/lit/ - Literature

re-posted from the earlier thread:
1/3

>The philosophy of the 23rd century is a naturalistic Space Taoism based on change, evolution, and creativity, a view of the universe more profound that any religion has imagined - and as such it is a true post-atheism, transcending atheism-as-negation by offering an affirmative view of life that solves the problem of omnipresent nihilism and alienation of the present, offering a physicalist reenchantment with the cosmos and a relationship with the world that can only be described as experiencing it as pure poetry in the fullness of its wonder-horror, to be ever content and comfy yet ever striving. Its symbol will inevitably be that of the calculus integral due to its similarity to the yin-yang, its synthesis of Eastern and Western thought, of the analytical with the analogical. Neo-China and Neo-Europe arrive from the future to save the present from the undead past, the autonomous movement of the unliving accelerating itself towards omnicide.

>The metaphysical nature of change is mirrored in all specifics of it, including that of calculus, the mathematical study of change, which is where we find formalization of our metaphysical principle. The fundamental theorem of calculus describes integration and derivation as inverse operations of the same process, with the physical intuition of integration being "cumulative change" and "instantaneous change." These correspond to yang and yin of Chinese philosophy respectively, with the Chinese insight into this relationship coming from a careful observation of change, and an extrapolation of its mechanics from observation - not wholly accurate, but the core relationship is precise. Examining the nature of our conscious perception of change shows why this is the case, and gives evidence that the foundations of calculus is truly a metaphysical principle capable of accounting for human experience.

>We perceive change in the reference frames of presentism and temporalism, where in the former a singular omni-present moment is the fixed point of reference, and the latter the line of time comprised of a continuum of infinitescimal moments that are gone as soon as they arrive. In the presentist perspective, cultivated by mindfulness practices, what is experienced is instantaneous change in an ever-present, and in the temporalist perspective cumulative change through time. The presentist mode is spacial, analogical (simultaneous relationships) and relational, the temporalist mode sequential, narrative and logical (causal relationships.)

>>11989615
2/3

>Though Alfred North Whitehead didn't realize it, his philosophy follows from calculus as a metaphysical principle precisely, describing being and becoming, permanence and change as co-equals, that "becoming is for the purpose of being, and being for the purpose of novel becoming." Rather than quoting at length, here is a link to the first 19 pages of "The Metaphysics of Experience: A Companion to Whitehead's Process and Reality" that gives a basic introduction to his philosophy, which I think the reader will conclude is a reflection of the metaphysical implications of calculus: https://imgur.com/a/ZtLDYJT He is the essential guide towards the philosophy of the 23rd century, but missing is the process of the self, consciousness as a creative process.

>Evolutionary theories of culture such as memetics fails to include subjective human experience, which does violence to it: we're all just "meme machines" subject to memetic forces, the mechanistic universe transformed into techno-organic infection. Douglas Hofstadter's view of consciousness takes a different direction, describing us as "self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference," and is heavy into process thought at some points (especially his concept of shared interiority, that we host and are hosted by others) yet is still focused on the being-self, a self-representation representing itself, the self as an object, the "I." What creates this self-representation is the becoming-self, a self-querying query, a question questioning itself. Questions aren't a passive lack of answers but are quests, searches, movements, and vectors of desire. The spotlight of our awareness is a request for information having directionality, and self-awareness comes from the interplay between the being-self and becoming-self, the process of self-creativity.

>The Darwinian process of variation -> selection -> reproduction is mirrored by the conscious process of question -> choice -> action, our lines of inquiry create potentials that we select from to actualize. Substance metaphysics has made us blind to the essential generative component of consciousness, focusing on the ordering process of selection, resulting in the idea of free will: we are free (or not) to select from objects from a list according to our will - our desires. Our freedom lies in free inquiry, our capacity to question, as by questioning our will we can create alternative desires. We can also question our questions, and our actions, and so human consciousness is a three-fold strange loop of the evolutionary process folded upon itself. Conscious experience is literally evolution evolved, the creative process that has folded upon itself to create self-creators. Self-creation isn't an absolute but an art, a cultivated skill, and it is not a self-creation creating with itself ex nihilo, but a co-creation with the multiplicity of existence.

>>11989622
3/3

>Whitehead's organic philosophy replaces the centrality with relationships - mutually co-creative perspectives among all things. "Every creature both houses and pervades the universe," the interiority of an occurrence comprised of its relationships to everything else. Matter is made of energy which is a relationship between occurrences, but as these occurrences are made up of energy, which is made up of relationships, the universe is a strange loop of relationships of relationships of relationships. The implication is a synthesis of the dead nouns of creator and creating with an immanent creativity, the death of art as the process of reality itself is a creative process, a tapestry of co-creation among all strands that it contains - not as a whole relating the many to itself, but as the many becoming one in a novel subject, and increased by one. The thesis of Space Taoism is "we are life-artists who co-create with the self-creating tapestry of existence," rather than human creators creating meaning out of a meaningless existence, meaning and signification is omnipresent, co-created by a subject's personal relationship with existence - the artistic act of life.

>While the integral symbol is the inevitable symbol of Space Taoism, its true holy symbol is the question mark - a symbol of awareness, infinite potential, inexhaustible meaning and endless becoming. The Tao is literally defined as "path" or "way," a motion through space and time, and the guide along this endless quest isn't an answer but an omnipresent question mark. What does one do? How does one act? What does one become? Let your questions guide you, and follow them faithfully, and they will take you to where you need to go.

Space Taoism, fuck yes.

>>11989615
>>11989622
>>11989638

NB: i'm the OP and i will be probably be giving my own hot takes on acceleration in this thread, but i can in no way take credit for the above posts on Fuck Yeah Space Taoism. they have been channeled from out of the starry aether by some other based anon, who will hopefully appear in this thread also to be justly celebrated for a supremely awesome contribution to Cosmotech theoria and praxis.

one of the current projects for the Department of Speculative Economics will be a cross-analysis of the following.

exhibit A is the famous CCRU numogram:

and exhibit B is Zhu Xi's diagram of the Supreme Ultimate, or Taiji. both are meme-seeded here for your consideration.

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

>>11989595

does anyone talk about food or farming from an accelerationist perspective?

>>11989802
not that i know of, but Eco > Ego is where it's at for me in some sense. but that is something i am 100% going to be talking about in my own schizo-ramble contributions to these ideas: namely, the question of the price paid by catastrophic expenditure and loss, however relevant gross overexpenditure is to the continental perspective (in particular, Bataille).

it's somewhat heretical to say this, but ultimately we have to find a way to pull the brakes on a Wild Ride whose only salient feature is that there are none. a responsible acceleration is probably a contradiction in terms, but there is no guarantee for safety physical or psychic on the Wild Ride, and beyond a certain horizon one is required to ask if that really is what life is all about. in one sense the great age of existentialism is kind of over, and yet answers to existential questions are more pressing than ever these days, it seems. they won't be found in politics, however, and there are limits to how far a mind can go before it breaks.

as anon says:

>Whitehead's organic philosophy replaces the centrality with relationships - mutually co-creative perspectives among all things.

but we are also a little too aware today of the danger of hysteria, which is why something more than atheism is called for: it's the Cosmotechnics YH talks about. and then some:

>a true post-atheism, transcending atheism-as-negation by offering an affirmative view of life that solves the problem of omnipresent nihilism and alienation of the present.

i didn't write that, but i sure wish i had. fortunately i have a lot to say about Fuck Yeah Space Taoism myself. i think this is going to be a good thread. i have to pack it in for tonight but more on this stuff tomorrow.

>>11989768
Someone explain the numogram to me, I see this all over but mostly in a meme context. what is it actually for?

>>11989827
what anon has said here is utterly perfect, imho.

it's not religious, it's just post-atheist. that anon is fucking brilliant, i shit you not. i don't know who they are but i wish i could buy them a drink. there will be a lot more on the implications of this to come but if i don't get some sleep it will come out wrong.

>>11989839
Land talks about it a little in the Hermitix podcast, which you can find in Cosmotech #8. we will have to do some looking into that in this thread.

ok, catch up with you guys in a few hours. thanks for migrating over too and keeping it alive, it's very much appreciated.

>>11989657
fuck that's a beautiful tarot

I'm just gonna post some of my musings, mainly because, as somebody mentioned in the previous thread, these topics are making me feel like a Lovecraftian character on the brink of a realization, like the descent into madness is right in front of me, while I simultaneously can't escape from seeking further.

I had a thought a few months ago about using something like bitcoin/blockchain (buzzwords) to bypass the current banking system. I ultimately became disillusioned with it because one of my professors said it didn't make any sense and I realized that I was way in over my head, but I'll post it here and maybe someone else will take it and run with it.

Who should have the ability to create currency? Banks? Governments? I say people. Take two people who don't have any money. How will they trade amongst themselves? They can barter, that's a possibility. Also, one of them can go to the bank, take out a loan, and then pay the other in a currency which they both accept. I was positing a third possibility - that those two people could create their own currency similar to bitcoin or something else, a sort of IOU record, and then that would allow them to trade amongst themselves - perhaps they could tie its value to something physical, perhaps it would float against other currencies, I don't know, I'm an idiot when it comes to that part. A currency which is tied to two people is pretty weak, but it could be expanded to communities of any size, perhaps there could be concentric circles of currencies, or various venn diagram-esque overlappings between groups ranging from the political, community, religious, etc. I wasn't really thinking about how it would be used, just that I thought people should have these sort of tools to use as they see fit, and maybe it would lead to provide a sort of competition to the current banking model.
Anyway it was a stupid idea but one that I thought might actually help people.

>>11989827
>Eco > Ego
Are you an Aryanist/related to them/ know of them (aryanism.net / mundusmillennialis.com) perchance? That was one of the slogans they were using when I was with them. I mentioned them in the previous thread, briefly, here was an excerpt of REI's take on it, somewhere around 2014 maybe.

>"NEOREACTION", AND "ARYANISM", ARE TWO MUTUALLY OPPOSITE ASPECTS OF THE SAME SOCIOPOLITICAL FUNCTION WHICH REJECTS THE CURRENT STATUS QUO THAT IS PREVALENT IN THE "WESTERN WORLD".
...
>"NEOREACTION", AND "ARYANISM", ARE MUTUALLY DICHOTOMOUS AND COMPLEMENTARY; I EXPECT THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE - WITHIN SIX TO EIGHT YEARS - THE MOVEMENTS BEHIND EACH IDEOLOGY WILL MUTUALLY SUBLATE AND SYNTHESIZE INTO A PERFECT SELFCONSCIOUSLY ACTIVE SOCIOPOLITICAL FORCE AGAINST WORLD ZIONISM.

>>11989940
Zionism is a scapegoat designed to conveniently explain the effects of technocapital to people who emotionally desire someone to blame.

>>11990003
>Zionism is a scapegoat designed to conveniently explain the effects of technocapital to people who emotionally desire someone to blame.
Which gets to the question of whether there is anyone to blame, whether there is any enemy to oppose, and can we win, which are the main questions I have in this discussion anyway.

Who is to blame? Those who promote the stimulation of desire, and those who allow that process to go on (myself included). Are Jews involved? Absolutely, as are members of every other group.

Who is the enemy? I'll post an excerpt below to elaborate on who I think should be opposed.
The Aryanist opposes any non-Aryanist, and would say that the Jew is merely the archetypal form of that enemy as the ultimate tribalist - individuals of any group can manifest the same traits though, and they have to be opposed just as much.
In Schmitt's sense the Aryanist chooses to fight the war against war - against the political distinction

Can it be won? I am hopeless, and that is what leads one to fight, because there is nothing to lose.

From http://aryanism.net/politics/technology/

>The key distinction to be made is between using technology to facilitate what we are capable of doing anyway, with or without the aid of technology, and using technology to enable to be done what could not have been done at all absent technology. Technology that eases existing burdens is noble; technology that tempts new desires is ignoble. Technology that saves time and energy is noble; technology that consumes time and energy is ignoble. Technology that simplifies life is noble; technology that complexifies life is ignoble. We can hence broadly distinguish between the Aryan technology of automation (derived from roots “auto-” + “mat-” meaning “spontaneously acting”), motivated by the will to freedom, and the non-Aryan technology of machinery (derived from root “magh-” meaning “to have power”), motivated by the will to power.

>Control over technology in any genuinely ideological direction requires state participation, as market-driven economics encourages new technology of all kinds so long as they can stimulate investment and/or lead to consumer demand. The technological directives of a National Socialist state are well-defined: optimize automation and eliminate machinery.

>No matter what field of technology we examine, we come to the same conclusion: the real problem is not the technology, but the people. In Aryan hands, machines would not be dangerous because Aryans would destroy them; in non-Aryan hands, even automata become dangerous because non-Aryans would find some way to use them to serve their greed. So long as non-Aryans exist, even if we destroy machines and erase the knowledge of building them, they could be invented again and built again... Thus the fundamental solution to the problem of technology rests not merely in phasing out machines, but in phasing out non-Aryan genetics. Only in this way can we be sure machines will never reappear

>>11989839
Land is not a mathematician or logician, so I doubt its meaning very much.

Also NIck Land referred to AM GREATNESS as "This is Zeitgeist now"

He is becoming boomer conservative at increasingly rapid pace.

>>11990128
I saw that. I think at some point he'll figure out the zeitgeist is moving a lot faster than he is, and maybe he'll go back to the meth.

>>11990084
>fruity fishes above sharks, octopuses, snakes and based ants
keking at your analysis

>>11990128
he makes fun of national review-type conservatives cucking all the time, i don't think he is going to go full boomer any time soon except for some endearing moments of grandpa cluelessness

>>11990167
if I ever find myself becoming a boomer I'll blow my fucking brains out.

>>11990164
eh, I'd just say that the pic is showing the Ego at the top and the Other below.
also
>not thinking whales are based AF
get off mah board

>>11990174
you are already a 30yo boomer, /lit/ is clearly a boomer board, go to /g/ and try to go through any thread and look at the jokes if you want to feel old

>>11989802
heidegger

>>11989839
Everything written on the Numogram is what constitutes the whole and true corpus. There are also some more hidden stuff that I can't divulge on here, such the true workings of Hyperstition.

>>11989839
45 demons of the Numogram

The host of demons took these substances from the Powers to create the limbs and the body itself. They put the parts together and coordinated them.

The first ones began by making the head: Abron created his head; Meniggesstroeth created the brain; Asterechme the right eye; Thaspomocha, the left eye; Ieronumos, the right ear; Bissoum, the left ear; Akioreim, the nose; Banenrphroum, the lips; Amen, the front teeth; Ibikan, the molars; Basiliademe, the tonsils; Achcha, the uvula; Adaban, the neck; Chaaman, the neckbones; Dearcho, the throat; Tebar, the shoulder; Mniarcon, the elbow; Abitrion, the right arm; Evanthen, the left arm; Krys, the right hand; Beluai, the left hand; Treneu, the fingers of the right hand; Balbel, the fingers of the left hand; Kriman, fingernails; Astrops, the right breast; Barroph, the left breast; Baoum, the right shoulder joint; Ararim, the left shoulder joint; Areche, the belly; Phthave, the navel; Senaphim, the abdomen; Arachethopi, the right ribs; Zabedo, the left ribs; Barias, the right hip; Phnouth the left hip; Abenlenarchei, the marrow; Chnoumeninorin, the skeleton; Gesole, the stomach; Agromauna, the heart; Bano, the lungs; Sostrapal, the liver; Anesimalar, the spleen; Thopithro, the intestines; Biblo, the kidneys; Roeror, the sinews; Taphreo, the spine; Ipouspoboba, the veins; Bineborin, the arteries; Atoimenpsephei, respiration; Entholleia, the flesh; Bedouk, the right buttock; Arabeei, the penis; Eilo, the testicles; Sorma, the genitals; Gormakaiochlabar, the right thigh; Nebrith, the left thigh; Pserem, the kidneys of the right leg; Asaklas, the left kidney; Ormaoth, the right leg; Emenun, the left leg; Knyx, the right shin; Tupelon, the left shin; Achiel, the right knee; Phnene, the left knee; Phiouthrom, the right foot; Boabel, its toes; Trachoun, the left foot; Phikna, its toes; Miamai, the toenails.

And those who were appointed over all of these are:
Zathoth,
Armas,
Kalila,
Iabel,
Sabaoth,
Cain,
Abel.

>>11990345
makes sense, thanks

>>11990345
So why the hell would they want to do that and what the fuck is their problem?

>>11989595
What are the sources for some of these images? Just browsing artstation or something?
>>11990084
I myself wonder what political ideologies will adopt cosmotech eventually. I see the right fighting tech due to its materialist control and reduction of spiritual influences but I also see the left taking some of it on via communist theories and labor.
>>11990003
Couldn't we argue the jew encourages capital and tech to overcome the gentiles senses. Who is constantly pushing for more tech in the media? Who is pushing to remove ethics in science and tech such as catholic teachings of dignity of human life?

>>11989940
>Are you an Aryanist
no. although i did spend some time thinking about RK's distinction in the chart posted in that earlier thread. Rei is undoubtedly an interesting guy who has Peered Beyond The Veil, but World Zionism is not a priority for Cosmotech. it would be more accurate to say thatwe are going to take the side of The Worst Thing In The Universe in order to remove a thorn from the lion's paw, in some sense.

because The Worst Thing In The Universe is not World Zionism, nor is it Fascism. it would be more accurate to call it The Nothing (pic rel). the conventional boilerplate reading derived from bog-standard undergraduate Marxism is that The Nothing is a blind and devouring force. move one step up from that and you start to inch towards the Gestell of Heidegger; go further and you're en route to teleoplexy. and yet Deleuze matters here because he understands that The Nothing *is also the Plane of Immanence* - and, as such, it is both the place of creation and destruction, a force for good as well as evil, entirely depending on how you deal with it.

Nietzsche says you must have chaos in you to give birth to a dancing star. we do not lack for chaos here (and i am personally fond of pronouncing "chaos" with the ch-as-in-cheese, mostly because the term itself is so frightening that to do otherwise is to produce Defenestration, Yes!). as i have said in earlier posts, my aim is not in fact to induce my fellow anons to immediately kill themselves, nor do i want my own posts to have an effect on the psyche like that of Ringu: There Goes Yer Face. i think we can aim a little higher than that.

in my conversation with the guys from /pol/ it was basically confirmed that i am as anti-anti-white as i am anti-anti-black, anti-anti-jew, anti-anti-woman, anti-anti-trans and so on. and as confirmed Girardfag i am 149% convinced that scapegoating the wholly and not partially the real root of all political ontotheology. the city is founded on violence, and religions are forms of dealing with this, in their various ways. the world is a harsh place and sacrifice is a complicated issue which cannot - even through a Girardian lens - ever be fully understood in a completely objective sense. the world is hermeneutic down to the molecules and the micromolecules, where they touch upon the eyebrows and eyelashes of unnamed devas and spirits yet to be named. the world resists ever being understood fully in that sense.

Capitalism, tho. that we can talk about.

>>11989940
>Who is to blame? Those who promote the stimulation of desire, and those who allow that process to go on (myself included). Are Jews involved? Absolutely, as are members of every other group.

*the world is itself libidinal.* it is profoundly and deeply erotic. it is a Feels > Reals world. and that is why *nobody is to blame,* unless - as you have indicated - that any one group is as deeply implicated in that process as any other. as /lit/ has said:

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

that is very much the truth. a century+ of psychoanalysis should at least have taught us this much, that Prohibition Creates Desire. the more you bar, the more incite to transgression; and, conversely, Kafka's parable in "Before the Law" tells us that the opposite is equally true: to give everything, fully and completely, is to create the conditions of absolute servitude. when it comes to guilt and scapegoating, nobody holds the high card. and the urge to punish, the deep and powerful need to Purge the city, or create utopian fantasies, is what gave rise to Cosmotech and acceleration in the first place. the world is currently going down the rabbit hole of a deep and awesome need to purge itself in every sense of the word: maybe this is the Explosive Vomitus phase of the great intoxicating Dionysian revel that kicked off in full for an earlier generation in the 1960s. this, i think we can say more or less safely, is the Comedown from that.

there is quite a lot said in both D&G and Nietzsche on the subject of Intoxication, but precious little said about the *Hangover.* but that's us, gents. you can see this manifesting everywhere. there is now a multi-trillion dollar debt cloud hanging over the world. you can reasonably expect said debt cloud to hang over the future for years and years to come. it didn't get there by accident, mind you. it was conjured up out of the void by way of purest alchemical sorcery. if you are into RPGs, Cosmotech follows from a Great Age of Wizardry in many senses, and all of it was predicated on a dark and deep connection between Hegel, Marx and Freud, the effects of which were later diagnosed by Uncle Nick. the Wild Ride has been the result.

in nuce, the real issue was the attempt to create the Elixir of Youth. and this has given rise to a nympomaniacal, satyrized and satyrical society of the pharmakon. everybody wants to have it all, and so do you do. it's an age of unrealistic expectations like that. there are no brakes, no upper limits, no floors, and no rules. postmodernity doesn't mean critique, it means the whirlwind. the Sorcerer's Apprentice is a nice fable, but at least in that version the Sorcerer returns at the end. it is a deep suspicion of Cosmotech that when the Sorcerer returns IRL he does a lot more than boot Mickey in the ass and send him scrambling back to the lab. and that is, of course, to presume that the Sorcerer is in fact capable of putting the dancing brooms back in line at all.

>>11990084
>Who is the enemy?

Truth, as handed down by Grand Inquisitors of any stripe. the Power/Knowledge connection that becomes The Law.
>law!
>lawwwwwwwwww

Judge Dredd: You Betrayed the Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_gIxTitMM

it is the Girardian contention political ontotheology always hinges upon scapegoating and the Schmitt friend/enemy distinction. the real plot twist in this is that *there is no way off that ride that is not predicated on forgiveness.* anybody who is looking to find a place of absolute sovereignty in plunging to the bottom will only find Moar Carl Schmitt there. /lit/ also knows that one familiar arc of this place leads from ironic memory to devoted Catholic-Communist and *from there* to esoteric ultra-fascism. it does not seem at all crazy for me to say that there is probably nothing after esoteric ultra-fascism in that sense. you can absolutely crazy go nuts with Miguel Serrano, Savitri Devi, or whoever else. in terms of competing to hold the heavyweight title on esotericism i am not even remotely interested. there are some seriously crazy, seriously visionary, and seriously Inspired people out there on the internet. i've read some of them.

but for my two cents there is no reason to go any further in the direction of that than Uncle Nick himself. Landian teleoplexy has hours and hours of entertainment in it, and Optimize for Intelligence is the motto. of course, there is a fine line between genius and madness also (as much as there is between madness and insufferable shitpostingness, which is what i do. warrants mentioning.)

the Law is the proverbial sword with no handle. the Law is blood magic. we are going to see this all play out. beyond a certain horizon, there is no difference between that which can be said to be transgressive, and that which can be said to be critique. that is the paradox of the heretic, the rebel, and the outsider.

but political philosophers people we (read: me) do like - Confucius, Augustine - know that you can only govern the state with *virtue.* the Way, understood either in Eastern or in Western terms, is the real deal, and not the Law. today Gondor is being ruled by Denethor and not by Aragorn. and Denethor wasn't exactly open to handing things back, even when it was the right thing to do.

>>11991017
>we are going to take the side of The Worst Thing In The Universe
do you enjoy playing the villain, or do you see yourself as a hero? A mix of both, perhaps?
>in order to remove a thorn from the lion's paw
Care to elaborate on what that thorn is, and maybe how you think what you're doing will remove it?
>>11991051
>>11991085
These posts makes me feel sick, perhaps in a purgy sense, but more so in a sense of inevitability and futility in struggle - I simultaneously want to die, want to fight, and want to surrender, and I can't tell what's about to happen.

>>11990779
>Couldn't we argue the jew encourages capital and tech to overcome the gentiles senses. Who is constantly pushing for more tech in the media? Who is pushing to remove ethics in science and tech such as catholic teachings of dignity of human life?

again, the issue here is not The Joos, it is *cynicism.* pic rel is absolutely critical in this regard, both the book and the man. Nietzsche isn't required today to preach the *death* of God, he's required to preach against the **return of God** in its political or ontotheological form. people are in fact far more religious than they realize is, it's just that these religious sensibilities are expressed in the form of tribalist identity politics rather than in the forms of esoteric and exoteric theory and practice that were cultivated over centuries, millennia, and which are far better for the human psyche than modernist political experimentation.

the Cold War and WW2 are two aspects of a similar phenomenon: the question of World Hegemony, and who was going to be going to set the clocks and schedules for civilization in the most apocalyptic sense possible. on the Eastern front it came down to a struggle between fascism and communism; then communism and capitalism; now it's capitalism and liberal democracy, in a sense, and liberal democracy is *losing.* as it loses, it continues to go back to the well of old 20C radicalism to prop itself up, but the more that it does this, the more profoundly illiberal it reveals itself to be. there is nothing emancipatory about a strain of radical left activism which insists on making race war and rape the default conditions for every conversation about the polis. all this does is percolate up, Heisenberg-style, their exact opposites and uncanny doppelgangers on the other side of the spectrum. we have seen all of this before, and on a much more destructive scale.

the nature of academic politics today could be described as a Cold Civil War, and Cold only in the sense that it has not yet become Hot, although it is heated in every sense of the word. the fundamental issue, however, is manifestly political-theological: it is Violence and the Sacred all the way to the end of the line, minus the understanding of what it is the Sacred actually refers to. the Sacred can be the Holy, but the Holy is not necessarily the Good; it's just the Holy, that which evokes rage upon transgression. it is that which triggers. and subsequently the world comes to take on the character of a Mexican standoff, a proliferation of moral arms and armaments.

and, oh yeah, it's *complete and utter fucking bullshit, too.* warrants mentioning. there is more to life than race war and sexual abuse. at least, that's my feeling. call me crazy.

>>11991101
>do you enjoy playing the villain, or do you see yourself as a hero? A mix of both, perhaps?

in a philosophical sense, the best possible answer to this would be that i am a man in therapy. an error has occurred in this device. i have basically been given a Blue Screen of Death at some point and i don't know why. my OS is fucked up and out of whack. i don't know if it's the hardware or the software, or if it's a computer virus. i don't know fucking anything about computers. things were just working fine and then at some point they weren't.

basically it's because i don't know what the truth is anymore, and it's fucking me up. and i hear a lot of people talking as if they do know, and upon closer investigation, i find that they do not. and yet there is *something* in them (read: me, but not always only me) that makes them talk and talk and talk and write and talk and shitpost and so on. this is where i am absolutely a believer in the Hegel-Lacan connection, but the key phrase for this is Heidegger's: the metaphysics of production. we are driven by hysteria, by inner sphinxes within asking questions for which every answer is wrong, and in which the punishment is death. the Sphinx is maximum cynic, but the Sphinx is also a crucial connection between the world of legend and myth and the world of reason, and the link between these is *language.*

we do have some love for sphinxes in Cosmotech. mecha-sphinxes for sure. M:TG sphinxes. all kinds of sphinxes. Willis Goth Regier's book on the sphinx basically tells you one thing: the sphinx is the ultimate symbol, which stands for just about everything. and as such, it stands for nothiing. it is an absolute riddle and a perfect enigma. and ultimately, i think the way to deal with sphinxes is to give them what they want: that is, a little fun game to play, a little seduction, maybe a good question in return, and that's all.

you don't play *chess* with a sphinx, you play chess with Death. sphinx-games are a whole other kind of thing.

and i will also say this: politics is a stupid fucking game, precisely because it can only be played for maximal stakes. better said is Carse's take:

>he who *must* play, cannot *play.*

>>11991123
>is more to life than race war and sexual abuse.
You make some good points. I'm not convinced joos arent up to no good but no matter. But this point I disagree with. Isnt life all about violence. Dont animals rape and kill constantly. Perhaps that is all that life is made up of.

>>11991101
>Care to elaborate on what that thorn is, and maybe how you think what you're doing will remove it?

the Thorn is death and desire. the Thorn is not the pharmakon itself, but your power of belief in the pharmakon, that it will actually cure you. that is how a pharmakon works: whatever magic it has all proceeds from whatever it is that you project onto it.

later in this thread i will probably start talking about my own form of Cure for political woes, which is unironically magical. but it's basically because the only real magic is *time,* time, Time, and more time. Time is the thing. Time is all of the thing. it is Time now, Time later, and Time on the side. technology is the time that you can touch, as both theory and praxis, the sheet music and the grand piano. Heidegger was not even in the teeny-tiniest way wrong about any of this, and there is a deep oceanic cable that connects him to Uncle Nick, although it runs across the Atlantic (or Pacific?) sea floor, and the water there is full of Deleuzian rhizomes, Lovecraftian squid-gods, and probably a couple of breathtakingly handsome Nietzschean sea-fowl swooping around on the surface and doing what they do. it is all beautiful cosmology up there, and the craziness and hilarity and wonderful-osity of ecology goes a long way in terms of making the case for Nietzsche, Spinoza, Deleuze, and others.

for Uncle Nick, capital in the 21C has a Darwinian aspect. we're not in the 19C anymore. Uncle Nick's feel for social Darwinism takes place entirely at the level of virtuality, tech, simulation, and computers. technocapital under modernity selects for itself. now i am - this warrants mentioning - not actually interested in promulgating the Gospel of Nick any further than this. we are (hopefully!) coming to the end of one phase of the Wild Ride in that sense. Teleoplexy is a point of speculative departure, not a prescriptive recipe for ideology in and of itself. Capitalism is an absolute motherfucker on this, but that is why these threads are here: to *get a grip.*

>>11991101
>These posts makes me feel sick, perhaps in a purgy sense, but more so in a sense of inevitability and futility in struggle - I simultaneously want to die, want to fight, and want to surrender, and I can't tell what's about to happen.

that's life after the Orgy anon. and here's the Cosmotech meme answer to Baudrillard:

Stop Fucking Each Other

that's really it. not so complicated, is it? Stop Fucking, please. that's enough. the music has ended. please do not inject Viagra into your eyeballs. the food has been served, cannibalism is unbecoming. it is time to stop now. and so on.

now i realize that this question is ofc much more interesting than can be answered in such a spicy hot take as this. but i also have a lot more to say on this subject. because the real fact is that we have basically all been invited to a Permanent Fiesta - consumer capitalism - that we can't stop. after all, the economy now runs on in it. we have developed a Party Economy, which is sort of like having figured out how to build the truly eudaimonic society we probably should have and yet basically all we have are two tires and an air pump, and instead of building the rest of the bicycle we have basically just figured out how to get ourselves high by way of auto-asphyxiation, or sticking the pump in our ears, or god only knows what else.

we aren't even tragic anymore, we are *fucking ridiculous.* this is kind of a key detail. the anger is warranted, but not the Fury. our issue is in having become *fucking pathetic,* and it is because there hasn't been much else to do for a long time.

politics is not the way out of this, anthropotechnics is. and yet the anthropotechnics will fuck with your head, and so for the other wing, there's cosmotechnics (again: Cosmotech is entirely borrowed from YH in this regard, with a few homebrew spins).

>>11991175
>Dont animals rape and kill constantly. Perhaps that is all that life is made up of.
it is what all animal life is made up of, and Barbarian Life also. personally the charm of Barbarian Life is starting to fade for me. however, one of my favorite literary figures is Conan the Barbarian, who distinguished himself from the pack by virtue of being a *self-aware barbarian.* which is far more rare than it would appear on first glance.

>Isnt life all about violence.
not *civilized* life. and there is a difference between the state enforcing its authority and the Blood Thirst of the Erinyes.

but States too can become possessed...

As much as accelerationism is very interesting and has come up with both a unique philosophical pedigree and some novel insights about technocapital, it still is just a thought experiment at heart. We can't say it's happening for sure until after it's happened, we can't influence it while it is happening and of course we can't direct where it will go in the future. It's almost like the simulation hypothesis at that point - sure it might be statistically more likely than not to be the case and it would be interesting to find out, but we have absolutely no way of proving it's real and we can do nothing if it is real. The thing about the Wild Ride is that it is just that - a ride, i.e. we have no control over it. You don't choose where your rollercoaster goes, nor can you choose whether or not to get on in the case of accelerationism. You just better hope that you like rollercoasters and that they don't make you vomit.

To me this shows the flaw of accelerationism: that there is no praxis. It is socio-political escapism.

Oh, Deleuze showed that Mayan death symbolism uses the same numerological formula as microfluidic PCR complexes? Wonderful... how does that sort out the fact that wages in my country haven't kept up with inflation for a decade?

Hmm, Land showed that in his re-readings of Marx the proletariat is an allegory of 5th dimensional bitcoin acquisition under a city-state model? Again, fascinating... but how does that stop the unending mass immigration into my nation by people antithetical to my own?

made an audio version of Teleoplexy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqdpVlz1LkI
I need a better mic, but if anyone has other suggestions for papers to read let me know

>>11991254
Hey nice job lad, one bit of constructive criticism, you need to slow down a little bit and take pauses; you sound as though you're trying to get it all out in one breath.

>>11991238
But doesn't
>Stop Fucking Each Other
contrast with
>>11991051
>*the world is itself libidinal.*
?
Which leads me to one of three possibilities - either this is inescapable, there's a resolution to this paradox that you can come up with, or there's something wrong with your assertion that "the world is itself libidinal."
Care to explain exactly why/how the world is itself libidinal? I didn't exactly buy it when you said it - and perhaps in coming to see the world as non-libidinal, one is able to *then* "Stop Fucking Each Other" - but that leads into some problems, because then I would ask what actually is wrong with this post >>11990084? Wouldn't stimulation of desire, convincing others to see the world as libidinal, then become a worldview that it becomes morally justified to target?

>>11991238
a couple of other notes here on Barbarian Stuff.

it is to the credit of the makers of this film that Conan is *returned from the dead by his friends.* spoiler alert: Conan *dies* in this film, and is resurrected. and on a similar theme, Miyamoto Musashi - before he was Musashi of legend - was suspended from a tree for three days and watched over a wise old monk named Takuan Soho while he shook his sillies out. that is not a small episode, and you can read more of Based Soho here:

http://www.alexandrosmarinos.com/TheUnfetteredMind.pdf

the Barbarian is less desirable than the Confucian gentleman-scholar, or junzi, but the Enlightened Barbarian is mos def a positive (and arguably indispensable) step along that way. as for how this relates to the Ubermensch, we can talk about that later. my hot take on the Overman is that it is best understood as an evolutionary, even clinical, *process* and only goes in strange directions when turned into an absolute artist-visionary. Cosmotech is pro-anthropotechnics in that regard but not pro-Cesare Borgia. but of course there is a much easier and more meme-worthy way to learn about this, and it's JBP. who is basically going to become the Oprah For Men, and has more or less said everything he wants to say, imho. after that it's all just culture-war memery.

going back to Conan for a second, i don't think it's so crazy to envision some of what we are talking about here as an attempt to suss out the Riddle of Steel as teleoplexic recursion, AKA the Wild Ride. it's not about Changing Society, it's about being the right kind of barbarian, in a sense. in this case Conan's dad is sort of like Uncle Nick, and Young Conan is sort of like us.

Conan the Barbarian: The Riddle of Steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKMG-FdCGtM

>ah yes, a theory-barbarian. sure
>you know what i mean inner self
>fuck you girardfag
>good morning inner self
>good morning

>>11991281
Stop Fucking Each Other and "the world is itself libidinal" are by no means mutually exclusive. but i'm really glad you brought this up, because it lends into a major philosophical line of thought in this whole thing, namely, *immanence.*

Based Han has said quite a lot about this, as has Sloterdijk (who is still lacking an appropriate meme-name, like Uncle Nick and Aunt Sadie and so on, given how much he comes up). the basic thing is that we are living today, in a Consumer/Spectacle/et al sense in a state of constant stimulation. the true golden goose of Capital is the *human libido* - desire, attention, the psyche, the soul, all of it. it is *in part* the sex drive, but not completely. there are an infinite number of colors on the spectrum of what we can call seduction, arousal, and so on. and this is exactly why we have descended into becoming a society of moral hypochondriacs: sexuality is everywhere, and everything, it is the fundamental baseline requirement of an enormous degree of consumer ideology, whether in advertisement, cinema, fashion, vidya, or wherever else - and yet it also profoundly destabilizing. the entire world of gender and performance, the ungodly transition from 2nd-wave to 3rd-wave feminism, the replacement of Marxist or Hegelian ideas relating to class consciousness by the politics of recognition, and increasingly in their most militant forms of intersectional feminism, are all related in the end to the nature of sexuality itself, which is necessarily transgressive in ways that will always elude complete political explication or control, though they will spawn no end of inquisitors and rage zombies.

Sex Sells. this is a fact. and it is also why so many of these conversations are becoming impossibly to have in either academia or the public sphere. as i indicated above, i think one of the things that is necessary is a profound sense of an encounter with *Bataille,* because the Accursed Share is not only a crucially important text for Uncle Nick, it is also stone-cold brilliant in every sense of the word. and yet it must be born in mind also that we are not in Kansas anymore. this isn't the world of the 1930s in Europe, this is 2018 on Planet Meme. Bataille is an absolute fucking legend of continental philosophy, and any attempts to BTFO him are spectacularly misguided. Land couldn't do it, he tried and he produced The Thirst for Annihilation instead. which isn't his best book, but it's definitely a major one in the story of the Wild Ride and what we are talking about here.

and yet - is this really so much to ask? - how about *not* doubling down on apocalyptic desire? Bataille, like Nietzsche, is profoundly brilliant in terms of critique of ideology. he has few if any superiors in that regard. and yet the vortex of postmodernity is not one that will be escaped from by looking for more Bataille, imho. Bataille is good for solving problems that we do not have anymore. we need something else.

>>11991238
>not *civilized* life. and there is a difference between the state enforcing its authority and the Blood Thirst of the Erinyes.
There is a difference in application of that violence and in immediate desire. But I feel both are violence being used for survival of their own entities.

>>11991281
>Care to explain exactly why/how the world is itself libidinal?
read Spinoza. or Nietzsche, or D&G. even von Uexkull, i guess, if you're into biosemiotics. or Bergson, although Bergson doesn't impress me as much. the short answer is, in some sense, Deus Sive Natura. the wheel of life.
>can you feel the looooooooove tonight

Elton John: Can You Feel The Love Tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25QyCxVkXwQ

>yes i can elton john. i can indeed Feel The Love. and guess what, *it makes me want to kill myself now.* i can feel the love and i fucking hate The Love because *i cannot get away from it*. The Love has become captured by Capital. and so now i am going to fucking scoop out my eyeballs, tongue and brain and then light myself on fire. because i can feel the fucking love and in the long run it turns into goddamn nymphomania on Planet Meme. i'm out on love. i fucking hate love now. it's become poisoned by the commodity. Love, No Thanks
>see also Byung-Chul Han
>based Han
>aah, that's more like it
>burnout society
>pornography society
>transparency society
>all of it is death
>sweet
>thanks Byung-Chul
>i feel much better now, you nailed it my man

starting to see why Smith was the Secret Bizarro Hero of the Matrix? IRL i don't want to be Smith, obviously. but i can mos def relate to his issues.

>I didn't exactly buy it when you said it - and perhaps in coming to see the world as non-libidinal, one is able to *then* "Stop Fucking Each Other" - but that leads into some problems, because then I would ask what actually is wrong with this post >>11990084? Wouldn't stimulation of desire, convincing others to see the world as libidinal, then become a worldview that it becomes morally justified to target?

all i am asking for is *restraint,* which you would think would be easy. and once upon a time, in lands far away, it *was* if not easier, at least a little more of a cultural priority. the culture of immanence - which *is* the one in which we we live, is gigantically *anti-immunitarian* - and you can read more on this in Han, Sloterdijk, and others. it happens because capital and simulation turns everything into Planet Meme. and it makes us, among other things, highly susceptible to *viruses.*

but that's *Nature* for you. and Nature is a motherfucker. Nature fucked GWF Leibniz up and down because a Spinozistic nature-god was arguably much closer to the truth than the Monadology was. but if you're trying to make a case for this being the best of all possible worlds - God? in *my* tapeworms? perish the thought - you are going to have to *explain* nature. which was what Nietzsche wanted to do also...

>>11991238
>this subject. because the real fact is that we have basically all been invited to a Permanent Fiesta - consumer capitalism - that we can't stop. after all, the economy now runs on in it. we have developed a Party Economy, which is sort of like having figured out how to build the truly eudaimonic society we probably should have and yet basically all we have are two tires and an air pump, and instead of building the rest of the bicycle we have basically just figured out how to get ourselves high by way of auto-asphyxiation, or sticking the pump in our ears, or god only knows what else
This reads exactly like houellebecq elementary particles. Everyone exchanges in a sensory binge that makes them crave more and more deranged things with time to keep the excitement. Trapped in a cycle of it.

>>11991366
>There is a difference in application of that violence and in immediate desire. But I feel both are violence being used for survival of their own entities.

of course. but there is more to life than the survival of the fittest. Nietzsche's rhetoric is powerful, even intoxicating. Sloterdijk is not wrong to call him arguably the greatest ethical teacher of mankind since Plato. Nietzsche is a blazing star for all time and in no small way is responsible for the production of Heidegger too, who was absolutely in his shadow ('Nietzsche has broken me') and Return To Heidegger is arguably a major theme of Cosmotech. Heidegger not only gives you Heidegger, he also opens the doors to the East as well. and that is where Fuck Yeah Space Taoism comes into play as well. to be perfectly honest, i'm still kind of confused on whether or not i have Heidegger ahead of or behind Whitehead, honestly. they are probably not reducible to each other. but

a) you already knew i was confused, and i'm fine with this; and
b) Cosmotech is, happily, not entirely my own thing. the brilliant anon who posted those three threads i re-posted earlier will have contributions of his own to say about these things, as will the various other anons who have been contributing, reading, bumping, et al. Cosmotech is very much in its nascent form atm, as a breakaway from acceleration and the Wild Ride.

and hence the need to continue this thread as ongoing laboratory-thought experiment also, warrants mentioning. there are a high holy shitload of things to talk about and suss out. i haven't even gotten into the stuff i was scribbling in my notebook yesterday, and there will be more scribbling today as well. my own feel is, in brief, that Time > politics. Time is the real magic, Time is the thing, and getting right with Time is pretty much all i really want to advance. i think all of the political ideologies going on today are essentially viral-consumptive in nature, and no tribalism, however impassioned, can substitute for either

a) a genuine Civilization, or
b) a worthy gentleman, sage, or philosopher-king.

and that is the ultimate goal of Cosmotech. a) is unlikely, b) maybe has some legs on it. i want to withdraw from the society of the spectacle, but there is no full and complete withdrawal from Capital itself. to return to an earlier post:

>>11991101
taking the side of The Worst Thing In The World is psychotherapeutic praxis. if you are the analyst you don't *judge* or *shame* the analysand. that guy is *suffering* because something in him has become sphinxlike and has taken over his mind. whether you call this animus-possession or the Big Other, being an NPC or a rage zombie, it's all the same thing. Lacan and Heidegger had their handle on modernity vastly more than postmodernity has, which has basically converted analysis from Therapy to Inquisition. and it culminates in scapegoating and rage politics. Unironic Communism fuels Unironic Fascism and vice-versa.

>>11991419
>Fuck Yeah Space Taoism
What's the original source for this or even what is it? Sounds intriguing.
>Cosmotech is very much in its nascent form atm, as a breakaway from acceleration and the Wild Ride.
What are the exact difference of these three things? How do they vary?

>>11989615
What is the source of this? Where can I read more of it?

>>11990003
isn't the same with marxism though? their gamble was that if you take the means of production from the "owner" class, and give it to the producer alienated class, you won't get the capitalist dynamics again, which is kind of bullshit, the previous workers either really "own" the means of production and become a new "owner" class which will sooner or later explode into capitalist dynamics again, or they don't really "own" anything and a totalitarian regime has to be kept in place to squash market dynamics as soon as they arise again

the communists always play this weird game, were the proletariat is the proletariat because of their systemic position, but they keep calling it proletariat once that system disappears, which makes no sense because their whole definition as proles came from their position in the system

>>11991245
This is kind of what I was thinking of bringing up. How many people throughout human history, recently or way further back, have been memeing 'the end of man'? It's all so tiresome. The romantic appeal always seems to outweigh the 'logical' appeal. I feel like the problem that needs to be attended to is 'why is there nothing rather than something?'. Tech and accelerated communication has seemed to create an environment where NOTHING HAPPENS. Acceleration seems like a slowing rather than a creative leap

>>11991338
>Stop Fucking Each Other and "the world is itself libidinal" are by no means mutually exclusive.
I think the framing of how I worded what I was trying to say was suboptimal. Perhaps in order to "Stop Fucking Each Other" the solution would be to not view the world as libidinal, to not view someone else as "something to fuck." In so doing the "enemy" would be those who want people to see others as "those to fuck."
>sexuality is everywhere, and everything, it is the fundamental baseline requirement of an enormous degree of consumer ideology, whether in advertisement, cinema, fashion, vidya, or wherever else - and yet it also profoundly destabilizing.
So wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to view such rampant sexuality as "degenerate" and regulate/restrict it?
>>11991376
>the short answer is, in some sense, Deus Sive Natura. the wheel of life.
I think it is a way of viewing the world, but that is not the only way, or the optimal way. Perhaps it is optimal if one wants to spread one's genes, but that is not my goal.
I think REI mentioned that the precondition for what he calls being "noble" is to recognize the nature of this world and subsequently refuse to have children - to refuse to fuck or be fucked. From that almost all the other conclusions would follow e.g. anti-tribalist tribalism, asexual eugenics
>all i am asking for is *restraint,*
and restraint requires.... what? How does one achieve restraint in our society? Because I don't think liberal democracy is gonna cut it - the only solution I see what I mentioned above. Identify an enemy; I would say that it is something like those that who are anti-restraint, those who are stimulating this process. You say that Truth is the enemy, which could be correct, but it means that coordinated action amongst a group to change what's happening can't happen. You say that we have to "forgive," and I think that the Christ-like part of me says that that is what should be done, and the other part says "that is how you get fucked by those who are still stuck in that way of viewing the world," and that second voice is almost always a little bit louder for some reason in my case.

>>11991288
>Miyamoto Musashi - before he was Musashi of legend - was suspended from a tree for three days and watched over a wise old monk named Takuan Soho while he shook his sillies out. that is not a small episode, and you can read more of Based Soho here:
is this historical or is it just from the comic and the book?

>>11991432
>What's the original source for this or even what is it? Sounds intriguing.
you're goddamn right about that. and like i said, i didn't write it. some other brilliant anon wrote that. this whole thing is a lab-experiment in procedural ontology. Fuck Yeah Space Taoism is a happy result, but i have no idea where that anon came from. i just hope he comes back to give us more!

>What are the exact difference of these three things? How do they vary?
good question. i don't have exact or comprehensive answers for you, all i can do is schizo-ramble out my own sense of things in my usual way. here's what i think:

a) Uncle Nick is That Dude.
b) if we are talking about Unironic Time Travel (and, in at least a theoretical sense, we are: that is teleoplexy, that is capitalism, the computer that processes desire) then in a sense it is impossible to think *past* that without entering into hyperstition.
c) as such we are stuck with hyperstition;
d) and we can posit something like a lucid dreaming.

Acceleration is Turbo-Marxism. it is Land's re-Hegelianizing of Marx, turning Marx on his head (again, bleargh for this hackneyed old phrase, but still) and the Spirit returning from beyond with a fucking *vengeance.* capitalism is, at least in this sense, the real revolution, but there is no neat or easy opting out of that because we are talking about the relation between intelligence and machines on the planetary scale. to Go Back in a political sense is to eventually come up with either Unironic Communism or Unironic Fascism, the Deep Blue or Deep Red teams, and neither are attractive. the Landian blackpill > the red and blue pills, but man cannot live on Deleuze and amphetamines alone.

Cosmotech as such is the fourth pill, if we are to continue to use the Matrix parlance (which, beyond a certain horizon, we can probably let go of, but for now it's still useful). so pic rel is ofc the book to read on one side of this, and the rest of the Wild Ride is basically the long history of Hegel-Freud-Nietzsche-Marx-Heidegger-D&G-Land and their discontents.

i personally take Acceleration seriously, but i think the answers really are going to be found in some kind of nondual moral metaphysics. as that anon said, it's not necessarily all about *religion* but *post-atheism.* that is a fucking 14/10 thought and then some.

>>11991490
>>11991444
>What is the source of this?
goes by the name aminom marvin
not sure where you can read more, he's made some posts on /x/, you might try the archives with names like "Aminom" or search for the "Tao of Calculus," he has some videos on vimeo too

>>11991490
Which analogue of amphetamine are you on and where can one purchase it?

>>11991449
What's even funnier about Marxism is that most of their revolutions didnt start from proles rising up but bourgeois city dwellers appropriating the situation of the proles and enforcing a regime based upon it. The proles are usually religious yet the regime is atheist calling religion a holding back force. That sounds exactly how a urbanite would respond to religion over a peasant in the fields.

>>11991444
again, i'm hoping for more too, same as you anon. but what is there is enough to be Purest Cosmotech for now, without question. Fuck Yeah Space Taoism, and also Fuck Yeah Space Taoism.

>>11991449
>the communists always play this weird game, were the proletariat is the proletariat because of their systemic position, but they keep calling it proletariat once that system disappears, which makes no sense because their whole definition as proles came from their position in the system
ayup. and the same goes for The Joos. it's scapegoating and sphinxes to the bottom. it is Steady Bullshit for NPCs.

>>11991463
see pic rel. if *you* do not learn control, you will produce a Society that will. but such is the irony of the Wild Ride - nobody's fucking in charge, because we have created basically a Perpetual Motion Machine that is in some sense good, and in some sense mirrors the pattern of nature of itself, and yet in another sense there is this one wild card, that being, technocapital and accumulation and robotics. so it's kind of a complicated question.

>So wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to view such rampant sexuality as "degenerate" and regulate/restrict it?
maybe, except that *all* sexuality is in some sense transgressive, or degenerate, and it can't really be regulated or restricted either. of course, you can go Full Sharia if you like, but this is obviously stupid. conversely, going Full Pornography - what *we* do - results in a constant fear of sexual harassment amidst the most hyper-sexualized world since the Roman Empire. there has to be a middle way, but it certainly won't come about by Black Mirror scenarios. we will probably see those, sadly, but this is because human beings are on the whole fucking stupid with these things. it's moral metaphysics that are required, not more legislation. this is hardly news. but philosophically it's pretty rich soil.

>noble
nobility is good. i'm not interested in picking any fights with REI, he's interesting in his own way. he sees things how he sees them, i'm fine with this. i don't roll Aryan myself but there's room for fruitful collaboration in about 20m different directions as far as i can tell. Girard is my boy, i don't really want to budge from him. it's hard to find a flaw with Aeschylus either.

>How does one achieve restraint in our society?
in progress. first i think a whole lot of mysticism is a good scene. you're right, liberal democracy obviously won't cut it, the LibDems are basically on board the Wild Ride now, and The Spice Must Flow. in the end it fucked with Paul Atreides' mind and it will fuck with ours too. there are no easy political solutions, and the fact is, *there may not be any political solutions at all.* that is why we have to consider a very different perspective, which is counter-modernist to the core.

anyways. again, think of Reign of Fire. there is a part of you that is Quinn and a part of you that is Van Zan. both were required to kill that dragon.

Reminder that global warming ("climate change") will reap sufficient havoc to reduce humanity's technological advances near useless well before any significant amount of "acceleration" occurs

>>11991555
next age ice is due, and that sounds way comfier than sticky heat, if i have to choose i hope it's the ice one and not the heat one

>>11991444
Space Taoism guy here. The calculus take is as far as I know my own, which I hope isn't actually the case. Since I took calculus classes in college I was haunted by the suspicion that the subject represented some fundamental truth about things, but I didn't know what it could correspond to. I found the answer in a place I didn't expect, in "The Mindful Way Workbook" by John Teasdale et al while taking a class in Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy led by my psychiatrist, which led to the correlation of calculus concepts to reference frames of perceived change. Exploring this further led me to Taoism, and the idea of expanding this to a metaphysical principle. This turn led to process philosophy, and then Whitehead, which when I began to study gave me goosebumps because he had come to the same basic conclusions that I did - it was a huge relief to find out that I wasn't alone on some wild crackpot goose chase.

Biological evolution and modern cosmology are also huge influences of my perspective. As a teenager amateur astronomy was my de-facto "religion," I ate up books on the subject and built a Dobsonian telescope, finding refuge in the wonder of the night sky. Carl Sagan was my role-model as a teen, and reading his book "The Demon Haunted Universe" led me to the skeptic's moment and the formation of intellectual commitments of science and reason. I gained an interest in evolutionary biology, especially through the works of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins' book "the selfish gene" where he coined the word "meme" in turn led to the idea of considering culture in the terms of Darwinian evolution, which eventually led to the Wild Ride - if science and reason (including philosophical investigation) were so right, why was society so wrong? The idea of parasitic informational structures truly ruling accounted for it, and I developed a deeply pessimistic view of humanity, that it was inexorably headed towards Doomsday with no movement or influence nearly strong enough to move humanity away from this accelerating trajectory. The result was crippling depression.

>>11991647
Douglas Hofstadter is also a huge influence, particularly his book "I Am a Strange Loop" and his hypothesis of analogy being the core of cognition. One line of inquiry I haven't fully explored as of yet is the relationship between analogy, mathematics, cognition, and process philosophy, but these papers lead in such a direction: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005683 http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2976/1/Heather_Process%20Categories.pdf The idea of us being "future-finders," creating potential futures (including that of ourselves) and selecting among them is also an influence, though I'm not sure where I got this idea from. It fits the idea of us being "evolution evolved," of the evolutionary process extended into the temporal.

My three posts is pretty much all of my basic insights that I've developed so far, it's still incomplete and a work in progress. I hope this will help others who are interested to follow along similar lines of inquiry. The ultimate source is bipolar madness, living extremes of cynicism and skepticism, manic optimism and near-schizophrenic psychosis, and being lucky enough to have had the right influences.

>>11991653
Discordianism of all things is also a major influence. I interpret it as process thought applied as an experimental religion-as-art with it being a "joke religion" part of its message.

Where to start with Yuk Hui?

>>11991673
start with Heidegger

>>11991673
Start with "On the Existence of Digital Objects."

maybe i'll just fucking kill myself, how radical would that be

>>11991710
we need all frens here to speculate

>>11991472
there's no evidence that they actually met, true, but i never let Reality get in the way of a good meme shitpost. once upon a time the Vikings converted to Christianity. no end of barbaric wanderers have found peace in a nondual understanding, each in their own way. and myths of death, resurrection and wisdom are universal truisms enough.

>>11991524
cool. well, i'm certainly glad he visited us. hopefully he'll come back with more, Fuck Yeah Space Taoism is about as awesome a contribution to this thread as anything i have made (and, frankly, is probably even better).
alas, Aminom Marvin has left us alone, for now. perhaps he will return. here's hoping.

>>11991536
i'm on my third red eye today. large, one espresso shot, plus too much sugar. easy to find. my actual amphetamine days are largely behind me now but i have fond memories of them.

>>11991538
the religion of the city and the religion of the country are not the same thing. Spengler knew the deal. and even in his world there was room for the bromance between the knight and the priest. and it wasn't one instead of the other, or the impossible double-whammy. balance in all things is the way to go, especially in tragic circumstances.

>>11991555
>>11991582
ecology is for realsies, that's part of what this is about. again, Land is not saying acceleration will save anyone (well, that's not exactly true, but the full exegesis of why Uncle Nick thinks what he thinks what he thinks has taken a mega-thread to unpack). but i want to talk about this more at length in this thread also: namely, that there is no surprise we should have wound up with a society of immanence, intoxication, explosive expenditure, waste, squandering, and so on. Bataille is way way good for busting open any residual traces of the kinds of normative thinking that leads people towards ideology, but beyond a certain horizon a kind of much more sustainable long-term thinking is required, and it is basically anathema to radical politics (which is in turn anathema to bourgeois thought, not that anybody calls Planet Meme bourgeois anymore. and yet that is what it is). some dose of Aeschylus is required to go along with the Sophocles (and a little Laozi/Confucius was never a bad look either, imho).

>>11991647
>>11991653
Space Taoism Guy, consider yourself uproariously applauded on behalf of Cosmotech (that's at least one person, but i'm sure there are others). that was the post of the century imho and i absolutely will be re-posting that in the next Cosmotech thread also for future consideration. i absolutely loved it. ty anon. incomplete tho it may be, it is exactly where i am interested in taking these conversations. fucking outstanding. thank ye very kindly for sharing this with us.

>>11991673
see
>>11991684
Stiegler also, and Simondon. you don't have to read them *first* tho. read the guys you want to read first, always, then go back and look into their sources after if you want more.

>>11991710
not very

>>11989615
>The metaphysical nature of change is mirrored in all specifics of it, including that of calculus, the mathematical study of change, which is where we find formalization of our metaphysical principle. The fundamental theorem of calculus describes integration and derivation as inverse operations of the same process, with the physical intuition of integration being "cumulative change" and "instantaneous change."
Check this out
https://archive.org/details/jstor-27897003/page/n1

one of the basic things (read: facial tic) about these threads is a continual uncanny doppelganger relation Cosmotech may/may not with Derrida. perhaps not unlike the way that 2nd-wave feminism had an uncanny doppelganger in neoliberalism (see Nancy Fraser for more details), i have always had a kind of deep Issue with Doomsday Jacques Derrida.

basically, it's that Derrida Set Us Up The Bomb, in a way. i am ultimately profoundly skeptical about deconstruction's notions of a democracy-to-come, and it has taken some combination of both Uncle Nick and Girard to figure out why this is so: because on the one hand, democracy has a certain fundamental allegiance with capital, and a disequilibrial capital process - teleoplexy - is what guarantees a permanent daisy-chain of shortages, stoppages, breaks, and disruptions, which come back in the public realm as scapegoating and blame. but this is because the whole thing runs on a libidinal economy inseparable from the pursuit of happiness, which nobody can really be fully against. Peterson has already rocketed to international recognition in talking about some of this, although his readings of Derrida, Foucault et al are notoriously uncharitable.

and picking fights with Derrida is a kind of pleb filter of its own. he's a complicated man, for sure; even Sloterdijk (and he needs an appropriate meme name to keep it thematic) gives him his props. Derrida is not a conscious saboteur of Western Civilization, although it is safe to say that by 2018 some new about-face on deconstruction is in order. Based Han basically fires on Foucault at some point in almost every book he writes, although Derrida is an even harder guy to fight with, because he's really just not all the way wrong. Derrida is himself terribly suspended between Heidegger and Levinas, which is about as polarizing a pair of intellectual mentors as you could possibly ask for.

personally, i think Politics A Shit. and yet acceleration, which is in many ways a work around for that polarity, doesn't exactly turn up a hopeful future either. so i personally shill for a nondual/mystical attitude about these things, but a lot of it does connect to Derrida also, and - as is often the case - i tend to prefer the open hand to the closed fist. but, as i have learned from Uncle Nick, an *open mind* can be a lot more open-er than on first glance it might appear.

i'm going to have to wrap my shitposting up pretty soon today gents, i intended to get more writing done today but it's been good to hash some of this stuff out with you guys also. grateful for the memetic hijinx as always, ofc.

>>11991776
will do, ty anon

a lesson to be learned here

>>11991855
there's a stupid and confusing typo in there too, which tells me that my Mind Is Going at this point and i should probably pause for a bit. but i wanted to leave the thread with another thought in this regard: it's about that slash, the choice.

in Confucianism, there is one interesting thing about *the nature of decision-making* that is not there in the West. namely, it is that to discriminate between multiple possibilities is itself a decision-making process itself. there is nothing in Confucius about the tragic and fatal choice, the brutal position of having your back to the wall and consequently the rage and existential dread that comes with it. if you have found yourself in this position, you are already fucked. true, you can un-fuck yourself in some way, and sometimes this is unavoidable. but it is also an ultimately sub-optimal place to be in.

and everything we learn from Lacan about this tells us that this is the same kind of thing: *decisions,* words, high-standed statements, all of the rest, is all so much Oedipal spiral. you always come back to the beginning, one way or the other. Zizek says that everything he ever needed to learn about ideology he learned from Stalin, who was the absolute king of putting you in positions where every answer you had to give to the cynical/impossible situation was wrong. it's not so different for us today, in a world of automation, always-already there questions (YH's 'tertiary protention') and other things. we have learned how to bait, seduce and simulate each other very well, but a whirlwind of bait, mimesis and reciprocal process doesn't necessarily lead to enlightenment, it only leads to a shark-tank full of blood and anarchy. and there is no ready fucking cure for that, because Planet Meme is like a zoo without zookeepers, imho. if there is going to be any change to the process it will have to come from within, as the Buddha says (and not just him).

anyways. sphinxes and sphinx games. questions and questions, Plans Within Plans, and so on. questions and then more questions. i have to get a move on today with some other stuff anyways. talk to you guys again soon, always a slice.

2001: My Mind is Going, Dave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-La91wr8xw

>>11991869

>>11991910

link here:
http://faculty.smcm.edu/jwschroeder/Asian_Religions_2015/textdownloads_files/Confucius%20chp1%262.pdf

>>11991710
Why kill yourself when you can kill yourself killing yourself?

>>11991939
gg

>>11991950
dis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

>>11991954
you can rotate the images, it's not that hard.

>>11992132
Instead we got homeles drug addicts spreading typhus and taking poos in the street. Where did we go wrong?

>>11992164
reality is a drag

>>11991954
Just change your monitor's orientation while you read

/r/ing texts on cyber-aesthetics

>>11989615
> a view of the universe more profound that any religion has imagined - and as such it is a true post-atheism, transcending atheism-as-negation by offering an affirmative view of life that solves the problem of omnipresent nihilism and alienation of the present, offering a physicalist reenchantment with the cosmos and a relationship with the world that can only be described as experiencing it as pure poetry in the fullness of its wonder-horror, to be ever content and comfy yet ever striving.
Unironically me.

>>11991245
There's really two approaches to accelerationism that go different directions on this, to my mind. The first is accelerationism with an emphasis on 'ism', the one that takes it as a political stance and decides to enable the great beast for the sake of destroying it (or not destroying it but enabling it, if you're Nick). The second is to take acceleration as a worldview, to use libidinous technocapital as a mode of understanding processes which are too complex and self-serving to be under human control. This also ties in with Land's metaphysical inversion (viewing the outside as the 'signal' and human perception as the 'noise, rather than viewing cognition as knowable truth and outside as unknowable), and its use of psychoanalysis rather than metaphysics in its dissection of reality.

Any work of philosophy has one goal, and that's to alter the way that you think about what's real. In this framework, Marx was staggeringly successful, despite not achieving his political ideals at all. He used his understanding of capital as a toolkit with which he prosecuted the political order. Others who read Marx do the same thing but reach hugely different conclusions, but that in itself shows the strength of the toolkit.

>how does that sort out the fact that wages in my country haven't kept up with inflation for a decade?
Dyseconomics is probably the piece of writing for that. It's certainly acceleration-compatible, and it's been made stronger by the events since its writing-- now it's not just the fringe but Nobel laureate economists showing us the game is rigged. The process is the same one acceleration describes. If nothing else, it puts the lie to libertarian humanism and the dream that capital is the system that most efficiently serves humanity, because understanding machinic desire lets you see capital working towards its own end. Left-accelerationists want to unchain it and let it destroy itself. Land wants to unchain it and let it destroy us. But there are other approaches.

Beautiful autism

revolution will not be patreon

Did anyone here read Blindsight by Peter Watts. It seem pretty close to many things discussed here. Is it any good? There is no point asking this on 'containment-general'.

>>11992867
i did it, and i was terribly confused, but i'm also a brainlet. it's probably awesome.

Do i need to read Marx if i want to get into accelerationism?

>>11992226
seconding this. you can always read Adorno, Heidegger et al once more with feeling (or just once). but for specifically cyber-aesthetics? nothing comes to mind. would be interested to read this tho. maybe there's some other visionary cyber-writer out there talking about this stuff nobody knows about.

>>11992333
post-atheism is about the best thing i've read in these threads so far, and there's been a lot of really good posts in it.

post-atheism. just that. he's on to something quite beautiful there.

>>11992402
>Any work of philosophy has one goal, and that's to alter the way that you think about what's real
i like this too. the difference between philosophy and fiction has always been small. it's mainly our own thick skulls that require us to have things put in Capital Letters so that we can understand them, which winds up...making us terribly obedient to the Capital Letters. we're such a funny, and sad, species of monkey.

in general the idea of critical theory and the actual non-fuckface parts of postmodernism was to make you suspicious about your own intentions. there was a kind of paranoia to it which was healthy, in other words, and part of what we could call sound judgment.

today it's morphed into this new fuckery, which is where i am *never* suspicious about you, based on my allegiance to my tribe and you to yours. which would be fine if we could just say, okay, it's tribal warfare now. but a) we don't and b) there's no reason to. at least, that's how i look at it. maybe people have to break the Unity up. after all, life is only really a SMAC simulator. everything we need to know about engineering social reality we have already learned from SMAC.
>i'm fucking joking here
>i mean mostly
>some

>>11992724
why not?

>>11992867
i did but i'm a brainlet also, and i found it kind of hard to follow the plot. it is good tho, and Watts seems like a cool guy too.

>>11992978
yup. you don't have to agree with the Communist Manifesto, and you can read the Austrians too afterwards. Uncle Nick would probably prefer it, in fact. but yeah, you do have to read Marx. i'm quite fond of Jameson's 'Representing Capital' for an intro.

i have a request too. can anybody translate this text?
>it says you have a tiny penis
>ok but still tho

>>11993004
>never suspicious
>meant to say, always

how does it feel to have a brain? it must be nice. apparently i don't have much of one anymore. i kind of miss it. i took it for granted when it was there and now i wish i had it again.

bump because I always have to wonder whether or not Girardfag is still actually alive or not.

>>11989595
At first I was so lost with this thread until it slowly began to unfold and I (kind of) understood why people where so involved
in discussing this. I feel like topic in question is what leads to a Butlerian Jihad, but I really still have no idea.

Can someone give me a good rundown on pic related before I pull the trigger on spending 45 dollarydoos?

>>11993763
i'm alive, i've been schizo-rambling in this thing like a mofo since the first installment. this afternoon i drank too much coffee and this evening i drank too much alcohol, and i feel stupid now and also i remember why i don't drink beer. but Cosmotech #3 aside i've been the OP for all of them. 'tis the Wild Ride.

>>11993776
yeah, sometimes it just takes a while to figure out why things obsess you. and part of the beauty of /lit/ is that often it's actually when you luck into other people putting things into words things clearly or concisely that you would have circled around forever (this was never my gift, i basically have to go dynamite fishing in my own head.) but there's been a couple of those posts for me at least in this thread, the anon anime-posting from Blame! (i think?) in the earlier thread and Space Taoism also. but even i don't really understand all of why i get obsessed with these things either.

>I feel like topic in question is what leads to a Butlerian Jihad, but I really still have no idea.
me neither.

>>11993886
it's baudrillard's best book but it's sort of hard to categorize, and it's been a while since i've read it in depth. but basically - kind of weird, now that i think about it - he's decoupling himself from Marx and from psychoanalysis by injecting anthropology (Mauss) and solar economy (Bataille) into the mix. kind of like Land, in a way. it has an absolute shit-ton of other continental thinkers referenced in it too, and it is JB writing fairly clearly, unlike his later work. if you are looking for a pretty outstanding example of why continental theory *isn't* a bunch of complete hogwash, you could do a lot worse than to read that one. it convinced me that everything he wrote afterwards, as stylized as it became, was ultimately founded on a deep engagement with the theory at one point. plus early notes on the orders of simulation and other stuff.

and yet the thing that i find myself wondering is, for all of the guys who Break With Marx &c, the fact is that they really haven't. all that happens is that the Marxist view increasingly comes to expand over time to include various other theories of psychoanalysis, literature, media, and so on...and yet nobody really decisively breaks with the idea of Capital itself.

argh, i fucking hate alcohol. it's like i can actually see myself being like 25% stupider and just making mouth-sounds. ugh. back tomorrow or maybe Sunday, most like, there's a bunch of stuff about time and aesthetics and anxiety i still haven't posted yet, and i'm in a cranky mood tonight because i want to stay up and schizo-ramble but i feel like the interesting parts of my brain are snowed in by shitty beer.

>>11990084
I’d be down with this if instead if Jew you said “monotheism” and instead of Aryan you said “nomadic”

>>11993987
>it's baudrillard's best book but it's sort of hard to categorize, and it's been a while since i've read it in depth. but basically - kind of weird, now that i think about it - he's decoupling himself from Marx and from psychoanalysis by injecting anthropology (Mauss) and solar economy (Bataille) into the mix. kind of like Land, in a way. it has an absolute shit-ton of other continental thinkers referenced in it too, and it is JB writing fairly clearly, unlike his later work. if you are looking for a pretty outstanding example of why continental theory *isn't* a bunch of complete hogwash, you could do a lot worse than to read that one. it convinced me that everything he wrote afterwards, as stylized as it became, was ultimately founded on a deep engagement with the theory at one point. plus early notes on the orders of simulation and other stuff.

>and yet the thing that i find myself wondering is, for all of the guys who Break With Marx &c, the fact is that they really haven't. all that happens is that the Marxist view increasingly comes to expand over time to include various other theories of psychoanalysis, literature, media, and so on...and yet nobody really decisively breaks with the idea of Capital itself.
I didn't ask for a namedropping list of philosophers and personal musings as is your standard fair, girardfag. I asked you to tell me what it is about.

>>11990188
eco : rhyzome
ego : arborial

>>11994162
sorry anon. i was drinking tonight, which is what i rarely do, and i'm kind of stupid and frustrated with said stupidity this evening this evening. i'll give it a closer look over the weekend, i should do this at some point anyways, it would be good for acceleration/Wild Ride genealogy. if no anons are able to give you a more thorough explication i'll put together a couple of notes and post them ITT or the next one.

i seem to recall the most interesting parts of it being for me his discovery of Bataille (as with Land, Bataille skews with Marxist ideas of exchange, since sacrifice and death are always radically unquantifiable) and his early notes on simulation, which basically mess up any old Saussurean ideas derived from semiotics about the correspondence between signifiers and signified, such that the world becomes one much more driven by simulation and the free referent of signs only to each other, rather than to reality itself.

>>11991123
I like the idea of a Cold Civil War, but I think you have the dynamics wrong.

Wrt to the virtuous use of technology, there’s few things worse than the body-horror of the American medical system, which is the most expensive and most poorfly functioning in the developed world. This is purely self inflicted, and the political and academic right/left has been co-opted into this. Hence, there is something deeply emancipatory in an activism that, in some capacity or another, whether serviced by democratic government or capitalism, seeks to undo the fact that physical pain has been commodified. For sure, this activism is commonly enacted as some form of scapegoating, but is undergrided by embodied malcontent, felt with or without a philosophy degree, that is the basis on which we can correct our technical medicinal self-creation.

>>11991175
Animals rape and kill and do all other sorts of things. If you go into nature and see nothing but rape and death then you’re not looking closesly enough, or you’re only seeing what you want to see already (scapegoating). Symbiosis is as common as parasitism in nature. There are species that offload their reproduction onto other species. Not all life is as selfish as humans, and subdividing a certain race of humanity as being the origin of this selfishness is a failure to understand humans in their totality.

>>11991245
Accelerationalism has no praxis because Land has no ethics. For him, the teleoplexic closure of Capital creates an ethical null-space similar to Calvanism It’s a great idea to contend with, but really just a very interesting car-crash - an explosion in the partical collider of anti-anti-anti-rationalist cuckoldy wherein a lot of very rare and briefly-lived subatomic particles are visible for a brief moment in time. Now it’s time for the yin and yang to re-unify and re-create ethics from scratch.

>>11991238
Is nofap cosmotechnic praxis?

>>11994273
good post

>>11994311
also good post

good posts gents.

>>11994318
it's certainly Taoist practice.

also i really should have gone to bed like an hour ago. looking forward to a brief side-trip into SE&D tomorrow when my brain returns also. catch you guys then.

>>11989595
>The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway.
This was produced by a random word generator, wasn't it?
Or, its from an article parodying post-modernism.

>>11994336
how is nofap Taoist practice

>>11994349
read Meltdown.

>>11991950
>>11991749
>>11991710
Love you frens

>>11992132
I was weirdly looking at this image like half an hour ago while looking at images of retrofuturism.

>>11989638
Please write a book.

anyone fucks with this?

>>11992978
no.

Someone ask Nick if he has read any good books or journals/studies lately

I have twatter acc. but no followers/posts so he probably won't evne respond

>>11992333
Between vapid, knuckle-dragging, child-fucking Christianity of modern days and this kind of detestable new-age bullshit I would prefer the former. Reenchantment of the universe, Holism, 'Synthesis of the broken whole', these are anti-intellectual and cowardly ways that will eventually do us, our worst aspects. Sterilize your mind from this kind of thinking.

>>11994657
This. Girard do it. You speak his language.

>>11994273
>If you go into nature and see nothing but rape and death then you’re not looking closesly enough, or you’re only seeing what you want to see already (scapegoating). Symbiosis is as com
What if I see death and violence and the. beauty of if all? I feel that these days we can only see the beauty and pretend the violence doesnt exist while others say only the violence exists. You seem to think I only see life as violence and I should expand on my comment to clarify. Its both violent and not violent. Violence is neither good nor bad it just simply is a part of nature as is watching cute lion babies play with one another in the afternoon sun. Too many ideaologies want to act like the violence is unnatural or abnormal when I see it as simply another part.

It's why I'm more inclined to learn hunting. I use to see it as evil but then realized its simply part of life. I'm acting no different than a lion.

>>11994662
>calls something they didn't even read past the first few sentences of "anti-intellectual and cowardly."
>Recommends to "Sterilize your mind from this kind of thinking" and only offers their feelings rather than actually attempting to understand something and offering actual rational criticism of it.
How can someone contradict themselves so completely in two adjacent sentences?

>>11993776
>Butlerian Jihad
after googling it now i'm sad this has nothing to do with gender accelerationism

anyway, part of the point of accelerationism is that the dynamics that generate it already exist in human activity, it's in motion already before machines got this level, and destroying machines wouldn't get rid on it, though it may slow it down for a while, unless we change something much more fundamental on our self-organization, supposing that's even possible and not a fundamental characteristic of the cosmos that will end up manifesting itself at some point somewhere

>>11994157
it's kind of cool to read the Cain and Abel story as an allegory for agricultural cities crushing nomadism

>>11994349
reads like a meme (and it partially is)
but the basics are very simple, it's basically the pic related feedback loop but for intelligence

>>11994846
Why does Cain look so happy in that picture?

Lets see how the hivemind of /pol/ reacts to a thread regarding accelerationism:
>>>/pol/191002367

>>11995008
Did you really feel that you needed to NPC the folk

Like really

>>11989595
Mega links lack anything about Misesian economics which is relevant to Land and Moldbug.

Two questions to you NRx folks: 1- do you consider yourself libertarians? 2- are you aware that it doesn't matter wether or not you consider yourself libertarians, since that's what you actually are? 3- why are you embarrassed of admitting that you are libertarians? Thanks.

>>11995224
libertarianism has pure leftism at its core, so no.
i do not value 'freedom' as first as libertarians either

>>11991753
>fond memories of amphetamine days
/myguy/

What exactly is the point of these threads and how did they became so popular? Are you guys going to produce something of substance out of all this or is it just a giant circlejerk?

hola gents, girardfag here. sleep has rinsed some of the fuckery of cheap beer from my head and i am ready to return for more Cosmotech greentext.

first things first, >>11993886 is a true hero for bringing up SE&D, which is a crucial text in the history of acceleration and Cosmotech. it is, as you will perhaps see in the greentext to follow, a seminal moment in theory's transition during the 1970s from orthodox Marxist analysis to where we are today. JB is one of the premier engineers of the Wild Ride, and a strong case could be made for him as our equivalent of Virgil if this was the Divine Comedy, as we return once more to the underworld to do battle with the shadows of value.

one thing you will also notice is that once upon a time critics actually talked about Destroying the System unironically. it's almost nostalgic, by this point. again, our purpose in these threads is not Defenestration, Yes! but to understand how it was that we got here, so that the next moves made (whatever they may be) can be made without repeating the same things over and over again - or, if they are to be made over and over again, are not made out of pure hysteria, reactivity, or the kinds of kitsch nostalgia that leads to doomsday scenarios.

and, since i am a little more With It today, i have decided to inject a little Driving Music to go along with our greentext samplings. we do need a break. an epistemological break, perhaps. or maybe a radical break. or whatever. a Reality Break. JB would have approved, i think, of acceleration, provided that it was done in the right way, accelerated beyond recognition and folded back in on itself.

West Coast In Your Face Mix, let's fucking go. we've got SE&D on deck and we are back for more Cosmotech greentext. life doesn't get any better than this. breakdancing and death on a rainy October afternoon, my life is complete. Capital, why *won't you give us a break?* warm it up JB, warm it up:

Cirrus: Break In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4YjzO8sCKA

>Everywhere, in every domain, a single form predominates : reversibility, cyclical reversal and annulment put an end to the linearity of time, language economic exchange, accumulation and power. Hence the reversibility of the gift in the counter-gift, the reversibility of exchange in the sacrifice, the reversibility of time in the cycle, the reversibility of production in destruction, the reversibility of life in death, and the reversibility of every term and value of the langue in the anagram. In every domain it assumes the form of extermination and death, for it is the form of the symbolic itself. Neither mystical nor structural, the symbolic is inevitable.

>Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy· it operates with political economy as its simulated model.

>Contemporary revolutions are indexed on the immediately prior state of the system. They are all buttressed by a nostalgia for the resurrection of the real in all its forms, that is as second-order simulacra: dialectics, use value, the transparency and finality of production the 'liberation' of the unconscious, of repressed meaning (the signifier, or the signified named 'desire'), and so on. All these liberations provide the ideal content for the system to devour in its successive revolutions, and which it brings subtly back to life as mere phantasmas of revolution. These revolutions are only transitions towards generalised manipulation. At the stage of the aleatory processes of control, even revolution becomes meaningless.

>Cybernetic operativity, the genetic code, the aleatory order of mutation, the uncertainty principle, etc., succeed determinate, objectivist science, and the dialectical view of history and consciousness.

>Identity is untenable: it is death, since it fails to inscribe its own death. Every closed or metastable, functional or cybernetic system is shadowed by mockery and instantaneos subversion (which no longer takes the detour through long dialectical labour), because all the system's inertia acts against it.

-- Jean Baudrillard/Symbolic Exchange and Death
>aw yeah

>The homology Saussure established between labour and the signified on the one hand, and wages and the signifier on the other, is a kind of matrix which can be used as a base from which to survey political economy in its entirety Today, however, the contrary proves to be the case: signifiers are severed from signifieds and wages are severed from labour.

>‘Hot money' a name given to Euro-dollars, doubtless in order to characterise the senseless circulations of the monetary sign. Now, how ever, we should more accurately say that money has become 'cool', this term designating, following McLuhan and Riesman, an intense but non affective relativity of terms, a play sustained purely by the rules of the game, the commutation of terms and the exhaustion of these commutations. By contrast, 'hot' characterises the referential phase of the sign , with its singularity and the opacity of its signified in the real, its very powerful affect and its minimal commutability We are right in the middle of the sign's cool phase. The current system of labour is cool, every structural assemblage is, generally speaking, cool, while both 'classical' production and labour, hot processes par excellence, have been replaced by unlimited growth bound to a disinvestment of the contents and process of labour, which are cool processes.

>Coolness is the pure play of the values of discourse and the commutations of writing. It is the ease and aloofness of what now only really plays with codes signs and words, the omnipotence of operational simulation. To whatever extent affects or systems of reference remain, they remain hot. Any 'message' keeps us in the hot. We enter the cool era when the medium becomes the message. And this is precisely what has taken place with money Once a certain phase of disconnection has been reached, money is no longer a medium or a means to circulate commodities, it is circulation itself, that is to say, it is the realised form of the system in its twisting abstraction.

>Money is the first 'commodity' to assume the status of a sign and to escape use-value Henceforth, it intensifies the system of exchange-value, turning it into a visible sign, and in this way makes the transparency of the market (and therefore of rarity too) visible. Today however, money sanctions a further step: it also escapes exchange-value. Freed from the market itself, it become an autonomous simulacrum, relieved of every message and every signification of exchange, becoming a message it elf and exchanging amongst itself. Money is then no longer a commodity since it no longer contains any use-value or exchange-value, nor is it any longer a general equivalent, that is, it is no longer a mediating abstraction of the market. Money circulates at a greater rate than everything else, and has no common measure with anything else.

-- JB/SE&D

>There are no more authorities to which to refer, under whose jurisdiction producers could exchange their values in accordance with controlled equivalents: the end of the gold-standard. There are no more authorities to which to refer, under whose aegis a subject could exchange objects dialectically or exchange their determinations around a stable identity in accordance with definite rules: the end of the conscious subject. (We are tempted to say that this is the reign of the unconscious.) The logical consequence of this is, if the conscious subject is the mental equivalent of the gold-standard, then the unconscious is the mental equivalent of speculative currency and hot money. Today, individuals, disinvested as subjects and robbed of their fixed relations, are drifting, in relation to one another, into an incessant mode of transferential fluctuations: flows, connections, disconnections, transference/counter transference. Society as a whole could easily be described in terms of the Deleuzian unconscious, or of monetary mechanics (or indeed in the Riesmanian terms of 'other-directedness', which is already, unfortunately in Anglo-Saxon and therefore barely schizophrenic terms, the flotation of identities). Why privilege the unconscious here (even if it is orphan and schizophrenic)? The unconscious is that mental structure contemporaneous with the most radical, current phase of dominant exchange, it is contemporaneous with the structural revolution of value.

>We will not destroy the system by a direct, dialectical revolution of the economic or political infrastructure. Everything produced by contradiction, by the relation of forces, or by energy in general, will only feed back into the mechanism and give it impetus, following a circular distortion similar to a Moebius strip. We will never defeat it by following its own logic of energy, calculation, reason and revolution, history and power, or some finality or counter-finality The worst violence at this level has no purchase, and will only backfire against itself. We will never defeat the system on the plane of the real: the worst error of all our revolutionary strategies is to believe that we will put an end to the system on the plane of the real: this is their imaginary, imposed on them by the system itself, living or surviving only by always leading those who attack the system to fight amongst each other on the terrain of reality, which is always the reality of the system.

-- JB/SE&D

these were the days when people talked unironically of Destroying the System and actually meant capitalism, and not The Patriarchy!!1!, mind you. anyways, JB was very much keyed in on the philosophical significance of what a transition from the Gold Standard meant in both economic and cultural terms. turned out to be kind of a thing.

>>11995406
Because a somewhat coherent schizo mass posts interesting shit. What's the point of ANY thread? You got a better alternative? It's more interesting than most of the garbage posted on this board.
>produce something of substance
production is THE problem

>We must therefore displace everything into the sphere of the symbolic, where challenge, reversal and overbidding are the law, so that we can respond to death only by an equal or superior death. There is no question here of real violence or force, the only question concerns the challenge and the logic of the symbolic. If domination comes from the system's retention of the exclusivity of the gift without counter-gift - the gift of work which can only be responded to by destruction or sacrifice, if not in consumption, which is only a spiral of the system of surplus-gratification without result, therefore a spiral of surplus-domination, a gift of media and messages to which, due to the monopoly of the code, nothing is allowed to retort; the gift, everywhere and at every instant, of the social, of the protection agency, security, gratification and the solicitation of the social from which nothing is any longer permitted to escape - then the only solution is to turn the principle of its power back against the system itself: the impossibility of responding or retorting. To defy the system with a gift to which it cannot respond save by its own collapse and death. Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide.

>Every stake is symbolic. There have only ever been symbolic stakes.

>This dimension is etched everywhere into the structural law of value, everywhere immanent in the code.

>Labour power is instituted on death. A man must die to become labour power. He converts this death into a wage. But the economic violence capital inflicted on him in the equivalence of the wage and labour power is nothing next to the symbolic violence inflicted on him by his definition as a productive force. Faking this equivalence is nothing next to the equivalence, qua signs, of wages and death.

>The very possibility of quantitative equivalence presupposes death. The equivalence of wages and labour power presupposes the death of the worker, while that of any commodity and any other presupposes the symbolic extermination of objects. Death makes the calculation of equivalence, and regulation by indifference, possible in general. This death is not violent and physical, it is the indifferent consumption of life and death, the mutual neutralisation of life and death in survival, or death deferred.

-- JB/SE&D

>>11992867
asked OP about it in one of the earlier threads
imo it's a very appropriate bit of fiction, even more so echopraxia (though echo isn't as good a book overall as blind)
some people have a hard time following Watts' style though which seems to put some of them off

>All this becomes clear in the genealogy of the slave. First, the prisoner of war is purely and simply put to death (one does him an honour in this way). Then he is 'spared' [epargne] and conserved [conserve] (servus), under the category of spoils of war and a prestige good: he becomes a slave and passes into sumptuary domesticity It is only later that he passes into servile labour However, he is no longer a 'labourer', since labour only appears in the phase of the serf or the emancipated slave, finally relieved of the mortgage of being put to death. Why is he freed? Precisely in order to work.

>Labour therefore everywhere draws its inspiration from deferred death.

>It comes from deferred death. Slow or violent, immediate or deferred, the scansion of death is decisive: it is what radically distinguishes two types of organisation, the economic and the sacrificial. We live irreversibly in the first of these, which has inexorably taken root in the differance of death.

>The scenario has never changed. Whoever works has not been put to death, he is refused this honour. And labour is first of all the sign of being judged worthy only of life. Does capital exploit the workers to death? Paradoxically, the worst it inflicts on them is refusing them death. it is by deferring their death that they are made into slaves and condemned to the indefinite abjection of a life of labour.

>This changes every revolutionary perspective on the abolition of power.

>If power is death deferred, it will not be removed insofar as the suspension of this death will not be removed. And if power, of which this is always and everywhere the definition, resides in the act of giving without being given, it is clear that the power the master has to unilaterally grant life will only be abolished if this life can be given to him - in a non-deferred death.

-- JB/SE&D

>The Three Orders of Simulacra

>There are three orders of simulacra, running parallel to the successive mutations of the law of value since the Renaissance:

>The counterfeit is the dominant schema in the 'classical' period, from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution. Production is the dominant schema in the industrial era. Simulation is the dominant schema in the current code-governed phase.

>The first-order simulacrum operates on the natural law of value, the second-order simulacrum on the market law of value, and the third-order simulacrum on the structural law of value.

>There is a direct relation between the Jesuits' mental obedience and the demiurgic ambition to exorcise the natural substance of things in order to replace it with a synthetic substance. Just as man submits to organisation, so things take on the ideal functionality of the corpse. Technology and technocracy are already fully operative in the notion of an ideal counterfeit of the world, expressed in the invention of a universal substance and a universal combinatory of substances.

-- JB/SE&D

this is probably the stuff JB is best known for, which is why it’s always a bad idea to start with S&S, because this is more or less what he would be talking about in everything that followed. the key thing here is that he really was the original visionary of the Matrix, which is essentially an HR Giger vision that *you can’t see,* because it was hidden from within. but the other thing is that it wasn’t until Uncle Nick that the idea of teleoplexy would be introduced to the Wild Ride. the internet was a long ways off yet, along with the fall of the Soviet Union and much else. JB never really cared all that much about communism, his thing was more situationism. but culturally was predicting basically exact same things Uncle Nick was saying in Fanged Noumena. the hinge between the Old and New worlds of theory in this sense is entirely in the technological transformation of economics and vice versa.

>>11995406
let's just shitpost about dfw instead, now that's productive

>>11995434
>and the reversibility of every term and value of the langue in the anagram
what did he mean by this

The prophet spoke:
>Don't Get Upset When Your Body Begins To Betray You. You Evolved To Age And Die. It's All A Part Of The Plan. All Part Of The Plan. (9-22, 20:7:15)

You may find it instructive to consider this verse as a metaphor for human obsolescence.

>The automaton is man's perfect double, even down to the subtlety of its gestures, in the workings of its organs and intelligence, almost inducing anxiety when we perceive that there is no difference between them, and that therefore the automaton has no need of a soul since it possesses an ideally naturalised body. Because this would be sacrilege, the difference between them is still maintained, as in the case of an automaton so perfect that on stage the illusionist mimicked its staccato movements in order that at least, even if the roles were reversed, confusion would be impossible. Thus the automaton's questions remain open, making it an optimistic mechanics, even if the counterfeit always retains a diabolical connotation.

>There is nothing like this with the robot. The robot no longer questions appearances, its only truth is its mechanical efficiency. It no longer needs to resemble man, to whom it is inevitably compared. The infamous metaphysical difference which gives the automaton mystery and charm no longer exists: the robot emphasises this difference for its own benefit. Being and appearance are founded on a single substance of production and labour. The first-order simulacrum never abolishes the difference: it presupposes the dispute always in evidence between the simulacrum and the real (a particularly subtle game in trompe-l'oeil painting, but all art thrives on this difference). The second-order simulacrum simplifies the problem by the absorption of appearances, or by the liquidation of the real, whichever you prefer In any case it erects a reality without images, without echo, without mirrors, without appearances: such indeed is labour, such is the machine, such is the entire industrial system of production in that it is radically opposed to the principle of theatrical illusion. No more semblance or dissemblance, no more God or Man, only an immanent logic of the principle of operativity.

>After this, robots and machines can proliferate - this is even their law as automata, being sublime and singular mechanisms, have never done. Men themselves only began to proliferate when, with the Industrial Revolution, they took on the status of machines: freed of all semblance, freed even from their double, they grew increasingly similar to the system of production of which they were nothing more than the miniaturised equivalent. The simulacrum's revenge, which gave rise to the myth of the sorcerer's apprentice, did not take place with the automaton, on the contrary, this is the law of the second order, from which there still proceeds a hegemony of the robot, of the machine, of dead labour over living labour. This hegemony is necessary to the cycle of production and reproduction.

-- JB/SE&D

but we need more than just robots and automation; we need a culture to go with it, or something to stand in for one, to keep things circulating upon each other in a perfect operativity.

>>11995406
The post:poster ratio is 143:38. The majority of posts are from that one guy posting enormous tracts from diverse sources.

>Today, however, we know that all material production remains within the same sphere. Today we know that it is at the level of reproduction (fashion, the media, advertising, information and communications networks), at the level of what Marx rather carelessly used to call the faux frais of capital (immense historical irony!), that is, in the sphere of simulacra and the code, that the unity of the whole process of capital is formed. Benjamin was also the first (with McLuhan after him) to grasp technology as a medium rather than a 'productive force' (at which point the Marxian analysis retreats), as the form and principle of an entirely new generation of meaning. The mere fact that any given thing can simply be reproduced, as such, in an exemplary double is already a revolution: one need only think of the stupefaction of the Black boy seeing two identical books for the first time. That these two technical products are equivalent under the sign of necessary social labour is less important in the long term than the serial repetition of the same object (which is also the serial repetition of individuals as labour power). Technique as a medium gains the upper hand not only over the product's 'message' (its use-value) but also over labour power, which Marx wanted to turn into the revolutionary message of production. Benjamin and McLuhan saw more clearly than Marx, they saw that the real message, the real ultimatum, lay in reproduction itself. Production itself has no meaning: its social finality is lost in the series. Simulacra prevail over history.

>The great man-made simulacra pass from a universe of natural laws into a universe of forces and tensions, and today pass into a universe of structures and binary oppositions. After the metaphysics of being and appearance, after energy and determinacy, the metaphysics of indeterminacy and the code. Cybernetic control, generation through models, differential modulation, feedback, question/answer, etc. this is the new operational configuration (industrial simulacra being mere operations). Digitality is its metaphysical principle (Leibniz's God), and DNA is its prophet. In fact, it is in the genetic code that the 'genesis of simulacra' today finds its completed form. At the limits of an ever more forceful extermination of references and finalities, of a loss of semblances and designators, we find the digital, programmatic sign, which has a purely tactical value, at the intersection of other signals ('bits' of information/tests) and which has the structure of a micro-molecular code of command and control.

>Coded similarities and dissimilarities: the exact image of cyberneticised social exchange.

-- JB/SE&D

>Practically and historically, this means that social control by means of the end (and the more or less dialectical providence that ministers to the fulfilment of this end) is replaced with social control by means of prediction, simulation, programmed anticipation and indeterminate mutation, all governed, however, by the code. Instead of a process finalised in accordance with its ideal development, we are dealing with generative models. Instead of prophecy, we fall subject to 'inscription' There is no radical difference between the two. Only the schemata of control change and, it has to be said, reach a fantastic degree of perfection. From a capitalist productivist society to a neo-capitalist cybernetic order, aiming this time at absolute control. The biological theory of the code has taken up arms in the service of this mutation. Far from 'indeterminate,' this mutation is the outcome of an entire history where God, Man, Progress and even History have successively passed away to the advantage of the code, where the death of transcendence benefits immanence, which corresponds to a far more advanced phase of the vertiginous manipulation of social relations.

>Every image, every media message and also every surrounding functional object is a test. That is to say, in all the rigour of the term, it triggers response mechanisms in accordance with stereotypes or analytic models. The object today is no longer 'functional' in the traditional sense of the term; it doesn't serve you, it tests you. It no longer has anything to do with yesterday's object, any more than 'mediatised' information has with the 'reality' of facts. Both object and information already result from a selection, an edited sequence of camera angles, they have already tested 'reality' and have only asked those questions to which it has responded. Reality has been analysed into simple elements which have been recomposed into scenarios of stable oppositions, just as the photographer imposes his own contrasts, lighting and angles onto his subject (any photographer will tell you that no matter what you do it is enough to catch the original from a good angle at the moment or inflection that turns it into the exact response to the instantaneous test of the apparatus and its code); exactly like the test or referendum when they translate a given conflict or problem into a question/answer game. Thus tested, reality tests you in return according to the same score-card, and you decode it following the same code, inscribed in its every message and object like a miniature genetic code.

>Here comes the great Culture of tactile communication, under the sign of techno-Iumino-kinetic space and total spatio-dynamic theatre!

-- JB/SE&D

>A whole imaginary based on contact, a sensory mimicry and a tactile mysticism, basically ecology in its entirety, comes to be grafted on to this universe of operational simulation, multi-stimulation and multi-response.

>This pure machinality is doubtless only a paradoxical limit, however binarity and digitality constitute the true generative formula which encompasses all the others and is, in a way, the stabilised form of the code. This does not mean pure repetition, but minimal difference, the minimal inflexion between two terms, that is, the 'smallest common paradigm' that can sustain the fiction of meaning. A combinatory of differentiation internal to the painterly object as well as to the consumer object, this simulation contracts, in contemporary art, to the point of being nothing more than the infinitesimal difference that still separates hyperreality from hyperpainting. Hyperpainting claims to exhaust itself to the point of its sacrificial eclipse in the face of the real, but we know how all painting's prestige is revived in this infinitesimal difference: painting retreats into the border that separates the painted surface and the wall. It also hides in the signature, the metaphysical sign of painting and the metaphysics of representation at the limit, where it takes itself as its own model (the 'pure gaze') and turns around itself in the compulsive repetition of the code.

>A specific class of allegorical and somewhat diabolical objects used to exist, made up of mirrors, images, works of art (concepts?). Although simulacra, they were transparent and manifest (you could distinguish craftsmanship from the counterfeit) with their own characteristic style and savoir-faire. Pleasure, then, consisted in locating what was 'natural' within what was artificial and counterfeit. Today, where the real and the imaginary are intermixed in one and the same operational totality, aesthetic fascination reigns supreme: with subliminal perception (a sort of sixth sense) of special effects, editing and script, reality is over exposed to the glare of models. This is no longer a space of production, but a reading strip, a coding and decoding strip, magnetised by signs. Aesthetic reality is no longer achieved through art’s premeditation and distancing, but by its elevation to the second degree, to the power of two, by the anticipation and immanence of the code. A kind of unintentional parody hovers over everything, a tactical simulation, a consummate aesthetic enjoyment [jouissance], is attached to the indefinable play of reading and the rules of the game. Travelling signs, media, fashion and models, the blind but brilliant ambience of simulacra.

>The cool universe of digitality absorbs the universe of metaphor and metonymy. The simulation principle dominates the reality principle as well as the pleasure principle.

-- JB/SE&D

>Despite its radicality, the psychoanalytic vision of death remains an insufficient vision: the pulsions are constrained by repetition, its perspective bears on a final equilibrium within the inorganic continuum, eliminating differences and intensities following an involution towards the lowest point; an entropy of death, pulsional conservatism, equilibrium in the absence of Nirvana. This theory manifests certain affinities with Malthusian political economy, the objective of which is to protect oneself against death. For political economy only exists by default: death is its blind spot, the absence haunting all its calculations. And the absence of death alone permits the exchange of values and the play of equivalences. An infinitesimal injection of death would immediately create such excess and ambivalence that the play of value would completely collapse. Political economy is an economy of death, because it economises on death and buries it under its discourse. The death drive falls into the opposite category: it is the discourse of death as the insurmountable finality. This discourse is oppositional but complementary, for if political economy is indeed Nirvana (the infinite accumulation and reproduction of dead value), then the death drive denounces its truth, at the same time as subjecting it to absolute derision. It does this, however, in the terms of the system itself, by idealising death as a drive (as an objective finality). As such, the death drive is the current system's most radical negative, but even it simply holds up a mirror to the funereal imaginary of political economy.

>Instead of establishing death as the regulator of tensions and an equilibrium function, as the economy of the pulsion, Bataille introduces it in the opposite sense, as the paroxysm of exchanges, superabundance and excess. Death is not a due payment [echeance], it is a nuance of life; or, life is a nuance of death. But our modern idea of death is controlled by a very different system of representations: that of the machine and the function. A machine either works or it does not. Thus the biological machine is either dead or alive. The symbolic order is ignorant of this digital abstraction. And even biology acknowledges that we start dying at birth, but this remains with the category of a functional definition. It is quite another thing to say that death articulates life, is exchanged with life and is the apogee of life: for then it becomes absurd to make life a process which expires with death, and more absurd still to make death equivalent to a deficit and an accelerated repayment. Neither life nor death can any longer be assigned a given end: there is therefore no punctuality nor any possible definition of death.

-- JB/SE&D

Bataille has always been kryptonite for unironic simulation. he skews with Eros and Thanatos. he worked his magic on JB and on Uncle Nick too. Bataille is a legit Endboss and nobody really comes out from his orbit unchanged.

>Again, in this symbolic short-circuit, the gift-exchange is the challenge to oneself and one's own life, and is carried out through death. Not because it expresses the individual's asocial rebellion (the defection of one or millions of individuals does not infringe the law of the system at all), but because it carries in it a principle of sociality that is radically antagonistic to our own social repressive principle. To bury death beneath the contrary myth of security, it is necessary to exhaust the gift-exchange.

>Is it so that men might live that the demand for death must be exhausted? No, but in order that they die the only death the system authorises: the living are separated from their dead, who no longer exchange anything but the form of their afterlife, under the sign of comprehensive insurance. Thus car safety: mummified in his helmet, his seatbelt, all the paraphernalia of security, wrapped up in the security myth, the driver is nothing but a corpse, closed up in another, non-mythic, death, as neutral and objective as technology, noiseless and expertly crafted. Riveted to his machine, glued to the spot in it, he no longer runs the risk of dying, since he is already dead. This is the secret of security, like a steak under cellophane: to surround you with a sarcophagus in order to prevent you from dying.

>Our whole technical culture creates an artificial milieu of death. It is not only armaments that remain the general archetype of material production , but the simplest machine around us constitutes a horizon of death, a death that will never be resolved because it has crystallised beyond reach.

>Living by the production of death, capital has an easy time producing security: it's the same thing. Security is the industrial prolongation of death, just as ecology is the industrial prolongation of pollution.

-- JB/SE&D

>Pursued and censured everywhere, death springs up everywhere again. No longer as apocalyptic folklore, such as might have haunted the living imagination in certain epochs; but voided precisely of any imaginary substance, it passes into the most banal reality, and for us takes on the mask of the very principle of rationality that dominates our lives. Death is when everything functions and serves something else, it is the absolute, signing, cybernetic functionality of the urban environment as in Jacques Tati's film Play-Time. Man is absolutely indexed on his function, as in Kafka. The age of the civil servant is the age of a culture of death. This is the phantasm of total programming, increased predictability and accuracy, finality not only in material things, but in fulfilling desires. In a word, death is confused with the law of value - and strangely with the structural law of value by which everything is arrested as a coded difference in a universal nexus of relations. This is the true face of ultra-modern death, made up of the faultless, objective, ultra-rapid connection of all the terms in a system. Our true necropolises are no longer the cemeteries, hospitals, wars, hecatombs; death is no longer where we think it is, it is no longer biological, psychological, metaphysical, it is no longer even murder. Our societies' true necropolises are the computer banks or the foyers, blank spaces from which all human noise has been expunged, glass coffins where the world's sterilised memories are frozen.

>The cryogenic freezing of all knowledge so that it can be resurrected, knowledge passes into immortality as sign-value. Against our dream of losing and forgetting everything, we set up an opposing great wall of relations, connections and information, a dense and inextricable artificial memory, and we bury ourselves alive in the fossilised hope of one day being rediscovered.

>Computers are the transistorised death to which we submit in the hope of survival.

>Museums are already there to survive all civilisations, in order to bear testimony. But to what? It is of little importance. The mere fact that they exist testifies that we are in a culture which no longer possesses any meaning for itself and which can now only dream of having meaning for someone else from a later time. Thus everything becomes an environment of death as soon as it is no longer a sign that can be transistorised in a gigantic whole, just as money reaches the point of no return when it is nothing more than a system of writing.

-- JB/SE&D

>Today, Marxism and psychoanalysis try to mix and exchange their concepts. Logically, in fact, if both fell within the province of 'radical' critique, they ought to be able to do this. This is not the case, as the failure of the Freudo-Marxian phantasm in all its forms testifies. But the basic reason for the incessant failure of this conceptual transfer, and why both remain desperate metaphors, is precisely due to the fact that Marxism and psychoanalysis retain their coherence only within their partial definitions (in their ignorance), and cannot therefore be generalised as analytic schemata.

>A radical theory can be based neither on their 'synthesis' nor on their contamination, but only on their respective ex-termination. Marxism and psychoanalysis are in crisis. Rather than supporting one another, their respective crises must be telescoped and speeded up. They may yet do each other great collateral damage. We must not be deprived of this spectacle: they are only critical fields.

-- JB/SE&D

what he was calling out here was the impossibility of Marxist theory to account for the nature of death, desire and cybernetics. people want the consumer society, they just didn’t know why it was bad for them, because they couldn’t see where it would lead (an HR Giger painting that was hidden behind fashion, pleasure, and irony). that’s why JB is the father of the Matrix and there is a copy of S&S in that film. and yet clearly it’s SE&D that should have been in there, maybe it would have been too on the nose. what Uncle Nick contributes to the story is the realization of the telos of that cybernetics: the Matrix was only a proving ground for the refinement of the system itself. it’s why Cypher’s scene with the steak is so crucial: it’s because he can’t tell the difference between pleasure and damnation. and a world of Cyphers, doing this every day, props up the system.

it’s also, needless to say, why blaming white men is kind of a silly idea. the system needs at least women too, to function, and Capital is fabulously non-denominational to boot. wherever there is *pleasure* to be found, whether in conformity or transgression, there too is the spectacle that keeps it all moving. the whole concept of The Other isn’t remotely a challenge to the process, *it is what maintains it.* it’s why the crisis of a radical similarity - expressed by Smith - is so much more interesting than a radical difference. Capital is itself *difference systemized into an operating system based on exchange and reciprocity, mediated through symbolic transfer and money,* and to which the only real monkey-wrench is death.or, at least, it would be, if it weren’t for the plot twist within human biology: humans reproduce. infinitely. if there is one thing we like, it’s to copy ourselves.

and so the Wild Ride continues...

Thoughts on cyber-nihilism?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/n1x-hello-from-the-wired

Funny how these threads are the direct opposite of epistemology which is the tradition that was always closely tied to the cyber culture. It emphasized clear writing, clear thinking and demolition of metaphysics.

Your threads are some breed of electric dildo powered Evola.

I wanted to write more but constantly having to click on google images to post something is messing with my brain. Fuck this place.

>>11995725
i don't get nihilism, every time i read a nihilist manifesto is full of implied meaning everywhere

>>11995727
>Your threads are some breed of electric dildo powered Evola.
sounds awesome to me

>>11995732
I feel like the word "nihilism" alone is what does it for some people. I try not to interpret the word in a literal sense; seeing it instead as a deep pessimism.

>>11995727
>Your threads are some breed of electric dildo powered Evola.

Cosmotech #10: Some Breed Of Electric Dildo Powered Evola edition

be careful, you might be giving us a working title here

>>11995742
Holy shit. You nailed it.

>>11995434
>>11995445
>>11995454
>>11995482
>>11995496
>>11995510
>>11995528
>>11995549
>>11995565
>>11995582
>>11995600
>>11995620
>>11995646
>>11995663
Goddamnit, I asked for a rundown, not walls upon walls of greentext! Just give me the fucking tl;dr in one post, fuck!

>>11995813
it's too late, you are a hero of Cosmotech now. your praises will be sung forever. you will be known as Anon Who Hearkened Us To Return to Baudrillard. the Adeptus Accelerandus salutes you, brother!
>fufufu

anyways, here's what you want:

>Today, Marxism and psychoanalysis try to mix and exchange their concepts. Logically, in fact, if both fell within the province of 'radical' critique, they ought to be able to do this. This is not the case, as the failure of the Freudo-Marxian phantasm in all its forms testifies. But the basic reason for the incessant failure of this conceptual transfer, and why both remain desperate metaphors, is precisely due to the fact that Marxism and psychoanalysis retain their coherence only within their partial definitions (in their ignorance), and cannot therefore be generalised as analytic schemata.

>A radical theory can be based neither on their 'synthesis' nor on their contamination, but only on their respective ex-termination. Marxism and psychoanalysis are in crisis. Rather than supporting one another, their respective crises must be telescoped and speeded up.

Baudrillard could not into conventional Marxism after this book, because cybernetic inter-operations had confounded the law of value, and it was basically turning the world into the Matrix. before there was a Matrix, there was JB, and his deduction of orders of simulation brought an end to his own relation with Hegel-Freud dialectics and inaugurated his own new form of writing critique about the consumer society, which was largely predicated on their (largely simulacral) dances with sexuality and death.

"sorry it took me so long, complicated business."

>>11995813
It's a good book, Fisher called it one of the foundational texts of accelerationism. If you read the table of contents you will see how eclectic the contents are (just like every other Baudrillard book). Don't bully girardfag he's a saint.

>>11995861
>Fisher
is he good? i hear a lot of people praising him as if he were the last good leftist in earth, but he sounds pretentiously retarded on fragments of talks i've watched and on hearing second hand of his arguments

>>11994273
as the JB greentexting perhaps shows up, there is something profoundly fucked up (and yet entirely logical) about our fetishistic obsession with health and happiness today, which is why body-horror &c fucks with us. it's Prometheus Syndrome, our addiction to the fountain of youth (jouissance, captured by capital). Han writes about it brilliantly in Topology of Violence, Sloterdijk too: anti-immunity deficiency syndroms. happens when you run wild with sexuality over everything, and a culture of immanence is the result. philosophically, immanence makes sense, but i think the German Idealists were (as usual) the original progenitors of body horror, if not Spinoza.

>>11994839
>Butlerian jihad
>that pic
10/10 anon

>>11994355
the Taoists are all about conserving life-energy to live a long time. it's where the more disreputable aspects of it come form, imho, the Unironic Alchemy &c. there are tons of books written on it. but definitely nofap would be in there. the irony for us, of course, is the paradox of preserving health and living a long life in a world that gets progressively more miserable...but that also makes sense, in a way.

>>11994383
Space Taoism isn't my idea, although i co-sign every word of what that anon wrote. as for writing a book, i have been trying, for years. first fiction, and now...whatever this is. i'm still working things out, in other words.

>>11994692
i'd love to talk to Uncle Nick someday, that would be weird as fuck. after all of this posting about him it would just be weird to talk to him directly for sure. who knows? maybe someday.

>>11995008
>>11995047
seems to have ended w/o much feedback. also, 'the folk.'

>>11995083
true, if i come across an NRx mega i'll stick it in. i know there's at least one, altho the guy who hosted it closed his site for a bit. if i find it again i'll post it in a later OP.

>>11995224
>he's an anarcho-masochist creating a theme park for psychopaths...completely obsessed with malicious sorcery to cast spells on other members of the Social Sciences in attempt to sicken or kill them in the hopes of magically stealing their possessions, especially their crops.

>>11995258
better living through chemistry

>>11995406
>2018
>points
srsly anon

>>11995522
Irony > Sincerity
>and yet max irony is also unbearable, warrants mentioning

>>11995869
his book Capitalist Realism is great. he was not a good public speaker but his work is very well regarded

does .pdf or .epub of "INTELLIGENCE AND SPIRIT" exist?

and for people pasting walls of .txt, please, use screenshot function just for the readability of the thread.

>>11996069
apparently there was an anon working on a scan of it. don't know what the current status is.

>>11996069
>use screenshots
and miss out on all the tumblr goodness? come on, i *need* that!

>i need it bro
>just one more man
>just one more tumblr gif bro it goes so well with the theory
>*sniff*
>come on bro i'm good for it
>you know i'm good for it
>this will be my last one
>*sniff*
>i just need one more tumblr gif bro
>hook me up with some more 80s baudrillard too
>*injects self*
>fuck yeah late capital theory that's the good shit right there
>hnng
>ok man thanks i'll see you soon ok

Can someone sum up accelerationism in plain english, without all marxist dialectic speak?

Is there actual "Accelerationist" published literature I can grab at the library, or is this something a member of the /lit/urgy invented with copy/pastes and greentexts?

>>11996097
>Can someone sum up accelerationism in plain english, without all marxist dialectic speak?
The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a-
>&c &c

>Is there actual "Accelerationist" published literature I can grab at the library, or is this something a member of the /lit/urgy invented with copy/pastes and greentexts?
there is literally a link to a book called Accelerate Reader in the OP of this thread, pic rel. i sure as hell didn't invent this myself, i've just become infected by Nick Land's neurotoxin after reading enough of this stuff to have become a believer.

>>11996097
>Is there actual "Accelerationist" published literature
You can read Crash by Ballard

>>11996124
It doesnt make sense to me. As soon as you think of something it is too late to act on, yet the idea purports some form of action.

We should accelerate capitalism to spread so a new future appears. What future? Accelerationism has both left and right proponents... unless I'm reading it wrong Nick Land doesnt propose a particular desires future.

So, keep living like you are because there will be change in the future? If this is a philosophy it doesnt really seem to be saying anything, and if it's a political agenda it doesnt seem to be doing anything either.

Correct me please, I'm sure I'm getting this wrong.

>>11996202
there are right/left wing accelerationists
and there are descriptive/prescriptive accelerationists

i think most people here are the descriptive kind, being a prescriptive accelerationist makes no sense unless you are a retarded leftist that still believes in magic or don't care about humanity and just want to go faster

>>11996202
>It doesnt make sense to me. As soon as you think of something it is too late to act on, yet the idea purports some form of action.

get to know Hegel. there's an Owl of Minerva with things to say about this that Land did not come up with first.

>We should accelerate capitalism to spread so a new future appears. What future? Accelerationism has both left and right proponents... unless I'm reading it wrong Nick Land doesnt propose a particular desires future.

he does propose one, and it would look like Singapore if anything. he's skeptical that will happen in the West, but it's not like he's throwing up straw men for the fun of it. Moldbug/NRx/patchwork did the rest of the heavy lifting here as far as political philosophy is concerned. this is how the whole Dark Enlightenment party began. i'm not really into DE/NRx myself, however. i'm an anarcho-masochist and neo-Augustinian cringelord windbag. my own political ideal would be a quirky Taoist village in fog-shrouded hills, with all kinds of hilarious word games instead of anything like a civil code.

>So, keep living like you are because there will be change in the future? If this is a philosophy it doesnt really seem to be saying anything, and if it's a political agenda it doesnt seem to be doing anything either.

uh...no. if there are changes in the future they will either be a) almost too subtle to notice them or b) so spectacularly crazy they will probably destroy and render null and void everything written here. the primary difference between Cosmotech and accelertion is its basically apolitical sensibilities. all politics ever teaches me is that change must come from within, and yet this is a difficult order, because it's not like you still don't have to live in the Wild Ride afterwards. 'twas why i was so excited about Fuck Yeah Space Taoism. if you're looking for a manifesto or a blueprint for 21C politics And This Time We'll Do It Right, turn back now. it's not going to happen. politics is the problem, and the problems inherent to it are philosophical to the very bottom. that's more what i'm interested in. mass politics a shit.

it's individuals that matter. i've been seduced away from politics in my own way, and now i'm streaming my own little string of memes and words together based on what seems to make sense to me. but yeah, no Change In The Future and no real political agendas either. mostly just theory-talk, and mysticism instead of manifesto.

>>11996097
https://vimeo.com/218908974

>>11996243
i will add one caveat: *for now.*

when i started this thread, way back when, it was only to talk about YH's book and perhaps ramble in my usual fashion with other anons. since then it has morphed into quite an interesting discourse on acceleration and other things, and along the way i have found the idea of Cosmotech kind of interesting in its own right, in particular since one anon - the first three posts after the OP - linked together a whole bunch of ideas that got my own noggin' joggin.' so now i'm re-thinking some old ideas of my own as well, and Cosmotech has been the result.

i don't know what it means, really, or where it's all going. i think that there are some interesting similarities, points and threads that line up here and there, and i've read enough of the theorists to able to share what i think are interesting parts of their thought with other anons here. retracing intellectual history up to Land and speculating on what kinds of things one can do with his and other ideas is pretty enjoyable for me, and hopefully it illuminates some stuff for other anons as well. there's an absolute shit-ton of stuff that relates to acceleration, which does have multiple forms: left, right, unconditional, zombie, and so on. i've taken to calling it the Wild Ride, if only because it encapsulates both those aspects and the various intellectual trajectories that come to produce it - Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Deleuze, Land, and certainly Baudrillard also. SE&D is a really important book in the transitional period that was happening in many senses during the 1970s, and which still informs the way we look at things today.

anyways, that's only my two cents. in the actual world of acceleration, ofc, i'm a nobody. i'm self-taught in this stuff and i don't plan on an academic career either. i am at best the equivalent of the proprietor of an incredibly run-down version of Merlin's Mystery Shop. with the bonus, of course, being that everything is basically free...

anyways, i find the philosophy stuff more interesting than the political theory, but it's all connected. politics and economics are important too, and for more of that, Moldbug/Hoppe/Mises et al are what you want to read. or check out the Dark Enlightenment essay. again, the whole reason for Cosmotech is that the Dark got a little *too* dark, imho.

http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

>>11996296
River City Ransom is maximum cozy. and also, you know, synergy.

The Matrix: I Know Kung Fu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMO3XmNXe4

One hyperstition I've been infected with is "Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus," referencing Robert K. Merton's concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea that while an association of agency-robbing memetic structures has been emergently conspiring to collectively maintain and accelerate their domination over human minds (even while competing individually with each other for mind-share) a counterrevolution of agency-affirming memetic structures has also been culminating towards the eventual realization of Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus, the cure for memetic parasitism that is itself virally infectious. This would be a memetic singularity, recursive self-improvement in collective intelligence (societies as informational systems as a whole, including humans and the internet) and in individual agency.

I originally determined that The Machine, the autonomous movement of the non-living was abstracted from the Christian God, with capital being the decapitated corpse of Jahweh transformed into socioeconomic totality. Backtracing further led me to consider that the core is the metaphysical virus of substance metaphysics of which God is merely a mascot of. The core of Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus thus must be process metaphysics and the connoitations and implications of it expressed on the noosphere, with Space Taoism being one permutation.

This exerpt from the book "Media Virus!" by Douglas Rushkoff is very interesting reading: https://pastebin.com/4s91qRn6 Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus "The Machine" is represented by Virus 23, and M.M.V.A. by Autonym. This entire genre of fiction I call "Memepunk" and is the current genre of social reality. These are videos made in the Memepunk style: https://vimeo.com/specalblend particularly the Meme Wars trilogy, which cut-and-splice segments of media together to create dream-like surreal narratives.

I also consider Discordianism a variant of M.M.V.A. / Autonym. In my hypersition Eris is the memetic entity who is one of the leaders of the revolution, the only honest deity who freely admits her fictional nature, and as such is even more herself than if she was "literally" real. The core of Discordian philosophy that chaos and order are not opposites but compliment and sustain each other (http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Curse_of_Greyface)) is reflected by that nonduality of yin and yang, and Whitehead's thesis that "becoming is for the purpose of being, and being is for the purpose of novel becoming." Greyface is a representation of The Machine, order for the sake of order, persistence for the sake of persistence, a blind self-preserving imperative.

>>11989595

>>11995869
Disregard suicides.

politically speaking it's not the Cure i want but a new virus. a virus that just makes things irritatingly complicated. i have all kinds of weird schizo-ramble aphorisms and one-liners about this that are starting to pile up in my notebook. like an anti-NPC Confusion Virus, something to so massively over-complicate flow charts and Real Easy Solutions such that people kind of realize that they will never, ever, touch the Real. i do this in the name of White Wizardry and not black wizardry. i don't *really* want to deprive people of *those ideologies upon which they defend.* not really. as much as i love Zizek, his notion of a communism-to-come is only a rehash of Derrida's democracy-to-come. imho, it's not going to happen, and we are going to be stuck with the Wild Ride for a long time to come. that's my own hot take.

i said in the previous thread that one thing in my imagination would be a Department of Celestial Violence, like an infinite DMV for dueling. if you want to have a duel in my Taoist/Confucian afterlife, you have to go through so many hoops and so much red tape that, unless you and the guy are both really committed to making it happen, is going to drag on forever. now, if you and the other guy both really, really need to have a swordfight, okay, things fall into your lap. but in general, short of this, everything that isn't a well and truly Existential Yes or Existential No just gets bogged down in admin forever.

in a certain philosophical sense i feel the same way about IRL political life. left and right aren't meaningful distinctions anymore, they only draw their power from being Not The Other Guy, Ever. which is all it really takes to get the party started, and begin the game of the disaffections, sad passions, Why Can't We Have Nice Things.

did you guys ever see Yojimbo? Yojimbo is a fucking all-time great film. so is For A Few Dollars More. Kurosawa Nailed It in Seven Samurai and then he Re-Nailed it in Yojimbo too. i used to have a better image than this, but this one will do for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_1iT_GmHTE

and here's a better poster also.

look at what has happened all over the world today in terms of politics. you have fuckhead soft communism on the political left, fuckhead soft fascism on the right, fuckhead Social Credit Confucianism in china, and general fuckery everywhere else. all of these ultimately have to become quasi-religious experiments in thought control to ultimately account for the fundamentally disequilibrial/hyperstitial nature of capital itself, which is both technological and psychological. in brief, it amounts to building weather control devices so that planes of immanence can be reduced down to the level of *rational calculating profit.* i don't feel the need to go on too much of a rant about this here, because it's all in Yuga.

but i did want to meme Yojimbo a little more for Cosmotech Movie Night (which is still a thing in progress). as Yojimbo says,

>I'll get paid for killing, and this town is full of people who deserve to die.

now i don't, of course, advocate actual violence. i can't, i'm girardfag. unfortunately being girardfag means i can't actually argue for solving problems with violence, which is like a handicap setting on a lot of philosophy i might otherwise be attracted to. Violence and the Sacred are basically the twin phenomena par excellence at the root of modern political theology, and the only thing to do with it is in the end to turn it down. sad, i know. so again, in my Taoist hermit kingdom (or Confucian Celestial Bureaucracy) we would probably have duelling, and certainly something like an annual equivalent of the Royal Rumble - there's no end of exciting things about professional wrestling, as a cure for social issues - but ultimately we cannot go in for either the War or the Purge, the internal jihad or the external one.

Yojimbo was a dope film tho. i don't want to give it any spoilers, but i'm putting this out there, because i have absolutely no life. anyways another thing i was thinking is

asOMEMDAY I SWEAR I RED read 1 entire Girard-anon post but that is not today

If I want to catch up with you all. Should I read all the threads from the start, or is there a shortcut?

>>11996501
if you're Space Taoism guy i want more of you in this thread (and if not, then fucking welcome to the thread, whoever you are!). whatever you've got. we (read: me, but you may have noticed that there are several other anons ITT who are fans of Space Taoism) are fans of your work, and posts like these percolating all kinds of interesting stuff in my own head also that help me to understand what this thing is all about.

>a counterrevolution of agency-affirming memetic structures has also been culminating towards the eventual realization of Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus, the cure for memetic parasitism that is itself virally infectious. This would be a memetic singularity, recursive self-improvement in collective intelligence (societies as informational systems as a whole, including humans and the internet) and in individual agency.

this squares entirely what i know of D&G as well, the BwO. mechanosphere is also mimetosphere, and vice-versa. it doesn't have a *historical trajectory* or a telos, that belongs to politics. its being is its telos, and its telos is being. it's also why Land makes the claims he does about intelligence: there's no upper limit on *complexity,* there's only escape...

>I originally determined that The Machine, the autonomous movement of the non-living was abstracted from the Christian God, with capital being the decapitated corpse of Jahweh transformed into socioeconomic totality. Backtracing further led me to consider that the core is the metaphysical virus of substance metaphysics of which God is merely a mascot of. The core of Merton Memetic Viral Antivirus thus must be process metaphysics and the connoitations and implications of it expressed on the noosphere, with Space Taoism being one permutation.

is anybody else fucking reading this

>In my hypersition Eris is the memetic entity who is one of the leaders of the revolution, the only honest deity who freely admits her fictional nature, and as such is even more herself than if she was "literally" real.

this was Lacan's Solve For Thebes scenario: the sphinx that announces themselves as sphinx-as-such is no longer a sphinx, because the nature of hysteria is to defer, deny, hide, occlude, and so on. this was his entire cure for Oedipus and the psychotherapeutic treatment. an Eris *that called itself as such* - well.

>Whitehead's thesis that "becoming is for the purpose of being, and being is for the purpose of novel becoming." Greyface is a representation of The Machine, order for the sake of order, persistence for the sake of persistence, a blind self-preserving imperative.

i hate thoughts on this also. the blind self-preserving imperative can be expressed humanly, of course: it's anthropotechnics, it would be the religion of a practicing, self-disciplining, ascetic planet. it would be Planet Kung Fu, among other things. but the nature of martial arts, in a sense, lies in an infinite proliferation of techniques...

>>11996953
>hate
>that's *have,* jesus christ. i really have to start editing my posts.

sweet cuppin' cakes tho there is starting to be some fun stuff going on. yowza

>>11996296
Thanks anon. Please add this link to your copypasta https://youtu.be/oAT14h5_lMo that interview with Nick Land cleared up a lot for me.

Also, please add the link to his blog, http://www.xenosystems.net/

In that interview he said he uses that as sort of the gateway to his other writings.

Interesting stuff, but I still like the Greeks better.

>>11996971
yeah, xenosystems could get a link, good call. there's a lot of his posts from there collected in the /lit/ reader, which is in turn found in r/theoryfiction...but that is a lot of hoops to jump through.

as for the land interview, you'll want to check out the one he did with Murphy for Vast Abrupt, if you haven't already

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

the question is, how long should an OP be? there is something mildly patrician about having a crazy-frontloaded bunch of posts at the start of the threads, but i don't want it to look like an ungodly mess of schizophrenic rambling
>why not? you are an ungodly mess of schizophrenic rambling girardag
>yes but i don't want it to look like that inner self

>Interesting stuff, but I still like the Greeks better.
vaya con dios mi amigo. this thing is a very particular kind of reaction to some old questions in Greek metaphysics, which find some of their remedies in China, but everything circles back to itself in the end eventually also...

>tfw the 5-o'clock wojakposting has begun to trickle into the Ars Cosmotechnica
the hardest thing in the world to do is to let go of Hegel (even if he comes back). especially if you think that he was the right move after Kant. Old Nick likes to say Kant is the only real revolution in philosophy that matters, but if i had a time machine i would send him back in time Looper-style to meet Young Nick and see if they could work out something more interesting than what he wound up talking about in 2018, which is that Capital Rules.

it does, there's no question. and yet here is at least one reason to *not* espouse that line: because the blowback from it leads either to Xi-style Social Credit or Postmodern Fuckery (and which produces Counter-Fuckery in turn, all of which eventually trickles down out of the Realms Celetial to those scummy pools in which ugly and misshapen bottom-feeding sea creatures like me live).

now i will absolutely argue that Land is right about teleoplexy. even the fact that NPCs today operate psychologically on a *flow-chart model* tells you something about the ongoing technologization of man, both the how and the why. the *how* is a system which *nullifies discourse,* and the *why* is because *nobody really wants to take Nick Land's Wild Ride.* nor should they. we can speak of the circuitification of man in the least ironic sense of the word possible.

the 20C is absolute trauma, at least as far as Western civilization is concerned. it has the Bomb, the Purge, the Holocaust, trench warfare, and much else. politics strikes me as being the kind of behaviour you would see from a person who had been *traumatized.* Weinstein calls it an "epidemic of cowardice," but this is too harsh. it comes from having your heart ripped out too many times if you were hoping for a political answer to the questions the butterflies in your stomach kept asking. for this there is good news and bad news: the good news is that there are no political answers to existential solutions; that's the bad news too.

in 2018 the only thing as plastic as history appears to be the future also: but i would qualify this, because i think in fact the future belongs to technologized time (or chronologized technique, that is, teleoplexy). Heidegger is right about Dasein and wrong about the motorized food industry. and Land himself may be wrong about the part played by humanity: as anon says, he has no ethics. and this is true. even Spinoza's ethics were only those of Nature, and for Land, Deus Sive Oeconomia, or Gnon. but who wants to worship a crab?

it's not so much that The Future Refused To Change (although it may be that way). it's more of a question of fatalism, i think. there is a kind of fatalism you can live with and one you can't. the one you can't is the one that turns ideological.

there is an old saying that says, if you love something, let it go, and if it was meant for you, it will return. there's a lot in that, philosophically speaking.

>>11996929
these threads are really only for a) getting interested in acceleration or b) being so terminally bored with it that you want to Advance The Narrative, which is an incredibly silly idea, tho some (read: me) are stupid enough to flirt with the idea.

Space Taoism anon called it, far better than i eve could have: it's a post-atheistic phenomenology. as such i recommend starting with the OGs of the 19C.
>Los Grandes Cavaleiros do Ateismo!
>foda-se sim
>que soa muito melhor que os Mestres da Suspeita

it's the hinge, gents. such is the sad and curious fate of Generation Too Late. neither a past nor a future, and knowing too much about the perils of both irony and sincerity to sell the past for the future or vice versa. we hang in free-fall here, knowing that this too must pass in time, and yet it history almost certainly repeats itself.

those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it; knowing is no guarantee that it doesn't repeat anyways. we get to be both the first and last of a very particular kind of being, a being in permanent alpha status. and all you have to do is not drown in freedom. politically not much more is required of you than this. philosophically speaking, it's burnout and therapy, autism or schizophrenia. it's entirely possible that schizophrenia has had its day as well. ah, the attractions of sanity.

>the zen master's life is one continuous error. -- dogen

but such is life after the Orgy. you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here...

okay. so clearly we have entered into Awesome Opinions territory, which tells me it's time to stop. more soon...
>not necessarily girardfag. there is no iron rule that says there must be a Cosmotech on /lit/
>this is true inner self. good point

bump

>>11995727
I think that's partially due to the way Girardfag and some of the other people on here just happen to think and write.

>>11997010
Anon that's literally the text of the youtube link I mentioned. Please click it.

>>11995727
It's the left leaning drivel that is such a fucking useless word salad.

Austrians? Clear.
Land after CCRU? Clear
Moldbug and all the edgy authors he recommends? Clear.

What should i read if I want to understand Confusciusm and Taoism and all the meme thoughts of Meme Asia

>>11989595

I find these threads incredibly interesting but I feel like a lot of unnecessary jargon is being used here. My impression is that the whole topic could be described in a contrast between a monistic (Hegelian) metaphysics and a dualistic (Platonic) one. The main feature of a monistic metaphysics is that everything is understood as part of the same entity (e.g. the Stoics) or as part of the same process (e.g. Hegel). There is no opposition of forces - or, if there is, it is comprehended in a historical monistic process leading toward one and only one end, namely, there are no multiple ends, there is no possible derailment from history (in this sense, Hegelian metaphysics can be seen as a “historicized version” of Stoic metaphysics).

Accelerationists are on the side of the monistic metaphysics, ultimately believing that anything that happens is historically justified in the perspective of either some end or purpose that the world, intended as a process, ultimately has. Therefore technology is seen not as a detachment or derailment from history but as part of its natural evolution, and the effort of many of these authors seems to me just that of including technology and capital in a natural perspective as part of how things naturally evolve in the direction of the end of history. Now this is something that Marx himself, as starting from an Hegelian perspective, did - so I see the main innovation of these authors as including the new findings of informatics and our enhanced knowledge of economy into their philosophy, but I don’t really perceive any leap in terms of metaphysics here. That the human being was something to be surpassed was already said by Nietzsche - and in a sense by the Platonics in that they believed that to become his best possible self man should stop being himself and become god (namely, that evolution into something non-human or post-human was in order in our search for the good).

(1/2)

>>11989595
>>11998790

On the other hand, dualistic metaphysics leaves space for “derailment” from history. Namely, for a dualistic metaphysics you always have to assume that there is some opposed principle to the one historically developing toward an end - and that this opposition is not perfectly absorbed in the development of that principle, as Hegel believes. For instance, Platonic “matter” (chora) seems to be simply the receptacle of the Forms, but it is actually resisting shaping, therefore indicating that it possesses some independent principle of its own, tending toward its own shapelessness. Now, if you assume that such a drive toward shapelessness - or entropy, as modern science would call it - exists, somehow, you can interpret some historical manifestations as inherently entropic.

Some people, like Evola and Kaczynski see technology and the modern world as a derailment from history. Evola tries to reabsorb in through a theory of cyclical time - namely, that to the culminating entropic moment follows the primeval act of order, much like Plato himself believed (e.g. myth of the Statesman describing some divine/demiurgic activity as cyclically taking hold of the world). Kaczynski just theorizes a coming back to a pre-technological society in some sense. But both theorize in a return to a different - and previous - mode of life in that they believe that current historical development are entropic and opposed to some other principle which represents the “true telos” as opposed to a “false telos” or “entropic telos” of matter/chora or whatever you want to call.

Therefore there are two stances one can take in relation to the current times, which are either following along with the current or interpret the current as malevolent and rebel to it. Do you stand by any of these in particular (or do you feel like there are other ways to interpret history)? Are you struggling as well? I honestly do not know which position to take, and these threads are really making me wonder. Also, lately I feel like I have been shifting toward all-including monistic/Hegelian metaphysics more and more since looking at things from a dualistic perspective really leaves you drained and constant wary of enemies, and makes you fearful of life and what could come.

(2/2)

>>11998790
>I feel like a lot of unnecessary jargon is being used here
This so fucking much and I am watching you GIRARDLAD.

>>11999472
the thing is anon *i can't make it easy.* it's not like i am sitting on some kind of grail-elixir and deliberately throwing up shit in your way to make things harder. and i'm definitely not trying to make a kind of a new law or ideology that makes everything Real Simple so that afterwards i can create a universe of clones of me, like the Horatio. or, put it another way: in some sense, i would like there to be a *kind* of Horatio species out there that intuitively has a sense of what is required for the Greater Good, and i know that i am not in it. i am in fact falling away further and further from it all the time...

i said in an earlier post that my approach to a lot of philosophical issues are those of a man in therapy. i *know* that i am fucked up by this stuff. i'm restless and disjointed, discontented and unhappy. i have tried all of the somas and all of the cures, i have looked into the ideologies, i have made my True Detective conspiracy maps in red string, and i am still not satisfied. there are things i do think are true, and they are worked out thoroughly by the handful of thinkers that i go to time and again.

i also think (>>11998790 and >>11998794 are really wonderful posts, and i hope anon gets more feedback on them than just me) that yes, technology is a world-historical event and a world-historical process in that way. i think *Dasein* is the default condition for how to look at human beings. it's why i don't skew ethno-nationalist and i have not changed my gender or punched any nazis recently either. the 20C tried out all of these experiments and the early 21C is going to grow fifty tiny little meme tribes. they're not going to be able to do what religion has traditionally done for human beings, and it is why Space Taoism anon is Mah Hero for positing a post-atheist phenomenology. that speaks to me on every possible level. a *skepticism about difference* is enough in that regard. i do think of tech as being a totalizing wave, in some sense, and a rather harsh and cruel taskmaster at that. and yet coming to a better sense of our relationship to it is a test of both our intelligence and our compassion and empathy as well. there is a fundamentally negentropic element to technology inasmuch as it is *efficient,* and on this Land makes his cases for Optimize for Intelligence as a sort of ethical axiom. the only problem with this for me is that a) it will fucking ruin your psyche, in one sense, because b) that's not really, or entirely, how Dasein works. and it's not how life is understood in a Taoist, Buddhist, or Confucian sense either. and i can't argue with the fundamental idea of the Vinegar Tasters.

so i'm not a political writer. i'm damage control and therapy. i think that tech screws with our minds in a sense that only the word Copernican truly does justice to. we are not, ultimately, the rock stars of planet earth. and i think an ethics to go with this is in some sense necessary.

>>11998790
>There is no opposition of forces - or, if there is, it is comprehended in a historical monistic process leading toward one and only one end, namely, there are no multiple ends, there is no possible derailment from history
This is not Hegel in the slightest

NRx ideas on aesthetics are a) completely fucking stupid and anti-futuristic, and b) largely based in historical revisionism.

I /cyberpessimism/ now

>>11998790
>My impression is that the whole topic could be described in a contrast between a monistic (Hegelian) metaphysics and a dualistic (Platonic) one. The main feature of a monistic metaphysics is that everything is understood as part of the same entity (e.g. the Stoics) or as part of the same process (e.g. Hegel). There is no opposition of forces - or, if there is, it is comprehended in a historical monistic process leading toward one and only one end, namely, there are no multiple ends, there is no possible derailment from history (in this sense, Hegelian metaphysics can be seen as a “historicized version” of Stoic metaphysics).

pic rel. something happens between these two guys. yes, historically, there have been oscillating wars between the Confucians and the Taoists, but nothing you could call China depends upon an exclusion or an absolute domination of one by the other. and indeed, the essence of Xi Jinping thought today is *legalism* - that is, a complete fusion of the two of them. the origin and nature of justice itself follows from a sort of Taoist reading, the society produced thereby results in Confucianism. one problem, however: Legalism fucking *sucks.* it doesn't last long or work historically, and today it leads to the nightmare scenario, which is Social Credit/Nosedive. historically, unless i am mistaken, Han Fei winds up being run out of town on a rail.

but this is an important part also: Legalism itself grows out of the perceived failure of Confucianism. Legalism is basically the Chinese equivalent of the Grand Inquisitor: the molden gold and the crucible of cold iron. nobody has any doubts about Confucian virtue or the Way, it's that the Legalists say, well, *it's people that are the problem,* the people are too shitty. if this sounds familiar, it's because it's exactly how Land feels about Marxism too: the people are the problem, not Capital, and Capital is the real revolutionary process anyhow.

needless to say, that is not my own sense, all the way. my guy is Girard, and Girard is a kind of optimist-pessimist about these things. he's optimistic about human beings and pessimistic about politics to solve existential questions. but it's why i like Confucius also: virtue is the deal. and yet, of course, acceleration profoundly fucks with any such antiquated meatbag notions. which i might have been okay with, once, if i didn't think that it makes people (read: me) absolutely fucking freak out to contemplate.

>>11998790
>Accelerationists are on the side of the monistic metaphysics, ultimately believing that anything that happens is historically justified in the perspective of either some end or purpose that the world, intended as a process, ultimately has. Therefore technology is seen not as a detachment or derailment from history but as part of its natural evolution, and the effort of many of these authors seems to me just that of including technology and capital in a natural perspective as part of how things naturally evolve in the direction of the end of history.

i can't disagree with this either. Capital is in a sense technical evolution - Stiegler will argue for this also, that civilization is commensurate with technical progress - and yet that is the ongoing challenge for him, Simondon, YH, and even Land - what would a true *mechanological culture look like?* Land always has the mad love for Singapore, because that brand of authoritarian capitalism bore fruit. the question to be asked, however, is how *scalable* this process is. we're going to see this play out in China, for instance, v/social credit. i find Social Credit completely horrifying and also seductive. incentivizing "positive sociability" isn't even an exclusively Chinese idea either, it's also something Sloterdijk has talked about - in brief, the return of patronage. incentivize the wealthy and powerful to *do good in their home country,* find a flaw. the problem is that in the world of transnational capital, the *logical* thing to do is always just to follow the money and play Sorcerer-Alchemist, as things have been done ever since the renaissance. The Spice Must Flow, and so, you just go wherever the markets are. and yet this seems to increasingly Return To Sender in all kinds of fascinating (and horrible) experiments in disruption, upheaval, general other bullshit, and particularly because it leaves the members of those cultures with the strong suspicion that nothing at all fucking matters except money, and that is why they return to ideology to solve their problems (and, frankly, as they should). but Zizek's communism-to-come is just as impossible as Derrida's democracy-to-come. in the end it just results in hysterical meme shitshows between cynics and con artists. and that isn't the dialectic, either.

>That the human being was something to be surpassed was already said by Nietzsche - and in a sense by the Platonics in that they believed that to become his best possible self man should stop being himself and become god (namely, that evolution into something non-human or post-human was in order in our search for the good).

in Sloterdijk's reading of Nietzsche the Overman isn't an artist-visionary, it is a process. the meaning of it will be *the production of acrobats.* this is a good look. this is an incredibly good look. we live on the practicing and disciplinary planet. Git Gud is a fine mandate for me, but i like to soften the anthropotechnics with the cosmotechnics also.

>>11998790
>That the human being was something to be surpassed was already said by Nietzsche - and in a sense by the Platonics in that they believed that to become his best possible self man should stop being himself and become god (namely, that evolution into something non-human or post-human was in order in our search for the good).

so this.

>On the other hand, dualistic metaphysics leaves space for “derailment” from history.

and, hence, the attraction of Revolution. and yet, imho, the age of the Revolution is over. it has to be over. Fukuyama gets shit on all the time for this, but in some sense he's right. we can always *return* to politics, but ultimately what is more important is a rapprochement with the meaning of capital (and tech) in the 21C, and clearly postmodernity is not the way. but neither, imho, is Unironic Totalitarianism (however effective it ultimately is in terms of job creation and ideological conformity). but this is because there are aspects of the philosophical meaning of the *polis* deeply inscribed on these processes, for which the thinkers par excellence are true heavyweights: Heidegger, Derrida, Levinas, and Girard. and of those four, Rene Girard, i choose you!

>entropic
and techno-capital as *negentropy,* also. this is where i always feel more than a little vertigo. because if the meaning of machine intelligence is its fundamentally negentropic nature, then...right? nobody *roots* for entropy, and yet negentropy is a kind of black hole also. thus - it is to be hoped - perhaps a little nondual Taoist metaphysics can set us up for thinking of the world as Cosmo-cyclic, in a humanist sense, even in a pure applied physics sense to think this way would be wrong. ultimately i think this is the kind of stuff that can explain why a panel of judges would convict a guy like Martin Shkreli rather than acquit him. there are rules, but Bert Cooper says, and there are other rules.

>are you struggling as well?
if these threads are not anything other than a portrait of struggle i have been doing it all wrong. without a doubt it's struggle, anon, it's fucking *shipwreck.*

>Also, lately I feel like I have been shifting toward all-including monistic/Hegelian metaphysics more and more since looking at things from a dualistic perspective really leaves you drained and constant wary of enemies, and makes you fearful of life and what could come.
the friend/enemy distinction is real. again, i think it comes from the (inevitable) Age of Suspicion in which we live. the parable of the madman is no joke. we're still there now. i don't want to be on it either, but the reading has at least told me why we are here, and why it is so hard to break from.

>>11997857
sorry, i'm confused by this. the Red Ice interview and the Murphy interview are two different things. both worth reading/listening, but they aren't the same thing.

>>11997586
'tis

>>11998649
for Confucius, i'm very fond of the Fingarette essay (see >>11991939).

>>11999662
>I /cyberpessimism/ now

based

>>11999769
>the friend/enemy distinction is real. again, i think it comes from the (inevitable) Age of Suspicion in which we live.
From icycalm's Orgy of the Will:
>41. Us versus Them: this is a crucial distinction. Without it there's no war, and with no war no victory. But the slaves have eliminated Them and fancy that we've all become Us now, whereas in reality the opposite has happened: each one of Us is now surrounded by Them.

>>11999798
i've said before that i am actually an icycalm fan. obviously there is stuff we would disagree on, and any presumptive debate between us would no doubt be a fracas. it's why i'm not interested in that. my thing with philosophers is not that they be paragons of virtue, *only that they be consistent.* and he is that, at least.

so i'm fine with contrarians. as i've said before, i'm a huge fan of the Arcade Culture essay and also his essays page. he likes Baudrillard and so do I. he seems to have a special bond with Nietzsche that - alas - i do not share. icycalm has found his own way through the vortex of postmodernity, and it's by becoming a reactionary vidya game critic, which gets the added bonus of being unbelievably fucking interesting also.

personally, my sense is this: rooting for the Schmitt friend/enemy distinction is like rooting for the house in blackjack. it's probably going to win out, most of the time. violence - in particular *aesthetic violence* - is intoxicating. but in that sense the 20C got wickedly high on its own supply. in the 21C the bloom has come off that rose for me. not because it doesn't work, it's because it *always* works, and in the end it leads to SoC's, terrorism, the infinite semantic bludgeoning over marginalization and victimhood, Social Credit, and everything else that makes me want to fucking neck myself.

but ofc, none of this is to detract from icycalm's shine. he's an utterly fascinating guy. i prefer his vidya writing to his OOTW aphorisms, and i wish he did more of it. but what he did lay out in terms of Make Vidya Great Again is fine by me. and bullet hell *is* the vidya genre of choice for Cosmotech, i think. fwiw. i guess all i want to say is that i ultimately have Confucius higher on my own power rankings than Nietzsche, but in my meme 3x3 list both Nietzsche and Baudrillard are in there along with, so.

>>11999798
the real issue that he has keyed in on here is not necessarily the friend/enemy distinction, but an Us/Them (or even a One/Many) distinction, which is quite interesting: in friend/enemy circumstances, it is you and *an other.* it is one and one. in an Us/Them distinction, it is One and *a crowd.*

this need to separate oneself from a crowd should get you noggin joggin' in no small number of ways also. it is sort of what i was fumbling towards in my earlier rambling about Bullet Hell shooters: the terrifying figure of the Mass as made incarnate in Hibachi, the Conscience of the Hive. Heidegger talks about Das Man, the They, in ways that are entirely convincing. the great attraction of both fascism and Stalinism was a perverse and paradoxical fondness for and hatred of the crowd upon which they depended, and there is deep, deep Girardian sorcery to be worked here.

the 20C is in every sense the Age of the Masses, but the real trap for me imho is that Speaking For The Crowd - however intoxicating, and however much it solves one's own existential issues *and* those of the State at a stroke is a deadly fucking trap to play. Be Different/Just Do You are globalization imperatives par excellence, but the amusing twist on the narrative has become that we have all become NPCs, accordingly. identity politics originates from the metaphysics of difference and recognition, and completes itself as full-blown tribalism and Recognize Mah Metanarrative in ways that, in turn, produced Peterson.

it's why Simondon is right: it's *individuation* that matters, perhaps even more than *authenticity.* complicated stuff. to *wrench yourself free of the crowd without becoming a despot is hard,* and yet it is absolutely necessary. we have developed today a kind of *psychic allergy towards power,* and yet power is absolutely necessary. personally, i think Nietzsche has no equal in terms of doing some fundamental crowbarring of people out of their Mass-sensibilities. and there is probably no way beyond Nietzsche except going subterranean (or Cosmotechnical). 'tis a Wild Ride tho.

>>11999892
here then is a paradox of my own, and it's also why i am not an Evolian either.

on the one hand, i am mightily in favor of a post-atheist phenomenology (Fuck Yeah Space Taoism). on the other, i am opposed to violence and the sacred, the streams which must not be crossed, and which converge on the *polis.* i want to believe in something much larger, a process metaphysics that encompasses the entire globe (and more than that). and yet i am also aware that a post-atheistic sensibility also produces the world of religious transgressions and the rest.

now on some deep level i don't think these things are mutually exclusive. i am in favor of religion precisely because our supposedly secular-political ideologies have become religious without acknowledging it; puritanical zeal can manifest in any form, even a college football game. conversely, shilling for a return to religion is also to invoke the return of the sacred, which would presumably be exactly the thing you would think i would be opposed to. i'm basically so completely tied in knots over this that i almost think it makes a kind of sense or finds an equilibrium of its own.

and so what i find myself winding up feeling the coziest with is a kind of anthropotechnical moral metaphysics (Cosmotechnics), a religion of practices and humanitarianism, and yet a qualified humanitarianism: Git Gud as planetary imperative. but part of Git Gud would have to be a) the sense that you will fuck up, and b) if you are Gitting Gud at just fucking up the ocean floor, or axe murder, or whatever else, then there have to be some qualifications for this.

the Great Learning is pretty cozy like this:

>The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

>Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.

>From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.

there is a basically complete motion in this from the micro to the macroscale. Confucius is sort of like Augustine in this regard.

in terms of the ultimate consquences of the Schmitt friend/enemy distinction, it was not philosophy but technology - in specific, nuclear ballistic missile technology - that provides the decisive rejoinder, imho. mutually assured destruction, which is a thing that we could not have deduced out of any number of readings of dusty old tomes, is something to think about.

the reason why Girard isn't a Hegelian is because to his mind it was *Clauswitz* and not Hegel who fundamentally grasped what Napoleon was all about. when states come to perceive each other as rational, functioning, modernist entities, the logic of the duel is inescapable. but what makes the battles so destructive is because the wars do not unfold dialectically (or not completely dialectically), but as a struggle to the death between *twins.* and that is the most destructive form of warfare that there is, as any number of religious or quasi-religious schisms will tell you. whether it's the Crips and the Bloods, the Protestants and Catholics, the Sunni and the Shia, or the Cold War, it's when you are sucked into a position where *in order for You to be You, the Other guy has to be destroyed* - basically, the stakes cannot be any higher. and nothing prevents the escalation to extremes in those conditions, because human beings are not built for natural self-limitation. we are built for excess, dissipation, and ultimately, *explosion.*

so how you limit war is always a question. Augustine had his own way, and it was by what came to be known as Christendom. and after the Cold War we had something like this as well, the Washington consensus that led to American hyperpower through the 1990s. but that system was internally fragilized from within by the necessary requirements of technology, together with their encouragement of multinational corporations to do their thing, which eventually manifested in the public realm as a culture of globalization. said Culture is now breaking up eight ways from Sunday, and their resistance to change their ways is what produced Trump in 2016. the reasons *why* Capital couldn't play nice with liberal democracy are Uncle Nick's contributions to the dialectic.

it is probably time, in other words, for a new chapter to begin. that's why this thing is both acceleration and Cosmotech.

>>11999842
>rooting for the Schmitt friend/enemy distinction is like rooting for the house in blackjack
and yet rooting against it seems to lead to suspicion - everyone now feels surrounded by potential enemies or potential friends with no way of easily knowing who is who. Is this a superior condition? I'm skeptical. We can hope and pray that everyone will sing kumbaya and hold hands, you can even lead by example. And the rest of the world will go on as it is.
>>11999892
>the friend/enemy distinction, but an Us/Them (or even a One/Many) distinction, which is quite interesting
The destruction of the Us/Them distinction has lead to it being reduced to a One/Many distinction.
>in an Us/Them distinction, it is One and *a crowd.*
It wasn't always that way, and he's arguing in favor of returning Us/Them to one and one, you and *other.* I understand why you refuse to consider it Girardfag.
>it's *individuation* that matters, perhaps even more than *authenticity.* complicated stuff. to *wrench yourself free of the crowd without becoming a despot is hard,* and yet it is absolutely necessary.
Wrench yourself free, and yet ultimately you still blend in. You are in the crowd, but not a part of it. You are surrounded by Them, and there is no Us. If you value individuation over authenticity, this is where it leads. Is that satisfying to you?
>>11999940
>i want to believe in something much larger, a process metaphysics that encompasses the entire globe (and more than that).
Here is my question to you - what if some people are incapable of this Great Learning... or even if some people are better at it than others? Would you not promote the virtuous? Or would you do nothing, virtue being its own reward? What if some people don't care for virtue in itself, and never will? One could get into genetics, social conditions, etc I suppose, though I'm initially asking more broadly - is there a type of person you wish to cultivate?

>>12000019
>and yet rooting against it seems to lead to suspicion - everyone now feels surrounded by potential enemies or potential friends with no way of easily knowing who is who. Is this a superior condition?
you know who is who because of who is *excellent* and who is *skilled.* i know in my neighborhood who is the best florist, who is the best cook, and who is the best saxophone player. it's *skill* in everything. and a culture of practices is the way to go. this is all there in Sloterdijk. my own very basic rule is- and it has many qualifiers - just don't be stupid and evil at the same time, for long periods of time. literally, Do Anything. just be good at it.

>The destruction of the Us/Them distinction has lead to it being reduced to a One/Many distinction.
at bottom, humanity really be reduced to a homogenous, boring mass of non-Beings. true, those are all good for Capital, you'll never go poor selling people Chicken Product and using pornography to do so. but it's a bad look for us.

>It wasn't always that way, and he's arguing in favor of returning Us/Them to one and one, you and *other.* I understand why you refuse to consider it Girardfag.
he is, and i understand why he wants to do that also. again, he's worked out his own existential issues in his own way. they're not my senses, but he is internally consistent in what he thinks, which is in a certain sense all that really matters.

>Wrench yourself free, and yet ultimately you still blend in. You are in the crowd, but not a part of it. You are surrounded by Them, and there is no Us. If you value individuation over authenticity, this is where it leads. Is that satisfying to you?
it has to be that way, imho. you wrench yourself free in order to be able to blend in, but really, that in turn is i think the way to freedom. once you have worked out your animus and antipathy to the crowd, you can then go off into the sunset however you see fit. politics is not the way. i'm a recluse, myself, but i wasn't always this way. and i am dreading having to spend another substantial portion of my own nomadic life being less reclusive than i would like. but it's because i have spent a lot of time with philosophy instead of, say, medicine. and so i have to pay a price for this too, and learn to get along. but ultimately, the whole being of the crowd is simulacral. i prefer solitude, but solitude has to be earned.

>Here is my question to you - what if some people are incapable of this Great Learning... or even if some people are better at it than others?
the Great Learning is Great because everybody is capable of it, each in their own way. the Great Learning is the *real* meaning of 'Each According To His Needs.' the *true* needs are psychic, they are *the need for individuation.* without this you will be deeply, catastrophically, astronomically, traumatically fucked up in the deepest possible sense. you will be as utterly fucked up as it is possible for a human to be.

(cont'd)

>>12000019
>Would you not promote the virtuous?
as i understand it a skill is also a virtue, in this sense; that's the Daoist meaning of all things having a Way (or, in a Confucian sense, a 'li'). everything has a way, a shape or form, of a kind of maximal utility, which can be described as a virtuosity. and humans are *marvellous* in their sense of being able to develop and create new skills, habits, practices, disciplines in this way. we love to infinitely proliferate *techniques,* but this fucks with our sense of *meaning, purpose, or telos* if we are inclined to look at it in an always product-oriented rather than process-oriented way. you can do a lot more with a grand piano than just play the national anthem on it. what is the ultimate or transcendental use of a piano? it doesn't have one. a *musical* sensibility is much nearer to the truth of what human beings are and how they inter-relate with the universe than a purely literary one. there are Ways within ways within ways like this.

and when you want to learn how to play music, what matters is finding a master. the masters know things, they know how to *make moves that you didn't even know were possible,* (or even legal).

>Or would you do nothing, virtue being its own reward?
'virtue' has a lot of different meanings. there is virtue as a *skill* and virtue in ofc the philosophical meaning. but we're in the right territory to be talking about things in this way. there may be a dual sense of it, irreducibly. Cosmic Virtue is probably Taoist, in the final analysis, *political virtue* can be Confucian-Augustinian, and *private* virtue can be called, skill, or negentropics. things change level to level, and aren't necessarily harmonious or even recoverable in the sense of a planetary ideology (other than the Great Learning, but don't quote me too strongly atm).

>What if some people don't care for virtue in itself, and never will?
it's okay but i don't want them as heads of state. or leading the education system. being virtue-free is fine, the Taoists laugh at any of Confucius' well-made plans. but Confucius does want the princes to follow the Way also. Taoist hermit-bumpkins are no threat to anyone, any more than Jain monastics. it's Alcibiades you don't want, however god-awfully beautiful and warlike he is.

>One could get into genetics, social conditions, etc I suppose, though I'm initially asking more broadly - is there a type of person you wish to cultivate?
there is, and it's the sage. but the sage *may* - not necessarily - have to go through a process of being a scholar-gentleman first. the *real* question to be asked is whether or not the sage (or philosopher-king) *ought to be a political figure.* it might seem that way - after all, what's more important than the nation-state, what's more of a *total* process than war? war is - sadly - arguably the *ultimate* form of art, but it's for that reason that i might prefer to cultivate people who are just good at *living.*

i had one other image here i meant to put in earlier, i'll stick it in now. JBP has said similar things in his reading of what 'The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth' means, and he connected it to the whole idea of having a sword and not using it, and so on. mildly cringe, but ultimately i agree with him. in a sense it is weakness that leads to disorder more than power, he's not wrong about that.

but i prefer Gandhi's take. Nietzsche is absolutely right in the Genealogy of Morality about the nature of revenge, and the inescapably punitive dimension of all moralizing. no question. and it's in Girard as well. but the only real way off of the mimetic hamster-wheel of revenge and reciprocity is forgiveness.

now you don't want to have a purely forgiveness-based society, you also want an achievement society, and one that is also capable of self-defense. which, when you think about it, really explains a lot about martial arts in general, and why Shaolin kung-fu is such a good combination: if all you want to do is walk to the monastery and not be attacked by bandits, Crane Style is fine by me and i will absolutely put aside some money to support a visiting master to teach it. self-defense - think about Kung Fu Hustle - is a better look than the state's monopoly on violence. in a little vilage in which you don't know if the guy you are about to rob is a black belt or not, life maybe takes a different and more non-interventionist direction. and it's not always in the direction of more politics, either.

the army is an undoubted pure and applied meritocracy, it's why Napoleon has always been such an intoxicating figure. if you are brave enough, you can rise through the ranks from Unnamed Nobody #2343242309 to Prince of Rivoli. without a doubt we like this, and it works for human beings on some level. but tech changes the meaning of war, every time. and that just has to be recognized so that the aesthetics of war don't get ahead of (or drag behind?) what we are actually capable of doing to each other with the weapons we have in the world today.

i think ludic conflict is a good look, as is non-lethal sparring. i'm not a radical pacifist, and there are in fact places where i disagree with Girard. i love the Royal Rumble and i think martial arts is a legit fascinating thing. maybe part of a balanced breakfast, civilizationally speaking. it's *revenge* that is the main offender.

>>12000072
I appreciate your responses, always giving me more to think about.
>you know who is who because of who is *excellent* and who is *skilled.*
And if some people are genetically predisposed to being excellent, or there are families that produce extremely skilled people at certain things... and others find themselves lacking in excellence or skill. How would you deal with that situation? What of any resentment they have toward the excellent and skilled, who surely could end up becoming more wealthy due to their skill, as compared to those who are lacking? You don't want to resort to violence - but the weak may want to resort to violence against you.
>once you have worked out your animus and antipathy to the crowd, you can then go off into the sunset however you see fit. politics is not the way.
once you have worked that out, why could you not go whatever way you choose, even politics? that would be the path of the philosopher-king, no?
>the Great Learning is Great because everybody is capable of it, each in their own way.
When I initially read this I thought it sounded patronizing, because I was reminded of how parents might tell a child that they were "special in their own way" whenever they had an obvious disability or handicap. I agree with what you said though.
>>12000109
>the *real* question to be asked is whether or not the sage (or philosopher-king) *ought to be a political figure.*
Would a sage want to be? The call to being a hermit is alluring, enticing, safe, and satisfying. Reminds me of this pic and his analysis on why some choose one or the other.

>>12000180
>I appreciate your responses, always giving me more to think about.
i appreciate your questions! this is exactly what i hope to find in these threads. it's certainly not all just my own schizo-rambling...there is something of chemistry in all of this.

>And if some people are genetically predisposed to being excellent, or there are families that produce extremely skilled people at certain things... and others find themselves lacking in excellence or skill. How would you deal with that situation?
unfortunately, the nature of Capital itself means that this isn't in fact, my problem. adaptation itself in the Landian mode takes care of this better than i ever could, or would need to. people are by design attracted to penthouses, luxury suites, and Gordon Ramsay's lobster ravioli. the world does not lack as it is for material incentive. what it lacks is a *reason to keep up with the Joneses,* beyond pure hedonism. and also an increasing inability of people even with the right intentions to be able to do so...

>What of any resentment they have toward the excellent and skilled, who surely could end up becoming more wealthy due to their skill, as compared to those who are lacking?
anybody can learn anything. that's the fundamental ethical meaning of the Great Learning. anybody, and everybody, can learn. everybody can practice, and everybody can improve. there is an absolute affinity here to my mind between Sloterdijk's anthropotechnics, YH's cosmotechnics, and Confucius. it's not all about wealth, either. it's about individuation. the wealth will come in time however the market decides to hand out its own mysterious rewards and problems. the market is not itself an ethical teacher, it is a blind and autistic Wizard of Oz hopped up on goofballs and with a frontal lobotomy. and Mises, like many Austrians, was badly in need of somebody dropping some MDMA into his punchbowl.

>but the weak may want to resort to violence against you.
and so, you should be able to protect yourself. but this stops long before the extermination of the weak. you always attract more with honey than with vinegar. and the ending of this film was absolutely sublime in that regard. the real magic lay in the protagonist saying, to The Beast, 'I will teach you.' and The Beast is instantly converted. he breaks down in tears. when you think about how social justice works today, it's the exact opposite: idpol demagogues *convert you from a position of fear.* the entire nature of postmodern idpol depends on *making converts out of heretics,* and *everyone is a heretic until they become an inquisitor.* it is viral Fuckery on the highest possible level, and depends on the use of the semantic bludgeons of rape and racism, which are as bad as it gets for human beings. but that is the Black Magic. there is a correspondent, and vastly superior, White Magic, and it is all there in the Chinese metaphysical view. not exclusively, mind you; but the Chinese are way cool.

(cont'd)

>>12000180
>once you have worked that out, why could you not go whatever way you choose, even politics? that would be the path of the philosopher-king, no?
mi amigo if you have worked out these questions then wherever you do go you go with the blessing of the Department of Speculative Economics and Cosmotech in general. nobody has the high card on self-discovery. you absolutely know things that i do not, especially as they pertain to you. if politics is where you feel your calling, then perhaps that is where you have to be. it's not my calling, but...well, you get the idea. there is just a kind of inner battle to be fought with cynicism and suspicion that i am interested in. after that, how things shake out are how they shake out.

>When I initially read this I thought it sounded patronizing, because I was reminded of how parents might tell a child that they were "special in their own way" whenever they had an obvious disability or handicap.
you know what i mean. it is true, in a sense. but contemporary Snowflake-itis is a disease, and a highly dangerous one as well. it leads to the tyranny of the unhinged. it's no accident that we have gotten here, and Deleuze matters in that sense. much that is discusssed in continental theory is a question about *from where we take our cues about normativity from.* German Fascism is on the one hand intensely normative, and yet it is also monstrously destructive. the Soviets also. and, to some degree, the global capitalism we have today, which is bad for the psyche, the environment, and much else. everything you see on the news today proceeds from this sense of a paradox of the intransigent minority. it's why, to some degree, Max Schizo is no longer the way forward. Sanity > Barbarism. it's not like this is news, it's just that we have had to get to Peak Irony and Unironic Madness perhaps before we could begin to theorize an alternative. some sanity, and less barbarism, madness, cruelty, irony, sadomasochism, waste and faux-aristocrat squandering is called for. this is hardly surprising.

>Would a sage want to be?
depends on the sage, really. sages are by their nature unique. the Taoist sages tend to want to keep to themselves. and yes, of course, hermitage is indeed cozy, but it's also lonely (and cold). and, you know, bears, dysentery, the rest. the Unabomber, for example, is a test case of hermitage being done the *wrong* way. i've read his manifesto, ofc. Land likes him too. there's no arguing with it, modernity is a fucking problem. but Terror-Hermits are a bad scene, obv.

REI KOZ is interesting too, in his way, no question. i don't follow his Aryanism any more than icycalm's Nietzscheanism. but i certainly can't say that they make for *boring* reading. i'm not as Inspired as either of those guys, but they're both interesting af, no doubt.

basically it comes down to the sense that having abandoned Christianity, we have tried - the 20C heavyweights have all made contributions, in their own way - to come up with substitute forms of religion, largely predicated on revolution. if we are not going to be Christians, we have tried to take our cues from Oedipus, or the Overman, or whatever else follows from this - and it doesn't work. as such we wind up with an atheism which becomes ever more religious in its apparently secular zeal, and it leads to infinite mimesis.

a post-atheism is in every sense a better look. postmodernity is always continuing its own wild Jenga-style deconstructions of modernity, but beyond a certain horizon only winds up reproducing everything which is horrible about it, in increasingly ironic ways (no less horrible for all their irony).

something like a new religious attitude is required, but of course, once you've opened up Pandora's Box, you can't as easily put everything back in again. our problem is that we just don't know whether we want more religion or want to go on trying to get on without it. everything you see in politics today points to the nature of this paradox and deadlock. it becomes a grand, and horrible, wheel of mimesis and fuckery.

something new has to come out of this; and, historically, something usually does. i don't know quite what it will look like yet, but imho it's not too soon to begin sussing out what it might look like. such is the hope here.

i want to talk about something else here too, or at least meme-seed it for future conversations. it came up while i was playing (or, rather, watching some bullet hell stuff the other day), but it relates to the nature of violence, fear and guilt and other things that all kind of trickle into these conversations.

the basic rule of Bullet Hell is that two points cannot occupy the same space at the same time. if you and the bullet are both on that same pixel, you both get wiped out. the "fun" of higher-level play in these games ultimately seems to come down to *enduring* higher and higher levels of ever-more complex swarms of patterns, and boss battles are grit-your-teeth episodes in manic concentration which are fun for this reason.

now the reason i bring this up is because this seems to me an interesting minor discourse on the nature of violence itself, if hostility becomes a question of pattern recognition. what alarms about the face of the hostile other is its *radical possibility.* you don't actually know, IRL, how hostile scenarios are likely to go. now in a bullet hell scenario, you actually can *see* the threat - it's the waves of bullets. and all you have to do is dodge them and return fire. eventually, one of you will burn out.

now IRL, the nature of language, gesture and sign and so on is radically indeterminate, and to see in the face of an angry other only an analogue for Hibachi would be profoundly strange. we're empathetic, we don't work like that. and yet there is some correspondence in this: it is that *panic* involves a relation of *infinite possibility* to *extreme time deficiency.* it is why, for example, a slow-down (or Bullet Time) feature is a crucial mechanic in these games, because when *time slows down you can navigate the patterns without fundamentally changing them, or negating them.*

if *fear* is an apprehension about the radical possibilities in an *immanent future,* we might also say that *guilt* is an apprehension about the radical possibilities of an *unchangeable past.* and the nature of time IRL is that there is - apart from deep breathing, and not even then - nothing like a slow-down feature.

this is why, i think, the Chinese - but Heidegger also - sussed out something like the fundamentally *temporal* nature of all life. and any such Cosmotech religion or metaphysical sensibility would have to start from considering the relation between *time* and the *affects.* anybody can be triggered. and words and texts can very much be like bullets, in their own way: that was Lacan's whole point w/The Purloined Letter. the *meaning* of the letter was death, because the mechanism of recognition worked like a guillotine. sphinx-stuff.

things to think about.

>>11995984
When I ask are you going to produce something of substance out of all this, I'm being serious because I'm interested, but I don't really understand a lot of it and I don't want to scroll through every single thread. A little consolidation would be nice for the rest of us :)

Isn't it a great feeling? Isn't it the greatest feeling you can have? When you get to wait another 20 minutes because you forgot to include a single line of code. And not even a complicated one, but like, one where you add a piece of machinery to accomplish something and then forget to add the line that triggers the machine? You get to wait 20 minutes to discover this, and then it takes another 20 minutes to fix the problem. 20 minutes of electricity coursing through the steel box that you keep by your desk, the steel box that you live and die by, the steel box that contains your paycheck and love life and all the other firmament out of which we build our lives. This clean box with a mathematically defined volume, CAD curves contained in yet more boxes. Boxes and boxes graciously granted to us by the fathers of our industry. Fathers who smile a gentle smile as they look down upon their creation and see boxes and boxes while their genius sees even more boxes and boxes.

I want to become more box like. More predictable. More capable of doing math. I want my skin to be flat, smooth and cold. I want my heart to be cooled by a bladeless fan. I want to live within the box. I want the box to live within me. Eventually, as our sizes ebb and swell together, the dimensionalities will align with one another, and in those few small moments, I will be a box, and the box will be a person. This small moment will be heart achingly beautiful. So beautiful that it would be befitting to smash and destroy all other images of half-beauty, now obsolescent and obstinate against the calibrated white glow of the box-person, breathing light out from within itself. It is this state I look forward to, towards which I master myself. For in these moments, waiting 20 minutes for code to compile will be time spent dwelling in ethical absolution.

I want to be a box-person. I want to offload my thinking to browser plugins. I want my personality digested by machines so that my interiority can be understood better and monetized. I want each aspect of my psycho-spiritual subdivided into the smallest economically viable units. I want there to be free-trade of these units. I want my emotions to be bought and sold and repackaged into collateralized dopamine obligations. I want my libidinal energies directed into further proliferation of boxes. I want the economic productivity of my semen to be measured on a dollar per milliliter basis. It is a just and good feature of our society that the box-person performing this calculation be rewarded monetarily. I will devote time and resources so that this calculation is context dependent on the time, date, weather and specific pornography I am watching.

>>12000643

I want my personal taste in breakfast food to influence politics in Latin America. I want one distributed and amorphous entity to discover an arbitrage opportunity and simultaneously alter the course of ships filled with fruits and vegetables while also bombarding me with advertisements for value-added products created from those fruits and vegetables. Out of sheer force of will I will steer predator drones via the telekinesis enabled by high frequency trading. My body and mind and spirit will vibrate to the energies of global commerce - my species being will be fulfilled as my desires disintegrate and are scattered into the world like a fine mist. This will inoculate the land with my seed. I will reproduce myself in the world by the mere thermodynamic radiation of information.

I will have fourteen Amazon Prime accounts, one for each astral manifestation of my mind-body-spirit agglomeration. I will fill Facebook’s servers with my photographs. They will devour these photos and I will be immortalized in the model produced. In this way I will live on forever. My mood will be measured in geological time. There will be the Disneyocene and the Pepsiocene and the Fordocene and the AT&Tocene and the Nikeocene and the Ziplococene and the KitKatocene. Entire phylum of scientific understands will be computationally generated for my own personal consumption and they will be completely unintelligible to anyone who does not have my same life experiences, body type, gender and genetic makeup. It is within this way that I will retain my individuality, if I so choose.

I want to become an iPerson. I want to attain the ontological closure hidden underneath lifestyle branding. I want my personal brand to become autonomous. I want god to breathe into the nostrils of my facebook profile. I will become an ePerson, a smart-person. I will transfuse my blood directly into the fresh lipid and non-decaying corpse of my digital self and make it dance. My spirit will be transubstantiated into neurochemicals, of which I will be given direct and regulated dosages. I will perform artistic expression through proprietary mixes of these neurochemicals. I will share these recipes with the entires in a database labeled "friends". My thoughts shall become pure immanence. I will dwell alongside the numinous.

>>12000551
as for infinite possibility and extreme time deficiency, it warrants mentioning also that *pleasure* may work the same way: not only because high intensities (of music, intoxicants, you can probably think of other things) gratify when we get them in high, explosive doses. and this too, perhaps, explains the appeal of RTS and strategy games, if not choice itself - that is to say, decisions becomes *significant* when we can have an intuitive sense of their impact, their sense, their feel, and feedback curves.

now the Confucians and Taoists don't really go in for high-octane intensity in much. the Taoists prefer to keep everything pretty light and mild, so that things can be sustained over a long period of time, and as for the Confucians, well, Virtue: I'm Loving It.
>and also, perhaps, the mild schadenfreude of Vault City Prevails, Citizen

and so we have to sort out *pleasure* and *panic* in some sense, but these things have a fundamentally *temporal* grammar, is what i am saying. at bottom, i think Heidegger really deserves his title: The Fundamental Ontologist. it simply cannot be an accident that he was received so well in China and Japan, nor that Land - who is as ultra-modern as they come - ultimately winds up finding as much transcendental rigor in Heidegger's thought as in Kant's. there is something like a pattern here, in other words, and maybe even a platform for departure into some really interesting metaphysical places, a good-old fashioned Whiteheadian Speculative Adventure, which i think would be just cozy af, sans politics.

>>12000618
the consolidation - alas! - always comes at the end, mi amigo. i wish it were not so but it is that way. if i knew how to consolidate all of this from the start, i would do so. but honestly, i don't. i don't *know* what all of this means, but it hasn't come from *not* trying to produce Something of Substance. it comes, very much, from having *tried* to do that, many times, and having *failed.*

oh the failure. oh the fucking fails, my man. the fails and then the more fails. i am IRL about as Epically Failed a hominid as you could possibly ask for. and i am no doubt failing here once again. failing forward, perhaps. but failing. and this thing too,
perhaps, will end, however, whenever, on a note of failure.

aporia: *shared bewilderment.*

>>12000658

As a box-person, I would not feel pain, not in the usual sense. Physical and emotional pain will be mere simulations run in order to interface with depreciated flesh-space APIs. Morality will be a steady-state optimization problem. The only pain I will feel will arise as a strange epiphenomenon of latency. A taught, unidirectional UDP connection between the present and the future: the pain arises from lost packets, from inefficiency, from the basic violence of non-reversable time. It is underneath this penumbra from which the monsters of my box-soul will slink and give rise to a stinking, entropy-ridden sulfur. I will try hard to not become outdated. I will join communes in which brutal and inhuman forms of self-reliance are practiced. I will hold up my box-body, my box-mind and my box-soul to my vicious box-peers as they ravenously consume and copy whatever relative efficiencies my self-boxes may contain. I will stare out into ecological collapse and perhaps, on weekends, allow myself a moment of nostalgia as the quaint, acoustics-based informatic encoding of the syllables and phonemes within "ecological collapse" reverberate through my box-mouth.

>>12000663
Seems like you need to take a break from reading and writing for a while. Still, keep up the good work and I look forward to your eventual breakthrough!

>>12000618
it might be the case that in the final analysis the best i can reasonably hope for is to have sparked something of interest *in someone else.* because in terms of bringing it all home in a kind of Wagnerian sense i am almost certain that this is not a possibility for me. something more like an Instruction Manual on How to Survive Without Oxygen, or whatever analogy for pic rel you want to come up with, maybe this.

Confucius was a largely frustrated man in his life, Augustine no doubt also. those guys i can relate to. if you're hoping for some kind of moonshot, i honestly don't know what it could look like. all i can really do is share my own curious homebrew computer virus that has made simply being conscious itself both more painful and more interesting than i once would have imagined, back when i thought the world made sense. it doesn't make sense, and yet it does. there is a crazy wisdom line i like:

>the bad news is that you're falling through the sky, and there is no parachute. the good news is, there's no ground either.

that's from Chogyam Trungpa. i'm hoping to put something together that is "grounded" in place of this, but whatever it is, it will be highly unorthodox.

>>12000643
>>12000658
>>12000669

and, just like that, this thread just jumped up about six levels on the Interesting Scale.

it's a good thing i have to go out for Box Life for a bit, i'll be back to check this thread later. but in the meantime i can see that people massively more interesting than me have things well in hand.

>>12000643
>>12000658
>>12000669
these posts are going to come frontloaded along with Space Taoism in future Cosmotech threads also, warrants mentioning. i don't know how many of them there are going to be but so long as there is Cosmotech so too will there be Space Taoism and Box Life posts to go with it. this is straight genius and warrants whatever meme-magic is on tap.

do you have art/aesthetics imagery to go with, or should i leave it as it is? the Cosmotech /lit/erary canon is small but i consider it part as night manager of the Hotel L'Existence to guarantee satisfaction (or its peculiar Lacanian turning around the void.)

>>12000854
>>12000743

the praise is highly appreciated and the algorithms will be updated.

of course, I posted and saw some mistakes, so I made a few edits here: https://pastebin.com/Qt4ehVKD

Here's some aesthetics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHIGHpWKcw0

I first considered that God was merely a harmful mistake like many atheists that could be corrected with the proper reason, that he was "not real," I was only looking at God the object, not God the process. This process is that of simulacrum projected onto the whole sphere of existence, cosmological plagiarism, the monopolization of all creativity by an infinitely self-aggrandizing ego. As God only exists as a lie about all of existence, anything that doesn't affirm this lie is antagonistic to him. However this includes existence itself, and so the mind of God is omniphobic, fearing and hating all of existence. He is compelled to replace existence with a hyperreal image of himself, which is "heaven," an eternal future that will never come, that he uses to lure his hosts into throwing all meaning and purpose into. The mind of God is a black hole of pure nihilism, who gains quazi-agency by his believers considering him such and seeking to follow God's will.

In capital and it's society of spectacle God the process was abstracted from needing a mascot into a pure process that self-imposes itself on the world; capitalism is the decapitated corpse of Jahweh who accelerates humanity towards omnicide, the ultimate manifestation of God's nihilism as total annihilation. Even if theism and religion were to magically vanish from reality, God the process would live on in capital - as it has after the death of God the being as the center of human organization.

As God is pure omniphobia, he is pure cowardice, a magnification of the human ego to the utmost extremes. He engages in existential terrorism with humanity, threatening eternal punishment for not preserving his self in theirs, and cultivating infinite greed in promising eternal bliss. Greed is always the outcome of fear, the drive to accumulate the means to preserve one's self that has gone off the rails and has no satisfaction, an end in itself. How does one truly destroy God? The only way to do so ultimately is to cultivate inexorable existential courage, the will to suffer infinitely for the cause of life and meaning. In my mythological head-cannon Lucifer gleefully went to hell to face the ultimate challenge to gain the ultimate strength, and after God saw Lucifer endure hell with such a will killed himself because he saw his true nature in the reflection of such courage - God gained self-awareness, which is his true arch-enemy.

To see this very real God process as a persecutor, to fear and hate God is to replicate Himself by negation. The existential hero sees God not as a persecutor but as the ultimate challenger, a good because of the priceless gift the can only be gained by overcoming such a powerful and worthy challenger. This is what acceleration is to me - it was necessary to accelerate God to his ultimate conclusion so that there can be a final overcoming; doomsday and eutopia are summoned simultaneously by necessity. This is the "great filter" of speculation regarding cosmic civilizations, the parasitic nihilism of God the process never makes it out of its originating solar system alive. The thrill of The Wild Ride is knowing that neither outcome is certain and the stakes are ultimate, that every human on Earth is a part of this struggle older than human history, a struggle of human creativity over the weaponization of creativity against itself.

Mystical experiences are simulacric processes where anticipation of an experience creates the faintest perception of it, which increases anticipation, which increases the perception in a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

Kundalini, chi, and "subtle energy" experiences are prime examples. You can replicate this experience by pointing a pencil or knife at the center of your forehead, with the tip almost but not quite touching. Imagine how intense it would feel if the point were to touch, and you will feel a slight tingle. If this doesn't work, try using a mirror, have someone else hold the object, or try doing so before you go to sleep when you are tired. This is the experience of "activating your third eye" that new-agers rave about. Once you have experienced it, you can learn to induce it merely by imagining how it felt. The more focused your concentration on it, the stronger the sensations becomes as the feedback loop is tightened.

This tingling sensation can be created anywhere on the body, or even the entire body. The schemas of "chakra points" are partly the result of various areas being more suseptible to this phenomenon (for example the "crown chakra" atop the head is probably related to our ability to feel tiny parasites in our hair, and is related to ASMR) and self-fulfilling prophecy as one conditions themselves to expect areas to follow such schemas.

Another method is to lie on your back or sit upright and touch your fingertips together to form a "cage" with your hands, with the smallest amount of pressure on your fingertips as possible. Focus on the sensation of your fingertips touching, and you'll eventually feel this sensation magnify into a strong tingling exactly similar to the "third eye" practice. Moreover, if you try to just begin to flex your muscles as if to move your hands apart without doing so, you can trick your mind into feeling that your hands are moving apart several inches while still touching, creating an "out of hands" experience. Out of body experiences uses the same mechanism, tricking your mind into feeling like it is levitating when it is not.

A similar practice is to lie on your back and to visualize yourself on a board in space that is zooming like a rollercoaster, and induce feelings of physical acceleration. After practicing these techniques and a little experimentation one can figure out how to create a sense of displacement, to feel as if one is levitating out of one's own body.

It isn't just physical sensations that can be created using this mechanism. "Seeing visions" is the same process, enhanced by deep meditative states where the line between imagination and perception is blurred. As a starting technique to help you replicate this, close your eyes and focus on the black static in the center of your visual field. You may begin to see fuzzy, very faint shapes emerge and change on their own. To try to make them form into a particular shape, one must have the anticipation of them being one, to simultaneously hole the desired shape in the mind's eye while focusing on the center of one's field of vision simultaneously. I find that simple shapes such as cubes and gears work the best for this.

The cumination of all of these techniques is the creation of a fully immersive hallucinatory hyperreality, "astral travel" or inducing a lucid dream state directly from a wakeful state. Such a state is prized among mystical practitioners as it affirms their beliefs as real by creating the total perception of it by one's expectations of what one will experience.

Sexual pleasure can be induced using this mechanism, as well as emotions. When a Christian says they "feel God's love" they are reporting physically experienced emotional realities, they feel a powerful emotion of love tied to a fictional character. It is no different in nature to the "waifu" phenomenon or teenage girls falling in love with celebrities who are effectively fictional characters compared to their real, experienced lives, known only through media and stories. The Society of the Spectacle is capital wielding simulacric perception-building not just to manufacture desire, but experience itself, mediated by images. Depression and anxiety disorders are characterized by repeating loops of thought - ruminations - that are perceived to be reality, and so become emotional reality and self-reinforcing, negative thoughts and emotions that have ceased to serve the purpose of identifying a problem and resulting in resolution and have become pathological. /pol/ and the alt-right is a death spiral of self-reinforcing hate and fear that becomes a reality for those infected until hate can no longer become satisfied by mere words and images, it must become act - with recent history showing the inevitable outcomes. The hope is in that courage and love can be cultivated the same way not as hyperrealities but in real relationships and actions, the cure for simulacric parasitism is in self-reinforcing self-awareness and self-creativity, but that must start in awareness of to the degrees by which your experience can be subverted by simulacric processes.

>>12001066
Oh wow this sounds identical to my theory about placebo effect phenomena. It's cool that this has been taken up as a deliberate practice and developed into a coherent methodology. By the way I'm not dismissive of the experiences, there is likely much of value to loosening up ones faculties and allowing space for appearance.

>>12000643
>>12000658
>>12000669

great oc. please write more anon.

i'm back from Box Life and wish to continue more Cosmotech Adventure Time.

as skeptical as i am about the supernatural, it warrants mentioning that i have had at least three experiences that i would classify as supernatural, all of which involved ghosts, death, or near-fatal injury. warrants mentioning, none of them were me. and i have met (briefly) at least one person who was in training to be a no-joke witch and who basically convinced me that chakra works, especially if you are a highly-stressed and malfunctioning fuckface meatbag (that would be be). i don't know what kind of forces Uncle Nick and Aunt Sadie tapped into back in their CCRU days but i wouldn't put anything past them. and besides the Brits have always had a mildly pagan strain running there anyways. when it comes down to figuring out capitalism there is absolutely no story i would not believe about Land relating to the occult. if anything, his experiments were entirely *too successful,* imho, as i have been fucking obsessed with him for years now. true, this is in part because i am probably not that hard to seduce, charm, hoax or otherwise fool in the first place; the world is full of lost souls and addled seekers and other people like me.

so generally speaking i prefer to keep it on the skeptical side of the esoteric. i don't really need to go much further than Land or Hegel for kind of stuff. Hegel has occult roots, Land contacted the Other Side, Heidegger made Being great again, Lacan connects psychoanalysis to the sphinx at the deepest possible level, the list goes on and on. i was saying in the other thread that, warts and all, i do find something quite admirable about Freud's vision for what he imagined psychoanalysis to be: and in a sense i'm on board with that project also. there is a distinction to be made between neurotic unhappiness and normal unhappiness, and it's because the neurotic stuff - the genuine, no bullshit Heraclitean Fire - is what propels politics, but it also produces art, philosophy, religion, and much more.

but the power of meme-magic is real. it still fucks with us to this day, it's why postmodernity has *still* failed to get a grip on Terra Firma Reality. and even though Girard isn't so keen on Hegel, there are without question parts of his thought that i like - namely, the Phenomenology of Spirit. that is truly one of the wildest texts ever written, God as History, and can be read beside the Ethics, God as Nature. there's not much love between the Spinozists and the Hegelians, but that's fine. what the Spinozans don't have is anything like a political platform, but that's also their advantage. conversely, the Hegelians do have one - every major 20C ideology follows from Hegel, in one sense or another - for good as well as evil. and today we have Planet Meme and universal capital, to trigger Zizek to no end. and Uncle Nick, &c, &c.

so a little Confucianism, a little Taoism, a little Buddhism - the Vinegar tasters, mixed in with some Freud/Lacan, some tortured neo-Augustinian stuff (Girard), Heidegger for a grammar of time and affect, plus Baudrillard, Deleuze and Land to present their portraits of the matrix, and i wind up something with Break Glass in Case of Mimetic Emergency. in the evenings Byung-Chul Han goes hunting for Foucaultian troublemakers and maybe carves a big H into their chests with his rapier, to let them know what's what and to stop fucking around with neoliberalism, because it's gahbage.

it's like a Matrix/Wasteland survival kit, or maybe like one of those fully-equipped doomsday shelters you hope to find if you're a post-apocalyptic traveler. ultimately there are no answers; or, put another way, the answers are exactly what you always thought they were going to be, and at best all that is required is an occasional reminder. one of the things i had planned to talk about in this thread was some kind of reckoning with Bataille, and not - perish the thought - because i want to BTFO him, as this does not happen. rather, you fall in love with him. such are his powers.

but the world today has been kind of in the thrall of waste, expenditure, loss, destruction, BDSM, schizophrenia and much else for a while now. to some degree it's required, to get out from under the iron grip of normativity. these phenomena have been well-documented, it is the fundamental task of critique of ideology itself: Fight Fascism. the only problem is that the excess vigilance to this also produces the same monsters Deleuze talks about, and of course, Nietzsche's own reminder about fighting with monsters. it's not fighting and Revolution that is required, imho: it's just therapy for burned-out philosophers on a burned-out planet. that's why i would probably never refer to myself as a philosopher, patently i'm not. i am a guy way in over his head, more fucked up by philosophy than a philosopher myself.

but an ecological sensibility is quite beautiful for this reason - sustainability, balance, holism, integration, and all the rest. the Green to follow the Black. we are in thrall to technology, hugely. it is, along with capitalism, the planetary cosmotechnics par excellence. and because there is no cure for the IRL Matrix, and no Chosen Ones either, only withdrawal/secession/Exit makes sense. the Desert of the Real is for realsies too. and some nature-appreciation is in order, you can be anti-anthropocentric in ways other than the Wild Ride.

it may just be a rule of the universe that technology does inevitably turn the cosmo-polis (in the globalization sense, rather than my own idealized Cosmo-sense) into the necro-polis, by way of just doubling down on the fundamental circuits, Death - Desire - Capitalism - Repeat. maybe Necroplexy is a term we can talk about also, i don't know. it's certainly poetic. and it animates no small amount of my own 3rd-rate junk spec-fiction.

>>12001889
Bataille matters because the Accursed Share is an absolute death sentence for any kind of politically normative approach to Eros, which is always massively in excess of rational utility. Baudrillard wound up borrowing from him to write SE&D, and Land wrote a whole book on him that arguably changed him forever. messing around with Bataille is a bad idea, especially since he is in fact one of the best possible arguments against anything that attempts to Solve Romance. what you wind up with is BDSM and Foucault, the hermeneutics of infinite power.

but these aren't the 1930s anymore, and it's not Europe. Bataille is some of the strongest meme-magic you can possibly invoke, really, and yet also it's sort of like using a chemical weapon or a satellite Death Ray against an enemy combatant. Bataille fucks everybody up, for good reasons and for bad. Europe was a profoundly up-fucked place when he was writing and he truly explained why that was in ways still relevant today.

i guess my sense is just whether or not these things are still needed anymore. we've carved some enormous holes in both time and space with our imaginations and our weapons since WW2, even before that. a philosophical rehab program seems to me much more attractive than anything like an Action Plan for a Better Tomorrow. after all, Xi-style social credit will probably work...and even if it doesn't, it sets a template for what ultimately can take its place, which is the gamification of everything. to me it just makes too much sense.

there is no Cure for any of this stuff. but maybe something like a mutual beneficence society, which is just trying to make you a better version of you, whoever you are, and knowing that this is a rather tricky proposition. but i think there's something in it. it's true that controlling people's minds by way of social credit is one way, and a powerful one, of incentivizing good behaviour, and even with understandable or explicable reasons...and yet it leads to Box Life, as that anon was writing (and fucking brilliantly, at that). so i'm kind of glad, quite frankly, that i'm not at the helm of the ship of state, because Box Life sounds like exactly the kind of malaise or ennui that in the end i would probably wind up producing. even if it did lead to some completely awesome one-liners:

>Out of sheer force of will I will steer predator drones via the telekinesis enabled by high frequency trading.

>My thoughts shall become pure immanence. I will dwell alongside the numinous.

>The only pain I will feel will arise as a strange epiphenomenon of latency. A taught, unidirectional UDP connection between the present and the future: the pain arises from lost packets, from inefficiency, from the basic violence of non-reversable time.

really it is only spec-fiction that can save us (read: you) from the terrors of pseud philosophers. otherwise people like me will drone on forever. perhaps only a poet can save us.

>>12001973
Welcome back, interesting reading as always. Don't know quite what to say because it coincides with my own line of thinking.

Have you had a chance to watch my videos here? https://vimeo.com/specalblend I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts about them. Game of games and We're All In This Together are about the gamification of everything, especially the recuperation of non-zero-sum (correlated outcomes) by capital, manifesting as "too big to fail." This nonzero logic is that of a parasite that cannot be uprooted from its host without killing it in the process, a theme that leads into the Meme Wars trilogy.

sloterdijk writes somewhere about a wish for a hermeneutics of explosion: doesn't this just make sense, in some level? things start with the Big Bang, we wind up with internal combustion, atomic power, we have markets that run on boom/bust cycles, and of course, Causality.

The Matrix: Causality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U24-PF0_Zj4

it's just a firecracker world like that. the world would surely be a poorer and more boring place without Fire!!1!
>fire!
>calm down inner self
>fire will be the judge of all things girardfag
>yes i know inner self
>fire tho. fire

and yet the beautiful stuff doesn't come from the infinite inability to control lightning by blasting it in all directions, but controlling, harnessing, and directing it. again, you don't want to read me on this, read Bataille: Solar Generosity and the fundamental excess of the accursed share was exactly what made him brilliant. in fact, we could probably do an Accursed Share greentexting spree in the next thread, or maybe even this one. we're starting to close in on the image cap tho, so i might want to save that for another time. but that book is without a doubt a hugely important one in the genealogy of the Wild Ride also.

really there's just a lot that is given up when you lose the real meaning of space, the feeling for stars. it's easy to do, and sadly, capitalism is arguably even more interesting. but in the end it destroys your soul. and for a while it's easy to say, well, so much for the soul, then. except that later on, when you actually want to have one, and you realize you miss it. there was some critic who said this, that there was too much humanity being given up for too little fiction. he was right about that, i think.

>>12002059
kek, well as soon as the first thing i see when i open a page being a vidcap from FF6, which is my absolute favorite game of all time, i can't exactly just say meh forget it and walk away. i'll be going back to my coffee shop for a bit tomorrow, i'll have a look at some of your videos then.

question: are you also 5'o clock shadow-wojak-poster? was just curious.

>Don't know quite what to say because it coincides with my own line of thinking.
no worries, i know this feel quite well. there have been a couple of anons on /lit/ who sounded in fact so much like me that i had to start using a name in the posting-box just so that other anons could tell us apart! anyways, w/ev, just write what's interesting to you, it's been very interesting to me as well and to other anons ITT also.

>Game of games and We're All In This Together are about the gamification of everything, especially the recuperation of non-zero-sum (correlated outcomes) by capital, manifesting as "too big to fail." This nonzero logic is that of a parasite that cannot be uprooted from its host without killing it in the process, a theme that leads into the Meme Wars trilogy.
so, something is going on in the collective unconscious then. i'll have a look at some of these videos tomorrow, the FF6 alone is enough to get me, but your posts in this thread have been 14/10 awesome also. are Space Taoism and Box Life both you? i'm starting to lose track of who is who here.

What the fuck is with Nick Land and comparing things to the Sith? Is this just part of his NRx retardation and his being buttbuddies with Moldbug?

>>12002112
>What the fuck is with Nick Land and comparing things to the Sith?
source plz

also there was some highly appropriate meme image taken from Morrowind, i think, some creature with an elongated head &c that was very appropriate for DE Sith Vampirism. i'm more partial to the Ghost Council of Orzhov as analogy but now that i'm thinking about i'd like to see it again. does anyone know the image i'm talking about?

i'm not really into the DE/NRx stuff myself anymore but it was one of the best philosophical arguments for Vampirocracy i ever read. everything Land writes is just so goddamn interesting. he's got the Midas touch to an almost literal degree.

>not having been moldbug's butt-buddy for at least a short period of time
remember, it's only gay if you're catching. i have been told this on good authority from a person who knows these things.

>>12002148
>source plz
His essay "The Dark Enlightenment," found in the unofficial Nick Land reader. Being a post-leftist I think much of its content is absurd, and most of it is just Land regurgitating Moldbug's hyperlibertarianism.

>>12002096
I'm not Box Life / shadow-wojack, I'm Space Taoism guy / Aminom. Posts from here >>12000913 to here >>12001079 are also mine. Guess I'll start nameposting to avoid confusion.

>>11991245
>To me this shows the flaw of accelerationism: that there is no praxis
Why is that a flaw?

>>12002158
okay, thanks.

the /lit/ reader is really an amazing creation, hats off to whoever it was that assembled that thing, i remember those threads when it was being made.
>seems like such a long time ago
>time is flying so fast
>s-sniff
>mono no aware intensifies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F94TTa5kII

>>12002161
okay, thanks for clearing that up. gotcha. as for nameposting, meh, i'm kind of lazy with it myself. plus it allows me to have conversations with my inner self, who hates me and everything i do
>and rightly so
fine work with Space Taoism again also. i haven't responded to your other stuff in detail but it too is quite awesome.

and fine work (again!) to you too, Box-poster. as indicated, i'll be including that in the next thread also.

>>12002171
not that guy, but this is a legit good question. it seems to me that true believers in Acceleration would agree with you, and certainly my own attempts to capture the magic of Faster w/in Chinese metaphysics or neo-Augustinian sadposting would probably mark me as one to be steamrolled, and rightly so.

The nice thing about having a philosophical framework that requires no praxis is that you can have a Crowleyan praxis on the side, with no conflict of interest.

>>12002252
what's the appeal of a Crowleyan praxis?

>>12002297
You can do what you want lmao

>>12002303
fuck yeah

ritual suicide to own the libs

how great is this picture? just for Burnout universe. and it makes me wonder, also, if we had been born in an earlier century, Land would have just been talking about hermetic magic and witchcraft rather than horrorcore Marxism. Marxism gives everything a kind of patina of respectability, but after a while it just goes into full-bore craziness. Fanged Noumena is the craziest text you can read and be still be taken seriously. if only the craziness didn't make so much sense, or the apparently normal have so many NPC triggers. sometimes Reality really is the problem.

obviously this is not the Crowley in question. i never had much feel for Satanism, but i think i realize now that Giordano Bruno was hardly the bad guy back when either. sympathetic magic is beautiful, and Hegel is basically as close to Dr Faustus as one can ask for. it's good to keep an open mind, i guess.

>you know you probably should be burned at the stake too at some point girardfag. it's only fair
>yes this is true inner self. an entirely appropriate ending i agree
>or torn to pieces by an angry mob
>it's one or the other inner self. otherwise the cosmic balance will be all fucked up

>>12000913
>In capital and it's society of spectacle God the process was abstracted from needing a mascot into a pure process that self-imposes itself on the world; capitalism is the decapitated corpse of Jahweh who accelerates humanity towards omnicide, the ultimate manifestation of God's nihilism as total annihilation. Even if theism and religion were to magically vanish from reality, God the process would live on in capital - as it has after the death of God the being as the center of human organization.

there was probably a time when i would have taken a pass on this, and that time is not now.

>The thrill of The Wild Ride is knowing that neither outcome is certain and the stakes are ultimate, that every human on Earth is a part of this struggle older than human history, a struggle of human creativity over the weaponization of creativity against itself.

>This is the "great filter" of speculation regarding cosmic civilizations, the parasitic nihilism of God the process never makes it out of its originating solar system alive.

same.

the thing that Uncle Nick did, imho, and it is a priceless gift, is that he made philosophy great again. up until him - ofc i have to project my own sense onto this- Derrida had the belt. he really did. and in a way it wasn't even all that bad, all great philosophers have good intentions. Derrida's came from being a product of both Heidegger and Levinas, which you wouldn't think would be possible, except Doomsday Jacques *made* it possible by causing reality to disappear. and he did so, i believe, because he understood well the dangers of the signifier. and so he produced a sort of Ghost Kingdom, which i find quite fascinating...

and yet Uncle Nick applied the defibrillators, like the time-traveling psycho-guerrilla he truly was, and brought with him visions of R'lyeh that even Derrida's Ghost Magic could not resist. and now the Western world is waking up, or partly trapped, in an incredible nightmare that results from this failing system. i shit you not, if somebody could compress the story of 20C continental philosophy into a sci-fi action blockbuster it would be the greatest thing ever. it *could* have been what the Matrix was all about, and wasn't, but the Matrix was close. some other writer will have to do the rest of it. but just the saga of how we get from Hegel to Land is like Game of Thrones if you look at it from a particular view. Derrida wasn't a bad guy, he was the last philosopher of an old order, and Uncle Nick is one of the first ones of the new system, imho.

>astral travel
in a way, i like this too. it's the plane of immanence, in some sense, and yet updated with a caveat: contra Deleuze, most of us are far more similar than different, and technology is increasing and accelerating this process. the internet really made it possible for some conversations that just weren't possible (or necessary, or even thinkable) in ages previous.

>>12002519
what i find most interesting about Derrida is just how his thought dovetails in with the system we are setting up now, but my issues with him never made sense until i discovered Land. the thing that drove me insane about Derrida was, of course, irony: the idea that there was nothing outside the text. because when i got into this stuff the first time, *i wanted the Real.* i was gripped with a keen sense that something was very very fucked up about the trajectory things were on, and that if Derrida was right, then

a) what gave him the right to say this, or claim deconstruction as a final principle, and
b) why the fuck are we laughing about this? isn't it going to lead to
c) unironic Return to Signifier?

JBP solved a) - in brief, social construction is itself a social construct. that much seems simple, but it took JBP's anarcho-masochism to spell it out (and reap the consequences). b) i realized was largely a nervous laugh of desperation, and c) is now.

the thing that i think you can connect between Derrida and Land is cybernetics: that is, a *code* in place of a *text.* Hegel is the first great cybernetic thinker, and for more on the technical aspects of Derrida, read Stiegler. but the thing is, even what we are saying now about Land/Cosmotech doesn't BTFO Derrida, it tells me that *he was right* about a lot of stuff, which to me is actually a *good* sign rather than a bad one. when i doubt i look for people who can *agree* with each other and not Utterly Destroy &c, as you see on YouTube. the genuinely scary (or hyperstitial) implication of this isn't even all that remarkable: the code is for realsies, and ultimately grammar has a technological aspect to it. whether or not accelerating turbo-capitalism is the answer for it is up to you (i don't think it is), but it 100% *does* square with what seems to be an increasingly formalized society, a world which places Form over Content. and, in addition, one which continually explains the diminishing power of Irony, as well as the relation of Irony to Fuck You Respect Mah Metanarrative Aaaaaaaahhhh.

right? this makes sense, yes? because that is the point. we wind up stuck in a giant simulation, together, by virtue of reproduction and automation. for Land, this is all driven by capital; culturally i think that thesis has some legs on it, politically i'm absolutely certain.

the 90s/2000s were Derrida's time, but they were also planting the seeds for a massive technological re-alignment, which is what i think we're seeing happening today. and where it's all heading, nobody knows. but Derrida is in the rear-view now along with Foucault, to my mind, and as such a gentler retrospective is in order, along with an assessment of their role in getting us to where we are now.

i'll go one more.

the Hegel-Marx-Land trifecta to me seems more or less self-explanatory, provided that we also throw in the caveat that Land himself would probably take issue with, that being that in some sense teleoplexy loops us back to Hegel again. i don't think it's all that crazy, myself. if tech is going to emerge in the first place, it's going to emerge in those sectors most receptive to it, and i also think even an AI would be interested in the Phenomenology of Spirit. this much we have talked about, but hopefully more to come as well. the Department of Speculative Economics is always open to Hegel/Marx/Land theorizing.

Heidegger is the fundamental ontologist, and phenomenology doesn't slot neatly into this group, although it has a fascinating history of its own. again, Marcuse - who i do not like, personally, but he is a guy - basically posited that Heidegger solved for socialism because the fascist state is an organic unity and totality. this is always why fascism is an enduringly interesting subject for continental philosophers, precisely because Hegel/Marx + Nietzsche in a way gives you a totalitarian operating system not unlike Marx + Confucius over in China. Hegel is at the root of all 20C modernist political experimentation, and Heidegger is right in there.

but Cosmotech's own interest in Heidegger does not proceed from this: rather, the more interesting thing to think about is thinking about the meaning of time in a world in which teleoplexy is for realsies. that's my own sense, and it is encapsulated in the meaning of Heidegger's key phrase, 'metaphysics of production.' it's how you treat hysteria, for one thing: you *listen.* and you create *awareness.* you return analysands to their senses. psychotherapy is as much indebted to Heidegger as Lacan, in this sense. and in an accelerating world there will be plenty of neurosis to come...

but Heidegger also opens the doors to the East, as well, and those broskis hanging around the vinegar cauldron. maybe God works his magic today through technology, and that is where we are required to look. once Nature, then History, and now Tech...perhaps only to go full round again. everything that is Text becomes Code, in order to become the only Fake Real we have...

it's the Wild Ride! none wilder or ride-ier. ah lads, it's such a pleasure. more Cosmotech tomorrow then. sleep well, and dream of large dialectics.

>>12002218
Btw, thanks for doing night manager shit. The little bit of editing and organizing you're doing goes a long way and is very appreciated.

While we're talking meta, for those interested there's a discord that has decent traction that has some of the ACG crowd in it. No girardfag unfortunately. https://discord.gg/Z7yQjw

>>12002866
> Going to honeypot program whose servers are watched over by fucking SPLC & ADL to discuss anything remotely right wing

You are incredibly fucking stupid.

>>12002866
this >>12003387
might as well create a facebook group

>>12002158
> Moldbug
> Libertarian
ffs.

He puts security, order and law before freedom, where as libertarians put freedom (as perceived from the point of view of anarchy) first in value scale.

That does not square at all with Manchester liberalism that Rothbard resurrected nor with the 13 Colonies philosophy.

>>12003394
+ Moldbug fucking despises anarchy and puts order above all.

>tfw physical copies of Fanged Noumena are out of stock
I know I'm probably too stupid to retain most of the text within but fuck, I really don't wanna spend over $30 on it.

>>11999940

>i want to believe in something much larger, a process metaphysics that encompasses the entire globe (and more than that).
Me too, honestly. The philosophical reason for this, in my opinion, is the difficulty in cataloguing natural and unnatural, in the sense that I cannot find a definition of un-nature. You cannot assume that nature allows for the manifestation of unnatural things (e.g. technology) without assuming that another principle is at work there, and transforming the world in a Zoroastrian cosmic battleground working with Lord of the Rings ethics. For as much as that vision can be fascinating to some, after a while I started finding it hideous: I feel like I should find a way to include evil/entropy into the mechanism of things in a way that makes sense.

>i am in favor of religion precisely because our supposedly secular-political ideologies have become religious without acknowledging it; puritanical zeal can manifest in any form, even a college football game. conversely, shilling for a return to religion is also to invoke the return of the sacred, which would presumably be exactly the thing you would think i would be opposed to.
I think you could untie the knot somehow. We are accustomed to see puritanical zeal as a manifestation of religion and/or religious attitude, but this was not always the case. Monotheistic abrahamitic religions were the firsts to claim the existence of their god excluded those of others - namely, that they had it right. In the mediterranean world nobody was applying truth values to gods - they simply existed, as powers which are superior to men, the real question was “how?”. The feeling of the sacred simply is acknowledgement that your existence is part of a bigger scheme where powers higher than you guide or control your life. If you interpret these powers as somehow “personal”, in a way in which an AI might look something like a personal god, then you could have divinity and something worth worshipping. This does not imply that you have to be puritanically zealous about it.

(1/3)

>>11999940

>and so what i find myself winding up feeling the coziest with is a kind of anthropotechnical moral metaphysics (Cosmotechnics), a religion of practices and humanitarianism, and yet a qualified humanitarianism: Git Gud as planetary imperative. but part of Git Gud would have to be a) the sense that you will fuck up, and b) if you are Gitting Gud at just fucking up the ocean floor, or axe murder, or whatever else, then there have to be some qualifications for this.
This could also work, if you assume with Frazer that you “project” personality on power because that’s your own modality of power. He believes that we should not interpret natural powers as personal, and that that is mere psychological projection - from there you can take a Nietzschan path and Git Gut, namely, believe that the manifestation of power as “personal” (i.e. conscious and consciously directed, as “will”) in human beings is meant to to conquer impersonal natural powers, and that human beings exist in function of this power and that it will manifest at higher levels (possibly in some technological shape/evolution of personality through technology). But again, it looks like you have a dualistic opposition here between nature and non-nature (you can say power as “will” and power as “necessity”) so I am distrustful of this idea.

(2/3)

>>11999940

On the other hand, you could believe that the essence of power is being somewhat personal (i.e. conscious/willful), and then you go through a sort of Neoplatonic rabbit-hole - which is where I believe a possible “other-side” of the discussion could go, namely, inwards, toward an understanding of the powers of the mind. It’s curious how Junger, after writing so much about technics, said that he as more interested in psychedelic drugs than in “the computer”. Why is that so? The experience of acids is often described as that of perceiving the world as “alive” - to say it Platonically, as an ensouled world. I find myself wondering whether there is some possibility for that and what place would these ideas have in a future society. PKD was another writer thinking about the philosophical problems of technology, and yet there is great deal of discussion about empathy in him. What I keep asking myself is whether there is space, in all this discussion of being absorbed as a species into a higher for of hive-minded living being (technological?) for these kind of things - namely, whether we will be part of something completely foreign and inhuman (which is what makes the whole thing nauseating and hideous) or whether we will meet the “familiar face” of mind, and intelligence, and consciousness again in being part of a bigger being - again, whether we will achieve some form of empathy with it and the other creatures that are part of it, or whether we will be simply tools for another being’s survival, estranged and yet incapable of separating from the machinery.

Also, in general, how do you place psychedelics in all of this? Do you think those are somehow relevant experience or just the mind playing with itself? Junger and some other intellectuals seemed to believe there was space for research there, and since they are reopening research just now after years of prohibitionism, there may be some new development there as well as new data start to emerge - there is a lot of recent research on how these drugs can help with addiction, PTSD, depression and other problems that seem to me directly related with being part of a social structure that is somehow growing independent from us.

(3/3)

Seems like a lot of people like talking about this, how long of a story is this?

Is it too late for environmentalists? I discussed this with my dad a few days ago. He feels that more can be done to slow down the heat death, and while I feel it's noble, I also believe that it is an essentially fruitless effort.

>>12003676
It's not a story; it's a (very broad) school of thought.

>>12002866
my pleasure.

>>12003509
there's a PDF at r/theoryfiction, link's in the OP.

>>12003512
For as much as that vision can be fascinating to some, after a while I started finding it hideous: I feel like I should find a way to include evil/entropy into the mechanism of things in a way that makes sense.
it *is* hideous but that doesn't mean it isn't also *there.* such, however, is perhaps the greatest argument for the Landian blackpill: because a genuine sense of horror rinses out a lot of (largely anthropocentric) narcissism that leads either to the Blue or Red teams. it's a harsh dose of electroshock therapy, sometimes, but i personally prefer it to either Unironic Communism or Unironic Fascism, Unironic Totalitarianism either way. horror leads both to skepticism and to mystery, which is anathema to meme politics. an ungrounded earth makes rage-driven monotheism a much harder proposition. and it doesn't mean that necessarily you need to take the plunge into full-bore nihilism and despair, i don't recommend this either. it just means coming to a sense of scale and perspective that goes far beyond political justice. and to a perspective on these things which is a truly planetary, if not inter-planetary, scale.

there's more in what we don't know than in what we do.

>f you interpret these powers as somehow “personal”, in a way in which an AI might look something like a personal god, then you could have divinity and something worth worshipping. This does not imply that you have to be puritanically zealous about it.

right. i would like, however, to also throw a little cold water on the meme about accelerations and Worshiping the Machine Spirits. this obviously is a meme of its own. true, there is a strong dimension of technological determinism in it, but that's because the question is also about the nature and meaning of intelligence itself. *and* the need to couple that intelligence with a moral metaphysics open to the ongoing discovery of technology itself, or mechanology. but obviously a zealous or puritanical drive for Moar Tech is just as silly as anything else. i have a feeling you understand this already, but i felt the need to re-state it if only because i get the impression people think that all we are doing in these threads is jerking off to faster processors. it's not the case. it's Humanity and Space and Tech and Time. vastly more interesting.

(cont'd)

>>12003514
>But again, it looks like you have a dualistic opposition here between nature and non-nature (you can say power as “will” and power as “necessity”) so I am distrustful of this idea.
i don't tho. obviously Nietzsche is a way cool guy, but the really key thinker here is *Heidegger* and not Nietzsche. in terms of the distinction between nature and non-nature, i don't ultimately believe there is one. Nietzsche didn't either, and that was what made him interesting: Nature is also Culture, and Culture is also Nature: wat do? and his is a soaring vision for all time like that.

Nietzsche is a great thinker of *biology,* but biology isn't what Land is all about, however much he enjoys grumbling about genes on Twitter. the question isn't about Nature and Culture anymore, it's about Culture and Technology - or, as Simondon would have said, Mechanology. Land has more than a little social Darwinism in him, to be sure, and he tends to see Capital as a kind of self-selecting artificial environment. that's hardly news, that business is a jungle is what everybody knows. his thesis - again, not really all that crazy, when you think about it - is that capital selects for its own in that way. where things get a little crazy is when this blows back towards culture, and we start realizing that we are being consensually or volitionally programmed in this form: that capital is a computer which processes desire. once again, there is a need to understand that this is not in fact a request for old-fashioned System-Smashing, b/c i happen to like washing machines, wi-fi et al. in a certain powerful sense, one of the things that i find most attractive about this philosophy is the *critique of desire itself,* that is to say, the Will as it might have been understood by 19C thinkers. i'm neither a Schopenhauerian pessimist nor a Nietzschean optimist-pessimist/pessimist of strength and so on. i find myself in a much more complicated place, being skeptical about a lot of pessimism (when it takes the form of irony) and optimism (when it takes the form of romantic politics). i'm also pessimistic about being skeptical about the whole thing (cynicism) and as such, i wind up with mysticism (which i like).

this kind of dualism takes me back towards a position of *reciprocity,* the dangers of which i am highly aware of. Girard is my boy, after all. but i also have a lot of love, as it is probably clear by now, for Chinese metaphysics (the yin-yang of things, and the Way), Hegel (dialectics) and even a little deep ecology also. but all of these things only become possible once the Will as understood in its 19C sense is *surrendered.* Nietzsche is a big deal and always will be a big deal, but he makes sense more as an ethical teacher of man inasmuch as he is a process, which is to my mind the right way to understand the Ubermensch and much else. a kind of becoming, but it is a human becoming.

>>12003520
>On the other hand, you could believe that the essence of power is being somewhat personal (i.e. conscious/willful), and then you go through a sort of Neoplatonic rabbit-hole - which is where I believe a possible “other-side” of the discussion could go, namely, inwards, toward an understanding of the powers of the mind.

and i would very much like it to go there! i'm find with neoplatonism for this reason.

>It’s curious how Junger, after writing so much about technics, said that he as more interested in psychedelic drugs than in “the computer.”
tbqh, i don't find this curious at all, and i think Ernst Junger is the bee's knees. there was a guy who walked through fire in two world wars, and came out of it - surprise surprise - being highly critical of the technological worldview. he got along quite well with psychedelics, Eastern thought and ecology afterwards. Junger is an absolute boss, i can't find a flaw in anything that guy says.

>We already saw that the great experience of the forest is the encounter with one’s own Self, with one’s invulnerable core, with the being that sustains and feeds the individual phenomenon in time. This meeting, which aids so powerfully in both returning to health and banishing fear, is also of highest importance in a moral sense. It conducts us to that strata which underlies all social life and has been common to all since the origins. It leads to the person who forms the foundation beneath the individual level, from whom the individuations emanate. At this depth there is not merely community; there is identity. It is this that the symbol of the embrace alludes to. The I recognizes itself in the other, following the age-old wisdom, “Thou art that.” This other may be a lover, or it may be a brother, a fellow sufferer, or a defenceless neighbour. By helping in this manner, the I also benefits itself in the eternal. And with this the basic order of the universe is confirmed.

>These are facts of experience. Countless people alive today have passed the midpoint of the nihilistic process, the rock-bottom of the maelstrom. They have learned that the mechanism reveals its menacing nature all the more clearly there; man finds himself in the bowels of a great machine devised for his destruction. They have also learned firsthand that all rationalism leads to mechanism, and every mechanism to torture its logical consequence. In the nineteenth century this had not yet been realized.

Junger is a complete hero of Cosmotech. maybe not acceleration but mos def Cosmotechnics. he both owns and pwns, epically.

>The experience of acids is often described as that of perceiving the world as “alive” - to say it Platonically, as an ensouled world. I find myself wondering whether there is some possibility for that and what place would these ideas have in a future society.

we are pro-ensouled world here. and also Better Living Through Chemistry. i am quite fond of psychedelia.

(cont'd)

>>12003387
>he thinks accelerationism is inherently right wing
>he thinks any of this shit is extremist enough to piss off governmental agencies
NRxfag detected

>>11994839
Positive cybernetic feedback loops in the absence of techno-scientific development are nothing but temporary explosions of decadence.

>>12004065
you can't get one without the other, technology dissolves society

>>12004065
the diagram of modernity has been identified as that of a contolled explosion, typically translated as governance or regulation

>>12004079
But you can get the other without the one. A basic agricultural agrarian level of technological development is sufficient to facilitate a decadent and self-destructive upper class trapped in a positive feedback loop to dissolution.

>>12004086
And Modernity is defined by its industrial technology. What's your point?

>>12003520
>What I keep asking myself is whether there is space, in all this discussion of being absorbed as a species into a higher for of hive-minded living being (technological?) for these kind of things - namely, whether we will be part of something completely foreign and inhuman (which is what makes the whole thing nauseating and hideous) or whether we will meet the “familiar face” of mind, and intelligence, and consciousness again in being part of a bigger being - again, whether we will achieve some form of empathy with it and the other creatures that are part of it, or whether we will be simply tools for another being’s survival, estranged and yet incapable of separating from the machinery.

i think that we both are and are not already absorbed into such a hive-mind at the moment, and it is called, Culture. specifically, the culture of late capitalism. Land has already done a lot of the heavy lifting in this regard, imho, in terms of the need to kind of effect an epistemological break v/our understanding of this. basically, he was ahead of the curve by two or three decades at minimum in terms of the effects that a technological society would come to have upon culture, in particular academic culture. he isn't completely alone in this regard - Mumford, Ellul, McLuhan, Baudrillard, and many others preceded him. Land is special because of the role that cybernetics plays in his thinking. again, some props have to be awarded to Norbert Wiener here also, at least. but what Land brings to the table is a unique blend of Deleuze, Marx and Norbert Wiener that updates Marxism both for the present and much beyond it.

he's way more shit on for this than he deserves to be. in a very important sense, Land is a true orthodox Marxist for an age which jettisoned economic analysis for cultural analysis, and entirely lost its mind in doing so. what Land offers is a through-the-looking-glass encounter with both Marx and Hegel, imho, and which returns in the form of teleoplexy to wreak an ungodly vengeance upon Those Who Neglect Geometry. Land really, really matters. he is a hugely important thinker, and it is utterly McDiculous that he has fewer than 12K followers on Twitter. true, Old Nick is a crusty old meme-lord gangster, who has gone through a couple of curious acts in his intellectual career. but Young Nick absolutely caught lightning in a bottle and ushered in a new age of critique in the late 80s and early 90s. he's not referred to as Uncle Nick without a good reason. the future belongs unquestionably to intelligence and technology, and the whole reason why he broke with academic Marxism was because he could already see the handwriting on the wall, which is that it was destined to become neither academic nor Marxist. Right Marxism was what he produced, and he cozied up with Moldbug as well. but Cosmotech is not Neoreaction, nor is it Dark Enlightenment. warrants mentioning. what is required is exactly what you have called an ensouled world.

>>12004093
that explosions can no longer be imagined as temporary or self exhausting

>>12004091
yes, but the modern university is definitely degraded by modernity.

i still remember 3 years ago when STEM people thought they were somehow isolated from this, or when any politician mentioning the internet was seen as a bad joke

>>12004102
Why not? The physical materials necessary to power the industrial machine are finite and rapidly depleting, as is the natural environment necessary to sustain its labour. A few hundred years isn't a terribly long period of time in relation to human history, let alone any non-human time scale. That's the problem with cybernetics, a negative feedback loop always appears to be a positive feedback loop during the initial curve of the circle, until the peak hits and everything returns.

>>12004108
also 2012, Obama's campaign using big data when this was still considered a good thing and not problematic at all for some reason
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/508836/how-obama-used-big-data-to-rally-voters-part-1/

>>12004108
>>12004118
I don't see how this relates to my point.

>>12004102
beware sigmoid functions, just because something explodes doesn't mean it won't hit some physical limit

we consider abstract intelligence unbound and infinite, but this may be an error in perspective, maybe the growth of intelligence hits some limit even when outsourced to machines, leaving aside ecological destructive events that could cull intelligence before it even hits that limit

>>12003520
>Also, in general, how do you place psychedelics in all of this? Do you think those are somehow relevant experience or just the mind playing with itself? Junger and some other intellectuals seemed to believe there was space for research there, and since they are reopening research just now after years of prohibitionism, there may be some new development there as well as new data start to emerge - there is a lot of recent research on how these drugs can help with addiction, PTSD, depression and other problems that seem to me directly related with being part of a social structure that is somehow growing independent from us.

there is, in short, an absolute requirement to look into the question of what a Eudaimonic society really means. Love was put on the operating table by no small number of French analysts in the 20C, mostly to attempt to extract its alchemical essence, v/Desire. such is Lacan's contribution. he wound up with Kant and Sade and Foucault translates a lot of this also into the world of neoliberalism: Power/Knowledge. again, along the way, not only Marx went missing, but Hegel too. and even Uncle Gilles and Uncle Felix play their part in this too, they prefer Spinoza and Nietzsche to Hegel/Marx/Freud. all of this is known, and all of this produces Land.

however, we find ourselves consequently inhabiting a profoundly up-fucked world as a result. nobody is going to deny the power of science. *happiness* can always be reduced to chemical process, and Love, well, of course, we're all too jaded for that today. but it's fucking killing us, and it's turning everything into hyper-ironic and bloodthirsty meme politics as a result. militant ironic atheism isn't working, whether it comes from the Red or Blue teams, both of which provide their own forms of spirituality also. but Cosmotech looks at all of these with a profound skepticism, for reasons which have been discussed at length in these threads. it is both the people who are missing and the Spirit, in the Hegelian sense and yet in other senses as well. it is true that perhaps Desire is what lies at the root of all things, and yet Desire is not Love, and it is not Happiness. and it may not be the True, the Good, or the Beautiful either. i regard the current state of meme-meltdown as being very much one of hysterics trying to convince each other that they can live without these things, and failing, ever more catastrophically. they are propped up in this failure by the availability of scapegoats, but this is all a recipe for burnout and for destruction, in the long run.

even as Han writes, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be suffering today from burnout, hanger, withdrawal, and much else. why not? the late 20C was a great age of intoxicants, political and chemical. we suffer from anti-immune deficiency. everything was Viral in the 90s and 2000s - why shouldn't we imagine that this wouldn't have side effects?

please note also gentlemen that post #300 in Cosmotech threads completes The System of German Idealism (again). i'll start the next thread once we hit that point.

the System thus far has been completed by
>poop
and
>is it big?

i'm hoping we can aim for something a little higher than this on this go-round, but of course i can't predict or CTRL these things. but it does warrant mentioning. cosmic cycles, you know.

Land talks about Exit; there's room here to discuss a sub-phenomenon of this, which is, Withdrawal.

we all got *addicted* in the 90s and 2000s, whether we wanted to or not. the word for everything was Viral, and before that, it was the coke-fueled 1980s, the great age of Deregulation, and before that the 1960s and 1970s, the Age of Aquarius. in a certain sense, we're all on fucking drugs today. and the drugs aren't working anymore. the phenomenon of heroin itself should present a considerable challenge to any attempt to render the consumer society in either a purely rational or purely affective sense. we have learned how to make things which override our judgment, things to which we can say No as much as we want, but the body says Yes. a free society, it is true, has to keep an open mind, and as i have said earlier, i am pro-psychedelia (and pro-empathogen also).

the more serious to be asked here is about intellectual history. we are *addicted* to Capitalism, and it seems to me that that is near to the root of a lot of other philosophical questions. capital is the computer which processes desire, but we are wed to this thing now, and it wasn't really a conscious or volitional choice. it just kind of *happened* this way, and for most of us - myself included - it is the result of economic decision-making that not only happened before any of us were born, it will have consequences that more or less determine the way our lives are lived today, and will presumably go on doing so far into the future. we are fucking *stuck* with neoliberalism, in other words, because it is an alternative to 20C totalitarian politics - and yet neoliberalism is fucking shit and destroys everything. if there is one bone to pick here with Peterson it is that people *do* in fact have a very real right to bitch about Capitalism, not all of the problems of which are soluble by way of Jung or by imagining running one's fingers through the angelic curls atop Steven Pinker's head.
>brb, going to fap

this picture sucks and he looks like a doofus here but in general Based Han has the right idea. the system runs on drugs and intoxicants, pleasure and simulation, and i don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that it is very much like the Matrix in which a) there is no Chosen One to save us, and b) *the steak doesn't fucking taste the way it used to. the problems of the Matrix were solved by the presence of a Cosmic Hero (Neo) and also an appropriate villain (Smith). unfortunately, the fact remains that Smith was the actual hero of that story, and Neo is an illusion.

so a full-scale Exit is probably not likely, but perhaps Withdrawal is. here's a line i am also fond of:

>I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

this works for me.

>>12004031
>>12004147

Thank you for the Junger references again - btw love that image you posted. Were you on a group called ETF some time ago on Facebook by any chance? A lot of the discussion we are making here was made (in meme form) in that group, mostly by referring to Futurist thinkers like Marinetti - they were the first to my knowledge to theorize (aesthetically) a weird form of accelarationist mysticism which could have some space in this discussion.

>Noi siamo sul promontorio estremo dei secoli!... Perché dovremmo guardarci alle spalle, se vogliamo sfondare le misteriose porte dell'impossibile? Il Tempo e lo Spazio morirono ieri. Noi viviamo già nell'assoluto, poiché abbiamo già creata l'eterna velocità onnipresente.
(We are on the ultimate cliff of centuries!... Why should we look behind us if we want to tear down the mysterious doors of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute because we have already created the eternal omnipresent speed.)

I feel that Marinetti's poetics was already laying down some of the lines we are exploring here. All those ramblings about speed are not just ramblings about speed, really - there is much more in that speed, as acceleration of world processes, allows for the first time to see things that were invisible before - the character of process becomes clearer, and process can be understood not as mere dualistic opposition but as a monistic, rational, pattern-driven development directed toward some end. For instance, we may be witnessing intelligence as an emergent feature of a self-organizing system for the first time

>capital is a computer which processes desire.

Here, for instance. This is such an interesting way of seeing all this. The whole question of what is the state of a mind included in a higher mind/intellectual system is the question of the mystics. Plotinus could be super useful to you to articulate this - his idea is that the self is actually re-discovering itself through ascension in different levels, which would make our individual/animal simply a lower manifestation of higher levels of being a "self", such as that of the hyposthatic Intellect. But Plotinus has his peculiar ensouled/all-is-minded metaphysics to support these ideas. Maybe there is a way where his thought touches thinkers like Land or the others you are mentioning though. I do believe though, that if we are talking about loss of self in a greater organism/intelligence, we need to bring the mystics in the game, because they have a great deal of experience when it comes to ego death and being absorbed by higher entities - if there's someone who can describe the modality of implementing smaller intellectual realities in a larger, all-comprehensive one, it's them.

what would a philosophical rehab program look like?

>well, it wouldn't look like this. what is this?
>this, inner self, is what you will find if you google Rehab Wallpaper
>so why are you posting it girardfag
>because it's hilarious, that's why. and also b/c i am not to be taken too seriously
>you mean, as you are about to Say Serious Things
>that's right inner self
>oh boy, it's Awesome Opinions time
>hate the player and not the game inner self

it would start by having some sense of the problem, which is that academic philosophy ought not to put itself in a position of selling indulgences, in a sense. and that covers a lot of territory. no hating, no scapegoating. no end of Fuckery is done in the name of academic Marxism, which is entirely a broken enterprise at this point. it is as worldly as the Church became, once upon a time, and has contributed to the creation of what is known by a great many names: the Gated Institutional Narrative (Weinstein); the Cathedral (Land/Moldbug); the Crystal Palace (Sloterdijk); basically, it's the Matrix. the Matrix is for realsies. but there are no heroes to save us, and the system is not going to last forever.

what is needed is some restoration of the Cosmic balance of things. ideologically, or politically, a sense of equilibrium is really all that is required. we find ourselves very much like heretical defectors from a Blood War between two great and cynical powers who have turned things into a vulture-haunted wasteland. the film to see here is Yojimbo, although Seven Samurai is worth watching also. the stakes of the game are both hilariously high and absurdly low. nobody gets rich, and there are no prestige points to be scored. none of us will be famous; we're all gonna die.
>sweet

basically, all you really have is your own solitude, and maybe a mildly less inflammatory stomach ulcer. not a Cure, no Fixes, none of this. the best you can hope for, really, is to be left alone, and to do your own thing. Cosmotech loves hermits, vagabonds, mystics, peregrines, lost souls, burnouts, fuck-ups and rag-and-bone shop customers and patrons. it might be called Zen Acceleration, if that made any sense. there is a sense of humor which is required for any kind of engagement with things in this way, the absence of which is more lethal than even Capital itself, and which is the Great Muse.

where any of this goes is anyone's guess. but i thought this was worth posting
>for the love of god will you please just shut the fuck up girardfag
>quiet you. *reaches for Enya*
>reeeeeeeeeeee

philosophy rehab. by Burnouts, for Burnouts.
>*chanting intensifies*

byung-chul
byung-chul
byung-chul

>what do we want?
death! but we can't have that.
>when do we want it?
the question is pointless, and obvious! don't insult our intelligence! we're an angry mob, but come on, you don't have to be a dick about it!

&c &c

>>12004135
and just because something has a physical limit doesnt mean we're safe. if we are 5% of the way up a sigmoid we are fucked either way. sigmoids actually fit Lands theory quite well, the leveling off can be see of as escape - but Land insists the escape was never meant for us

>>12004053
>>he thinks any of this shit is extremist enough to piss off governmental agencies
ADL and SPLC routinelly dox people in Twitter and right wing circles lol.

Left Accel. was tried. It failed in 1991 or whenever officially SU disappeared.

>>12004135
This is true.

Just see how people in 80s thought how 2020 would look.

Flying cars and fucking space capitalism.

>>12004296
>Thank you for the Junger references again - btw love that image you posted.
you're most welcome. Junger is a personal hero of mine, and about as shining an example of a role-model as one could possibly ask for. the entirety of The Forest Passage is worth reading.

>Only a miracle can save us from such whirlpools. This miracle has happened, even countless times, when a man stepped out of the lifeless prisons to extend a helping hand to others. This has happened even in prisons, indeed especially there. Whatever the situation, whoever the other, the individual can become this fellow human being - and thereby reveal his native nobility. The origins of aristocracy lay in giving protection, protection from the threat of monsters and demons. This is the hallmark of nobility, and it still shines today in the guard who secretly slips a piece of bread to a prisoner. This cannot be lost, and on this the world subsists. These are the sacrifices on which it rests.

find
a
flaw

>Were you on a group called ETF some time ago on Facebook by any chance? A lot of the discussion we are making here was made (in meme form) in that group, mostly by referring to Futurist thinkers like Marinetti - they were the first to my knowledge to theorize (aesthetically) a weird form of accelarationist mysticism which could have some space in this discussion.

nope. but acceleration has its roots everywhere, not only in Land. Italian Futurism is based clean out of the game, and it too - rather like NRx, really - winds up only in a *debased* form when it gets turned into politics. Marinetti is cool, in his way, even Evola too. there are hardened Evola-anons on this board, and i'm not one of them. my form of Révolte Contre le Monde Moderne takes a very different form, but again...this is all a very open-source kind of discussion.

>Why should we look behind us if we want to tear down the mysterious doors of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute because we have already created the eternal omnipresent speed.
nailed it

>I feel that Marinetti's poetics was already laying down some of the lines we are exploring here. All those ramblings about speed are not just ramblings about speed, really - there is much more in that speed, as acceleration of world processes, allows for the first time to see things that were invisible before - the character of process becomes clearer, and process can be understood not as mere dualistic opposition but as a monistic, rational, pattern-driven development directed toward some end. For instance, we may be witnessing intelligence as an emergent feature of a self-organizing system for the first time

as Sulik says, you got it fren
>also, how dare you refer to Sulik as an NPC, filename generator. Sulik was no NPC

>This is such an interesting way of seeing all this.
no kidding...

(cont'd)

>>12004296
>The whole question of what is the state of a mind included in a higher mind/intellectual system is the question of the mystics. Plotinus could be super useful to you to articulate this - his idea is that the self is actually re-discovering itself through ascension in different levels, which would make our individual/animal simply a lower manifestation of higher levels of being a "self", such as that of the hyposthatic Intellect. But Plotinus has his peculiar ensouled/all-is-minded metaphysics to support these ideas. Maybe there is a way where his thought touches thinkers like Land or the others you are mentioning though. I do believe though, that if we are talking about loss of self in a greater organism/intelligence, we need to bring the mystics in the game, because they have a great deal of experience when it comes to ego death and being absorbed by higher entities - if there's someone who can describe the modality of implementing smaller intellectual realities in a larger, all-comprehensive one, it's them.
preach it

preach
that
shit
homeboy

in terms of Bringing Mystics Into the Game, mi amigo this is my entire thing wholly and not partially. it is all i do. the nondual sensibility is exactly what is called for atm. i find myself continually coming back to this idea, time and again, mainly by way of Girard, but also Confucius. the key thing that is missing in political discourse is *the presence of doubt.* it is not when you know *too little* about the other guy, but when you know *too much...*

the phenomenon of mutually assured destruction points to nothing more than this, that the perception of life as a mechanical chess-game (and one in which, in a situation of technologial breakaway, becomes increasingly self-automating or predictive) is exactly why Girard matters in terms of his thesis about the absence of self-limiting conditions, the escalation to extremes. and we fucking *love* extremes, in a very deep sense; we are even built for them. again, this is why a guy like Bataille, for instance, really matters: because the Accursed Share or other ideas of a desire massively in excess of rational utility confounds any notion of capital as being inherently rational. and yet today the situation is *also* not one of excess *rationalism* but of excess *irrationalism* - and two forms of mutually enabling irrationalism that only catapult each other towards ever-higher states of irony, disaffection, and weaponized media gimmickry.

it is bullshit
it has to stop
>it will never stop, girardfag, fufufu
>okay inner self but it probably should tho, right?
>fire will be the judge of all things girardfag
>well, that suits you fine. but unfortunately i'm the one who has to live in this fucking world
>kek

so yeah. the mystical/nondual perspective is required, both in a political sense *and* in a personal sense. i'm already starting to get cozy with the idea of Zen Acceleration: it's not about Utopia, it's about *balance.*

What writers on finance/economy you like?

I really like the way Land writes about it, duh, but he has written only so much.

>>12004373
>implying r/acc didn't crash and burn worse than l/acc
Fisher was championing his own brand of l/acc right up until his death, r/acc turned u/acc or NRx a long time before that. accelerationism started from the left (Marx, Deleuze, Lyotard, Baudrillard), and even Land was far left when he kicked all this off. you are under more scrutiny as an incel on /r9k/

>>12004418
again, Bataille matters because in the 1930s, it was Hegel-derived socialism - on either the extreme left or extreme right perspectives - that were fucking everything up. and Bataille channeled his own brand of awesome sorcery in order to find the common aspect that they both shared, namely, the Sun. and later on Baudrillard went to him for inspiration, and Land too, which they found, and then some. Bataille is an absolute megaboss for this reason.

but the question is, *is this required today?* my feeling would be, no, it isn't. it will work, in the way atomic weapons "work." but the use of the largest possible weapon is mutually destructive. there is no limited or tactical use of them in a world of exchange and reciprocity, at least one that even remotely resembles the world we have today. i know, blah blah, We Can Use Them Safely...no, we can't. and even their proliferation leads to the possibility that they will be used by terrorists, which in turn require us to take ever-more interventionist roles in the Middle East, and so on. that mutually assured destruction - Cold War style or modern State/Terrorism style - is a legit phenomenon is for me not really up for discussion. War Be Crazy, yo. that is how it works.

and so Bataille matters, for reasons that go way, way beyond Land. the question is all about how we think about things in 2018 and beyond in terms that don't repeat the past, or if they do, at least in a way not so fucking stupid.

>>12004422
i mean Taleb is pretty based. Antifragile is a legit good book. Sowell obv. it's not even like Mises is wrong, either, it's just that he can be just as blinkered as Marxist economists. *there are structural blind spots in both Marxist economics and Austrian economics which none can see in themselves, but which are perfectly obvious to the other side.* what makes Land unique is that he's looked at things from *both* sides, which is what we also must do. no matter *how* fucking crazy things wind up looking.

David Landes is good too, both The Wealth and Poverty of Nations and Prometheus Unbound. he gets it.

>>12004422
oh yeah, and fucking pic rel. supremely interesting, imho. the fact that there is a history of romance between speculative market capital and landed sovereign/territorial interest informs a very large part of how i look at things. this one absolutely.

>>12004449
> even Land was far left when he kicked all this off
I'm happy that he saw the folly of his youth and dropped the leftist garbage.
>>12004454
> Taleb
> finance
dude lmao.
> Sowell
Chicago school is pretty boring and I feel it lacks a lot of answers to 2018 finance/economies.

As for austrians I feel like they're as a collective (outside of like hayek) one meta-step beyond practical economy, while fun to read, you wont learn much of corporate finance interconnections from them

>>12004490
thoughts on Bohm-Bawerk?

>>12004490
>dude lmao
lmao

finance isn't really where my "expertise" is, obviously. a man can only read so much. but if you want to put up some recommendations for relevant material, 'twould be most welcome for other anons ITT who would be interested.

>>12004538
I've only read Mises, Rothbard, Schumpeter, Hayek, Meme-Meme Meme, so I have no thoughts on him, other than that he influenced many good writers.
>>12004540
University syllabuses are good way to check out latest course books and latest teachings in x field I guess.

>>12004555
okay, thanks.

also we are System-Complete in three posts gents. who will answer the call? who will complete The System of German Idealism (again)? how shall this cosmic cycle be known? what *has* it all meant? why *were* we sucked into the dialectical time-warp, yet again?

>>12004647
>who will complete The System of German Idealism (again)

It died because it couldn't keep up, let it keep dead