/lit/ - Literature

>>12044919
>Autonym continues to gravitate the pieces of the solution of consciousness' problem of itself towards each other, as it has done through history.
so Autonym is like an alt-version of Roko's Basilisk? rather that one that culminates in an apocalyptic last judgement and inferno...

i was thinking about it on my walk here today, about culture and meaning. i think i am a technological determinist, Land in one hand and Girard in the other. technological innovation leads to disequilibrium; disequilibrium leads to mimesis; mimesis leads to the Law.

i think about an oscillating yin/yang wave of things. Tarnas writes, somewhere, about the relationship of a clock itself to time. the clock indicates the time, but doesn't compel the time to be what it is. what does a culture itself refer to? what is a culture an indication of? it makes no sense to just strawpoll the people within it, they will tell you what they tell you. and yet you can't ask people on the Outside about the Inside, they don't know either. that's the thing about our present through-the-looking-glass moment, and Land at least keyed in on that; critique means modernity, and modernity means machine intelligenesis. Land pledges fidelity to machines in this sense because he likes *order in time.* a culture is like an omni-autonymaton. a hive, or a swarm. or a Horatian.

but there has to be a necessary difference between geometric comprehension and semiotic recognition. you don't *comprehend* a sign fully, you just *acknowledge it,* as a ritual or as courtly theatre. in the long run this becomes a system of becomings. but its own groundlessness is still propped up on things which are scientifically validated: rice grows. it has a kind of I/O relation in which neither is wholly reducible to the other, and the continental/analytic split we have today amounts to a clash between *letters* and *numbers* in which either can be explained in terms of the other, except by calling everything a hyperstitial code. which wouldn't be necessarily wrong, but it leads to fuckery. it leaves to incomprehensibility as a first principle, which is also the principle of mysticism, and yet in a completely different sense.

>The zero-dollar question is how can recursively self-improving self-improvement be taught to others? All self-help systems are complete shams, if any of them could do what they claim the world would already be saved. We've made a precise science of figuring out how to manipulate consciousness for the end of profit and power, but virtually no advancement in figuring out how to teach consciousness to manipulate itself and liberate itself from autonomous control mechanisms.

bloc-quoted for truth.

in unrelated news:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/sci-fi-writer-greg-egan-and-anonymous-math-whiz-advance-permutation-problem-20181105/
>ffs uncle nick where did xenosystems go? i miss Chaos Patches.

also:
>A larva is a mask, and a cryptic (infolded) potentiality.
he's doing it again.