/lit/ - Literature

>>11360616
>in Land's philosophy, Capital is not a metaphysical "entity" by itself, but an ascendant placement of reconciled stasis of Spirit.

but it's Spirit that doesn't need us, right? isn't this what machines are for? capital teleology-as-Spirit doesn't need, or necessarily, work with human beings exclusively.

*between* humans we can say - and maybe we are correct in this - that sentient automation or w/e looks like a stasis or phase in the phenomenology, that hegel knew there would be days like this, and so on.

but is that necessarily true? that's what i'm wondering. i know that i'm being hyperbolic in some sense, since the capital that teleoplexy is tied to eventually comes back to human beings with identities, faces, voices, votes, and so on, and so isn't completely autonomous, or may not be so all at once. but if it rewrites civilization in the background, quietly algorithmicizing all of it, so that it kind of takes command of its own R&D development, it could be happening with such subtlety that it wouldn't be noticed, or might even be considered to be commensurate with the history of progress and civilization (and maybe that would be correct).

there's some parallax between land and hegel that i am still working out myself, so apologies if this seems just like demented crypto-rambling. but i appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the relevant quotes and so on. i still think i kind of prefer hegel to land on this, for a couple of reasons, but i'm super-interested in where these lines and points cross and converge.

>>10879769
>Damn OP, you already ruined my day and it's not even lunch time here yet.

apologies good sir

desu, the only ellul book i've read is the technological society. i read it way back when and i'm re-reading it now b/c some cool anon here recommended a book by marty glass (yuga) and it was way good and the guy had very fine things to say about ellul. so i'm re-reading it now.

>Does he even have an optimistic outlook or does it tend to be sober version of Land?

i don't think it's an optimistic outlook, but isn't there something inherently optimistic about the idea of sanity?

>land

digesting land and not going full cthulhu is imho one of the Fun Things To Do With Philosophy these days.

maybe in some of his other books he recommends something then? i'm really not sure. perhaps some other ellul-anons will suggest something.

i started a thread the other day hoping to get some conversation going about gilbert simondon and yuk hui, who actually might have alternatives to the Land Rover but it didn't seem to catch. life in the technological society is pretty much my favorite thing to think/drink/grow prematurely old/&c about.

but the technological society seems to be the place to begin. def left an impression on me - the imperative to efficiency > uber alles. later readings of other guys pair well with this idea.

you are the most interesting philosopher alive

thanks for all the fish

>>9844742
dialectics a thing no doubt.

it depends to my mind on *what you call it* tho. i'm also starting to finally understand why i am so heavy on the tao & the stoics also. it all has to do with time. capitalism also; but i think this is the endgame of capital. just this. pic del

there is much more to say about this and i am compiling an utterly insane file on my PC about this & some other stuff.

so basically: what's more Interesting to you - acquiring CTRL, or emancipating yourself from the CTRL of the other?

lots to talk about w/r/t *games* here also but i have to make a kind of strident effort to keep my thoughts in one place on this stuff. enantiodromics tho. holy hannah what a thought. i think this is why zen &c is so good for us. Time. the present moment and such. or time understood dialectically, mechanically...

just too interesting, this stuff. just too darn interesting.

>>9839431
the article is interesting as fuck as most always jacobite is. feminism & gender stuff grinds my gears like you wouldn't believe but only because meatbags cannot into forest > trees. all things gender comprise one of the world's most hot-button philosophical issues & it is virtually impossible to talk about this shit.

for example: land put this up on his twitter feed just the other day with the usual amount of bitterness & disgust you would expect. he thinks anything pomo is secular-progressive brainwashing & after evergreen & elsewhere it's hard not to think that something has gone terribly rotten in the state of denmark. but jacobite + theory &c >>>>> fuckface mimetic hackery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUs6_Kcfieg

feminism a thing. xenofeminism a thing. desire a thing. sexbots a thing. transgenderism a thing. baudrillardian We All Transsexuals Now a thing. gender stuff is like climate change stuff: so massive & pervasive & w/implications so far-reaching that the whole thing imho is to hash all this shit out as intelligently & sanely as possible before leaping in to the We Should &c.

>zizek: marx was wrong. we have changed the world enough. the point is not to change the world, the point is to interpret it once again.

the eleventh thesis on feuerbach: massively wired-in to how much third-rate philosophy works. charity a good scene. red team/blue team: dumb dumb. *black* team: maybe not so dumb.

deleuze on societies of control: worth reading time & again. CTRL is the thing. CTRL is what matters. CTRL is non-binary. CTRL > transeverything.

https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

>In the past, patriarchical social structures were justified by the male sex's superior strength.
yes

>As first world states increasingly phase shift into information-based markets, the capital-constructed demarcation between spectral sex densities is violently dissolving
yes

>The male, who tends to favor top-down hierarchical systems of sociopolitical/cultural control is obliterated and transplanted by the female, who tends to favor horizontal social-webs.
entirely possible. who the fuck knows? i'm listening. could be? yes? implications?

>the female is optimized for global consumerism, and global consumerism is optimized for the female
to me it's just desire. desire is optimized for consumption, and consumption is optimized for desire. male/female beyond a certain horizon - the plane of the celestial hermaphrodite - no longer really registers to the machine. i think the enantiodromic endgame of desire is CTRL and that is all. CTRL is the real metaphysical bitcoin.

>Ask yourself: has the world grown more masculine, or more feminine?
only weirder & stranger & wilder & crazier.

so a fucking good post, i'd say, in a way cool thread w/a way cool article.

gender matters because desire matters. desire > everything. advertising is the new coal. how this plays out in culture? we will see
>popcorn intensifies