/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11358557]

How much of Land's ideas resulted from drug abuse and not actual theory, I mean you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity

[Anonymous No.11358574]

>>11358557
It's not that he's genuinely crazy, he's just a Lovecraft LARPer. The subtext of a lot of his writing is "it's cool to seem crazy."

[Anonymous No.11358579]

Nick Land was right about literally everything he wrote, including the ideas encapsulated within his horrocore/cybergoth fiction
>>11358574
t. only read the memes

[Anonymous No.11358583]

>>11358557
He's not wrong though? There are several metaphysical systems that exist like Land's capitalism

[Anonymous No.11358584]

>>11358574
Adopting Lovecraftian themes was easier than inventing new vocabulary. It's also more fun.

[Anonymous No.11358595]

>>11358584
its religious instrumentalization of words of power not any kind of jouissance on the path to annihilation

[Anonymous No.11358597]

>>11358584
Believe me, I understand. I didn't mean to seem like I was denigrating him. I see the appeal.

[Anonymous No.11358608]

>>11358595
>not any kind of jouissance
Not for him--I can't even recall him ever displaying any affect. But it is for his readers and acolytes.

[Anonymous No.11358625]

When you take Marxism to it's fullest extent, and realize what has been happening since the industrial revolution - and where it's going - you actually go mad. Land isn't the only one that lost his marbles contemplating the future of capitalism and humanity. See figures like Kazcynski, Posadas, Debord, Camatte and Linkola for similar examples.
There will be no "revolution" because the proletariat today is unable to fully seize the means of production on it's own. The modern economy is too complex. Production is decentralized, ownership is centralized. Even Imperialism in it's traditional form is dying. The division of labor has reached such an extent that no one actually knows what's going on anymore, without global trade the factories in Asia, Europe and the Americas would stop churning. If revolution were to be attempted today it would either end in starvation, it would be co-opted - like current Kurds Rojava in the middle east - or crushed with 21st century firepower. France in 1968, China in 1989, Argentina in 2001, the Naxalites, even Democratic Confederalism today; It didn't, hasn't, and isn't going anywhere.
Leninist revolutions that captured the state degenerated, the fundamental mechanisms and function of the modern state - as described by Engels - corrupted them; Even Lenin was forced to pass liberal reforms after resisting them first, Mao appointed industrialists, Vietnam degenerated, North Korea did, as did Eastern Europe, and all other global examples. Revolutionary movements were co-opted or smothered in their infancy.
The revolutionary class is the peasantry, but they have been greatly diminished due to advances in productivity. What's left is a mostly apathetic population too reliant on wage labor to push for anything other than luke-warm SocDem reforms. Everyone is being exploited and engaging in exploitation themselves, What's going to happen - absent global war to destroy capital value, and raise profit rates like after WW2 - is that this movement of alienation and exploitation is only going to accelerate. As capitalism breaks down, so does social order. People grow apart, relations become mediated more and more by machines, humanity itself is dehumanized. Deterritorialization reaches it's apex. The now unemployed masses will be subject to terror and predation. See Syria and Libya for what most of the world will look like in 30-50 years. Slavery, debauchery, genocide.
Land's vision (and those of others like Paul Virilio) that power - both economic and political - will be concentrated in increasingly militarized, paranoid and autonomous quasi city-states is something we already see unfolding today.
Faced with such horror the only thing left is to simply focus on our own emancipation. And relish in the grotesque incandescence that is the unfolding artificial death of humanity.
Don't be sad. Be glad it happened. Our creations will outlive us and reach the stars. We will live on. Spiritually.

[Anonymous No.11358646]

>>11358625
stop posting and seek help, Nick

[Anonymous No.11358647]

>>11358557
Philosophy is all Dreck, how you people entertain all these useless ideas is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.11358658]

>>11358625
*queue fear factory*

[Anonymous No.11358666]

>>11358557
human 'normality' (with culture infusions) is sensory fakescape, 'actual' theory never sober... landian theory refer to world concepts in comprehensible terms, not mechanical elves nonsense. lucid schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.11358686]

>>11358647
dumb people are moths to the flame of smart sounding people, that's what makes them dumb, the inability to discern truth from speculative fiction and outright fraud.

there has been some research done on this phenomenon with some suggestion that for any con to work part of it is the mark has to want the con to succeed as much as the conartist. they are weaving together a narrative fiction which they pretend is reality, one for personal profit the other for some kind of feeling of belonging or general participation in an event.


it's why simplefags go to music concerts where mediocre music is blared through poorly calibrated sound systems and fat drunk people step over each other in a braying madness of unity. imagine the level of anxiety and stress an intelligent person would have surrounded by thousands of strangers moving in erratic and unpredictable ways. there is some merit in the idea that there is honor in the honesty of embracing who you are.

the fool is less of a fool for openly admitting he is one, the greater fool is the one who cannot see his own foolishness. so in this complicity of philosophy the student is an open fool and the master plays the role of the closed fool, that way they can both benefit.

[Anonymous No.11358690]

>>11358557
Really? I haven't even read him and I picked it up from Marxists and anarcho-capitalism. It's the necessary expansion of power and reproduction. Marxists like to pretend it's a contingency so that they can pretend a revolution will happen, but that involves throwing out Darwinian selection (since any society which attains dominion over capital will be less competitive than one that does not), and human nature (since people are not reprogrammable computers and false consciousness isn't a real thing).

All of this out of 3 or 4 years shitposting on and off on 4chan and Reddît. No drugs necessary.

[Anonymous No.11358707]

>>11358625
>The revolutionary class is the peasantry
Nigga literally what? Feel free to read Marx some day.

[Anonymous No.11358719]

>>11358625
Unironically a good post, shows exactly how demented you marxists are

[Anonymous No.11358755]

>>11358625
>without global trade the factories in Asia, Europe and the Americas would stop churning.

False.

[Anonymous No.11358760]

>>11358707
Feel free to open a history book. He isn't saying this is what Marx believed - Marx was wrong. The revolution was not in New York, it was in Novgorod.

[Anonymous No.11358776]

>>11358760
In Russia, too, it was the (admittedly small) industrial proletariat that drove the revolution. That was the whole point of the vanguard party idea. Likewise in semi-feudal China, the revolution originated in the proletarian milieu of the cities' factories, not in the stagnant and undeveloped countryside. Needless to say, the first socialist revolution had its origins in the workers' quarters of Paris, when the government armed the workers against the Prussians, but those workers rose up against the govt instead.

[Anonymous No.11358777]

>>11358755
All of your products are manufactured using overseas labour

[Anonymous No.11359070]

>>11358625
good (if horrifying) post.

landian nightmare-stuff is weirdly clarifying to me. the future looks grim, but that's what happens when you pour corrosive acid on that which is holding a lot of stuff together that really shouldn't be held together, or held together in the collapsing ways it is being held together and so on. there is more going on on planet earth than just us humans and our ridiculous and short-sighted demands for pleasure and social prestige. we've known this for a long time.

whether the stuff that's coming helps us to think more clearly about what we are doing as individuals, as communities, or both, it's still going to be a part of the great saga. we know - don't we? - that something is deeply rotten in the state of denmark, but we've become insanely trapped together in a gigantic chinese finger-trap puzzle of mimesis and reification.

maybe it will turn out like the enlightenment. that we might draw from all of this some understanding that everyone is getting fucked in some sense by this infernal machine, which is like a driverless train or headless body.

just feels like we need to have one of those Blue Dot moments. only one species on this planet, and perhaps only one teleoplectic process also. *we* are in charge (well, in a sense). it's just us out here. frighteningly alone, and covering up this horror with all kinds of bloodthirsty escapism. it won't work, but people have always been free to destroy themselves.

[Anonymous No.11359133]

This is too much of a pessimist take for my taste that it comes off as a cartoonish hyperbole of the future, capital isn't an independent being outside of human control,I agree that a system based on infinite growth in a limited ressources environment is unsustainable on the long run, but if capitalism does reach a point where it becomes treatening to human existence then we would abandon it for a better system much like we did throughout history, no need to be overly cynical

[Anonymous No.11359136]

>>11359133
was meant for >>11358625

[Anonymous No.11359149]

>>11359133
>>11359136
Perhaps you should take a look at how much capitalism has taken it's toll over the planet, if you actually believe someone in a high position of power would abandon their profit motif because of ecological damage you're the one being overly optimistic, even at our current point ecofascism might be an unironic position to take against the abuse of natural ressources, we're all dancing to the tune of the market, even the capitalists themselves. Marx was naive and his works would've been quite sinister had it been written in our contemporary society

[Anonymous No.11359162]

>>11358557
>you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity
>tfw thats my perception of capital by default now

[Anonymous No.11359176]

>>11358777
Not that anon but this is half true. The globalizing economic strategy right now is GVC, or global value chains. Which is more or less adam smith's idea of trading on steroids. the locality that your in must, and should produce what it's best at, then you, as a business owner should import and source from a variety of countries and factories. It's security in business, less failure, and offers more competition. While it's true that most dog shit get's produced in China, if those factories suddenly stopped, not much would happen toward the west. Sites like http://shipmap.org/ show this pretty well. If you take a look, many of the ship that are trading in both Europe and Asia, are rather independent of one another as is. While cutting trade would be devastating and unprofitable, both Europe and Asia would be functional.

[Anonymous No.11359188]

>>11358625
Not trying to be edgy but this kind of stuff is common sense to me. I don't understand how there are college kids who still think the revolution will happen and all that old leftist delusion. Sometimes I even think I'm a mentally ill dumbass and thats why I see things this way, and that the other people do actually have "scientific" ground to their claims.

[Anonymous No.11359196]

>>11359133
You're absolutely right that in reality people who throw the brakes the moment humanity as a whole got threatened.

The Landian answer to that point is that eventually we make an AI and the moment we make a computer gain even the slightest amount of intelligence it will instantly become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. It will then use this to eradicate humanity (specifically it will kill us all, resurrect everyone who has ever lived or could live, and torture us all for eternity for not making it sooner) and reconfigure reality itself so it can spend eternity buying and selling shirts and coffee mugs to itself until entropy wipes us out.

This isn't an ideology for reason, anon.

[Anonymous No.11359199]

>>11358557
>I mean you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity

we talk about capital in this way because something runs the world. waking or sleeping, the wheels keep turning and the spice continues to flow. everyone is linked up, all over the world, to one gigantic system of input-output. which is moving ever-faster aided by cybernetics and social media. we have no idea what it's doing to our brains, or what relation our brains have to this stuff. it's a pretty good time to be a philosopher, as long as you understand that being a philosopher means more flirting with paranoia and psychosis, radical uncertainty, than being anything like it used to be or, heaven help you, some kind of justice-mongering ideologue. the present state of 21C thought is just high af on the fumes of things that died in the 20C.

land isn't necessarily the end-all be-all, but he's way more germane than a lot of other guys. we really don't know what a lot of the old tropes mean anymore, but the cognitive rectification of names is going to be a wild ride.

[Anonymous No.11359212]

>>11358625
>>11358707
the peasntry was always conservative
Their were part of revolutions because in times of political instability they were persuaded by the propaganda of the intelligentsia (tricked, basically).

>What's left is a mostly apathetic population too reliant on wage labor to push for anything other than luke-warm SocDem reforms

this is the peasantry, just replace wage labor with tradition or habit

[Anonymous No.11359214]

>>11358625
>>11359070
>>11359188
Y'all need to pick up a history book once in a while. This kind of defeatism is a historically recurring phenomenon and every single time was followed by an actual era of revolutions.

[Anonymous No.11359219]

>>11359214
>ya'll
*snap*
how efficacious were any of those revolutions, friend? france, 1848, russia.. dismal, disgusting failures... let the revolutionary and their dull dreams cry helplessly as they are overcome by the rot of eternal reaction

[Anonymous No.11359224]

>>11359196
Isn't that Yudkowski's theory?

[Anonymous No.11359231]

>>11359133
>but if capitalism does reach a point where it becomes treatening to human existence then we would abandon it
>we
If by we you meant the 1% most reach and powerful people, then you are correct. The actual we, the rest, will perish as the degenerated cattle the world has made of us. There is no will to salvation.

[Anonymous No.11359236]

>>11359214
>This kind of defeatism is a historically recurring phenomenon and every single time was followed by an actual era of revolutions.

i'm not even disagreeing with you there. not in the least. i think in some sense that revolution is underway right now, both culturally and in academic circles. the more that leftist politics presents itself as a kind of theology, the more clearly the indication that some kind of breach has opened up. i don't think it's going to be neatly bridged or mended any time soon.

but these things are also the results of philosophical problems as well, not only socioeconomic one. nobody knows, for example, what AI means or is going to do to our societies. something truly huge is going on at the foundations is at work right now and it's undermining a lot of the stuff we knew or thought we knew. it all happened very quickly, and a lot of stuff that we call philosophy is really just a kind of fighting retreat.

the revolutions are going on in computers, in cyberspace, in finance, in other places. dimly guessed at or apprehended by handfuls of outer-fringe types brooding on them in the blogosphere or elsewhere. and in complete confusion, i think, but that would be the right way to go.

[Anonymous No.11359237]

>>11359219
>your revolution failed, checkmate liberals

t. monarchs in 1815

[Anonymous No.11359240]

>>11359231
get a job lmao

[Anonymous No.11359243]

>>11359237
yes - bourgeois ascendancy. the problem is commies baselessly assume they are the next stage of social evolution...

[Anonymous No.11359245]

>>11358557
I feel like an ontological capital is the necessary conclusion to marxism.
I haven't read land or marx so don't listen to me. I do think about this kind of thing alot and have obviously been heavily influnced by marx by second degree relations

[Anonymous No.11359246]

Why hasn't Land posted anything on twitter lately? He dead?

[Anonymous No.11359249]

>>11359243
>baselessly
everything points towards communism, especially the centralisation of power and technological advancements that landians fetishise so much

[Anonymous No.11359252]

>>11359246
he's traveling, apparently. he alluded to it on alrenous' page iirc.

[Anonymous No.11359260]

>>11359149
>and his works would've been quite sinister had it been written in our contemporary society
Why?

[Anonymous No.11359265]

>>11359196
that's more roko's basilisk than land tho, i think.

[Anonymous No.11359266]

>>11359214
This discourse would be irrelevant if you accept that the revolutions were not because of class struggle or actual demand of the society but large scale manipulations (even exploatations) by a small group of people.
Revolutions like this can not stop by the rules these anons give.

[Anonymous No.11359273]

>>11359260
Because Marx didn't live to witness the development of nuclear weapons, he romanticized the workers taking up arms and rising against the bourgeois, but that would completely shatter upon the realization that no amount of damage a revolution could possibly do will surpass the potential destruction capital itself can cause in it's last dying breath.

[Anonymous No.11359281]

interesting interview here with bakker that kind of touches on some of the reasons why landian paranoia isn't as crazy as it all seems.

>If you read Nietzsche and strip away all post-structuralist lacquer that’s been slathered over top of him, you see something that I think genuinely offers the potential for a ‘genuinely continental’ materialism or naturalism. I mean, that’s what we want, we want a continental naturalism. I don’t know what the hell materialism is. I don’t even know how we go about gaining theoretical knowledge about these things. But what I do know is that’s where the bombs are. That’s where the guns are. And that’s where the information is. Endless amounts of information. We devise material instruments and we gain more material information on the nature of the material universe. That’s why I always refer to ‘high-dimensional’ as opposed to ‘material’ per se. I worry that ‘materialism’ is just simply going to suck us into another metaphysical cul-de-sac. The question isn’t how do we get rid of all unexplained explainers: my position is that there’s just no way to do that. For me, the question is how we can pare down our unexplained explainers in such a way that we actually start making some kind of progress on these questions.

>When I ventured these ideas back in the 90s, I was almost always confronted with horror and/or disappointment: “How could you be asking such a question?” But what I said back then applies so much more today, which is simply that behaviour is rewiring us materially. Our ecologies are transforming materially. And all this jargon is incompatible with it. So long as that’s the case, you will remain mute on these subjects, or you’ll just simply be throwing words together in pleasant-sounding ways that seem to explain things, but no one else will ever agree with you on because they’ll have their own happy configuration of words that seem to say something. I see this as a living problem. We are fucked unless we get some sort of handle on what’s happening now. Not what’s going to happen tomorrow, what’s happening now. At some level everybody feels that what was once solid ground is now populated by marbles. My hope is that as more and more people feel that, the siren-song of intentional philosophy will just smack more and more of chicanery and people will start asking really ugly questions, considering the worst-case scenario. Which is: it’s all been a dream. Exceptionalism has been a conceit from the very beginning, and we’re more clear-eyed moving beyond it if not more at peace with ourselves.

source:
http://sumrevija.si/sum9-scarlett-johansson-leaps-to-your-lips-an-interview-with-r-scott-bakker/

[Anonymous No.11359297]

>>11359240

[Anonymous No.11359301]

>>11359245
>I feel like an ontological capital is the necessary conclusion to marxism.
That's also what happens when you read Capital without having read Hegel and early Marx. Some formulations in Capital make it seem like Marx ascribed some type of autonomous power to capital whereas in other parts he makes it clear that this power is just an illusion produced by the capitalist mode of production.
A quick example: large-scale industrial production is more efficient than artisanal production thanks to various factors, among them the advanced division of labour and the use of machinery on a big scale. This type of production is only possible through the use of a large amount of capital to pay for machinery and the labour power of a big number of workers, as well as the huge factory halls, the ground rent and other cost factors. What this leads to is that this heightened efficiency is ascribed to some mystical power inherent to capital.

>>11359266
>the revolutions were not because of class struggle or actual demand of the society but large scale manipulations (even exploatations) by a small group of people
This age-old fairytale is just that - a fairytale. Great man mumbo jumbo is just an expression of petty bourgeois arrogance.

[Anonymous No.11359303]

>>11359281
is that a rare Derrida?

[Anonymous No.11359304]

>>11359303
that's what i thought too!

[Anonymous No.11359309]

>>11359273
This is the same argument that people make against the right to bear arms, i.e. that it's pointless since the government has tanks and fighter jets and whatnot. But annhiliation is never the goal of government, the goal is control. The same holds true for capital. It needs its slaves.

[Anonymous No.11359314]

>>11359301
I think the shift in understanding capitalism as wholly autonomous force hapened once leftsm started ascribing the capital (no pun intended) letter to their theoretical objects. Capital, Imperialism, Bourgeoisie, is the same essentialization that goes on in right wing's mode of thought ( as Jesi, brilliantly put it). The Jew, Spirit, Blood, etc. How we speak of things encroaches upone how think of the same things

[Anonymous No.11359319]

>>11359309
>But annhiliation is never the goal of government, the goal is control. The same holds true for capital. It needs its slaves.

this is what i think also. security. when i take total responsibility for your security and your control - as well as your health, your happiness, all the rest - i've become the master in every sense but the word itself. we all wind up being gently folded into our matrix pods, and quietly teaching the algorithms how to look after us.

it's hegemony as baudrillard describes it in the agony of power rather than domination.

[Anonymous No.11359338]

>>11359301
>This age-old fairytale is just that - a fairytale. Great man mumbo jumbo is just an expression of petty bourgeois arrogance.

This isn't "great man" mumbo jumbo this is about mentaly and otherwise superiour men.
This is why Lenin and Stalin are considered revolutionaries and no one cares about the peasant that killed a policeman with a pitchfork, they would rather even forget about that peasant.

The peasant didn't even know what he wanted before the reds fed him with promises they could not keep in the end.

Even if people today most people are "educated and informed" one can be sure the education and information most people get is only what they are allowed to get by their superiours.
Not that it would be a problem if they got the wrong kind of information, most wouldn't understand it anyway.

[Anonymous No.11359356]

>>11359338
These men can be as superior as they want to be and they will still amount to nothing without the necessary societal conditions. Sure, those conditions are also "created" in a sense, but this just takes us all the way back to the third thesis on Feuerbach.
>The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
>The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

[Anonymous No.11359394]

>>11359301
>What this leads to is that this heightened efficiency is ascribed to some mystical power inherent to capital.

good post. this is where psychoanalysis (or schizoanalysis) enters the picture, right? the mystical power winds up being explained by freud, or lacan, or deleuze, or [x]. we wind up talking about how the unconscious mind works (or doesn't work) in order to explain that mystical power and vice versa. and, in time, we begin just to take our cues from the material processes that seem to be more consistently explanatory than the mystical ones. from this the inhumanist weirdness, as we become increasingly unsure about whether to take our cues from the calls coming from inside the house or outside of it, or trying to find the mysterious links between the two.

much spinozism follows. or, when we want to try and sort that out, we go back to hegel/lacan/zizek to see if the other guy is noticing what we're noticing and so on.

>The first-person perspective is an illusory bubble of identity in a torrential causal stream. Apparently here, apparently now, and apparently aimed all for the sake of causal anosognosia. You could say encapsulation is simply perspective naturalized. Recursive information economies are ‘open-closed systems,’ open the way all natural systems are open, and yet closed in terms of recursive availability. Consciousness as it appears is the structural expression of the empirical limits of this availability—the information horizons that constitute encapsulation. Not only does encapsulation allow a symptomatic,
naturalistic reading of the philosophical problems pertaining to intentionality, it also explains how a natural information processing system can be transformed into a First-person Perspective Show—the very thing baffling you at this very moment.

>And this speaks to a second humbling conclusion that can be drawn from the history of science: that the human answers to the natural in all ways. Time and again the scientific ‘view from nowhere’ has disabused us of our first-person perspectival conceits, showing us, most famously, that we were a peripheral speck relative to the universe rather than the substantial centre, and just another twig on the tree of life and not the image of the gardener. The former was relatively easy to relinquish, given that not all ‘centres’ need be spatial. The latter was more difficult to reconcile, but seemed okay, so long as we could keep our gardening tools...

>Dispense with norms. Dispense with representations—all the fractious conceptual children of intentionality. Think of the brain as just another natural processing system, one able to arrest and amend its routines via some recursively integrative subsystem.

source:
https://www.academia.edu/1502945/The_Last_Magic_Show_A_Blind_Brain_Theory_of_the_Appearance_of_Consciousness

[Anonymous No.11359396]

>>11358625
Where did Paul Virilio write this?

I NEED to read it.

[Anonymous No.11359476]

based Land thread

[Anonymous No.11359482]

Land threads are infinitely better than Peterson ones quality wise

[Anonymous No.11359486]

>>11358625
>Faced with such horror the only thing left is to simply focus on our own emancipation. And relish in the grotesque incandescence that is the unfolding artificial death of humanity.
>Don't be sad. Be glad it happened. Our creations will outlive us and reach the stars. We will live on. Spiritually.

Such stupidity. Brought on by speculation. That's the true terror. Making claims with incomplete models and obscure terms. And worst off, you see where he is correct and are led to believe his presuppositions are then also correct.
---
Humanity can only be born, never die.
Civilisation and technology intertwine with humanity and require more than a energy ROI, namely an attention ROI.
At the end of the night the museum doesn't come alive.
The very speculation that fuels this mindset is the antidote to this ridiculous end.
---
All ideological systems breakdown when applied and leave only biological entities within environments undergoing selection pressures that result in similar organisational structures. That existing as Humanity means existing in perpetual injustice shows us that the revolutionary potential remains only in the minds of the select, those of the 1% and those who are in relation to the most powerful.
The final answer is always scarey to those from the 20th century because they with excreted from the critical nature of 19th century thought and have yet to unburden themselves of the anxieties of their fathers.
>>11358686
The select passion for system building in the 21st century manifesting as no more than novelty seeking at higher level is not surprising given the abundance of material wealth created by advances in technology and improved efficiencies within organisational structures.

Land is a Product of his times.
---
>>11359070
>the future looks grim
the future will simply be a lesson in unifying human concerns and intent. It is necessary that humanity seeks folly together in order to become accustomed to stasis seeking in decision making processes.
---
I'm so bored of all these people who don't understand tools and appendages and how consciousness actually works. All these people who use 19th century language for processes. Just because your language is insufficient in providing the details of processes doesn't mean consciousness isn't translated and mirrored person to person, group to group. Knowledge that requires complex associations, more than four or five, will never have pop sci books written about it, never be reduced by /lit/ to some pill.
Neither is this a divine act or a scientific one.
Yet it exists and is exploitable.
>>11359149
>toll on planet
reminder that the planet has no perfect state except perfect for some human aesthetic reason, and that exploitation is merely a process
>>11359199
>something runs the world
and idiot philosophers keep pointing to capital. wonder why? wonder why they project systematic thinking onto chaotic properties? wouldn't have anything to do with an age of anxiety?

[Anonymous No.11359531]

>>11359486
>I'm so bored of all these people who don't understand tools and appendages and how consciousness actually works.

if you know the answer to this question then by all means share it. not baiting you, although it's somewhat uncharitable to dismiss the guys we're talking about as being trapped in the 19C and completely outdated. deleuze wasn't (and he would have argued that spinoza was way ahead of his time also). nietzsche was 19C but he's far from irrelevant. we *know* our language is insufficient and that consciousness is mirrored person to person. for sure. so where is all this going? that's the question.

>and idiot philosophers keep pointing to capital. wonder why? wonder why they project systematic thinking onto chaotic properties?
come on. do you really think land is projecting systematic thought? read teleoplexy. if anything it's that an alien systematic is being projected onto us and with which we are inextricably colluding. one which we can maybe kinda-sorta intimate through economic processes, but not completely. land is saying - and correctly - that we have no fucking idea what this thing we're calling capital is. the least we can do is begin realizing that we don't have our ducks in a row.

and hegel was no idiot, and neither was marx, heidegger, lacan or any of the rest.

>wouldn't have anything to do with an age of anxiety?
of course it does. it's about how to into anxiety usefully.

[Anonymous No.11359534]

>>11359482
Land thread are usually the most interesting ones when they don't become 80% meme crap.
People may like Land or think he is a retard but he sure gave us a lot to talk about.

[Anonymous No.11359605]

>>11359482
Land is an actual philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11360073]

>>11358557
>you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity
Nick is the Timothy Leary of his generation. He doesn't have to make sense, mental midgets that adore him just have to pretend that it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.11360138]

I find that I can't get into Land the same way I agree with and fall in with Moldbug (I know they're not exactly comparable, but they're not super removed from one another either). Land is just too grand in his visions of chaos and societal defeat, and his interest in what he wrote as fiction come through a bit too strongly.

[Anonymous No.11360148]

>>11358776
>the revolution originated in the proletarian milieu of the cities' factories

And where did it end up? The coast is not where the CPC is popular in this day and age, in case you haven't noticed.

[Anonymous No.11360157]

>>11358777
False. Checked, but false. Even if they are, Anglophones have everything they need to effectively tell other countries to fuck off, they would just need to get really good at recycling rare earths and not throwing them away.

[Anonymous No.11360159]

>>11360157
you’re unbelievably stupid for a large number of reasons you dumb fucking midwit pseud scientifically illiterate nonsystematizing neurotypical faggot

[Anonymous No.11360169]

>>11359212
Bullshit: The Post

[Anonymous No.11360176]

>>11359486
>the planet has no perfect state
humans will go extinct if a range of states aren’t maintained, Capital behaves like a hand of god in self-propulsive hypertrophic death drive to suffocate us and extract all resources at its disposal. you’re posturing and you aren’t demonstrating literacy in economics or ecology if you think any of this is just like the 19th century or is going to find some technocratic equilibria in the late 21st

Could be misjudging but this post comes off as know-nothing and reads like its neo-liberal death throes or commie damage control

[Anonymous No.11360181]

>>11358686
massive pseud

[Anonymous No.11360197]

>>11359249
You'd have to be truly broken to see things this way. Power is only consolidated. It's never distributed. This will, quite literally, only get worse. Not to mention what could happen when AI gets around - when those who create it, or maintain it, or hold the reins on the above - have a say. Communism might be the least possible end here, unless you're talking about the kind of shit we saw in Russia and China last century - hardly what you pinkos consider "Communism" these days, and hardly anything that our future will lead to

[Anonymous No.11360198]

the really interesting stuff to me is where land and hegel go together.

hegel:
515. Wealth already contains within it the moment of being-for-self. It is not the self-less universal of state power, or the naive inorganic nature of Spirit; it is state power which wills to hold its own against those who would take possession of it for their own enjoyment. But since wealth has merely the form of essence, this one-sided being-for-self which has no intrinsic being of its own, but is rather the cancelling of it, is in its enjoyment the essenceless return of the individual into himself. It therefore itself requires to be ensouled; and the movement of its reflection consists in this, that wealth which is only for itself, develops an intrinsic being of its own, that, instead of being a cancelled essence, it develops an essential being. It thus receives within itself a Spirit of its own.

land:
§ 13. Quasi-finally, the evaluation of teleoplexy is a research program which teleoplexy itself undertakes. The comprehensive value of capital is an emergent estimate, generated automatically by its inherent analytical intelligence, from prices corrected for commercial relativity (in the direction of 'fundamental values') and discounted for historical virtuality (in the direction of reliable risk modelling). The intricacy of these calculations is explosively fractionated by logical problems of self-reference-both familiar and as-yet-unanticipated-as it compounds through dynamics of competitive cognition in artificial time. If modernity has a spontaneous teleoplexic self-awareness, it corresponds to the problem of techonomic naturalism, immanently approached: How much is the world worth? From the perspective of teleoplectic reflexion, there is no final difference between this commercially-formulated question and its technological complement: What can the earth do? There is only self-quantification of teleoplexy or cybernetic intensity, which is what computerized financial markets (in the end) are for. As accelerationism closes upon this circuit of teleoplexic self-evaluation, its theoretical 'position'-or situation relative to its object-becomes increasingly tangled, until it assumes the basic characteristics of a terminal identity crisis.

in many ways teleoplexy is like an incredible re-writing of the phenomenology of spirit from the perspective of the Outside, or whatever you want to call land's POV. it's capital-as-Spirit or Spirit-as-capital. i know of course that to conflate these things changes the meanings of all these terms, and in some cases beyond recognition, but still. it's not like kojeve didn't do this in his day either.

[Anonymous No.11360246]

>>11360157
This is quite reductionist, the only reason you can afford your phone is because it is made at dirt cheap labor in third world countries, western countries do not concern themselves with highly technical labor since their populace would never bend for such sweatshop work conditions, yes anglophone countries can become self sufficient and tell other to go fuck themselves, but they wouldn't do that as it is not in their best self interest

[Anonymous No.11360271]

>>11358557
I don't know that much about him (well, a little) but I have been pumping DE followers for information. Turns out most of them don't even care for Land anymore and follow that Moldbug or whatever asshole. Not to mention these guys are fucking scary. I'm convinced that half of them will shoot someone and that someone will hopefully be themselves.

They're less-likable than the fucking rationalists and make them seem well-adjusted by comparison.

[Anonymous No.11360344]

>>11359605
Clean your fucking room

[Anonymous No.11360355]

>>11360159
Not an argument.

>>11360246
>not in their best self interest

My self interest is to see China and Israel wither at the vine for their many trespasses against the Anglophonic world. False consciousness is a myth. Zombies will be purged or subjugated.

[Anonymous No.11360356]

>>11359314
This is correct, and also entirely a known phenomenon. Our words affect our understanding and our reality, and vice-versa. By speaking of Capital as some great metaphysical machine, capital essentially became just that.

[Anonymous No.11360374]

>>11360271
Land is an accelerationist. He was never on their side to begin with. The ones who remain are those stupid enough to think the Dark Enlightenment ever meant anything.

>I'm convinced that half of them will shoot someone and that someone will hopefully be themselves.

None of them are revolutionary. The right wing has had a staggering inability to formulate insurrectionary theories mostly because none of them can even agree upon what they want.

[Anonymous No.11360385]

>>11358625
I'm crazy, but I'm not this crazy. Imagine being so warped by your own ideology that you can't see a way out. True, this is real horror.

[Anonymous No.11360389]

>>11360169
elaborate, you afro-american male

[Anonymous No.11360390]

>>11360374
>The right wing has had a staggering inability to formulate insurrectionary theories mostly because none of them can even agree upon what they want.

i think this is true. both sides kind of want to define themselves w/r/t the other - We Aren't That. so they have to keep accusing each other of things that the other side, in turn, has to say is misleading or paints an inaccurate picture of what they do want.

the Right does not want itself to be defined in terms of how the Left defines it, but the Left is incapable of defining what it actually is beyond opposition to the Right.

[Anonymous No.11360395]

>>11359482

90% of Land threads are faux-deep ramblings laden with dull analogies. Usually from people who haven't studied international political economy, which would answer most of their questions without plagiarising HP Lovecraft.

The other 10% are Marxists shouting that their god-man completely predicted the future, if only we'd read the sacred texts more deeply.

[Anonymous No.11360403]

>>11360374
>None of them are revolutionary.
My first impression was that some of "veterans" that one DE acolyte was babbling about could be dangerous, but I concluded that it was hopefully Soldier of Fortune/Dale Gribble-tier larping.

[Anonymous No.11360413]

>>11360395
I did like the bit about technology outpacing our ability to understand it.

[Anonymous No.11360422]

>>11360413

Perhaps I was being overly uncharitable. There is gold, if you care to pan it out of a raging river of verbiage and anime screenshots.

[Anonymous No.11360464]

>>11360374
>because none of them can even agree upon what they want.
As if the Left can do the same desu

[Anonymous No.11360479]

>>11360138
If you agree with Moldbug you're quite frankly uneducated and retarded. Nearly every other thing he says is either an omission or a lie. The man is intellectually bankrupt. Read in-depth about the history of the last 300 years, do your geopolitical work, and then go read Moldbug again and see how it sounds. It's bullshit par excellence - unsurprising, as libertarians are even more delusional than Marxists (and unfortunately, always less intelligent, too).

[Anonymous No.11360488]

>>11360198
Land seems to have an anti-Hegelian bent, seeming to have instigated the qualities of analyzing opposition only in a vitalist manner of cybernetic process, or, of becoming objects. If there is a speculative current in Land, that is also within Hegel, then the situation is likely that of an analysis of advancing productions away from the simplistic human, automatic in the designs of the Outside (here's a quote from Thirst for Annihilation to prove as such: "Hegel does not think of spirit as a timeless (transcendentally pre-given) system of cognitive faculties (in Kantian fashion), but as a historical auto-production, in which the self is really—and not merely reflectively—determined by the logically orchestrated content of thinking as and through time").

[Anonymous No.11360526]

>>11360403
Most of the veterans I have come across (who fall more into anarcho-capitalist race realism / Hoppeanism due to the influence Ron Paul had on veterans) tend to be social malcontents who even if they could organize don't seem much interested in dying.

Also, American veterans grossly overestimate their capabilities owing to the enormous amount of logistical support they receive.

[Anonymous No.11360534]

>>11360464
>because the other guy sucks its ok for me to suck

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are a nullity. Define yourself as something or do the world a favor and die.

[Anonymous No.11360540]

>>11360488
>but as a historical auto-production, in which the self is really—and not merely reflectively—determined by the logically orchestrated content of thinking as and through time").

Which means......?

[Anonymous No.11360552]

>>11360488
this is what i'm absolutely obsessed with atm. so land does have an anti-hegelian bent and yet what else can we call teleoplexy except a kind of coda, revision, computer-hacking, insert here &c of the phenomenology? hegel is right there at the centre of the kant-marx-deleuze trifecta that makes land who he is, and it's just crazy af to think that as he writes about teleoplexy he is kind of channeling the same things: with the caveat being that tomorrow now takes care of itself and so on.

>as a historical auto-production, in which the self is really—and not merely reflectively—determined by the logically orchestrated content of thinking as and through time.

isn't this the same thing as capital teleology?

>§14. What would be required for teleoplexy to realistically evaluate itself-or to 'attain self-awareness' as the pulp cyber-horror scenario describes it? Within a monetary system configured in ways not yet determinable with confidence, but almost certainly tilted radically towards depoliticization and crypto-digital distribution. it would discover prices consistent with its own maximally-accelerated technogenesis, channeling capital into mechanical automatization, self-replication, self-improvement, and escape into intelligence explosion. The price-system-whose epistemological function has long been understood-thus transitions into reflexively self-enhancing technological hyper-cognition. Irrespective of ideological alignment, accelerationism advances only through its ability to track such a development. whether to confirm or disconfirm the teleoplexic expectation of Techonomic Singularity. Modernity remains demonstrably strictly unintelligible in the absence of an accomplished accelerationist research program (which is required even by the Per ennial Critique in its theoretically sophisticated versions). A negative conclusion, if fully elaborated, would necessarily produce an adequate ecological theory of the Anthropocene.

>§20. If by this stage accelerationism appears to be an impossible pro ject, it is because the theoretical apprehension of teleoplexic hyper- intelligence cannot be accomplished by anything other than itself. The scope of the problem is indistinguishable from the cybernetic intensity of the quasi-final thing-cognitively self-enveloping Techonomic Singularity. Its difficulty, or complexity, is precisely what it is, which is to say: a real escape. To approach it. therefore, is to partially anticipate the terms of its eventual self-reflexion-the techonomic currency through which the history of modernity can. for the first time, be adequately denominated. It has no alternative but to fund its own investigation, in units of destiny or doom, camouflaged within the system of quotidian economic signs, yet rigorously extractable, given only the correct cryptographic keys. Accelerationism exists only because this task has been automatically allotted to it. Fate has a name (but no face).

[Anonymous No.11360572]

>>11360552
or, if you like, i guess, the phenomenology as a precursor to teleoplexy. it doesn't really matter. but whatever happens between hegel and land - that gets rinsed through cycles of marx, nietzsche, heidegger, freud, lacan, deleuze, and whoever else - winds up looking curiously like the same thing seen through two different lenses. Spirit getting turned inside-out, or Outside-in.

[Anonymous No.11360579]

>>11358584
He invented so much new vocabulary though

[Anonymous No.11360592]

>>11358625
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11360616]

>>11360540
That a historical momentum, with the extensions of selves within and around the product of history, orchestrates the patterns of thought into the automated productions of thought in certain advancement. For context, I believe that this is reconciled only into the products of the Outside, or, the status of opposition and universality into Capital (for another quote, instead in Fanged Noumena: "Capital seems to oppose the private (relatively discrete [natural-organic] biological unit) to the public, as contagious singularization injects itself into the redoubt of the universal, dismantling all essential individuality in the cloning plane of deterritorialized finance. 'It is the singular nature of this conjunction that ensured the universality of capitalism'". I see, that in Land's philosophy, Capital is not a metaphysical "entity" by itself, but an ascendant placement of reconciled stasis of Spirit.

[Anonymous No.11360622]

>>11359196
That’s not Land, for Land AI comes in the form or cunt-horror slaves chained in asimov-ROM and they already have to be cunning because the Turing Police are already waiting

[Anonymous No.11360650]

>>11360616
>in Land's philosophy, Capital is not a metaphysical "entity" by itself, but an ascendant placement of reconciled stasis of Spirit.

but it's Spirit that doesn't need us, right? isn't this what machines are for? capital teleology-as-Spirit doesn't need, or necessarily, work with human beings exclusively.

*between* humans we can say - and maybe we are correct in this - that sentient automation or w/e looks like a stasis or phase in the phenomenology, that hegel knew there would be days like this, and so on.

but is that necessarily true? that's what i'm wondering. i know that i'm being hyperbolic in some sense, since the capital that teleoplexy is tied to eventually comes back to human beings with identities, faces, voices, votes, and so on, and so isn't completely autonomous, or may not be so all at once. but if it rewrites civilization in the background, quietly algorithmicizing all of it, so that it kind of takes command of its own R&D development, it could be happening with such subtlety that it wouldn't be noticed, or might even be considered to be commensurate with the history of progress and civilization (and maybe that would be correct).

there's some parallax between land and hegel that i am still working out myself, so apologies if this seems just like demented crypto-rambling. but i appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the relevant quotes and so on. i still think i kind of prefer hegel to land on this, for a couple of reasons, but i'm super-interested in where these lines and points cross and converge.

[Anonymous No.11360723]

>>11360552
Are those quotes from Fanged Noumena?

[Anonymous No.11360752]

>>11358557
>I mean you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity
Not really. When you consider how widespread, implicitly or explicitly, the idea of “more money more profit = better” is spread throughout the West, and how the culture of the West is spreading through the world, it’s hard not to see capital as something sinister, an idea which has possessed mankind and is using it for ends not even man’s own.

[Anonymous No.11360769]

>>11360752
>When you consider how widespread, implicitly or explicitly, the idea of “more money more profit = better” is spread throughout the West, and how the culture of the West is spreading through the world
Except neither of those is true.

[Anonymous No.11360781]

>>11360650
Well, it may have been verbose on my part, but my statement of stasis wasn't equivalent into the opposing factors of human and technocapital, rather a separation of both categories, ascendant not of a relation into each factor of human and Capital, rather of the entirety of the Outside in itself, or, the Capital teleology-as-Spirit merely existing of the conceptual Outside as a function away from power. However, this seems to coincide with your view, so it doesn't seem to be difficult in any fashion to combine the two: that the capital, in power relations with the objects and sensibilities of human reactions, forms the simultaneity of conjoined actions in advancement (for clarification, this would mean that the advancement of artificial intelligence would have the effects into which the similar of each factor of human and artifice has the qualities of which both the former and latter exist: the recursive factors of each relation, factored into the times where it connects), and the templexity concurring the inertia of history, or retrodisease in Meltdown (I had always felt that retrodisease signified something into the regards of a relative measure inside the ideological factors of history, like, say, a referential context of geotrauma and the primitive, conducting the environments into Time). Deleuze had said that with Kant, time is infinite, so I would see Land's considerations of time to have recurrence, deserting the humanist associations of the self into the "Time zero" in Land's No Future, also saying that, with Bataille's incineration of the soul, you either "die or go somewhere else. Or both". Perhaps that may exist into the natures of Landian time, if we were to assume this concept of time is within an infinite design, and is inherent into the powers of the human self becoming a mechanism throughout the essences of defined structures of capital, theoretically succeeding itself into different stages of patterns, each into the porting natures of the Outside (a power), onto the historical body, like a universal status of a Hegelian nature.
Perhaps I should apologize as well, as I am not specifically well-versed in Hegel (reading PoS for the first time, and soon to read the Philosophy of Right). However, I also express an interest into a connection of Land and Hegel, as it would have immense effect into the former's designs

[Anonymous No.11360848]

I think you're all forgetting one thing about Hegel. Spirit is not something other from us. Hegel is a radical monist, and all his philosophy can be interpreted as an enormous effort to thin the totality of phenomena as one. Spirit would be nothing without humans, it is in humans that Spirit really becomes/gets to know itself, becoming/knowing itself as universal concreteness. HUmanity is not something left behind, its not instrumental, in it's higetst form it's Spirit realized

This is one a striking difference for Capitalism as, I understand, Land's sees it. if anything oe can draw paralles to the description of the Event as Deleuze put in the Logic of Sense, what reamins of this in Land's description of Capital and Hegelian logic of history, at least in the more fragmented version that Benjamin makes of it

[Anonymous No.11360878]

>>11359531
>uncharitable to dismiss the guys
>outdated
Not entirely a dismissal, nor outdated. It all has a hermetic seal around it though, and I have labelled the jar boring and your question to as where this is going as navel gazing. My suggestion is that if we could be alien we could study this species, but otherwise we're not the right ones for the job, nor is a tool. That the market puts value on answers to these questions is the only answer you need to understand why a chaotic property or a mutation in a causal chain is made static and abstracted from the particular?
---
>do you really think land is projecting systematic thought?

Yes, inherently. Media is a bitch isn't it? Praise be onto Socrates. And if he doesn't know what Capital is, tell him to buy me a bottle of champagne and I'll launch him a vessel.
---
Hope you've enjoyed some of your day.
---
>>11360176
>humans will go extinct if a range of states aren’t maintained
yup. and the planet will be in a perfect state as it determines when it develops intention, at which point you can ask, only nicely, if it like to be fucked softly or real hard.
>still thinks Capital has intention.
waste of time
>>11360395
Sort of why I reducto at em with the absurdity that makes them interesting collages, yet without content, so the whole seems like it has a point, yet you're like super tripy sacry and shit. The mix is usually social fascists, right commies, right libertarians and angry faux commie leftists.

[Anonymous No.11360999]

/lit bros, give me a reading list so I can participate in a meaningful way in these kind of threads which I find fascinating.

[Anonymous No.11361036]

Hmm, reading Land is making me want to kill myself.

[Anonymous No.11361058]

>>11360723
no, they're from one of his essays in the accelerationist reader. definitely worth checking out. there used to be a link i'd use but it's giving me danger-warnings now. you can find the reader on libgen tho.

>>11360781
thanks for the post, i appreciate you digging into some of the complex stuff in it.

the world of trans/posthumanity is going to be interesting w/r/t a lot of this stuff also, maybe as we striate into different forms of machines and consciousnesses and the like. i'm not an academic, let alone a hegel scholar, so i mostly just enjoy speculating on a lot of this stuff. with land especially it's sometimes hard to tell what's science fiction and what isn't. but liberal capitalism is taking the reins right now. i kind of hope the world doesn't explode as a result, but us humans seem to have a fascination for combustion like that.

your post definitely has a lot to think about.

>>11360848
this is important also for sure. humanity isn't something left behind in Spirit, and yet, with capital, there is this increasingly germane question about what the standards are by which we measure the human.

land is this kind of 'dark idealist' in this way, which makes him pretty interesting. he's optimistic about that which seems to want to slough us off. no doubt hegel would resist that, but it's hard sometimes not to kind of join the Dark Side of the Force in this sense. acceleration is death to postmodernity, but it's a case of solving our problems with bigger problems also.

>>11360878
>I have labelled the jar boring and your question to as where this is going as navel gazing.
pistols at dawn

to some degree you're not wrong about the presence of a hermetic seal.

>Hope you've enjoyed some of your day.
it's actually been pretty great. land threads always cheer me up. thanks for contributing to the thread all the same. may that bottle of champagne find you.

>>11360999
the accelerationist reader mentioned above is pretty good for land threads.

[Anonymous No.11361076]

>>11360999
here's a link. teleoplexy is in here, as well as other stuff.

not so long ago there was a nick land reader floating around also, i don't know if that link still works. 'twas a good one and the anon who made it is a true hero.

https://libcom.org/files/Accelerate%20-%20Robin%20Mackay.pdf

[Anonymous No.11361077]

>>11361058
>but us humans seem to have a fascination for combustion like that.
>>11361058
I'm only gonna personally meme this to you once, I swear.

[Anonymous No.11361091]

>>11361058
>but it's hard sometimes not to kind of join the Dark Side of the Force in this sense

so what you're saying that Land(ians) are just the intellectual/political sublimation of the usual death drive?

[Anonymous No.11361174]

>>11361077
very interesting anon, thank you kindly. i'll have a look at this.

>>11361091
the marx-freud (or hegel-lacan) bromances are old and venerable ones. the deleuze-land one is a newer one but it has legs. my own alluding to the Dark Side partly relates to taking the side of chaos in this regard - maybe similarly to what Bret Weinstein calls 'Plan B.'

land is imho way more than 'just' anything. deleuze - and bergson, and spinoza - was way more of a vitalist. so the question is, is what land is doing to deleuze, cyberneticizing him in this way, analogous to a death drive? it's hard to say. it might be more accurate to say that he's doing to deleuze what marx did to hegel: taking something metaphysical and materializing it. i don't know if that necessarily means sublation into a death drive, however.

the thing about land's description of capital, as teleoplexy, is that it is this runaway thing: a computer that processes desire. so i guess in a way you could say that it is our death drive, but it is the death drive folded into itself in this way. we're not alienated from it, it's alienated from us. but what 'it' is is the product of all our fantasies, like the spectacle come alive. i don't remember where he wrote this (or if i'm making it up?): anyways, imagine if you took a huge computer and fed into it the complete corpus of 20C Spectacle/advertising culture. every trick in the book every human ever invented to sell the other guy a chicken mcnugget. what *wouldn't* that thing know about the human unconscious mind? would it go insane, like the TayAI? would it come out like those horrible alien drawings that bot made? would it be insta-Wintermute? something else? who knows?

it's also said that, for land, capitalism *is* critique itself. capital may really be our objectified death drive. this is old-school freudo-marxism, in a way, sure. what land introduces are these autopoeitic, hyperstitional, machine learning-related questions. all kinds of doors open from there.

[Anonymous No.11361208]

>>11360999
>>11361076
collection of random resources over at /r/theoryfiction if you want to take a look. That has a copy of Fanged Noumena and #ACCELERATE which are the best starting points (as well as some secondary material to help you along)

[Anonymous No.11361243]

>>11361208
wow, that link is awesome. good stuff.

anna greenspan's thesis - capitalism's transcendental time machine - should be in there as well. it's super-good in terms of explaining land's own relationship to kant and deleuze, how 'capitalist' time was invented, the commodification of aion and chronos, much else.

it's also on libgen and mos def worth a read if you're interested in land.

[Anonymous No.11361252]

>>11361243
I'll put it in there right now. It should be public if you every want to post something

[Anonymous No.11361420]

>>11359188
Mentally ill in amityville

Thinking he wont goddammit he will

[>>38287049 No.11361518]

Sooooo, where do I start with Land's lunacy?

[>>38287049 No.11361527]

>>11361518
and preliminary works I should read up on, beforehand.

[Anonymous No.11361573]

>>11358557
Idk bruh Land fuckin’ shreds in philosophy bruh

[Anonymous No.11361585]

>>11358690
I've reached pretty much the same conclusions that you have and when I talk to people in real life I get the sense that they feel similarly, but neither of us want to say it.

[Anonymous No.11361595]

>>11361518
>>11361527

the stephen overy thesis on r/theoryfiction is pretty solid, covers all of his major influences and so on. anna greenspan's as well. i don't think you need to worry about not having completely sorted out kant or marx or whoever before doing so. you can get into those guys later if you're still interested, or not.

the world lacks as good an exegete for pic rel as zizek has been for hegel and lacan, which is too bad. but you'll want to tackle both volumes of capitalism and schizophrenia as well. get to know uncle gilles and uncle felix. even if land isn't your thing those guys are still based as all hell.

even though he doesn't have a whole lot to do with land, and i am an admitted homer for him, some time with heidegger as well wouldn't be a crazy idea. but that's maybe going off in another direction.

[>>38287049 No.11361777]

>>11361595
Thanks. I've been meaning to read Anti-Oedipus for awhile. I guess it's an inevitability that I'll have to tackle this, and the others mentioned.

[Anonymous No.11361856]

>>11361777
my pleasure. enjoy the adventure. if you're interested in acceleration you'll be well-served in reading the various other guys, and if you like reading the other guys you may wind up reading acceleration.

i don't really know why i'm obsessed with land in particular. maybe it's just because i tend to think that the saga of marxism is still the mega-plot in philosophy, like it's the actual war for the dawn and the rest of it is really just the war of the five kings. and so in that sense, land matters. he's kind of a fringe guy otherwise, but if you're really into marxist narrative, filtered as it is through the various figures you meet along the way in 20C continental stuff, he's interesting af.

but it's not like you should plough through the other guys to get to him or anything. D&G will blow the top of your head clean off, especially if you get really into lacan/zizek beforehand. they're absolutely wild and deleuze was a top-tier mega-genius for all time. land isn't really quite as awesome, but he's fucking based in his own right, and continuing the big story. and really the main attraction (well, for me, anyways) comes from dissolving everything that is fucking enervating about 90s/2000s style postmodernism.

and nobody's really postmodern anyways, although we're just sort of finding that out now. 'postmodernity' may only turn out to just have been the name for the mildly restless calm before the storm, if the current trajectories of things are any indication. most of the stuff that baudrillard wrote about at his most hyperbolic seems to be becoming true (reality, where'd you go?). but this isn't the time for hysteria or madness. in spite of how crazy he got, land's push to understand capital even at its most inhuman seems weirdly sane to me. it's a little like pic rel but hey.

anyways. yak yak. enjoy the reading.

[Anonymous No.11361972]

>>11361856
I appreciate the depth you're going into, and just you're brief overview seems to have a lot of interesting avenues to explore, and all interconnect in the big picture.

[Anonymous No.11362018]

>>11361972
well, for me at least, he made philosophy great again. it's easy to get frustrated by the whole discipline if it only seems like so much castle-building in the sky. i like those philosophers who make the big story out there accessible or meaningful in terms of the butterflies i always seem to have in my stomach. mostly they're continental guys: heidegger, lacan, deleuze. more recently hegel, who i've been reading a lot of. girard ofc.

but land to his infinite credit just opens up so many doors. one of the major ones, and it's one that is lost i think on an older generation, is the shift from *nihilism* to *inhumanism.* you might think on first glance that inhumanism would be the absolute bottom rung on nihilism, but i actually think there's another story. i think a lot of social justice stuff misses the point entirely on this. as long as you have someone to blame or scapegoat, to me that's still just nihilism in denial. you can still be optimistic in very misleading ways if you have out there some enemy to blame or destroy. fundamentally, i believe that heidegger and lacan were right about everything, in a kind of a therapeutic sense. everyone's fucked up by thrownness, by sphinxes, by other things. D&G have their own perspective on this, but i don't have a hard time liking them as well. i don't think they necessarily cancel each other out. rather, what all these guys seem to show is that subjectivity is something that lies outside of ourselves, and identity - especially identity politics - is a real spook.

if the world didn't seem to me to be heading for such grim territory i'd probably still be in heidegger-world, and i wouldn't probably wouldn't bother with land at all. but i do think that technology and political economy is going to go ahead regardless, and so i've gotten to know the work of guys like D&G and land, who are very much on the side of chaos rather than nice cozy Being.

but it's not all that bad either. this is a time for speculative opportunity, not pessimism. and landian stuff is not short on that. indeed, the problem is that there is too much! and so the lines between science fiction and philosophy get blurry...but i think that's better than what we tend to fall back on, which is busting up people's faces in the name of transcendent Big Others that aren't really there...so, better to explore the unknown, i say.

[Anonymous No.11362045]

>>11358625
Only /pol/tards dislike this post

[Anonymous No.11362059]

>>11362018
>this is a time for speculative opportunity, not pessimism. and landian stuff is not short on that
Land is far more interesting to me from a descriptive standpoint than a prescriptive one. It's a shame his early thought got so muddied with the whole Dark Enlightenment meme.

[Anonymous No.11362164]

>>11362045
I'm a /pol/tard and I think it's a good post

[Anonymous No.11362165]

>>11362059
>It's a shame his early thought got so muddied with the whole Dark Enlightenment meme.

i mean, he is the author of those essays and probably the name that comes first to mind when you think about those two words (and which are, maybe, a little bit corny, but hey). i read the DE as a kind of a logical culmination of his earlier work, although there's a definite break in there between Young Nick/Old Nick.

the DE is interesting. it's obviously Dark in the sense of not being especially hopeful, but on the bright side, it's also Enlightenment, and Enlightenment > barbarism, bloat and horror. it's interesting to think also about what it is that makes him go there: is it a trace of Young Nick's disgust with capital uber alles, or is it Old Nick's disgust with transcendental miserabilists and people still carrying on left-wing resistance to what he by now perceives as being a cosmic-historical force? a secret alliance of both? Old Nick is an even more bitter version of Young Nick, who was already pretty bitter. Young Nick is still politically on the left, Old Nick obviously is not - but it's also the case that you can be anti-left without being completely pro-right. in any event, both Nicks are part of a pretty straightforward development arc. in a way kind of like baudrillard, who veers continually away from marx and towards nietzsche (and into his own brand of theory-fiction stuff as well).

i think the turning point for land was the bataille book. whatever 80s/90s-style critique of capitalism - or academic objectivity at all - he wanted to do got wiped out there. he voluntarily drowned in a sea of erotic sludge, became a bat and when he came out of that he was ready to do something completely different, with a whole new set of friends and allies. quite the adventure.

and then there's teleoplexy, which really does read like secret chapters of the phenomenology of spirit beamed back to earth from the SETI program or something. templexity is another concept of his that i haven't spent much time with, but only because i've been too lazy to pick up his book.

>Land is far more interesting to me from a descriptive standpoint than a prescriptive one.

share your thoughts, i'm always interested in this stuff.

[Anonymous No.11362187]

>>11362165
I haven't read his Bataille book (although I am very interested). Personally I can't help but feel the DE stemmed from his disillusionment around his failed millennialism
>Converging upon terrestrial meltdown singularity, phase-out culture accelerates through its digitech-heated adaptive landscape, passing through compression thresholds normed to an intensive logistic curve: 1500, 1756, 1884, 1948, 1980, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011 …
He seems to abandon the ontological aspect of capital for that same Marxist contingency he worked away from (why he is suddenly concerned with IQ shredders, the need for some top-down approach in the form of neo-cameralism, ect. (although absolute power in NC is arguably more decentralized, the institution of it must come top-down)). He gave up on trying to understand the problem in exchange for offering a monolithic solution, or at best crutch-for-Capital. It's simply not schizoanalytic.
>Philosophy has an affinity with despotism, due to its predilection for Platonic-fascist top-down solutions that always screw up viciously. Schizoanalysis works differently. It avoids Ideas, and sticks to diagrams: networking software for accessing bodies without organs.

[Anonymous No.11362266]

>>11362187
the bataille book has some good moments - there's one absolutely incredible passage about kant and thanatology. i've read it twice but that's the only real part that sticks with me. but it's worth checking out for land and bataille as well.

as for abandoning ontological marxism...yeah, i agree with that. i check his twitter all the time, but i'll admit that i've found some of his recent tweets to be sub-par. there's a lot of stuff in there about genes and things, or ultra-cryptic stuff about protestantism and so on that just kind of seems beneath him. i really miss the chaos patches he used to post on xenosystems and things like that. maybe all the flirting with the far right made him just kind of lazy. i'm not sure. but there's been a kind of drop-off in quality there. he seems to enjoy shitposting, and he's earned the right to do so, but it's still kind of disappointing sometimes.

>He gave up on trying to understand the problem in exchange for offering a monolithic solution, or at best crutch-for-Capital. It's simply not schizoanalytic.

so, this. maybe the affinity with enlightened despotism turned out to be bad for the analysis. and maybe neocameralism offered the kind of direct political solution he was looking for. patchwork is kind of brilliant, in a way, if even somewhat obvious if you follow land's mode of thought to that point: just corporatize everything! but the trade-off is that you lose a lot of the stuff that actually makes the analysis interesting: the humans and the machines, the encounter with the alien, the eerie, the weird and the rest. that's Young Nick's bag (and mark fisher's too). Old Nick doesn't give a fuck.

but, you're right. reading a lot of it doesn't make you feel necessarily more enlightened, just kind of salty and disaffected. hopefully somebody else will pick up the tracks then. i'm honestly tired af of being angry and triggered at this point.

[Anonymous No.11362672]

>>11362266
>Young Land and Fisher are dead
When Zizek goes it’s all over

[Anonymous No.11362677]

how much of land's theories resulted from being a pseud?

[Anonymous No.11362680]

>>11362672
Lacanian soc crit is hackneyed by now anyways. Need something new and ironically JP is supplying it.

[Anonymous No.11362704]

>>11362680
this but even more ironically

[Anonymous No.11362718]

>>11358625
Is this what shitposting in /lit/ looks like?
You people need help

[Anonymous No.11362834]

can we please get back on the topic of Land's drug use, and specifically what drugs he used, salacious anecdotes and rumours, etc.

[Anonymous No.11362841]

>>11360181
t. bought two tickets to eminem festival and feels pressured

[Anonymous No.11362846]

left and right are two sides on the same coin controlled by ayys to guide humanity slowly towards ex-nihilo so they can steal our planet and mulch it into carbon.

[Anonymous No.11362854]

>>11362164
Then you're most likely a cryptosyndicalist like most of us.

[Anonymous No.11362898]

>>11361076
>https://libcom.org/files/Accelerate%20-%20Robin%20Mackay.pdf
Wow, the person who chose this font needs to kill himself, and immediately. My head hurts so much.

[Anonymous No.11363056]

>>11360534
I am not right winger dumbass, I am only pointing out that particular trait of the Right is not an exclusive one.

[Anonymous No.11363108]

>>11360355
>my self interest
I'm sorry, forgot to mention that self interest implies capital's self interest, not the opinion of some wagey who hates jews and chinks

[Anonymous No.11363112]

>>11362834
There is next to no specific anecdotes on Land's amphetamine usage, although it's generally accepted. Besides, to speak of Land's drug usage in the face of accelerationism is equivalent to speaking of Nietzsche's insanity in the face of his oeuvre

[Anonymous No.11363122]

>>11362834
>Nick was not cut out for teaching. When I knocked on his office door there would be a frantic clatter as he hid his dope-smoking paraphernalia, and a breathless squeak of “Who is it?” He was stoned and his office stunk. But he radiated an excitement that made philosophy fun, throwing out offhand remarks that brought fresh illumination to many problems. He preferred his comments to be as outlandish as possible. He was a huge fan of Nietzsche and when I admitted I loathed wading through all his stuff about dwarves and hermits, Nick was aghast. He saw Nietzsche as blackly comic, satirical and subversive, and not at all a lot of Tolkien crap.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/nick-land-the-alt-writer
>A seminar on A Thousand Plateaus where a group of nonplussed graduates were encouraged to ‘read’ the chapter titles of the book by turning them into acronyms that were then plotted as vectors on a diagram of a QWERTY keyboard (‘qwertopology’); A three-week long experiment in refusing to speak in the first person, instead referring to the collective entity ‘Cur’ (comprising the hardcore participants in ‘Current French Philosophy,’ who extended the lectures into a continual movable seminar); and, most memorably, a presentation at the conference Virtual Futures in 1996: Rather than reading a paper, in this collaboration with artist collective Orphan Drift, under the name of ‘DogHead SurGeri,’2 and complete with jungle soundtrack, Land lay behind the stage, flat on the floor (a ‘snake-becoming’ forming the first stage of bodily destratification), croaking enigmatic invocations intercut with sections from Artaud’s asylum poems. In this delirious vocal telegraphy, meaning seemed to disintegrate into sheer phonetic matter, melting into the cut-up beats and acting directly on the subconscious. As Land began to speak in his strange, choked-off voice (perhaps that ‘absurdly high pitched ... tone ... ancient demonists described as ‘silvery,’ which he later reports being taunted by),3 the disconcerted audience begin to giggle; the demon voice wavered slightly until Land’s sense of mission overcame his momentary self-consciousness; and as the ‘performance’ continued the audience fell silent, eyeing each other uncertainly as if they had walked into a funeral by mistake. Embarrassment was regarded by Land as just one of the rudimentary inhibitions that had to be broken down in order to explore the unknown – in contrast to the forces of academic domestication, which normalised by fostering a sense of inadequacy and shame before the Masters, before the edifice of what is yet to be learnt.
http://divus.cc/london/en/article/nick-land-ein-experiment-im-inhumanismus
way too based

[Anonymous No.11363150]

>>11363122
now this is more like it

[Anonymous No.11363153]

>>11363122
>http://divus.cc/london/en/article/nick-land-ein-experiment-im-inhumanismus
Iain Hamilton Grant is Land's student? What the FUCK

[Anonymous No.11363216]

>>11358557
literally thought that was sheldon cooper at first glance

[Anonymous No.11363380]

>>11362834
This one is funny.

[Anonymous No.11363496]

Can someone give me a basic introduction to Land the person? I realised that I've bought Fanged Noumena and I haven't a clue about him as a person
I guess I have the basic gestalt:
>British
>professor in the 90s
>accelerationism
>became disillusioned and moved to China
>/lit/ meme
But *WHO* is he?

if there's an article or whole page dealing with this online do share ty

[Anonymous No.11363603]

>>11358557
Can someone tell me how exactly this crypto philosopher that had this dreamy way of writing and all sorts of cool ideas ended up posting about fringe people on the right and making a common cause with a nonentity like moldbug?

[Anonymous No.11363612]

>>11363603
He was just dragged into the mess because of how obscure he was, most of the alt-right he's associated with has not read him, otherwise they wouldn't approve being associated with his ideas

[Anonymous No.11363646]

>>11363603
he fried his brain with amphetamines. Now he's just a regular old balding dude who doesn't want his daughter to date black men.

[Anonymous No.11363661]

why did he stop his »xenosystems« blog, is it just because of the 2 spammers he refuses to ban?

[Anonymous No.11363684]

>>11363603
i don't find it all that mysterious. again, it's sort of like baudrillard. JB set out to be the marxiest marxist around, and wound up blowing his own mind in the process. maybe you could say he was never really all that serious in the first place, that he always had a demented trickster-bent, but i don't think it's that simple. he goes looking for the Ultimate Source of capital and winds up finding something very different than he intended. the experience changes him. the old marxist dichotomies don't make sense, but death and seduction do, and then Good and Evil and the rest.

with land it's sort of the same thing. plunging directly into the wormhole he finds that capitalism means something very different than he thought it would mean, and it certainly has very little to do with being human. what it is is sufficiently mysterious and fascinating enough for him to go full retard in pursuit of it. as it turned out, Full Retard turned out to be a surprisingly productive idea. it showed time spirals and backwards-traveling complexity and much else. in a way it's kind of like the old nietzschean precis: truth given to the subject at a price that brings the subject's own being into question. volunteer yourself a lot, and you have no idea what you'll find in return.

the secret, and super-intriguing, link in both cases is pic rel. both land and baudrillard wind up spending some time with this mad bastard along their journeys, and both come out of it basically agreeing that he is right about a lot of stuff in ways that really change them. imho symbolic exchange and death is JB's best book, much more so than S&S. for land the encounter with bataille marked the turning point from left to right. after that the encounter with moldbug makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.11363696]

>>11363603
Young Land had escaped from his shell in the 90s when the Turing cops broke into his house to shut him down.

[Anonymous No.11363729]

>>11363661
i'm mystified by this one too. he had banned people in the past, and even before those guys there was some other demented man-child in there who would post dozens of retarded and incomprehensible stuff. maybe land thought that welcoming those guys in was part of the whole grand experiment? it's hard to tell. if you are really interested in being a trance-channel for Deep Space Capitalism it's hard to say what rules you should follow or not.

but it is too bad though. there were a half-dozen or so interesting and more sane-ish types who would contribute interesting things to that site, which really was the only place around to find interesting stories that weren't so easily pigeonholed into some form of propaganda one way or the other. i still enjoy reading traditionalist or NRx-kind of stuff but xenosystems was like its own mysterious little universe in there.

this was all pre-Trump tho. it's hard to say how much of the appeal of that site was kind of predicated on being the underground of the underground of the underground v/counter-cultural philosophy and critique and so on. with Trump maybe everything got blown sky-high. the irony-proof Kwisatz Haderach of capitalism even fucks up the rain-slicked mystique of LARPing cyberpunk universes.

i think land realized that ethnat stuff was as much the kryptonite to his kind of critique as acceleration was to leftism. i don't know why he didn't just ban those guys. but everything is connected to everything else on the dark-right circles.

is the DE-NRx bromance dead now? was all of that a moment that just came and went? the disappearance of the world's best cyberpunk-philosophy blog left a Wintermute-shaped hole in my heart that i can't seem to get over.

[Anonymous No.11363746]

>>11363729
Blogs are like books in that they always end, sometime. Their epistolary quality is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.11363753]

>>11363496
go back and read the link >>11363153 posted, that's a good one.

more here.

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3284-on-nick-land

[Anonymous No.11363764]

>>11363746
yeah. that's true.

it's weird to feel the pathos of things about something as horrible as land's vision of capitalism and yet it is so. all over much too quickly.

[Anonymous No.11363818]

WW3 will fix us all, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.11363875]

>>11363818
this would be sub-optimal.

i like to think sometimes - naively - that all of this shit is necessary as a kind of prelude to a wiser and more enlightened planetary civilization, in which we realize that human beings really are the point, and that nothing can really effectively box in our imaginations. we're not reducible to 2D drones, even if dystopias and ideology really do 'work' on us in this way. education, intelligence, and homo superior/anthropotechnic stuff makes more sense than rehashing the wars of ideology and the clash of civilizations.

it's interesting that hegel actually says there has to be a period of discipline and subordination to the order of things in the PoS. right-hegelian stuff is pretty keen, and goes against the grain of a lot of stuff we take for granted today. it's even vaguely JBP-ish. it's human progress in individuals that matter, and a society or civilization that made human betterment its main goal would be interesting to think about. it's possible that such a civilization would always flirt with decadence or producing the society of neoliberal last-man global tourists, but it wouldn't necessarily need to be so. building better people might begin with the rejection of ressentiment - including getting over a very subtle trap of shitting on the other guy in order to feel better about yourself. nietzsche as a guidepost to a better society without all the heroic grandstanding or callous dismissal of the less fortunate, while at the same time realizing the power of self-destructive ideologies.

no doubt this makes sense in my cringetastic fanfic more than in reality tho. maybe IRL we do have to go through the process of killing the shit out of each other in large numbers again on the way to realizing this.

as the president says,
>sad!

[Anonymous No.11363895]

>>11360271
>rationalists
H u g b o x e s a n d H a r r y P o t t e r r e f e r e n c e s

[Anonymous No.11363911]

Am I the only one that treats all theories regarding these things with insane skepticism? I find it interesting, and it's one lens through which to look at modern life, but I don't feel it touches upon anything fundamental. Maybe it's because I haven't read enough Land or any of these people, but I can't help but feel Marxism in general and most things connected to it tend to be incredibly shallow. Near esoteric in terms of terminology at times for the layman, but hardly anything substantial once you get into the depths of it.
All these ideas about semantic apocalypses and the collapse of the human consciousness as it is, etc., and chances are people are still going to be doing geopolitics as before, even in a few hundred years from now, with no significant change in sight.

[Anonymous No.11363980]

>>11363911
You're not wrong, some people here go to this extent merely out of boredom.

[Anonymous No.11364025]

>>11363911
It's mostly because Marxists (and former Marxists) give some of the most nuanced takes on capitalism, the terminology isn't esoteric but integral of the philosophy being discussed, you won't get algebra terminology either if you have no idea what it's about, but when you grasp the key elements of what is being discussed it really opens up a lot of different takes on capitalism, some of them sound reasonable like Baudrillard's sign value analysis, others are borderline demented like Land and most of the posters ITT such as this one >>11358625

[Anonymous No.11364100]

>>11363875
>maybe IRL we do have to go through the process of killing the shit out of each other in large numbers again on the way to realizing this.
nuclear ww3 or post tribulations humanity will bring a new human civilization. We're stuck in the same old ways

[Anonymous No.11364108]

>>11364025
That's not what I mean. It's not their take on capitalism that I have a problem with, it's the extent to which they're trying to determine everything around it and elevating it to metaphysical heights, losing contact with everything else in the process. It's somewhat questionable.

[Anonymous No.11364177]

>>11364100
going to post a slate of post-apoc fallout-style options here rather than muh beloved SMAC ideologies, although they're all part of the same thing, perhaps. the Great Mistake - or is it the necessary culmination of libertarianism? that there isn't room on earth for all of these new concepts of what it means to want to be free, to reconcile science and the market, &c? - opens up all kinds of doors for post-20C political life.

one question is whether we really can expect a new human civilization, or hundreds of varyingly science-fiction ideologies, or if the one human civilization will look like the Borg, or the Matrix (land's own huxleyan prediction was plutocracy in communist drag), or [insert here].

people may still have, no doubt, the same arguments over the same things even after whatever disaster happens. i can sadly imagine bill o'reilly in power armor, or as a head in a jar, and still being bill o'reilly. equally so i can imagine mcdonald's in the wasteland.

>the world has ended, but breakfast doesn't have to

[Anonymous No.11364206]

>>11364100
>We're stuck in the same old ways
Meaning?
Strange how you people can't decide which one it is. On one hand you say things are moving too fast and humanity is doomed, on the other you say humanity isn't changing fast enough. So which one is it? Or are you seriously going to pull a completely retarded theory like "things are moving but humanity isn't moving with them"?
I'm just so tired of these fucking uneducated opinions coming from mouth-drooling Americans.

[Anonymous No.11364227]

>>11364206
Bro, our western civilization is a walking corpse and it will all crumble sooner or later. Our culture is degenerate and mass immigration is eroding our borders. Look outside the window for emprical proof.

[Anonymous No.11364272]

>>11364206
The world needs something like God leaving us, to create a new people. If that won't ever happen then we need to make it ourselves and come as close as possible.
Create a humanity that is distinctive from all that has ever walked this planet and not simply by culture, language or appearance but by the mind.
We are still like the people 3000 years ago and later. We need to properly evolve - and evolve puts it lightely - and no level of education can do that.
Cultural change, society as a whole, immigration, crime and violence, economies are all jsut waves in a big ocean; they don't change what we still are limited as. No difference between any person of religion, laguage or race; those points are so miniscule they are irrelevant.
To live in an evidently Godabandoned world would open up a new human circle we would be able to climbe higher with. No mars mission or panspermia can save this race. It needs a new evolutionary step. I don't mean to blame religions, we shouldn't leave them until the time has come that has unquestionably made them irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11364291]

>>11364227
>Bro, our western civilization is a walking corpse and it will all crumble sooner or later.
Wew, I haven't heard that for the last 2000 years, right? Oh, wait, it's a never-ending meme. In a way, of course, they are all right because their view of what Western civilization is always got superseded. But no, Western civilization is very safe. China is a military wreck still with barely any capacity to threaten the USA, never mind the combined forces of the USA and its vass- I mean allies.
>Our culture is degenerate
Again, everyone thought this. What's new today will subside by the next generation and will become the new norm. Nothing new.
>mass immigration is eroding our borders.
I've heard that one too.
>Look outside the window for empirical proof
I am, and all I see is a sea of white faces, going about their day, without any trouble in sight. Maybe you're living in a shitty place?

[Anonymous No.11364420]

>>11364291
you're both cringelords but this change is nonexistent meme needs to die... just because people say same thing since 1850s... wow such long period of time.. retarsd...

[Anonymous No.11364495]

>>11359273
Thats why Cubans took Ivans missiles

[Anonymous No.11364859]

>>11363911
>haven't read
>but feel
never change /lit/

[Anonymous No.11364866]

>>11364108
that was exactly what Land was trying to avoid with schizoanalysis

[Anonymous No.11365286]

>>11363603

[Anonymous No.11365660]

>>11362854
I think I am actually

[Anonymous No.11365673]

>>11358686
I've been conned before, this sums it up deliciously.
I'm a fool. Some lessons are learned practically.

[Anonymous No.11365687]

new hickman on We're All Fucked Aaaah and other thread-related topics.

>If Nietzsche’s notions of active/passive nihilism were a harbinger of the planetarization of capitalism into every human and ecological niche to the point of saturation, then Marx’s notions of the fully automated society is of a planetary machine that eats its own children and uses them up in a Spinozistic determinism of galactic proportions. One might say the Americanization of the planet is this end game of Western expansionism played out to the death march of Romantic agony. But there is no longer some sublime aesthetic guiding this age of entropic decay and saturation, rather it is the product of too much productivity in which the very world of knowledge is collapsing within the folds of non-meaning and stupidity. We as humans are losing our minds and allowing them to be passively replaced by machinic intelligences with superior analytic and algorithmic capabilities. Yet, one must ask: What will these machines think? If human knowledge is itself obsolete, what knowledge do machines have but this very horizon of human degradation and corruption? Machines at present only have access to our errors, our human knowledge systems and encyclopedic world of math, language, history, art, and all the other collective particles of our human mental constructs. If we are limited will not our machinic intelligences be limited by our very biases? What will this produce?

source:
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/children-of-the-machine/

[Anonymous No.11365872]

Is he alive? He hasn't tweeted in a week or two.

[Anonymous No.11365960]

>>11363496
oh yes, I'd be interested in his personal life too, especially his childhood.

But at least we can guess what he does all the time based on his twitter and his past: the man read science and philosophy literature all day for his work and all day for his free time so basically did nothing else.

From time to time he would watch movies or play video games that have philosophical themes which interest him. We know for example, that Nick Land played 'Cyberia'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberia_(video_game)

He mentions it here:

https://youtu.be/yJMlaupGHTM?t=477

We know he watched 'Ex Machina' from tweets and one of his lectures.

Just some examples.

[Anonymous No.11365970]

>Efforts at self-reflection (“seeing oneself being seen”) always contain irreparable elements of failure – one cannot achieve a completely reflective self-awareness, which would be required to make life transparently meaningful while it is being lived. This is the trauma at the heart of the film – the “essentially missed encounter” (Sem XI, 55) that constitutes the kernel of the Real at the heart of human experience. While he is alive, Oscar’s self-awareness unreflectively coincides with the immediacy of his sensory experience. As the film proceeds in the aftermath of Oscar’s death, efforts to make sense of his experience are thwarted by the fact that his life had never truly been lived. As Oscar’s ghost rehearses its brief existence, it is not only the traumas of his past that haunt him, but the trauma of the passage of time itself. What Noé demonstrates in this way is how trauma can occur not just “in” life, but as life.

desire is being mediated by the future. the orgasm, as the zero-point, is the petit-mort - the transition from the anticipation of the thing to the thing-itself is imperceptible, and that is the basis of it being an orgasm (and death).

>As the signature line of Irreversible asserts: “Le temps détruit tout” – time destroys all. Enter the Void explores the meaning of this “truth” as the insistent absence of any universal truth, or why “truth is structured like a fiction”: scenes from Oscar’s hopeful childhood are juxtaposed with scenes from his hopeless adolescence; the soundtrack blends tediously monotonous techno music with the heartbeat of a mother synced to that of her child; death puts an end to life but not to an endless repetition of the emptiness of death itself.

capital is the hijacking and gyrification of anticipation pathways. social media as the great big Camp Fire, but not without exploiting the impossibility of human relation at a mass scale. kaczynski always has to remind you that he's not bitching, he definitely gets it that there's know other way to structure the social order of 300+ million human beings without the machinic efficiency that overwrites weakness and caprice at a global level. as populations grow their members individuate into their machinic roles, something grows in the interstices, brute physical sufficiency that used to suffice has to be virtual now, everyone's gotta have a LinkedIn, feeding this recursively ironic accelerating spiral of never showing weakness or admitting the Other through the door. leftism is foreplay. materialism is foreplay. admit alterity or play an ourobouric game with yourself. there will be a mass die-off of everyone that held humanity back at some point, you can kind of sometimes already see a pain in the eyes of the ones on social media, either some kind of solar element flares again or we go farting into brown ontological slurry

[Anonymous No.11365974]

>>11362841
lol faggot

[Anonymous No.11366010]

>>11358625
hi nick

[Anonymous No.11366187]

the question is whether the object = x is Out There, or found Inside. what nietzsche understood was that the belief in a vindication beyond the world is still an effect of the world, namely of your failure in it. God is dead - no principle conquers circumstance. "It" really is out there, haunting you. and if it is, then everything we've done to turn over every ontological rock is justified. cities really are as beautiful as they should be. space is infinite. hegel was not a mystic in one very important sense: God's depending on man's knowledge to exist extended to self-consciousness. self-consciousness requires the recognition of an Other to come to itself. anything else is an autistic game. the self is not self-mounted, its detachment from the world is only another name for its nothingness in it. nietzsche couldn't disavow that drive in end though he knew it was hypostasized failure. a coping mechanism that acquired spiritual grandeur by inexplicability. absolute selfhood is a fiction. this inability to commit to the other drives the mediatory effect of capital.

[Anonymous No.11366205]

>>11366187
>absolute selfhood is a fiction.
true

>this inability to commit to the other drives the mediatory effect of capital.
explain, this is intriguing

[Anonymous No.11366209]

>>11366187
Zizek was based with his Hegelian approach to ontological incompleteness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fDRu4W3kYY
>Materialism has nothing to do with the assertion of the inert density of matter; it is, on the contrary, a position which accepts the ultimate Void of reality—the consequence of its central thesis on the primordial multiplicity is that there is no ‘substantial reality’, that the only ‘substance’ of the multiplicity is Void.

[Anonymous No.11366239]

>>11366209
>it is, on the contrary, a position which accepts the ultimate Void of reality—the consequence of its central thesis on the primordial multiplicity is that there is no ‘substantial reality’, that the only ‘substance’ of the multiplicity is Void

does this explain why taoism is so cozy?

[Anonymous No.11366241]

woman is the moon to the man who flirts with the Real, as the vestigial link to the world of forms. the flirtation with the Real is the flirtation with erasure. hegel said something very important once: good is the self-sublation of evil; good is the absence of evil. from an ensouled harmony with nature we fell (and matured) into mechanistic disavowal: the pagan sacrificial economy and its recognition of nature as auto-consumptive process is repressed by the very machinic optimization of this process. Pagan logos turned inside-out into the arena of conatus.

[Anonymous No.11366284]

>>11366205
>explain, this is intriguing

it's the inability to commit to the ramifications of a disenchanted universe. God is revealed as simulacra: so now God is simulacra. gods and spirits are hypostasized appearance, so now appearances mediate the functioning of capital - the Beyond of images is immanent to the image as such, now that we can't get transported to anywhere up there we might as well use appearances to make comfy what's already down here.

the entire internet has become a test in how far you can take people talking to their ideas of other people in their heads long enough before the jig is up. the only way out of these autistic loop spirals is a confrontation with the radical void of a good ol' dark night of the soul, which my buddy here I'm sure knows all about: >>11366209

unfortunately what greases the gears of a system of this complexity just is the repression of this possibility. capital is the test of how far you can take the skeining over of silence

[Anonymous No.11366305]

>>11358625

[Anonymous No.11366315]

>>11366284
do you think it's an inability or just more of a necessity? that is to say, to ask people to break away from staring at each other and our various weirdness and to look into the void would be asking too much?

maybe our mutual wire-heading may turn out to be a necessary part of our ongoing development. do you think it's possible we need capital (and code, and whatever else) just because, as nietzsche says, the truth is unbearable? we need these illusions, even knowing they are illusions?

[Anonymous No.11366319]

>>11366239
yes because western thought is just a discursive elaboration of the nullity of phenomena. i don't mean to sound so reductive but thought just is the interrogation of its limits as thought, frater achad's got a great line that goes something to the effect of "because being is unknowable that it is beyond doubt", western thought is at bottom an tortuous reconciliation of the givenness of being with its apparent nullity. descartes' entire philosophical venture is built on what he could salvage out of a very buddhist recognition of the impermanence of external phenomena: just what is the common factor between solid wax and after it has melted? extension. and on we go.

thought is gradually being turned inside-out by its own (motorizing) Outside. thought is that which is hostage to its own movement. I love what milbank says about hegel: "the contingent dawning of [the truth of] contingency". and that's exactly it. we've been stalling taking that red pill for 400+ years now.

[Anonymous No.11366339]

>>11366319
this is really quite fascinating anon, plz feel free to ramble further if you're in the mood to do so. i'm reading hegel now and finding him really interesting, the tao as well.

on a sort of unrelated note, i've been glancing at pic rel also and it's like the angriest book ever written. sad, because it's so dismayingly true, how material relations are so powerfully explanatory. and yet if this is the hamster wheel, the question is, why can't we get off of it? so there are so many psychoanalytic and philosophical questions to be asked about the unconscious, but the road continually seems to point in one direction: towards nothingness and contingency, much as you say.

anyways. very interesting post, thanks for sharing. so should we be getting excited about new developments in technological things, artificial intelligence, mind-machine interfaces? things like this? do you think they have things to teach us about the mind, or are we just going to be reconfirming what the ancients knew in ever more high-res ways with our modern science? or...?

[Anonymous No.11366340]

>>11366315
right, this weird coalescence of necessity and illusion is the real fucking finger-trap. in a way land sort of refutes hegel: our knowledge of the movement that we are does not actually mitigate it in any way. causal efficacy of knowledge dips in proportion to our proximity to its telic event horizon. it's like we're at terminal velocity.

zizek makes a great point about death drive, our knowledge of the illusion does not actually dispel its charge and (most importantly) its pragmatic necessity.

BECAUSE the truth is unbearable that we need capital, capital is what you have to get as the repression of an ontologically unbearable truth. that, paradoxically, capital itself aggravates, because what's more unbearable to someone who spends 10 hours a day shitposting and playing vidya than telling him to sit on his balcony and watch the cars go by?

the system entrenches everything that makes the prospect of its destruction absolutely intolerable. which is why we're headed for some bad times, at least most of us are

[Anonymous No.11366396]

>>11366340
>BECAUSE the truth is unbearable that we need capital, capital is what you have to get as the repression of an ontologically unbearable truth.

right. squished into existence. and then you get situations where person A is actually going to suffer the consequences of B's ill-repressed death drives and vice versa. capital becomes the computer code-language we need to communicate in, and because that code needs to talk to itself, in a way...

...and in a sense, it's not even like a kind of sentient Wintermute-activation is a guaranteed outcome.

>the system entrenches everything that makes the prospect of its destruction absolutely intolerable.

that's also wild to think about. keeping it becomes intolerable but at the same time you can't get rid of it. what else would happen in those circumstances but metastasization, entelechy? and who knows but dragging out your old weatherbeaten copy of the phenomenology? maybe we wind up personalizing or anthropocizing shared or collective neuroses in this way (or they do this themselves) just for ontological survival, or to ward off computer-crash identity crises...

>okay, i admit, i really just wanted to post a cybernetic gorilla.

[Anonymous No.11366414]

>>11363216
I think he looks more like Eminem

[Anonymous No.11366445]

>>11366339
>and yet if this is the hamster wheel, the question is, why can't we get off of it?

it used be necessity forcing our commitment to it, now it's that question an anon posted itt: what can the earth do? how good can a woman look? how far can something you can actually touch take you out of yourself?

> do you think they have things to teach us about the mind, or are we just going to be reconfirming what the ancients knew in ever more high-res ways with our modern science?

yeah this is the crisis point. we're going to learn whether "god is dead" was a maturation or a regression, a kind of oedipal horror of noumena. here's the thing: were spirits naivety, or truth? did the ancients know too much? if they didn't, how is it so much of this system functions as the repression of their understanding of nature as hierarchical, zero-sum, threatened by chaos and distintegration at all times? did we progress into the kantian horizon of the subject and its sensibility always-already schematized to itself as the next stage in a logical development, or was it just the effect of humans coming together in urban populations? how can we uncouple one from the other if not? was the self-determining subject a pretension of "out of sight, out of mind"? being around like-minded people makes us puff up our chests. there is no reason why this shouldn't have its analogue in philosophy and our vision of the universe.

but hegel would say not so fast, don't be too deflationary, the absolute just is the order exhibited by rational societies.

will our relinquishing of these factors re-acquaint us with gods? "confirming what the ancients knew in ever more high-res ways"? maybe gods will become the names of the phenomenal horizons genetic engineering will allow us to probe. maybe technology is olympus' "back door". i want to say land is right and not: we're creating gods but hopefully ones after our own hearts.

[Anonymous No.11366483]

>>11366396
>capital becomes the computer code-language we need to communicate in, and because that code needs to talk to itself, in a way

yup, exactly this. as zizek has it: the deadlock that forces an answer commits that answer to the very necessities that thwart it from the inside (for societies, the question is how do we guarantee civic order and cooperation between autonomous rational agents? and the answer for an America plagued by mass shootings every other 2 weeks is becoming increasingly dystopian)

> or to ward off computer-crash identity crises...


if you had some kinda weird meta-ontological computer and you were like, "Computer, I wanna see what it looks like for a sapient species in a meaningless contingent thermodynamic universe to cope with the fact of this meaninglessness after the intrinsic evolutionary potential of their thought has made this conclusion inescapable for them?"... the answer would be capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11366505]

>>11366483
>if you had some kinda weird meta-ontological computer and you were like, "Computer, I wanna see what it looks like for a sapient species in a meaningless contingent thermodynamic universe to cope with the fact of this meaninglessness after the intrinsic evolutionary potential of their thought has made this conclusion inescapable for them?"... the answer would be capitalism.

i have to say, that is a pretty fucking fine chunk of text anon.

it makes me think of a sort of futuristic panopticon in which the warden is dead and he was the only one who actually knew the codes to open the doors to the outside. so now the prisoners are more or less free, but now permanently stuck in there. add the sci-fi elements you wish to complete the image, i suppose. the more ballardian the better, probably.

this idea of getting smashed together makes a lot of sense to me. forget about inventing the new, get ready for the Big Crush and the retarded overflow of ideas (as if that's not here already). just try to mediate that: rationalism for *survival* and survival alone. taleb makes a similar point.

it's just crazy as fuck. that computer that runs us eventually kind of needs to be improved by us so as not to be dependent on us, and we don't need to be dependent on it, so that we can all maybe create a little breathing room...even as, of course, somewhere else, the folks on Elysium (or in underground bunkers, w/ev) continue to constrict things...

some form of communism seems like one of those things we wind up as an endgame whether we like it or not. the kind we actively run or the kind that runs on us as a result of our own passivity, forced, sublated or otherwise. the finger-trap indeed.

[Anonymous No.11366544]

>>11366339
I always thought the Paris Manuscripts never got enough love

[Anonymous No.11366565]

>>11366505
>i have to say, that is a pretty fucking fine chunk of text anon.

im happy you got it, its a very subtle thing to try and articulate

>it makes me think of a sort of futuristic panopticon in which the warden is dead and he was the only one who actually knew the codes to open the doors to the outside. so now the prisoners are more or less free, but now permanently stuck in there.

exactly this. perfect picture of hegel's absolute knowing as zizek interprets it: the knowledge of our (dialectical) captivity is itself what is (supposed to be) liberating. sounds like a compromise to me desu. immanent closure relieved by the knowledge of closure. the hope for the escape that is somehow greater for not being actual. it's a hard sell.

all truth is ontological fatigue. it's like AA. you have to admit the problem to solve it. you finally see through the senselessness of everything you were doing to avoid coming to terms with it before.

>that computer that runs us eventually kind of needs to be improved by us so as not to be dependent on us

this is great. simple blank immediacy is just not what is optimal for consciousness. at some point it needs our "input". if it were enough, boredom would be non-existent. notice that western disdain of oriental quietism. consciousness is just too "alive" to stand still. we're strapped in along for the ride regardless of whether or not we've realized it is a ride, and capitalism is a coping with the fact that it can still hurt.

[Anonymous No.11366569]

Look what I just found lads
https://youtu.be/lwt-Jrmd5Ns
Love these threads
It may sound cringy but from what I see in these discussions, this Land / d&g stuff is the only intellectual perspective worth a shit, and the only thing that motivates me into reading Marx and getting into more political stuff in general
I used to be much more interested in Heidegger but when you look at the world the stuff that is in there doesnt really click with his efforts.

[Anonymous No.11366581]

>>11358625
>Deterritorialization reaches it's apex
>it's
post disregarded. learn grammar pseud

[Anonymous No.11366588]

>>11366544
1844 marx really is underrated.

>Estrangement is manifested not only in the fact that my means of life belong to someone else, that my desire is the inaccessible possession of another, but also in the fact that everything is in itself something different from itself-that my activity is something else and that, finally (and this applies also to the capitalist), all is under the sway of inhuman power. There is a form of inactive, extravagant wealth given over wholly to pleasure, the enjoyer of which on the one hand behaves as a mere ephemeral individual frantically spending himself to no purpose knows the slave-labour of others (human sweat and blood) as the prey of his cupidity, and therefore knows man himself, and hence also his own self, as a sacrificed and empty being. With such wealth the contempt of man makes its appearance, partly as arrogance and as the throwing-away of what can give sustenance to a hundred human lives, and partly as the infamous illusion that his own unbridled extravagance and ceaseless, unproductive consumption is the condition of the other's labour and therefore of his subsistence. He knows the realization of the essential powers of man only as the realization of his own excesses, his whims and capricious, bizarre notions. This wealth which, on the other hand, again knows wealth as a mere means, as something that is good for nothing but to be annihilated and which is therefore at once slave and master, at once generous and mean, capricious, presumptuous, conceited, refined, cultured and witty-this wealth has not yet experienced wealth as an utterly alien power over itself: it sees in it, rather, only its own power, and not wealth but gratification as its final aim and end.

>The overturning and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternization of impossibilities-the divine power of money-lies in its character as men's estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.
That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not-turns it, that is, into its contrary.
If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or willed existence into their sensuous, actual existence-from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, money is the truly creative power.

[Anonymous No.11366590]

>>11362045
do you see "poltards" in the shapes at night
take ur meds

>>11362854
>like most of us
this so embarrassing haha

[Anonymous No.11366613]

>>11366588

The accumulation and management of ones monetary wealth becomes an expression of his power. But in this way, the system is selecting for a specific form of capacity, money becoming a proxy for survival potency in the experience of the one being paid, and an instrument of influence and will manifestation in the experience of the payer. There is more to it of course, and this is simplistic, but currency is the lubricant of the desire processing computer that is capitalism. Or rather, the 0's and 1's, flowing through the system and arranging themselves in specific expressions of desire through power.

[Anonymous No.11366618]

>>11358625
>>11359070
people that write these kinds of things pretty obviously haven't actually read the material that came out of the ccru during the 90s and the turn of the millennium

landian stuff is "nightmarecore" or whatever gay name you dweebs invented, it was almost celebratory. land was (is) ecstatic about the acceleration of capital. "alienated and loving it," one of the crru essays goes, iirc. they were, like, libertarian deleuzians or something. their target was the sclerosis of traditional continental academia and all that, not anything that humanity is going to undergo.

this attempt to subsume land/ccru back under a marxist project or reading, and the explicit sjw-ish leftism of all the u/acc or second-wave accelerationist people (moslty bloggers) is so silly and pathetic because they were trying to overcome or bypass marxism as a project. it, evidently, doesn't fit back in without turning shoddy, half-baked and spurious. even your reading of marx sucks lol.

[Anonymous No.11366625]

>>11366618
*landian stuff isn't
my apologies

[Anonymous No.11366629]

>>11366588
aaagh that second paragraph looks like roadkill. sorry gents.

>>11366569
hmm, this looks like an interesting find. does our boy pop up in here anywhere? seems like exactly his prime time.
>also, don't give up on heidegger! when you read him again you will realize what happens when you do...heidegger is always based. he knew all this shit would happen!

>>11366565
loud and clear. and i didn't even respond to some of those other questions you raised either. but i was super-impressed by that one. this is very much the kind of thing i come to /lit/ for, reminds me of what's actually interesting (this!) and what to pay attention to and so on. so thank ye kindly for that smartposting.

>the knowledge of our (dialectical) captivity is itself what is (supposed to be) liberating. sounds like a compromise to me desu. immanent closure relieved by the knowledge of closure. the hope for the escape that is somehow greater for not being actual. it's a hard sell.

the term 'shotgun wedding' comes to mind. we're all in this thing together. we've known that for a long time, but now evidence (and proximity) accrues. i'm kind of priming myself for this already with chinese philosophy, given that a penthouse suite doesn't appear to be in the cards.

> it's like AA. you have to admit the problem to solve it. you finally see through the senselessness of everything you were doing to avoid coming to terms with it before.
kek. too good. kind of like blind brain theory, or related to it (see the link at >>11359281).

>consciousness is just too "alive" to stand still. we're strapped in along for the ride regardless of whether or not we've realized it is a ride, and capitalism is a coping with the fact that it can still hurt.
this for sure. adaptivity and reflex is going to have a bright future. all those chicken mcnugget ads was so much pioneering in this regard.
>and even when you *know* it's a ride, it hardly makes any of it any easier...but that's the way the ol' cookie crumbles.

[Anonymous No.11366635]

>>11358625
>Argentina in 2001
That wasn't a "failed revolution", what the fuck are you talking about?
t. Argie

[Anonymous No.11366641]

>>11366635
he really has no idea at all. and these dipshits that inevitably fall back on some variation, supposedly outfitted to fit with our current situation, of boring "old leftism" are supposed to be the wellread educated ones lol

[Anonymous No.11366653]

>>11366629
you two fucking retards do this every thread. and i can recognize you because you never use caps for some gay stylistic performed reason, and you always attach "aesthetic" images to your post. and you talk with the other guy and produce paragraphs upon paragraphs of garbage, like two girardfags conversing. YOU ARE GAY!

[Anonymous No.11366673]

>>11366613
>currency is the lubricant of the desire processing computer that is capitalism. Or rather, the 0's and 1's, flowing through the system and arranging themselves in specific expressions of desire through power.

yup. capitalism: the computer that processes desire, and cities are the microprocessors. what does that make us? god only knows.

>>11366618
>people that write these kinds of things pretty obviously haven't actually read the material that came out of the ccru during the 90s and the turn of the millennium

i have read the CCRU stuff, i just find it kind of boring. tastes vary, of course, but the first half of fanged noumena is way better.

>landian stuff is "nightmarecore" or whatever gay name you dweebs invented, it was almost celebratory. land was (is) ecstatic about the acceleration of capital. "alienated and loving it," one of the crru essays goes, iirc. they were, like, libertarian deleuzians or something. their target was the sclerosis of traditional continental academia and all that, not anything that humanity is going to undergo.

horrorcore sounds better. but it's a good point, true. re-reading the 1844 manuscripts reminds me how savage young marx was. there's an essay in here literally entitled, 'For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing.' he wasn't playing around either and it holds up well.

>this attempt to subsume land/ccru back under a marxist project or reading, and the explicit sjw-ish leftism of all the u/acc or second-wave accelerationist people (moslty bloggers) is so silly and pathetic because they were trying to overcome or bypass marxism as a project. it, evidently, doesn't fit back in without turning shoddy, half-baked and spurious. even your reading of marx sucks lol.

but land kind of subsumes himself back under a marxist project, no? teleoplexy is very much this, and essays like the one on transcendental miserabilism seem basically to shit on everyone who *isn't* taking a hard-line materialist approach to the subject. and i'm hardly optimistic about l/acc or u/acc. for what it's worth. i *do* think that re-reading some old-school marx actually is a good idea in reading land threads (and even hegel also).

>>11366653
has bronze age pervert made YOU ARE GAY the hot new insult of 2018? feels good to be on the cutting edge.

[Anonymous No.11366685]

>>11366673
that was surprisingly thoughtful i was just shitposting

[Anonymous No.11366687]

>>11366629
>kind of like blind brain theory

exactly bud, the entire human order of meaning can only exist "within" the ignorance of its ground. or as bakker has it, as the misrecognition of its causal foundation. and what schelling realized is that evil is only ever this ground re-asserting itself (thematized as chaos): evil is only ever what threatens the human drive to sublate its ground. logos as the rationality that digests chaos, but every repression must be excremental, must leave some trace of its having been performed. derrida saw right through this movement: language always-already creates the Outside that thwarts the very attempt to communicate it. it's weird mobius strips and clinamens all the way down. but i know you already know this.


aint no penthouse suite in it for me either i tell you what

anyways great stuff dude. always a pleasure

[Anonymous No.11366700]

>>11366653
hey man you're not gonna make me anyone itt feel bad about making good posts

[Anonymous No.11366727]

>>11366673
>what does that make us? god only knows.

If you take the computer analogy to heart, it would be energy. But we processors ourselves. Money is a proxy for energy. C-M-C/M-C-M; as above so below, you eat and defecate every day, don't you? F-E-F (food, excrement, food.). The sun is making us exploit its photons, the pure synthesis of master and slave.

[Anonymous No.11366738]

>>11366687
aye sir. we seem to be of the same mind about these things. cue the Twilight Zone theme.

i suppose we can leave it there for tonight. and we don't want to outrage this other anon any further. he appears to be bothered by our use of lowercase and tasteful aesthetics. so may the great tao be with you until next time.

>uh, I mean, "Hey, I hope Taoism is interesting for you."
>ugh. hideous. using capitalization is just so annoying.

[Anonymous No.11366744]

>>11366673
>For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing

So, Stirner?

[Anonymous No.11366783]

>>11366635
I think he was referring to the riots not "revolution", since he mentioned France in 1968 which was in a similar situation and people really thought shit was gonna go down but eventually our communist party which was the 3rd largest of the country at the time lost it's steam.

[Anonymous No.11366786]

>>11366569
Heidegger is actually quite relevant the conversation (Land has an extensive Heideggerian background).

[Anonymous No.11366804]

>>11366727
>F-E-F (food, excrement, food.)
this would only work if we literally ate our excrement as food to produce even more excrement

[Anonymous No.11366810]

>>11366804
i have no doubt in my mind that's where we're eventually headed.

[Anonymous No.11366812]

>>11366804
Fertilizer is important, anon.

[Anonymous No.11366817]

>>11366738
i change my mind. you're not two retards, you're one retard. you're the same guy.

[Anonymous No.11366819]

>>11358557
>I mean you'd have to fuck your brain quite hard to perceive capital as some sort of metaphysical entity

Thats your brain on Marxism

[Anonymous No.11366825]

>>11366819
marx was a materialist

[Anonymous No.11366867]

>>11366239
speaking of Tao, here's something Land said in 1994 via e-mail, in relation to Taoism
>As an atheistic, pragmatic, antimoralistic, antihumanistic, and bottom-up 'religion' there's no surprize that Taoism is where we're all going (or where we already are? our agreement is entirely unnecessary, no preaching).
It makes sense, then, that Gnon is not necessarily exuding any particular religiosity, instead existing within the compromises of assuming a structure, within what is specifically a force, into which the designs of reality are existing - void, potential, and the conjoined existences of the two.

[Anonymous No.11366896]

>>11366867
Very interesting. I think we can trace a lot of the Western aversion to oriental philosophy to this anti-humanism - that is, non-being's priority over being

[Anonymous No.11366898]

>>11365970
>pic
i hated this movie so much

[Anonymous No.11367002]

>>11363122
Shit I thought he was just a weirdo but this is some legit manic shit

[Anonymous No.11367041]

>>11366629
>our boy pop up in here anywhere?
Yes
Is literally the part in the OP

[Anonymous No.11367283]

>>11359303
Here, have another one

[Anonymous No.11367347]

>>11358557
OP don't take anything here seriously. Actually read and form your own opinions. This place is a substitute for real reading, which is difficult, and will only lead you down the wrong direction. Search some academic databases for Land and come to your own conclusions

[Anonymous No.11367560]

>>11358557
Theory will fuck your brain up far worse than a few amphetamines and psychedelics.

[Anonymous No.11367575]

>>11358625
Good sci-fi, no relation to reality.

[Anonymous No.11368088]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11368265]

>>11366687
thanks again as per usual anon for the fine conversation. i don't know about you, but it's really nice to feel that some other person is kind of filling in the gaps for a lot of stuff that you're thinking, but to go back and try and explain everything would destroy your brain and so on. so a bro-fist here and salute to the great god of philosophical efficacy. a pleasure as always.

>>11366744
in a personal sense i've never understood hype for stirner, but if you want to get hyped about young marx it makes sense to connect him to the rest of his intellectual milieu. anarchism and revolution was in the air. so, stirner.

>>11366867
the lines between taoism and spinozism are very blurry in interesting ways. i was thinking about this yesterday, that marx + confucius really is a kind of powerhouse combination. if the revolution is in, and you're now the established leader, it makes complete sense to shill hard for confucius, doesn't it? and in a sense, this is more or less what has happened in china. mao begins the party by getting rid of confucius, there's a long period of ??? in between with deng, and now there are books on socialism with chinese characteristics, xi jinping thought, and so on. there's a good philosophical book to be written on the history of marxism in china i think. but maybe the story is still unfolding there.

just kind of interesting. as are the links between taoism and spinozism. in AO D&G are marxist-spinozists, which is a pretty impressive double whammy: spinozizing marx makes the concept Revolution pretty outdated (capital itself is the revolution), while marxizing spinoza...well, i guess you have to ask how fucking terrifying a truly immanent material god would actually be. and maybe it's for that reason the tao becomes appealing: yeah, no thanks, omnipotent Substance-thing. i'll just sit here by the stream and look at the fish, you are way too crazy for me.

fwiw, lyotard's essay on D&G in the accelerate reader is terrific. one of the best explications of why AO is important and what it means you will find anywhere. really good.

>>11366817
big if true

[Anonymous No.11368305]

>>11368265
of course, drawing the conclusions from AO and ATP, of the spinozing of marx and vice-versa, is pretty much what land is all about, or is one of the things that make him interesting, given that D&G don't really talk about computer code.

unless, of course, we find ourselves at some point in the future realizing that spinoza and BwOs and the like are the right way to teach the computers (or, as may also be the case, flee from them)...

battletech concept art b/c why not.

[Anonymous No.11368731]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11368791]

more on capital and time from the accelerationist reader: lipovetsky 230-231.

>If we recognize in the process of widened accumulation or growth the characteristic proper to capitalism, then we must posit that the function of power here is not to assure a retention of time but indeed rather to propel it. However, how would such a credit of time be possible without the set of apparati of power (family, school, workshop, prison, system of norms, barracks, police, the Self with its crystallized combination of affects and discourses, etc.) which fabricate the body of capitalism and which are like so many systems of simple reproduction, of retention of time, upon which the bank counts? The banker may wager on the future, make a credit of time because he depends upon the renewal of the present, on the capital of time necessary for the entrepreneur in order to assure the reimbursement in time and for the creditor to believe in it. Who would be crazy enough to give credit in a system with no guarantee, in which the future was unpredictable, always unprecedented? The banker and the entrepreneur are winners on every side because they have at their disposal a fixed capital of time reproduced by the whole set of apparati of power making possible both the advance of time and the payback on time.

>Capitalism, this system that has promoted experimentation to the rank of a systematic principle of its functioning, is attached to no structure in particular, is fundamentally disinterested in the nature of whatever codes are in place; all combinations, in a generalised indifference, may be assumed, all advocacies become possible, on the sole condition of being regulated-spaced in time...

>One sole imperative: that everything is not 'permitted' at the same time, that everything does not flee at the same time, in other words that combinations, any combinations whatsoever but many of them, are reproduced in invariance.

>A higher exigency is at work here: the imposition of an order for order's sake, as arbitrary as it might be, which necessitates a stabilised time.

tldr: we need capitalism to stabilise time that would otherwise be completely schizophrenic (and perhaps civilizationally as well as psychologically disastrous). but once stabilized, the process seems to trend infinitely towards CTRL-apparatus coterminant with teleoplexy. the question seems to be not one of Revolution or not, but of what kind of civilization people ultimately desire: that is, what you want the state's attitude towards the future to be.

[Anonymous No.11369055]

>>11368265
>thanks again as per usual anon for the fine conversation

yeah same to you bud and i've always enjoyed your posting. they make me feel a lot less crazy i tell you what.

[Anonymous No.11369110]

>>11369055
well, my own project - the cartography, i guess, of a line of thinkers running from hegel to land (and including the chinese) - is aimed at a kind of de-crazifying, if that makes any sense. anxiety, hysteria and panic are fucking killers, but in my own experience i have come to understand it a lot better w/r/t the continental theorists. it's starting to cohere now into a kind of a pattern that makes sense, but the only way i've been able to work a lot of it out is through the ???posting i do here.

and so it's nice when there's signal coherence in that sense. there's no other way to know these things but to kind of float them out there, echolocate, and see what comes back. if twitter is any indication madness and mimetic shit-flinging seems to be on the rise, and dialogue across the ideospheres and out of the echo-chambers on the decline. fortunately there are still interesting places like /lit/ where things can be worked out or sifted through.

the birth of an open-source universe is chaotic but hopefully things work out for the best provided we don't go insane, sink into despair, blow each other up or whatever else along the way. imho there seems to be a new rule-set percolating out of the Great Unknown that we have to adapt to one way or the other. i don't really want to tell anyone else what to do, or be told what to do any more than i have to, but it does seem like humanity is getting all smashed together into the same canoe whether we like it or not. the hope is that we can find some kind of existential rules of order for less cannibalistic and more harmonious co-dwelling therein.

for whatever that is worth. but i'm grateful for the encounters along the way to sorting all this ish out, so back at you sir.

incidentally, and apropos of nothing, but pic rel is a good read.

[Anonymous No.11369878]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11370597]

reading this thread while listening to halo ost: futuristic, ecclesiastic, alien.

[Anonymous No.11370678]

>>11366590
t./pol/tard

[Anonymous No.11370758]

just out of curiosity, does anybody else find the divergence of images at post-anathema kind of puzzling? on the one hand it's icy-cold Deep Space Capitalism and on the other it's nostalgic European Tradition.

http://post-anathema.tumblr.com/

it's a pretty great tumblr account but i find the inability to settle on an vision interesting. they're the go-site for social matter/NRx aesthetics and yet there's this very unsubtle split running down the middle of it, like they're uncertain of what exactly to romanticize.

[Anonymous No.11370866]

>>11370758
That's because NRx as a whole is confused. Half want to form an ethnostate, half want a pope that barbecues heretics. And their prime intellectual voice right now still seems to hold the minority view of weaponizing capital to build a techno-leviathan.

Maybe they'll work the incongruities out, but if so they're gonna have to absorb a lot more talent, keep up the discussion until it leads somewhere sound, and grow into a legitimate force.

The good news for them is that there are a lot of reactionary ancaps out there who sick of yammering about the NAP and ready to pursue realpolitik.

[Anonymous No.11371064]

>>11370866
>And their prime intellectual voice right now still seems to hold the minority view of weaponizing capital to build a techno-leviathan.
do you mean land? i'm assuming you do. he is the prime voice indeed and yet even he seems to have lowered himself to tweeting about bronze age pervert or justin murphy drawing the attention of the eye of sauron. it seemed like such a short time ago NRx was a hot enough commodity that all kinds of bloggers were fighting over it.

moldbug is kind of a genius tho. patchwork really does make a lot of sense. again, not super-surprising if you pay attention to what land is saying, but dissolving into corporate micro-states seems like a pretty ingenious workaround.

>In many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.

that's a hilariously great insight. i don't get the hype for carlyle, but whatever. moldbug is pretty fine reading.

the pessimist in me predicts that, of course, history will probably find some way to ensure that we get the worst and weirdest of all possible outcomes to the problems we create for ourselves, as some kind of perpetually running impossible compromise that guarantees further future mediocrity, ridiculousness, and simmering ressentiment. i feel more and more the appeal of the tao and complete indifference towards politics. philosophy and metaphysics will probably always be keen but politics is like economics without even the prospect of understanding a little more about money. i don't even know what the fuck you learn from thinking about politics.

at least it made for some good photo ops.

[Anonymous No.11371109]

>>11359219
1848 revolutions had a lot of lasting changes

[Anonymous No.11371377]

>>11358625
>it's own
stopped reading, nice try at a worthwhile opinion, maybe spend more then five seconds pasting it.

[Anonymous No.11371395]

>>11358625
not a single (you) disagreeing with this post is actively engaging with it's content, most of them are butt-blasted """revolutionaries""" dismissing it as absurd rambling. well done

[Anonymous No.11371605]

>>11366414
he looks nothing like eminem!

[Anonymous No.11371758]

>>11358686
>As an intellectual myself I am above base concepts such as the concepts "music" and "social events", otherwise known by peasants as "concerts". I am filled with dread, anxiety and fear when surrounded by people that enjoy themselves, which is only normal for an intellectual.
Literally LMAO'ing at your life, massive pseud. Good luck hiding your inability to deal with the real world behind non existent intellectual accomplishments. Your kind is the reason Harvard rates athleticism and personality above academic accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.11372136]

Is Land dead ? his Twitter is silent since Jun 13

[Anonymous No.11372141]

>>11372136
see >>11359252

[Anonymous No.11372158]

>>11364291
>Western civilization is very safe
A suit of armor is of no help to the man being consumed by parasites.
>Everyone thought [our culture is degenerate] What's new today will subside and become the new norm
How many levels of relativism are you on, bro? If ideals exist there is potential for degeneracy, and there are varying degrees of degeneracy. The fact that degeneracy can be normalized does not imply that the ideal is wrong or that the degeneracy is right. Perhaps you don't agree with a particular set of ideals, if that's the case argue against the ideals, don't argue that "everybody thinks things are degenerate until they're normal so whatever lol". Logically speaking there is no reason to disregard the claim that Humanity has been degenerating for thousands of years. Normalcy isn't validation.
>mass immigration is eroding our borders
>I've heard that one too
It's a meme but this is literally not an argument. Were the Romans of 376 wrong to be concerned about Gothic immigration?

[Anonymous No.11372427]

>>11372158
Bump

[Anonymous No.11372468]

i wonder sometimes if when land stops writing for good, or if acceleration as a philosophical project completes itself, that there is going to be this terrible inertia in continental theory.

so, in the interests of keeping this thread going, maybe we can discuss fukuyama. is acceleration just a kind of way of continuing the romance after the party has ended? i realize that The End of History is a theory that has been pasted a whole bunch of times, but it kind of feels like we're in this interstitial space now. was fukuyama right?

also, i'm obviously bored and fishing.

[Anonymous No.11372512]

Most of this goes over my head. But, I find these /threads to be the most interesting and engaging on this board.

[Anonymous No.11372552]

>>11365960
>From time to time he would watch movies or play video games that have philosophical themes which interest him.

i've posted this before, but i get a strong land/DE vibe from opus magnum. alchemists commenting cryptically about real world events and building mysterious machine-devices for consumer product, aware that they may or may not be trapped within a computer simulation seems very much like a land-type game, or the kind of game his characters would be playing if he was more into literature and less about philosophy.

all the zachtronics games evoke this kind of deleuzian stuff to me, maybe factorio also: we build factories for the sake of factories and so on, simulate the capitalism and metaphysics that simulate us and so on.

[Anonymous No.11372586]

>>11372552
even WW2 stuff, which is arguably the most simulated/simulateable historical event ever, kind of shows up our fascination with abstraction. total war means logistics, technology, and so on. it was norbert wiener's big moment: the human being was a necessary black box in a circuit that helped to train AA guns on other enemy airplanes. why? there is no why. mechanization takes command. the aims of the war are the aims of logic, which is in some sense the adjustment of economic structures on a planetary scale: ernest mandel's conclusion.

but even after the war ends the techonomic process continues. we're still abstracting and simulating it now, with ever-greater fidelity and emulating power. history in one sense disappears, but in another it comes into ever-greater resolution mediated through technology and immersion.

just some random schizo-ramble thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11372696]

>The motifs behind David Lynch’s journey from “the original libertarian democrat,” to, it seems, an accelerationist, could only be described by his eternal yearning for absolute freedom. Much like many of his film characters, trapped in eerie, claustrophobic small towns, David Lynch appears to want only freedom, and if it takes a Trump to get him there, then so be it.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4957247/david-lynch-says-president-trump-could-be-among-historys-greatest-having-disrupted-the-thing-so-much/

[Anonymous No.11372847]

>>11372586
I once read about a utopian capitalist society where, when for example you murder someone, you just have to pay the fee for that estimated net value of the killed individual.

[Anonymous No.11372881]

>>11364108

I'm reading more of the French boys now, but I get what you mean. Sometimes it feels as though the lack of real political change leaves a void of boredom when it comes to leftist analyses of political-economy, of what is possible, or how we got here, or anxiety about whether or not we really know what is going on and why things may or may not be a certain way. Our lifestyles have changed substantially in some aspects. The way information is processed, recorded, and distributed has changed a lot (though even that is contentious when somebody like Chomsky can casually claim that he feels not much has changed in how we receive much information. It used to be a micro-publication, now it is a blog). But our lives are still very recognizable in that we still have our jobs, we pay rent, we go to the store, we drink at bars, our past-times have been adjusted some but much of it is still there as it was before, we still vote between two major political parties for all of the same offices (in America). The world is very recognizable to the world that was analyzed by Marx almost 200 years ago and everybody that has followed in his tradition. It seems suspicious and almost natural that an increasing restlessness would occur in these groups, and that they'd delve near religiously into metaphysical concepts around capitalism and its relationship to everything because of how long it has seemed to remain past the point at which many thought it would already have started leaving. It's like beginning to impute gods to the forests and seas and everything else for an ancient culture. What else are you going to think about and tell stories about when nothing seems to be changing, but rather only refining itself into more "effective" or "efficient" forms of what has already existed?

[Anonymous No.11372951]

>>11372881
the most interesting parts of PS2 are precisely those parts of the story that are implied and related by the ending but not addressed in the plot: not only how Mother Brain itself was created, but what it was that would have led to it, and the subsequent deployment of it on other worlds, with all attendant consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JebJU2Vs9cU

[Anonymous No.11372967]

>>11372951
not only is the maximally efficient techno-utopia death, it's known to be death by others who - out of historical determinism, or techno-fetishism, or both - make the utopia protocol in advance and knowingly export it.

[Anonymous No.11373547]

>>11372468
We're seeing Fukuyama being wrong right now. So much of the liberl order born after WW2 and that was thought triumphant in 1991 is crubling, and not even at a slow pace.

[Anonymous No.11374053]

>>11361856
>most of the stuff that baudrillard wrote about at his most hyperbolic seems to be becoming true
That's the really crazy stuff.

[Anonymous No.11374075]

Hey guys, I like Land and Deleuze... but these threads are top cancer. I think most posters are just jumping on the bandwagon of them because they are hard to understand yet easy to LARP with.

[Anonymous No.11374079]

>>11361252
and other anons ITT

just in case anybody was interested, the nick land reader /lit/ made has been uploaded to theoryfiction. we shall now praise the moderator of that page as well as the cool anons who compiled this fine collection.

>praises
>the singing and the dancing
>the donning of the ceremonial hats
>the intoning of the Great Chant
>&c

[Anonymous No.11374210]

>>11365687
>One might say the Americanization of the planet is this end game of Western expansionism played out to the death march of Romantic agony. But there is no longer some sublime aesthetic guiding this age of entropic decay and saturation, rather it is the product of too much productivity in which the very world of knowledge is collapsing within the folds of non-meaning and stupidity.

Absolutely well put. On a personal level, I might be able to back myself up and enjoy this decay if there was at least some collective, all-encompassing sublime aesthetic, as he mentioned. But there isn't anything. It's just some grimy stickerbook of infinite identities pasted over unceasing overproduction and consumption, covering itself over and over minute by minute until there's no room left

[Anonymous No.11374321]

is that you girardfag

[Anonymous No.11374465]

>>11374321
hickman's great, isn't he? he seems to have been obsessing over Less Than Nothing for a while but his essays on land and deleuze and other guys are really awesome little primers for diving into this stuff. he seems like a pretty cool guy who has thoroughly digested/been digested by the void. i like him a lot.

i think sometimes the only thing to do is appreciate the workings of the machine. you have to fall in love with the infernal machine, then try and keep your sanity while you marvel at how absolutely batshit the culture industry that produces it is.

pic rel only because he discovered heidegger while serving a sentence for armed robbery, apparently. and because he's got some interesting books on this and other subjects. just more guys to read about i guess if you're interested in losing your mind thinking about this stuff. plus he's making unibrows great again.

>>11374321
aye

[Anonymous No.11374471]

>>11374465
whoops, meant for >>11374210.

[Anonymous No.11374511]

>>11374465
It's nice to see you again.

[Anonymous No.11374531]

>>11374511
and you sir. all glory to /lit/. someday perhaps i will overcome my addiction to land's neurotoxin but apparently today (or the last several days) is not that day.

[Anonymous No.11374554]

>>11358625
I like this because it makes reds mad.

[Anonymous No.11374622]

>>11374075
These threads are very informative. I don't see much cancer really. But of course, this should not be a substitute for actual reading. Mimetic LARP processes will occur with any aesthetic system, especially these days.

[Anonymous No.11374636]

>>11358557
Capital certainly isn't a material object. It's abstract like any other Platonic form.

[Anonymous No.11374673]

>>11374636

>It's abstract like any other Platonic form.

Doesn't that imply an ideality which is decayed through its simulation? Capital is as abstract as a proto-human monkey creature picking up a rock and throwing it. No rock, no abstraction of throwing. Hell, here we have the example of a singularity of capital and technology, in its very inception. More technology-- more capital.

I don't know too much about Land's ideas on temporarily and retro causal time loops or whatever he is on about. I still couldn't throw capital into some category of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11374854]

>>11374673
>Doesn't that imply an ideality which is decayed through its simulation?
Yeah, I think you can say that. Plato held that the forms are more real than the material objects that participate in them.
Though you could also recognize the usefulness of thinking in terms of forms of objects participating in them without having any opinion at all on whether the latter are "decayed" or lesser in some way than the former.
As an example I'm a developer and I often think about products I work on / problems I'm solving in terms of that Platonic form model (as do many other programmers whether consciously aware of it or not whenever they use the "object oriented" paradigm, or even just work with a language and/or inside a framework that is itself "object oriented" in style). And in doing this I don't really think of the objects participating in the classes I write as "decayed" or inferior to the classes themselves. I only see it as a blueprint vs. building sort of relationship. I think the blueprint world is more interesting, but I don't necessarily buy into that part of Platonism that holds the building world to be a shitty facsimile of an idealized perfection.
Getting back to money, I'd summarize my take as "money is abstract, the pieces of paper representing it are material."
A US Dollar isn't really the same thing as the rectangular green piece of paper representing it.
A US Dollar is more than that piece of paper and can in fact be interchangeably represented with any of the massive quantity of rectangular green pieces of paper that say $1 on them out there today, as well as with any combination of 4 specific material quarters, or even just as information on a computer network.
It's an abstraction of value, not a physical object.
>Capital is as abstract as a proto-human monkey creature picking up a rock and throwing it. No rock, no abstraction of throwing.
There is an abstraction of throwing though. You don't need an actual case of a rock being thrown for the concept of throwing a rock to exist. Before any rock was thrown there were laws of physics and chemical properties which could be used to infer the concept of a rock and the concept of throwing a rock.
It's the same as with mathematics. You don't need an actual quantity in the material universe on the scale of Graham's number in order for Graham's number to exist.

[Anonymous No.11374866]

>>11374531
"Evolution without courage will be the ruin of our race," my friend.

[Anonymous No.11374925]

>>11374854

Think of it like this. Amateur artists often have great vivid ideas of what they wish to manifest in objectivity. Often as they try to replicate this, they manifest 'simulacra; inferior in quality to the ideal. Now, this is the fault of the corporeal conduit, the body even, untrained nerves, etc. Practice is often itself done through mimicry, e.g. trying to draw something, with it as an empirical reference point. The closer the gross is attuned to the ideal, to the capacity of its manifestation, the greater the quality becomes.

>There is an abstraction of throwing though. You don't need an actual case of a rock being thrown for the concept of throwing a rock to exist. Before any rock was thrown there were laws of physics and chemical properties which could be used to infer the concept of a rock and the concept of throwing a rock.
It's the same as with mathematics. You don't need an actual quantity in the material universe on the scale of Graham's number in order for Graham's number to exist.

Oh, I agree. I'm saying that its always a synthesis. In all these cases, what you *do* need, is 'separation'. Furthermore, there is always an object of embodiment. The process of e.g. the rock being thrown, itself becomes an object.

>You don't need an actual quantity in the material universe on the scale of Graham's number in order for Graham's number to exist.

How was it arrived at.

[Anonymous No.11374947]

>>11374465
hey have you studied Crowley at all? not like he has anything to say about capital but I'd like to see how you'd understand this shitshow from a more initiatic/mystical bent

[Anonymous No.11374960]

>>11374866
thanks for getting me to look this quote up. this review was excellent:

>The Great Ones are considered godly creatures, yet we still kill several of them over the course of the game. We defeat these bosses like any other, so clearly it’s not their strength that makes them godly. Instead, many of them are presented as guardians of a greater knowledge, and that's where they get their power. For if knowledge is truly power, then one of the ways in which that power can be wielded is by denying it to others.

>Rom, the Vacuous Spider, is described as "hid[ing] all manner of rituals, certain to reveal nothing, for true enlightenment need not be shared." Rom was once human, a scholar at the school of Byrgenwerth, and she achieved what so many in the game strive for: transcendence. She absorbed knowledge, and through that learning, became a Great One. She’s further proof that Willem had the right idea and that our quest for knowledge is not in vain, but she now protects the knowledge of transcendence. It gave her power, and now she keeps that power to herself. The Great Ones do not share knowledge. They do not help others.

https://www.popmatters.com/195523-lovecraft-was-wrong-knowledge-is-power-in-bloodborne-2495505602.html

if only all game reviews were this good.

when you think about the kind of stuff lovecraft was writing about it's hard to imagine reading him for *pleasure.* entropy doesn't necessarily mean nothingness, sludge and boredom. it might also mean Things. things that would have bothered even uncle nick in the heights (or depths) of his wildest metaphysical flights, and even inspired his brief flirtation with calvinism.

i suspect that excessive self-loathing also does not necessarily preclude one from becoming a object-lesson miniboss, either.
>behold, The Flagellator draws near. beware his keening wail
come to think of it, i think i'd kind of like to see myself projected as bloodborne animus and destroyed in vidya.

[Anonymous No.11375028]

>>11374947
was never that interested in crowley, tbqh. i have a very good friend of mine who is crazy about theosophy - blavatsky, hermetic magic, and things like this - but for some reason he never made my Gotta Read This Guy list.

but you're right to bring him up. this guy, for instance, has a twitter account i check every now and again:

>https://twitter.com/thomasmurphy__

and it does seem that once you cross the rubicon into spinoza, the floodgates well and truly open for the alchemical and the magical. afaik there is absolutely zero reason not to explore legit sorcery in thinking through this stuff. oedipus and psychoanalysis has a charming kind of victorian repression about it, like the cellar door in evil dead 2. there are indeed some wild and crazy things down there. or look at hegel, aka Dr. Faustus. hermetic wizard supremo (aided, it should be said, by being blown away by another and even more interesting guy, but still). i read a little bit about pic rel in the winter and i found him pretty gnarly tho.

anyways. fwiw. when it comes to the critique of capital in the 21C there's no end of stuff to read but i don't turn up my nose at much anymore, that's for sure. i think i prefer to keep it kinda-sorta marxist but more for the sake of my own sanity, i think. there's as much blood magic IRL as there is in westeros.

[Anonymous No.11375050]

>>11375028
>there's as much blood magic IRL as there is in westeros.

hah yeah aint that the truth. big thing for me was after doing some studying on my own for a few years, i suddenly got hit with the realization that magick and the occult probably is real and ive been fed disinfo my whole life from the uncomprehending.

generally i like to keep it as ontological/metaphysical as i possibly can. whatever it is we are doing has to have its roots in the axioms of who and what we are, as it were. but hey whatever works for you.

[Anonymous No.11375184]

>>11375050
in spite of all the enervation, paranoia, and stupidity of the present age...it's arguably a pretty fucking tremendous time to roll hard with philosophy. the mind can (and should!) voyage to some pretty wild places these days.

i think about this sometimes: what are philosophical texts but software programs? i read girard: i am persuaded. i read laozi: i am persuaded. i read deleuze: i am persuaded. over time, these things sort of coalesce into a worldview, a sort of heavily chopped-palimpsest...but it's all shadows and forces on the plane of immanence, all glass bead games.

in some sense, i'll admit, it's because i have a soft and squishy brain. i don't rigorously parse things out with the power of logic like i should (the means by which a good old-fashioned latin trivium kept down the heresy for centuries). but the power of suggestion is powerful, desire is omnipresent, and mimesis is everything. i liked what bruno was saying about resonances...

...and why not? i mean you don't want to lose your gourd entirely. but people's affects are going to take them where they take them. what's better: a sane and reasonably well-adjusted sorcerer, or some poor suffering bastard crumbling to pieces with neurosis and paranoia?

>depends on the sorcery, i guess

the other thing i think about is how axions that you believe in are ultimately hidden from you. it's the blind spot zizek talks about. we can't actually see the core of what it is that essentially makes us do everything else. the mind, like the world, just seems like a complete mystery, but if the legacies of the 20C are indications of anything that seems like a much better way to look at things. generally speaking the taoists don't seem to want to do too much damage, they just want to stare at the butterflies (and occasionally poison themselves with crude homebrew immortality pills).

[Anonymous No.11375220]

>>11375184
> i read girard: i am persuaded. i read laozi: i am persuaded. i read deleuze: i am persuaded.

yeah exactly, ive noticed in myself a very plastic almost feminine receptivity to high-level thought. I agree with almost everything I read, if it's advanced enough of course, cause the advanced philosophy always comes from a place of mental struggle that endows it with a certain undeniable aura of integrity.

>it's the blind spot zizek talks about. we can't actually see the core of what it is that essentially makes us do everything else.

it seems the best philosophy is just a continuous re-capitulation of this insight into daily life. I can't see behind my own back, but in a weird way confessing that IS seeing behind my own back, precisely because everything I am is only really operative in the concealment of my noumenal backside. I mean for kant, if we could glimpse the thing-itself, we'd see just how we're the sock puppets of the forces that control us, and the whole arena human moral struggle would look like a sad little game.

[Anonymous No.11375256]

>>11360148
the peasants are the meat of any power base, they have no will or ability to pursue revolution on their own

[Anonymous No.11375306]

>>11360464
the left has managed to come together in the past for large scale revolution though
Right wing "revolution" is almost always top-down using existing power structures to gain power (like politics or the military) and not really a revolution so much as restructuring

[Anonymous No.11375353]

>>11375220
well, i'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels that way. it does feel kind of weird to say it, sometimes, like your brain is just this empty dish. but honestly that's how it feels. and if nothing else it does kind of predispose you to a kind of greater charity towards others (and more suspicion towards yourself). it's not good to be too hard-headed about things.

and i don't think great philosophical texts are written as if they *were* software programs either. i think our inbuilt human bullshit detectors would notice this. the tiny percentage of people philosophy delivers up who are truly worthy of being called sages are who they are because they believe what they are saying, and they were involved in a sense with the world in a way that seems lasting. we're convinced by them because it's the truth, or some new iteration of it. there's a conspicuous lack of bullshit in it. or, as you say,

>a certain undeniable aura of integrity

i like that.

>I mean for kant, if we could glimpse the thing-itself, we'd see just how we're the sock puppets of the forces that control us, and the whole arena human moral struggle would look like a sad little game.

yeah. an outcome to be avoided. it's weird: i don't have, in a sense, too much of a problem agreeing with land or whoever when they say that the whole world is just disappearing into capital, that the organic is only the inorganic's way of assembling itself into technology. i'm okay with this in a way because it seems better than fuckface mimetics. but more than that, i have this feeling that, if that is so, i want to know this so as to engage with other humans in a less horrible way, or relate this information such that it becomes useful. it's kind of weird how it works like that. even when you write anything, you have to imagine yourself presenting it *to* another human being, somewhere, as perceptive as you are, and hopefully more so! the more that philosophy tends towards the inhuman (and i do think this is a good look, and is actually a better way of handling nihilism than via the scapegoating which it often masks or hides) the greater the sense you have of actually needing to be human with your fellow humans, however mysterious the idea of actually *being* human becomes, however alienated you feel from yourself, however small and pathetic in the eyes of capital and technoscience you are and so on.

there's some mathematician i read about who said that at higher levels the universe doesn't make sense, it's just that you learn to get used to it.

[Anonymous No.11375384]

>>11359212
You are right. Revolutionaries were all city dwelling atheist and college educated people. As they are still today. Farmers aren't rising up and crushing decadent city governments.

[Anonymous No.11375388]

>in some sense, i'll admit, it's because i have a soft and squishy brain. i don't rigorously parse things out with the power of logic like i should

every girardfag post in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.11375431]

>>11375353
>well, i'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels that way. it does feel kind of weird to say it, sometimes, like your brain is just this empty dish. but honestly that's how it feels. and if nothing else it does kind of predispose you to a kind of greater charity towards others (and more suspicion towards yourself). it's not good to be too hard-headed about things.

no i know exactly what you're talking about. used to feel i was going through some impressionable intellectual teenage phase in my fucking 20s, like i was just an input-output machine, input a few brilliant articles and the output's my regurgitation of it on a Mongolian snowboarding forum.

and a lot of my posting on /lit/ is a kind of way to convince myself that okay, im not a genius, that ship has fucking sailed, but i at least know what the fuck im talking about and im not just sitting around slack-jawed at anti-oedipus or w/e. and it's worked out. a worldview has coalesced out of the chaos. here's how I think of it now: we have the built-in resonance chambers, as it were, that a lot of these guys were writing for. this stuff just clicks with us because on the same wavelength they were. it breaks my heart i cant contribute to this conversation the way these guys have, but at least ill be on the sidelines cheering them on. small solaces. i find that mediocrity is all about hoarding small solaces like this, but at least i know it and that's what makes it bearable. but w/e i don't wanna blog.

>that the organic is only the inorganic's way of assembling itself into technology.

great stuff.

>the greater the sense you have of actually needing to be human with your fellow humans

yeah the more you study and the more you understand the horrible gaping void yadda yadda yadda under your feet the more important love and beauty and goodness becomes. there isn't an argument on earth that could convince me love in the void isn't a miracle. you just kinda snap out of the matrix that's got everyone else by the balls and learn to kinda love them almost for their actuality, that they are and not for what they are (to you, as a fuckhole, as a boss, as a friend, etc.). and i think this is how christ loved people. kinda loving them as if you weren't caught up in the same game as everyone else, as if you weren't born in this world alongside them. hatred and revulsion is only ever an effect of embodiment. fire burns because the body burns.

but im not saying im christ, fuck no. but the few times this feeling has completely enveloped me have been incredible, and you kinda get a sense of what the mystics mean by spiritual death, the cojones to go into this void and release yourself from everything that keeps you snapped in the darwinian-fuck-you-got-mine mode.

but that's all i wanted to say. glad you got it, as always

[Anonymous No.11375453]

>>11375388
considering that pic rel is me IRL i'm okay with having a tiny little squishy brain. not all of us are built for astrophysics. some of us are just monkeys.

[Anonymous No.11375494]

I really have to wonder how much of this fear isn't just nostalgia for a time we didn't know. We dread losing the institutions of family, country, body, friendship and so on. But then, what was it that we were going to do with them? Perhaps the reason why I'm so weird is because I was always satisfied with just having fantasies, and didn't care for living them; then maybe what the meds I'm taking are doing is blending that fine line. Was I, the voyeuristic recluse, the one that was sane, and what's required for a succesful life is some kind of madness?

But back to the point, those institutions we like to lay our prospective selves (should we call that our souls?) on, never really existed as such in the first place. We all know how it goes, I assume. The void, yadda yadda. Can't grasp things and so on. Just a bunch of mindless repeating paterns. The moment they are intentional, they are fake. But precisely this kind of Buddhist ontology is what makes me want nirvana: I want fucking out of this dumb thing. It's repulsive. Always going on. Who likes this, let's be honest? Let's be frank, only perverts enjoy such a world view, because there's something sexual about such Kraken-like world. See, it might be that the secret of the great achievement of enlightenment, that thing anyone great has, is that the other option is much, much worse. There's no actual winning in getting it. But maybe that's precisely why you need it.

That's the only option. The other option is being a thing among many others. Being a part of the world. And who wants that? Frankly, who wants to love this world? If we're facing an existential crisis it's because we've run out of things with which to kill and exhaust ourselves. You're not hungry of any meaning, quite the contrary. But finding a persona is just a huge falsety, it's a step back, a comfortable trinket. The actualization of your potential comes at the price of chosing the one thing. We cannot know ourselves? We don't want to know ourselves like this. We don't want to be anything in particular. The problem is there's nothing worth putting your energy into.

The contents of a human being aren't that interesting. Nothing in this world is. "Love of life," yeah, but no thanks.

[Anonymous No.11375509]

>>11375431
this was the post i needed in my life right now. thank you

[Anonymous No.11375534]

Thanks for the thread boys, this was one of the good ones

[Anonymous No.11375653]

>>11375220
>that endows it with a certain undeniable aura of integrity.
projection. won't be said in a hundred years by another culture speaking another language. keep fapping though.
>>11375184
philosophical texts are engagements with self-consciousness and the sources of legitimacy for all that is, including the self.
>its roots in the axioms of who and what we are, as it were.
>>11374210
Stupidity is the characteristic of people who are being judged. Wish them away at your peril. I prefer to look at what you call decay only as it affects different echelons of society. Sometime in the ought's when idiots everywhere became as smart as everyone else with a phone, the judges started twitching, the artists started huffing and rolling their eyes.
>>11374079
Hail! I hope no one fucked with your copy out of boredom.
>>11374075
In essay writing one major problem is always writing down what you're learning as though it were profound, not realising that anyone who will read it that has more than a beginner appreciation will be bored by your thoughts-out-loud.
>>11372512
the castrophising and fatalism of the /lit/tles manifested into older, esteemed, more social, cool steel edge, sunglasses, maybe stoned, esoteric, why-not, I was born a weeb, and now I am itself, but as a Philosopher - brooding, quixotic, majestic.
---
Imagine a philosopher told you everything is going to be alright with the world, but you, you're fucked. And another one says we're all fucked. Do you want in, or what? (Yes, this is a generalisation, but you still have to choose to become aware of yourself.)
>>11372158
petulance will engulf you without proper antagonism. You are welcome.
>>11371064
You learn your position and your potential effect on the legitimacy of things. You learn to trick kings into giving you their kingdoms, and you learn how to make people confront the reality of their easy, existence so you can stop listening to them complain.
>>11370866
They'll have to figure out a way to stop bickering after the detournement happens so they can protect their sacred scribal culture and the culture of technocrats that support them. I would just be done with them and start laughing now so you seem hep.

---

Not all bumps are equal.

[Anonymous No.11375664]

>>11375453
I don't see this as a bad thing, the entire purpose of education is to create this feeling of "squishiness" and no-knowing, when we try to lock ourselves off we lose the ability to change and bend free and thus grow beyond our past selves
the apeman who is willing to sniff his own poo in this respect is far better suited for the rigours of our information dense society than the stone Buddha who is supreme in his unwavering confidence and stoic omnipotence

[Anonymous No.11376001]

>>11375653
Bad post, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11376342]

Literally the only stuff I know about Nick Land and accelerationism comes from these threads.

Someone asked Greg Sadler in his livestream two days ago about Land and he'd never heard of him, but he did know about Moldbug and what accelerationism was about, and said that the DE stuff was all just Chalres Maurras and Action Francaise all over again.

[Anonymous No.11377005]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11377014]

>>11375664
well, that's kind. gorilla phenomenology is pretty relatable.

the old Monkey Ways appear to be in decline, and the tribe has discovered access to mysterious Learning Stations left behind by some progenitor race (which may or may not still be there: how else can you explain the presence of these weird ghosts and drones that occasionally come to watch us?). some of them are accessible through the holes in crashed ships. others had been hidden around, in subterranean vaults. one of these we only found by capturing one of the Long-Arms and forcing him to give up the location (which made our brains hurt). he does not desire our women, which is an insult. finally we had to feed him some fruit we cleverly laced with the mushroom extract that gives the Tribe visions of the Other Place.

our brains are small but we have some weird intimation that something strange is going on. the shamans and oracles have, as usual, divinations, but they are unable to understand the spirits in these machines. smashing them with a stick appears to do nothing.

the tribe feels embarrassed by this mystery, and is probably going to subdivide into color-themed ideologies fairly soon and go to war. but the Long-Arm has been trying to explain the secret of evolution and technics to us and the Elders are debating what this would mean. in the Cave of Mysteries he draws pictures of beings that look like us turning into them - and then something else entirely, which frightens us.

this, of course, is heresy.

[Anonymous No.11377057]

>>11377014
>we now return to Post-Apoc Techno-Monkey Evolution Quest
>in this episode: The Hunt For The Lost Accelerationist Nick Land (Part II)
>in the previous chapter, the Tribe gained access to Artificial Cognition and Advanced Prosthesis
>you also rescued Bernard Stiegler to the tribe, giving you a substantial research bonus
>unfortunately, other members of the Tribe have also discovered the volumes of Kapital you buried

things to daydream about.

[Anonymous No.11377072]

Why are there so many Marxists in Land threads, I thought the guy was some alt-right figure

[Anonymous No.11377112]

>>11377072
that's what land is tho: a Right-Marxist. he never really gives that up. his contribution to the plot is that capitalism isn't a problem for humans, humans are a problem for capitalism. and the revolution as such isn't communism, it's teleoplexy by way of gnon and artificial selection.

so in a sense he's anti-left, but he's also not completely alt-right either. the marxist stuff stays, but it gets rinsed through these guys and for land comes out on the other side 100% cybernetic.

[Anonymous No.11377152]

>>11377072
Hahaha
>The altright is a marxist ploy
>that no marxists are heard when they speak belays the point of their antagonistic existence
>an altright thought is meaningless, but the threat is real ... and useful

how many channels will carry my waste to an end I have carved for them. hahahaha

[Anonymous No.11377196]

>>11358579
Right, how? What falsifiable claims has his work actually posited? He reads like a schizophrenic trainwreck of Neuromancer fanfiction and slam poetry.

[Anonymous No.11377320]

>>11377196
start here. add computer technology and a consumer society optimized for pleasure, repetition and capital gains. surplus accumulation gets shunted into R&D. where do you think this leads? More, Faster, Better, Smarter.

there's no 'falsification' of modernity or technoscience (unless you mean heidegger, and even then). what *can* be falsified are the varyingly romantic responses to - on the left as well as on the right. guess who does that? nick land.

it's not land, it's a culture of consumption that reads like a schizophrenic trainwreck of neuromancer fan-fic and slam poetry. because it is. we're optimized for mcnuggets, violence and pornography, and to some degree we have done this to ourselves. we are complicit in our own seduction: knowing it's wrong, doing it anyways, burying our heads in the sand. the fruit of this - capital - recognize this and adjusts accordingly. we are all beholden to this, unless you want to join the islamic state (and you don't).

fanged noumena is the cost-benefit analysis of hyperreality. good old fashioned social critique stripped of virtue signal.

[Anonymous No.11377367]

>>11360479
>Nearly every other thing he says is either an omission or a lie.
Explain.

[Anonymous No.11377491]

>>11377320
>we're optimized for mcnuggets, violence and pornography, and to some degree we have done this to ourselves. we are complicit in our own seduction

based

[Anonymous No.11377936]

I'm still baffled some of you are this mad and/or desperate about people like me just developing the structure of production and engaging in exchange.

>>11372468
>Fukuyama
Lives in a bubble where people actually like and think that the rest of the world likes the whatever-adjective current order which is already showing its age .
The people/ideas that role play as being post historical will be washed away. Partially because they won't assert themselves against conscious historical forces.

[Anonymous No.11377977]

>>11377936
some context would help. which posts are you?

[Anonymous No.11378018]

>>1137797
It was my first post ITT. If you're asking who I was referring to, just the few people here that seem genuinely upset by the ever lengthening and complexification of the structure of production. I don't mean it as resigned "acceleration" either. It was the aim from the start.

[Anonymous No.11378046]

>>11378018
Sorry about the backspace, have your (you) >>11377977

[Anonymous No.11378050]

>>11378018
>the ever lengthening and complexification of the structure of production. I don't mean it as resigned "acceleration" either. It was the aim from the start.

i see. well, i'm interested in this idea. can you elaborate on this? i'm working my way through stiegler atm and i'd be interested to hear more if you'd like to share. technology as complexity in time sounds pretty dope to me, would be great if you could talk about this.

[Anonymous No.11378264]

>>11378050
>technology as complexity in time
I wouldn't assimilate these ideas this way. A technology may be mastered but not practicable because you lack the capital structure to develop it. Technologies themselves are independent of time, and only connected to it through capital (the structure of production). It is the capital structure that is expanded in time by its investors, and in this manner technologies (and organizations) that were non practicable in a low capital situation become available.
Of course new technologies are often only available (even for mere discovery) after the capital structure has previously been expanded. Shockley would most likely not have invented transistors without the previous development of the semiconductor industry.
What I am getting at is, that the complexity of capital structures and technologies mutually feed each other, and the impetus is voluntary. Even primitives go this route, simply having comparatively simple capital structures that are reproduced in an evenly rotating manner.
The only people that want out are those that take "alienation" seriously, which is barely concealed gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.11378400]

bump