CC20

[Anonymous No.12179303]

> ** Arguing that the ‘hylomorphic’ distinction between form and content is inadequate to the reality of signs, Deleuze & Guattari (following Hjemslev), propose a quadrate schema, crossing the real (‘stratic’) difference between expression and content with the nominal aspect – “mental or modal distinction” – of formed substances (forms and substances of expression, and of content). Such ‘squaring’ (or cross-linkage) – as seen in the Kantian tabulation of the analysis / synthesis distinction across that between the a priori and a posteriori – is the prepatory matrix for a diagonalization (see Appendix 3). Expression and content are not formally-distinguished ‘aspects’ of signification, then, but real layers, bound together in systematic overlapping, or reciprocal entanglement, constitutive of a code. Consider the genetic code, which maps DNA codons on to proteins. The code maps a genetic content onto a proteomic expression, correlating molecules layered by hierarchical organization (directional control flow), with each of these ‘layers’ (or ‘strata’) consisting of formed substances. The term ‘gene expression’ in its regular biological usage is thus endorsed by ‘stratoanalysis’ as a model for realist semiotics. “There is never correspondence or conformity between content and expression, only isomorphism with reciprocal presupposition.” (TP 44-45).

> Between content and expression there is real distinction, and not merely a difference of aspect. In the case of a metallic monetary medium, then, the ‘side’ of expression cannot be restricted to the semiotic face of the coin (as contrasted to its minted content), but has to be extended – through purchasing power – into alternate, parallel media, coded by price. Ultimately, money is expressed through the production of commodities, in the classical and maximally-expansive sense of this word, signifying ‘possible objects of purchase’ in general. What the biological phenotype is to the genotype, so is the economy to money (the expression of a semiotic content, in both cases, not the object ‘signified’ or meant by it). Paper money complicates this system of articulation, marginally, by establishing a supplementary semiotic layer – or over-coding – with the new printed medium as content, and the metallic medium as (intermediate) expression, or ‘epistratum’. A bank note promising to pay the bearer one pound of sterling silver graphically indicates the elaboration of strata. Money, like DNA, is not signifying, but instructive, or directional. It effectively commands acceptance, and ceases to function under those conditions when it is unable to do so. The only critical ‘message’ of money is accept me (authorization of an abstract transaction). A monetary acceptability crisis is typically expressed as hyperinflation. In this case, subjective devalorization of a monetary medium is practically translated into an objective quantitative explosion.

what

[Anonymous No.12179647]

bump

idgi..

[Anonymous No.12179652]

>>12179303
This is poorly constructed, is NL forgetting how to understand English? Early onset Alzheimer’s?

[Anonymous No.12179680]

>>12179652
i dont know.
i just dont understand lot of it.
havent read dg obviously..

[Anonymous No.12179865]

>>12179303
I feel like this is probably well constructed and I just don't get it because I haven't read any of those authors.

[Anonymous No.12179868]

> §2.312 — A cultural side-product of the Bitcoin protocol, then, is a cryptographic definition of time. Punctual-geometric ‘now’, as marked on a ‘time-line’, is replaced by an atomic unit of irreducible duration, coinciding with the completion of a block, and ordered successively on the chain. Between duration and succession, the relation is synthetic. The blockchain is constituted by a series of durations, which are not inter-convertible, or mathematically transformable into each other. Hash-time has ceased to be accurately representable as a dimension. A time-line merely analogizes it, to what is an ultimately inadequate level of definite fidelity.

> §2.313 — The weakly-formalized hash function employed in this book is Kantian critique. It latches upon input text extracted from the cultural agitation attending crypto-currency techonomics, and outputs a digest in the (partially submerged) mainstream language of philosophy. Peer-to-peer flatness is hashed into immanence, ‘trusted third parties’ into metaphysical constructs of transcendence. Since the mid-19th century, the primary impetus of transcendental philosophy has been directed to the materialization of critique. Academic philosophy, almost by definition, has not registered this trend accurately. It has been through the advances and errors of cybernetics and historical materialism that critical modernity has been charted. The dominant academic traditions of linguistic philosophy (in the Anglophone world) and phenomenology (in Continental Europe) have only weakly reflected such developments. When resistance to materialization is a guild imperative, even the most sincere attempts to bring thought into compliance with the real process founder, through institutional necessity. There is not, in any case, solid ground upon which to idealize such sincerity unduly, since its orientation is essentially misconceived. Transcendence poses real problems – obstacles – requiring techonomic solutions, rather than mere conceptual exorcism. Immanentization is the product of a diagonal process, leading through the exteriority of the machine. ‘Armchair philosophy’ should not, therefore, be opposed to an armchair skepticism, but to the history of cryptography, in its broadest possible conception, which relates the hidden and unhidden to the irreversible emergence of real capabilities.

[Anonymous No.12179873]

> §2.32 — The ultimate foundation of the Kantian critical philosophy is a difference, drawn between objects and their conditions of possibility. Items of competent attention are framed in a way that cannot itself be successfully itemized. The display frame cannot be displayed. Confusion between (empirical) objects and their (transcendental) conditions of possibility, most typically exemplified by the attempt to apprehend the latter as if they were the former, is taken to define speculative metaphysics (or pure theoretical reason) – which is conceived, rigorously, as a persistent yet futile misapplication of intelligence to pseudo-problems essentially exceeding its capabilities. The rest is detail.

> §2.321 — To objectify the transcendental bases of objectivity, for instance, in the posing of a metaphysical question about the ‘nature’ of space, time, or causality, is to lead thought into hopeless error, whose symptoms are irresolvable dilemmas (contradictions, or antinomies). The systematic enumeration of these cognitive dead-ends is the task of transcendental dialectic. It was Kant’s contention that such Quixotic questions – addressed to the conditions of objectivity as if they were themselves objects – had dominated and fatally distracted philosophy up to his own time. The repudiation of such error is, at its most elementary – and considered here, initially, solely in its theoretical employment – the primary product of Kantian critique.

>>12179865
I agree, I understand other parts of Crypto-Current but the semiotic, sign, D&G stuff is over my head by at leats 2 standard deviations..

Where do I start with D&G?

AntiOedipus?
Thousand Plats?

Any individual essays outside of books?

[Anonymous No.12179876]

how french "ppl" argue
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1ChZ9NdJx0C

[Anonymous No.12179878]

>When they try to trick Nick Land, but he's just too smart

[Anonymous No.12179881]

> §2.322 — Critique sets limits. It also eliminates. That is why the critique of metaphysics has been found to be isomorphic with a socio-political project of subtraction, with an inclination towards anarchism. The promotion by Satoshi Nakamoto of a platform for peer-to-peer transactions independent of all oversight by “trusted third parties” is the continuation of critique into electronic networks. The same impulse is more widely recognized as ‘disintermediation’. It complies with the quintessentially modernistic project of immanentization. Transcendent ‘grounds’ of authority are identified, delimited, routed-around, obsolesced, and finally extirpated. Modernity, as the work of critique, produces formal flatness.

> §2.323 — Considered as a positive philosophical discovery, the transcendental coincides with the synthetic a priori. Like all great things in the domain of thought, this hybrid concept is quasi-paradoxical. It denotes a field of non-factual discovery – a genetic particularity of the universal – at once necessary but non-obvious, epitomized by the mathematical theorem. Synthetic a priori truths are secular revelations. Contingent in their acquisition, but then necessary in their preservation, they constitute the sole positive ratchet in the accumulation of knowledge, describing an asymmetry – or ‘arrow’ – proper to epistemology: a one-way, or unilateral, fatality. Such discoveries are arduously amassed, but then invulnerable to dissipation. They are in this way indispensable to the comprehension of historical time, and can be considered as products of unlimited application. The blockchain is exemplary. A cryptic, or radically non-obvious solution to a problem we will later explore attentively, it is – subsequent to its formalization – culturally indispensable. It ‘cannot be un-invented’. This is true to such an extent that it appears as an eternal mathematical fact, wholly impervious to the ravages of empirical fortuity. To de-realize the blockchain would be to unmake the universe (or at least, to collapse what is – transcendentally or inescapably – for us the universe). What is done transcendentally cannot be undone, without radical time-violation. The crypto-current permits no repudiation. The units of synthetic a priori knowledge production are laws, in the very strongest defensible sense of this term, in which their descent from, and simultaneous irreducibility to, any particular cases is insisted upon. This ratchet-structure makes the synthetic a priori – or some adequate analog – indispensable to any rigorous conceptual decompression of the notion of time.

This new (CC21) was great.

[Anonymous No.12179888]

> §2.34 — It is from irreversibility – of the one-way (or ‘trap-door’) crypto-function, the thermodynamic gradient, and ultimately of absolute time – that the reliable principle of analytic-synthetic distinction can be isolated. A mathematical proof is easier to confirm than to construct. Prime numbers are easily multiplied, but their product is time-consuming to factorize. Bitcoin blocks are easy to check, but hard to mine. In each case there is a distinction between analytical facility and (comparative) synthetic intractability. When cryptographically re-conceived, analysis and synthesis co-produce a ratchet. Adam Back (on Twitter) describes the mechanized contractual commitment that exploits this gradient as “computational irrevocability”. Like a carnivorous plant, it is easy to enter, but then difficult to escape. History is a Venus flytrap, self-abstracted beyond botany.

[Anonymous No.12179913]

>>12179876
Are you high or was this a comment on how continentals can only ever make an argument by invoking a hundred other thinkers?
>was expecting it to be a jumpscare but lol

[Anonymous No.12179916]

>>12179878
Dank

[Anonymous No.12179919]

>>12179876
French sounds hilarious. Germany sounds like someone whacking a skull to pieces with a rock.

Do we know how ancient Latin sounded?

[Anonymous No.12179926]

>>12179652
early onset boomerism

[Anonymous No.12179930]

>>12179926
> Boomerism
Define.

[Anonymous No.12179932]

>>12179878
based magnanimous chink overlords

[Anonymous No.12179935]

>>12179930
vegan condoms
https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1068580118770081793

[Anonymous No.12179943]

>>12179935
> Thanks for this Critique of Pure Boomerism boomer. In fact David Hume was the first boomer, as freely conceded by any boomer intellectual historian worth their salt.

lmao at the comment

[Anonymous No.12179946]

>>12179919
>Do we know how ancient Latin sounded?

Kind of, but Ancient Latin had many dialects and accents of which we are mostly in the dark. Spanish Latin did not sound like African Latin, and so on.

[Anonymous No.12179952]

>>12179303
Go to bed Nick.

[Anonymous No.12180021]

>>12179873
With D&G read the Eugene W. Holland companions to AntiOedipus & Thousand Plats alongside the books themselves.

The companions are quite short.

[Anonymous No.12180088]

>>12180021
Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.12180107]

>When resistance to materialization is a guild imperative, even the most sincere attempts to bring thought into compliance with the real process founder, through institutional necessity.

love him or hate him he fucking does Uncle Nick things that no other man alive can do

the lad is mad and ultrabased

[Anonymous No.12180145]

>§2.322 — Critique sets limits. It also eliminates. That is why the critique of metaphysics has been found to be isomorphic with a socio-political project of subtraction, with an inclination towards anarchism. The promotion by Satoshi Nakamoto of a platform for peer-to-peer transactions independent of all oversight by “trusted third parties” is the continuation of critique into electronic networks. The same impulse is more widely recognized as ‘disintermediation’. It complies with the quintessentially modernistic project of immanentization. Transcendent ‘grounds’ of authority are identified, delimited, routed-around, obsolesced, and finally extirpated. Modernity, as the work of critique, produces formal flatness.

Uncle Nick is my homeboy. i want this. i am completely ready to have the histories of transcendental philosophy, ultra-late (or ultra-early level-2) Marxism folded into a single story about technology, contingency and time. this feels to me like an entirely workable platform for re-starting a lot of interesting conversations: what if money has nothing to do with human beings? Uncle Nick brings the thunder every day. my cup runneth over

[Anonymous No.12180167]

>The blockchain is exemplary. A cryptic, or radically non-obvious solution to a problem we will later explore attentively, it is – subsequent to its formalization – culturally indispensable. It ‘cannot be un-invented’. This is true to such an extent that it appears as an eternal mathematical fact, wholly impervious to the ravages of empirical fortuity. To de-realize the blockchain would be to unmake the universe (or at least, to collapse what is – transcendentally or inescapably – for us the universe). What is done transcendentally cannot be undone, without radical time-violation. The crypto-current permits no repudiation. The units of synthetic a priori knowledge production are laws, in the very strongest defensible sense of this term, in which their descent from, and simultaneous irreducibility to, any particular cases is insisted upon. This ratchet-structure makes the synthetic a priori – or some adequate analog – indispensable to any rigorous conceptual decompression of the notion of time.

all that is necessary here is that we return to our senses, i think. that's all. give Kant his due and cease a lot of other silliness. this is really not such a bad thing. stop this ceaseless enfuckening of the mind

[Anonymous No.12180176]

Brainlets struggle with Land.

Now picture the average /lit/ pleb being memed into purchasing fanged noumena and opening up the book to a deluge of this stuff lol.

[Anonymous No.12180211]

>>12180176
can u explain to me what the OP means?

[Anonymous No.12180255]

>>12180176
>opening fanged noumena
that's not why people buy it

[Anonymous No.12180466]

>>12180176
this happened to me but when opening a pdf

[Anonymous No.12180475]

>>12179303
>diagonalization
my pseudy sense is tingling

[Anonymous No.12180944]

I didn't find this too difficult to read

[Anonymous No.12180957]

>>12180944
It would be easier if the sentences were structured with some style and attention to punctuation. He writes in veiled references. Might as well just make footnotes but that would probably undermine his pseud mystique.

[Anonymous No.12180961]

>>12180957
>>12180944
pls unpack it for me..
i have no brain, little brain, only not read D&G either..

[Anonymous No.12180990]

>>12179878
based nick low key admitting that china is a true fascist state and also the most succesful state in the world.

the future is fash

[Anonymous No.12180994]

>>12180957
>He writes in veiled references

That's part of what makes his writings so fun to be honest.

[Anonymous No.12180995]

>>12180990
kys desu

[Anonymous No.12180998]

>>12180990
>the most succesful state in the world
I thought NRx folks No. 1 state was Singapore?

[Anonymous No.12181010]

>>12180998

Different people will prefer different 'approximate templates'. It's a matter of preference.

[Anonymous No.12181015]

>>12180998
Singapore exists by the grace of China though. You're not a real state if you don't have plausible deterrent against agressors. For now, only states with nukes are real, the rest are vassals of some kind.

[Anonymous No.12181074]

>>12179303
very loosely:
He is talking about hylomorophism, which was what aristotle was into
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
rather than leave it there, it's picked up by d&g to make it squared, like kants square. instead there are forms, substances, expressions, and content, which can be reassembled along similar lines to kant. he then uses this formula to analyze dna (im no biologist so he might be off here, but to a layman it all looks kosher). he then uses the formula for money, money over codes, complicating the theory of signs, allowing a supplimentary semiotic layer to allow all signified to be overcoded by the signifer of price or exchange value. paper money in fact only signifies itself, based on confidence or monitary acceptability. since it is not a true signifier, when confidence erodes money literally becomes paper again (hyperinflation). this means devalorization results in a quantitative explosion of money (see: weimar republic mid crash)

[Anonymous No.12181085]

>>12180998
yes, but Nick also thinks Singapore is the definition of an IQ shredder and therefore works against capital in the long run

[Anonymous No.12181100]

>>12181085
why dont high iq people breed anyways?
what were high iq breed patterns 1000, 10000, 100000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.12181148]

>>12181100
IQ didn't exist thousands of years ago. I think it really has more to do with standards of living/modern liberalism. this is Land on IQ shredders (Singapore has a birthrate of 0.78)
>(1) Its level of civilization and social order is such that it is attractive to talented and competent people.
>(2) Its immigration policy is unapologetically selective (i.e. first-order eugenic).
>(3) It sustains an economic structure that is remarkably effective at extracting productive activity from all available adults.
>(4) It is efficiently specialized within a wider commercial network, to which it provides valuable goods and services, and from which it draws economic and demographic resources.
>In sum, it skims the human genetic stock, regionally and even globally, in large part due to the exceptional opportunity it provides for the conversion of bio-privileged human capital into economic value. From a strictly capitalistic perspective, genetic quality is comparatively wasted anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.12181169]

Breeding serves the genes at the expense of the individual, being intelligent and autonomous serves the individual at the expense of the genes. The individual carrier and the genes are often at odds, it's an unwarranted meme that these two are one and the same or even parallel.

Note how most the most wise and advanced, the least animalistic of people, have tended towards celibacy and asceticism. They have overcome being a slave to their programming and are no longer mere genetic copy machines. Meanwhile the poor and retarded have their 8th child while starving because they literally cannot help themselves, they are the slaves of their instincts. Procreation is a symptom of low intelligence and impulse control.

[Anonymous No.12181218]

>>12181148
so how is not breeding a correlating trait with high iq? its just odd!

[Anonymous No.12181243]

>>12181218
singaporeans (and the kind of people who are attracted to that place) are workaholics with no time for children

[Anonymous No.12181260]

>>12181085
At a scale which pales in comparison to liberalism/globohomo/feminism/welfare queening/独生子女政策
>>12181100
this is a dumb question
>>12181148
this a dumb answer
>>12181169
this a really dumb answer

[Anonymous No.12181274]

>>12181260
pls

eduxate..

[Anonymous No.12181303]

>>12181260
t. dadcuck

[Anonymous No.12181310]

>>12181100
http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/JEH2006.pdf
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Abernethy_Fertility2002.pdf
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/demography-and-fast-evolution.html
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Weiss,%20Volkmar.%20%22The%20Population%20Cycle%20Drives%20Human%20History%20_%20from%20a%20Eugenic%20Phase%20into%20a%20Dysgenic%20Phase%20and%20Eventual%20Collapse.%22%20The%20Journal%20of%20Social,%20Political%20and%20Economic%20Studies%2032%20(2007).pdf
>>12181218
Stop displaying your ignorance and maybe try read something.

[Anonymous No.12181335]

>>12181310
try reading* something.

[Anonymous No.12181336]

>>12180990
Land says that all developed countries are crypto-fascist, have been for a century or so, do a terrible job of hiding it, and that it's hilarious that so few realize it/anyone doubts it. He's using a -relatively- uncommon definition of fascism, of course.

[Anonymous No.12181347]

>>12181336
Got any blog links or something on the subject? Or could you elaborate on his definition?

[Anonymous No.12181370]

>>12181335

[Anonymous No.12181377]

>>12179303
Classical philosophy was relevant to everyday life. Could you say the same about this?

[Anonymous No.12181395]

>>12181377
considering its about, among other things, of money, what it is and money's possibilities it - if successful - can add something to that.

and thats everyday thing.

[Anonymous No.12181405]

>>12181347

[Anonymous No.12181418]

Nick Land actually wrote a good article detailing his understanding of fascism. It can be found here:

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/the-f-word/

In the end, it's a broadly economic take having to do with centralization. It reminds me of Mises a little.

[Anonymous No.12181424]

>>12181405

[Anonymous No.12181426]

>>12181424
good old ligma

[Anonymous No.12181433]

>>12181405
>>12181424
/ourguy/

[Anonymous No.12181435]

>>12181405
boomer = born in those massive post ww2 birthwaves
atleast i thought before i read this..

[Anonymous No.12181444]

>>12181418
I was just reading this, how is america any different than a fascism?

[Anonymous No.12181457]

>>12181435

[Anonymous No.12181459]

>>12181444
everyone in germany liked hitler for one

[Anonymous No.12181469]

>>12181459

And everyone in America liked FDR.

[Anonymous No.12181470]

>>12181459
What? Not even everyone in the Nazi party liked Hitler, that's why he killed off his political opponents during the night of the long knives.

[Anonymous No.12181478]

>>12181470
Well, more then O*ange

[Anonymous No.12181488]

>>12181444
you read it? the answer given in the article is clear: it isn't