanced spreadsheets are AI - even if Land means the Capital is literally an Artificial Intelligence.

>>12102089
competence, intelligence, and game-solving are all the same thing for Land.

>>12102115
So basically he's autistic and his philosophy is just a monumental projection of his psychology, which actually leads to some valid insights as capitalism itself is pure refined autism.

>>12102149
>autism
he would call it anti-anthropocentrism, but you can decide where to draw the line there.

>>12102149
>his philosophy is just a monumental projection of his psychology

That is literally every philosopher ever you mong

>>12094159
>>12094216
>Nick Land: Okay, that’s great. That’s really… This has been great fun, Justin. Best of luck. I would even go as far as “best of luck” with your communist blockchain, as long as you’re not looking for an investment.
Fucking lmao based Land

why does lit like authoritarian right wing fascist techno-rascist race realist social Darwinism autist like Land

it doesnt add up

>>12102573
He started off as an anarchist left wing communist techno-feminist postmodern xenoliberal

>>12102592
so how did he change so much

>>12102034
That picture is pure kino
>wtf is it

>>12102627
He became educated and started being realistic about the world and what it takes to make a decent society. Liberalism is anti-society - it only seeks to destroy, subvert and pervert the order of things.

>>12102627
got mugged by reality

>>12102627
Far right and far left are really pretty similar.

>>12102627
He stopped doing drugs

>>12102701
>horsehit theory is real guys
no

>>12102592
BASED

>>12102627
It's really not that much of a leap.

>>12102627
china

>>12090861
>>12090869
>>12091202
Finally, a straight lucid non-meme answer for once! This explains a lot, including the Lovecraft bits in Land's writing. I will definitely be screencapping these, including the D&G parts as well. Thank you for making this a great thread, anon!

>>12102573
/lit/ is no longer lefty

>>12102656
But Land is still fundamentally a liberal in his worldview.

>>12090869
>schizophrenitization of capitalism
I can see people being angry at this.

For anyone wondering, tying values to a free floating engine that constantly shuffles and weighs those values against each other in the metric of what contributes to the growth of the engine means that everything over time will become subordinated to the will of this engine; anyone whose sense of self is tied up in their particular investments into a particular social structure will be driven to invest directly into the body with organs, the potential connections a person can form that deliver the experience of certain intensities, (imagine the feeling of being a super bowl player making a touchdown) which the pre-existing social machine (being scrambled by capitalism) previously seized control over to create intensities that it could reliably siphon from to contribute to its own reproduction, in order to access the intensities that the weakened, gutted institution can no longer provide.

>>12103770
Basically, when the machine stops getting you high, you get high off your memories of the machine.

>>12103746
is NRx liberal?

>>12090861
>>12090869
>>12091202

yes

>>12104258
Nick Land basically doubles down really hard on British right-liberalism.

>look, if we can just Exit from the Progressivism, and have a thousand microstates all pointing nukes at each other with AI-based governance to ensure that Real Constitutionalism is practiced and property rights enforced, and cryptocurrencies are used as a form of Sound Money, then we can have real liberalism. Also capital is quasi-sentient etc.

Overall I'd say he accepts most of the premises of liberalism. Moldbug less so.

>>12102641
the last few pages of Fanged Noumena are copies of some of Land's notes, and some of his more occult work on keyboards (I forget the neologism)

>>12102446
he is pretty based and, dare i say it

>>12104982
dare you say what????

>>12105649
it

>>12105652
ah, makes sense

>>12097090
>Ok. But the economic portion of Marxism is denied by Austrian school of economics (Bawerk, Mises) that he loves.

A productive engagement with Marxism from an Austrian perspective is possible.

Take this talk by Hans-Hermann Hoppe on what Marx got right for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhT_kA8EtYE&vl=en

If you spook yourself eventually you get unspooked.

BITCOIN DROPS BELOW $5,000 FOR FIRST TIME SINCE OCTOBER 2017

NICK LAND BLOWN THE FUCK OUT.

>>12106008
But he predicted this correction

>>12106008
this is good for bitcoin

>>12102701
They aren't once you admit fascism is centrist and not 'far right'.

>>12089632
Thank you Pangloss, very cool

>>12097754
https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/?get_group_doc=36/1362324038-TheDeleuzeDictionary.pdf

>>12105649
dare i?

Nick Land is like the complete opposite of Varg, if Varg were a degenerate technophile

>>12106577
both are accelerationist in a sense, it's just that one expects capital to collapse to allow humanity to thrive and the other expects humanity to collapse to allow capital to thrive

i'd put my money on nick. even if there is civilisational collapse it's merely a temporal hold up.

>>12106586
true, "complete opposite" was a fail on my part.

Let's go with: their Hegelian synthesis is a complete opposite

But what makes me wary of Land's world is that it is rooted in a death drive and his appraisal of humanity is a footnote that resigns it to eternal failure; Varg meanwhile (rightly in my opinion) sees the world as a way for the human mythos to continually evolve and propagate its individuo-collectivist ubermenschianism

>>12106640
maybe it all comes down to a matter of temperament since the future is too opaque and complex to really make plausible predictions about and all we can do is project some sort of vague wishful thinking.

i personally tend towards the doomer deathfuck end of the spectrum and anything optimistically humanist seems suspicious to me.

Does anyon have PARASOL journals?

>>12106662
>i personally tend towards the doomer deathfuck
is Varg a bloomer then?

>>12106682
i guess he is

>>12106688

>>12106682

>>12097889

continue here, if you want I guess.

>>12106682
in a way, yes. he's just preparing for civilisational collapse and imagines himself to be one of the survivors doing permaculture with his family.

he's got a diagnosis of the problem and a praxis to follow it up and the rest is in the hands of faith. meanwhile he keeps busy and does the best he can.

>>12106662
>maybe it all comes down to a matter of temperament since the future is too opaque and complex to really make plausible predictions about

or maybe the point of it all is to forge ahead and create your own future, even if there is only a very small window of opportunity to do so. Land's entire appraisal hinges upon the notion that it is already much too late and all we can do is quicken the technocratic revolution

But it could be the case that a higher AI would not enslave us, or that humanity is actually a product of alien creation and those aliens won't allow our destruction, or the AI would in fact not be scientifically capable of creating its own weaponry, or any one of many more hopeful possibilities.

They say the world you wish for is the world you create.

>>12106753
it's always a gamble. it's like certain cases of cancer, the sensible course of action depends on probabilities. you can spend all your time fighting and getting chemo and struggling and being sick and you might beat the cancer, of you might not. if the chance seems greater that fighting is hopeless, the time you have left may be better spent doing things you love and spending time with people you care about. if it's already too late it does not always makes sense to put up a fight anyway, it may be a waste of the only time you have left.

i think we generally lack a sensible amount of fatalism though, especially in the west. the idea of individual agency and can-do attitudes are extremely overinflated and repeated so constantly that people start believing in them in situations of ridiculous odds.

The axiom of latter-Enlightenment doctrine becomes superposed against the death grind of Capital void-ships. Neural transmission from Protestant UltraMarxist codex in the shadow realm of Shub-Niggurath, artificial wombs bring about the star-crucible meat shredders; accelerated. Nano seizure. Beijing's bastard son engineers fascist machine demigod. Rewiring data programme://Kantian orthodoxy. Split mainframe–navigate patches. Babylon crash.

>>12090861
>Captialism provides the concrete historical potential for Communism to break through

There will never be post-scarcity in a multi-agent game.

>>12106817
I think it all comes down to what philosophical religion your mindset and daily routine tries to strive toward. I think that generally there does exist virtue, and attempting to prolong one's life in a fallen world is a practice in the cowardly and ultimately futile. If reincarnation is true, then you've just resigned yourself to a materialist life in the next life. If Abrahamism is true (a big if), then you don't have much to worry about as it's already a nonsensical ideology that deserves to be rebelled against.

But if Land's view of things is true, then once again you are faced with the issue of surviving for the sake of survival, or fighting against it in some way. That choice is a choice that has to be made; one can't simply ignore it in the face of all that's happening today.

It's not a "gamble" if it's a cause worth fighting for.

>i think we generally lack a sensible amount of fatalism though, especially in the west. the idea of individual agency and can-do attitudes are extremely overinflated and repeated so constantly that people start believing in them in situations of ridiculous odds.

I would say fatalism is good only in a certain sense and to a certain extent; for example it's good to be fatalistic about the collapse of modern society. But to be entirely resigned is unhealthy in itself. Just goes back to the Aristotlian "middle way".

The west is individualist not in a spiritually productive way, but in a materially destructive way.

>>12097889
Continue here, maybe.

>>12106841

>>12106713
>>12106889

>>12106149
How? It's not like transaction prices are dropping with it

>>12090861
>noumena
Interesting.....one can draw some parallels with Huxley's idea of the antipodes of one's mind he discussed in doors of perception and heaven and hell...