/Nick Land/ - thread

[Anonymous No.17896252]

Redpill me on Nick Land. I only have read Nietzsche and I don't know what Nick's philosophy is about.

Can someone explain it to me?

[Anonymous No.17896260]

>>17896252
there's already a land thread you m/faggot.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896277]

Tldr, take Kenneth grant/Bertiaux’s aesthetics and apply them to baudrillard and deleuze’s views and throw in some Bataille. Tell me if you know about any of these, if not in a little bit I’ll make a long post explaining land’s model.

[Anonymous No.17896288]

>>17896277
No I know Deleuze was a post modernist or something, but I've only read Nietzsche and some thing or to about german idealism

[Anonymous No.17896292]

>>17896277
not him but make the long post anyway

[Anonymous No.17896422]

>>17896252
Unfathomably based. I can’t wait until the era of humanity ends.

[Anonymous No.17896459]

>>17896252
forces and abstractions like leftism and capitalism are sentient or some shit, also race realism

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896546]

Rip, made a long post but it got deleted, will re-write.

Nick land has written on a variety of topics so I will post concerning the major points of his popularity.

The major one is his belief that techno-capital is an ai demon from the future which has traveled to the past in order to create itself. Which yes is very larpy but is still bound within his general views.

He takes from baudrillard the view concerning simulacra, that we have created a system of symbols in economic and social life which have no relationship to material reality but because of their existence in our perception, they are as real to us as anything physical is. Example; a clothing brand with a big name will be valued more highly, not because of any material aspect of quality but simply because there is a network of other brands and products which imply different things about a persons social and economic standing. Further more society creates these constructs and as long as you live within society you must act in the belief that these things are real. Example the color red doesn’t mean stop yet you will, while driving, stop when you see the red light or a stop sign.


He then takes from deleuze two major components, first, the idea that desire is a kind of active propelling force which pushes us to do things and that by doing them, our identity is developed and changed, capital having mastered production of new desires and feeding into old desires exploits this; it is as such a point where technology-capital itself manipulates and moves our desires and society so much that it has become the active mover and shaper of what society is and ought to do instead of man himself, as man is utterly fixated on what is best for the market and every social change is dependent on the new technology causing rapid changes to culture. However this is “cancerous” because the only thing techno-capital produces is more desire to consume, thus it creates itself the more it feeds into itself. Meaning it has taken control of human culture and has forced us to just create more of itself. “Capturing history/earth”

This is conjoint with the second aspect he takes from deleuze, the view that integrating so much data and being so exploited forces our identities to change and mix and match too rapidly, forcing us to lose all valves and controls on desire, thus we become “schizophrenic” with no static control over the identity. We, like the various products, are mixed and matched in order to pull the most desire out of us. This results in societal decay; breaking down of social relationships and more and more complex relativistic systems of personality, morality, and so forth all of which exist simply to push capital further.

Cont

[Anonymous No.17896570]

>>17896252
Cringe. accfag give up

[Anonymous No.17896582]

>>17896546
>The major one is his belief that techno-capital is an ai demon from the future which has traveled to the past in order to create itself
What are his arguments for that

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896599]

>>17896546
To go further, he believes these aspects have melded, our identities being dislodged, being based on false capital desire production and so many simulacra that it has become impossible to have any genuine individuality, and man, now becoming reactive, it has become technology/capital that is the sole definer of meaning and purpose. Thus, to land, they have dislodged us as the primary subject of history meaning we only have two options, use technology to fundamentally change us on a genetic level and continue our integration into the system until there’s no difference between us and it, or simply becoming obsolete and being slowly made unneeded in comparison to the intellect of the capital system itself. Thus he is “post-human” for either what is known as human will become so changed by our dialectic with humanity that it shall be unrecognizable to current man, or we will simply become obsolete completely.

Now he mixes these ideas with the aesthetics and occultism of Kenneth grant and Bertiaux, which is also filled with similar analysis of symbolic networks but believes the usage of fiction can allow you a greater view of self, perception, and influence over others, and the bel it that fiction is the greatest way of producing and spreading this symbol network, thus the creation of what amounts to forced-memes by land, this is further re-inforced by his reading of Bataille, in which the meaning of life and its affirmation is in the understanding of its meaninglessness and then injecting your own libidinal, creative and destructive force into reality itself, thus the only way he sees man can live and still have some matter of spiritual well-being without being fully absorbed into the system, is to integrate and ADAPT to the capital system, affirming it as an aspect of your life and using it to your advantage as a means of full embrace of freedom and an opportunity to radically expand your conscious and the range of your phenomena perception. Even if they are illusions, they are real enough to perception. Thus manipulating and using these same illusions can make your own identity become even more free. As such he has integrated the fiction of many, lovecraft, Burroughs and others as an expression of his internal personality and a means of expressing freedom, since fiction is precisely a marriage of these capital forces with the freedom and inner Will of Man. This is ultimately the desire of land, fusion with technology while advancing man into a kind of ubermensch-bound-to-illusions.

[Anonymous No.17896609]

>>17896546
Not him but thanks, that was suprisingly substantial, a rare thing to occur on this board. Hope you're having a great day.

[Anonymous No.17896610]

>>17896582
don't know but i came to almost exactly the same conclusion without ever having read Land or his influences. that's why, despite being more left than he is nowadays, i nonetheless consider him to be the most important living thinker today

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896619]

>>17896582
He doesn’t have true arguments for it beyond what I posted above because of my second post, in which aesthetics and fiction are a means to achieve freedom and bliss and assert libidinal force. The vast majority of nick land is an aesthetic larp, this is clear from a basic reading of fanged noumena, or a deeper reading of the CCRU stuff or his book The Thirst for Annihilation. (Which he develops the idea even further, as bataile defines the erotic as identical with death but also paradoxically bound with sex and thus life, this meaning that the Hegelian dialectic with technology occurring, which will destroy man, is actually the most libidinal, phallic and creative thing that man could possibly undertake.)

But again, much of land is just his aesthetic production/larp, which he gets from grant and Bertiaux. You could get all of the major ideas of land and in a much more clear and concise way from just reading baudrillard, though it isn’t as aesthetically pleasing nor as edgy.

[Anonymous No.17896620]

>>17896546
>>17896599

i own fanged noumena. what piece should i read first?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896626]

>>17896609
Not a problem, I try to make substantial post in most threads, I’d post more but I’ve been rather busy.

>>17896610
Eh much the same but again you can pull the vast majority of all of this from just reading some baudrillard, it won’t be as aesthetic but it’s the same nuts and bolts.

[Anonymous No.17896632]

>>17896619
>>17896599
>>17896546
thank you based anon.

also,>>17896619
>You could get all of the major ideas of land and in a much more clear and concise way from just reading baudrillard
i agree with this. i think debord, baudrillard and land are the only ones that had a clue what we're heading towards (nietzsche too but he lived to early to truly grasp it)

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896645]

>>17896620
It’s written like a “rhizome” meaning he doesn’t really intend you to read it in any particular way, even so, the pieces were written in different points in his thought, so his earlier stuff will come off substantially more leftist, feminist and so forth, whereas his later work will abandon this pretty much utterly for the above reason until the point he embraces “hyper racism” which is the belief that genetic engineering and technology augmentations will produce a clear divide in human stocks akin to caste systems and create a racial divide larger than any eugenics program could have ever produced, and this will rapidly increase the power and speed of techno-capital but also produce permanent pseudo caste systems. So the guy’s thought is very much in flux, I would suggest just reading from the beginning and understand the dudes thought develops and changes throughout and isn’t cumulative. This is why he says he went from leftist but from developing his thought he necessarily had to move from left to right wing.

[Anonymous No.17896725]

>>17896619
>He doesn’t have true arguments for it beyond what I posted above because of my second post, in which aesthetics and fiction are a means to achieve freedom and bliss and assert libidinal force.
Why is there not a single serious attempt to do some epistemologcial inquiry a la Kants Kritischer Idealismus of technology? but instead there are jsut a bunch of pseudo timid analyses with no proper assesment except for some aesthetic or other LARP: Walter Benjamin, Heidegger, Ellul, Jünger, Baudrillard, etc.
The only semi acceptable approach I found was Deleuze and Guattari, but then it was far too abstract and french.
I want a neo-kantian approach to technology.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17896750]

>>17896725
>Why is there not a single serious attempt to do some epistemologcial inquiry a la Kants Kritischer Idealismus of technology?

We’re very obsessed with technology and serious dry philosophy doesn’t become popular. My favorite living philosophers are Edward zalta and Nicholas rescher but you’ll never hear them discussed here, nor Will meinong nor Nicholai hartmann or any of the other very serious non-aesthetic philosophers. People like this simply can’t become popular in our modern day, people prefer their Heidegger’s and their intellectual larp. Not to say I dislike Heidegger I just find him less substantial in comparison to Nicholai hartmann and Husserl relative to their popularity.


>The only semi acceptable approach I found was Deleuze and Guattari, but then it was far too abstract and french.

I honestly believe deleuze wasn’t an aesthetic larper but was just vomiting on the page his internal thought process, which yes, a hoard of people imitated for aesthetic reasons. I find he’s not as difficult as people make him out to be if they just bite the bullet and read some secondary material prior/during.


>I want a neo-kantian approach to technology

Honestly, I’ve seen some of the most analytical and clear cut analysis of technology from corporate philosophy, stuff bankrolled and based on their systemized ontologies, they’re not talked about here but they’re literally designed to have no aesthetic aspect and simply help develop the business model of their particular corporation. Look into corporate analysis of this stuff and you’ll find some chunks. I’d shill some names but I honestly do not remember their names.

[Anonymous No.17896835]

>>17896750
>the most analytical and clear cut analysis of technology from corporate philosophy, stuff bankrolled and based on their systemized ontologies
I had a brief interest in a STS (science technology studies) but visiting some of their seminars and ending up living with someone studying it I found it to be a msot anti-philosophical and american approach to the issues at hand.
>(have no aesthetic aspect and simply help develop the business model of their particular corporation.)
There is no way anyone interested in understanding the issues discussed would want to engage with the mindset that the people in these fields have, since understanding the issue becomes secondary to utilizing, preventing, augmenting, etc. the issue for economic purposes.
So, yeah, they are better than most aesthetic approaches to technology, but they fall short in erudition and philosophical insight (IMO).
>We’re very obsessed with technology and serious dry philosophy doesn’t become popular. M
sure. But I wouldn't say it is impossible. The bigger issue to me seems that the philosophy institutions jsut plainly ignore technology outside of their cozy sociological and psychologcial approaches. It is very rare to find seminars (at least in EU) specifically on technology that do not focus on
>the ethics of technology in medicine
which usualyl jsut ends up reading about dull dilemas doctors might be confronted with. (or AI driving, etc.).
But when there is a faculty that has at least one aspect dedicated to technology all you see is Benjamin and Heidegger (and some modern readings on their takes).
Its very underwhelming.

For a while people ehre shilled Skrbina's "Metaphysics of Technology" but that was an incredibly shallow and academic essay tier approach to the issue.

[Anonymous No.17896873]

>>17896546
I admit I am not the most well versed person on Baudrillard, but as far as I know Land does not have much to do with him. He takes more from Deleuze and Cybernetics, which is where the idea that time is going backwards (things are created from the future) comes from.

[Anonymous No.17896883]

>>17896835
ugh I only see 'ethics of technology/science/ai' PhDs in europe it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.17896900]

>>17896277
>Kenneth grant/Bertiaux
hmmm
Can you please explain me like what was pic related aiming at?

[Anonymous No.17896914]

>>17896873
By this I mean, there are no simulacra in Land's theory. It is much more related to Lyotard's Libidinal Economy where he explicitly criticises Baudrillard's symbolic exchange.

[Anonymous No.17896940]

>>17896546
Why is the AI demon doing this to us? I submit to the basilisk. please stop the suffering

[Anonymous No.17897044]

These ideas make me uncomfortable. I want to read more but I don't want to become a schizophrenic who is detached from society. I just want to fit in. But these ideas are compelling to me. I'm going to kill myself.

[Anonymous No.17897073]

>>17897044
Same

[Anonymous No.17897076]

>>17897044
Based

[Anonymous No.17897511]

>>17896632
>calling a tripfag, the anathema of 'anon', a "based anon"
yeah this board is reddit I'm done

[Anonymous No.17897554]

>>17897511
Good bye and good luck

[Anonymous No.17897633]

>>17896873
>>17896914
My take on this: Baudrillard is to Land what Stirner is to Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17898094]

>>17896546
>>17896252
How does Nick Land reconcile with the fact that we have limited resources and we can't be making increasingly complex systems? Not only oil and natural gas but also precious metals which are used in phones and computers.

[Anonymous No.17898098]

>>17897633
Yes no

[Anonymous No.17898102]

>>17896277
Please don't

[Anonymous No.17898109]

>>17896546
Retarded tripfag

[Anonymous No.17898114]

>>17898094
>with the fact that we have limited resources and we can't be making increasingly complex systems
kek once all resources on earth have been dug out, manufactured in factories and consumed we will instantly fall into communism. ;)
That's communism 101. Guess why chinks wont stop top miningall their mountians in Tibet.

[Anonymous No.17898232]

>>17897044
If you understand Land properly, it shouldn't make you a schizo at all.

It might make it hard for you to take "politics" seriously, which would alienate you from circles in which high status involves being serious about politics.

But it should make it easy not to get mad about anything, which should then make it easy to not sperg out. Read Land in secret, and it'll make you a happy normie.

[Anonymous No.17898257]

>>17898098
que? did you mean to say yeah no?

[Anonymous No.17898270]

>>17898232
>It might make it hard for you to take "politics" seriously,

can confirm. I'm on the left but after familiarizing myself with Land, every time I hear a leftist make a case for something, I can't help but think that they look at all this from such an outdated perspective and don't realize that none of what they're trying to achieve will have the desired outcome, if it can even get off the ground

[Anonymous No.17898296]

>>17898094
He has a text (Lure of the Void) where he says we should continue to develop space travel and space inhabitation technologies, with the goal to one day be able to destroy Earth and mine all the resources it has inside. Planets are a limit that should be overcome.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17898328]

edgy pinker

[Anonymous No.17898511]

Infinite growth with finite resources is impossible

[Anonymous No.17898526]

>>17896546
I knew you would ruin it.
>The major one is his belief that techno-capital is an ai demon from the future which has traveled to the past in order to create itself
Thats not true. In Land's philosophy there is no thing as "traveling from future to past", since time itself is treated from a non-kantian perspective.
Its just all so tiresome. Please, kids, don't believe what retards on internet say; just pick a book and read it slowly or just don't read at all and keep playing videogames and masturbating.

[Anonymous No.17898582]

>>17898526
At least explain your positon of disagreement with an effort post. Otherwise you're a faggot.
>don't believe what retards on internet say
Yes Land is the retard on the internet.

[Anonymous No.17898623]

>>17897044
>>17898232
>>17898270
Just adding my agreement to this. Land will probably upend your view of political discourse.

[Anonymous No.17898627]

>>17898526
accfag youre such a fucking retard it's sad.

[Anonymous No.17898700]

>>17898582
>yes Land is the retard on the internet.
Thats true, but most of what people discuss about Land was written before he became a brainrotten golem.

>>17898627
I'm not an accelerationist, I just think that propagating false information deliberatedly. and trying to convince people that what you say is true, is disgusting and nocive for young people.
Also, acc is retarded because nature's acceleration isn't affected by human or capital agency (neither by human + capital agency).

[Anonymous No.17898712]

>>17898700
>nature's acceleration isn't affected by human or capital agency (neither by human + capital agency).
Then what?

[Anonymous No.17898713]

>>17898700
>double zero
>>17898627
>Sysgy


It begins...

[Anonymous No.17898715]

Based Nicky Landy literally killed God.

"I wiped the blade against my jeans and walked into the bar. It was mid-afternoon, very hot and still. The bar was deserted. I ordered a whiskey. The barman looked at the blood and asked:

‘God?’

‘Yeah.’

‘S’pose it’s time someone finished that hypocritical little punk, always bragging about his old man’s power…’

He smiled crookedly, insinuatingly, a slight nausea shuddered through me. I replied weakly:

‘It was kind of sick, he didn’t fight back or anything, just kept trying to touch me and shit, like one of those dogs that try to fuck your leg. Something in me snapped, the whingeing had ground me down too low. I really hated that sanctimonious little creep.’

‘So you snuffed him?’

‘Yeah, I’ve killed him, knifed the life out of him, once I started I got frenzied, it was an ecstasy, I never knew I could hate so much.’

I felt very calm, slightly light-headed. The whisky tasted good, vaporizing in my throat. We were silent for a few moments. The barman looked at me levelly, the edge of his eyes twitching slightly with anxiety:

There’ll be trouble though, don’tcha think?’

‘I don’t give a shit, the threats are all used up, I just don’t give a shit.’

‘You know what they say about his old man? Ruthless bastard they say. Cruel…’

‘I just hope I’ve hurt him, if he even exists.’

‘Woulden wanna cross him merself,’ he muttered.

I wanted to say ‘yeah, well that’s where we differ’, but the energy for it wasn’t there. The fan rotated languidly, casting spidery shadows across the room. We sat in silence a little longer. The barman broke first:

‘So God’s dead?’

‘If that’s who he was. That fucking kid lied all the time. I just hope it’s true this time.’

The barman worked at one of his teeth with his tongue, uneasily:

‘It’s kindova big crime though, isn’t it? You know how it is, when one of the cops goes down and everything’s dropped ’til they find the guy who did it. I mean, you’re not just breaking a law, your breaking LAW.’

I scraped my finger along my jeans, and suspended it over the bar, so that a thick clot of blood fell down into my whisky, and dissolved. I smiled:

‘Maybe it’s a big crime,’ I mused vaguely ‘but maybe it’s nothing at all…’ ‘…and we have killed him’ writes Nietzsche, but—destituted of community—I crave a little time with him on my own.

In perfect communion I lick the dagger foamed with God’s blood."

[Anonymous No.17898731]

>>17898715
Is he the ugliest man?

[Anonymous No.17898733]

>>17898700
Yeah accfag doesn't post in acc threads.

[Anonymous No.17899337]

>>17898731
No.

[Anonymous No.17899399]

>>17897044
As a kid I used to be afraid of the same, when thinking about reading skeptics or solipsist or even thinking about it. If anything, it was the opposite. The fears you have don't materialize if you engage with them, but more likely if you try and avoid them. For a lighter example, I've only been able to put some stupid topics to think about to sleep after I've gotten to the bottom of them and not by forcing myself to not think about them.

[Anonymous No.17899485]

>>17899337
But he killed god?

[Anonymous No.17899587]

>>17896288
It's good to have read nietz when entering bataille and Deleuze, further i would advice you to read freud and marx.

So my reading list is

Marx on the production and extraction of surplus value in Das Kapital
Marx's introduction to grundrisse
Freud's beyond the pleasure principle, Totem and taboo and civilization and its discontents.
Freud's cases
Bataille's essays Solar Anus, notion of expenditure and Sacred conspiracy.
Bataille's Accursed Share
Deleuze and Guattari's Anti Oedipus
Land's Fanged Noumena

[Anonymous No.17899609]

>>17899587
the essays are from visions of excess

[Anonymous No.17899694]

>>17899587
many of these texts are short so you will feel well accomplished easily and get lots of dopamine in your brain - only the last three are long

[Anonymous No.17899728]

>>17896725
Check out Bernard Stiegler

[Anonymous No.17900118]

>>17899728
Why?

[Anonymous No.17900175]

>>17896599
Great and Concise write up. Thanks bro

[Anonymous No.17900243]

>>17900175
It has a lot of bullshit and misreadings, just telling you.

[Anonymous No.17900444]

>>17899728
No idea why the other anon dropped a random “Why”, but
> Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus
looks incredibly interesting. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.17900540]

>>17896277
>Grant

Not even Nick is that autistic

[Anonymous No.17901563]

b

[Anonymous No.17901622]

>>17896599
good overview. thank you anon

[Anonymous No.17901699]

>>17896252
No idea what a "nae nae" is

[Anonymous No.17901946]

>>17896252
Marxism minus humanism.

[Anonymous No.17901953]

[Anonymous No.17901954]

>>17901946
>t. :B

[Anonymous No.17902445]

>>17896940
Blame Martin Luther/Descartes/The Enlightenment/Voltaire/Aristotle/Satan