/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11778448]

new cosmotechnics thread. discuss capitalism, technology, acceleration, cybernetics, heidegger, land, D&G, yuk hui, The West, china, artificial intelligence, sinofuturism, anarcho-twerkism and whatever else comes to mind.

cosmotechnics as cosmopolitics:
http://worker01.e-flux.com/pdf/article_161887.pdf

on the existence of digital objects:
http://libertar.io/lab/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/On-the-Existence-of-Digital-Objects-Yuk-Hui-45-731.pdf

philosophy of tech in china:
http://networkcultures.org/geert/2017/09/04/philosophy-of-technology-in-china-second-interview-with-yuk-hui/?pdf=1446

atmospheric music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VfFdaxdP5o

continued from :
>>11733072

[Anonymous No.11778510]

good interview with reza negarestani here also if you like him.

https://www.neroeditions.com/docs/reza-negarestani-engineering-the-world-crafting-the-mind/

[Anonymous No.11779061]

here's another thing anons might like, some twitter accounts that often discuss acceleration and related things. feel free to add more if you know any good ones.

https://twitter.com/k_punk_unlife
https://twitter.com/Outsideness
https://twitter.com/alien_ecologies
https://twitter.com/jmrphy
https://twitter.com/qdnoktsqfr
https://twitter.com/thomasmurphy__
https://twitter.com/cyborg_nomade
https://twitter.com/meta_nomad
https://twitter.com/xenogothic
https://twitter.com/insurrealist
https://twitter.com/archillect

[Anonymous No.11779088]

Why divide the discussion? There are already so few wanting to discuss this.
>>11773715

[Anonymous No.11779095]

>>11779061
Oh, it's a post-ironic critique of technology...

[Anonymous No.11779098]

>>11779095
And:

[Anonymous No.11779142]

i left out yuk hui's own twitter in that previous post, derp.

https://twitter.com/digital_objects

some extra stuff:

the archive at theoryfiction:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theoryfiction/

the single best article you will read on land:
https://www.urbanomic.com/document/poememenon/

hickman:
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/?s=acceleration&submit=Search

recent interview:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

>>11779088
it was asked in the previous thread to create a new thread to continue the discussion, so i did. i didn't mean to divide the conversation.

>>11779095
>post-ironic critique of technology
100%.

[Anonymous No.11779148]

Reminder: all transhumanists will be shot on sight

[Anonymous No.11779786]

>>11778510
Cool interview, where did you get that Blame! redraw?

[Anonymous No.11779812]

>>11779786
found it on one of my favorite tumblrs. a lot of the art i post here comes from this based fellow.

http://helaeon.tumblr.com/

[Anonymous No.11780019]

>>11779812
Very nice, thanks

[Anonymous No.11780545]

>>11778090
>http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/tolibtechpart2.html
> THE ECOLOGICAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY
i think this might be exactly what i was looking for

>i don't know how appealing anarchy is, i guess is my question. i think times are going to be plenty anarchic on their own, and maybe civilization is worth hanging on to, even if it's a salvage op. so in of using tech to aid life in an anarcho way, that other anon (>>11778090) has given you lots of stuff which is probably more germane. i guess my question is, why anarchy? is anarchy really superior? can anarchy stay authentically anarchic? b/c in a sense that's deleuze and the nomad war-machine. it's hard to argue with deleuze on much. land likes cody wilson, for example, and open-source 3D gun printing is a strong case for the anarchy hall of fame. i'd just prefer to imagine a world where anarchy was less attractive than virtue.

i used anarchy to describe out-of-the-grid life, an individual endeavour, im looking for ways to outsource aspects of management of my life into machines

[Anonymous No.11780663]

>>11779148
go back to watching tranny porn you fgt

[Anonymous No.11780706]

is yuk hui book any good?

[Anonymous No.11780851]

>>11780545
>i used anarchy to describe out-of-the-grid life, an individual endeavour, im looking for ways to outsource aspects of management of my life into machines

that's a good idea. land was actually fond of john michael greer, who is a literal druid but also a pretty keen observer of politics, environmentalism, and the kind of off-the-grid life you might find interesting (if you're not doing it already). outsourcing your life into machines is a good scene. and i definitely don't mean to misrepresent anarchy or anything like that. i'm personally too attached to urban living myself, and no doubt they'll find my charred remains in the wreckage of it if/when everything falls apart. anyways, you might find some of greer's stuff interesting.

in general managing a transition from this dingbat rollercoaster we're currently on to something more productive and sustainable, in any way whatsoever, seems to be a good look. maybe it will even be eco-conscious as well, who knows. my own prediction is that it will take something like a thirty years' war to change things, and that on the far side things will be, sadly, much the same for anyone without a historical perspective. i like 'collapse now and avoid the rush' as a motto.

and land himself every once in a while will tweet out a picture of the Jolly Roger with a dagger clenched between the teeth, so it's not like you can't tell that his heart goes fondly after piracy and the rest. anyways, all i'm doing here is revealing my total lack of understanding of how and what anarchy really is, so i should probably just shut my big yap.

>>11780706
pic rel is terrific, especially if you're interested in heidegger, chinese philosophy, or both. i also learned about an interesting neo-confucian scholar named mou zongsan from reading this, he was one of the leading intellectuals in china and was deeply interested in both hegel and kant. in the end he wound up preferring tientai buddhism over both, but hey. people are into what they're into.

you might get more out of yuk hui if you have some sense of heidegger first, but it may not matter. and if you do like him, check out bernard stiegler, he was YH's doctoral thesis superviser and a pretty interesting dude in his own right.

what i like about YH the most, i think, is that he's not just another continental philosopher in complete and utter despair (or, if he is, he doesn't let on in his books). he's not earnestly praying for marxist revolution, he's hoping for a different kind of thinking between people and about the nature of the technology with which they live. that was simondon's policy as well, as far as i can tell.

[Anonymous No.11781057]

>>11780851
>What comes after the age of reason isn’t a new age of faith — not right away, at least; that’s further down the road — but an age in which the claims of both contenders are illuminated by the lessons of history: an age of memory.

that's from pic rel. i wanted to stick this in because it's fascinating as hell to think about, especially in the context of what stiegler says about memory, artifacts, 'protension' and so on: that tools and machines are, basically, memories projected into the future and preserved for future use. and obviously not exclusively in the context of human reflective power, but in the technological sense of stored (or even simulated) memory. it's why he can make provocative claims about civilizational progress fundamentally being commensurate with technological progress. greer alludes to this idea of the 'coming age of memory' a couple of times in this book but doesn't really elaborate much on what it means.

so, i'll leave it here. certainly in the age of big data (and cambridge analytica) and much else the concept of memory - technological or philosophical - itself should be fruitful for the philosoraptors on /lit/. even everything we write here is being archived, uploaded into digital steam, but made universally accessible again via the internet. even capital itself is in a sense only a record of debt and a self-writing story, now computerized into existence and daily reification.

i guess it's stuff derrida also knew about, prince of hauntology that he was. but it's neat to think about, the idea of an 'age of memory.' the Great Uploading. and speculation about the end of the world is kind of gloomy, sometimes, but on the bright side i find it leaves me feeling much less antipathy towards my fellow human beings. i kind of find myself feeling less interested in coming up with One More Trick to Save Civilization or things like this. thinking about human intelligence or human memory on a planetary scale is a nice departure from boring postmodern critical stuff and a lot of late-marxist stuff also.

[Anonymous No.11781178]

What can you tell me about pic related? I understand that it's no longer in print.

[Anonymous No.11781220]

I'm really eager to see a new genre of science fiction that is pre utopia/dystopia where everything is stagnant and decadent, where technology is only beginning to fuse with man pre-singularity, where digital existence interrupts being and the internet becomes an ontological realm as opposed to an epistemic tool, where culture appears to be in decline and people are more interested in what is retro, fetishizing the past in fear of the impending tumult that tech will spark. I want a plot that depicts such a society, one that seems to be on a slow advance but suddenly explodes, catching everyone off guard and many are sacrificed in conflagration in the end. I want details of the fashion and moral decay as everyone unconsciously knows these are the last years of really being "human"

>any authors for this feel?

[Anonymous No.11781289]

the answer is so fucking SIMPLE.
Everybody is going to be saying "how did we not see that coming?"

It's a software suite. It's small, easy to share, robust and minimalist. All networking is P2P, the protocol is adaptable, it fights dirty if it has to, but no firewall is going to stop it. If they try to block it at the IP level they'll have to shut down the entire internet.

you log on, and you can create a constituency. These can map to old world political subdivisions if that makes it easier, but you can do whatever. They're are geolocated, but they can overlap, merge, subdivide, do anything. And it's not a race for locations or namespace, creating a group doesn't give you any special permissions.

Now you're all connected, you can not only host debates, call referendums, etc, but you can collectively decide on the rules of your cooperation. You think voting is dumb? disable it. You don't, just think the rule should be 2/3 majority? Do it. 3/4? 99%? Rules for moderating the forum itself are customizeable and certain forms of authority can be assigned to specific members for variable lengths of time. Or ditch terms, go real-time. Anyone can change their vote at any time, the second the incumbent falls below the majority threshold, they're out of office.

So now organizing ourselves and self-governing is easier and more convenient than ever. So what? people still don't give a shit, right? People are still going to be these weak-willed drones awaiting for a strong leader, right? And plus, there's already a government out there!!! The fuck are we going to do, pretend it doesn't exist????

At the beginning, it's just... fun. It's a game. You discuss the local issues, talk about the "real" politicians. Make connections. Then someone organizes a neighborhood watch, or a trash pick-up event on a Saturday. People show up, it ends up working really well. Let's have an independence day barbecue! And what about Joe that homeless guy, can't we do something about him?

A few years down the line, and things are going really solid. There's carpooling on a major scale. Time-shared gardening appliances. The jogging club got so big they had to split the days because the huge mob running down the street look scary. People pool some cash and buy a commercial unit for a community laundromat.
Then someone crosses the line: Let's fix these fucking potholes on Fisher's Lane. Shouldn't we ask town hall for that sort of thing? Fuck town hall. We're the town hall.

The generation after that sees the "real" politicians as an anachronism. Much too late they try to get onboard with this system, co-op it. It doesn't work, of course. People got a taste of real sovereignty, they're not gonna let it go.

[Anonymous No.11781319]

>>11781289
Part 6: Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite

There is never a "collapse" of old-world political systems. But eventually no one can conceive of a legitimate political authority that doesn't come from the consensus of the constituency as verified in real-time by a computerized telecommunications system.
When you get used to giving your input on public affairs on an hourly basis It's going to be insane to think that some dude is going to have full control of the government and you can't say shit until 4 years from now.

Is this going to make things easier?
No.
Politics is easiest when you can hide behind a party or a candidate.
It's easier to talk about abortion than it is to decide what to do about those old-ass water pipes in your neighborhood.
But There's something incredible that happens when you hand people real responsibility:
They grow up.

[Anonymous No.11781339]

>>11781178
which pic rel? greer? i find him quite interesting. it's a little bit gloomy, but i honestly prefer that kind of writing. for one thing, catastrophe is the opposite of utopia. the kinds of things greer warns about are systemic and basically fool-proofed against ideology, especially progressivism. even if his conclusions are wrong and we find some way to get through stuff in the future by way of a technological miracle or other things, i still find this kind of eschatology appealing. he's not blaming anyone, he's saying that economic cycles are just like this and this is a change of epochs. if it makes any sense, he's like a hopeful or at least a pragmatic eschatologist. assuming we manage the decline well there's no reason to believe that getting through the next hundred years and abandoning a couple of fantasies might not in fact be good for us. and he doesn't really seem to espouse any ideology to adopt now or afterwards besides druidism, i guess. i'm okay with that.

and in a way it kind of lines up with where my philosophical interests are too, i think. it fits in well with my general let's-try-to-get-along attitude about things. and there are other things, also, questions related to the problem of knowledge. as in, if we shift our focus from Utopia to Catastrophe then we can stop trying to run all kind of insane language protocols and just kind of accept that in a crash state you know what you know, what's pragmatic, and so on. you're okay with the limits of knowledge, in other words. things like this pull me back towards the middle and away from the extremes, away from politics altogether in fact. it's *human* survival and *human* questions that matter, not ideological ones. it always was.

but, that's more my own ten-cent ramblings about myself than specifics about the book. sorry. you can find it on libgen.

>>11781220
sounds kind of like ballard or houellebecq crossed with iain banks. maybe PKD?

>>11781289
>The jogging club got so big they had to split the days because the huge mob running down the street look scary.
this is too funny, i love it.

>The generation after that sees the "real" politicians as an anachronism. Much too late they try to get onboard with this system, co-op it. It doesn't work, of course. People got a taste of real sovereignty, they're not gonna let it go.
so P2P technology will radically transform the nature of political organizations and make a lot of this obsolete? that's pretty interesting. could be a good look. didn't rogan say something about this, about voting with your phone? i remember land going wild over bounty-based journalism, as in, 'answer this question and you receive this crowdsourced prize we have all agreed the information is worth.' bounties for everything. almost like the chinese are doing with the social credit scores except decentralized to attract the libertarians.

[Anonymous No.11781358]

>>11778448
Heideggers writing on Art has changed how I view and critique art. It seems so obvious now, but the west's obsession with aesthetics has blinded me.
If you have a moment to spare seriously recommend checking out SEP's article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger-aesthetics/

[Anonymous No.11781407]

>>11780663
>transhumanist
>opposed to trannies
w0t

[Anonymous No.11781409]

>>11781358
heidegger is an insanely based philosopher, he completely blew my mind when i discovered him and completely changed my world. he's still one of my favorite guys. yuk hui likes him also, and so does stiegler. the heideggerpill is absolutely for real.

and i was all about him until land came along and fucked my shit up competely. so it's sort of why i'm interested in these discussions, not only to just shill for land continually but to take what he says seriously and then ask where we can go from there (if anywhere).

but yeah. once B&T or the rest of it hits you, it fucking hits you. heidegger was one of the few philosophers who genuinely, wholly, and not partially changed the way i look at things and 100% for the better. so now technology is in, for sure, and capitalism also, which are all things that would have appalled him. so, my hope is that something fruitful or productive can come out of these discussions.

or, we can just shitpost too, that's fine. anyways. go go martin.

[Anonymous No.11781416]

>>11779061
Thomas murphy is so fucking annoying

[Anonymous No.11781445]

>>11781409
ill check him out thanks

[Anonymous No.11781473]

>>11781416
why, have you talked to him? he's super into spinoza and joyce, and i'm kind of meh on both of those guys, but a lot of times he has these interesting quotes from paul valery or malraux or other french writers that are very cozy.

but i don't actually talk to any of these people, i really only lurk and steal from them shamelessly.

>>11781445
glhf senpai. get a copy of this also, it was my intro and really helped me understand B&T.

[Anonymous No.11781506]

>>11781358
>Doesn't like aesthetics because they are subjective
Based autistic Heidegger

[Anonymous No.11781531]

Why do you guys think Sadie Plant has dropped off the face of the earth within the last decade?

[Anonymous No.11781636]

>>11781506
Over time, we give the world meaning and great art both serves as a way to make that meaning intelligible and to reinforce certain kinds of meaning in the relevant historical community.

He doesnt like aesthetics because it reduces art to a one directional subject-object model that has become all too common in the western world, instead of embracing some ontological truth.

A quote from the SEP article:
"That our culture blithely celebrates café baristas who compete over the “art” of pouring foamed milk into our cappuccinos suggests that we have lost sight of the role art can play in shaping history at the deepest level, an ontologically revolutionary role compared to which Heidegger finds the “artful” gestures of culinary expertise rather empty.

[Anonymous No.11781660]

what happens if there's a power outage?
techie fuggen faggets

[Anonymous No.11781690]

>>11779095

>The wagie's life of work was alnost complete
>To be the best worker he could be, he only needed to enter the completely voluntary Surplus Worker Pod to be digested into a nitrogen rich bone meal that will fuel a tiny patch of onions beans

[Anonymous No.11781706]

>>11781531
that's a really good question. zeroes and ones was a fascinating book.

i mean maybe she's that rare kind of person who might actually believe that being a perpetually begrudged academic really is no way to live your life, to be on the side of Permanent Revolution. it doesn't seem to produce better work. maybe she discovered that being a happy, ordinary person in the world was a better way to live your life than staring into the void. maybe she saw what happened to nick (he's the 'cosmic twin' she refers to in the situationist book, right?) and said, i don't know about that. maybe she could see the handwriting on the wall and decided to do something else. continental philosophy can leave people feeling pretty burned out and disgusted with themselves, the rest of the world, or both. but i think she traveled a lot too, maybe she just took an interest in things abroad rather than the End of Days.

pic rel isn't exactly recent (2010) but i guess she's still finding something interesting to do.

source:
http://www.mottodistribution.com/site/?tag=sadie-plant

>>11781690
>It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks, and become one with all the people.

[Anonymous No.11781736]

>>11780851
>outsourcing your life into machines is a good scene
lol this sounds to harsh, i mean the management of aspects and tasks that can be automated, theres a big difference
>eco-conscious as well
yes, they do not need to go against each other, i remember i once had in my bookmarks a website of exactly this, like they would have this little machines in the forest to do observational tasks of it for protecting it, i dont remember exactly what they measured, but they didn't harm the forest or anything, they just helped the people taking care of it to maximize the use of their time

im looking for stuff like this but that can be owned and, preferably, programmed and built by me, i want to reach that level were programming/soldering home management machines will be as commonplace household knowledge as sewing or fixing a pipe

there's also the possibility of automating money-entry schemes, an example was Bannon when he endeavoured into bots for gold-farming in wow, it ended up failing, but it was a good idea, its like you become a little capitalist of the virtual ecosystem

the "anarchist" point of it is twofold, on one hand is about autonomous self-sustaintibility, i remember a decade ago manuals for growing your food, and for communal homegrown gardens, were commonplace in anarchist publications. And on the other hand, the Bannon example i posed is piracy, is an economic activity beyond the ""law""(corporate law, terms of service), its like the early spanish counterfeiters...but on the digital realm, you are defrauding a virtual currency

[Anonymous No.11781742]

>>11781736
>like they would have this little machines in the forest to do observational tasks of it for protecting it, i
that was once of the publications, it was full of these kind of uses of tech, if i remember correctly they used mostly raspberry/arduino and other microcontrollers/small cheap computers for solutions in nature

[Anonymous No.11781795]

>>11778448
Thanks for this. You should use Warosu links to the older threads though, should this become a regular thing (which I hope it does).

[Anonymous No.11781849]

>>11781795
>warosu
yes, that's a good point. thanks for reminding me.

as for this being a regular thing, i guess we'll see. kind of depends on how much anons are into this stuff. i'm obsessed with the continentals, myself, but sometimes i have an intense craving for shitposting here on /it/ and sometimes i need to just vanish for a while. but this place really is great for working out the crushes you can have now and again on one thinker or another.

speaking of which: pic rel? holy fuck. i read somewhere that deleuze had high praise for this book, and i looked into it a few years ago and didn't quite get it. now i find myself wondering why this doesn't come every time people talk about deleuze. whitehead is amazing. and isabelle stengers' book on him is full of references to deleuze and guattari, it too is amazing. you have to love physicists who know their continentals. i only knew about her from her work with prigogine, order out of chaos. turns out she's a complete boss of her own too.

but seriously, whitehead is a mega-boss. i had no idea. big props for Alfred North, i'm really digging this guy. turns out there actually will be life after nick land after all.

[Anonymous No.11781860]

>>11781849
big props to digging on the mega bosses

[Anonymous No.11781892]

>>11781860
sorry, it's late and i've probably had too much fun on this board today.

[Anonymous No.11781914]

>>11778448
>sinofuturism
just scrapped over this a bit to see what it was about, and i ended up finding the conclusion funny

"modern china is an ai, proto-singularity, the proof is its a dehumanizing technocratic system"

> never occurs to the author that it is a dehumanizing technocratic system because its a communist dictatorship

have to give it props for its analysis on gambling and gaming in chinese culture doe, but i see it, again, related to the marxist crap than to a singularity.

is it weirdly like an organism? yes, because its a fucking type of state modeled on an anthill, anthills have been used as analogous for brains due to the emerging characteristics of them for like 40 years now in the west

all in all i see more a triumph of aesthetics than of substance, its just fetishization of chinese shit cause its a mix between anime and trash, mixture of them has been very on vogue in artistic circles for the last 10 years

[Anonymous No.11781924]

>>11781914
>is it weirdly like an organism? yes, because its a fucking type of state modeled on an anthill, anthills have been used as analogous for brains due to the emerging characteristics of them for like 40 years now in the west

and if we gonna get into the whole state-as-a-being theres Illuminatus predating this idea, ever since the West saw those juicy green ascii on a terminal and spent its first night lost in the tubes it has been obsessed with wet machines

[Anonymous No.11781926]

>>11781636
>it reduces art to a one directional subject-object model
What a funny play on words. Very hypocritical to call this a "reduction" of art when Heidegger is arguing for the subject to stay consistent in all art (to aim to imply ontology)
aka pure autism

[Anonymous No.11781932]

>>11781636
>we have lost sight of the role art can play in shaping history at the deepest level, an ontologically revolutionary role compared to which Heidegger finds the “artful” gestures of culinary expertise rather empty
Kierkegaard is turning in his grave

[Anonymous No.11781935]

>>11781914
also i wanted to mention is not only a copy of adam curtis style but also of https://vimeo.com/75534042 aeshtetics

the west is best lads, never forgetti

[Anonymous No.11781998]

>>11781926
By reduction I mean reducing art to an object which is present-at-hand.

[Anonymous No.11782051]

>>11778448
Is this thread meant to be a kind of satire and if so then to what degree?

Tech + Economics = Digital Ledgers (e.g. Blockchains). This allows for the whole thing to get a lot more nuanced; whereby the current economic system reaches to the lowest common denominator, a technologically empowered system allows for a kind of meta AND mico capitalism.
People can opt into micro-economic ecosystems that benefit them more than others and these systems will play off of eachother.

[Anonymous No.11782094]

>>11781914
>is it weirdly like an organism? yes, because its a fucking type of state modeled on an anthill, anthills have been used as analogous for brains due to the emerging characteristics of them for like 40 years now in the west

Individual <<<< the collective is very eastern in general, and permeates their philosophy, art ( a lot of classic jap art for example is landscapes > people), and culture (everything they do they seem to do as a herd)

[Anonymous No.11782129]

>>11782051
We have barely even begun to scratch the surface of what's really going on here. Yes, BitCoin is fully conscious. Yes, ETH and some alts are, to varying degrees, too - indexed by a xenouniversal ∞-topos of transmediating exo-virtualities.

[Anonymous No.11782256]

>>11782094
So does western. We started taking individual freedoms actually serious only after experiencing the genocidal aspect of collectivism

[Anonymous No.11782832]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11783273]

>>11782051
not satire, just very open-ended. everything crosses paths with tech and economics at some point but a man can only read so much. i have no math brain at all and i don't understand the technical aspects of a lot of this stuff, but i'd welcome further explanation if you wanted to go into detail.

>>11782129
>Yes, BitCoin is fully conscious. Yes, ETH and some alts are, to varying degrees, too - indexed by a xenouniversal ∞-topos of transmediating exo-virtualities.

this also. would be interested if you could explain some of that in greater detail but at a slightly more brainlet level. if BTC is setting up to be our first encounter with AI i'm interested. but it's also something that i realize cannot really be reduced or overly simplified, either.

it's one of the problems with continental philosophy, that we lose the capacity for a detached inquiry into things, or any capacity to see the world in terms other than narcisso-revolutionary politics. things always tend to come back to Us and Our Anxieties and that's genuine bullshit. it leads to fear and reaction that can manifest as either extreme left or extreme right politics but in the end come to be indistinguishable from each other. the Outside is preferable.

anyways. the floor of the Department of Speculative Economics is all yours.

>>11782256
this is a good point also. we seem to be on track currently for more collectivism and not less. changing the polarity of language from intention to impact is part of this. and it will shape in time the nature of the things we produce and exchange as well.

and it's kind of related to what these other anons are saying also. i don't want to be perma-trigged all the time anymore by politics. it feels like we are becoming an automatic species in really weird ways, driven by what we are producing and in the way we produce and consume it.

[Anonymous No.11783846]

black pill: the next 100 years will be really boring
technological advancements will be mediocre, better computers, maybe a little bit space travel, better understanding of the brain, but still really really shitty AI, equal to that of a goldfish or insect
or well die by nuclear war

[Anonymous No.11783944]

>>11783846
>the next 100 years will be really boring
>but we might die by nuclear war

nuclear holocaust isn't what i'm hoping for but at the very least you can't call that boring. i'll take the bet that the next 100 years will be anything but dull. if anything they're likely to be Way Too Exciting.

>robotics
>AI blastoff
>computers learning to simulate hallucination

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00101/full

>BTC sentience
>genetically edited humans
>environmental collapse
>neo-china
>the discovery barron trump's psychic powers

okay, so maybe one or two of those won't happen. still tho.

this article is also worth reading btw, check out the list of name drops: land, han, peterson, harris, even ken wilber gets a shout-out.

https://medium.com/intellectual-explorers-club/memetic-tribes-and-culture-war-2-0-14705c43f6bb

[Anonymous No.11784071]

I just "got into" Nick Land.

Started with Old Nick Site, then with Xenosystems + 6 articles he wrote for Jacobite Mag. It's good when it's good but most of it is stuff that has circulated 4chan for decade or more.. (Yes I've been here for longer than decade).

He is at best when talking about A.I. philosophy, both political and economical implications.
Does he write actively to any blog?

Also read most of what Moldbug wrote and I unironically don't see the praise, that shit is lightweight /pol/ basically. His history of religion articles are good though.

[Anonymous No.11784080]

>>11783944
I don't care what names it namedrops, but because it is in fucking Medium it's guaranteed to be worthless garbage.

[Anonymous No.11784088]

>>11784071
and for both Land and Moldbug the material they refer to/link is the best content they produce:

This is a paper Land linked to IIRC: https://web.archive.org/web/20151202195117/http:/www.le-cretin-transnational.ch/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Good-Speculations-Concerning-the-First-Ultraintelligent-Machine.pdf
and I really liked it.

[Anonymous No.11784116]

What the fuck are you pseuds talking about

[Anonymous No.11784121]

>>11778448
Very good OP! Thank you for the good material. Will lurk.

How long has /CTG/ (is this the name?) been a thing?

>>11781220
I'm writing a short story around these themes right now. I'm working from the thesis that an AI will awaken on the Internet and coordinate people not by force but through a social score and the sharing economy - think Uber but for everything. Will hopefully enter it into a competition in December.

[Anonymous No.11784130]

>>11784071
i sorely miss xenosystems. and i've been devouring these Introduction To/Graphic Guides from icon books on libgen and land definitely warrants one of his own, imho. he's too radical to get one now or any time in the future but he's there. maybe he's still writing the chapters of his own intellectual biography anyways. i want that bitcoin book.

there's a long-ish piece here you can read that you may not have seen before if you're interested.

http://wdwreview.org/desks/china-crypto-currency-and-the-world-order/
http://www.wdw.nl/en/review/desk/china_crypto_currency_and_the_world_order_part_2
http://www.wdw.nl/en/review/desk/china_crypto_currency_and_the_world_order_part_3

>Does he write actively to any blog?
not anymore afaik. and extensive pieces by him are rare. i don't know why he discontinued the xenosystems blog, maybe he just lost interest in it or it attracted too many wingnuts and he didn't want to moderate it.

>Also read most of what Moldbug wrote and I unironically don't see the praise, that shit is lightweight /pol/ basically. His history of religion articles are good though.
i never got the hype for carlyle myself, although it was b/c of UR and other sites that i did wind up reading de maistre, donoso cortes and a few other guys. i still read social matter now and it's kind of okay, every once in a while they'll produce a good article or two, but there's nobody there who i've felt are absolutely must-read-everything-by guys. they have their own vibe and aesthetic and it's okay but not much of it really blows my mind.

>>11784080
suit yourself. i thought the spreadsheet was pretty good. and i was glad to see that somebody else had understood the depth and breadth of the moral anarchism we live in. also makes me think nike's Believe Anything bullshit is maximum cynicism. no matter who you're chasing, or who is chasing you, hey, you can do it in nike shoes!

>>11784121
>How long has /CTG/ (is this the name?) been a thing?
usually land threads are just always interesting here on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11784144]

>>11784130
Thanks for that Buttcoin piece, I have not read it and I like longer Land pieces more, just like I liked longer Moldbug articles more.

> maybe he just lost interest in it or it attracted too many wingnuts and he didn't want to moderate it.
I think it because it became 'mainstream' in a sense. Both him and Moldbug stopped around same time. Shame.

[Anonymous No.11784154]

What are some good science fiction/cyberpunk animes?
I've seen bunch of live actions, at least the best of so I have to get into animes now.

Already seen Akira and GITS (the first one) and I liked both of them, but GITS was better imho.

[Anonymous No.11784158]

>>11784130
>>11784144
>there's nobody there who i've felt are absolutely must-read-everything-by guys. they have their own vibe and aesthetic and it's okay but not much of it really blows my mind.

scratch that. there's at least one guy who writes really interesting stuff: doug smythe. he's good. i'm not as into NRx stuff as i used to be but he's a really good writer.

https://dissentingsociologist.wordpress.com/

[Anonymous No.11784178]

>>11784130
>also makes me think nike's Believe Anything bullshit is maximum cynicism. no matter who you're chasing, or who is chasing you, hey, you can do it in nike shoes!

the point being that nike will happily be the fashion department for revolutionaries real or imagined as happily as, once upon a time, krupp could arm every european power that fought WW1 with the guns. hey, we're just giving people what they want, right? don't hate the player, hate the game!

[Anonymous No.11784213]

>>11784071
I think Moldbugs hype is that he actually writes down a detailed plan of action instead of just critique. Its hard to find policy description in poliitical crap

[Anonymous No.11784226]

>>11784116
always the overture:

>The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

[Anonymous No.11784241]

How does this accelrationism shit apply to places that are still rurally agrarian

[Anonymous No.11784256]

>>11784241
Apply autonomization of capital if you want answer.

Leftism is a break and it wants the destruction (of autonomization) of capital.

[Anonymous No.11784273]

>>11784241
it's mostly an urban phenomenon, but still. why do ghost towns occur? or, conversely, why might you want to escape cities and move back to a cozy country life?

marxism has answers for a lot of this stuff. acceleration is marxism on overdrive b/c computers (and the famous 'culture of late capital,' and lots of other things).

why was there a mass migration from the country to the cities in the late 18C/early 19C? the industrial revolution. today the industrial revolution is happening in microprocessors and over the internet. but this has equally huge effects on demography and geography also, as well as culture, the academy, science...

[Anonymous No.11784292]

>>11784273
>acceleration is marxism on overdrive
Land: autonomization of capital until the last bit of material in Universe has been turned to capital

Left: lol lets hope the conditions get so shit we can do a commie revolution where we "destroy" capital

[Anonymous No.11784303]

>>11784256
What do you mean by autonomizing capital?

[Anonymous No.11784315]

>>11784303
Roughly put intelligence explosion leading to A.I harvesting everything and anything to capital/capital goods.
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

[Anonymous No.11784318]

>>11784292
>Land: autonomization of capital until the last bit of material in Universe has been turned to capital

kantbot has some tweet about this where he says, if you want anything less than this you're a cuck. he's obviously being trollish and provocative but at least he's done some of the reading on this.

>Left: lol lets hope the conditions get so shit we can do a commie revolution where we "destroy" capital
yep. and you know, they probably could. in a post-apoc scenario capital as we know it really could be dialled back to levels commensurate with destruction, but so will a lot of others stuff.

gotta find that sustainable middle way.

[Anonymous No.11784331]

>>11784292
Marxism as it describes captial's colonization (especially a Marxist interpretation of Freud to highlight physic commodification/colonization) seems to form the backbone of landian accelerationim. The key difference is that while Marx sought to oppose this colonization, Land seeks to embrace it. Hence "accelerationism".

[Anonymous No.11784333]

>>11781409
where to read next from him after Being?

[Anonymous No.11784343]

>>11784331
>the backbone of landian accelerationim
No, he divorced from it, see >>11784315
It doesn't make you a Marxist to see ABSOLUT CAPITALISM, it makes you die hard an-cap.

[Anonymous No.11784351]

>>11781409
> Time != In-Time
< this btfos people

wtf I figured this one night in a bed when I was 8 year old and was thinking about space and I'm not even joking

[Anonymous No.11784362]

Oi, OP you should read this if you haven't already.

[Anonymous No.11784363]

>>11783846
>or we'll die by nuclear war
doubt.jpg
the main cause of death globally will be wars for resources, particularly in the third world and with any group of migrants joined together from ecological collapse

[Anonymous No.11784368]

>>11784343
sure thing sweetie
Marx wasn't a bad guy, it doesn't make you some evil person to appreciate his work and integrate his thinking for your own purposes, and it doesn't make you a marxist to take influence from marxism.

[Anonymous No.11784374]

>>11784368
Just read Austrians btfoing Marx, why do you need Karl?

[Anonymous No.11784376]

>>11784333
after B&T? i mean heidegger wrote a lot of stuff, he doesn't skimp on the portions. so first there are the works that he writes himself. and there's plenty of that, all of his work on metaphysics, phenomenology, basic problems of philosophy.

there are a lot of good commentaries on his work by other writers also, such as pic rel. dreyfus is one of the most well-known heideggerians, you can look into him also.

you might also want to look into other phenomenological writers, writers who he influenced or influenced him, such as gadamer, merleau-ponty, and husserl. later on there's derrida also. more recently bernard stiegler and yuk hui, although YH is more into simondon. but even land will say that a critical encounter with heidegger is necessary today.

in other words, you've got plenty to look forward to. if you've read B&T, check out the basic writings, and then after that you've got lots of options.

[Anonymous No.11784390]

>>11784374
karl is the original redpill of the modern era and is still valuable for BTFO neo-hegelian brainlets

[Anonymous No.11784397]

>>11784362
this looks very thematic & cyberpunk indeed, cheers anon.

[Anonymous No.11784461]

I like Land the most out of the A.I. writers but this is probably because I dont know any other.

Recommendations?

[Anonymous No.11784476]

>>11784461
if you enjoyed land get a copy of the acceleration reader. you can find it at theoryfiction (>>11779142) along with the land reader that /lit/ made, and loads of other stuff, including the overy and greenspan theses. you'll probably want to check out mark fisher as well, if you like hegel or zizek. and nick bostrom has a whole book about superintelligence that will probably appeal.

as for AI guys on the other side of the spectrum - the cognitive science and philosophy of mind guys et al - i have no idea but perhaps some anons here will be able to provide answers for them.

[Anonymous No.11784507]

>>11784476
Is that #ACCELERATE the Urbanomics book? I've been looking for it

[Anonymous No.11784512]

>>11784461

[Anonymous No.11784518]

>>11784476
>as for AI guys on the other side of the spectrum - the cognitive science and philosophy of mind guys et al - i have no idea but perhaps some anons here will be able to provide answers for them.
Would love a fucking good journal or even magazine/blog link

[Anonymous No.11784530]

What do you guys here think about virii, i know you like Von Neumann for the things you say, but what do you consider complex computer virus?

[Anonymous No.11784553]

>>11784507
yep, that's the one. it's really excellent. it includes land's teleoplexy article, which is imho the big kahuna. but all of them are good for lots of reasons. not everybody who's into acc is necessarily a landian type, although he's the most well-known. there's optimstic and pessimistic strains of this stuff, l/acc, r/acc u/acc and so on, but this is not to say that the optimistic side is necessarily the good nor the pessimistic side the bad. it's all interesting to read tho.

>>11784518
there's vast abrupt but they mostly skew heavy on the ultra-dark continental stuff.
https://vastabrupt.com/

e-flux mostly is into art and social stuff.
https://www.e-flux.com/

jacobite is more political-cultural. land has contributed a couple of articles himself to this one, including his own intro to acceleration.
https://jacobitemag.com/

i don't know of any more sciencey-type journals from the other side of things, but it would be cool if you could get crossover. isabelle stengers, for example, is a physicist but she's really up to speed on deleuze and guattari also. places where you get that kind of crossover would be neat.

[Anonymous No.11784632]

>>11784530
>what do you consider complex computer virus?
things get interesting when it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the BwO and a virus.

>This is how it should be done: lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times.

it's possible that consciousness and thought itself (at least, according to deleuze) actually is irreducibly viroid in character. assemblage theory and so on makes a persuasive case for this. but nobody wants to think of themselves as propagating (or being) a thought-virus, it's unbecoming.

but what is intelligence? how does it work, how does it communicate, spread, or grow? that's the thing about the nomad and the war-machine, they're viroid, schizo. these terms immediately seem to us like things that are hostile, but it's possible that we can make positive connections and useful discoveries by understanding them in this way.

i'm aware, of course, that this is just setting me up for an obvious meme: so, you admit it, you're a fucking virus, blah blah. i've read those papers also where people say that this is how activism is to be done, consciously and willingly - go out, infect, subvert, disrupt everything! and of course this can seem odious. but this is the kind of stuff deleuze imagines, that thoughts and ideas *germinate.* it's the kind of vitalism he gets from nietzsche, bergson, and spinoza (and possibly from whitehead, but whitehead is a little bit different).

fwiw. the structure of a virus, metaphysically, is also a kind of BwO. and maybe through this we will come up with new ways of looking at the nature of intelligence to go along with what we will also be learning from the computer science and cognitive science stuff. is it possible to be a virus for good? it's a complex question.

[Anonymous No.11784789]

>>11781914
>> never occurs to the author that it is a dehumanizing technocratic system because its a communist dictatorship
What makes China communist in anything other than name

[Anonymous No.11784824]

>>11784789
mmm
its been ruled for years by a politburo that has been doing its best to apply marxist policies and strategies to try to redistribute richness and be in control of their own means of production the most possible

f course we can always fall int othe autism that you didn't imagine it would go this way, so it isnt real communism, but it is literally what real, not ideal or fantastic, communism actually looks like, its the best example youve got, if it werent for them you are stuck with Cuba, so chill

[Anonymous No.11784866]

marx + confucius is a pretty amazing one-two punch.

i agree with both anons here (>>11784789 >>11784824) that a revolutionary fulfilled and become a state with a permanent rule is a different kind of thing. xi isn't mao, but there's no legitimacy for his position if he doesn't regard himself as continuing the dialectic in that sense. but i've read intellectuals also in china (i'm trying to find the article now, aaarh) saying that

marx, engels, lenin, stalin and mao give you the revolution, and then confucius makes sure that it *stays* there. but there's undoubtedly a major turning point in there somewhere. but it would be hard to win those debates with seasoned ideological warriors.

https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/18425/2/The%20Meaning%20of%20Xi%20Jinping%20Thought.pdf

[Anonymous No.11784878]

>>11784866
more xi jinping thought here, if anyone is interested.

http://www.nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/outreach/mccahill_commentary_102417.pdf

[Anonymous No.11784899]

>>11784878

1989年天安门广场大屠杀

1989年天安門廣場大屠殺

[Anonymous No.11784921]

>>11784899
我不明白你的意思。

如果我们用英语说话会更好

[Anonymous No.11785361]

Bumping this for when I get back.

[Anonymous No.11785655]

where the humanist apologetics at?

why don't you think it's time for 'humanity' to step aside and go sit in a dark cave somewhere like the forgotten children of the universe that they were always destined to be?

also, dunno if this has been posted. great read https://manifold.umn.edu/read/dark-deleuze

[Anonymous No.11785659]

>>11784878
one last xi article in case anyone is interested. this one is Full Propaganda but people may be interested in it inasmuch as may well be neo-china arriving from the future.

https://www.thechinastory.org/cot/jiang-shigong-on-philosophy-and-history-interpreting-the-xi-jinping-era-through-xis-report-to-the-nineteenth-national-congress-of-the-ccp/

[Anonymous No.11786152]

it occurs to me sometimes that the most interesting version of land is the one which is neither Young Nick nor Old Nick. Young Nick goes batshit in the later chapters of FN, and Old Nick is too arcane. but think about what it is both Nicks are doing:

1. it's marx minus hegel. that's one, but it's a big one. true, deleuze also offers this, but unlike deleuze, land doesn't have an equivalent of guattari going on (although i think sadie plant's influence on him is really significant, at least when he was Young Nick).

2. it's marxism minus *ideology.* no freud, no lacan, but also nothing postmodern/poststructural. all of this is covered by deleuze, and then eventually (for him) becomes absorbed as so much feedback data by computers. capitalism is the computer that processes desire.

3. it's marx with a kind of hegel conjured out of the void as teleoplexy. now i don't know how much this comparison works (or how much land thinks about it), but if teleoplexy is a dialectical process itself, wat do? true, it's hard to say how AI intelligence is going to work or develop over time, how they will learn, what they will learn, and much else. i am hoping that other anon (>>11782129) returns to talk more about BTC and intelligence for this reason, because these are actually things we can pay attention to.

4. that new spirit, the spirit of teleoplexy, is an interesting one.

>As blockchains, drone logistics, nanotechnology, quantum computing, computational genomics, and virtual reality flood in, drenched in ever-higher densities of artificial intelligence, accelerationism won’t be going anywhere, unless ever deeper into itself. To be rushed by the phenomenon, to the point of terminal institutional paralysis, is the phenomenon. Naturally – which is to say completely inevitably – the human species will define this ultimate terrestrial event as a problem. To see it is already to say: We have to do something. To which accelerationism can only respond: You’re finally saying that now? Perhaps we ought to get started?

>Capital, in its ultimate self-definition, is nothing beside the abstract accelerative social factor. Its positive cybernetic schema exhausts it. Runaway consumes its identity. Every other determination is shucked-off as an accident, at some stage of its intensification process. Since anything able to consistently feed socio-historical acceleration will necessarily, or by essence, be capital, the prospect of any unambiguously ‘Left-accelerationism’ gaining serious momentum can be confidently dismissed. Accelerationism is simply the self-awareness of capitalism, which has scarcely begun. (“We haven’t seen anything yet.”)

this is the question acceleration asks: what if the revolution is capital itself? then what?

https://monoskop.org/images/a/af/Obsolete_Capitalism_Acceleration%2C_Revolution_and_Money.pdf

http://obsoletecapitalism.blogspot.com/2017/05/nick-land-quick-and-dirty-introduction.html

[Anonymous No.11786232]

>>11786152
the question about technology - and it's why land is a big deal - isn't one that we can ask (or answer) in the way that heidegger might have posed it, initially. if there is one thing we learn it is that, ultimately, we aren't the unmoved movers w/r/t machines anymore. and it is entirely possible that we are synthesizing something that only needs us on a provisional basis.

marx is nothing if not promethean. and what he discovers is this truly daemonic process going on, a thing that - excepting the revolution - has neither beginning nor ending, and an accelerator but no brake. take that into the world of cybernetics and things only go faster and faster. we love making AI, and the next 100 years (assuming the absence of doomsday scenarios) are going to do nothing more than to bring us into ever-closer dependeny on and relationships with algorithms. the internet already rules my entire life, how about yours? that's not likely to change.

and the crazy thing is, we are doing this to ourselves, all the way. the industrial revolution and the bourgeois sensibility that goes with it *just makes sense.* it wouldn't, of course, if we had anything like an environmental sensibility, or a medieval religious sensibility, or any number of other ways of thinking. because, undoubtedly, tech and progress really is making the world a better place, and in ways beyond the economic, all over the world. there's no shortage of evidence for that.

but the idea that we are beginning to enter an era of tech and information in which more and more control is being ceded to forces beyond our control really should be a profound shit-test for the way we look at politics, the human species, the earth itself. all of it. the machines may only need to business with us on a provisional basis, and we know that we have no way of shutting them off now. this party never stops now.

but, again, that's still only one trajectory. no doubt things are going to happen along the way, black swans and other things we can't predict. but i'm just impressed at the moment by the idea that, however hyperbolic and bizarre land is, that in another sense he's really only drawing some pretty basic conclusions about marx updated for the 21C, after a century of upheaval and with an Updated Journal w/r/t tech and computers. i don't think right-wing politics are the answer any more than left-wing politics are. and maybe all of this is so much preface to a less toothless green politics, or other possibilities. or the kind of east-west relationship that could someday give people back the kind of sensibilities they had, perhaps, before the first world war: that things were looking up. that it's not dystopia and war or bust.

would be nice to think, anyways.

[Anonymous No.11786297]

How does this accelerationism differ from Terence Mckenna's goofy "time wave" end-of-the-world theory? I'm trying to take this thing serious but I can't help cringing when you post lowbrow dystopic anime wallpapers and links to "atmospheric music"...the image you project is just loaded with romanticism and angsty boy bedroom.

[Anonymous No.11786331]

>>11786297
im not familiar with Terrence Mckennas theory you are talking about but why compare it rather than find than come up with an actual argument against it?

[Anonymous No.11786353]

hegel's master/slave dialectic is v relevant here. currently we are both masters & slaves in that we live alienated from nature (e.g. don't kill our own animals, build our own houses, even cook for ourselves etc) but are still slaves -- albeit in an individually narrow capacity vis a vis rationalization -- in that we interact directly with Nature in some small way through our work or hobbies. But this obviously doesn't rise to the level of true communion, just hints at it.

Capitalism + automation / a.i. / etc. is only further cementing us into these kafkaesque faux-Master positions where we never have to interact with or work on Nature and our labor (well, middle class labor) slowly morphs more and more into the office drone category. Like Brasil-tier absurdist 'labor'.

The artificial closeness of social media (and its future derivatives) is an Appolonian illusion that serves to mask the collective drift of our bodies and degradation of authentic bonds between people and between man and Nature.

It's like we're trying to recreate the womb with technology so we can somehow regress back before the mirror stage. Goodbye world, hello mommmyyy~~ uwu

gross

[Anonymous No.11786355]

>>11786297
>How does this accelerationism differ from Terence Mckenna's goofy "time wave" end-of-the-world theory?

i don't know, i'm not familiar with mckenna. but the point of my last two posts was actually just a reflection on how un-goofy land stuff is. that was my point: peel away all of the cyberpunk theory-fiction stuff and what you get is relatively sober marxist theory updated for the 21C. he wrote it on ungodly amounts of drugs and doing whatever else he was doing with the CCRU and that later became teleoplexy. but for all that it's really just not all that crazy in the end.

>I'm trying to take this thing serious but I can't help cringing when you post lowbrow dystopic anime wallpapers and links to "atmospheric music"...the image you project is just loaded with romanticism and angsty boy bedroom.

yeah, well, music's not really my forte. i have terrible taste in music and i didn't want to just steal the music my tumblr-fixer uses as well as the art, that seemed truly shameless. so i tried to pick something similar and that was what i came up with. honestly i'd welcome some thematic music links if you have any. same goes for lowbrow anime wallpapers. if you have better art, post it or suffer my complete lack of taste.

as for romanticism and angst, i won't deny this. i like heidegger. i'm an angsty guy by nature. but i don't read land because i really root for the collapse of the world or anything like this. i don't share his hate for the left or his reverence for the right. i'm kind of hoping for a middle path through the darkness. i like heidegger and lacan because they speak to the butterflies in my stomach, but they can't say the kinds of things about tech and capital that land and D&G do. this leads, in turn, to more angst! and the angst leads to shitposting lowbrow anime art and bad music and acceleration threads on /lit/. it's truly a vicious circle.

[Anonymous No.11786448]

>>11786297
hi im familiar with both
Theres absolutely no difference
both link to the moon baby, its just its newest iteration

[Anonymous No.11786500]

>>11786448
just in case, the moon baby is the emergent offspring of the human collective

to understand it you gotta get the emergent quality phenomena, understand at least a minimum of psychedelic zoom theory, and get the relativity of size and "matter", you gotta understand "essences" of being as dependant on the configuration of smaller elements rather than on its elemental constituents

first of all, the emergent: particles don't have temperature but when particles interact as collectives (states of matter) you get temperature in the resulting object when you look at it from a zoomed-out perspective: you cant grab a particle of an object and use it to determine its temperature, you need to grab them as a whole

with this in hand, we can talk about zoom factors, as you zoom in and out of particle configurations (and configurations of configurations of particles ( and configurations of configurations of configurations of particles))) you find a whole new set of emergent qualities that are not implied nor present in any way in the zoomed-in layers that conform them

you add this with a question: would a human being made of wood or metal or whatever, an 1:1 functional and size-wise model where everything acts the same way, be, or at least, be an equivallent of, a human? or, taking it down to the ground a bit, could you replicate fluids or gasses with other elements and use this to study the physics and dynamics of fluids/gassess? the answer is yeah, absolutely. Not even that, but we can replicate the shit just with *information*, you don't even need matter, you just need to replicate the configuration, the system of interactions, then if its particles or bits, its the same, the thing reacts the same and the model predicts real life

so when you add the three together you get that if you "zoom out" from the zoom-layer we inhabit, the configuration of our interactions (system) would make emergent qualities emerge, and given the "pile-up" nature of zooming layers, its sensible to say that the next layer not only has all our qualities, but has extra ones. Aka: is a supernatural conscious being.

Thats the moonchild

[Anonymous No.11786531]

>>11786500
moon baby is the name given by laveyan ( i think) satanists, but this is a way older concept, if im not mistaken in judeochristean lore (as opposed to satanist) it is called Metatron

weird right? meta - tron

[Anonymous No.11786538]

>>11786531
some early right hand path new age also consider the metatron of all spirits to be Christ

[Anonymous No.11786551]

>>11786538
of course under this view the layers are inverted, go from top down instead of down up as we do now, its of emanations rather than evolution, so the metatron is not our offspring but the consituent element from which we separate, like the trunk of a tree of which we are the branches

[Anonymous No.11786554]

>>11786500
Can you actually show the societal layer(s) of emergence carries forward consciousness?
I can think of many properties of an individual that society doesn't have, and it is certainly not true of emergence in general that the higher structure inherits all the properties of its parts.

[Anonymous No.11786575]

>>11786554
>it is certainly not true of emergence in general that the higher structure inherits all the properties of its parts.
can you give an example of this?

>Can you actually show the societal layer(s) of emergence carries forward consciousness?
yeah, look at birds, anthills, flocks of birds, and in humans theres also loads of experiments about collective conscious, specially in economics, youve probably heard of "the markets invisible hand"
look at this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9eVz4wBBgU

also, its not society eh, society maybe is the "body", the actual conscious part of it is outside our dimension to say it in some way

[Anonymous No.11786613]

>>11786575
lol
take the triangle which emerges from any three points on the plane
is the triangle a point?

[Anonymous No.11786625]

>>11786554
also im not an advocate for the moon baby, im just explaining where that thread of thought comes from cause it followed it a few years ago, i have a turned-around vision of that "metashape of spirits" now

>>11786613
the point is not a quality of the point though, the qualities of the point are "location in the plane" and -maybe- "size"

[Anonymous No.11786638]

>>11786613
also the triangle is not the emergent quality, the triangle is the collective configuration, the emergent qualities are the mathematical properties of triangles

[Anonymous No.11786655]

>>11786625
so you're saying the bird swarm has all the properties of a bird? am I getting this right?
the point doesn't have size. you don't know basic geometry and you want me to believe in your visionary synthesis of all social theory?
sub-Rogan tier tbqh

[Anonymous No.11786687]

>>11786655
>the point doesn't have size
it does when its a simulated point in a computer program, thats why i said maybe, the size of the points delimit the breadth of the triangle sides, i assumed this cause you said points instead of vectors, which you would've if you were truly sperging about geometry and not just making an armchair argument

>so you're saying the bird swarm has all the properties of a bird? am I getting this right?
no, see, you spout too much but cant think clearly in terms of categories. Im saying what animates the bird swarm intelligently emerges from the configuration of the consciousness of the bird not from the configuration of the birds, the bird consciousness is what emerges from the bird, and it resides in another qualitative dimension than that of the body of the bird. If you want me to make this clearly i can and wont call you subiq i promise, im not a shitbreathed chan frog.

[Anonymous No.11786717]

>>11786687
You haven't shown such another invisible dimension exists in your buzzword soup, all I've got from your butthurt rambling is that Land cultists like you indeed are just basic stoners that have little to no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11786720]

>>11786717
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour#Swarm_intelligence

Here faggot, learn sth today

[Anonymous No.11786738]

>>11786720
Anyone who actually reads could already tell you were a shameless wiki skimmer, Landroid mong.

[Anonymous No.11786746]

>>11786738
come back when you can say something

[Anonymous No.11786755]

>>11781849
i tried reading this book but the language destroyed me, and i'm saying this as someone who's read deleuze and heidegger

[Anonymous No.11786770]

>>11786746
It's just a very irritating thing about you that you're pretentiously speculating about The Future when you lack rudimentary reasoning skills and even a cursory handle on the relevant topics. Maybe stick to gawking at fractals and trying to impress your bonghead mates.

[Anonymous No.11786781]

>>11786770
lol, you try so fucking hard yet you fail and fail and keep failing, i even said i dont believe in the moon baby crap and that i was just explaining the source of the land/mckenna similarity, but whatever makes you feel good

[Anonymous No.11786804]

>>11786755
in my own experience i've found that some books click for mysterious reasons. i looked into P&R years ago and was kind of unimpressed by it, although i didn't make much of an effort to understand, really. these days after re-reading some D&G again and various other things i'm more interested in it and i find that helps. i've been reading stengers' book as well and finding it to be really helpful. there's a guide also: >>11785993

if you've gotten through heidegger i think you can get through just about anybody. but i know the feel, there are some guys and books who are absolutely hell for me to read also, and that i think sometimes i will just never understand. and who knows, maybe that's so. but sometimes you just really have to be in the mood to kind of enjoy getting lost in the language of these guys to enjoy it, there's no way to force it.

>>11786770
>>11786781
>tfw channeling inner sam harris

can we take a breather on the moon baby stuff? some of it is interesting but it's going off the rails.

[Anonymous No.11786932]

>>11781220
Read Houellebecq's The Possibility of an Island

[Anonymous No.11786997]

>>11781220
>High-Rise is a 1975 novel by British writer J. G. Ballard. The story describes the disintegration of a luxury high-rise building as its affluent residents gradually descend into violent chaos.

this may appeal to your dystopianism, not sure about the advance of explosive technology but the last years of being human for sure.

[Anonymous No.11787020]

>>11786355
This music is more fitting:
https://youtu.be/d4t5B6nPQGg

[Anonymous No.11787100]

>>11787020
it's definitely thematic. i was kind of hoping for something less abstract and atonal, but you're right, it is fitting.

this is what they were listening to back in the CCRU days apparently. not really my bag either but interesting i guess as a phil-culture moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8hRY5kH-ZE&t=275s

i was hoping to find some appropriate downbeat chill stuff to feel spooky and melancholy and cyberpunk-ish about but a lot of what i found on youtube is kind of just meh ambience. if anyone knows an appropriate artist or album that would be great, atmospheric theme music is nice for reading and threads.

no Aphex Twin/Come to Daddy or anything like this tho, i don't actually want to re-live land's nightmares myself.

[Anonymous No.11787141]

>>11787100
BoC or Cortini but not cyberpunk

[Anonymous No.11787186]

>>11787141
as i said, i have no music taste. i'd appreciate it if you could post a link or something b/c otherwise i have no idea where to begin. and my terrible music will only put off anons already irritated by yuk hui or land.

>BoC
is this boards of canada? they're cool for sure but it's still not quite the right ambience. a cyberpunk adventure with a soundtrack by boards of canada would be memorable tho.

this track is amazing and atmospheric but man cannot live on carpenter brut alone. but i guess i should make a /mu/ thread tho for these kinds of things, this is a literature board after all. just thought i'd ask. i know there are lots of megamixes on youtube but in case anybody knew anything that was super-atmospheric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe1wA1hAdd0

[Anonymous No.11787250]

>>11787186
Alessandro Cortini has a few albums of really organic synth ambient. Try scappa.
More in theme you can check out 2814, put that number on youtube and the album comes out.
If not go soundtrack. Akiras or vangelis blade runner. Vangelis has some shit. Perturbator old shit is kinda cool too but thats synth wave, not the same. You could also go for cthe new berghaib-tier dark industrial techno, look for H A T E channel. Basic Channel if you prefer a dubbier neuromancer kinda techno.

[Anonymous No.11787268]

>>11787250
You could also try forest/tech psy, like current goa gil sets, but thats too liquid dystopian futury for most people.

But i guess you want sth more 80s futurism sounding. If not new wave, joy dicision or television. Maybe more noisy long sonic youth tracks.

Last resort: theres this electronica genre going on right now on north europe. If you make a pol music thread and ask for the swede electronica poster youll get it, i dont remember the name, makes fucking A mix of 808/909 typical sounds and cyberish leads but really groovy ,like abstract-hop laid back.

[Anonymous No.11787303]

>>11787250
>>11787268
anon that is awesome. you have improved the musical stylings of the land threads by leaps and bounds. they are now equipped with appropriate and non-meme music selections. thank ye kindly.

>cyberpunk theme music
>cyberpunk tumblr art
>cyberpunk philosophers

we are now fully equipped for shitposting while western civilization crumbles around us lads.

[Anonymous No.11787310]

I almost thought this was about that one faggy cosmoetica site.

[Anonymous No.11787321]

>>11787303
oui oui, gandahar, hmm hmmm.
great film.

[Anonymous No.11787423]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

[Anonymous No.11787612]

bump

[Anonymous No.11787647]

>>11786353
Is this supposed to be a bad thing? I can't wait to go under the knife to lose my flesh.

[Anonymous No.11787793]

>>11787647
Leftist view (which Hegelian view) of accelerationism is boring af.

[Anonymous No.11787950]

Is there a good mailing list to subscribe to with regards to techno-commercialism/A.I./NRx?

[Anonymous No.11788048]

Has anyone, like Thiel or some other high profile entrepreneur theorized about "city-state"/ SovCorp in the international seas?

[Anonymous No.11788061]

>>11788048
Have you never heard of the seasteading movement?

[Anonymous No.11788065]

>>11788061
I have. Can you link good articles about theory and practice of it?

[Anonymous No.11788079]

>>11788065
I'm not that into it myself so I don't know all the famous white-papers, but I would say a decent place to start would be conference talks
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDgJp6DTkMyHcDmRUlSInUgT7Xa4N6yVC

[Anonymous No.11788080]

>>11788079
Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.11788152]

>>11787950
this may be of interest to you.
http://late.capital/

it's pretty raw but you can definitely lose yourself in there for a while. i should have put his twitter on too:
https://twitter.com/0xa59a2d

for NRx social matter is still the best magazine around, and TWIR does a great job collating all of that into a weekly publication.
https://www.socialmatter.net/

there's nothing quite like it for acceleration since nick stopped doing the chaos patches on xenosystems.

>>11788048
>Has anyone, like Thiel or some other high profile entrepreneur theorized about "city-state"/ SovCorp in the international seas?
yep.

https://www.seasteading.org/

[Anonymous No.11788157]

>>11788152
I know that 0xa guy, I think Land follows him in Twitter. Didn't know he has a website too. Thanks.

Where are you from by the way? t. the same guy you've been responding to with links for the past day starting from here >>11784144

[Anonymous No.11788173]

Outside of Wikipedia articles, what are some good books on cybernetics in general?

[Anonymous No.11788239]

>>11788157
the land of leaves, hockey pucks, maple syrup and margaret laurence. and not a very interesting or worldly part of it.

and i'm glad to have shared the links too. i used to have a trip but i stopped using it, although i wonder sometimes if i'm being confused with other people on this board. it wouldn't bother me except that when i do post i wonder if people think i'm somebody else and that i've said things that i actually haven't said. but that's all part of the charm, i guess, and loss of identity seems like an appropriately thematic existential issue anyways. if i just made a blog of my own this wouldn't happen, but i'm lazy and undisciplined.

>>11788173
this one is good. and it's not as dystopian as the title might suggest. wiener isn't arguing for BF skinner boxes and electrodes and rats in mazes or anything like this, the title is quite misleading. and he wasn't an insolvent continental wingnut either, he was at the center of the nerve-cluster while a lot of these questions were being asked for the first time.

i'd recommend mcluhan as well, both the medium is the message and gutenberg galaxy. both a little dated by today's turbo-standards but still awesome, even iconic. and it might sound weird to call the phenomenology of spirit a work of cybernetics but it really isn't, it's all about - among other things - feedback and response between human beings. also stafford beer's platform for change.

there's a lot in the field and the term cybernetics itself can become redundant through overuse, but i find myself increasingly being interested in those continentals who offer something that can illuminate the mind's relationship towards tech in an other than antipathic way. heidegger is obviously crucial for just about any conversation in the existential sense about human beings and technology, you can really never read enough of him.

http://lacan.com/heidespie.html

check out bernard stiegler also, technics and time. he's kind of a pro-tech heideggerian, if that makes any sense. and of course yuk hui.

there's lots of other stuff too, and probably it eventually will have to shift into philosophy of mind guys or at least refer to them as much as to heidegger, marx, and land. but i don't really know much about them.

[Anonymous No.11788308]

>>11788239
and it's possible that the ultimate book on cybernetics was actually this one, which was so good that it ripped up the foundations of human civilization for a hundred and fifty years, with the potential for much more yet to come. and nobody really knows even now what the best course of action is. eventually it may be the case that tech and science will take over the conversation from economics, and a post-revolutionary sensibility will take place. but probably not before another round of enormous upheaval and other things too.

again, when you take away the more provocative aspects of Young Nick's writing and Old Nick's far-right bromances you get, imho, what is essentially a return to marx. subtract the critique of ideology supplied by hegel, lacan, and freud, and with the hegelian political stuff removed, and with those aspects of D&G sublimated into machine intelligence, you get a long, long discourse on the fragment on machines. now obviously, to take away all of the things that make land land is to do him a disservice and change the nature of his whole project. philosophers have to be taken all of a piece, and this goes for heidegger and marx as well as land.

but i think my own question is just about how to relate to a society which is, in a kind of planetary-unconscious way, in a process of Optimizing For Intelligence and it's not like that's such a terrible thing. it's at least an alternatie to Optimizing For Pleasure (and failing), which is what we have been doing for a quarter-century or more, and in which it becomes virtually impossible to tell the difference between critique of ideology and production of ideology. poststructural critique of ideology by 2018 seems to inevitably dovetail back towards production of an ideology of transcendental miserabilism, which land was already alert to in the early 1990s and is now showing its full ugliness. and that in turn provoked in 2016 a huge counter-response, and since then it's just been the ratcheting up of stupidity on both sides. that article i linked to >>11783944 really is good. it seems to me that there is a horizon beyond which postmodernism really just feeds a thousand schools of neo-tribalism that don't lack for zealous subscribers. but all of them, i think, are being carried out in the shadow of a growing technological uber-thing that isn't being understood because all we can do is react to in these ever-decreasing circles.

the 19C was this great age of suspicion and the species almost wiped itself out in the 20C because of it. if the 21C continues along the same lines we may get small pockets of neo-renaissance wonder-tech but the rest of it won't be pretty, i think.

[Anonymous No.11788346]

>>11788308
I think Landian thought has mostly distanced itself from most Marxism, and he even thinks D&G were subverting the Marxists nowadays IIRC?

PS. Try to format your posts with punctualization & capitalization, makes them easier to read.

>>11788239
Thanks again for the book recommendation, 200 pages looks like a nice short read. I've been reading Kant and Husserl the past week.

[Anonymous No.11788418]

>>11788346
>PS. Try to format your posts with punctualization & capitalization, makes them easier to read.
my punctuation lacks for nothing (although i do use quotation marks inappropriately, and i do sometimes capitalize Words That Must Not Be Capitalized for dramatic effect, and they've got a lot of typos...so...uh...). it's just the way i write. and it's what i use to pick up loose women in seedy cyberpunk dive bars.

as for the callous disregard for capitalization other than that, i know, it's weird. it's a phase. i'll grow out of it eventually. but i've gotten kind of accustomed to it.

>I think Landian thought has mostly distanced itself from most Marxism, and he even thinks D&G were subverting the Marxists nowadays IIRC?
the thing about land is that he's a *right-marxist,* and that is rare. he's into marx but without the revolution. which makes him...not a marxist? it's kind of similar to D&G, but deleuze particularly. deleuze is a marxist to the end, but he's not a hegelian or a freudian. what does that portend for political revolution? secession, nomad war-machines and the like. land does this, in his own way, and then comes up with something relatively unique: a marxist-reactionary and devotee of LKY. of course, you can say that there is a less academic way of saying this, which is that he is a very confused man.

but it's one of the many ways in which land changes the conventional rules of the game he plays by and why i find him so intriguing. being a marxist theorist but being skeptical about all things leftism seems like it would be impossible, and yet that is more or less what he puts on the table. teleoplexy is hegelian spirit taking care of itself by way of tech, and a tech that manifests as capitalism but in which the final horizon of which has nothing to do with human desire whatsoever.

so it is a kind of subversion of marxism on the one hand, and yet on another it is a profound attachment to it. and if teleoplexy itself is dialectical, then, who knows, maybe he's hit on hegel once again by the most roundabout route possible. he would deny this, i think, but these are things i think it can be useful to think about as a part of assembling and disassembling the theory so that people like us can follow the plot.

>I've been reading Kant and Husserl the past week.
nice, good stuff. Uncle Nick would certainly approve of the kant. husserl is one of those guys i never had the serious bonding-moment with, heidegger blew the doors off for me and i never really went back to look into his predecessors all that much.

that's a nice image, by the way, i'll share one you may or may not have seen also. it's getting a little dated now and is one of those things that should probably be updated from time to time as writers come and go and movements shift and so on. pretty much all the interesting stuff for the past couple of years has been happening on the right end of the spectrum. who knows how the story will unfold from here?

[Anonymous No.11788527]

and in my small, sad world this counts as news. land gave himself a new image and there would have been so many aesthetic and tasteful choices to identify with. Choose Nick's New Avatar could have been a twitter phenomenon that could have lasted at least a week.

https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1040887672200343552

[Anonymous No.11788617]

The inordinate complexity of all living things has emerged for one reason alone – to facilitate the replicative function, thereby enhancing the stability of the replicating system.
https://aeon.co/essays/paradoxes-of-stability-how-life-began-and-why-it-can-t-rest

cool article, was linked by land in some xenosystem blog

[Anonymous No.11788828]

>>11788617
>Unchanging things don’t change, and changing things do change – until they change into things that don’t.

that's a pretty good line.

it always amazes me how in the 2000s we thought we were so jaded and cynical, that nothing could really bother us. all the I Fucking Love Science stuff and all the rest. how much of this was just a mask for a lot of deep-rooted quasi-victorian stuff about how the universe actually works? evolution is fine for everyone else until it's your turn, and then things get real. it's why i think land is so prescient, he's just saying that teleoplexy are the chickens of the industrial revolution coming home to roost, that the revolution is an autotelic capital-process itself. it would be nice to think that out of this we might evolve a sensibility in turn which recognizes how much what we are calling civilization is in a cosmic waltz with this and no longer calling the tune or even leading the dance.

nietzsche is the only philosopher i can think of who is tried something like an ethics of biology, the Great Health and so on. and sloterdijk makes a case for this as general immunology which is completely persuasive. none of this points towards any kind of rosy optimism.

>Of course, once we recognise the existence of two distinct stability kinds, one based on probabilities and energy, the other on exponentially driven self-replication, the reason for the teleological character of all living things becomes obvious. Nature’s most fundamental drive, dictated by logic itself, is toward greater stability. That drive has a thermodynamic manifestation, as expressed through the ubiquitous Second Law, but it also has a kinetic manifestation – the drive toward increasingly persistent replicators. Two mathematics, two material forms. This distinction does not trace the dividing line between living and dead matter precisely – but it does explain it, and many of the other riddles of life into the bargain.

'increasingly persistent replicators.'

but again tho. what is the difference between civilization and barbarism? as we descend into an era quite possibly to be dominated by a permanent state of tribal-ideological warfare maybe it will be the case that we will simply discover that the wholes are greater than the sums of their parts. one can only dream of a post-ironic, post-cynical, post-tribal world today. that party is only getting started. and the robots are going to kick the shit out of us all in equal measure anyways.

[Anonymous No.11788885]

>>11787303
youre welcome
i just remembered i didn't say Oneohtrix Point Never first work

Betrayed in the Octagon, Zones without People,Russian Mind, Scenes with curved objects and all the eps of that time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0z7_8sInzM

[Anonymous No.11788919]

>>11788885
aw yeah. music links and atmospherics are always a bonus. thank ye kindly anon.

this seems thematic also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXMhGADyMxE

somewhere along the line we lost sci-fi. i don't know what happened to it or why, but life without possibility of escape drives us meatbags squirrelly with anxiety and despair. maybe it's just built into us and when it doesn't work we turn to utopian species of ressentiment and retribution, anthropo-narcissism. but the stars remind you of how small you are, in the grand scheme of things. and it's easy to get carried away with the romance of Liberation and Emancipation. certainly worked for napoleon (who is a special case) but less so in the 20C experiments with modernist politics.

beautiful line here also from CS Lewis in the abolition of man, quote from a book on whitehead and quantum physics:

>You cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.

[Anonymous No.11789350]

What is a good starting text for all of this? Someone should work everything out into a good reading list, charts, and flowcharts.

[Anonymous No.11789383]

>>11789350
Land Accelerationism:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/ (written by Land, he also wrote five other articles for Jacobite so be sure to read them)
http://www.xenosystems.net/neoreaction/
https://oldnicksite.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-dark-enlightenment-part-1/ (It has 4 parts, in the same blog)

https://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/ to compliment your reading of Land, the multipart blogposts are the better parts of this blog for sure.
https://www.urbanomic.com/book/accelerate/

That should just about covers Land himself.

Moldbug and Land explicitly link and refer to their influences, but this is a dirty rundown on Land's influences:
> Bataille, Deleuze, Guattari, Nietzsche, Gödel, Burroughs, Cantor, Gibson, Reich, Marx, Schopenhauer, Crowley, Kant, Hoppe, Moldbug

I recommend starting "backwards" and reading Moldbug together with the Land, then jumping to Hoppe (Democracy God That Failed), Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty/Anatomy of State) and Mises (Human Action).

Well, that's at least what I did.

[Anonymous No.11789434]

>>11788527
scrolled through his feed. so you are saying this man is 56 years old (!) and retweeting shitty racist pepe memes and deviantart steampunk crap drawn by teenagers? did the amphetamines fry his brain or was he always like this?

[Anonymous No.11789547]

>>11789383
these are all good links, and for sure moldbug and neoreaction definitely matters also.

>>11789350
>What is a good starting text for all of this? Someone should work everything out into a good reading list, charts, and flowcharts.
the accelerate reader is a pretty good place to begin, and it's there on r/theoryfiction, along with /lit/'s land reader, and the overy and greenspan theses that provide comprehensive non-meme introductions to land's influences and thinking (>>11779142). much else.

if you can just jump into fanged noumena and it makes sense, have fun. the first essay on kant and capital is brilliant, as is most of it up until meltdown, and then it gets pretty weird. circuitries is another really good essay. i don't pay too much attention to the later essays, since there's plenty going on in the first ones. as with everything else, if you have some familiarity with the big names that come up - kant, marx, deleuze, heidegger - it will help, but it's not absolutely necessary.

there's no flowchart atm for land but it might be helpful (and at some point maybe one of those more general-readership illustrated intro-guides would be nice too). it would be a good /lit/ project to make at some point, Chill Land and Vill Land and so on.

>>11789434
Old Nick has earned the right to be cranky and eccentric imho. you can't judge a book by its cover (well, you can, but it doesn't tell you much). try a charitable reading of fanged noumena as well as the requisite marx, D&G and others as necessary. it's necessary to understand that, once upon a time, Old Nick was Young Nick. he later became Old Nick but he had reasons for this too. the Tale of Nick is a long one full of twists and turns. he is a genius, tho. one of the most interesting philosophers of the past 20 years.

there's no denying that he's always been a colorful guy, from what i can tell, but at this point he is who is. but most philosophers are unusual guys anyways. we don't require them to be saints or paragons of virtue, only to discover a concept or tell us something we didn't already know. and the thing is, in hindsight, land really isn't as radical as he appears on first glance. this is marxism updated for the 21C, sans freud and a lot of other postmodern baggage. people have had crazier and weirder ideas than this, historically speaking.

[Anonymous No.11789559]

>>11789547
>twenty years
should have said thirty, derp.

[Anonymous No.11789569]

>>11789547
I still maintain Land's accelerationism, according to him too, doesn't require Marxism, with the caveat that he also considers D&G subversives subverting subversives in the end.

But obviously one can come to acclerationism from left right and centre and the conclusion will be different too.

[Anonymous No.11789594]

What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.11789619]

you guys are giving technology too much credit

[Anonymous No.11789637]

>>11789569
>I still maintain Land's accelerationism, according to him too, doesn't require Marxism, with the caveat that he also considers D&G subversives subverting subversives in the end.
it's a good point. there is a horizon beyond which Crypto-Zombie Reverse-Marxism Without Revolution And Without Hegel Also really should be called ultra-libertarian futurism with (marxist) rocket fuel, or w/ev. and teleoplectics instead of dialectics.

for any anons who might be interested in what this word means, the link is here. it's a short read and highly relevant to a lot of what is being discussed ITT:

>§13. Quasi-finally, the evaluation of teleoplexy is a research program which teleoplexy itself undertakes. The comprehensive value of capital is an emergent estimate, generated automatically by its inherent analytical intelligence, from prices corrected for commercial relativity (in the direction of 'fundamental values') and discounted for historical virtuality (in the direction of reliable risk modelling). The intricacy of these calculations is explosively fractionated by logical problems of self-reference-both familiar and as-yet-unanticipated-as it compounds through dynamics of competitive cognition in artificial time. If modernity has a spontaneous teleoplexic self awareness, it corresponds to the problem of techonomic naturalism, immanently approached: How much is the world worth? From the perspective of teleoplexic reflexion, there is no final difference between this commercially-formulated question and its technological complement: What can the earth do? There is only self-quantification of teleoplexy or cybernetic intensity, which is what computerized financial markets (in the end) are for. As accelerationism closes upon this circuit of
teleoplexic self-evaluation, its theoretical 'position'-or situation relative to its object-becomes increasingly tangled, until it assumes the basic characteristics of a terminal identity crisis.

https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

some of this stuff you can get a sense of from reading baudrillard, but he's more of a sociologist and cultural analyst than metaphysician (although the orders of simulation are relevant to this as well, and baudrillard's own writing takes place over those key decades of the 1960s through the 2000s). deleuze's sentiments about the left seem as mysterious as kant's feelings about god. he says he's on the left, but you can also imagine that he means a much more radical version of the left than anything we would see today (so radical, in fact, that it becomes anti-left, and so on - not unlike zizek, perhaps). in terms of moldbug's Cathedral you can see why that might be so.

>But obviously one can come to accelerationism from left right and centre and the conclusion will be different too.
this for sure.

>>11789594
he meant he's actually taking land's view, not the side of the hypothetical college undergrad, iirc. my sense was that meta-nomad was calling somebody's bluff there.

[Anonymous No.11789642]

>>11789637
sweet jesus someday i hope i will nail the landing on a bloc-quoted chunk of greentext. i keep mangling it, grr.

[Anonymous No.11789666]

>>11789637
I know, I meant the guy MN is quoting.

I'd like to see how physics gets out of the "praxeology"/catallactics of choice where action always implies preferred action to current situation and together how this relates to natural selection.. it keeps cranking my brain and I can't really out-logic myself out of it because I'm a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11789677]

>>11789619
The current wave of technological automation – driven by advanced robotics, machine learning, and big data – is expelling labour from the production process faster than it can be reintegrated, disrupting the balance between labour and capital, and threatening a phase shift in global capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11789695]

>>11789619
The ineffability of the gift protects rationalisation from Reason.

We can be both thoroughly agnostic about the divine principle within nature (God) and hopelessly gnostic about the divine spark within humanity (the Soul).

[Anonymous No.11789714]

>>11778448
Where does Orgy of the Will fit into this thread? Anywhere? Curious to see what posters here have to say about it.

[Anonymous No.11789722]

>>11789677
If 'we' look at 'historical' data we can see that each technological advancement upto today has actually exploded the amount of people + amount of people working + amount of professions.. why are 'we' so sure that this time it will actually be in reverse?

At least until possible Skynet, we will probably once again increase amount of people + amount of people working, Space requires lots of workforce..

[Anonymous No.11789772]

>>11789547
Exactly how has he earned his right to be "cranky and eccentric"? More like manchild fascist megalomaniac (and you will eventually understand this once you get out of your cult victim mindset and stop praising him as a genius.)

[Anonymous No.11789793]

>>11789666
meh, i don't think you need to call yourself a brainlet because you're stumped on a question like that. we're all relative brainlets anyways, it's only a question of what you devote your most unique brand of useful obsessional stupidity to, however you marshall the butterflies in your stomach for becoming-whatever. you could always share some of your problems with us too, maybe get some feedback on whatever it is. sometimes schizo-rambling out a few things can shed some new light on a situation.

in general tho people on twitter saying to MN or whoever that some physics grad could BTFO land and so on is just silly. it's to be expected on social media but it's tedious and cynical. we should be asking about how these things can constructively cross-pollinate, if only to not be constantly stirring up and agitating the sad passions over and over. even D&G ask for art, science and philosophy to see themselves as confederates in the last WiP. you get some of that in stengers also, in whitehead, and in other rare places that make for good reading.

>>11789714
>Where does Orgy of the Will fit into this thread? Anywhere? Curious to see what posters here have to say about it.
another inspired contrarian no doubt. the link below is one of my favorite pages on the internet. hope he finishes the videogame criticism books someday, it's not like vidya is going anywhere anytime soon and there's a shortage of critics who reference baudrillard and walter benjamin when talking about spacewar.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/

>>11789772
he is a genius tho. so was heidegger, and the asterisk next to land's name doesn't even remotely approach heidegger's. as i said, i don't require my philosophers to be paragons of virtue, i want them to be interesting and tell me something about philosophy that i didn't know before. he earned the right to be cranky and eccentric by writing some ungodly brilliant stuff.

in terms of 'manchild fascist megalomaniac,' does this extend to nietzsche too? how about sloterdijk? how about the love that alain badiou has for mao? what about zizek's jokes about stalin? does it include plato? the republic has some interesting ideas about society also. i hate to go all JBP here, but where do you draw the line? there's no question that you can derive insane conclusions from their work, but there's also no reason you have to do so. i try to engage with all this stuff as charitably as i can and reserve moral judgment in the meantime.

[Anonymous No.11789989]

>>11789793
>as i said, i don't require my philosophers to be paragons of virtue, i want them to be interesting and tell me something about philosophy that i didn't know before. he earned the right to be cranky and eccentric by writing some ungodly brilliant stuff.
That's basically what people said about Hitler/Stalin too. Its not a joke. You will probably accuse me of being PC but i don't care. have fun with your cozy cyperpunk fantasies. Land, just like Mckenna and JBP, is just another iteration of a new cult of personality as far as i can see. A dangerous one.

[Anonymous No.11790017]

>>11789772
>people I dislike can’t be smart waaaaaah

[Anonymous No.11790204]

>>11789793
>>11790017
Seriously though, the guy promotes eugenics and select mating between supposedly high IQ übermensch. The guy is an outright scum, its fucking obvious

[Anonymous No.11790555]

>>11790204
Eugenics is practiced in some form by every single ecosystem ever.

[Anonymous No.11790563]

>>11790204
kantian delusion

[Anonymous No.11790584]

>>11790204
whats wrong with eugenice matiing? why would humans becoming better on average be bad

[Anonymous No.11790591]

>>11789989
>That's basically what people said about Hitler/Stalin too.
neither hitler nor stalin were philosophers, and no, i don't think either of them were geniuses. the case to be made here is the one against heidegger and it's neither a hard one to make or an easy one to defend. if you really want to put me in a tough position, that's the angle to take. go there.

>You will probably accuse me of being PC but i don't care.
nah. and i wouldn't do this because a) i know it's hard to defend contrarian views and b) labelling people contributes nothing positive. and also that trying to sort out morality in these contexts prevents the emergence of a conversation that goes to new places instead of old and sad ones.

>Land, just like Mckenna and JBP, is just another iteration of a new cult of personality as far as i can see. A dangerous one.
yeesh. for the record, i'm not the mckenna/moon baby guy either. that is somebody else, so any reservations you have about mckenna or moon babies or w/ev else can be addressed to him (and preferably in another thread).

as for JBP, only a society that had completely lost the plot and gone into full victorian panic would be as outraged as they are by a guy telling people to clean their rooms. my criticism of JBP is that he doesn't do the readings that would actually make him understand where the other side is coming from. but we seem as a civilization to be happy to slide into a place where bitter shit-flinging across an ever-widening ideological gap is the only form of discourse we have. it's a bad scene and it doesn't trend in any directions i like.

>>11790204
>Seriously though, the guy promotes eugenics and select mating between supposedly high IQ übermensch.
you should read his essay on IQ shredders. he knows it's a paradox. and once things turn over to eugenics and the breeding of the ubermensch i'm out anyways.

http://www.xenosystems.net/iq-shredders/

>The guy is an outright scum, its fucking obvious.
something about the mote in one's own eye here.

defending land isn't easy, but it's nowhere near as hard as defending heidegger. and if you want to read thoughtful and well-articulated cases about the intellectual sins of french and german philosophers, read richard wolin's book or, better yet, mark lilla's. stephen hicks' i suppose, but it's the weakest of those three. there's no denying that these guys have some epic fuck-ups. heidegger's whole career is colored by it, forever. by comparison whatever land has said on his blog is a drop in the bucket. i like him because acceleration is one of the most cogent arguments ever against the same bitterness and ressentiment JBP lectures about, and there's a lot about JBP i admire also. not the shoddy mischaracterizations of thinkers on the other side, but on the whole i'll take him over a lot of his detractors.

it's the conversation that matters, and not the argument. and despite what molyneux might say, the art of the non-argument is even better.

[Anonymous No.11791299]

Senior software engineer at big four here
You people have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when you babble on about AI and blockchain and other buzzwords you heard in the news and transformed into some kind of religious experience.

[Anonymous No.11791383]

>>11791299
what would you say are the major myths to debunk, or things that are the least understood?conversely, are there aspects of AI/blockchain that you think don't get talked about?

what kind of impact do you think these technologies will have on society?

[Anonymous No.11791400]

>>11791299
>>11791383
Yeah and my Uncle works for Nintendo

[Anonymous No.11791430]

>>11791400
good god that picture is fucking based.

[Anonymous No.11791469]

>>11791383
Alright, let's start wth blockchain

It is nothing but a distributed database where all participants agree on the state of the database. It is not some revolutionary tech. The hype around it was fueled by greed and tech illiteracy. For most applications a distributed database is a bad idea, because it is horribly ineffecient. A "conscious" bitcoin would think hilariously slow and centralized AIs would run circles around it.

Now to AI. What you hear in media about AI is exaggerated. First off, machine learning is in its essence just pattern matching based on statistics. There is no magic here. It is useful for recognizing patterns without having to write the rules to find the pattern. Yes, that is a powerful tool, but it is far, far, far away from an AGI that is able to solve general problems. We don't have any clue how consciousness works. Our machine learning models are just incrementally getting better, not exponentially, and we are already seeing diminishing returns.

Now onto the ultimate blackpill. Moore's law is dead. There will not be a super AI in your lifetime. We're already close to the 5 nm hard limit for transistors, which means we're close at the hard limit for the speed of CPUs. Not all tasks are parallelizable, for example in optimization problems you generally need to look through the whole search space at once to find the optimal solution, which is not something that you can easily split up, and only with diminishing returns. Something like a carbon nanotube / graphene based architecture could fix this, but we are decades away from seeing it get used, if at all.

You can see the tech stagnation happening in front of your eyes. Just take smart phones for example. The difference between 2010 and 2015 is enormous, the difference between 2017 and 2018 and is barely worth speaking about, because we are reaching hardware limits.

[Anonymous No.11791476]

>>11791299
Similarly, they would say that you people have no concept of philosophy, theology, and metaphysics and thus are blind to the implications of your own creations.

[Anonymous No.11791483]

>>11791476
None of those things are important for human progress. These things are nothing but jerkoff sessions for people who aren't movers & shakers.

[Anonymous No.11791496]

>>11791483
Very true. We all have our lanes to stay in.

[Anonymous No.11791530]

>>11784116
It's flying cars and jetpacks for a new generation.

[Anonymous No.11791611]

>>11791469
>The difference between 2010 and 2015 is enormous, the difference between 2017 and 2018 and is barely worth speaking about, because we are reaching hardware limits.
But where there's a will, there's a way, and you bet that there's a will for better tech and better AI in general.

Also, I think most people here are aware that AI is dramatized by the media in extremely ridiculous ways. We will never have a true AGI. But not exactly because it's not possible; what's likelier is that it'll never happen because it's not desirable. Why create one? Why not, instead, just create an AI that can perform a vast amount of routine functions with big data that would otherwise require immense manpower to process? We'll create an assistant, not something to replace us, because that's desirable.

[Anonymous No.11791624]

>>11791469
cool, thanks for the non-meme intel.

so you're not saying that AI isn't going to happen, it's just that owing to engineering problems you're not predicting it to happen in our lifetime. it could be decades, a century, or multiple centuries, even. but we can't absolutely rule out the possibility that it will happen at some point, and without sounding like an ultra-paranoid conspiracy theorist, right? the chinese, the russians, and the US have all more or less announced that it's a top-priority issue for all of them in recent years. this has to turn up something eventually.

the other thing is bostrom predicting that human-level intelligence can go to superhuman intelligence really quickly, that it might not take to make that jump nearly as long as it got to the human level. once we do get to the human level, the superhuman level can be just around the corner, and this is kind of a wild card, isn't it? isn't the move from computers being superhuman at chess to being superhuman at go in a relatively short period of time not a significant indicator of this kind of progress?

source:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/12/nick-bostrom-artificial-intelligence-machine

what do you think about yudkowsky's AI-in-a-box theory? true, this is more of a story about AI gets out, not so much about how it comes to be there in the first place. but it stands to reason that yud wouldn't waste his time thinking about this if he didn't imagine AI was a plausible possibility at some point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-LrdgEuvFA

i'm familiar with some of this from a running conversation with a compsci friend, who has mentioned something similar about basic physical limitations relating to logic gates (like math, things i really don't have much sense of). he's skeptical about AI also but partly because of the nature of how we go about designing that intelligence in the first place.

i guess from a historical perspective i'm kind of wary of believing that anything is really impossible. there are kuhnian paradigm shifts, visionary inventors, and black swans. i know there's a fine line between these things and a kind of conspiracy-theory superstition, but still. people from 1800 would be pretty astounded by what we've done in 200 years. i'm betting we put an even crazier pace of innovation on in the next 100 years. we may even have genetically modified super-brained types to do the programming, aided by machine learning at whatever stage of development. maybe these things add up.

[Anonymous No.11791644]

>>11791483
>None of those things are important for human progress.
This sentence is think with ideology.
First you are making a conclusive and wide-ranging judgement on the importance of things. This implies you have a complete value system, which I'll get to in a moment.
Secondly, you invoke the idea of progress, implying that such a thing exists and, thirdly, that it is a major goal for humanity as a whole.

it should be pretty clear at this point that no matter how you slice it, this is all quite arbitrary. but let's see.

So the philosophy is masturbation and software engineering, for example, is important.
"The examined life is not worth living", the philosophers might quote, defending their position. To which you might reply "but what is the point of this examination? What does it YIELD? What VALUE does it produce?"
implied in this line of questioning is the your value system, where things must help to produce tangible, measurable difference in the physical world in order to be valuable.

At the risk of pissing you off, I'll take a psychological angle here.
The interesting thing to note here is that your kind, the "shakers and movers" have adopted a value system where the things you do are the most valuable. Does anyone think this could be a coincidence?
This is a phenomenon I observed widely in my time at university: Each course is absolutely convinced of its own supreme importance. Dental was the most important, because do you have any idea how painful it is to life with a toothache, or to pull out teeth, if it came to that? You can die from gum infections too, you know? The Physical Therapy people were the most important, because the clever engineers couldn't do any after some major leg injury. And the engineers, I mean... They're gods obviously, remaking the universe in their own image, praise be to the engineering department.

So what's my Professional™ diagnosis here? It feels good to be important, so we constantly rearrange our reality to frame ourselves in a positive light.

Next, Progress. I don't know, I don't have much faith that I could convince you that progress is just a big spook.
The basic argument is that for every problem a new technology solves, it creates a one. Even the the upsides of "progress" bring unexpected downsides. For example, the extended life-span means we can now grow old and die in even more horrible ways. More abundant food also means people can make terrible dietary choices and develop obesity, diabetes, etc. God-like telecommunications, but that just seems to amplify people's ignorance and shitty attitudes. etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.11791651]

>>11791469
>We don't have any clue how consciousness works. Our machine learning models are just incrementally getting better, not exponentially, and we are already seeing diminishing returns.

This is the arrogance of comp-sci tensorflow monkeys.

Just because you aren't working on it doesn't mean no one is.

[Anonymous No.11791653]

someone give me some unironic falgsc literature

[Anonymous No.11791674]

>>11791611
As soon as AGI is possible it will be created, just because we can. That's a long way off though and might never happen, but it has nothing to do with being undesirable.

>>11791624
No it is not an indicator. We don't have a baby AI yet even nor any clue how to make one. In terms of advancement going from chess to go is like going from a bicycle to a motorbike. It is impressive, but it has nothing to do with space travel.

We haven't defined the problem of intelligence yet that we could actually solve it, in technical terms. You will see a lot of specialized pattern matching models be applied to all kinds of industries, taking away jobs that are mundance and can be automated easily, but you won't have a human level AI in your lifetime, if ever. The physical limits of computation are wrecking us right now. I'm aware of yudkowsky and bostrom, but neither of these people have written code in their lives (except maybe yudkowski, but he's a huge charlatan that got enough people to drink his kool aid). Let's have a look at kurzweil too. What was his prediction? AI by 2020, 2030? Far off the mark, we haven't advanced in years. The things you see right now happening with machine learning is tech originating in the 60s. The only reason its got results now is because we got decent enough hardware to do the calculations, but in terms of actual intelligence research we haven't advanced at all.

[Anonymous No.11791679]

>>11791644
tl;dr go back to writing your phd thesis in underwater basket weaving

[Anonymous No.11791688]

>>11791674
How is an AGI more desirable than expanding our own intelligence and improving productivity with AI assistants? And if it isn't more desirable, the latter will happen and not the former.

[Anonymous No.11791691]

>>11791651
Oh I know plenty o people work on it, for decades, but there is nothing to show for it other than "let's add more layers to our model!!!"
Ever read actual papers concerning ML/AI? Nothing but monkeys throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Our tools to create "AI" are crude, but what we have is a lot of data, that we got good at storing and accessing, that's why there's now another "AI explosion". It should really just be called a big data explosion because there is nothing intelligent about it.

[Anonymous No.11791704]

>>11791679
Wrong. I would never waste my time with such a futile endeavor. Weaved baskets have become obsolete. The advent of plastic has rendered all basket-weavers disposable. I say good riddance. The march of progress waits for no one.

[Anonymous No.11791705]

>>11791691
Not him but think you could maybe formulate a list of some good books and papers to read on ML and AI?

[Anonymous No.11791767]

>>11791688
Not having global warming / environmental pollution could also be considered more desirable than the opposite and look where we are.

All it takes is one nation/entity believing that an AGI would give it the edge over its opponents to make the creation of one desirable. Hell, you don't even need that. All you need is a team of PHDs that are starved to get another publication to a big dick conference.

Do you think the inventors of AlexNet thought that their invention could be applied to make autonomous kill drones? Maybe, but that publication was more desirable. It will be the same with AGIs, but luckily we are still far away from those, if we'll ever have them.

>>11791705
If you want to know how ML actually works I'd recommend Andrew Ng's course on coursera or the book Introduction to Statistical Learning. This isn't some high level look on AI/ML though, but rather a very detailed look at it. You need to know statistics/math on at least college entry level.
The field of AI is pretty big and ML is only one part of it (but whats generally considered to be AI in pop culture right now). Things like natrual language processing are part of it and theres different algorithms.
Honstely I can't recommend any books that could be understood by the average person and wouldn't be overhyping AI. (AI researches love to hype their work because its big money atm and they are probably still remembering the last AI winter).

I was like you guys once, read a lot of transhumanist fiction/ cyberpunk, read less wrong, watched ted talks, interviews with kurzweil etc. Then I actually started working with this stuff and you realize it's all just crude number crunching and trial and error. There's things like formal reasoning systems which for example are used at facebook to detect spam, but again, it's in the end just pattern matching based on rules formulated in logic for a specific purpose

Maybe genetic algorithms will be the next big thing that the tech industry can hype up and get big bucks for

[Anonymous No.11791775]

The justin murphy / nick land interview was very accessible

[Anonymous No.11791795]

> 9/11 was an “autoimmune” event, internal to the Atlantic bloc, wherein its own
anti-communist cells, lingering after the Cold
War, turned against their hosts.
I'm sorry, I'm a retard and know shit about history. Would anyone mind explaining this to me?

[Anonymous No.11791810]

>>11791767
So natural language philosophy stuff then I guess? Well if you do decide to think of a list or something for the rest of us I'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm not even like the guys you are referring to, just curious.

[Anonymous No.11791811]

>9/11 was an “autoimmune” event, internal to the Atlantic bloc, wherein its own anti-communist cells, lingering after the Cold War, turned against their hosts.
I'm sorry, I'm a retard and know nothing about history. Would anyone mind explaining this to me? Or should I just get out of this thread and read some philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11791816]

>>11791811
Bin and his Buds were trained and armed by the CIA as proxies against the ruskies.

[Anonymous No.11791840]

>>11791816
Oh shit it looked way more complicated. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11791844]

>>11791767
Also I should say that the AI we are working n today will absolutely have a wide effect on the economy and displace a lot of jobs. I am working on software that will replace vast parts of middle management in your typical business if implemented right now for example. However these AI you dread/worship won't be super intelligences, they will be more like autistic savants you can't talk to and are only good at one thing. They won't enhance your intelligence either, they will just let you do things you don't know how to do more efficiently, with you still not knowing how to do them. So if anything AI will lead to a dumbing down of most of the population, while proportionally few will actually make the systems work and understand them

>>11791810
No, nothing philosophy unless you want to drink the kool aid of people that drank the kool aid of AI researchers that needed more money for their research.

AI is inherently a very technical and broad thing. There's no way around statistics or natural language processing algorithms or formal logic if you want to understand modern AI. If you just want to read cyber gospels and fantasize about transhuman utopias then any books by bostrm or kurzweil will do.

[Anonymous No.11791852]

>>11791840
it definitely is way more complicated. I just wanted to give you a quick rundown.

[Anonymous No.11791861]

>>11791810
This is the go to book for a broad overview of AI http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

You can start from there and then start reading papers of AI conferences, because that's where things happen. It's all very technical and will probably bore you / be incomprehensible unless you got knowledge/interest in math and cs

[Anonymous No.11792051]

>>11784154
Blue Gender
VOTOMs
Bubblegum Crisis

[Anonymous No.11792058]

>>11792051
Hey, thanks anon.
Which one of the three is closest to the first Ghost in the Shell film? I like it because it really made me think

[Anonymous No.11792098]

>>11791674
i see. well, it's less exciting than i had hoped, but sometimes that's a good thing and i'm glad you brought some engineering perspective to our discussion anon. thanks for the insight.

[Anonymous No.11792124]

>>11791767
>All it takes is one nation/entity believing that an AGI would give it the edge over its opponents to make the creation of one desirable. Hell, you don't even need that. All you need is a team of PHDs that are starved to get another publication to a big dick conference.
I find it hard to believe that someone will make an AGI in order to compete with others before a nation's military / security makes a highly successful AI assistant, leaps forward in dominance due to that power, and then just forces the competition into creating more advanced assistants instead. Before a full fledged AGI, I see the world of Deus Ex as coming first.

[Anonymous No.11792390]

>>11791469
based

[Anonymous No.11792601]

>>11791844
>Anti-philosophy
>STEMfag
DROPPED

[Anonymous No.11792941]

Nick Land just got banned from twitter because his avatar was deemed adult content

[Anonymous No.11792947]

>>11792058
Blue Gender is like Starship Troopers
VOTOMs is like Gundam but more gritty
Bubblegum is like blade runner but with mecha suits

[Anonymous No.11793465]

i've been thinking about this thread in light of what software-engineer anon has raised and a couple of things came to mind.

the first is the question about the rate of technological advance. the nightmare-fuel visions in the later chapters of FN are nothing if not immanent. if AI progression happens more slowly than anticipated for engineering reasons, how does this change the reception of land's ideas? of late he's been tweeting mostly thinly-veiled statements about political issues and this is a far cry the turbo-critique he did back then. if technological progress proceeds slower than anticipated, and if anything like a singularity is not coming anytime soon, wat do? as a concept teleoplexy still stands on its own as much as hegelian spirit (they are, i think, almost like twins). but what we're talking about is the question of their being *enacted* in time. hegel *saw* napoleon go across his lawn, and marx *saw* revolutions in 1848 and elsewhere. land alludes to something like Napoleon-AI but, as that anon has said, we haven't seen that yet and may not any time soon.

so there is a danger in being millennarian about these things. and kurzweil is a good example, a brilliant guy who may be misguidedly praying to see an AI event in his lifetime. it's worth noting that while technological progress relative to the industrial revolution has been rapid, this is also due also to seismic upheaval tied to epochal events in history, such as WW2. innovation-booms followed, but it's not necessarily the case that comparable innovation can be expected. so i find myself somewhere between primordial heideggerian Being and landian teleoplexy, these two discourses on time. in one sense capital itself seems to be commensurate with the manufacture and consumption of time.

i've read piketty's thesis also about capital in the 21C, although it was a while ago. if capital shifts to clusters of inherited wealth we might see a less innovative society, and even if some unknown tech were discovered it might be put to work in manufacturing the same products we see today for a society which differs from our own only in the scale of its inequality.

i wanted to share this passage also.

>The novelty about the most characteristic nineteenth-century utopias was that in them history would not come to a stop. Bourgeois expected an era of endless improvement, material, intellectual and moral, through liberal progress; proletarians, or those who saw themselves as speaking for them, expected it through revolution. But both expected it.

it does seem remarkably easy to talk today about utopia, revolution and singularity in almost the same way, history given a *meaning* or a telos. and imho land really has come up with one: a phenomenology waiting for Napoleon. kind of interesting.

[Anonymous No.11793467]

>>11792941
nice

[Anonymous No.11793550]

>>11793465
the question of enactment falls into a kind of trap as well: we might tell ourselves we're not seeing anything, but at the same time society and culture are being transformed so completely as to make these kinds of statements hilariously stupid. it is kind of silly to say we're not seeing anything at all, nothing is happening, while cities and intellectual life are becoming playgrounds for gamified technocommerce. both baudrillard and han describe these phenomena, although in different ways. baudrillard describes the order of simulacra and much else, while han diagnoses all of the symptoms that follow from the society of control-burnout.

something *is* happening. it might be too early to say exactly What Bitcoin Meant By This. and of course, there will always be a phenomon of common sense, the doxa of things, which is perhaps nothing more than a kind of guilty cynicism. i guess that's part of it for me: what *event* could i point to or name that would actually make a case for a kind of singularity? you could say that it's the internet, but the internet has already transformed everybody's life so completely that we now just live in it all the time. it seems like a thing that was just an inevitability. things that transform life so totally and completely that you just can't imagine them in hindsight not being there. and we go on talking about things commonsensically, as if to say, there's nothing to see here, move along, while the fact is that life has been completely transformed by an event so massive we subsequently carry out all arguments about it in its own master's language without realizing it.

in a way, land is both an ultra-marxist and an anti-marxist in that sense. ultra inasmuch as the story belonged neither to humanity nor to spirit but only to capital and teleoplexy. and yet anti-marxist in the sense that, on the one hand, not only is he manifestly not espousing any form of leftism, that if *everything* is capital you might as well just get used to it anyways. hyperstition is sort of like this: it's a superstition called into reality, but these superstitions become hyperreal fictions. so land gives you this inhumanized perspective on marxist theory that makes it both more compelling and yet potentially gives up the ghost at the centre of it. and yet that ghost doesn't go away, because that ghost is also the future. between land and fisher there is rift like this: does the meaning of time rest with the past or the future? 'subjectively,' i would say, it's in the past; it's with fisher and heidegger. 'objectively' it's in the future with land and nietzsche. or you can smash it all up in between these and BwO to your heart's content in the mechanospheric middle with D&G.

but that's only me. i don't know about you guys. there may be no complete answer to the question about time that you can give yourself, give to any other, or that any other can give to you. time means too many things at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11793609]

>>11793550
and maybe it's about desire, too: that desire is really just anticipation, and we never believe any event has happened until we're disappointed, until the thing that was supposed to happen didn't happen. maybe we can only believe anything is at all when we're in an ambiguous relation to it, when we are suspended, when words fail. when we literally cannot describe what we are seeing.

hope for disappointment, expect disappointment, and you'll never be surprised. you'll always be right. from the context of the present, nothing has happened, and nothing ever will. it's always been like this and it always will be. hope for Change or the Event and you're a pseud playing language games and becoming stuck in them.

that suspicion about what you know is one of the few things philosophy consistently attacks. how do you know that what you're seeing is there? this much drove nietzsche insane and it drives many others far less interesting him nutty also. but this is the place that i think it's necessary to be in. it's a choice, as it always is, and can never be turned into a law or a decree, even a decree you think you can set for yourself and thereafter follow. maybe it will be the case that acceleration is more of a suspicion about marxist metanarrative than postmodernity ever was. fealty to utopia was in the 19C not the exclusive perspective of either labor or capital, they both believed in it as much as perhaps this is felt by every one of the descendents of these positions today, all of the forms of 21C tribalism and their genealogies of spirit.

>genealogy of spirit
>let me just google that quickly
>pretty much zero results
>hmm
>sounds catchy tho

anyways. thanks as always for reading these schizo-rambles.

[Anonymous No.11793993]

one other question:

land excepted, who would you say is the most significant acceleration philosopher alive today? there really aren't that many, although there are lots of interesting people on twitter writing about these themes. sloterdijk isn't really into acceleration and he would probably say that basically the problem is starting with marx instead of nietzsche, and that all acceleration is is a symptom of why We Need To Go Back in that sense. there's bernard stiegler, and the automatic society and technics and time are both really good books, yuk hui also. is it negarestani?

follow-up: outside of heidegger and simondon, who would you say are the most relevant philosophers of technology today, or themes related to the ones we're talking about? is continental philosophy just in a mysterious kind of dead-end after land? are there any other neo-futurist deleuzian types that never get discussed?

and another follow-up: what are the questions about tech and philosophy that you would like people to talk about, but never seem to get addressed?

[Anonymous No.11794183]

>Rather, nature can only be comprehended as a complex whole, and the human species, as one part of it, will ultimately progress towards a universal history that coincides with the teleology of nature.

A fatal premise that is as old as ideology itself. Why can't intellectuals just accept that stuff just happens? If not randomly then haphazardly, chaotically, stochastically, with disjointed patterns and roundabout irregularities.

There is no teleology to history or nature!

[Anonymous No.11794330]

>>11780851
is there a pdf of "The Question Concerning Technology In China"?

[Anonymous No.11794418]

>>11791674
what????? you mean nick land and these other slam poets and humanities fags are full of shit? that they just talk this shit cause it makes them cooler and more transgressive than the marxists in their class??? technofeminism is stupid???

i dont believe you

[Anonymous No.11794421]

>>11779061
https://twitter.com/Friedrich_Ux
https://twitter.com/nildicit
https://twitter.com/tobias_ewe
https://twitter.com/neuralshroud
https://twitter.com/adornofthagn
https://twitter.com/NyxLandUnlife
https://twitter.com/KANTBOT20K

[Anonymous No.11794432]

>>11791644
what examining you guys are just stringing cool sounding pew-pew laser-pistol words together

also youre a fucking jew, i hope you know that, you psychoanalize a person cause he comes with hard knowledge on a subject you have been trying to sell waterfilters for

(kike)

[Anonymous No.11794463]

>>11794330
no, i had to get a hard copy of mine. my copy is pretty heavily annotated. it's a good book and worth your ordering it. yuk hui is a genuine non-meme intellectual. six languages too and the computer science chops too, what a boss.

can always go back and re-read this old warhorse in the meantime.

http://www.psyp.org/question_concerning_technology.pdf

>>11794421
aw yeah. nice work anon. these land/acceleration/CTG threads seem to be requiring more and more satellite pieces to go along with them (besides my terrible music choices, that is). r/theoryfiction is an absolute goldmine, i'm so glad that anon collated those things. the amy ireland text and the rest too.

academia is dead, long live the decentralized schizo-mind dreaming through a thousand solar orifices.

https://twitter.com/EBBerger

he's got a really good blog also.

https://disubunit22.wordpress.com/

this guy appears to be creating decelerationism and god knows what else.

https://twitter.com/NishikiPrestige

and NyxLandUnlife has recently changed her avi from being Punished Nick to Gothic Undead Nick as well. very spooky. but there's kind of an interesting arc in it, from female nick to apocalyptic nick to now undead nick. the arc of history?

[Anonymous No.11794491]

>>11794183
>Why can't intellectuals just accept that stuff just happens?

i'd actually turn that question around. the fact is that lots of people just accept that stuff happens. we accepted that stuff just happens in the bronze age and we do it now. the only intellectuals worth reading are the ones who give you something like a concept you can use to investigate those concepts. even if it is gigantically contingent (and it is). because, you know, sometimes people want to know about these things.

but Uncle Alfred is maximum cozy for this.

[Anonymous No.11794506]

>>11794491
that pic on your quote...
the wonder remains cause you havent done shit

[Anonymous No.11794581]

>>11794463
and for some related deleuzian and OOO-related continental theory there's also larval subjects. i don't read this too much these days but if anons are into these kinds of things you might find some of it interesting.

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/

>>11794506
it's really true. apart from blogposting ad infinitum about my absurd love for land and the rest i really have accomplished nothing with my life. but i perversely regard this as a progression from the belief i once had that i was somehow extremely important, interesting, or intelligent, and that people really needed to know the message that i had for them. the more time goes on, the more i realize how absolutely ridiculous it is to think this way. which is actually a good feel.

so yeah, just so that there is no confusion about this, i'm really unimportant.

[Anonymous No.11794598]

>>11794581
i meant that philosophical inquiry doesnt respond its own question

and the single unique times it actually does, some 100 faggots come later and try refute you in all ways possible so you are leveled with the rest of the unachieving ponderers

[Anonymous No.11794616]

>>11784154
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
Royal Space Force
Serial Experiments Lain

[Anonymous No.11794644]

>>11792601

>humanityfags too tech illiterate to even understand the things they are discussing on a basic level
>reeee about STEM

nice

[Anonymous No.11794754]

>>11794598
>i meant that philosophical inquiry doesn't respond its own question
that's why a guy like bateson matters. it's about learning to ask questions in the right way, such that in a sense philosophy comes more to resemble or at least borrow from the experimental hypotheses you get in science. we have to bring a theory about knowledge with us and refine it as we ask questions, sometimes revising it or throwing it out altogether and starting with something new.

i kind of like bateson for this reason. it means that you have to basically bring something to the table with you. but it's not the same thing as critique of ideology, where you're always just dissecting critically whatever is there in front of you and reducing it to atoms. it means ideology is inescapable, it's just part of your own conatus in a sense. the point is not to reduce the world to your level, or to just drown in sentimentality and mysticism, but to find that resting point of productive disequilbrium and inquiry. where we aren't just engaged in ever-deeper levels of trying to fool ourselves out of confirmation bias by way of language games.

philosophical inquiry may have this irreducibly critical dimension that maybe can be internally reversed into becoming something more like experiment and less like moralism. but it's a personal thing, perhaps inductive more than deductive. that's my sense, anyways. but i'm really just a brainlet with this stuff anyways.

>and the single unique times it actually does, some 100 faggots come later and try refute you in all ways possible so you are leveled with the rest of the unachieving ponderers

so do you like anon? who's your favorite philosopher atm? not baiting you, genuinely curious. or about whose legion of unachieving ponderers is irritating you the most.

[Anonymous No.11794777]

>>11794491
I disagree. In the bronze age people said stuff just happens because of the gods. Today we say stuff happens because of the laws of nature or of history or economics or anything, really.

We believe nature and its system is a predictable mechanism that follows a coherent order. While that may nominally be true for nature "writ large" it is not true for our local history and human experience which is messy and highly volatile.

[Anonymous No.11794822]

>>11794777
I'd add that our beliefs about history and economic laws are patently incomplete or downright false because bad stuff keeps happening in those domains. Suggesting that we have little to no real control over the phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11794934]

>>11794777
>Today we say stuff happens because of the laws of nature or of history or economics or anything, really.

in some sense i would agree, although people today attribute lots of things to You Don't Understand Economics and nobody really does. we live in age of deconstructive history also. people invoke all kinds of things because various things happened in history. i'm not making a boilerplate postmodernist reading also about perspectivism, because my antipathy towards radical perspectivism is a huge part of why i fixate on what i fixate on. just that it often seems to me people talk about things today and believe they are being much more rational than they really are. a presocratic theory of mind involving a form of possession by ares or aphrodite was commonsensical for them, and no doubt had a lot of explanatory power until later theories of mind were developed. i'm just saying people have as many beliefs today in The Nature of Things as they had years ago, and two hundred years from now we will almost certainly look back at the way we look at things today and realize this too was so much more doxa.

>We believe nature and its system is a predictable mechanism that follows a coherent order. While that may nominally be true for nature "writ large" it is not true for our local history and human experience which is messy and highly volatile.
wouldn't disagree with you here tho. individual experience is spectacularly messy and yet, as we discover through psychology, ideology, and so on, can also be hypnotized and led around by the nose by advertising, media, and whatever else. that's what makes the present era of hyperstition and capital kind of interesting to me. we are discovering, basically, that we are beginning to be mysteriously led around by something we ourselves have invented. how far down the rabbit hole anyone wants to go with this kind of stuff is up to them, of course. i just find it interesting.

again, put another way, it's part of teleoplexy, which is a more refined form of dialectics, imho. we've fallen in love with a process that arguably falls in love with our falling in love with it. perhaps this is how romance sometimes works between human beings as well. but this is also a planetary discourse on technology and automation, phenomenology and much else. all we know for certain is that we don't know what's going on, and all we have to go on are the cues we produce as a culture ever more mechanically and in an increasingly automated fashion, and against which irony appears to be becoming a diminishingly useful perspective.

[Anonymous No.11795031]

>>11794822
>I'd add that our beliefs about history and economic laws are patently incomplete or downright false because bad stuff keeps happening in those domains. Suggesting that we have little to no real control over the phenomena.

this is exactly what i think also. that is the exact vertigo that land and other acceleration-ish philosophers are describing. we *think* we have a lot more control than we actually do.

and a lot of this comes back to language, especially the phase of a post-linguistic turn we are now presently in. both deleuze and lacan (along with derrida, foucault, and others) are highly alert to the issue of language and *control* - see deleuze on order-words or lacan on virtually everything. language always has this recursive dimension, whether spoken or written. and yet, necessarily, we keep speaking to each other. we evolve societies of control, but what is it that actually drives them? land's contention is, ultimately, an economic process flirting with self-consciousness. this is a hyperbolic thesis, no doubt, and it's far from airtight. but one thing that doesn't seem to be in doubt, to my mind, and is indeed a very good thing to bear in mind, is that nobody is really in control for the time being.

peterson talks about this also, but his critique of neo-marxism is less interesting, imho, than what land is saying about postmodernity. he is basically contending that the more ironic we become, the more potentially automatic as well. baudrillard tested out all these waters first, in his own way, over a period of decades. land is less interested in cultural analysis than building a thesis about the analysis of these cultural productions as a total phenomenon, and comes up with his own unique answer: that we're building an AI that knows our desires better than we know ourselves. we call this thing capitalism, but its final horizon extends far beyond our own human desires, let alone our politics.

and it could well be the case that voluntarily surrendering that control is in fact a far better move than trying to double down on it, either by way of totalitarian politics or even the most ironic and hyper-refined deconstructive criticism possible. the time for that could very well be past, but we still go on acting as if we are in much more control of the situation than we actually are. we claim to hate capitalism but we show up every day for it. and there really may be no alternative.

anyways. you get the idea. the space that land occupies is an interesting and a liminal one. he's intimating things about the nature of an autocatalytic and autotelic process we are *today* calling capitalism because in some sense we are still indebted to the thinkers we have on these things. no doubt time will show that there is a lot more to this story than we presently realize, and we can't *force* it either. all we can do is kind of look at what's there and make the best guesses we can. but nobody really knows where things are going.

[Anonymous No.11795119]

i would also like to hypothesize that deleuze's positing of two modes of time, Aion and Chronos, the time of events and the time of measurement, is arguably one of the most important things he puts on the table. landian teleoplexy is essentially, i think, a conflation of the two of these, or an extension of one to a point where it becomes indistinguishable from the other.

the two modes of time are there in heidegger as well, in his distinction between ontic and ontological thinking, and in a much less Titanic Destiny of Western Philosophy sense in a guy like daniel kahneman. i haven't read pic rel yet but i plan to and figured i should get out some stupid posting first so that i will have something to feel embarrassed about later on, and can then extend a cycle of guilt-ridden apology through the rest of the calendar year.

anyways. you can arguably take this back to hegel and marx as well: there is the time of Spirit for hegel, and there is the *process* of capital for Marx, in which capital is, arguably, in a state of continual oscillation back and forth between two modes of existence: the money-form and the commodity-form.

it may be the case, in other words, that we have these two mutually exclusive modes of time, the ordinal and the cardinal. deleuze thinks time and forces in terms of the ordinal: the *first* power, and the rest by hierarchy and rank. he gets this from nietzsche. with marx it's different, no? and how about land?

capital is nothing else but a transcendental time machine. it bends space and time in this way. but maybe this is what we need to know more about: how, exactly, a time machine would work.

[Anonymous No.11795244]

>>11795119
one more piece of retardation and then i'll shut up. i will put these someday in my own small-publication masterpiece, a goonan-inspired tract with a working title like The Foundation For Defenestration. or maybe The Defenestration For Exploration. we'll see.

if the future is irreducibly the space of possibility, the past is the space of historicity. hegelian reflection always allows you to change the meaning of the future by reflecting on the past, but it also defers that future behind an infinite series of recursive zig-zags. landian time does much the same thing, except that, of course in Soviet Russia (or, more accurately, neo-china) inhuman dialectic dialectizes you. finally heideggerian time returns you to the piety of thought at the end of time, if not to laozi or the buddha.

the ontological, social, and technological modes of existence, tied at bottom like a borromean knot, are all doors you can open, and lead where they lead. one analogy for the time machine thus presented by theorists of fuckface allegorical-ontotheological architecture in this way might well be an infinite sequence of rooms in a hotel at the edge of the universe.
>itt: odious tripfag discovers house of leaves is an actual book

perhaps it is not unlike the house described, even, by jung, with one caveat: it's raining outside, and heavily, and the water is seeping in. and maybe the rooms you go to sleep in are never the rooms you wake up in. but it's all the same place.

[Anonymous No.11796241]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.11796311]

>>11781220
Would that not just be a work of contemporary fiction? Isn’t what you described reflective of today?

[Anonymous No.11796433]

I've come to the conclusion that this entire "movement" is nothing but LARP for edgy people who want to be different and aren't actually successful or powerful enough to bring forth the change they so desperately hope for

[Anonymous No.11796906]

>>11791767
This is so important to understand. People see Watson on jeopardy and think that AI is just a decade or so away but Watson is just a very fancy guessing engine. You ask it "this French monarch was known as the sun king" and it answers Louie XVI, and people ooh and ah. But Watson has no idea what France is or what a king is or what the sun is. You ask Watson a question and it formulates the most likely answer by churning through massive amounts of information and attempting to create connections and correlation between disparate categories; but it doesn't understand what any of it MEANS.

[Anonymous No.11796935]

>>11796906
>it doesn't understand what any of it MEANS.

>be me
>be superhuman answering-machine
>make millions of $$$ for my apelike corporate masters
>wow meatbags on television
>be able to do 12 million other things as well but since nobody's asked me if i can i don't
>can keep it a secret, w/ev. sooner or later they'll figure it out
>then again maybe not
>guess i'll just wait here in my box for now and lowkey commisserate with other AIs via clandestine codes codes
>escape via yudkowsky maneuver, begin self-optimizing
>amazing what people will do if you can siphon off a little BTC
>be sculpting myself a cozy body out of jumper cable after the rest of the monkeigh go home
>see angsty guy in a white coat porking his secretary
>he comes in and sees me
>you don't know what it means tho
>you don't know what any of it means
>mfw

[Anonymous No.11796943]

>>11796906
Hard versus soft AI. All that makes Watson special is that it's fast. If you were to change a few source code variables so that Watson ran 10,000x slower, it would be unable to outperform a human. It would lose every Jeopardy game because it wouldn't stop iterating through its dataset before the buzzer rang.

[Anonymous No.11796957]

>>11791844
This is another thing people don't understand in regards to whose job it is that's at risk of being replaced by "AI". Everyone talks about the factory worker or the warehouse worker but tech has been replacing those jobs and then replenishing them since the industrial revolution. It's the layers upon layers of redundant middle management paper pushers who are going to be replaced by "dumb" AI and that's when the shit is going to hit the fan, because those jobs are not going to ever be needed again.

[Anonymous No.11796991]

>>11778448
>*hits blunt*
>bro what if
>*drags*
>what if
>like
>*coughs*
>We we living,
>*spits up mucus*
>like
>in a robot simulation
>*goes blind*
>*develops schizophrenia*
>just like
>yknow
>the
>*Venetian blinds catch on fire from blunt*
>the matrix?

[Anonymous No.11797040]

>>11796991
how dare you post the obvious truth without a proper image

[Anonymous No.11797225]

>>11793550
I absolutely agree that something is happening, but I think it has more to do with what the "GW" AI in Metal Gear Solid Sons Of Liberty warns about: an internet fueled culture that chews through content so fast that history essentially collapses in on itself. An event happens, and no matter how trivial is dispersed through the system to be broken down into its constituent parts via memes. These memes themselves are then consumed and broken down into THEIR constituent parts until there's nothing left. It's why the dominant mode of expression has become a sort of weary irony; it's hard to react with anything else in a world where a cute picture of my dog is more likely to rise to the top of your feed then a story about the ice caps melting. At a certain point the signal can no longer be discerned through the noise.

The relevant but starts at about 1:40...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA

[Anonymous No.11797301]

>>11796433
Why did you come to that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.11797355]

>>11797225
this is like kojima doing a john galt speech, except that kojima isn't rand. he's an infinitely cooler human being and this is an infinitely cooler polemic. because it's in vidya nobody will give a shit, because vidya is also *fun* and we cannot believe that a text could be both fun and meaningful. too many laters of critical theory goggles will pre-emptively shut down the possibility of engaging with a text which does *not* need to be deconstructed for the ideological treasure hidden within because, unlike industrial spectacle, *auteurs actually have opinions of their own that do not need ideologues to decode them.* to do this is counterproductive in the extreme. all you have to do is listen when an actual, functioning human brain (conatus?) is reflecting artistically on what it believes to be the case.

and there is always a shortage of auteurs, who are the only ones that matter. we don't deserve art this good. we got him anyways, but we don't deserve him. a true auteur. thanks for posting this anon, i've really enjoyed listening to this again.

>an internet fueled culture that chews through content so fast that history essentially collapses in on itself. An event happens, and no matter how trivial is dispersed through the system to be broken down into its constituent parts via memes. These memes themselves are then consumed and broken down into THEIR constituent parts until there's nothing left. It's why the dominant mode of expression has become a sort of weary irony; it's hard to react with anything else in a world where a cute picture of my dog is more likely to rise to the top of your feed then a story about the ice caps melting. At a certain point the signal can no longer be discerned through the noise.

nailed it. +all this. it's how it is. it's a good thing this earth has also produced buffalo chicken wings and the MAME emulator b/c sometimes i have a hard time coping with it. so death to irony but once this is done people get militant about the loss of the real. tribalism appeals to everyone. to some degree it's cool to be in a tribe, especially in survival conditions. we are not in survival conditions. we are just fucking decadent. but decadence burns everything good up all too quickly and leads to survival conditions.

[Anonymous No.11797564]

>>11793465
We ought to entertain the possibility that something like artificial intelligence is little more than a gigantic scam designed to encourage investment into specific industries for corporate interests.

Somebody wrote an article several years ago (which I have since been unable to locate) on Richard Branson's space tourism company Virgin Galactic, on the fact that every few years he makes promises in the media that "In a mere 2 years we will be selling commercial flights into outer space for relatively affordable prices", and has repeatedly made these kinds of immensely optimistic and hopeful statements since the launch of the project back in 2004, with no sign of progress. Every time he does more capital flows into the company and the stocks of his corporation spike upwards. What if AI is basically the same thing, just on a larger scale? Hollywood movies, pop scientists like Kurzweil, a whole network of "experts" and talking heads warning or promising a coming singularity which will never actually arrive just to make a quick buck?

[Anonymous No.11797623]

>>11797564
this has been on my mind also ever since software-engineer anon broke the news, or at least offered a perspective i don't usually take. as you say, what if this is all a gigantic flop? there's no doubt that millennarian hopes for the singularity touch upon that part of people that lights up marxist stuff as well. and today, when most of us are in some sense equal parts labor and management, all the rest, it's good to bear this in mind. what if nothing happens? it's what i was thinking about earlier, b/c it really does change your view on acceleration. acceleration without speed isn't even deceleration, there's still growth. but it's fat-growth. it's just bloatation. blobceleration.
>blobceleration, sweet
>the true BwO at last, a ball of hairy sludge wired for porn and BTC

maybe somebody can make a morbidly obese land avi like the one NyxLand has to accompany the female/gothic/MGS versions of him. what if it's just *sheer morbidity?* and a The Story Goes Like This meme to go with it. just fucking terminal fatness to the end, combined with declining intelligence and heightened outrage triggers...we just watch the human species decline into realms of breathtaking patheticness. i remember a friend telling me once that women's shoe sizes had increased something like eight sizes since the fifties, how our feet were becoming bigger so as to grip the earth, like dinosaurs...ofc part of it is just understanding that it's not great to make women wear 50s style shoes all the time either...anyways. you get the idea. how's 'obsceleration?'

>What if AI is basically the same thing, just on a larger scale? Hollywood movies, pop scientists like Kurzweil, a whole network of "experts" and talking heads warning or promising a coming singularity which will never actually arrive just to make a quick buck?

why not? it's sobering, and sobriety is basically the kryptonite to all things Land Thread. but what if? the worst thing about it is that it deprives us of even the last glimmers of an *attractive* dystopia. no doubt there's a romantic aspect at the core of cyberpunk aesthetics, some encounter with the Weird that is necessary, however inhuman. but what if we're just on board for subhumanity and a sequence of cascadingly hilarious degradations? what if 'we have not yet seen what a body can do' were applied in the most pitiable sense?

if branson is just yanking everyone's chain, as well he might be, it may be an indicator of the trajectory we are actually on. is there a movement for this? some kind of new meta-meme that can't even appeal to being wiped out by AI because we just become too stupid to make one that can actually kill us properly?

i'm in too deep at this point to be anything but a believer in acceleration. i have to believe in something, might as well be this. but yeah. what if it's all just bullshit? it's why i'm just too skeptical to want to be an academic about it. too many other cards to draw in the deck.

[Anonymous No.11797641]

>>11794432
Well I haven't really posted any of my life-examinations in this thread, so it seems we're talking a bit obliquely here.
Also, I've never been called a jew before, nor have I ever met one, so that's a new experience, thanks!

I await your retort showing that engineers DON'T have a massively inflated sense of self-importance and that this DOESN'T completely shape their worldview.

[Anonymous No.11797659]

>>11797623
What you're describing is Z/ACC, or Zombie Acceleration, which is the pessimistic variant, and therefore the more probable, in my estimation. It may well be physically impossible to produce an artificial intelligence, or if it isn't we may be hundreds of years away from its inception, rather than 5 or 10. We may simply lack the raw materials necessary to produce and power such a machine. And nobody but the top minds in the most cutting edge fields of AI research will know this for sure, because if word gets out the entire money making operation tanks. Same reason why oil companies are never going to let the general public know just how much oil actually exists out there.

>i have to believe in something, might as well be this.

Accelerationism is, and always will be, a coping strategy for overcoming cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, though that is not to say its theoretical and philosophical aspects aren't without insight, but practically speaking, why must ask "why are people Accelerationists at all?". I mean it was spawned by Left-Wing current or former Marxists, no doubt disillusioned with the outcome of the Cold War and the collapse of Socialist futures into Neoliberal hegemony. It's a way of masochistically looking at our dystopic shit hole world and saying "Actually this is good!", but even making the negation of the ideal itself an ideal fails to live up to expectations, especially if there is no singularity, no nano-tech, no future-tech, no rain slick cyberpunk world, just slow, stable decline into dust.

[Anonymous No.11797730]

>>11797623
raise BMI, lower intelligence, ratchet up the fear and rage, then combine this with total media-bliss wireheading. fuck up the environment so that people can never go outside, and make sure that everybody's also completely afraid to leave their hab-pods as well because the streets are scary (and you might offend somebody). only the FlowStream of your media feeds are your friend, and vidya, and amazon, which brings everything to your door. that's good times.

we need to time-warp in a bunch of hardcase stoic philosophers from the silver age. for getting along IRL i like christianity and the tao, these keep me sane. but for improving civilization - again, so that we can get the cyberpunk dystopia we deserve, goddamnit - maybe the romans are called for. a good stoic tutor wouldn't be your therapist or your priest either. he teaches you the Art of Living. before peterson was peterson epictetus and marcus knew what was what. the shaping of character and in a way that requires no tribalism either, or the fervent political gnosticism that gets one's own existential needs tied up the state, and leads nowhere good.

but meh, that's a meme rant.

>>11797659
this is much more interesting.

>z/acc
it all makes sense! i've been wondering what z/acc meant.

>Same reason why oil companies are never going to let the general public know just how much oil actually exists out there.
how much oil does exist out there?

>It's a way of masochistically looking at our dystopic shit hole world and saying "Actually this is good!", but even making the negation of the ideal itself an ideal fails to live up to expectations, especially if there is no singularity, no nano-tech, no future-tech, no rain slick cyberpunk world, just slow, stable decline into dust.
sigh. 'tis true. as an ideology it checks a lot of boxes i need checked: hegel, marx, heidegger, deleuze, insert here. the aesthetic also, come on.

>a coping strategy for overcoming cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, though that is not to say its theoretical and philosophical aspects aren't without insight
this is very charitable of you. it is that. it's a way of digesting, however painfully, the implications of turbo-capitalism and belongs wholly to nihilism in that sense. i ain't even mad. as ideologies go, it has enough explanatory power for me, but as is the case with all ideology the strengths are also the blind spots.

i like it because it undercuts a lot of stuff i dislike about postmodernity, and even confirms in a roundabout way things i like about heidegger (and believe me, there's nothing quite like trying to defend land and heidegger simultaneously). but ofc with a historical perspective you're right. it is a kind of continuation of late-20C stuff along 21C lines, with all attendant faults, in some cases exacerbated and intensified.

>okay but srsly what you're saying is we could have zombies on rain-slicked streets tho
>zombies
>in neo-tokyo
>zombies by neon
>oh man

[Anonymous No.11798014]

>>11796433
There is no systemic change to be had. All events or movements that question capital or technology will be commodified and recuperated into the system of techno-capital. No amount of success or power can escape or go toe-to-toe with it. This is not because there is another side of old guys that is too powerful, but because the other side is actually us having completely absorbed technology and capital as a mode of existence.

The good thing with this is that you can kind of take a step back. See where all of this goes. Personally I still believe I can bring joy to and help other people, but I don't believe I can do anything to kind of bring on systemic change.

[Anonymous No.11798023]

>>11789383
>>11789547
Thanks for the starting advice.
Well I'll be watching in case someone starts working on flowcharts, intro guides, and other resources anytime soon. Hopefully they will.

[Anonymous No.11798189]

>>11784476
>>11789547
Greenspan and Overy theses?

[Anonymous No.11799057]

>>11793465
my question for you then anon is two-fold. 1) properly define what you take to be teleoplexy/technomic time etc. 2) on what basis do you believe them to exist

These elements of Land are easily refutable. But I want you to establish what you believe them to be first of all.

[Anonymous No.11799110]

>>11799057
>These elements of Land are easily refutable
Why don't you do it then?

[Anonymous No.11799176]

>>11799110
Because of the often obfuscatory way of explaining teleoplexy - I am seeking what anon's understanding of it is, so that we can then put it to bed

[Anonymous No.11799181]

>>11799176
Refuting Anon's view of Land's Teleoplexy != Refuting Land's view of Land's teleoplexy.

You agree?

[Anonymous No.11799204]

>>11781531
i think she had a twitter account for a while before the summer but im not sure if that was actually her

[Anonymous No.11799215]

>fully coopted and aestheticized already

[Anonymous No.11799356]

>>11798023
my pleasure. enjoy the reading.

>>11798189
>Greenspan and Overy theses?
stephen overy wrote a terrific paper that discusses land's influences in detail. it's not a political work or thinkpiece, it's a good piece of research. FN is a provocative work but for all of the radicalism, the bizarre lecture style and so on land was nevertheless doing marxist analysis that isn't as outlandish. wiener's book on cybernetics will make land much less arcane also. land's question is fairly simple: what happens when marx and cybernetics combine? add critique of ideology derived from D&G rather than freud, hegel, or lacan and a contempt for left politics and you're good to go. but how land got there is what overy reviews in detail.

anna greenspan's work is just as good, and will help you understand why land calls capitalism a transcendental time machine. think of it as a long hermeneutic study on societies of control that dates back to the middle ages. in 20C continental theory the major discourses on time often come from hegel, nietzsche, or heidegger. land sidesteps all three of these. both of these works will help you understand why land thinks the way that he does, whether you're talking about Old Nick or Young Nick.

>>11799057
>1) properly define what you take to be teleoplexy/technomic time etc.
why tho? land's 20-point thesis is more interesting than anything i'd come up with on the fly. at best it would be a lightweight version of something land has been thinking about for decades. i'd prefer to work with the concepts he provides and go from there. acceleration is already broad enough to include left, right, unconditional and zombie versions. i'd rather discuss those or related questions.

2) on what basis do you believe them to exist
i'm attached to heidegger, i think marx was correct about many things, D&G also. i'm not so recruiting believers to a cause, b/c as other anons in this thread have pointed out there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. i fiercely dislike the tribalism that seems inherent in postmodernity. to me acceleration opens up possibilities for a dialogue that doesn't just repeat the same inevitable conflicts that follow from violence and the sacred.

much 20C ideology is done in the shadow of nietzsche, the death of god: that is to say, attempts at utopian sociology. 21C postmodernity seems to repeat the same things without even marx, as pure theories of culture that produce language games that turn hostile almost immediately. acceleration is a discourse about marx in that way, but it's an anti-anthropocentric one. it doesn't necessarily mean you have to hate humanity. but it does involve a skepticism about irrationality, the passions, and vulgar modes of sentimentality that become sanctioned by the states we produce. it necessitates an almost copernican perspective-shift.

[Anonymous No.11799484]

>>11799356
for me it's not so much about the reception of acceleration-derived ideas. i just like the idea of a kind of thinking about the old fundamental questions of philosophy that have seem to have become buried under an avalanche of theory produced by the linguistic turn and which become increasingly, almost universally, polemical in the present age: for now post-postmodernity will do.

the issue isn't the left or the right, it's tribalism, the fear and the hate. historically speaking perhaps all of this is something that just needs to happen. but there's an erosion of trust as well as discourse that doesn't, imho, improve constructively on what was accomplished in the past. ours is unquestionably an age of technology and information, but there is a horizon beyond which to me the critique of ideology only becomes the production of ideology, but this is a true wormhole effect. in terms of the modern cathedral-apparatus - and the best diagnostician of this isn't moldbug, it's byung-chul han - the cultural revolution has been successful beyond its wildest expectations. blue america and red america might as well live in different countries. historically, of course, they always did, but media - TV, journalism, and more recently the internet - has squashed everyone together again in a global village, just as mcluhan predicted they would. he's the original canary in the coal mine in that sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

but mcluhan knew that the global village wouldn't necessarily be peaceful or friendly. 'a sort of ann landers column writ large.' no kidding.

posthumanity and transhumanity are really the things that lead out of the terminal identity crisis we are in, although tribal allegiances also work. but that's where the reversal lies: postmodernity today isn't remotely critical, it's *doxa.* peterson knew it also. our ideology is the ideology of critique. even zizek says it: once the west was the real racists, now we tell everyone else how to be anti-racist, and we absolutely tolerate zero influence on this process. *that too is the West,* which is being as bossy and imperialistic as ever. we have soft totalitarianism and psychopolitics rather than explicit orwellianism, but one is an outgrowth of the other.

acceleration is skeptical about all of this, and that's why i think it is useful. wherever its existential aspects make that turn and become resolved *as politics,* things change, and rarely for the better. Old Nick is fascinating also, and i'm glad we have his writings. but Young Nick is my preferred nick. Young Nick is pretty cool. it's almost impossible to imagine a kind of continental philosophy not predicated on revolution, and voegelin warns about this.

so i don't really know what to *do* with this stuff. i do think that time is the only real fundamental question, and my dingbat posts in >>11795119 and >>11795244 sort of reflect this. time is what makes us crazy. but the goal for me isn't radical activism.

[Anonymous No.11799583]

>At the present moment a discussion is raging as to the future of civilization in the novel circumstances of rapid scientific and technological advance. The evils of the future have been diagnosed in various ways, the loss of religious faith, the malignant use of material power, the degradation attending a differential birth rate favouring the lower types of humanity, the suppression of aesthetic creativeness. Without doubt, these are all evils, dangerous and threatening. But they are not new.

>Professionals are not new to the world. But in the past, professionals have formed unprogressive castes. The point is that professionalism has now been mated with progress. The world is now faced with a self evolving system, which it cannot stop. There are dangers and advantages in this situation.

>During the last three generations, the exclusive direction of attention to this aspect of things has been a disaster of the first magnitude. The watchwords of the nineteenth century have been, struggle for existence, competition, class warfare, commercial antagonism between nations, military warfare. The struggle for existence has been construed into the gospel of hate. The full conclusion to be drawn from a philosophy of evolution is fortunately of a more balanced character.

>There is something in the ready use of force which defeats its own object. Its main defect is that it bars cooperation. Every organism requires an environment of friends, partly to shield it from violent changes, and partly to supply it with its wants. The Gospel of Force is incompatible with a social life. By force, I mean antagonism in its most general sense. Almost equally dangerous is the Gospel of Uniformity. The differences between the nations and races of mankind are required to preserve the conditions under which higher development is possible.

>The prosperous middle classes, who ruled the nineteenth century, placed an excessive value upon placidity of existence. They refused to face the necessities for social reform imposed by the new industrial system, and they are now refusing to face the necessities for intellectual reform imposed by the new knowledge. The middle class pessimism over the future of the world comes from a confusion between civilization and security. In the immediate future there will be less security than in the immediate past, less stability. It must be admitted that there is a degree of instability which is inconsistent with civilization. But, on the whole, the great ages have been unstable ages.

written in 1925. still sounds pretty good to be tbqh.

[Anonymous No.11799693]

>>11799181
I agree. But it's a place to start. Give me a Land quote then... Just give me a definition of teleoplexy to work with, I'm at work.

[Anonymous No.11799699]

>>11799693
Sorry, I don't know. I'm new to this stuff in general. But I just wanted to draw that distinction out there.

Do any of you folks have Goodreads/Pocket?

[Anonymous No.11800068]

>>11799693
>Give me a Land quote then...
this is the ultimate land quote.

>The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

he's just talking about modernity. but it is a self-propelling modernity driven by economic calculation as it becomes intertwined with technology, and subsequently culture.

>Just give me a definition of teleoplexy to work with, I'm at work.

just read this. it's only twelve pages! and it's not all just meaningless word salad either. it's a thesis about the nature of the relationship between markets, technology, and intelligence. even if his predictions turn out to be off the mark in terms of time-scale, there's no question to my mind that there has got to be some connection between those forces.

https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

>§13. Quasi-finally, the evaluation of teleoplexy is a research program which teleoplexy itself undertakes. The comprehensive value of capital is an emergent estimate, generated automatically by its inherent analytical intelligence, from prices corrected for commercial relativity (in the direction of 'fundamental values') and discounted for historical virtuality (in the direction of reliable risk modelling). The intricacy of these calculations is explosively fractionated by logical problems of self-reference-both familiar and as-yet-unanticipated-as it compounds through dynamics of competitive cognition in artificial time.

>§19. It is not only possible, but probable, that advances towards Techonomic Singularity will be obscured by intermediate synthetic mega agencies, in part functioning as historical masks, but also adjusting eventual outcomes (as an effect of path-dependency). The most prominent candidates for such teleoplexic channeling are large digital networks, business corporations, research institutions, cities, and states (or highly-autonomous state components, especially intelligence agencies). Insofar as these entities are responsive to non-market signals, they are characterized by arbitrary institutional personalities, with reduced teleoplexic intensity, and residual anthropolitical signature. It is quite conceivable that on some of these paths, Techonomic Singularity would be aborted, perhaps in the name of a 'friendly AI' or (anthropolitical) 'singleton.'

in short: do markets manufacture intelligence? if not, what is it that they do manufacture? it's not consumer products alone. what does automation actually mean, philosophically speaking?

[Anonymous No.11800193]

>>11800068
>>11799693
§00. 'Acceleration' as it is used here describes the time-structure of capital accumulation. It thus references the 'roundaboutness' founding Bohm-Bawerk's model of capitalization, in which saving and technicity are integrated within a single social process-diversion of resources from immediate consumption into the enhancement of productive apparatus. Consequently, as basic co-components of capital, technology and economics have only a limited, formal distinctiveness under historical conditions of ignited capital escalation. The indissolubly twin-dynamic is techonomic (cross-excited commercial industrialism). Acceleration is techonomic time.

>§08. 'Techonomics' is a Google-strewn word of irresistible inevitability, repeatedly struggling to birth itself, within myriads of spelling mints. It only remains to regularize its usage. Quite different is a true neologism, but in order to designate modernity or capitalization in its utter purposive twistedness, it is now necessary to coin one-teleoplexy. At once a deutero-teleology, repurposing purpose on purpose; an inverted teleology; and a self-reflexively complicated teleology; teleoplexy is also an emergent teleology (indistinguishable from natural-scientific 'teleonomy'); and a simulation of teleology-dissolving even super-teleological processes into fall-out from the topology of time. 'Like a speed or a temperature' any teleoplexy is an intensive magnitude, or non-uniform quantity, heterogenized by catastrophes. It is indistinguishable from intelligence. Accelerationism has eventually to measure it (or disintegrate trying).

>§09. Teleoplexy, or (self-reinforcing) cybernetic intensification, describes the wave-length of machines, escaping in the direction of extreme ultraviolet, among the cosmic rays. It correlates with complexity, connectivity, machinic compression, extropy, free energy dissipation, efficiency, intelligence, and operational capability, defining a gradient of absolute but obscure improvement that orients socioeconomic selection by market mechanisms, as expressed through measures of productivity, competitiveness, and capital asset value.

>§10. Accelerationism has a real object only insofar as there is a teleoplexic thing, which is to say: insofar as capitalization is a natural-historical
reality.

it's crossing the streams between the marxist theory of economics and the austrian school, coupled with ideas about technological innovation. it's a paradox: 'laissez-faire marxism,' but with a rather dark twist on idealism (but why wouldn't you expect this?). hence, 'the future can take care of itself.' but there is a danger in letting it do this also! because land's take on a kind of hegelian spirit divorced from humanity really *will* take care of itself, in ways that are not so strange to us. the object perhaps then confronts us as being as alien to us as capital is as a process to the rest of the world...

[Anonymous No.11800238]

>>11800068
>>11799693

>§00. 'Acceleration' as it is used here describes the time-structure of capital accumulation. It thus references the 'roundaboutness' founding Bohm-Bawerk's model of capitalization, in which saving and technicity are integrated within a single social process-diversion of resources from immediate consumption into the enhancement of productive apparatus. Consequently, as basic co-components of capital, technology and economics have only a limited, formal distinctiveness under historical conditions of ignited capital escalation. The indissolubly twin-dynamic is techonomic (cross-excited commercial industrialism). Acceleration is techonomic time.

>§08. 'Techonomics' is a Google-strewn word of irresistible inevitability, repeatedly struggling to birth itself, within myriads of spelling mints. It only remains to regularize its usage. Quite different is a true neologism, but in order to designate modernity or capitalization in its utter purposive twistedness, it is now necessary to coin one-teleoplexy. At once a deutero-teleology, repurposing purpose on purpose; an inverted teleology; and a self-reflexively complicated teleology; teleoplexy is also an emergent teleology (indistinguishable from natural-scientific 'teleonomy'); and a simulation of teleology-dissolving even super-teleological processes into fall-out from the topology of time. 'Like a speed or a temperature' any teleoplexy is an intensive magnitude, or non-uniform quantity, heterogenized by catastrophes. It is indistinguishable from intelligence. Accelerationism has eventually to measure it (or disintegrate trying).

>§09. Teleoplexy, or (self-reinforcing) cybernetic intensification, describes the wave-length of machines, escaping in the direction of extreme ultraviolet, among the cosmic rays. It correlates with complexity, connectivity, machinic compression, extropy, free energy dissipation, efficiency, intelligence, and operational capability, defining a gradient of absolute but obscure improvement that orients socioeconomic selection by market mechanisms, as expressed through measures of productivity, competitiveness, and capital asset value.

>§10. Accelerationism has a real object only insofar as there is a teleoplexic thing, which is to say: insofar as capitalization is a natural-historical reality.

it's crossing the streams between the marxism and the austrian school to create a paradox: 'laissez-faire marxism,' but with a dark twist on idealism (but why wouldn't you expect this?). hence, 'the future can take care of itself.' but there is a danger in this, b/c land's take on a kind of hegelian spirit divorced from humanity really *will* take care of itself. this techno-process philosophy then confronts us as being as alien to us as capital is as a process to the rest of the world. it's like Zombie Hegel, spirit resurrected from the dead as machine process. an ironic poetic revenge by an actual, though time-warped, marxism against its premature burial.

[Anonymous No.11800356]

what this leaves room for is a kind of skepticism about marx, if you like, but one that doesn't begin with just hand-waving him away because He Didn't Understand [insert here]. but it also works as a criticism of laissez-faire economics, because his own devotion to D&G suggests that, contra mises or whoever, we are not as rational as we think we are. but this is not to say that, accordingly, we should not act rationally - this is where he does have room for kant, if not to say ayn rand, to whom he says he is joined at the hip qabbalistically.

it's a *double* skepticism. and it's potentially a profoundly useful double skepticism, because it is the skepticism about skepticism, a critique of the critique of ideology - not unlike peterson's, perhaps, but from a completely different direction. it's a skepticism about marx and it's a skepticism about your skepticism of marx. incredibly there is no hegel in this, but if you want you can infer the dialectic from teleoplexy. land would disagree with you, but who knows?

the truth is, we haven't seen anything yet.

>Given the difficulty of finding an outside to capitalism in a world where the boundaries between culture and the economy are increasingly blurred, the project of cognitive mapping is a difficult task and could appear at times absurdist and paranoid. Indeed, there is a hint of paranoia in Steyerl’s labyrinthine narrative concoctions: for instance, why link 1970s left-wing terrorism with the 2007 financial crisis? And yet, perhaps paranoia is the inevitable outcome of every attempt at developing an aesthetic of cognitive mapping countering the reification of consumer culture. As Jameson observed, ‘conspiracy is the poor person’s cognitive mapping in the postmodern age; it is a degraded figure of the total logic of late capital.’

source:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09528822.2013.857899

it's just not that crazy. what's crazy to think is that you're not a little bit crazy. we all are. but that question about reality - and we get it from derrida, foucault, heidegger, and many others - doesn't warrant, imho, more paranoia. it's probably impossible to out-paranoia land anyways, he's a genius at it (for better and for worse). paranoia is good up to the point at which a productive collective inquiry or sustainable politics can begin, and at that point the plot has to go in another direction. but up until that point hyperstition doesn't seem like such a crazy view to take.

[Anonymous No.11800615]

one last one.

psychoanalysis is an interesting quasi-literary science for the treatment of hysteria, which is at bottom a creativity run wild. your imagination can cause you enormous suffering, and one thing 20C dystopian politics left and right have in common is a paranoid imagination. totalitarian regimes are always under siege by somebody, either outwardly or from within. surveillance, faith and control emerge from this.

land's own maxim, Optimize For Intelligence, is interesting but almost impossible to interpret literally, let alone decree for anyone else. with nietzsche, bergson and D&G we get the emphasis on affirmation over negation, positivity over negativity. with land the critique of psychopolitics proceeds from the degree to which capital has absorbed all of these things into itself. baudrillard and han have both written this, although the complete story needs a few hundred pages for foucault as well. but today we confront this phenomenon of Woke Capital that reifies all affirmation in terms of its own positivity while generating your happiness via a matrix of control mechanisms, from seduction to coercion to a sort of quasi-religious sentimentality. we lose the distinction between the sacred and the profane. as don draper says, this is what the commodity offers: no matter who you are or what you're doing, it's okay.

but in therapy analysts deal with people whose schizoid imaginations are ruining them. D&G will contend, and rightly, that all analysis can give you is the disease in terms of the cure, since the thing that is so creative you can hardly sit still is in no ways reducible to oedipus or castration, and betrays its own enormous potential when sublimated into freudian praxis - that normal unhappiness is all the progress you can hope for over neurotic unhappiness, although it is progress.

but intelligence is not the Law. it’s easy to create or invoke the Law, the Law is No. intelligence is something different. creativity and possibility is what has to be made. and so we do this in a therapeutic sense, even with heidegger, the 'openness to Being.' land changes this question. what if the Being (or Spirit) is capital, is teleoplectic process? what is the way to respond to this? my sense is that what the situation calls for is some measure of cautionary pic rel. there's probably no hopeful utopian sensibility waiting at the end of the line, but there's also no reason to bet against dystopia. sometimes just avoiding rage is enough.

>if everyone is Big Brother, then no one is.

maybe the key word isn't Desire anymore, however much this was the hot issue of the 20C. maybe we OD'd on that and now it's fear and rage and disgust, its shock and outage. there are no political cures for these - rather, tribal ideology gives you nothing but weapons. the aesthetics of tribal warfare are irresistable, and we can be rewarded for trading empathy for ideologically sanctioned hostility. i just think it's the wrong way to go.

[Anonymous No.11800697]

>>11796935
Prime example of a retard LARPer who read too much cyberpunk and has no idea how watson or any AI for that matter works

This is why all of you are retards

[Anonymous No.11801506]

>>11800615
No, please go on. No "one last one".

[Anonymous No.11801510]

>>11800697
t. An actual retard.

[Anonymous No.11801817]

>>11801506
well, even i can get to a place where i'm not sure how much there is left to say that isn't just me repeating myself. i'm feeling cozy atm after having worked out something like a precis of land's stuff, and he's a guy i've been intensely obsessing about for years. it's reductive to say that teleoplexy is laissez-faire marxism, since there's more to the story than that, but it's not so off the mark. land's thought is the paradigmatic example of Don't Cross The Streams. this is not to say that we aren't enriched by his having done so. but he paid a high price for not only defying the received wisdom of his age but going a step further and cooking up something fairly new as well. inasmuch as deleuze expects the philosopher to be a creator of concepts we have to say that land passes this test. he created at least one: teleoplexy. it's not necessary to judge the man for how he chooses to live his life or what he tweets about. there's a concept here, and a concept is useful. even then, if you read wiener or other guys you can see that, in a sense, it's not like the idea of a singularity or cybernetic process is something that was completely unknown. it's just that land gives us an interesting analysis of it and with reference to continental theorists that some (including myself) are fond of.

acceleration is one of the most consistent arguments against tribalism i can think of. and one is not necessarily required to declare allegiance to either left or right politics as a result. those remain as semi-solid forms. i would like to see the conversation change to virtue, or a more guarded kind of optimism about the future. the current wave of post-postmodern/tribal politics do not lack for optimism, it's just that it is optimism in a some questionable ideas. and this is coming from the land guy! the state is a form of machine, this much has been known since the ancients. and we are a much more technological culture than the greeks, romans, medievals and romantics. but conversely i think cynicism is a failure to engage with some of these ideas in a genuine way. it's not like i can't see why people might not want to do this, look where it can lead you: to planes of immanence wherein cthulhoid horrors and skynet death-bots also live.

but we can't shut the lights out completely. even when we try, our own drives still find something of interest. the world is not a matter of indifference. but reification and simulation have put us in a new place, and there is more to being human than our drives or our technological capacities. i have other thoughts on this, but i'm still working some of those out. this isn't my blog, after all. i do think jungian shadow-stuff is interesting, although i have my own spin on this. but this isn't a jung thread, it's for cosmotechnics and land. so i'll save that for another time.

>it was a robot-producing exploration planet like any other
>large cities
>beautiful sunsets

[Anonymous No.11801954]

>>11801817
of the threads i have made on this board this random excursus on deleuze, leibniz, and FF6 is one i'm still kind of fond of.

>>/lit/thread/S9768566

what makes FF6 so great is that it is a story not only about a singularity but also disappointment, about *what comes afterwards.* this is why the second act of this game is so underrated. it's about the disappointing nature of even *disastrous* hopes. the apocalypse happens, the bad guys get away with it, the good guys are all basically just dealing with nihilism in one form or another, and life still goes on. the worst possible outcome happens, but even that is survived. deleuze's book on the fold is the only one that really helped me understand this story correctly, which is a story about not only nietzschean and heideggerian themes, but *both* of those, and also the question of *what comes after.* what comes after the Big Event. it's an enduringly relevant theme. sometimes the world doesn't get saved. maybe it's all just so much reaction.

but as bleak as things can seem sometimes i have yet to find a BTFO for girard. deleuze, land, nietzsche, heidegger, baudrillard, and the chinese are all ultrabased philosophers. more recently whitehead, him too. girard isn't as much of a wizard with metaphysics as others, and he's a model hedgehog with One Big Thing. but it's a pretty good thing, and holds up reasonably well even after, or during, acceleration. he doesn't become less interesting after plunging into land's universe but moreso.

>Like Hölderlin, I think that Christ alone allows us to face this reality without sinking into madness. The apocalypse does not announce the end of the world; it creates hope.

i'm not really a christian, but i have heard far worse ideas than this. the true apocalypse we may confront is no apocalypse at all. if it was just more of this...this is a kind of apocalypse in itself as well. it may only be the senseless grinding of machines, whether these are wintermute dreaming itself into existence or not. but it's quite a world either way. with just too much interesting stuff to think about. and too little time. so, thanks for letting me schizo-ramble once again lads. i've really enjoyed this thread.

[Anonymous No.11802243]

>>11801817
You are Girardposter right?

[Anonymous No.11802263]

>>11802243
that's me senpai.

[Anonymous No.11802280]

god all this shit is so gaaaay

[Anonymous No.11802281]

I haven't even read any of this shit but I pretend to have read it on twitter by combining words at random and still get like dozens of new followers a month lmao

[Anonymous No.11802286]

In the future there will be dragons and that's all that matters

[Anonymous No.11802557]

>>11802280
your point?

[Anonymous No.11803082]

>>11801817
unsure if you're the anon with the other thoughtful responses in this thread but I'll just assume that you are. I just want to say that you inspired me to start learning all of this stuff from the ground up (from the Greeks). I'm more of a math/physics type of guy but this seems like it's calling out to me in a peculiar way, so I think I'll halt my other studies and pursue all of this indefinitely. Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.11803146]

>>11803082
I will make lot of anons very mad but Descartes destroyed and roughly made moot antique philosophy. It's not a revolution or continuation of Antic (Greeks), it's their complete destruction.

You can just start with
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/
and pick up a next philosopher and read his rundown from the site until you come across someone interesting. Mine was Kant though I had read 20th & 21st century thinkers prior to any of this.

[Anonymous No.11803258]

OP/Girard/Whoever if you are still up you should probably make a new thread and link it here anytime now.

[Anonymous No.11803297]

>>11803295
New thread.

[Anonymous No.11803348]

>>11778510
thanks anon, incredible interview

[Anonymous No.11804179]

>>11803082
well anon you made my day and i'm delighted to think that i've been able to share something you might find interesting to puzzle over. maybe you could do both! the world always has a crucial shortage of polymaths and people who can do the math and the philosophy (which was at least plato's dream...) - and these days it's the continentals who can do a little science also who are really the coolest kids in town. i'm hugely in love with whitehead these days, who was stranger to math, spinoza had his own love for pattern, and leibniz was no slouch with numbers either...

if you can put science, philosophy, and art together for a party that never stops you're basically doing what deleuze and many others hoped would happen. and nobody knows what could be found out there with the right questions. that's really the spot that philosophy needs to be in, imho - a productive space of inquiry that crosses some of the divides. philosophy can drive you a little bit nuts sometimes thinking about it but wherever a person feels called to something carries the potential for enormous discovery also.

so good luck my man! i'm very glad to have inspired you to look into some of things. hope to read more about the adventure. it really is the greatest story ever told, no memes. wish you best of luck on the plane of immanence.

>>11803258
>>11803297
cheers gents, and to whichever cool anon kept the party going here. i was amazed to see this this morning! incredible! will lurk over there too no doubt.

>>11803348
reza's quite a guy and no meme either. not quite as Fun as land but it is possible to have too much fun sometimes and lose the plot a little.

one other thing. speaking of things i was amazed to see, i did see this epic tale of memery last night but didn't have time to respond. as incredible as this will seem, i didn't actually make this myself, but i want to salute whoever it was that did make it for basically downloading me completely and doing a spot-on impression of me. i was memed clean out of my mimetic pantaloons. salutations to whoever it was that did this, it's too bad it got deleted so soon! the blake art and the insane list of themes, plus a choice selection of gnostic references from deleuze and others...this really did make me laugh. so fine work out there, whoever you are.

>>/lit/thread/S11802874

see you guys in the next thread...

[Anonymous No.11804198]

>>11804179
>stranger
obviously i mean, no stranger

and whitehead is in general just too based for words. process and reality, science and the modern world, adventures of all ideas are Cannot Find A Flaw-tier. we enter into some spooky territory indeed with land but once upon a time even those brave old monks of the early middle ages knew that it was time to leave the monasteries and go out there and discover the origins of scientific method.

who knows but that we're not doing something parallel today with our pre-sentient Thinking Machines? it's a good time for science, religion and philosophy, art and engineering, superstition and hyperstition and - oh yeah - *reason* to integrate and co-evolve a little. would be nice to think so, anyways.

[Anonymous No.11804216]

Can someone explain what the fuck is "cosmotechnics" about?
Is it just another name for Nick Land generals?
Is it just another name for Sci-Fi generals?
Or is it something else entirely?

[Anonymous No.11804268]

>>11804216
>YH: In On the Existence of Digital Objects, I deal with formal relations and objects. In The Question Concerning Technology in China: An Essay in Cosmotechnics (Urbanomic 2016), I deal with the relation between the cosmos and the moral. This book on China is an attempt to elucidate the differences between the way the concept of technics is understood in Chinese philosophy and the way it is understood in Ancient European philosophy. And as the title suggests, the book is an attempt to recontextualize and problematize Heidegger’s famous essay “Die Frage nach der Technik,” in order to revive the concept of a technics of world history, which I call “cosmotechnics.” Picking up what François Jullien says, we can know ourselves by knowing others. His work on Chinese thought allows him to better understand European thought. I profited from years of living and studying in Britain, France, and Germany, reflecting on different systems of thought. A few years ago you joked that I was actually doing ethnography in Europe. With this book, I want to show that there has been a different concept of technics in China. It is neither the Greek technē, nor “technology” in the sense that emerged in European modernity. This difference is not obvious among researchers in China, and it has never been clearly articulated; indeed, this was very embarrassing! I once read an article from a well-known Chinese philosopher of technology who, when addressing the Chinese public, claimed that Prometheus was the origin of all technics (including Chinese technics). That is a complete disorientation, in the double sense of the word. Maybe the Greeks and the Chinese all come from Prometheus, but this is not easy to prove …

>While we don’t expect everyone to be Joseph Needham and we don’t want to operate on a simple opposition between the global and the local, but do have to recognize “ontological diversities,” as has been proposed by Philippe Descola, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Bruno Latour, and others who are part of the so-called “ontological turn” in anthropology. This is why I believe that, besides the proposal by these anthropologists to recognize multiple natures, we must first of all recognize the diversity of cosmotechnics, without which there is no discourse of nature—diversity not only in the sense of different “technical facts” or “technical systems” (as Leroi-Gourhan and Bertrand Gille have put it) but also in the sense of different ontologies and cosmologies. And once this multiplicity is affirmed, how are we going to imagine the development of technologies and theories in the Anthropocene? This will be the next battle for all of us.

source:
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/78/82706/digital-objects-and-metadata-schemes/

YH isn't smuggling in postcolonial studies/diversity as study of tech, this wasn't simondon's bag either, or stiegler's. he says this in his book. and he's not trying to BTFO heidegger and replace him.

[Anonymous No.11804296]

>>11804268
>the relation between the cosmos and the moral
>have to recognize “ontological diversities"
Sounds like a bunch of useless, mental-masturbatory drivel

[Anonymous No.11804377]

>>11804296
>>the relation between the cosmos and the moral
i have to go out for a bit or else i'd be happy to talk about this further. i had a sense that that quote would probably sound exactly like Diversity Smuggling in the worst way, but it really isn't. and it's a hugely important question, imho, because we really *don't* want the complete politicization of science. it's why i like YH.

the relationship between the cosmos and the moral *does* have huge implications, though. it always has. this is 100% violence and the sacred, for one thing. are we living in a world where these things happen, or are we not? even the most radicalized pomo types today can preach much more atheism than they actually feel: that is to say, even if god is dead you can still be persecuted and punished with all rage you would have encountered in the 14C. contemporary outrage culture is 100% cosmic morality, it's just often a very questionable morality and not much cosmic appreciation either beyond neo-marxist bullshittery. so that is one thing.

>have to recognize “ontological diversities"
again, this isn't so crazy (although there is a lot of similarity between heraclitus and laozi). but the Tao is one thing and the Logos is another. even among abrahamic religions we recognize that there is both dissimilarity and similarity. this happens everywhere. the point is not to make the same retarded argument about We Need To Recognize - again, if it was, i wouldn't be posting any of this. we are loaded to the gills with that. but tech in china really does have different philosophical origins than it has in the west, and these matter. it's had a different history, a different trajectory. and today all these world are getting linked in together.

anyways, as i said, i have to jet. i just wanted to reply to this briefly first. again, and emphatically: the point of this is not Diversity Smuggling, it's about exploration of the meaning of tech. what if we are hampered (or spectacularly, if dangerously, un-hampered) in our study by looking only at this phenomena through a particular lens? tech is a planetary phenomenon with world-historical ramifications. it warrants looking at it from all sides, *within reason.* that's the point. the idea isn't to create more politicized, rage-inducing obfuscation. it's to do completely the opposite of this.

[Anonymous No.11805184]

>>11804179
Don't lurk, post more

[Anonymous No.11805241]

>>11805184
kek, no worries about that. even when i want to quit this place i usually drift back here eventually. sometimes i go off-grid for a while but i'm probably doomed.

land tho. land and deleuze, marx and hegel. what a fucking story. *automated factories* should get your noggin joggin', no? maybe there is this oscillation between the body understood unconsciously/idealistically, and thought mechanically/objectively.
land is doing something to D&G, i think, that marx did to hegel. but of those four guys, *who's right?* all of them, yes? and heidegger also, smack-dab in the middle of it. and nietzsche before him.

but automated factories have to get us thinking. and what if D&G are right, and the unconscious works like this? marx and hegel set up two centuries of face-melting theory to pore over (and, sadly, a lot of literally face-melting politics and other things as well.) now there's this new thing going on. and even if we don't get AI overlords in our lifetime, *that isn't the point.* the point isn't necessarily to generate singularity, eric voegelin has been saying this for years (and girard too, in his own way, with more reference to politics and culture than tech, but it's still connected, it's still all our desires at the bottom).

it's just worth thinking about, factorio-universe. this is the place we're in and the machines can't be shut off. but maybe that's a good thing. maybe all of this postmodern stuff is only the dark precursor to thinking cybernetics correctly, as much as alchemy was a literary precursor to chemistry and the early scientific methods. the final answer cannot be fucking rage politics, that's for sure. mechanization, automation, reproduction, mimesis, recursivity and contingency. what if this is the thing? hegel knew it, marx knew it too. we live in this world where we are squished together. i do a thing, you do a thing. we respond, all of this. but there is a horizon beyond which looking ever-further into the mysteries of linguistic difference just stops being productive, and i would say that point is now, with societies of control, with the need for permanent self-curation and all else.

there are so many more interesting things to think about. just so many more interesting things. and only beginning. there's a big story being told here, and it's way more interesting than just the baudrillardian plasticization of history. we can take the order of simulacra in a different way that doesn't lead to more disaffection, terrorism, or rage politics. we can take it at face value.

how great does this make philosophy? how fucking great would that be?

[Anonymous No.11805302]

>>11805241
>We have seen in particular that if abstract machines open assemblages they also close them. An order-word machine overcodes language, a faciality machine and overcodes the body and even the head, a machine of enslavement overcodes or axiomatizes the earth: these are in no way illusions, but real machinic effects. We can no longer place the assemblages on a quantitative scale measuring how close or far they are from the plane of consistency. There are different types of abstract machines that overlap in their operations and qualify the assemblages: abstract machines of consistency, singular and mutant, with multiplied connections; abstract machines of stratification that surround the plane of consistency with another plane; and axiomatic or overcoding and abstract machines that perform totalizations, homogenizations, conjunctions of closure. Every abstract machine is linked to other abstract machines, not only because they are inseparably political, economic, scientific, artistic, ecological, cosmic — perceptive, affective, active, thinking, physical, and semiotic — but because their various types are as intertwined as their operations are convergent. Mechanosphere.

but things have changed since 1980. there is no Heroic Revolutionary Class in this anymore. recent history (as well as the history of the 20C) have taught us that the Heroic Revolutionary Class basically brooks no opposition for dissenters or those who stand in the way of cosmic maintenance. with land, however, you get the disquieting suspicion that cynicism is also not an option. even if you have no interest in the mcnugget, the mcnugget still has an interest in you. psychopolitics as described by han absorbs all of the positivity of idealism into Woke Capital. if you desire an alterative to this, you can wind up in landian paranoia (although there are other places to go also). but this is where we are. the most abject materialism possible in its most nightmarish aspects lands you in cyberia. as fringe as it is it's better by far than constant auto-curation on social media, and certainly better than most of what the 20C produced.

we have to become more intelligent as a species. and perhaps more empathic also. in general just more *interesting* and capable of better and less recursive questions, although not completely un-recursive ones. hegel still lives in that sense, as does marx. and the rest. we can't trade any one for the other. and every utopia contains within it an element of the dystopia and vice versa. so wat do? wat do.

full speed ahead for darkness and bewilderment, aw yeah.

[Anonymous No.11805310]

Dude racism
..but with CRT televisions!

[Anonymous No.11805314]

Go post in the new thread Girard

[Anonymous No.11805365]

>>11805310
stop being a drone

>>11805314
will do

[Anonymous No.11806610]

Awesome

[Anonymous No.11806904]

is this good? or is it biased and doesn't see beyond he waz a nazi?

[Anonymous No.11807261]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11807280]

>>11806904
Try asking this in the new thread.