/lit/ - Literature

>>12822504
Read Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, Marx and Heidegger first

>>12822514
And Eliphas Levi, Blavatsky, Crowley, Lovecraft, Burroughs

>>12822514
To read marx surely you need to read Kant and to read Kant surely you need to read Aristotle and Plato and to read Aristotle and Plato you need to read the Iliad/All the great greek epic poems and after that you might aswell read the presocratics amiright? So, start w z greeks

>>12822504
>gabbidull zo bad id gud

>>12822504
No one has read the meme books. They read a wiki article and that's it.

>>12822568
i've read nick land and i understand him without having read kant or hegel, or even spinoza. i read marx and the post-structuralists like debord, foucault, baudrillard etc

>>12822504
Best intro to Land is his recent interviews and Templexity, which has a more focused and less romanticized style. Ccru writings is just schizo-posting.

>>12822504
Reading Fisher might actually be more helpful regarding the accelerationist conception of forming ideas toward an 'outsideness' without throwing in a lot of unnecessary jargon and being nigh-unreadable.

I've only skimmed the CCRU book - my take was that it is closer to being a kind of outsideness/actualized accelerationism than it is a sort of attempt at creating a conceptional framework for those ideas (presumably because the CCRU writers already had the conception and were seeking to actualize it in some way). I see the CCRU writings as akin to that chapter of Fanged Noumena where it's basically written in 1337speak. It paints the picture by trying to be what it is describing instead of just describing it.

Then again though I've only skimmed it. #Accelerate would definitely be a better primer to accelerationism than CCRU or even FN honestly.

Alternatively, read this-

https://xenogothic.com/2019/03/04/a-u-acc-primer/

Probably the best way to get a holistic picture of the project.

>theism
nah

>>12822504

>>12822504

You really should read Kant if you want to understand his writing. His essays on Kant are actually the best take I have read, very fresh and unique perspective that I would argue is mostly correct. He has the canonical postmodern reading of Kant.

>>12822559
Why do you post this in every Land thread? It's almost as if (((they))) want to discredit his brilliant work.