/lit/ - Literature

>>14940192
>A bunch of edgy trannies a manchildren discuss the pandemic
Yikes.

>>14940192
I listened to the first one, it was fairly entertaining but when they just start talking about acceleration and shouting at each other about how they don't understand positive feedback loops, then I get reallyyyy bored. Drunk Reza going into full militarised autocratic mode was funny, though.

I do really like Sean Lewin, so I'll be tuning in tonight. It's probably better to do it with only a couple of people, instead of the chaotic shitshow that was Friday's podcast

how podcasts should be
>*jungle music starts playing*
>okay today we're with nick land mr land please tell us about the corona
>the techonomic exocapital teleoplectic acceleration of the human defence system manifests as a transcedental assemblage of bodies without organs
>thanks mr land amazing take
>*lovecraft audiobook starts playing*

Literally who?

>>14940939
Just academic money printing.
Pay no attention.

Imagine being a 50 year old listening to jungle postironically.

>>14940946
Do you actually believe Urbanomic are making any money whatsoever? I mean, apart from the reprint of FN.

>>14940972
Who else listen to jungle?

>>14941175
yes that are hundreds of literal retards that line up to consoom spinal catastrophism. it makes a GREAT coffee table book

>>14941881
It's actually a p good book, midwit. You're just mad that no one wants to publish your schizoid theory-fiction

>>14941896
>its actually a pgood book
that's why in the last ten dozen threads not a single person has been able to explain a single novel, worthwhile point from it. all we've gotten is cringeworthy page scans of toddler diagrams and that famous desktop pic

>You're just mad that no one wants to publish your schizoid theory-fiction
i'm not a writer, but considering how quickly you came to that insult you might want to go look into a shiny surface dumbfuck

>>14940972
you have to be at least 30 to even know what Jungle is, it's boomer music

>>14941937
>that famous desktop pic
what desktop pic? If you're referring to that hypno-sissy image, I meant Spinal Catastrophism is a good book, not FN. And there is no point trying to explain it on here because a) no one here has even read it, and b) in every attempt I've made to start discussion, people just shit on it like its another accelerationist meme, when it doesn't even talk about acceleration at all. It's more about the history of ideas, recapitulation theory and the evolution of the CNS than any landian hyperstitional nonsense. Its surprisingly rigorous w/r/t the scientific validity of its sources, something you won't see in FN.

>>14942238
So why do you keep posting here?

>>14942268
Because I'm not allowed to go outside, and there isn't much else to do all day except read and shitpost. Why would I leave just because people don't want to talk about a certain book?

>>14942289
So why did you do it before?

>>14942331
What is the point of this series of questions?

I am posting this here because I'm not prepared for the consequences of making an additional acc thread

So far this year I have read
>neuromancer
>#accelerate
>Fanged Noumena
>Ccru 1997-2003

What's next? I feel like it should probably be anti-oedipus, but other options include the most radical gesture, writing on drugs, capitalist realism, and thirst for annihilation.

>>14942349
You're all fucking retarded
>>14941937

>>14942238
>what desktop pic
the one with the guy with the evangelion background. i might be misremembering which urbanomic books he is consooming tho, in which case all that came out of it was some toddler diagrams.

>there is no point in trying to explain it
this is exactly one of the two kinds of replies anyone gets on any spinal catastrophism thread when they *naively* ask the harrowing question, *gulp*,
>what are the theses of this book
the first of which is a totally nonsense jared diamond-esq schizo rehash of a debunked theory OR "ur 2 dumb to understand bro, just read the book". You can't call me a midwit in good faith without giving me a non-cop-out response illucidating at least a few of his overarching points.

>>14942420
>ur retarded
indeed a constant problem, my friend. i am retarded. that's not an argument tho.

>>14942403
AO is so much fun and will help you understand FN a lot better

>>14942434
That's the standard response in all acc threads. OMG YOU DIDN'T READ JUST READ
Publish a good book and we'll read it.

>>14942444
Oky AO it is then.
Thank you, and nice trips

>>14942434
>the one with the guy with the evangelion background
yep, that would be fanged noumena, not SC, ya midwit.

>the first of which is a totally nonsense jared diamond-esq schizo rehash of a debunked theory
A debunked scientific theory can still be a conceptual springboard for interesting discussions, in this case (as I said previously) the history of ideas, and the development of the CNS. You remain a midwit.

>without giving me a non-cop-out response illucidating at least a few of his overarching points.
ohnonono midwit, I'm not falling for your silly games. Anything I say will get shot down, no matter what the content actually is. Read the fucking book or don't bother posting about it, its that simple.

>>14942456
How do you know if its a good book or not if you haven't read it? see pic related.

>>14942607
>that would be fanged noumena, not SC, ya midwit
what's your definition of midwit? how does this fit into it?

>ohnonono midwit, I'm not falling for your silly games.
My silly games... asking you for a non-cop-out response illucidating at least a few of his overarching points? You said it was as "rigorous w/r/t the scientific validity of its sources", but you're afraid I'm going to shoot you down no matter what the content actually is?

>Read a fucking book bro, midwit, midwit, midwit
Wow, I really struck a chord with you by insulting your purchase, hunh? The only reason I'm "posting about the book" is because people like you say *interesting* yet awfully cop-out non-answers like
>the history of ideas, recapitulation theory and the evolution of the CNS
Wow, that really settles that then! Let me look for my wallet! I'd ask for examples but it looks like you'd rather feign possession of a truth you don't have. You can cry as much as you want about how I shouldn't be asking you questions about the book, but I doubly don't see the point in responding if you refuse to give any.

Dare I say you are... projecting? I sure hope you don't break a blood vessel in your eye reading that.

>>14942780
What would I even be projecting, in this instance? I don't think you actually understand what that word means.

But regardless, where did I ever say I wanted to convince you to read it? And since when was why my opinion that important to you anyway, anon? You can just as easily read a synopsis online, or listen to an interview with the author himself, those would be far better alternatives than for me to try and mediate it for you. But the problem is that you aren't expressing a natural curiosity or interest in the book. You are only looking to disparage and ridicule. And that is why I have no interest in humouring you.

>You can cry as much as you want about how I shouldn't be asking you questions about the book
If they were genuine questions, maybe I would be inclined to respond. But we both know that isn't true. Here, I'll even link you to an in-depth podcast on the subject, just in case you ARE actually interested:

https://www.urbanomic.com/podcast/spinal-landscape/

You have no need to hear me butcher his ideas when you could just as easily listen to him talk about them yourself.

>>14942607
Try posting about the book or don't bother posting about it. This isn't a billboard.

>>14942886
>What would I even be projecting, in this instance?
Maybe that one insult you keep repeating over and over, even in totally nonsensical contexts?

>where did I ever say I wanted to convince you to read it
>why is my opinion that important to you anyway
I didn't mean to suggest you did, and it isn't; my curiosity originally, months ago, was less bitter than now when, *still*, months later, every single anon violently refuses to explain a single point in the book.
>You can read a synopsis online or listen to an interview
Yes, though, believe it or not, they're rarely much better than yours. And the very topic of this thread didn't exactly boost my optimism on the efficacy of podcasts to ever explain anything, and neither did Hermitix's Nick Land podcast, or any other I've attempted. But that's all beside the point, which is, >>14941881. Nevermind that I never even called the book "bad" and you totally fucking chimped out. But yes, it's a safe bet that hundreds of people line up to mindlessly consoom Urbanomic books and that they're making some sort of money from this niche of *cutting edge needlessly obscurantist philosophy with dope ass front covers*.


>But we both know that isn't true.
>Can you illucidate at least a few of his overarching points?
That's a genuine question, and listing general themes isn't answering it.

tho indeed, the amount of time I've taken making these posts I could have gotten a job and bought the book, quit the job, and read the book. Although, alternatively, literally any other anon could have taken a short moment to illucidate a single thesis/gestalt from the book, in contrast to how long they spend arguing to not do so.

>>14941175
Not the point. I'm saying that most of these publishers just churn out spam to promote their books in the same way the economy is almost entirely money printing. There's zero substance.

>>14943345
I have tried the same thing, and seen others try as well. It's just a standard acc response that they refuse to discuss any content. At this point I don't think they are even malevolent, they are just stupid, the Christian caricature of evil.
https://youtu.be/7rdpJztS28A