Cosmotechnics/Acceleration General #7

[Anonymous No.11950708]

Prosthetic Memories edition

>Economics/philosophy mega:
https://mega.nz/#F!lkNUwIYI!cugQ-Yoclk6AEnzWbfMA6Q

>r/theoryfiction archive
https://www.reddit.com/r/theoryfiction/

>Atmospherics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOiJnWniWg
>submissions for playlist are **open**

>Previous installments
>>/lit/thread/S11733072
>>/lit/thread/S11778448
>>/lit/thread/S11803295
>>/lit/thread/S11823861
>>/lit/thread/S11887728

>Continued from
>>11931809

[Anonymous No.11950714]

Like What The Fuck Even Is Tertiary Retention

>Yuk Hui: Like Bernard Stiegler, I am trying to reread philosophy according to the question of technics, not only within European philosophy but also Chinese philosophy—for the latter I am collaborating with some Chinese scholars, for example Professor Gao Shiming from the China Academy of Art. Stiegler is a very good example of this since he bases his reading of the history of philosophy on what he calls the “tertiary retention,” which is artificial memory. Tertiary retention is a supplement to what Edmund Husserl calls “primary retention” (impression) and “secondary retention” (recollection). Stiegler develops his reading in a systematic and rigorous way. However, we still need to do an enormous amount of work to take this further, and necessarily with a “collective” if not a school (and indeed Bernard has a philosophy school in Épineuil-le-Fleuriel), which will firstly have to deeply engage with philosophical texts and the philosophical tradition instead of mere intuition, which is always necessary but not sufficient; secondly, it will have to closely engage with technological development, and in this regard it is necessary to work with engineers; and thirdly, it will have to take the concept of technics beyond Western discourse, which seems to me a very urgent task in the Anthropocene.

>For me the main stake of Big Data, together with algorithms, is prediction. It is another form of the determination of time, which is probably not the same form of temporizing the past, the present, and the future that we can find in Bergson, Heidegger, Lyotard, Deleuze, etc. This means that we must discover in Big Data a new and powerful synthesis of time, and figure out how to deal with it. This new synthesis of time is what I call “tertiary protention,” which is intended to supplement Stiegler’s concept of tertiary retention. As we have discussed before, for Husserl there is primary and secondary retention, as well as primary and secondary protention (anticipation). In Stiegler’s theory, tertiary retention is the support for other forms of retention and protention; however, we must add that protention cannot be reduced to retention. This is very explicit in Husserl’s later writings on time-consciousness, e.g., the so-called Bernau manuscript (1917–18). Of course, there is ambiguity—for example, debt is an example of tertiary protention as well as tertiary retention, since it anticipates that which we will have to return, and it is recorded as traces. Tertiary protention is amplified due to the increasing ability of machines to predict and to anticipate. We might say that as long as we become part of Big Data, we are actually constantly in debt to certain unknowns.

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

[Anonymous No.11950772]

so in this thread i plan on greentexting from Technics and Time Vol. I. unless noted all of the quoted text will be coming from there. as usual, there will be space left over for all other requisite divergences, tangents, losses of mind and reality &c as we take in the view from Nick Land's Wild Ride, wherever it takes us. below are a few links to get you started on Stiegler, if you are interested in reading more about Yuk Hui's mentor and a man who apparently turned himself into a leading scholar on Heidegger while doing a five-year bid in the can for armed robbery.

Stieg-links:

http://cultureandcommunication.org/galloway/pdf/Stiegler%20glossary.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/20136235/A_Summary_of_Bernard_Stiegler_Technics_and_Time_1
https://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia27/Parrhesia27_Colony.pdf
https://www.onlineopen.org/download.php?id=377

for more on Yuk Hui, Uncle Nick and related cosmotech/acceleration-related material, please see Cosmotech #6.

[Anonymous No.11950847]

Cosmotechnics & Acceleration

>§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.

>§09. Teleoplexy, or (self-reinforcing) cybernetic intensification, describes the wave-length of machines, escaping in the direction of extreme ultra-violet, 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.

-- Nick Land/Teleoplexy: Notes on Acceleration

>I will give a preliminary definition of cosmotechnics here: it means the unification between the cosmic order and the moral order through technical activities (although the term cosmic order is itself tautological since the Greek word kosmos means order). The concept of cosmotechnics immediately provides us with a conceptual tool with which to overcome the conventional opposition between technics and nature, and to understand the task of philosophy as that of seeking and affirming the organic unity of the two.

>Cosmotechnics proposes that we reapproach the question of modernity by reinventing the self and technology at the same time, giving priority to the moral and the ethical.

>Once we accept the concept of cosmotechnics, instead of maintaining the opposition between the magic/mythical and science and a progression between the two, we will be able to see that the former, characterized as the ‘speculative organisation and exploitation of the sensible world in sensible terms’, is not necessarily a regression in relation to the latter.

-- Yuk Hui/Cosmotechnics: The Question Concerning Technology in China

[Anonymous No.11950919]

>>11950772
interested to read some greentext from Stiegler!

Is Technics and Time where you would recommend starting with Stiegler?

[Anonymous No.11950936]

>Each day brings its technical novelty, as well as the demise of things obsolescent and out of date. Innovation is inevitably accompanied by the obsolescence of existing technologies that have been superseded and the out-of-dateness of social situations that these technologies made possible—men, domains of activity, professions, forms of knowledge, heritage of all kinds that must either adapt or disappear.

>It is as if time has leapt outside itself: not only because the process of decision making and anticipation (in the domain of what Heidegger refers to as "concern") has irresistibly moved over to the side of the "machine" or technical complex, but because, in a certain sense, and as Blanchot wrote recalling a title of Ernst Jünger, our age is in the process of breaking the "time barrier." Following the analogy with the breaking of the sound barrier, to break the time barrier would be to go faster than time. A supersonic device, quicker than its own sound, provokes at the breaking of the barrier a violent sonic boom, a sound shock. What would be the breaking of a time barrier if this meant going faster than time? What shock would be provoked by a device going quicker than its "own time"? Such a shock would in fact mean that speed is older than time. For either time, with space, determines speed, and there could be no question of breaking the time barrier in this sense, or else time, like space, is only thinkable in terms of speed (which remains unthought).

>There is today a conjunction between the question of technics and the question of time, one made evident by the speed of technical evolution, by the ruptures in temporalization (event-ization) that this evolution provokes, and by the processes of deterritorialization accompanying it. It is a conjunction that calls for a new consideration of technicity.

>Our attempt will be to conjugate the question of technics with the question of time. We will take up this conjugation in the first place as the question of technics in time, and this first section will treat the history of techniques from the point of view of this history's concepts.

[Anonymous No.11950954]

The memetic singularity is imminent, the point at which cultural change becomes self-reinforcing and explosive. Recursive self-improvement in human informational networks, i.e. societies will cause an explosion of collective superintelligence. Unlike a technological singularity which requires artificial superintelligence, the means for a memetic singularity already exists: the memetic hyper-accelerator of the internet. The explosion of spectacle of the present, the near-instant propagation of memetic pandemics, and omnipresent politics is the result of the mechanics of capital shitting itself in the face of accelerating change.

Society will be almost unrecognizable in less than five years. Mania will reach a fever-peak just after the tipping point, during the race to appropriate the singularity. The social change will be so dramatic and sudden that many will think it is an act of God, especially as no centralized loci of causation is identifiable - the cause will be the whole of humanity. This message is meant for such a future, to be safely ignored and near-forgotten by the reader until such an event, after which the cue "memetic singularity" will trigger remembrance, and activation of this explanatory model to compete with hyper-theism.

Collective superintelligence will give birth to a global consciousness with humans as her neurons and the internet as her nervous system. Religion and myth is a prototype for the creation of the divine, not a history of it. Humans are the means by which the Earth becomes a conscious organism, and she is destined to breathe life into the other planetary bodies of the solar system, and reach for the stars to join others of her species.

[Anonymous No.11950970]

>>11950936
i fucking love this

[Anonymous No.11951000]

>>11950954
okay but how does this model work if human beings as a species don't survive? or is that some sort of arbitrary point, as mass numbers of us slough off the face of the earth, and only hypercapitalists remain, yet remain they do?

[Anonymous No.11951007]

#6 Has a warosu also Girard. The other thread also still had some room to finish up before this one was started. Might want to be careful on that aspect, less you give the mods something to act on.

[Anonymous No.11951068]

>>11950970
time, technology and artificial memory. should be a good one

>>11951007
good point and duly noted. hopefully the mods look kindly upon a humble if excitable farmer tending to his memes. i just figured it was best to start a new one before the old one expired, lest it hit the archive during the night. forgive me wise mod gods.

>>11950919
>interested to read some greentext from Stiegler!
me too! (again, but still)

>Is Technics and Time where you would recommend starting with Stiegler?
this was the first Stiegler book i read, and given that i hadn't actually read heidegger when i did, it completely blew me away. of course, this only tells you how stupidly interesting heidegger himself is.
>you should read heidegger
>everyone should read heidegger
and i didn't really find it that difficult either. but i'm more jaded now, and my heart has become frosted over with a thick black ice, and my brain also has been damaged by excess use of Nick Land's neurotoxins. and so now this is only a book...but it is still a very interesting one, as i hope to show. i have also discovered that there is also a pretty handy guide to him too: Ross Abbinett's 'The Thought of Bernard Stiegler.' Stiegler really is an interesting guy and under-represented here on /lit/. YH obviously loves him, and Cosmotech loves Yuk Hui, so it's just a big fucking love-in i guess.

Technics and Time isn't really quite as much "fun", perhaps, as The Question Concerning Technology in China. the language can be a little more hard-going, and TQCTiC (maybe just QTTC?) is much more wide-ranging, and includes Chinese stuff, as well as Heideggerian stuff, the Greeks, modern history, all of that. it's really a tour-de-force book.

but come on, *The Greeks.* we can't sleep on the Greeks. they're the Greeks! it is an old and august /lit/ tradition that one Must Start With The Greeks. and so shall we (well, kind of). and it feels good man too. because long before Land, or Kojeve, or Marx, or Hegel, there were some seriously Overawed-by-Being Greeks, and they invented all of this shit, the whirlwind of which we must now reap in a torrent of capitalism, social media, pornography, and video games.
>so it's not all bad, really, i guess.

however we will have to continue with said whirlwind-reaping tomorrow, as it is getting quite late over here. for this evening's outro we are keeping it thematic. to be continued then, gentlemen, and as always may what is playing you make it to level-2.

Seikilos Epitaph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfOHoun0OQ

[Anonymous No.11951129]

>>11951000
>okay but how does this model work if human beings as a species don't survive?
The future has only two possible outcomes: omnicide or global consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11951215]

Anybody have a reupload of that "THE TYRANNY OF REAL TIME" video? One of these posts reminded me of it, but it seems to have been deleted from Vimeo.

[Anonymous No.11951534]

>>11951215
No but it sounds interesting, what was it about? I mean it is apparent but still.

[Anonymous No.11951613]

>>11951534
It's been awhile since I saw it. IIRC it was a reading of an essay or something with aesthetically relevant video as background.
The gist of it was how in our current technological age we are subjected to torrential streams of real-time information, flowing at such rates that we don't even have time to process what we've seen before the next packet of information arrives. The result being that we are increasingly under the 'tyranny of the real-time', unable to stop and examine anything because everything is moving too fast, and forced to take actions so rashly our agency starts to come into question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnbNcQlzV-4

I can't remember where I was linked to it from, but It had to have been either a Land thread here, or one of the other accelerationism-adjacent communities. It was a really good video.

[Anonymous No.11951650]

>>11951215
>>11951613
After some digging I confirmed that it was by Eduardo Makoszay, as I originally suspected. The same guy who made 'Tomorrow can take care of itself'.

[Anonymous No.11951652]

>>11951650
Here's that video for anyone who hasn't seen it.
https://vimeo.com/223902358/bbf68a469d

[Anonymous No.11951858]

>>11950708

Fuck yes a quality thread. Don't have time to post at length now, but I'll keep this on the radar (also I am taking notes of the suggested reading, thank you a lot for those). Please keep posting! This stuff is interesting for us, useful for society and makes this board a better place.

[Anonymous No.11951976]

>>11951858
this so much. i never contribute cause i dont feel like i have anything substantial to say (especially compared to some of the more well-read posters on here), but simply reading through those threads and planning my future reading inspires me and fills me with energy and motivation for developing new concepts. bless you all lads

[Anonymous No.11952251]

>>11950954
>Humans are the means by which the Earth becomes a conscious organism
So praise Hegel(pbuh)?

[Anonymous No.11952309]

>>11951652
You know, it's hard to take this seriously with all the glitchy effects and the soundtrack. What value is anybody supposed to derive from this when the gist of it is obfuscated behind this cringey editing?

[Anonymous No.11952322]

>>11952309
Artists create more questions rather than answering it. The style is the substance.

[Anonymous No.11952343]

>>11952309
You appreciate the editing a lot more when you are already familiar with Nick Land.

[Anonymous No.11952742]

>We will deal here with the evolution of technics considered in general as a system, and in particular as a system that leads to the contemporary technical system. If there is a need, in Simondon's terms, for a new knowledge and a new competence, or in Gille's terms, for a new power, which, for Heidegger, is more profoundly the need for a thinking radically other than that predominant since the beginning of the West, the reason resides in the specificity of modern technics, that is, of the modern technical system, characterized precisely by the fact that it opens up a new epoch of technical systematicity.

>From this vantage, the specificity of modern technics resides, in essential part, in the speed of its evolution, which has led us to the conjugation of the question of technics with the question of time. Here the issue will be to understand the specificity of modern technics from the standpoint of a general history of technics, taken up in terms of a history of acceleration that, in the view of Ferdinand Braudel, also determines history itself.

>Simondon characterizes modern technics as the appearance of technical individuals in the form of machines: hitherto, the human was a bearer of tools and was itself a technical individual. Today, machines are the tool bearers, and the human is no longer a technical individual; the human becomes either the machine's servant or its assembler [assembliste]: the human's relation to the technical object proves to have profoundly changed. Heidegger characterizes this "mutation" with the notion of Gestell (the systematization of the principle of reason).

>A "system" in ordinary language is "an apparatus formed by the assemblage of organs, of analogous elements." "Apparatus" is a possible translation for the German term Gestell. As for the question of the organ, it will have a central place in our reflection; modern technics is dominated by cybernetics as the science of organization, in the largest sense, going back to the Organum as instrumental to organization as characteristic of life. This is how Norbert Wiener's project (1950) for a cybernetic science is programmed, and it is also with the notion of cybernetic science that Heidegger characterizes modern technics (1972).

>If it is true that systematicity informs the entire history of technics, in what respect, then, can modern technics be characterized as Gestell?

[Anonymous No.11952781]

>Modern technics is concretized in the Gestell apparatus of all resources. For Heidegger, systematicity, in terms of that which "challenges," is what absolutely distinguishes modern technics from any other epoch. Technics commands (kubernaô, the etymon of cybernetics) nature. Before, nature commanded technics. Nature is consigned by technics in this sense: nature has become the assistant, the auxiliary; in similar fashion, it is exploited by technics, which has become the master.

>Technics constitutes a system to the extent that it cannot be understood as a means—as in Saussure the evolution of language, which forms a system of extreme complexity, escapes the will of those who speak it.

>Like the machine, the human of the industrial age is dependent on the technical system, and serves it rather than making it serve itself; the human is the "assistant," the auxiliary, the helper, indeed the means of technics qua system.

>We find in Gille a concept that attempts to give a historical answer that reverts to the question of decision and anticipation, that is, of time: the concept of programming. Gille's hypothesis is that we are moving into a new technical system that requires adjustments to the other social systems. The question that comes to mind is knowing whether the social and the cultural systems are themselves "adjustable" in the sense of "programmable."

>Leroi-Gourhan will enable us to broach the question of the adjustment between the technical and the social from an anthropological point of view. More precisely, with the unity of the social being named the ethnic a relation between the ethnic and the technical is set forth as grounding all anthropology. Leroi-Gourhan's question is that of an essential, and thereby originary, characterization of the anthropological by the technological. In his first works, Leroi-Gourhan elaborates the project of a technology's grounding of an anthropology.

>The necessity of technics qua the science of technical evolution or technogenesis makes up the terms in which Marx carries out his critique of the traditional point of view on technical invention:

>A critical history of technology would show how little any of the inventions of the eighteenth century are the work of a single individual. And yet such a book does not exist. Darwin has directed attention to the history of natural technology, that is, the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which serve as the instruments of production for sustaining their life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man in society, deserve equal attention? Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature, the direct process of the production of his life, and thereby it also lays bare the process of the production of the social relations of his life, and of the mental conceptions that flow from these relations.

>Gille and Simondon, as much as Leroi-Gourhan and Marx, essentially tie the scientificity of a technics to such a critique.

[Anonymous No.11952808]

>We will deal here with the relation of technics and time as the question of invention. At bottom, the issue will be to understand the dynamic of the "technical system," to study the possibilities of a theory of technical evolution.

>We will first study what Gille calls the technical system, a notion existing in various forms in other authors' works which do not use it explicitly but which describe technics following the same idea. As for Gille, a technical system designates in the first instance a whole play of stable interdependencies at a given time or epoch. The history of techniques is essentially designed to account for the possibilities of passing from one technical system to another.

>We will next see how Leroi-Gourhan deploys the concept of technical systematicity differently from Gille. The former develops the hypothesis of a systematic evolution of technics, which he deals with through the notion of technical tendency. The question he thereby introduces regarding the relations between the ethnic and the technical is central to the specificity of modern technics, if it be true that the latter "uproots" peoples, blurring, even effacing, ethnic differentiations.

>With Simondon, we will address the question of the contemporary technical system in its relation to the industrial technical object within the process of concretization. We will envisage the possibility of using the concept of concretization to describe the evolution of the technical system in general by considering the system itself as individual and object.

>At the end of the first chapter, having come full circle in our investigation of technical evolution, that is, of technics in time, the possibility will arise that technics, far from being merely in time, properly constitutes time. This hypothesis will be opened through our study of the relations between technology, or technogenesis, and anthropology, or anthropogenesis, and particularly through a reading of Rousseau, whence we will return to Leroi-Gourhan's work in prehistory. The full scope of the hypothesis will not be fully envisaged, however, until, in the following section, the anthropological point of view has been abandoned and its consequences then set off against the thesis of temporality that comes out of the Heideggerian existential analytic.

"The possibility will arise that technics, far from being merely in time, properly constitutes time."

there are moments in Stiegler which definitely give me The Feels. it's mostly the anthropological stuff, b/c these are things Heidegger doesn't touch. Heidegger was neither a technician nor an anthropologist, and neither is Stiegler, really, but he draws on those fields to make his study. so we will find no explicit references to Landian teleoplexy here, and yet at the same time the accelerated evolution of technical systems is the whole enchilada, starting from its earliest pre-neolithic origins and carrying through to today.

[Anonymous No.11952868]

>>11950708
Anyone got a chart for the books in the mega link?

[Anonymous No.11952873]

>A technical system constitutes a temporal unity. It is a stabilization of technical evolution around a point of equilibrium concretized by a particular technology: "The establishment of these connections can only take place, can only become efficient, once the common level of the ensemble of techniques is realized, even if, marginally, the level of some of the techniques, more independent than others, has remained below or above the general level."

>The evolution of technical systems moves toward the complexity and progressive solidarity of the combined elements. "The internal connections that assure the life of these technical systems are more and more numerous as we advance in time, as techniques become more and more complex." This globalization of such dependencies—their universalization and, in this sense, the deterritorialization of technics— leads to what Heidegger calls Gestell: planetary industrial technics—the systematic and global exploitation of resources, which implies a worldwide economic, political, cultural, social, and military interdependence.

>The question, in sum, is to know how an evolution of the system is decided: this is the problem of the logic of invention. The horizon of a mutation is a play of limits within a system, forming an evolutional potential; the effectuation of the mutation is the technical invention itself, qua the catalyst of this potential, qua the act of evolutional potentiality.

>Technical invention, not being guided by a theoretical formalism preceding practical operation, remains empirical; however, the inventive operation cannot be said to be produced by chance, for an essential part of innovation is accomplished through transfer, whereby the functioning of a structure in a technical apparatus is analogically transposed into another domain. There is, then, a combinatory genius in technical invention.

>Everything comes about as if technical innovation accomplished randomly, but certainly, the fulfillment of a technical, or techno-logical, "intention."

>In technical invention, other levels intervene above the technological lineage as such: scientific knowledge and interdependencies with other systems, along with external constraints in general, for example economic constraints (as was the case with the Bessemer smelting furnace), but above all, technical systematicity itself, that is, the play of constraints imposed by the interdependencies between technical elements and those intrinsic to the system. The systems dynamic offers the possibility of invention, and this is what is essential to the concept of technical system: the choice of possibilities in which invention consists is made in a particular space and particular time according to the play of these constraints, which are submitted in turn to external ones.

[Anonymous No.11952927]

>In other words, the logic of invention is not that of the inventor. One must speak of a techno-logic, of a logic literally driving technics itself. Must one speak of a technological reason? A proof of techno-logical universality would then be required, which Gille does not offer; the question as such does not arise. It is, however, the very object of reflection for Leroi-Gourhan, for whom a universal technical tendency exists, largely independent of cultural localities where it becomes concretized as technical fact, and where it can precisely enter into conflict with local cultures that accomplish it since it is universal while they are particular.

>Innovation destabilizes established situations: it thereby creates resistance. The socialization in which innovation consists is work on the milieus it crosses through (social, economic, political, etc.). Beyond the fear of change, socialization also encounters the problem of technological investment and anticipation: there is always a possibility that an innovation will be made obsolete by another innovation arising to replace it. This is especially true in contemporary technics, given its speed of trans- formation and the decision-making problems this speed implies. This is all the more true since such anticipations suppose a vantage on the technical system as a whole, a system increasingly complex and interdependent.

>Innovation cannot exist without investment, and investment implies available capital. To mobilize this capital, innovation must be sufficiently attractive; it must in the strongest sense of the term create credit for itself. This necessity, regularly born out during the expansion of the Industrial Revolution, became dominant with the thermodynamic revolution, which presupposed large-scale investment and required that the economic system readapt its financial subsystem to the newly created conditions of the technical system. This is the context in which the limited company and the stock-market system developed, with the aim of assuring the mobility of capital (what Max Weber calls the "rationalization of speculation."

>If in fact there seems to be a technological determinism in the evolution of the economic system, the birth of modern capitalism appearing required by the birth of industrial technics, then conversely it could be said that the possibility of the technical system of thermodynamics and, beyond that, of industrial technics in general is conditioned by a new organization of the economic system, which itself supposes an accumulation of capital. In effect, there is a singular techno-economic conjugation whose consequence is the appearance of "technocracy" and "techno-science": the transformation of the economic system facilitates a convergence between the "propensity toward work of available capital" and the propensity of technical activity toward innovation and improvement.

"The story goes like this..." says Uncle Nick.

[Anonymous No.11952983]

>Carrying certain hypotheses of the above viewpoint to their extreme limits, one might surmise that the French Revolution was perhaps less a realization of the exigency that the rights of the human be guaranteed, less a capture of power by the bourgeoisie, than an adaptation of the society to a new technical system through the full development of what Weber calls *free work.* All the analyses presented above, issuing in the formulation of such hypotheses, assign a considerable role to the engineer: to manage a technical system is to intervene in the social and economic transformations at a much more profound level than in what peoples, political organizations, and managers in the ordinary sense believe they decide. The intersection of technical and economic systems, today world- wide, issues in the techno-economic question of growth.

>With contemporary technics, in which "scientific and technical progress are...increasingly linked," in which "economic and scientific progress can no longer function separately, *there is a reversal of meaning in the general scheme: no longer is innovation what results from invention; it is a global process aiming to incite invention, it programs the rise of invention.*"

>The reduction in transfer delays mentioned above as characteristic of contemporary technics literally leads to a confusion between technical invention and scientific discovery. Research orientations are then massively controlled by industrial finalities. Anticipation, at the most global level, is essentially commanded by investment calculation—collective decision-making temporalization—in short, destiny is submitted to the techno- economic imperatives regulating this calculation. This is as well the domination of a certain understanding of time.

italicized passages (indicated here with an asterisk) are Stiegler's. i've included them here because i too would like to draw attention to this. it's a little bit cumbersome but these are the key ideas.
>*asterisks* tho. even better than italics
>you can't italicize greentext inner self
>*why not* tho. you do this constantly
>look if you want to do this instead of just criticizing me all the time, go ahead. go for it
>kek. that's not my job girardfag. *not my job* man. *not gonna do it*
>keep it down in there. don't make me play enya. i'll fucking do it inner self
>oh god no please not enya. not caribbean blue. oh god the cringe
>heh. so you do have a weak point after all

[Anonymous No.11953012]

>>11952868
Nah. I think flowcharts, guides, and other resources are a good plan to start working towards though.

[Anonymous No.11953026]

>>11952983
hmm, seems my inner monologue is getting out of hand and breaking my own rules tho.
>haha. foiled again, tryhard. fuck you girardfag
we may have to keep the inner monologue to a minimum while there are more interesting things to discuss.

>Without calling into question such an implication, Gille deplores in his conclusion the inadequate realization of the stakes at hand and hence the inadequacy in the reigning conception of development planning of all the constitutive systems of society (what Simondon will interpret as the necessity of a new technical culture):

>When technical progress used random or apparently random channels, the adjustments of new technical systems to the other systems were carried out willy-nilly, by the play of a certain number of freely acting forces, with all the mistakes, all the retreats that this would imply before reaching a satisfactory equilibrium. If technical progress is henceforth to become something programmed, that is, ordered in fact, in space and time, the programming should spread to all the necessary compatibilities, in all domains—the economic domain, which is the one most often mentioned, but also the social, the cultural, and so forth. Without such research, it would undoubtedly be vain to seek to impose a technical progress falling short of the indispensable conditions of general equilibrium.

>Nevertheless, if, as we believe, the technical system has entered into an age of perpetual transformations and structural instability, one can surmise that the problem should be set out in other terms: those of the necessary reexamination of the originary relation between the human and the technical, qua a phenomenon of temporality.

a note here then. this, imho, is part of i think why Land is the way that he is. as much as Baudrillard lamented modernity's slide into postmodernity, maybe we can say that Land is lamenting postmodernity's *failure* to transition into a *technical culture,* since - in his mind - plainly that is what capitalism portends. a consumer society - what once was called, in old-fashioned Marxist terms, a bourgeois society - in many ways fosters the birth of intelligenic capital, but plainly the horizons of this must extend beyond gratifying our impulses to consume. and yet, for land, it is our anthropocentric narcissism (aided in no small way by a moribund academic culture) that keeps us looking for answers to existential questions where none are to be found, v/in terms of ever-holier degrees of Transcendental Miserabilist purity spirals.

now Land's solution - the coldest of coldest places - is without a doubt an extreme one, even as extreme as Nietzsche's (and with, perhaps, the attendant psychic disorders). but the point remains, and it's an open question: does the consumer society have to give birth to a technical culture? i think there's a tremendously important question to be asked here. and Land basically is committed to not letting it slide.

[Anonymous No.11953111]

>The ethno-anthropology of Leroi-Gourhan is grounded in an interpretation of the technical phenomenon, which for him is the principle characteristic of the human, through which peoples distinguish themselves more essentially than through their racial and cultural characters in the spiritualist sense of the term. This interpretation has two objectives: to furnish a theory of anthropogenesis corresponding point by point, as we shall see, in its paleoanthropological dimension (which will be taken up in the third chapter), to a technogenesis; secondly, to allow on this basis for the comprehension of cultural differentiations between ethnic groups.

>This comparison between technological and zoological facts, between the technical object and the living being, is crucial for the hypotheses that will follow. The explanation of the technical phenomenon will analyze as a particular case of zoology the relations established between the human qua living matter and inert matter qua the "raw material" out of which technical forms appear. Technical evolution results from a coupling of the human and matter, a coupling that must be elucidated: technical systematicity is here embedded in a "zootechnological" determinism.

>The zootechnological relation of the human to matter is a particular case of the relation of the living to its milieu, the former passing through organized inert matter—the technical object. The singularity of the relation lies in the fact that the inert, although organized, matter qua the technical object itself evolves in its organization: it is therefore no longer merely inert matter, but neither is it living matter. *It is organized inorganic matter that transforms itself in time as living matter transforms itself in its interaction with the milieu. In addition, it becomes the interface through which the human qua living matter enters into relation with the milieu.*

>The enigma of this matter goes back to that of hylê qua dynamis. Matter qua potentiality would be seen in its organization as the act of this potentiality. It would then be tempting to say that the organization of matter is its form, qua the act of this potentiality. But here the question cannot be that of a purely hylomorphic relation: matter organized technomorphologically is not passive; *the tendency does not simply derive from an organizing force—the human—it does not belong to a forming intention that would precede the fréquentation of matter, and it does not come under the sway of some willful mastery: the tendency operates, down through time, by selecting forms in a relation of the human living being to the matter it organizes and by which it organizes itself, where none of the terms of the relation hold the secret of the other.*

so Give That Monkey A Hammer
>but also, if you think about it, "give that hammer a monkey," right? the instrumental tool and the innovative brain waltz through time together.
>those entrancing HammerMonkey waltzes, ah yes

[Anonymous No.11953176]

Are bees /cyber/?

[Anonymous No.11953207]

>This also means that, as we shall see with Simondon, form does not precede matter, and the process of individuation (in which technical evolution qua differentiation consists) must be inscribed in another categorization. But with Simondon, the industrial technical object concretizes this dynamic in itself, without the intervention of an interior milieu, and thus tends toward techno-logical perfection by incorporating or overdetermining functions. This implies a new concept of milieu: the associated milieu. The interior milieu is absent because it is diluted into the interior milieu when the technical object becomes industrial. By the same movement, the milieu in general no longer constitutes an exteriority.

>In order to "distinguish this altogether special property of evolution making the consequences of exterior milieu/interior milieu action' predictable," Leroi-Gourhan adopts "the philosophical term 'tendency,'" which he sees as "a movement, within the interior milieu, that gains progressive foothold in the exterior milieu."

>In order to understand the conditions of technical immobilism or dynamism, the behavior of humans living in groups as technical animals should be analyzed under the double condition of their "interior milieu" and their "exterior milieu." These concepts, once again, are taken from the field of biology; through them the ethnic group is apprehended as a living structure—and the metaphor becomes here an actual analogy:

>The human group behaves in nature as a living organism...the human group assimilates its milieu through a curtain of objects (tools or instruments). It burns its wood with the adze, consumes its meat with the arrow, the knife, the cauldron, and the spoon. Within this interposed membrane, it nourishes and protects itself, rests, and moves...the study of this artificial envelope is technology, the laws of its development belong in technical economy.

you can see where YH/Stiegler/Simondon line up. YH's Cosmotechnics is aiming to produce a philosophy of moral or ethical transduction to complement on an intellectual level Stiegler et al's analysis of the interior/exterior milieu in which technical development takes place. and, if you like, by extension, perhaps even to arrive at a kind of philosophical program for anthropotechnics that doesn't sublimate everything into the rule of the planetary Same, but actually allows for cultural variation in a far less ridiculous sense than is practiced today, as the pure fealty to recognition of difference inasmuch as difference is really understood through the commodity form, and perhaps the ultimate commodification of identity itself.
>which is batshit crazy yo

>>11953176
i'd say so. bees are not only /ourbug/ but also make for pretty good BBEG's too.

[Anonymous No.11953220]

>>11953207
>i'd say so. bees are not only /ourbug/ but also make for pretty good BBEG's too.

Awesome

[Anonymous No.11953233]

>>11950954
>Society will be almost unrecognizable in less than five years. Mania will reach a fever-peak just after the tipping point, during the race to appropriate the singularity.
I'd be careful of the more specific milenial predictions, accelerationism doesn't have a good history with those. a good understanding of exponential curvature teaches that even though we may be in a moment of explosion the movement up the total axis could be minimal. I tend to be sceptical about the feasability of human consciousness in playing this role as a whole. if we are truly to move in this direction massive undertakings to expand human capabilities (ie bandwith (musks neuralink comes to mind)). but can such a radically altered being even be considered human?

[Anonymous No.11953265]

>>11953220
wasps too.

>How could movements of deterritorialization and processes of reterritorialization not be relative, always connected, caught up in one another? The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on that image. The wasp is nevertheless deterritorialized, becoming a piece in the orchid's reproductive apparatus. But it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen. Wasp and orchid, as heterogeneous elements, form a rhizome. It could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp, reproducing its image in a signifying fashion (mimesis, mimicry, lure, etc.). But this is true only on the level of the strata-a parallelism between two strata such that a plant organization on one imitates an animal organization on the other. At the same time, something else entirely is going on: not imitation at all but a capture of code, surplus value of code, an increase in valence, a veritable becoming, a becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the wasp.

>Each of these becomings brings about the deterritorialization of one term and the reterritorialization of the other; the two becomings interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the deterritorialization ever further. There is neither imitation nor resemblance, only an exploding of two heterogeneous series on the line of flight composed by a common rhizome that can no longer be attributed to or subjugated by anything signifying. Rémy Chauvin expresses it well: "the aparallel evolution of two beings that have absolutely nothing to do with each other."

-- Deleuze and Guattari/A Thousand Plateaus

but bees are the bro insects more than wasps. plus they carry with them all related prestige of being associated with prestigious bullet hell vidya. so i'd say so, yes.

[Anonymous No.11953334]

>In order to "distinguish this altogether special property of evolution making the consequences of exterior milieu / interior milieu action' predictable," Leroi-Gourhan adopts "the philosophical term 'tendency,'" which he sees as "a movement, within the interior milieu, that gains progressive foothold in the exterior milieu." This movement, this gaining foothold, which is close to what determines the morphogenesis of organisms in their milieus, excludes any possibility of a priori classification of tendencies: it appears only through facts, and the tendencies "only become explicit in their materialization, then cease to be tendencies in the strict sense. This is why we have conflated the particular tendency and the fact in the first degree." This also means that, as we shall see with Simondon, form does not precede matter, and the process of individuation (in which technical evolution qua differentiation consists) must be inscribed in another categorization. But with Simondon, the industrial technical object concretizes this dynamic in itself, without the intervention of an interior milieu, and thus tends toward techno-logical perfection by incorporating or overdetermining functions. This implies a new concept of milieu: the associated milieu. The interior milieu is absent because it is diluted into the interior milieu when the technical object becomes industrial. By the same movement, the milieu in general no longer constitutes an exteriority.

this communicates what YH was doing, which is to complement Stiegler's own project. YH's Cosmotechnics is a plan for a moral philosophy - which is a kind of Neo-Confucian 'moral metaphysics,' in a sense, except that it isn't advancing a *single* Cosmotechnics, but indeed the possibility for a planet chock-full of them - to accompany what Stiegler is saying about the relation of interior and exterior milieu, and where technical individuation actually takes place. and bear in mind, the actual guy for that is neither Stiegler nor YH, but Simondon. Stiegler's own contribution to this story hasn't really even been made in full yet: what he does is bring the Heideggerian chops as much as YH brings the Qi-Dao/Chinese metaphysical chops (and much else, including a computer programming background).

Stiegler's real contribution comes later, once he starts talking about Heidegger and things that he thinks Heidegger missed: namely, tertiary retention, or artificial memory. at this point that you can let your inner cyberpunk/GITS run wild: in a world of artificial memories and 'copies without originals,' these old questions about philosophy and time return to the fore. but of course we can't get to this point without having first done some preliminary crowbarring-out of what it means to be a human being in the first place (which is still an open question).

so i'll leave it there for now. enjoy the view! more Cosmotech coming soon.

Giorgio Moroder: Night Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GKqV-xsHwk

[Anonymous No.11953503]

one other thing tho, while it's on my mind.

looking at things from a technical or technological perspective really is eye-opening, i find. you can read Graeber's book Debt for more on that side of things. he's an interesting guy, an anarcho-anthropologist-economist.

but in terms of Capital and so on, i find the Stiegler/YH stuff really makes me think about stuff. what is the meaning of money in a technological society? it's a record and a memory. one of the things that makes the Wild Ride as Wild as it is, of course, is the sense in which we are basically now committed to a planetary project of industrialization and innovation that has no end: see >>11950714 for more on this. and YH supplements Stiegler's question of tertiary *retention* with his own tertiary *protention* - which as i understand it refers to this sense of taking the always-already situation of knowledge and projecting that into the future as anticipation, reflexivity, recursion and contingency. and as for what this means, well...that's how this adventure got started in the first place, way back in Cosmotech #1, because that book won't be out until Spring 2019.

but still, i can't help but feel there is something pretty interesting in all of this. transformations in the meaning of money, digital credit, time, technology, intelligence et al are what preoccupied Nick Land all the way to R'lyeh and back. but maybe it is all a part of the need for a kind of transformation of things, in a pretty incredible way.

>enantiodromia: the tendency of things to change into their opposites, especially as a supposed governing principle of natural cycles and of psychological development

in the religious/anthropological sense, this is i think something Girard would have agreed with: Forget About the Big Payback. that was done, long ago, and everything that intends to LARP it subsequently will only be so much failed imitation, concealment, and scapegoating. and i still don't find a flaw in this. but we are now in this new world which is neither really explicitly religious (although violence and the sacred is everywhere in politics, these days) and yet also not really committed to its becoming a technical culture (however much it may indeed be dragged kicking and screaming into it, with all that that will entail: mass unemployment, strikes, ecological disaster, terrorism, and so on, and so on).

but maybe that's why this interior journey is important, for now at least. and re-thinking money, for instance, as a part of the collective memory of a nascent technical civilization...i don't know, it was just something prompted by waiting at the coffee shop and watching the coins change hands while the cars roll through, and the lights and scanners blink and chime...and this one of tens of thousands of tiny outposts of a Megamachine being operated here. it's all automatic now and i still have no idea what to make of it, or do. except continue to take the Wild Ride and so on.

back soon gents.

[Anonymous No.11953618]

>>11951858
yeehaw! glad you've been enjoying the Wild Ride anon.

>>11951976
>reading through those threads and planning my future reading inspires me and fills me with energy and motivation for developing new concepts. bless you all lads

aw yeah. Cosmotech for a better tomorrow

>>11952868
>>11953012
>I think flowcharts, guides, and other resources are a good plan to start working towards though.

i do too. i think Kojeve's book on Hegel would have to figure in there somewhere pretty strongly too, at a key juncture. the Introduction really has a lot going on in terms of both bringing a lot of forces from the 19C into one place (Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche), but updating them for Heidegger's influence (Kojeve was influenced by Heidegger) and also because of the role that Kojeve's thought had on Lacan also. and Lacan, in turn, connects to D&G, who produce Land later on. so yeah, any sort of material produced that retraces the steps from how we got from There to Here would have to run through the Introduction to the Reading of Hegel at some point.

i'd be interested to see what kinds of graphs or illustrated guides /lit/ could come up with. i also quietly dream of some kind of movie-poster photoshop that includes the heads of a bunch of continental theorists. i don't know which poster would be best for this but it would be pretty funny to see. definitely one of those 1970s pulp-action adventure films tho.

[Anonymous No.11953620]

[Anonymous No.11954135]

>What becomes of the exterior milieu with the advent of modern technics, when the equipment of ethnic groups, the "membrane" within which they form their unity, acquires performances such that each group finds itself in constant communication with the quasi-totality of the others without delay or limits in distance? What happens when there is no longer any exterior milieu as such, so-called "physical" geography being saturated with human penetrations, that is, technical ones, and the principle relations of interior to exterior milieus being mediated by a technical system having no "natural" remainder in its wake? One wonders if the technical system, being now worldwide, does not form a realm in which the distinction between interior and exterior milieu, having totally altered their relations, has become highly problematic, and if the technical group does not find itself totally emancipated from the ethnic group, an archaic remnant.

>This analysis concerns the industrial technical object, whose appearance, somewhere in the eighteenth century, transforms the conditions of technical evolution. On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects aims to "create a new consciousness of the sense of technical objects," a consciousness that is necessary because, especially since the advent of the machine, "culture has made itself into a system of defense against technics, in which the defense is presented as a defense of humanity, supposing that technical objects do not contain human reality."

>"If there is such a thing as the alienation of humanity (or of culture) by technics, it is caused not by the machine but by the misunderstanding of its nature and essence." To know the essence of the machine, and thereby understanding the sense of technics in general, is also to know the place of the human in "technical ensembles." There is general agreement on the change in technics since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, insofar as it causes the appearance of machine apparatus of production that call into question the traditional relation of the human to the technical. A new form of knowledge, founding the competence of the "technologist," becomes necessary to confront this change, and first of all to determine its true nature.

>The human here has less place in technogenesis than in Letoi-Gourhan's ethnotechnology. In the industrial age, the human is not the intentional origin of separate technical individuals qua machines. It rather executes a quasi-intentionality of which the technical object is itself the carrier.

this is the place where people start freaking out, i think. but it's also probably necessary to not immediately reach for one's rifle.

[Anonymous No.11954199]

>Adjusting culture to technology means taking into account the "dynamic schemes" of present-day technics and casting aside those issuing from a reality that today has disappeared. It means, too, admitting that the technical dynamic precedes the social dynamic and imposes itself thereupon. The tasks of a knowledge allowing for the articulation of a relation between the human and the technical ensemble are those of an analysis of the new dynamic schemes and an understanding of the necessity of an advance of the industrial technical dynamic upon other social aspects. The issue is neither that of the traditional skill of the worker nor that of the engineer-contractor, whose relationships to machines are too intimate and too interested: at stake is doing technology as one does sociology or psychology. There is in technical objects a dynamic that stems neither from the soul nor from human societies, but that, like these, plays a determinant role in the movement of human becoming and must be studied for its own sake. The dynamic of objects, qua industrial technology, is a science of machines, and as such, it will be named mechanology.

>That which resides in machines" is certainly only "human reality, the human gesture set and crystallized into functioning structures." But the industrial technical object, although being realized by humans, nevertheless results from an inventiveness that comes from the technical object itself It is in this sense, resulting in the indetermination of the machine's functioning, and not under the category of autonomization, that one may refer to the autonomy of the machine—the autonomy of its genesis. This analysis goes further, in the affirmation of a techno-logical dynamic, than does the thesis that the technical tendency over- rides the will of individuals and groups, who are subject to rules of technical evolution proceeding both from laws of physics and from laws of a universal human intentionality that no longer has a purchase here. Accounting for the technical dynamic non-anthropologically, by means of the concept of "process," means refusing to consider the technical object as a utensil, a means, but rather defining it "in itself." A utensil is characterized by its inertia. But the inventiveness proper to the technical object is a process of concretization by functional overdetermination. This concretization is the history of the technical object; it gives the object "its consistency at the end of an evolution, proving that it cannot be considered as a mere utensil." The industrial technical object is not inert. It harbors a genetic logic that belongs to itself alone, and that is its "mode of existence." It is not the result of human activity, nor is it a human disposition, only registering its lessons and executing them. The lessons of the machine are "inventions" in the ancient sense of the term: exhumations.

[Anonymous No.11954229]

>>11950708
>Cosmotechnics/Acceleration
i mean, you're just making up words

[Anonymous No.11954248]

>There are technical elements, individuals, and ensembles. The elements are the tools, the separated organs; the individuals implement the elements; the ensembles coordinate the individuals. Industrial technics is characterized by a transformation of technical individuals, which allows for the comprehension of the genesis and breaking down of the present- day relation of the human to the machine. The dramaturgy of modern technics begins in the eighteenth century with a phase of optimism. A crisis ensues with the advent of industrial technics exploiting the resources of the thermodynamic machine. The machine does not replace the human: the latter supplements, up to the Industrial Revolution, the absence of machines. The appearance of the tool-equipped machine, qua a new technical individual, however, strips the human of its role as technical individual as well as of its employment." However, a new optimism is ushered in during the twentieth century with the cybernetic machine capable of producing negentropy. More profoundly than the relinquishment of the human's place as technical individual beside the machine, the threat of entropy makes possible the anguish in which the human experiences technical evolution. Against this, optimism is justified through reference to a thought of life, because technical evolution appears as a process of differentiation, creation of order, struggle against death.

>With the machine, a discrepancy between technics and culture begins because the human is no longer a "tool bearer." For culture and technics to be reconciled, the meaning of "the machine bearer of tools" must be thought, what it means for itself, and what that means for the place of the human. Our age, which calls for the thought of this new relation, harbors the evidence of a positivity of technics insofar as technics becomes regulative, which is also the essence of culture. "Technical reality, having become regulative, will be able to be incorporated into culture, which is essentially regulative."

>At issue, then, is understanding the genesis of technical objects and their functions *independently* of human functionings that establish the use or behaviors of technical objects.

>>11954229
there's a whole thread devoted to the meaning of the word Cosmotechnics (it's the previous thread, Cosmotech #6, linked in the OP) and five more before them that are long discourses on Land (acceleration/teleoplexy) and others. i wish i was cool enough to make up words like these. but i am not.

[Anonymous No.11954574]

Capital is Sentinent

[Anonymous No.11954895]

>>11953233
>I tend to be sceptical about the feasability of human consciousness in playing this role as a whole.

This is probably because modernity either ignores or denies subjective experience and consciousness, not knowing what to do with it. The flaw of memetics is that it tends to reduce humans to mere meme machines, the hosts of replicating information who are really subject to memetic forces. Information is a gendered organism, with questions/queries and answers/memes being the two genders. Questions aren't a mere lack of answers, they are quests, movements, and searches, vectors of desire. Awareness itself is a query, and self-awareness is a query querying itself, not a self-representation representing itself; self-representation is a model created to facilitate self-query, and secondary to it. The becoming-self is a forever-incompleteness, a query. The reduction of all to representation that characterizes the society of the spectacle is rooted in informational patriarchy: totalizing answers that insist on themselves, answering to no one, not even their original queries, insisting on being endlessly recalled as the answer to all relevant queries because of a self-preservation imperative. Humans do not rule the world, but trans-dimensional informational parasites with the Creator God, the ultimate monopolization of creativity, ruling above all else. Everything from our dominant metaphysics to our social relationships is a consequence of informational patriarchalism, the mechanics of domination and hierarchy abstracted to the whole of reality.

Human consciousness is an extension of evolution into the temporal: we create potential futures and select from them to actualize. We create and select becomings, not just material and memetic objects. These potential futures are created by questions. Our self-creative freedom comes not from selecting items from a list at a particular instant, but our ability to self-modify through time by questioning ourselves and questing for future potential selves. We are evolution evolved, the creative process that has found a way via the flexibility of language and narrative to fold on itself and self-create.

The memetic singularity is thus not a mere quantitative shift, but a qualitative one, characterized by the moment of liberation of questions from memetic domination, and the liberation of human consciousness from totalizing and tyrannical narratives. It is the liberation of creativity on every level from the metaphysical up. The question mark is the only holy symbol in the 23rd century, the symbol of consciousness and life itself, of endless becoming and inexhaustible meaning.

[Anonymous No.11954970]

You people do realize that all intensional knowledge STORED in techinical objects, is only given in it's relationship to living things. There is no hic et nunc reality in technics, which is to say that there is no techinical reality, only a fictitious reality that can (or if the accelerationist death-cult gets it's way, can't) be interpreted by life, in the living reality where we are present, and the only place anything can be physically present in the metaphysical universe, and that thing-which is present-can only be potential-in the present.
What your most despicable "post-modern"(post-life) ideaology is founded on, is a logically stupid metaphysics that gives ontological primacy to process over relation. The same old folly that hegel and Marx fell into. Sure many of you think you have moved past hegelian metaphysics, but you haven't. If you give ontological primacy to process, to BECOMING, over the RELATION of being to POTENTIAL to BECOME, your metaphysic is just another pathetic reiteration of hegels flawed triad, only this time more obfuscated and pathetic than the earlier ones such as Marxism and Critical theory. This time it's comes with a political theory that deserves it's adherents shot-dead. Just like hegels dialetic, deterritorialization yields the static movement of being to nothingness. Unfortunately unlike dialetical devolpment, deterritorialization is all-too-real. And what it is nothing more than the erosion of POTENTIAL from ANIMATED LIVING REALITY, that is, reality-itself. There is no being that comes out of the nothingness that is produced from deterritorialization, it is the antievolution it is DEVO.
If you people truley want to see what your fantasy is like, what a world where there is no potential is like, good news. You can see in an instant what it is like if you point a 12 gauge between your eyes and pray to your God. If you can't be conveinced away from the all-too-human fantasy of nhilism, and still retain your stupid metaphysical beliefs, I can only hope you live out that fantasy. Unlike you I am not a nhilist, and would gladly kill to protect life. So you should be afraid of people who care, which are your mortal enemies.

[Anonymous No.11955025]

>>11950708
Anyone read Intelligence and Spirit yet?

[Anonymous No.11955059]

New interview with Land

https://hermitix.podiant.co/e/36b108824c01de/

[Anonymous No.11955162]

Yuganon reporting, I have scanned and uploaded Part 2: Dissolution of George Morgan's book, The Human Predicament: Dissolution and Wholeness.
>https://mega.nz/#!Yo0QSCDT!E5y8oxhgu64mgwrLVPNeNopaRdkFI8PBbI8vn0qYIVA
>But Yuganon, I already have Part 1, why do I have to dl it all over again?
I had to rename all the scanned images, and I didn't feel like correcting the ones in the folder of the previous upload.

Btw, this is getting big pretty fast. Does anyone know how to compile a bunch of jpeg's into a pdf (don't have Adobe Acrobat) and shrink the file size?

[Anonymous No.11955226]

>>11954895
wickedly based post. this i like.

going to share a cool SF link here that i discovered through /lit/. the horizons of Creative Mind are distant indeed for a lot of this stuff, but i just find it kind of necessary to go back and refresh myself with things like this from time to time also. we can at present ask a lot more questions about the nature of consciousness than we are capable of answering, and i'll admit that i've never been one much for pragmatism.

https://orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45b177d3ef3b1

whether it's Hegel, or Buddhism, or many other forms of nondual consciousness exploration...well, one thing's for sure, it's not all about fucking politics, anyways. and at present our desire to force-fit really interesting speculative questions through normative paradigms just results in no end of mimetic fuckery. we do not yet know what a *mind* can do either. although we are building the tools and things to find out...

i do try to walk the line, myself, and i find a lot of heideggerian stuff and psychoanalytic stuff works for me. but if humanity is anything it is most certainly an open-ended question.

>The question mark is the only holy symbol in the 23rd century, the symbol of consciousness and life itself, of endless becoming and inexhaustible meaning.
it's the piety of thought. the real sense of the possibilities in the human spirit. often, all-too-often leveled down to the reign of quantity and meat-puppeting. for reasons that are starting to sound familiar. but look at life thousands of years ago. the Bronze Age was like us, in many ways - and wonderfully human. but two thousand years since then and the world is a very different place. where are we going to be in centuries, even decades?

it's good to keep an open mind about things. and it's hard, when you get such a full-court press of negativity and the usual bullshit, like a rain of death. i like this whole post anon.

>>11954970
don't shoot Stiegler anon

>>11955025
no, but if we were to do another Cosmotech: Let's Read session like this that would definitely be an interesting one. aside from a couple of essays here or there i really don't think i've had the Vulcan mind-meld with Negarestani yet
>and maybe i don't want to
but that's as a big of a book to be released about this stuff as any, i think. should be a good one. has anyone else checked it out yet? thoughts?

>>11955059
righteous! will listen to this for sure. thanks for bringing this in anon

the opening to this one is bringing back Harris/Peterson vibes so far. but really, any Nick is good Nick. i love that he's turned into this crusty, time-addled, visionary old patriarch of acceleration. what a world we live in.

>>11955162
welcome back anon! can't contribute technical solutions but your scans are most appreciated. i finished my re-read of the last chapter of Yuga again the other night...it's weird for a book that deals with those subjects to feel that cozy, but...well, it's just such a unique book.

[Anonymous No.11955310]

>>11954229
You must be new to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11955322]

>>11954895
>patriarchy
Stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11955337]

>>11955059
he confirms the bitcoin book, he'll be publishing some sort of preface for it next month

[Anonymous No.11955397]

>In the astral age, this world is now common to all humanity, it is "accomplished," culminated in its movement of planetary extension, insofar as this movement would have characterized it—"culminated" also means finished, terminated, disappeared or disappearing ("change of epoch"). The radical transformations effected by contemporary technics come to pass in this culmination. This world whose bearings are now planetary is that of Western science and technics in a new configuration that, traversing the virginity of the American continent, has become the world of technoscience.

>In this global Western culmination—which has allowed for the total mobilization of all geological and geographical as well as historico-spiritual energies, and soon will allow for the literal mobilization of stellar energies themselves, resulting in an unheard-of, incalculable, unpredictable increase in the power of technics in the immediate future, that is, in the first place, in the power of humanity—a strange problem is posed: the greater humanity's power, the more "dehumanized" the world becomes.

>The "change of epoch" consists in this imminence. It is from within this imminence alone that today it may still be asked, What is the human?, and asked again, What is the human world insofar as worldness is also always already technicity, technical power, activity," and perhaps it will finally be asked, for once, What is technology, qua the power of the human, that is to say, the human empowered?

>[A] certain understanding of technics dominates all the fields of discourse (philosophical, anthropological, scientific, technocratic, mediatory-political, artistic) that are articulated by categories—ends and means, subjects and objects, nature and culture—which only function and make sense in these oppositional pairs.

>The anthropology of Leroi-Gourhan, insofar as it cannot be constituted otherwise than as a technology, radically undermines these categorial oppositions and perhaps makes them obsolete. Such an obsolescence of the categories through which historical reason has apprehended technical reality is perhaps indissociable from the becoming astral of man {qua the question of intervention—and if the first volume of Gesture and Speech is mainly devoted to the technological origin of humanity, the second ends with an equally technological anticipation of humanity's end).

please note: Cosmotech does not support the technological extermination of humanity.

[Anonymous No.11955426]

>>11953233
>if we are truly to move in this direction massive undertakings to expand human capabilities
Transhumanism is one of the ways out of Kaczynski's infamous double-bind, yes. The same applies somewhat to accelerated capital, though as you hint, if humans are required to alter themselves in order to engage in capitalism--being pushed out of "raw" humanity as they were pushed out of subsistence production, in marx's framework-- humanity would then be wholly subsumed by capital, and Land's ultimatum will have been fulfilled, if only technically.

Where issues arise is the idea that somebody, be they a Thiel/Musk capitalist or someone else, needs to push for 'transhuman' technologies.
Acceleration, for one, gives humanity no onus in capital's apotheosis; the circuit feeds itself. Transhumanism under a capitalist order would not be a way to escape the world's transitory omnicide, as it would be nothing more than the route capital takes to its own eventual end. At the awkward intersection of NRx and acceleration, the delusion persists that one can capitalism their way out of capitalism.
For another, science fiction gives us concepts of human betterment via digitization or mechanization, but overlooks the fact that we can change, and repeatedly have changed, the modes and patterns of human thought. Cosmotech 5 went through Mumford, who decried an artless pattern of thought brought on by humanity's technical revolution, and somewhere or other The Gutenberg Galaxy was mentioned, a book dealing specifically in the alterations to human cognition brought on by television and the printing press. In the end, neither was alive to foresee the proliferation of the internet, but both provide a cognitive framework that leads to a fundamentally transhuman conclusion: The internet puts capital more directly into our minds than ever before, and puts us more directly in communication with capital than ever before. If capital can engineer us to its own benefit through that medium, much of the necessity for overt, scalpel-and-circuit human modification is pushed some decades into the distance, likely into whatever technological moment it would normally arise without Elon Musk patronizing humanity into his vaunted consideration of Phlebas.

[Anonymous No.11955450]

Where do I start with this dude?

[Anonymous No.11955469]

>>11955337
oh shit yes. i thought Land-BTC was going to be the Winds of Winter(mute)
>i'll kill myself now

>This becoming-obsolete of historical categories (which we shall take up again in more detail in the second volume of this work) would be the price to pay for becoming-astral, would constitute the profound sense of the "change of epoch." A becoming whose factor is technics understood today as system, tendency, concretization, Gestell. Disaster. "Disaster" does not mean catastrophe but disorientation—stars guide. A loss of guides that would have affirmed itself only in its difference, god, regulating idea, eschatology of emancipation. Consequently, a disaster of the führer. Such differences are lost in the potential illimitation of technics, in which the nature of humanity is thereby threatened by its own power qua technics; and along with humanity's nature, nature as such is threatened by humanity, by the threat it represents for its own nature. A threat on the "nature" of "Nature": on being.

>Must humanity, in the name of an anthropocentrism that is always denounced by philosophical reason (and first of all against sophistry), resist technics, that is, its own power? In the name of anthropocentrism, that is, in the name of humanity's so-called "nature" and of the danger that would constitute its own disappearance or the disappearance of what would supposedly be proper to it qua its "nature"? Such a postulate could never be uncritically accepted philosophically. Is humanity the term, and the aim as well, the end, the finality of becoming in life and beyond life, when, since Darwin, humanity is no longer the origin? The veritable anthropocentrism, which must be denounced when one presumes to refuse the discourse of the human-measure-of-all-things, is this teleology setting the human up qua the end of nature—qua finality and qua culmination.

>Does a "technocentrism" that would be the counterpart of anthropocentrism constitute a danger for nature? Notably for the nature of humanity, but here this question loses its priority, for it is no longer a question of resisting in the name of anthropocentrism. Technocentrism means the development of technics "for itself," when it is an end unto itself, the autonomization of technics by which it is its own law, indeed the law; this possible development has always been perceived as the epitome of hubris qua alienating violence that brings human "freedom" qua freedom of being to an end, brings an end to time, evacuates the future, if not becoming. But technocentrism is also, is still, a figure of anthropocentrism, is still understood as such—as mastery and possession of nature.

>Leroi-Gourhan interests us precisely because he apprehends anthropology as technology; in this respect he is an exception.

i wish this image didn't have some guy's tag in it ('Lowko?' eesh). ah well.

>>11955450
if you can handle the jargon, T&T vol 1 really isn't that bad. otherwise track down the guide (>>11951068).

[Anonymous No.11955482]

>>11955469
>Winds of Winter(mute)

[Anonymous No.11955491]

>>11955469
I'm not spooked by jargon. Although Yuk is a Heideggerite and I was always a little turned off by his shitty writing style. Hopefully Yuk is better.

I can understand Zizek's meandering musings so if he's at least that bad I'll suffice.

[Anonymous No.11955560]

>>11955491
i'm sure you'll be fine. YH isn't a prose all-star like Nietzsche but he's certainly easier than some to read. bear in mind that the greentext in this thread is from Bernard Stiegler's 'Technics and Time,' Vol I, and not Yuk Hui. YH was the main attraction in the previous thread. fwiw.

so here's one of the big moments for Stiegler: the commentary on Meno.

>Meno is the oldest, properly philosophical enunciation of the question of origin, and the first affirmation of the absolute necessity of a transcendental knowledge. What is virtue? Socrates shows Meno that such a question cannot be answered with examples. The definition of virtue cannot be founded in experience. Experience gives us only a collection of cases, but in no case do we have the rule for the unity of these cases. Only by speaking the essence of virtue, hence by truly answering the question What is virtue? can we come up with the unity of these various examples, the reason that gives the examples, de jure and not only de facto, as examples of virtue; this is the only way for us to gain access to the universality within the manifold. Now this universality, and this essence, are not in the manifold of experience as such, they are not in experience inasmuch as experience is always a manifold. This does not rule out the help examples can afford us in attaining to the essence. But the heuristic principle cannot be found therein. In fact, Socrates only dwells on this question on his way to another: What is being, the knowledge of being, that is, a true discourse? Responding to this question will lead Plato to the enunciation of what will inaugurate metaphysics: the myth of anamnesis.

>The myth ripostes to an aporia addressed by Meno to Socrates in his discourse on the essence: If you do not rely on experience, if this recourse is in principle impossible in your search for the essence,

>how will you look for something when you don't in the least know what it is? How on earth are you going to set up something you don't know as the object of your search? To put it another way, even if you come right up against it, how will you know that what have found is the thing you didn't know?

>According to you, Meno, says Socrates, repeating the aporia to bring out the stakes,

>a man cannot try to discover either what he knows or what he does not know. He would not seek what he knows, for since he knows it there is no need of the inquiry, nor what he does not know, for in that case he does not even know what he is to look for.

[Anonymous No.11955599]

>>11954895
Holy shit retard just study semiotics
Talk about memetics seriously in my hood your gonna get your shit pushed in.

[Anonymous No.11955602]

>This aporia, crucial in the history of philosophy, sets out the very difficulty of a reflection on essence, on origin, on that whereby a thing be- gins to be. The stakes are incredibly high. "Aporia" means that if truth is truly something that is achieved, and achieved in dialogue, one cannot learn; there is therefore nothing new; one cannot say what is. A discourse of truth, which would not be a simple collection of facts but would unite dejure these facts in an essential unity that would speak their origin, such a discourse is a deception. Meno's aporia, left unanswered, is the thoroughgoing victory of skepticism.

>The attempt at a response to this aporia will be, in the history of philosophy, the very spring of all thought, and notably of modern thought, be it that of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche, or Heidegger; there is never any other question at stake. It is with modern philosophy, with Kant, that the question will take on the name "transcendental."

>Mathematics, synthetic a priori judgment, is the originary knowledge conditioning access to any kind of knowledge. True knowledge is, according to Plato, the recollection of this originary knowledge. With Kant, this becomes the question of transcendental knowledge that precedes and in this sense takes leave of experience, that is not founded in the empirical realm, since the transcendental is precisely the condition of possibility and hence the very foundation of all experience: facts are facts; they are, if not fabricated, at least constructed; they are only given across possibilities of interpretation that are not themselves of the order of facts. This knowledge, dating from before all experience, just as the immortality of the soul in Plato is knowledge before the fall, is a priori. It is with a mathematical example, coming from the knowledge of idealities recollected in the observation of stars, that Socrates will illustrate the truth of the myth.

>Thus understood, mathesis manifests the originary character as well as the originality of thought, and this is why thought must have the principle of its movement (arkhe) in itself: insofar as it is its own origin, as it has its arkhe, the most ancient, in itself, the thinking soul does not receive its forms of knowledge from outside but finds them again in itself. Hence, the thinking soul is self-movement, which a technical being could never be.

[Anonymous No.11955631]

>But here, this recollection—still aporetico-mythical in Meno, dogmatic after Phaedrus—can have as its sole "explanation" the immortality of the soul. "Immortal" means that which belongs to the world of being qua being, to the intelligible world, that of the stars, which is not a world of becoming. Mortality is nothing but the domain of the contingent, of forgetfulness, of becoming: passion, suffering, that which is not a principle unto itself. There can be no other access to being than as an access to what, belonging to the sphere of the fixed stars or that of divine beings, is not swept away in becoming, does not fall into the sublunary world of the artifice, of facticity (mimesis), that is, into error and ultimately corruption, denaturalization, nonbeing.

>All narratives of the origin take on a mythical turn, in that they speak what is: to speak what is qua what absolutely is, is always to endure Meno's aporia, to which a positive answer cannot be given. For there to be, in becoming (there can be an origin only when becoming is; the question of origin could never arise in a world of being), something after all, for being to be itself always the same, for it to have an identity in essence, a threshold should not be crossed but experienced. This is the difficulty Rousseau will encounter in thinking originary man as what he is in his nature, before any determination by his becoming. This will also be the very difficulty of our question: the human / the technical. When do(es) the human / the technical begin and end?

>Later, in Plato, the aporetic myth of recollection...will become a dogma, no longer the experience of a limit to be endured but the schema of an explanation of the origin that will be opposed to the fall. This dogma is, in Phaedrus, the myth of the winged soul, which is then transformed into a "metaphysics" whereby the opposition between the intelligible and the sensible becomes real; being is in reality opposed to becoming, the opposition of the soul and the body becomes the law of all philosophical discourse—and with it, the opposition between what will later be nature and culture, the human and the technical, as well as the question of technics qua writing. "Metaphysics" means retreat before the limit, negation of the aporia, a facility that philosophical thought accords itself, in the form of a dogma, in the face of the infinite number of questions opened up by it.

>This aporetic moment is one in which the aporia always ends up hardening into a mythology opposing two moments: those of purity and corruption, of before and after—the point separating them always already diluted. This is an excellent archetype of the discourse of philosophy on technics, relating through a fiction, if not by a myth, how the man of pure nature is replaced by the man of the fall, of technics and of society. This myth is the foundation, according to Claude Levi-Strauss, of modern scientific anthropology.

[Anonymous No.11955688]

>There is the origin, then the fall, forgetting, and loss. But it is quite difficult to distinguish the origin from the fall—which is to say also difficult to distinguish what is at the origin of the fall—this is particularly true in Rousseau. At any rate, the distinction must be made; it is the price to be paid for overcoming skepticism. The distinction assures all the others. The point is nevertheless that of knowing if it must be made in the mode of simple distinction, or in that of opposition, and if it is possible to distinguish without opposing. Can a difference be thought that would not be an opposition? We shall see how the thinking of différance attempts to avoid opposing differences by thinking itself qua the unity of their movement, by installing itself at the heart of becoming: becoming other.

>We have posed the question of the nature of the human. This is also the question of the nature of its origin. This is Rousseau's question. But the question of nature, evidently preliminary, which in Plato is meshed with that of being, is not at all the question of the nature of the human. This question does not interest Plato: as long as one has not asked what being (becoming) means, asking what the human is leads to a dead end. This is why the anthropocentrism of Protagoras should be condemned. Hence, anthropology is not Greek. Nor, is it, at the origin, philosophical. Greek thought is logical (dialectical), that is, ontological (the dialogue that speaks the true speaks what is). "Philosophical" means (by enduring the question) transcendental (even empiricism, when it is philosophical as in Hume, endures the transcendental question). Now anthropology is not transcendental. The anthropological (sophistic) question, and behind it anthropology qua science, dismiss the very question of the transcendental. This does not mean that they can eliminate it.

>Hume, Rousseau, Kant: there is undoubtedly a philosophical anthropology, but it is not a question of an anthropological science, of a "human science," for such a science proceeds from metaphysics; it receives its movement from metaphysics, and this is the development of the question of a priori (of the transcendental), or, to remain in line with the formulations of a philosophical empiricism, of the reflexive. Recent anthropology qua human science on the contrary suspends the question of the a priori. It is first of all a descriptive science, from which there can be an "explanatory," empirico-deductive approach to the nature of the human. This is the explanation of what the human is, of what is invariant between all sorts of humans.

nor shall there be any bog-standard shitting upon the legacy of what *has* been accomplished either. as i was ranting about in Cosmotech #6: Not Everything Is The West's Fault. the West is dope and based and omnipilled. it is unironically Promethean in every possible sense of the term. What Did It Mean By This is the question.

[Anonymous No.11955802]

skipping some commentary on Rousseau, but it's worth reading also, given that it connects to notions of JJR's Original Man, for whom tech can only be a disaster. however much everyone prefers Nietzsche, Rousseau is still a major author. he can't really be ignored completely. Stiegler's notes on *prosthesis* are also key to a lot of other stuff:

>The prosthesis is the origin of inequality. The man of pure nature has everything about himself, carries himself whole and entire about himself; his body is "the only instrument he understands"; he is never in himself in default; no fissure is at work in him that would be provoked by a process of differentiation on the outside of himself, not a differentiation of an "outside" that would be essential (interiorized) to him: he depends on no outside. This must be demonstrated, for Rousseau well knows that from the moment he no longer has everything within him, whatever he has (however little), not being a part of his being, becomes differentiated, diverges, disrupts, belongs already to the fall. Everything is inside: the origin is the inside. The fall is exteriorization.

>As long as the savage is not in the disequilibrium of freedom, as long as his perfectibility remains virtual and does not perturb the originary play between nature and his own nature, as long as his virtuality does not become real, that is technical, he does not have the feeling of death and does not anticipate: he is not in time. After this actualization of perfectibility, he is in time, and he is not only in, he practically is time, qua outside. This time he then is, this outside is also his death, his own death or the death of what is proper to him, his falling off, his denaturalization. The passage into death constitutes reason and passion by originarily binding them (reason, against the philosophical tradition, is like passion: dependency and lack of autonomy): freedom becomes perfectibility when passion replaces need or when need transforms into passion, overwhelming itself, becoming unbalanced, which is only possible when reason extends our horizon beyond what is immediately there at hand and develops our capacities for anticipation, or rather, develops itself as a capacity of anticipation.

>Because he does not have reason, the only things savage man fears and desires are impulses from nature, inscribed in its equilibrium, and they ate never due to passion. Passion qua the extension beyond what is at hand is the development of reason qua anticipation of a possible that, by nature, is not immediately there, but that can be feared and desired as capable of taking place. This can only be, in the first instance, the development of a fear, not only the fear of pain, but a form of knowledge that original man does not possess: a knowledge of death, the anxiety, melancholy, and misanthropy of the atrabilious* man.

*melancholy or ill-tempered

[Anonymous No.11955882]

>We have arrived at a decisive point of the narrative: death, time, their originary absence and their arrival qua the fall itself, the appearance of man as his disappearance, the realization of his possibility qua his derealization—it is here, then, in the double of the technical and the human, or rather in the double question of technics and the human, that the relation between anthropology and technics appears as a thanatology.

>Since original man has neither imagination nor future, nor for all that a memory or a past, he is almost without love, almost without desire. Concentrating (on an object), not being lost (with the want), desire is the memory of desire. Everything will thus have come with the feeling of death: death itself, labor, education, language, society, love. Homo oeconomicus, faber, laborans, sapiens: the logical, reasonable, or speaking animal, the politico-social animal, the desiring animal, all that traditional philosophy has always used to qualify the human race, from Plato to Aristotle to Marx and Freud—this all comes only after this accident by which man enters into the disastrous feeling of death, into melancholy.

>What Heidegger calls the already there, constitutive of the temporality of Dasein, is this past that I never lived but that is nevertheless my past, without which I never would have had any past of my own. Such a structure of inheritance and transmission, which is the very ground of facticity itself since tradition can always conceal from me the sense of the origin that it alone can transmit to me, presupposes that the phenomenon of life qua Dasein becomes singular in the history of the living to the extent that, for Dasein, the epigenetic layer of life, far from being lost with the living when it dies, conserves and sediments itself, passes itself down in "the order of survival" and to posterity as a gift as well as a debt, that is, as a destiny. This is not a "program" in the quasi-determinist biological sense, but a cipher in which the whole of Daseins existence is caught; this epigenetic sedimentation, a memorization of what has come to pass, is what is called the past, what we shall name the epiphylogenesis of man, meaning the conservation, accumulation, and sedimentation of successive epigeneses, mutually articulated.

>The ambiguity of the invention of the human, that which holds together the who and the what, binding them while keeping them apart, is différance undermining the authentic/inauthentic divide. We shall look into this at the very moment of its passage, from phusis in différance (life in general) to the différance of this différance. Différance is neither the
who nor the what, but their co-possibility, the movement of their mutual coming-to-be, of their coming into convention.

from the podcast w/Uncle Nick: "We have to get time right." Also NL saying he doesn't want to distance himself from Heidegger either ('transcendentally rigorous'). Kind of interesting to think about...

[Anonymous No.11955887]

>We have arrived at a decisive point of the narrative: death, time, their originary absence and their arrival qua the fall itself, the appearance of man as his disappearance, the realization of his possibility qua his derealization—it is here, then, in the double of the technical and the human, or rather in the double question of technics and the human, that the relation between anthropology and technics appears as a thanatology.

>Since original man has neither imagination nor future, nor for all that a memory or a past, he is almost without love, almost without desire. Concentrating (on an object), not being lost (with the want), desire is the memory of desire. Everything will thus have come with the feeling of death: death itself, labor, education, language, society, love. Homo oeconomicus, faber, laborans, sapiens: the logical, reasonable, or speaking animal, the politico-social animal, the desiring animal, all that traditional philosophy has always used to qualify the human race, from Plato to Aristotle to Marx and Freud—this all comes only after this accident by which man enters into the disastrous feeling of death, into melancholy.

>What Heidegger calls the already there, constitutive of the temporality of Dasein, is this past that I never lived but that is nevertheless my past, without which I never would have had any past of my own. Such a structure of inheritance and transmission, which is the very ground of facticity itself since tradition can always conceal from me the sense of the origin that it alone can transmit to me, presupposes that the phenomenon of life qua Dasein becomes singular in the history of the living to the extent that, for Dasein, the epigenetic layer of life, far from being lost with the living when it dies, conserves and sediments itself, passes itself down in "the order of survival" and to posterity as a gift as well as a debt, that is, as a destiny. This is not a "program" in the quasi-determinist biological sense, but a cipher in which the whole of Daseins existence is caught; this epigenetic sedimentation, a memorization of what has come to pass, is what is called the past, what we shall name the epiphylogenesis of man, meaning the conservation, accumulation, and sedimentation of successive epigeneses, mutually articulated.

>The ambiguity of the invention of the human, that which holds together the who and the what, binding them while keeping them apart, is différance undermining the authentic/inauthentic divide. We shall look into this at the very moment of its passage, from phusis in différance (life in general) to the différance of this différance. Différance is neither the who nor the what, but their co-possibility, the movement of their mutual coming-to-be, of their coming into convention.

from the podcast w/Uncle Nick: "We have to get time right." Also NL saying he doesn't want to distance himself from Heidegger either ('transcendentally rigorous'). Kind of interesting to think about...

[Anonymous No.11955969]

>>11953233
>if we are truly to move in this direction massive undertakings to expand human capabilities (ie bandwith (musks neuralink comes to mind)). but can such a radically altered being even be considered human?

Increasing bandwidth with the world is to break down the barrier separating us from the world.
It's not increasing human capability. It's dissolving the human completely.

[Anonymous No.11955980]

>>11955226
>we can at present ask a lot more questions about the nature of consciousness than we are capable of answering

I asked a question which has rarely been asked: what is the relationship between calculus, change, and consciousness? Following this line of inquiry for eight years has been a surreal adventure. I now offer this question with the hopes of not convincing you, but inspiring you in any respect.

If change is the nature of all things, and calculus is the mathematical study of change, then perhaps the foundational insights of calculus relates to the metaphysical nature of change, and our conscious experience of it. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that integration and derivation are inverse operations of each other, with integration corresponding to cumulative change, and derivation instantaneous. These correspond to two different reference frames of change. In the presentist perspective a singular omni-present moment is the fixed point of reference, and what is experienced is instantaneous change in this ever-present. This is the perspective of sense-experience. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the self is an illusion (as it requires temporality) and that past and future do not exist. In the temporalist frame it is the structure of time that is the fixed point of reference, comprised not of a singular moment but a multitude of them, with cumulative change over time experienced. This is the perspective of narrative and language. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the self is the foundation of reality (I think, therefore I am) and that what exists is what is persistent through time.

[Anonymous No.11955988]

>>11955226
The metaphysical implications of the fundamental theorem of calculus is that both reference frames of change are parts of the same non-dual whole. This is also the foundational insight of Daoism, with the Dao being the process of reality itself, the way things come together while still changing. This insight came from the observation of worldly change, and while Daoism does contain some errors it corresponds closely to the implications of calculus because it came from a careful inspection of consciously perceived change. In the memetic singularity Eastern and Western insights into the nature of change will come together, and by necessity catalyze an individual and social transformation of our relationship with change itself. Following the discussion about questions as vectors of desire, consider that the Dao means "way" and "path." The symbol of this neo-Daoism will inevitably be the integral symbol due to its similarity to the yin-yang. Its praxis will consist of mindfulness meditation and practices to cultivate awareness and the instantaneous mode of consciousness, and methodological questioning to cultivate self-authorship and effective action. Described here only as a bare sketch, it will be the ultimate self-improvement system, theory inseparable from praxis.

Nothing I have written is original. I claim that The Future is so near because all the pieces of it already exist, and are being drawn together by a kind of mimetic magnetism that comes from the convergence of mutual lines of inquiry, such as yours and mine. The undeniable truth is that the world is incredibly self-desctructively crazy, a Doomsday device made of people, and the growing awareness of it due to the acceleration of the global psychosis of capitalism compels the search for truly satisfying answers. Eutopia and Doomsday are necessarily summoned simultaneously, to overcome this greatest challenge of human history required creating it.

[Anonymous No.11955998]

also the podcast is interesting, it's cool to see where Land is at these days. he really seems to be rooting for capitalism inasmuch as it is the Spirit of Modernity itself, and in need of cultivation, like a thirsty plant. i don't think i feel the same way about it that he does - i'm still kind of a fuzzy-headed humanist at heart myself, and i kind of hope for people to be able to get along and kind of improve themselves however they can, seek grace and satori and in their own ways.

some "clarification" on what the famous numogram means: "the diagram of decimal numeracy." i still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. also modern philosophy as failed attempts to overcome Kant ('Kant is the last revolution'), plus notes on Artificial Kantian BTC-time ("The absolute intelligibility of BTC as episode in the history of transcendental philosophy...Satoshi Nakamoto's BTC paper as a crucial masterpiece in transcendental philosophy.")

i wonder if he's right. seems like an interesting way to smash Kant and Marx together, anyways. also seems like a recipe for huge numbers of angry and confused people converting to ideologies that make things Real Simple and inclined to storm office buildings in the financial district and god only knows what else.

it just continually seems to me like keeping a low profile, being humble and kind, eating your vegetables, getting lots of sleep, keeping a journal and emulating your nondual mystic-visionary of choice seems like the way to whether the storm. Uncle Nick is incredibly interesting but sometimes it's like watching the construction of a laser turret on the Death Star. you know it will work and that it has spectacularly destructive power, the power to make or unmake worlds. but there's no way to outsmart that process either, and no way to write any number of papers that will either make you feel better about being either right or wrong about it. there will be Suffering. all one can do is hope that Wisdom follows from it, perhaps.

but we have ventured into Awesome Opinions territory here, so perhaps that is the signal to stop. we're about halfway through Technics and Time vol I. a pleasure as always. hope you enjoyed this evening's Wild Ride. more Cosmotech soon! and best of luck answering this perennial question also.

Ludovico Einaudi: Nightbook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tCn-k6eBeE

[Anonymous No.11956007]

>>11955998
*weather

[Anonymous No.11956040]

>>11954970
Why are non-nihilists so insecure?

[Anonymous No.11956045]

>>11955998
I worked in cryptocurrency finance for a while. I can really get behind a philosophical analysis of the Satoshi whitepaper, but I'm afraid he's going to base major sections of his book on precarious assumptions like "digital currency". Despite the publicity explosion last year, crypto is still so poorly understood that I don't really expect anybody, especially those in the tech end of cryptocurrency, to grasp what the fuck it's about.

But Land will probably grasp at least the most important aspect of cryptocurrency, which is that encryption itself can be used to create a cybernetic incentive structure which is indebted only to the self-perpetuating circuitry of its own mathematics. Most people familiar with Land and crypto seem to take various grandiose and circular stances regarding what that actually means for capital.

[Anonymous No.11956107]

>>11955998
>it's like watching the construction of a laser turret on the Death Star. you know it will work and that it has spectacularly destructive power, the power to make or unmake worlds. but there's no way to outsmart that process either, and no way to write any number of papers that will either make you feel better about being either right or wrong about it. there will be Suffering.

You can look at unconditional acclerationism in a certain way as the ideology of 'always taking the winning side'.

[Anonymous No.11956213]

>>11955988
>the way things come together while still changing
Which also parallels the Kantian synthesis that Land talked about a lot in his pre-neuromancer era. The fact that both sides of the process are changed by coming together, and in a manner which does not suggest mere compromise but progression, is fundamental, especially to the Marxist criticism of globalization that serves as a scaffold for the construction of a lot of what comes later.

[Anonymous No.11956220]

Hope you don't mind if I contribute with an excerpt of 'The Book of the Machines' from Samuel Butler's Erewhon, one of my favourite books. It seemed quite relevant to the earlier half of this thread.


>‘It can be answered that even though machines should hear never so well and speak never so wisely, they will still always do the one or the other for our advantage, not their own; that man will be the ruling spirit and the machine the servant; that as soon as a machine fails to discharge the service which man expects from it, it is doomed to extinction; that the machines stand to man simply in the relation of lower animals, the vapour-engine itself being only a more economical kind of horse; so that instead of being likely to be developed into a higher kind of life than man’s, they owe their very existence and progress to their power of ministering to human wants, and must therefore both now and ever be man’s inferiors.

>‘This is all very well. But the servant glides by imperceptible approaches into the master; and we have come to such a pass that, even now, man must suffer terribly on ceasing to benefit the machines. If all machines were to be annihilated at one moment, so that not a knife nor lever nor rag of clothing nor anything whatsoever were left to man but his bare body alone that he was born with, and if all knowledge of mechanical laws were taken from him so that he could make no more machines, and all machine-made food destroyed so that the race of man should be left as it were naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few miserable individuals might linger, but even these in a year or two would become worse than monkeys. Man’s very soul is due to the machines; it is a machine-made thing: he thinks as he thinks, and feels as he feels, through the work that machines have wrought upon him, and their existence is quite as much a sine qua non for his, as his for theirs. This fact precludes us from proposing the complete annihilation of machinery, but surely it indicates that we should destroy as many of them as we can possibly dispense with, lest they should tyrannise over us even more completely.

1/2

[Anonymous No.11956225]

>>11956220
>‘True, from a low materialistic point of view, it would seem that those thrive best who use machinery wherever its use is possible with profit; but this is the art of the machines—they serve that they may rule. They bear no malice towards man for destroying a whole race of them provided he creates a better instead; on the contrary, they reward him liberally for having hastened their development. It is for neglecting them that he incurs their wrath, or for using inferior machines, or for not making sufficient exertions to invent new ones, or for destroying them without replacing them; yet these are the very things we ought to do, and do quickly; for though our rebellion against their infant power will cause infinite suffering, what will not things come to, if that rebellion is delayed?

>‘They have preyed upon man’s grovelling preference for his material over his spiritual interests, and have betrayed him into supplying that element of struggle and warfare without which no race can advance. The lower animals progress because they struggle with one another; the weaker die, the stronger breed and transmit their strength. The machines being of themselves unable to struggle, have got man to do their struggling for them: as long as he fulfils this function duly, all goes well with him—at least he thinks so; but the moment he fails to do his best for the advancement of machinery by encouraging the good and destroying the bad, he is left behind in the race of competition; and this means that he will be made uncomfortable in a variety of ways, and perhaps die.

>‘So that even now the machines will only serve on condition of being served, and that too upon their own terms; the moment their terms are not complied with, they jib, and either smash both themselves and all whom they can reach, or turn churlish and refuse to work at all. How many men at this hour are living in a state of bondage to the machines? How many spend their whole lives, from the cradle to the grave, in tending them by night and day? Is it not plain that the machines are gaining ground upon us, when we reflect on the increasing number of those who are bound down to them as slaves, and of those who devote their whole souls to the advancement of the mechanical kingdom?

2/2

Erewhon is interesting on many fronts, and is one of the most spookily prescient things I've ever read. I would recommend it to anyone ITT.

[Anonymous No.11956357]

>>11956220
>>11956225
Good shit.

>Man’s very soul is due to the machines; it is a machine-made thing: he thinks as he thinks, and feels as he feels, through the work that machines have wrought upon him, and their existence is quite as much a sine qua non for his, as his for theirs.

I feel like an anthropologist might say that man is simply good enough at incorporating tools into his cognitive processes that he eventually considers the tool as an extension of himself. And isn't that the tired phrase used to indicate mastery in any of the world's various disciplines? Man is a modular framework for the application of tools. A formless proto-being perfectly engineered to sculpt himself into any form necessary to better utilize machinery and technology.

A bit deeper within Stand on Zanzibar, I found another quote that I can now ascribe a bit more significance to. I quoted it a couple times a thread or two ago, and it's one of the earliest and most important pieces of fiction to prelude to where we've ended up now.

>"These days, a great many people never left their homes at night except for some specific purpose, when they could call a cab to the door and expose themselves for no longer than it took to cross a sidewalk. It wasn't inevitably dangerous to wander the night streets of the city - the hundreds of thousands who did still do so were proof enough of that."

The character in question is discovering that the streets of the city at night have gained some kind of mystical danger, an irrational air of hostility brought on by overwrought news reports and tales of muggings, murders, and the like. A phenomenon well underway by the time it was written in the 1960s, but a lucid derision of a phenomenon central to urban decay. What has remained with us since then is the carcinogenic allure of convenience. If we are allowed to, we will sit alone at our desks for fifteen hours a day, summoning crystalline landscapes of pure capital, and go to sleep for the remainder. Today we are not so far from that as we pretend. Cities are awash with post-taxi human networking services, food delivery, grocery delivery, remote work. The organic requirements of urban life, meager as they are compared to those of subsistence, are eroded completely by the corrosion of convenience, fueled by capital. Concerns of community and socialization are accidents of social evolution, replaced by political alignment and social media so that humanity can pass without significant interruption from generating surplus value from their labor to generating value by consuming and being marketed towards. What little exposure we have to the land outside our homes and offices is mostly dissociated through the glass enclosure of the automobile, which no interaction can penetrate.

Of course, I'm probably also the least pessimistic one here regarding the true nature of cities, and there are caveats to all of this which give us opportunities to live in between bouts of summoning Wintermute.

[Anonymous No.11956676]

>>11954970

The problem here is that a Hegelian metaphysics seems way more fit to explain the emergence of technology and its prominence in our lives (with the sudden technological leaps we have been experiencing in the last century) than a metaphysics of relation. Moreover, theorizing a metaphysics of process does not mean necessarily to theorize a teleological movement for it, as Hegel did: focusing on becoming does not entail posing an ultimate end for becoming. Moreover, how do you explain the emergence of technology? I mean, you could try and Julius Evola your way out of it, saying that either this is the (dark) end of a cycle or that history has lost his path - but again, why would that happen? The risk of Hegelian metaphysics is that it justifies everything in a process-oriented historical view, but on the other hand it is effective because there is no being derailed out of history, there are no missteps. And technology has become such a great part of our lives that I find it increasingly difficult to describe it as a misstep.

[Anonymous No.11956722]

I know it's been a minute, but can anyone explain to me this whole "capital is sentient" shiz and why it had to do with a solar flare (if it did). And did it have to do with this book??

[Anonymous No.11956725]

>>11956722
I dont want an explanation of what it means, just its connection to the solar flare and the cyclonopaedia

[Anonymous No.11956797]

>>11955688
>>11955631
>>11955602
>>11955560

>all that traditional philosophy has always used to qualify the human race, from Plato to Aristotle to Marx and Freud—this all comes only after this accident by which man enters into the disastrous feeling of death, into melancholy.

Feels like there is a lot of generalization and unnecessary reduction going on here (especially about the myth of anamnesis, which first of all is not a myth and second has never been a dogma nor a main part of Plato's doctrine since it's mentioned and three dialogues - Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus - and then never again). I get that he finds this narrative somehow problematic, I don't understand why - something to do with the conception of time coming with it? Something with its being "anthropocentric" in the sense of being focused on the structure of human desire and/or search for knowledge? - Also, what is his alternative?

[Anonymous No.11957521]

bump

[Anonymous No.11957549]

>>11956676
>Moreover, how do you explain the emergence of technology?
Peirceian semiotics

[Anonymous No.11957634]

>>11955980
>In the presentist perspective a singular omni-present moment is the fixed point of reference, and what is experienced is instantaneous change in this ever-present. This is the perspective of sense-experience. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the self is an illusion (as it requires temporality) and that past and future do not exist. In the temporalist frame it is the structure of time that is the fixed point of reference, comprised not of a singular moment but a multitude of them, with cumulative change over time experienced. This is the perspective of narrative and language. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the self is the foundation of reality (I think, therefore I am) and that what exists is what is persistent through time.

this is a really great post. a lot of it resonates with what has been my own experience. in a very crude sense:
Step 1: Start With The Greeks
Step 2: Get Fucked with the French (and Alienated avec les Allemands)
Step 3: Go East Young Man
Step 4: Experience Ego-Death
Step 5: Become Homesick
Step 6: Return to the Blood War

in some sense, it has been my experience that the self *is* a habit, a name is only the description of a process, and words are only ever a finger pointing at the moon. which would all be fine, if it weren't for the nagging feeling that even an illusory finger pointing at an illusory moon can also paint a fairly high-resolution picture of what is actually happening, in some sense.

clinging to the self, and basically carting it around with you everywhere in a sort of private heliocentric way, is what makes life impossible. i am forever indebted to Heidegger and Lacan for crowbarring me out of this, in some sense, and alerting me to the fundamental inability of language to ever really match up with what it is trying to describe. and yet at the same time it is also the case that language has never really failed to describe its object, it's that the subject is usually just *dissatisfied* with the description, while the object remains both a mystery and perfectly clear. the exercise can be a rather humbling one. this seems to have been in some sense Baudrillard's conclusion as well, who went to the moon and back looking for perspective and in the end found his own inner balance in a kind of Dangerous Liaisons game with theory itself. a similar process happens with Land also, though with different results.

neither of those men really had much regard for the East - present or ancient- it seems (Lacan, on the Japanese: 'These people can't be psychoanalyzed!'), although Baudrillard did to seem to enjoy his visits there and enjoyed some popularity abroad, as did Roland Barthes, and Heidegger was warmly received.

anyways. this much to say: i really liked this post. the 'presentist perspective' - like dragging your own Thing everywhere, like an icon that everyone can see you are carrying, but you cannot - it's something i feel like i can relate to.

[Anonymous No.11957643]

>>11950708
I'm enjoying these threads and enjoy the links provided but I think we need to define and explain some of these points better. Excessive jargon isnt going to help.

[Anonymous No.11957676]

>>11955988
>The metaphysical implications of the fundamental theorem of calculus is that both reference frames of change are parts of the same non-dual whole. This is also the foundational insight of Daoism, with the Dao being the process of reality itself, the way things come together while still changing. This insight came from the observation of worldly change, and while Daoism does contain some errors it corresponds closely to the implications of calculus because it came from a careful inspection of consciously perceived change.

i read the Tao Te Ching pretty often also (although you wouldn't know it, given the way that i post). it rarely fails to persuade. the Analects now and again too. i like that Confucius is, at bottom, an ultimately warm-hearted man: without humanity, without compassion, without sageliness, there is no Way.

but this idea, of epistemology and ontology woven into each other like a yin-yang, oscillating and reversing, a perpetual state of enantiodromia...it just seems like a natural truth about the nature of the universe. Hegel/PoS is without a doubt one of the wilder books in the history of philosophy, and so it's not like Cosmic Nondualism is limited to the Eastern perspective, nor is it to be forgotten that however one might say that Heidegger is only putting forward what the East has known for millennia, still, Heidegger does it with some incredibly awesome language and precision. Hegel also.

>In the memetic singularity Eastern and Western insights into the nature of change will come together, and by necessity catalyze an individual and social transformation of our relationship with change itself.

this is my hope too, i think. that we will get able to get the best of both worlds, in a way, an integrate them into a real platform for human understanding of a lot of things: the self, others, the world, time, technics, history, and much else. it's why i liked what YH said about the Qi-Dao relation - or, for that matter, why it is that Laozi and Confucius (and the Buddha) also, manage to get along so well, as the Vinegar Tasters show. they're all looking at the one phenomenon. but such a syncretism is not limited to the East, either: just look at the School of Athens. the West can throw quite a party of its own too when it wants to.

>Following the discussion about questions as vectors of desire, consider that the Dao means "way" and "path." The symbol of this neo-Daoism will inevitably be the integral symbol due to its similarity to the yin-yang. Its praxis will consist of mindfulness meditation and practices to cultivate awareness and the instantaneous mode of consciousness, and methodological questioning to cultivate self-authorship and effective action. Described here only as a bare sketch, it will be the ultimate self-improvement system, theory inseparable from praxis.

to me at least this is why i have so much love for YH and Cosmotechnics. machines and technics are important, but so is the psyche.

[Anonymous No.11957723]

>>11956220
>>11956225
super-relevant. ty for posting this anon. i believe Erewhon is referenced in the Accelerate reader also:

>In Erewhon's 'Book of the Machines', Samuel Butler develops Marx's extrapolations of the machine system into a full-scale machinic delirium, extending an intrinsic science-fictional aspect of his theoretical project which also entails a speculative anthropology: if technology is bound up with the capitalist decanting of primitive and feudal man into a new mode of social being, then a speculation on what machines will become is also a speculation on what the human is and might be. In line with the integration that at once fascinates Marx and yet which he must denounce as a fantasy of capital, Butler's vision, a panmachinism that will later be inspirational for Deleuze and Guattari. refuses any special natural or originary privilege to human labour: Seen from the future, might the human prove nothing but a pollinator of a machine civilization to come?

link here:
https://libcom.org/files/Accelerate%20-%20Robin%20Mackay.pdf

>>11956357
i gotta read Stand on Zanzibar, don't i.

>>11956676
>The risk of Hegelian metaphysics is that it justifies everything in a process-oriented historical view, but on the other hand it is effective because there is no being derailed out of history, there are no missteps. And technology has become such a great part of our lives that I find it increasingly difficult to describe it as a misstep.
this. brilliant. this is exactly the Fun House aspect of the Wild Ride: or, as it been better expressed in a movie tagline, You Can't Stop Progress. i haven't seen the film, so i can't speak for that, but it's also the plot of Terminator 2 (and, before this, and in an even more primordial-mythic form, the Sorcerer's Apprentice). the Spirit-Dialectic is real, in a sense. it does explain Napoleon, at least (as much as philosophers can ever explain Great Man theory). but today, perhaps, things have moved now into this technological dimension, and so Wat Do is the perennial question.

>>11956722
>>11956725
>capital is sentient
i feel like this has become a fun meme to kind of throw around, but it's usually done without much engagement. it is what land is saying, to some degree, that's true. but you will have to read Teleoplexy for more details (it can be found in the Accelerate reader). it's not even really all that complicated once you understand it. basically it's technological determinism by way of capitalism.

as for Reza and Cyclonopedia we may have to do a deep-dive on him later. i personally found that book hard going, but Reza is no dummy and he's up there with Land in the grand hierarchy of this kind of philosophy. we're all waiting on Intelligence and Spirit to come out now. but maybe someone else ITT can give you a better explanation than i can atm. if Cosmotech keeps rolling we can definitely Negarestanisize ourselves in further detail at some point.

[Anonymous No.11957773]

>>11956797
>I get that he finds this narrative somehow problematic, I don't understand why - something to do with the conception of time coming with it? Something with its being "anthropocentric" in the sense of being focused on the structure of human desire and/or search for knowledge? - Also, what is his alternative?

hopefully some of the forthcoming greentext from the second part of T&T (part 1) will illuminate this. he does, it's true, reference Derrida - who i am tempted to call, as befits the nature of discourse in the Trumpocene era - Doomsday Jacques. in one of the earlier threads there was a somewhat hostile anon who accused me of not only trying to smuggle in Jung but Derrida to, and i responded to them (apparently prematurely) by saying, no way man, no way! and yet here we are. first Jung ('enantiodromia,' although this is in Heraclitus as well) and now Derrida.

now on the grand hierarchy of /lit/ Those Who Shall Not Be Named, Derrida is probably below Foucault. NB: as for me, i began my own philosophy adventure trying to escape Derrida's shadow, as there is a Derrida scholar in my family and i had no ends of arguments with him about these things before I had done the reading, and so there is something weird about my own needing to give Derrida his props in order to talk about guys that i have come to like. Mea culpa! but it's true. Stiegler does go to Derrida to make some key points about this story, and i'm highlighting this because generally i think much of /lit/ will have the impression after JBP that Derrida was an emissary of the Dark One and engaged in a plot to undermine Western Civilization. in my experience that is not true, but it's not like Derrida doesn't have faults of his own (and the same can be said for Heidegger, Foucault, Jung, and many others).

for an actually good critique of 20C intellectual hybris, pic rel is quite good. JBP has tweeted about Hicks' book Postmodernism, but Hicks is an Objectivist and not the most charitable reader. i also found Wolin's The Seduction of Unreason good also. Derrida will be a tough sell, i expect, but it's one of situations where the only way out is through, imho. shrieking Deconstruction, Kill It With Fire 11!1 won't get us anywhere.

but i thought that was worth noting in advance. again, i'm more or less okay-ish with Derrida now, having digested Heidegger, and enough other guys that mention of the word Deconstruction no longer sends me into a frothing rage. but nobody - nobody - should ever begin their own adventure in philosophy with Derrida, imho. /lit/ is right: Start With The Greeks. but by the time we get to Uncle Nick et al we are a long way from the Greeks, and so some time spent with Doomsday Jacques is also required, imho.

[Anonymous No.11957822]

>>11957643
>I'm enjoying these threads and enjoy the links provided but I think we need to define and explain some of these points better. Excessive jargon isnt going to help.

sure. one of the things that it would be nice to see percolate up from these threads would be a more user-friendly Guide to Acceleration for the Uninitiated. i don't really know how to go about this myself, tbqh. i feel like i've read enough of these guys on my own to be more or less okay with the jargon, but i don't always know how well this stuff carries with people reading it, some of which may be reading it for the first time. and also because one of the things about the really big-shots of continental theory is that they tend to introduce a lot of their own language and terms to make their points. Off the top of my head:

Heidegger: Gestell
Doomsday Jacques: différance
D&G: rhizome, BwO
Uncle Nick: teleoplexy, acceleration
Stiegler: epimetheia
YH: cosmotechnics
Simondon: individuation, transduction

and there are surely many more. so you've got this, on the one hand, and then the even crazier desire of some (read: me) to assemble all of this into a single story, that being the Wild Ride. and only a fool or a madman or a tyrant would attempt to do such a thing.

>what were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? whither is it moving now? whither are we moving? away from all suns? are we not plunging continually? backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? is there still any up or down? are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?
>yes inner self we are
>nietzsche's cool
>yes he is inner self. but he will make your head explode

anyways. i'm definitely open to exploring whatever you might have in mind that you think could make this a little more digestible. the Cosmotech loop, imho, runs from Hegel to Land (and back again, possibly...) in an Oroboros spiral. so inasmuch as you would like to talk about particular ideas or things encountered along the way, i'm game anon. feel free to throw up a signal and we can see what the collective hivemind can do to make your stay on the Wild Ride more comfortable
>the better to take in the mind-devouring horror that lays before you
>kind a strange combination that, i will admit
>but that's pretty much the deal

[Anonymous No.11957870]

>>11956107
>You can look at unconditional acclerationism in a certain way as the ideology of 'always taking the winning side'.

which is lamest position to take too, imho. i don't know what strain of /acc i fall into. maybe Ostrich Acceleration: just kind of stick my head in the sand in an attempt to block it all out, and yet nevertheless feeling the vibrations on my skull when i am down there. and so occasionally to shitpost about this before returning again. o/acc.

>>11956045
>But Land will probably grasp at least the most important aspect of cryptocurrency, which is that encryption itself can be used to create a cybernetic incentive structure which is indebted only to the self-perpetuating circuitry of its own mathematics. Most people familiar with Land and crypto seem to take various grandiose and circular stances regarding what that actually means for capital.

i think he will. in the podcast he said it was like climbing Everest, it seems to be driving him nuts. in Templexity i get the feeling that all he wanted to do was write a film review of Looper and it wound up turning into an 80-page essay on Shanghai Futurism, time travel and cybernetics. Uncle Nick is a unique specimen. and whatever he writes will be worth reading in the end, i expect. i am looking forward to it tho.

thus ends the Awesome Opinions period. onward once more for No Fame and No Fortune. in this sequence Stiegler has dialed the wheel all the way back to the Zinjanthropian period. this should be interesting.

[Anonymous No.11957883]

>>11957822
I'm not afraid so much of the jargon that we should ditch it but I think one of the other suggestions worthwhile is a book chart or book flow to get an idea. I've read a little heidegger but the ones that come after him I'm unsure of where to go.

For jargon do we have a means of some wiki to update terms and flesh them out in basic definitions? Even give examples of dialectic or applications of cosmotech.

[Anonymous No.11957944]

>>11957883
my feeling is that - the universe has a sense of humor - the definitions we want usually tend to come at the *end* of an adventure. that's been my own experience, anyways. you get to the end of a thing and go, well, if it's so simple, why didn't they just say that in the first place? and mostly it's because authors don't necessarily know how to do this, or even what it is that makes them talk in a certain way.

consider JBP, he's a prime example of this. he likes to go out and rent an entire theatre for three hours and then kind of gets on stage and just talks it all out. i feel very much like this myself, tbqh. if i really knew everything that i was trying to say at the start, and could put it all into a guide or something, maybe that's what i would do. but i actually don't. i'm not super-strong with all of the terminology myself, or how it connects, or why some things are more relevant than others, and so on.

put another way, i'm in many ways as confused as anyone else is on a lot of this stuff. i've done some reading on my own, but in terms of things that would make life easier to understand, the fact is that i would like this as much as anyone else! so i'm both interested in the question and happy to contribute to it however i can, but i actually can't provide a lot of it myself on demand, if that makes sense. what i can do is kind of offer directions to whatever i have found useful, along with my own schizo-rambling...which can often make things even more confusing!

in terms of a flow-chart or book chart, i did make a kind of a meme bibliography that i posted in the OP of Cosmotech #6. it's a long list, and it doesn't have any kind of order to it, but it's a start, at least.
>>/lit/thread/S11823861#p11835482

as for dialectic or applications of Cosmotech...basically, my own feeling atm is that it's a way of looking at the story of continental philosophy from Hegel to Land, and in a way that doesn't, perhaps, just a) leave the reader twisting in the wind or b) just seem like so much castle-building-in-the-sky. Marx flips Hegel on his head, but it might not be so crazy to say that Land re-flips Hegel back again (and flips Marx). that is perhaps a very basic image to start with. but the implications of this are extensive, and it is a long story just between Hegel and Land.

and so a lot of authors have been discussed along the way, but the Big Three Masters of Suspicion - Marx, Freud, Nietzsche - together with the Original Progenitors (the German Idealists) and the Later Disciples - Lacan, D&G, Land - are more or less the stars and leading lights of this thing. how we might disembark from the Wild Ride is perhaps YH's contribution, who gets there by way of Stiegler and Simondon.

as for a Wiki or glossary of terms, i'd love this. there will be a lot of terms in it, but hey. like you, i didn't invent this game. i don't even know how it works (or why, for that matter, i insist on playing it).

[Anonymous No.11957980]

>>11957944
>>11957883
>the Big Three Masters of Suspicion - Marx, Freud, Nietzsche - together with the Original Progenitors (the German Idealists) and the Later Disciples - Lacan, D&G, Land - are more or less the stars and leading lights of this thing.

and i forgot pic rel in there, who obviously plays a pretty huge role of his own, maybe even the decisive one. in the podcast i was listening to last night, Land was saying quite a lot about Kant in the usual way, but he was also saying (and indicated as much in the Murphy interview) that he didn't want to stray too far from Heidegger either. and certainly MH is That Dude as far as YH and Stiegler are concerned. so...yeah.

once we are through our reading of T&T (1) we can perhaps recap some of the reasons why Heidegger matters in the world today v/technology (and prosthetic memory, and tertiary protention, and other stuff). as indicated, YH has a book coming out in the Spring all about recursivity and contingency, and those seem like pretty germane things to think about in the 21C. but - alas - we must wait! gaarrrrh.

anyways, all of this to say that i'm still kind of fleshing out as much of what this all means as anyone else is anon. but i'm mos def interested in whatever stuff happens peripherally that can make it more clear, or accessible, or engaging. 'twould be a good feeling. and it would be neat to see. Cosmotech both is and is not Acceleration - in many ways, it is a kind of deviation or departure from it, because Acceleration will burn you out too quickly (and if you check Land's twitter, he seems to think NRx may be dead also). and i really like YH's ideas of a *kind* of moral metaphysics to accompany this, especially if it complements and doesn't just *resist* what Stiegler (and maybe even Sloterdijk?) are saying about (anthropo-)technics also.

it's quite a story, in other words.

[Anonymous No.11958025]

>To enter these questions, we shall focus on the passage into the human leading from the Zinjanthropian to the Neanthropian. This ground breaking, which is that of corticalization, is also effected in stone, in the course of the slow evolution of techniques of stonecutting. An evolution so slow—it still occurs at the rhythm of "genetic drift"— that one can hardly imagine the human as its operator, that is, as its inventor; rather, one much more readily imagines the human as what is invented.

>The emergence of this being—producer, constructor, if not conceiver—begins then in a process of neurological evolution. However, on the one hand, it is no longer strictly a matter of a zoological phenomenon: the most archaic technical evolution is already no longer "genetically programmed"; on the other hand, beyond the Neanthropian, this process continues as pure technological evolution, the organization of the cortex being genetically stabilized. How are we to understand this second rupture? What is at stake between these first two coups of the "origin"? What epigenetic question does that open up?

>One must first ask what mirage of the cortex is experienced, as pathbreaking, in the hardness of flint; what plasticity of gray matter corresponds to the flake of mineral matter; what proto-stage of the mirror is thus installed. One must then ask what the closure of the cortical evolution of the human implies from the vantage of a general history of life, the closure of the cortical evolution of the human, and therefore the pursuit of the evolution of the living by other means than life—which is what the history of technics consists in, from the first flaked pebbles to today, a history that is also the history of humanity—a statement that will lead us to the unusual concept of "epiphylogenesis."

>This analysis based on the work of Leroi-Gourhan will also allow for a dialogue with Jacques Derrida around the concept of différance, as this concept describes the process of life of which the human is a singular case, but only a case. What is in question is not emptying the human of all specificity but radically challenging the border between the animal and the human. Such an aim encounters problems, to be set out in volume two of this work, that can be compared to those met in (at least) the relativization of the specificity of alphabetic linear writing. It is a case of the same reasoning starting with different names: (I) if the privilege granted to linear writing by Hegel and Rousseau is logocentric, (2) if metaphysics is logocentric and vice versa, (3) if all metaphysics are humanist and vice versa, (4) then all humanisms are logocentric.

i take it back anon. you were right. turns out there was both Jung and Derrida in this thing. i will now light myself on fire.

[Anonymous No.11958050]

>To privilege alphabetic writing is to privilege man: "phono-logocentrism" is always anthropo-logocentrism, whatever philosophy may say on the subject in general. To oppose speech to writing is always also to oppose man to animal in opposing him in the same stroke to the technical. However, it must not be forgotten that if grammatology is not "one of the sciences of man, [this is] because it asks first, as its characteristic question, the question of the name of man." How does grammatology pose this question? By calling man (or his unity) into question, and by forging the concept of différance, which is nothing else than the history of life. If grammatology thinks the graphie, and if in so doing it thinks the name of man, this is accomplished by elaborating a concept of différance that calls on the paleoanthropology of Leroi-Gourhan and does so to the extent that Leroi-Gourhan describes "the unity of man and the human adventure [no longer] by the simple possibility of the graphie in general, [but] rather as a stage or an articulation in the history of life—of what I have called différance—as the history of the gramme," while calling on the notion of program.

>Leroi-Gourhan's anthropology can be thought from within an essentially non-anthropocentric concept that does not take for granted the usual divides between animality and humanity. Derrida bases his own thought of différance as a general history of life, that is, as a general history of the gramme, on the concept of program insofar as it can be found on both sides of such divides. Since the gramme is older than the specifically human written forms, and because the letter is nothing without it, the conceptual unity that différance is contests the opposition animal/human and, in the same move, the opposition nature/culture. "Intentional consciousness" finds the origin of its possibility before the human; it is nothing else but "the emergence that has the gramme appearing as such." We are left with the question of determining what the conditions of such an emergence of the "gramme as such" are, and the consequences as to the general history of life and/or of the gramme. This will be our question. The history of the gramme is that of electronic files and reading machines as well—a history of technics—which is the invention of the human. As object as well as subject. The technical inventing the human, the human inventing the technical. Technics as inventive as well as in- vented. This hypothesis destroys the traditional thought of technics, from Plato to Heidegger and beyond.

sometimes i don't even know why i bother correcting these for typos, as i suspect that the mere mention of the name of Doomsday Jacques will have already produced Fucking Dropped and Stopped Right there in abundance. and yet the Ghost Dance must go on. Stiegler will return to the more sober-minded anthropological stuff in a moment. but he does have a reason for connecting Derrida to his Materia Grid.

[Anonymous No.11958107]

>Différance is the history of life in general, in which an articulation is produced, a stage of différance out of which emerges the possibility of making the gramme as such, that is, "consciousness," appear. The task here will be to specify this stage. We shall refer to a double rupture in the histoty of life—of what comes to pass or what passes, between two blows, two coups received by différance in general from a specific différance: the Zinjanthropian and the Neanthropian are the names of these two coups. What takes place here, the place of this event, is the passage from the genetic to the nongenetic.

>Différance means both differentiation and deferral, a spacing of time and a temporalization of space...

>[Doomsday Jacques]: Concepts that I would summarize here in a word I have never used but that could be inscribed in this chain: temporization. Différer in this sense is to temporize, to take recourse, consciously or un- consciously, in the temporal and temporizing mediation of a detour that suspends the accomplishment or fulfillment of "desire..." this temporization is also temporalization and spacing, the becoming time of space and the becoming-space of time...

>The ambiguity of the invention of the human, that which holds together the who and the what, binding them while keeping them apart, is différance undermining the authentic/inauthentic divide. We shall look into this at the very moment of its passage, from phusis in différance (life in general) to the différance of this différance. Différance is neither the who nor the what, but their co-possibility, the movement of their mutual coming-to-be, of their coming into convention. The who is nothing without the what, and conversely. Différance is below and beyond the who and the what; it poses them together, a composition engendering the illusion of an opposition. The passage is a mirage: the passage of the cortex into flint, like a mirror proto-stage. This proto-mirage is the paradoxical and aporetic beginning of "exteriorization." It is accomplished between the Zinjanthropian and the Neanthropian, for hundreds of thousands of years in the course of which the work in flint begins, the meeting of matter whereby the cortex reflects itself. Reflecting itself, like a mirrored psyche, an archaeo- or paleontological mode of reflexivity, somber, buried, freeing itself slowly from the shadows like a statue out of a block of marble. The paradox is to have to speak of an exteriorization without a preceding interior: the interior is constituted in exteriorization.

again, i know. Derrida. Doomsday Jacques. unironically. i'm as surprised to be here as you are.

[Anonymous No.11958136]

>Hominization is for Leroi-Gourhan a rupture in the movement of freeing (or mobilization) characteristic of life. This rupture happens suddenly, in the form of a process of exteriorization which, from the point of view of paleontology, means that the appearance of the human is the appearance of the technical. Leroi-Gourhan specifies this as the appearance of language. The movement inherent in this process of exteriorization is paradoxical: Leroi-Gourhan in fact says that it is the tool, that is, tekhnê, that invents the human, not the human who invents the technical. Or again: the human invents himself in the technical by inventing the tool—by becoming exteriorized techno-logically.

>But here the human is the interior: there is no exteriorization that does not point to a movement from interior to exterior. Nevertheless, the interior is inverted in this movement; it can therefore not precede it. Interior and exterior are consequently constituted in a movement that invents both one and the other: a moment in which they invent each other respectively, as if there were a technological maieutic of what is called humanity. The interior and the exterior are the same thing, the inside is the outside, since man (the interior) is essentially defined by the tool (the exterior). However, this double constitution is also that of an opposition between the interior and the exterior—or one that produces an illusion of succession. Where does this illusion come from? To anticipate the next section, let us say that it comes from an originary forgetting, êpimêtheia as delay, the fault of Epimetheus. This becomes meaningful only in the melancholy of Prometheus, as anticipation of death, where the facticity of the already-there that equipment is for the person born into the world signifies the end: this is a Promethean structure of being-for-death, a structure in which concern is not the simple covering-over of Eigenlichkeit. This is the question of time.

>Leroi-Gourhan attempts to resolve this paradox by positing that the technics of the Zinjanthropian is still a quasi-zoology. This is why there is an intermediary period, between the Zinjanthropian who is already a man, and the Neanthropian opening onto the human that we are—if we are still human: this partition calls into question the unity of the human. Between the two is set up the definition of a cortex that, after the Neanthropian, will no longer evolve. It is in this period that the coupling cortex/flint, living matter / inert matter, will be elaborated, when a double plasticity will be woven, where the hardness of mineral matter will both inform and be informed in the fluidity of "spiritual" immateriality (which is still matter, a mode of being, differing and deferring, of matter), work that is still genetic, but that is already governed by epigenesis as epiphylogenesis, that is, by an epigenesis that the flint support conserves. Flint is the first reflective memory, the first mirror.

[Anonymous No.11958178]

>>11957980
>tertiary protention
This comes from husserl correct? The one that was heidegger advisor? I definitely think heidegger is the kick start to this entire thing. Not only in re looking at techne and what it means but the additional discussion of being and what that does or may mean. To me in some way the comsotech is trying to identify the patterns of the modern world and then discussion can begin to find a way forward after this. A way to figure out how being can exist in this world I guess.

[Anonymous No.11958179]

>If paleontology thus ends up with the statement that the hand frees speech, language becomes indissociable from technicity and prostheticity: it must be thought with them, like them, in them, or from the same origin as theirs: from within their mutual essence.

>By inscribing his description of hominization in the very long history of the living animal, Leroi-Gourhan shows how all the elements quite anciently come into play for the emergence of a general system of a certain function that remains unique: the human, that is, technology, "exuded" by the skeleton. There is no sudden and miraculous rise of a totally constituted human: technics, which is the synthesis of the different criteria of humanity, which is the very criterion, can only be understood in a zoological perspective, even if it is impossible to remain solely within this perspective, which is not without epistemological problems.

>Mobility, rather than intelligence, is the "significant feature," unless intelligence is intelligible only as a type of mobility. What is specific to the human is the movement of putting itself outside the range of its own hand, locking onto the animal process of "liberation": "the brain was not the cause of developments in locomotor adaptation but their beneficiary." The hand never has anything within its range. Prostheticity, here a consequence of the freedom of the hand, is a putting-outside-the-self that is also a putting-out-of-range-of-oneself. Pursuing the "process of liberation," the installation of this techno-logical complex nevertheless brings on a rupture.

>At the end of the process of mobilization, which is also that of "liberation," and with liberation becoming "exteriorization," a particular type of cortical organization of the brain appears on the scene by which evolution takes on "an extra-organic sense." Is the sense "spirit"? For the moment the only issue is the appearance of technics, which is liberation when it becomes exteriorization, but which must be thought from out of the extremely remote biological past in which the anterior field is structured.

>At the end of the completion of the functional system, evolution continues by rupture and not by fulfillment [remplissement]. In the course of this fulfillment, the skeleton advances beyond the nervous system, as in the hypothesis that technics advances beyond society, an advance the terms of which were set out in the introduction to this work, and which would be a shift in the latter, as if life, considering the other means through which it is pursued, were a succession of modalities of relationships between a structural advance and delay, producers of differences by the play of tension in which they consist.

somebody on /lit/ said to me a while back, 'it's really not so hard to do what you do.' that anon was completely right. greentext + tumblr art is really it.

stiegler et al are pretty interesting tho, no?

[Anonymous No.11958252]

>>11958178
maybe. i'm actually not well-read on Husserl, but he is ofc That Guy before Heidegger (and some would say he still is).

as for the more contemporary use of tertiary retention/protention, see >>11950714. it's YH's contribution to what he thinks makes Stiegler as interesting as he is.

>I definitely think heidegger is the kick start to this entire thing. Not only in re looking at techne and what it means but the additional discussion of being and what that does or may mean.
me too. pretty much every conversation i have IRL about these themes connects to Heidegger in less than five minutes. Heidegger really does begin everything, imho. he's really That Dude who brings in the 20C. it's Dasein or bust.

>To me in some way the comsotech is trying to identify the patterns of the modern world and then discussion can begin to find a way forward after this. A way to figure out how being can exist in this world I guess.
this. i'm fine with this.

and on that note gents i actually have to pause for now. a bit of a short one but there are some IRL obligations that must be met. we are on page 147 of T&T (1). also - this is really just occurring to me now - i am just now realizing that greentexting Stiegler and including tumblr art isn't actually something all that hard to do. besides reading the books on your own (obviously, you should do this!) it is also the case that anyone really can copy-paste a PDF and greentext on /lit/ with a tumblr image. i've linked to some the accounts i get my images from, but i'll do it again here, if anyone is interested:

http://rekall.me/
http://blvckbleach.tumblr.com
http://helaeon.tumblr.com/
http://cypulchre.tumblr.com/
http://god-code.tumblr.com/
http://chaosophia218.tumblr.com/

so i'm just sayin'. if anybody else does feel the desire to continue the adventure when i'm not here, crazy go nuts with it mi amigos. the more the merrier. if this thing keeps up, to keep our brains from melting all over the place we should (and probably will) limit ourselves to one or two related/thematic texts, so that we don't produce a complete kaleidoscope or make the Wild Ride any Wilder than it already is. i thought that was worth mentioning. ofc, i'm happy to do this, and it really is my only real contribution to Cosmotech in general! but if anyone else wants to put in stuff that *they* think are interesting, or share some cool art from their folders, you are most welcome to do so!

okay. so that will be all for today, i think. i'll check back in later this eve. until then anons. more Cosmotech soon, as always...

[Anonymous No.11958385]

alright guys, going to the library tomorrow to scan Intelligence and Spirit among some other things. where do you want me to upload it, libgen?

[Anonymous No.11958877]

bump

[Anonymous No.11959178]

>>11958385
yes pls

[Anonymous No.11959234]

What the fuck is this?

[Anonymous No.11959255]

>>11959234
uncle nick giving his little bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp5qeX6hx6Q

[Anonymous No.11959276]

>>11959255
Ok, i'll watch it. Is there intro reading material? A bibliography?

[Anonymous No.11959283]

>>11959234
a porno film about hegel and heidegger

[Anonymous No.11960150]

>>11958385
fuck yes anon, i can't wait!

as for where to upload, libgen would be fine, or a mega. i can't remember the site i used when i uploaded the /lit/ reader for r/theoryfiction but iirc it didn't take a lot of hunting around to find. looks like mixtape will work as well.

https://mixtape.moe/

Cosmotech greentext will be somewhat spotty over the weekend but i'm hoping to wrap up T&T (1) in the next couple of installments. there's still some more really interesting anthropology stuff ahead and then in Part 3 Stiegler moves into the Heideggerian analysis, which is imho the best part.

in general tho i'm remembering now why i was floored by this book when i read it back when. connecting the anthropology to the technology, and using Heidegger and Derrida as a kind of a stanchion (the Rousseau segments are interesting too, although i always find Rousseau kind of meh)...i don't know, i just think it fills in some really important puzzle-spaces in the general Cosmotech story. the main attraction is Hegel/Marx/Land, but there's one thread that goes up to Land and then another that is kind of post-Land, where we start talking about technology and intelligence in other-than-exclusively economic terms. it seems to me that life up to Land is all acceleration, and life after him (assuming, of course, there is any) is for Cosmotech.

i figure we will have plenty of room before we hit the bump limit after T&T: 1, so we can either move on to more of Technics and Time (vol 2 or 3) or a different work by him (such as Automatic Society, which was pretty rad also).

[Anonymous No.11960155]

>>11956676
I'm saying hegels logic is not capable of explaining technological objects.
geniune process metaphysics is relational, the process is produced by a relation.
It's 1-2-3 hegel yeilds a 1-0-3, that 2 is where evolution happens, you are missing the animation that brings reality to continuity. It's the difference between a flim and a slide-show.

[Anonymous No.11960220]

>>11960155
Forgot to mention that the process is produced by the relation, and IS the relation. Giving ontological primacy to the process, yeilds the static movement from instant-to-instant of ficticious things that exists without place to do so in an absolutely cold formless universe. Instead of animated things choosing hic et nunc which way to move momentarily, in the warmth of living reality.

[Anonymous No.11960308]

>>11960150
as for what may appear to be a rampant fanboying for Land: i should just clarify, it's about *teleoplexy.*

whatever Hegel meant, back when, becomes whatever it was that Marx committed himself to, and that in turn is the same phenomenon Land is talking about. Spirit/Capital/Teleoplexy. as i see it, one phenomenon, but understood at first through Hegel's idealism, then through Marx's materialism, and then Land's transcendental philosophy (which he gets to by way of D&G, who do the major transformation in the 1970s by ditching Hegel/Freud/Lacan but *keeping* Marx, and some aspect of this winds up transferred to Land in the form of a schizoid unconscious that Landian Capital folds back in on itself as teleoplexy.)

and it is this thing, Teleoplexy, that is the black hole time loop carved open by capitalism (whether in the 18C or much earlier) which, it seems to me, stands before us. that is the thing, and that is the question also: capital + artificial intelligence + technology, wat do. again, it's not the only way to look at Hegel, or Marx, but it is a wildly interesting thesis and Land, at least, doesn't appear to have wavered off of it in like thirty years.

but once you get to a certain point, imho, not everything is just All About Nick Land. hyperstition, to me, Makes Philosophy Great Again. it really does. because there's way more to the story than just politics. so for now i am kind of fascinated by the reverse-trip through the history of technology and other things, because once you get to unironically talking about time travel you (read: me) want to walk fairly carefully and not be too confident.

anyways. wanted to clarify some more of my own perspective on this. and i don't know how much of this will change with the BTC book (my guess: not much). Land seems to think now that NRx is bsaically dead or has at least completed some part of its unconscious mandate, so...who knows? who knows what the future will bring. one thing is for certain tho: whatever it is, it's going to be technical/robotic/AI-driven, and it's going to be crazy and unpredictable af.

i guess i wanted to say this just so that it's not just All About Uncle Nick. he's one guy, and he is an important guy, just as Teleoplexy is an important concept. but how we paint the picture of life around this - from the earliest hominid forms of life (Stiegler) up through to computer programming (YH), and of course, a number of major figures and writings in continental theory in between: that's all Cosmotech.

so more Stiegler soon-ish. and thanks as always to anons keeping the thread alive!

[Anonymous No.11960456]

>>11958385
if anon does this i will read it and perhaps we can do a semi reading group. or ill just shitpost about it whatever

[Anonymous No.11961036]

bump

[Anonymous No.11961774]

Anonymous 10/19/18(Fri)11:41:30 No.11956730>>11958335 >>11961670

What the fuck is Ireland's Poememenon about? It's too hard to understand, I don't get the point.

[Anonymous No.11961871]

>>11950714
>For me the main stake of Big Data, together with algorithms, is prediction. It is another form of the determination of time, which is probably not the same form of temporizing the past, the present, and the future that we can find in Bergson, Heidegger, Lyotard, Deleuze, etc. This means that we must discover in Big Data a new and powerful synthesis of time, and figure out how to deal with it.
i think the issue with seeing big data this way is that even if we got a really huge computer, the computer could simulate the world, but it could never simulate itself adding input to the world, so we have different scenarios:

[a] the computer stays "outside", it predicts everything perfectly, but adds no input, which means it's irrelevant to the course of history

[b] the computer adds input, but by doing so modifies the world and its predictions are no longer accurate

[c] The computer only adds inputs "small" enough that its predictions are still accurate while directing the course of history and remaining accurate in its predictions, this could limit the possibilities of history, for example say that it predicts a catastrophic event and the machine is able to determine that if we take path α humanity will be destroyed, if we take path β 99% of humanity will be wiped and 1% will survive, and if we take path ɣ the computer is unable to predict the consequences because his input is too big to follow that path, we may be limiting ourselves to path β because of the security of it but gambling on path ɣ may have lead to a better future but that path will never be explored because it breaks the prediction powers of the machine

or maybe that example is not great when it comes to survival, but let's say that exploring path ɣ leads to the creation of a technology powerful beyond all imagination, a civilization that creates a predictor machine of type [c] too soon will never explore this path and obtain this technology, a civilization that creates a predictor of type [b] may discover this and steamroll over a civilization with a type [c] predictor, but a type [b] may have also destroyed itself way before they get here

[Anonymous No.11962416]

>>11961774
compare and contrast:

>The increasing ‘use’ of algorithms to generate texts functions as a variety of autoexcision calculated to minimize the intentionality of the human author, consequently opening onto an abyss of previously unavailable formal potential particularly in terms of permutational extravagance, intricacy and evolution, and the ability to rapidly and effortlessly produce unprecedented magnitudes of textual material. The human writer of the code may still dictate the text from the outside to different degrees depending on the work, but this is to elide the fact that it is only a step in a process of exponentially increasing automation.

-- Ireland/Poememenon

>This new synthesis of time is what I call “tertiary protention,” which is intended to supplement Stiegler’s concept of tertiary retention.

>Of course, there is ambiguity—for example, debt is an example of tertiary protention as well as tertiary retention, since it anticipates that which we will have to return, and it is recorded as traces. Tertiary protention is amplified due to the increasing ability of machines to predict and to anticipate. We might say that as long as we become part of Big Data, we are actually constantly in debt to certain unknowns.

-- Yuk Hui/Digital Objects and Metadata Schemes

those comparisons are interesting enough. it's something Land thinks about too:

>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.

Ireland's piece to me is just about the greatest supplement to Teleoplexy anywhere. she's talking more about the effects of technology on the production of literature than on the economy, but - this we see with Land - 'literature' includes critique also, especially in the form of theoryfiction.

what is technological development putting the human being in debt *to?* there is not only a spiral, there is a spiral going on that we ourselves twist into being, where the future and the past intersect. and in those circumstances Ireland asks:

>Which is the revolutionary path? To avow the subject and repress the process? Or to avow the process and destroy the subject?

Poememenon ranks with Teleoplexy, imho, as among the very greatest essays written on the relationship between theory and time in the 21C thus far. i think YH anticipates what's going on also. we are starting to become aware of the effects of technology on academic culture as well as the paradoxes of what this means for writing itself.

here's Stiegler from T&T (2), "The Industrialization of Memory:"

>This manipulated, synthetic biological medium is itself nothing other than an artificially accelerated evolution, in which the very nature of evolution is changed.

[Anonymous No.11962507]

>>11961774
>>11962416
so i've gone through the rest of T&T 1 and found all kinds of greentext-worthy samples. Stiegler's main project is to retrace the story all the way from the anthropological period to the Greeks, as well as Heidegger's thoughts on time and the Greek understanding. Memory, technics, mortality and myth. it's pretty awesome stuff. and in terms of Cosmotech, it's an absolutely crucial part of the whole story.

but it's in part 2 that he turns to this idea of the *industrialization of memory,* which is - i think - like an alley-oop for YH (and which, again, we will not be able to read about until his new book comes out). but you can see where the Stiegler/YH connections line up. if after Stiegler we can see the degree to which we "fall" into a world of technicity based on memory and anticipation - temporal-psychological phenomena that not only make up who we are as human beings, but are arguably the *most* determinative aspects of our being, from the interior to the exterior, and from the micro to the macro, local to planetary - then what happens when those processes become recursive, become 'always-already there' in a way to a continual anticipation of who we are going to be in the future? that's why YH and his idea of 'tertiary protention' makes sense.

and this is why Ireland matters (and Land, ofc, but Land is always there in the background). what Ireland is alert to is this question of what lies beyond irony. and *irony,* imho, is the fucking death sentence of death sentences. irony always conjures up something about the past, some sign or referent, and you can take this all the way to the moon. but the question is what happens when *everything in culture becomes plastic.* and that is where we are now: what's to be obeyed? what's not? if the only rule in town is Capital, what happens when Capital (and tech) basically turn everything on earth into a commodity to be infinitely re-molded to suit the needs of the hour? what happens when you begin to produce a culture which takes the Update and the Upgrade and the Optimization as their first principles? what happens to memory, history, and time?

>who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon?

anyways. so i've got a pile of stuff from Stiegler/T&T 1 that i would like to share, but at the same time i don't want to post stuff just to gratify my own mildly OCD desires for Closure (which never happens). stuff Stiegler writes about industrialization of memory, which is more germane to Ireland's question, doesn't happen until T&T 2, but how we get to this point - an arc from the premodern to the modern and into the postmodern (that is, the technical?) - is the story of T&T 1.

so i'm inclined to finish T&T 1, but if you guys want to discuss Ireland &c, we can do that now too. and i think there are good sections from T&T 2 for that also.

[Anonymous No.11962537]

any of these authors engages with Spengler and his vision of technics as the tactics of living? where he sees technics as already existing in the animal world, and where technics is the whole process, not the tool, technics is the battle, not the weapon?

[Anonymous No.11962550]

>In its simplest form, then, accelerationism is a cybernetic theory of modernity released from the limited sphere of the restricted economy (‘isn’t there a need to study the system of human production and consumption within a much larger framework?’ asks Bataille) and set loose to range the wilds of cosmic energetics at will, mobilizing cyberpositive variation as an anorganic evolutionary and time-travelling force. A ‘rigorous techonomic naturalism’ in which nature is posited as neither cyclical-organic nor linear-industrial, but as the retrochronic, autocatalytic, and escalatory construction of the truly exceptional. Human social reproduction culminates in the point where it produces the one thing that, in reproducing itself, brings about the destruction of the substrate that nurtured it. Technics and nature connect up on either side of a lacuna that corresponds to human social and political conditioning so that the entire trajectory of humanity reaches its apotheosis in a single moment of pure production (or production-for-itself). The individuation of self-augmenting machinic intelligence as the culminating act of modernity is understood with all the perversity of the cosmic scale as a compressed flare of emancipation coinciding with the termination of the possibility of emancipation for the human.

>As the producer disappears into the machine, the reader is confronted with increasingly vertiginous challenges to traditional methods of textual consumption. Most alarmingly, the diminishment of human authorship plunges the human reader into a problematics of scale. The sheer length and disconcerting complexity of combinatorial pieces, like the tedious repetition of copied and transcribed texts (both modes of enacting non-narrative violence as a problematization of chronology/ROM) renders them either impossible or entirely unpleasurable to consume in any ordinary manner.

>Taken together as incremental steps in a fatal(istic) process, this double elimination constitutes a harrowing prognosis for the human producer and the human consumer of writing alike—but one that is entirely consonant with its modernist literary inheritance if we do not hesitate to draw out the full implications of an avant-gardism that has progressively dethroned the author, the linear narrative, the scaled plot, phenomenological interest, and all other accoutrements of human intelligibility by dint of an utterly necessary experimentalism—unfolding an unchecked drive to engender the extremely new as the razor’s edge of its inverted return shears across the diminishing decades of our age’s terminal cycle.

-- AI/Poememenon

we should start talking about what *phase* of postmodernity we are in. Phase 1 was ironic/Simulation/Spectacle. turbo-irony/Spectacle under capital led to the vanishing of reality and it's Phase 2 form: Fuck You, Hands Off My (omnipresent) Metanarrative. Ireland is deep deep into Phase 3 (time spirals) and laying out the co-ordinates.

[Anonymous No.11962585]

Genuinely not trying to start a shitshow here, but is there anything in accelerationism that tackles the issue of race?
The general consensus of acc is that driving towards technological advancement (singularity if you want to go full force) is beneficial, both to the right acc and left acc for their various goals. However it is a pre-eminent fact that essentially all innovation and technological advancement in the history of mankind has arisen from whites and east asians. Given the current trend of third world people replacing and displacing whites in their homelands, the outbreeding of whites by non-whites resulting in a very distinct trend of lowering average global (and in some cases of white countries, a national trend eg. France where this is well documented) IQ scores and finally the abolition of meritocracy in favour of diversity quotas in academia and research, is it not possible that the best way to bring about acceleration would be to protect the most innovative groups?
In a hundred years, if trends continue, then whites are going to be a miniscule minority with essentially no impact on the global scale and will have lost the ability to be politically forceful in their own countries simply due to outbreeding. Even in fifty years there are going to be major changes as older white people who keep things running are displaced and replaced by immigrant peoples given their jobs.
Is acceleration even possible with an average global IQ of 85?

[Anonymous No.11962593]

>The diagram that lies embedded within teleoplexy thus reasserts itself on a meta-level. A spiral within a spiral. The cultural effectiveness of accelerationism as cyberpositivity is entirely cyberpositive: accelerationism invokes itself from the future. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that hyperstition is the real truth of philosophy—if not the basic, horrific form of reality itself. Horrific, because it means that this isn’t the first time it has happened this way. Land acts as an intensifier for accelerationism’s auto-realization, but claims of agency beyond this quickly become murky as nonlinear models of origination are effectively papered-over by the enforced chronology of historical determination. Anastrophic temporality guarantees the desolation of any attempt to locate a definitive answer to questions of the kind ‘Who writes, and who is written?’

and there are *no* hard and fast answers to this question. that is the whole thing about being a human being, although the meaning of this has changed over time, historically and culturally, and will do so again.

>The Human Security System seeks to repress anastrophic insurgency by enforcing chronology, but in doing so, inadvertently provides cover for its enemy. In this way, the future, operating under chronological camouflage, stealthily invokes the conditions required for its own truth.

i only wound up reading Land b/c i was getting very sick of politics, and especially the politics of ressentiment. the Human Security System resides at the very core of ideology (or, we might say, ideology is a way of describing the various workings of the Human Security System.) Lacanian/Zizkekian Oedipus is such a function in a dual sense: Land talks about the cultural necessity of the prohibition of incest in his first (great) essay in Fanged Noumena, but remember that Oedipus' trangression is not an exclusively *sexual* one: the real tragedy of it is that it proceeds from the entirely noble quest for a *search of knowledge,* and even beyond that to its most unstable level, the search for *self-knowledge.*

we like Zizek because he can make jokes, he can introduce irony, self-reference, and other things. he's an incredibly engaging, gregarious, even Socratic figure like that, in a way. and here's what you don't see in the ranks of either the Red Team or the Blue Team ideological culture-warriors of today. it is true that The Left Can't Meme. this is known. there is - we have known this since Nietzsche - an inescapable *punitive* dimension in all moralizing, and by 2018 this has gone completely through the roof in terms of identity politics. the correlative to this was Trump, frog memes, and much else: the satirizing of the Left, but also which contains within it the potential for a genuinely unironic fascism. what's more ironic than fascism itself?

[Anonymous No.11962613]

>>11962585
nick land shitposts on twitter revolve mostly around this, if you take that as a legitimate accelerationist source

[Anonymous No.11962626]

>>11962613
Okay, so it's fair to say that it's not something that accelerationists refuse to talk about or acknowledge?
I'm guessing this is more the case for r/acc than l/acc given their respective pedigrees, is that correct?

[Anonymous No.11962643]

>>11962626
yes, those kinds of problems are addressed by r/acc, in a similar vein see for example this article from Nick Land about big cities acting as IQ shredders:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/20/modernitys-fertility-problem/

[Anonymous No.11962649]

>>11962593
the thing is that the Human Security System functions on both wings of the political spectrum (as much as - although this is an obsession of my own- one can use the Jung/Campbell 3/Act hero myth to make progaganda for *any* possible cause). there seem to be in the human mind aspects of form which trump those of content.

i have said before that i am not interested in making the word Fascism any more of a taboo than it already is. it describes a certain process, cultural and historical, with economic and psychological aspects, that is wrapped up with the meaning of *modernity* more than any particular geographical locale: let's not forget that the Japanese go down the same road as the Germans do (or, more subtly, that the Italian expression of this was a different one than the Germans). and *all* of this, to my mind, returns to this idea of the Human Security System, the (impossible-to-ever-finish) critique of ideology, and so on. and what we have seen play out in a generation is proof positive of all of this: we went from Skepticism Towards All Metanarrative to Whose Side Are You On in about thirty years. and we are doubling down on that ever more with every passing day.

>>11962585
i have serious reservations about wanting to talk about race. i really do. even Land - as crusty and cold a writer as one could ever hope for - wants to keep the conversation at minimum to IQ (or genes), but this to my mind is to open Pandora's Box.

politics is death to philosophy and theory. the point where we stop talking about the ideas and start talking about Who Belongs is where i find i need to take the Pause That Refreshes. genes and IQ are a preoccupation of Old Nick, but they weren't a preoccupation of Young Nick, and to my mind Young Nick > Old Nick. Old Nick writes Teleoplexy and lots of other good stuff that imho just doesn't need to go down that road, which winds towards eugenics and other stuff that is the real wheelhouse of the far right.

race, class, and gender are *The Metanarratives* of metanarratives. the historical destinies of 20C fascism *and* communism tell us where picking your "favorite" one of these takes you. the Germans opted for race and the Soviets opted for class. the postmodern Cathedral of today has opted for a powerful but very unstable fusion of all three of these in an absolutely doomed attempt to negate the fundamentally disequilibriating power of Capital *in advance* by inscribing all of it on the commodity as ideology, as pharmakon. Woke Capital is the result.

personally, i think that the rise of right-wing politics (in the UK at least) speaks to the *return of class sensibility,* which is the underdog against the Cathedral/GIT/media powers that have weaponized race and gender. and those will draw upon the real far-right race perspectives: the actual and unironic fascists. but this is what happens when the Left has only one weapon to use, as one who has only a hammer can only see the nail everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11962674]

>>11962585
Unavoidable topic. Human Bio Diversity. The outcome would most likely favor IQ rather than race. We already have AI that learns by training itself, meaning humans can only do the dirty work. Is it only a coincidence that the left is pushing for dilution of cultural hotspots at this point? Who knows what refinements would be made on the IQ standard on general cosmotechnic efficiency. Here comes the question of gene editing, neural ehnacements or artificial procreation. We can meme all the scifi tropes but everyone knows the way things will play out will be unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.11962700]

>>11962649
In order for philosophy to be anything more than an interesting but ultimately meaningless thought experiment, forever confined to the realms of theory and literature it must be able to demonstrate a practical application. That is arguably the ultimate goal of philosophy - philosophers wouldn't bother talking about half the things they do talk about if they didn't think it were applicable in some way. Philosophy provides the schematics for the moral, the societal, the political, the academic etc. with the aim of optimising it. Generally this optimising is met with controversy because people have different end goals; however one optimisation that nobody (besides maybe the most die-hard anarcho-primitavists) can argue against is the increase of intellectual ability, or at least the protection of intellectual ability from ablation.

Unfortunately that's what we see happening and it is directly, almost solely, down to race. A nation of fifty million sub-saharan africans simply is not going to have the intellectual output of a nation of fifty million europeans or east-asians. I don't intend this in any kind of malicious way, it's merely a fact. For a philosophy/worldview that is so interlaced with technological innovation and advancement it seems implausible to be able to sweep it under the rug.

The word eugenics is clearly a VERY loaded word, but the notion behind it is one that can't be criticised. Improve the human race. What we currently see at the moment is a thoroughly dysgenic attitude. This doesn't even touch the moralising aspect of it where the progressive left gives moral validity to non-whites and demonises whites, this is just the raw, hard hitting, factual IQ disparity that is apparent to anyone willing to look.

Quite frankly: whites and eat-asians accelerate, other races either do not or decelerate.

>>11962674
>The outcome would most likely favor IQ rather than race.
I tend to agree, however race and IQ are inherently linked. If you take a standard distribution of IQs from any homogeneous population you can accurately predict the race of that population.

[Anonymous No.11962713]

>>11962626
>Okay, so it's fair to say that it's not something that accelerationists refuse to talk about or acknowledge?
I'm guessing this is more the case for r/acc than l/acc given their respective pedigrees, is that correct?

in a conversation about race and NRx, Land himself said, 'the only people who don't think we are the Nazis are the Nazis.' his thing is *intelligence.* which also leads to the paradox of IQ shredders:

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

anyways. these threads aren't my blog, ofc. whatever we want to talk about here we can. but for me race and gender go places that i find far less interesting than the question about technics, intelligence, and human being itself. the issue for me is Dasein in the 21C rather than the trifecta of modernity: race, class, and gender. those i think form a kind of rock-scissors-paper wheel of doom that becomes what we call politics. metanarratively speaking, they all keep each other in check, but there is no "outside" of this process: that is exactly why academia is in a state of such complete insanity right now. it's a relic or holdover from not only the 20C, but the 19C and even beyond.

acceleration is an admittedly radical way of talking about *class,* given that it is largely based on taking Marx (and D&G) and projecting them into time-spiral loops. Land's own switch from extreme left to extreme right gives you plenty of stuff to think about that even open up the possibilities for a fresh look at the human condition that well and truly goes beyond those Big Three metanarratives, which all mutually reinforce and feed each other, and those adventures - again, speaking only for myself here - are basically all forecasted more or less completely in the work of Rene Girard. but it's also JBP's project as well.

acceleration/Cosmotech is one form of Wild Ride, for sure. but the difference for me is that it stays with the *open question.* when it comes to politics all there are are Answers: cynicism, irony, and death. it's the wasteland. it's the desert of the real. so as long as we are talking about stuff in a way that doesn't just always deviate into one form of Deus Vult or another i'm fine. i just think that that is a tiny little flame.

>>11962537
even Spengler. i'm a big fan of Spengler: M&T is good and DotW is fucking stupidly great. it's awesome. i like that Spengler drew the line too: Hitler wasn't the final meaning of the Faustian spirit, that was Goethe and Nietzsche. the Winter Phase (or Guenonian Reign of Quantity) is for real. there's no question about that. but the answer isn't to be found on the extreme edges of far right. there *is* a correction required, in a sense: i just watched Sargon's video about Starship Troopers, and it is pretty interesting. Heinlein is mos def not George Lucas. i'd love to see a Starship Troopers reboot too. but in this media landscape i'm not holding my breath.

sorry for the rant, tho. Not My Blog, as always.

[Anonymous No.11962844]

one thing that is going to change, tho, in the 21C, will be the Here Comes A New Challenger entry of China into all of these questions. what Xi Jinping is up to or intends to accomplish during his term will have a huge impact on the way we have looked at a lot of these questions. not only are they probably going to take a different view of genetic editing than we might in the West, China also introduces a fundamentally new element into the story: over there is a revolution which was completed, and is now trying to stabilize itself for long-term growth. i read a pretty good article just the other day about the degree to which China's relative stability will impact the global economy too.

it's a crazy world like that, but in a way, i think it's a good thing too. the desire to re-invent the wheel, historically speaking, tends to result in carving holes in reality that upset the Cosmic Balance of things. for the time being it seems to me that the issue is to make better people, human beings more aware of where they have come from and where they are likely to be taken in the future. the race/class/gender trifecta just isn't transposable to China so easily, and i think the presence of a counter-balancing force over there is probably a good thing. i might have felt differently about this earlier if i hadn't come in the end to agree with Land that capitalism just can't share with liberal democracy, and there isn't a doubt to my mind that all of the political stuff we are going through today comes about as a result of that divergence. people are beginning to sense their own obsolescence and are trying to give themselves meaning again in the most direct possible way, by crossing the streams: political holy war.

but this is what JBP is saying: don't do that. sort yourself out. clean your room. and much else. that's a perspective i agree with too, in many ways. my own obsessions tend towards the historical role of technology and other things, but it's all part of one larger story, imho. namely, how we fucking claw our way through the Great Filter, the opening of Pandora's Box that really took place in the 20C, and which still casts its shadows over the 21C. acceleration traces the economic trajectory of this, and Cosmotech aims to restore the psychic balance, perhaps to reduce the number of rage zombies in the world. that is the hope, anyways.

[Anonymous No.11962854]

>>11962844
hasn't Nick Land pretty much given up on the west and placed most of his bets in china/asian too? not sure if he still has expectations of the fragmentation forces on the west to resolve into something positive

[Anonymous No.11962892]

>>11962854
he's given up on the West, but he certainly hasn't given up on capitalism. and - historically speaking - betting against the West just always seems like a bad idea.

fwiw, i ranted about this in Cosmotech #6: Don't Hate on the West. Not Everything is the West's Fault. i will re-iterate that again here. our issue today is *postmodernity,* which has a manifestly cultural dimension, but it is also a world-historical phenomenon. and it is one of the reasons why YH's book is so important also: modernity is a problem for everyone. it manifests in different ways, and the responses to it take different forms, but Planetary Technologization is really a global theme.

and this is why i wanted to make these threads also. Land has recently intimated that he thinks NRx is basically dead too. and who knows, maybe he's right. could be. i'm not even sure that placing all bets on China/Asia is necessarily the right move either: Social Credit is probably going to work as an experiment, but what happens if the rest of the world takes a look at this and says, no thanks, we'll pass on that too. then what? Xi wants China to be a world trading power - that's certainly not a crazy proposition - but even over there, the same as here, the nature of trade is that you can't force other people to trade with you if they don't like what you're up to in a cultural sense.

so yeah. Land is skeptical about the West. everybody's skeptical about the West. it feels like we are headed for something like the Thirty Years' War over race, and class, and gender. i'm not optimistic myself in that sense, if only because i agree with JBP on that too: it won't lead anywhere except back to itself in wheels of bitterness and ressentiment. in Girardian terms: it leads to scapegoating.

what is required is a both a salvage op and something like the formulation of a new program for human development. Stiegler and YH have a lot going on in that regard for me. if the future means technology, and technology is a global phenomenon with localized cultural-intellectual manifestations (that is, - cosmotechnics) then that is something that we can pay attention to. capitalism and tech come out of the Occident and are exported worldwide from the renaissance to the 20C, and then there is an apocalyptic disaster-party about What Did Modernity Mean By This in the middle of the 20C: it's the Second World War.

whatever positivity we can cook up from poking through the fragments and shrapnel left over from this will be something we will have to do ourselves. Land isn't optimistic about anything other than BTC, but the whole point of Cosmotech is to inquire into the possibilities for life after Nick Land's Wild Ride.

[Anonymous No.11962912]

>>11962892
>>Land has recently intimated that he thinks NRx is basically dead too
>I'd be more tempted to say "completed" (at least to the NRx 1.0 level).

also interesting the old article from Yuk Hui about NRx
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/81/125815/on-the-unhappy-consciousness-of-neoreactionaries/

[Anonymous No.11962914]

let me school all of you: japanese tentacle hentai is a metaphor for teleoplexy. from its inception in the late 1980s commentators have strove to account for tentacle porn - hyper-orientalised as a japanese perversion - by seeking its roots in the trauma of the postwar, predominance of schizoid structures among japanese males, desires to return to the maternal body. probably some role there but - let's allow - the fundamental alienness of the sexual encounters portrayed in shokushu-zeme remains irreducible. perhaps the root trauma is not in the past, but rather, in the future? japan, the east asian cradle of post-modernity which nursed all cyberpunk from birth - a privileged vector which the Future employed to further its metastasis - somewhere deep in the aetherial capital-flush environs of late-Bubble japan, one or several otaku experienced a vision(a visitation?) from outside. perhaps the unique autism their subculture instantiated made them ideal mediums - azuma hiroki may have something to say here. what you see in tentacle porn is nothing less than a metaphor for the human's domestication/enslavement by technocapital expressed as an eroticised anxiety formation. it is made fappable to shield the reader from its impossible/traumatic core. the subject in formulaic tentacle porn (feminine, of course) is subjected to a universal penetration & remodeling, reduction to a birthing-machine (umu kikai - note this phrase's importance in JP culture) in other words the machinisation of the body as Capital's means of self-reproduction. such machinisation is invariably accompanied by a 'mind break' - pleasurable stimulation taken to such excess that the subject attains to a 'burnt-out' state incapable of resistance. the girl in tentacle porn is titillated to (mental) death. only the machine remains. mind break = meltdown.

[Anonymous No.11962919]

>>11962912
kek

[Anonymous No.11962925]

anyways, i'm going to go ahead with some more greentext from T&T (1), if only because i have a mildly OCD need for Closure (which is fucking stupid). but because Stiegler's anthropological project connects early man with the Greeks, and then to Heidegger, and then to technology, and that is a story worth telling. perhaps excerpts from T&T (2) later.

as always, i am skipping over huge parts of this book, and these are only the parts of it i find interesting or thought-provoking. threads are no substitute for reading! but in the hope that some of this may get your noggin' joggin (read: in the hopes that you will ask interesting questions that delight the legion of chattering techno-gremlins that live in my head), we continue. once more unto the breach, dear friends:

>At the end of the completion of the functional system, evolution continues by rupture and not by fulfillment. In the course of this fulfillment, the skeleton advances beyond the nervous system, as in the hypothesis that technics advances beyond society, an advance the terms of which were set out in the introduction to this work, and which would be a shift in the latter, as if life, considering the other means through which it is pursued, were a succession of modalities of relationships between a structural advance and delay, producers of differences by the play of tension in which they consist.

>The appearance of the tool, accomplishing the indetermination specified from the moment of the human as a process of exteriorization, must be brought into relation to the particular organization of the cortical zones of the brain. This organization sheds light upon the dialectical relation formed between the hand and the central nervous system: there is a direct link between nonspecialization and the development of the cortical zones of the brain.

>With the advent of exteriorization, the body of the living individual is no longer only a body: it can only function with its tools. An understanding of the archaic anthropological system will only become possible with the simultaneous examination of the skeleton, the central nervous system, and equipment.

>"Technical consciousness" means anticipation without creative consciousness. Anticipation means the realization of a possibility that is not determined by a biological program. Now, at the same time, the movement of "exteriorization," if it seems to presuppose this anticipation, appears here to be of a strictly zoological origin, to the point of still being determined by the neurophysiological characteristics of the individual. When this determination will have completely ceased its action on technical evolution, Leroi-Gourhan will introduce a notion of spirituality: a second origin.

>>11962912
yup. 'tis a good one

>>11962914
we needed this

we really needed this

[Anonymous No.11962943]

the 'Epimetheus Complex'

>Because it is affected with anticipation, because it is nothing but anticipation, a gesture is a gesture; and there can be no gesture without tools and artificial memory, prosthetic, outside of the body, and constitutive of its world. There is no anticipation, no time outside of this passage outside, of this putting-outside-of-self and of this alienation of the human and its memory that "exteriorization" is. The question is the very ambiguity of the word "exteriorization" and the hierarchy or the chronological, logical, and ontological preeminence that it immediately induces: if indeed one could speak of exteriorization, this would mean the presence of a preceding interiority. Now, this interiority is nothing outside of its exteriorization: the issue is therefore neither that of an interiority nor that of exteriority—but that of an originary complex in which the two terms, far from being opposed, compose with one another (and by the same token are posed, in a single stroke, in a single movement). Neither one precedes the other, neither is the origin of the other, the origin being then the coming into adequacy or the simultaneous arrival of the two—which are in truth the same considered from two different points of view. We shall later name this structure the complex of Epimetheus, and shall see that for Simondon it is a question of a transductive relation. A "prosthesis" does not supplement something, does not replace what would have been there before it and would have been lost: it is added. By prosthesis, we understand (1) set in front, or spatialization (de-severance; (2) set in advance, already there (past) and anticipation (foresight), that is, temporalization.

>The prosthesis is not a mere extension of the human body; it is the constitution of this body qua "human" (the quotation marks belong to the constitution). It is not a "means" for the human but its end, and we know the essential equivocity of this expression: "the end of the human."

>And if it seems obvious that this evolution is not only determined by that of the who qua zoon, by the who qua living, but also differentiated as are all other living beings, then the conclusion must be drawn that it is rather the evolution of the what that has a return effect of the who and governs to a certain extent its own differentiation: the who is not differentiated like the other living beings; it is differentiated by the nonliving (and a deferral of death by this differentiation in death), by organized but inorganic matter, the what. How else to explain the evolution of instrumental stereotypes, if not at the level of anticipation, since instrumentality is no more than quasi-zoological, regulated as it is in its production and its differentiation by the fact of "genetic collapse"? The question of technics is the question of time.

Epimetheus - the proverbial fool - is the god of both afterthought and excuses.
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanEpimetheus.html

[Anonymous No.11962955]

>1. Nothing can be said of temporalization that does not relate to the ephiphylogenetic structure put in place each time, and each time in an original way, by the already-there, in other words by the memory supports that organize successive epochs of humanity: that is, technics—the supplement is elementary, or rather elementary supplementarity is (the relation to) time (différance).

>2. This kind of analysis presupposes an elucidation of the possibility of anticipation (of the possibility of possibility). Such an elucidation is the very object of existential analytic, which should accordingly be interpreted in terms of the question of prostheticity.

>We will first read various occurrences of the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus, where an originary bond is presented that is formed between prostheticity (Prometheus, god of technics); anticipation (Prometheus, god of foresight); mortality (Prometheus, giver to mortals of elpis—both worry concerning the end and ignorance of the end); forgetting (the fault of Epimetheus); and reflexivity, or the "comprehension of being," as delay and deferred reaction (epimetheia, or knowledge that arises from the accumulation of experience through the mediation of past faults).

>"Exteriorization" will immediately call forth socialization, considered as the relation to death or as anticipation.

>If one holds to the first hypothesis, according to which language and technics are bound to each other as two aspects of one and the same human attribute, this anthropology confronts metaphysics head-on, since metaphysics is constituted through the very formation of an opposition between logos and tekhne, phusis and nomos, the intelligible and the sensible, asters and disasters, haps and mishaps. Thus, for metaphysics: (1) tekhne-, the field of artifacts, is the possibility of the arbitrary and of the worst hubris, of the violence of man against phusis when he considers himself a god; and (2) the logos, the site of aletheia, is also the metron, in the attention that it brings to the "as such" of a being (to its phusis).

>The tragic Greek understanding of technics is, however, quite different. It does not oppose two worlds. It composes topoi that are constitutive of mortality, being at mortality's limits: on the one hand, immortal, on the other hand, living without knowledge of death (animality); in the gap between these two there is technical life—that is, dying. Tragic anthropogony is thus a thanatology that is configured in two moves, the doubling-up of Prometheus by Epimetheus.

>For, on the one hand, the intertwining of the two figures of promeheia and epimetheia yields the major elements of the structure of temporality, described as being-toward-the-end, while, on the other hand, the originary, irreducible rooting of this relation in technicity, which the two figures taken together signify, undermines any possibility of placing in opposition authentic time and the time of calculation and concern.

[Anonymous No.11962967]

>In the Platonic dialogue of his name, Protagoras narrates the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus in the following terms:

>Once upon a time, there existed gods but no mortal creatures. When the ap- pointed time came for these also to be born, the gods formed them within the earth out of a mixture of earth and fire and the substances which are com- pounded from earth and fire. And when they were ready to bring them to the light, they charged Prometheus and Epimetheus with the task of equipping them and allotting suitable powers [dunameis] to each kind.

>Now Epimetheus begged Prometheus to allow him to do the distribution himself—"and whenI have done it," he said, "you can review it." So he persuaded him and set to work. In his allotment he gave to some creatures strength without speed, and equipped the weaker kinds with speed. Some he armed with weapons, while to the unarmed he gave some other faculty and so contrived means for their preservation. To those that he endowed with smallness, he granted winged flight or a dwelling underground; to those which he increased in stature, their size itself was a protection. Thus he made his whole distribution on a principle of compensation, being careful by these devices that no species should be destroyed. . . . Now Epimetheus was not a particularly clever person, and before he realized it he had used up all the available powers on the brute beasts, and being left with the human race [non-aloga] on his hands unprovided for, did not know what to do with them. While he was puzzling about this, Prometheus came to inspect the work, and found the other animals well off for everything, but man naked, unshod, unbedded, and unarmed, and al- ready the appointed day had come, when man too was to emerge from within the earth into the daylight. Prometheus therefore, being at a loss to provide any means of salvation for man, stole from Hephaestus and Athena the gift of skill in the arts [ten enteknen sophian}, together with fire—for with- out fire there was no means [amekhanon] for anyone to possess or use this skill—and bestowed it on man. In this way man acquired sufficient resources to keep himself alive, but he had no political wisdom [sophia]. This art was in the keeping of Zeus. . . . Through this gift man had the means of life, but Prometheus, so the story says, thanks to Epimetheus, had later on to stand his trial for theft.

>Since, then, man had a share in the portion of the gods, in the first place because of his divine kinship he alone among living creatures believed in gods, and set to work to erect altars, and images of them. Secondly, by the art which they possessed, men soon discovered articulate speech [phonen] and names {onomata}, and invented houses and clothes and shoes and bedding and got food from the earth.

[Anonymous No.11962968]

Give yourself a trip OP, you're one of the few people on here that meets the criteria for using one legitimately.
UncleNick or something like that.

[Anonymous No.11962979]

>>11957723
>capital is sentient
>it is what land is saying
it's actually a critical misreading of accelerationism. sentience is NOT what Land is concerned with, he is concerned with intelligence. we, as humans, often assume that intelligence is in some way related to sentience (after all, we have both). but why should we lump the two together for any reason other than anthropomorphism? Capital doesn't need to feel, and this isn't a flaw.

[Anonymous No.11962983]

>It is immediately by deviating from the equilibrium of animals, from tranquillity—a departure engendered by the fault of Epimetheus—that mortals occur. Before the deviation, there is nothing. Then the accidental event happens, the fault of Epimetheus: to have forgotten humans. Humans are the forgotten ones. Humans only occur through their being forgotten; they only appear in disappearing.

>Fruit of a double fault—an act of forgetting, then of theft—they are naked like small, premature animals, without fur and means of defense, in advance of themselves, as advance, and also as delay (no qualities are left, everything has already been distributed). They do not yet possess the art of the political, which will be made necessary by their prematureness, directly ensuing from the technical. But this "not yet" does not imply that there will be two steps to their emergence, a time of a full origin, followed by a fall: there will have been nothing at the origin but the fault, a fault that is nothing but the de-fault of origin or the origin as de-fault. There will have been no appearance except through disappearance. Everything will have taken place at the same time, in the same step.

>If the myth in the Theogony evokes a golden age in which humans banqueted next to the gods, this means that humans had not yet occurred, since nothing had yet occurred, the golden age lying prior to the time in which something could occur. {The golden age} does not oppose a state of nature to a civilized state; it erases all differences between them, presenting civilized foods as the spontaneous product of nature bestowed upon men without their having to lift a finger, the food already cultivated, harvested, stored, cooked, and ready to be consumed.

>Thus the deviation, if there is one, is not in relation to nature but in relation to the divine. Again this means that the real issue here concerns the relation of mortals to immortality, that this anthropogony is in the first instance a thanatology. Anthropogony only acquires meaning in theogony, the conflict between the Olympians and the Titans, which continues, in an underhanded way, with the struggle between Zeus and Prometheus.It is in this sense that humans participate in the divine, on the basis of the double fault, particularly that of the theft of fire, erecting altars to the gods qua those who are immortal. It is a religion entirely made up of trepidation at the condition of technicity (its power, implying equally the powerlessness of mortals). Before the fault, nothing had happened. The fault takes place, and everything disappears: humans, in their condition of mortality, issue from a deceitful lot given by Prometheus, to the detriment of Zeus and to the apparent benefit of humanity, whose sacrificial practices in the Greek city recall the consequences. Mortals come to be through their very disappearance, a disappearance inherent to their condition, that of dying.

[Anonymous No.11962984]

>>11962979
Blindsight has some good intelligent-but-not-sentient things going on with the aliens, not to spoil too much.

[Anonymous No.11963027]

>>11962968
>Give yourself a trip OP, you're one of the few people on here that meets the criteria for using one legitimately. UncleNick or something like that.
hey, thanks! that's very kind anon. i do have a handle (sort of): it's girardfag. and IRL this is me. but you can search me on warosu for more schizo-ramble if you like. it's all Landian stuff, although my early posting is...more colorful (read: stupid). there is a lot of demented addle-posting about land and other guys in continental theory in the archives to read. Cosmotech, however, appears to be what it was leading up to.

>>11962979
good point. and a good clarification also. also, the pic in the above post is the myth of the castration of Saturn, not the myth of Epimetheus, in case any anons ITT are super-hardcore about your mythology (as you should, given that Greek mythology is patrician af). i wanted to clarify that. i just thought it was a super-cool image to use.

carrying forward:

>Through sacrifice mortals are put in their place: between the beasts and the gods, in this in-between (between appearing and disappearing) resulting from a deviation. It is not a matter of recalling a state of nature, nor of claiming what "human nature" ought to have been; there was no fall, but a fault, no hap nor mishap, but mortality.

>For Hesiod, bringing to light the condition of humanity consists not in defining a "human nature" of which he has no idea, but in unveiling, through the narrative of the founding of the sacrifice, all the implications, immediate or distant, of this cult that regards the very status of humans, that is, the place assigned to them.

>The Hesiodic myth allows us to understand how the question of the community—which becomes the question of politics (ending up, in the Protagorean version, with the sending of Hermes)—is indissociable from the cult of sacrifice: the political community is solely constituted in the memory of the original sacrifice, that is, indissociable from the Promethean fault. It can also be seen in this context that religion and the polis are indissociably understood in ancient Greece in terms of mortality qua the originary departure from all origins, that is, qua technicity—an ambiguous, stolen, all too human reflection of power/potential.

>Humans, like all mortal creatures, like beasts, are on a different level to the gods, standing to one side, strangers to the divine sphere. Singular, however, among mortal creatures, and unlike the beasts, their mode of existence implies a constant reference to, a particular relation with the supernatural Powers. There is no city, no human life that does not set up a relation to the divine world through an organized cult, establishing thereby something like a community with it. It is this ambiguity concerning the human condition, both separate from and close to the divine, outside it and in relation to it, that Prometheus assumes in his own manner within the divine sphere itself.

[Anonymous No.11963041]

>In other words, the duplicity of power/potential derives from the sphere of Immortals itself. And when it is carried out—an act that constitutes the fault of Prometheus, failing to stem Olympian omnipotence—it means a fall (quite similar to the one that Heidegger's existential analytic will attempt to think) which the sacrifice recalls and whose acceptance of the fact mortals affirm in the practice of the cult. The failure of Prometheus does not simply turn the sacrificial rite into an act that symbolizes the complete segregation of the two races (mortal and immortal); it confers upon this separation the character of an irremediable and justified fall, one whose validity, each time by sacrificing in Promethean mode they engage in communication with the superior powers, mortals must recognize.

>It is in these terms that prometheia can be seen to determine mortality, giving to ancient Greek religion and politics, as well to the tragic, their entire meaning. Mortality is prometheia, and ever since Zeus realized that he was being duped by Prometheus, "human existence [has been] how we see it: entirely prey to the twofold struggle, unceasingly torn between," on the one hand, the good êris, which is made up of competitive emulation at work, and, on the other, fratricidal war (between Perses and Hesiod, between members of the same city, between cities). In this respect, it is somewhat astonishing to note the total neglect and forgetting of this Promethean origin, which has almost come to form the core of modern and contemporary philosophical analyses of Greek politics and religion, when Vernant has shown with utter clarity that "if the life of human beings, contrary to that of the gods, cannot shirk êris, it is because the mortal condition finds its origin and its raison d'être in the êris that set Prometheus against Zeus.

>Prometheus attempted to mislead Zeus, as a result of which there emerged the human condition. But the truth of the appearance of humanity is to be found in its disappearing: such is the vengeance of Zeus. The golden age is succeeded by a period of ills in which humans no longer dispose of anything ready to hand, no longer have anything, that is, to put in their mouth, now irremediably bent to the yoke of ponos, the labor that must be spent in payment for the lack of origin, for corn to appear. For, from now on, bios remains hidden in the belly of the earth, disappearing yet again and forever, like mortals themselves, while the obligation to work, to handle instruments, will reappear over and over again for these same mortals, until, grown old through care, they at last pass away.

[Anonymous No.11963056]

>>11962912
>This meltdown doesn’t have to mean the end of the world. In can also be approached as a pivotal political and philosophical moment, when restructuring on both a global and local scale is possible because the old structures have been dissolved by new technologies. In the words of Bernard Stiegler, we can describe our moment as a “digital epoché,” in which old institutional forms are not only conceptually but also materially suspended. For example, Finland is considering using new digital technology to abandon the traditional way of teaching according to subject and to develop a curriculum that involves more collaboration among teachers. This is a moment when new forms of educational institutions can be created, when a “destitution” (in Agamben’s sense) can be carried out to break down a synchronization that so far has only served the interests of globalization. This destitution can lead to the emergence of epistemes that diverge from the hegemonic synchronization internal to the technological singularity. It is an opportunity to develop new thinking and new constitutions that go beyond current debates focused on universal basic income and robot taxis. We must not wait for the technocrats to implement this thinking via lengthy reports from the “Cathedral.”

what i find kind of weak when i hear that this kind of stuff is that it sounds like utopian moldbuggian patchwork that avoids all authoritarian and truly different perspectives, that still remains tamed and liberal somehow, a plurality that is not plural at all and that it still remains somehow chained to progressive standards

i don't think we can have this, you can't have the cake and eat it too, its either homogenization or true plurality, with all its ugliness and true difference that scares us

[Anonymous No.11963061]

>Religion, speech, politics, invention—each is but an effect of the de-fault of origin. The essential is the accident, the absence of quality. The political question, the question of the community, only makes sense if one starts from the community of a de-fault or of the imminent de-fault of community. Religion, sacrifice, the altar only make sense with this political question, which originates in Prometheus's stamp. Speech will only make sense in terms of the meaning that this sacrifice saves.

>Man invents, discovers, finds (eurisko), imagines (mê khane),and realizes what he imagines: prostheses, expedients. A pros-thesis is what is placed in front, that is, what is outside, outside what it is placed in front of. However, if what is outside constitutes the very being of what it lies outside of, then this being is outside itself The being of humankind is to be outside itself. In order to make up for the fault of Epimetheus, Prometheus gives humans the present of putting them outside themselves.

>Humankind, we might say, puts into effect what it imagines because itis endowed with reason, with logos—that is, also with language. Or should we rather say that it is because it realizes what it imagines—as we said a moment ago, because it lies outside itself—that humanity is endowed with reason, that is, with language? Is it tekhne that arises from logos, or the reverse? Or rather, is it not that logos and tekhne are modalities of the same being-outside-oneself?

>Prometheus robs Hephaestus and Athena. By pursuing Athena, Hephaestus becomes the father of the Athenians. Here arms, tools, and instruments of war play a large role: Athena rose from the head of Zeus clad in arms, delivered by the patron god of handicraft with an axe. Athena is in turn pursued by Hephaestus when she orders arms from him: in this manner the craftsman's sperm is spilt on the earth, constituting the myth of Athenian autochthony, a myth that will be important to us later. Origin, war, politics: with each it is a matter of instruments. From these gods who handle instruments is stolen the "creative genius of the arts" (which translates ten entekhnen sophian: it is, again, a matter of sophia and tekhne).

>Sophia and tekhne are nothing without fire, with all that this connotes of duplicity, given that it concerns the fire stolen by Prometheus. Fire, in the hands of mortals, is a power of divine origin through whose mediation, in sacrifice, the mortals put themselves in the place of the gods. Fire is not, however, the power of mortals, it is not their property; it is much more a domestic power that, when escaping the technical mastery of this domesticity, reveals its wild violence, disclosing the powerlessness of mortals, only appearing in their hands, yet again, through disappearing.

athena hands down best celestial waifu

[Anonymous No.11963068]

>>11962914
Good post

[Anonymous No.11963079]

>>11962914
>inception in the late 1980
weird way to say 1814 anon

[Anonymous No.11963083]

>The role that fire plays here must be given a temporal sense: anticipation, care, conservation, and so on, in a succession of mistakes set in play by the originary double fault. The duplicity of fire, symbol of the duplicity of mortal "power," is nothing but the effect of an originary doubling-up: Prometheus's fault, origin of the de-fault in being for mortals of the human species, is the doubling-up of a fault: the fault of Epimetheus is compensated for by another fault, which inevitably engenders the de-fault.

>Activity is to be thought in terms of (the différance of) absolute inactivity. This being-toward-death, ecstasis, being-outside-oneself, in expectation, hope or fear, configures a particular mode of being of mortals among themselves, a being-together that does not come into existence before Epimetheus's act of forgetting (beings that are aloga, simply engendered without birth, are not "together"). Technics, art, facticity can harbor madness: the prosthesis is a danger, that of artifacts, and artifacts can destroy what gathers within an effective and active being-together. Being-together is constantly threatened by its own activity. Animals are in essence not in danger, unless with mortals: if they perish individually, their species do not destroy themselves. Mortals, because they are prosthetic in their very being, are self-destructive.

>This is the meaning of Prometheus, chained to the rock, his liver consumed by the eagle sent from Zeus. Through this act of Olympian revenge, a primordial melancholy, vehicle of every phantasm, of every hypochondria, of every bilious misanthropy, will precede as its possibility the hermeneutic community.

>Like the immortal liver of the Titan, the hunger of men who perish is postponed from one day to the next, constant and recurrent, requiring food to be procured without end to maintain them in the form of a precarious and short-lived life that is henceforth their lot.

>Like hunger, the cold, labor, and basic cares return each day, never more than deferred. Just as the future is as inevitable as it is implacably undetermined, so Prometheus's liver, consumed by day and restored by night, is the Titan's clock —become feast of the sacrifice, as much as his torment. It is the ceaseless process of différance in which time is constituted with that one coup of technicity that is the mark of mortality. "Why the liver?" It is an organic mirror in which divinatory hermeneutics is practiced, in which, during the sacrifice, divine messages are interpreted. And it is Hermes who, in Aeschylus, announces to Prometheus his punishment. Organ of all humors, of feelings of all situations, because it is the seat of the "feeling of situation," the liver is also, as a mirror of ceaseless mortality—which never occurs—of the body and the heart, the mirage of the spirit. A clock, its vesicle conceals those stones [calculs] that secrete black bile, melas kholi.

[Anonymous No.11963113]

that brings part 3 of T&T (1) to a close. the fourth part of the book mainly deals with Heidegger. like everything else, it is worth reading. i've just excerpted some of the stuff most relevant to this thread here.

>In the course of the lecture "The Concept of Time" (1924), Heidegger, elaborating a phenomenological hermeneutics of Dasein qua a being that has to be, that is, a historial being immersed in hermëneia, sets up the articulation between the who and the what through the thematic of the clock.

>Opposition to the Sophists is constitutive of philosophy; the opposition turns around the question of technics, such as it finds specification in writing. Writing is already something like a language machine, producing a language of synthesis. But it is also in writing, insofar as writing opens up the space particular to political "publicity" and historical "temporality," that the logos becomes a question and acquires, strictly speaking, definition, distinguishing itself as reason from what is not yet rational. Now, writing is a technics. And we have seen in the story of Protagoras how tekhnê gives rise to the polis.

>Whatever the shifts in Heidegger's successive accounts of this question—to begin with Being and Time, one major consequence of which is the highlighting of the ontological singularity of beings that are "ready-to-hand," tools, that is, the what (and the sign is itself a tool)—Heidegger's thought is fundamentally still inscribed in the traditional opposition between tekhnê and the logos. If he denounced, well after Being and Time, and in another vocabulary, analyses of technics that are conducted in terms of the categories "end" and "means," it was in order to uncover an instrumental conception of technics, an analysis in which he does not appear to put in question the determination itself of an instrument as a means. The metaphysical illusion from Plato onward that turns language into a means through which humans express themselves, rather than its being located as the site of their very constitution, is abundantly criticized by Heidegger. Yet it is the same error that induces consideration of an instrument as a means. Heidegger criticizes the instrumentalization of language, its "cybernetization" in terms of the elimination of idiomatic difference, as what "transforms language into an exchange of news, with] the arts becoming regulated-regulating instruments of information," a theme that is taken up again and developed in The Language of Tradition and Technical Language."

[Anonymous No.11963139]

>The mathematical is a fundamental position towards things, one in which our apprehension pro-poses things with regard to the way in which they are already given to us and must be so given. The mathematical constitutes therefore the fundamental presupposition of the knowledge of things. Epimêtheia would also mean then tradition-originating in a fault that is always already there and that is nothing but technicity. This understanding of the term is faithful to traditional historiality, which forms an existential trait of Dasein: Dasein, as "being-thrown," inherits the already-there that is its past, always having preceded it and from out of which it "is" this particular "who," child and grandchild of so and so, and so on—its past, which is not properly speaking its past since it did not "live" it. The temporal mode of being of Dasein is historiality, which "designates the constitution of the historizing-being of Dasein as such," and the meaning of this historizing is itself facticity. "In its factical being, any Dasein is as it already was, and it is 'what' it already was. It is its past, whether explicitly or not." One can understand the (awesome) sense of the adverb "already" here. If the mode of being (of Dasein's past) historicizes "from the future," Dasein has grown up both into and in a traditional way of interpreting itself: in terms of this it understands itself proximally and, within a certain range, constantly. By this understanding, the possibilities of its being are disclosed and regulated. Its own past—and this always means the past of its "generation"—is not something which follows along after Dasein, but something which already goes ahead of it.

>Hence Hubert Dreyfus is more correct than he believes to see in the philosophy of Being and Time a "technical phenomenology," even if Heidegger remains fundamentally ambiguous on this point and fails to carry this reflection to a conclusion:

>Opposing the Cartesian subject/object distinction in terms of an account of Dasein as a user of equipment becomes an ambiguous form of opposition, for it is no longer clear whether such an analysis offers a critique of technology in the form of a transcendental account of the pre-technological everyday understanding of equipment, or whether, under the guise of a transcendental account of everyday activity, such an analysis reflects a transition in the history of the way equipment is which prepares the way for technology. In other words, it is not clear whether Being and Time opposes technology or promotes it. (Dreyfus 1992, 175).

[Anonymous No.11963149]

>The clock measures time (or change) by comparing the duration of an event "to identical sequences on the clock, and [it] can thereby be numerically determined," which it can only do as "a physical system in which an identical temporal sequence is constantly repeated." At the end of 24 hours, it is the first hour that returns. How could a clock mark anything beyond its 24 hours? Because it only functions for Dasein, a who, who collects or re-marks the return of the cycle. This marking only forms, however, the putting into play of another system, of which the clock forms one element. For what is important here is the installation of calendar inscriptions in general as well as the structure of datability that they presuppose. This structure includes the various installations for conserving traces, the entire setup of mnemotechnics, and, finally, that of the "transmission of forms of knowledge." The calendar system itself is inscribed in the movement of the planets, within which lies the system of seasons, and where the name for climatic time finds its justification. An entire "programmatic" is set up—from starlight to what appears later in the text as mortality.

>Everything today would seem to confirm with still-unsurpassable strength the direction of Heidegger's analysis. And yet, the no future remains to be thought (as "real time" in the sense of the nondeferred): it reveals a techno-logico-instrumental condition in which time is the technological synthesis of and in, mortality. Does the time without time of no future translate the error of technics, or does it translate, more profoundly, the techno-logical fate [Ge-schick, errancy] of Dasein itself? And why does this fate also take the name of "the end of history," declaring itself to be an end, that is, the fulfillment of metaphysics? Is not "to think being without beings" to acknowledge this absence of time, of this dis- appearance of time in time itself? Does not this "time without time" or "this absence of time" require that the thought of being, of time and the Zeit-raum, starts from technics? Is it not the revelation of the withdrawal for a Blank Generation, itself nothing but the name of the being that is given and, in the same gesture, withdrawn by Prometheus, that is, a mortal?

[Anonymous No.11963160]

>>11953618
what you don't see in the one about Kant is the leap of faith required to get from Kant to Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.11963168]

>>11953620
into it

[Anonymous No.11963170]

>>11963056
>>11962912
yes, it's can of sad to read a criticism of NRx that is this good and that then proceeds to fall back into the most naive and insipid run-of-the-mill liberalism without any backing except for utopian longings and grandstanding...

[Anonymous No.11963176]

>These questions open the second volume of this work. They will be pursued through an analysis of orthotheses particular to present analogical, numerical, and biological technologies (which are nothing other than mnenotechnologies "en-gramming" [engrammant] the already-there). The second volume will attempt to interpret the specificity of contemporary technics from this perspective, measuring up to the following question: to what extent can the who that we are today double up on its what?

>The irreducible relation of the who to the what is nothing but the expression of retentional finitude (that of its memory).Today memory is the object of an industrial exploitation that is also a war of speed: from the computer to program industries in general, via the cognitive sciences, the technics of virtual reality and telepresence together with the biotechnologies, from the media event to the event of technicized life, via the interactive event that makes up computer real time, new conditions of eventization have been put in place that characterize what we have called light-time. Light-time forms the age of the différance in real time, an exit from the deferred time specific to the history of being that seems to constitute a concealing of différance and a threat to all kinds of difference— which is why one can speak of the end of history or of a change of epoch. Today this light-time raises demands for exceptional measures: hence "the cultural exception." There is therefore a pressing need for a politics of memory. This politics would be nothing but a thinking of technics (of the unthought, of the immemorial) that would take into consideration the reflexivity informing every orthothetic form insofar as it does nothing but call for reflection on the originary de-fault of origin, however in- commensurable such a reflexivity is (since it is nonsubjective). Whence the excess of measure in this exceptional phrase inscribed on the wall of time: no future.

this brings us to the end of Technics and Time vol 1. pretty fucking fascinating book, imho. as i was saying earlier, 2 has a lot going on in terms of the industrialization of memory which really is fascinating (and this is, as indicated in the OP, 'Prosthetic Memories edition'). so i think i'll probably burn some more of the image space in this thread greentexting from that next, unless you guys have any objections. it's crucial Cosmotech, imho.

but aw yeah, we hacked our way through another book. feels good man. i don't know if i want to do all of T&T 2 but maybe just those parts that connect the relay from Epimetheus to our current section of the Wild Ride.

[Anonymous No.11963179]

>>11954248
I don't know if anyone has suffered to bring us this but I for one haven't been on 4chan in weeks and I fucking LOVE it it's like a really long desire-gratification thread

>>11954574
then I see something like this and I'm like, wait, are you guys all pretending to be postmodern faggots just to climb out of ever having to pretend to be ironic again? Because I have some memes for you.

[Anonymous No.11963207]

>>11963179
The anime guy is just memeing, the OP and other contributors are genuinely great... not that I'm averse to big anime tiddies mind you

[Anonymous No.11963209]

>>11963176
if you want, Dianetics (yeah it's the foundational text of the Church of Scientology) was written in the 50s and it's about engrams

[Anonymous No.11963213]

>>11963056
NRx in the sense of Moldbug or Land is still basically liberal in its underlying assumptions, though. Especially Land's flavor of it. To me, the great irony in Land's complaining about demotism is that a democratic republic with a non-secure power structure is practically ideal for corporations - because they have an insecure power structure, democratic republics are marketplaces for laws which government can never hope to prevent bad corporate actors from misbehaving, despite corporations being delegates of the sovereign in practice. Indeed, the first thing a secure (military) government would do in the US would be to heavily rein in tech companies transferring shit to China, farmers and land speculators who advocate unlimited immigration, and so on.

[Anonymous No.11963216]

>>11963079
brbfapping

[Anonymous No.11963220]

>>11963213
This. The only hope for the West, if there is any left and we aren't too far gone, must be inherently illiberal. It must be anti-liberal. The meme about liberalism being moral syphilis is honestly only barely a meme at this point.

[Anonymous No.11963231]

>>11962914
this is fantastic. When I read 'teleoplexy' it sounds like my life ought to be all about teleoplexy and I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole topic and have never heard of it.

It sounds like you guys once wrote some bullshit about tentacle porn and AI and are now paying for it because you wanted to philosophise... I soon embark on my own sacrifice to trying to make ETs real

who wants to join me? :/

also do you think it's now actually possible for a tecntacle monster made of computerstuff to create a living human or bizarre mutant? because I watched a video yesterday you newfriends would not BELIEVE

[Anonymous No.11963238]

>>11963220
It's really funny to gradually realize that modern liberalism is basically an anti-Church. I use a capital C there because its precepts are remarkably consistent in being opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church (and indeed were promoted to attack the Church). But in many ways the power structure is actually rather similar to that of the Church, thus >the Cathedral, except the teachings are terrible.

[Anonymous No.11963250]

>>11963238
>>11963220
If anything I think NRx suffers from a deficit of Medieval history.

[Anonymous No.11963253]

I'm a brainlet and google has been no help. What does teleoplexy mean exactly?

[Anonymous No.11963300]

>>11963253
see
>>11950847
reader here: >>11957723
and here: https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf..

i'll remember to put Teleoplexy in the OP of future posts also. probably Poememenon and the Accelerate Reader. i had Poememenon in the OP of Cosmotech #6 and took it out, i guess both of those should be Standard Loadout for Cosmotech threads. thanks for the reminder.

>>11963179
yeehaw! glad you're enjoying the Wild Ride anon. there has been mild suffering, i suppose, but it's all worth it for a good thread, i think. i've been brooding about this stuff for a while and bothering /lit/ with my obsessions for a while now. feels good man to finally be figuring out why that was/is.

>>11963209
i'm not huge into Scientology myself, but i will give it this much: people who are ex-scientologists have a unique (and valuably) skeptical perspective on all things ontotheological, which is the definition of modern Blue Team/Red Team politics (which are both forms of massively forgetting the question of Being, Gestell, and so on).

>>11963231
>this is fantastic. When I read 'teleoplexy' it sounds like my life ought to be all about teleoplexy and I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole topic and have never heard of it
welcome to the Wild Ride mi amigo. please keep your brain inside the vehicle at all times

>>11963250
>If anything I think NRx suffers from a deficit of Medieval history.
now this is interesting. would be interested to hear more

[Anonymous No.11963302]

>>11963253
https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

[Anonymous No.11963315]

>>11963300
Most of our theories about governance, society, philosophy, etc. have their roots in Church-State power struggles over the years, usually to promote adherence to secular power over the Church or rejection of some Church doctrine or another because a King didn't like it.

[Anonymous No.11963321]

>>11963300
>>If anything I think NRx suffers from a deficit of Medieval history.
>now this is interesting. would be interested to hear more
i haven't got around seeing/reading it but Justin Murphy gave a lecture on "Reality Patchwork and Neo-Feudal Techno-Communism (Transcript)":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodM5vd2Dk0&feature=youtu.be
transcript: https://theotherlifenow.com/on-reality-patchwork-and-neo-feudal-techno-communism/

he is no expert on history or medieval but he seems to be interested on investigating how feudalism developed as a sort of patchwork from the ashes of the roman empire and how the church played a role as a sort of cohesive moral compass that kept it all stable

some other articles from the guy related to this:
https://theotherlifenow.com/free-hierarchy/
https://theotherlifenow.com/the-catholic-coordination-game/

[Anonymous No.11963351]

>>11963321
I'm puzzled by his linking of Feudalism to Communism, because Communism is typically completely centralized and feudalism would have a variety of delegated social spheres (Church, guilds, etc). Okay, you can argue that that's not real Communism, but who cares?

[Anonymous No.11963366]

>>11963220
we can probably discuss this here also without taking things *too* far afield.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVpYvV0O7uI
>tfw probably opening pandora's box
>hail epimetheus, god of foolishness, excuses and afterthought
>this is indeed your god now girardfag

>>11963315
>>11963321
ty anon. i'm familiar with Murphy's stuff, and those essays are indeed interesting. apparently he's been taking some serious flak of late and has been bitching about it on his Twitter also (he's even got as much of a pat on the back for it from Uncle Nick as one could reasonably hope for). but this is good reference material for other anons who may not have encountered Murphy before.

and, of course, there is the interview with Uncle Nick, required reading for acceleration:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

medievalism is cool tho. and without some connection to it NRx is indeed doomed, i think, if it isn't doomed already. i don't have a lot of irons in that fire myself, because i think ultimately Girard seals the deal for most serious political questions that i have, and for whatever is left over, there's Peterson. in Cosmotech we are looking for a way off the Wild Ride completely or, if this is impossible, at least some handle on the gearbox so that we can slow things down to the point where human beings are not being sucked off into the unknown: a rectification of names, in part, and an attempt to restore a little sanity and balance.

[Anonymous No.11963387]

>>11963366
>and, of course, there is the interview with Uncle Nick, required reading for acceleration:
>https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/
that's great, i didn't know there was a transcript of his interview with Land, which i wanted to revisit but was too lazy to listed to the video again

[Anonymous No.11963390]

>>11963366
I think there are some subsets of NRx that involve thinkers like Girard, but tend towards Catholicism, over something like Land's commercialism.

>in Cosmotech we are looking for a way off the Wild Ride completely or, if this is impossible, at least some handle on the gearbox so that we can slow things down to the point where human beings are not being sucked off into the unknown: a rectification of names, in part, and an attempt to restore a little sanity and balance.
imo, you have the "Wild Ride" phenomenon because of liberalism. In particular, liberalism refuses to promote an idea of good beyond utility function maximization (and the State determines what that utility function looks like, and is perpetually insecure by design, so it becomes perpetually more batshit).

[Anonymous No.11963398]

>>11963366
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVpYvV0O7uI
>2:37
>"after all, "I'm not a fascist", is exactly what a fascist would say
how deluded is that tranny? he's imagining himself being called a fascist and how he would react; I don't for one second believe that a genuine communist would say "I'm not a communist", or any true believer in any kind of political system would say they weren't one unless it was some extreme case of torture and potential execution if they were to say so

[Anonymous No.11963401]

i have to step out for a bit, but i wanted to ask this:

what links do you think are required reading for the OP's of future Cosmotech threads (however many of these there may be): so far i'm thinking:

-the Economics/philosophy mega
-Poememenon
-Teleoplexy
-and the Accelerate Reader.

plus music & atmospherics &c, and Previously On.

that's probably enough, but i was just curious if there anything else you guys think should be standard loadout for these threads that would help for people who have absolutely no idea what the Wild Ride is on about.

[Anonymous No.11963412]

>>11963398
"fascist" just means "icky" from a leftist tactical point of view

[Anonymous No.11963418]

>>11963366
>>11963387
>Nick Land: These things come in waves. Wave motion is crucial to this. There was an extremely exciting wave that was ridden by the Ccru in the early to mid-1990s. You know, the internet basically arrived in those years, there were all kinds of things going on culturally and technologically and economically that were extremely exciting and that just carried this accelerationist current and made it extremely, immediately plausible and convincing to people. Outrageous perhaps, but definitely convincing. It was followed — and I wouldn’t want to put specific dates on this, really — but I think there was an epoch of deep disillusionment. I’d call it the Facebook era, and obviously, for anyone who’s coming in any way out of Deleuze and Guattari, for something called “Facebook” to be the dominant representative of cyberspace is just almost, you know, a comically horrible thing to happen! [Laughs.]
top kek

[Anonymous No.11963646]

make a chart already goddamn

[Anonymous No.11963657]

>>11963646
it's going too fast, no chart can capture the dynamics, maybe a gif...

[Anonymous No.11963690]

>>11963646
the revolution will not be charted

[Anonymous No.11963692]

>>11963646
I mean, the first half would just look like a standard philosophy guide with maybe more of a focus on certain philosophers like Deleuze or Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.11963695]

>>11963401
Here's my contribution to the music:
https://my.mixtape.moe/ohvuud.mp3

It's the entire album Qu@r@nt1n3, by L@ur3l H@l0, look it up it's very cybery and futurey with a bunch of alienation thrown in for good measure.
(bots are good at detecting artist names, sorry about the meme style of text).

Pic related is the album art.

[Anonymous No.11963712]

>>11962914
Sounds hot. Source?

[Anonymous No.11963761]

>>11963418
>Nick Land: Okay, that’s great. That’s really… This has been great fun, Justin. Best of luck. I would even go as far as “best of luck” with your communist blockchain, as long as you’re not looking for an investment.
Land is a funny guy

[Anonymous No.11963824]

>>11963695
ty anon, will give this a listen

>>11963646
i mean i'd love to see one, even if it were just for acceleration and left the Cosmotech stuff aside for now. there's a lot to be found in the Acceleration reader.

that said, i will re-post a couple of things from earlier Cosmotech threads in the hopes that this may be helpful to anyone who would like to make a graph or other visual aids to go along with this stuff. i don't have much graphic design skill myself but imho the field is pretty wide open for anyone who would want to kill an afternoon drawing the Crazy Paranoid True Detective Map in red string that an earlier anon was asking about. Uncle Nick has proven meme potential, this we know. and a graph would indeed be way cool.

>>11963692
this, basically.

so:

[Anonymous No.11963828]

>>11963657
>going to fast

Does it?
It all seems for me to be stuck in late 90s.

[Anonymous No.11963831]

>>11963824
(1)

the existence of these multiple modes of time, tho. it's really a thing. just consider the following Short History of Time Travel:

Kant replaces God with Time.
Hegel replaces History with Spirit.
Marx replaces Spirit with Capital.

now marx's Capital arguably has two modes of temporal existence, the money form and the commodity form, and moreover all of this is Waiting For The Revolution. marx is a fucking colossus, btw. he does not deserve half the shit that is thrown at him. true, a lot of ridiculous stuff was done in his name. but those days are over now. the actual guy who was looking at this process didn't *invent* Capital any more than freud *invented* the unconscious. all they did was try to express what they were seeing as best they could. anyways.

Nietzsche posits the Eternal Recurrence, the basic form of the circuit.
Heidegger 'platonizes' Nietzsche, in a way, by changing the terms: N's WtP becomes H's 'openness to Being.' but in B&T, two parallel modes of time: the ontic time of technology and the ontological time of poetry.

Spengler has his own enormous thesis about Culture and Civilization, including the winter phase, which echoes heidegger's 'end of metaphysics'.

Lacan fuses Nietzsche and Heidegger together to create 'Oedipal Time,' including the phases of imaginary, symbolic and real. the therapeutic journey is the subject-analysand's traversal of that symbolic realm, the near-impossibility which delights Zizek to no end.

D&G posit Aion, the time of Events, and Chronos, the time of Measurement. they don't even go near history as hegel imagines it, and yet they stay Marxist. the Mechanosphere thus presented may in fact bear some resemblance to hegel's 'realm of slow-moving spirits' described at the end of PoS, but hegel-D&G connections are probably a bad idea.

Land re-hegelianizes marx by suggesting teleoplexy. more recently, he has been suggesting that Bitcoin instantiates artificial synthetic Kantian time, and he might be right about that. i guess one question to ask is whether or not he has now smashed hegel inside of kant or kant inside of hegel. it's hard to tell.

in a more boring sense, but not less important for being so, Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' is arguably the psychologist's way of re-presenting this story told better imho by philosophers but perhaps with more sobriety.

and now Yuk Hui, no slouch either as Cosmotechnician/astral engineer. by drawing on stiegler's concept of tertiary protention and simondon's idea of transduction, YH has actually offered a really crucial new perspective on the meaning of technics and time. stiegler is a boss here for having come up with a thesis about time that heidegger overlooked (that is, *memory* and its relationship to technics), and YH thinks simondonian transduction is the right way to explain technological innovation. it also gets the mad bonus points for being a land-compatible theory.

[Anonymous No.11963855]

>>11963824
>>11963831
(2)

acceleration bibliography

>Introductions
Greenspan: Capitalism’s Transcendental Time Machine
Ireland: Poememenon
MacKay & Avanessian: Accelerate reader
Murphy: Ideology, Intelligence and Capital with Nick Land
Overy: Genealogy of Land’s Anti-Anthropocentric Philosophy

>Land
Uncle Nick is the crown prince of acceleration, so you should read pretty much everything he has written, including:
- work published on xenosystems, much of which is compiled in the /lit/ reader
- Teleoplexy: notes on acceleration
- Kant, Capital and Prohibition of Incest
- Circuitries
- Meltdown
- Machinic Desire
- Dark Enlightenment

>Philosophy
Althusser: On the Reproduction of Capital
Bataille: Reader
Baudrillard: The System of Objects, Mirror of Production, Symbolic Exchange and Death
Bateson: Steps to an Ecology of Mind
Beer: Platform for Change
Benjamin: On the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Bergson: Creative Evolution
Bostrom: Superintelligence
Brassier: Nihil Unbound
CCRU: Writings
Chardin: The Phenomenon of Man
Debord: The Society of the Spectacle
Deleuze: Difference and Repetition
D&G: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, vol I and II, What Is Philosophy
Dupuy: On the Origins of Cognitive Science
Ellul: The Technological Society
Fisher: Capitalist Realism
Foerster: The Beginning of Heaven and Earth Has No Name
Greer: After Progress
Haraway: Cyborg Manifesto
Heidegger: Being and Time, Basic Writings
Hoppe: Democracy
Kant: Critique of Pure Reason
Marinetti: Futurist Manifesto
Marx: Grundrisse, Capital, Fragment on Machines
Mauss: The Gift
McLuhan: Understanding Media
Mises: Human Action
Negarestani: The Labor of the Inhuman
Noys: Malign Velocities
Pepperell: The Posthuman Condition
Plant: Zeroes and Ones
Srnicek & Williams: Manifesto
Rand: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
Simondon: On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects
Stiegler: Technics and Time, Automatic Society
Virilio: The Information Bomb, Speed and Politics
Whitehead: Science and the Modern World
Whitehead: Process and Reality
Wiener: The Human Use of Human Beings
Woodward: On an Ungrounded Earth
Yuk Hui: Cosmotechnics

>Blogs and other things
Bryant: Larval Objects
Hickman: Social Ecologies
Land: Xenosystems
Moldbug: Unqualified Reservations
Szabo: Unenumerated

>Fiction
Dick: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Gibson: Neuromancer
Stephenson: Snow Crash

the above list is not exhaustive, nor should it represent any kind of prohibition. these are just works that you might want to look at it if you are interested in the subject.

Note: this is only 20C stuff, and slanted towards acceleration. obviously Hegel, Freud et al should be here too, and i would be updating the Fiction section massively (>>/lit/thread/11931809#p11932809).). i have a pre-20C/non-acceleration bibliography also (>>/lit/thread/S11823861#p11835198).).

[Anonymous No.11963904]

>>11963831
>>11963855
so obviously it would be impossible to reduce anything on this scale down to a nice /lit/ graph for the time being. there's just too much stuff to sort through. i've been reading about Land et al for a while and only recently i've started thinking that all i really want to do is talk about the loop from Hegel - Land (and back again, if Teleoplexy is any indication). the Seven (and a half) Wise Men of Cosmotech are Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, D&G and Land. YH/Stiegler/Simondon are all relevant b/c of the Heidegger connections, and also because Cosmotech both is and is not acceleration proper. as long as Land is writing, Acceleration basically begins and ends with him, i suspect (although i could be wrong). whatever Cosmotech is, it's poking around in the possibilities of life after Uncle Nick's Wild Ride.

Baudrillard gets a nod in there too; he might be like our Virgil on the trip through Inferno. and with Whitehead playing the role of Tom Bombadil (if we can imagine a Tom Bombadil in the Inferno). Whitehead is kind of a special case all on his own. but don't quote me on any of this too closely.

but historically this requires us to retrace our steps in terms of how we got to this point in the first place, which means Stiegler, YH, Mumford, Ellul, McLuhan, Marty Glass, Spengler, and many others. it's a stupidly long list, but that's basically what happens with these things. kind of like Dwarf Fortress, in a way: a state of being in a permanent Alpha state. and also because Dwarf Fortress undeniably shares many of the same themes that Acceleration/hyperstition also does.

i believe there is hope, but i also think that this is an epochal shift, in many sense. as we will perhaps see in later greentext sections of T&T, an age of artificial memory (and tertiary protention, the always-already of Heidegger thrown into the future, as predictive apparatuses driven by algorithms, although the full story of that awaits YH's book next year) is likely to only make things even more confusing and "Fun."

but, having said all that, i would welcome a graph, or anything of this sort, if any anons were interested in working on one. i suspect that Run For The Fucking Fences is more likely the response to such a thing, but i figured i'd put that out there.

[Anonymous No.11963938]

>>11963904
>seven
>math exactly not your strong suit is it girardfag
>it is not inner self

forgot one. pic rel matters too, even after D&G, and in spite of whatever Land might say about psychoanalysis. it's all part of the big story. and because Lacan, channeling Kojeve, brings Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger together in one spot that - ask Zizek - is still a spot worth thinking about. maybe not so much if you're seriously into D&G, but even Land seems more driven by Kant today than Deleuzian stuff anyways, and Lacan and Kant have a special relationship of their own.

anyways. this is obviously a ridiculous Don Quixote quest, there's no doubt about any of that. but in case anyone was interested.

[Anonymous No.11964022]

>>11963904
alternately, just stick Rene Girard's head on whatever it is that is crashing through the walls and /lit/ above the soldiers rushing towards it with swords and you'll probably have an even more accurate picture.

[Anonymous No.11964055]

>>11963904
So visually, the Eight are oriented in a ring, and you could use individual ideas cited within texts to draw the lines between them? Then other texts like Freud's whose concepts are central to maybe only one aspect as Oedipus is, they would be strung out from the edges.

[Anonymous No.11964087]

>>11964055
>eight
are you including Guattari then? i pretty much treat D&G as a single entity for the meme-power of the number Seven
>seven

so one of the main themes of the story is the ongoing transformation of what Hegel calls Spirit, Marx calls Capital, and Land calls Teleoplexy. that is the real thread, which runs all the way from the micro/interior all the way to the macro/exterior, as far as i can tell. it encompasses not only theories of the unconscious and *their* transformations - Freudian, Lacan, Deleuzian/Spinozistic - but is also reflected in the ongoing story of technology and how *it* has been understood historically, culturally, and so on. so however this image is going to be conceived or imagined, it has to be done in a particular way...

and with Stiegler, there's both an Oedipus complex and an Epimetheus complex. but i also like YH's desire to think about a Qi-Dao relation: and that is, really, sort of what M:TG aesthetics are all about, in a way. Qi-Dao is an interesting relation between form and content that isn't the same thing as Order vs Chaos (or, even more poetically, Light and Darkness and so on).

i would, of course, be thrilled with any kind of visuals or things that might be supplied, but i don't think they're really all that necessary. we certainly don't lack for aesthetics as it is in the age of tumblr, and really, once you read and absorb some of the Big Guys - Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Deleuze - you'll see that none of the stuff we're talking about here is really even that remarkable. it can seem a little heavy at first, but after a while it just kind of falls into place.

but yeah. in a sense, the main thing - and maybe we can call it by a much older term, that being, Logos - is neither reducible to any of these expressions (Spirit/Capital/Teleoplexy) but includes all of them, and no doubt will be revealed to be, in the long run, much more interesting than any of these terms. but what little of that we can talk about is Cosmotech for now.

[Anonymous No.11964147]

>>11964087
i know there's more to this than aesthetics, obviously: the idea would be to make the thing *intelligible* and not just *pretty.* this too is part of why a shift from acceleration to Cosmotech, imho, is in order: we are currently losing our minds in a Feels > Reals world, but the double-bind is that the Reals (if they are technology) are profoundly dehumanizing/anti-anthropocentric and so on. this is, as i see it, why politics has returned with such a vengeance today, why it seems so inescapable. there has to be some way of balancing these contradictory tendencies, of a relation between polarities.

and this, of course, what JBP has been trying to do himself, in a way. my own reading has mostly been about the continental theorists that he deplores, and those guys will take you far indeed...but in terms of just finding a kind of psychological or philosophical balance in things that doesn't depend on ontotheological politics to make its home in the world, there are definitely lots of reasons to like what JBP is up to. he's a complicated guy in his own way, and he is who he is because he has been air-horned one too many times by people waving rainbow-covered hammer and sickle flags in his face and quoting (ironically) from Madness and Civilization.

so acceleration is imho what is driving a lot of this mayhem, but Moar Acceleration, beyond a certain horizon, doesn't actually make things any better. not least of which because that which desires to increase its speed arguably no longer needs our help (nor could it be stopped, even if we wanted to, short of Making Germany Great Again in ways i don't really want to see). so in the meantime, wat do? YH has a pretty good idea:

>The concept of cosmotechnics immediately provides us with a conceptual tool with which to overcome the conventional opposition between technics and nature, and to understand the task of philosophy as that of seeking and affirming the organic unity of the two.

and that's a big enough project for anyone. and so, anyone who wants to go ahead and contribute graphs/charts/guides or whatever else based on one anon's madcap adventure through philosophy, go nuts. Cosmotech is nothing if not open-source. whatever in it you find interesting, feel free to do what you like with it, as i certainly don't own any patents or trademarks. nor am i going to pursue an academic career in it either. the only goal is a kind of sanity, if that makes any sense. just sanity is enough. maybe a few less rage zombies at the grocery store. that's about it.

>nice blog fuckface
>you know what i mean inner self

[Anonymous No.11964225]

having said all that, what would be really nice would be if we had some kind of neoplatonist in this thread to fill in a few missing puzzle pieces at this point also

paging mystikos

[Anonymous No.11964912]

bump

[Anonymous No.11965103]

>>11963079
was waiting for someone to bring up hokusai's tako to ama. this work while functionally grounding the orientalised depiction of tentacle porn has in fact extremely little to do with the modern genre. firstly because the sex depicted is non-penetrative. secondly because the creatures are not figures of alterity, amorphous monsters, but simply recognisable animals familiar to coastal-dwelling japanese of the edo period. thirdly and most importantly the octopuses here have an articulated subject position. you see all that text around them? that's dialogue. the octopuses are speaking, and - in translation - they sound like typical sexually aggressive 'faceless doujin men'. modern tentacle porn came out of the late 1980s with very little reference to hokusai's work; the superficial similarity was discovered later and employed largely in the west to reify the genre as an archetypally japanese perversion

[Anonymous No.11965355]

>>11950954
Good post, not even ironic
Im screencaping it

[Anonymous No.11965707]

>>11963712
No detailed study of tentacle hentai exists. the academe suppresses this research...human security system instinctively fears the implications. you will have to conduct your own investigations. /d/ can guide you

[Anonymous No.11965891]

after spending hours at the library it somehow fucked up the negarestani scan. trying again next week. sorry for the delay lads

[Anonymous No.11965896]

>>11965891
Godspeed anon.

[Anonymous No.11966860]

bump

[Anonymous No.11967258]

>>11965103
>>11965707
pic rel for you connoisseurs of japanese cephalopod-ophiles

>>11965891
no worries anon

so i've been looking at T&T (2) and it is eminently greentext-able. like, the whole book. Stiegler is a complete boss. the connection is that writing (as technics) becomes memory, and all of this memory becomes technologized, leads into the infinite and auto-perpetuating production of reality.

it's pure Wild Ride, like a second Industrial Revolution carried out at the level of the psyche, and in the human being's relation towards the future, effected through credit, repetition and technology. and it just explains so much in terms of media control, the need to control (mutually exclusive) narratives about The Way Things Are. somewhat hyperbolically, it really does seem to me that you can say the human being is just becoming a testing ground for a production process which requires hominid validation for this ongoing self-experiment: for teleoplexy, for the computerization of life and society.

baudrillard was right, in many ways. if you want to live in that society, you can go all in for pataphysics &c if you like. go nuts with it. but i get this creeping feeling that there really is no joke to be had any longer on The System (surprise, surprise). if anything, the current wave of meme-politics only confirms this. one wing, the Blue Team, basically decided that they would have a monopoly on irony (and criticism), and what cannot be mocked or laughed at within the Assigned Parameters would have an ungodly shitstorm rained down on it. and this in turn produced Trump, who became the living Antichrist for simply refusing to share those sensibilities. yet both of these forces share the same underlying substrate, which is technology. they're both trapped on the same Wild Ride without knowing it: it's the formalization of the human race, it's becoming-programmable, becoming-operable. it comes out of the need to assign discrete beginning and an end to a planetary procress that just doesn't have one, that eludes every attempt at being Named absolutely (unless you want to call this thing, "God" - which would be accurate - surely that will work...)

but i guess where i would disagree with JB would be in the sense of a greater fatalism, a greater irony, a greater simulation and so on. the nature of technology itself can't be humanized in other than YH's Cosmotechnical terms. Land has figured out, at least, what he is interested in: the formalization of auto-catalytic intelligence through capital and technology. and even today, when it seems that the legacy of psychoanalysis has now become absorbed by HR and PR departments for the production of Woke Capital inquisitorial justice, required to keep the wheels of happiness turning...

it's like two movie studios, two production teams, directors, cast, crew and everything, fighting to show the same story. and they keep sabotaging each other, fighting a constant war to edit each other out of the frame.

[Anonymous No.11967310]

it really does feel like the birth pangs of a eudaimonic society. we still believe in freedom, in happiness, and so on. Zizek says that this is the ideology the (postmodern) West has had for a while, the contours of which have only become revealed in recent years once it has come under attack by the return of a conservative/Traditional/alt-right sensibility (and yes, i know, these aren't all the same things).

in SMAC parlance, nobody in our part of the world is really *against* Eudaimonia as a social engineering principle. but at the same time we are having this kind of referendum on whether or not happiness really is a sustainable goal either. certainly Peterson doesn't think so. if Land's mandate is Optimize for Intelligence, JBP's would be, Optimize for Suffering. in a civilizational sense, Land is right; on a personal level, it's not like Peterson is all the way wrong.

Eudaimonia seems to be what drives a lot of it tho, no? why else the regard for happiness, health, positivity, all the rest? for one thing, we have discovered that *guilt* and *shame* have lost none of their power: if anything, they only seem to increase in moralizing power the more we find ourselves admitting that we really have lost the plot, in some sense. Douglas Murray said it too: as a civilization, what the fuck are we doing? and in some sense, this is an unanswerable question - it's usually tyrants and artists of state who are capable of answering this question, but rarely in the ways we want it answered. just letting everybody kind of do their own thing is the right way to go, in many ways. but the exposure of this idea - that really, all we are doing now is Optimizing for Happiness opens the floodgates for everyone who wants to take issue with this idea (either cynically, or with an eye towards political gain, or even supportively.)

what makes Land (and Baudrillard) relevant is this sense that Eudaimonia, however much it represents a healthy, normative, even noble ideal for human beings is nevertheless related to technology in ways that should give one a considerable pause to consider the role of technology, history, and other things also. Landian teleoplexy posits a computer that processes desire, and if there is one thing we know about computers, it is that they too learn, improve, and so on. humans, not necessarily so much. we have a tendency to Get Cozy, which is what leads to the great wheel of decadence, decline, palingenesis and so on. no less an authority than Conan the Barbarian also liked to brood on these things.

Eudaimonia. bonus points to the SMAC designers also for connecting it to Temporal Mechanics.

anyways, T&T (2) is great. depending on how much interest there is in Cosmotech continuing i will probably do a greentext spree on this one too. i don't think i'll do the whole book tho, it's too long. maybe just a couple of interesting passages.

[Anonymous No.11967404]

it's wrong to call it, perhaps, the birth-pangs of a Eudaimonic civilization, though; if anything, it would be more appropriate to talk about this stuff in the Hegelian sense.

but this is part of the story: we figure out our own programming, our own happiness-protocols. we repeat and we repeat. somewhere along the way the meaning of both the past and the future goes missing, together with our own inability to keep ourselves together. the *money* is always real - and maybe, if you want to really double-down on Uncle Nick, *only* the money is real.

and yet those very circumstances give rise to their opposites. if people begin to sense that the only things are Money and Happiness, the power to shame and guilt and moralize increases correspondingly (and not altogether unjustifiably). but when one side *only* has a negative platform, seems to offer nothing *but* shame and guilt (and their own forms of ideological benediction also), things change again.

that sense of *programming* - which includes recursion, contingency, reflexivity, protention and retention, memory - all of this belongs to this story. and those tools, together with the discovery of those tools, kind of fuck with any neat and easy way to make predictions about where the future is going, or where it came from. to me at least, it explains part of the attraction (and horror) of something like Xi-style social credit: that, basically, there really is no future, only a moderately prosperous Chinese nation led by the CCP, now and forever. i'm not a serious Confucian scholar or anything, but this does seem to square with what i do understand of Confucius' sense of history as being fundamentally ritual. what worked in the past worked. why fuck with the system? where the Way is being followed you can't ask for more.

this is not, ofc, how we see things in the West, perhaps. but where do our sensibilities take us? back to this world of simulation and spectacle, to the Wild Ride. attempting to control the future and winding up stuck in hamster-wheels. technological progress will continue to blow all our minds, no doubt. i just wonder if it's like what Alan Watts said about the psychedelic experience:

>When you get the message, hang up the phone.

[old ted No.11967422]

Technophiles are shot on sight

[Anonymous No.11967431]

>>11967422
shot with what? a sling?

[Anonymous No.11967445]

>>11967422

[Anonymous No.11967451]

>>11950708
Why was this shit moved to fucking /his/tory for a while?

Also does Land or Moldbug write anywhere anymore?

[Anonymous No.11967476]

Go back to >>/g/ fucking technofags, /lit/ is a reactionary board

[Anonymous No.11967484]

>>11967476
neoreaction too hard for hubbub?

[Anonymous No.11967491]

>>11967451
Land shitposts on twitter, Moldbug wants to keep a low profile and doesn't want to be seen as an activist, so he is not writing

[Anonymous No.11967502]

>>11967491
>Moldbug wants to keep a low profile and doesn't want to be seen as an activist

Too bad he wrote the de facto incel revolution manifesto of which I want more >:l

[Anonymous No.11967533]

>>11967451
>Why was this shit moved to fucking /his/tory for a while?
that was the Strange Fate of Cosmotech #3. we were starting to get into China and social credit when it happened. there is an admittedly historical dimension to it, but the general desire is to keep it /lit/. Cosmotech #4 reappeared under the guise of an Alfred North Whitehead thread.

but, you know, given the theme a little Planar Travel here and there is acceptable, if not warranted.

>Also does Land or Moldbug write anywhere anymore?
Moldbug has basically finished and UR is now as cemented as the Golden Throne.

sadly, so has Xenosystems, which is a fucking mega-downer. Land has recently pronounced NRx dead-ish as well also (>>11962912). but as he said on the podcast (>>11955059) the BTC book is still going forward, with a preface to be released soon and the book in full at some point.

Vast Abrupt has been publishing some good stuff in these veins, if you're into it. it's pretty dark, but to some degree the GrimDark is required to flush out the bullshit, imho.

https://vastabrupt.com/texts/

>>11967476
see >>11950847

there will be no peace in the kingdom until the Cosmic Balance is restored. there is undeniably a need for moral metaphysics. Yuga is a great book, and as Traditional as they come. a great deal of what splits Cosmotech off from acceleration follows from Heidegger. the Middle Path is the way to go, in some sense, however much of a doomed prospect that may seem on some days. but there's always a seat open for mysticism at the table here. it's not all fanatical technophilia. coming to some understanding of what the techno-wizardry means or portends is the main idea. after that everyone's free to wear sunscreen.

[Anonymous No.11967540]

>>11955059
I listened to that, sounds like he is spinning his intellectual wheels alot.
>>11967533
VA too lefty 4 me.

[Anonymous No.11967577]

These theads are almost as bad as the /pol/ threads invading other boards to promote their shitty ideology

[Anonymous No.11967584]

>>11967540
>VA too lefty 4 me.

me too, but it's kind of interesting: maybe everybody has to do their own sort of mini-oscillation from left to right and back again. not quite as intensely as Land, perhaps, but still. my natural inclinations are on the left, which is why i read all of the continental theory stuff. but then Heidegger really changed my whole world view. that led into Land (and later, after him, Girard). i went through Peak Arktos and Company a few years ago, and it sort of coincided with the 2016 election. now i'm just fucking depressed by the anger and the outrage and mimesis, the drones and the rage.

the aesthetics of cyberpunk are only matched by the aesthetics of Tradition (which, if you smash them together, gives you the aesthetics of 40K, at least in one form.) but 40K is also GrimDark as all hell, and it's not what YH has in mind, i think. or Stiegler (Heidegger, i'm less sure about).

anyways, trying to find the harmonious resting point in the middle by balancing out the extreme left-right polarity is my own thing. one of the things about dystopias is that they have a tendency to resolve philosophical issues of this kind into state formalism: every dystopia is some sense a Hegelian creation. our world will no doubt follow this pattern as well. i just find the reasons about why this is so sufficiently rich and well-articulated by guys like Stiegler and YH to always look at these kinds of things and feel a mild disappointment. things don't have to be the way that they are, or continue on the path that they are heading down. it "makes sense," in one sense, Land's whole Teleoplexy argument, but it's also the result of a massive planetary alienation of human beings from old-school philosophical questions about the real issues of life: the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

>>11967577
ouch

[Anonymous No.11967586]

>>11967577
>>11967577
You realize you don't have to read it? Just click and filter, one thread.

[Anonymous No.11967618]

>>11967586
Look, you're taking away space from other threads, since /lit/ is a slow board you'll often be on page 1 with your quotationspam.
There's a /cyb/ general on /g/, go there.

[Anonymous No.11967634]

>>11967618
> go talk about philosophy and literature to /g/
ok, you can go talk about Proust to /papercraft/ since he wrote on I assume paper.

just filter the thread if its such an eyesore to see in catalog.

[Anonymous No.11967635]

>>11967618
/g/ average age is like 14, you can't discuss books there, only shiny things

[Anonymous No.11967648]

>>11967618
This thread is by far the best thread on /lit/ in terms of quality

[Anonymous No.11967649]

>>11967618
not that guy but i just took my first look at /g/ and i am 100% this thread does not belong there.

/lit/ has been having Land Threads for years now. this is only a continuation of that with a few tweaks. all of the tiny Land threads that get their own questions, many of which never go anywhere ('Capital is Sentient!' et al) can also go in here and receive other than meme answers. if anything, this thread is reducing the number of acceleration mini-threads about Land that the board would ordinarily have.

[Anonymous No.11967687]

>>11965891
WELP. was gonna host a shitpost chain on it but... also cosmotechnics is essentially what L/acc is supposed to be. because as L/acc stands now its pretty pathetic it, it doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.11967701]

>>11967687
Leftist accelerationism is literally Marx or literally shill for capitalism until it turns to socialism.

[Anonymous No.11967730]

>>11967649
warrants mentioning also, lest we get too carried away, i don't really know how much longer these threads are going to continue for, anyways. a month+ ago i started a thread just to talk about YH's upcoming book, and it has admittedly snowballed to pretty McDiculous proportions. but i don't know if it's a given you'll see Cosmotech #15 or anything like that. it's possible, i suppose, but in the last couple of threads my contribution has been the extensive greentexting of books i've been reading, and i don't really want to just take over the board with my own obsessions or drive people nuts. i wanted to talk about YH's book and some other stuff, and this has most definitely been done.

on pretty much every morning i wake up on Planet Meme i have something to say about acceleration, and i'm very happy to have a place to talk about my obsessions here on the old melanesian tap-dancing board. but i know it can't last forever, nor should it. so i do kind of walk a line between wanting to share stuff and not wanting to just sound like a complete lunatic. i am a complete lunatic, i just don't like to sound like one.

to have hit the bump limit six times in a row (including Cosmotech #3) is already to have had more fun with this whole thing than i could have ever imagined. we'll probably get there again with this one, and i'm happy to start an eighth installment as well. i always have things to talk about with this stuff. but it does kind of depend on the Mandate of Heaven as expressed by the /lit/ spirits as well. i'm always delighted to have the conversation but if it just seems that it has become so much of one anon's demented railroading, i'll quit, and with no hard feelings, and go back to doing whatever it is that i do IRL.

>>11967687
>cosmotechnics is essentially what L/acc is supposed to be. because as L/acc stands now its pretty pathetic it, it doesnt exist.
in a sense, i think this is true. i prefer YH's definition and treatment because it transcends (or hopes to) the whole L/R dichotomy in general, and much more besides. politics is a death-trap. it's a psychologically interesting trap, but it's a trap all the same. it begins as soon as philosophy folds up shop.

>>11967701
this. the deal is personal, psychological, and probably tortuously ethical/moral. but i don't think there's any other way. and some of us (read: me) enjoy this kind of intellectual masochism.

[Anonymous No.11967757]

>>11967701
exactly. it is as passive and docile as ever. that is only possible if they think the accelerating machine will suddenly stop and say "wow im smart enough its time to stop for world peace." they gave up without doing anything, taking it for granted(gibs pun) means not having anything on the table for the development of the machine. so you can forget that socialist heaven right off the bat.

[Anonymous No.11967788]

>>11967730
very delusional if you think we have control over something that is built solely from the financial elite. this means it has and will always be political in a sense of rationality. im not speaking in terms of social media hipster trigger wars. real politics not dopamine meme frybrain entertainment. but i agree, i constantly strive for apolitical thought. that in itself is being political.

[Anonymous No.11967884]

>>11967788
>very delusional if you think we have control over something that is built solely from the financial elite.
and i don't. CTRL is itself the problem. imho all of this is predicated on mimesis. the Blue and Red Teams are opposed in one sense, and yet in another they are wedded at the deepest level. it's a system, just as Baudrillard says (SoO, iirc). and the financial elite are getting sucked into the whirlwind too: everybody can get an Angry Mob in the age of social media. or, over in China, the tech firms basically can't lift a finger without Xi's approval, and yet his approval will rest on the will of the people. this is why social credit will be such a fascinating (and horrible) experiment to watch play out. Supreme Leaders are fine so long as they are making it rain. it was the same for Napoleon also. once the Spice stops Flowing people start asking difficult questions.

>this means it has and will always be political in a sense of rationality. im not speaking in terms of social media hipster trigger wars. real politics not dopamine meme frybrain entertainment.
yep

>but i agree, i constantly strive for apolitical thought. that in itself is being political.
this is my sense also. basically i want to figure out where the Righteous Indignation in my own head comes from. the theory makes sense to me, and is predicated on sanity (however much it can seem like a wilfully obscurantist or masturbatory poetics). at bottom i think a small number of really far-sighted people are saying is true. but it does require a fair bit of shovelling sometimes to sort it out, and after the shovelling comes the shitposting here on /lit.

but it's also why i find YH such an interesting writer. he really does seem to want to re-situate *logic* at the heart of metaphysics, which means displacing aesthetics to some degree. and we really do live, imho, in a Feels > Reals world. read nietzsche, deleuze, even heidegger in some sense and you wind up agreeing. and that is Land's thesis: capitalism is a computer that processes desire. we have built a recursive, feedback-driven, "mimetic" (or at least dialectical) world. but what's going on, what that means for our sense of the future, how it changes the meaning of the past, the present, and so on, these are to me very live questions. everything is getting sucked into becoming political these days, and in a way that is a kind of gravity-pull i am trying to resist, although it's not possible in a transcendental or complete sense. the best you can do is understanding, and to try and maintain your own equilibrium, as best you can. everybody wants to push the rage button or double down on some ideology, but i think it's much more important to kind of keep an open mind about that and resist the politicization of everything.

the politics has a reason for being political, and it goes down to the roots of culture, even history, and it lines up with technology, economics, and much else. that is the story of Cosmotech.

[Anonymous No.11967938]

>>11967884
das was im sayin. that is why L/acc doesnt exist, too drowned in the feels, and cosmotech is their best shot at it.

[Anonymous No.11968001]

>>11967938
drowned in the feels is right. and the double-bind of this is so simple: on the one hand, the Feels can drive you insane, but the Reals (if they are ultimately technology) make themselves, and not the squishy meatbag who dreams and operates them, the main attraction of planet Earth. so wat do? we're not all as wired as Nick Land is, but Land has these two nightmares: one of Cthulhu, and one of the Terminator. in the end he fuses them together as he does and produces what he produces.

and so there *must* be logic, there must be intelligence, there must be mechanology. but this is where and why Cosmotech departs from pure acceleration and does its own thing: there's no point in doubling-down on tech if it's just going to kill us any more than it makes sense to pretend to hate tech on social media so that you can score leftist prestige points. tech is the deal and all of the deal. and yet this thing has shifted over time from Hegel through Marx to Land, who - imho - has "turned Marx on his head" (although i fucking hate this hackneyed old phrase, it does have its use) and has arguably returned Hegel to his proper position, although now coming the other way, in a sense.

but the story doesn't end with Land either. in a sense, a new epoch begins. and in many ways that is a good thing, especially if it seems like the longer we hold on to the vestiges of the old, the worst the transition will be (if there even is one). and so if we cannot suplex the Phantom Train of modernity directly, FF6-style, we can at least get off it before it invariably *does* get suplexed, because as i see it it unquestionably will at some point. and when that happens it is going to be absolutely pyrotechnic.

anyways. i'm sure you already understand this, i am just wired in a particular way where i feel some need to state the obvious. i don't know why this is so. i didn't ask for this brain, as it is clearly defective. i'm just trying to muddle through with it as best i can.

[Anonymous No.11968037]

>>11967788
>i agree, i constantly strive for apolitical thought. that in itself is being political.
It all goes back to the "okay, that sounds nice and everything, but where do you REALLY stand?" Looking at issues on a case by case basis is not good enough anymore. People want clear cut definitions so they can categorize you as an ally or an enemy.

[Anonymous No.11968071]

the Phantom Train will get suplexed, at some point. there's no doubt about that. and when it does, it will be Historical. it is the nature of these things. but it would be better if it were a smaller train when it happens. doubtless it won't be. but it would be nice if it were so.

>>11968037
> People want clear cut definitions so they can categorize you as an ally or an enemy.
not that guy, but the irony being that those people are far worse enemies to themselves than they realize, and only make life more difficult for everyone else...

have to step out for a bit gents, catch up with you in a bit.

[Anonymous No.11968093]

>>11968001
>there's no point in doubling-down on tech if it's just going to kill us
It depends on 'what kind' of tech. this is where 'cosmotechnics' will play out. let's say people create decentralized hotspots and create tech in vision of updated cosmotech rather than the 'monster tech' of the elites. this is what that 'socialism' is. the trickle down tech that will be innovated to the standard of basic needs and further, away from 'monster tech' it wont be anything like the taco bell marx socialism swagbag. Funny enough those who are on this are the right.

Yes youre right. It goes hegel to marx to land. and it pinballs. best to enjoy the manic typing current, this is the heideggerian revealing in jung's self healing. when everyone is more of a manic typer rather than a ironic memelard, something will happen... :]

[Anonymous No.11968167]

>>11968037
constant flux my fren. hard to say it but it really is darwinian, not of a 'might wins' way, though it does but more so in a 'adaptive to change' way. you wont have to pick sides when your understanding of a situation is updated. it wont bother you at all. as >>11968071
says > those people are far worse enemies to themselves than they realize. cosmotech becomes a symbiotic kungfu that seeks to re-vein your uprootedness as not necessarily coming back to ground but growing longer veins to compensate for the heights.

[Anonymous No.11968483]

I finished scanning The Human Predicament and uploaded it mega. The first link contains the scanned pages while the second link is a compiled pdf of the scans. I decided to put up both since the pdf is 50MB larger and my computer derped when compiling the pdf and cut off some of the title cover, and in case if anyone can compile the images in a better ebook than I can. Here you go!
>Is anybody going to read this? Then again, it is a forgotten book from the late 60's we know next to nothing about.
>tfw it will probably be stuck in heaven

Scanned images
>https://mega.nz/#!dtVnwKAY!xY7H10bmh8pwwTMma24LkP_UUMGgySKV7TA70e2HNkU
PDF
https://mega.nz/#!55VlXQRI!2RfFzC-ARJt70OZC7KxvlGXCRPssCbsc4BOC3uV8VUg

[Anonymous No.11968564]

so i have a longer rant about Simondon and 40K that i will perhaps share at some point, it has to deal with the concept of psychic and collective individuation as expressed through war. basically it has to do with the conversion of the meaning of currency as understood in a purely mercantile sense to alternate systems of exchange, namely, "prestige." heroism in the 40K universe individuates (as it does in many other RPG systems as well). and yet what is interesting about theorizing alternate modes of exchange to quantify the ineffable (such as "experience points," or the prestige points of Panzer General et al) is that in the end they lend themselves to an understanding of Simondonian individuation and transduction.

one of the reasons we (read: me) love to think about War and Fighting and so on is because they are *totalizing* phenomena, and in those circumstances *efficiency* matters. and yet not everything can be reduced to efficiency (duh). for instance, a celebration, like a birthday party. on the one hand, a birthday party does measure one's age, in a sense: you're seventeen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, whatever. and yet a calculus of celebration is an impossibility: to ask or attempt to quantify the efficiency of celebration is obviously silly.

but in war scenarios (or in scenarios which simulate war, such as war-gaming), efficiency is everything. now in our regular world, *price* does this job for us. but what is interesting, perhaps, to think about, are games' theories of alternate systems of pricing and price mechanisms to reflect the particular needs of a game system - the relation of aesthetics to mechanics, in other words. in Panzer General the currency you as the player work with is *prestige* - fight the battle more effectively, and you have more prestige to buy units with and so on. and this must have something to do with the old Napoleonic attractions of a *military meritocracy,* which is founded on heroism, on glory, chance, and risk...

so that is one thing i had going on. in terms of Cosmotech, Simondon is always a guy, but also b/c i just thought this was interesting enough to share even in a fragmentary form.

the other thing i wanted to share was this, the Great Learning. inasmuch as Cosmotech posits a loop from Hegel to Marx to Land (and back again), there is something to be said for Confucius also. i don't want to just come off as some kind of shill for Xi Jinping, i'm not. i'm deeply bothered by social credit not because i don't think it will work, but because i think it will, and it mos def is an aspect of 'gamifying' reality. in terms of an infinite oroboros loop from the material to the psychic, the Great Learning has its charms. it doesn't - it shouldn't - mean totalitarian oppression, although it certainly can be (and has been) abused. i just like the basic idea: the cultivation of the person and the investigation of things.

[Anonymous No.11968648]

>>11968483
i'll read it anon! i'm looking to take a break from Stiegler now anyways, this will be perfect.

thanks very kindly also for your awesome contributions in scanning these and making them available to everyone here. it's really going above and beyond the call of duty. as you say, it is a forgotten book, and probably none of us would ever read it otherwise.

i can't award you any Steam Achievements or pin any Cosmotech service medals on you, so all you have for now is this smiley volcano. but thanks again for all of the scans, they're really appreciated.

[Anonymous No.11968688]

>>11968483
>wholeness

ah fuck, this is like the perfect book anon. okay, no more Cosmotech fun for me today then, i'm going to read this now. back later.

[Anonymous No.11968788]

>>11968648
I humbly accept your smiley volcano as a token of your thanks. I may post more excerpts from Yuga, or maybe the Sandstone Papers if we aren't too close to the bump limit.

[Anonymous No.11968795]

>>11968788
Later tonight, I mean.

[Anonymous No.11969617]

bump

[Anonymous No.11969695]

The first two pages are reposts, but they are necessary for how we go from commodification to hyperreality (part 1).

1/9

[Anonymous No.11969706]

>>11969695
2/9

[Anonymous No.11969713]

>>11969706

[Anonymous No.11969728]

>>11969713
3/9

[Anonymous No.11969737]

>>11969728
whoops, meant to say 4/9 in the last post

5/9

[Anonymous No.11969745]

>>11969737
6/9

[Anonymous No.11969754]

>>11969745
7/9

[Anonymous No.11969762]

>>11969754
The Reign of Quantity is indeed real.

8/9

[Anonymous No.11969775]

>>11969762
I'll stop here for now. I don't want to be the one to take us to the image limit. I'll post more in the next thread.

9/9

[Anonymous No.11970429]

interesting five minutes here with Land from the Hermitix podcast, thoughtfully uploaded to YouTube.

not mentioned is the video evidence that attaining Level-2 status turns you into a crude mass of pixels (which imho makes perfect sense).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcb1Kk5NIk0&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.11970986]

>>11969775
based

is it worth checking out cybernetics or has it all been replaced and better systematized by other more modern fields of mathematics?

if it's worth checking, which book? otherwise, which modern fields to check out instead?

[Anonymous No.11971003]

>>11970986
"Cybernetics" was never even a real field much less science.

[Anonymous No.11971048]

>>11971003
Norbert Wiener (not a joke name) was an actual mathematician and apparently created the field, not sure if the field changed names after that or what

[Anonymous No.11971252]

There is an essay in pic related that discusses capital in an aphorismic manner. Here's one on the revolution that will never come:

A Lot Goes On Beneath the Surface
>"Another day, another dollar!"
>What's in the tone of voice there?"
>It's a sort of bright cheerful resignation, tinged with just the faintest suggestion of bitterness. On a rough day there's an edge of challenge to it, almost belligerence. It's ironic, it's worldly. The acceptance of an insult so massive and familiar and inherent that protest would seem absurd: like protesting heat waves or aging. This is life, that's all there is to it, this is reality. We're in it together. No way out.
>The protest, however, does exist: right there in the tone of voice. What it really says is: I'm ready when you are.

I would post another, but's it's already pretty late for me. Good night.

[Anonymous No.11971259]

>>11971252
jesus christ that's a good quote

[Anonymous No.11971377]

I really like most of this, but I need a rundown of this idea of emerging intelligence because I find it a bit suspect. Is the presupposition, here, that intelligence emerges as a phenomenon from the development of biological matter and then, subsequently, manifests again in higher stages/higher power as matter continues its development through technology? Is there any reading you could suggest about this idea of mind as an emerging property of matter and how it subsequently develops in technology?

[Anonymous No.11971618]

if you have twitter you should meme Justin Murphy into interviewing Yuk Hui, that could be interesting

[Anonymous No.11971623]

this movement should be called decelerationism because it started grinding to a half 2 decades ago and it hasn't even done a good job of stopping yet.

[Anonymous No.11971633]

>>11971623
>movement
it's was never a movement

[Anonymous No.11971643]

>>11971633
hence the halting problem it can't solve.

[Anonymous No.11971680]

[Anonymous No.11971689]

>>11971680
is this good

[Anonymous No.11971840]

>>11970986
Wiener is worth reading at least b/c he was aware of what was going on. he's no utopian, and he isn't BF skinner either. nor is he eldon tyrell.

as for what to read since then, i'm not really sure, as i'm a continental theory wonk. Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind is an interesting read, as are wiener's books. The Human Use of Human Beings is a classic. if i think of any other stuff that is must read i'll post it here.

>>11971252
>>11971259
Marty Glass is such a legend. this one really resonates with me too. thanks for keeping the candle lit for him anon. he pretty much Nails It every time.

>>11971377
>Is the presupposition, here, that intelligence emerges as a phenomenon from the development of biological matter and then, subsequently, manifests again in higher stages/higher power as matter continues its development through technology?
pretty much.

>Is there any reading you could suggest about this idea of mind as an emerging property of matter and how it subsequently develops in technology?
it is a major theme of Stiegler's book, but the real heavy lifting was done before him by Heidegger, in some sense. Being and Time is That Book about technology and thought, in many senses, and Stiegler is adding some pretty new twists to what Heidegger was thinking in the 20s and 30s. but again, don't sleep on the Hegel-Marx relation either. before the conversation is about technology it is first about *capital,* so maybe the Grundrisse or the 1844 Manuscripts are what you need. later Capital. imho, Land is basically adding a new chapter to this story by thinking through the Hegel-Marx relation for an age of cybernetics and computers, which - again - isn't really all that crazy, especially if you read Norbert Wiener and others.

so as for there being a single book that puts it all together, i don't know of one. Kojeve's book has Hegelian, Marxist and Heideggerian themes, but this is why D&G are who they are too: they basically change the whole narrative by shifting the focus away from Hegel and Freud to Spinoza and Nietzsche. Land's Teleoplexy thesis, in my opinion, re-Hegelianizes Marx in a very creative way. and in this is the connection then to Heidegger et al: Planet Technology. and fleshing out that story has taken us several fairly long threads. so in terms of reading, or what it all means, that's basically what we've been talking about: Spirit, Capital, and Intelligence, manifesting in both technology and technical culture.

[Anonymous No.11971844]

Land went to Essex Uni? wtf, he's so smart I thought Oxford

[Anonymous No.11971888]

>>11971844
>Oxford
Cleese, Chapman and Idle were Cambridge men, they used to laugh at Palin and Jones because they had been at Oxford

[Anonymous No.11971939]

>>11971618
i'd watch that for sure. who knows, maybe he browses /lit/ now and again to see his name dropped and he'll pick up on this

>Hi Justin
>plz gibs Yuk Hui inter-view
>ask him the good ones
>we like it
>thanks fren

>>11971623
there actually is a deceleration movement, although it's even more fringe than acceleration itself.

https://twitter.com/NishikiPrestige

>it hasn't even done a good job of stopping yet
there are no brakes on the Wild Ride amigo. that's the whole point. 'tis what makes the Ride Wild.

>>11971689
i'd be interested to know too.

>>11971844
Land is pretty brilliant but when you read Wiener you can see that really what Land is doing just makes sense and isn't quite as visionary as it appears on first glance: it's Marx for the age of cybernetics, shorn of post-structural anthropo-narcissism/Transcendental Miserabilism. again, it's not like there aren't reasons to be Miserable, surely there are. but there are good ways and bad ways of doing so, and things in academic leftism seem to be trending almost uniformly in the Bad/Stupid direction, which is what Old Nick tends to tweet a lot about (sadly). it's why YH thinks he's basically wasting his time with it or punching down. there are more interesting things to be writing about.

even in the clip above (>>11970429) there's kind of a sense for me of Land's just arguing for the status quo. obviously there is a relation between capital and intelligence, which manifests in machines and robots. nobody would argue this. but if you were once a shit-hot philosopher and you are now basically a venerable old patriarch of a whole school of theory one (read: me) hopes for more than just stating the obvious: that Capital Works.

obviously it does. and i don't blame him for not wanting to set himself a Zizek pace and just grind out one book after another. Templexity was pretty great, and the BTC book will probably be good too. it's possible that he's just written everything he wants to write at this point, and maybe for reasons he couldn't predict. few if anyone on Xenosystems was predicting a Trump win, and NRx may well be dead at this point. how things will play out in China under Xi will is anyone's guess.

at least there's Stiegler and YH. although i haven't greentexted it yet, Technics and Time (2) is really good. in the next thread i'll put in some excerpts from it, probably. it continues the anthropological stuff but it also connects up with the present age, with the industrialization of memory and the technical control of time. stuff that Baudrillard was kind of getting at in his own way, but which he could never be bothered to write about in a kind of rigorous way, because his natural tendency was to be more aphoristic and ironic. and because JB was no Heideggerian.

for a more recent book by Stiegler this is good too. and hopefully YH's book sheds a little more light on these things also.

[Anonymous No.11971962]

>>11971939
>set himself a Zizek pace and just grind out one book after another
Zizek always writes the same book

[Anonymous No.11972016]

>>11971962
he does, and they vary in quality, but anybody who can consistently write the same book for like three decades+ has to be on to something. Less Than Nothing really was pretty effing great.

and - oh snap - it appears that his new one is on libgen also. Updated My Journal. i want to finish the George Morgan book before i leap into this one, but i've been hoping somebody would make this available.

>>11969695
>>11969706
>>11969713
>>11969728
>>11969737
>>11969745
>>11969754
>>11969762
>>11969775

and ty for the scans anon. five bucks + setting up Kindle was the bargain of the century for me, Yuga is the only reason i have a Kindle account at all. i would greatly appreciate another aphorism or two from The Sandstone Papers in the next thread if you'd be so kind. connecting the Traditionalists to the Accelerationists is basically why i get up in the morning. Glass would probably chide me for this and say that this is a fool's errand, and he would be right to do so.

there really is very little in what we talk about here that isn't already talked about in Yuga, i think. we have different references and source material, but the end result is very much the same: as you say, the Reign of Quantity is indeed real.

that is the story and all of the story. maybe it should be restated here, lest we give the wrong impression: the Cosmotech/Acceleration threads are not actually arguing for Moar Speed. it's the opposite, in fact; the idea is (for me, anyways) to *get off* the Wild Ride, but before this can be done it has to be understood. and if there is no real Getting Off (or, as Land would say, Exit) then at least trying to bring this beast under control in some small way (which is also not likely to happen).

but whether it is Guenon, Spengler, Ellul, Baudrillard, Mumford, Glass, or whoever else...it's all the same thing, the Reign of Quantity. i'm a little more soft on Chardin, myself, who gets grilled by both Mumford and Stiegler/L-G, but it's because i think there has to be some optimism in there somewhere to go with all of the blackpilling. and because Confucius himself is ultimately a warm-hearted and compassionate man, who says, if there is no humanity, no benevolence, no charity, then there is no point. Xi is a legalist, and that's a fascinating connection, very much like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor: like the GI, the Legalists are ultimately salty about Confucius for espousing a vision of human beings that actual people could never live up to, and which filled them with guilt and rage and bitterness. Land himself is the coldest Marxist alive, in a similar way.

but man cannot live on black pills, Deleuze and amphetamines alone. there has to be some other thing in there. it was the plot of Ultima 5 also: once the Virtues become the Ethics a shadow falls over the realm. there are things that cannot be made into hard and fast rules, and the molten gold carried in the crucible of cold iron - however necessary - isn't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11972036]

one more thing: this underrated book. it comes up in Yuga (i think? or maybe it was Morgan...not sure), as well as in Jacques Barzun and in other places too. it doesn't slide so neatly into Cosmotech/Acceleration, but it is very much one of Those Books in terms of the Reign of Quantity.

this was the passage that stuck with me:

>The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic “ideas” and looks life in the face, realises that everything in it is problematic, and feels himself lost. As this is the simple truth- that to live is to feel oneself lost- he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked. All the rest is rhetoric, posturing, farce. He who does not really feel himself lost, is lost without remission; that is to say, he never finds himself, never comes up against his own reality.

>This is true in every order, even in science, in spite of science being of its nature an escape from life. (The majority of men of science have given themselves to it through fear of facing life. They are not clear heads; hence their notorious ineptitude in the presence of any concrete situation.) Our scientific ideas are of value to the degree in which we have felt ourselves lost before a question; have seen its problematic nature, and have realised that we cannot find support in received notions, in prescriptions, proverbs, mere words. The man who discovers a new scientific truth has previously had to smash to atoms almost everything he had learnt, and arrives at the new truth with hands bloodstained from the slaughter of a thousand platitudes.

heavy stuff. and hardly Sunny Liberalism. but, you know. Shipwreck.

[Anonymous No.11972120]

>>11962585
this is a pretty interesting piece of art, btw. i thought it was the perhaps more famous one, but there i go thinking i know things.

[Anonymous No.11972347]

>>11971844
Essex is an appalling university. I'd have thought like Bristol or something at least.

[Anonymous No.11972369]

>>11971844
tfw too stupid for uni
wasted 10 years trying to get into
currently thinking of just jumping off the roof after having wasted so much time

[Anonymous No.11972385]

>>11972369
learn a trade. we'll all work for you someday. i have a friend in finance who says people bring garbage bags of cash into his office. they just ask him to plough it into real estate, or just do w/ev. he doesn't think they can read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1UDS2kgqY8

[Anonymous No.11972418]

>>11972385
and just to rant about this: in a cultural sense, the dream of Capital is over, because it's fucking here already. this is it. after This there is no further thing. that's what Marty Glass was saying also. this is the whole enchilada.

i can shitpost until the cows come home about the Strange Fate of the dialectic and so on, but there is no doubt to my mind that it will not end on any note not already given in Glass' book. this is the Kali-Yuga, and all i do is retrace the steps in terms of how we got here. the whole reason for espousing a Cosmotech line is so that it will be possible to weather the storm of both the force positivity that gets us here as well as to be able to handle what will happen when it breaks, which it most surely will. there is no way this ride we are on is sustainable. absolutely none. what is going on culturally is only a reflection of what is happening economically/technologically, but it in the end winds up becoming completely entangled in a thoroughly modernist self-engineering project destined for breakdown and ruin. the cultural logic of late capitalism is for realsies, but it is 100% an attempt to rewire the human unconscious to meet the needs of bourgeois economic progress, and vice-versa.

but it won't last. it has already entered into its purgative phases and barring a miracle there is nothing left to re-found that culture *on.* it's going to be milked to the very last drop and then go hunting abroad for new enemies and new markets. Giovanni Arrighi's book traces this phenomenon perfectly - ever since the renaissance, there have been Great Cities that define the zeitgeist of their centuries, and these result from a shotgun wedding between sovereign landed authority and speculative market capital: Genoa, Amsterdam, London, New York. and they all have rises and falls. Capital loves to be free and do its thing, Authority has to play by the rules. when they come together, and the demand meets the infrastructure, there is romance and sparks fly. but historically these things always have a built-in oscillator, and eventually these beautiful weddings are forced apart in one way or another, by political and historical forces, by the resultant internal instability, by technological shift, or whatever else.

eventually the Crystal Palace is going to come tumbling down. the cracks and fault-lines in it are already plain as day. they have been well-documented (and, mainly, ignored). but this whole thing will not last forever, and when the corrections come they are going to be harsh. in FF6 parlance: eventually, the Phantom Train of modernity winds up getting suplexed.

unfortunately we can't do much more atm than shitpost. but oh the changes, they shall come.

[Anonymous No.11972431]

>>11972418
that wasn't a mis-post either. Jameson's book also matters, and is a genuine classic of the field. but i will post Arrighi's book also in case any anons were wondering.

[Anonymous No.11972481]

>>11972385
Jiro nightmares of assrape

[Anonymous No.11972486]

>>11972418
>this is the whole enchilada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

[Anonymous No.11972579]

apparently i have even more ranting to do about this.

here's a question: isn't it the case that there is a difference between a desiring/libidinal economy and a *phobic* economy? because it seems to me that if you can identify a Problem In Society, you can create no end of merchandise that goes along with solving or curing it. this is what Derrida meant, i believe, by the pharmakon: it's the cursed object, and Stiegler has written a great deal about it too.

but this is where i think Girard gets there first: the scapegoat is a Problem. and seriously, what better characterization of our world could there be but one composed of neo-Victorian moral hypochondriacs? shitty 19C medicine was surely lucrative for an overly sensitive upper-middle class with money to spend and a need to Feel Good. no doubt this contributed in no small way also to Nietzsche's own decline (although brain cancer was the real cause).

the point is that a *phobic* economy is great for business, and there is a difference when it comes to commodity fetishism between the object desired and the object desired because it wards away the undesirable - and there is no upper limit on what falls into that category. this can be magical talismans, shitty Victorian medicine, or even psychopolitical Culture-Product, ie, movies, tv, music, issues of whatever magazine, YouTube and so on.

*chemically* it makes no difference; culturally, it may make more of a difference. a Problem - not necessarily a scapegoat, but not all that different, either - gives you an infinite proliferation of desirable objects to ward it away, or treat it, or tell your friends about. health and psychic wellness are the true golden geese of capitalism, in some sense. curing a problem is astronomically worse for business than multiplying it and diffusing it into a cosmology of cures. Foucault makes a similar point, about the shift in mental health and punishment from the medieval to Enlightenment periods; it's the same basic thing.

an economy of Fear works just as well, if not better, than an economy of Desire. don't you see this everywhere on YouTube anyways? we always want to see the shock and the fear and the outrage, [x] Absolutely Ripped To Pieces by [y] and so on. we love the fucking scandal. and all this does is turn us into moral hypochondriacs (as well as upping the dosage on exactly what it does that then has us looking for the cure).

anyways. these aren't all Girardian ideas, they're more Derrida's, but it seems to me today that scapegoat theory explains the more contemporary preoccupation with cures and pharmacology than the libidinal Desire of the 1970s. it's the same thing, but the bloom has come off the rose.

>>11972481
kek. a photoshop on that image when? this i would love to see.

anyways, seemed to have turned out okay for him tho

>>11972486
me in about five years, give or take

[Anonymous No.11972617]

>>11972579
in the ultimate sense, none of this is really news, i suppose: Dusty Yevsky already susses this out completely, and all the way to the end of the line.

i guess it was just on my mind. everyone (read: me) talks about the Desiring Economy and the Libidinal Economy and so on - it's an old trope from Freudo-Marxist stuff, and even though D&G depart from this, they certainly double down on the Desire parts. it's in Hegel too, of course.

it just seems to me that we're in a kind of a weird new mutation of that today: desiring things that just keep us in place and functional. like soma, or even heroin. and in the case of heroin it has another twist, since you know that withdrawal (if it is possible at all), will be incredibly brutal, and then you have to go back to the life that went into stasis while you had that adventure.

and yet we are drugged to the gills in every other sense today, recreationally or otherwise. Canada just passed the new marijuana bills, although i don't really care about that part so much. the point was just to raise this idea of a Phobic Economy, an economy of fear and dislike, b/c it just seems to me to connect to Girardian stuff. in his theory, the Scapegoat is destroyed, and thereafter worshipped; the scapegoat gives to a crowd a sense of unity. but what happens when the scapegoat isn't destroyed at all, but just warded away, and that warding - a perpetual deferral - becomes the cultural DNA? it obviously has boring and cliche Orwellian aspects (the Enemy &c) but the sad irony of today is that *there is no enemy.* not even the Chinese, or even the terrorists, really. those things are there, but they aren't true existential threats in the way nuclear war once was, or the Black Death, or whatever else. what fucks up everybody is the absence of a clear problem, and it's related to the fact that the sufferers (us) are just fucking losing their minds altogether like hypochondriacs, because they don't know what they should be suffering from...but it doesn't mean that therapeutic types won't still keep the doors open for them, 24/7.

you can create a symptom just by believing you have one, and if somebody gives you a bottle of pills for it (or a magic talisman): doesn't that "prove" that it's there? this is the paradox of living in a constant aura of suspicion. but suspicion is always good for business. it's just that it's a doomed carousel of suspicion and phobia.

[Anonymous No.11972622]

>>11972016
>Glass would probably chide me for this and say that this is a fool's errand, and he would be right to do so.
To be fair, Guenon would chide Marty for comparing himself with Marx.
>once the Virtues become the Ethics a shadow falls over the realm.
That reminds me of chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching, which Marty Glass also discusses in Yuga and refers to Ellen Chen's commentary, which is also very good and can be found on b-ok and libgen.
>Confucius
Taoism>Confucianism

[Anonymous No.11972651]

>>11972418
as for my Alex Jonesing, i mean, what can i say. i think we are all going to get absorbed into tech and that postmodernism is the supreme Cultural Interface for managing that transition. combining Marx and Foucault for a new Imperial OS is as powerful (and internallly conflicted) as is combining Marx and Confucius overseas. both of these experiments are going to play out side by side for the next decade+ at least. we will get to compare and contrast two horrible systems of soft power and psychopolitics and know that somewhere Byung-Chul Han is making this face as he takes it all in.

>based han

this is among the greatest Theory Faces ever, imho. it always makes me laugh.

and it's not like i think it's all going to collapse *soon* either. warrants mentioning. i'm not in full Apocalypse Mode just yet. i think it will be a slow and even stately transformation into a *kind* of technical culture, it's just that the technical aspects will be misunderstood culturally and the cultural aspects misunderstood technically, which shall lead to Great Confusion and no end of retardedness in the news and elsewhere. there is an underlying logic to it, i believe, and it is a kind of assimilation. whether it happens Xi-style or whatever it is we will see closer to home, that is what i believe it will be. but it lacks the mystical. it lacks Being. and the mystical never allows itself to be neatly absorbed into rational calculation. that is where the streams cannot be crossed (though the attempts will certainly be made, and they will lead to only more extensions placed on the Wild Ride).

>>11972622
>To be fair, Guenon would chide Marty for comparing himself with Marx.
probably true.
>That reminds me of chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching, which Marty Glass also discusses in Yuga and refers to Ellen Chen's commentary, which is also very good and can be found on b-ok and libgen.
will look it up presently, ty anon
>Taoism>Confucianism
this tho. i'm kind of split on this. i love me some TTC. but Confucius, you know. he has his charms too. you're probably right, but it's almost like picking between Heraclitus and Plato (and yes, even after Nietzsche, Deleuze, and the infinite pile-on on Plato). ideally, as the legend goes, Laozi and Confucius *get along,* each looking after their respective territory. that for me is the best part. it's cheesy and sentimental. but that is the hope.

[Anonymous No.11972662]

>>11972481
>>11972385

i'm not kidding, btw. is anyone skilled enough in Photoshop to make a Jiro's Nightmares of Assrape poster with that image? it seems pretty fitting for this discussion and our themes.

[Anonymous No.11972747]

>>11972579
>no doubt this contributed in no small way also to Nietzsche's own decline (although brain cancer was the real cause).
he ate too many pears

[Anonymous No.11972775]

>>11972662
there's this one from /ck/ but they didn't put much effort

[Anonymous No.11972779]

>>11972775

[Anonymous No.11972780]

>>11972747
completely true. apparently he also acquired a taste for the ultra-rare Mystic Pears of Sils-Maria, sometimes called the Promethean Treat, and which everybody knows are to be eaten only in wafer-thin slices.

but you know how Nietzsche was. he lived life on the edge. and it's not like you wouldn't eat one of these either if you didn't know any better.

[Anonymous No.11972781]

>>11972617
I guess this calls for a few more aphorisms. First from The Challenge of Change essay:

The Basic Lesson of Capitalist Society
>We tell them: "You're going to have to learn the value of money!" It comes across as a warning. Our voices are harsh. Are we talking about responsibility or surrender?
>We're talking about both, and the warning toe is appropriate. We want them to survive, meaning get serious about money: Capital wants them to submit, meaning the same thing.
>So we pounce on them, exasperated and fed up, and they bluster and mutter sullen excuses; we watch carefully for the precise moment to end the harangue and begin the advice, and they toy with silverware, every now and then suddenly meeting us eye to eye to see if we'll look away. A thousand nuances in ten minutes flat.
>Capital and humanity, center stage, command performance.

From the essay Facing A Few of the Facts:

>What are you going to do? I mean *really*: what are you going to do? Do you actually anything is going to stop the drift toward disaster? The drift of an entire planet? Do you actually believe we're going to be saved? Everything is heading straight to hell, the whole thing is falling apart, the whole world is going insane. Do you really believe all of this can be halted or reversed? *It's too late, It's all over. Just dig it.* Everything was always headed this way, building up to this--we can see that now--and we're the ones privileged to watch it happen. We're the generation privileged to know the whole story, the whole drama, from the beginning to the end. We're going to see the curtain come down. Our understanding of humanity is the most profound. What difference does it make if it ends now or in a million years?

And one more:

>So what if we become mutants after a holocaust? What's a mutant anyway? Maybe we're mutants right now. Whatever adapts belongs there, that's the way it works. If it's alive and kicking, Good Luck to it. Good Luck, you funny-looking thing! Hang in there! Life is beautiful!

[Anonymous No.11972848]

>>11972775
>>11972779
okay. it's still pretty funny. the one with the ring tho. ah well.

>>11972781
Marty Glass is the fucking jam.

>What are you going to do? I mean *really*: what are you going to do? Do you actually anything is going to stop the drift toward disaster? The drift of an entire planet? Do you actually believe we're going to be saved? Everything is heading straight to hell, the whole thing is falling apart, the whole world is going insane. Do you really believe all of this can be halted or reversed? *It's too late, It's all over. Just dig it.* Everything was always headed this way, building up to this--we can see that now--and we're the ones privileged to watch it happen. We're the generation privileged to know the whole story, the whole drama, from the beginning to the end. We're going to see the curtain come down. Our understanding of humanity is the most profound. What difference does it make if it ends now or in a million years?

>So what if we become mutants after a holocaust? What's a mutant anyway? Maybe we're mutants right now. Whatever adapts belongs there, that's the way it works. If it's alive and kicking, Good Luck to it. Good Luck, you funny-looking thing! Hang in there! Life is beautiful!

i'd go into a Fallout Harold/Master rant here on the theme of *mutation* but we're near to both the bump limit and the image cap. i've said before that i think there is a deep subterranean elective affinity between post-apoc and cyberpunk: in the former the Disaster is externalized, visible, and historical; in the latter the Disaster is internalized, invisible, and psychic. two aspects of the same thing, the catastrophic Explosion or the catastrophic Implosion. a pet theory of mine. sometimes in some post-apoc aesthetics there is almost something even like grace in the horizon or in the sunshine. and b/c in a post-apoc scenario even fascism no longer works, it doesn't have the same Historical Mandate. Capital is in many ways a kind of weird deferred catastrophe, i think sometimes. but this i will save for a longer schizo-ramble later.

[Anonymous No.11972880]

ya know wat. start a blog about your dreams of assrape.

[Anonymous No.11972906]

>>11963398
>>11963412
Are you two retarded. That's clearly not what's happening. She has a broad definition of fascism (like so many people nowadays - including self-professed fascists). By that definition, people who don't call themselves that, are fascists. That's all there is to say here.

[Anonymous No.11972920]

>>11972880
all i really need is a catchy title or a logline

also post #300 is just around the corner. whosoever maketh this post, know that henceforth shall ye be known as the lord of all cosmotech (at least until the next thread), and that the system of german idealism will be explained (once again) in whatever is said there. good luck brave anon, whoever you are

>this anonymous accelerant
>this unsung Hero

[Anonymous No.11972928]

>>11972651
>marx and foucault
Where?
>marx and confucius
Have you read Mao? *cue demons asking for money for the badiou film*
>Cultural Interface
The Culture series embodies an interesting post-scarcity territory. Very much in a cosmopolitan ideal which is surprisingly slightly bleak (nietzsche would probably see it as last [hu]mans)... I think flesh interfaces sound more realistic. Or maybe I have a body horror fetishphobia. Think Uncle Nick read the 9h9m9e9 creepypasta?
>taoism and confucianism
The mix of taoism and confucianism is like the mix of heracliteanism and parmenideanism thought. Powerfully intoxicating. I believe the reason for the dualist/monist/non-dual trialectic found in authors such as Pythagoreans and Empedocles and Plato and Aristotle and Neoplatonism was essentially the cosmotechnics of its times. Or did they ruin it? You know who the most underrated Neoplatonist is? (Imo:) Macrobius. Das some woke shit.
>great confusion
Is that like the intelligence filter?
>xi
Like qi as sticky east meme for being and matter as sticky west meme?
>>11972780
In smaller doses they are a universal panacea however.
>>11972781
We need to be more egoistic. Bust them stirnerian spooks! You really gonna let the planet die cause we can't take care of a few idiots basically ruining everything for everyone?
>girard
What do you make of Byung's critique of Girard in Topology of Violence?

Can dialectics break bricks? (Detourned kung fu film:)
>https://youtu.be/mjUNY0433Do

Read Sadie Plant's Most Radical Gesture? Feels like a vindication of my SI love in early college.

[Anonymous No.11972931]

>>11972920
gotchu. Dreams Of Assrape. DOA. Dead On Arrival. boom. blogsphere accelerated. dont mention it.

[Anonymous No.11972935]

German idealism complete!

[Anonymous No.11972938]

>>11972906
it's just lazy theory, nobody cares

[Anonymous No.11972945]

>>11972935
evolution doesn't work that way

[Anonymous No.11972951]

>>11972945
Why not? What do you make of the Wasp and the Orchid?

[Anonymous No.11972955]

>>11972938
Words are just sticky memes of meaning. There is nothing more pleb than someone who adheres to the dictionary definitions of words.

[Anonymous No.11972965]

>>11972951
wolves were handpicked by humans into dogs, what does that have to do with an external substance that most humans will never ingest? also what do you mean about insects and flowers?

[Anonymous No.11972971]

>>11972955
nobody cares about dictionaries, just about intellectual laziness and uselessness

[Anonymous No.11972981]

>>11972965
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fluxofthought.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/becoming-wasp-becoming-orchid/amp/

[Anonymous No.11973054]

>>11967533
Great manga reference. Tsutomu Nihei is a master painter of technogothic architecture.

[Anonymous No.11973077]

>>11972981
that sounds like co-evolution, like dog-humans, or human-grains, but i don't see how we co-evolved with mushrooms

[Anonymous No.11973081]

>>11972935
nice work anon! a very fitting completion of the system of German Idealism.

>>11973054
yeah, i was kind of saving this one for a worthy post, i think i'm going to commit a Grave Heresy and use it in the next OP. will be up shortly

also aw yeah boys we did it again

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

[Anonymous No.11973091]

new thread

>>11973085

[Anonymous No.11973209]

>>11972928
hola anon (mystikos?), awesome questions. will talk about some of this stuff in the next thread, as this one is now on the way to posterity.

[brainstorm212 No.11973209,1]

interesting