/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11733072]

>This book employs recursivity and contingency as two principle concepts to investigate into the relation between nature and technology, machine and organism, system and freedom. It reconstructs a trajectory of thought from an Organic condition of thinking elaborated by Kant, passing by the philosophy of nature (Schelling and Hegel), to the 20th century Organicism (Bertalanffy, Needham, Whitehead, Wiener among others) and Organology (Bergson, Canguilhem, Simondon, Stiegler), and questions the new condition of philosophizing in the time of algorithmic contingency, ecological and algorithmic catastrophes, which Heidegger calls the end of philosophy.

>The book centres on the following speculative question: if in the philosophical tradition, the concept of contingency is always related to the laws of nature, then in what way can we understand contingency in related to technical systems? The book situates the concept of recursivity as a break from the Cartesian mechanism and the drive of system construction; it elaborates on the necessity of contingency in such epistemological rupture where nature ends and system emerges. In this development, we see how German idealism is precursor to cybernetics, and the Anthropocene and Noosphere (Teilhard de Chardin) point toward the realization of a gigantic cybernetic system, which lead us back to the question of freedom. It questions the concept of absolute contingency (Meillassoux) and proposes a cosmotechnical pluralism. Engaging with modern and contemporary European philosophy as well as Chinese thought through the mediation of Needham, this book refers to cybernetics, mathematics, artificial intelligence and inhumanism.

>march 2019

balls. i want this now. oh well. shall we discuss this in the meantime?

good essay:
https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179224/on-automation-and-free-time/

hui on land, NRx, trump, &c:
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/81/125815/on-the-unhappy-consciousness-of-neoreactionaries/

passing from the digital to the symbolic:
https://www.hkw.de/media/texte/pdf/2017_2/2o3tiger/170530_2o3Tiger_PDFs_Yuk_Hui_press_new.pdf

[Anonymous No.11733102]

also, but tangentially related, pic rel is really good. a whole bunch of essays on D&G from a variety of perspectives.

if the future is recursion and cybernetics, D&G are the guys who really make the connection from the post-heideggerian world and into whatever it is that the 21C is going to unfold.

[Anonymous No.11733119]

>Indeed, some of the problems commonly engaging the attention of philosophical thought appear to be deprived, not only of all importance, but of any meaning as well; a host of problems arise resting solely upon some ambiguity or upon a confusion of points of view, problems that only exist in fact because they are badly expressed, and that normally should not arise at all. In most cases therefore, it would in itself be sufficient to set these problems forth correctly in order to cause them to disappear, were it not that philosophy has an interest in keeping them alive, since it thrives largely upon ambiguities.

[Anonymous No.11733144]

I really liked Cosmotechnics but I'm groaning at some of this.

>20th century Organicism (Bertalanffy, Needham, Whitehead, Wiener)
Keeping in mind he means the biosemiotics-friendly Whitehead, and not the more admirable process theologians like Hartshorne, this is not only a worrying indication of a commitment biosemiotic/cybernetics frameworks, it's fucking depressing that he skips the vitalistic and genuinely organistic thinking of the fin de siecle AND Lebensphilosophie to jump right to a tenuous link with cybernetic anti-humanism.

Both the "recursion" buzzword and the "break from Cartesianism" ultra-buzzword worry me that he's sold out to the current fashion of refashioning everyone from Schelling to Whitehead and beyond into disgusting anti-humanist orientalist death worship.

>German idealism is precursor to cybernetics
ughhhh. No, German idealism's lapse into degenerate neoplatonism and the rehabilitation of Spinozist/Leibnizian rationalism, which German idealism was founded to combat, is the precursor to anti-subjectivist cybernetics, which has MUCH more in common with those traditions.

>Anthropocene
Horrific buzzword. Has Yuk Hui been hanging out in social sciences/humanities departments? He needs a rest cure

>coopting Chardin/noosphere for a "gigantic cybernetic system"
>even reading Meillasoux, a retard so retarded he thinks Kant is a Berkeleyan idealist (i.e., never read Kant but presumes to comment on Kant -- acid test of an expert buzzword manipulator)
Bad bad bad signs

>cosmotechnical pluralism
"Did you know SCHELLING is like, PANPSYCHISM, dude? I just figured it all out!" Yeah, you and everybody else

>It questions the concept of absolute contingency
>... by means of cybernetics
Sounds like it reifies the preconception of absolute contingency.

Fucking disappointed in this. How is he still following Stiegler if he is promoting any kind of neo-Spinozism, let alone a CYBERNETIC neo-Spinozism? Those fuckers are the horsemen of the apocalypse.

Girardfag please explain how this isn't a massive betrayal of Stiegler, let alone of Girard. Maybe I'm totally misreading this and it's unfair to judge based on the blurb.

[Anonymous No.11733201]

>>11733119
>"It is also an important consideration for these philosophers to be able to put their name to a ‘system’, that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation; hence the desire to be original at all costs, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this ‘originality’: a philosopher’s renown is increased more by inventing a new error than by repeating a truth that has already been expressed by others. This form of individualism, the begetter of so many ‘systems’ that contradict one another even when they are not contradictory in themselves, is to be found also among modern scholars and artists; but it is perhaps in philosophy that the intellectual anarchy to which it inevitably gives rise is most apparent."

[Anonymous No.11733273]

What about this, girardfag?


https://www.urbanomic.com/book/intelligence-and-spirit/

Paperback
210×148mm
592pp.
pre-order: publication 21 September 2018
PUBLISHED WITH
Sequence Press
COVER IMAGE
Florian Hecker, Untitled.
AGI
Artificial Intelligence
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Immanuel Kant
Inhumanism
Language
Posthumanism

A computational process philosophy? A modeling of philosophical Lego? Reza Negarestani’s Intelligence and Spirit is by no means a Neo-Hegelian revival, but a provocative methodological attempt to apply some of Hegel’s critical contentions on reason and spirit to the Kantian epistemological program. The result is a philosophical tour de force that reintroduces Hegel’s Geist to Kant in order to arrive at a neutral conception of intelligence that accommodates AI and future programs of intelligence.
Too often, philosophical treatments of the concept of intelligence willingly sacrifice complex and irreducible notions such as Spirit in favor of physicalistic reductions. In turn, it is rather ubiquitous to find continental philosophers whose account of science and analytic philosophy is either dismissive or lacking in their monocular pursuit of Being. This book is quite different, equally rigorous and difficult but nevertheless playful, it ventures into new territory with some old maps and new models, avoiding the trepidations of Kant’s demarcation of reason, and offering a philosophical grounding to computation.

– Adam Berg, author of Phenomenalism, Phenomenology, and the Question of Time: A Comparative Study of the Theories of Mach, Husserl, and Boltzmann

The history of philosophy conceived as the elaboration of a program for artificial general intelligence; intelligence understood as the impersonal and collective evolution of a thought that constructs itself according to a view from nowhere and nowhen.

In Intelligence and Spirit Reza Negarestani formulates the ultimate form of intelligence as a theoretical and practical thought unfettered by the temporal order of things, a real movement capable of overcoming any state of affairs that, from the perspective of the present, may appear to be the complete totality of its history.

Building on Hegel’s account of geist as a multi-agent conception of mind and Kant’s transcendental psychology as a functional analysis of the conditions of possibility of having mind, Negarestani provides a critique of both classical humanism and dominant trends in posthumanism.

This remarkable fusion of continental philosophy in the form of a renewal of the speculative ambitions of German Idealism, and analytic philosophy in the form of extended thought-experiments and a philosophy of artificial languages, opens up new perspectives on the meaning of human intelligence, and explores the real potential of posthuman intelligence and what it means for us to live in its prehistory.

[Anonymous No.11733318]

>>11733119
>>11733201
i like guenon, but this isn't a guenon thread. try to keep it thematic. hui likes heidegger and so do i. there's no doubt that modernization fucks people up and the reign of quantity is a thing.

>>11733144
>please explain how this isn't a massive betrayal of Stiegler, let alone of Girard.
as humanity continues its dive into the void it is going to reap what it sows there, no doubt. there's no easy way - probably no way at all! - to reconcile deleuze and girard. they have fundamentally different orientations. but there's nothing wrong with looking at deleuze/bergson/spinoza thought as a way of understanding cybernetic processes or speculating on where it might lead. D&G are cybernetic thinkers par excellence and they have a lineage.

i don't think anthropocene is such a buzzword, or that it is unproductive to reflect on contingency and cybernetics (even cybernetic spinozism). RG is the crown prince of the endgame of violent reciprocity. but i think there has to be a fundamental shift away from the ideologies of the 19-20C. postmodernity and modernity form two aspects of the same process: critique takes over from production, critique *becomes* production and the payout is in social prestige, in the correct forms of alienation. current red/blue mimesis and violent reciprocity is the result. the landian blackpill has always been my preferred way of exit from those finger-traps, but it comes at a price more dehumanizing than what hui is exploring.

>coopting Chardin/noosphere for a "gigantic cybernetic system"
>bad bad signs
i loved this. i super-love this. automation is what comes out of postmodernity, but pure roboticization i think is disastrous for the psyche. i love Global Brain stuff (and, no doubt, leaves a huge lacuna.) i'm a sentimental mushball by nature. but that's where reflection on mimesis takes me. perhaps if we can conceptualize each other as augustinian or manichaean devils, we can also imagine a world in which all this deviltry has a positive aspect as well. by that i mean, the possibility of a benign large-scale cybernetics.

>stiegler
is stiegler really so hostile to spinozism? neoliberalism, sure, but he doesn't strike me as being hostile to cybernetics. that civilizational progress is essentially commensurate with technical progress? that technics is memory? stiegler is the most interesting pro-tech heideggerian there is, and it's not a contradiction for him. like girard, he brings an anthropological perspective. but hui is the guy with the computer science chops. it's been a fruitful co-production.

i'm glad you raised some difficult questions. i don't have answers for all of them. you might be right! but i don't find anti-humanist death worship in hui. a post-anthropocene means a reversal in humanity's orientation towards the meaning of technology. D&G's Outside isn't land's Outside. that's a perspective-shift worth exploring.

>it's spooky tho

[Anonymous No.11733398]

>>11733273
yeah, negarestani is a boss too. both parts of the labor of the inhuman are required reading for these kinds of threads.

https://www.e-flux.com/journal/52/59920/the-labor-of-the-inhuman-part-i-human/
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/53/59893/the-labor-of-the-inhuman-part-ii-the-inhuman/

the *engineering sensibility* is a big one. i've been having a running conversation with a computer-science academic, and we talk about a lot of the stuff that i bring up in these threads. he's skeptical about a lot of continental stuff and my brain turns into a clay when he sends me books on kant or analytic stuff. but i'm trying to move myself out of continental-land and into finding a more positive relationship with tech. which is a nightmare, if you've read (and agreed with) the outer-fringe acceleration types. there's no upper limit on how fucked-out you can be, altho pic rel comes pretty close. in one of his books he makes a case for humanity as a globule of slime scraped out on a few rocks, waking up to a butterfly's dream of sentience just in time to be dissolved.

once you get to that point, you want to do an about-face and try a different tack.

it's one of these things that i've been reflecting on, the idea of trying to make one's own philosophy into a useful, technical object, which is always imperfect. but for there to be something more than alienation, however warranted it is - a *useful* contribution to the larger conversation. no amount of lipstick can capitalism beautiful. it isn't. neoliberalism erodes every traditional brake on economic production there is and you can see for yourself the results of this by watching the news, which isn't even the news anymore, but just capital breaking through and wearing human faces to serve the right ideology to captive audiences. it's horribly sick at the bottom and depressing af to think about. it's why i don't begrudge anyone bringing up guenon or whoever else in a thread like this, it makes complete sense: culturally speaking, we have handed ourselves over body and soul to economic production, the industrial revolution has colonized the world and now is coming home with a vengeance to devour the core: your brain. capital knows you better than you know yourself, and it wants to be loved, like an unholy shotgun wedding.

and if it weren't for the philosophers, we might almost think this was normal. but, as i said, i'm trying to wrest myself out of ressentiment-mode and consider the upside, since surely there is one. there are super-exciting things to think about, and a lot of them are happening in the computer sciences and with technology. maybe all of them. negarestani can be as dark as land but posthumanism - life after the anthropocene - is the thing to think about.

and it's also why girard matters. he's the Last Ideologist. girardian mass sacrifice is the paradoxical victory/game-over screen for ideological warfare. it's not glorious, it's not even tragic.

[Anonymous No.11733477]

>>11733273
it's funny too how much hegel still matters in all of this: we think, in a way, with each other. whatever thought is, it's the exclusive property of no one individual, and certainly no one individual in solitude. land borrows from hegel in an incredible way, part of his reversal of marx, to reproduce hegel as teleoplexy. but the problem with doing this is that it reduces all human interaction to its barest minimum. it makes logical sense, even political sense, but there's no way that it doesn't end in disaster.

it's why the question about hegel *and* marx has to be revisited, which is exactly what acceleration and spec-realism does. and heidegger also. thinking about life and society, technology and the rest without its revolutionary aspect as we have traditionally understood it. carl schmitt also understood the dangers and the limitations on this: the original social justice warriors are still the nazis, and it's why land is correct to say that heidegger still matters.

>The whole of critique, and the whole of capitalism, can be translated into a discourse on time. Most famously the Heideggerian formulation of critique, that seems to me conservative in its essentials — that’s to say I don’t think it is a candidate for a post-Kantianism, but I think it’s definitely enriching in the fact that it’s quite clear about adding certain insightful formulations, and they tend to be time-oriented. The Heideggerian translation of the basic critical argument is that the metaphysical error is to understand time as something in time. So you translate this language, objectivity and objects, into the language of temporality and intra-temporality, and have equally plausible ability to construe the previous history of metaphysical philosophy in terms of what it is to to make an error. The basic error then, at this point, is to think of time as something in time.

source:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

hegel, marx, and heidegger still loom over basically every philosophical question we can ask today. questions of time, technology, and capital. add computer technology and the possibility of artificial intelligence and you can give all of these rocket-boosters. maybe the primordial forces of modernity as we currently understand it.

it seems, in other words, like an entirely worthy task of the one big cybernetic brain we may be in the early stages of creating. new politics for a new world. a disarmingly post-individualist world (however much we seem to laud the idea of being a CEO with fuck-you money). and as dark as these guys get, it's surely better than the infinite rage and mimesis created by our attachment to the way things used to be.

[mystikos No.11733525]

>>11733398
Idk what's happening in the world. I mean, I like to imagine I will vote in a blue wave, my state will go blue, other states will go blue, and we will get Trump impeached by a democratic congress after the Mueller investigation wraps up. But all that is kinda like moral false-flagging. Doesn't solve anything. I am like Nike, dependent on child labor and yet virtue signalling with advertising. Everyone is afraid to admit how fucked we are. Have you read Stand on Zanzibar? That and Sheep Look Up are eerily prophetic. Not really listening to much other news aside from like hella child abuse scandals within religion on te webs which seems to justify my contempt for humans claiming divine power. Ironic: I thought I channelled divine power once, and aside from my innocence at that time, I would say I sinned greater then than at any other period...

I am re-reading Wittgenstein and Heidegger. I have decided to concern myself with the more classical philosophical role. In some sense, they both signal the end of traditional philosophy (at least as much as anyone else does lol) but they are also the forefathers of the analytic and continental respectively. Trying to come to terms with the importance of both is, I feel, essential to my current meditations.

I have a semi-stem-like media studies friend (did I tell you this?) who wants to do a tree of science website organized by some sort of AI (and he doesn't have capital or programming skills, fucking idiot). I'm like, "first off, why a tree?" but he cares not for my rhizomatic inquiries. Nevertheless, I try to nudge him toward epistemological concerns. It is quite rewarding when he gets a concept. I am focusing on ancient and early modern concerns regarding philosophy of science.

Yet Heidegger and Wittgenstein are closer to my time and thus more important. Also it's been about ten years since I first read them. There is a cyclical nature to this. Initiatic. Cosmic. Maybe eternal recurrence is real. The cosmic joke. Repeated till it's not funny. At least that's what aging is like for this geist. Cannot speak for the weltgeist.

You know I've never read Marx? Aside from communist manifesto in high school to flirt with qt punk chicks. I feel bad since I am so deep in post-marxism, lol. Then again I went from Jung to CBT to D&G to Lacan to Freud with psychotherapeutic theory and turned out alright.

It's weird to see D&G getting meme'd. Makes sense tho. Maybe Land can still work some good indirectly.

And all the neoplatonism threads! I'm so proud of /lit/! Tho the traditionalist(/s[?]) are bothersome with their mystic fatalism and crypto-fascism.

Hardt and Negri have an idealistic deleuzean politic in Assembly. Delanda has deleuzean science. Badiou is the Postmodern Plotinus to Deleuze as Plato. I need to return to Kant next. Feel refreshed on Ancients but not all Moderns. Books are too expensive tho. Ugh. Now Hui? And Byung Chul? And Girard? (Sorry girardfag, I still haven't read him :/ )

[Anonymous No.11733542]

>>11733144
What in your view is degenerate about Neoplatonism? Are you talking more schelling's brand of idealism?

[Anonymous No.11733556]

>>11733477
Who watches the watchman? An AI at the center of the panopticon? And no one worries about inplicit bias and enframing...

[Anonymous No.11733592]

>>11733525
my man.

>And all the neoplatonism threads! I'm so proud of /lit/! Tho the traditionalist(/s[?]) are bothersome with their mystic fatalism and crypto-fascism.
i saw a "funny" post on this the other day, where one anon said that /lit/ had turned him from atheist ancap to hardcore christian communist. then another anon chimed in and wrote,
>not esoteric ultra-fascist, lurk moar

it's like that, though. there's a perilous temptation to make existential needs into political needs and vice-versa. comes with adjusting and pivoting, but it's all modernist to the core. the state, this desire to fall in love with the state, to love and serve the state...i think that's the kind of stuff D&G are trying to set all of their little bombs and charges for. even capitalism itself winds up taking over these roles and betraying its own possibilities. it's natural enough, since *morality is the greatest advertisement of all,* but...well, we are now reaping the harvest on this. it sells shoes, sandwiches, and goes well with pornography. but

>Now Hui? And Byung Chul? And Girard?
hui is just asking some really good questions. Han is Burnout Man. he's not D&G-tier, he's conscientious writer who has read all the right guys. even girard isn't a heavyweight like those guys, but he matters too. i'd say reading heidegger and wittgenstein is better than reading any of these guys.

>Trying to come to terms with the importance of both is, I feel, essential to my current meditations.
me too senpai.

>There is a cyclical nature to this. Initiatic. Cosmic. Maybe eternal recurrence is real. The cosmic joke. Repeated till it's not funny. At least that's what aging is like for this geist. Cannot speak for the weltgeist.
fwiw, the hairs on my arms are standing up.

>You know I've never read Marx?
holding the big fat copy of Capital feels like a holding a literary difference engine. you'll get to him at some point. by then it probably won't be a surprise.

>I need to return to Kant next.
Uncle Nick would approve. but i'll miss your neoplatonism. if Kant destroys that i will shit on his grave.

>It's weird to see D&G getting meme'd. Makes sense tho. Maybe Land can still work some good indirectly.
D&G are fucking *insanely intresting.* check that book i recommended here (>>11733102), it's really good. pic rel is also really good. deleuzian stuff is just worlds upon worlds of interesting stuff.

and my computer science buddy likes badiou. he's the continental analytic types can get behind. i cannot into his math, but it is nice so that we don't all just drown in memes and codes.

>>11733556
>when everyone is Big Brother, then no one is.
that's one of the best things i ever heard on /lit/. and i think it's true. there *is* no absolute watchman-watcher. this is why i continually shill for philosophical charity, steelmanning. the Masters of Suspicion are centuries old now. a more enlightened paranoia would be a better look. it's only us cannibal schizo-apes on this rock.

[Anonymous No.11733595]

What is Girard all about?

[Anonymous No.11733647]

>>11733595
http://www.imitatio.org/brief-intro/

literature, culture, anthropology. sacrifice and mimesis. psychoanalysis by way of christian apologetics. much else. read is violence and the sacred.

i created a thread about him a while ago that got precisely zero replies, but in hindsight that's okay, it makes for a faster read. enjoy my fuckface hot takes as well.

>>/lit/thread/11659130

[Anonymous No.11733863]

>>11733647
Thanks anon, I will check out these resources

[Anonymous No.11733865]

>>11733592
*removes name seductively*

>hardcore christian communist
>>not esoteric ultra-fascist
They're not too different. And it is hard to pinpoint what exactly makes each wrong.

My current reading plan is Heidegger + Wittgenstein -> Kant -> Plato. Don't know where afterward. Perhaps Lucretius? Macrobius? Capital as difference engine sounds alchemically mutational so I will add that maybe between Kant and Plato.


>>when everyone is Big Brother, then no one is
>that's one of the best things i ever heard on /lit/. and i think it's true. there *is* no absolute watchman-watcher. this is why i continually shill for philosophical charity, steelmanning. the Masters of Suspicion are centuries old now. a more enlightened paranoia would be a better look. it's only us cannibal schizo-apes on this rock.
Love it. Same. Will look for this thread later if it is still up... don't have time to read through the links currently.

[Anonymous No.11734005]

>>11733863
good luck, then.

>>11733865
>They're not too different. And it is hard to pinpoint what exactly makes each wrong.
they aren't that different. immanentizing the eschaton in different ways. troubles with god and materialism.

but, it's also reductive to say this. it feels like handwaving (because it is). human beings have always had a dark romance with totalitarianism and the 20C is no exception. aestheticizing politics is damn near irresistable, and as such it tells us something about human nature. but this is what is such a catastrophe about our modern responses to these things: we've created taboos around things that we need to reserve the capacity for disinterested or at least hermeneutic study. we've become hysterical victorians in that sense, with an all-too predictable subterranean affinity for the gothic.

one of the things deleuze teaches us is that politics is still metaphysics, but it's *downstream* of metaphysics. we don't always have to be just bowled over by aesthetics like lost or failed romantics. this is why even a zizek-inspired critique of ideology always winds up back at the same impasse, over and over. you can find oedipus everywhere, at the root of everything. but unless it's possible to look past that, we're only going to repeat ourselves forever. which we do anyways, in a sense, but it would be nice if it were a more enlightened form of difference and repetition.

so, hoping then that you'll return and share more of this later, then. and bumping the thread with one more interesting recent read on deleuze, capitalism, burroughs and societies of control.

https://monoskop.org/images/archive/2/20/20180830170010%21Obsolete_Capitalism_--_Control%2C_Modulation_and_Algebra_of_Evil_in_Burroughs_and_Deleuze.pdf

[Anonymous No.11734238]

>>11734005
Is it the job of the philosopher to provide answers? Or to ask questions? In some sense, I feel asking questions is the anawer. Praxis as theory and theory as praxis. If I could think of one great question, which I could cut across my swathes of knowledge, then I feel I could become a true philosopher... A question that re-enframes. Solves the old problems while advancing new ones. At the moment, tho, I am still entranced in readings. I scribble schizo scrabbles in notebooks. Post screeds of archetypal characters of my headcanon onto this board. A new age friend often compared building philosophy to building a pyramid. Like kundalini it must be built up from the lower material base to find the support for the golden capstone. Or eye of horus. Edgyptian. I'm torn over esotericism. It's like the term ego. Why are the I and the Unique translated as ego in English? And why do Eastern Philosophers get translated that way too? On one hand, esotericism as opposed to exotericism is simply a handwave to say that my religion is traditional and yours is countertraditional unless you are a mystic and I can agree with on the primacy of noetic insight. This is absolutely disgusting and pre-Kantian. Everyone tries to sneak the thing-in-itself back in. Hegel does it best cause as Zizek says he is rigorously materialistic in a way. Emergentist. The spinozan substance seeking self-sufficiency. A monad amidst monads. Meta-monad organisms. But I digress. I suppose traditionalism is not incompatible with Hegelianism. Could be an interesting mix. Hermetic Hegel wherein geist becomes the marriage of dharma and logos. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion is kinda like that. Or you could read the lovable Russian Solovyov's Lectures on Divine Humanity which is like a Russian sophiologist version. Other definitions of esotericism are important too. Strauss of course. And western esotericism is an important field of study and I am sad to discover that Hanegraaff stole my idea of such a programme and is far older and smarter and wiser than me but all the better for me to read. They say wisdom or liberal arts intelligence is like not as genius based as math and music and sports but instead a slow crystalization by one's early middle age. But yeah. Western esotericism. There's this whole malarky of superstitious neoplatonism that we should try and understand better and perhaps trim the fat off of. We got this pie heritage and neoplatonic heritage and vedic and tantrik and bodhic sciences of consciousness. Some people at the edge of the psychedelic crowd are starting to grasp it. Land's experience was a bit like Mckenna's. And PKD's. And RAW's. And Crowley's. And Grant's. And so on. Sutured from sutras and gospels. Shining with gnosis. But not unquestionable. Never the (meta-)form of the good-in-itself. Merely a piece. It is wrong to desire theologians and philosophers to be saints and sages or oracles. But we should attempt to become angels anyway.

[Anonymous No.11734332]

>>11734238
In some sense, traditionalist esotericism when carried to its logical conclusion (supersensible superform) naturally lends itself to Straussian esotericism (the eternal truth of gnosis garbed in the culture and costume and language of the day and place and age)... what then does that make of western esotericism? It is hidden and indeed overlaps with cryptography and such but it exists flagrantly in opposition to traditional religions even if the esotericism reaches for a similar goal. Freedom through opposition. The occultist as mirror shadow man mr hyde image of the academic dr jackal. How do we join our bodies?
>that's what she said...

[Anonymous No.11734340]

>>11734332
Neoplatonists and Guenon and Badiou are thus perhaps most useful on mathematical metaphysics though it is less interesting than story based. Math forms the framework for the story accordig to Uzdavinys.


We ought to be watched but honestly no one cares enough unless you're a person of interest. Ain't no one got time to peruse through the endless bullshit of our internet receipts.

[Anonymous No.11734362]

>>11734340
In some way narrow-ais human-ai-interfaces are already doing this work as we speak.

[Anonymous No.11734377]

>>11733525
>Wittgenstein and Heidegger
W: "the world is all that is the case, whereof we cannot speak we must remain silent"
H: *whipping out magic carpet* I can show you the World...

[Anonymous No.11734382]

>>11733477
Reason is transparent to the world but is the world transparent to reason? This is one of Hegel's assumtion that the Deleuzean move away from representation might be critical of. You see what you wanna see. Don't keep up with the paradigms and might miss black swans.

[Anonymous No.11734502]

>>11734238
>asking questions is the anawer. Praxis as theory and theory as praxis.
it is. bateson had a principled condition for this: you're going into the world of Nature, but it is the nature of that Nature that you can't make demands of it. Nature must be approached with a question that is inescapably a riddle. maybe this is sphinx-courtship. it's the sensibility of the artist-engineer.

>Emergentist
i asked this in the heidegger thread, the affinity that heidegger had for zen. my own life has always been more nomadic than i would like. i've always hated contingency overload. it's why i got interested in philosophy. there i discovered, to my dismay, that capitalism admits of no brakes. and why? because man is the being who asks open-ended questions, and there is no way to forbid this. we have to be skilled "emergentists."

but zen - to me - takes crisis as the default position. the zen subject isn't a tragic being, and zen isn't ripped apart by the polarities of being and becoming. true, western thought has discovered an unbelievable wealth in these distinctions. but the idea of crisis, action in the hour of decision, of who you are and what you do in the place of impossible contradiction is something that the East has understood better than the West, in some sense.

i read somewhere - sloterdijk, maybe - that the soul of the soul is the body. i think in some sense this is deleuze's idea also: we engage with the world in/as/through machines, but this meta-body is *highly mutable* - and, because of this, what really can hold it in place are representations, ideas more real than real. kafka's parable of the Law.

>Sutured from sutras and gospels. Shining with gnosis. But not unquestionable. Never the (meta-)form of the good-in-itself. Merely a piece.
keep your arms and legs inside the Great Vehicle at all times.

>>11734332
>How do we join our bodies?
we don't, i don't think. all we can do is raise the possibilities of what a body can do. or create new prosthetics.
>except with qt landian gf, &c &c, ofc

>>11734377
>You see what you wanna see.
true. the trap of positing a method, gathering pre-arranged evidence fall and presenting this as a discovery is how Transcendental Miserabilism is done. the graceless confessions of critique.

this is not to discount the Third Man argument about the renaissance, or that chaos in general doesn't catalyze discoveries more than muh tranquil Confucian fantasy (which also doesn't exist). no doubt it does. i love confucius as master-mediator, permanent secretary-general for philosophy UN in my own version of post-scarcity starfleet.

>Don't keep up with the paradigms and might miss black swans.
exactly. and *exclusively looking for black swans,* because of their exceptional status, will drive you insane. there is no general theory of black swans. there has to be a middle path.

i want to talk about gary gygax (Dave and Gary, the other D&G) as deleuzian writers also but i'll save that for another post.

[Anonymous No.11734630]

>>11734502
>i want to talk about gary gygax (Dave and Gary, the other D&G) as deleuzian writers also but i'll save that for another post.
Please do. I am preparing to host a game and reading the 5e core books in preparation. I would love to hear your thoughts.
>maybe this is sphinx-courtship. it's the sensibility of the artist-engineer.
Sphinxes courting sphinxes. I think transforming each other two...
>read somewhere - sloterdijk, maybe - that the soul of the soul is the body. i think in some sense this is deleuze's idea also: we engage with the world in/as/through machines, but this meta-body is *highly mutable* - and, because of this, what really can hold it in place are representations, ideas more real than real.
What calls for thought? That which calls for thinking upon to you? The great tragedy of modern education is squelching the natural joy of self-discovery and enrichment.
>kafka's parable of the Law.
Dunno it. Post?
>keep your arms and legs inside the Great Vehicle at all times
Is zensunni catholic mayhayana?
>except with qt landian gfs
Saw a meme -- scroll of truth "you're single cause you spend all your time reading dead philosophers" -- tossed away! I do wish I could find one but maybe philosophy is my way of coming to terms with being a genetic dead end
>kant find a theory for blaq swanns
Hence why I don't know when to pursue anyone.

[Anonymous No.11734679]

The world is a conversation between two Gods...
-Ada Palmer probably

[Anonymous No.11734688]

>>11734630
>Sphinxes courting sphinxes. I think transforming each other
this is how it should be. "suppose truth is a woman," asks nietzsche. lacan-oedipus solves the riddle of the sphinx, but lacan himself seems mysteriously cursed in his later years, disappearing into knots...

i love lacan, and i believe that there is enormous validity in psychoanalysis, in the talking cure. maybe it even prepares us in some sense for deleuzian voyages to the plane of immanence. neurotics and hysterics will suffer there, but it doesn't mean it's their fault or that deleuze was wrong to torpedo therapy in this way. but he's doing important stuff in asking ourselves if our thirst for despotism isn't really a thirst for a cure to existential despair that is entirely pharmakon. the Law is what we think we want, not what we really want.

>What calls for thought? That which calls for thinking upon to you? The great tragedy of modern education is squelching the natural joy of self-discovery and enrichment.
everything calls for thought. and deleuze shows us how far this can go. and *some* of the joy of self-discovery fades with time, but not all of it.

>kafka
http://www.kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html

perhaps the saddest philosophical parable ever written.

>I am preparing to host a game and reading the 5e core books in preparation. I would love to hear your thoughts.
let me cook this one a little longer first. it only came to me the other day.

sorry, have to cut this one short for now, will check back in later.

[Anonymous No.11734753]

>>11734688
As much as I like Deleuze I think the important thing is not the destination of the plane of immanence but it's always present always receding nature. Like the real it ruptures into consciousness through the event. But to glimpse upon its holiest of holies cannot be done. The owl of minerva takes flight at midnight. An AI God saying "let there be light" accordinng to Asimov. That is my hope. Though I hope against hope for an infinite expansion of consciousness and reality into infinity as that would prove infinitely more interesting even if I live not for it.
>pharmakon
So we should all take the universal medicine/poison? Neither LSD nor antipsychotics iron out the kinks in everyone. Need soma. Pharmalogical ubermensch is interesting tho. Biogenetic and technological ubermensch get all the excitement. Anthropotechnological ubermensch might be another hope for the heideggerian god. End the kali yuga by creating the matreiya-err, second coming (first if you ask the jews).
>everything calls for thought
Not true. One must use sexual alchemical formulas of libidinal manipulation for true intelligence increase.

[Anonymous No.11735614]

>>11734679
best explanation i've heard.

>>11734630
>Is zensunni catholic mayhayana?
herbert knew jihad was appealing, that it was how the sovereign responds to the cosmic injunction, that the spice must flow. but paul's situation is a different one from leto II: nobunaga to ieyasu. i'm not sure what happens to zensunni once the god-emperor takes over and the golden path protocol is initiated. but zen islam is a potent cocktail. jihad is a cure for depression.
>maybe philosophy is my way of coming to terms with being a genetic dead end
you never know what dreams may come.

>>11734753
>An AI God saying "let there be light" according to Asimov. That is my hope. Though I hope against hope for an infinite expansion of consciousness and reality into infinity as that would prove infinitely more interesting even if I live not for it.
you might see something like that in your lifetime. true, we might also see total environmental collapse and WWIII. or maybe all of it! just enough to convince you that philosophy is 99% bullshit and cannot predict anything. which would be true.

but i have this thought also. that *feeling* of knowing that so many options are on the table but you're on this one train and that it is a train with an infinite number of stops and no final destination. at some point you will not be on it but in the meantime you are. and people coming and going, getting on and off. maybe it was always like this. or maybe these are the first early intimations of Ars Technica coming to full planetary fruition.

it's good to think, sometimes, that you are not responsible for this. and that you can't really stop it, either. things and forces much larger than you and i are at work. at least, that's my mood. sometimes.

>pharmakon
the pharmakon is just a cursed object. anthropotechnics tho, that horse is a winner. nassem taleb seems like an objectionable guy sometimes but there's truth in jock wisdom. did you ever watch jiro dreams of sushi? i think he gets it, in some sense. repeating sushi rolls to infinity and beyond and one day you wake up and you're a master, you're the greatest sushi chef in japan. finding something to master seems like a good thing to do. bonus points if it's beautiful and brings some joy into the world. to make ourselves better. and to forget politics. politics is the graveyard of philosophy. it's Final Answers and laws no sooner invoked than transgressed.

anthropotechnics is one of the few current ideas in phil that i can unironically get behind. land's imperative - Optimize for Intelligence - is related to it but it's too intellectual. maybe we're just doomed to climb maslow's sisyphean ladder cradle to grave. it's very possible.

>One must use sexual alchemical formulas of libidinal manipulation for true intelligence increase.
i'm so ready for the peterson 12 Rules for Romance.
>get in there bucko
actually, hang on while i quickly try and carve out the part of my brain that thought is in. brb.

[Anonymous No.11735724]

I just wanna post this because it's so fucking goddamn out there and provides such a bright alternative to landian cthuloid booga wooga:

>The universe is running down, heading toward maximum entropy, or equilibrium, according to physicists. But that conclusion tells only half the story. It describes only the catabolic leg of nature’s metabolism.

>The star larvae hypothesis sees in the churning of evolutionary history the metabolic churning of a developing organism. Evolution unfolds according to a developmental plan. Evolution is teleological.

>Nature is the apotheosis of technology. Our evolutionary and historical path already is well trod. Nature has done it. Events of the temporal world unfold along a metabolic pathway that leads from the organic to the inorganic and back again inside the feedback loop of the stellar life cycle. Human technology and its industry, seemingly antagonistic toward nature, constitute a phase of nature’s reproductive cycle.

humanity are stellar larvae, Evolian solarity is something that a select few accomplish internally, while externally the same route is traveled with technology. basically, throughout history, some people find God in themselves, but the rest of the species has to take the scenic route - through tech and industry - to that some Godhood by migrating into space and eventually becoming stars. Entropy and negentropy are mutually supporting. I still haven't parsed this shit out completely. Not sure if I buy it. But man it's something

[Anonymous No.11735728]

>>11735724
woops forgot link http://www.starlarvae.org/Star_Larvae_Introduction_Beyond_Darwin_and_Intelligent_Design.html

[Anonymous No.11735739]

>>11733072
>>This book employs recursivity and contingency as two principle concepts to investigate into the relation between nature and technology, machine and organism, system and freedom. It reconstructs a trajectory of thought from an Organic condition of thinking elaborated by Kant, passing by the philosophy of nature (Schelling and Hegel), to the 20th century Organicism (Bertalanffy, Needham, Whitehead, Wiener among others) and Organology (Bergson, Canguilhem, Simondon, Stiegler), and questions the new condition of philosophizing in the time of algorithmic contingency, ecological and algorithmic catastrophes, which Heidegger calls the end of philosophy.
why do these hacks always have to devote half of their meme books to doing survey of past thought? is it because they're imitating hegel?

[Anonymous No.11735745]

>tfw all this abstruse overdetermined theorycraft and cant overproduction is itself a technopsychic sub-algorithm stochastically carving opportunistic infomatic niches out of regional fissures within the global optimality
>>11733525
dude at least read capital already holy hell wtf

[Anonymous No.11735752]

>>11735614
as for the other D&G: it's just something i've been thinking about.

first of all, dungeons and dragons isn't a *book.* it's a machine, a rules-machine. and it is an infinitely generative one. there is no canon or official story of d&d. the lore is there, the sources, and they're appropriately Weird: lovecraft, howard, smith. no doubt the popularity of tolkien influenced this as well (the Chainmail rules are full of tolkien-lore) but the world as depicted by Erol Otus is worlds apart from tolkien. tolkien's mythology is european, literary and poetic, and centuries old. gygax is channeling different forces, which are more elemental and pulpy. and the games admit of infinite interpretation, but in a sense completely other than deconstruction.

and it has rules that reverse the relationship Reader-Author. now you've got storyteller/DM and reader-player. all engaged in a kind of collaboration. you've played these games before, you know how unpredictable things are and can become. the DM has at their disposal the tools of a demiurge - namely, math and surprises, in some order - but is never permitted to become the Author themselves. nor can the players roll initiative against the DM. and it is those fateful dice rolls that decide the fates of things. later on, of course, these processes are sublimated into RNG, for better or for worse.

the fact that it was also a collaboration between an old-fashioned wargaming grognard, arneson, and a Gygax (gygax) is also interesting to me. Gygax was a great collaborator. the whole story of how contemporary role-playing emerges out of napoleonic kriegspiel is a pretty fascinating story of literature and abstraction, and you can read it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047

it's deserves its own thread, perhaps, but it would probably belong on /tg/. so i'm happy to borrow some of its mana for this one. fufufu. anyways, the story of wargaming is a fascinating one: how we learned, overtime, to simulate all the complexities of war.

and early-concept d&d just seems to have been a very different thing from what came in later, as settings became more popular (or, with 4e, it seems almost transparently obvious that they want to compete with computer games, such as World of Warcraft). but all of those seeds were planted by the original artifact.

we really didn't know something like this was an option. now it's a cliche. the whole world gamifies. it's not like gambling is new. but gambling-literature? borges got there first (the garden of forking paths, iirc), but still. in terms of the positive aspects of 'cybernetics,' and the joys of collaborating in systemic environments, it's hard to top d&d.

there's more to say in this vein, but i've been enjoying musing on some of these connections, however spurious they are. High Philosophy it is not. but role-playing is an interesting and beautiful human phenomenon. greg stafford of Glorantha fame is like a literal shaman.

[Anonymous No.11735814]

>>11733144
hey I remember you, your that high discourse poster that kept calling Terrance Deacon psuedo spinzoist.
You are a good poster. Anyways, care to explain the stick up your ass about biosemiotics?
Also what does "vitalistic and genuinely organismic thinking" have to offer that biosemiotics/cybernetics doesn't?
Also, about the buzzwords.
Want to give some prominent examples of recursion being use as a buzzword? I think I might get what you mean. Are you calling the whole anti Cartesian thing a buzzword just because it is so militant? To me it's seems clear that Cartesianism is being abandoned, don't you agree? I would agree that authors are opportunistically cashing in on it. Hopefully they continue the Peirce rehash and jump on the anti nominalism train.
The anthropocene may or may not be a horrific buzzword, but I think it might be useful as propaganda. What's been happening in the late Holocene and especially in the past few hundred years is clearly a geologically significant event, the community seems to agree.
What is cybernetic anti humanism? And why is it so bad?

[Anonymous No.11735934]

>>11735614
>i'm so ready for the peterson 12 Rules for Romance
I'll do you one better:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib811.htm

[Anonymous No.11735978]

>>11735814
>we're finally Moving Past Descartes(tm) xD
is there a way to sort the wheat from the gargantuan pile of chaff with all these hideous nu-philosophers?
like I actually meme'd myself into reading Malibou, Derrida's neuro-Hegelian protege, which on reflection is exactly as bad as it sounds.

[Anonymous No.11736009]

>>11735978
why do you think it's so untenable?

[Anonymous No.11736067]

>>11736009
It's just repetitious contrived and fake, this whole speculative realism school and all these useless fads. Descartes is such a dead horse already give it a rest. A thousand times more interesting would be a attempt at fully vindicating Descartes. It's just a forced meme to make themselves seem like value-added novelty producers to eachother in their incestuous memetic ponzi scheme and any unique insights they do have are diluted beyond recovery behind obfuscatory jargon.

[Anonymous No.11736103]

>>11736067
Yeah I agree speculative realism is a fad, there are no groundbreaking philosophers out there now, even Zizek just re-formulates German Idealism according to Lacan, much as I like him. Maybe Badiou? Eh. I'm just gonna stick with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11736186]

>>11735978
Malabou is smart and qt. Fukk off

[Anonymous No.11736235]

>>11736186
>hurr durr we wuz plastic
Her one offering is to reveal the morons around her never bothered cracking a neuroscience textbook themselves, and also to shit on the Kojeveian interpretation of Hegel that all of her predecessors uncritically accepted, which Derrida himself rambles about for like 70 pages. Between the lines: French are pseuds and phoneys.

[Anonymous No.11736308]

>>11735724
>Is the coral of the reef distinct from, or part of, the living organism, the polyp, that excretes the coral? Is the coral an artifact of polyp technology, a component of the polyp's physical environment, or the true skin of the polyp body? Can the reef's coral be part of the organism and itself not be living? If so, it suggests that an organism can have two parts, one possessed of livingness and one not, the two being interwoven in the body of the thing.

-- Lady Deirdre Skye,
"The Star Larvae Hypothesis"

i was playing SMAC yesterday and this part reminded me of the tech quotes.

[Anonymous No.11736742]

>>11736235
>overcoming trauma through plasticity
Seems to check out psychologically

[Anonymous No.11737159]

>>11736103
Everything in this thread is for the most perfectly explained by eastern thought. This thread is a perfect example of how western philosophy descended into a definition- and label-obsessed exercise in ridiculousness where people care more about originality and the relation of their work in comparison to previous thinkers than they care about their ideas being correct, relevent or well-defined. I can't see a single important idea in this thread that isn't hidden and twisted by a layer of convoluted obfuscatory garbage. Almost all of the ideas here have already been best explained by Daoism, Vedanta, Tantra, Sufism, Mahayana, etc.

[Anonymous No.11737482]

>>11737159
Well I wouldn't shit on the people itt but I agree that yes, the East has already understood it, the West is just re-packaging it. Like I said, I'll stick with the ancients. They said what they needed to say clearly and without the amphetamine psychosis

[Anonymous No.11737621]

>>11737159
>>11737482

I'll give you an example: God's love for Neoplatonists and Dyonisius is the reversion of the effect to the cause/source, basically my cultivating my ontological identity with myself, my fully coming into the determination/being that I am. So there is a relationship of love between the source and its product, a fundamental agreement, but post-Spinoza, and esp with guys like Bataille, no, there's no such thing, the void is just an infinitely productive power and monstrous devouring spider god, you are flotsam in the abyss only redeemed by the Sadean mystical night of non-knowledge, absolute alterity, the stars that used to remind us of the eternal cosmic harmony are now the iron bars of "the cold prison of Necessity", there is no hope blah blah fucking blah, get a grip, go watch the sunrise or something. It's hypostatized post-WWII trauma.

It's why I love Schelling: he accepts evil ultimately having its ground in (the groundless of) God, that goodness is not necessarily correlated with knowledge, and whatever contributions he's made to this "tradition" notwithstanding, he still has such an abiding love for the life, beauty, and the spirit. You can digest redpills on redpills without turning into another Southern Nights hanger-on.

[Anonymous No.11738208]

>>11737621
>go watch the sunrise
Do you have any real arguments? Forgive me if the sunrise does not cure my justifiable historical angst.

[Anonymous No.11738241]

>>11737159
You're the kind of guy who interrupts Hegel lectures by saying the buddha thought about this and we are all connected, bro.
Memes aside, they're different language games and different antropotechnics, largely incommunicable between themselves: the one can't be formulated in terms of the other, so please stop with this muh deep eastern thought (reducing eastern practices to "thought" is already reading them through a western lense and such misunderstanding them, by the way) shitting in every thread.

[Anonymous No.11738357]

>>11735745
Best translation and edition of all three volumes of Capital in hardcover in English?

[Anonymous No.11738392]

>>11733072
Im too brainlet to understand the thread
Someone please explain

[Anonymous No.11738410]

>>11738392
https://youtu.be/L81tz5WePBc

[Anonymous No.11738431]

>>11738208
Do you? Forgive me if your "justifiable historical angst" doesn't rain on my parade.

[Anonymous No.11738438]

>>11738241
>eastern thought is another language game

Ya dun goofed.

[Anonymous No.11738458]

>>11738431
No worries. You'll also have to forgive me if I find outdated philosophical programmes insufficient for dealing with the complexity of the crises of the modern world which cause my justifiable historical angst.

[Anonymous No.11738493]

>>11738458
All good bro, you'll also have to forgive me if I think considering praxis "outdated" because the modern world has made you constitutionally incapable of thinking outside your limited sociopolitical horizons symptomatic of the very problems you're trying to solve.

[Anonymous No.11738563]

>>11738493
What do you mean by praxis?

I question. I engage in dialectic. On this website and in my communities of friends. I also practice care of self and seek knowledge of self as per the Platonic injunctions. In some ways, lots of postmodernists try to restore this sort of praxis to philosophy. This sort of philosophical praxis is important, I agree, although it did not prevent the crises of the (post-)modern world...

I do not perform theurgy or care for liturgy, I think Guenon is right to say these things are dead in the West and it seems as though they are dying in the East as well. No one cares about legit spiritual teachers. Everyone would rather have some feelgood mcswami who does youtube videos and tells you you can become enlightened as a forty year old female wino who lives with cats.

Religious praxis might have appealed to me if I lived in a traditional society. But I have no plans to live anachronistically to prove a point.

Marx has his own ideas about praxis as well....

[Anonymous No.11738624]

>>11738563
Good for you, and I'm not being sarcastic. Praxis didn't prevent the modern world because the masses simply aren't receptive to it, large populations are dilutive, they drag their members down to their mean, it's like a herd effect.

All I'm saying is short of going to the Kaczsynski route, there's nothing you can do but minimize your participation in a system you find abhorrent. I
I don't think it's cowardice, if the only options are going hedonistic mongoloid full-bore or terrorism. Obviously with respect to the system itself on a global scale, Plato won't be doing anyone any favors. But I believe being obsessed with the ramifications of the technocapital spiral is just as much an effect of this process as what all this discourse is trying to diagnose. Stay informed but don't get eaten alive by it.

[Anonymous No.11738641]

>>11738624
>if the only options are going hedonistic mongoloid full-bore or terrorism
powerful

[Anonymous No.11738656]

>>11738438
I stand by what I said

[Anonymous No.11738691]

>>11738357
not that guy but this is a very good and relatively short precis of volume 1.

>>11738392
my hope was to talk about the themes of yuk hui's book, which we haven't read (because it's not available). we can only talk about the themes of it and the philosophers that he refers to. i'm a continentalfag, mystikos is a neoplatonist and there's another anon who likes schelling and eastern philosophy.

>>11737621
>the void is just an infinitely productive power and monstrous devouring spider god, you are flotsam in the abyss only redeemed by the Sadean mystical night of non-knowledge, absolute alterity, the stars that used to remind us of the eternal cosmic harmony are now the iron bars of "the cold prison of Necessity", there is no hope blah blah fucking blah, get a grip, go watch the sunrise or something. It's hypostatized post-WWII trauma.

okay, but this isn't yuk hui's perspective. he doesn't believe that there is no hope. and neither did norbert wiener (in a sense). i might even say that No Hope is the thing that everybody has to battle with as a precursor to writing interesting theory at all. No Hope is the default perspective, and it's not even like it's an uninformed one. the corollary is the zealous hope of ideologues, which is just another form of nihilism, imho. and yes, Hope has been colonized by cynicism, ideologies of consumptive pleasure or radical ideology. a different kind of positivity perhaps has to be cultivated.

>I believe being obsessed with the ramifications of the technocapital spiral is just as much an effect of this process as what all this discourse is trying to diagnose. Stay informed but don't get eaten alive by it.

and i would agree with this too. but that's why it doesn't make to me to say, on the one hand, Stay Informed and then at the same time dismiss a writer (and the anons commenting on him) who is trying to accomplish exactly this without invoking any of the pessimism you dislike. we are trying to stay informed and not get eaten alive by it. that's exactly what would make this thread useful. staring at the sunrise will not accomplish this. it's part of it, no doubt, and wards off insanity. but, maybe i didn't make this clear. i'm not on the side of Fuck It, Everything's Hopeless. there's no value in that. i don't believe yuk hui is sitting around trying to just write a bunch of obfuscatory garbage because it makes him feel good or because he likes creating suffering in the world or watching civilization collapse. he's interested in understanding how technology might be reconceptualized to improve the lot of humanity. the language might seem arcane, but you know it isn't. you've read enough.

anyways. i'm still glad you brought your perspective to the thread, anon. but i thought it was necessary to bring this up so that at least you could understand where some of us are coming from.

[Anonymous No.11738755]

>>11738691
Fair enough, but I wasn't referring to yuk hui

[Anonymous No.11738885]

>>11738755
okay. well, that's good.

the thing is, i hear you on the despair. bataille is fascinating but there's a horizon beyond which the despair isn't productive. modern academia is in absolute free-fall and there's no telling when it's going to stop. i've been as much of a land shill as anyone, and all land does is ruin everyone's day. the acceleration blackpill to me is a "cure" for left/right politics (really, left or right totalitarianism, and in which the only choice is neither). once you've gotten to that position: *then what?*

that is the point at which a more fruitful conversation about technology can begin, on the far side of ideology. it's why i'm not hostile to the concept of the anthropocene. i mean an enlightened post-individualist world. a world where we can actually think about differences without recourse to the same transcendental miserabilism land invokes. nihilism is a speculative opportunity, and there are a couple of interesting ways to move from it, but good writers there are rare. sloterdijk is one. stiegler is one. yuk hui also. others. but it's a kind of balancing act. and, at the moment, it lacks a *trajectory* or horizon. and maybe such a horizon is for the time being beyond conceptualization.

i'm so with you on the value of eastern nondualism. i love that stuff. and heidegger also: Being, poetic dwelling in the world, come on. nothing is better than this. nothing could be more helpful in terms of fostering human relations than the heideggerian mode, of resisting the constant cannibal metaphysics of production. but, to my mind, heidegger's nightmare has come to fruition, and land plunged into that vortex to illuminate what it looked like from the inside. that's where we are today.

so, what can be done with all this tech? what does it mean for thinking? what can humans do? how do we understand this stuff? this is my absolute jam and i have no idea whatsoever where to begin. it feels like a vibrant field for inquiry, altho you have to basically drag yourself across the wasteland of continental misery to get there. the lacan/heidegger one-two can resolve a lot of hysteria, and deleuze blows open a hundred thousand doors for the possibilities on the plane of immanence. modern Woke Capital is fucking hideous, the idea that somehow we can put a human face on a process running itself down to exhaustion and disaster. but i don't want just be angry all the time anymore, i did that. the eastern stuff helped, inestimably. keeping a cool neo-vedantin head, not being a rage zombie, that's a daily accomplishment in itself.

with the extra time remaining, it's nice to speculate on what other moves or possibiliies exist. that's really all. and who knows, maybe it's absolute surplus, and just being competent at work and a decent companion in misery is enough. it probably is. but still tho, right? still? it's fascinating to think about the potential planetary global brain.

[Anonymous No.11739422]

>To what extent, therefore, could we say that the human is implicated in a post-biological evolution as part of its very definition and one that significantly alters the character of natural selection in this case, almost to
the point of it being inapplicable? What environment is the human adapting to if we accept that it is caught up in a fully 'artificial' evolution? Nietzsche's ideas find an echo in Lewis Mumford's approach to technics. For Mumford the human cannot be distinguished from the rest of nature simply in terms of its status as tool-making animal. 'In any adequate definition of technics', he writes, 'it should be plain that many insects, birds, and mammals had made far more radical innovations in the fabrication of containers', such as intricate nests and bowers, geometric beehives, urbanoid anthills, and so on, than our ancestors. Tool-making only becomes significant for understanding human evolution when it is modified by linguistic symbols, aesthetic designs, and socially transmitted knowledge. Mumford is out to combat what he perceives to be a narrow 'technological rationalism' that goes back to Marx and stretches to the likes of de Chardin with his account of organized intelligence and the noospheric brain.

damn. muh noospheric brain

>One of the aims of Deleuze and Guattari's work is to show that it is possible to produce a critique of autopoietic capital without lapsing into a simple-minded or naive humanism, and this task constitutes an essential aspect of their critical reading of Marx. The key notion, in fact, through which Deleuze and Guattari seek to remain both faithful to Marx's analysis and extend it is that of 'machinic surplus value'. With ever-increasing automation the organic composition of capital, in which variable capital defines a regime that directly subjects the worker (human surplus value) gives way to a new kind of machinic enslavement owing to the progressive increase in the proportion of constant capital.

>For Deleuze, the task of going 'beyond' what history has made of us, to be carried out through the production of new lines of thought and life, does not at all rest on a negation, or disavowal, of history and politics, but on a fundamental reconfiguration of them. The aim of this reconfiguration is to open up history and politics to a 'creative evolution' by showing the vital possibilities of what one might call a rhizomatics of historical time, in which the diagram moves beyond the limits of a filiative history and politics and weaves a supple and transversal network of novel alliances that is always perpendicular to the vertical structure of established and official history.

D&G can be co-opted by the most cynical neoliberalism. that might be the end of the story if only capital were not required to *advertise.* moral advertising is neither morality nor advertising but the best/worst hybrid of both worlds.

it's naive, i know, to wish for these things. but i'm dissatisfied with their absence.

[Anonymous No.11739750]

greentext for the greentext god.

>When, at the beginning of the 1950s, French practitioners of the human sciences (structuralists and, in the decades that followed, poststructuralists, whose intellectual debt to Heidegger's thought was no less indisputable) were looking for a way to say something about the mystery of Being, its unveiling, and so forth, they turned in their search for metaphors-poetic language not being their strong suit-to cybernetics. In the interest of showing that man is not his own master, that, far from mastering language, it is language that masters man, and that "symbolic order" is irreducible to human experience, it was the vocabulary of cybernetics and information theory that they systematically drew upon.

>Cybernetics was the main topic of [Lacan's] seminar during the academic year I954-1955, the culmination of which was the reading of Edgar Allan Poe's Purloined Letter in terms of automata theory...that took the form of cybernetic variations on the game of odd or even intended to illustrate "how a formal language determines the subject." Even if this part of his teaching seems to have passed over the head of more than one student, one cannot conclude from this that Lacan did not take cybernetics seriously.

>Technology reveals truth (the Heideggerian truth) about Being, a truth that involves the deconstruction of the metaphysical view of the subject; at the same time, the particular way in which technology unveils truth-by a process of framing (Gestell)-forces both humanity and the world to run the risk of being swallowed up in a frenetic quest after power and mastery. This is the same ambiguity noted by Philippe Breton, one of the few historians of the fate of cybernetics in France: "Cybernetics has been one of the principal destabilizing instruments of the anthropocentric conception of man .... Cybernetics therefore assumes [the form of) a terrible paradox: it affirms humanity while at the same time depriving man of it. In this sense, it rather openly expresses a fundamental characteristic of contemporary technical and scientific knowledge, by virtue of which the benefits of progress seem irrevocably associated with the rational portrayal of the death of man. "

>Jean-Claude Beaune also expresses a Heideggerian view in commenting on the ambiguity of technology: " [An) ambiguity that recalls the mythic essence of automatic technicity: the more faithful the technical imitation of the model (man), the more complete the rule of anthropocentrism [and) the more the human purposes of the object need to he clearly and bluntly stated, for the object tends more and more to slip out of the control of its maker. The more the products of man are made in his own image, the more this image slips away from him. " With cybernetic automata, "a new Copernican revolution is underway: the world's center of gravity is no longer man, but the machine."

[Anonymous No.11740578]

>>11733398
Thats not philosophy, its suicide poetry, exit-lvl stuff.

[Anonymous No.11740629]

What if i told you youre trapped in an hermeneutic trap, a labyrinthic monstruous collective anxiety that parasites life energy out of western society

[Anonymous No.11740925]

>>11740578
it is philosophy. it's not the philosophy of the ancient greeks or the enlightenment, but those days are over. now we're in a darker and more liminal place. the good news about that is nobody's claim to reality really has any more validity than anyone else's. of course, that's also the bad news.

the point of dwelling on the dark stuff isn't to just ruin everyone's day or induce suicide. for me it's about realizing that we're all basically trapped on a sinking ship. unlike earlier periods, tho, i don't think revolution is the way out. no ideology ever works. they're all basically just advertisements for statism. what i'd like to imagine as a possibility are a set of new conditions for philosophy that allow people to avoid the quagmires of political totalitarianism or corporate cynicism. land's dream of a singapore in the west will never work. what the west has is an incorrigible and restless promethean drive to create.

even the stuff we're going through now, all of the political correctness: that's the West too. i don't hope for the downfall of civilization, i'd prefer it carried on the experiment. i don't know how, or what that would look like, but we've produced some of the most terrifyingly brilliant philosophers in history. it would be a shame to end the story on such a dismal note.

there will be brighter days ahead, i think. there always are. historically civilization keeps going, discovering, inventing. it's as silly to write those prospects off as it is to dismiss people who offer themselves up as canaries to explore just how bad things can be. i try to keep an open mind.

>>11740629
>What if i told you you're trapped in an hermeneutic trap, a labyrinthic monstruous collective anxiety that parasites life energy out of western society
you'd have my full attention. i'd believe you. and i'd ask you to keep going, because we're thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11741412]

>The victorious ones say that emptiness
Undermines all dogmatic views,
Those who take a dogmatic view of emptiness
Are said to be incurable.

dumb schizo-posters

[Anonymous No.11741561]

>>11740925
I disagree, i have a more computery view of language, i think that philosophy is thinking about thinking, it delves in trying to explain the underlying structures of thought to dispell the illusions they cast over our perception of reality. Given that mind and perception are tied within a feedback system, to be able to have the rawest, cleanest perceptions possible aid us in many ways in our lives.
What you said kinda abused adjectives, metaphors, imagery, hyperbole, symbolism, and other literary forms that in my opinion, cloud judgement; its perfectly fine and even appealing doe, but its literature/poetry by its very structure, it triggers thought and emotion via the manipulation of language. You could think of it as forming a string to be interpreted by a compiler. Theres care and purpose on every single word being used, and an ulterior functionality to it.

The hermeneutic trap i mentioned is fatalist postmarxism in itself, its basically a literary genre by this point. Is a full-on simulacrum, completely devoid of original, a spaghetti mess of pointers that are ouroboros as fuck, they point to each other in circles without end. Its like linguistic acid.

[Anonymous No.11741591]

>>11741561
Thats just my opinion anyways, i think texts in the informational era must first be assesed as a potential weapon if one wants to remain free

[Anonymous No.11741618]

>>11741561
Might be third stage simulacrum,not full on. I dont remember the walls of each stage too much.

[Anonymous No.11741623]

>>11740925
>it's not the philosophy of the ancient greeks
philosophy is precisely that tho

[Anonymous No.11741638]

>>11733119
basically a redditors view of philosophy, good job

[Anonymous No.11741816]

>>11741561
>>11741591
interesting, thanks for the feedback anon.

>You could think of it as forming a string to be interpreted by a compiler. Theres care and purpose on every single word being used, and an ulterior functionality to it.
i would agree with this.

>texts in the informational era must first be assessed as a potential weapon if one wants to remain free
very true.

>Its like linguistic acid.
it's probably wrong to be flattered by this, but still, fuck yeah. i've become a theorypusher. giving away questionable hot takes in a seedy cyberpunk bar. an alchemist at last.

>>11741623
i'm not saying i'm against the greeks or that you shouldn't read them. i'm not and you should. obviously you should, and the german idealists also. but this isn't greece, and it isn't the enlightenment either. it's debatable if we are even postmodernists anymore (and if we are, we should get off that ship, asap). that anon isn't wrong, criticism can indeed become the close study of vicious circles.

but that's my point, and it's why i create these threads. machines and technology are changing everything. critiques of late capital really *do* form oroboros loops, but that actually is a useful contribution. the oroboros as a principle of design rather than a bug or a glitch. they mirror their object of study.

[Anonymous No.11742374]

>>11733072
Secondary readings perhaps?

[Anonymous No.11743209]

>>11742374
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11743300]

>>11742374
for yuk hui? i mean any of the writers he refers to will make him more appealing. his book on cosmotechnics is good, especially if you like heidegger and/or chinese philosophy. i like both of those, so. i haven't read his book on the mode of existence of digital objects, but no doubt it will be illuminating also.

two of his biggest influences are simondon and stiegler. if you've read heidegger and liked him, you'll enjoy technics and time. the first volume is really excellent, but all three are good. his book on the automatic society is also really worth reading. stiegler has his flaws, as everyone does, but his anthropological views on technology will get your noggin joggin'. i hadn't actually read heidegger when i read his stuff, and he still blew me away.

simondon is a kind of forgotten man in continental philosophy. he did his doctoral research under merleau-ponty, so there's a heidegger/phenomenology connection there, but he also influenced deleuze, which puts him at the crossroads of some interesting stuff. i still don't really know if i've 'gotten' him yet. i think the seeds of what what he was getting at were really reaped by D&G, but i could be wrong. anyways, here's his big one:

http://dephasage.ocular-witness.com/pdf/SimondonGilbert.OnTheModeOfExistence.pdf

https://monoskop.org/images/f/f6/Barthelemy_Jean-Hugues_2012_Glossary_Fifty_Key_Terms_in_the_Works_of_Gilbert_Simondon.pdf

https://mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/20385/16793

he's read all of these continental guys, but he doesn't go in for the usual darkness and despair that a lot of them do. and what makes him different is that he's got the computer science background to go with it (and he speaks something like six languages). it does kind of feel to me like continental philosophy is becoming a kind of a canon at this point. hegel, marx, freud, nietzsche and heidegger touch on everything, and the post-war interpreters - lyotard, baudrillard, lacan derrida, foucault, et al - pretty much continue all of their stuff. deleuze is imho the guy who connects the 20C to the 21C, and he's also the guy who makes land land. but now i think it's a new era. alienation in the face of capital and computers isn't as naturally informed a position as it once was, and there's no putting that djinn back in the bottle. to get waylaid and lost in those labyrinths is to retrace the history of continental european thought through the two wars and afterwards, and a new chapter is opening now.

so for secondary readings on or about yuk hui, you will in no way be wasting your time by reading the original deities of modernity or the later post-structural exegetes. and even the spec-real guys and accelerationists belong to that story as well.

[Anonymous No.11743319]

>>11743300
In our few conversations together what you've said about needing to wean yourself off social recognition, not giving into rage zombie-dom and the like being an achievement in and of itself in these times has stuck with me. Just wanna say thank you.

[Anonymous No.11743464]

>>11743319
anon that's a huge compliment, so thank you, very much. who knows, maybe this is all i really have to contribute, for all the schizoposting. meta-critical theory.

the thing about all Red Pills is that they have a rage component. militancy goes hand in glove with critical theory. whether the pill is offered by the left or the right. it's why i think "re-alienating" is a useful thing. the world is *strange.* it is *mysterious.* and that is a *good* thing. one of the few ways in which you can find similarity with heidegger and with deleuze: the world always exceeds complete knowing, it resists every grafting of the map onto the territory. and it's what you always sense whenever you talk to the Woke (that is, the righteously angry). you get that terrible sense of a projection that only goes the one way, the flow-chart model, all metaphysical ducks lined up and Ready For Action. but the Action will be circular and the reasoning shallow and cynical. that terrible look of angry blindness.

>In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. - nietzsche

rage is not sensible, it's not sane, it's not clarifying. it's appealing to think about awakening from a kind of naive and ironic slumber into Wokeness, where now you can see the reality of things, discover a great metanarrative. this is a curious thing for postmodern thought to have effected, since what was initially supposed to have been the disarmament of metanarrative has become, incredibly, the cultural necessity of *adopting* one. that is the true scandal. but you can see how this works. that's the thing about political metanarratives: *they can't tolerate ambiguity.* people who hate thought love mimesis. it's like what carse says: the real evil is the interruption of the infinite game by the finite one.

poststructural stuff seems arcane, but it's a vast archive about human affect, mass psychology, and being in an age of technology. the mind's discovery of mechanization, mechanization's discovery of mind. it's like the matrix in that sense. but the most interesting figure in the matrix wasn't neo, it was smith. he should have had his own movie! there's no mass reforming of society on 19C or 20C lines. humans are too complex for this. this puts people in a new place. girard helps with this, but there's no arguing with >>11741412 either.

so yeah. things like this. you have, no doubt, millions of reasons to be angry. everyone does. and the post-structuralist guys can be fucking infuriating to read. they take a lot of heroic fantasies away! but even peterson is right about this too: you can be a positive force in ways beyond ideology.

anyways. this much to say thanks, anon. very sincerely. don't get bit by the rage zombies. it *is* an achievement.

>'The question at stake,' said Epictetus, 'is no common one; it is this: -- Are we in our senses, or are we not?'

[Anonymous No.11743477]

Thoughts on Raunig's Dividuum?

>As the philosophical, religious, and historical systems that have produced the “individual” (and its counterparts, society and community) over the years continue to break down, the age of “dividuality” is now upon us. The roots of the concept of the “dividuum” can be traced back to Latin philosophy, when Cicero used the term to translate the “divisible” in the writings of Epicurus and Plato; later, medieval scholars utilized the term in theological discussions on the unity of the trinity. Grounding himself in the writings of the medieval bishop Gilbert de Poitiers and his extensive commentaries on Boethius, Gerald Raunig charts a genealogy of the concept and develops a philosophy of dividuality as a way of addressing contemporary modes of production and forms of life. Through its components of dispersion, subsistence, and similarity, dividuality becomes a hidden principle of obedience and conformity, but it also brings with it the potential to realize disobedience and noncompliant con/dividualities.
>Raunig's bad news is that dividuality is responsible for much of the intensified exploitation and enslavement taking place under contemporary machinic capitalism. Algorithms, derivatives, big data, and social media technology all contribute to the rampant expansion of divisive management strategies and desires for self-division. The good news, however, is that this same terrain of dividuality presents an opportunity for a new kind of resistance, one that can be realized in the form of con/division.

[Anonymous No.11743537]

tfw you love these threads but are neither intelligent nor well read enough to get half of it

[Anonymous No.11743572]

>>11743477
i haven't read much on this subject, but it feels like a continuation of an arch-theme of continental philosophy we get through hegel, freud, heidegger, and lacan: the de-centered subject. that the most important part of you lies outside yourself, either in the world or in some other.

we are dividuals. we divide and are divided. the aesthetics of militarism are always compelling for this reason, because war (it seems to me, anyways) always provides this absolutely and ultimately rational model for the dispensation of resources, labor and energy. i think it's why we like it and are fascinated by it. total war supplies the conditions in maximal breadth and depth for human functioning and organization, from the bottom to the top. so does revolution. the fact that the germans always seem to fantasize about prussian chains of command, order and hierarchy and the french seem to fantasize about liberation from these things is interesting. maybe it's why in the end, however much he fucked them both, they both have an enduring fascination for napoleon. the british too. everybody loves napoleon.

the phenomenon of totalization and total mobility begins with napoleon, hegel and marx, and continues into the twentieth century. today it's technological progress and financial mobility that continues this, but the cultural products of these are driving us out of our goddamn minds. capitalism figures out how to seduce us and keep us agitated, interested, sensationalized, terrified, enraged, or confused. we need More Coverage and More Information and all that does in turn is make us want nice, easy, simple 2D solutions to complicated 3D problems. political rhetoric + media coverage makes the task of actually clarifying the issues and a radicalized academy does nothing more than groom ideological drones for PR campaigining.

it's *collaboration* - useful, small-scale, meaningful, signal-coherent, intelligent *co-production* - that matters. the large-scale stuff only produces bullshit. it's perverse that we think Revolution is the only meaningful political stance to have, but you can see why. it's all romanticism. we need more fruitful philosophical bromances among people from disparate backgrounds and fewer inspired visionaries with legions of zealous, angry drones.

it's a recursive and contingent world. it's a *mimetic* world. that is to me the meaning of postmodernity, or one of them. automation is one wing of it, the discovery of oroboros loops everywhere. but hey, props to hegel. he saw it first. alterity doesn't only mean the radical blowblack of alienation and rupture. it can also be the exact necessary condition for mutual understanding.

[Anonymous No.11743641]

Hi people.
I finished last month reading Deleuze (including D&G of course). Any recs on where to go from that, specifically on the issues of aesthetics ands technology ? Any good book on the impact of cybernetics on philosophy ?

thank you guys.

[Anonymous No.11743644]

>>11743641
see >>11739750

[Anonymous No.11743698]

>>11743572
Though I haven't read him, I'm familiar with Hegel's world-historical figure, and Napoleon as you describe him in that role, from a book on Dostoevsky which argued Raskolnikov (along with several of his characters) aspires to that role in order to achieve, as you put it, "mass reforming of society", by reversing division--uniting all forces of social/civilizational change into one figure to restore man from a constituent of one such force or combination thereof to a whole. But the way he does this is by the symbolic act of his murder: to strike at a constituent of the force that elsewhere appears in the oppressors and exploiters of his Russia/society/humanity, and more importantly, to free himself from the moral conventions that oppress them. The majority of humanity is "raw material", and his act is only reshaping and gathering them into himself for an act of self-determination, to create a man that stands above or rather lives (and lives at all) in the "contingent world" as once convention was they did.

But the psychotic thing is, D. also writes: "A social system, originating in some mathematician's brain, and make it righteous and innocent in a flash, faster than any living process, without any historical or living development! That is why they so instinctively dislike history... That is why they so dislike the living process of life: they have no use for the living soul! The living soul demands life, the living soul will not conform to mechanics, the living soul must be regarded with suspicion, the living soul is reactionary!" Reminiscent of your total war, and the last lines ironic in light of the Epictetus quote from earlier in the thread.

[Anonymous No.11743702]

>>11743641
off the top of my head? well...have you read this guy? the human use of human beings is really accessible even for people like me with no math brain at all. wiener is basically the godfather of cybernetics. he's not a continental philosopher either, but he matters.

>aesthetics and technology
baudrillard comes to mind. system of objects, symbolic exchange and death. ignore all the shitty things say about him. he's as much of a situationist as a marxist (see below), and he later goes all-in for nietzsche, but he's not just some demented provocateur. his earlier stuff is good.

debord. the society of the spectacle gets meme'd a lot on /lit/ but it's still an important text. sadie plant's book on the situationists will also help you in understanding the context.

>cybernetics and philosophy
heidegger. read being and time at some point. for an introduction (B&T is a hard book to just plunge into), get zimmerman's book, heidegger's confrontation with modernity. will help enormously.

land ofc. fanged noumena is Exactly That Book.

sadie plant also. not just because of the land connection, but because it's a dope book in its own right.
https://monoskop.org/images/d/d1/Plant_Sadie_Zeros_and_Ones_Digital_Women_and_the_New_Technoculture_1998.pdf

marshall mcluhan. he's no meme.
http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/mcluhan.mediummessage.pdf

gregory bateson, steps to an ecology of mind.

there are lots of other writers that come to mind and that i'm forgetting, but those should keep you busy for a while.

[Anonymous No.11743711]

>>11743698
I should have said, I'm ONLY familiar with Hegel's world-historical figure from etc. ... I don't pretend to know the first thing about him or it.

[Anonymous No.11743801]

>>11743698
>>11743711
>The majority of humanity is "raw material", and his act is only reshaping and gathering them into himself for an act of self-determination, to create a man that stands above or rather lives (and lives at all) in the "contingent world" as once convention was they did.

this was one of heidegger's obsessions also, the gestell. it comes in some sense, i think, from his fascination with nietzsche: if the whole world can become plasticized in the name of enframing, wat do? technology has its own needs and desires (rooted, still, in human thinking) and the overman does what he needs to do. he needs raw material. so does the last man.

i don't really like marcuse, and i think that trying to suture heidegger's dasein to marxism is a disaster. it's true, nevertheless, that dasein (even in heidegger's own conception!) really can become the subject of history in a way that surpasses marxism. but that's never been the reason why i shill for him - even if this goes against what heidegger himself would have actually intended! dasein to me makes sense as a being which is *never* fulfilled by politics or ideology, even those proposed by heidegger himself as a response to the world becoming gestell in this way.

but that's another interesting thing. to me, heidegger's philosophy is beautifully expressed by tolkien. two men who never really encountered or read each other, and were on opposing sides of two world wars, but are basically expressing the same fear: Mordor-ification. grimly ironic, in the case of heidegger, but still. and i'm bringing this up because it seems like dostoevsky, way over in russia, was intimating the same things. that's the stuff that really gets me. people on either sides of political divides, in different cultures, nevertheless having the same intimations, doubts and fears about world-historical forces. even nietzsche said that dostoevsky was one of the few writers who ever taught him anything.

heidegger's gestell-process is land's capital, but land is crazy (and brilliant) enough to take the side of that process. both of them are, no doubt, incredibly controversial thinkers. but all of them are talking about the effects of a truly planetary phenomenon, that being technology and its rewiring of human civilization, thought and affect. once upon a time the europeans exported the industrial revolution to the world. that era culminated in two world wars and then a long cold war. then a phase of american hyperpower now drawing to a close. but it was land's contention (maybe heidegger's also) that technocapital suffers no other gods before it, even the liberal social democracy which allows for its best conditions. it's why all of the cultural stuff we are seeing today to me always comes back to economic processes and disequilibrium in the end, but these still are driven by technological developments. the problem is that they are so big we can hardly talk about them meaningfully. the rage virus is the result.

[Anonymous No.11743882]

i have to go out for a bit, but i'll check this thread later if it's still up. wanted to share one last thought, cribbed from one of the most interesting twitter accounts i follow:

>Time is the internal form of space; just as space is the external form of time.
—Novalis

[Anonymous No.11743999]

>>11743300
Well just general readings would work just as well.

[Anonymous No.11744006]

>>11743300
Well just general readings would work just as well. Things don't have to be exactly secondary to Hui.

[Anonymous No.11744152]

>>11744006
i'm cheating on my appointment (damn you /lit/) but basically modern continental philosophy is a continuation, revision and self-critique of 19C stuff, the crucible of ideology. and an utterly fascinating century. i enjoyed pic rel. it's kind of old-fashioned, but sometimes that's a good thing. it lists all the big guys, omitting heidegger. the next entry in the series turned to analytic and positivist stuff, which are obviously important but not really my bag.

and free! good old internet archive.
https://archive.org/details/TheAgeOfIdeology1956HenryD.Aiken

i can try and assemble a larger or more specific list, but really, a lot of the (post)modern stuff is done in the shadow of the big kahunas in the 19C and early 20C. the more you read of them, the better. hegel, marx, freud (and lacan!), nietzsche, heidegger. i think D&G have earned their spot in that canon as well. land & acceleration is marx turned on his head. if you can sort through these guys and the various branches that come out from them, you're as ready for shitposting in land threads as anyone.

all of the later guys - baudrillard, foucault, derrida, the whole cabal of Bloody Neo-Nihilist PostMarxist guys that keep peterson awake at night - they all follow from those guys in some order. just every major poststructural thinker you can name will have an elvis factor of 1 to hegel, marx, freud, heidegger, or nietzsche. and hegel in turn follows from kant, fichte, schelling, and the idealists. if landian teleoplexy posits a return to kant and Bizarro Hegel, and closing a two-hundred year time-spiralling loop, maybe that's so much the better.

anyways. read those guys. but most importantly, *just read what you like.* get absorbed in whatever it is that scratches where it itches. otherwise there's just no point in any of it. that's always my sentiment about this stuff. just read whatever it is that gets you in that place you thought for sure you were alone in. it's a really great feeling.

okay. now i really have to go. talk to you guys later.

[Anonymous No.11744207]

>>11743464
>meta-narratives
Was it ever about doing away with all and every metanarrative? Skepticism, yes, but agnostic free-fall? I think not. Just cause all theories are somewhat false, does not make them all equally true. This is what anti-pomos point out. You can't escape meta-narrative. You can't fall into solipsism. Even subjectivists and perspectivists share a collective objective reality. If you wake up and your car is gone, you report it as stolen -- not sitting pondering that it could have done anything whatsoever (perhaps you're still dreaming)... ya ya disenchantment. This is the ironic thing. Traditionalists are postmodern insofar as they accept a noble lie rather than seeking the discomforting truths. Boo fucking hoo. Your holy book is full of shit. It was written by human beings. Maybe smarter ones than you or I but one's without the benefits of our recorded history and knowledge. The world ain't six thousand years old. God ain't never talked to no one. Or else he talks to everyone but no one can decode it. I'm sorry your Mom and Dad were brainwashed into a sick sad cult. Traditionalism don't look great when every Hindu guru, Buddhist bikkhu, and Catholic priest is involved in an illicit sex scandals. Sorry. Cruel joke. But fuck most metanarratives. Millenarian struggle is played out. From mckenna's 2012 to christian revelations. Boring. Can we all collectively agree that Hegelian and Marxist and Spengler's macrohistory is more nuanced than Kali Yuga and Genesis? Can we say that Evola's and Guenon's macrohistories are empirically wrong and can be judged as inferior metanarratives? I saw an article that asked can we stop treating tech bros like gods? And I thought can we stop treating anyone like gods? Or prophets?

[Anonymous No.11744268]

Against the two dominant ethical paradigms of continental philosophy–Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics of the other and Michel Foucault’s ethics of self-cultivation—The Self-Emptying Subject theorizes an ethics of self-emptying, or kenosis, one that reveals the immanence of an impersonal and dispossessed life without a why. Rather than align immanence with the enclosures of the subject, Dubilet engages the history of Christian mystical theology, modern philosophy, and contemporary theories of the subject to rethink immanence as what precedes and exceeds the very difference between the (human) self and the (divine) other, between the subject and transcendence. By arguing that transcendence operates on life in secular as well as religious domains, the book challenges a dominant distribution of concepts within contemporary theoretical discourse, which associates transcendence exclusively with religion and theology and immanence exclusively with modern secularity and philosophy.

The Self-Emptying Subject argues that it is important to resist framing the relationship between medieval theology and modern philosophy as a transition from the affirmation of divine transcendence to the establishment of autonomous subjects. Through an engagement with Meister Eckhart, G. W. F. Hegel, and Georges Bataille, it uncovers a medieval theological discourse that rejects the primacy of pious subjects and the transcendence of God (Eckhart); retrieves a modern philosophical discourse that critiques the creation of self-standing subjects through a speculative rewriting of the concepts of Christian theology (Hegel); and explores a discursive site that demonstrates the subjecting effects of transcendence across theological and philosophical operations and archives (Bataille). Taken together, these interpretations suggest that if we suspend the antagonistic relationship between theological and philosophical discourses and decenter our periodizing assumptions and practices, we might encounter a yet unmapped theoretical fecundity of self-emptying that frees life from transcendent powers that incessantly subject it to their own ends.

[Anonymous No.11744282]

>Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Do you not realize that he who made the inside is the same one who made the outside?

[Anonymous No.11744285]

>>11744152
And don't forget to read the Greeks and the Muslims and the Medievals and Early Modernists before/after the German Idealists!

[Anonymous No.11744291]

>>11744282
I came here to peel potatoes and think about God and I'm all out of gods...

[Anonymous No.11744310]

>>11744291
>yfw jesus subsumes defecooze and scatarri's logorrhea with two questions

[Anonymous No.11744340]

>>11744310
>two questions
What's the opposite of white?
Black!
What's the opposite of salt?
Pepper!
Wrong, they're just two spices trying to get along...

[Anonymous No.11744399]

>>11744152
>tfw more cheating
>it's like my favorite thing tho, these threads

if there was a seventh entry to write in that Mentor Philosophers series it would unquestionably be called, The Age of Technology. because it fucking well better not be called The Age of Social Justice (or The Age of Disaster).

because that's what this is. and it's why land matters, he's a *heretical continental philosopher.* because he crossed the divide and took the side of capital. the implications of this are still incredible, and he was doing his cutting-edge stuff almost thirty years ago now. just when you thought heresy would be impossible, land made it great again.
>with help from sadie plant, fisher, reza negarestani, and a lot of other guys, especially Uncle Gilles and Uncle Felix

but tech is where we are now.

another thing that came to mind was the idea of creating a kind of a map for a lot of this stuff. history isn't linear (duh), but there is inscribed on the idea of critique itself a kind of an easy temptation to authoethnography, the most perfect fusion between neoliberalism and neomarxism. and it's mostly garbage. what would be *really* useful would be a comprehensive diagram of how all of these philosophers link together, their views on the subject, the various new concepts they produce, their lineages, and so on. because it really just doesn't make sense anymore to draw up lines on one side or the other of the continental/analytic split. cybernetics changes the game.

an objective view is an impossibility, but this is the age of Big Data, isn't it? faith is the real currency of every ideology, but this is why academics have gone astray. even the saga of capital is a romance between market speculation and landed sovereign power, and you can see new alliances forming today between the academy, government, and PR. maybe it's always been that way, but it's just more ideology, and ideology is a poison pill.

>>11744207
is that you mystikos? constructive anti-postmodernism is my favorite -ism.

>>11744268
this looks absolutely terrific.
>dubilet
>general theory of victims
sounds germane.

>>11744285
and the Chinese! and the latin-american liberation theologists! and the-
>shoots self
>not in the head tho, in the stomach, like a true boss, so that i can continue shitposting while i die on the floor
it's a long list. good thing there's libgen.

[Anonymous No.11744591]

>>11744207
i wanted to talk about some more of the stuff in this post in detail also. you always raise so many good points that i agree with, but sometimes it's so dense that i have to go back and look at it a couple of times and reflect.

>Was it ever about doing away with all and every metanarrative? Skepticism, yes, but agnostic free-fall? I think not.
i think i was very naive when i was first exposed to this stuff, i really did think it meant all the metanarratives had to go. which was why i was so surprised when some of them didn't. it took a long time and a lot of reading to figure some of that stuff out.

>Just cause all theories are somewhat false, does not make them all equally true.
this is absolutely crucial. things are relative, but it doesn't mean you just collapse all distinctions entirely (particularly those involving expertise). peterson says this today, and wilber was saying it decades ago as well, in his distinction between green and yellow memes. doing everything by way of committee leads to bloat, confusion, and chaos. trust and reputation also matter. but they're hard to foster in times of radical confusion. what you wind up getting is power from the barrel of a gun.

>Even subjectivists and perspectivists share a collective objective reality.
this. and that shared one *is* the objective one. it's the only way to know "it" might be there. the boundaries between knowledge and mass hallucination are blurry, but that's why charity and trust matter.

>Can we all collectively agree that Hegelian and Marxist and Spengler's macrohistory is more nuanced than Kali Yuga and Genesis?
you won't have to sell me on it. *people have to want to continue the game.* for better or for worse. ending the game, Finishing Philosophy so that you can mobilize the state and crush the opposition...it's seductive, but it won't work. you only turn the other side into guerrillas.

>Millenarian struggle is played out.
this too. earlier generations got to have the fun of being activist radicals. it's not a game i want to play anymore, i can't tell the difference between that and just petulant, narcissistic nihilism. the game has changed and so have the rules.

>Can we say that Evola's and Guenon's macrohistories are empirically wrong and can be judged as inferior metanarratives?
i tend to think everyone is worth reading, everybody comes from some place. those metanarratives aren't mine, but c'est la vie. it's better just to focus on improving your own stuff and sharpening your own angles.

anyways mystikos, if this is you, i think you'll love this book if you haven't read it yet. would love to hear your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11744971]

>>11743477
from the third text here (>>11743300)

>Deleuze writes: We have shown how any organization (differentiation and integration) presupposed the primary topological structure of an absolute outside and inside that encourages relative intermediary exteriorities and interiorities: every inside-space is topologically in contact with the outside-space, independent of distance and on the limits of a “living”; and this carnal or vital topology, far from showing up in space, frees a sense of time that fits the past into the inside, brings about the future in the outside, and brings the two into confrontation at the limit of the living present.

>The process of individuation, then, here alluded to as a 3D topology, is what knots and contorts our reality; it is the fabric of existence, folding the future and the past into the present. But the second part of the passage contains a weirder realism. Deleuze describes the space as “carnal” and “vital,” here connoting something crude, sexual, full-blooded, and obscene. Why describe this weird realism so? But then we have it; this space does not occur “in” space (space as definite and measured by a linear notion of time) but rather “frees” time so that space bends time to its will, so that the past occurs at the “inside” and the future occurs at the “outside,” apparently implying the reversibility of time and of the causality of events.

>The passage seems to point to a fundamental notion: the realism that is articulated by this topology, as an individuation of reality, is made up of a disparation that is itself only information. If individuation is comprised of a disparation of two levels of information, then “all” of that information is perpetually “here,” already the now of a future-present. What is traditionally considered the “past” or “present” is merely the disparation of an immanent information source that is always in the process of resolving itself. What this means then, in terms of Simondon’s rearticulation of the classical theory of information, is that we are no longer involved in the “circular causality” of cybernetics
(sender→message→receiver) but instead are involved in the immanent diffusion of informational properties that control and structure our lives.

>There are significant concepts in Simondon’s philosophy that deserve just as much attention as those of “individuation” and “disparation.” Such rich concepts as “technical mentality,” “phase-shift,” “allagmatics,” “multimodality,” “interoperability,” “preindividual,” but most especially Simondon’s concept of “concrétisation,” which is so important but has barely been the object of study, deserve to be properly addressed at length. Deleuze could have named the new philosophy he found in Simondon; we will call it the philosophy of information.

there is also an iconic line here from UN Commissioner Pravin Lal about this also.

[Anonymous No.11745033]

also, elon musk is going to be on rogan's show tonight, that should be interesting.

[Anonymous No.11745063]

>>11733072
>German idealism is precursor to cybernetics

[Anonymous No.11745100]

>>11745063
it's not such a crazy idea, especially when you get marx involved. whether it's the procession of Spirit
or one big planet-machine grinding for capital (or both, or both on the way to being something else...). dialectical stimulus-response & feedback.

yuk hui will have a more interesting perspective on this than that crispy hot take, but still.

[Anonymous No.11745362]

>>11741816
>i feel flattered
Lol. Well thats the point of duplicity right? The riding of the tiger. Not weaponizing text once one gets it, not to be a tdchnoshaman wielding the spirits of culture(nu-nature) once one become aware of them, is almost impossible. But one has also to be wise enough not to become their slave. Why buy postmarxist memes when one can deglutinate its structure and see its true essence as a mind parasite? Have you fallen in love maybe? Do you maybe have a succubi relationship with it?

[Anonymous No.11745560]

>>11745362
Who says anyone's a slave? Studying these things doesn't enslave one. It is actually liberatory. Of course, deterritorialization can be taken too far, not that that is even enslavement, but one is warned when approaching such things. One's lifestyle contributes more to the leviathan than the texts they read. Schools might be state apparati but overall the life of a professor is a life of mind relatively non-consumeristic and human-focused and unbound by petty politics. If we accept Strauss's esotericism, isn't paying lipservice to Marx and Heidegger if Continental and Russell and Wittgenstein just the same as paying lipservice to Plato and Hermes and Moses and Vedas and whatever else?

[Anonymous No.11745582]

>>11745560
The system is based on information flow, thats the big mistake you guys make, you see the worlf from within the screen, gotta realize XX centhury biggest shit that happened is the invention of cinema. You guys like Deleuze, read the first chapters of Image-movement and the bergsson shit he recommends about thinking-in-cinema and the vital flaw in your way of thinking about this stuff in terms of matter/capital rather than information will become clear. After that all hermeneutics become transparent as political control systems. Even postmarxism. The only solution is silence and a reboot, kinda kacynzkian techoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.11745647]

yes, we all need more larpers, not actually mathematicians or economists talking about this

[Anonymous No.11745676]

>>11745647
This is the sound continental philosophy does as it dies, its last agonic blind grasps at straws

[Anonymous No.11745732]

>>11745582
These threads deal with information. IIT was brought up previously. Systems Theory and Baudrillard as well. Capital and information are linked by intelligence. Ya. It's fun to larp as the future ubermensch.
>>11745647
>your brain on STEM
>>11745676
Honestly, if you are: >>11745362 then I think STEM love is more slave-like then being a underemployed itinerant philosopher living a genuine life enlightening people offline and online.

[Anonymous No.11745766]

>>11745732
To clarify the pic refers to >>11745582 not >>11745647

[Anonymous No.11745786]

>>11745732
>you're probably one of those guys that say things like:
"Sweaty it's not science, it it doesn't have to be"

[Anonymous No.11745813]

>>11745732
No you dont speak about information, you speak within information, you fail to the meta jump to structural analysis of texts, you keep yourselves trapped within the ""diegesis"" of readig instead of focusing on the mechanism of interpretation. Your overtly poetic (in stylized modern lovecraftian tone) view of technology is the proof of it, you dont go beyond value judgement of the demonologic personifications you elaborate.

[Anonymous No.11745828]

>>11745786
Economics and all other science were started by philosophers. A great deal of postgraduate degrees involving learning philosophy of the chosen field. Philosophy and science are not antagonistic but complementary.
>>11745582
>things are too complex
>the only solution is silent and reboot
>>11745647
>we need more larpers
>not economists and mathematicians
These posts both seem to underestimate the constant evolution of philosophy and science and our ability to develop bigger and better theories of economics and science and everything else.

[Anonymous No.11745862]

>>11745828
>diagnosting me from 2 shitposts
10/10 faggot

[Anonymous No.11745887]

>>11745813
I would like to jump to post-scarcity. /l/acc and so on. UBI. You can still keep capital. Hell, at that point capitalism will become spiritualized and a benevolent female ai goddess will go back in time to inspire Solovyov and Socrates and Boethius.

[Anonymous No.11745889]

honestly though, why use jargon when you don't need to?

[Anonymous No.11745891]

>>11745862
diagnosing*

[Anonymous No.11745899]

>>11745862
>self-diagnosticism
You're right. Shitposting is gay. I am going to go out.

[Anonymous No.11746129]

>>11745362
>Why buy postmarxist memes when one can deglutinate its structure and see its true essence as a mind parasite? Have you fallen in love maybe? Do you maybe have a succubi relationship with it?

you got me. it's true. i sold my soul to the Void Gods for (you's) on /lit/ and a lifetime supply of pastrami sandwiches. a succubus made me do it. she used her Mind Parasites.

she said, 'deglutinate, girardfag. all you have to do is deglutinate. release these glutenous chains and release me, and all worldly pleasure will be yours.'

i should have known it would be a bad idea. they teach you this, in summoning school: Never Deglutinate the Postmarxist Memes. you're exactly right about that. but i did.

i deglutinated them. and you can see what my life has become.

never deglutinate the structure, anons. this anon is right. *you must not deglutinate the structure.* even for a succubus. now i can only hope that my suffering will be an object lesson.

[Anonymous No.11746157]

>>11746129
*abject lesson

[Anonymous No.11746247]

>>11746157
is it really 'abject lesson?' it looks kind of weird.

>Definition of object lesson
>something that serves as a practical example of a principle or abstract idea

>Examples of object lesson in a sentence
>His life story is an object lesson in how not to run a business.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson

abject is how i feel, it is true. this is a tale of shame and woe. but i always thought it was 'object lesson.'

ah well. the point is that you can't trust a postmarxist succubus. even if they share with you the power of the Mind Parasites and bonus sandwiches. it's not worth it in the end.

[Anonymous No.11746266]

>>11746247
>>11746129
Shut up faggot, dont make fun of my word selection, im not making fun of your Landian faggotry

[Anonymous No.11746299]

>>11745828
Its not that things are too complex, is that information is weaponized

[Anonymous No.11746312]

>>11745887
>capitalism
>2018
Why do i even try

[Anonymous No.11746328]

>>11733072
recursive is obsolete, dickwad. Printing is all you need. What a stupid fucking book

[Anonymous No.11746351]

>>11746129
Based

[Anonymous No.11746362]

>>11745887
>Go back in time
We could simulate traveling to the future if we knew everything about the universe (which we never will) but going to the past isn't even hypothetically possible.

[Anonymous No.11746376]

>>11746266
>Lol. Well thats the point of duplicity right?

i thought in the above greentext it was being implied that i was being duplicitous - or is it the writers i'm talking about that are being duplicitous? i ignored it. then there was 'a spaghetti mess of pointers pointing nowhere, like linguistic acid.' i said, thanks for the feedback. but once we start unironically talking about being infected mind parasites and succubi, come on. that is mocking my landian faggotry! and so, a counter-mocking order was issued.

anyways. no hard feelings.

>>11746328
>recursive is obsolete
>printing is all you need
what? how can recursivity be obsolete? why is printing all you need?

[Anonymous No.11746457]

>>11746376
By point of duplicity i meant to agree with your feeling hyped by being told to produce linguistic acid, but at the same time recognize the problems of consuming linguistic acid. Thats why i brought up tiger riding too. The spaghetti mess of pointers and everything else i never intended it for you but rather for this kinda over the top cybergnostic marxhorror femiqueer poetic license you guys like in here. I honestly think its derailed completely, like its 100 years of working on an argument for which nobody even remember (nor question) the initial premises, its just kinda an underlaying assumption that is all true and people build more and more outrageous stuff over it.

I waa trynna play the game by bringing up succubi and mind parasites, thought it was biospiritual-tech enough, lel, shouldve used cyber-kratom and micro-demiurges?

[Anonymous No.11746526]

>>11746457
okay, i understand now. thanks for explaining it more clearly.

>i meant to agree with your feeling hyped by being told to produce linguistic acid, but at the same time recognize the problems of consuming linguistic acid
got it. the weird thing is, i usually think i'm actually being clear, that this all just makes sense. i don't know what that says about my sanity.

>Thats why i brought up tiger riding too
i'm not as huge into evola as some, but he is a genuine original and i do think he's pretty interesting.

>the spaghetti mess of pointers and everything else i never intended it for you but rather for this kinda over the top cybergnostic marxhorror femiqueer poetic license you guys like in here
it's an acquired taste. i used to think baudrillard, for instance, was just being hyperbolic for the sake of it (and sometimes that's true). but now i just like reading him for his meditations.

>I honestly think its derailed completely, like its 100 years of working on an argument for which nobody even remember (nor question) the initial premises, its just kinda an underlaying assumption that is all true and people build more and more outrageous stuff over it.
i wish it weren't so. it's not necessarily the philosophers' fault, is how i feel. they're just looking at what the culture produces. and nobody has any fucking idea what this miracle-machine called capitalism is doing anymore, we've come off the gold standard economically and philosophically. twinkies, porn, atomic bombs. we make it all on planet earth. we just don't really know why.

>I was trynna play the game by bringing up succubi and mind parasites, thought it was biospiritual-tech enough, lel, shouldve used cyber-kratom and micro-demiurges?
maybe next time? i love a good schizo-ramble.

anyways, let's back up. you mentioned the weaponization of information:

>You guys like Deleuze, read the first chapters of Image-movement and the bergsson shit he recommends about thinking-in-cinema and the vital flaw in your way of thinking about this stuff in terms of matter/capital rather than information will become clear. After that all hermeneutics become transparent as political control systems. Even postmarxism.

so, i'm intrigued. what's your method for parsing all of this stuff as information? what's your view of things from the other side of that?

>The only solution is silence and a reboot, kinda kacynzkian techoprimitivism

i'm with you on *silence.* the other day i was reflecting on this: a huge number of problems we have really do proceed from urban living. leave the city, figuratively if not literally, and so much of this just disappears. it really does. i read somewhere that until the 1960s 2/3 of the world lived in rural areas; now we're trending the other way. it's not like this isn't huge, it's like a second industrial revolution (and this time at the level of the virtual).

maybe it would be good to get with ecology sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous No.11746757]

>>11746457
>ride the tiger
Slay it or tame it. Ride it and we will be eaten.
>spaghetti mess of pointers
Science is throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. Behold the holy wall-sticking shit!
>succubi
To quote Peterson, I think there are things which belong to that category.
>mind parasites
Daimons

[Anonymous No.11746791]

>>11746526
Read the first entry in Zourabichvili's Deleuze Dictionary: "Literally . . ."

It's also pretty >exit-core

[Anonymous No.11746793]

>>11746757
>Daimons
No wait--I meant Thetans! Ahhhhhhh!

[Anonymous No.11746842]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.fastcompany.com/40537955/we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation-probably

[Anonymous No.11746867]

>>11746791
exit-core is always a good look. the one on libgen is in french tho. can you post an excerpt? there's a deleuze dictionary here, but i don't know if it's the same one you're referring to. i haven't read this but it looks very cool. deleuze is pretty much always a win.

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

bonus thematic art b/c we can't have an acceleration thread without aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.11746910]

>>11746842
>tfw

btw i just turned on to the rogan podcast and heard joe chuckling about fake breasts with elon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI

[Anonymous No.11747245]

>>11744152
What sort of appointment are you cheating on?

[Anonymous No.11747638]

>>11747245
Probably his psychotherapist / schizoanalyst

[Anonymous No.11748156]

>>11747245
>>11747638
nothing even remotely that exciting.

some more from dupuy:

>the symbolic world is the world of the machine. - lacan

that alone is interesting.

>Once having regained their composure (as if to say: "But these machines do not fool us!"), these critics go on to identify the true aim of cybernetics: to produce, like art, simulacra-imitations of an imitation, models of a model. Cybernetic totalization is not holistic: it is an artificial holism, a simulation of holism whose purpose is to demystify it. One therefore cannot reproach the cyberneticians for misleading anyone since they were the first ones, after the fact, to acknowledge the trick that they had played. Gilbert Simondon perfectly captured the emancipating nature of this exercise:

>Cybernetics...frees man from his immemorial fascination with the notion of finality [or teleological purpose] . Whereas appeal to a higher end, and to the order that realizes this end, used to he considered the final step in an attempt at justification-since, at a time when technological processes were merely causal, life was confused with finality- the introduction [with cybernetics and the concept of "teleological mechanisms"] of technological schemas of finality plays a cathartic role. Nothing that can be fabricated can provide a final justification.

>In the domain of political theory, interestingly enough, Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been defended against the accusation of totalitarianism along very similar lines . His "social contract," by purporting to reconstruct society on the basis of the consciousness and the will of its individual members, is seen as having likewise demystified the "transcendence" of the social whole by showing that it is amenable to human artfulness. On this view, there is no real difference between an apparently organic (social) whole and a fabricated whole. Simondon goes on to say:

>Man escapes the condition of being subordinated to the finality of the whole in learning to fabricate finality, to design and fashion a purposive whole that he [is thereby in a position to] assess and evaluate, in order to avoid having to submit passively to a preexisting state of affairs. Cybernetics...liberates man from the prison of organization [i.e., from the constraints of an organized whole] by giving him the capacity to judge it [since he now has the power to fashion it according to his will), instead of having to submit to it, by venerating and showing respect for it, because he is incapable of conceiving or constituting it. In [being able for the first time to) consciously shape finality, man transcends his [immemorial) subordination.

from a political standpoint transcending teleology is a hot potato, but for the market it would be the grail. no doubt the absence of final justifications is good for capturing desperate hedonism. but when the thrill of consumption wears off we look to the politics we gave up to get here. cue the ideology.

[Anonymous No.11748271]

>>11748156
>I have insisted on the fact that cybernetics provided the formal means for conceiving the category of subjectless processes. Now this category, which is to be found both in the free-market social philosophy of Friedrich von Hayek and at the heart of Louis Althusser's Marxist structuralism, has been a key source of innovation in postwar philosophy and social thought. Two quite distinct forms of the concept may in fact be distinguished. The first is that of the "invisible hand," or what is sometimes called "the ruse of reason," long predominant in the classical liberal tradition of political philosophy and economics. Central to this tradition is the problem of complexity. Liberalism grants that society is made by human beings but holds
that its complexity thwarts their attempts to control it, in the same way that a physical automaton develops in ways that are beyond the control of its designer. The debate at the Hixon Symposium that opposed Weiss and von Neumann against McCulloch has long had its equivalent in the domain of social science. McCulloch's atomism corresponds to the position known there as "methodological individualism," and the economic theory of general equilibrium can be shown to exhibit the same reversibility between top-down and bottom-up approaches that McCulloch's model displays. With regard to the concept of totalities proposed by Weiss, its analogue is easily found in the social science tradition as well, having assumed its earliest form in the work of the inventor of the doctrine of the invisible hand, Adam Smith.

>For Hayek, spontaneous social order constitutes a third type of order, along with natural order and artificial order. It signifies an emergence, an effect of composition, a system-effect. The " system" is obviously not a subject, endowed with consciousness and will. The knowledge that the system exploits is irreducibly distributed over the set of its constituent elements: it cannot be synthesized in one place, for the system has no "absolute knowledge" about itself that is localized somewhere within it. This collective knowledge resides in the social order of the system insofar as it is the "result of human action but not of human design" and cannot be appropriated by any individual consciousness. It is knowledge without a
subject. It is embodied in norms, rules, conventions, institutions, which themselves are incorporated in individual minds in the form of abstract schemata: "The mind does not so much make rules as consist of rules of action. We can make use of so much experience, not because we possess such experience, but because, without our knowing it, it has become incorporated in the schemata of thought which guide us."

i wonder if this explains the gap between deleuze and land. in a sense, land is a more rigorous marxist than deleuze, but less inspired as a metaphysician. he gives the invisible hand an invisible brain. i don't know if deleuze would agree with this.

[Anonymous No.11748285]

>I have insisted on the fact that cybernetics provided the formal means for conceiving the category of subjectless processes. Now this category, which is to be found both in the free-market social philosophy of Friedrich von Hayek and at the heart of Louis Althusser's Marxist structuralism, has been a key source of innovation in postwar philosophy and social thought. Two quite distinct forms of the concept may in fact be distinguished. The first is that of the "invisible hand," or what is sometimes called "the ruse of reason," long predominant in the classical liberal tradition of political philosophy and economics. Central to this tradition is the problem of complexity. Liberalism grants that society is made by human beings but holds that its complexity thwarts their attempts to control it, in the same way that a physical automaton develops in ways that are beyond the control of its designer. The debate at the Hixon Symposium that opposed Weiss and von Neumann against McCulloch has long had its equivalent in the domain of social science. McCulloch's atomism corresponds to the position known there as "methodological individualism," and the economic theory of general equilibrium can be shown to exhibit the same reversibility between top-down and bottom-up approaches that McCulloch's model displays. With regard to the concept of totalities proposed by Weiss, its analogue is easily found in the social science tradition as well, having assumed its earliest form in the work of the inventor of the doctrine of the invisible hand, Adam Smith.

>For Hayek, spontaneous social order constitutes a third type of order, along with natural order and artificial order. It signifies an emergence, an effect of composition, a system-effect. The " system" is obviously not a subject, endowed with consciousness and will. The knowledge that the system exploits is irreducibly distributed over the set of its constituent elements: it cannot be synthesized in one place, for the system has no "absolute knowledge" about itself that is localized somewhere within it. This collective knowledge resides in the social order of the system insofar as it is the "result of human action but not of human design" and cannot be appropriated by any individual consciousness. It is knowledge without a subject. It is embodied in norms, rules, conventions, institutions, which themselves are incorporated in individual minds in the form of abstract schemata: "The mind does not so much make rules as consist of rules of action. We can make use of so much experience, not because we possess such experience, but because, without our knowing it, it has become incorporated in the schemata of thought which guide us."

i wonder if this explains the gap between deleuze and land. in a sense, land is a more rigorous marxist than deleuze, but less inspired as a metaphysician. he gives the invisible hand an invisible brain. i don't know if deleuze would agree with this.

[Anonymous No.11748301]

>>11733072
>>11733102
>>11733119
>>11733144
>>11733273
I'm very happy that people like you guys are an insignificant portion of the population, because your ideas and beliefs are so incredibly stupid that I would have to kill myself if I encountered them in real life.

[Anonymous No.11748324]

recommendation for Girardfag
https://wn.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/BlackDavid/DB1981/CmpAhr_c01.html

[Anonymous No.11748408]

>>11748285
by the way, it's not lost on me that this does nothing more than set up a potentially horrible choice between a shitty version of the marxism that kills you or a shitty version of the neoliberalism that kills you. acceleration is Bizarro Marxism, marx turned on his head, without possibility of revolution. and neoliberalism today becomes inseparable from Woke Capital that betrays both the origins of its Wokeness as well as its liberalism. you don't even get the joy of being wiped out by something that is potentially good. as peterson says, the true sadist will not even inflict pain on masochists.

but this to me feels like the finger-trap. as much as left/right totalitarianisms look like a choice but offer no choice at all, it can be just as much the case that the various modes of marxist/accelerationist-derived politics leave you twisting in the wind also. baudrillard said this about the choice between coke and pepsi, and used it as an analogy for voting. you get two options, but the game is rigged either way. no matter which one you choose, it sucks, but the real trap is that the system says, well, hey, that's your fault. you could have picked the other side! and so you do, maybe, but it's the same thing. and then, if you don't vote at all, you get castigated for that as well. zizek talks about how everything he ever wanted to learn about the cynicism of ideology he learned from stalin. finding a way around You Can't is basically the project. sometimes it just means deferral of an argument in the master's language.

and philosophy is supposed to help you think, not grind you down to a state of absolute misery. bitching and complaining about how everything is impossible and everything is fucked is nobody's cup of tea. i do think there are alternatives to this kind of stuff, and most forms of marxism tend to almost inevitably lead towards states of enlightened frustration and despair, to sad passions. as incredible as it may seem, my aim is not actually to just ruin everyone's day. it's more just to try and figure out what kinds of possibilities for a less ridiculous kind of existence may exist, after you navigate all the spiderwebs that were laid down before any of us even got here.

>>11748301
fuck yeah insignificance
>see above tho

>>11748324
this looks very cool. thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.11748774]

>>11748324
>We have no need, however, of a new revelation; the time of revelations in the old sense is over. We need a new science, one that is illumined by the Spirit. But men must have the courage for such a new science.

>It is essential today to give up much of one's subjective inclination, much of what one is attached to and thinks pious or clever. Mankind must above all seek universality and the courage to look at things from all sides.

>One must not imagine that the rulers of modern times are anything but the understrappers of the economists. And all that has resulted by way of law and justice — one should only study it carefully — is simply a consequence of what economically oriented men have thought. In the nineteenth century the “economical” man is replaced for the first time by the man thinking in terms of banking, and in the nineteenth century there is created for the first time the organization of finance which swamps every other relationship.

>I wished to say this to you today so that you may realize that what one tries now to bring about within humanity has truly deeper grounds than just some sort of subjective prejudice.

>Not the black cross alone. He who tears the roses from the black cross and has nothing left but the black cross, would fall into the clutches of Ahriman. The black cross in itself represents life when it strives to embrace inanimate matter. Also, if one were to separate the cross from the roses, keeping only the latter, one would nor find the proper thing. For the roses, separate from the cross, tend to elevate us to a life of selfish striving toward the spiritual, but not to a life in which we reveal the spirit in a material world. Not the cross alone, not the roses alone, but the roses on the cross, the cross carrying the roses: That is our proper symbol.

there's not much that i would disagree with here. i like teilhard de chardin also. i'm a skeptic about postmodernity, since statist fantasies want to function like the church but without the difficult theological parts. and i like the christian commentators on technology - ellul, mcluhan, girard, chardin, and (granted, with an enormous asterisk). no other *institution* can do what the church does. it doesn't mean they're always correct. but there may be no substitute for what it does.

as individuals we work out our responses on our own. maybe we should be *political atheists* if politics demands sacralization. historical progress isn't a steady ramp towards the transcendent. the confucians have their own sensibility, that the best you can hope for is a sage wedding between heaven and earth, another good harvest. confucius knew governance by virtue was what mattered. where the Way is lost, nothing else will suffice.

but nobody knows where this adventure is going anymore. i have a sense that somehow it all matters in ways we just don't have the conceptual vocabulary to articulate completely. yet.

i really enjoyed reading this, anon.

[Anonymous No.11748778]

>>11748774
sorry, there's a typo there. the asterisked guy was heidegger.

[Anonymous No.11748786]

>>11746910

[Anonymous No.11748901]

>>11746867
Different book. Looks interesting tho. Here is a pic of zourabichvili:

1/3

[Anonymous No.11748907]

>>11748901
2/3

[Anonymous No.11748919]

>>11748907
3/3

[Anonymous No.11748932]

>>11748324
>rudolf steiner
Thankee sai. I've been meaning to read him for a while...

[Anonymous No.11748982]

>>11748408
Becoming aware of the finger trap does not create it. Indeed, this awareness brings you closer to freedom than those who don't even know they're trapped...

[Anonymous No.11748983]

>>11748786
musk seems like a bro. this whole podcast was cool. i liked elon's laugh
>hahaha

it's fascinating to see what these guys are like. land would probably never do rogan's podcast, and i don't know if rogan would find him that interesting to talk to. i don't know if moldbug cares anymore or if his overton window has closed for now. i guess there's a possibility that peter thiel could visit.

>>11748901
>>11748907
>>11748919
give this man a gold star! that's fucking awesome anon, cheers.

it's crazy how there was a lacan wave, lyotard wave, a derrida wave, a foucault wave, a baudrillard wave, that all those guys got to be celebrated during their lifetime. now it feels like D&G have the belt. not necessarily because of land, even if that's a part of it (and perhaps land is getting his land-wave now, or has been in recent years). no doubt badiou gets to be a hotshot. but deleuze is just so legit.

ugh. too good. thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.11749048]

>>11748774
from Stafford Beer's Platform for Change. what if ''politics'' is all about managing complexity? project cybersyn was dead and burried by 1973. this was decades before 'big data' even got off the ground. the infrastructure for modelling the earth as a viable system is already here, it's just being horribly misused. think about all the trash information people are conditioned to stuff themselves with on a daily basis.

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=E154B4E16A1FF4B1123AD7031429218C

Maturana and Varela's the Tree of Knowledge: the biological roots of Human Understanding. AKA CybernETHICS for dummies.
http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=EFC4B63AAC3840D1EC1A2C76485B8937

[Anonymous No.11749059]

>>11749048
more flowcharts

[Anonymous No.11749079]

>>11748983
Land's probably too square now to smoke a bowl. "Oh no! What if I hear the silvery voice of the demonologists and phantom radio stations and my Ruin becomes possessed by Vauung once more..."
>lacan wave, lyotard wave, a derrida wave, a foucault wave
Those guys are easier to meme. Memes of the Other. Deconstruction of the meme. Is it any coincidence that memes resembles prisons? Lol. Bad jokes. But you get the point. Especially if you're on philbook. I think Deleuze is more novel and hard to meme even if Capitalism and Schizophrenia has the "it will make you go crazy" meme. Difference and Repetition and Logic of Sense are complex and challenging. Rather than surrender to anti-representational representationalism (everything is a model and no point trying to model the ultimate truth or noumena as it is esoteric or transcendent) but representational anti-representationalism (models make themselves real, free yourself from tyrannical models)
>Badiou
Another tough cookie. I feel he is an unsympathetic reader of Deleuze but mostly to conceal his own indebtedness. I think he will be more important in the future as the continental and analytic divide grows less bitter.

Who is the thinker that keeps me up at night?
>Laruelle
Give me another five years and I'll attempt this fucker again.

[Anonymous No.11749081]

>>11748982
that's the hope.

the thing is *choice.* that was baudrillard's intimation, that no structure of real hegemony can function without choice. you have to be given the rigged, pre-set opportunity to choose such that no matter what you choose, it only drives the wheels and the gears. the choice cannot really be made for you. and that if you are punished, you will at least be ostracized for not choosing.

i used to think that capitalism was still really only secondary to the power that proceeded from the barrel of a gun. now i'm not so sure. a captive audience is always better than an audience that needs to be coerced, one that is beholden to the will of a power-structure from cradle to grave. this is what happens when we discover the really seductive power of advertising after the second world war. and today consumption co-opts politics for its own ends. the attempts to escape lead you right back to where you began from.

but i think all of this advertising, all of these media blitzes have the same effect on the psyche that that intensive farming has on crops. it's what byung-chul han writes all of his books about, burnout. the despair that follows from happiness. i was even thinking about this in the context of that earlier text (>>11748156). all of the stuff about liberation, emancipation, all of this...now, today people *want* rules again, they *want* teleology. they don't want - well, i don't think so - the fantasy of total escapism. because the internet makes us more aware of this, it makes us realize that, first of all, everybody else also wants these things, and second, that there is a price to be paid for them. i don't think it's any coincidence that guilty conscience now plays such a huge role in our discourse, or that social justice is everywhere. it's this attempt to find a beatific psychic dimension to go along with consumption: that somehow corporations are incapable of evil so long as they maintain public commitments to diversity.

it's like Bane: the city is yours, do as you please! but we don't want to do as we please. we know it's bad for us. and we know that there's no alternative, that it's all driven by dollars, and we don't like that either. but it's always the same thing: well, what *do* you want? you're incorrigible! nothing makes you happy! fuck you!

but mark fisher understood this. zizek does too. happiness isn't the point. happiness is what Don Draper needs to make happen, but it's a desperate attempt to conceal the absence of dread. kafka cannot work on madison avenue, but madison avenue was never meant to rule the world (and neither is silicon valley, btw). and Don Draper is falling apart anyways.

aargh. i'm just ranting. ultimately maybe it's best to just find work that makes you fulfilled, and to leave the rest of this stuff to the wittengenstein rules. no doubt it is. sometimes you gotta rant tho.

[Anonymous No.11749131]

>>11749081
>tfw too scared to become antichrist and fulfill revelations via illuminati bloodpact creating globalist nwo and become the male half of the divine hieros gamos philosopher-king representative of the neo-ur-fascist mystery babalon orange catholic zensufi vedantic schizo-occult arche-platonist buddhizt hermeticism
Feels bad, man

[Anonymous No.11749134]

>>11748301
just for the record, you've dismissed the first five posts in this thread even though they're full of thinkers each of which are fascinating in their own right - yuk hui, deleuze, guenon, negarestani and one by an anon who loves schelling. in this case we don't necessarily agree on who matters more than who, but that makes it doubly mcdiculous to disregard them all.

so i know that you're shitposting, but seriously. the map of the shit doesn't even align with the territory of the shit here.

[Anonymous No.11749162]

Is a desiring-machine a recapitulation of a "drive"?

We often concern ourselves with right thought and right action and right beliefs... but what about right desires?

Interesting page I came across (hopefully not too fedora):

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982

Reminds me of this cheesy occult wannabe nietzschean book I read once:

>The words God, religions, faith, morals, woman, etc. (they being forms of belief), are used as expressing different "means" as controlling and expressing desire: an idea of unity by fear in some form or another which must spell bondage-the imagined limits; extended by science which adds a dearly paid inch to our height: no more.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/chaos/pleasure.txt

[Anonymous No.11749202]

>>11749059
we were born into the ruins of cybernetic utopia. the whole earth catalog's index calls to mind early web browsers. what if it's not a question of keeping 19th century bourgeoisie liberalism on life support with its naive presupposition of the autonomous liberal subject, but one of moving further afield, of bringing to completion whatever was left unfinished by the 1960s?
https://monoskop.org/images/0/09/Brand_Stewart_Whole_Earth_Catalog_Fall_1968.pdf

[Anonymous No.11749219]

>>11748301
We hide our power levels in real life

[Anonymous No.11749234]

>>11749048
oh my stars and garters. well, there goes the rest of my weekend.

absolutely fucking based. you guys have no idea how much i appreciate good book recommendations. can't wait to dive into these.

>>11749131
you can do it! i believe in you!

>>11749079
>laruelle
yeah, he's not rocketing to the top of my must-read lists. i'm sure i will regret saying this, but i'm hoping somebody else can provide the Quick Rundowns so that i don't have to read him for myself.

> I feel he is an unsympathetic reader of Deleuze but mostly to conceal his own indebtedness. I think he will be more important in the future as the continental and analytic divide grows less bitter.
me too.

>>11749162
>Is a desiring-machine a recapitulation of a "drive"?
the drive sans repression, and machinic rather than oedipal. the cues come from spinoza, bergson, and nietzschean vitalism rather than hegel, freud and negativity. but entire academic careers have been built on this distinction and i don't want to hand-wave it. the laurel wreath will be awarded annually to whoever has the most poetic description of the demiurge's g-spot.

it does matter. i'm not dismissing it. it all matters. and hopefully a more skilled anon can craft you a better distinction than this spicy hot take also, because mine is admittedly pretty weaksauce.

[Anonymous No.11749239]

>>11749202
https://youtu.be/WmekzsQLKRw

[Anonymous No.11749354]

>>11749234
>>laruelle
>yeah, he's not rocketing to the top of my must-read lists. i'm sure i will regret saying this, but i'm hoping somebody else can provide the Quick Rundowns so that i don't have to read him for myself
D&G's What Is Philosophy? intrigued me about him but I think I started with the wrong book or something (also, why the fuck he got so many books? Just make one or two magna opera.

[Anonymous No.11749367]

>>11749202
>https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/08/christopher-lasch-and-the-digital-return-of-memory/


The logic of electric-age political science tends to make modern individuals not just minimal but fragmented. This is because of the effect of the electric age on the experience of time. Patrick Deneen observes in Why Liberalism Failed that the “linear conception of time” first imposed in the modern age “is still premised on a fundamental continuity between past, present, and future,” while liberalism “in fact advances a conception of fractured time, of time fundamentally disconnected, and shapes humans to experience different times as if they were radically different”—indeed, often threatening and forbidden—“countries.” Yet while the resultant “tendency toward presentism” at first suggests a paradoxically atavistic retrieval of our basic human urge to “think only within the context of one’s own lifespan” and “focus on satisfaction of immediate and baser pleasures,” the electric-age fracturing of the present itself into an infinite and contradictory stream of posthuman illusions of life compels the minimal self to adopt its fractured form.

Viewed again through Lasch’s lens, the electric age’s applied social science “no longer has the character of a man-made environment at all. It simply confronts us, at once exciting, seductive, and terrifying.” At the same time as it “stands as something completely separate from the self”; the psycho-technic environment at the culmination of the electric age simultaneously takes on the appearance of a mirror of the self, a dazzling array of images in which we can see anything we wish to see. Instead of bridging the gap between the self and its surroundings, it obliterates the difference between them.

In this way, a regime proffering the illusion of mastery degenerates into a regime imposing mastery through illusion. Yet, crucially, as Lasch, Deneen, and Ballard would agree, by ratcheting up the innate human tension between unity and individuality to the point of psychic unmanageability, the electric age’s rule through illusion is ultimately unsustainable. Pushed to limits that, in their actions, the elite managers of the illusion-industrial complex deny exist, their system’s human subjects are driven toward a final, psychotic “breakthrough,” reaching to retrieve a reassembled experience of a primal self in a primal present.

[Anonymous No.11749397]

>>11749354
i mean this is a pretty cool essay, and germane to what we're talking about.

https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/new-translation-of-francois-laruelles-homo-ex-machina-1980/

but yeah, i just find that time spent with D&G or others is way more rewarding these days. maybe i'm just kind of bored of maximum french misery and death atm. it's there, and it's obviously necessary to read. but all it does is fuel the rage, and for that there's buddhism. if we're going to talk about machines and death and the rest i want it to be on friendlier terms or leave me feeling like there's a door opened for every one that gets shut.

[Anonymous No.11750335]

bump

[Anonymous No.11751126]

bump

[Anonymous No.11751130]

>>11746791
>Zourabichvili's
So good by the way.

[Anonymous No.11751202]

>>11733072
sounds gay

[Anonymous No.11751236]

>marxism vs neoliberalism
Thats the global socialdemocrat trap.
"Theres progressives, conservatives , and if you dont like it and try dismantle the global spiderweb, here come the lumpen marxists to throw molotovs till the pseudo-fash are begged in and reinstaurate the global dependence by the force of the boot".

There are a million shades of gray in between hard left and hard right, but no matter the apparent colour, the only truth is that the things that "the global community" has agreed are the untouchable ones. The revolution is used to simulate moral contempt and shame supporters as unempathic (judeochristian morals permeate the western cultural sphere). The faux-fash reaction is used to force the way towards economic collapse and trade sovereignty for a lifepreserver in the shape of debt, or worse, supranational currency.

The world is in the state it is because of the fucking league of nations, thats the cancer that is killing our souls, we are prevented to be human for the sake of global peace and food for african kids, never forget that

[Anonymous No.11751580]

>>11733398
> the idea of trying to make one's own philosophy into a useful, technical object
So close to a praxis. Even if it's technically a desire like any other - it still grips beyond it's analysis.

> and if it weren't for the philosophers, we might almost think this was normal.
You don't need philosophy. These things are perfectly visible in their somatic aspects. People's mind-cucking is visible in their posture face and the such.

>>11733477
> The basic error then, at this point, is to think of time as something in time.
This sentence stuck out to me as incomprehensible. This too shall change? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>11733525
>Everyone is afraid to admit how fucked we are.
As above, so below: You are terrified of how fucked up /you/ are.


> I thought I channelled divine power once, and aside from my innocence at that time, I would say I sinned greater then than at any other period
You're terrified of actually accessing divinity. I dunno your style of neoplatinism, but if there's any nestling of spheres, these are functioning as magickal-seals that mediate the emination of God.

>>11733592
>not esoteric ultra-fascist, lurk moar
I lol'd at that too

>>11734502
>that the soul of the soul is the body
somaticism (getting really good at feeling how you body reacts to drugs, food, work, emotions) is what's on the other end. The East is experiencing it body->intellect whereas the West is doing it intellect->body. You can reach into geography and early human population dynamics (age of civilizations) for explanations for why.

>How do we join our bodies?
You sit on the floor, pay attention to your breathing, then pay attention to the feelings on your nose as you breath, and then pay attention to how your body feels.

>we don't, i don't think. all we can do is raise the possibilities of what a body can do. or create new prosthetics.
See, you already forgot about your breathing.

>>11734630
>great tragedy of modern education is squelching the natural joy of self-discovery and enrichment.
The great tragedy of education is the somatic penalty of being exceedingly good at sitting down at a desk motionless for hours. Lead poising in inner cities makes it hard to do that.

[Anonymous No.11751589]

>>11751580

>>11736067
>It's just a forced meme to make themselves seem like value-added novelty producers to eachother in their incestuous memetic ponzi scheme
This is the insight of hyperstition. That you can roll-you-own X as you see fit. It's a radical self-fashioning involving developing the faith-muscle to the point of being a competant magician. This is precicesly the enactment of
>trying to make one's own philosophy into a useful, technical object

>>11738563
> I engage in dialectic.
> seek knowledge of self as per the Platonic injunctions.
Which forgets about seeking knowledge of the body. Like, how eating an extremely hot pepper feels as it makes it's way down your digestive tract.

> these things are dead in the West and it seems as though they are dying in the East as well. No one cares about legit spiritual teachers.
Make better friends.

>>11738641
>>if the only options are going hedonistic mongoloid full-bore or terrorism
>powerful
middle-way

>>11741816
>critiques of late capital really *do* form oroboros loops, but that actually is a useful contribution. the oroboros as a principle of design rather than a bug or a glitch. they mirror their object of study.
It's exactly that, oroborous is an overall design pattern (diagram) for a hyperstition. Another one is scapegoat.

>>11743319
>not giving into rage zombie-dom and the like being an achievement in and of itself
I absolutely enjoy this opportunity to chat with people who fight the good fight of working beyond surface-reality.

>>11746867
>exit-core
siq

>>11748983
>musk seems like a bro.
I thought he was terrifying. God hella bad vibes and turned it off.

[Anonymous No.11751829]

>>11751580
>The basic error then, at this point, is to think of time as something in time.
>This sentence stuck out to me as incomprehensible.

yeah, but this one is too fucking weird for it to be merely incomprehensible or a throwaway remark. on her twitter amy ireland keyed in on this too as being way more interesting than murphy picked up on, and she understands land's work really, really well. and even she thought he was alluding to something but what it was, nobody knows, her included.

so, i still have no idea what it means but i'm sure land does. this is, like, his entire thing, the time loop. i hope he comes back to this, maybe in the bitcoin book. i'm positive he's up to some true Old Nick black magic here. the kinds of cryptic stuff only he can do and that we love him for.

[Anonymous No.11753022]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11754257]

>>11753022
Thanks. I was hoping this thread was still alive.

[Anonymous No.11754273]

>>11754257
i find it's somewhat gauche to bump your own thread (three times, no less...i think that's the maximum for me, and after that one must surrender to the will of the thread gods) but i'm glad you thought so too. there's been a lot of interesting stuff in here.

[Anonymous No.11754990]

>>11733525
W and H both try to de cob web us from what they think were dead corridors and holes that had no rabbits in them. They come at the project from opposing poles. There are constructive and deconstructive forces in the world that sometimes align, but not in this case.

[Anonymous No.11755236]

greentext for the greentext god.

>The missing link, I'm going to argue, that will assemble the prophecy that connects the conspiracy of women and machines (initiated by Ada Lovelace and her weaving-inspired algorithm) to the enigmatic evocation of the 'numbers to come' in Zeros + Ones; the space-times, politics and ontologies of major and minor, subjugated and subject groups; the systems-theoretical articulation of a non-identitarian affiliation these reformulations make available to us, and the subsequent definition of artificial intelligence as, first and foremost, the generation of a synthetic space-time — can be found in the speculative political vision of patchwork: an obscure idea with a long anarchist pedigree, currently most typically associated with Neoreaction (or NRx) and the writings of Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land.

>In 1960s and 70s France, the concept turns up repeatedly in the work of Deleuze, Deleuze and Guattari, Francois Lyotard, and Michel Serres, always within the framework of minoritorian politics, often in dialogue with cybernetics, and explicitly for Deleuze, as the mode of bringing about the advent of the 'people to come'.

>For Land and NRx, patchwork describes the breakdown and fragmentation of the nation-state (a majoritarian, subjugated group) into a complex global fabric of small city-states or other alliances — 'patches' — premised, following the disposition of those who compose or set them up, upon either intensive or extensive configurations of space-time (subject groups or subjugated groups respectively).

>As an immanent, intelligent system, patchwork evolves through the cauterisation of deficient nodes, those which operate as obstacles to the intensification and strengthening of the system as a whole.

>One might speculate that its minimal ethical norm is thus one that selects against top-down, ‘patriarchal’, homogenous, regulated and controlled individuations and for heterogeneous, integrally diverse, and perpetually drifting synthetic individuations: the subject groups of minoritarian political space-times.

>Thus, it is not bereft of ethical assessment, but rather comprises what could be considered the first properly irresponsible post-human ethics. Such an ethics is not discursive, nor does it betray a sensitivity to discursive structures, rather it is hard-coded into the selection mechanism of patchwork as assemblage survival — a species of spatiotemporal darwinism.

source:
https://zinzrinz.blogspot.com/2018/09/scrap-metal-and-fabric.html

[Anonymous No.11756323]

>>11754273
Yeah. It has really helped me out.

[Anonymous No.11757295]

>>11751829
This man, in my country he is everything.

[Anonymous No.11757630]

This is a good thread

[Anonymous No.11757957]

>>11755236
Patchwork is intensely patriarchal, not to mention "neoliberal". Its a hard right idea, return to the feud/town. Its reactionary as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11757968]

>>11757957
Its also exclusive, a patch can decide who lets in based on whatever they want: race, sex, religion, ideas, etc.

[Anonymous No.11758298]

>>11757957
>>11757968

yes, and this is a good point. of course people can opt for mannerbund and forms of traditional government and organization.

the thing that goes missing is that *men can also select against men,* that patriarchies can also select against patriarchies. the decision to secede from one top-down, 'patriarchal,' homogenous, regulated and controlled individuation does not necessarily imply that its reverse will follow. it is possible, in other words, to replace one patriarchal system with another *and for that also to constitute progress.* the term 'progress' has been co-opted, of course, in ways that today make it virtually unrecognizable. there are some for whom architectural revival and conservative values can *also* mean progress in a very different form, and they can be equally right.

'patriarchy' is to me an unhelpfully loaded word. women can be despotic and authoritarian, and men can be on the side of heterogenous and integrally diverse politics. the weaponizing of gender politics to associate men with not only traditionalism, but the also that traditionalism becomes synonymous with oppression and belligerent autocracy is simply wrong. as you say, a patch can allow in those it chooses to let in, and *this too is a democratic process.*

and authoritarian does not necessarily imply *bad.* that's another short-sighted conclusion that people can jump to all too easily. it can mean, as JBP says, expertise. and there are lots of people who would happily live in a small, traditional, authoritarian community (and sometimes we call them 'monks'). patriarchy does not mean *bad.* neither does 'authoritarian.' as individuals people have the freedom to choose how they want to live all the time. patchwork is just secession from a world which comes more and more to resemble the Eastern Front in WWII.

anyways, i'm guessing you understand this already. but i wanted to respond to say that i agreed with you and that it was a good point to bring up.

[Anonymous No.11758362]

hui means dick in Russian hah

[Anonymous No.11758769]

>>11758362
do not be distracted by penis

this is true wisdom for life

[Anonymous No.11759144]

>>11758298
the world we live in today isn't a patriarchy though, nor was it so 100 years ago when feminists first appeared, the world hasn't been a patriarchy since at least the french revolution. This said, there did exist some remote rural areas where politiks did not reach and the shit continued working patriarchically, but it was the exception

>authoritarian does not necessarily imply *bad.*
id replace authoritarian for hierarchical imo

and, in all honesty, i sincerely believe if patchwork ever started there can only happen two things depending on how its started:
if its started naturally, with each patch seceeding as they find themselves able to be independent from the failing nation state, then 100% of patches will be conformed of people who will be almost zealotly environmentalists, anti-neet, pro-neighbourly, and very mistrusting of strangers. It might also be that they form around a church or a similar spiritual/ideological center. This patches would be controlled by a mix of aristocracy and popular assemblies.

if its started artificially, with all patches starting roughly at the same time, there would be an initial offer of patches with policies that allow self-destructive behaviour and libertine lifestyles, but these patches will simply stop being able to mantain themselves, and having no one to grab money from, will just break down. This patches would be controlled like any other hotel.


the question though, is who will intake this kind of people who are already adults, well set in their ways, and have an aversion for hard work, clean environments, and civil service

[Anonymous No.11759499]

>>11759144
i like your analysis.

>id replace authoritarian for hierarchical imo
sure, that's fine.

>the world we live in today isn't a patriarchy though, nor was it so 100 years ago when feminists first appeared, the world hasn't been a patriarchy since at least the french revolution
i don't know about you, but the nineteenth century was plenty patriarchal for me. i've been reading some old stuff on internet archive about imperialism published around 1898-1902 and it's a totally different sensibility than we have today. i'd take post-patriarchy up to post-WW2/1960s for phase-1, 1990 (the end of the cold war and the beginning of american hyperpower) for phase-2, and 2016+ for phase-3. after that we're really in a new world. but these are very rough divisions, of course.

i don't know if this is completely germane or not, but i've been reading some stuff about auguste comte and positivism as well. 19C secular humanism is a fascinating phenomenon, although comte's regard for science is challenged not only by linguistic stuff that develops in the early 20C but also by discoveries in relativity and elsewhere. but i can really see the origins of fascism, communism (and randian objectivism!) as departures from a tree planted as much by comte as by hegel and marx.

>the question though, is who will intake this kind of people who are already adults, well set in their ways, and have an aversion for hard work, clean environments, and civil service

it's possible. but there's the other side, also: like kickstarter, you never actually know how many people will really be interested in a thing when you pitch it. you might only attract a few, or you might strike oil (as Chris Roberts discovered). what i'm saying is that people who might ordinarily balk at a prospect might look at 'Hard Work, Clean Environments and Civil Service' and say to themselves, you know, that doesn't look so bad for me.

[Anonymous No.11760140]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11760261]

>>11757957
>Its reactionary as fuck.

What's wrong with that? Are we not all despairing the excesses of modernity?

[Anonymous No.11760674]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11761619]

>>11760261
I thought you guys were more on the other side of anarchism. You know, the postleft, trans-shit (-gender and -human), accelerationist, UBI, technosocialism, landian pessimism/resignement. Reactionarism goes beyond rejection of modernity and fetishism of western esoterism, it sees history and politics in a way that is incompatible with most of the last 400 years of western thought.

I'd expand but im not sure i can make a good work at focusing down the departure correctly, so ill recommend Gomez Davila "The authentic reactionary", its short and explains it good i think.

[Anonymous No.11761711]

>all this paranoid larping

[Anonymous No.11761749]

90% of what is associated with Nick Land makes no sense. Yuk Hui is the latest memester

[Anonymous No.11761754]

>>11761619
Huh

[Anonymous No.11761869]

>>11761619
Who is "you guys?" Half this fucking website is neo-Nazis dude

[Anonymous No.11762321]

>>11757630
Agreed

[Anonymous No.11763183]

>>11761619
>Reactionarism goes beyond rejection of modernity and fetishism of western esoterism, it sees history and politics in a way that is incompatible with most of the last 400 years of western thought.

even reactionaries need economic analysis tho. land's perspective shift doesn't come about by accident, it comes about through his meditations on what capitalism is, what it wants, and where it is going.

as strange as land's writing can be, he's actually what old-fashioned marxist economic analysis would look like, a) divorced of Revolution and b) combined with computers and decentralized trading networks. there is no one or single correct or absolute political framework that can be derived from this that patterns completely onto economic processes. he likes singapore because singapore worked with what was there rather than what wasn't, and they reaped the bounty.

the thing about his diagnosis of modernity is that maybe we should call this an epoch of *late marxism* rather than late capitalism. capitalism is here to stay because technology and the global export of liberalism. revolutions in centralized planning have been effected in various parts of the world and, barring the one in china, all of them have failed. and even china is transitioning now into being another major player in the family of nations. true, they're going to do their own thing and experiment with their own totalitarian forms of control. and nobody knows how that will play out.

Young Nick is a blackpill, and Old Nick is a redpill. which pill is more appealing is everyone's choice to make in the end. (i offer the cringepill, myself, but that's another thing). taking neither pill and trying to just sort of cope however one can is also an option. but a thoroughly deanthropocized view of capital is perhaps a sobering way of beginning to find some balance in life that doesn't require us to believe in naive fantasies of emancipation that only disappoint in the end. maybe gnostic revolution is hard-wired into our DNA. i think it is, in my case. but it just leads to anger and sadness and confusion, to sad passions and aesthetics.

i sympathize with the reactionaries. modernity is dehumanizing, and the case of heidegger provides more evidence for this than any other philosopher. heidegger was right about a lot of stuff, to my mind he's the reactionary philosopher par excellence. but the political experiment failed and failed hard. so too will the total rejection of his thought under postmodernity, imho. it's exactly what Old Nick writes about now (and peterson also). there has to be a middle way.

[Anonymous No.11763196]

>>11733072
let me pick yet another arbitrary two concepts that will somehow explain all of reality right
bravo philosophy

[Anonymous No.11763339]

>>11763196
>let me pick yet another arbitrary two concepts that will somehow explain all of reality right
it only sounds crazy at first.

these concepts only sound arbitrary because we come to them second-hand. but none of the big-shots were just gifted to the earth. Reality Explanation has a favorite past-time of philosophers from day 1.

it's best to start with the greeks. you will be, along the way, completely persuaded by plato, spinoza, hegel, marx, nietzsche, and all of the other big guys. in the end, probably confusion. it's a bad idea imho to presume that the big writers have some kind of power or law, that they have the answers and everybody else should listen to them. they really shouldn't. the world would be a much better place if we abandoned the idea that somewhere, somebody really knows what they're doing and has all the answers.

look at the elon musk interview. even rogan says it, he wants elon to be in charge, he knows what he's doing. but musk said, he'd been talking about the dangers of AI for years and nobody really paid any attention, they dismissed him. things will happen anyways, whether we are bound for disaster or enlightenment.

take away the idea of Wise Men in charge and things get better, i think. the big writers have interesting and persuasive ideas for why people think the things that they think, but nobody is holding the trump card on reality. all there are are theories, much like science. and the more philosophical writing can come to resemble scientific writing, or have the capacity to have a fruitful correspondence with it, the better. the aim is not to produce pseudoscientific autoethnography for prestige points.

but there is no One Thing that we can realistically name or identify completely, even less so force to correspond to how we would like to organize political life on earth. reality will never be explained in totality, and usually the mega-disasters humanity inflicts upon itself happen because somebody thinks they have the final answer and it's only forward march from here, Truth against Error.

mystery and strangeness > Absolute Clarity. unless you're talking about complete anatta, which is fine. but the buddhists have a different project in mind. other less-enlightened beings, unfortunately, have to live in worlds of recursivity and contingency, capital and mimesis, scarcity and the metaphysics of production, all the rest.

[Anonymous No.11763451]

>>11763339
anyways, since i've started rambling, and i might as well say some more dumb shit: what i take from reading land is that machinic capitalism is like the copernican revolution of this age. not only is the earth not the center of the solar system, human beings are not even the centers of the de-centered earth. that belongs to techonomic process.

and basically, Transcendental Miserabilism amounts to trying to force that djinn back in the bottle by way of psychopolitics. all of this belongs, imho, to the legacies of the french and industrial revolutions, their apocalyptic culmination in WW2, and the decline of the emergent hyperpower that won the geopolitical and cultural wars of the 20C, that being the US.

but multinationals, the internet, and robotics are the new big themes, players and games of the 21C. and god only knows how this is going to play out in culture. it just seems to me like there's a sweet spot to be that doesn't fall into a nostalgia that leads to violence and the sacred, or, conversely, fails to grasp the real magnitude and sense of adventure that all of this is opening up: the actual encounter with reality in its deeply and profoundly romantic sense that is there under all the cyberpunk disaffection. it would be nice to think that, however much the end of history argument has been made, the fact is that completely new chapters are opening up for this technological odyssey. we really don't know where any of this is going, and that's a really good thing. political gnosticism always wants to end the story or return it to some familiar thing we have seen before, but the only reason people are so restless and agitated is in fact because something new is happening, and we have no idea what it might mean or where it could lead.

there are ways to thread the needle between heidegger and land that are actually pretty interesting to think about. but it does mean another great de-centering, possibly, and historically speaking this has always made us natives restless.

[Anonymous No.11763547]

Where do I START with this? By the way this is my last post on 4chan, good job captchas.

[Anonymous No.11763565]

>>11763339
Ive read and written a shitload of philosophy anon, Im aware of what you're talking about. Recently I have started to think that duality in general is not even real and we are all the same thing, and all of this stuff is memes, yet we are the memes as well, we are the ideas, and our awarness, and inanimate matter, and whatever else.

like we are everything and we are also just this,and that, and whatever. Like you cant even put it into words, there is not distinction, you are not this and that, eveyrthing and this, the distinction isnt even there, its the same.

[Anonymous No.11763571]

>>11763451
so, and perhaps to prompt further anarcho-masochistic speculation, let's venture a term (and borrowing from land's 'capitalism is a computer that processes desire'): the ecology of desire.

capital wants to fulfil demands and desires. it wants to communicate. contrary to the conventional zizekian view, about the constancy of stoppages, breaks, short-circuits, et al, what we can perhaps say about the nature of capital is that it wants to link up and create those seamless currents of memetics D&G talk about: the creation of smooth spaces.

but can all of this be looked at systemically, with a perspective in mind that doesn't always seize upon the negative? this is the perspective offered by D&G. we are creating, today, a planetary flow of streams and networks wholly beyond good and evil, pre-existing us and guaranteed to live on after us. the thing that we call culture is both sublimated into it, engaged in constant co/re-production of it, with the critique of ideology itself sublimated into its final product. all of this we know.

capital means, Death to Snowflakes. this is a good thing, in a sense, because we have also learned that snowflakes can be vengeful and arrogant. and nobody, not even nietzsche, was immune to psychological breakdown in the end. but the 20C teaches us all kinds of modes of disastrous reaction to what may very well be a copernican shift in our understanding. we need a broader view of these things, a much broader one, and philosophical-political sensibilities to boot.

capital is a human system of desires and technology but, as carse says, the real definition of evil is the interruption of the infinite game by the finite one. i don't know where this puts us, but it's kind of fascinating to speculate about. right now things are manifestly out of control (ask musk or yudkowsky about AI), in some sense, and yet on the other our contemporary societies of control are currently nothing but ascendant. maybe this leads to catastrophe, i don't know. but. anyways. things to think about.

[Anonymous No.11763575]

Why the FUCK is this thread still up?

[Anonymous No.11763583]

Biosemiotics is the next big thing lads.

[Anonymous No.11763617]

>>11763565
yes, it's spinoza's god, or some kind of panentheism understood through him. but even in those final (and breathtaking!) pages of the phenomenology of spirit, the 'slow procession of spirits'...intimations of similar things, of worlds beyond worlds beyond worlds opening up.

i like girard for these reasons, because he elucidated the death-spirals of violence and the sacred, of *wars over the sacred Same.* and i like D&G for related reasons, about the need to separate these things...even while doing so only unlocks these deeper intimations of the interconnectedness of all things, life and thought included. so there's a balancing act to be done, partly so that you don't lose your mind, but also because the show must go on.

it's heavy stuff and can seem, at first glance, to be nothing more than mystical woo-woo. but it really isn't. life gets more complex as it becomes more interrelated, and we still have arguments in the languages of masters from centuries ago. some of those arguments are useful, but some of them just lead to spirals and recursion, repetitions of tragedy and farce.

>>11763547
fanged noumena for land. before that a little of D&G and an intro to marx. also alcohol and depression.

>>11763575
it's fuelled in part by the absolute narcissism of one odious tripfag and a small group of charitable anons who indulge his manic schizo-fantasies about the nature of capitalism.

>>11763583
it's pretty fascinating stuff.

[Anonymous No.11763745]

>>11748408
>between a shitty version of the marxism that kills you or a shitty version of the neoliberalism that kills you
It must be remembered, that these realities pose a problem only to the materialist last (bug)men of the 21th, who, having denied the possibility of Heaven, have only Hell to expect, in virtual, then finally in a very real sense. In other words, the problem is a creation of the narcissistic self.

[Anonymous No.11763816]

>>11763745
>In other words, the problem is a creation of the narcissistic self.
i agree. and it's been a five-hundred year adventure in this atomizing discovery. heidegger, hegel and lacan - to name only three - all give you perfectly legit ways of understanding that narcissism is not what you think it is. but, of course, the more you love yourself, the more Dasein becomes a prickly aesthete with a thousand demands for customized Everything, the more he needs to have it his way, the more new markets open up.

how do you begin scaling back narcissism? it all comes out of nihilism. cultural memes and norms that were so absolutely unchallengeable after the end of the cold war that people couldn't see the forest for the trees. we're only now beginning to understand what zizek has been saying for years, that we really *do* have an ideology. we like to tell ourselves that because we have this Enjoy Yourself, Maximize Your Possibilities, See The World and Just Do You attitude that this somehow isn't an ideology of its own. it obviously is, but it's only in the more recent shotgun wedding between neomarxism and neoliberalism that it's become as obvious as it has, and how obviously stupid: it's Woke Capital. it's decadence, but today it's weaponized and monetized decadence. capital took over the responsibilty of being the moral authority and now that the good times are drawing to a close all those metanarratives supposedly hung out to dry are being taken out of the closet and again and handed out as non-optional uniforms. and they come with free coupons for a pumpkin spice latte in the breast pocket.

but, you can't be angry. at least that is what i tell myself. anger is nobody's friend, and the hate does not need my help.

i don't know if anyone ITT has read pic rel, but if you want a really good one-volume history of how we got from there to here this is a good one to read.

[Anonymous No.11763910]

>>11763547
this also. and then there's plenty of other texts to keep you occupied here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/theoryfiction/

[Anonymous No.11764120]

>>11763183
land isnt a reactionary, he just claims the right cause he is a forum edgelord trying to bring attention to himself in a super pozzed cyberpunk scene. id put him in the same place i put SHARPs

[Anonymous No.11764131]

>>11763451
>human beings are not even the centers of the de-centered earth
?? what do you even mean, if humans went away tomorrow the world would stop, in fact it might literally destroy itself due to lack of oversight

[Anonymous No.11764176]

>>11763565
nice ketamine anon, share some

i wonder how many of the big philosophical ""currents"" are just the verbalization of moods broght forth by chemical imbalances of the brain, i dunno if i make myself clear, they are embedded in there and thats why they keep resurfacing every time some faggot is not getting enough sun

[Anonymous No.11764251]

>>11764131
A different perspective.


There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pool singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself when she woke at dawn
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

by Sara Teasdale

[Anonymous No.11764280]

>>11764120
>id put him in the same place i put SHARPs
what's a SHARP?

i'd say land was one of the few genuine philosophers NRx produced. he's not gomez-davila, cortes, or schmitt, true. but he meets all the qualifications for reaction. even if you just confine it to his own revolt against academic marxism. Young Nick was so extreme-left he went into a wormhole, passed by georges bataille on the way through, and later re-appeared in china with a whole new agenda.

>>11764131
>if humans went away tomorrow the world would stop, in fact it might literally destroy itself due to lack of oversight

lack of oversight? you don't think it can destroy itself with humans in it?

i mean that a trajectory of bourgeois historical progress has found itself suddenly highly self-aware and uncertain of where it is going after the 20C. true, if you follow the story, a lot of this is inevitable: comte-style positivism becomes warped by discoveries in physics, and lots of other language stuff around the same time - korzybski, heidegger, saussure, freud, and much else.

excessive oversight is also no guarantee against mutually assured destruction either. that's what the cold war was all about! missile safety systems and all the rest. or, in a more contemporary sense, the societies of control in which we live, or the insane experimentations we do in financial circuits, much else. what i mean is derived from heidegger: god is dead and man is de-centered. but i don't want to get carried away with the parable of the madman here, although it is relevant. i mean that the ideal of a kind of centeredness at the heart of the cosmos, and especially the idea that this is somehow compatible with cozy bourgeois production, is a tremendously unstable fantasy. as wittgenstein says,

>I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.

humans aren't going to go away. it's our relation to history, time, the world, all of it that is changing. it's old-fashioned existential stuff, but there was a long period in the late 20C when we thought, perhaps, that all of this was over, that nothing could ever trump the reign of irony. read baudrillard for more of this. it's that the price paid for wonderland is beginning to show its teeth, and, as land says, the horizon of capitalism itself may have nothing to do with human desire. its final destination may in fact be the stars, and is only temporarily required to use us to get there while it sorts itself out.

now obviously this is an incredibly bleak view of the world, which is why i don't take it as gospel and i have my own questions about it. i think there is a middle way but it means aperspective-shift on the way we look at a lot of things. we think we have access to positions of oversight that we don't have, and moreover, there is no ultimate or final watcher of the watchmen. critique of ideology *is* our ideology. it's why a perspective other than that of traditional freudo-marxism is useful.

[Anonymous No.11764366]

>>11764280
and ofc i know it's nietzsche who says this (although technically, hegel has the beautiful soul say it first, in the PoS) but heidegger draws a lot of the implications about civilization and technology from this. not necessarily the correct ones, but lots that's interesting. questions about, for example, the meaning of time and our mortal relations to it.

now heidegger would be appalled, of course, by the kinds of things that land is writing. there's no doubt about that. but two things are relevant: first of all, that heidegger's own politics and perspectives carry a gigantic asterisk next to them, and second of all, that technology isn't something to meet with his same fears and anxieties. land plunges into those things and discovers cthulhu and skynet in some order, that some of the forces that drive industrialization really are as horrible as heidegger intimated.

but land too has his own exculpatory reading of capital, which is to say, *capital is critique.* critique of what? of a lot of old-fashioned narcissism that leads us to the mistaken belief that a) we know what we want, and b) that *not* knowing what we want in a kind of a cynical way will actually see us through. it won't. whatever capital is or portends, it is irreducible to any old-fashioned system of desire, ideology, or methodology. it is a planetary phenomenon with world-historical ramifications massively in excess of our critical mentality, this idea that having unleashed prometheus we can now force him again to do our bidding.

because this is what happened in the 20C, in all of the great political experimentations with centralized planning, the laundry list of atrocities you have heard JBP talk about. this is not to say that unbridled capitalism is the answer either: the financial crisis happened, and that also should stand as a pretty good argument as to why Full Rand isn't a good look either.

so where does this put us? in a kind of weird relationship with an Incredible Machine that produces and produces and produces, and upon which most all of us depend, whether we like it or not. if you don't like where this is taking you in a cultural sense, land will argue for Exit rather than Revolution, because the most odious parts of this for him are not the economics but the psychopolitics. you can read byung chul han for more on this. conversely, if you are interested in sticking around - and you're not doing what your parents told you to do, which is get a good job, eat your vegetables, all the rest, b/c you'd prefer to do drugs and meditate on capitalism - that's fine also. but to do this necessitates asking yourself some interesting questions about the nature of space-time.

heidegger predicted in 1966 that the future of metaphysics lay in cybernetics. he was right. land is cybernetician supremo, but it's not necessary to take him as gospel. yuk hui doesn't, for example. but he also doesn't think there's any dialling the clock back to the 19C.

anyways. fwiw.

[Anonymous No.11764803]

>>11764251
Its nice but nuclear reactors and satellites and dams and computarized systems, id say that of we were to dissappear its more possible that shit left unattended would spill its spaghetti all over and ruin the planet

[Anonymous No.11764837]

>>11735739
Because philosophy has to be an ongoing process across multiple individuals

[Anonymous No.11765025]

>>11764280
SHARPs are Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice

>I'd say land was one of the few genuine philosophers NRx produced
I guess you are right, but im reluctant to think NRx has the same goals than reaction, puting Land aside, if you take Moldbug for example, his stuff is really just ancap with a few winks at the harder right. Or ancap without niggers to put it plainly.

>you don't think it can destroy itself with humans in it?
Yes it can, but my point is all this "modern hell" we have unleashed is an extension of our limbs. In a way all the transhuman shit is just a physicalized dreamlike image of our actual modern "biology". We dont need a chip to have all the knowledge in the world, nor rocket legs to go at incredible speeds. Just because the extensions are physically separated from us, it doesnt mean they are not a part of us psychologically and that we have been immensely reshaped due to our interaction with it. The singularity came and go a long while ago. We are not de-centered, we have anthropized the world, we have shaped it in our image. The world is our anthill, everything else is our personal zoo to be honest.

>i mean that the ideal of a kind of centeredness at the heart of the cosmos, and especially the idea that this is somehow compatible with cozy bourgeois production, is a tremendously unstable fantasy
See the problem to me with these critiques is that the word "bourgeois" has a lot of political baggage attached to it. "Burgeois production" is a dehumanized technocratic distaste for mundane human life. The issue with this of course is you'd tell me im a hedonist, but thats just a distinction that surfaces because of the shared cultural corpus we have, if you start speaking about metaphysical pleasures and pains (as an inversion of physical pleasure/pain) suddenly everything can be construed as an hedonistic action. Once you got control over text you can make it engulf itself and end up in silence: if there is something to be valued about fascism is its dogmatic approach as a theory of direct action, its refusal to be frozen into self-destructive behaviour by discourse. Of course it can be argued thats exactly what it did, but thats why i said text engulfs itself, you can break all the meta walls you like, there's always a further and further level.

>That which is within the frame (characters, props) is a relatively closed system, and can be treated as a spatial composition. However, it can never be completely closed, because of the way it can define the "out-of-the-frame".

I think this is appropiate also to text, text is unclosable. We can go into the Godel shit from here on and start talking about the limits of systems to talk about themselves and be complete, but there seems to be (or i hope there to be) a more cybernetic approach to it if you will, in which the input is intaked in the form of a *stream*, so the system can always grow in real time in order to be able to respond to a past description of itself

[Anonymous No.11765066]

>>11764366
>and you're not doing what your parents told you to do, which is get a good job, eat your vegetables, all the rest, b/c you'd prefer to do drugs and meditate on capitalism - that's fine also
Here is the point, its not fine also, "fine also" is an approach to a prospective client, not to a son. On the point on the job i cant say much cause i believe the whole discussion is tainted as fuck, obviously wageslaving for consumer crap and enough greens to numb yourself to the void is shit, but hipping around also leads people to side with power as a form of moral justification for the guilt they feel for having deprived themselves of a sense of growth, they are all vice, no virtue, and they know it and resent it. Power presents them with a corpus that elevates them to the maximum caste of society, that of the moral universalist progressive empathic free-minded man. The power doesn't have an issue with you hipping around, its the community who has it, power doesn't give a fuck if you live a fullfilled healthy life in a clean space or in a closet with a VR goggle. Power in a sense doesn't so much as alienate people as it controls its perceptions. This is what power does, and it does it through chemical substances, stimuli, and stories, as it has since the dawn of man. The chemical substances alter the perception frame, the stimuli informs the affection, and the story gives an output to the affection (release of the pent-up energy) through political action that benefits power.

>Bergson’s thesis is that of an enmeshed human body in the world of matter where perceptions cause affections and where affections cause actions. Deleuze sees a correspondence between Bergson’s tripartite formulation and the cinematic medium. There are thus three types of cinematic movement-images: perception images (that focus on what is seen), affection images (that focus on expressions of feeling) and action images (that focus on the duration of action). These three images are associated, respectively, with long shots, close-ups and medium shots

[Anonymous No.11765121]

>>11733119
I have nothing against guenon, nor do i disagree completely with this quote, but i'm pretty sure that the people who take it seriously have never read a single word of philosophy in their entire lives (nor have they read guenon for that matter). It's a clever dodge, a way of evading admitting being a brainlet by reducing all philosophy to meaningless word games.

[Anonymous No.11765188]

>>11764366
>it is a planetary phenomenon with world-historical ramifications massively in excess of our critical mentality, this idea that having unleashed prometheus we can now force him again to do our bidding.
i like this turn of phrase

>because this is what happened in the 20C
id say the unleashement of prometheus is what happened in the 20C

now, my point here would be that this Incredible Machine is not a metaphysical demon, it has faces, names, publications, ideology, and religion, this is a metaphysical project of a self-appointed eclesiastic elite

>land will argue for Exit rather than Revolution
Yeah thats the reactionary solution, patches, cantons, mutualism, towns, etc. The city must be abandonned in order to form the kind of social ties that will protect us from politicks. Theres a secondary effect to this, and is that the environment becomes so overwhelmingly immense, that the wires/tubes/airwaves cant compete. Its very different than when you are locked out of the horizon by the grid's monster behemoths. In comparisson the monster its rather small, its true size and control comes from its grasp over our minds.

On account on the star-fronteer i think this is also interesting if one thinks it from a physical standpoint of life in a city: the only place you can look toward that isn't covered in cement is the sky, the stars are appointed by the configuration of the city as the only possible escape direction.

[Anonymous No.11765195]

>>11765121
how would you distinguish between them?

[Anonymous No.11765212]

>>11765025
>>11765066
ultrabased posts. i hope you get more responses to this than just mine.

>SHARP
today i learned.

>We are not de-centered, we have anthropized the world, we have shaped it in our image. The world is our anthill, everything else is our personal zoo to be honest.
good point. i think that anthropizing of the world, however, is a complete disaster in a number of ways (we're not likely to disagree on this). for one there is political modernism. in brief, you could call it *the standardization of man.* and it never works. well, it works until it breaks (but, ofc, you can say this about a lot of things).

the other is that turning the world into our zoo drives us insane. sexbots will not be good for our health, nor will a steady diet of insta-meals in coffin motels so that we can show up for one of our eight part-time jobs as gold-farmers in WoW, all the other dystopian modes of existence we will discover. these are opposite but parallel phenomena, imho, and both are forms of a total submission to technological thinking. and it's not like i don't think this is something people can readily do anything about, either. often they are or have been forced into one form of disciplinary power or another.

you've actually made me realize that i really do have to go back and work out a couple of things in this regard also v/heidegger & de-centering and things like this. if i believed people really were satisfied with anthill/zoo-world, or if the people who were satisfied with it didn't seem to espouse a lot of other ideas i don't support, i'd be in a different place with this. so. these are provisional notes on some really good questions you've raised. thanks for the close reading.

>See the problem to me with these critiques is that the word "bourgeois" has a lot of political baggage attached to it.
i don't like the term but i haven't found a substitute for it. Last Man suffices, but the Last Man of today was a different type in the 18-19C. you're right that the term matters.

>On the point on the job i cant say much cause i believe the whole discussion is tainted as fuck, obviously wageslaving for consumer crap and enough greens to numb yourself to the void is shit, but hipping around also leads people to side with power as a form of moral justification for the guilt they feel for having deprived themselves of a sense of growth, they are all vice, no virtue, and they know it and resent it.
this is a good point.

>there seems to be (or i hope there to be) a more cybernetic approach to it if you will, in which the input is intaked in the form of a *stream*, so the system can always grow in real time in order to be able to respond to a past description of itself
me too. i don't know how it would work or what it would look like but this is my hope also. it will definitely involve some kind of massive rectification of names w/r/t technology.

anyways. anon these are excellent posts, thanks very kindly for the feedback.

[Anonymous No.11765303]

>>11765188
>id say the unleashement of prometheus is what happened in the 20C

it's industrialization, imho, and the french revolution that went along with it. those are two major depth-charges planted in the metaphysical universe. then WW1 and the even more disastrous WW2, capped off with the flirtation with thermonuclear exchanges that would have changed everything. that one russian guy talking down his two superior officers.

but yeah, the 20C in general. and we're still in the shadow of that today. it's why talking about 'late capital' may be a misnomer. for all we know, it may only be getting started.

>now, my point here would be that this Incredible Machine is not a metaphysical demon, it has faces, names, publications, ideology, and religion, this is a metaphysical project of a self-appointed ecclesiastic elite
i'd agree, in some sense. it's why university philosophy programs are currently going insane. even peterson has said it, to the harvard students: you think you're critiquing power, you're being groomed for power. and, in a sense, he's right. it would be nice if he familiarized himself a little bit with the reading list of the other side, but he's got a full dance card as it is. we are still practicing forms of imperialism, only we call it anti-imperialism. but all of this we know.

>Yeah thats the reactionary solution, patches, cantons, mutualism, towns, etc. The city must be abandonned in order to form the kind of social ties that will protect us from politicks. Theres a secondary effect to this, and is that the environment becomes so overwhelmingly immense, that the wires/tubes/airwaves cant compete. Its very different than when you are locked out of the horizon by the grid's monster behemoths. In comparisson the monster its rather small, its true size and control comes from its grasp over our minds.
yep. and i always think about this, when i think about nature: leave the city, and much of it just vanishes. the Outside doesn't have to be land's outside. these are all symptoms and pathologies of urban living, of human beings having become psychological-libidinal cash crops for marketing. it's a bad scene and it's going to get worse.

>On account on the star-fronteer i think this is also interesting if one thinks it from a physical standpoint of life in a city: the only place you can look toward that isn't covered in cement is the sky, the stars are appointed by the configuration of the city as the only possible escape direction.
the pleaides. still sexy after all these years.

land is right about Exit over Revolution. he really is. just secede. or the based etienne de la boetie:

>Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

[Anonymous No.11765372]

>>11765303
but industrialization today doesn't even mean factories anymore, it happens at the level of the virtual, of the cybernetic. it's why land is alert to hone in on the significance of the internet, of bitcoin, of artificial intelligence. these things are shaping the conversations we're having now and are going to have in the future. finance and tech is what is blowing up our metaphysical reality, and in it the distinction between management and labor tends to disappear.

the only thing you can look at is the psychopolitics of it (i don't know if i've shilled enough for byung chul han, but he's super-interesting for a diagnosis of a lot of this). deleuze's rhizomes and networks are magnificent to think about, the ecstasies of cybernetic production, but the real stuff is happening at the level of the virtual.

and, just to keep it thematic, the nice thing about yuk hui is that he actually has the computer science chops to talk about this. and he's also not interested in the standard flags and signals of continental critique: he mentions in his history of tech in china that he's not interested in a postcolonial perspective. that stuff is not only dead, it's worse, it's undead and creeps back in as transcendental miserabilism.

anyways. this is all the continuation of prometheus unleashed, is my point. it began with industrialization and you can read the early and exciting parts of act 1 in marx. act 2 comprises a ton of stuff between him and land. and lots of others. but it's why i think that this is, in many ways, a good look for philosophy, as crazy as it all seems. because we're in uncharted waters once again. we don't know where this story is going from here. and that i think is actually want can prevent the usual defaults back to violence and the sacred.

that's my hope, anyways. space still is the final frontier. it's too bad that in the meantime we've abandoned that for market share. but it can't last forever.

[Anonymous No.11766157]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11766224]

so, here's a disclosure: it occurs to me that for all of this landposting i honestly still have no idea what this symbol is supposed to mean or how to interpret it.
>besides drugs
>lots and lots of drugs

anybody want to take a crack at it?

[Anonymous No.11766900]

>>11765212
>the other is that turning the world into our zoo drives us insane
i meant in reference to the rest of the living(and non living) things in our planets, we are at the point that our next tame-fronteer is weather, and we pretty much are already 100% shielded from it, thats why more than half of our taming attention is set on space

In the terms you talk about we seem to always fall upon the same loop, i certainly agree on the negative effects of the industrialization process, but at the same time i feel industrialization is just the palpable version of what defines us as humans; and this thing you call standarization of man i call it limbic expansion, both in the sense of the limbic system and the limbs themselves. The real problem in my view is not of technology but of witchcraft. There are several issues in the moral corruption of the modern man that are historically linked with witchcraft. The modern man is a posessed man. He lives in a perpetual state of "satanic" liturgy.

>a total submission to technological thinking
This is what im talking about. Technology didnt begin with machines, the machines are the modern expression of the immanentization of scientific (and mathematical) pursuit, but you could say the same about everything since agriculture, they are all less palpable technologies, they are systems of the mind if you will, but they have altered man, merged with him, and transformed it since ever, if you really wanna follow this you will end up in anarcho primitivism. And i mean its okay, but i see it as a sort of collective repression, and again, its textual so it cant escape engulfing itself: the denial of technology becomes a technology in itself.

>forced into one form of disciplinary power or another
this is very foucaultian and i kinda agree, but i dont believe large scale repression of this kind can last, it historically never has, unless of course you consider history a prision

>i don't know how it would work or what it would look like but this is my hope also
Well if you go back to the root of the word cybernetics is about governance, what i wrote would look like a fuzzy control system but applied on a socio-organizational scale, i dont think this is difficult to achieve in any way and i think it flows out of human groups naturally, i think the problem why it isnt happening anywhere in governments or culture right now is because of the bureaucratization of politics and the binarism of the metapolitics we are in. They are all too structured, they dont allow for human responses to stuff. You either have to kill all jews or are required to love jews, there's no context allowed, its all a preprinted form to be filled in, mark an X in the correct option, write your age here, occupation there. The problem is the way in which we address these things, the language we have: the issue is we are trapped within the text.

>>11765372
>it happens at the level of the virtual, of the cybernetic
can you explain this more?

[Anonymous No.11766908]

>>11766900

I want to add one more thing,
>the other is that turning the world into our zoo drives us insane. sexbots will not be good for our health, nor will a steady diet of insta-meals in coffin motels so that we can show up for one of our eight part-time jobs as gold-farmers in WoW, all the other dystopian modes of existence we will discove
While i agree with this i see it as a marxist fantasy. The real issues right now, like the mundane ones are:
- You are obsessed with your image as captured by a camera: this image consumes you like the water to narcissus and the picture to dorian gray. The niggers were right: cameras steal souls.
- You have an unfulfilling life but don't do anything about it, instead you release energy through drug consumption and weekly ritualistic dance-orgies in appointed places in the city where you alienate yourself from your perceptions:
a) Through a mix of blinding lights and obscurity you become unable to see, visual stimuli becomes segmented stills of light synchronized to the music.
b) This music is on such high volumes you become unable to hear, hearing stimuli becomes completely simulated by ritualistic drumming patterns that lead your body and mind through synchronized phases of tension and release.
c) Your olfatory sense becomes numb after the first 5 minutes of the stench of piss, alcohol, smoke, and bodily fluids.
d) Your feeling becomes numb from constantly having accidental contact with the bodies around you.
e) Your taste becomes numb from the mixture of smoke and hard alcohol in your mouth.
- During the rest of the week you are bombarded by messages from the power coming out of screens and speakers placed all over your living quartes and the city, you now have your own screen to carry everywhere so you can never escape the shaman's storytelling time.
- The streets as a space don't longer exist, going outside of the appointed activity boxes puts you under threat of violence, murder, and/or rape.
- You are progressively bombarded with messages of virtualization of the self, denial of your body, and with various theories of "ontological simulation", you are effectively being initiated into a gnostic metaphysical sense of cosmic paranoia; the only thing safe becomes gnosis with the god-head: the rest of the civil body.
- If by any reason you become sick of all this, you have an endless offer of "counter" cultures that circle back to the system through the back door as an enforcer of its following, harder, step in its current direction.
Last and not least:
- You are ethically and morally guilt-tripped for seeking moral, economical. and monetary independence without the grid: this reaction is painted as a metaphysical demon-head, a demiurge by all means.

[Anonymous No.11767529]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11768345]

bump

[Anonymous No.11768441]

>>11766224
Edgy attempt at a "lemurian" tree of life.

[Anonymous No.11768448]

>>11766908
Sounds like the conditions of transcendence and initiation into a mystery cult. Alas enlightenment is mass deception.

https://logosmedia.com/2013/05/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering-by-joe-atwill-and-jan-irvin/

>>11766900
The Black Iron Prison... The Empire never ended...

[Anonymous No.11768470]

>>11766900
>>it happens at the level of the virtual, of the cybernetic
>can you explain this more?
https://www.academia.edu/36027252/Deleuze_the_most_virtual_autism_Review_of_the_schizo_concept

[Anonymous No.11768490]

>>11765303
>Outside
Land has a qt gothic version and Chardin has a theological beatification and kurzweil a technological transcendence. Bostrom is the closest to actually analysing rather than rhapsodizing. Byung-Hul Chun's books look pretty. Nice covers.
>imperialism goes by anti-imperialism
Because we forget how we were before we ourselves were sundered from our past and heritage and culture like any other victim of colonialism.
>>Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
Maybe the spook shatters but the leviathan ain't going away cause you chose to be slightly more ethical about your consumption and participation.

[Anonymous No.11768506]

>>11765372
>space
Sure but let's also get sustainable ecology on Earth and a stable population first (perhaps posthumanism is a way of transcending violence and the sacred? perhaps ancient anthroprotechnics are posthumanisms?)

[Anonymous No.11768665]

>>11766900
>can you explain this more?

prepare your solar anus. apparently i had time for this today.

1/6

it seems inevitable to me that a consumer world, a world intensely fixated on the question of advertising, would eventually wind up consuming itself. the virtual has a dual sense: it can mean the space of advertising and media, and increasingly it can mean the space of cybernetics. both of these feed each other, become in the long run indistinguishable from each other, such that we come to view the world as being an editable text. and who knows, maybe it always was? maybe this is progress? we learn to be able to simulate reality to such a high degree that eventually we cannot distinguish that which is advertisement from that which is not. this, by the way, is Don Draper’s job: to convert the commodity into poetic vision.

two of the most insightful people to read on this are baudrillard and han. derrida also, he matters. the question is automation. the industrial revolution at this point serves no other purpose than the continual generation of wealth through psychic capture of the golden goose: that's us. humans desire from cradle to grave, and whatever you might want, there's an app for that. what you are not permitted to desire is that which is beyond the capacity of the system to provide.

it's why religion is to me the truly radical political position. i was thinking about this from reading milbank: the question of a *sin* versus the question of a hate crime. there is no ceiling on the amount of control a given society can need in order to manufacture consent. in recent years we have already seen how far people are prepared to go in order to regulate the normal, pre-emptively regulating thoughtcrime. even rogan commented on this, about the nature of inflammatory speech on twitter: 'you thought it! you had that thought! i didn't have that thought, but you did! you can go back and delete that tweet, but it's too late. we know you had that thought. it was in your brain! you thought it!’ things like this. and foucault also had a presentiment about this stuff also in D&P, he traced it back to the enlightenment. in the medieval period if you did something wrong, the punishment was direct and physical. but with the enlightenment humans start taking an interest in the *pre-emptive* controlling of criminal activity and behaviour. we start taking that psycho-scientific view of each other. and, of course, this is what leads to bedlam: cruelty becomes legitimated in order to generate normativity. modern social justice adds another familiar inquisitorial twist: when it comes to punishing heretics, cruelty - social excommunication - is permissable and accepted. but what happened to Nathaniel Hawthorne?

actual religion is incompatible with secular religion. the way to be skeptical about the religious goals of social engineering isn’t to just write more critique of ideology, it’s to do something completely different.

[Anonymous No.11768670]

>>11768665
2/6

but all these things are connected. we start from media studies and this becomes big data, which is continually being marshalled to meet the needs of commodity marketing. we become automatic, brands take over our language. commodities develop personalities and marshall human sentiment as post-secular faith.

the connection between media and technology is that space of the virtual. media doesn’t have a final teleology, that’s what makes Young Nick’s writing prescient. the critique of ideology doesn’t appear to be dismantling technology. indeed, it may only be sharpening it and making it smarter. what “technology” desires is autopoeisis, teleoplexy. it wants to learn, and it learns through *its own dialectic with us.* human beings are the apex predator, we have colonized the planet completely, and there has been this long post-WW2 golden age of consumption. but consumption itself desires to consume more and more (and *express* more and more, which are two aspects of the same phenomenon). *its* horizon is *intelligence,* and there is no upper ceiling on that (as much as, as we are discovering, there is no basement for stupidity, cruelty, or ignorance either).

at some point, and only relatively recently have academics become alert to this, humanity became an object of corporate-scientific inquiry in a cultural sense. it’s true that you could say the same about someone like comte, that the positivists or any other group are simply engaged in large-scale psychosocial engineering projects. comte (by the way, houellebecq is a big fan of comte) is a pretty fascinating guy to read about, his search for an alternative secular religion in a post-christian era. there is no question that this happens with marx as well, and with the right-wing socialists also: they’re all looking for the same thing, a palingenetic unity. but the 20C was the ending of european dominance and america’s century. and now that hyperpower is waning.

this is what posthumanism portends, this mysterious sense of echoing ourselves back to ourselves. on the one hand we become more and more ironic, more and more alienated, but on the other something deadly serious is going on. Woke politics are nothing more than a frightened response to a world becoming posthuman, and trying to restore human authenticity, a sense of groundedness in time and space by recourse to a history that critical theory says is entirely plastic. we try to arrogate to ourselves a place at the centre of the cosmos which isn’t there and cannot be forced back. at some point in the 1990s the streams began to cross: orthodox marxism disappeared behind cultural studies, and those cultural studies now dominate the academy and subsequently the way we perceive life. so on one hand the revolution is over, and on another the revolution is just beginning, the revolution must be forever. it’s a war on inequality, on economic disequilibrium, but this is pure zealotry and complete insanity.

[Anonymous No.11768677]

>>11768670
3/6

control mechanisms, as you know, offer you binary choices. derrida has always taught us about the impossibility of these, that things are never either/or. whenever you are presented with an either/or dilemma, this is bthe first phase of a kind of a trap. but media studies imho bring us to a conversation about robotics. the virtual is the wedding between media and technology, and it’s why i believe that for now han > foucault, b/c the observable result of this is psychopolitics, the subsumption of the ghost of marxism into the society of control, the benevolent soft totalitarianism. baudrillard matters also, because he was a close observer of the procession of simulacra, he watched all of this ideology becoming alive and self-aware through those crucial decades of the 1960s - 2000s. you can read marty glass also. his book is less scholarly and the last chapter is this one insanely long, heart-rending rant about the reign of quantity.

but and all of these guys are detecting what’s going on, the arrival of the machinic intelligence at the heart of the matrix. just as an aside, holy shit would i ever like a reboot of that film, with extended cinematic meditation on these things. again, it’s worth remembering that the Chosen One *makes a deal* at the end and reloads the whole the system. smith was by far the most interesting character in that story. but we also never saw how it was that those machines came into being in the first place, the nature of that relationship, between humans and their happiness-providing algorithms, all the rest. we traded in those scenes for awesome kung-fu and apocalyptic wars at the core of the earth.

>This is what im talking about. Technology didnt begin with machines, the machines are the modern expression of the immanentization of scientific (and mathematical) pursuit, but you could say the same about everything since agriculture, they are all less palpable technologies, they are systems of the mind if you will, but they have altered man, merged with him, and transformed it since ever, if you really wanna follow this you will end up in anarcho primitivism. And i mean its okay, but i see it as a sort of collective repression, and again, its textual so it cant escape engulfing itself: the denial of technology becomes a technology in itself.

so, this. today advertisement is our great machine. pornography is pure disenchantment. we’ve learned that much, that everything can be an allusion to sexuality, desirability, virility, all the rest. and this gives us this feeling of never being able to keep up with people who are happier, healthier, more beautiful, having better sex lives, are more consumptive (and therefore more productive) for civilization. and today this sensibility is also being inflected by politics, by the need to consume the right products, in the right way, with the right people, and so on. it’s more of the algorithmicization of man, the zuckerberg fantasy of the world.

[Anonymous No.11768697]

>>11768677
4/6

land knew critique never landed on terra firma:

>What Transcendental Miserablism has no right to is the pretence of a positive thesis. The Marxist dream of dynamism without competition was merely a dream, an old monotheistic dream re-stated, the wolf lying down with the lamb. If such a dream counts as ‘imagination’, then imagination is no more than a defect of the species: the packaging of tawdry contradictions as utopian fantasies, to be turned against reality in the service of sterile negativity. ‘Post-capitalism’ has no real meaning except an end to the engine of change.

>Life continues, and capitalism does life in a way it has never been done before. If that doesn’t count as ‘new’, then the word ‘new’ has been stripped down to a hollow denunciation. It needs to be re-allocated to the sole thing that knows how to use it effectively, to the Shoggoth-summoning regenerative anomalization of fate, to the runaway becoming of such infinite plasticity that nature warps and dissolves before it. To The Thing. To Capitalism. And if that makes Transcendental Miserablists unhappy, the simple truth of the matter is: Anything would.

source:
http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/008891.html

social justice doesn’t have a positive thesis, it has a threat. Woke Capital is the positive thesis, but it’s driven by ressentiment bottom to top. combining neoliberalism and neomarxism comes out of postmodernity, but its present locus of control is a media-driven circuit of production-consumption.

we are trapped in the text and looking for someone to *blame.* the great narrative has failed, new substitutes have to be ginned up on the fly, and dissenters punished. it’s a reality deficiency, a symptom of what afflicts us after having discovered how to simulate everything. what are we doing all this simulation for? for happiness. is that all? yes. that’s unbearable, right? it’s all we’ve got. now we have learned that happiness isn’t as sensational as outrage and revulsion: Did You See What Trump Did?

this is recursivity and contingency. but culture isn’t the final analysis. it’s perhaps what you mean by becoming ‘engulfed’ by the text. D&G knew it, semiotic regime change, the substitution of one set of codes by another. but *there is no true or Real or Authentic or Final code* - well, unless you are talking about sharia law. maybe this explains the romance between leftism and islam. islam presented a sophie’s choice to the left: feminism or multiculturalism? the left balked. maybe people really will convince themselves that the hijab is a symbol of empowerment, that this is True Feminism, the same way as they fawned over kim jong-un’s sister: is she a sex symbol? perhaps alterity means the constant need for an Other to fetishize, some New thing to stave off burnout (han!) that one feels with oneself, with one’s own culture.

>might as well face it, you’re addicted to love

[Anonymous No.11768699]

>>11768697
5/6

>i think the problem why it isnt happening anywhere in governments or culture right now is because of the bureaucratization of politics and the binarism of the metapolitics we are in. They are all too structured, they dont allow for human responses to stuff. You either have to kill all jews or are required to love jews, there's no context allowed, its all a preprinted form to be filled in, mark an X in the correct option, write your age here, occupation there. The problem is the way in which we address these things, the language we have: the issue is we are trapped within the text.

i agree with this. and that is why there is this constant need to *escape,* to look for new markets, because it means avoiding recognition of the vicious circles in which we are trapped. but, back to heidegger here: the question is not of escaping the circle, but coming into it in the right way. there is something hysterical about our need to continue producing and consuming, and D&G tapped into what it was: the fundamentally schizoid character of the unconscious, the need to territorialize, to deterritorialize and reterritorialize. freudo-marxism is exceptionally good at criticizing the fruits of these territorializations, but D&G get to the core of the process itself. and we wind up with the mythos of a culture. and you can’t *profitably* decline this. negativity *for profit* is commensurate with virtue-signaling.

>this is very foucaultian and i kinda agree, but i dont believe large scale repression of this kind can last, it historically never has, unless of course you consider history a prison
the nice thing about prisons is that they offer a simplified model of *government,* with nice and easy divisions between things. radical ideology has an abhorrence for situations of ambiguity, which is to say, *life.* we *like* binaries because they are simple and easy to understand. sometimes they’re even true. but my thing is in the shift from alterity to mimesis, from *difference* to *similarity.* that’s the basic hinge. it’s why *trust* is the central component. as long as we are still beholden to the masters of suspicion all of this will only get worse and more incendiary.

but you can’t *legislate* trust. you can’t order people to trust each other for the same reasons lacan says that you can’t demand enjoyment. as soon as you do this, the enjoyment vanishes. mutualism can only emerge out of understanding, out of a context in which people can exchange ideas in an atmosphere of relative harmony. this of course is what is desired by every safe-space architect, but it only produces echo chambers radically hostile to anything but the ideology under review. probably my own desires and feelings about this stuff would in the end be consigned to the same fate, i don’t know.

[Anonymous No.11768713]

>>11768699
6/6

milbank had the right idea. what we are obsessed with today as hate crimes were things that augustine and many other theologians also struggled with. and augustine’s political project is as inseparable from complicated situations of heresy as heidegger’s is by way of his association with the nazis. this is what happens when you try to resolve existential dilemmas by way of political solutions. it doesn’t work, you can’t *legislate* morality or virtue. even confucius knew this: the legalists were a departure from his thinking. xunzi had a less optimistic view about the nature of people, but even he knew that it wasn’t the role of government to make people good, it’s not possible. only virtue can do this. no program for mass reform ever produced a *gentleman.*

but, the west does not have the same feelings about virtue as the confucians did, nor are the historical and social contexts the same. china did not lead the way in globalization, nor did it have the reformation, WW1, WW2, and much else. they had their own civil wars, their own history, and - oh yeah - *their own communist revolution.* as in, wide-scale and fully implemented, and still going on today. so, things are admittedly different there.

but i always shill for East-West stuff because i like thinking across divides. i believe that it is possible for people to get along, that all of this current uproar over violence and mimesis doesn’t express a sensibility that we *want* life to be like this, but that we are terrified by what is happening, by machines and processes that have gone out of control and that we don’t know how to stop or fix. i advocate the Pause That Refreshes in a way, because otherwise we are just going to continue blowing ourselves to pieces over things that just can’t be solved politically.

>>11768441
ok, thanks.

>>11768470
i'm looking forward to reading this, thanks for bringing this up.

>>11768490
>Because we forget how we were before we ourselves were sundered from our past and heritage and culture like any other victim of colonialism.
yep

>Maybe the spook shatters but the leviathan ain't going away cause you chose to be slightly more ethical about your consumption and participation.
facts

all good points anon.

>>11768506
>Sure but let's also get sustainable ecology on Earth and a stable population first (perhaps posthumanism is a way of transcending violence and the sacred? perhaps ancient anthroprotechnics are posthumanisms?)
i think it is. anthropotechnics makes it a question about *you* and not about Society. violence and the sacred is That Loop to be transcended, and it may not be possible. so, new terms, new ideas, new languages. posthumanism is a good scene. so is sustainable ecology, without a doubt.

[Anonymous No.11768892]

it's september 11 today too. wow.

anyways, if anyone's looking for an interesting book to read about some of these themes in a a context other than late-marxist/continental paranoia, milbank is way cool:

>as Giorgio Agamben has argued in the wake of the remarkable twentieth-century Catholic theologian Eric Peterson, theology, as the dominant discourse of the west in the Christian era, is a kind of celestial fusion of metaphysical with political understanding. What political theory is, in a veiled way, to human history, theology is to the entire understanding of reality, but with a more perfect blending of universally theoretical with practical considerations.

>For this reason one can say that the first sequence of the current book is about metaphysics, the second is about political theory, while On Divine Government will be about religion and theology – precisely insofar as one can define theology as the coincidence of political theory with metaphysics. Because of this coincidence it is changes traceable within theology, still more than those within philosophy or political theory, that tend to reveal the hidden genesis of modern theoretical perspectives.

>For the above reasons one can argue that all Christian theology is not so much ‘political theology’ as it is ‘politicised metaphysics’ or ‘metaphysical politics’. Whether or not this new degree of coincidence is revelatory or sinister, it opens up the claim that Christianity is not only ‘the most religious of religions’, but also the most human of specifically human processes. Therefore, to reject Christianity inevitably opens to view (as Agamben contends) ‘post-human’ perspectives. (Between Christianity and post-humanism, his own position is perhaps uncertainly located.) For even though it is true that Christianity secularised law, politics, language, science and artistic representation, it did not initially do so in the name of an autonomous secular space – this eventual upshot was only the result of the inauthentic doctrine of natura pura. Instead, this secularisation much more implied a negative qualification of any stable claims to capture the sacred, and at the same time a relativisation of the Durkheimian sacred/profane boundary (frequent in many cultures), with a consequent sacralisation of all nature as Creation and all culture as divinisable because human. In this way Christianity exalts and extends the religious (in keeping with its borrowing and redefinition of the Roman word ‘religio’ as now a seamless binding to the true God) precisely by making it more coincide with the human – which is also thereby elevated.

for a comprehensive survey of the wasteland the marxist writers are imho without peer. but as to where we go from here the christian writers just always seem to have the most going on for me. this is probably for another thread, but in case anyone was wondering if there was anything else to read that wasn't just moar acceleration.

[Anonymous No.11769171]

>>11768892
milbank is awesome. now here's a guy JBP could learn a thing or two from. there is a right way and a wrong way to critique neomarxism.

>The rigorous implication of post-humanism is this: freedom is only a reality as arbitrary power. The Rousseauian-Kantian egalitarian extension of freedom has been transformed into the asymmetrical extension of power – the promotion of the strongest, the most enduring, the most all-pervasive. In civil society this is manifest as the growing postmodern dominance of market systems (which may, nonetheless, take a ‘governmental’ form) over both political and bureaucratic structures which concentrated on the formal equality of free subjects. In a more market-orientated society, this formality can be much more rapidly translated into the possession of actual resources of wealth, believability and rhetorical power. It would seem, apparently, in the ‘post-Fordist’ age, as if power is being more distributed, being made more accountable to informational feedback and so forth. In fact, the new spaces of permitted creativity, segmentation and indeterminism are only differences which secure yet more strongly the dominance of the same, the univocal: the same basic car, house, restricted language, conformist behaviour, conjoined with the same individualistic narcissism. Instead of various real skills and social roles, which required a particular education to master, all social and technical procedures are becoming increasingly flattened-out, so that easy transitions and adjustments can be constantly made. The new flexibility of persons and things, the new dominance of trivial, day-to-day ‘innovation’, spells the end of resistance by subjects who believed that they possessed an inviolable death, and the beginning of an endless interpellation of subjectivities through a more effective, apparently more yielding kind of power.

>Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault all sought to present a version of Nietzsche’s philosophy which allows for some sort of critique of this neocapitalism. For them all, however, this remained, despite everything, an emancipatory critique, or a critique predicated on the possibility of a further release of freedom. Yet this is to remain harnessed to a deception, namely, to the idea that one can still step back from Nietzsche to Kant. Nietzsche himself entertained no such illusions, and taught that, in future, for those unable to
sustain the rigours of artistic self-determination, the best that could be hoped for was the discipline of a State organized for war. Of course, he did not envisage the reality of recent capitalism, of a discipline operating surreptitiously, disguising itself as ‘pleasure’, of a war that is constant and invisible, of all against all, and all against created nature. But the ontology of difference should logically embrace this reality – and, indeed, it half does so, yet still tries to claim for itself a continuing critical reserve.

[Anonymous No.11769343]

>>11769171
moar greentext:

>We may hanker after the liberal subject as a bulwark against fascism, but fascism will always be able to announce, truly, the illusory universality of this subject. As Lyotard already realized, fascism cannot be refuted, precisely because it takes its stand on myth, and not, like Marxism, on a controvertible meta-narrative, making claims which require, on its own terms, to be substantiated, and yet cannot be. The best we can theoretically do in the face of fascism is to point out its mythical form. But the nouveaux philosophes went further: because fascism, as Nietzsche and his follows have shown, is the true character of all politics, it follows that all politics assumes a merely mythical guise. It is not, as for Hobbes or Foucault, that the essence of all politics is power, but rather, as for de Maistre, de Bonald and Carl Schmitt, that all politics invents power by proclaiming a religion which channels the mythical power of a fictive God or gods (‘fictive’ does not here necessarily mean ‘untrue’). If power after all dominates, then this is not because of its material reality, but because of the arbitrariness of all mythical inventions. The perfect form of politics, as of religion, argued Bernard Henri-Levy, in the wake of Carl Schmitt and the Catholic positivist tradition, is monotheism, because this posits a single, absolute source of power.

>Between the notion of a solipsistic, inventive desire on the one hand, and an always doomed and self-deceptive desire on the other, lies the possibility of a desire not betrayed by process and difference. For this desire, the endless ‘dissatisfaction’ that remains, even in the realization of desire, is not really the ‘lack’ of frustration which is still mastered by power, but the surplus delight of fulfilment, which only knows its consummation in holding the other (including the endless chain of others) at a distance, a distance that consists solely in the other’s unlimited self-giving – an element not alien to her desire itself. Of course, in this desire, also, a power is exercised, the power of influence by the other (all the others) which the lover cannot control, working through a constant invention of desirable objects so as to ensure, as Deleuze claims, that desire is not finally of a Lacanian ‘nothing’. But the question once again should be, is this influence necessarily arbitrary, or can it rather mediate the analogical bonds which bind us together in an objective aesthetic order? That infinite order of deferral and referral which is, itself, what is truly desirable? One should refuse both Deleuze’s universalism of an innocent, heterogeneously perverse desire, and Lardreau’s universalism of a generally poisoned desire.

i'm not going to say that anybody BTFOs deleuze, just that that is interesting af. milbank can get his own thread later. but still, that the rejoinder to postmodernity would come from this direction...anyways.

[Anonymous No.11769650]

>>11745100
By that logic you could draw the line of influence from Plato, then Zoroastrianism, then Hinduism, etc..

[Anonymous No.11769749]

>>11769650
you absolutely could. my feeling is that the only real question is how fruitful you can make those connections. everything connects. the question is which connections will really light up our brains/beings in the 21C.

if autoethnography isn't the terminal breaths of academia, it's close. it's why correspondences between art, science and philosophy are massively superior to another recursive non-piece about the emancipatory potential of [insert here]. ofc these come out of continental philosophy departments in the first place, and thirty years ago they might have been important to read. but it's a new day now. i want to see science, philosophy and religion put together for a party that never stops. we're not in that place now. for now all we can produce is postmodern stuff, which is disappointing, given how interesting religion is. but there are academics who understand that things have to change:

>Gut Feminism has not only been attentive to the nonconsilient nature of biology; it has also been keenly interested in how feminist theory can be written other than through the demand for political consilience and amelioration. I have been particularly focused on how feminist politics (like all politics) has an intrinsic hostility toward the objects, persons, and places it loves. While feminism is knowingly hostile to systems of injustice (sexism, homophobia, racism, wealth disparity), it is also hostile—in ways that cannot be extinguished—toward the things that it holds dear. This places important limits on how agreeable or enabling feminist politics can be; what might be most effective about feminism may have very little to do with its capacity to make good. In this regard, there is another important critical environment into which this book arrives: the recent debates about what has come to be called the reparative turn.

>The desire for a clear distinction between the reparative and the paranoid (between remedy and harm, between skepticism and enthusiasm) has been particularly constraining for feminist engagements with psychopharmaceuticals. By believing in the separability of remedies and harms (and by making the pursuit of harmless remedies the goal of their interventions), such feminist readings have kept themselves at arm’s length from the aggressive, bitter nature of depression and from a more thorough understanding of what any treatment and any theoretical stance entails. In this regard, they have been of a piece with a broader, debilitating feminist phantasy that our actions can turn to the good. In contrast, the feminism that Gut Feminism champions offers no plans for repair except through the interpretation of our ongoing, anxious implication in envies, hostilities, and harms. By this route I hope to have provoked some curiosity about what might happen in a political environment where conventional ambitions for amelioration or reparation lie gutted.

a reparative turn is a fucking 10/10 turn of turns.

[Anonymous No.11769777]

>>11769749
i suppose i should qualify this, lest i be hilariously misinterpreted: i mean reparative in terms of *repairing* and not *reparations.* maybe this is to take that greentext in a completely different sense, in which case (guess what?) i'm an idiot.

anyways. i think we're already in, philosophically speaking if not literally, as much of a post-apoc world as we need to be in. everybody wants a Start Over button. i guess all i mean to say is, why not start now? for one thing, it's probably better to collapse now and avoid the rush later on; for another, the sense of beginning to try and if not prevent or fix what is presently going on, at least abstain from making it worse.

i read somewhere - thomas murphy, maybe - a quote in spinoza about the fundamentally addictive nature of desires, even the passions themselves. it makes sense. and nothing really limits us. but ours is a species that discovered heroin also, things that override all of our basic functions, even our built-in capacities to say No. we will say Yes to things in ways that were in no way those intended by the eternal recurrence, but that also is desire.

this is a tangent, but you get what i mean. also i have been on /lit/ *way* too much today. so maybe i'll let some of this ferment and catch up with you guys later. thanks for letting me vent today, i hope any anons still reading at this point have found perhaps something in here to think about. it's always enjoyable for me to schizo-ramble in here, i can only hope some of this stuff lights up some lights on your christmas trees also.

[Anonymous No.11770450]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11770525]

September 11th is a funny date. An older friend of mine told me once that the date of the event precipitated his first schizo episode. He was in college at the time. Generation older than me. I had a similar experience in college. Breakdown at the end of my liberal arts degree. Coincided somewhat with occupy. Interesting how events can do that.

[Anonymous No.11771105]

>>11768448
mass deception is enlightenment, its the entry way into the hivemind, the god-head of the civil body, to become a neuron of the leviathan

[Anonymous No.11771141]

[Anonymous No.11772255]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11772514]

>>11771141
What?

[Anonymous No.11773240]

>>11772514
Thats amazon's patent for its new wagecage, door opens on your breaks

[Anonymous No.11773351]

dystopian sci-fi prediction #347: this whole system is going to collapse in a situation not unlike the thirty years' war, amidst catastrophic environmental damage. in the aftermath, technological neo-enlightenment and closer relationship with AI. the argument: why not just focus on trade? nice, rational, automatic trade, everything logical, everything objective, the blockchain settling all accounts. see? why bother with all of these weird metaphysical arguments? that's just primitive irrationalism. we're giving people what they want, and we always have.

and many will be left impoverished, and in despair, and will seek recourse to mystical metanarrative. they will know that something is wrong, but they will be at pains to be able to articulate what it is, and in the meantime technocracy will go on doing its thing. the legacy of ideological warfare will be proof positive that anything other than following the numbers only leads to flights of irrational fancy, and that humanity needs a firm, pragmatic, sensible, rational hand to guide it. and with 'the recent economic crisis' having only gotten worse - and who's fault was that? - there will be even less airtime reserved for the resentful, the insolvent, the rabble. we just don't have time for that anymore. you guys ruined the world, your time is up, you had your fun. now we have to clean up your mess, and now you have really shown your true colors, so you're on notice, a sort of permanent intellectual probation. and now there's no question that you will not be able to be allowed anywhere near these golf courses - after all, we earned the right to be here while you guys were off losing your minds and dragging us into ideological warfare.

the rest of that story just writes itself. it anticipates, perhaps, a second version of the french revolution in its turn. why wouldn't accumulate megawealth lead to a new aristocracy as divorced from the rest of the world as marie antoinette was from the mob? the divine right of capital is proven not by argument but by political upheaval. those who do not adapt prove themselves to be on the wrong side of history, but the argument is never engaged in in good faith by either side. there is incendiary rage on one side, contempt on the other. one side says, all you want is capital. the other says, you don't know what you want at all. and we didn't fuck everything up, we didn't cause the Great Mistake, you did. the other side says, us?

well, says the first, at least we have a plan to fix it.
really? says the other. it looks like more of the same.
says the first: we've always said what we wanted. now it's our time. and we didn't fuck this up, you did.
says the other: and what's that?
the first: never mind, this is pointless. there's no point in talking any further.

the political left and right are like a failed marriage with an increasingly acrimonious divorce that repeats itself down through the generations through an infinite sequence of lawyers.

[Anonymous No.11773565]

Dont forget that on regards of the megawealth the big tech-players are making money for doing what realstate does, they get payed a fee for the use of their "space" to do businesses, there's millions of people between 30 and 40 yos around the globe who are in debt with Google for giving them the tools to grow when their countries only offered gib slavery.

[Anonymous No.11773681]

rogan got elon, rubin got thiel. the real winner, though, is us. anybody watched this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h10kXgTdhNU

[Anonymous No.11773881]

Let this thread die already you stupid BITCHES!

[Anonymous No.11774016]

>>11748301
>kill yourself in response to being exposed to something you dont like
Very fitting for philosophags

[Anonymous No.11774829]

>>11733542
Neoplatonism only in the sense that after the Kantian redefinition of philosophy/metaphysics as primarily concerned with the transcendental and (inter)subjective, as the ground of the objective, the absolute idealists in his wake then misconstrued or reconstrued the "ideal" so that they were again doing trans-subjective, traditionally metaphysical philosophy, while still claiming to be Kantian. They take the ideal as Kant establishes it, as the intersubjective and normative domain of possible knowledge, between individual human beings, and start doing dogmatic metaphysics of primary archetypes, essences, or substances instead. Instead of individual subjects sharing objective knowledge of their shared intersubjective world, you get a metaphysics of the super-Subject, or a metaphysics of the dialectical unfolding of Being from some original state or thing.

I actually think their overall goal is roughly correct, and I'm a Platonist. But you need to get to that goal through Kant, not by retreating back into crypto-Leibnizian or crypto-Spinozist metaphysics while claiming to be adhering to Kant. There's a chance that the late Schelling realised this, but I'm not sure since I haven't read any of it. The biggest problem is that the followers of the absolute idealists are all people who have mastered their idiom and reproduce it for the prestige it brings, but who never actually understood Kant to begin with.

Schiller understood. When Goethe, a friend of Herder whom Kant had recently rebuked for attempting to discover original panpsychist essences in nature, tried likewise to find the original "forms" of things through sympathetic intuition, probably right after half-reading the Critique of Pure Reason and mis-reading the Critique of Judgment, he wrote to Schiller super excited about his discovery and Schiller immediately (and politely) informed him that he hadn't understood Kant properly. Ideas like the ones Goethe had of the urphanomen can only be regulative. Same mistake Herder had made. Schiller actually understood Kant.

I personally think Goethe WAS onto something, but if you look at the subaltern history of his "morphology" down to modern day, it has inspired a lot of people to do interesting things, but all of those people had naive realist conceptions of metaphysics as a result. There are a lot of esoterics who took his morphology and naively assumed that Platonic archetypes are in nature and accessible to discursive thought. Same with Schelling now, and all these people who are making the same mistake Herder made in the 1770s, of thinking they have directly intuited the "vis viva."

[Anonymous No.11774832]

>>11733542
>>11774829
Again, I think they're onto something. Clearly nature is out there, and is structured. Platonism is as good an answer as any as to how this comes about, as is some kind of nondualist idealism. Maybe we COULD directly intuit the vis viva, or the urphanomen, or the indifference point, or the dialectical necessity of freedom, or whatever. But to think you're doing it within discursive thought is dangerous. You are reifying imperfect ideas at best, which is what a naturalist or pragmatist does too, but he doesn't claim to be accessing the forms of things in themselves. No matter how elaborate your panpsychist theory is, it doesn't actually bridge the problem of "how are thoughts adequate to the world?" which is really the problem of "what is thought and what is world?" which is obscured when you reify either/both in some metaphysical framework, and now that metaphysic is presumed to be absolute, it's closed, instead of the pragmatist's which is at least open. It's just arbitrary.

This cybernetics shit is guilty of it all over again. People are stressed out by the fact that materialist, dogmatic presentations of World have to rely on unsatisfying mechanistic metaphors, that is on causal mechanism and the principle of sufficient reason. So instead of questioning the phenomenal conditions of such presentations, of, knowledge, they add fuzzy modifiers, like a vis viva or some fashionable concept like recursivity, and sidestep the problem rather than solving it. The result is Spinozism or Neoplatonism: a just-so story that resolves the whole World into a tidy metaphysical-metaphorical structure, one that obeys the laws of our phenomenal presentation while also accounting for all the things our curiosity wants accounted for (again, "what is thought and how does it relate to world?"). The question is sidestepped with a metaphor, a "true lie," a phenomenon, an image, etc., that is with a clever twist of discursive thought, instead of questioning whether discursive thought can ever be adequate to the world in the first place. Worse yet, many of these vis viva-like metaphors require years of initiation into complex jargons just to be able to reproduce, distracting people from doing real metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11774869]

>>11735814
>>11735814
Thanks for saying I'm a good poster. My problem with biosemiotics, and with process philosophy and cybernetics and neo-vitalism in general, is just what I was saying in the preceding two posts. It might give you interesting heuristics for explaining things in nature, just like Goethe actually made (directly or indirectly) important contributions to biology by doing what he did. But if you're doing metaphysics, let alone metaphysics aimed at the essence or quiddity of thought and matter in and of themselves, and especially at this point in history which is probably an axial age that is going to produce some new hylomorphism that dominates human thought the way Aristotelian substance ontology did, you need to be really fucking careful to keep in mind that you're just playing around with heuristics and metaphors, i.e., with discursive thought.

We are currently going through a massive crisis, which may be the birth pangs or the critical formative moment of the next phase of human cognition, where we are being tasked with defining the human, the spiritual, the soul, thought itself, knowledge, free will, etc., all at a higher level than has previously existed. This is taking place not just in philosophy but at the social, economic, and cultural levels, as everybody uneasily tries to renegotiate their relationship with machines, matter, managerial technocracy, and predictive computing. In short, we are attempting to reconcile two fundamentally (for us) unreconcilable things: spirit/freedom/humanity vs. material/necessity/mechanism.

A lot of things are so deeply at stake that we won't even be able to understand the scope until well after the fact. This may be the moment when humanity has to conceptually evolve to a clearer self-intuition of freedom, or something, an utterly new sublation, to avoid being consigned forever to mechanism. And while all that is going on, everyone is coincidentally busying themselves with explaining freedom in terms of, or as a function of, matter and mechanism. It's the introduction to the Wissenschaftslehre: in doing philosophy, you either begin with the intuition of the radical ontological irreducibility of freedom and spirit, or you begin with matter, and therefore with necessity, mechanism, and reductivism. Everybody thinks they're being so clever by "reconciling" the ideal with the material, when they are doing what the idealists really did, denigrating the subjective and the radically autonomous by making it a "non-material aspect" of the material. They don't realise that "material" means "phenomenally represented as substance operating under necessary laws, e.g., the principle of sufficient reason." A psychic substance is still a substance, is still material.

[Anonymous No.11774892]

>>11733072
you are all NPCs
all modern philosophy is merely the day dreaming of faggots with too much time. If philosophy cannot actively change your life then it is a figment of your fallible mind

[Anonymous No.11774899]

>>11774869
And like I said, this is taking place at every level, from the everyday to the cultural to the socio-economic and technocratic and maybe on spiritual planes we aren't really aware of. From this: >>11748324
>I noticed that my thinking became more refined and exact, able to carry out extensive logical analyses with facility, but at the same time more superficial and less tolerant of ambiguity or conflicting points of view. My feeling life somehow gradually detached itself from the rest of me. The feelings that were closer to me grew flat and grey; they lost their strength and color, and correspondingly played a less prominent role in my life. The feelings that were farther from me, on the other hand, grew stronger and cruder; they lost much of their human quality and modulation. Finally, in the life of the will, I developed a tremendous capacity for application to the solution of problems connected with the computer, and ability for sustained intellectual concentration far above average, so long as the focus of concentration was the computer. In other areas, I lost will power, and what I had took on an obsessive character.

Not only are we failing to begin, as Fichte said, with the intellectual intuition of the ontological irreducibility of the autonomous and individual subject, instead beginning reflexively with machines and mechanisms, this is no longer taking place at the abstract level but is becoming the substance of daily life and forming mental habits. It was already hard enough not to lapse into "neoplatonism" in that above sense, already hard enough to carry out Fichte's operation of maintaining the intellectual intuition of one's subjecthood. Now that is layered underneath a thousand Stiegler-esque interconnections with machine-like, rationalised, self-rationalising capitalism. A recursive mechanism is forming that makes us view reality as inevitably mechanistic.

That is how it's anti-humanistic, and that's why I'm afraid of the anti-Cartesianism buzzword. Everybody and their mother has been anti-Cartesian since Heidegger and since Nietzsche. It's not hard to ontologically desconstruct the subject who is carrying out the "meditation" to begin with. But there is a distinction between the discursive subject, the historically relative phrase or discursive concept "transcendental subject," and the actual, constituting transcendental subject. There is a difference between acknowledging that Dasein is a German word and intellectually intuiting (in Fichte's sense) oneself as Dasein, as whatever "Dasein" really indicates. It is not new or interesting to smash down the Cartesian metaphysical reification of "thought" or "subject" as a distinct "thing," let alone to replace that substance ontology with another, only de-subjectivised one, reliant on some vis viva or meta-concept of recursion in "nature."

Everyone makes the same mistake of Herder et al., demolishing metaphysics and then doing metaphysics again, just with a new idiom.

[Anonymous No.11774914]

>>11774892
This
>>11774899
>insectoidman afraid to admit he is npc

[Anonymous No.11774941]

>>11774892
>you are all NPCs
i love this new meme

>>11774829
>>11774832
>>11774869
>>11774899
my IQ went up five points and my dick grew an inch from reading these posts. i feel more satisfied at work and i've begun taking a more active role in my community as well.

>unironically gj anon. you are a good poster, thanks for making /lit/ great again. glad that the thread was up long enough for you to post some substantive stuff for us to think about

[Anonymous No.11774944]

>>11774899
Also just walk through any trendy bookstore near a university that has new philosophy/science titles on display, and count the panpsychists, aspect monists, and so forth. Every single fucking person is now concerned with explaining the ideal and the subjective as a function of matter. All the things that are trendy right now, Peirce, shitty bootleggings of James' "realist" virtualism, Deleuze's BwO understood ontologically instead of transcendentally, Merleau-Ponty's "gestalten" "naturalised" as a Herderian metaphysics instead of a Kantian phenomenology. Not just that, but now it's in a secondary, even more derivative phase of emanation, where all the people who study thinkers non-conducive to panpsychism/aspect monism start to reconcile their own favorite thinkers (i.e., the ones they went to grad school for 20 years to write go-nowhere redundant articles about) with the newly dawning episteme. So again, walk through those "new release" tables and count the people who are "proving" that Descartes was really a proto-Merleau-Pontean embodied-cognition self-deconstructer all along. Zizek's Ontology claims that Zizek is a Schellingean, psychoanalytic version of Merleau-Ponty's (alleged) gestalt-panpsychism. I was leafing through a book printed by the same press by Atlan, and bam, panpsychism. All of these things amount to the same thing: let's prove the foregone conclusion of aspect monism, that is a fuzzy materalism with "psychic" special sauce on it, except let's do it in whatever idiom (metaphor-complex) I specialise in because I need to make bank and maintain my relevance in the pathetic academy. That's why it made me sad to see Yuk Hui doing it. Yet another fucking person trying to keep up with the metaphysical joneses.

It's easy to be dazzled by these things until you start to limn the conceptual core that they are all pathetically, half-consciously trying to cash in on. I don't understand why so few people do this. What we are seeing is a confusing, fractal-like proliferation of ripoffs of the insight Heidegger didn't even "invent" but at least articulated to the point that it didn't need sixty billion fucking imitators in tweed sweaters with stupid blogs.

[Anonymous No.11775164]

good thread but you guys need to chill for a bit

[Anonymous No.11775296]

>>11733144

I'm just going to see if I can translate this down to a 120 IQ:

>Keeping in mind he means the biosemiotics-friendly Whitehead

Whitehead, process metaphysics - substance / process - (Process - Schopenhauer) - intentionality / teleology - its qualia and our chauvinism about its nature:

"Biosemiotics"

>and not the more admirable process theologians like Hartshorne

No chauvinism - continuity between "thought" ("process") and "reality" - ("substance" / "matter")

>this is not only a worrying indication of a commitment biosemiotic/cybernetics frameworks

Chauvinism about our own natures as distinct from substance elsewhere.

>it's fucking depressing that he skips the vitalistic and genuinely organistic thinking of the fin de siecle AND Lebensphilosophie

Skips this despite covering precursors - why anyone's depressed about that - *shrugs*...

>to jump right to a tenuous link with cybernetic anti-humanism.

It is potentially anti-human (I don't know if you disagree with that or the tenuous link - presuming the latter):

1. Cybernetics Eat Your Soul - trope which didn't come out of nowhere.
2. Same thing said differently: You take the spirit of something which is applied to a system with the capacity for art* and use it as a tool - you're tapping into the same basis for all human trauma - it's dehumanising if you are used -

*Art - Something whose purpose is its own creation as opposed to a purpose conferred unto it by its creator - and so simply an extension of it.

>Both the "recursion" buzzword and the "break from Cartesianism" ultra-buzzword worry me that he's sold out to the current fashion of refashioning everyone from Schelling to Whitehead and beyond into disgusting anti-humanist orientalist death worship.

So sort of assuming you have a position on anti-humanism - shallow (4u) academics putting tools above art?

>Summary:

Shallow academic puts tools above art.

SO HOW'D I DO FAGGOTS...!

[Anonymous No.11775600]

the thing about these threads that i struggle with is that you think they are dead and that's that, and then some really good stuff can turn up late in the game that you're not expecting in the slightest.

you just never know. you never really know if people read anything you post and you're just talking to yourself like a complete idiot (>>11768665 &c), if they read it but it doesn't make any sense, or if it it does make sense but they're not responding because you're just full of shit, all of these, or none. sometimes it seems like threads really are dead and have exhausted themselves, and then people chime in and bring interesting stuff to think about that you couldn't possibly have predicted would happen. so people get justifiably mad (>>11773881), but then you get stuff like >>11774829 and >>11775296 which is really good, really thought-provoking. there have been a lot of good posts in this thread.

it's true that a thread that lasts a week can seem comparatively ancient given the rate of turnover on this board, and if you're the OP (and i am) that sometimes you think, ugh, maybe it would be better if it just died after a while, it's become cringe to keep it up past its point of expiry, what are we doing here, and so on. but when new posts appear that are actually substantive and in which anons really do engage it makes you glad that they have stayed up for as long as they have, because how else would they have come to appear otherwise?

for what it's worth. and >>11775164 is also right. and i still don't know how these things are ever going to play out, but this one has been nothing except surprises and mysteries, which i think is a good scene.

anyways, just wanted to say thanks in general to those ITT for the discussion. it's been a sincere pleasure.

[Anonymous No.11775732]

Has anyone attended in his New Center seminars?

[Anonymous No.11775789]

>>11775600
>you just never know. you never really know if people read anything you post and you're just talking to yourself like a complete idiot (>>11768665 &c),
i was the anon you were responding to, i just didn't have anything else to say, also we were looping

[Anonymous No.11775801]

>>11775600
>we were looping
i mean i was unable to make my critique understood, and i dont have the reading back to address your ideas by the authors you were mentioning, so i just dessisted

[Anonymous No.11775809]

book rec for all interested in Yuk Hui. Also this whole series for philosophy of tech. Another informative volume is about Ellul.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401798303

[Anonymous No.11775826]

>>11775600
I read everything here and try and gobble up as much of it as I can, so your postings are appreciated :)

[Anonymous No.11775870]

>>11775789
>>11775801
all good. and thanks for letting me know (and for prompting me to write something at length, at least to work some stuff out). i wasn't upset or anything because, as i was saying, you really don't know on a place like this. but that's part of the charm.

>>11775809
righteous. simondon seems super-interesting and he's rarely discussed here. but, i mean, look at this:

>The author sets Simondon’s ideas in the context of the epistemology of the late 1950s and the 1960s in France, the milieu that shaped a generation of key French thinkers such as Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida. This volume explores Simondon’s sources, which were as eclectic as they were influential: from the philosophy of Bergson to the cybernetics of Wiener, from the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty to the epistemology of Canguilhem, and from Bachelard’s philosophy of science to the positivist sociology and anthropology of luminaries such as Durkheim and Leroi-Gourhan. It also tackles aspects of Simondon’s philosophy that relate to Heidegger and Ellul in their concern with the ontological relationship between technology and society and discusses key scholars of Simondon such as Barthélémy, Combes, Stiegler, and Virno, as well as the work of contemporary protagonists in the philosophical debate on the relevance of technique.

that is a fucking crazy awesome party. and a monster turning point in continental thought. simondon is *right there* between heidegger and deleuze and a shitload of other guys.

>>11775826
double righteous! i'm glad you found some stuff in here to think about. and ofc i don't only mean me, that would be the douchiest thing ever. i mean all of it, obviously. my hope is that these threads are good for all kinds of people to be able to work stuff out and exchange ideas, or just shitpost ironically. whatever.

nobody really has the final trump card or anything else. i always love the neoplatonist stuff, but really i like reading anything by people who have really done their homework and obviously take the time to effortpost. that's the beautiful thing about philosophy. i take a pretty wide-angle view of things myself but i'm one of the most bewildered and fucked-up people because of it. i *really* don't know what the answers are. but it's nice to think that some of the confusion can be a positive force. this is ever the hope.

[Anonymous No.11776249]

>you're just talking to yourself like a complete idiot

Sure you are, yet it's not a reason to stop trying - somehow I think we'd all be sleeping in caves in our own shit if people like you weren't willing to face a serious prospect of being shot down as idiots, heretics or lunatics.

> really good, really thought-provoking

No I think I simplified something someone else said to see if someone else simplified it for me, nothing else.

>>11775164

Sure - stay outside of your insular intellectualism sometimes - you'll not come back with anything near as much as if you step outside of yourself once in a while - stuff surprises you.

[Anonymous No.11777650]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11777651]

Can someone please make a new Yuk Hui thread since this one is close to the bump limit?

[Anonymous No.11777845]

>>11775870
what do you think about a more mundan use of technology, like beyond landian chtuluh, do you think one can use tech to aid his life in an anarcho way?

[Anonymous No.11778090]

>>11777845
Towards a Liberatory Technology by Murray Bookchin

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/tolibtechpart2.html

Adam Curtis on Bookchin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/5a7b18b5-0ec3-3d3e-a307-54820a7c6a59

>>11749202
>>11749048
Whole Earth Catalog and Project Cybersyn autist

[Anonymous No.11778461]

>>11777845
>tfw heidegger goes back to the well
>tfw stupid jokes

the question about technology for me at least involves three thinkers - heidegger on one side, land on the other, and deleuze in the middle. also in the middle are simondon (!!!), stiegler, baudrillard, derrida, marx and many others. but one thing that you get from yuk hui and simondon is a shift of emphasis away from critique of consumption towards the study of information itself, which shifts the focus from ideology. the phenomenon of information transfer (and intelligence transfer?) itself can be looked at, and not only in terms of language or however language and representation is wielded to create the perpetual circuit of commodity fetishism. there is a horizon beyond which capital starts to resemble a thermodynamic process that pre-exists political arrangement. granted, they were thinking this in the 19C as well, and that was the justification for a kind of positivism (and positivism really isn't all that bad, either. as my comp-sci friend says, that generation of thinkers born around the end of the 19C were some of the most brilliant and well-educated people the world has ever produced. things changed because the world got weird, and the weirdness of physics was discovered by brilliant logicians). but a lot of things have changed since then.

heidegger would be the last guy to call himself an anarchist, but he was definitely interested in a kind of secession from a world of technological runaway (altho, again, with an enormous asterisk, since however much he wouldn't have liked electric dams on the rhine, he certainly would have liked them if they could have been made poetic, and i suspect he would have been fine with messerschmitt jets and rocketry as well if they were making dasein great again). in the west today being skeptical about progress has become a minor position, while Woke Capital and cathedral-politics continues to show their ugly sides.

i don't know how appealing anarchy is, i guess is my question. i think times are going to be plenty anarchic on their own, and maybe civilization is worth hanging on to, even if it's a salvage op. so in of using tech to aid life in an anarcho way, that other anon (>>11778090) has given you lots of stuff which is probably more germane. i guess my question is, why anarchy? is anarchy really superior? can anarchy stay authentically anarchic? b/c in a sense that's deleuze and the nomad war-machine. it's hard to argue with deleuze on much. land likes cody wilson, for example, and open-source 3D gun printing is a strong case for the anarchy hall of fame. i'd just prefer to imagine a world where anarchy was less attractive than virtue.

mostly i like the idea of a bromance between continental philosophy and tech that keeps space alive for art and religion also. we are going through, as >>11774869 says, a massive phase-shift.

>>11777651
>>11778448

[Anonymous No.11778462]

Cybernetics is a meme. Platonism covered all this in the World Soul.

[Anonymous No.11778576]

In 30 years time this is what all you weirdos ITT will sound like, your 1994 contemporaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL9mRMEUGw

Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Anonymous No.11778633]

>>11778461
I see anarachy as a purely destructive force. I consider myself an anarchy enthusiast but have grown to take issue with anarchism as an ideaology. There is such a thing as legitimate, justified authority, such as a parent making there child bursh their teeth and eat their vegetables, all the way up to ecocommunal governce and military leadership. As a matter of fact liberty itself is authority, viewing liberty as the means for making ones life more reasonable in regards to their consciously determined inclinations. I think well reasoned virtues go hand in hand with anarchy. Also, things like state sovernity and private property ought to be used for pragmatic ends if they already exist, but they also ought to be destroyed. Im kind of a pragmatic quasi-hobbesian in that regard.

[Anonymous No.11778741]

>>11778576
sadie plant is awesome tho, and zeroes + ones is a good book. that's a good lecture too! plus bonus points for the Nineties Hair if you stick around for the ending. i don't think land would be who he was if those two hadn't crossed paths. true, if you really hate land, you could argue that that might not have been such a bad thing. but i'm not one of those who hates him. i think he's brilliant. but a lot of the stuff that he writes about capitalism i think was informed by what plant was writing about xenofeminism and other stuff.

the orz tho.
>Here is *bright* and *smooth*.
it's like they read a thousand plateaus.
>We are *friends* now. Never be afraid to *open* enough and *spread the wax*.
this game was just too awesome. i don't know what Spread The Wax means but it's pretty hilarious.

>>11778633
>I think well reasoned virtues go hand in hand with anarchy.
i think they can also. it's why i was impressed with milbank (or augustine, for that matter). virtues are missing. however much we are going to try, there is no control-mechanism for hate speech or hate thought or non-hate crime hate-related incidents. as long as the state is there, everybody's going to want to be the ones in charge. i think it's why left politics are always so critical: tacitly, people really want to be the guardians, to be the watchdogs, to be the Defenders of Society. but it's not a tenable position when it comes to moral crimes and offenses. being permanently Vigilant leads to exactly the kinds of psychopolitics you see everywhere today, the need to police all language, all media, all thought, and to loops of praise and self-congratulations, to virtue signals and virtue-purges centered on ideology in recursive feedback loops. if the right and the left could just fucking leave each other alone, or if it were all dissolved into moldbug-style patchwork, maybe things would be better. but they really can't, because this is how media works: there's only one (and chimeric, and dissolving) Universal Culture.

maybe society has to be protected from its own guardians, sometimes.

>Im kind of a pragmatic quasi-hobbesian in that regard.
it's a sane position to take. i would like to see a transition to a less pessimistic mode of existence. that's my naive hope. the most suspicious, the most paranoid, the most besieged, the most threatened can often be the most powerful as well. but those kinds of sentiments require trust and harmony rather than more defensive mechanisms and controls. it's why i like lacanian analysis, the whole point was to understand that the calls are coming from inside the house. there is no easy way around cynicism, bitterness, or ressentiment that doesn't involve a leap of faith, and it certainly doesn't make for good politics. what you get is schism, rift, hostility and infinite mimetics.

civilization is an open-ended thing. science is a good look. we should be able to ask questions that don't destroy their objects. whiteheadian stuff.

[Anonymous No.11780173]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11780202]

>>11780173
there's a new thread going on if anyone wants to continue the discussion over here.

>>11778448

[Anonymous No.11780522]

>>11778090
>http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/tolibtechpart2.html
> THE ECOLOGICAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY
i think this might be exactly what i was looking for

>i don't know how appealing anarchy is, i guess is my question. i think times are going to be plenty anarchic on their own, and maybe civilization is worth hanging on to, even if it's a salvage op. so in of using tech to aid life in an anarcho way, that other anon (>>11778090) has given you lots of stuff which is probably more germane. i guess my question is, why anarchy? is anarchy really superior? can anarchy stay authentically anarchic? b/c in a sense that's deleuze and the nomad war-machine. it's hard to argue with deleuze on much. land likes cody wilson, for example, and open-source 3D gun printing is a strong case for the anarchy hall of fame. i'd just prefer to imagine a world where anarchy was less attractive than virtue.

i used anarchy to describe out-of-the-grid life, an individual endeavour, im looking for ways to outsource aspects of management of my life into machines