/lit/ - Literature

brain

>>22242197
Amphetamines.

>>22242197
>some philosophyfags mental breakdown on a page
Read the Valis series instead for certified schitzo-kino.

>>22242197
read the sources first, then read Land

>>22242197
reading any kind of atheist in 2023 is asking for suffering

nick land is proof that freedom of speech was a mistake

>>22242460
>any kind of atheist
>nick land

"The Gibsonian Cyberspace-mythos describes the electro-digital infosphere first integrating into a Godlike unitary being, a technorealized omniscient personality and later, when it changed, fragmenting into demons, modelled on the haitian Loa. What makes this account so anomalous in relation to teleological theology and light-side capitalist time is that Unity is placed in the middle, as a stage – or interlude – to be passed through. It is not that One becomes Many, expressing the monopolized divine-power of an original unity, but rather that a number or numerousness – finding no completion in the achievement of unity – moves on. Ever since the beginning when the K-Goths first heard that Cyberspace was destined to be God they've done what they can to rip it down."

"Both conspiracy and common sense – the ‘normal reality’script – depend on the dialectical side of the double game, on reflective twins, belief and disbelief, because disbelief is merely the negative complement of belief: cancellation of the provocation, disintensification, neutralization of stimulus – providing a metabolic yawn-break in the double-game.
Unbelief escapes all this by building a plane of potentiality, upon which the annihilation of judgment converges with real cosmic indeterminacy.
<...>
Deprogramming simultaneously retro-produced the program, just as witch-trials preceded devil-worship and regressive hypnotherapy preceded false memory syndrome. Yet, once these ‘fictions’ are produced, they function in and as reality. It isn’t that belief in Project Monarch produces the Monarch Program, but rather that such belief produces equivalent ef ects to those the reality of Project Monarch would produce, including some that are extremely peculiar and counter-intuitive."

"the metaphysics of Burroughs’s ‘clearly hyperstitional’ fictions can be starkly contrasted with those at work in postmodernism. For postmodernists, the distinction between real and unreal is not substantive or is held not to matter, whereas for practitioners of hyperstition, differentiating between ‘degrees of realization’ is crucial. The hyperstitional process of entities ‘making themselves real’ is precisely a passage, a transformation, in which potentials – already-active virtualities – realize themselves. Writing operates not as a passive representation but as an active agent of transformation and a gateway through which entities can emerge. “[B]y writing a universe, the writer makes such a universe possible” (WV 321)."

>>22242226
What's that? I know Land mentions the cerebral cortex at least once.
>>22242280
What's with these one-word posts? Are you implying I need to take amphetamines to "get" Land's writing?
>>22242346
By Dick? I've heard of him. I was never really particularly interested in him but I'll keep him in mind, thanks.
>>22242445
What sources would you recommend I read apart from the obvious ones like Deleuze? I'm currently reading Hegel as well. Kant of course is a must. Who else?
>>22242460
It's not so much that he's an atheist that I'm hesitant about him. I like reading authors whose beliefs differ from mine if only so I can gain more perspective and strengthen my own beliefs over against (gegenueber) theirs.

>>22242486
I’m a few sentences in and am simply glad I will never read this faggot in my life. Holy shit talk about relying on seemingly esoteric and in-vogue verbiage instead of actual substance to evoke in others a perception of your own supposed sagacity

>>22242531
>seemingly esoteric and in-vogue verbiage instead of actual substance
Theology (One vs Many); teleology; potentiality vs reality; kantian critique (judgment); hyperstition vs postmodernism; theory-fiction: Gibson ('Neuromancer'), Burroughs; cybernetics (stimulus disintensification, etc.).

Those are not buzzwords, faggot. Those are key concepts. If you don't understand them, you don't comprehend philosophy per se. The actual substance has been provided, in a neat, condensed way.

>>22242197
So you’re too dogmatic to really dive in, got it. Sounds like a you issue.

>>22242197

what do I have to gain from understanding this?

(I'm a violence prone misanthrope)

>>22242531
It's highly referential. Imagine a maths undergrad calling stochastic calculus 'esoteric'. It makes more sense when you do the required reading instead of jumping into a highly referential work without the required reading.
The book has meme status on /lit/ because of Land's odd writing style, not because it's something that you could just jump into and understand for the most part like general continental/western philosophy.
Reading philosophers without their major influences is poor form.

>>22242832
Thanks, I saved this.
>>22242647
No, honestly, I'm continuing to read it right now and it's starting to come to me. This is good shit. Wow. His earlier essays reeked of the polemic left-wing diatribes I used to read in college but I'm on the chapter "Machinic Desire" and am blown away by his analysis of cybernetics and AI and machines. I should've read Deleuze first and I regret that. But this is mind-blowing stuff. I'm a Landian, now, lads.

>>22242197
I'd picked this up as a challenge but was filtered. I ended up digging through meta_nomad's blog (did he take it down?) to at least gain a simplistic understanding of accelerationism.
I'd like to revisit it after going through the backing work he references.

>>22243133
What I've gathered from a VERY preliminary reading is this: AI is our Daddy/God/Oedipus and has already killed us.

Enjoy.

>>22242486
>Burroughs names the dominant control program One God Universe, or OGU. He wages war against the fiction of OGU, which builds its monopolistic dominion upon the magical power of the Word: upon programming and illusion. OGU establishes a fiction which operates at the most fatal level of reality, where questions of biological destiny and immortality are decided. 'Religions are weapons' (WL 202).
>In Burrough's mythology, OGU emerges once MU (the Magical Universe) is overthrown by the forces of monopoly (WL 113). The Magical Universe is populated by many gods eternally in conflict: there is no possibility of unitary Truth, since the nature of reality is constantly contested by heterogeneous entities whose interests are radically incommensurable. Where monotheistic fiction tells of a rebellious secession from the primordial One, Burroughs describes the One initiating a war against the Many: 'These were troubled times. There was war in the heavens as the One God attempted to exterminate or neutralize the Many Gods and establish an absolute seat of power. The priests were aligning themselves on one side or the other. Revolution was spreading up from the South, moving from the Eat and from the Western deserts' (WL 101).
>Credulity in the face of the OGU metanarrative is inevitably coupled with a refusal to accept that entities like Control have any substantive existence. That's why, to get out of OGU, a systematic shedding of all beliefs is a prerequisite. 'Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape' (WL 116). Techniques of escape depend on attaining the unbelief of assassin-magician Hassan i Sabbah: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Once again, Kaye cautioned that this must be carefully distinguished from 'postmodern relativism'. Burroughs-Sabbah's 'nothing is true' cannot be equated with postmodernism's 'nothing is real'. On the contrary: nothing is true because there is no single, authorized version of reality—instead, there is a superfluity, an excess, of realities. 'The Adversary's game plan is to persuade you that he does not exist' (WL12).
Are you really trying to imply Land is some sort of monotheist? You could perhaps argue for some sort of polytheism, but obviously it would be in the pomo / Nietzschean "death of God" sense (figuratively (heh)).

>>22243342
>Are you really trying to imply Land is some sort of monotheist?
The one that worships 0 instead of 1, yes.

"Everything has obviously gone wrong for us in order for Plato to begin with One rather than Zero. To take One as originary is to presuppose everything; such as unity, individuation, achieved form, and dogmatic plenitude. The One is the phallomorphic base of Occidental culture, in the sense that Irigaray understands it. It is the mono—of monotheism, and monotheism is condensed irreligion; the definitive patriarchal effacing of intra-uterine indifferentiation (and thus of the primary ripple from out of chaotic zero). The differentiated one is the Father, and his adorers understand nothing of religion. Even in writing the nothing, as Aquinas does, they eclipse it with absolute ego (Him). Nor is it the case that primary immanence is merely crushed with arbitrariness beneath a partially inadequate metaphorics, since—far from being neutral between the sexes—it is precisely because indifferentiation (= 0) is sexually unsegmented that it is even more feminine than the mother. The femininity of zero is uncompromised by its indifference, due to the unilateral character of individualizing deviation. Whilst zero is certainly alien to the Father, there is no differentiation from zero. Indeed, zero is so utterly vulvo-uterine that patriarchy is synonymous with irreligion (faith)."

"Between barter systems and money systems there is a difference strictly analogous to that between Roman arithmetics and the place-value system from India, transmitted by the Arabs to the West. Like zero, money is a redundant operator; adding nothing in order to make things hum. When Marx associates capital with death he is only drawing the final consequence from this correspondence. Surplus value comes out of labour-power, but surplus production comes out of nothing. This is why capital production is the consummating phase of nihilism, the liquidation of theological irreligion, the twilight of the idols. Modernity is virtual thanocracy guided insidiously by zero; the epoch of the death of God. There is no God but (only) zero—indifferentiation without unity—and nihil is true religion."

>>22243342
>pomo
>figuratively (heh
>>22242486
>can be starkly contrasted with those at work in postmodernism. For postmodernists, the distinction between real and unreal is not substantive or is held not to matter
>for practitioners of hyperstition, differentiating between ‘degrees of realization’ is crucial.

>>22243342
>figuratively (heh
Unbelief/'figurativeness' is precisely how the entities invade.

>>22243430
So, atheist.

Remember, lads: the less accessible a work, the smarter you are for citing it. When no one understands what you're talking about, it proves how much smarter you are than them.

>>22244528
Love this. I'm poring through the rest of the book now and it's just become so much obscurantist waste and stupidity. Maybe there's a hidden meaning behind it all but I don't have the time or will to sift through it. It's fine, it's lovely writing, but I don't know if it's going to be lasting. It's all right.

>>22242197
>What am I missing?
Take some molly and get fucked in the arse by a transsexual breakcore maid. Also you don't seem to understand that AI WAIFUS are mandatory in post crabitalism.

/lit/ is largely a joke by those people in University who disdained your college who were busy making jokes about Deleuze instead of having sex. Because they had already had all the sexes. Even the one where she puts her finger in your bottom while sucking your penis.

>>22244263
What part of 'nothingness is constructive' and 'you are literally being invaded by Cthulhu from the Outside' do you not comprehend, faggot?

>So, atheist.
https://arktos.com/2021/03/01/the-great-reset-and-the-great-awakening/

"So, Reza Negarestani, Nick Land and Miaso and Harman, they invite us to quit, to leave humanity to get to the things themselves, to the object without the subjects. <...>
They have arrived on the other side of the object. Where, supposedly, should be the void of nothing, they are discovering another subject. They are called the idiot gods of Lovecraft — the Old Ones — the figures that are beyond the objects, but at the same time inside of them. So the objects are liberated from the human subject, from humanity, and they open their hidden dimension, which is the real Devil. Object-oriented ontology is a kind of premonition or foreseeing of the advent of the philosophical Devil. So the philosophical Devil is here on the other side of the objects, and he appears little by little in academy"

"So with object-oriented ontology, we’re dealing with the real truth, not with a lie. For the first time, modernity has told the truth about itself. What was before was a lie of modernity. Modernity lied to everybody. “Oh, we’re in favor of humanity. We’re in favor of life. We are trying to liberate human beings and nature from the transcendental fascist God.” That was a lie and not in favor of humanity but against humanity and God. The main idea was to liberate the Devil from the chains with which he was fixed in Hell. This was the liberation of the Devil, not of man, and now comes the moment to liberate the Devil from humanity and life. And that is object-oriented ontology that clearly, openly, explicitly affirms that, and they are object-oriented philosophers. They are closer to us traditionalists because we always saw in modernity this devilish, demonic aspect."

>>22244528
>the less accessible a work, the smarter you are for citing it
This is why we should abandon maths, yes.

>>22245337
Mathbis actually very accessible if you take the time to study it and try and make sense of it. It's very simple and systematic, just like the works of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and basically most pre-modern philosophers. It takes what we see emprically and tries to discover a system where our observations make sense with a larger theoretical bur consistent framework. A lot of these academic philosophers do the exact opposite and don't you dare compare math to the shit they do. Even in math, you can make things more accessible by showing examples, counterexamples and proofs of what you are talking about. Nick Land and his ilk are just making ahit up to get grant money and fame.

>>22245357
>Mathbis actually very accessible if you take the time to study it
Nick Land is actually very accessible if you take the time to study Deleuze, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Bataille, Marx and cybernetics.

>tries to discover a system where our observations make sense with a larger theoretical bur consistent framework
yes, and?

>>22245357
>don't you dare compare math to the shit they do
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
"An astrologer’ is, in fact, the Oxford English Dictionary’s second definition of ‘mathematician’."

>>22245357
>don't you dare compare math to the shit they do
Go check, for example:
Zalamea F. - Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics (2013)

The shit they do nowadays involves bringing up Godel, Peirce, Badiou. The 'matheme', the unity of One and Many, trying to prove God via rejection of natural science, etc..


Or go check, for example, Gregory Chaitin: transcendental Universal Turing Machines, axioms as quasi-empirical objects (willingness to discard them), incalculable numbers (Halting Probability), measuring complexity via tautological definitions, disagreement of the meaning of the term 'information'

>>22242495
>Dick
If you can’t stand sci fi try the excerpts from the exegesis. Paranoid schizophrenia plus drugs is a hell of a combo.

>>22245432
>Paranoid schizophrenia plus drugs is a hell of a combo.
I do this before reading any text. Oh you're claiming this made his writing better.

>>22242197
Land literally just parrots obscure philosophers and gets credit for their ideas

>>22245512
You're new to the humanities I see.

>>22242832
I just don't get how people can read Nietzsche and understand other tough philosophers, then just swallow communism with all its pseudoscience and conspiracy theory disproven BS. It really is just a cult for bitter people isn't it

>>22245304
Shut up you deranged tranny

>>22245532
>then just swallow communism
Marx is just a simplified inverted Hegel. There is a narrative, that has been infecting the world for the last 2 thousand years, that you have to understand.