/lit/ - Literature

>>12620861
the Land-Heidegger relation is right there, in a way. if Teleoplexy is Land's way of presenting a horrible version of Hegel by putting Marx on fast-forward and taping the button down, Templexity is how it feels when the future starts closing the loop on the past.

it's like a horrible version of Hegel or Heidegger, where Spirit and/or Being basically beat the shit out of you because they were betrayed (or maybe they were always something other than we wanted them to be).

somebody had to write this stuff.

also, i'm going to shill this here in case Aminom is too modest to do so. but he's calling it the Antientropy project, and is really worth a look. i'm reposting it here b/c i think it's fucking brilliant.
https://imgur.com/a/EaI34Kk

and i do this because no less a Cosmotech luminary than Bernard Stiegler is also talking about similar ideas. free books y'all free books
http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Stiegler_2018_The-Neganthropocene.pdf

and also b/c ofc you know how Uncle Nick feels about these things. Capital for Uncle Nick is purest negentropy, which makes the Wild Ride what it is. on the one hand, we know Capital fucks with us - on the other hand, who's in favor of entropy? and therein lies the rub. we are between Scylla and Charybdis, in a sense.

>§0.05 — Bitcoin machines value. It follows that the prevailing conception of technology as instrumental capability, subsumed under extrinsic ends, is among the very many things to fall by the wayside as the process escalates. Traditional categories of thought (or conception) and action (or performance) are mutually subsumed into an irreducible cognitive action. The strengthening diagonal current passing between the notional and the actual, ‘ought’ and ‘is’, intelligence and mechanism – which in its aporetic articulation has been the exquisite torture of postmodern philosophy – is simply code. Bitcoin ushers this cryptic fatality into simultaneous conceptual and mechanical consummation.

i know that "solving" the is/ought problem is a favorite pastime for many, but it seems to me that it's more of a question of the degree of rigor with which this is done. in an earlier era, a transcendental signifier - any number of them - provided this function. perhaps it was shame that was necessary to compel barbaric Caravaggian souls. more recently our own attitude has been to declare the impossibility of ever even attempting to posit a connection, with as much hysterical and furious conviction. that is the point at which postmodernity loses any sense of its connection to a critical post-modernity and morphs into full-blown idpol, and produces the modern Blood War. Land is finding a way through this.

>§0.051 ...the Bitcoin ledger is the first intrinsically reliable record. It is now known what happened, without argument. This is a situation without precedent which also reaches – immediately – an absolute limit, in principle. It thus exemplifies the synthetic a priori. There is no philosophical thinking of Bitcoin – in either the subjective or objective genitive – that is not also (‘simultaneously’) a re-thinking of time, or sovereign decision. ‘Re-thinking’ is a revision, but no less a restoration. Bitcoin introduces us to a time-machine, or time-synthesizer, which can only complicate any initial intuitions about its novelty. It has been on the way for centuries (at least). This will, in any case, constitute the stubborn, guiding assertion of the book.

"It is now known what happened." i am deeply attracted to this idea, in some way. it's more than just intellectual curiosity. a time-synthesizer puts people on a common ground w/r/t each other, and possibly even w/r/t themselves, in some sense. you can't immanentize an eschaton which has already happened. extreme political radicalism will still have its allure, but it loses its connection to transcendental philosophy in a political sense. any made-up nation can issue its own currency as scrip, as much as any individual can play language games. but not all games are equally rigorous, or complex, or intelligent.