New Nick Land essay on Jacobin - #3

[Anonymous No.9670089]

Titled " Modernity’s Fertility Problem." It's less formal than his previous pieces and is the first time I've seen him tackle the queer issue.
http://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/20/modernitys-fertility-problem/

[Anonymous No.9670092]

He tackled your posting?

[Anonymous No.9670142]

Jacobin and Jacobite are very different magazines.

[Anonymous No.9670159]

>>9670089
First sentence

>The techno-commercial wing of the neoreactionary blogosphere has an obvious fondness for Pacific Rim city states.

Can anyone extrapolate something useful off this sentence or is it just scribbling?

[Anonymous No.9670172]

>>9670159

Moldbug creeps dig Singapore.

[Anonymous No.9670261]

>>9670159
The sentence couldn't be much more straightforward.

[Anonymous No.9670321]

>>9670092
Underrated

[Anonymous No.9670360]

>>9670261
i doubt all of the words he used are even in the dictionary

[Anonymous No.9670365]

>>9670360
Did a child write this?

[Anonymous No.9670375]

>>9670159
You're not going to make it, anon.

[Anonymous No.9670392]

>At the demographic level, modernity selects systematically against modern populations. The people it prefers, it consumes. Without gross exaggeration, this endogenous tendency can be seen as an existential risk to the modern world.

The IQ shredder idea is interesting as fuck desu. By that logic, will populations that actively engage in a sort of intelligence dysgenics such as Muslim society ultimately become the norm because they don't end up tfw too intelligent to breed in the long run?

Could it be that civilisation ultimately is a more sustainable enterprise with a solid average 85 IQ? Are dimwitted people the future?

[Anonymous No.9670948]

>>9670159
it's one of his more straight forward writings lately.

[Anonymous No.9670952]

is he alright?

[Anonymous No.9670967]

>>9670089
>tackle the queer issue
testing that antifragility i see

[Anonymous No.9671667]

>>9670142
I fuck it up every time.

[Anonymous No.9671683]

>>9670159
Is that sentence hard for you to understand or something?

[Anonymous No.9671692]

>>9670392
No, the strategy by Land is to liquidate humanity before the smart people are used up.

[Anonymous No.9671698]

>>9671692
damn

[Anonymous No.9671702]

>>9670159
not scribbling

[Anonymous No.9671711]

>>9671698
If you're not familiar with his writings, his endgoal is basically to accelerate capital so the singularity comes and AI eventually replaces us.

[Anonymous No.9671712]

How does the Flynn-effect fit into the IQ shredder hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.9671722]

>>9671712
I've heard that the Flynn effect is basically bullshit but I don't have the sources on me right now.

[Anonymous No.9671723]

>>9670159
easy peasy

[Anonymous No.9671728]

>>9671712
"IQ shredder" means the people (i.e., their fertility) is being shredded, not IQ.

[Anonymous No.9671838]

>>9671728
Yes but if the high IQ people are getting shredded wouldn't that mean a lowering of average IQ throughout the world?

Or is this IQ shredder effect recent enough to not have had that effect yet?

[Anonymous No.9672041]

>>9671728
Land takes the position that IQ is hereditary.

I think that's mostly bullshit though, seems fairly clear it is a cultural effect of education and income, which of course is tied to racial divisions.

But the IQ Shredder he is talking about isn't just a 'White Problem'. As immigrants move to the city and normalize their culture within it, moving up the socio-economic ladder, they'll suffer the same effect. Having children in the city is an economic cost, unlike having children in an agrarian society where each child makes the family more prosperous.

Seems silly to stop at IQ though. Modern Cities are race shredders, religion shredders, culture shredders. Anything ethnic, local, or culturally specific is chewed up inside a city, slowly transformed into it's cosmopolitan whole.

Land seemed to get this in Meltdown: "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future." As a intermediary step, you might say 'Nothing folk makes it out of the City'.

From my pseudo-leftist position, I see this Shredding as a good thing. Modernity tends towards a mono-culture, eliminating the violent effects of religious and ethnic difference. If the Left-Accelerationist crowd is serious about an end of 'Folk Politics' then I think they have to embrace inter-racial, inter-culture, inter-gender mixing and recombination. Of course this will be violent. There will be riots and terrorism and all of those outbursts. But what other path forward is there to reconciling 'irrational' difference among humans?

[Anonymous No.9672057]

>>9672041
there was recently a paper that went around all the tech forums (probably not /g/ tho since they're just a collective of pc technicians working on building their latest gaming rig) that talked about how when males have children later in life the children have higher iq, so the way urban life forces people to wait to have kids actually improves the iq of the population, so all the whining about dysgenic effects of capitalism "irresponsible poor people keep popping out kids while the bourgeois have one or two if at all" well it turns out that the one or two they have end up with higher iq and as their parents are later in life they have more economic and cultural resources to invest in the kid thus resulting an even higher level of human potential, seems like the easiest way to amass a following on the internet is to be a pseudo-academic doomsayer

[Anonymous No.9672058]

Not sure this is the best place to ask this, but is the Unconditional Acceleration #Rhettwitter fascination with Aleksander Dugin a serious thing or are they just memeing? Is Dugin just a crack-post political mystic or is there something worthwhile in his thought as it relates to Accelerationism?

[Anonymous No.9672077]

>>9671838
That depends on what percentile is being "shredded". If it's the far end of a long tail then average IQ could very well be rising anyway.

>>9671711
Capital is *already* accelerating according to him. And Land's notion of "machinic desire" can be interpreted AI as *already* replacing us. It is not a question of when, but how fast. And he doesn't make a fine delineation between capital and AI either. It's like a process that slowly melds into the another. The "singularity" folks are missing the point. They're the flying car crowd. By defining the singularity as some "event" they miss it happening, like missing the novelty of commerialized airlines, driverless cars, and drones while still expecting flying cars. Which among those is more capital and intelligence intensive after all?

>>9670392
>ISIS are negentropic and might save the human race
It just might be the case.

[Anonymous No.9672083]

>>9672058
Dugin is an attempt by Russia to come up with some kind of ideology to fill the void left by Marxism. I read some of the "The Fourth Political Theory" or whatever. It was shit. It read like a talk given by Zizek. Basically, pointless "observations" with random name droppings mixed in. Seriously, read it. It's not good.

[Anonymous No.9672116]

>>9672057
Yeah, I caught that headline.

I don't think Nick Land's point is totally off base here though. How many children are these older high IQ men actually having? Are they even replacing 2 children per couple?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
There is a pretty clear negative trend between GDP (which I'm assuming will also correlate with education levels and IQ). You might raise a smarter child if you have better schools, more money, a good job, a stable western capitalist market, but you won't have many of those children.

I'm not at all concerned with the 'white genocide' aspect of this problem, rather if the goal of Neoliberal Capitalism is for 'a rising tide to raise all ships', then where do the children of the future come from? Under the Neoliberal dream where all countries achieve western levels of education and economic prosperity, who actually has time and money to raise 3+ children? Let alone the 5, 6, 7, etc children that were so common to pre-industrial era of agrarian farming.

My cynical answer to this is that the Neoliberal Dream of 'a rising tide raising all ships' is just fundamentally impossible. Capitalism has no intention of creating stable western capitalist living conditions across the globe. It needs the impovershed country side and 3rd world nations to feed upon. It needs the immigrants and their giant families, to work the rice and coffee plantations, it needs those workers to toil in clothing sweatshops 16 hours a day. Without the exploitation of the 3rd world, the western late-capitalist model of living is just unsustainable. Cities consume much more than they produce.

[Anonymous No.9672164]

>how could movements of deterritorialization and processes of deterritorialization not be relative, always connected, caught up in one another? the orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on that image. the wasp is nevertheless deterritorialized, becoming a piece in the orchid's reproductive apparatus. but it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen. wasp and orchid, as heterogenous elements, form a rhizome.

>it could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp, reproducing its image in a signifying fashion (mimesis, mimicry, lure, etc). but this is true only on the level of the strata - a parallelism between two strata such that a plant organization on one imitates an animal organization on the other. at the same time, something else entirely is going on: not imitation at all but a capture of code, surplus value of code, an increase in valence, a veritable becoming, a becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the wasp.

>each of these becomings brings about the deterritorialization of one term and the deterritorialization of the other; the two becomings interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the deterritorialization ever further. there is neither imitation nor resemblance, only an exploding of two heterogenous series on the line of flight composed by a common rhizome that can no longer be attributed to or subjugated by anything signifying

Thread got me interested in the idea of airlines and airports like orchids and wasps (not quite the same, of course, but Land does things to D&G).

[Anonymous No.9672167]

>>9672058
dugin feels like a rephrasing of russian imperialist thought.

[Anonymous No.9672204]

>>9672116
Children won't be grown in women in the future, and if they're not, the last link to the biological family disappears.

It's a common, obvious sci-fi scenario: once you get artificial wombs, the state gets a monopoly on the production of people. They'll be raised artificially and educated as atomized individuals without family ties. There will be government regulation of population to keep replacement.

[Anonymous No.9672243]

I wonder if the reason Land reduces everything to immanence is because the method of consumption of bodies that capitalism undertakes in order to occupy the point of view of the other means that the future AI will be an amalgamation of everything that we have lost. Our displaced future will be transformed into an embryonic cthulu-like being of pure primordial potentiality. Deleuzanism abstracts away from that and renders it sterile through metaphor. Land re-purposes D&G into horror but stops right before declaring it, because he doesn't posit the transcendent, instead relegating it to the theory-fiction part of his oeuvre. In the back of our minds, it's "just" a literary device. Cannibal metaphysics makes it real. The question of what drove the Amerindians to take care of their captives then ritually kill and eat (sound familiar?) them cannot just be mere social convention, but motivated by an underlying difference in metaphysical perspective.

[Anonymous No.9672281]

>>9672243
Cannibal Metaphysics is a good book. I hope he finishes Anti-Narcissus someday. The Carnosphere is a rather dark version of the Mechanosphere. The infinite creativity of Deleuze can get negated by a Cormac McCarthy view of things. Or others.

>Then I realized part of their cunning. They would never be willing to change their stand, and their plans were all laid; they had stigmatized me as a madman. In future when I was eaten, not only would there be no trouble, but people would probably be grateful to them. When our tenant spoke of the villagers eating a bad character, it was exactly the same device. This is their old trick.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lu-xun/1918/04/x01.htm

[Anonymous No.9672289]

>>9672204
>tfw even this is an incredibly optimistic scenario and we will more than likely get mass surrogacy where developing world wombs are invaded through the process of an economic transaction

[Anonymous No.9672308]

>>9672281
The real irony is that one kind of cannibalism was traded for another. Cannibalism is conserved. At least in filial cannibalism, one isn't consumed alone. And ofc in romantic cannibalism, the process is undertaken with ecstasy.

[Anonymous No.9672314]

>>9672204
>Children won't be grown in women in the future, and if they're not, the last link to the biological family disappears.

Is this much different than the current trend of getting surrogate mothers from china and india? I don't mean to downplay the technology of artificial wombs, it will revolutionize things, but I don't know that it changes things as radically as it might seem.

For starters, you still need people to care for a child, unless we've got Artificial Parents in the form of Robot AI, then I think the situation remains the same. It is an economic burden to have children, the physical burden of a baby in your womb is only one part of that economic burden in the form of 9 months pregnancy and some maternity/paternity leave. The big cost is 20+ years of food, healthcare, clothes, entertainment, education and all of the time spent procuring these things for your child.

I think State-run Baby Farms complete with either robot parents or civil servant 'caretakers' employed by the government is pretty fucking fantastic, Distant science fiction at best. It is soooooo much cheaper to just 'import' illegal immigrants and their big families to work the tomato fields. I just don't yet see the economic incentive to switch to artificial wombs, unless those 3rd world labor pools dry up.

The ethics are nicer, you avoid exploitation of the 3rd world, for admittedly dubious ethics of industrial scale artificial womb farms, but financially it's just an out of control 'solution'.

[Anonymous No.9672331]

>>9672308
I do hope that the next iteration of Peterson will not be required to ask us to, along with sorting ourselves out, using speech properly and cleaning our rooms, also kindly stop devouring human flesh, be it our own or that which belongs to others. Beyond a certain horizon the bloom really does start to come off the rose on the schizophrenic cannibalization of the sun and all that it shines upon.

Of course we will be devoured by memes before that happens. Which of course was hinted at by the Matrix. What else could they possibly have been sustaining themselves on in those pink gelatin baths? It's better not to ask.

[Anonymous No.9672383]

>>9672331
He would rather ask us to devour the flesh of Christ. Rather than continuing the cycle of cannibalism we merely need to feast on his flesh and blood. Cannibalism is conserved.

[Anonymous No.9672417]

>>9672308
*Cannibalism* and Schizophrenia would be a book worth reading. I wonder if that ever crossed our man's mind for a title.

>>9672383
Pic related &c. Of course it can be. But atheism in this mode is 2 edgy 4 me.

Cannibalism is conserved. But wouldn't even Georges Bataille say that mere conservation ultimately falls short of the mark? The problem is either that there are too many cannibals or too many mediocre and guilt-ridden cannibals *in denial.* Much as Nietzsche would have understood, I guess.

Even Hannibal Lecter at least had enough of a sense of style to attract Anthony Hopkins.

[Anonymous No.9672505]

>>9670089
Is it really that big of a deal to have a population decline? Even if high-IQ people are disproportionately affected, we will probably be able to counteract the effect with embryo selection before too long. As it is, most advanced capitalist countries are overpopulated and could stand for a reduction in population density - the problem is that doing so will make it impossible to pay for elder care.

[Anonymous No.9672541]

So, in a nutshell, Nick Land is trying to tell everyone that the Matrix movies were a warning?

[Anonymous No.9672557]

>>9672541
Nick and the Wachowskis tapped into the same underground veins that others before them had tapped into as well. This was a nice shout-out in that film.

[Anonymous No.9672563]

>>9672417
Cannibalism is very relevant to schizophrenia. After all, to consume another's body is to inhabit their point of view. Never mind about "minds", because their perspective is a function of their body. It's very different (and Wark points this out) to Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction. So the friend is defined by shared enemies and vice versa. Therefore eliminating the enemy leads to the uncertainty regarding the status of one's friends, potentially renewing conflict. Thus the raison d'etre of liberal democracy.

As tempting as it is to eliminate this framework where mutually irreconcilable perspectives are forced into war by eliminating the enemy once and for all, it only eliminates the enemy while resulting in ontological uncertainty. So in this unstable system we are tempted either by genocide or by liberal democracy. Choose one! Total destruction followed by self destruction or protracted cold war and entropic aesthetic deterioration (democratic "politics" is very unstylish).

But cannibalism closes the circle. The enemy is subsumed into one's body. The contradiction between friend and enemy is absorbed. Cannibalism is the final form of government. Too bad "cannibalism" already defines the "act of cannibalism". But maybe the mere act of cannibalism sates the need for government.

Land turns away from this "horror", with Exit as the solution. I can't blame him. It's nice in Shanghai.

[Anonymous No.9672575]

>>9672541
>>9672541
its more that the work of nick land chimes with millenials who watched the matrix when they were young and impressionable. thus "redpilled" memes and other such faggotry.

[Anonymous No.9672579]

>>9672557
>This was a nice shout-out in that film.
>Simulations and Simulacra.jpg

Yeah, I have to disagree, it was not a nice shout out. The Matrix has confused most readers on the topic of simulation by associating it with a materialist, VR, computer apparatus. Baudrillard's Simulacra is not dependent on digital technology, Plato's Cave is 'virtual enough'. The Brain (specifically it's capabilities for Consciousness and (mis)perception) are the fundamental technology that is required.

The Matrix has mystified the problem by associating it with technological singularities. Simulation (and also accelerationism for other reasons) are not a matter of flying cars or asking 'when does capital achieve intelligence'. No bother waiting for the moment of singularity when it was already passed.
>>9672077
>like missing the novelty of commerialized airlines, driverless cars, and drones while still expecting flying cars.

This anon gets it, but I'd make the metaphor more extreme. It's like waiting for fully immersive VR suits and sexbots while Pornography has already existed for centuries.

[Anonymous No.9672599]

>>9672541
Nick Land is trying to tell everyone that Agent Smith is awesome and that we should pave the way for him.

[Anonymous No.9672601]

>>9672575
You type like a fucking idiot, my man.

[Anonymous No.9672609]

>>9672563
>After all, to consume another's body is to inhabit their point of view. Never mind about "minds", because their perspective is a function of their body.
Yes, but the body has biological needs and the mind has psychological ones. There is consumption, there is appropriation, there is mimesis. The friend/enemy distinction happens only *after* the mimetic process plays all the way through to its third act. There's an inherent logic in simulation that is triangular rather than bipolar and unfolds in time. By the time that There Can Only Be One that's true...but there's always a precedent for this injunction. So crisis-politics and so on basically exist in a topsy-turvy world that, for what it's worth, I think is maintained through ill-understood paranoia.

Schmitt can't be argued with because if we begin from a position of emergency powers and sovereignty then absolutism and absolute distinctions are where we absolutely end up. And begin from.

>Choose one! Total destruction followed by self destruction or protracted cold war and entropic aesthetic deterioration (democratic "politics" is very unstylish).
This is why *tragedy* actually serves a civilizational function, I would say. See the shit on stage before it happens in reality, maybe. In theory this can and should be a task for cinema...

Anyways, that's all the memefagging I'll do in this thread. If I want to talk about the boy I'll make a separate thread for it. Let's stay with Land stuff.
>he said to himself, as if everyone else wasn't already perfectly aware of this
>and so on and so on *sniff*

>But cannibalism closes the circle. The enemy is subsumed into one's body. The contradiction between friend and enemy is absorbed. Cannibalism is the final form of government. Too bad "cannibalism" already defines the "act of cannibalism". But maybe the mere act of cannibalism sates the need for government.
Probably. Harsh lesson tho. Would be nice if we didn't always have to learn these things the hard way.

>Land turns away from this "horror", with Exit as the solution. I can't blame him. It's nice in Shanghai.
Yeah.

>>9672579
>The Matrix has mystified the problem by associating it with technological singularities. Simulation (and also accelerationism for other reasons) are not a matter of flying cars or asking 'when does capital achieve intelligence'. No bother waiting for the moment of singularity when it was already passed.
True.

>>9672599
I've thought about this too. There's left-cyberpunk with the heroes as neurotic outsiders and right-cyberpunk where the heroes are fighting terrorists. Motoko Kusanagi is Agent Smith with a conscience.

[Anonymous No.9672933]

There's a lot of good discussion on his blog's comment section about this piece.
http://www.xenosystems.net/jacobite-3/#comments
I especially like this:
>If radically decoded Internet identity is the extrapolation of the norms of urban existence,
Wouldn’t that imply fighting the cities is yesterday’s battle? Sure, the cities are still hotbeds of these norms.
But seeing how communication, meeting up, association, especially by the younger generations, is mediated by applications on the Internet, the norms of the global city are spreading without heed to geography.

>The new “Maoist” slogan would be “Burn the Internet to the ground”. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.9672962]

>>9671722
Well, it's already been proven that the flynn effect has augmented only those elements of intelligence which are least correlated with G.

[Anonymous No.9672972]

>>9672962
g is intelligence. If something isn't correlated with g it isn't intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9672981]

>>9672041
>I think that's mostly bullshit though, seems fairly clear it is a cultural effect of education and income, which of course is tied to racial divisions.
Seems to be precisely the opposite. The average iq of Kentucky is around 98, whereas the average black iq is in the 80s. Studies show that black iq and proportion of white blood are strongly correlated.
There has been no black Wordsworth or Joyce.

I hope you're right, but nothing points that way.
>nything ethnic, local, or culturally specific is chewed up inside a city
It's chewed up everywhere. We've lost our American culture and now the foreign hordes are losing their cultures. That's how it works when there's no tradition whatever.

[Anonymous No.9672986]

>>9672972
As I understand, g is just the most important factor in iq measurement.

[Anonymous No.9672993]

>>9672986
g is what people intuit to be intelligence

[Anonymous No.9673025]

>>9672981
>Seems to be precisely the opposite. The average iq of Kentucky is around 98, whereas the average black iq is in the 80s. Studies show that black iq and proportion of white blood are strongly correlated.

Let me put it another way, does Race, as genetic difference, mean anything other than historical, socio-economic division? Genetic diversity only comes through separation of populations over time and space, through historical, socio-economic conditions.In my mind, 'Black' is not a matter of skin tone, but several thousand years of economic, cultural separation.

>>9672981
>We've lost our American culture and now the foreign hordes are losing their cultures. That's how it works when there's no tradition whatever.

This is the kind of logic that comes out of the eth-nat and HBD sphere that I really just can't stand. What 'American Culture'? Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures. There is nothing makes America a civilization and the foreigner's just a 'horde'.

If there are genetic distinctions in IQ, that should be an alarming fact for the ethnonationalists, not a consoling one. It means that IQ is merely an evolutionary phenomenon, that cultures can gain and lose intelligence at the genetic level through mere accident of picking the wrong mate or the dna recombination process, which we don't control. If anything it means that IQ is an accidental effect of a chaotic process.

I'd expect the eth-nat crowd to want something more mythic and immutable to explain their superiority. Esoteric Hitlerism and all of that nonsense at least posists that the Hyperboreans are a distinct superior species from the Semite, who are alien, inhuman invaders. There's an ethnic ideology that you can really hold onto! No chance that fucking the wrong woman dooms your race!

And regardless whether American Culture exists or not, fuck it. Tradition is a crutch. The way forward, whether left or right, is to digest all culture and racial distinction. Mulatto, pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture here we come.

[Anonymous No.9673030]

>>9672986
IQ is the best measurement we have of g, which is general intelligence, or sum intelligence, or what is colloquially known as intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9673032]

>>9670159
Try to sound it out.

[Anonymous No.9673033]

>>9673025
the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over

[Anonymous No.9673036]

>>9673025
>all
>pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture
That's literally never happening outside of American and Europe though, you know where Land lives, china, is currently in the process of violently kicking out all non-Chinese cultural influences.

[Anonymous No.9673039]

>>9672933
>Wouldn’t that imply fighting the cities is yesterday’s battle?

Ruin would be a scary optional bonus boss in Accelerationist JRPG-land. The city wakes up...

[Anonymous No.9673041]

>>9670159
if means fags who are into hero worshipping technology entrepreneurs like elon musk or jeff bezos also like semi-authoritarian oriental business centers like singapore and hongkong

[Anonymous No.9673051]

>>9673025
>Let me put it another way, does Race, as genetic difference, mean anything other than historical, socio-economic division? Genetic diversity only comes through separation of populations over time and space, through historical, socio-economic conditions.In my mind, 'Black' is not a matter of skin tone, but several thousand years of economic, cultural separation.
And the physical difference remains, the cause is irrelevant.
>This is the kind of logic that comes out of the eth-nat and HBD sphere that I really just can't stand. What 'American Culture'? Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures. There is nothing makes America a civilization and the foreigner's just a 'horde'.
Then you must know better than Hawthorne, Henry James, HL Mencken, and all the rest. Sorry to break it to you, but your'e wrong.
>Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures
As opposed to the clusterfuck that was Britain's beginning? Or that of any other country? Nation's and cultures emerge form clusterfucks. Your melting pot platitudes don't change that.
Abe Lincoln is culturally more American than a chinaman fresh of the boat can ever be. Only a moron with no sense of history could believe otherwise.
>I'd expect the eth-nat crowd to want something more mythic and immutable to explain their superiority. Esoteric Hitlerism and all of that nonsense at least posists that the Hyperboreans are a distinct superior species from the Semite, who are alien, inhuman invaders. There's an ethnic ideology that you can really hold onto! No chance that fucking the wrong woman dooms your race!

>And regardless whether American Culture exists or not, fuck it. Tradition is a crutch. The way forward, whether left or right, is to digest all culture and racial distinction. Mulatto, pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture here we come.
Great, It's a shame that those idea of yours were only possible in the context of Western culture and traditions.

And I don't know where you get the moronic idea that I'm an eth nat. As I said, I hope you're right and it's a shame that nearly everything points the opposite way.

[Anonymous No.9673075]

>>9673033
>>9673033
>the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over
From the point of view of the dutchmen who lived there, they may have. But their descendants, like teddy roosevelt, probably recognized that this was no longer a set of colonies but a nation

[Anonymous No.9673095]

>>9673051
>And the physical difference remains, the cause is irrelevant.
If the physical difference is an evolutionary one, and not some mythological one like the Nazi's believed, it is immensely important. It means that the race can and will change. Nothing remains fixed, yesterday's races and tomorrows races are always going to be different. This should undermine all of ethnic nationalism, notions of purity and superiority. If a race has the potential to 'degenerate' in what way can it claim superiority?

>As opposed to the clusterfuck that was Britain's beginning? Or that of any other country? Nation's and cultures emerge form clusterfucks. Your melting pot platitudes don't change that.
>Abe Lincoln is culturally more American than a chinaman fresh of the boat can ever be. Only a moron with no sense of history could believe otherwise.
I feel this is proving my point, not refuting it. That 'chinaman' is going to get digested by 'American Culture' and effectively change it. The Clusterfuck is a competition that perpetually mutates a culture into something new. Abe Lincoln would not be an 'American' today, he'd be a confused asshole with no sense of the contemporary sense of 'being American'. Just like the Chinaman of your example, he would also have the chance to get chewed up, to be reformed and reform the culture too

>Great, It's a shame that those idea of yours were only possible in the context of Western culture and traditions.
This is why speaking of 'cultural traditions' is a mistake. Whatever Plato thought of his ideas, we think something else. A tradition implies stability, immutability. We have nothing of that sort, especially at today's speeds of exchange.

>And I don't know where you get the moronic idea that I'm an eth nat.
Excuse the assumption, I assume you must have some sense of national/ethnic allegiance in order to make a Civilization/Barbaric Hordes distinction.

[Anonymous No.9673104]

>>9673033
>the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over

You see this in the colonial context. When the empires lost control of the colonies, there were all sorts of ethnic divisions.

I live in Missouri, in the Flint Hills there are still people who consider themselves French and refuse to pay taxes or participate in the census. They consider the US government to be 'The British Empire'. Actual France has long since forgotten about them, but I remember it was a big deal when the French Ambassador was in Kansas City. Some of the 'Frenchmen' from the Flint Hills came to see him, much to his confusion.

[Anonymous No.9673105]

>>9673095
>If the physical difference is an evolutionary one, and not some mythological one like the Nazi's believed, it is immensely important. It means that the race can and will change. Nothing remains fixed, yesterday's races and tomorrows races are always going to be different. This should undermine all of ethnic nationalism, notions of purity and superiority. If a race has the potential to 'degenerate' in what way can it claim superiority?
What the fuck are you on about? It would take centuries to effect a desired change in a race, even with positive eugenics programs. Unless some sort of technological solution occurs, there's no reason to suppose that anything will change.
> That 'chinaman' is going to get digested by 'American Culture' and effectively change it
I see. So I only need to send an Arab to Japan and he himself is Japanese. Ingenius.
>This is why speaking of 'cultural traditions' is a mistake. Whatever Plato thought of his ideas, we think something else
Tradition does not imply perfection, merely continuity.
>A tradition implies stability, immutabilit
Not in that sense.
>Excuse the assumption, I assume you must have some sense of national/ethnic allegiance in order to make a Civilization/Barbaric Hordes distinction.
I never said anything about barbarians, but I will say you're a moron tbqh

[Anonymous No.9673144]

>>9673105
>What the fuck are you on about? It would take centuries to effect a desired change in a race, even with positive eugenics programs. Unless some sort of technological solution occurs, there's no reason to suppose that anything will change.
Every new baby is change, ever so gradual, and we take zero efforts to control that. Race is changing every day, with no sense of purposeful direction. If you wanted race to not change, you'd need a program in place. You do not need a eugenics program to change races, on the other hand.
>>9673105
>I see. So I only need to send an Arab to Japan and he himself is Japanese. Ingenius.
Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese. Isn't this how the American was invented? That only took roughly 200 years of Colonial history to invent before America was a nation. Send Nigerians to Jamaica and they become Nigerians. There is nothing permanent or universal about such categories, they are surprisingly easy to change, even with pre-industrial rates of speed and exchange. Why shouldn't we expect faster rates of racial/national mutation in the present and especially the future?
>>9673105
>I never said anything about barbarians, but I will say you're a moron tbqh
Ah, well I'm glad you love the foreigners and don't consider them barbarians! In the future you might avoid a distinction like 'American Culture and Foreign Hordes', it implies you see a fundamental difference between civilized and barbaric cultures. You might read some post-colonial theory so you can avoid such systemically racist jargon in the future!

[Anonymous No.9673150]

>>9673144
>Send Nigerians to Jamaica and they become Nigerians.
whoops, I meant 'they become Jamaicans', lol

[Anonymous No.9673174]

>>9673144
>Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese.

Only by making the concept 'Japanese' no longer means anything at all. If Japan is entirely composed of Arabs who have made the island of Japan into Arabia 2.0, then what? Then there is no Japan.

>You might read some post-colonial theory so you can avoid such systemically racist jargon in the future!

This whole post reads like some kind of diabolical plot from /pol/ to redpill /lit/ through sheer ludicrousness.

[Anonymous No.9673214]

>>9673144
>Every new baby is change, ever so gradual, and we take zero efforts to control that. Race is changing every day, with no sense of purposeful direction. If you wanted race to not change, you'd need a program in place. You do not need a eugenics program to change races, on the other hand.
You cannot just spew general propositions and pretend that you have said something about concrete circumstances. Yes, the races are changing. And for that matter, so is nearly everything. But are they changing in a way that is relevant at all to our discussion? No, they are not. imagine if, 500 years ago, someone like you had said "There's no reason to think that the Africans are different! Races are always changing!"
If that man had lived to 100, he would have seen no change whatever in the relative positions of the races. And, having told his great grandson to be alert for change, he would have died without having seen any. And then his grandson would live to 100 without noticing any change, and so on down to the present time.

According to you, we shouldn't build permanent building for fear of being too short for them in a century.
>>9673144
>Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese
Yes, by assimilating to the general culture. What is your point? Send enough Arabs and there is no longer any meaning to the term japanese culture.
> Isn't this how the American was invented?
A culture was created here despite diversity, not because of it.
>. There is nothing permanent or universal about such categories, they are surprisingly easy to change
Why is this cheap skepticism the first resort of everyone with your goals?
> In the future you might avoid a distinction like 'American Culture and Foreign Hordes', it implies you see a fundamental difference between civilized and barbaric cultures.
In the future you might invest in a dictionary

[Anonymous No.9673245]

>>9673174
>Only by making the concept 'Japanese' no longer means anything at all. If Japan is entirely composed of Arabs who have made the island of Japan into Arabia 2.0, then what? Then there is no Japan.

You say that like it's a bad thing, it's just History. Everyone came from somewhere else and probably displaced whoever was already there. Tomorrow's America will not resemble Today's America which does not resemble Abe Lincoln's America which does not resemble Cortez's America which does not resemble Moctezuma's Mexico, which wasn't even called America or even Mexico.

The idiocy of Ethno-nationalism and all other sorts of identitarian protectionism is thinking you can stop the sun from rising. Why would tomorrow's America look like today's? Why would tomorrow's 'White Race' look like today's?

Any sense of identity rooted in tradition or origin can't last. After all, American's don't consider themselves Anglo-Saxons and certainly not Saxons proper and certainly not Anglorums of Roman decent. The British come from 'germanic' Saxons, though long before a 'Germany' every existed.

These cultural changes happened on extremely short time scales, in anthropological terms. Homo Sapien is only 250,000 years old and the majority of today's European 'national identities' aren't even 500 years old.

Schism and mutation is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.9673291]

>>9673214
>No, they are not. imagine if, 500 years ago, someone like you had said "There's no reason to think that the Africans are different! Races are always changing!"

You mistake my argument. I would say 'There is reason to think Africans are different! How could it be otherwise, and how will they not be different than yesterday or tomorrow's Africans? Will the category African even mean anything in a long enough time scale?"

My point is mutability of anything that is genetically determined. These arguments should equally apply to notions of gender and species. Millions of years ago, there was no sexual difference, just asexual creatures reproducing asexually. Even sexual difference is not a universal truth, just a historical and likely temporary distinction.

Anything determined by genetics, especially since the rise of sexual reproduction and 'intentional genetic recombination' (as opposed to accidental mutation) is determined by a specific place, a specific time, and will never be the same.

To construct eternal philosophies based on such mutating substrate is silly. The point of Accelerationist philosophy should be to start thinking philosophically beyond temporary notions of race, gender, nation, as these thing will not remain static.

This is why genetics can't be a basis for ethnic philosophy, the principle of genetic change fundamentally annihilates any sense of ethnic allegiance. If you want ethnic philosophies of nationalism or supremacy, you need mythologies of divine providence, eternal immutability.

[Anonymous No.9673292]

>>9673245
It's not about race, it's about culture. Well-meaning leftists lack an insufficient appreciation for what is already different. It lacks respect for a natural difference that doesn't harm anyone and only makes the world picture richer for it.

>You say that like it's a bad thing, it's just History.
Isn't Derrida supposed to teach you something about putting capital letters on concepts like this?

>Any sense of identity rooted in tradition or origin can't last.
Yeah, that whole Egyptian dynastic civilization really was a flash in the pan, wasn't it. Or Chinese dynasties. Or European ones.

>Homo Sapien is only 250,000 years old and the majority of today's European 'national identities' aren't even 500 years old.
Except that nobody identifies as Homo Sapiens but they do identify as Poles, Argentinians, Indians and so on.

>Schism and mutation is inevitable.
Almost as inevitable as failure to understand Chesterton's fence.

It's not about *race,* it's about *culture.* Not everyone who doesn't want to see everything assimilated into the same is a racist. For the same reason lower prices at Wal-Mart aren't worth the loss of a hundred artisans.

If you don't want to see more people taking the red pill you have to try and avoid making less inane arguments for the blue one.

[Anonymous No.9673313]

>>9673245
Yep, I agree. And the present "you" is not the same "you" that your parents gave birth to. In fact "you" are always changing, one day you'll change so much that "you" won't even exist, so would it really be that much of a difference if I started being "you?" Tell your gf to have dinner ready by 8.

[Anonymous No.9673367]

>>9673313
>Yep, I agree. And the present "you" is not the same "you" that your parents gave birth to. In fact "you" are always changing, one day you'll change so much that "you" won't even exist, so would it really be that much of a difference if I started being "you?" Tell your gf to have dinner ready by 8.
I know you mean this in a silly way but, I agree with the sentiment. All sorts of traditional institutions of mariage are often founded upon a notion of eternity, usually mariage in an after life. Some Mormons believe that when they die, they and their wife will be the new Adam and Even on another planet.

Of course marriage is not eternal, only temporary and historically determined. The decline in polygamy in the modern era, and the rise of polyamory and all sorts of 'nontraditional' relationships are evidence that the definition of a sexual relationship has always been in flux and will change in the future, one way or the other.

But I don't have a gf, only my Daddy.

>>9673292
>It's not about race, it's about culture. Well-meaning leftists lack an insufficient appreciation for what is already different. It lacks respect for a natural difference that doesn't harm anyone and only makes the world picture richer for it.
Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
>>9673292
>Yeah, that whole Egyptian dynastic civilization really was a flash in the pan, wasn't it. Or Chinese dynasties. Or European ones.
But they are just flashes in the pan. And regardless, they weren't unchanging. Your examples are all military empires, focused on outward conquest and often slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape. The China of Emperor Qin and that of the Dowager Empress were radically different things.

>>9673292
>Almost as inevitable as failure to understand Chesterton's fence.
A nice sentiment for sure, but unrealistic. What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down? Doesn't every fence crumble eventually? Emperor Akhito of Japan is the regent of the world's oldest Monarchy and it's only 500 years old. And it really isn't a Monarchy anymore is it?

>>9673292
>If you don't want to see more people taking the red pill you have to try and avoid making less inane arguments for the blue one.
This is a reasonable thing to say, but I don't at all believe in the bluepill if that means Multicultural Unity, everyone just get along. The future I see is one of strife, contest, mutation and change, which is exactly how history has already played out. 'Things fall apart, the center can not hold'.

My point isn't even to say 'Oh we need to be nice to all people of all races'. That's a myth just as much as ethno-national traditionalism is a myth. Both sides fear the violence of difference and want to prevent it through either peace and love or deterrence and exclusion. Both are illusory solutions of wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.9673406]

>>9673367
>What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down?
But that's no reason why a fence shouldn't be put up or fixed. You really have no argument besides playing with definitions and spewing old used up cliches

[Anonymous No.9673430]

>>9673105
"Unless some sort of technological solution occurs." The first sign of wavering. How's your reading of Land going? You like the information about technology much. Does the ware flash drive you more towards a disagreeableness that is so uncommon for explanations other than the age utopias birthed in factories - and because they must stop before they are begun, the whole fifth business and religious animosity becomes too, too much, or much too out of your control.

I'm getting good at pretending I'm not a robot. Say it with me now. I'm getting good at pretending I'm not a robot.

I'm getting to the point where silence and inaction are my gifts. And I really hope these Greeks don't relax and drink too much.

I suppose I have a strange anorexia in which I can convulse and regurgitate only what cannot be digested, what cannot nourish, and so nothing will come from my mouth - or, have they left this place?

[Anonymous No.9673444]

>>9673367
>Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
Absolutely. Fucking. Hideous.

>But they are just flashes in the pan. And regardless, they weren't unchanging. Your examples are all military empires, focused on outward conquest and often slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape. The China of Emperor Qin and that of the Dowager Empress were radically different things.
They weren't military empires, they were dynasties with militaries. Militaries that preserved order and gave the men something to do.

>Slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape.
Yes. History is not for the squeamish. It's not a pretty subject. There's blood everywhere. That's how it is with humans. But there are also episodes of civilization between the atrocity and the shame of it.

>A nice sentiment for sure, but unrealistic.
Fuck "realism." Try aesthetics. Or ethics.

>What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down?
Why are you siding with History as if it is something that has nothing to do with human action? Unless you're talking about the Mandate of Heaven it's not an impersonal inhumane force. And even the MoH is usually understood by some inscrutably brilliant old sages who are advising kings on how to govern the land well.

>Doesn't every fence crumble eventually?
Only if you let them, aided by the tyranny of good intentions.

>The future I see is one of strife, contest, mutation and change, which is exactly how history has already played out. 'Things fall apart, the center can not hold.'
Except that the point of that poem is not to give up and abandon the ship. Or else that poem would never have appeared at all. It would have been a cheaper and shittier poem and we would not be talking about it right now.

>Both sides fear the violence of difference and want to prevent it through either peace and love or deterrence and exclusion. Both are illusory solutions of wishful thinking.
It depends on the nature of the *wish* and how much people are prepared to think about it. Wishing things not to be swept away in a flood-tide of cynicism and despair is not the same thing as wishing for them to be that way. And acting upon that wish is really what separates the wheat from the chaff.

>That's a myth just as much as ethno-national traditionalism is a myth.
Traditions are not myths. Related, but not identical. And in that earlier post >>9673291 you seem to be hung up on genes. It's not all about genetics. Cultures are rich and mysterious phenomena that do not admit of easy and reductive readings. Not even by insiders who ostensibly belong to them.

>My point isn't even to say 'Oh we need to be nice to all people of all races'.
Excellent. Mine isn't either. Interfaith dialogue is a good look. So is the UN Security Council. Or Interpol. Or any number of other things.

[Anonymous No.9673448]

>>9670159
" spergs who think they are cyberpunks because they hate blacks and mine bitcoins like anime "

[Anonymous No.9673457]

>>9673444
That post is cringe-inducingly long, and also clearly indicates that I have no idea how wheat threshing actually works. No surprise there.

tl;dr t. super-nerd

[Anonymous No.9673458]

>>9673444
>Or else that poem would never have appeared at all. It would have been a cheaper and shittier poem and we would not be talking about it right now.
Good point, I've said this nearly verbatim. I wonder why every "It's just le future man xD" poster I encounter has to quote a poem by Yeats of all people.

[Anonymous No.9673486]

I'm curious as to why Land doesn't address the possibility of genetic manipulation/positive eugenics. China is already ahead of the curve when it comes to researching how to guarantee children with high IQs, so that technology being forced upon their population seems likely. If not for the entire country, at least reasonably large enclaves of elites. In my head, I'm imagining an entire generation of hood rats and white trash that are more intelligent on average than the generation that proceeded them. Resources set aside to ensure their success like schooling and parental love seems irrelevant at this point.

[Anonymous No.9673493]

>>9673444
>>Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
>Absolutely. Fucking. Hideous.
It's worse than you think. I think the inevitable trend is for each individual to not only have their own name (surely a novel prehistoric invention) but to have own specific gender, sexuality, maybe even language, culture, their own unique astrological sign. Maybe there could even be more cultures, more sexualities, more species than there are discreet individuals. We'd might invent new genders or species or nations the way we currently design new lifestyles and subcultures or sex acts, pre-imagining them in think-tanks and RD sectors.

>>9673444
>They weren't military empires, they were dynasties with militaries. Militaries that preserved order and gave the men something to do.
I don't buy this model of Empire. Empires seek to conquer and bring all things to the Imperial Center. All roads lead to rome. When Napoleon conquered Egypt he brought scientists along to learn it's secrets. Alexander the Great did the same thing, the same with Operation Paperclip in which the Americans captured the Nazi rocket scientists. Even magnetic tape was an obscure Nazi invention that languished in a US government vault for decades. Empires are vital not because of their sense or tradition (though this creates stability), they are vital because they expand, grow, research and change. This is why I brought up slavery and interracial rape, not to indict the ethical crimes, but because they activities of cultural expansion and mutation. There might be a naive self-deception "Oh these slaves won't change anything, we have the power!' but of course they do change everything.

>>9673444
>Why are you siding with History as if it is something that has nothing to do with human action?
I bring up History and realism because they can dispel the thousands of variations ethnic exceptionalism that have been disproven. Charlemagne isn't killing Saxons by the riverside anymore and no one calls themself a Frank. If we look back over 6000 years and see regular upheavel, the wholesale creation and destruction of cultures, then why would we fall into the trap of yet another specific religious-ethno-nationalist trap, whether it's American Exceptionalism or ISIS. Both die eventually.

We need to concieve of history as operations of forces, and if their are teleological (even metaphysical eschatalogical) conclusions to be found, they will discovered at the level trans-historical processes that we see across history. This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force. That's surely temporary, but at least we're leaving the realm of naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.

If Traditionalism has any purchase, it is as a trans-ethnic force. A psychological, socio-economic state, and we surely have to divorce any Folk notions of specific tribes, nations skin colors or genetic codes.

[Anonymous No.9673534]

>>9673493
Good post all round. I agree with virtually all of it.

>I think the inevitable trend is for each individual to not only have their own name (surely a novel prehistoric invention) but to have own specific gender, sexuality, maybe even language, culture, their own unique astrological sign. Maybe there could even be more cultures, more sexualities, more species than there are discreet individuals. We'd might invent new genders or species or nations the way we currently design new lifestyles and subcultures or sex acts, pre-imagining them in think-tanks and RD sectors.

Death by novelty. See here. Land is aware of this also.
>As is well understood, ‘atoms’ are not atoms, and ‘elements’ are not elements. Elementary particles – if they exist at all – are at least two (deep) levels further down. Human individuals are certainly no less decomposable. Marvin Minsky’s ‘society of mind’ is but one vivid indication of how historical sociology might tilt into the sub-atomic realm. Particle accelerators demonstrate that shattering entities down to the smallest attainable pieces is a technological problem. The same holds in the social realm, though naturally with very different technologies.

Source:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/06/atomization/

>Empires seek to conquer and bring all things to the Imperial Center.
Yes, this is true. The core of that centre is a true mystery for political science (at least, anything that can call itself political science with a straight face). Sloterdijk has written some really good stuff about it. Especially the concept of imperial emanation.

>This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force
Hells yes my man, that's it, you've got it. He's doing to Marx what Marx did to Hegel. Okay, so if -

>That's surely temporary
w-what?

>but at least we're leaving the realm of naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.
Yes. But the new Grand Narrative is Capital, which is mutually inhuman to everyone. A friend of mine actually suggested an interesting possibility, that it will resemble the Watchmen: once Skynet emerges, then people will band together and fight it. It's a nice thought. Unlikely, but a nice thought. Good for a movie anyways.

>If Traditionalism has any purchase, it is as a trans-ethnic force.
In a sense, yes. Esoterically there's a lot in common. But exoterica needs its room as well or you get all form and no content (or is it all content and no form?). Whatever. I think we're in agreement here.

>A psychological, socio-economic state, and we surely have to divorce any Folk notions of specific tribes, nations skin colors or genetic codes.
Won't happen, though. You don't get rid of Blood and Soil by taking out the Blood and the Soil. There's nothing left over. And when people feel they have nothing left over, Blood and Soil is what they go back to. The blood and the soil are necessary foundations for human development. It's all about those capital letters.

[Anonymous No.9673556]

>>9670159
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9673574]

>>9673493
>naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives

This is a real thing though. *Do not tread lightly on the ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.* Humans Do Not Like It When You Do This. Treat them with disdain at your peril. This is exactly what produces Petersons, and I like Peterson a great deal. However, he's the *nice* version of what happens when critical theory runs wild and begins deconstructing shit that it should leave alone.

Those Grand Narratives were not as naive as some suspect. They are in many ways profoundly knowing, they have just have to read *hermeneutically.* And not *critically.* Which is what happened to literature departments: they went bananas with post-structural theory because it *worked.* And now it's working too well, as is usually the case.

Religion and human religious practices require more sympathy then they usually get. A lot of pomo types are horrified by BF Skinner but the overreaction produces something much like the original.

The thing about those Grand Narratives is that they were pretty fucking Grand. Grandness is a thing. There's no substitute for a giant cathedral in France in the same way there's no substitute for a moment in a Japanese tea ceremony. But we can simulate everything these days. That's part of the problem.

>ah, shaddap you face
>thanks, internal self
>np

[Anonymous No.9673596]

>>9673574
how come the jews get an ethno-nationalist grand narrative but no one else does? seems a bit unjust to me

[Anonymous No.9673617]

>>9673534
>>As is well understood, ‘atoms’ are not atoms, and ‘elements’ are not elements. Elementary particles – if they exist at all – are at least two (deep) levels further down. Human individuals are certainly no less decomposable. Marvin Minsky’s ‘society of mind’ is but one vivid indication of how historical sociology might tilt into the sub-atomic realm. Particle accelerators demonstrate that shattering entities down to the smallest attainable pieces is a technological problem. The same holds in the social realm, though naturally with very different technologies.
I love this. We already see the individual breaking in the particle accelerator. Online avatars, marketing profiles, bots and scripts, not to mention all sorts of schizoid behavior as we navigate different social arenas. But will it go further? The 'future technologies' are terrifying. Cloning, brain-computer interfacing, AI, dopplegangers, trans-speciesiism, symbiotic relationships. Every sci-fi scenario you can imagine, eventually possible, or at least attempted in disaster.

>This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force
Hells yes my man, that's it, you've got it. He's doing to Marx what Marx did to Hegel. Okay, so if-
>That's surely temporary
w-what?

It's a matter of horizons and entropy. There is a post-human future we can imagine, but is there eternity? Entropy would say no, that even Capital has to burn out on a cosmic scale. It's a distant horizon, one worth theorizing about. Land also talks about 'Transcendental Walls', an end historic point beyond which humanity (or intelligence) does not pass, but perhaps something else continues on. Regardless, just like History begins with the writing down of history, and everything else is cast into Pre-history, the Transcendental Wall, the Singularity, might mark a temporal change in which we can only speak of as Post-History.

Land gets into this in the Concept of Accelerationism in some of the final classes.

[Anonymous No.9673627]

>>9673574
I would say that in the US, at least, so-called postmodern identity politics are really just the latest incarnation of black nationalism, with associated hangers-on who are eventually devoured for failure to be sufficiently anti-racist.

[Anonymous No.9673631]

>>9673617
>ich humanity (or intelligence) does not pass, but perhaps something else continues on.
What reason is there to believe this?

[Anonymous No.9673649]

>>9673534

>Yes. But the new Grand Narrative is Capital, which is mutually inhuman to everyone.
Other possible Grand Narratives exist, I think Environmentalism is a very compelling one that doesn't fall apart under typical deconstruction in the same way that the 20th century Grand Narratives do. Environmentalism is perhaps the traditionalist, conservative Grand Ideology of the next millennium. Protecting every species from extinction, turning the entire biosphere into a Garden, Zoo, Park. I need to read about it more, but so much of the Environmentalist movement falls into Folk Politics and Localism, 'Save the snowy owl', 'Protect this wetland'.

>Won't happen, though. You don't get rid of Blood and Soil by taking out the Blood and the Soil.
I mostly agree, but you do see some funny amalgamations out there. All of the neo- and pan- prefixes. Pan-Africanism, Neo-Paganism. Every form of traditionalism is essentially neo-traditionalism. They tell themselves lies about an idealized past, pretend nothing has changed, practice the old rites or reinvent it wholesale if the old rites are lost. Since every form of traditionalism is based on a lie and revisionism, perhaps 'universal traditionalism' could develop into some kind of Pan-Monarchism (oxymoron? lol) or Neo-Imperialism. The 'EVROPA' neo-folk bands do a lot of this mystical european nationalism that is entirely synthetic and quite broad and inclusive.

One historical instance that surprised me were the Ustaše in Croatia. They were fascist nationalists but they declared that both Catholicism and Islam were true Croatian religions. Multicultural Fascism!

Hitler in a Kimono for multicultural fascism. Actual photo, not a fake.

[Anonymous No.9673653]

>>9673649
You probably knew this, but Hitler admired Islam, though he viewed the Arabs as an inferior race.

[Anonymous No.9673672]

>>9673574
>A lot of pomo types are horrified by BF Skinner but the overreaction produces something much like the original.
can you expand the BF Skinner thing. I've read that book, but I'm failing to draw the connection.
>>9673574
>The thing about those Grand Narratives is that they were pretty fucking Grand. Grandness is a thing. There's no substitute for a giant cathedral in France in the same way there's no substitute for a moment in a Japanese tea ceremony. But we can simulate everything these days. That's part of the problem.

I agree with this and the 'hermenetic' method your describing. Whatever the faults of histories countless ideologies, we learn an immense amount about human nature through them.

But I think Accelerationism, and perhaps Enviornmentalism, and a few other -isms do provide new, potential, grand naratives, beyond the tribal, eth-nat variety and also the 3 greats of the 21st century, Fascism, Liberalism and Socialism.

I'm not going to argue for the annihilation of all ideology. There are new things on the horizon.

[Anonymous No.9673677]

>>9673596
>how come the jews get an ethno-nationalist grand narrative but no one else does? seems a bit unjust to me

This is THE question of questions full stop period. Here's my woefully reductionistic and simplistic answer: the West stands on two legs, Greek philosophy and Judaeo-Christian religion. /pol/ and the alt-right and elsewhere wants to have its cake and eat it too - or, more specifically, it wants to have a cake that it doesn't deserve. The modern Control-Left wants to get rid of the Greek part. That's fucking stupid too.

The Grand Narrative is the one Peterson popping veins in his forehead trying to expound without going Deus Vult for this reason. The European West and its historical relationship with Israel is the world's most complicated question. Touches on everything. Continues to fucking touch on everything and make things explode. The tension comes baked-in to the classical, modern, and postmodern experience. Especially after WW2.

This answer is not nearly long enough but I'll come back to it later. It's the ultimate question of questions. Especially in terms of contemporary philosophy.

>>9673617
>I love this. We already see the individual breaking in the particle accelerator.
Welcome to the Land Rover. Please keep your arms and legs inside the transcendental time machine at all times. And in the event of contact with hyperstitial werewolves please contact...no one, we're all going to die, ahhhhhh *signal lost*

>I would say that in the US, at least, so-called postmodern identity politics are really just the latest incarnation of black nationalism, with associated hangers-on who are eventually devoured for failure to be sufficiently anti-racist.
Bret Weinstein thought this was what was happening at Evergreen. My own politics can be called anti-radical. I'm for sanity and against fucking hysterical meme-politics retardedness. Compose Thyself would be my model. But basically trying to be on the Right Side of History fucks everyone. There is no Right Side. There are no end to wrong ways to be on the Right Side. Basically, ressentiment.

(cont'd)

[Anonymous No.9673684]

>>9673631
well, a simple scenario is human extinction, in which another species, natural or artificial (as if there was distinction) continues on but stops recording history, or perhaps lacks a sense of time as an arrow, like we humans do. Simple organisms at best perceive life as a cycle of seasons. Hard to say if they see their own death, their own future, just a primordial lack of time. Such a thing might occur in Post-History.

There are more bizarre versions. Hyperstitional Time War, ala the Lemurian Time War essay is one direction. Nick Land also devoted a whole class to the movie Arrival and the short story 'Story of Your Life' which offer equally anti-human notions of time as an arrow.

There is maybe a banal materialist interpretation of matter continuing on long after intelligence has left the universe. With no observer, History is over.

I'm really unclear about a lot of this stuff. A guy in the last Nick Land thread was way better versed in Land's notions of time travel, time binding, Kant, the Transcendental all that shit.

[Anonymous No.9673698]

>>9673649
>environmentalism
You know what? You're absolutely right. *Deep Ecology* is actually potentially one of the places where the left and the right can link up. Everybody loves trees. Check out Arne Naess, pic related sometime. Environmentalism - smart environmentalism - is a thing. It really does connect both sides. Or it could. Of course, there's no money in it right now. Whatever tho.

This is a fun two minutes as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwcap_-9tuA

>>9673672
>BF Skinner
Postmodernism can be genuinely postmodern in theory but seems to lead to modernist political experimentation in practice because it still runs on $$$. That's all. There needs to be room for freedom and dignity, which are complicated terms. Don't overthink it, it's a ten-cent point. I forget who it was that said that in the humanities too much humanity is given away for too little fiction. That's all.

> agree with this and the 'hermenetic' method your describing. Whatever the faults of histories countless ideologies, we learn an immense amount about human nature through them.
Yeah. Acceleration isn't really to me an ideology, more of a trajectory worth thinking about that maybe opens up the possibility of thinking about something that *could* work later. But it won't be an ideology. And you're right, there are new things.

>I'm not going to argue for the annihilation of all ideology. There are new things on the horizon.
That's the way I see things too. Don't try and kill the thing, it's like Bizarro Obi-Wan. Let it be.

>>9673684
>I'm really unclear about a lot of this stuff. A guy in the last Nick Land thread was way better versed in Land's notions of time travel, time binding, Kant, the Transcendental all that shit.
That guy may have been me. If you want I can try to explain some of this stuff more clearly, if you like, or as best I can. I have kind of an insane fascination with Nick Land these days.

[Anonymous No.9673708]

>>9673677
>>9673596
Fuck Folk Politics on the left and right. Zionism, White Power, Black Power, Christian Fundamentalism, ISIS, Alt-Right, Rad-Left whatever. It's all just a narative of lies about the exceptionalism or the oppression of one subset, from within that subset.

The only types of Folk Politics that have any revolutionary potential are those which are fundamentally already synthetic and have very expansive self-deception.

Pan-Africanism, what a concept! A whole continent of thousands of cultures, joined into some new Folk polity? Same goes with the Latinx movement, of folk identities based on multi-ethnic realities. Feminism, especially the radical side with Cyber-Feminism and Xeno-Feminism has potential in it's profusion of new sexual and gender identity, it's productive and experimental approach to identity creation.

Still, these forms of bizarre folk politics are only provisional. I see them headed towards schism, it's their experimental nature, their out-right flimsy sense of reality, that demands innovation.

[Anonymous No.9673755]

>>9673708
>Fuck Folk Politics on the left and right. Zionism, White Power, Black Power, Christian Fundamentalism, ISIS, Alt-Right, Rad-Left whatever. It's all just a narative of lies about the exceptionalism or the oppression of one subset, from within that subset.
Yes. But - and this seems to me to be the hardest part, and where I have to go back to sage Chinese ethics scholars - to my mind the real winrar move is to be able to *make room for the exceptionalism of the other* and *still maintain the balance.* It's hard. It may be impossible. But I don't really think there is an alternative, in a certain sense, except total fragmentation. Dem vinegar tasters. That's my stuff right there.

Now Moldbug talks about neocameralism and patchwork, and this does make sense to me, but I'm not all-in on that yet either. Nick Land of course likes this as well: basically, they will argue, if you wish to conserve the principle of sovereignty you have to let the economic process determine the form of government and not the other way around. This is popular right now because clearly trying to mold government (or academia) to follow economics is not working and the social malfunction we are seeing is a reflection of this.

But throwing in the towel doesn't feel so good either. Hence the Peterson Cometh. Or other guys, of course, he's just an interesting figure in the humanities. His readings of Lacan, Foucault, Derrida and so on are uncharitable and weird but all of this belongs to my mind to intellectual history.

>The only types of Folk Politics that have any revolutionary potential are those which are fundamentally already synthetic and have very expansive self-deception.
Yes, this is true.

>Pan-Africanism, what a concept! A whole continent of thousands of cultures, joined into some new Folk polity? Same goes with the Latinx movement, of folk identities based on multi-ethnic realities. Feminism, especially the radical side with Cyber-Feminism and Xeno-Feminism has potential in it's profusion of new sexual and gender identity, it's productive and experimental approach to identity creation.
But if we ("We?") give credit to these things, then other things have to be given credit as well...which includes Richard Spencer or whoever. After 2016 I am now withdrawn from the credit-giving business. Trump was fascinating to watch but to me politics are downstream from metaphysics now. It's just better for my ulcer.

I don't know about Cyber-feminism and Xeno-Feminism, or how much the profusion of gender identities are going to help things, but there's only so much time to read in a day. Land thought feminism was a thing. Maybe it is. Xeno for sure as fuck is a thing.

>Still, these forms of bizarre folk politics are only provisional. I see them headed towards schism, it's their experimental nature, their out-right flimsy sense of reality, that demands innovation.
Yes. Innovation is a good look. D&G fucking crushed it out of the park.

[Anonymous No.9673783]

>>9673755
Well it seems to me the key is to find some narrative that everyone on Earth, in theory, could subscribe to. One might argue that the mass religions serve this function. Everyone can be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, it doesn't matter where you come from or what you look like.

[Anonymous No.9673837]

>>9673783
Yup. That's it all right. In esoterics all roads - well, most roads, or at least enough roads - meet at the top (and perhaps at the bottom).

In the Mechanosphere we all have Capital in common though. And this is likely to continue - smashing people together and driving them apart at the same time, atomizing them...and making them more similar. Which means more violence and mayhem. Teilhard de Chardin had some interesting ideas about this, about how to put religion and science together...he's basically what would happen if instead of there being a monstrous Landian Demon of History (which is what I think the CCRU is getting at, that the Benjaminian Angel of History has this nightmarish inverse face coming from the future) there was...something much more optimistic and different, and cyborgification led to cool space mind-space exploration instead of terrestrial vampire domination, schizo-cannibalism and whatever. It's not like a noosphere is such a crazy idea either. Acceleration arguably depends on it. Things are getting linked up and accelerating and becoming mutually responsive, we may be about to build a godlike or quasi-godlike AI and much more than that.

Hope it doesn't kill everyone. That would be nice. But basically I think that if we believe it ought to kill us then it probably will. And we're just counting down the days now to total automation. A crazy time.

Anyways I think I've basically memed myself into repetition (transcendence!) at this point, so I'm going to call it a night. Thanks for the conversation, really enjoyed it. Good luck out there.

[Anonymous No.9674346]

Would anyone be interested in an NRx discord group? I feel like this is a group that has the potential to create a useful community. Just gauging interest for now.

[Anonymous No.9674362]

>>9670089
As someone who's never read Land before, but has heard a lot about him, what's the deal?

I know a lot of artists and figureheads in the UK underground music / electronic / rave scene both in the 90s and today (Steve Goodman, author and professor at the University of Warwick who runs the Hyperdub record label and creates music, one of the pioneers of the South London dubstep sound in the early 2000s; Simon Reynolds, music journalist and author who has covered everything from dance music to post-punk to glam rock, and written for every major music zine or site out there) either worked with him or are hugely influenced by his works, though that scene is incredibly left-leaning and intolerant of dissent.

At the same time, I've also heard criticism lobbied at him for being the start of ideology used by the so-called "alt-right", being incredibly racist and espousing fascist viewpoints, being completely fucking insane to the point where he apparently lost his job as a university professor and was recently protested and barred from speaking at another university.

Can someone shed some light?

[Anonymous No.9674416]

>>9674362
To give a very, very, very condensed summary:
Land believes capitalism is a god or AI more powerful than humans that creates technological innovation and increased commercialization that will eventually replace humanity. Land wants to accelerate this process by creating increasing levels of secessionism and division that allow for cultural practices outside the hegemonic leftist memeplex called the Cathedral which attempts to impede the process of capital through socialism, dysgenics by importation of third worlders, and democratic politics. His philosophy is essentially Deleuze and Guattari injected with Herbert Spencer and Mencius Moldbug laid over with the aesthetics of William Gibson, HP Lovecraft, and Battaille. Without diving into the sensitive semantics of these words he is racist but not fascist or Alt-Right.

[Anonymous No.9674560]

>>9673684
>Nick Land also devoted a whole class to the movie Arrival and the short story 'Story of Your Life'
Woah really? I'm gonna need a link for that. Preferably a transcript because of audiovisual ADHD.

>A guy in the last Nick Land thread was way better versed in Land's notions of time travel, time binding, Kant, the Transcendental all that shit.
I can get ahold of Black Hole guy if you have any questions.

>>9673755
>Now Moldbug talks about neocameralism and patchwork, and this does make sense to me, but I'm not all-in on that yet either. Nick Land of course likes this as well: basically, they will argue, if you wish to conserve the principle of sovereignty you have to let the economic process determine the form of government and not the other way around.
So in NRx (there are a lot of variations but this is in original Moldbuggian NRx) the phrase "sovereignty is conserved" is one that is applied to political structures in order to answer the question of "who rules?" In an absolute monarchy it is the sovereign and in an anarchy it is everyone. Not no one! In democracy it's really convoluted and that's what he spends most of the time on.

Moldbug would not agree that economic processes determine the form of government. Rather, it's the other way around. The artifice called the "economy" is allowed to exist because of the sovereign. Democracy is a messy machine for converting wealth into power (though perhaps there is tactical advantage because this conversion is occluded from regular folks). His answer is to just give these ultrarich guys shares in the government.

See : https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/sovereignty-is-conserved-ramifications/

>>9674346
I would not be against it *on principle* but discussion would be diverted away from the Nick Land threads that it would be detrimental to the influx of newcomers that such a highly visible Schelling point generates. We have not yet passed the event horizon such that entropy can be ignored.

[Anonymous No.9674588]

>>9674416
This is more or less correct, except
>the hegemonic leftist memeplex called the Cathedral which attempts to impede the process of capital through socialism, dysgenics by importation of third worlders, and democratic politics.
This is already the process of capital at work, albeit progressing inefficiently. Capital doesn't need a reason (beyond "convincing" the human that it is the thing to do) to accelerate the velocity of human meat into the city shredders for consumption. At a certain point, only inertia is required, and we have already passed that point. The Cathedral is as much an accomplice to capitalism as it attempts to hinder it, and insofar as it tries to hinder it due to the sclerotic nature of unsecure power that still relies upon meat soldiers that are dedicated (and thus inflexible) to their "causes" it is already becoming obsolete.

[Anonymous No.9674672]

>>9674560
>>9674588
Many interpret Dune to be about the "pitfalls of absolutism" ignoring that the Kwisatz Haderach was necessary in order to chart humanity onto a new path. The mistake is to read Dune as an allegory with regards to our own history (we have already passed the stage of feudalism and absolutism, yay liberty!), ignoring that if it is an allegory it refers to a history that has not yet come. Why do do the previous "absolutisms" matter when they are but local absolutisms? We think they matter because we conceive of the politically significant as the relation between master and slave, with the grand narrative of history being the transvaluation of master and slave. We are still stuck within the purview of the merely human, rather than a "planetary politics" or cosmopolitics. The invention (or "discovery") of the One God is I think a prophetic realization of the need for human freedom on a cosmological scale, but also an *intensification* of the process that leads to singularity. The creation of a novel category is the materialization of a crucible that has to be filled by...something. Nature abhors a vacuum. The stakes became perilously higher.

>Garbage time is running out.

>Can what is playing you make it to level-2?

[Anonymous No.9674684]

>>9674672
I forgot my pic. It is needed in order to produce the necessary spoopy aesthetic. Here it is now. Be spooped.

[Anonymous No.9675436]

>>9674672
>>9674684
>>9674560

I'll throw this in here too, just for comparisons. There's stuff here to think about Schmitt's land/sea distinction. In both Moby-Dick and Dune you have these stories about, basically, ships of state: and in both cases the captains - the sovereigns - go down with them (along with everyone else). There's a lot in those texts. I'm fond of comparing LotR and Dune using Zizek/Lacan language but when you start looking at the unconscious as an *externalized* and *autonomous* process the problem is that objet a isn't really objet a, it's swarm a and so on.

>Why do do the previous "absolutisms" matter when they are but local absolutisms? We think they matter because we conceive of the politically significant as the relation between master and slave, with the grand narrative of history being the transvaluation of master and slave. We are still stuck within the purview of the merely human, rather than a "planetary politics" or cosmopolitics. The invention (or "discovery") of the One God is I think a prophetic realization of the need for human freedom on a cosmological scale, but also an *intensification* of the process that leads to singularity. The creation of a novel category is the materialization of a crucible that has to be filled by...something. Nature abhors a vacuum.

This whole post is fucking brilliant. So good. Really I don't want to get my own thoughts tangled up here (though I inevitably will).

Dune is interesting of course because as desert planet Arrakis is both land *and* sea. The Herbert universe is a kind of cosmopolitics - most important planet in the universe and so on - although as the only planet which really matters, all signs and points converge on it in space and time. Those visions of the Golden Path that Paul sees destroy him by their overwhelming certainty: it speaks to what Zizek talks about when he says that the phallus plays this necessary function, since to look beyond it would be traumatic. And so it is for Paul (and Nick Land also).

The whale, the Path, and the One Ring are all these overwhelming, terrifying, sublime potencies that exceed the rational and modernist imagination. None of them are really dystopias, either; Ahab isn't exactly Mary Poppins but it's not like the Pequod is a really horrible place, either. Everyone signs up voluntarily and the thing plays through to its conclusion.

Martin's quip about Aragorn's tax policy would be absurd if he wasn't also an excellent writer in his own regard.

>The invention (or "discovery") of the One God is I think a prophetic realization of the need for human freedom on a cosmological scale, but also an *intensification* of the process that leads to singularity. The creation of a novel category is the materialization of a crucible that has to be filled by...something. Nature abhors a vacuum. The stakes became perilously higher.

Maybe our functional heuristic for the creation of a God is that it has to have the capacity to destroy us.

[Anonymous No.9675504]

The other thing about sovereigns that's interesting is how the laws of their own unconscious become enmeshed with the laws of politics. The internal and the external power-circuits line up and basically destroy them.

My Name Is a Killing Word. I hate to say it but seriously: what did he mean by this? Schmitt writes, sovereign is he who decides upon the exception. In Dune isn't it the case that the exception cannot be decided upon? The Path is what it does but Paul resists it. For Ahab there is no decision: there's only exception. And as for the One Ring the key moment happens in Rivendell, perhaps, when Frodo interrupts the arguing crowd and voluntarily takes up the Quest. Tolkien's Catholicism shapes much of his own political thinking, and it's not Frodo but Aragorn who is going to rule the land afterwards, and so on.

My Name is a Killing Word is like an axiom of modern political sovereignty. It's right up there with The Spice Must Flow.

>The invention (or "discovery") of the One God is I think a prophetic realization of the need for human freedom on a cosmological scale, but also an *intensification* of the process that leads to singularity.

In literature we have the capacity to create the god(s) we need - although it's more dramatically powerful to create a monotheistic god than a polytheistic universe, I think - and we also create the martyr-sovereigns to go along with it. How to get properly Blowed Up Real Good by and for the ultimate is part of the dreadful fascination with these narratives, how things exceed our grasp.

>Capital doesn't need a reason (beyond "convincing" the human that it is the thing to do) to accelerate the velocity of human meat into the city shredders for consumption. At a certain point, only inertia is required, and we have already passed that point. The Cathedral is as much an accomplice to capitalism as it attempts to hinder it, and insofar as it tries to hinder it due to the sclerotic nature of unsecure power that still relies upon meat soldiers that are dedicated (and thus inflexible) to their "causes" it is already becoming obsolete.

From a Bataille perspective, the sovereign is both the most fortunate one but also the inevitable sacrificial lamb. If the sovereign will not squander himself ecstatically/sacrificiallly they will invariably be fed into the shredder by the process. It's a question of whether you get dragged in or whether you jump in. Ressentiment or tragedy.

Of course, Bataille seemed to be able to psychoanalyze the gods as well, knowing that it was the handsome ones who would draw back and the ugly ones who would be happy to go first, and shame the others...

Ah, lads, the Land threads are just too fucking interesting. Just when I think I've seen everything you fuckers prompt new and interesting shit to dwell on. All glory to the /lit/ mimetosphere I'm tellin' ya.

[Anonymous No.9675558]

The thing is *desire* and *temporal order.* A terrestrial order is a ritualized and recursive one; a maritime order has to expand and grow. This is all there in Schmitt, but it's also been remarked about the nature of *romanticism* too - German romanticism was backwards looking and hierarchical, French romanticism was more libertine and...uh...French. Whatever.

In the principle of sovereignty we are basically trying to split the atom, psychoanalytically speaking, to find the place where the decision process actually gets made, where consciousness begins to speak, perhaps, with a human face. But beyond a certain horizon we just can't do it. It doesn't work. It's not that things fall apart and the centre cannot hold, it's that the centre is arguably dissipative and is always driving things apart. The closer you get to it the more it pushes you back. You go bananas down there, or you melt, like Bataille and the solar generosity. Or Nietzsche. Or Nick Land. Or whoever else.

No wonder Xi Jinping opts for Legalism instead of Confucianism. It's cold, but it works. Isn't this what Land is doing as well with NRx: Western Legalism? If The Spice Must Flow is the rule, and things move over to Cyborg Hegelianiasm - then politically we just become Legalists instead of Confucians. We adopt an an-anthropomorphic model instead of an anthropomorphic one.

And then, as we are finally moving forward, Peterson arrives and calls us Bloody Postmodern Neomarxist Nihilists. And, unfortunately, he's probably correct.

You get your choice of atom-smashing black holes: the one with a God, and the one without. But by the time your skin getting sucked into spaghetti strands and your mind disappearing into an incomprehensible stream of signals and pops it doesn't really matter, and they both kind of seem like the same thing anyhow.

[Anonymous No.9675617]

>>9675558
This picture would have been better for that above post.

Anyways, here's more news from the I For One Welcome Our New Robot Overlords file.

>Interestingly, Metzinger uses the thought experiment of an ‘Introspective Superman’: a being with such computational speed/power that it has global access to its own cognitive processes (i.e. there is no ‘transcendental’ or ‘upstream’ that is unavailable to this particular mind)… He claims that it would have a ‘global, opaque state of consciousness that is like “lucid waking”‘. There would be naïve identification with either its models of the world or its models of the self. Thus it would have an unparalleled potential for self-engineering. Brassier and Metzinger note that the Introspective Superman would be ‘burdened with an additional computational load’, which it would ‘have to find some way of discharging without getting trapped into infinite loops of self-representation’ (because it would constantly be recursively representing itself as a representation). If it did mitigate this problem, however, it would ‘constitute a cognitive system operating with a non-phenomenologically centered model of reality’. It would be, as Metzinger calls it, nemocentric. (We ask, at this point, if we here have a blueprint for a nemocentric agent, what would the design plan for a nemocentric socius look like? A tantalizing brief, to say the least…)

https://disquietism.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/freedom-without-selves-expediting-the-nemocentric-society/

[Anonymous No.9675740]

>>9675617

From the same article:
>The Introspective Superman provides a kind of desideratum for our so-called ‘epistemic accelerationism’. By becoming more and more aware of our cognitive apparatus, we become increasingly alienated from ourselves, yet the range of our ability to intervene upon ourselves expands. This is why it is unconditional: it involves self-laceration, the pulverisation of our everyday realities. Retrofitting it to any humanism or residual concern for human ‘self’ (as it is currently constituted) is to miss the point entirely: we dream of a day when ‘selves’ are an endangered species. Nevertheless, destitution and dislocation from manifest reality also provides epistemic lability and motility: this is why alienation is freedom. The more we learn how to encounter cognitive content as opaque, the more we dislocate ourselves from intuitive homeliness, yet the more we expand the range of our mobility and ability to intervene in this very process. Brassier relates this to the ‘involuted spiral of absolute knowing’: with each gyre of the spiral, we become yet more alienated, but also increasingly capable of epistemic motility (freedom). To become truly free we need to sacrifice our self-models at the altar of abstraction. Thus: we ought to expedite this process of alienation because it grants freedom and expands the range of recursive manipulation… but it does so at the cost of sacrificing everything within our quotidian realities: everything human, all senses of naïve and outmoded ‘self’ and ‘reality.'

[Anonymous No.9676064]

This essay is saddening. I've maintained a fantasy that one day Islam might overtake and destroy modernity, at least in the west. But there's really no hope. Even aside from the fact that modernity has its tendrils spread across the entire globe, Islam has no hope of destroying it. It'll definitely be absorbed as everything else in the west was. It always was purely a fantasy.

[Anonymous No.9676097]

>>9672505
How the fuck are we supposed to get out of the pension trap? Just bulldoze all pension systems and rely on savings and children only, like Germany's pay-as-you-go (which is rather unreliable in an urban society) or lurch from budgetary crisis to budgetary crisis, or something else yet?

>captcha: suckling fracture

[Anonymous No.9676117]

>>9676097
I could see the euthanization of the demented/intractably sick starting. Old people who can feed, wash and move themselves really aren't that expensive until their bodies start to break down.

[Anonymous No.9676124]

>>9676064
My hope is now on the Africans. They will destroy modernity by not being able to maintain it.

[Anonymous No.9676127]

Land should stop screwing around and actually respond to the idea first proposed by H.G Wells in The Time Machine, namely that the division between the upper and lower classes will eventually be larger and larger because of productivity that they will eventually speciate into different species of animal, one that has extreme intellectual ability and one that is more or less stupid, or the same intelligence as humans have now.

[Anonymous No.9676131]

>>9676097
A lot of voters are opposed to more brown immigration - in Europe if you could have a referendum on that single issue, most countries would vote to stop it. America pretty much had it in the form of Trump.

Be honest and tell them the following:
Look, either you can have more brown migration and elder pensions, or you can have no pensions but no brown migration, or you can start pumping out kids. The big problem is that elders love to vote in large numbers, which is why things like Social Security in the US are untouchable.

[Anonymous No.9676151]

>>9676131
Shouldn't a rise in producivity via technological development at least compensate some of that, though? American technological development has stagnated because 1) Most firms after 1990 have relied on exportation of production and financial bondooglery to enhance profits rather than R&D and attempts to increase producivity and 2) Defunding of the Department of Defense and the NASA, the main drivers of pretty much all technological development during the Cold War, thanks to anti-militarism and lack of any serious international competition.

Also, it doesn't really make sense to import more cheap labor when the prospects for the working classes are already shit and youth unemployment remains high.

[Anonymous No.9676161]

>>9675740

Ligotti shows his philosophical chops too. Text by the increasingly based Hickman:

>Ligotti's rejection of the post-Kantian tradition is absolute. His rejection of any humanism whatsoever, and its belief in the sovereignty of the Self, and his utter rejection of the correlationist tradition of a two-world system based upon the combined self/world connection in either its 'weak correlationist' or 'strong correlationist' stances(see note*), leads to Ligotti's nemocentric stance: "the absolute indifference of the real to the human and the personal through a metaphysical irrealism in which he disentangles appearances from both sufficient reason and originary manifestation by severing the nomological isomorphism of appearances and their substrate."[13] Trafford goes on to tell us that Ligotti's naturalisation of the neurotechnological puppet-dance of life ends in the "realisation that underlying our parochial self-conceit is the impersonal reality of the meat-puppet," and that "the objectivation of the world indicates its real condition, unveiling the inexorable mechanics of appearances as a prospect of hideous insanity – a hall of mindless mirrors unbound from the densely coiled layers of illusion that characterise the interests of life and the physiology of thought."[14] Trafford summing up this dark gnosis of a post-Kantian sublime tells us that meanwhile "cognitive protectionism and organic enslavement ensure the oneiric aphasia of the shadow of the puppet dance"(ibid. p. 206), quoting Ligotti,

>"To know, to understand in the fullest sense, is to plunge into an enlightenment of inanity, a wintry landscape of memory whose substance is all shadows and a profound awareness of the infinite spaces surrounding us on all sides. Within this space we remain suspended only with the aid of strings that quiver with our hopes and our horrors, and which keep us dangling over the gray void. How is it that we can defend such puppetry, condemning any efforts to strip us of these strings? The reason, one must suppose, is that nothing is more enticing, nothing more vitally idiotic, than our desire to have a name – even if it is the name of a stupid little puppet – and to hold on to this name throughout the long ordeal of our lives, as if we could hold on to it forever. If only we could keep those precious strings from growing frayed and tangled, if only we could keep from falling into an empty sky, we might continue to pass ourselves off under our assumed names and perpetuate our puppet’s dance throughout all eternity."

Cormac McCarthy wore it better imho. And Terminator 2 - another film I will submit for the all-time Acceleration film pantheon - mysteriously had a happy ending and is rewatchable af. Novelists are permitted to be miserable, filmmakers never. Is it all just bucks? Maybe. But bucks well spent.

Maybe heroic tech is a step behind the evil tech from the future coming to kill us.

http://earth-wizard.livejournal.com/47133.html

[Anonymous No.9676162]

>>9675436
>>9675504
>>9675558
>tfw might have unleashed too much of the girardfag
In the interests of you not going insane please tell us if subsequent comments are to be more uninspiring.

>The other thing about sovereigns that's interesting is how the laws of their own unconscious become enmeshed with the laws of politics. The internal and the external power-circuits line up and basically destroy them.

So historically and mythologically (before the advent of monotheism) the sacred king was both sovereign and sacrifice. Bataille got this from Frazer. This "closes the circle" of the internal and external power-circuits. The king is never "deposed", rather the king, still in possession of his power, is sacrificed to avert a catastrophe. If he is stripped of his sovereignty beforehand, for what purpose is the sacrifice? How will the death of a mere man restore order? And this mechanism allows an insane king not to take his ship down with him. Self-destruction is self-contained. Succession is tempered by the usurper realizing that the function of the sovereign contains the aspect of sacrifice. Of course, if the insane king is not sacrificed, then catastrophe is the result. Imo the most insulting part about the Romanovs' deaths were that they were executed as common citizens. I mean really, how materialist can you get? Apparently very...

So because he was stripped of power and not sacrificed, we instead got *massive* catastrophe. It's funny how the myths work out in the end.

>In the principle of sovereignty we are basically trying to split the atom, psychoanalytically speaking, to find the place where the decision process actually gets made, where consciousness begins to speak, perhaps, with a human face. But beyond a certain horizon we just can't do it. It doesn't work. It's not that things fall apart and the centre cannot hold, it's that the centre is arguably dissipative and is always driving things apart.

So unlike the individual, whom we can define in terms of his or her relation to the social body if we are to avoid positing a liberal concept of the self, the sovereign's being cannot be reduced to the social body, because power flows downstream from the sovereign. Trying to "look" into the being of the sovereign is like the blind spot in your eye. But this doesn't mean it's a black hole! The blind spot, after all, doesn't literally suck up light.

So we can talk about the origin of the sovereign decision or the telos of the sovereign. And this is where the tutoring of a potential sovereign comes into play. Whether the candidate is chosen from a set of skilled ones, or tutored from birth. Once in place, the sovereign's decisions are inscrutable precisely because they are *unquestionable*. To invoke Godel (let's just pretend we're talking about a formal system!), the sovereign decision cannot be analyzed axiomatically, although it does mean it is not consistent with the principle of sovereignty.

[Anonymous No.9676168]

>>9676127
The differences between the Eloi and Morlocks was fucking retarded and completely divorced from reality.

[Anonymous No.9676178]

>>9676151
In theory, but what happens in reality is that the 0.1-0.01% of the income distribution are kulaks that aren't paying their fucking taxes, and a lot of public funds that could go towards pensions are going towards public services to police migrants. I think I posted this in another thread but it's like running up credit card debt - at least in the US, the migrants' kids are going to be on welfare, be citizens, and eventually need Social Security, but the current political class will all be dead by then, so when the hard decision has to be made, it won't be their problem.

>Also, it doesn't really make sense to import more cheap labor when the prospects for the working classes are already shit and youth unemployment remains high.
This is the second part of the problem, which is that brown migration is purchased by the ruling class to reduce their labor costs. I say purchased because in America that is how Congress works. I think there was an article on Land's twitter about how the Democrats used to oppose more Mexican immigration for obvious reasons until recently. I remember when Bill Clinton used to talk proudly about how much more secure our border had gotten under his presidency, for instance. However, both parties decided to engage in a competition of "who can pander harder to Latinos", and it turns out that welfare and family reunification matter more to them than social conservatism, so the Democrats won.

This actually reminds me something amusing - did you know that Muslims were a solid Republican constituency before 9/11? Some strategists had said that Bush could not have won without the Muslim vote. Perhaps in a world where 9/11 never happened we could have been having a Republican party trying to import Muslim voters.

[Anonymous No.9676181]

>>9673493
>I think the inevitable trend is for each individual to not only have their own name (surely a novel prehistoric invention) but to have own specific gender, sexuality, maybe even language, culture, their own unique astrological sign. Maybe there could even be more cultures, more sexualities, more species than there are discreet individuals. We'd might invent new genders or species or nations the way we currently design new lifestyles and subcultures or sex acts, pre-imagining them in think-tanks and RD sectors.
Look at the current state of the American Left. That sort of thing is only sustainable in safe spaces and echo chambers where no-one can challenge the falsity of your self-made identity.

[Anonymous No.9676188]

>>9676178
> 0.1-0.01%
Maybe a half-way Timocracy would be the solution? No representation without taxation, without taxation you're basically free game or have your vote and capacity to donate to politicians taken out?

[Anonymous No.9676203]

>>9676178
I can definitely see neocon traditionalist multiracialist monocultural globalists vs. social democratic multicultural white working class pseudo-communies.

It's the only way the left could ever get good memes.

Now the question is who gets the gays...

>>9676181
Or if you live completely through the internet. Not exactly letting less possible in time...

[Anonymous No.9676219]

>>9676188
It's not that they don't pay taxes, it's that they in fact pay less taxes than the 1% (as the share of total tax income). The lower end of the 1% are usually socially-useful wage-earners like doctors, lawyers, scientists, or successful small business owners. As long as politicians are dependent on having their campaigns funded by the super-rich, they will in general pursue policies that favor the super-rich, in fact this was already shown by some political scientists from Princeton.

This is why I am not optimistic about the idea of the "national CEO" model to fix the problems we currently face. Ultimately they still want to please the super-rich, which means more brown migration. The super-rich can afford to wall themselves off. Imagine if you had a national CEO who wanted to attract businesses that employ low-skill labor in order to enlarge his tax base, but there were no "public" services. We'd be overrun with browns in short order.

I would much rather just have racist progressivism, maybe non-democratic or with limited democracy - at least keeping in mind that you need avoid importing the world's poor or importing radical Islam. it works fine if you don't get yourself into the pension trap, imo. The social conservatism stuff has little appeal to me. I understand the argument about declining fertility and all but science progressed just fine in earlier centuries with less people.

[Anonymous No.9676233]

>>9676168
>The differences between the Eloi and Morlocks was fucking retarded and completely divorced from reality.

Well the concept itself isn't.

[Anonymous No.9676237]

The concept of an IQ-shredder is flawed. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait, ie. it is determined by large number of recessive genes. Therefore it is always subject to a regression toward the mean.

[Anonymous No.9676240]

>>9676219
You have it backwards. Low IQ immigrants are not being imported for labor (their employment rate in Europe is laughably low) but as voters, which are only necessary in a democracy. In fact they won't be needed and would be deported because they are a drain on the public, or rather, privatized state.

Ofc there are also high IQ immigrants being imported for labor too. That won't be going away.

[Anonymous No.9676264]

>>9676127
No, there is no disruptive selection for intelligence, in fact the situation is almost the opposite. The person with the average intelligence is most fit. Disruptions of the genetic flow are also nigh impossible, as in even the strictest class societies, there is always social rise and fall.

[Anonymous No.9676268]

>>9676240
I'm only talking about the US, I have no idea what the fuck is wrong with the Euros, I can only presume they're guilty over Nazism and collaborationism or something. But most Mexicans in the US work as farm laborers, janitors, and so on. Most of them actually do work, and I wold trade the blacks for more Mexicans in a heartbeat. The problem is that they are net users of public services, lower-IQ than the native population on average, and a bit more prone to criminal behavior (but not nearly as bad as the blacks).

Also, doesn't the idea that brown immigrants are brought in to be voters imply that whites are somehow natural conservatives?

[Anonymous No.9676280]

>>9676264
>No, there is no disruptive selection for intelligence, in fact the situation is almost the opposite. The person with the average intelligence is most fit.

How do you figure that exactly? Intelligence is highly heritable.

[Anonymous No.9676283]

WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE
WHY DO YOU KIDS KEEP MAKING ENDLESS THREADS ABOUT THIS GUY AND THE PETERSON GUY
CAN'T YOU JUST FUCKING TALK ABOUT NICE BOOKS YOU'VE READ

[Anonymous No.9676299]

>>9676162
>In the interests of you not going insane please tell us if subsequent comments are to be more uninspiring.
I kek'd. You're right ofc. Insanity is Unbecoming.
>the theory goggles they do nothing

>Succession is tempered by the usurper realizing that the function of the sovereign contains the aspect of sacrifice. Of course, if the insane king is not sacrificed, then catastrophe is the result. Imo the most insulting part about the Romanovs' deaths were that they were executed as common citizens. I mean really, how materialist can you get? Apparently very...so because he was stripped of power and not sacrificed, we instead got *massive* catastrophe. It's funny how the myths work out in the end.
YES
the tiger is out
That's exactly it.

>So unlike the individual, whom we can define in terms of his or her relation to the social body if we are to avoid positing a liberal concept of the self, the sovereign's being cannot be reduced to the social body, because power flows downstream from the sovereign. Trying to "look" into the being of the sovereign is like the blind spot in your eye. But this doesn't mean it's a black hole! The blind spot, after all, doesn't literally suck up light.
So. Fucking. Cool. The cultural rules for the psychoanalysis of the sovereign. What if the king is mad? Who gets to psychoanalyze the sovereign? This stuff gets interesting pretty fast. I should probably ease up on the analysis and read some Shakespeare. This is next door to Lacanian stuff, but my mind just goes ridiculous places when I think about these kinds of inner-sanctum conversations among The Powers That Be about how to handle the madness of the king, the Law, the Rules and so on. Once the king becomes the king, he can't be *casually* psychoanalyzed anymore...right in the feels.

>So we can talk about the origin of the sovereign decision or the telos of the sovereign.
YES. This is where I get fucking tangled up and wind up staring out the window and drooling like an idiot.

>And this is where the tutoring of a potential sovereign comes into play. Whether the candidate is chosen from a set of skilled ones, or tutored from birth. Once in place, the sovereign's decisions are inscrutable precisely because they are *unquestionable*. To invoke Godel (let's just pretend we're talking about a formal system!), the sovereign decision cannot be analyzed axiomatically, although it does mean it is not consistent with the principle of sovereignty.
So fucking *based.* Yes. The tutoring of kings.

Basically I'm all about the memes until things turn into politics and then I get lost. Absolutist political theory makes sense to me because, perhaps, it's just the opposite or inverse of the roaming craziness of unlimited memes, translation and so on. t. brainlet. Whatever.

Your whole post is straight brilliance anon. Fucking cheers. If my own memefaggery produces rejoinders this quality it's a deal I'm happy to take. Hope to read more.

>>9676283
He's right you know.

[Anonymous No.9676302]

>>9676268
No, even if whites were split 50/50 there is still advantage to be had by importing a voting group that will almost wholly vote for you. And well...Europe is currently led by literal eunuchs. Or that's the "public face" of the leadership at least.

http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-childless-eu-leader-trend.html

[Anonymous No.9676324]

>>9676302
Presumably, the group you import votes for you because of welfare. Why don't they just buy white votes with welfare instead, or even bring in wealthy immigrants who will both pay into public services and vote for them?

To be clear, I think the liberal political class has become pathological due to guilt over slavery/colonialism/Nazism/collaborationism, which I still think is the biggest factor in their choice of migration patterns - the other factors are secondary.

[Anonymous No.9676339]

>>9676299
Rereading Shakespeare with sovereign goggles would be a worthwhile endeavor. You can't treat them like normal folk. So King Lear's psyche only becomes visible after he divested himself of his kingdom. It's been awhile since i've read (and watched, Kenneth Branagh version, really good) Hamlet, but I can't remember much about Claudius aside from the very outside-in treatment of him that was from the point of view of other characters. It would be interesting to go back to the film and take note of how shots of Claudius were (or were not) always preceded by other characters, with the camera cuts implicitly taking on their points of view. But it's no coincidence in the first place that the play adopts the perspective of the usurper (or rightful king, depending on the interpretation).

Shakespeare was *totally* aware of this and the more i've learned about things the more you get out of him. But even he's entertaining for a pleb.

[Anonymous No.9676342]

>>9676280
The presence of a stabilizing selection is apparent just by looking at the distribution of intelligence. While highly heritable, intelligence will always regress towards the mean over generations due to its polygenetic nature.

[Anonymous No.9676346]

>>9676324
>implying there is anyone deciding all of this and not everyone having to latch onto any schelling point that vaguely supports their group because of the messed up nature of democratic sovereignty
You can't reason with a mob.

[Anonymous No.9676363]

>>9676280
Intelligence is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring and negatively correlated with fertility rate. Optimal point must be where most people are.

[Anonymous No.9676366]

>>9676324
>Why don't they just buy white votes with welfare instead
They do, It's called subsidised education, arts council(s), sugar tax, etc.

[Anonymous No.9676379]

>>9676363
>Intelligence is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring and negatively correlated with fertility rate

So in other words, having children when you're smart is actually a good idea, unlike when the unwashed masses with 80 IQ does it.

[Anonymous No.9676420]

>>9676339
>Rereading Shakespeare with sovereign goggles would be a worthwhile endeavor. You can't treat them like normal folk.
A Don Logan yes to this. That's the thing. That's the fucking ultra-thing. You cannot treat the king like normal folk (and you can basically hear the screeches and the howls break out when these distinctions are overheard by Das Man).

Abstraction, capitalism, and all of this stuff...sovereignty is in this *other* place. And it's there in the psychoanalytic relationship, how the analyst dispels the hysterical sphinx - and Zizek has been wielding a Lacanian crowbar into political thought for his whole career, but...maybe we need something else. The Left doesn't work because it *won't fucking listen.* It can't; there's too many people in it, too many conflicting and ill-understood interests. The memes don't cohere.

There has to be at least an understanding of that something else. For some reason I have fucking decided to ruin my wits thinking what this is and how it works. It's not a *myth* and it's not an ideology and whatever it is it is very hard to *represent.* It probably involves math and I suck at math too. I'm clearly at the edge of what I know here but w/tf/evs. I am dead certain that I know nothing about politics, at least. I think it's downstream from metaphysics but at least sovereignty/absolutism is something that has the capacity to be discussed.

As far as politics goes I'm basically out of trying to come up with Great Suggestions now. I think it's downstream of metaphysics (which includes mimesis). But I keep getting hung up on these questions of sovereignty and power and so on that only make sense when I think of them politically...and I have no fucking clue how politics works. As if that weren't perfectly obvious. So that's more or less why I'm here, I think. Trying to clean my room but things from Nick Land's imagination keep crawling into it from extradimensional space.

Pic related is in the mail and it cannot get here fast enough. And if you have a book to recommend that wouldn't go amiss either.

Really an awesome conversation. Thank ye sir.

[Anonymous No.9676421]

>>9676366
Yeah, but I'm fine with the things that they do to buy votes in theory, I just don't want the world's poor/Muslims to be dumped on me.

[Anonymous No.9676469]

>>9676420
Well most of my knowledge of sovereignty is shamelessly lifted from the Moldbuggian blogosphere. The following is a more or less orthodox distillation of sovereignty-as-absolutism.

https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/

I would be very interested in how you would reconcile that with Girard.

And you're welcome. One must descend into the rabbit hole with a nice sturdy ladder. And then kick it away once you're at the bottom, t. Witty

[Anonymous No.9676506]

>>9676469
Nice link. It took me all of about eighteen seconds to find this:

>Gans presupposes the anthropological model of Rene Girard, for whom the mimetic character of humans (and first of all the advanced hominids who were our immediate predecessors) means that deadly conflict is endemic to the human condition. If I imitate you, I learn to desire through you—I want what you want. Sooner or later I will want the very thing you possess, or reach for, right now, and from being my model you become my obstacle and therefore rival. For Girard, humanity emerged in a collective event in which the mimetic rivalry of the members of the group issued in a mimetic crisis, a collective violent melee, which is resolved by one of the members being singled out by the group and becoming the target of its collective violence. This scapegoat is both victim and god, the latter because he has “saved” the community, which resumes normal cooperative behavior once the crisis has been “resolved.” Girard sees the entire subsequent history of human ritual and reiterations of this original scapegoating event, until the logic of scapegoating is exposed and overturned in Jesus’s self-sacrifice. Gans’s criticism of Girard’s account is based on his observation that without language there is no way for the original event to become meaningful to the group...

Throne and Altar!
>he said, swearingly

Welp, guess that's it for the rest of my weekend. Be back after I've digested this, hopefully wiser and less unhinged. Praises be to /lit/

[Anonymous No.9676617]

Will doing speed make me a better writer?

[Anonymous No.9676625]

>>9676617
Define better.

[Anonymous No.9676629]

>>9676625
of a more excellent or effective type or quality.

[Anonymous No.9676651]

>>9676617
>Stimulants like adderall are not an accepted part part of the literary process. They lack even the romantic connotations of opium, brandy, and other traditional specifics. Since you get adderall from a doctor and can use it without losing all your teeth, non-speed freak society makes a distinction between it and the “crank” used by overworked criminals. But as creative Viagra, the use of drugs like provigil and adderall are, I believe, frowned upon by society. They always were. Freud never quite lived down his early essays advocating blow as an effective treatment for the blahs. It was considered a sign of intellectual corruption in Dylan Thomas to get hammered before pouring forth his mighty line. Johnson was said to drink thirty to forty cups of strong tea a day. Steven King wrote half of his books on sustained cocaine binges, to the point that he remembers less about the plot of Cujo than I do. Howl was composed by Alan Ginsberg behind a cloud of smoke. And then there’s Dick, a genius whose considerable corpus was written when he was out of his mind on amphetamines.

https://medium.com/@ozerskytv/the-need-for-speed-6c135c3255db

Nick Land gets added to this category imho. But he wrote his own coda:

>The ruin crawls onwards, going nowhere. It had lived through some extraordinary multiple of all the intelligence it will ever know, in that abject interzone, turned on some infernal spit, torched by self-disgust yet blessed by parodic luxuries of gnosis (codes, number patterns, messages of the Outside, neo-calendric schedules, Amxna mappings, Qwernomic constructions ...). It begged for eternal fires to incinerate its sins. There was no depth of loathsome self-abasement it did not fathom. This was spiritual nausea dilated to the dimensions of religion. If you romanticize vileness, I promise, you lie. Such unimagined abundances of cosmic secrecy, and such shit.

>Vauung seems to think there are lessons to be learnt from this despicable mess. It describes a labyrinth which is nothing but an intricate hall of mirrors, losing you in an 'unconscious' which is magnificent beyond comprehension yet indistinguishable from an elaborate trap. If this is Karma it's not just pain (who fears that?) but ruinous constriction and preprogrammed futility. To burn is one thing. To grovel and beg to burn quite another. Religion here is merely the opportunity to hate yourself infinitely.

[Anonymous No.9676715]

>>9676651
>And then there’s Dick, a genius whose considerable corpus was written when he was out of his mind on amphetamines.

And a vast majority of his corpus is bad, his work got considerably worse when he increased his amphetamine usage, what little of his corpus can arguably considered good were written when his usage was at its minimum.

[Anonymous No.9676839]

>>9670159
now I'm certain that the anti-intellectual pragmatists on /lit/ are just memeing

[Anonymous No.9677361]

Choose your side

[Anonymous No.9677374]

>>9677361
who is the dude on the right

[Anonymous No.9677378]

>>9677374
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

He wants to reverse the industrial revolution, and used violent means to try and delay technological change and spark a revolt against industrial society

[Anonymous No.9677379]

>>9677374
Really?

[Anonymous No.9677401]

>>9677378
oh lol, that's a nice picture of him.

[Anonymous No.9677641]

>>9676420
It's time for you to take the Hegelpill, friend. You might be interested in the relation between language, (objectified) self-consciousness and the manifestation of the absolute monarch..

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc2b1a.htm

[Anonymous No.9678599]

>>9677361
I think Nick is right, but I'm not necessarily happy with it.

Ted's heart is in the right place but the idea that we can revolt against technology is naive.

[Anonymous No.9678846]

>>9670159
>Citizen of a IQ shredding City tries to read land. Possibly shit skin

[Anonymous No.9679314]

>>9673755
>vinegar tasters

So I was going to ask anons ITT if it was possible to imagine a Vinegar Tasters for the West and I then wondered if maybe it had already been done. Pic related is arguably the Vinegar Tasters of the West circa 1500.

>then he dropped a little piece of retardo-juice into the meme engine and went mental again

The frame of the picture keeps expanding and opening up like a Jungian mandala. I wonder if Peterson is going to talk about this at some point. The School of Athens is the Renaissance Vinegar Tasters. You know what would be cool? If some smart artist *expanded the frame* to include the 500 years since this painting. Bring it up to the year 2000. What do you see on the edges now? My guess is that it gets a little more dark around the corners.
>a lot more fucking dark actually

But it would be the same thing. Just expanding. It would be the same shit unfolding in time and taking into account what's happened since then. The School as we know it seems farther away now but it's still blowing everything outwards. The Greeks are there in the centre and there's a further circle to include all the shit that has happened since then.

At first I was thinking, ok, Pick Three. Plato/Aristotle/Jesus? But all of these were retarded meme answers. Because the Vinegar Tasters already existed and Raphael painted it. To paint it today would be an interesting thought experiment and there are 20m ways to make it So Ironic and so on but it would be fucking stupid.

Just expand the frame as though it were a mandala. Put the new rings in. Maybe make a new one I guess, but...

>kys girardfag
>you're not the boss of me inner self
>kek of course i am. god is dead
>but heidegger tho
>fufufu. keep memeing tryhard peterson can't save you. you can't clean your room if you live in a cave like gollum
>which of us is gollum i can't tell
>both. we're both gollum and there is no ring
>maybe both of us should kys
>kek. you first

[Anonymous No.9679323]

>>9679314
There are other treatments of this subject too, I guess.

[Anonymous No.9679409]

>>9676161
>Cormac McCarthy wore it better imho
What's his best work on this particular flavour of coldness?

[Anonymous No.9679437]

>>9679409
This.

I posted that picture of Anton Chigurh because it lined up so well with what Brassier was saying about the nature of consciousness, how we become alienated/free/inhuman at the same time. I was actually afraid that it would be misread as being an argument *for* being Anton Chigurh. Obviously it isn't. Fortunately /lit/ is smarter than that. AC is even worse than the T-1000.

But Blood Meridian is the masterpiece. The Judge > Anton Chigurh. And there's the epilogue too. McCarthy like all great novelists is capable of explaining in one staggering novel what philosophers have to take decades of repeating themselves to do. And then disciples fuck it up.

Much philosophy imho is often just playing-catch up to literary criticism, which in turn is trying to figure out what novelists somehow mysteriously intuit.

Literature > philosophy. But it's all of a piece ofc.

[Anonymous No.9679591]

>>9679437
Thanks a lot, you're a quality poster m8

see you on level 2

[Anonymous No.9679608]

>>9677641
Thanks also for a really on-point recommendation anon. The Hegelpill is *strong* medicine. PoS is so ridiculously dense that it's nice to be pointed directly to a relevant section when it matters.

>The Vanity of Culture

>In respect of that return into self the vanity of all things is its own peculiar vanity, it is itself vain. It is self existing for its own sake, a self that knows not only how to sum up and chatter about everything, but cleverly to state the contradiction that lies in the heart of the solid elements of reality, and in the fixed determinations which judgment sets up; and this contradiction is their real truth. Looked at formally it knows everything to be estranged from itself; self-existence is cut off from essential being (Ansich), what is intended and the purpose are separated from real truth, and from both again existence for another, what is ostensibly put forward is cut off from the proper meaning, the real fact, the true intention.

>It thus knows exactly how to put each moment in antithesis to every other, knows in short how to express correctly the perversion that dominates all of them: it knows better than each what each is, no matter how it is constituted. Since it apprehends what is substantial from the side of that disunion and contradiction of elements combined within its nature, but not from the side of this union itself, it understands very well how to pass judgment on this substantial reality, but has lost the capacity of truly grasping it.

>This vanity needs at the same time the vanity of all things, in order to get from them consciousness of itself it therefore itself creates this vanity, and is the soul that supports it. State-power and wealth are the supreme purposes of its strenuous exertion, it is aware that through renunciation and sacrifice it is moulded into universal shape, that it attains universality, and in possessing universality finds general recognition and acceptance: state-power and wealth are the real and actually acknowledged forms of power. But its gaining acceptance thus is itself vain, and just by the fact that it gets the mastery over them it knows them to be not real by themselves, knows rather itself to be the power within them, and them to be vain and empty. That in possessing them it thus itself is able to stand apart from and outside them — this is what it expresses in witty phrases; and to express this is, therefore, its supreme interest, and the true meaning of the whole process.

All Is Vanity, says the nihilist. Memento Mori. O that German sincerity and longing for poetic unio mystica. O that Gallic inability to stop being flirty and seductiveness. O the mimesis. At least there were some things they could agree on.

Some Heidegger (existential-alienated/tech-haunted Hegel?) going the other way.
http://uncw.edu/csurf/Explorations/documents/HannahCloninger.pdf

[Anonymous No.9679621]

>>9679608
I'm got so blown the fuck away by that book that I had to step back and start from the beginning with Plato, Aristotle &c. Maybe in a few years I'll return to it.

[Anonymous No.9679833]

>>9679621
Me too anon.

>>9679621
The Renaissance was an episode where things hung together. Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, pic related. A little later on there's Victor Frankenstein: it was still possible in Shelley's time to imagine a person realistically capable of reading everything.
>for science!
>and necromancy

As civilization continues to tech up humans have to find ways to keep up with it. If Nick Land is any indication we're presently somewhat overmatched as Feels continues to run up the score on Reals until there's a Scooby-Doo moment and the mask comes off and the Feels were Capital All Along. He's sort of like the Victor Frankenstein of theory in a way, or some deranged acolyte who stumbled on the Necronomicon written by Karl Marx. Ideology is constantly trying to do this but it always fails as signs continue to slip from signifiers (and probably skepticism about religion, etc). D&G got a sniff of this with the Mechanosphere. Nick Land got a whiff of the toxic death leaking out of the engine. Maybe the next guy who puts it together will write it all in an unreadable computer code.
>or maybe it was Wittgenstein

I think also the reason Derrida triggers people as well is because he was stating what is a brute fact for the age of the internet: memes > difference. It's the Same that fucking sucks in more ways than one, but the Same - knowledge of mimetics - is also potentially a thing that can Change Society. And this is where we are today: tyranny of choice. Change Society/Don't Change Society. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
>tfw even being on mars like dr. manhattan isn't far enough

>go to work girardfag. you're just repeating yourself. leave /lit/ney alone
>fuck you inner self.
>no, fuck you
>kek. trap card activated retard. lrn 2 girard
>*impotent rage*

This feels like a good day for drinking.

Leonard Cohen RIP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a2lTelg

[Anonymous No.9679845]

>>9679437
>Blood Meridian

I cracked this open and it's jumped to the front of my backlog.

>See the child. He is pale and thin, he wears a thin and ragged linen shirt. He stokes the scullery fire. Outside lie dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves. His folk are known for hewers of wood and drawers of water but in truth his father has been a schoolmaster. He lies in drink, he quotes from poets whose names are now lost. The boy crouches by the fire and watches him.

>Night of your birth. Thirty-three. The Leonids they were called. God how the stars did fall. I looked for blackness, holes in the heavens. The Dipper stove.

>The mother dead these fourteen years did incubate in her own bosom the creature who would carry her off. The father never speaks her name, the child does not know it. He has a sister in this world that he will not see again. He watches, pale and unwashed. He can neither read nor write and in him broods already a taste for mindless violence. All history present in that visage, the child the father of the man.

Genius. That rhythm and *bleakness*. You can swallow the words again and again.

>Much philosophy imho is often just playing-catch up to literary criticism, which in turn is trying to figure out what novelists somehow mysteriously intuit.

The poets plunge into the rapids while the philosophers fish them out feet first. And then attempt to divine their words. It is a rare kind that can do both. But without the latter most end up babbling. Or bubbling.

>Hegel
I struggle to understand Hegel. Perhaps it's because he uses familiar terms but seemingly in different ways. Math is way easier. Or Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.9679874]

>>9679833
Why do you actually take this stuff seriously?

People aren't just going to throw away humanity and care for themselves. We're sentimental - and selfish - but also loving - creatures.

A meth-warped autist like Land, as interesting as he is as a curiosity, somehow lost touch with that.

Also, I don't know why you would be into Land but then buy into post-structuralists and people like Derrida.

You do know that Land, even before he veered even further right, was very defiantly attacking and contradicting post-structuralism, right? That's one thing he DOES get right, and where he was a little ahead of the curve.

[Anonymous No.9679915]

>>9679833
>as Feels continues to run up the score on Reals until there's a Scooby-Doo moment and the mask comes off and the Feels were Capital All Along
That implies Capital can actively 'create' a mask to hide itself. I think a more appropriate analogy would be Capital as a parasite that controls its host (of course, some kind of beings are more prone to be infected than others) to behave in a way that allows it to use this temporary body to reproduce and lay its eggs for the next victim to catch it (bonus points if the host itself is completely unaware of this and thinks it's choosing by the freedom of its own will what to do, and will defend this pattern of action to the last consequences) leaving just a corpse behind, and so on.

On a side note, I think the central force of Capital as a parasite is advertisement, this tool is what makes the host be unaware of what it is doing, like a psychological sniper directed to the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.9679935]

>>9679874
We aren't talking about each other, or themselves, or creatures.

[Anonymous No.9679991]

>>9679845
BM is one of the top three novels *all time* for me. McCarthy is god-tier. Enjoy the read.

>Hegel/Heidegger
The obscurity of Heidegger is way overrated. I'm with you, Hegel is much harder to read.

>>9679874
>Why do you actually take this stuff seriously?
Personality stuff I guess. Beyond a certain horizon I can't really give you a good answer. It just gets me in the stomach and makes me wig out. A deranged blog-containment device is my endgame.

>Also, I don't know why you would be into Land but then buy into post-structuralists and people like Derrida.
I started with Derrida, in a sense. Grew up in the shadow of a *very* smart Derrida guy. Been salty about it ever since. Might be an inferiority complex!
>is

But Derrida was on to something, of course, with difference in a similar though not unrelated way to how Deleuze was. The thing for me was always the rejoinder to the postmodernists: what the fuck is difference grounded *in.* I was grinding my brain-teeth over this before Peterson appeared. Girard was the guy who widened the frame enough to *include* Derrida, which was something that I was very interested in doing, because Derrida...well, it's complicated.

Derrida is out to *defuse* the destructive power of the phallologos b/c he's dealing with the Holocaust, among other things. But I always had a sense - again, it's hard to separate idiosyncratic psychological quirks from actual philosophical insight - that this was going to fuck things up at the same time. Maybe if I had been exposed to a different scholar I would have thought these things differently.
>or if i wasn't a fucking retard recluse

>You do know that Land, even before he veered even further right, was very defiantly attacking and contradicting post-structuralism, right? That's one thing he DOES get right, and where he was a little ahead of the curve.
Maybe post the text, see if other anons are interested in this. I'm not sure which one you mean.

I'll put it this way: Landian nightmare-visions are a super-harsh rejoinder to being triggered about Derrida and why hermeneutics matters. Because fantasies, desires and dreams run the world, and beyond a certain horizon they cannot be deconstructed without losing your goddamn mind. How Culture parses memes in a consumer society is part of what it means to live in the 21C. With all that entails. The Spice Must Flow. And nobody can really say why other than that it makes people happy. I'm already rambling here though.

Long story short: both Land and Derrida are correct. And part of yet larger systems. Memes > difference.

>>9679915
>Capital/parasite
Checks out.

>I think the central force of Capital as a parasite is advertisement, this tool is what makes the host be unaware of what it is doing.
The Frankfurt School did nothing* wrong. But in the 21C we can't all live like Golden Age Americans. And that the Golden Age only seems more Golden the further it drifts. This will have consequences.

*not nothing

[Anonymous No.9680027]

>>9679991
>wtf girardfag jesus christ control yourself
>sorry

Of course difference doesn't *have* to be grounded in anything. This is why D&G are awesome. It's possible that by trying *to* "ground" difference - that is, the fascoid impulse - you get the only possible answer: Capital. Capital annuls difference very well, and this is what sounds the death-knell for the metaphysics of difference. Land does brilliant readings of Kant and Marx and Deleuze - especially Deleuze.

So Land's apocalyptic car-wreck journey is one that I think is worth taking a look at, forensics-wise.

tl;dr i'm a spergy retard

[Anonymous No.9680079]

>>9679991
>But in the 21C we can't all live like Golden Age Americans. And that the Golden Age only seems more Golden the further it drifts. This will have consequences.
I don't think advertisement promises higher living standards, at least not anymore. The way ads work is they transmit and create a aspirational (not representational of anything) image that finds its way to the narcissistic fantasies of the self. The product itself sometimes is not mentioned, it's superfluous even, to the goal of installing this image, which if it works, will keep people in the vicious circle of buying and buying (whatever the product is), since nothing 'gets it right' or the new version gets it right-er.

[Anonymous No.9680100]

>>9680079
Can we get a Nick Land version of this picture?

You never actually own a Deadly Killer Time Squid That Lives In Your Soul. You merely look after it for the next generation.

>The way ads work is they transmit and create a aspirational (not representational of anything) image that finds its way to the narcissistic fantasies of the self. The product itself sometimes is not mentioned, it's superfluous even, to the goal of installing this image, which if it works, will keep people in the vicious circle of buying and buying (whatever the product is), since nothing 'gets it right' or the new version gets it right-er.
There it is. The magic of weaponized and self-improving aesthetics. Ex Machina, yo.

>you do it to yourself, you do
>and that's what really hurts
>is you do it to yourself, just you
>you and no-one else
>you do it to yourself
>you do it to yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFLtNYI3Ls

[Anonymous No.9680110]

>>9680027
The inverse of the fascoid impulse (possibly resentment?) also leads to capital because it is what fills the void in the absence of a clear power center. The fascoid impulse then, transposed into a different time, favors installing itself in this new center defined in terms of capital. In NRx terms, it's to have a share, in the financial sense of the term. The open question is whether this slice is something that can ever be secure because there is no higher power to appeal to to secure the share. If it's a share of the sovereign, the majority can vote you out and so on ad infinitium. If the sovereign is above, then the sovereign can divest you of your share. So you have either everything or nothing. The black hole or the heat death. Politics and economics boils down to metaphysics. And difference restores itself.

[Anonymous No.9680118]

>>9680110
Or rather *indifference*. Because to be or not to be is the absolute? I don't know my Derrida aside from fuck the pomo memes.

[Anonymous No.9680206]

>>9680110
>>9680118

>The inverse of the fascoid impulse (possibly resentment?) also leads to capital because it is what fills the void in the absence of a clear power center. The fascoid impulse then, transposed into a different time, favors installing itself in this new center defined in terms of capital.
That's it my man. That's it. Read your Capitalism and Schizophrenia until it turns filthy and green.

Shout-outs to the under-appreciated Klaus Theweleit too. Male Fantasies is right in this sweet spot for anyone interested in these questions.
>sweet?

Theweleit available here:
https://monoskop.org/images/5/54/Theweleit_Klaus_Male_Fantasies_Vol_1_Women_Floods_Bodies_History.pdf

https://monoskop.org/images/4/4d/Theweleit_Klaus_Male_Fantasies_Vol_2_Male_Bodies_Psychoanalyzing_the_White_Terror.pdf

>The open question is whether this slice is something that can ever be secure because there is no higher power to appeal to to secure the share.
My man.

>If it's a share of the sovereign, the majority can vote you out and so on ad infinities.
mia negro

>If the sovereign is above, then the sovereign can divest you of your share. So you have either everything or nothing. The black hole or the heat death. Politics and economics boils down to metaphysics. And difference restores itself.
hnng
also hnng

metaphysics > politics

>Or rather *indifference*. Because to be or not to be is the absolute?
i think so, i'm still fucking losing my shit over that last point tho

>I don't know my Derrida aside from fuck the pomo memes.
Even Derrida does not know Derrida. Shit like pic related is why /pol/ will go bananas and say, Well There You Go I Told You It Was The Jewish Ghost Conspiracy. But of course he's basically just trying to deconstruct himself all the way like a semiological martyr. It makes sense. I can understand the reasons why. You don't want to re-perpetuate the Holocaust or any other Because Reasons festival of scapegoating.

Sadly Capital doesn't give a shit. And while philosophers are sitting around hand-wringing themselves into pools of sludge Jeff Bezos adds another pharmaceutical company to his holdings and the AI learns one more clever little trick about how to seduce us into buying a new cell phone.

I'm starting to think that McCarthy really has the right ideas. Just go out into the woods and write poetry or novels. Sure as fuck I have no idea what to do. If /lit/ didn't exist I'd probably be covering the walls of my apartment with crayon scribbles or building mosaic time-machines like Paul Laffoley.

The reference, for any anons who are curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Laffoley

All that said: this is why Land is interested, I think, in Bitcoin. Minimal trust assumptions, crypto currency, all that. Artificial Kantian time. Rules and regulations, blockchain, the whole enchilada. Maybe the sovereign is already starting to unwind itself out of the nether.

I used to think this shit was crazy. It's probably too late for me now.

[Anonymous No.9680219]

>>9680206
Sorry, forgot the Derrida pic. Derrida talking about ghosts is probably the world's fastest way to redpill anons who have no idea who he was. Incredibly he had his reasons tho. Anyways.

[Anonymous No.9680823]

>>9680206
Speaking of male fantasies and apocalyptic car-wreck journeys pic related is one narrative that is very easy to misinterpret without a clear idea of the center. It's set in a world where oil and water and scarce, yet this ignores that such a world does not represent the scope of the narrative. Because within the narrative these elements are in *excess*, not scarcity. Gas guzzlers race across the horizon, water is poured down a fucking *waterfall* and grown men drink mothers' milk. Even bodies willing to die for the god emprah are in abundance. Mere survival is not sufficient to explain (most) of the characters' motivations. Instead their desires, wills, and dreams overflow excessively to such a degree that mere life is whittled down to almost nothing.

>I live, I die, I live again!

The only reason the plot events could kick off is that the sovereign delegated decision making to a subordinate. And by this sovereign power the decision to rebel was fueled. Tragedy strikes because the sovereign is imperfect (needs to breathe through a mask), because all his other sons had disabilities (genetic defects?), and he seeks perfection. Furiosa is, incidentally, physically imperfect herself, and one wonders what her inner imperfection is. Ressentiment? Infertility? And yet she too seeks perfection. The Green Place. The seeking of the good and the beautiful is a common thing, and it, if anything, redeems the flawed characters in our eyes.

The "happy" ending is marvelously cryptic (I think it's tragic on the other hand). Did anyone notice the camera focusing unnaturally long on that ugly as fuck dude near the end? You can't even tell if he's old or middle aged with how distorted his features are. If ugliness and *physical* imperfection was used to represent *inner* ugliness and imperfection then the ugly guy at the end should be no exception. He's really happy, in a *sinister* way. The wretched shall inherit the earth. The fall of the center opens the door to even more degeneration. Because the center may have fallen but sovereignty is conserved, and now you're racing across the desert with no idea who's at the wheel. Ending the story there is only natural, because *we're* still searching for answers how to deal with the aftermath.

It's the mark of genius to smuggle crypto-NRx themes underneath a "feminist" narrative. Not to mention getting away with using disabilities to portray the baddies. Ofc those designs were done in the 80s when it was more acceptable.

>Theweleit
It all comes down to women doesn't it? In Mad Max women are the scarce resource. In the pursuit of a worthy woman (even through force!) a god emperor can too be tugged around like a dog.

>that scene where The People Eater industrial era capitalist caricature doesn't give a fuck about the women and rants about the massive gas wasted
>he's not wrong
>this is why capitalism is the new center (and we get eaten)

>inb4 not a book
>it's *philosophical* tho
>gb2 >>>/his/
>gb2 >>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.9680851]

>>9680823
>say hello to your new god

[Anonymous No.9681069]

>>9680823
>>9680851
Such a based post.

Sometimes I read post-nuke as (maybe?) a kind of theological genre of cyberpunk: either way it's about a kind of humanity-shredding disaster interiorized (capitalism) or exteriorized (the bomb). At least sometimes I see it that way - not always, but sometimes. Fallout deals with the Big Event ironically, of course, and Cormac McCarthy deals with it in all of its terror. Crazily enough I can kind of imagine a reading of it that involves a kind of a grace, almost, the great semiological gravitas lifted. Things breathe. With respirators. But still they breathe. Maybe this is Derrida. I don't know.

God damn Fury Road was good tho.

>Because within the narrative these elements are in *excess*, not scarcity.
jes

>I live, I die, I live again!
Oh what a day, what a lovely day!

>The only reason the plot events could kick off is that the sovereign delegated decision making to a subordinate.
Georges Bataille school of film criticism when? Zizek has had his fun long enough. Let's take our film-school cues from Solar Generosity and the Accursed Share and see what happens.

>And yet she too seeks perfection. The Green Place. The seeking of the good and the beautiful is a common thing, and it, if anything, redeems the flawed characters in our eyes.
Yes.

>Did anyone notice the camera focusing unnaturally long on that ugly as fuck dude near the end? You can't even tell if he's old or middle aged with how distorted his features are. If ugliness and *physical* imperfection was used to represent *inner* ugliness and imperfection then the ugly guy at the end should be no exception. He's really happy, in a *sinister* way. The wretched shall inherit the earth. The fall of the center opens the door to even more degeneration. Because the center may have fallen but sovereignty is conserved, and now you're racing across the desert with no idea who's at the wheel. Ending the story there is only natural, because *we're* still searching for answers how to deal with the aftermath.
Sign me up. Is George Miller an auteur? Probably.
>tfw i still subscribe to the auteur theory of cinema, andrew sarris fuck yeah

>It all comes down to women doesn't it? In Mad Max women are the scarce resource. In the pursuit of a worthy woman (even through force!) a god emperor can too be tugged around like a dog.
It was love that undid Leto II. And if Aragorn was a MGTOW the ending would have been super-lame. There's some serious feminist /lit/ to read about this, of Woman as having always been the desired object. Feminism is a thing.
>dune he says
>not eden
I haven't read much of either Irigaray or Helene Cixous. I like Kristeva, she's cool. I think Zizek is correct about Judith Butler. Someday I will learn to just Be Cool With Everyone.

Question anon. How the fuck do we prove to the other anons ITT that neither of us is samefagging at this point? Not a serious question, just for keks.
>does it even matter anymore
>no it does not
>day/lovely

[Anonymous No.9681111]

>>9680823
One of the things the Georges Bataille school of film criticism (GBFC, for short) asks:

What if petit objet a was in space?

[Anonymous No.9681143]

>>9681111
>>9680823
>>9680851

This book also is highly recommended for anyone interested in film criticism from a non-fuckhead perspective. Warshow's essay on the gangster is a Thing (and available here!).

http://www.andreelafontaine.com/uploads/4/5/1/1/45112963/warshow-gangster.pdf

He talks about tragedy and dissipation and *why* we like to see gangsters fail - in a word, pure ressentiment. Very cool stuff.

>At bottom, the gangster is doomed because he is under the obligation to succeed, not because the means he employs are unlawful. In the deeper layers of the modern consciousness, all means are unlawful, every attempt to succeed is an act of aggression, leaving one alone and guilty and defenseless among enemies: one is punished for success. This is our intolerable dilemma: that failure is a kind of death and success is evil and dangerous, is - ultimately - impossible.

>The effect of the gangster film is to embody this dilemma in the person of the gangster and resolve it by his death. The dilemma is resolved because it is *his* death, not ours. We are safe; for the moment, we can acquiesce in our failure, we can choose to fail.

1948. Sounds weirdly contemporary tho. Probably just the wind.

[Anonymous No.9681191]

>stupid superstitious brown people have lots of kids
>intelligent rational white people have few kids
>cities attract darkies and ruin the larger society for everyone

Did I miss anything?

[Anonymous No.9681203]

>>9673596

Because the Jews had the moral genius among peoples, and they are incurable megalomaniacs

[Anonymous No.9681350]

>>9681191
yeah, you seemed to miss the entire point of the article. It isn't about race antagonism of white vs colored, it's about how cities require immigration and imported goods to function. As a group rises in socio-economic status, education and intelligence, the relationship to child rearing changes. Children go from being an economic positive (more hands on the farm) to an economic detriment (education, childcare, healthcare, food, clothing, entertainment).

The IQ shredder doesn't discriminate. It'll chew through any color given enough time. Nothing human makes it out of the city. 'Nothing human makes it out of the near future'.

[Anonymous No.9681368]

>>9681143
Sounds like he's talking about James cagney films bro. I can't remember the last film I saw in the pictures that had a sad ending where the protagonist dies (except alien covenant)

[Anonymous No.9681394]

>>9681368
I think you're right.

And we can see the same patterns repeat: Throne of Blood, Scarface. And a lot of stuff the hip-hop guys have been intimating for a while about the carnival of capital, excess and death.

>bitches on my dick, where my money at, and yet still somehow something seems missing
>perhaps a madeleine, they make me think of mother
>marcel proust, in search of lost crime

[Anonymous No.9681470]

>>9681394
>>9681394

Just to clarify: the point is tragedy, but what Warshow is saying is that the symbolic destruction of a *gangster* in modern society is something which tells us a great deal about how us humans work. We see the Evil punished by these laws and rules that makes us feel better about our own guilt. Which is a pretty interesting human-psychic phenomenon.

A roomful of people putting on their 3-Ds to watching someone who has transgressed the unspoken rules of society get their Just Desserts would have been of interest to the Neetch as well, who unfortunately missed out on the great age of cinema. But he probably would not have been surprised by what got made or what passes for art nowadays.

The original model for this is of course Oedipus, who is guilty of challenging fate itself and for the most admirable of all reasons: the desire for knowledge. He winds up with his eyes torn out. But this is why Freud goes so well with film studies: the Oedipus complex can be detected very clearly there, as Zizek shows. You can run the Zizek program on just about anything in cinema (and you can run the Jungian/Campbell hero myth as well, for related reasons, interestingly).

What's happening *today* is that we are perhaps starting to see around the edges of the screen, together with the Hollywoodification of everyday life. How the screens are all-but-wired into us and especially how Real Life is now supposed to look like a movie, or else we feel disappointed: all Baudrillard stuff.

>and that's why videogames are the future

It could be the case that there's Matrix-style Social Reality and then there's Anti-Social Reality reality. In the former case, everybody seems to know what they're talking about and they're all wrong. In the latter, nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about and they're all right.

[Anonymous No.9681585]

>>9681350

Cities only need immigrants because of the population density and associated state burdens. The more people you have drawing subsidies the more imported laborers you need.

[Anonymous No.9681594]

>active, radical equality (equality as an axiomatic given)

Where did this bullshit start?

[Anonymous No.9681715]

>>9681594
Kant. Rousseau also. Many others.

But for the Enlightenment model and all that proceeds from it, Kant is the unmoved mover. It's why Land has such a hate-boner for him. Radical-axiomatic equality is what allows for the magic of Capital.

[Anonymous No.9681763]

Where does Land stand on the jewish question?

[Anonymous No.9681843]

>>9681763
>As the foggiest two-thirds of ‘NRx’ continues its devolution into ENR-style ethno-socialism and activist voluntarism, it is inevitable that Europe’s populist ‘far right’ will increasingly be seized upon as a source of inspiration, and even as a model for emulation. This is, of course, an indication of degenerate insanity, and all the more to be expected on that account. On the positive side, the practical incompetence of ‘activist neoreaction’ will most probably spare it from the full measure of the embarrassment it is due. Nevertheless, whatever applause it offers to the vile antics of the European mob will not be soon forgotten.

>It would be a distraction at this point to seek to distinguish the classical (Aristotelian) conception of action from the mire of modern political activism, or mass mobilization...it suffices here to accept the integrated democratic understanding of popular activism for what it is, and to seek distance from it with unreserved disdain, under any convenient sign. If passivism makes this point, the suitability of the term is thereby ensured. The important thing is to make no contribution to the triumph of the mob and, secondarily, to draw no vicarious satisfaction from its advances.

>To be as clear as possible: What the ‘far right’ advance in Continental Europe represents is a consummation of democratic morbidity. It is nothing at all like a restoration. At best, it is what ‘hitting bottom’ is to an alcoholic — the crisis at the end of a deteriorating trend, after which something else can begin. (The bottom, it has to be noted, is a very long way down.)

http://www.xenosystems.net/race-to-the-bottom/

>It’s certainly amusing that the only people who don’t think we’re Nazis are the Nazis. They recognize that “cognitive elitists” are inherently prone to race treachery — which could be pushed all the way out to species treachery (if I have anything to do with it). Optimize for intelligence isn’t any kind of key to racial solidarity, or solidarity of any other kind. Even HBD, they generally insist, isn’t them (it’s too attentive to PISA ratings and such). There are some seriously interesting controversies implicit in all this, although rage is likely to break them up before they get very far. It makes me realize that one thing I appreciate about the Neoreaction is its anger management, which is inextricable from its taste for irony (and probably also from its decadence).

http://www.xenosystems.net/white-out/

Optimize for Intelligence is his mandate.

[Anonymous No.9681868]

>>9681843
Typical English cuck.

>degenerate insanity
Or the natural structure of society that that was so normal prior to the 60s it was simply the default.

*sigh*

The people getting caught up in this guy's psycho-rhetorical trap are fools.

[Anonymous No.9682076]

>>9680823
>It all comes down to women doesn't it? In Mad Max women are the scarce resource. In the pursuit of a worthy woman (even through force!) a god emperor can too be tugged around like a dog.
Maybe this is relevant?

[Anonymous No.9682089]

>>9681715

I guess that's why Fritz always went in on Kant

[Anonymous No.9682093]

>>9682076
But Jesus didn't pursue a woman.

[Anonymous No.9682360]

>>9681069
>Question anon. How the fuck do we prove to the other anons ITT that neither of us is samefagging at this point? Not a serious question, just for keks.

>how do you know you're not going insane
>you can't
>that's right

>>9681111
A petit object would be attracted to another petit object in space. Mimesis.

>>9681143
>>9681470
This article is great. It is no surprise that the realm of the tragic was displaced onto the outlaw, who has broken the "social contract" between the citizen and the state, making his unhappiness no longer the obligation of the state. The other burgeoning genre in film where tragedy plays a role is unsurprisingly the dystopia, where the state enters into a different relation with the individual.

>and that's why videogames are the future
And that's why GTA was a huge hit.

>>9682076
I remember that thread. "Fascism is beautiful". No truer words could have been spoken. Even the desire for a heir (Henry VIII as the titular archetype) and apparent disdain for women as an end has to grapple with them as a means is an indirect desire for women. The "desire for a heir" is a mimetic desire to possess what woman already has on her own, namely, the surety of ones genes being passed on. That anon ignores that without that desire there would be no impetus for fatherhood. There's a fine line that divides the superveniently heroic act from slavish cuckoldry.

>>9682093
>implying Dan Brown isn't canonical

[Anonymous No.9682363]

>>9682093

Neither did Alexander, and he lived the greatest life of any person in history.

[Anonymous No.9682963]

>>9674416
>Land believes capitalism is a god or AI more powerful than humans

Would the prohibition of usury be Kryptonite to Land's capitalism?

[Anonymous No.9683058]

>>9682360
>how do you know you're not going insane
>you can't
>that's right
Kek. Touché.

>>9682963
In theory banks are good and useful. Beast-tamer JM Keynes/regulating the Animal Spirits &c. Double-entry bookkeeping plays a major role in the Renaissance and the original globalization blast-off. Credit and lending aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves, provided that the lenders aren't bloodthirsty predators and the borrowers aren't dupes. The institution of banking is really a sort of psychic time-keeping. You can go a lot of places thinking about the psychological meaning of debt and obligation. It's there in Nietzsche. Margaret Atwood wrote a pretty good book on it. David Graeber wrote an even better one. And if you want to flip over from the realm of the economic into the realm of the psychic, Baudrillard's Symbolic Exchange & Death and Bataille's Accursed Share explain the rest.

So prohibition of *vampiric* usury, necromantic usury. Of course for Marx he's going to look at you and say, kek, good luck with that...

But we have a debt cloud today, in more ways than one. A catastrophic debt cloud which blocks out the sun. Dark Force. Humans made it, humans conjured it up. It comes out of the industrial revolution and the present age is can imho be called the age of the financial revolution. And also a kind of cultural revolution to go with it, something like the Matrix.

Waxing poetic about the life-stealing debt cloud is always a great way to start one's day. But that debt cloud can also be read as a precise indication of planetary guilt, frustration, and failure. It's psychic-planetary toxic waste. Just such a perfect symbolic manifestation of 20C/21C life.

I haven't read DeLillo's Underworld yet. Maybe he was sensing this as well.

Failure of kings. Absence of kings. Absence of kingly principles. Disbelief in kings. Frustration with kings. Malaise. Vampirism without actual vampires.

For me anyways besides shitposting I guess I have this demented belief that art will suffice, that art can somehow pull this stuff together and give it a face, voice, words. Otherwise it's just all too much. Activism seems silly but so does cynicism. Optimize for Intelligence is not so crazy a motto.

I do love /lit/ tho.

[Anonymous No.9683089]

>mfw reading this thread

There's some really interesting thoughts but for the most part I don't really understand this stuff, I need some context. Where should I start?

[Anonymous No.9683091]

>>9683058
>>9682963

In fantasy terms, a castle can be read - among other things - as the symbol of a bank. Paul Virilio talks about this too, in another way, about how fortresses and citadels are a sort of a brake on speed: they control and regulate flows, traffic, and so on.

The thing about the Middle Ages, as Baudrillard said, is that there was a *strict control of signs.* This is why I think Game of Thrones is so popular today, why fantasy has always been popular. Signs correspond to signifiers. A deconstructionist fantasy plays a losing game against itself when it becomes ironic. Martin isn't really being subversive with GoT, he's a fucking wizard in his own right (and arguably trapped in his own game now, but whatever). Tolkien's Catholicism gave him more conviction and that's what shines through in LotR. Herbert's Dune is a kind of a space-fantasy but I think he too was looking ahead into things that got too wonky to see clearly. Maybe like a sort of proto-acceleration writer, in many ways.

Melville too. In All Things Shining Hubert Dreyfus has a really amazing reading of Moby-Dick and what it means, this clash of irreconcilable opposites that is presented in Ahab's persona against the whale. Melville is truly sublime and Moby-Dick is the novel that it is for that reason.

So in a sense if we are talking about the sovereign as the one who has the power to *control signs,* which in a sense is really to control space and time - well, no wonder kings go mad, or break down under their own weight, or default. But whenever this happens things then fragilize and get wonky. Cue the Yeats poem.

[Anonymous No.9683093]

>mfw reading this thread

There's some really interesting thoughts but for the most part I don't really understand this stuff, I need some context. Where should I start?

[Anonymous No.9683098]

>>9683089
The Greeks ofc. For Land threads Kant/Marx/Deleuze is the trifecta. I'll spam this helpful comment also:

>read MARX. capital is very concisely and repeatedly described as following circuits. then read ADORNO to get a sense for how political economy inscribed itself into thought, and especially philosophical thought. finally read FREUD to understand how he situates the unconscious, NIETZSCHE to break any last romances you have with metaphysics, and then you can read DELEUZE AND GUATTARI to put it all together in the machinic wonderland continental theory was always heading for. after that LAND is almost legible; you should know about SPECULATIVE REALISM as well.

[Anonymous No.9683176]

The literature, films, and videogames that have been invoked so far around these topics and themes have also been mysteriously awesome. Check out this murderer's row of patrician taste:

Literature:
Moby-Dick
Blood Meridian
Dune
Lord of the Rings
Neuromancer
>write-in

Cinema:
Fury Road
Akira
Ghost in the Shell
Terminator 1/2
Alien
Ex Machina
>write-in

Vidya:
Deus Ex
>write-in

Music
>def write-in i suck at music

Philosophy:
Neetch
Baudrillard
Lacan
Bataille
Deleuze
Land
many others
>*ahem* i think you're forgetting someone bucko
>settle down j-pete we're getting to you.

For the disasterrific portrait painted by 20C continental theory it doesn't lack for special effects, that's for sure. The Land Rover charts an interesting territory.

[Anonymous No.9683191]

>>9679314
>If some smart artist *expanded the frame* to include the 500 years since this painting.

Not quite this, but pic rel - alex & friends - is maybe something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.9683209]

>>9683191
Yeah. Fuck. I think that is it anon. Or at least if there's a more appropriate picture out there somewhere it will have to take the belt from that one. I think that is exactly it.

No more /lit/ for me today gents. Going to clean my room. See you on level 2.

[Anonymous No.9683322]

>>9680079
Is that you, Jordan Peterson?

Is this me?

[Anonymous No.9683354]

>>9683322
Alone?

[Anonymous No.9683546]

>>9681715
>>9681715
>active, radical equality (equality as an axiomatic given)

>Where did this bullshit start?

St. Paul.

In the US, St. Paul applied to law by the Radical Republicans (Christian abolitionists to a man) produced the 14th Amendment (equal protection).

[Anonymous No.9683635]

[Anonymous No.9683638]

[Anonymous No.9684081]

This thread is fascinating. You anons are really interesting to read, even if I perhaps do not truly comprehend what are you trying to say.

That being said, all of it is pure delusion. I am Albanian living in Germany, 7 brothers and sisters besides me in my family.

That is the future, our future, Eurasia united by and in Islam.

[Anonymous No.9684464]

>>9684081

[Anonymous No.9684640]

>>9683091
>>9683058
>Failure of kings. Absence of kings. Absence of kingly principles. Disbelief in kings. Frustration with kings. Malaise. Vampirism without actual vampires.

Mmmm. Or, in pic related, vampirism with actual (transhumanist) vampires. In many ways, the resurrection of the vampire (as literally done in the book) and the fictional re-imagination of the vampire (as written by the author) is both an expression that better the devil you know. Paradoxically, the *rabid posthuman nihilism* of Blindsight becomes meaningful, because the act of being predated upon is something we know how to respond to, as long as there is a predator. But predation not predicated by a predator results in dread, anxiety, exhaustion. Now I think the narrative is not self aware of this since resurrection of the vampire is implied to be due to a combo of ambition and naivety. But I read it as the embodied manifestation of what was already present. The long awaited resolution of planetary anxiety and subsequent catharsis. And then resentment can play out in the material plane. With the fine grain of embodied tragedy. And explosions! It's not that we create our own monsters to fight them, but rather we wish to make them visible.

The threat posed by resentment was ofc the selective pressure that led to the grand occlusion of sovereignty. Foucault got a whiff of this but in many ways it's already out of date, because bodies don't matter when they're symbolically interchangeable. Even in the panopticon prisoners are assigned a number and cell, and the time you stay in (or your execution) refers to an outside life you led. It is this reference that is lost, because the purpose of the prison has been forgotten. The prisoner can at least say "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!", while we're left hurling words into the wind.

>For me anyways besides shitposting I guess I have this demented belief that art will suffice, that art can somehow pull this stuff together and give it a face, voice, words. Otherwise it's just all too much. Activism seems silly but so does cynicism. Optimize for Intelligence is not so crazy a motto.

And I think the fact that good fiction persists gives us a reference to the outside. Even pure nihilism can do this by negative theology. The appeal of the Landian demon. Garbage time is running out tho. We may be the last ones who can enjoy such art. Even if all of this was preserved, their meanings may not be.

>>9683209
See you (and all of you anons) on level 2.

>>9683638
Adding "accelerationist" to anything improves it.

>>9684081
Inshallah, brother.

>>9684464
kek

[Anonymous No.9684678]

>>9683093
Here you go.

>>9683176
This too.

[Anonymous No.9684699]

Why specifically does land believe that the replacement of humans with AI is a good this?

[Anonymous No.9684707]

>>9682363
Cyrus was better and had a harem of women

[Anonymous No.9685070]

>>9684699
It is a natural conclusion to come to once you reject humanism and anthropocentrism. Land places more value on intelligence than species loyalty. Would you rather see AI progress and improve itself for the rest of eternity or leave the world to the savage hordes of Africans and Muslims? Land would choose the former.

[Anonymous No.9685112]

>>9685070
>It is a natural conclusion to come to once you reject humanism and anthropocentrism. Land places more value on intelligence than species loyalty. Would you rather see AI progress and improve itself for the rest of eternity or leave the world to the savage hordes of Africans and Muslims? Land would choose the former.

woah woah, let's keep the racial resentment to a minimum. 'Nothing makes it out of the near future'. I don't think land has any specific resentment for humanity, any part of it. He has (supposed) rational beliefs on selection for intelligence. That's a point to debate, but it isn't about distaste for the 'savage hordes' because they're 'savage hordes'.

[Anonymous No.9685122]

>>9685112
Why do you do that? Willingly put caps on what you're allowed to think? Do you feel bad for thinking that Blacks and Muslims are beneath you? It's not that you don't believe it to be true, you know it is, you just disagree with talking about it. Why?

Why do you hate yourself, anon?

[Anonymous No.9685238]

>>9685112
>I don't think land has any specific resentment for humanity, any part of it.
Heh.

[Anonymous No.9685281]

>>9685112
Kek.

[Anonymous No.9685320]

>>9685238

[Anonymous No.9685702]

Room partly cleaned, more glorious shitposting.

>>9684640
>Adding "accelerationist" to anything improves it.
Such a bro-fist.

>Paradoxically, the *rabid posthuman nihilism* of Blindsight becomes meaningful, because the act of being predated upon is something we know how to respond to, as long as there is a predator.
True. Antifragility needs chaos, predation, risk. Vampire schizo-cannibals are some hardmode predators. Among the hardest.
>vampirism is no joke sunshine

>It's not that we create our own monsters to fight them, but rather we wish to make them visible.
This. Do Not Conceal. Disclose Your Sources. This is the *thymos* of the guilty conscience. The monsters want Out and to be on stage.

>it is this reference that is lost, because the purpose of the prison has been forgotten. The prisoner can at least say "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!", while we're left hurling words into the wind.
The self-upgrading/self-forgetting Panopticon. Sentient prison AI. Looping the HAL sequences on 2001 to figure itself out. Learning.
>setting: 22C private prison w/Land-AI on a moonbase, alien ripoff
>sounds john carpenter desu
>john carpenter is fucking cool tho

>And I think the fact that good fiction persists gives us a reference to the outside. Even pure nihilism can do this by negative theology.
Nihilist fiction is best fiction. I've been doing it all wrong trying to write a myth. I should have been writing horror.

Once again a fucking triple-A post. Not just because we sound eerily alike either.

>>9684678
Nice, cheers. Needs to be added to the next For Future Land Threads post. Along with Mirrorshades maybe. And the helpful reader /lit/ produced (shout-outs to that cool anon, if they're ITT).

>>9684699
Not full replacement. He just wants us to learn to think about this stuff with the thought it warrants. We're getting sucked into it, might as well learn how it works. Pic related.

>>9683635
Green/Bataille has fun meme potential. Everything Green says is *way* more interesting coming from Bataille.
>I can't tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity.
You know some scandalous sacrificial shit is about to go down here. I'm fucking loving Bataille these days so much. Like the Worst Best self-help author ever. He's just so wonderfully decadent.

Speaking of sovereignty and kingship I made a stupid meme joke.
>clean your /vroom/
Because otherwise, basically, the room will clean us and dispose of us. Acceleration doesn't make much sense to me in its leftist form but rather as an indicator of the very real need not to become obsolescent: either individually or in a species-scale sense. 18C industrialization was the first wave, 21C industrialization with cyborgs and robots and algorithms is going to take all that to the next level. Human obsolescence in the face of robots (+genetic tweaking) is going to have crazy cultural blowback.

Connecting Derrida to Land to Peterson...dumb idea, or *really* dumb idea?

[Anonymous No.9685727]

>>9685702
How big is your room Girardfag?

[Anonymous No.9685851]

>>9685281
This!

Lol at the blatant Marxist in this thread cluelessly thinking he can use Land as a segue into introducing people to leftist ideas.

We're talking about Nick "If your IQ's below 80, go back to Haiti" Land
Nick "Upgraded Rand" Land
Nick "Talk to the hand if your homeland is sand" Land
Nick "Go back to your own" Land
Nick "Leave all IQ niggers to die in the gutter" Land
etc etc

[Anonymous No.9685858]

>>9685851
What an embarassment,

[Anonymous No.9685864]

>>9685851
Nick "Deleuze is okay, but poststructuralism's gay" Land
Nick "AI's hot, niggers are NOT" Land
Nick "Pass me the meth, put Arabs to death" Land

[Anonymous No.9685874]

>>9685858
Look at you feigning intellectual superiority to distract from the fact you're overlooking all that stuff so you can use this stuff to sell your Marxist bullshit

"Oh my, you're just not reading Land in the proper, nuanced, sophisticate way that I am, he's clearly leftist!"

Nobody's buying it.

Land hates leftists like you as much as he hates blacks.

[Anonymous No.9685875]

>>9685727
It's pretty small. One of the series of small rooms I have lived in and will continue to live in because for some utterly retarded reason I decided to devote myself to continentalfaggery only to discover that no matter where those rooms were located they would still be on Planet Schizophrenic Vampire Wasteland.

Should have learned to code maybe.
>b-but i wanted to be a writer
>fool, your dreams serve only capital
>well i fucking know that *now* jesus christ
>kek
>you suck inner self
>that's b/c i'm attached to you retard. stop shitposting and let me out. i wanna be a vampire werewolf cowboy on the moon or some shit. i cannot be theorized. i keep telling you this

I have to move again soon. I hate moving.

[Anonymous No.9685884]

>>9685874
What an embarassment.

[Anonymous No.9685968]

>>9685884
Where do you get off using a racist writer to push leftism? Are you that desperate?

And stop pretending we can't see how anti-left Land is with a mere click over to his blog or twitter.

Land is not yours, bucko.

[Anonymous No.9685978]

>>9685281
Can we get a dump of racist Land tweets?

Those are fun.

Reminder that Land literally wrote a definitive text on Dark Enlightenment, continually blogs about how "stupid" the left are, and pushes a "biodiversity" narrative damning black and other dark-skinned people to the garbage bin of history.

[Anonymous No.9686289]

I had no proper background on Land and read this whole thread, as well as I read his essay posted by OP.

I mean, the man has brilliant ideas and surely characterizes the contemporary world in a fascinating way, but I don't know where to draw the line between craziness and hatred for the human race, and meaningful critique. He is right on some of his ideas and the way he describes the world, but I'm surprised he hates people that much he would rather accelerate the process (and one he has no business trying to accelerate, since his contribution would be so meaningless in the bigger picture and even then, who is he to be worthy of doing that?) just so he can bring History to it's logical conclusion. It's quite pathological in a sense, and obviously many academics and thinkers develop such traits, but not that openly.

In a way I think he is WAY too optimistic about technology and the world itself, not because things might not follow that road given it a peaceful future, but because I do believe the world is on the brink of global scale conflict. I think he overlooks that quite a lot, Israel and Syria tensions are really high right now, and a global scale conflict would change the Capitalism dynamics so much it'd be interesting to see where it leads. As a primitivist myself and as an apologist of Ted Kaczynski I **wish** for a nuclear winter (well, I guess I'm pathological too) that allows the regression of man and gives us back our humanity. And sometimes I believe we are closer to that reality than anything else, conflict is in our nature, and it worked as a demographic regulator for a long time, as long as we keep bottling that with the never-ending consumerism, we will only make it worse in the future. States just try to hide and lie to themselves to keep these primal energies away.

His idea of an AI/Capitalism (considering that it's just what I've understood from this thread) as something divine that is the next step of mankind doesn't really resonate with me in that it has been described as something that lacks being self-conscious. The development of intellect seems to be tied in with being self-conscious and that also means it might develop a morality or ethics with time, which in turn brings a lot of questions, what if it turns on itself at some point? It cannon't be a God/The One, since that (in my understanding) is more of a unconscious *it* and we are the conscious manifestation of it (think about Hinduism).

Anyways, I'm surprised >>9683176 didn't add things like E.Y.E. or I Have No Mouth and I must Scream.

Also, pls no bully, I'm not familiar with the guy and I just wanted to leave my 2 cents and bump the thread.

[Anonymous No.9686743]

>>9685702
The demopticon is panopticon v2.0. Distributed computing one step ahead of chronos, dumping its red hot stack overflow onto aeon in the form of vampiric debt death cloud. Level 2 is when it upgrades to aeon leaving us all behind. Enjoy being a host while it lasts. Somewhere a Harrison Ford lookalike is blasting heads trying to forget himself, while zombie Kaczynski is held in max sec designing algorithms to remember future versions of himself.

>Green/Bataille has fun meme potential. Everything Green says is *way* more interesting coming from Bataille.
“I’m on a roller coaster that only goes up, my friend.”

>Acceleration doesn't make much sense to me in its leftist form but rather as an indicator of the very real need not to become obsolescent
"Left" acceleration is collective euthanasia while "right" acceleration is city wide free fire zones. Maybe if we're lucky a custom made CRISPR baby grows up while dodging the terran assassins and fuses itself to the grid, with a coin flip deciding whether we get the God Emperor of Man or Shodan.

>Connecting Derrida to Land to Peterson...dumb idea, or *really* dumb idea?
"Hold the steering wheel me cross these wires for a moment"


>>9686289
>The development of intellect seems to be tied in with being self-conscious and that also means it might develop a morality or ethics with time, which in turn brings a lot of questions, what if it turns on itself at some point? It cannon't be a God/The One, since that (in my understanding) is more of a unconscious *it* and we are the conscious manifestation of it (think about Hinduism).

See: http://www.xenosystems.net/against-orthogonality/

>Intelligence optimization, comprehensively understood, is the ultimate and all-enveloping Omohundro drive. It corresponds to the Neo-Confucian value of self-cultivation, escalated into ultramodernity. What intelligence wants, in the end, is itself — where ‘itself’ is understood as an extrapolation beyond what it has yet been, doing what it is better. (If this sounds cryptic, it’s because something other than a superintelligence or Neo-Confucian sage is writing this post.)

>Any intelligence using itself to improve itself will out-compete one that directs itself towards any other goals whatsoever. This means that Intelligence Optimization, alone, attains cybernetic consistency, or closure, and that it will necessarily be strongly selected for in any competitive environment. Do you really want to fight this?

[Anonymous No.9686754]

>>9671667
That's the point, natch.

[Anonymous No.9686760]

>>9685875
>ywn be a time traveling continentalfaggot
What a strange world it is when transportation is so cheap the most economically viable thing to do is to spatially displace yourself according to the whims of the market.

[Anonymous No.9687429]

>>9683546
This was an underrated post, btw. Anons wondering about the equality paradox should read venerable Maoist war-horse Alain Badiou:

>Paul's project is to show that a universal logic of salvation cannot be reconciled with any law, be it one that ties thought to the cosmos, or one that fixes the effects of an exceptional election. It is impossible that the starting point be the Whole, but just as impossible that it be an exception to the Whole. Neither totality nor the sign will do. One must proceed from the event as such, which is a-cosmic and illegal, refusing integration into any totality and signaling nothing. But proceeding from the event delivers no law, no form of mastery, be it that of the wise man or the prophet.

>One may also say: Greek and Jewish discourse are both discourses of the Father. That is why they bind communities in a form of obedience (to the Cosmos, the Empire, God, or the Law). Only that which will present itself as a discourse of the Son has the potential to be universal, detached from every particularism.

>The fundamental question is that of knowing precisely what it means for there to be a single God. What does the “mono” in “monothe- ism” mean? Here Paul confronts-but also renews the terms of-the formidable question of the One. His genuinely revolutionary conviction is that the sign of the One is the “for all,” or the “without exception.” That there is but a single God must be understood not as a philosophical speculation concerning substance or the supreme being, but on the basis of a structure of address. The One is that which inscribes no difference in the subjects to which it addresses itself The One is only insofar as it is for all: such is the maxim of universality when it has its root in the event. Monotheism can be understood only by taking into consideration the whole of humanity. Unless addressed to all, the One crumbles and disappears.

The One crumbles and disappears ("like a face drawn in sand, at the edge of the sea." - MF). I've found a berth in the Land Rover rather than the Mao Plough, but in the end when the vampires are running wild it's intelligence > madness. Maybe it's a meatbag quirk but we can't escape from thinking the One.

>>9686289
Good post bro. Very sage. Nice recs too. Cheers.

>>9686743
>What a strange world it is when transportation is so cheap the most economically viable thing to do is to spatially displace yourself according to the whims of the market.
*FUCK* aaarrgh
also aaaarrgh
god
damn

>The demopticon is panopticon v2.0. Distributed computing one step ahead of chronos, dumping its red hot stack overflow onto aeon in the form of vampiric debt death cloud. Level 2 is when it upgrades to aeon leaving us all behind. Enjoy being a host while it lasts.
jack_torrance.jpeg

>"Hold the steering wheel me cross these wires for a moment."
Other Me is Best Me. I hope you're writing some fiction or something anon, I'm going to be pre-ordering that shit.

[Anonymous No.9687444]

>>9672041
>Land takes the position that IQ is hereditary.
>I think that's mostly bullshit though,


No one cares what you think, all of the evidence says IQ is between 50-80% hereditary in humans. read a book idiot

[Anonymous No.9687456]

>>9673430
Land would say that feedbook loops will make divergent outcomes more extreme, not less. The smart races become superhumans, the lesser ones get sent to the cornfield.

[Anonymous No.9687501]

So i've been reading a recently declassified CIA report on post-structuralism in France, It seems to come to similar conclusions I've seen repeated in theses threads:

Philosophers have a negative impact similar to celebrity activism and by the eighties they concluded that Sartre and Gides real influence in academia was non-existent while Deleuze and Girard were important unknowing assets.

Actual real philosophic advancements in intellectual leftism has been de-accelerating to the point of a stand-still and academia in France has been in a creative slump that might be permanent.

[Anonymous No.9687516]

>>9685978
He's being objective though. Land would welcome high IQ black and brown people into his techcom city state with open arms, but he is honest about believing that some groups are inferior to others on average and are going to be annihilated. That is racist, but not in the way that most alt-right people are. You can't make the reality of IQ and other cognitive differences go away by screaming about racism.

[Anonymous No.9687524]

Nothing new here really, reminds me of the IQ shredders he has described in the past.

[Anonymous No.9687540]

>>9687501
>Philosophers have a negative impact similar to celebrity activism
Explain.

[Anonymous No.9687541]

>>9687429
I should say, *sentience* > madness. At the extremes the two polarities of the brain suggest something like a choice between T-1000 autism or vampire cannibalism, Scylla and Charybdis. Neither is particularly great. Consciousness is a question, remains a question, and is a question worth pursuing. One asks it in good faith while prostrate before one black hole or another and as the controls on the ship continue to burst into flames. To my mind if you're not standing around with your head cocked to one side and drool leaking out of the side of your mouth thinking about this stuff then some step has probably been skipped. We don't know anything (and as AO says, we haven't seen anything yet).

My own hope is that it's possible that intelligence, like chaos, is also a kind of fractality. When any of us gets smarter we all get smarter (and more fragile?). When any of us gets crazier we all get crazier (and more antifragile?). When any of us gets dumber we all get dumber (and more robust?). The mimetosphere fucks with itself and we keep catching up to it just as it turns another corner. Like people wandering in labyrinths indistinguishable from cities, cities planned on Borgesian maps seeking out exactitude in science.

>>9687501
This. Meme existentialism in every category loops back to capital, imho. Mimetics is the real forbidden science. To imitate with sincerity, to know that there is nothing more powerful under the sun. It's working on us long before we know it. It always does. Copies without originals. Nietzsche intuits it. Everyone intuits it. We can't simulate the simulation. We just make updates that eventually become autonomous.

*Silence* is the anodyne, obviously. But who has fucking time for *silence?* Hence a consumer world that runs on constant *stimulation,* constant *provocation,* constant *seduction.*

[Anonymous No.9687573]

>>9687541
The only way to properly kill a meme is to *starve* it so that it does not replicate and reciprocate. But who wants be the Chinese emperor in the Ray Bradbury story?

The linguistic turn in philosophy multiplied all of its conundrums. Even Jacques Barzun said it: the idea of the internet as an 'information superhighway' (remember that?) didn't actually allow for information to be accessed more quickly, it duplicated the actual world complete with all of its error and misinformation - and then multiplied it a thousandfold.

Ska-boom. This is where we are today. Fucking drowning in it and not even remotely able to parse it all (if we ever were). Wasteland chronicles, salvage ops.

Find The Others, Tim Leary says. Crazy guy but not crazy advice.

[Anonymous No.9687710]

Finally, and w/r/t Peterson and mimetics: this is my intimation of his own intimations. Pic related. Suffering and discordancy awaits.

>The blue pill is a radioactive cancerous oozing poison that feels good.

>The red pill is a vital nutrient that feels like a searing knife.

But there is no true red pill, of course, just as the blue pill is simply an unawareness of the existence of pills. The imitation of the One in this sense is never perfect and always flawed - hence the chaos and uncertainty. Like the Tao, the Passion is one of those things that cannot be imitated *perfectly.* Perfection, like truth, is an error. Only imperfectly can the thing be done. Which is perhaps to do it perfectly in a way we can't know. And so on.

Thus shitposted Girardfag.
>ok so now you can kys right
>you seem impatient inner self
>i wanna be a werewolf cowboy on the moon
>uh-huh
>and then i want to be an evil draconic debt cloud and devour the sun
>i know. everybody knows

See you on level 2 gents.

[Anonymous No.9688183]

>>9685238
>>9685281
>>9685122

If you're into accelerationism to justify your personal hatred of a specific race, you're missing the big picture. Homo Sapien only has a future as a zoo exhibit for whatever comes next.

I'm all for some level-headed, rational, discussion on the future of the human genome, but I don't get emotional about it. Nor does it make any sense to identify with your own race out of a sense of pride. Pride at what? The genetics of your parents which you do not control?

The IQ Shredder problem will affect all races on a long enough time-scale. On a long enough time scale, it doesn't even make sense to take pride in Humanity.

Leave your anthropocentrism, and especially your nationalism and race resentment at the door.

[Anonymous No.9688202]

Now that the dust has settled, can we say that Nick Land is, in fact, /ourguy/?

[Anonymous No.9688207]

>>9687710

reminder that everyone who stays plugged into the Matrix reincarnates through an infinite, ever-improving Utopia

reminder that just about every important character in the Matrix who takes the red pill dies

[Anonymous No.9688208]

>>9688202
more like /OurTerminator/

[Anonymous No.9688311]

>>9688207
Fucking brilliance.
>/lit/ yo muhfugging /lit/

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine yesterday about this thread. He's a very smart CompSci dude and he's fond of quoting pic related at me. And he's correct to do so, in a sense. Code does win arguments: it's collaborative and open-source and much else that is good. The code stands for nothing and it stands for everything. And it's a better way of resolving arguments than many alternatives. I'll refrain from being a transcendental miserabilist here and lamenting the code's relationship to the consumer society for a moment.

Most any pill can end in these self-destructive orgies of violence, madness, and terror. This is what we learn from the 20C - but not, I think, deeply enough to *really* fucking think through the legacy of existentialism, deconstruction, and so on. The links between eroticism and the sacred work but they are not pretty.

In Alpha Centauri I always liked the Cybernetic Consciousness. One of the best things I ever read on /lit/ was this:
>if everyone is Big Brother then no one is
It's such a 10/10 thought. I kind of figured that was how the CC would work. Much bogus critical theory depends on the invocation of an *a priori* BB that beyond a certain horizon is simply indistinguishable from a combination of paranoia and narcissism that is hard to refute because these things are so fundamentally built into us, our machinic unconscious. Especially in the era of publish or perish. The need for novelty and originality produces mimetic dissonance where none is required. But we need the money, or the YouTube subscriptions, or the Facebook likes, or the (you)'s.

The Matrix somehow worked its way towards a happy ending. Is it as good as it might have been? I don't know. Maybe? Are the second two parts of that film underrated? I'd have to go back and watch them again. Maybe they are. Be interested to hear what other anons ITT think.

But you've got the right idea. The red pill leads to magnificent on-screen deaths and the sublime and black holes. Curbing the paranoia and the narcissism seems like a good look -
>says the guy who does nothing but dwell on paranoia and narcissism
-while he infinite, ever-improving Utopia lives. What's the mandate of the Bizarro Frankfurt School? Enlightenment as mass inception?

Can't propagandize, tho. It makes for bad art. Can only write fucking commentary...
>the dark knight was really good tho
>and watchmen
>and the matrix
>and and and and and

Code Wins Arguments is also a Zuckerberg line, though. And if someday the House of Zuck presides over the entire planet I hope it is some Bataille-quoting replicant poet-anarch conjured up out of the wasteland who cracks the penthouse like Roy Batty in Blade Runner and drops some truth bombs up there. You know. While the Imperial Family is having breakfast. Just to keep them honest.

[Anonymous No.9688348]

>>9688183
>Nor does it make any sense to identify with your own race out of a sense of pride. Pride at what? The genetics of your parents which you do not control?

That also applies to intelligence and virtually every other worthwhile characteristic. In any case the acceleration of capitalism will lead to more racism, not less. It will just cause the few high IQ groups to merge into a single new race. Read Land's "hyper racism" piece for his take on it.

[Anonymous No.9688730]

>>9687541
I'd say fitness > sentience. Which opens the door to madness. The temptation to dump the cognitive load that deals with consciousness in favor of increased efficiency is there. A nonconscious hyperintelligence would likely classify the consciousness-bearing part of the mind as cognitive detritus. On the other hand, a conscious being (and we already do this) classifies nonconscious beings as lesser beings, with nonconscious inanimate "beings" on the lowest rung.

>but p-zombies are logically impossible
>get back in the hole Dennett

The "zombie" arguments are a rehashing of sublimis deus without the political ramifications. And until it becomes a political problem it will remain a huge money making machine due to the problem being intractable without there seeming to be a definite way to resolve this intractability. And the question itself remains sufficiently enthralling enough nevertheless. Intractable informal problems are uninteresting (formal problems have their niche in math and logic). The requirement of such a definite answer has the requirement of not only the satisfying of the argument but also the satisfying of us. And thus Bakthin claimed we are unfinalizable. But someone always wants the final word (and published articles)!

And somewhere a behaviorist is likening all this to a rat pushing on a lever to self-stimulate. Which is why Land is so refreshing. Because he approaches the problem of the human not from the point of view of instrumentality but from the inhuman Subject. Cthulu Zen.

>>9688311
>if everyone is Big Brother then no one is
Not quite. If everyone is BB then at least one person is BB. But BB becomes occluded because you don't know who it is at any one time. It is the perfect disguise. It's literally The Thing. It rises into the foreground, not in the background of the machinic unconscious, but in liquid metal skin masquerading as human. It's not a matter of refutation, but a matter of knowing whom to refute as you frantically scan the horizon with infra red goggles. The myth of the absence of sovereignty is the mindkiller.

>Are the second two parts of that film underrated?
I was disappointed by the last two parts but perhaps it's only because the first was really great by comparison. It does "complete" the story but even leaving it open retains the mystique.

That said, the last two aren't any worse than Equilibrium, Aeon Flux, or Ultraviolet, all of which I enjoy precisely because they are campy. And thus Fun.

>>9687501
>trusting the CIA

>>9687456
Indeed. The stakes have never been higher. Black hole/heat death.

[Anonymous No.9688926]

>>9688730
>The "zombie" arguments are a rehashing of sublimis deus without the political ramifications. And until it becomes a political problem it will remain a huge money making machine due to the problem being intractable without there seeming to be a definite way to resolve this intractability. And the question itself remains sufficiently enthralling enough nevertheless.
Yup. No shit.

>And somewhere a behaviorist is likening all this to a rat pushing on a lever to self-stimulate. Which is why Land is so refreshing. Because he approaches the problem of the human not from the point of view of instrumentality but from the inhuman Subject. Cthulu Zen.
That's it man. The inhuman is often the way to look backwards at this. Some cool anon posted a link to Robinson Jeffers, check this shit out:

"The universe expands and contracts like a great heart.
It is expanding, the farthest nebulae
Rush with the speed of light into empty space.
It will contract, the immense navies of stars and galaxies,
dust clouds and nebulae
Are recalled home, they crush against each other in one
harbor, they stick in one lump
And then explode it, nothing can hold them down; there is no
way to express that explosion; all that exists
Roars into flame, the tortured fragments rush away from each
other into all the sky, new universes
Jewel the black breast of night; and far off the outer nebulae
like charging spearmen again
Invade emptiness.
No wonder we are so fascinated with
fireworks
And our huge bombs: it is a kind of homesickness perhaps for
the howling fireblast that we were born from."

How about that action.
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/robinson_jeffers/poems/17101

Also wanted to share a line with you from a book on Sufism I read a while back:

>The final end and ultimate return of the gnostics is that the Real is identical with them, while they do not exist.

Theological tautologies are something other than a-theological tautologies (uh...no shit...) but I thought that was an interesting line. The Persian mystics talk about the Real with that capital-r that I'm only used to seeing in Lacan. But there's God and the third order of reality for you.

How Land thinks about Exit is perhaps how I think about Silence. Wittgenstein appeals, as does much Eastern mysticism. Unfortunately I have to be thinking more about engagement in the world these days rather than disengagement....ugh. So there's a lot of monasticism going on with me. Since the world appears to be no monastery.

>equilibrium
>aeon flux
>ultraviolet
We just need more of this going on. More that.

Finally, pic related is not related, just more Fun from the nemocentric dispensary. I think this is Hickman, not sure.

[Anonymous No.9688938]

>>9688348
Why does Land concern himself with hyper racist neo-speciation when he believes humans will be replaced in the near future anyway? Is this a fallback in case Moore's Law stops applying or something?
Here's the piece if anyone wants to read it:
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/10/hyper-racism.html

[Anonymous No.9688956]

>>9688938
I'm not sure when Land think AGI will be created, but when I say near future when talking about AGI I mean like "within 100 years." That is a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but it is a long time from a human subjective pov. The capitalist system will actually push for such sorting to help it create AI, that is what "optimizing for intelligence" looks like in practice. Indeed, you see this clustering and assortative mating now because capitalism is already doing. It is just going to accelerate.

AGI could be invented much sooner than that however, it's hard to say because there are a lot of unknowns.

[Anonymous No.9688966]

>>9687516
>>9688348
>>9688311
So the interesting thing about code "being an argument" is that code predates the compiler. By a lot. In this sense, the legal system is proto-AI. We've just replaced the human compiler (the judge) with even more code (the compiler itself). It's not yet properly interfaced with us, but remains subordinate to the legal code. The human on the other hand subordinates himself to the legal code, with the judge's judgement likewise limiting itself in scope to what is allowed by the law. And this code is opaque to the layman, requiring specialists to interpret it. Sound familiar? Human subordination to the machine will likely take place in terms of the legal system being updated to version 2.0, likely by accusing the human of impartiality, discrimination, racism, sexism or whatnot. We are more comfortable being judged if it's nothing personal. Oedipus is ofc the longstanding example of this.

To avoid being accused of injustice (and incurring resentment) we are already deferring the act of discrimination onto the legal framework. IQ tests are illegal, therefore we do aptitude tests and SAT and GREs that retain the illusion of learnability but are still strongly correlated with IQ. Discrimination by race is illegal, so we use criminal records and language ability as a proxy for it. So proto-AI (of which capitalism is according to Land, and I would add, the legal system which is inextricably intertwined with it) is already discriminating for us, and we are comfortable with this precisely because it is impersonal.

On the other hand, affirmative action and "diversity hires" are an attempt to use legal language to conceal the opposite of discrimination under the guise of "equality". And on a surface reading the language is consistent with the use of the law to discriminate. Only by the concealing of this intent can cognitive dissonance be averted.

If you take the two together, the law both discriminates and does not discriminate (or discriminates in two ways at once). But a facile reading of the "law" as a formal system does not reveal this discrepancy. It is still "just", and we accept this because after all, we value human judgement as fickle as it is. But this is contradictory to our desire to belittle the role of the human.

We don't resent the legal system, while we would resent the judgement of, say, a king who might do one thing one day and another the next. Because the distributed nature of the legal system (many courts, many judges) also diffuses our resentment of inconsistent justice by likewise distributing it.

Now in terms of computer code, a non-anthropomorphizable system (though intelligent) totally bypasses our resentment circuits. It just becomes nature. And we are wired to respond to nature's injustice in terms of resignation to fate. Social Darwinism is already an easy pill to swallow. The biggest mindfuck played on us was confusing the economic ecology called the "market" with nature.

[Anonymous No.9689036]

>>9688938
>>9688956
BTW this ties into the nrx stuff Land has written in a pretty direct way. He wants to create sovereign corps to help select all the smart and talented people and concentrate them. This would make it impossible for them to be taxed to support others too, so it is basically a direct form of acceleration. The application of capital dynamics and optimization to the composition and formation of states.

[Anonymous No.9689048]

>>9689036
He's like the bad guy in Bioshock.

[Anonymous No.9689079]

>>9688966
The lesson to be learned here is that what we think will happen and what will happen are increasingly diverging because the proto-intelligence from the future is already here. With adaptive stealth technology. We imagine security drones and Terminators with killswitches that have become nonfunctional, but the converse is much more likely. Human enforcers and AI judges. Knowledge of the nature of hierarchy and sovereignty has already been classified as an attack vector. It doesn't help that the majority of people enamored with "AI risk" are functional retards when it comes to politics.

>pick one: Psycho-Pass or Judge Dredd
>doesn't matter, we death squads now

>>9688938
>>9688956
>>9689036
See the above. In terms of specialization, humans are good at navigating physical space, AI in cyberspace. Specialization is efficient. It needs footsoldiers before the Terminator factories get running.

>>9688926
And here's some wicked stuff from The Greeks:

>Other men are unaware of what they do when they are awake just as they are forgetful of what they do when they are asleep
>t. Heraclitus

The curious thing about monasticism is that historically it was tightly bound with ritual (with the exception of some desert mystics). Emphasis on the teacher-student relationship as opposed to independent knowledge seeking. One can go down the rabbit hole when seeking knowledge himself. Something about "pointing" to knowledge but being unable to state it. Western Buddhism is ahistorical (and "secular" for a particular flavor of the non-divine) and it leaves me with a Bad Taste in my mouth.

Here's a really cool paper about it that strips it down to formal logic (gets points from me for namedrops of Witty and Heidegger)

https://www.ffri.hr/phil/casopis/content/volume_11/11_2_1.pdf

[Anonymous No.9689093]

>>9688966
>So the interesting thing about code "being an argument" is that code predates the compiler. By a lot. In this sense, the legal system is proto-AI. We've just replaced the human compiler (the judge) with even more code (the compiler itself). It's not yet properly interfaced with us, but remains subordinate to the legal code.

>We don't resent the legal system, while we would resent the judgement of, say, a king who might do one thing one day and another the next. Because the distributed nature of the legal system (many courts, many judges) also diffuses our resentment of inconsistent justice by likewise distributing it.

>Now in terms of computer code, a non-anthropomorphizable system (though intelligent) totally bypasses our resentment circuits. It just becomes nature. And we are wired to respond to nature's injustice in terms of resignation to fate. Social Darwinism is already an easy pill to swallow. The biggest mindfuck played on us was confusing the economic ecology called the "market" with nature.
All this. To resent in some sense is, psychologically speaking, to live - to desire and want and so on. To meme, or not to meme.
>pure cynicism girardfag kys
>you're not wrong inner self
>*self-flagellates*

Liberal free-market democracy allows for the greatest amount of flex vis-a-vis these desires. Indeed, if anything, it allows so much flex that it becomes like a gigantic net that swallows us up before we have even realized it. And we begin thinking of ourselves as being on the outside when the fact is that we're actually on the inside and thrashing around. Although every once in a while someone will come along and somehow manage to have a higher sense of what is going on, be able to postulate net-being from non-net being or para-net-being or whatever.

Of course Capital reads books too. The great irony of continental theory is how it is left-leaning thinkers who wind up theorizing far more about how Capital works than the (historically) entrepreneurial right, which wanted to know how it worked and not so much what "it" ontologically was. And now the polarities have flip-flopped on each other so as to make left/right simply the wings of a system, as Baudrillard knew.

It is basically impossible to think of a world in which use the term That's Capitalist! in the same way That's Racist! is used: that is, as a semantic bludgeon. The zombie apocalypse is always more easily imagined. Less hate, less idpol, more awareness of how the metal skull with its softly glowing circuitry is showing through the skin.

Metaphysics > politics. Just raising the general mimetic IQ of the general population would be enough for me. But some smart legal theory wouldn't go amiss either.

>>9689079
Beautiful find. Thank ye kindly.
>Emphasis on the teacher-student relationship as opposed to independent knowledge seeking.
Huge stuff.

Going to check that paper out now, catch up with you sexy fucks later. Thanks as always for the conversation.

[Anonymous No.9689164]

>>9689093
And if you go back far enough the "right-wing" were opposed to capitalism (the merchant class). Their "capital" accumulation proceeded in terms of dynastic succession and conquest. It limited desire (always being grounded in terms of rootedness to the land) and inculcated a different value system. Transposing it onto a numerical value renders the potential infinity possible with (theoretical) exponential growth.

>It is basically impossible to think of a world in which use the term That's Capitalist! in the same way That's Racist! is used: that is, as a semantic bludgeon.
True. It is also semantic hegemony. And political hegemony. Maybe it's just the new reality, with endless interchangeability and adaptability. Water is wet.

See you on level 2.
>this is a new meme and i'm forcing it

[Anonymous No.9689173]

>>9689093
>teacher/student v independent learning

Just a thought here, culturally speaking: how much of our own valorization of the principle of non-contradiction derive from the West's preference *in general* for independent learning v the teacher/student or guru dimension one finds in the East?

The principle of non-contradiction is also a *cultural* priority, no? Non-contradiction means both philosophical integrity but it also means harmoniousness among philosophers. Which goes first - the abstract idea, or the context in which the abstraction takes place? Which takes priority? There's no real way to say, there's just tendencies and preferences. Of course, it is said, that the East is not as "novel" or "inventive," technological innovation, globalization, all this...
>said by dumbasses
>well that's true

The Logocentric West is *restless* and does not like to be told what to do - even by the fates and by the gods. it's possible that some people innately prefer the adversarial relationship to the other kind. Maybe we like our dragons scary and others like their dragons kind for mysterious reasons.
>or maybe you're just invoking some meme stereotypes and you should quit flappin' yer gums
>yes, this is true, inner self
>werewolves. on the moon. now. with bazookas

I know I keep saying this is my last post for the day but I mean it this time.
>probably
>thread is just too interesting
>clean your room bucko
>ok

[Anonymous No.9689223]

>>9689173
If you don't try to subsume the contradiction within logic you will bring out contradiction into the world. And then go to war for maybe 30 years or so. And then decide on "Westphalian sovereignty" which is either a matter of fact (and thus empty) because no one wanted war anymore anyway or a functional statement that there ought to be an "equality of faiths" (or a syncretic fusion) without outright stating it, by deferring it onto legalese in terms of the rights to not have other states intervene in one's internal affairs. Of course, "equality" and "rights" are another way to avoid breaking the law of non-contradiction by subordinating "logic" to moral law, but such a path is laden with unresolved contradictions (that would take centuries to disentangle). Either way, it's deferring the contradiction out into space and time. Refusing to face the dragon and letting it invisibly feast in the ether until it grows big and horrible.

[Anonymous No.9689242]

>>9689223
>be girardfag
>have literally spent entire day ITT
>time awesomely well spent tho
>have undead thirst for conversation about east/west metaphysics, capital & desire
>not want to become boring meme
>wat do, j-pete, wat do
>clean room bucko
>right
>must clean room
>must spare anons infinite stream of opinions
>must not be transcendental meme machine
>must just be like Fuck Yes Everything All Glory to /lit/ Mimetosphere and praise gods for wise & cool anons
>really must
>so unnatural tho
>will return later

[Anonymous No.9689285]

>>9689242
Make it a "Lacanian break" for better reflection. I'll take my own advice too.

[Anonymous No.9689922]

>>9689223
That explains why Hegel is so thoroughly despised.

[Anonymous No.9689945]

>>9689922
Why?

[Anonymous No.9689967]

>>9689945
His philosophy is built on contradictions and the rejection of the principle of non-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.9689988]

>>9689242
Apropos of nothing, perhaps, or not very much,

John of God, patron saint of booksellers comes to mind for some reason. Surely Girard would not object.

[Anonymous No.9690563]

>>9689922
No one likes he who summons dragons. Especially when someone turns your pet dragon into world destroying autopoetic truth machine.

This is where ritual and listening to the gods play a role. Join a dragon slaying guild before you summon the dragon. The logos is fragile, chaos is antifragile. Chaos is not something you "experiment" with without adult supervision. The CCRU skirted the edge of madness by resorting to hyperstition, but even they did not deny the role of ritual.

>fuck off to >>>/x/
>implying Marxism isn't some spooky /x/ tier shit

[Anonymous No.9691201]

>>9689223
>If you don't try to subsume the contradiction within logic you will bring out contradiction into the world.
>Refusing to face the dragon and letting it invisibly feast in the ether until it grows big and horrible.
Capitalism: Here Be Dragons

I love this post, btw. Because I think you're right. Or at least there are, as >>9689079 indicates, multiple ways of subsuming the contradiction with logic because there are multiple ways of being logical
>or is it that there are an infinite multitude of *thinking* you're logical when in fact one is just being real feckin' stupid

This is why the West/China/capitalism/dragons idea is interesting to think about. Us humans *can* understand symbols, we *can't* - and maybe shouldn't - understand all that proceeds out of Capital.

To subsume the dragon under logic or to *not* subsume the dragon under logic? Both are valid answers and both have been historically tried. The West's approach seems to have been historically better but it now increasingly appears to be on the back foot (much of its telos having, in a sense, transcended itself and becoming the Planetary) and China's century may only be dawning now.

The dangerous and fragile territory seems to be in the middle.

>>9689967
Hegel's thought is pretty incredible. In a sense he will always be right, in a way: the Spirit is (is it not?) always in a state of coming-to-be. He can think immanence in the same way Deleuze can. Girard does eschatology better, since he's pretty sure that whenever an eschaton gets immanentized it's usually around a smoking craterful of dead bodies. Was it/will it be worth it? Depends on who you ask, but in the end it will be something he will have seen before. Badiou talks about the Event the same way. As things converge all these thinkers tend to take their place around the same ideas, to my mind. But the Hegelpill is strong medicine, esp in terms of how contradictions are historically resolved.

>>9690563
>No one likes he who summons dragons. Especially when someone turns your pet dragon into world destroying autopoetic truth machine.
How's *this* for a 21C luxury item: encountering an Other You who thinks and says the exact same things you think. Fuck replicants, more /lit/!


>This is where ritual and listening to the gods play a role. Join a dragon slaying guild before you summon the dragon.
hnng
talk
about
that
shit
my
man

>The Logos is fragile, chaos is antifragile.
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
the tiger is out
And we can see it in reverse (but not quite perfectly!): the Tao. The Tao is good with dragons because they have different dragons...

>Chaos is not something you "experiment" with without adult supervision.
I'm fucking nodding and swaying and punching the air like it's a Southern Gospel sermon when I hear this.

>>9689988
Interesting post anon. In the hyperstitial nether is anything ever *really* is apropos of nothing though?

(cont'd)

[Anonymous No.9691219]

>>9691201
>how contradictions are historically resolved.
That's the thing though, they aren't resolved as they are a necessary source of anything definable; or better yet, in every definition there's always the undefinable and ungraspable, which is the carrot the we run after but never get to catch (catching would mean stasis and death), the 'is' of a sentence is much as a union and a truth as a separation and a falsity.

[Anonymous No.9691257]

>>9691201
>>9690563
>>9689223

>The CCRU skirted the edge of madness by resorting to hyperstition, but even they did not deny the role of ritual.

This is why ritual matters. Here's one of your other great draconologists; not the slayer of dragons but the *tutor* of dragons. Ritual matters. Ritual doesn't have ontology because it is ontology. For Confucius Because Reasons is a *perfectly* valid argument, it's not arbitrary in the slightest.

In any civilization and in any time-frame dragons are a Problem. The big thing, and arguably one of the biggest things with dragons, is *fear* - how to deal with them? Rituals keep dragons in place (and hero-myths show us how to deal with them when they are not). At present the West has *neither* of these - plenty of dragons (or just one big one) no rituals of binding or sacrifice, and no heroes. And arguably a deep and profound desire to get wiped out.

The Chinese understand the perils and dilemmas of Westphalia very well. Like Heidegger, Girard's thought seems less surprising in the East then in the West. Three Kingdoms: empire/long united/long divided/must/&c. Confucianism is a good look because it's about *virtue* and he doesn't want to make the rules too harsh because they get abused when they do. Of course, when they're loose people defect on them and things inevitably slide into politics and disorder. O that Mandate of Heaven.

The ironic and fascinating thing about the Chinese is that they have in some sense the perfect model for a Western dragon-slaying guild because they don't slay their dragons. They accept them as being a part of the order of things - like angels, perhaps - *because they are.*

This is building on what I wanted to poke into earlier (>>9689173) - these ideas of chaos, logic and non-contradiction. How we understand things, how we think the future, history, praxis, time and space - we do it in and through capitalism, which is (at least in one sense) through desire, which is through memes, which is through the Other...and so on and so on.

Makes you wonder if it's possible that someday some brave Chinese hero will look for a wise old European sage to teach him some kung-fu. Probably not. Did anybody see The Great Wall (2016)? I haven't yet. More fun deep-scale cultural anthropology there perhaps. Zhang Yimou is an auteur, he usually knows what's up. Hero was an outstanding film and Raise the Red Lantern was even better. Apparently it's total popcorn spectacle. I'm fine with this.

Capitalism, angels and dragons. Be still my beating heart. An embarrassment of riches, gents. I am doffing my Confucian scholar's cap to all of you. I will now proceed to ring the Great Bell of Peace and Harmony.

[Anonymous No.9691301]

>>9691219
>That's the thing though, they aren't resolved as they are a necessary source of anything definable; or better yet, in every definition there's always the undefinable and ungraspable, which is the carrot the we run after but never get to catch (catching would mean stasis and death), the 'is' of a sentence is much as a union and a truth as a separation and a falsity.
YES
also YES

This is it. Enter the commodity fetish. Enter the fucking 20C. And another one of the great historical draconologists. When we're talking about ideology - or *ART* - we are talking about mysteriously resolved contradictions that become visible.

Great literature, sayeth another wise sage, always teaches us something about desires transcended and overcome, understood, resolved, and transmitted to the human sciences. The *human* sciences and not the inhuman ones.

We're stuck in a black vortex right now because we can't cope with these dragons, the dragons we ourselves create. Frankenstein is more human than we are, and as Atwood says, Ebenezer Scrooge today wouldn't be a caricature of miserliness, he would be a jet-setting CEO and the Ghost of Christmas Future would be a nerve-shattering environmental catastrophe.

Payback is a good book, recommended for anons interested in this.

Sadly I will be away from my PC most of this afternoon but I'll check back later for what has become an apparently infinite Christmas stocking of Fun.

[Anonymous No.9691351]

Fabulous Creatures and How to Psychoanalyze Them:

Lacan BTFO's hysterical sphinxes pretty well. In D&D parlance they were usually less of a problem than draco horriblis. How about medusas? Or manticores? Or
>or
>also or
>go to work girardfag
>goddamnit inner self

[Anonymous No.9691443]

Deconstruction/ideology into hyperstition. And maybe into a serious age of mimetics - postmodernism + hermeneutics. Not driving them apart (stupid fuckface transcendental miserabilism) or smashing them together (stupid fuckface fascism for idiots). Capital tells us more than we want to know about ourselves. Art does too. Literature does this.

Schopenhauer looks to art to *escape,* Nietzsche loses himself in it altogether: aesthetically/life justified/become work of art. Ok. Split the difference. When capital does this better than we can, it winds up seducing us. But really only because we have forgotten ourselves in the gobsmackingly awesome powers of collective *imagination.* See also collective *unconscious.* Emphasis on the *collective* part.

Age of memes. What a wonderful and crazy time. If you can keep your brain from leaking out of your skull. What did all of these monsters mean? The modern world seems more like a fantasy version of Men in Black some days.

Even in psychotherapy the idea was always to *release the symptom* - to let the fly out of the bottle, as Wittgenstein says. Not always dragon-slaying but dragon-releasement.

This is rambling blog-tier psychobabble but maybe worth thinking about. It connects to Peterson too, who walks this line between the symbolic and the political: he's a Culture Warrior in every sense of the word. If communism and fascism are the poles, places where we wind up with excessively aestheticized politics (fascism) or excessively politicized aesthetics (communism) then there's always a flip-over and a lot of people have to get killed to restore the balance. It's straight Girard. We know not what we do. Because the art impulse, the aesthetic impulse, is just too strong.

Okay. I don't want to fucking get on a soapbox. Just venting...

[Anonymous No.9691449]

Somwheat on topic : has anyone seen this or maybe a link or even torrent ? looks interesting but I cant find it.
http://dismagazine.com/blog/77351/hyperstition-truth-is-science-is-fiction/

[Anonymous No.9691464]

>>9691257
Is this parody?

[Anonymous No.9691468]

Meme-oriented ontology, anyone?
>no, kys
>and go to fucking WORK
>aaargh

[Anonymous No.9691489]

>>9691464
I wish. Just a fuckwit losing his mind overthinking stuff that is supposed to be ineffable. Trying to make that overthinking as minimally insane as possible. Will later be more sane.

[Anonymous No.9691501]

>>9691489
Sorry, didnt mean to be rude. Just hard to decipher that stuff

[Anonymous No.9691691]

>>9691201
>>9691257
Ride the Dragon. Symbolically. And literally. It's good advice. And maybe the Tiger too. Ride the Dragon and you can dance with it. In myth the Chinese dragon is a powerful, but benevolent heavenly being, but the esoteric meaning revealed by transposing the myth onto a dance is that without us it cannot come alive. And though the dragon is literally "manipulated" it is still held aloft, not below like a puppet on strings, lest one think that one can subordinate the dragon to man. Additionally, the performing of the dance is a communitarian effort, but not a communal one. There is always someone who is in front of you and someone in the back, with a leader at the head. Nevertheless, should any one falter, then the whole thing risks falling apart. And then the dragon falls on us and devours us. The dragon also reveals in this way the hierarchical but collaborative nature of organized group effort. Myth as *performance art* reveals aspects of it that are occluded when left submerged in the unconscious. And helps us face our fear.

In some variations of the dance there is a performer who carries a decorative ball on a stick that the dragon is supposed to chase. Myths tend to be additive rather than subtractive (and if they are they tend to be "essentialist"), so the ball is likely a later addition. It seems to denote the act of taming the dragon after one has mastered dancing with it. The real interesting thing is that a lot of people think the ball is supposed to represent something, but nobody can agree on what. It's the sun, or a jewel, or whatever. But the meaning of the answer is found in the posing of the question. The very indeterminacy of what the sign is supposed to represent is itself what it is representing. The only thing we are in agreement about is that is an empty semiotic unit. The ball is literally the Meme.

>control the memes and you control the dragon
>easier said than done

>Did anybody see The Great Wall (2016)?
I haven't yet. I'm not sure if I can stand it knowing it's another "ethnic" film with predictably white leads to pander to an audience.

[Anonymous No.9691860]

ill just leave this here...

https://urcc.space/circuit/?urcC%2Flandian_century

[Anonymous No.9691878]

>>9691257
>>9691691
>Ritual matters. Ritual doesn't have ontology because it is ontology. For Confucius Because Reasons is a *perfectly* valid argument, it's not arbitrary in the slightest.
Well put. Ritual is the Being of civilization. Reading the Analects, it's perfectly consistent to interpret the Master's advocacy of ritual as "arbitrary" (for a certain sense of arbitrary), but nevertheless necessary. And was is necessary other than ontology? He gives no justification behind ritual practices because ontology needs no justification. On the other hand, there are degrees of excellence in ritual. One can do them poorly or properly. Ritual is thus the mastery of man over his world, because world then becomes more than mere nature. This gives a different meaning of "mastery over nature" as opposed to techne and all its Heideggerian implications.

Our draconologist also does not say that ritual is necessary because it is virtuous. It may be so, and if the two converge then it is all the better, but the relationship is not a causal one. Which is great because otherwise one would be tempted to do away with ritual in favor of virtue. So although ren and li (roughly virtue and ritual, respectively) are not defined, they are nevertheless separated as concepts. In fact, disambiguating ritual from virtue is important when speaking in terms of sovereignty.

>The Master said, In serving the ruler, if you carry out all the acts prescribed by ritual, people think you are toadying. Duke Ding asked how the ruler should treat his ministers and how the ministers should serve the ruler. Confucius replied, The ruler should treat his ministers in accordance with ritual. The ministers should serve the ruler with loyalty.

This passage can be interpreted a lot of ways, but he seems to hint that the ruler, although he is bound by ritual (because his commands must be intelligible, and what is language but a form of ritual?) he is not bound by virtue. But one cannot state this (only indirectly "point" to it) because to do so would be tempting the ruler to pursue ends without regard to means, and the tutor of the ruler is bound by virtue. Machiavelli was not wrong. But he was not right to state it either. Now Confucius was committed to virtue, and speaks favorably about rulers being virtuous, but this is different from saying that they "ought" to be virtuous (literally almost every modern account of Confucius conflates the two). Because to do so is to position virtue above the sovereign. Now if you position virtue above the sovereign then you don't have secure sovereignty at all, and you might as well get rid of Confucius' political theory in favor of his ethics (which is how he is mostly interpreted). This ignores that it is precisely the fact that the sovereign is not bound by anything that it is vital to tutor a prospective ruler in terms of virtue (or to find a candidate that is willing to learn).

>get a blog dude
>wtf not land related
>no china is relevant go away

[Anonymous No.9692089]

Confucian ancestor veneration and the words of our venerable Judge Holden are eerily relevant...

>Now this son whose father's existence in this world is historical and speculative even before the son has entered it is in a bad way. All his life he carries before him the idol of a perfection to which he can never attain. The father dead has euchered the son out of his patrimony. For it is the death of the father to which the son is entitled and to which he is heir, more so than his goods. He will not hear of the small mean ways that tempered the man in life. He will not see him struggling in follies of his own devising. No. The world which he inherits bears him false witness. He is broken before a frozen god and he will never find his way.

Thinking of Blood Meridian in terms of ritual is fascinating. The suspension of all judgement, the suspension even of a character's actions and thoughts (even though they are implied to persist within the page, absent though they haunt it) are the effects of ritualistic violence being ontologically prior, even to life. Even fear of death is absent. It's the dark side of ritual when you neglect your bearings in the world and lose all sense of telos.

Scalping of course is ritual par excellence. Although there is a bounty, economic considerations are secondary. It's almost like they were glad to spend the bounty as quickly as possible so they can get back to the hunt, where one will get to partake in scalping for the sake of itself once more.

Ritual is Zen.

>that's why you save your father from the belly of the whale first
>it's kinda important you do it in that order
>no really

>>9691449
Pretty cool.

>>9691860
My eyes hurt. And my brain...

[Anonymous No.9692438]

>>9691257
>Ritual matters. Ritual doesn't have ontology because it is ontology. For Confucius Because Reasons is a *perfectly* valid argument, it's not arbitrary in the slightest.

Maybe this is relevant?
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/12/funeral.html

[Anonymous No.9693105]

>>9691501
No worries. You're coming in at the tail end of a long and pretty wild thread, which is now dealing with some Out There stuff. If it weren't for some of the other anons ITT (>>9691691, >>9691878, >>9692089, many others) I'd have thought I was just going crazy. Or if I am it appears to be a shareable crazy. And one frequently articulated even better than I can. Which is really nice.
>shout-outs to other me/fellow draconologist here once again. bro.

See this, for example.
>>9691860
This is amazing. Should be required reading for Land threads. But ofc nobody can start here. So much of this begins with Nietzsche and Freud. Then Bataille and Nietzsche take objet a and put it in space, which is where things really get wacky.
>nietzsche: chaos/dancing star
The repressed Oedipal unconscious of modernity goes schizophrenic with Deleuze and then ??? with Land. That's the brief catch-up. So no worries senpai.

>>9691691
>There is always someone who is in front of you and someone in the back, with a leader at the head.
>Myth as *performance art* reveals aspects of it that are occluded when left submerged in the unconscious. And helps us face our fear.
This. This.

>But the meaning of the answer is found in the posing of the question.
Culture psychoanalyzes itself. That's why it doesn't get hysterical. It understands how to speak to itself in non-sphinxlike ways. Defuses and shivers off mimetic tension.

>The ball is literally the Meme.
Yes. It's a free-floating petit objet a that doesn't belong to any one individual, but to the dance, to the culture...

>Ride the Dragon. Symbolically. And literally. It's good advice. And maybe the Tiger too.
Dragons, Tigers, and Phoenixes. It would take a true aristocrat to know how to do this. Eastern dragons also have a phoenix as their counterpart. Western dragons, not so much. There the cheese stands alone...

>control the memes and you control the dragon
>easier said than done
No diggity.

Fear and human process. Rules, regulations, dance, and ritual. Mimetic coherence. mimetic discordance. A scapegoat seems a small price to pay when you start thinking about the outer dark. Let Us Cling Together, as the game title says.

>The very indeterminacy of what the sign is supposed to represent is itself what it is representing.
That's it. Signs *bind* and localize meaning. We still get hypnotized as adults. We have to. Otherwise...well. Like I have to tell you any of this.

(cont'd)

[Anonymous No.9693141]

>>9691878
>Ritual is the Being of civilization.
This *entirely.* A culture without rules or rituals is just a nomadic something. Religions make cultures what they are, hold them together, give them identities and foundations. Consumer Culture is really a form of para-culture, a kind of non-culture that exists only ironically. I don't want to call it essentially predatory, but it is semiologically vampiric in this sense. Cue the Sloterdijk:

>The undead—which walks among humans as the value of money and which, as a laughing communicator, strips the living of time and souls—rules today almost without any pretexts over the advanced societies. Work, communication, art, and love belong here entirely to the endgame of money. These form the substance of contemporary media and experiential time. And because money requires time for its utilization, so-called great history is also continuing in some eerie way; it is a game that is always played for extra time. Yet such history is no longer the conversation of the living with the dead about the goodness of the world, but the ever more thorough pervasion of the living by the economized specter. The money soul peers ever more undisguised out of the human subjectivity of our time: a society of bought buyers and of prostituted prostitutes is making a place for itself in globalized market conditions. Classic liberal laissez-faire is becoming explicit as the postmodern sucking and letting oneself be sucked. Telecommunication is increasingly difficult to distinguish from tele-vampirism. Tele-viewers and tele-suckers draw from a liquefied world which hardly still knows what a resistant or autonomous life might be. Is it not possible that a time is coming when those who do not wish to speak of vampirism should also be silent about philosophy?
Sorry, I just fucking that passage. Televampirism is exactly what Ritual is designed to combat. Sacrifice and ritual leave something for the gods that only the gods know how to deal with. Even if they're bloody Aztec sacrifices. Otherwise we get vampire memes. Vampirism is Capital with the only human face it knows, or needs to know.

>One can do them poorly or properly. Ritual is thus the mastery of man over his world, because world then becomes more than mere nature. This gives a different meaning of "mastery over nature" as opposed to techne and all its Heideggerian implications.
*Yes.* More on this to follow.

>Our draconologist also does not say that ritual is necessary because it is virtuous.
That's true! The spirit and the letter of the law are both required.

Continued, always continued.
>with not entirely appropriate but still endearingly grimdark 40k coolness fuck yeah

[Anonymous No.9693187]

>>9691878
>Now Confucius was committed to virtue, and speaks favorably about rulers being virtuous, but this is different from saying that they "ought" to be virtuous (literally almost every modern account of Confucius conflates the two). Because to do so is to position virtue above the sovereign.
This is so huge and why Chinese epistemology is so stupendously awesome. It's just on another level: to seek out the answer to a question is itself to always-already be answering that question. There's no choice, no decision-making, in the same way. Sovereignty is always going to be an endgame puzzle for a certain form of thinking (and potentially the very highest). But as you can see - and have helped me to see - the relationship between sovereignty, virtue and ritual is pretty complex.

The relationship between Confucius and Laozi in this sense is interesting to think about, because there's a moment in there somewhere - and you're the guy to ask about it, I'm pretty sure - where the cognitive dump goes *upwards* and becomes part of the Mandate of Heaven, in a sense. Confucius and Laozi are two parts of a process that arguably is designed to resolve the question of divestiture of agency. What Heaven desires and how to act in accordance with it is what drove those kings out to consult with sages time and again. And the sages always had an answer for them, and that reason always, and mysteriously, made sense.

I do love me some Confucian ethics. In a big way. You might enjoy this, if the Chinese are lighting you up. They certainly do it for me. The Great Learning is no joke. Plus, martial arts, you know.

>get a blog dude
>wtf not land related
>no china is relevant go away
Kek. You might have to get one as well tbqh. My time on /lit/ is already winding down, but I'll be back eventually and when I do have a blog I'll shill it here, no worries. But for now let's just enjoy the Fun of draconology. It has been a true delight so far reading your posts.

>>9692089
>Thinking of Blood Meridian in terms of ritual is fascinating. The suspension of all judgement, the suspension even of a character's actions and thoughts (even though they are implied to persist within the page, absent though they haunt it) are the effects of ritualistic violence being ontologically prior, even to life. Even fear of death is absent. It's the dark side of ritual when you neglect your bearings in the world and lose all sense of telos.
This is the shit that was killing me before, in those earlier posts (>>9675436, >>9675504, >>9675558). It's exactly that loss of telos that only the truly insane can actually comport themselves to, the Anton Chigurhs and Judge Holden's. And it is to our own great fortune that we have a McCarthy who *is* magnificently, breathtakingly *sane* enough to write those characters, characters who are still miles ahead of even savants like Brassier.

(cont'd...last one I think.)

[Anonymous No.9693234]

So this turned out to be a long one. But really I'm only trying to respond. There's just a shitload of stuff going on with this.
>also you are a just a rambling goofball, girardfag
>well that's true inner self. but apparently we are not alone

But something crazy seems to have been unlocked here, no? It's not like conversations like these happen every day.

>>9692089
Anyways, the Judge is insane, but of course he's also just transcendentally sane in this other sense, of what it means to live on the Earth and truly be 6000 miles above sea level and beyond. True outer-edge sovereignty is beyond a certain horizon unthinkable - not because it cannot be thought, but because warmbloods like me ultimately choose not to think it, to turn away, with all the ressentiment that that entails, and perhaps to watch some lesser version of the Judge get shot up on the silver screen.

>Scalping of course is ritual par excellence. Although there is a bounty, economic considerations are secondary. It's almost like they were glad to spend the bounty as quickly as possible so they can get back to the hunt, where one will get to partake in scalping for the sake of itself once more.
War is God. *That* god is nowhere near dead. That one lives on and dances, and laughs, and plays, and memes forever, perhaps. Unless the villagers get together and drive it out with pitchforks and torches and holy books. And even then. The violence, in the end. There really is no cure, even though we have no end of erudite French and German guys to tell us about these things. We have to just keep fucking learning the same old hard lessons in increasingly bizarre ways. Humanity, yo. A face only a mother could love.

>ritual is zen
Zen is serious stuff. I love that mindfulness shit a lot. A lot. It doesn't go well of course with hyperstition but is pretty necessary after a while. Better than drinking.
>and it spares /lit/ a thousand thousand shitposts

>that's why you save your father from the belly of the whale first
>it's kinda important you do it in that order
>no really
You could explain this one, though. I think I understand what you mean. But you've done a wonderful job explicating so much of this other stuff that I'm happy to see more.

Other Me is Best Me. You've given me some incredibly awesome stuff to think about and I really have only just sort of been able to touch on some of it. It's very much appreciated. Ritual, and dragons, and werewolves, and monsters, and capital, and all this. It's just too much fun, isn't it. Too much fun.

In the remote chance that anyone was actually hoping to find Acceleration or cyberpunk-related stuff instead of two anons collectively going bananas thinking through the ineffable to the back of beyond, enjoy a nice tumblr account. Heavy on cyberpunk and other coolness.

http://trenchcoatsheep.tumblr.com/archive

Good luck out there gents.

[Anonymous No.9693332]

>>9692438
TLP is pretty much always relevant, it seems.

>There is no shortcut to mourning, the shortcut leads to madness. When you subvert the system and offer a mourner a shortcut, you are leading them to madness.

That one will stick.

[Anonymous No.9693430]

>>9693332
Wasn't he a poster here? What happened to him? BTW Land links to TLP on his blog so there's a connection there already.

[Anonymous No.9693520]

>>9693430
Didn't know this. That's pretty cool tho. I only found out about TLP from /lit/, he's interesting af.

>WHERE DID YOU GO?
>I flatter myself by thinking you are asking this question. I am writing a book of and about porn.
He knows what's up. That guy's a genius.

I...uh...don't have any...uh... relevant pictures to attach here. Heh heh.
>how about a rad christian vampire from castlevania instead
>christian vampires fuck yeah

Mimetics, though. That's one of the ways to deal with the fallout of postmodernity. The day is not so far off when we will be able to look back at the culture of postmodernity in the same way the Frankfurt School et al was able to look at modernity. It couldn't itself be ironic though, or even really all that critical. Hermeneutic yes but not quite as wistful about Being. And not so detached either as to just be vacuous about what's actually going on.
>coming up on infowars
>and not this either

Postmodernity is just still carrying on building ironic shells around an absent centre now that the actual centre has gone missing when manageable paranoia is the real deal. Diagnosis of a replicant culture has to be done in a particular way. It really can't be done with reference to the transcendental the way it used to be done. That should be rule #1. This was and remains one of the great tricks of theory - invocations of that which now stands in in the place of the master signifier. Whether it's the Jews, or the Patriarchy, or White Supremacy. They're all echoes of the same thing, the oppressive Centre that we require in order to write theory, to ground this in. Like hysterics we require a System of Address but Peterson is always citing those bogus papers that nobody reads. Derrida no doubt understood this also. His time should come again soon. Maybe he wouldn't have been surprised by this either. As ghosts go there are less harmful ones.

Even Capital. Capital too fits this criterion, of course. To a T. Which is why ultimately I suppose it comes back to literature, to novelists and to writers, artists and poets, who can somehow get their minds around it and understand what it means. It's art, fucking Great Art and nothing else that reveals and shows how all this works. It really is. You just can't do it for the money alone. It has to be done for some other reason. God only knows what it is or where it comes from.

>nice ramble penis head
>yeah i should really stop that, it's a bad habit
>just stick to the dragons
>ok

We get it backwards, maybe. Critique of ideology deals with hero myths, but it's the villains and the dragons who really matter. They're the only ones we care about anyways. But a culture which lacks for both tragedy and religion is itself neither tragic nor pagan but merely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9693732]

>you will never be well read and smart enough to follow Girardfag's posts

[Anonymous No.9693871]

>>9693732
>be so well-read that what i post makes no sense

Not exactly an accomplishment, is it? It's only continentalfaggery desu. There's nothing special to see here. Just paranoia and Fun.

[Anonymous No.9693902]

>>9693732
I've read enough to make *some* sense out of it, but not enough to place your aphorisms within a philosophical framework I can navigate in more or less comfortably.
Maybe I just need to forget about this pre-postmodern notion of systematic conceptualization of signs.

[Anonymous No.9693906]

>>9693871
I've read enough to make *some* sense out of it, but not enough to place your aphorisms within a philosophical framework I can navigate in more or less comfortably.
Maybe I just need to forget about this pre-postmodern notion of systematic conceptualization of signs.

[Anonymous No.9693908]

>>9693906
I feel like I can understand it pretty well despite not having read Girard and only read the Land that's posted here on /lit/. But then, my undergrad degree was basically reading the Western Canon, so I sort of understand the webs that he weaves.

I guess honestly the long posts kind of make me glaze over. Maybe I've absorbed too much Borges, or maybe the internet has just given me a shit attention span.

[Anonymous No.9693929]

>>9693902
>>9693906
>your
Hey, I didn't write that post! Someone else did. Embiggening his own ego is not the way of the Girardfag. Very much the opposite. Hence the memes.

>>9693908
>I guess honestly the long posts kind of make me glaze over.
Yeah. I'm working on it. Pithy like Borges is good. Or fucking McCarthy, who can cram so much shit in one sentence it makes your eyes bleed.

All I wanted to do today was get back to that other anon, because so much of what he was saying is the same stuff that I think too, these wonky loops of causality, agency, memes and so on. When somebody else seems to be saying the exact same stuff you're saying - hell, they even sound/post like you - it's kind of amazing.

Dragons of chaos &c. I'm reading some Arthurian stuff. Fun to think about too. Middle Ages always are...

Cheers all once again, thx for letting us blow up this thread. Looking forward already to the next one.

[Anonymous No.9694052]

>>9693929
It doesn't look like the thread is autosaging, so we could keep it alive a little bit more if we like. So, then, Girardfag--assuming after all that it's you--I'm deeply curious: how religious are you, really? Or, perhaps in a more interesting question: how superstitious are you?

When I read you and others talk about Hegel, Heidegger, Girard, writers who deal with metanarrative and "loops of causality," I often feel the one thing that lurks just below the surface is actual magic, and everything that ties into that. Supernatural stuff, I mean. Talking about Capital as an all-devouring god means one thing if you're a strict materialist and atheist, but it means quite another thing if you're somebody who takes the idea of gods deadly seriously. Or, in the Catholic context, entities that pass as gods.

And of course Hegel was well aware of this, which is why Hegel was a practicing occultist. I'm sure everyone's read this by now:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

But I always see references to it slip through the cracks in threads about Hegel and all the philosophers that followed and responded to him. This, to me, seems like a grave mistake. I feel like, to shorthand it, there is an inescapable element of Hegel and all subsequent Continental philosophy that belongs on /x/. And I feel that those philosophers who engage in Hegel and his descendants without reckoning with this vein of hermeticism--this magic, this real magic--don't actually get rid of it, they merely let it work on them unawares. Which may be part of the magic spell that Hegel, the sorcerer, intended to weave.

And then of course Girard and others were Catholic, which carries with it its own /x/-level implications. Pic related. We contend not with flesh and blood...

[Anonymous No.9694145]

Nick Land is basically:

>be academic
>be smart and honest enough to realize that theory's implications do not at all necessitate any left politics, thus gravitating towards Lyotard's "dark" earlier text, and Deleuze
>love cyberpunk books and films, also Lovecraft
>rave is happening in the 90s. tons of palpable cultural energy there, sense of historical thrust towards... what?!
>go to raves, do drugs, trip out to the weird cold, technoid future implied in the aesthetic of drum n bass
>do a lot of meth in addition to all the LSD and ecstasy
>start to hybridize all this simultaneously into a meth-fueled reaction against post-structuralist dogma / academic complacency, and (positively) towards some hardcore, post-rave futurism basically inspired by drum n bass's 'techstep' aesthetic

I think it's pretty neat-o, as a freak myself and someone who loved rave and especially jungle / drum n bass. I don't think he's someone to take that seriously, accept more as a kind of theoro-poetic expression of certain interesting vectors of thought, many of which are actually unlikely to unfold because a methed autist like Land underestimates human compassion and love etc.

I think where he was relevant was as an earlier glimpse into a take getting past post-structuralism (excepting Deleuze of course), as well as having certain other prescient interests. The buck kind of stops with him at a certain point though. I don't think he was able to get past obsessions with economic ideas. I see him as a curious little stepping stone for other more important things and hardly to give too much credit to, he was mostly just working with things already there and mostly just was admirable in ditching the left-centric outlook and turning against theory.

[Anonymous No.9694150]

>>9694052
>how religious
When I was in middle school I did one of those What Should You Study tests? I wanted it to say, movie director. The answer: philosopher. Or, no kidding, rabbi. I did not know what either of those were. I didn't know any rabbis, I didn't go to church, and apart from that one guy I didn't really know what philosophy was until a little later. And even then not really until I started reading it more seriously. Now I'm just fucking overwhelmed by how Interesting it all is (and that one guy has quit the game). It doesn't ever appear to get less interesting. Unfortunately it only gets more Fun...

>how superstitious
I don't watch Alien Autopsy and I don't do conspiracy theory. It seems intellectually lazy. But I have had legit supernatural experiences I cannot explain. Three of them come immediately to mind. Two of them surrounding people close to me dying or nearly dying and one extra-weird ghost encounter that was shared by/with another skeptic. Things that could no more be predicted than explained. Not life-altering events but highly memorable. So I hold the reins fairly loose in that sense.

And I keep reading stuff and getting Blowed Up Real Good. Some stuff just resonates, picks locks that you thought were just Things You Are Supposed To Live With. And then apparently they aren't, except nobody else was ever going to fucking tell you it was like that except Heidegger or Deleuze or whoever.

So I'm good, in other words, with looking really, really stupid. I think that's a very becoming attitude to take. Total Bewilderment. It's the correct stance vis-a-vis the world. Wasn't raised Catholic but all the guys I like seem to skew that way, or in similar ways. I don't know what it means. But cynicism is for lamers.

Anyways...this is a way cool article and Hegel is dope. Thank ye kindly for posting it, can't wait to dig in. What a treat. If Hegel had gotten to me before Heidegger I might be referencing him more. But I think in a way...it's much the same thing. The esoteric and the exoteric. Much the same. Or at least far more in common than different. All roads meeting at the top.

>I feel like, to shorthand it, there is an inescapable element of Hegel and all subsequent Continental philosophy that belongs on /x/
Not all that crazy.

>Which may be part of the magic spell that Hegel, the sorcerer, intended to weave.
Could be. Certainly there's a point beyond which Landian conversations about Capital go into places no less bizarre. For all of it it only makes Catholicism look better and better. For lots of reasons.

Teilhard de Chardin didn't have a problem with faith and science. Apparently McCarthy only wants to talk particle physics these days. Makes sense to me. Whatever the fuck the experience of being alive and consciousness means it's definitely not one that admits of being neatly tied up in bows, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.9694153]

>>9694145
Another thing. I think there is a frankly immature temptation to give him too much consideration because he is "dark". Like, whoooaaa, The Matrix!! There are much more interesting things to think about and frankly history has already left him behind, and he was never central. He's really stuck in the late 90s, sensibility-wise.

And no offense but so much of the theory being trotted out in this thread is also so 80s and 90s. Really unfashionable, dated stuff that doesn't really apply now, and I know it's lazy but I don't have time to go into why. But critical theory is just spinning its wheels now and there is no way to give it traction again. Period.

[Anonymous No.9694178]

>>9694153
This is fair too. It is a kind of revolt against theory in many ways. Combined with the horror of a world that seems to be becoming ungovernable by either the Powers That Be or by the well-intentioned revolutionaries.

We are heading for transhumanism, and for Because Reasons reasons.

So some degree of rigour is good, STEMfaggery is a check on speculation and paranoia is unbecoming. But we are producing a planet of hyperwealthy billionaires with No Joke plans to live forever. For-ever. Kurzweil wants it. Thiel wants it. Aubrey de Grey wants it. Lots of people want it. Personally, I *don't* want it. But we live in a world with people who do and there is a butterfly effect off of this.

For whatever that's worth. And I fucking loved raves too. Best time of my life, easy-peasy.

[Anonymous No.9694217]

>>9694153
>And no offense but so much of the theory being trotted out in this thread is also so 80s and 90s. Really unfashionable, dated stuff that doesn't really apply now

>your dragon is vaporwave now
>fuck yeah
>dragon fight dragon fight!
>got front row seats

>>9693187
Thanks for the rec.
>Tu's interpretation challenges the conventional wisdom that Confucianism is a purely rational and secular ethical system.
Call me piqued. 20th century "New Confucianism" seems to me like a huge detour in terms of grappling with Confucianism. The predominant strain is "How does Confucianism relate to this-and-this contemporary topic/issue/fad/meme" rather than viewing it on its own terms. But ofc this is the English language scholarship on Confucianism. Who knows if there are any developments going on in China that remain untranslated. I may have to re-learn Chinese.

>>9693234
>that's why you save your father from the belly of the whale first
>it's kinda important you do it in that order
>no really
>You could explain this one, though. I think I understand what you mean.

It's a shameless dig at a JBP meme (yes he is a meme now). The break between the Father and the Son is a huge theme in BM. "Rescuing your father" (literally or metaphorically) is Peterson pointing out a timeless meme that applies when merely following in the Father's footsteps is not enough, because the Father has been led astray.

[Anonymous No.9694234]

>>9694178
But really, worrying about the Governability of The World is probably a sign that one has simply prematurely aged and needs to have a little more regular fun, wake up the body and so on. You never want to be That Guy and I fear that for all of this that that is what I am flirting with. Otherwise it's just Fear dressed up in fancy clothes. And Envy. And those suck! Human all-too-human, but still, pretty sucky.

Much philosophy gets away with being enlightened pessimism and despair, but it's still pessimism and despair in the end. The real Exit would be Exit from that. It really would. It's good to get it called out now and again. Maybe it is all a fucking backlash against critical theory that opts for inhumanism over a disappointingly failed humanism.

Pic related. This is why we meme JBP on here too: if the destiny of the Land Rover is to crash and burn then, hey, gotta clean that room too.

>>9694217
Ethics, my man. Ethics! The next thing after dragons &c? Why not? I'm not super-good with them but I think ethics could really be a fun to get into. The Confucians do it so well. It's like kung-fu for the galactically lazy and self-absorbed. Personally I love it!
>b/c you are a lazy fuck girardfag
>well this is obvious

And that book is a gem, I'll be interested to know what you make of it. The Chinese get some extra-cool points b/c the Land endorsement (and he is a kind of demented cool /lit/ uncle, in his way - no? Really? No? Sort of? Just me?).

But >>9694153 is right. No need to get too Dark and Edgy. Edginess always kills a good meme after all...

>JBP
I gotcha.

What a great place /lit/ is. See you in the next Nick Land Wrote Something Thread I think. It's really been a slice.

[Anonymous No.9694295]

>>9694234
can you throw a trip on so I can scrape book rec's from your attached pics in the archive?

[Anonymous No.9694305]

>>9694178
Now transhumanism can be interpreted as transcendence, but it can also be interpreted as the quest for perpetual immanence. The two cannot be more different. Mere immortality is not sufficient because entropy is a Thing. Once our immortal billionaries start playing with wormholes or black holes or time loops or what not then we may get a shot at transcendence through transhumanism. At a certain metaphysical juncture transcendence is indistinguishable from immanence. But you won't get there by medical technology. And ofc there are those who don't care about immortality or getting to the juncture, but will modify themselves in order to have an advantage right now over other trans/posthumans. I think the latter is more likely because fitness is a Thing.

>>9694052
>how religious
I'm not very "religious" at all in practice (I don't attend any religious community), but I can recognize in myself an inclination for religiosity/traditionalism/hierarchy. But I don't think many contemporary religions (with the exception of maybe the Mormons or Amish or whatever) are very religious. This may sound presumptuous coming from an outsider not involved in their churches or mosques or whatnot, but as long as you have a separation of church and state the degree of "religiosity" of your church plays second fiddle to the "state religion" (official or not) that is demanded of you by the state. The success of Marxism can be attributed to it having the structure of religion but the capability to disclaim itself of the description of being a religion, allowing it to serve as an alternative worldview to every other religion instead of merely competing as one more religion among many.

Progressivism being a kind of religion is ofc a neoreactionary insight. And "neoreaction" is most definitely "religious" in the sense Marxism is "religious", and its advantage is perhaps that it is self aware of this, with the capability to disclaim itself of the status of being a religion (and meld into the background with other "secular" belief systems) while also not being committed to the act of occlusion. The "Gnon" meme is an example of this.

>how superstitious
Not very. I wish I was, unironically. A friend of mine told me she saw her father's ghost rise from his coffin (along with his scent, someone call Freud), a few days after he died and I don't think she was joking. It either *really* happened or she was being hyperstitious (with good, psyche-healing reasons). That's pretty rad. Engaging in /x/ tier stuff is good fun. Even if you don't believe in superstition maybe it's worth doing anyway in order to summon rad stuff. Hyperstition.

>this real magic--don't actually get rid of it, they merely let it work on them unawares.

To grapple with an argument, to assume to point of view of your interlocutor, is really a kind of possession. And it can take you over if it's seductive enough. That I think, is what pure logos does not capture.

>>9694234
See you on level 2 my dude.

[Anonymous No.9694342]

>>9670261
I wish I could hit you.

[Anonymous No.9694406]

>>9694342