/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15233028]

Is there any return to normality after reading Deleuze?

The whole shit with Dividuals makes me think that freedom from a totalitarian state is impossible now.

[Anonymous No.15233057]

>>15233028
Only way out is through. Schizophrenic breakthrough. Try not to have a breakdown.

[Anonymous No.15233071]

>>15233028
>freedom from a totalitarian state is impossible now.
You seriously needed some french poofsters weed diary desu to understand that?

[Anonymous No.15233094]

>>15233071
I am a language theorist, and I trought that the answer would be in language, them I learned that the state doesn't work on language anymore, but on numbers, and all our language is becoming defined by them - right now we are passing from a linguistical shift to a numerical shift, individuality will become impossible at this rate. We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine.

[Anonymous No.15233115]

I don't understand why you believe in human intellect this strongly. Everything dies. Totalitarian states are not exempt from entropy. I honestly think WW3 resetting the clock is far more likely than a totalitarian state that lasts forever.

[Anonymous No.15233127]

>>15233028
Read Baudrillard and realize that revolution is impossible, and that the totalitarian is as much a slave as its' subjects

[Anonymous No.15233137]

>>15233127
But do totalitarians read Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.15233148]

>>15233094
That shift already occurred, it's called the reign of quantity, and it's the Achilles' heel of contemporary civilization. Relax. Seeing only the quantifiable means you are blind to the un-quantifiable which will be the undoing of our civilization.

[Anonymous No.15233154]

>>15233137
I don't think they have time to read anything

[Anonymous No.15233163]

>>15233154
What's the purpose of being a slavemaster if it doesn't buy you free time?

[Anonymous No.15233167]

Does anyone else here think that individuals can be free, but mankind will always be enslaved?

[Anonymous No.15233168]

>>15233115
Here is the thing - the capitalist system became less of a prey to entropy (informational entropy) that is with the introduction of systems that utilize the language of big data - not even language in itself, but just numerical values. The main problem is that this sort of system once developed is evidently the most optimal one to maintain social order, and matters not what happens, wars, famines, plagues, it will go on.

>>15233127
Of course revolution is impossible - at least the events we used to know as revolutions, my preocuppation is that individual revolutions, that is, subjects whose conscious manages to escape from the system's grasp is becoming impossible.

>>15233148
Precisely what I was thinking - the only way for the individual to actually be an individual nowadays is trough crime. We managed to actually make individuality a crime.

Did we create a god? Is this all just a logician's wet dream?

[Anonymous No.15233182]

>>15233163
Ask the slavemasters, not me.

>>15233168
>that is, subjects whose conscious manages to escape from the system's grasp is becoming impossible

How possible was it in the first place? Any freedom any human accomplishes is only more chains. You can never truly be free, only freer than you were. I have the same issue with humanists and transhumanists. All the things that make humans human were never human in the first place. All the things that make you free only enchain you.

[Anonymous No.15233194]

>>15233028
just take into account that what he wrote was before the internet and mass culture of tv and social media.
after realizing that he will only appear to you as irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15233197]

>>15233182
But what about the undefinibles? The beings-at-moment? Is anonimity the key to freedom?

[Anonymous No.15233209]

>>15233197
I dunno man, I've always found those te be incredibly fleeting, and I always come back to the same place I was. I get what you mean above that transgression is one of the only freedoms left, but there is plenty of other ways to escape the system, but you'll never be truly free. Chains are necessary to be a human.

[Anonymous No.15233234]

>>15233168
> wars

Even nuclear war? Biological war? Have you read Cloud Atlas, and if you did, what struck you as implausible? Or if you don't like fiction, have you read this?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

The system we have is riddled with self-destructive incentives. And that's a good thing (tm).

[Anonymous No.15233238]

>>15233209
...Plenty of other ways? Honestly, at the moment I feel like that dude in that gnostic piece of art who's discovering another plane of existence, the problem being that it's not a place of gnostic wonder, but of crushing opression.

I can only constant and growing personal complexity as a way to combat a system as this one. Becoming not only undefinible, but ever-chaning.

[Anonymous No.15233260]

>>15233168
Logician's wet dream. Humans are driven by irrationality, which is why technocrats like Nick Bostrom think the only hope for civilization is turning the planet into a panopticon (look up his vulnerable world hypothesis). It won't happen. A million incentives all pulling into different directions are tearing the system apart.

[Anonymous No.15233267]

>>15233167
Mankind isn't real. Only you are.

[Anonymous No.15233305]

>>15233194
He was eerily prophetic into the nature of all those things...
>>15233238
Read Thundersqueak

[Anonymous No.15233309]

>>15233238
How exactly are you unfree?
I figured out what I wanted and got it, after cutting away everything I didn't want, but thought I had to have, Forget expectations, do what you want.

[Anonymous No.15233317]

>the system
>the state
>freedom
Imagine being defined this much by your social function lmao. Freedom is an internal state that has nothing to do with how you sell your body to the capitalist or your social relations.

[Anonymous No.15233332]

>>15233317
>Imagine being defined this much by your social function lmao. Freedom is an internal state that has nothing to do with how you sell your body to the capitalist or your social relations.

Your conceptualization of freedom is fundamentally determined by social realities. Your ability to have even learned the word freedom is socially determined.

[Anonymous No.15233348]

>>15233317
Look - if others aren't free, we, egos constructed trough social interactions go down the drain very easily. Without language there can be no communication, and without communication, no human interaction, being lonely and fed only info the state wants for the preservation of itself will be the erradication of the individual. They won't even need to burn books anymore, no one will understand them in the long run.

[Anonymous No.15233430]

Has the Absurdist's answer become the only one?

[Anonymous No.15233431]

>>15233332
>>15233348
Our engagement with the real world and the extent it shapes us and affects us is much less than you think. We participate in the reality at 10% and the 90% is our perception and subjective filtering of it according to our psychological constitution. One could be born in a utopian anarchist society but still be a diminished self and slave of his mom's desire

[Anonymous No.15233448]

>>15233431
There would still be a possibility for individuality. Imagine being born in a world where there's no other possibility than to be born under the desire of thy mother and you have a better grasp of the way we are going.

[Anonymous No.15233463]

>>15233430
I have yet to see one person online that has a textually valid interpretation of Aburdism. Not to mention Camus moves beyond his ideas of Aburdism fairly early in his career.

>>15233431
Where do you think you get your perceptions and subjective filterings from? They don't come from you.

>>15233448
There is no possibility for individuality. Any uniqueness an individual possesses exists external to their being by way mediation. You can subjectively experience things as an individual, but you (and everyone) lacks individuality.

[Anonymous No.15233486]

>>15233463
Ins't the proccess of thinking individualized after it's construction - ins't reading a book, an object of intellect constructed by others and then creating your own trough other configurations of learned knowledge what we came to know as individuality?

[Anonymous No.15233497]

>>15233486
Yeah, you're creating your individuality just like everyone else, and combining things that aren't you. There is nothing unique about the method or combination. Ergo, individuality fundamentally can't exist. Individuality is something that disappears by act of it's very appearance.

[Anonymous No.15233504]

>>15233497
I am following your logic, I just don't see how that is not individuality. Seems like more of a taxonomical problem than a real one. Is there a better term?

[Anonymous No.15233533]

>>15233504
I'm not doing the topic justice since I'm not sitting here writing out long boring paragraphs. If you're interested in these ideas, they come from the concepts of identity in poststructuralism. To make it short and simple, there is no part of our self that can be fully determined by us. True individuation as it has been posited before is impossible. At best, you can occupy an individuated role or position, but never claim to have a truly individual identity. Not to mention the issue of identity being determined by interactions with The Other with presents a whole other set of problems.

[Anonymous No.15233539]

https://speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/laruelles-essay-on-simondon-the-concept-of-a-first-technology/

[Anonymous No.15233556]

>>15233234
What are you saying? That article saying we can kill moloch is dumb. I ain't waiting on some supposed singularity...
>>15233533
Let go of your attachment... anatta brah
-buddha

[Anonymous No.15233557]

Totalitarianism doesn't mean anything. A society that tried to enforce egalitarian, emancipatory etc. values would end up being even more of a society of control than our current one.

[Anonymous No.15233558]

>>15233497
>There is nothing unique about the method or combination
doubt.png. Go read up on combinatorics. The space of combined objects grows very very fast with very few combined unique objects. This leads to unique low probability synthesis of objects because of the enormous search space of the fast growing functions found in combinatorics.

[Anonymous No.15233569]

>>15233028
>The whole shit with Dividuals makes me think that freedom from a totalitarian state is impossible now.

Why is this desirable

[Anonymous No.15233579]

The fascism in our souls is inescapable by our very nature willing ourselves onto reality. Even the OOO nerds are fascist in one way or another

[Anonymous No.15233597]

>>15233579
>Fascism in our souls
This is dumb. Fascism was invented in the 1900s - what was everyone doing before then?

[Anonymous No.15233598]

>>15233558
>combinatorics
Oh sick another faggot bugman trying to reduce humanity to mathematics. Feel free to read a book on philosophy while you're on /lit/ you fucking pseud.

>>15233579
which imo is why all these discussions get pointless real quick. Who gives a fuck if you're not an authentic individual who's being-in-the-world results in an assemblage of haeccities? You can literally use that fascism to do anything other than have a crywank.

[Anonymous No.15233612]

>>15233497
The investigation is simple: it suffices to
multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 x 10, a tedious operation that yields the figure of 3,628,8oo. If an almost infinitesimal particle of the universe is capable of such variety, we should lend little or no faith to any monotony in the cosmos. I have considered ten atoms; to obtain two grams of hydrogen, we would require more than a billion billion atoms. To
make the computation of the possible changes in this couple of grams-in other words, to multiply a billion billion by each one of the whole numbers that precedes it-is already an operation that far surpasses my human
patience.

Anyway, to use mathematics to define humanity led us to where we are. Let's try and stop that.

[Anonymous No.15233625]

>>15233598
>book on philosophy
lmao you have no idea what you're talking about
if you had actually read the literature on the philosophy of creativity, e.g. responses to boden's theories of combinational creativity, you'd know that it is not a reduction to mathematics, it's quite the opposite (it's close to an emergent/holistic theory)
the absolute arrogance to call people pseuds when you have no depth of scholarship on the issue
back to twitter you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.15233627]

>>15233597

Italofascism is just the most pure form of our inner fascistic urges - the worship of power itself without any surrogates as it pertains to the nature of the authority at hand. You could call pre-agricultural Kraterocracies fascistic too

[Anonymous No.15233651]

>>15233625
>Boden
She's a fucking psued too, Merleau-Ponty, fuck even Dreyfus had a greater impact on creativity, behavioral science, and an understanding of skill acquisition. Again, feel free to read a book that actually engages with the tradition of philosophy before attempting to talk about it. Not that you could actually understand any of it.

[Anonymous No.15233655]

>>15233627
I don't think premodern societies engaged in worship of power all that much really - it sounds like you're just using fascism as a term for "someone having authority over someone else, in a way I dislike".

[Anonymous No.15233672]

>>15233558
>combinatorics

You mentioned Boden, do you reccomend anything in particular?

Also, wouldn't creating personal (or at least communal languages of autochthonous origin) a way to defy the system? It rests on language, or a form of it, still.

>>15233651
Your comment came in as I was writing to the other anon, any reccomendation on the subject, then?

[Anonymous No.15233673]

>>15233655

Yes hunter-gatherer societies were famously egalitarian and non-hierarchial

[Anonymous No.15233710]

>>15233672
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLO1PGfOvgnmr85iKUhFetfpf9xG6U3LSG

Dreyfus also has published a significant amount of essays that tie into Merleau-Ponty's work. I'd recommend reading secondary lit on MP that's written by Dreyfus, then reading phenomenology of Perception by MP. That's the approach that was taken in grad-school when I was studying the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty.

[Anonymous No.15233717]

>>15233651
>She's a fucking psued too
You've never read her, and you've never read any of the responses to her by philosophers. If you actually had you'd know about Boden and Dreyfus communicated with each other over these issues.
>Dreyfus had a greater impact on creativity, behavioral science, and an understanding of skill acquisition
He did no such thing you absolutely worthless fucking faggot. Drefyus even had to write a second paper that his Heideggerian AI approach wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been. Good god you are an absolute fucking retard who has no engagement with scholarship. SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP COMMENTING ON SHIT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. Jesus fuck you are arrogant.

[Anonymous No.15233740]

>>15233717
Oh sick moves champ, just ignore all of Dreyfus' writings that engage with Merleau-Ponty. Fucking Heideggarian AI? Are you serious? Even Marc Guillame had better writing's on AI than that, which by the way, is fundamentally inapplicable to any of this thread other than your pseud posturing.
>a bloo bloo bloo he didn't like muh boden

[Anonymous No.15233754]

>>15233717
>SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP COMMENTING ON SHIT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT

[Anonymous No.15233768]

>>15233028

[Anonymous No.15233806]

>>15233740
>fundamentally inapplicable to any of this thread
The Boden issue is directly applicable to your claim about uniqueness of combinations. She's shown that combinatorial frameworks lead to enormous creative spaces that allow for individuality. It's got jackshit to do with your "reductive" counter and is way more phenomenological and holistic than you are letting on. That was the issue to which you irrelevantly threw your two cents in about Dreyfus who has jackshit to do with the specific issue of combinations.

You're just posturing mate. You can't even directly address the issue of combination without the ad hom about bugman that was your first post, and then throwing in some red herrings about irrelevant academics who have nothing to do to with the direct issue but are tangentially involved in a general sense. You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15233870]

>>15233768
what book is this

[Anonymous No.15233881]

To the guys arguing about creativity and combinatories, could you both formulate a post with your takes on the thing?

>>15233870
Search says it's Dark Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.15233973]

>>15233881
No. Because the other guy is the Heidegger poster. He's a fucking idiot that doesn't have any genuine intent to engage with people on the level of inquiry and dialogue. He's been here for years and he's always inside the AI, philosophy of mind, and continental/analytic shitposts. He's easy to spot. Usually it's giant posts whining about analytics or some part of philosophy (he's a germanboo so he's also always complaining about the french and the anglos). Most of his arguments are exemplars of the above irrelevance, ad homs, and trying to out argue people by dropping names rather than engaging the issue itself. It's impossible to talk to the guy. Anyone that has spoken to him over the years will know what I'm talking about. He's like a dumb brickwall that constantly throws tantrums and the only way to really deal with him is to give it back to him and call him a faggot because there is no hope of dialogue with a guy like this. Like, how do you talk to a guy whose opening criticism is "ur a bugman" and then tries to posture with UH PERSON YOU MENTIONED NOT GOOD HERE A GOODER PERSON (who doesn't relate to the specific issue). He thinks he is doing philosophy, but it is close to something like how /mu/tants argue over albums. Why would I do this?

If you're the guy that asked for more stuff on Boden for the specific issue of combinational creativity, then look up the essay on creativity by Boden in the Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. It covers her theories in a brief way and you can look up the references at the end. Also check the Oxford published anthology "The Philosophy of Creativity" which directly covers creativity and individuality and includes an essay by Boden.

[Anonymous No.15234028]

>>15233973
Yeah, It was me, OP. I've been accompanning the thread, and to be honest, it has been a fruitful one. I've been taking a trip down the Deleuzian rabbit hole, and well... I will have to come up with a theory of mine own, at least one that's correspondant with the reality of my own country and self. I will be checking the reccomendations on Creativity, and thank you for them.

I don't believe a revolution is possible in the current state of the world, but... hope springs eternal, and while people think, it will still.