Accelerates Your Poetics

[Anonymous No.15263263]

>From Gutenberg onwards, the tendency of innovative poetics has been one of deterritorialization. A persistent dethroning of Western/Eurocentric cultural ideals (the white, male genius; the canon; the author, then authenticity in general), a horizontalization of the hierarchical structures embedded in the highly coded deployment of inherited forms, metrical regimentation, the use of particular registers of language, etc., and a general destratification of writing practices and methods of reading lie behind the seminal literary upheavals of the last few centuries, rapidly intensifying in the late twentieth century with the advent of writing’s photography: the rise of the Web.43 Broadly speaking (although literature has rightly been accused of a recalcitrance unattributable to other cultural domains) this trajectory has progressed unhindered, championed by the iconoclasts of each successive generation.44 So why hesitate now? Is it not utterly disingenuous to revoke the destructive licence of poetic innovation at the very moment it begins to threaten our own sense of productive agency and all those convenient ‘mythemes of human creative sovereignty’ that we have, in their softer versions, happily institutionalized as its history?45 Perhaps we are not so much ‘haunted by the lost not yet of the future that modernism had trained us to expect yet neglected to deliver’, as we are unable to credit the unfolding of a future that simply is not ours.46 Which is the revolutionary path? To avow the subject and repress the process? Or to avow the process and destroy the subject? Doom does not even bother making it sound like a choice: ‘Whatever people (Left and Right) want to say about acceleration, they better hurry up and say it. Because accelerationism is starting to speak for itself.’47 Put another way, ‘poetry is invasion and not expression’.48

[Anonymous No.15263371]

>>15263263
would rape. that should put some sense into her.

[Anonymous No.15263449]

>>15263263
>deterritorialization

[Anonymous No.15263471]

>>15263449
problem anon?

[Anonymous No.15263480]

>>15263471
yeah

[Anonymous No.15263505]

>>15263471
you mean problememenon?

[Anonymous No.15263528]

>>15263480
what is it anon? you can tell us

[Anonymous No.15263534]

>>15263263
Why the fuck do these wannabe philosophers always pull out the thesaurus when what they want to say can always be expressed in simpler terms
I'm not even a minimalist, but come the fuck on

[Anonymous No.15263541]

>>15263505
tranny got owned

[Anonymous No.15263564]

>>15263534
try refuting it. you probably aven't read a single work of accelerationist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15263606]

>>15263371
take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15263878]

>>15263263
I have liked what I've read of Nick, Mark & Robin but Amy always filters me.
What am I missing bros?

[Anonymous No.15263916]

>>15263263
Omfray Utenberggay onwardsyay, ethay endencytay ofyay innovativeyay oeticspay ashay eenbay oneyay ofyay eterritorializationday. Ayay ersistentpay ethroningday ofyay Esternway/Eurocentricyay ulturalcay idealsyay (ethay itewhay, alemay eniusgay; ethay anoncay; ethay authoryay, enthay authenticityyay inyay eneralgay), ayay orizontalizationhay ofyay ethay ierarchicalhay ucturesstray embeddedyay inyay ethay ighlyhay odedcay eploymentday ofyay inheritedyay ormsfay, etricalmay egimentationray, ethay useyay ofyay articularpay egistersray ofyay anguagelay, etcyay., andyay ayay eneralgay estratificationday ofyay itingwray acticespray andyay ethodsmay ofyay eadingray ielay ehindbay ethay eminalsay iterarylay upheavalsyay ofyay ethay astlay ewfay enturiescay, apidlyray intensifyingyay inyay ethay atelay entiethtway enturycay ithway ethay adventyay ofyay itingwray’say otographyphay: ethay iseray ofyay ethay Ebway. Oadlybray eakingspay (althoughyay iteraturelay ashay ightlyray eenbay accusedyay ofyay ayay ecalcitranceray unattributableyay otay otheryay ulturalcay omainsday) isthay ajectorytray ashay ogressedpray unhinderedyay, ampionedchay ybay ethay iconoclastsyay ofyay eachyay uccessivesay enerationgay. Osay ywhay esitatehay ownay? Isyay ityay otnay utterlyyay isingenuousday otay evokeray ethay estructiveday icencelay ofyay oeticpay innovationyay atyay ethay eryvay omentmay ityay eginsbay otay eatenthray ouryay ownyay ensesay ofyay oductivepray agencyyay andyay allyay osethay onvenientcay ‘ythemesmay ofyay umanhay eativecray overeigntysay’ atthay eway avehay, inyay eirthay oftersay ersionsvay, appilyhay institutionalizedyay asyay itsyay istoryhay? Erhapspay eway areyay otnay osay uchmay ‘auntedhay ybay ethay ostlay otnay yetay ofyay ethay uturefay atthay odernismmay adhay ainedtray usyay otay expectyay yetay eglectednay otay eliverday’, asyay eway areyay unableyay otay editcray ethay unfoldingyay ofyay ayay uturefay atthay implysay isyay otnay oursyay Ichwhay isyay ethay evolutionaryray athpay? Otay avowyay ethay ubjectsay andyay epressray ethay ocesspray? Oryay otay avowyay ethay ocesspray andyay estroyday ethay ubjectsay? Oomday oesday otnay evenyay otherbay akingmay ityay oundsay ikelay ayay oicechay: ‘Ateverwhay eoplepay (Eftlay andyay Ightray) antway otay aysay aboutyay accelerationyay, eythay etterbay urryhay upyay andyay aysay ityay. Ecausebay accelerationismyay isyay artingstay otay eakspay orfay itselfyay. Utpay anotheryay ayway, ‘oetrypay isyay invasionyay andyay otnay expressionyay’.

>>15263564
Try addressing the above refutation of the OP, all of which was written in pig latin. What's the matter? Can't read it?

[Anonymous No.15264010]

>the history of poetry is the history of dissolution of an existing stock of forms of norms

Uhh, no. Even if that were true, whence the forms and norms in the first place? You know, interesting critical theory, even theory that agrees in the main with the presuppositions of this hack author, often explains such things by a dialectic rather than a "FORM BAD BUT THEN FORM DISSOLVE" linear teleology.

This is just a slurry of crit theory 101 ideas, which have apparently become so diluted even this one-note undergraduate essay writing retard can regurgitate them. This isn't even worth reading, it's more like fanfiction than aesthetics or criticism. The whole thing could have been said in two sentences. The underlying metaphysics of history ("process progressively frees up possibilities on a plane of immanence!") is unjustified and simply presumes the (potential) activity of such a plane. It's Wikipedian Deleuze fanfiction. Gay shit.

[Anonymous No.15264193]

>>15264010
to be fair, she literally says "the real shape of novelty is not linear"

[Anonymous No.15264200]

>>15263916
based

[Anonymous No.15264269]

>>15264010
seething. this revolutioniticizes avant-poetics.

[Anonymous No.15264927]

accelerate

[Anonymous No.15265504]

>>15263449
The Chad deterritorialitizationist
The Virgin traditionalist

[Anonymous No.15265601]

>>15264927
Is "accelerate" the new "dilate?"

>>15265504
Chad what I like, Virgin what you like

[Anonymous No.15265611]

>>15265601
no arguments. gtfo anti-acc fag.

[Anonymous No.15265652]

>>15264193
That's because her conception of novelty is just the emergence of "genuine" alterity from the plane of immanence, where genuineness is equated with undecidedness by any previous moment of the plane (i.e. of Spirit). This is not only derivative of Deleuze and Guattari, it reproduces their same problem of justifying why this is interesting or at all preferable to a dialectically determinate alterity. The answer is of course that Deleuze and Guattari, and this hack bricoleur by extension, are not justifying their preference philosophically and conceptually, by defining it abstractly. They are importing a vague metaphoric/symbolic complex, usually by negative implication ("we want what isn't all Hegelian and determinate, therefore we want 'in'-determinacy," i.e. obviously an insufficient positive definition of determinacy), to describe the whole goal and metaphysical nature of their system/cosmology. They presume this complex and its emotional and cultural associations ("idealism bad, conceptual determinacy is tyrannical!") at a metaphoric level, that is at the level of analogical (not logical/conceptual) thinking, and hope to fudge the results with a lot of showy play with related metaphors.

But this isn't philosophy, it's poetics. Philosophy is conceptual, poetics is merely suggestive of the concept. This is ironically and unwittingly a useful indictment of the "lmao free up poiesis to be endlessly autopoieic!" pseudo-philosophy of the hack broad in the OP, it shows how unphilosophical it is by failing to be philosophical in its attempt to argue for a philosophy. The only solution to the problem is to raise the underlying, confused, conflicting and merely potential conceptual content of the OP's derivative soup of half-formed ideas to conceptual clarity, i.e. to make it conceptually determinate. This is the problem with Deleuze and Guattari, but I wouldn't dignify the talentless shyster in the OP by even calling her an epigone of Deleuze and Guattari.

>>15264269
If you're genuinely interested in what you vaguely sorta have a kind of half-hunch about what you think the OP's garbage quote represents, then continue to pursue it by going beyond her derivative kitschified version and reading it at the sources she's shamelessly and incompetently tapping. At least then you'll be learning something. Or keep reading this sub-philosophical filth and remain white noise yourself.

In the first case you will become capable of understanding and discussing philosophy. In the second case you will dabble for a few more months or years and then give up on it. Either way the problem solves itself.

[Anonymous No.15266348]

>>15263371
based. the only reason these creatures are xenofemishits and dykes is that they haven't been subjected to violent sexual domination by a male.

[Anonymous No.15266813]

>>15263263
Deleuze and Land aren't cool anymore, your retarded dissertation sucks. Should have engaged Kittler or post-phenomenology instead.

[Anonymous No.15267076]

sometimes the whole body feels like a hand. Girls have only 4 fingers

[Anonymous No.15267328]

>>15265652
refute it or post better analysis of our current poetics.

[Anonymous No.15267362]

>>15263263
>>From Gutenberg onwards, the tendency of innovative poetics has been one of deterritorialization. A persistent dethroning of Western/Eurocentric cultural ideals (the white, male genius; the canon; the author, then authenticity in general)

not really, this is just a 21st century fad