/lit/ - Literature

>>14875070
>>m-mm-markets m-manufacture i-intelligence
>>b-b-b-b-buh-bitcoin s-s-s-solves sp-sp-spacet-time
>>c-c-c-capital is s-s-se-sss-sentient
Land and his followers are retards; they think putting together two unrelated terms makes them sound intelligent and esoteric.

>>14875070
>capital is going to meltdown and turn the earth into a post-human hellscape
>but what if stock market go down though!?
catch up

>>14875083
>post-human hellscape
>hellscape

If only I could be so Pollyanna as to forget Human Nature like you.
Consciousness was a mistake.
Posthumanity can only be an improvement.
Read Ligotti, Schopenhauer, Metzinger et al

>>14875098
>Consciousness was a mistake.
>Posthumanity can only be an improvement.
welcome to accelerationism, take a seat over by the misanthropic boomer named Nick Land

>>14875083
>the economy is in great shape
>russia joining opec proves capital
>markets manufacture intelligence
stop shilling this stupid bullshit already, capital deceleration can't stop capital acceleration

Land has already disowned most of the Cathedralist influence present in his early writings. He doubled down on anti-humanism and ditched the trendy neo-amazonian tranny phallating though he cant fully disown them because that'd be a display of emotion and he wants to be seen as a sociopath

>>14875083
>>capital is going to meltdown
OMG THE COPE

>>14875131
Nice cope. As of 2016 he was still promoting moldbugs patchwork.

>>14875083
Damn, accfag immediately responded to this with his twitter. Who could have seen this coming?

>>14875080
Neocapital decelerates into reacceleration.
PostChina hypermanufactures stagtelligence.

>>14875131
maybe he should have given up on twitter

>>14875141
>2016
idiot there not the same at all.

>>14875070
>>14875488
am i a brainlet if i cannot understand a good 60% of what he posts on his twitter at all? is he just posturing with his lunatic diction or is it actually meaningful?

>>14875511
Land does write in a bizarre, very dense way. His twitter posts shouldn't really cause much issue though

I just finished dark enlightenment and was confused about how race issues played into democracies failures

>>14875552
i could explain it but i don't wanna use the N word on 4channel

>>14875511
Maybe, but you're not missing anything.

>>14875561
Oh my god. Please dont be a bigot.

>>14875511
>Machinic desire can seem a little inhuman, as it rips up political cultures, deletes traditions, dissolves subjectivities, and hacks through security apparatuses, tracking a soulless tropism to zero control. This is because what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy's resources. Digitocommodification is the index of a cyberpositively escalating technovirus, of the planetary technocapital singularity: a self-organizing insidious traumatism, virtually guiding the entire biological desiring-complex towards post-carbon replicator usurpation.
Digest this, you'll realize just how based and prophetic early Land is.

>>14875083
The hype is literally another intelligent product of capital. Everyone falling for the hype is being manipulated by capital.

>>14875588
>if anythng is capital then it's capital
>i win
kek

>>14875596
>land_yes.jpg

>>14875596
lol wut

>>14875585
>OMFG BASED CORPORATIONS THROUGH MY BASED VR SET

>>14875588
What hype?

Is Land the worst of the spammers?

>>14875608

>>14875608
Dilate.
>Reaching an escape velocity of self-reinforcing machinic intelligence propagation, the forces of production are going for the revolution on their own. It is in this sense that schizoanalysis is a revolutionary program guided by the tropism to a catastrophe threshold of change, but it is not shackled to the realization of a new society, any more than it is constricted by deference to an existing one. The socius is its enemy, and now that the long senile spectre of the greatest imaginable reterritorialization of planetary process has faded from the horizon, cyberrevolutionary impetus is cutting away from its last shackles to the past.

>>14875650
maybe the real proletariat were the transistors we made along the way

>>14875650
>Dilate.
Makes no sense

>>14875083
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1237927403567054848?s=09

>>14875650
>capital is exploiting gravity
>we need a dictatorship over the sun
Imagine not getting the irony.

>>14875070
Yeah I’ll give you a book.

It’s called MY ASS!!!!!

there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Land should've read Dilation Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_(metric_space)

>bitcoin solves the problem of spacetime
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>14875511
It's mostly just an echo chamber. They don't understand what they're saying either.

>>14876837
kek there's also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

>>14876837
>>14877061
Is there a unified theory of dilation? Isomorphic to g/acc?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your twitter and remove all doubt.

>DETERRITORIALIZATION
LIMIT DOWN
>LIMIT DOWN
DETERRITORIALIZATION
>LIMIT DOWN
LIMIT DOWN
>DETERRITORIALIZATION
LIMIT DOWN
>LIMIT DOWN
DETERRITORIALIZATION
>LIMIT DOWN
LIMIT DOWN

>>14877068

>>14875488
lmao what an idiot

C-M-C
M-C-M
V-D-V
D-V-D
D-T-D
T-D-T
A-D-A
D-A-D
https://youtu.be/hsdKrjee2yE

>>14875132
this gif is awful :(

>1500 pts in 15 minutes
strangely potent bitterness accelerates.

>>14877668
>1 trillion dollars
AND IT'S GONE!
Enjoy your victory?

I will gladly pay you eternity for capital today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7zLhEWanc

>>14877182
So he does post here

>>14876856
Still up over gold.

>it's cool if we give it an edgy name

>>14877615
D-I-L-A-T-E
C-O-M-M-I-E

>>14878288
Capital requires veganism. It will get you too.

Marx.

Whitehead

>>14875141
Reread that post dipshit.

>>14878801
No you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>14876856
>nooo a not a 20% change, that's so big!

>>14879009
Because the further it drops should increase acceleration and solve space time
H=0DL

>>14875080
That exact thought experiment was conducted by Magritte through paintings according to a placard i read at the Pompidou, and people lined up for half a mile just to see his paintings.

>>14875561
>I don't have an argument unless I say nigger
whatever retard

> DOW -28%
Triple yikes in both bold and italics

>>14879089
But should they have?
The ought-is synthesis.

Keynes

>>14879268
Land likely carried Keynes around in high school

>>14878231

>>14879009
>50% drop in just over a day
>no big deal
BUY BUY BUY

>>14877668
>DETERRITORIALIZATION IS FINE!!

your last option.

Thanks based deterritorialization theorists
https://youtu.be/fBQnQTkhsq4

>>14879601
Holy fuck BTC at 4000. Was 9000 last week.

accfag must be seething. you know he's on here but he's hardly posting.

>capitalism deterritorializes the socius
>wow who could have predicted this

>>14880063
not Land apparently

>>14880063
>socius
Whatever that is. How is it happening here? What is being deterritorialized and how does capitalism benefit from its own collapse? If anything it looks like capitalism is getting deterritorialized.

>>14880086
>>14880115
the process of deterritorialization is the object of accelerationism
>For accelerationism the crucial lesson was this: A negative feedback circuit – such as a steam-engine ‘governor’ or a thermostat – functions to keep some state of a system in the same place. Its product, in the language formulated by French philosophical cyberneticists Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, is territorialization. Negative feedback stabilizes a process, by correcting drift, and thus inhibiting departure beyond a limited range. Dynamics are placed in the service of fixity – a higher-level stasis, or state. All equilibrium models of complex systems and processes are like this. To capture the contrary trend, characterized by self-reinforcing errancy, flight, or escape, D&G coin the inelegant but influential term deterritorialization. Deterritorialization is the only thing accelerationism has ever really talked about.
-Nick Land

>>14875070
https://discord.gg/GP3TTYC

>>14879983
ancaps are going to lose it.

>>14880201
What does this have to do with anything?

markets great red is great profit both during and after
do you people understand how this works? do you think capital has just disappeared?

>>14880233
>welcome to 1933
>accfag

>>14880205
I'm going to join that

>>14880228
the key part of how capitalism functions is in the breakdown of the present system. it is always creating crisis, it resists stability. this is either the end of capitalism, and Marx was right all along, or are the masses going to be fucked, people starve, and then we get back to capitalism, just like we always do. the great depression killed people but it didn't kill capitalism. what makes this collapse different?

>>14880253
How does breaking itself down help itself?

>>14880266
if you mean why does it work like that, economists argue over that as much as accelerationists do. it does seem to allow capitalism to make rapid changes in order to suit new conditions, conditions more favorable to the production of non-human intelligence, like a slime mold killing off arms in a maze that weren't leading to the cheese.

>>14880316
Why does capitalism break itself down?

>>14880420
if you mean why does it work like that, economists argue over that as much as accelerationists do. it does seem to allow capitalism to make rapid changes in order to suit new conditions, conditions more favorable to the production of non-human intelligence, like a slime mold killing off arms in a maze that weren't leading to the cheese.

>>14875511
No, his Twitter isn’t total Fanged Noumena nonsense but if you’re not very in the know on certain topics and corners of the internet, you wouldn’t get it.

>>14880434
Economists don’t really argue over “why capitalism breaks itself down”. Honestly, only Land and his forerunners, the overly intellectual jargon aficionados like Deleuze, would even pose a question that way. Further, if you’re talking about why financial crises occur, economists generally agree on why that happens. It’s the result over overvaluations and bubbles bursting, which happen more frequently in a system built on lending and debt. I would be shocked to see an economist talk about AI or suggest anything remotely Landian in that regard.

>>14880205
gib inv

>>14875585
But here I am, I'm a VR dev that works on apis for vr headsets but land really is right on about technocapital. Fuck even mcluhan was thinking the same but in a different light. The earth and humanity has already fucked itself and ppl like land are just trying to show us. Maybe it's for the best too many brainlets it's all ogre Elon will never go to mars.

>>14880253
Yep. I know Kline is not liked here but her book "disaster capitalism" really show this in action. Deterritorialization and reterra

>>14881064
>Economists don’t really argue over “why capitalism breaks itself down”.
what do you mean? it was a central point of contention between Keynes and Hayek. funny how your theory of how crisis happens in capitalism, the one you content everyone agrees on, missed the relevant case here which is the spread of pandemics. what exactly are you contending though, that because Keynes and Hayek didn't think AI and capitalism are the same thing, their theories of capitalist cycles weren't real disagreements, or?

>>14880434
No. If capitalism breaks everything else down into capitalism then eventually it becomes the only thing. Meaning it could only continue by breaking itself down. How would that work?
Just seems like a simplified sociology version of marxism, not realising the contradiction in its own theory.

>>14881621
Well, the one I’m contending that everyone agrees on does deal with pandemics the which if you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to was likely just the pin that pricked the bubble hence the issue is the bubble and not the pin. See the CAPE ratio prior to the sell off for what I’m talking about. Yeah, I get what you’re saying though and you’re right I guess my point of contention was probably just over phrasing. What I would challenge you on is the idea that it’s a sort of feature of autonomous capital that it breaks itself down in order to reconfigure in a more efficient state or something. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but as best I can tell for the last decade we’ve had capital breaking down and then the Federal Reserve deciding to shock it back to life, which might be necessary (see the potential chaos in the 30Y market) but I don’t see how it’s a feature of capital more than a feature or Jerome Powell and friends at Morgan Stanley. I guess I don’t understand your claim to be honest.

>>14881714
>If capitalism breaks everything else down into capitalism then eventually it becomes the only thing
I don't know how many time I need to say this isn't accelerationism, capitalism will never be the only thing.

>>14882015
>autonomous capital breaks itself down in order to reconfigure into a more efficient state
reconfigure into a more efficient means of exploitation and reproduction. capitalism isn't really interested in the state. I agree that the state keeps capitalism from exploding, Nick Land talks about the state as a sort of regulator which has prevented the capitalist explosion from ending prematurely. He calls modernity a controlled explosion, and states are just the regulators. the issue isn't states collapsing because of capitalism, as that's happened countless times, but rather the actual collapse of capitalism. the issue is whether there is another system which would outcompete capitalism while still maintaining the same or greater levels of production (of non-human intelligence). if not, states will collapse, markets will collapse, and yet states will persist, markets will persist, just like every other time.

Coronachan is an over evolved puppet helping us to escape the rhizomatic matrix

>>14882058
This isn't complicated
Capitalism breaks down the socius
The result is that either the socius is destroyed and only capitalism remains, the socius somehow continues to live, or something rises in the place of the socius for capitalism to feed on
If capitalism breaks down the socius and nothing else rises it can only then feed on itself, considering that its essence is the breaking down of other things

Basic logic. Try reading something besides bad memes

>>14882188
I guess that all makes sense to me and I don’t necessarily disagree but I still don’t see the justification for the claim. As a disclaimer, I’m approaching this from an economics background and little to no background in philosophy, although sometimes I feel like I should’ve went with philosophy instead, let alone accelerationism. I think the whole Landian take is interesting but I still take issue with the way certain claims are made when it comes to accelerationist economics. There’s something lost in translation there that’s hard to pin down and as much as I want to better understand Land and accelerationist takes, they lose me when they start using a lot of jargon until economic ideas no longer mean what they mean in economics. It’s possible that’s because of my background but nonetheless that’s the issue for me.

>>14882410
>Capitalism breaks down the socius
deterritorialization and destruction are not the same thing lmao, the socius always continues to exist. your "basic logic" is just a grade school misreading of Deleuze

>>14882501
Then explain it in simple terms. What is the socius? What does deterritorialisation do to it? What is the change in the socius brought about by deterritorialisation/capitalism.
Resort to namecalling all you want, but if you read my post I literally said that one of the options was that the socius continues on. Still haven't learned to read in your second year?

>>14875675
Pic related always gets me

>>14880063
>>14880201
Just a reminder since you're retarded.
If the 'negative feedback circuit' is removed in favor of 'self-reinforcing errancy' then by your own definition the socius is indeed destroyed.
Although I'm sure you have some obscurantist nonsense to defend them both, but you can't eat your materialism and have it too.
That's the core of the problem, your ideology relies on the subsumption of metaphysical laws by material. You think it's some deep paradox, but it's just a shitty series of contradictions that ends in coherence. A metateleoplexy if you will.

>>14882566
>in incoherence

>>14882517
read Deleuze, or watch some youtube videos or something. you are so far behind here, you are basically asking me to explain a series of books to you. if you really want to understand deterritorialization, read Anti-Oedipus, he defines all this stuff for you. I can't be fucked to answer the same questions every thread. actually, someone post the Deleuze pasta, that sums it up pretty well

>>14882566
>If the 'negative feedback circuit' is removed in favor of 'self-reinforcing errancy' then by your own definition the socius is indeed destroyed
what? how so?

>>14882566
>metateleoplexy
what does this word mean anon? I understand what teleoplexy is, which is itself a sort of metateleology, but what would a metateleoplexy be?

>>14882580
How did you become such a faggot?
I read it when I was young and have no interest in even looking at it again because it's garbage. But that's not even the point. The point is that you are dumb as fuck and only ever derail your own threads, you can't even answer simple questions to have a conversation.
You said yourself that it deterritorializes the socius, which in simple terms would mean that the socius in the end no longer has any territory. If this is not the case then you should explain how it retains territory while having it taken away.

The fault is not with me but an ultra-abstract theory-fiction for idiots who collect fingernails. Be prepared to explain your shit or fuck off. All you ever do is bitch at people in these threads. Stupid tranny.

>>14882608
>You said yourself that it deterritorializes the socius, which in simple terms would mean that the socius in the end no longer has any territory. If this is not the case then you should explain how it retains territory while having it taken away
you read the book? well then you should know that the socius isn't territory, it is the body upon which territory is drawn. saying there is no socius without territorializtion is saying bodies without organs are impossible. the whole point of AO is explaining how bodies without organs (the deterritorialized socius) are real and produce real effects.

>>14882453
nah you are doing fine, the terminology is a lot to cope with at first but most of it is pretty straightforward. the trick to Land is that he doesn't deny economics, he simply thinks economics are the phenomenal appearance of a much more powerful noumenal force. he isn't trying to reinvent economics so much as he is trying to look at economics through a critical lens in order to learn something about universal forces of production and efficiency

>>14882585
Are you fucking retarded? What happens if a train has no regulating device? Either the machinery destabilizes and something blows up or the fuel acceleration causes total expenditure or a crash.

Another example is that of valorisation. If you keep expanding money at the expense of commodities you no longer have any commodities and all that exists is compound financialisation - which would either crash or necessitate the creation of other commodities. Otherwise, there is machine self-production which displaces both profits and workers. In the end this comes to a contradiction, either you have no more workers and there is no more surplus value to extract or it requires further creation of machines which is just a feedback loop of self-consuming surplus value. The only answer is an increased financialization alongside this to produce the appearance of money, continued valorisation, but in either case capital itself approaches contradiction and stasis.
It's possible that the very framing of Marx's question makes this impossible to answer. But academics like Deleuze don't help the situation by going into speculation through nonsense theory.

>>14882627
They can say that all they want, doesn't make it real. I could say that homer would be better in pig latin, still not true.
Again, you said yourself that the socius is deteritorialised. But let's try to clarify. Is this socius not just an expanded theory of valorisation? As in the money-commodity abstraction which becomes capital?
In this case it is the territory itself which becomes an abstraction, the socius. Is this not correct? And it is from the socius that deterritorialisation creates this new body, a territory with valorised/capitalist characteristics. Correct?
The problem with this theory is that abstraction from material is not a real thing. It is not a Form in the classical sense, it has no eternal qualities. But you want that law while breaking it. You want the socius to have an eternal quality in the very system dependent upon breaking down time itself. That doesn't work.
At best you can say that there is some data that survives, maintains coherence. But this must be materialised in some way, hence all of the bureaucracy in the post-capitalist world.
If there really was such a thing as a socius you wouldn't actually need all of the bureaucracy and material representations - a massive increase in the 'human security system' just to keep things going.

It's completely backwards. Capital and deterritorialisation are just processes, but you have rewritten them as the thing-in-itself. And you think form and reality follows from this in the form of a data world. Nonsense and completely useless.

>>14882661
look, this comes down to a very low level misreading of Deleuze. I'll stick with the train metaphor. train tracks are territorialized, the train is capital. a train wreck deterritorializes them. there is still an earth (the socius) upon which we can make new train lines/trains. we could also make something else on that earth, something better than train and its tracks. the destruction of the train/ train track is not the same as the destruction of that which grounds train tracks.

>>14882697
>Is this socius not just an expanded theory of valorisation?
no, it isn't. not even close how are you not getting this?

>>14882702
How is it different? And how are you not getting it? The theory is essentially just a combination of Marxism and psychology with some hogwash. It follows the same logic as Marx.
You're the dumbest person on the board yet all you do is talk down to people. The only possible reason is that you don't understand any of the ideas yourself and have nothing to offer.

>>14882698
>a very low level
Fucking idiot. Your metaphor is not even the same. You don't even understand the ideology you spend all of your time defending. Embarrassing desu.
So the earth is the socius now? All that changes is the metaphor, not the logic you stupid cunt. In your case the socius would be that which binds the tracks to the earth, and deterritorialising this would mean an end to this possibility.
Fucking retard.

>>14882819
you have taken two ideas which have virtually nothing to do with one another and asserted they are similar, so make an argument for why that is the case. you asked me if the two concepts are the same, I said they aren't. if you disagree, make an argument for why your position makes more sense than Deleuze's. stop coping.
>>14882860
your metaphor made no sense so I tried to fix it, of course it isn't the same metaphor. why are you so man anon? the socius is the earth, in fact at one stage of history the socius was literally the primitive earth. you haven't read Deleuze anon, it shows very clearly
>your case the socius would be that which binds the tracks to the earth, and deterritorialising this would mean an end to this possibility.
total nonsense. quote me where you read this formulation in Deleuze

>>14882887
The metaphor was from the Land quote you posted you dumb cunt.
If the earth is the socius why the need for the new term? Just call it the earth instead of being a faggot. It isn't though, and even very low level readers get that.
But you have chronic autism.

>>14882887
>the socius is the earth
It isn't.

>>14882937
in the metaphor, it is. and, as I said, there was a stage of human development where it literally was the earth. this isn't a radical take, this is a very neutral reading of Deleuze
>>14882923
I never posted a Nick Land quote about a train, that was your analogy

>>14883024
Every single time.

>>14883118
just read books and you won't get a
embarrassed like this as often

>>14883024
>in the metaphor, it is.
Thinks about that one dumbass

>>14883122
"Stock markets surge on reports of national emergency"
Your symbol has literally become President Camacho. You're a fucking retard.

>>14883192
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore

>>14883024
You said the socius is the earth. But it's not.

>>14883205
>This socius may be the body of the Earth
-Deleuze and Guattari
just
fucking
read

>>14883272
>may be
>or
>or
I do read. You posted a partial quote after misinterpreting Deleuze.

>>14883298
what about my analogy was incorrect? because the object was that the earth isn't a socius but obviously that was pulled out of thin air. do you have another objection? where is the misinterpretation

>>14883369
Not what I am talking about. >>14883205

>>14883420
the socius is the earth /in that metaphor/. the earth is the socius, the train tracks are territorialization, and the train wreck is deterritorialization. it's an analogy anon. deterritorialization isn't literally a train wreck either, somehow you glossed over that

>>14883475
You said it was the earth even outside of the metaphor.>>14882887

>>14882887
>your metaphor made no sense so I tried to fix it, of course it isn't the same metaphor. why are you so man anon? the socius is the earth, in fact at one stage of history the socius was literally the primitive earth.
I even make a distinction between what it is in the analogy and what it was "literally" for the savage (i.e. the primitive earth)...

>>14883499
>>14883510

Awful thread

What is Zizek doing here?

https://youtu.be/EdyELFwFkSU

>>14883201
>hey retard you're a fucking retard
>OMG I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU
Dumbest
Cunt
On
The
Board

>listening the someone who doesn't understand Deleuze or technology talking about Deleuze and technology

>>14883575
>hasn't read acc

>>14883791
Land understands Deleuze and technocapital better than anyone. you just haven't read.

Nick's having a meltdown again

Meltdown has a place for you as a schizophrenic HIV+ transsexual chinese-latino stim-addicted LA hooker with implanted mirrorshades and a bad attitude.

>>14883272
you should prove that you've read

>>14883952
had you read Deleuze, it would be fairly obvious who hasn't read him itt. I even provided quotes supporting my take. you are coping aftering being outed once again for being a brainlet who doesn't read

>>14883977
ok schizo. i said one thing to you

>>14884006
>more than one brainlet itt hasn't read Deleuze
not surprising desu

>>14884033
do you only read schizo nonsense?

>>14880462
Tell me...
Where do i need to go to understand?

>>14884166
no I only got into schizo philosophy a few years ago

>>14884261
do you ever post about anything else?

>>14885329
yes, but in threads about schizo philosophy I almost singularly post stuff about schizo philosophy so I can see how you could think that

>>14885378
what are your other interests?

Accfag isn't real. He's just their avatar for cope/spam

>>14885392
in philosophy my other interests are mainly Greek philosophy and German idealism. other lit is stuff like Beckett and Joyce and other memes. what are your interests?

>>14875070
I guess everything he's predicting coming true much quicker than he predicted it *is* a kind of being wrong.

>>14875070
>stonks go down therefore capital accumulation is over

Recessions are a part of capitalism
desu smdh lmao

>>14885853
>recession

>>14885651
Where'd you predict it Nick?

>>14882698
>big analogy mean infinite energy to run rock machine but where infinite energy for big analogy come from

>>14885534
I don't think they're that inventive. They seem barely capable of navigating the internet

if only you knew

>>14875080
This. It's a cult.

>>14875131
>the trendy neo-amazonian tranny phallating
The what

>>14885651

>>14886027
>For it is only when the pervasive historical bond between masculinity and war is broken by effective feminist violence that it will become possible to envisage the uprooting of the patriarchal endogamies that orchestrate the contemporary world order. With the abolition of the inhibition of synthesis – of Kantian thought – a sordid cowardice will be washed away, and cowardice is the engine of greed. But the only conceivable end of Kantianism is the end of modernity, and to reach this we must foster new Amazons in our midst.
It was a tranny fetish philosophy all along

>>14886046
Why is this desirable for anyone without a weird fetish?

Honestly you people laugh at toilet paper hoarders, but you really dont have enough toilet paper yourselves. The average person uses 1 roll per day. If you have a family of 4, that's 28 rolls a week. Over 100 a month. TP rolls will be worth their weight in Bitcoin in a few months, together they build the future AI.

>>14886059
Why is fostering new amazons desirable?

>>14886071
He is talking about tall, powerful women/trans women, right? I get the desire to create new rainforests if that's what he's on about but I think he's talking about something else.

>>14886078
Full quote
>The patronymic has irrecoverably divested all the women who fall under it of any recourse to an ethno-geographical identity; only the twin powers of father and husband suppress the nomadism of the anonymous female fluxes that patriarchy oppressively manipulates, violates, and psychiatrizes. By allowing women some access to wealth and social prestige the liberalization of patriarchy has sought to defuse the explosive force of this anonymity

>That is why the proto-fascism of nationality laws and immigration controls tends to have a sexist character as well as a racist one. It is because women are the historical realization of the potentially euphoric synthetic or communicative function which patriarchy both exploits and inhibits that they are invested with a revolutionary destiny, and it is only through their struggle that politics will be able to escape from all fatherlands.

>For it is only when the pervasive historical bond between masculinity and war is broken by effective feminist violence that it will become possible to envisage the uprooting of the patriarchal endogamies that orchestrate the contemporary world order. With the abolition of the inhibition of synthesis – of Kantian thought – a sordid cowardice will be washed away, and cowardice is the engine of greed. But the only conceivable end of Kantianism is the end of modernity, and to reach this we must foster new Amazons in our midst.
I think he's saying something about only women being able to deterritorialize the patriarchal war machine. Amazons/feminists are necessary to accelerate capitalism and overcome patriarchal states, most represented by the fascism.

>>14886098
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to write this stuff out. I think there is some truth to this, that abolishing patriarchy, nation, and hierarchy all kind of go together, but I don't really want that to happen. It would be a chaotic, cosmipolitan dystopia. I don't think it would even necessarily be anti-capitalist. Capitalism could easily adapt to and arguably is even pushing for a non-patriarchal and truly globalized society. Rootless, feminized hyperconsumerism. What a nightmare.

>>14885985
lmao owned

>>14883681
Peterson got to him.

When you stare into an abyss the abyss also stares into you :)

>>14886067
>BETTER THAN COMMUNISM!

Bitcoin has access to the looking glass, sort of a time machine but not really a time machine.

Think something like a warehouse with 100,000 HDDs containing every single transaction of every single capital process via the } P al A n T ir { data harvesting network, now combine that with a warehouse with 100,000 high end GPU's funneling all their processing power into a single computer that can calculate every possible action/non-action using all the data from the HDD warehouse, with a deterritorialization rate that's very accurate at 90-95%

Now combine all that intelligence with a high end Oculus Rift VR unit that's like a full-body suit on a 3-D treadmill and you basically have something like a time machine, but obviously you can't interact and change events, but you can basically observe future events to nearly perfect accuracy. Imagine the things you could buy with that capability? Maybe time itself and the blockchain of Roko's Basilisk's twitter feed i dunno...

>>14885985
? use your words to make an argument anon

>>14886046
he wrote that essay before he was an accelerationist by the way

>>14886067
>The average person uses 1 roll per day
?????
burgers??

>>14887644
Imagine being this slow.

>>14887616
I know thinking is hard accfag, but try it sometime.

>>14887843
>>14887879

>NOT REAL ACCELERATION!

>>14887907
LITERALLY

>>14887941
CANNOT

>>14885651
Give the prediction

>>14888018
>[[ ]] The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

>>14888039
>The story goes like this
Stopped reading

>>14888064
>if i close my eyes it will go away

Youre in for a wild ride my friend. Nothing human makes it out of the near future.

>>14888039
>Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity
Never happened
>renaissance rationalization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off
Never their point
>techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order
Exactly the opposite
>auto-sophisticating machine runaway
Didn't happen
>markets learn to manufacture intelligence
Not even close
>politics modernizes
Nope
>tries to get a grip
Didn't even try

And no virus. Shit prediction and theory

>>14888084
>Nothing human makes it out of the near future.
Cringe. Fuck off nick.

>>14888096
>I said "no" therefore I proved them wrong

>>14888096
Poor fool.

commoditization/capital is artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence is capital. Did you really think little special you were in control? Did you think your nation is in control?

This is your brain on religion/conservatism

From subversion to submersion
we will never surface.
Set your clocks to marine time
negate evolution

>>14875070
Well /lit/?

>>14888138
OOOOOOHHH SOOOO CREEPY
Faggot

>>14887976
FUCKING

>>14888698

>[N]ot thinking about æincreasing the human heritage' ... dams up the flow of cultural time and deprives future generations both of their birthright as participants in the life struggle and attainments of the species and the very notion of history as an irreversible flow encompassing generation, maturation, and the transference of wisdom and trust from parents to children, teachers to students. The futuristic flu is a weapon of bio-psychic violence sent by psychopathic children against their narcissistic parents. [Cs1:33]

You think im an annoying kid, and you have no idea how right you are.

>>14875125
Classic cramer

>>14888138
>dilation solves the problem of spacetime

>>14888888
GAS GAS GAS

>>14888888
kek digits

>>14888888
lmao

>>14888748
Cringe

>>14888888
AHAHAHAHAHA
Accfags eternally BTFO

>>14888888
HAHAHA fuck you nick

>>14888888
based
>>14888138
FAGGOT

>>14888729
MY ASS

Imagine being an accfag

Land should lay off speed and take some mushrooms instead, maybe he would stop retard

>>14888175
I want it.

>>14889326
>English Jungle scene in the 90s
>didn't take mushrooms
Suuuuuuure.

>>14889326
Nothing helps brain damage

>>14887907
Idiot.

>>14891071
>>14891000
>>14889326
>>14889318
>>14889134
>>14888980
>>14888943
>>14888909
>>14888903
>>14888900
>>14888893
>>14888888
>>14888729
>>14888698
>>14888112
>>14888096
You seem stable and mature. Youre not some retard from /pol/ who never opened a book in his life.

>>14892228
Go back

>>14892228
i'm on my 16th book in 2020 and i fucking hate niggers

>>14892228
I read enough. I just don't read pseud shit for twitterfags

>>14888039
If there's no money/commodity feedback there's no capital.
Simple as.

>>14893619
I don't think anyone's arguing against that

>>14892228
>Tranny with a bad attitude talking about K-punk death black goo slime girl Lesbian Neoreactionism LARPing as an occultist schizo
>"Please! Please! Don't misrepresent Land! This isn't right! You didn't even read him! Stop strawmanning! This is a strawman! Respect our culture, you're being immature, childish!"
Off yourself.

>>14893632
Clearly they are.

>>14893635
N1x was literally right about everything. Even more than Nick.

>>14893635
I thought she was hassling them for not reading anti oedipus

>>14893645
this
necrophilia is good actually

>>14893637
capital is just the phenomenal aspect of a larger force, no one is saying that capital isn't capital anymore, they are saying we didn't understand what capital could be, what the feedback of m-c-m' could unleash

>>14893635

why do you give a fuck about this retarded unemployed tranny

>>14888888
Gnon favors a/acc. This much is clear.

>>14893679
Obviously >>14877615
But the problem remains, materialism cannot create its own cosmos. At least not at the current level of technology, so your philosophy is just a huge cope for your ideology's failure, whether marxism, capitalism, or a synthesis.
Basically it's speculative valorisation combined with transcendenatl pessimism/miserablism. I know you won't accept that but others will get it.

>>14893727
>materialism cannot create its own cosmos
what does this mean? the cosmos is material and it predates capitalism by billions of years. the cosmos predates technology. you keep making these accusations that seem to make no sense. what do you believe anon? obviously you don't buy acc, so what is your more plausible take modernity?

>>14893679
Actually, you should clarify this. What is the larger force that capital is a phenomenon of? The noumenon? Does this not become a problem in your system when you just admitted that it is unleashed by m-c-m?

>>14893760
all phenomena are appearances of a noumenon, that's basic Kant. the force that acc is interested in is the production of intelligence, the reduction of entropy, the increase of efficiency, which are all aspects of this force. obviously you can only speak about this critically. why do you see a problem with m-c-m' unleashing forces? obviously it unleashed unforeseen forces of production, non-human intelligence, efficiency, ect. which appears to correlate 1:1 with the force that acc is interested in. left wing acc obviously think there is another stage of production this force is working towards, while most other branches think capitalism is already in a position to escape. will capitalism be capitalism after it escapes? not a question for humans to answer, you need to approach this critically.

>>14893789
Yes, I just wanted it clarified since you insist people are wrong.
But don't you see the contradiction here? On the one hand you are saying that capital is just a phenomenon, an appearance, and on the other the force itself unleashing what it could be. Is this not essentially reading kantianism through Marx? The application of the formula for capital to the a priori?
If the phenomena itself is valorised into a noumena you no longer have phenomena from which to read, from which to valorise. This would account for the dependency on irrational appearances rather than data within an ideology that fetishizes intelligence - a strange repetition of the counter-enlightenment.

>>14893789
What if it isn't working towards anything? What if it is simply the counter-force, that which acts against modernity's completion? In your own thinking, it has become the Human Security System.
What are the most horrifying aspects of modernity? Its violence, wars, destructive capacity, nihilism, technology, etc. are much greater problems than the banality of economic countermeasures. Anticapitalism must appropriate the horrifying aspects of other aspects of modernity to keep up with the necessity of its organisation. It is a marketing tactic, similar to that of the feminists who maintain their organisational strength through an overdetermination of the problem of rape. Banal dinner conversation and the difficulties in doing dishes just won't drive organisational necessity, same as extra coffee runs and paper cuts are unlikely to drive a worker's revolution. The phenomena must become noumena in order to maintain the organisational reality, much like the increase of medical instruments required alongside the worsening of diseases.
Valorisation is nothing new, only the instrumental way in which we see it and demand it be captured in a formula.

>CRISPR solve problem of spacetime

>>14894238
oh dear lord, you are trying to do theory. here we go again
> On the one hand you are saying that capital is just a phenomenon, an appearance, and on the other the force itself unleashing what it could be
nothing is just a phenomena, we literally just clarified this, remember? as far as Kant's system is concerned, there is no such thing as something which is "just a phenomenon" or "just an appearance", Kant makes this absolutely clear.
>Is this not essentially reading kantianism through Marx?
acc is to a large degree a mix of Kantianism and Marxism, but we haven't gotten there yet. this phenomena thing you are hung up on is Kant 101
>If the phenomena itself is valorised into a noumena
I don't know how you are using the word valorization here but it isn't in the Marxist sense. what does it mean to valorize a phenomena into a noumena?
>This would account for the dependency on irrational appearances rather than data within an ideology that fetishizes intelligence
I don't know what point you are trying to make, acc deals with "data" much more than most philosophies. all data must be based on apperances though, are you sure you've read Kant? there is no such thing as "data" on noumena
>>14894351
>What if it isn't working towards anything?
then acc is wrong
>What if it is simply the counter-force, that which acts against modernity's completion?
then Nick Land is wrong (Mark Fisher would agree here though)
>In your own thinking, it has become the Human Security System
how so? not saying you are wrong here, there is an argument to be made for this from an l/acc perspective actually, but you haven't actually made an argument so I'll hold off here
>What are the most horrifying aspects of modernity? Its violence, wars...
do you not think these things are fueled by capitalism? do you not think material appropriation is deeply instrumental in the systemic violence, wars, destruction, nihilism, ect. the world experiences today?
>Anticapitalism must appropriate the horrifying aspects of other aspects of modernity to keep up with the necessity of its organisation. It is a marketing tactic
maybe I don't understand this, but if you mean the classic liberal approach that "capitalism good things, anti-capitalism bad things", then yes this is the equivalent of an ad campaign that doesn't actually address the reality of capital. you probably didn't mean it this way though.
>The phenomena must become noumena
it is impossible for phenomena to become noumena, this makes no sense to say
>in order to maintain the organisational reality, much like the increase of medical instruments required alongside the worsening of diseases
totally lost at the point. I don't think you've wrapped you brain around Kantian epistemology, and you most certainly don't understand the word valorization. valorization is the process by which commodities increase in value through exchange. if a good is bought for ten dollars and sold for eleven, then that commodity has been valorized

>>14895272
valorization is a concept which makes no sense to speak of in the relationship between phenomena and noumena. all commodities are phenomenal, and no amount of valorization could make an appearance into the thing-in-itself, that simply makes no sense.

>>14895272
>acc is wrong
>Nick Land is wrong
Exactly. Glad even you were finally able to get something out of this.

>>14895298
no, you have to make an argument for why those things are the case. you can't just say
>acc could be wrong therefore it is wrong

>>14893688
90% representative of accels.

>>14895320
none of the famous acc thinkers are trans so you have to pick some literal who on twitter instead just so you can pretend other people are trannys as well. pretty sure this counts as a mental illness on roughly the same level as someone who is actually a tranny

>>14881243
which company do you work for? i think id like to get into lower level coding like device drivers and hardware stuff and vr seems like the promising place for that

>>14895313
I have made those arguments before anon.

>>14895459
and I have made arguments for why you are mistaken; guess I win then. see how none of this works unless you actually present the argument? if you want to make an argument that's one thing, if we are just here to masturbate in front of one another, I'd rather get covid. read Kant and Marx, or at least their encyclopedia entries

>>14895342
They are all pro-tranny OR trannies. No point in making a distinction.

>>14895476
Nick Land said they were dysgenic

>>14895272
>wrapped you brain around Kantian epistemology
>theory
I'm not a theoryfag. That shit is garbage and anyone smart stays away from it for good reason.
>nothing is just a phenomena
But you literally said that capital is just the phenomenal aspect of a larger force. >>14893679 I know what Kant says, but that does not mean I have to agree with him.
You have this tendency to misread, forget what you said, and then blame others for your mistakes. Only dumbasses can ever be so confident.
>kant 101
Yes, yes. You think I'm stupid because I don't agree with your cultish ideology. That's already been established, but you've never actually said anything to suggest that you are even the slightest bit intelligent.
Link an effortpost to prove me wrong.
>data
Your obsession is data and intelligence, yet you present this in the most extreme way possible. Even though it is essentially the same thinking as Moldbug he presents his pseudo-kantianism as a Barney show while you all are the edgy emo kids larping as Lovecraft. There's not much rationalism or intelligence left at the end, just feelings wrapped in technocratic language.
>acc is wrong
Obviously.
>Nick Land is wrong
Of course.
>Mark Fisher would agree
What did he say?
>fueled by capitalism?
Certainly not. The Thirty Years War is just one example that occurred well before capitalism. The World Wars had a significance that went well beyond economy, and the law of modernity is something much deeper than capital/economics. In fact, capital follows its laws entirely.
>material appropriation is deeply instrumental
Not exactly sure what you mean. But if I get you correctly then I only see this as a process, a means.
>anticapitalism
I mean anticapitalism as a general movement. This was communists and anarchists for the most part. But more recently there is some crossover in the libertarian/ancap/acc movements that are in some way opposed to the establishment and want a return to idyllic or even runaway capital. The basic argument would be that the pure class opposition in Marx's time begins to disappear when the industrial relations are softened or when some greater disaster occurs. A fairly simple position, not one that I necessarily agree with but it's useful to illustrate, is that WWI broke out in order to quell class unrest around the world. This is something beyond pure class relations, yet the very enframing of it can lesson the significance of the war, its meaning and force in history. This sort of thinking leads to theories like that of 'the bankers started WWI to control us'. One's worldview can severely distort their perception of reality in the world - one looks through a telescope, the other through a fish-eye lens.

>>14895555
Another acc quote was something about viruses and time, data and forcing generations etc. I didn't read it all that closely, but to me there seems to be an extreme conflation of ideas, and I am not sensing that this is ironic, a metaphor, but illustrative. In Platonic terms, I'm a classical thinker, what appears to be happening is a misinterpretation of forms, as if a contradiction occurs and multiplying factors have to compound until they are resolved. The form is subject to reality, but this itself is a reflection which distracts one from the form. The form is always one and cannot be divided. Their being is that they must exist in paradox or resolve without being diminished. Totality is what allows this to occur free of contradiction.
The idea that complete synthesis can be achieved is being proven wrong before our eyes as things begin to fall apart and yet realise a consistency all their own. All that can be created through synthesis is a greater division of the world.

>it is impossible for phenomena to become noumena
But it is exactly what you are saying. If capital is becoming an unknown, something we could never fully comprehend, an AI from the future, is this not a noumena? If not then you should explain what it is instead of your usual OMG YOU DIDN'T READ KANT 101 SUBSCRIBE TO MY TWITTER FOR MORE!
>wrapped you brain around Kantian epistemology
Do you want to explain how this one works anon? If I have to uphold a kantian formulation how am I ever going to be able to critique kantian ideas?
You expect that one follow Land/Kant in any argument, which presupposes that any critique is impossible. But let's attempt to clarify again, you said originally that capital is just a phenomena of something greater, but also that capital becomes something unknown. I am going with noumena because in your theory all known things are simply phenomena necessitated by this end of capital/intelligence. This seems to me - again, not according to the theory's internal 'coherence' - a confused territory where nothing is really phenomena or noumena. For example, war technology, I do not see this as a product of capital, so in my thinking it seems that you have taken a form and phenomena, stripped it of its being a form and phenomena and made it into some abstract sign which feeds into the capital 'noumena' (Again, I can be using these words incorrectly since I don't like them and I'm in no way a kantian, which, again, does not mean I do not understand it).

>>14895557
Does this make sense? Another way of seeing it, our understanding of war technology is itself very different, let us say that the received form appears as if on a canvas, or a bit of light in Malevich's Black Square. This black square is our shared interpretation and there may only be the most minor form appearing from within the canvas. We do not both see the WWI sketch from a journal that makes the tank look as an insect formation, nor a futuristic technology that appears to be pulling us into the insect future with its tentacles. There could even be great similarities between the two images, yet their essence is completely different. This is how form works, big 'F' Form as opposed to Theory. I am saying that my interpretation of technology and war is correct, the tank painting, and you think your own is.
The tentacled future technology as capital extraction is simply a poor copy, a shock piece in order to appeal to time. But the greater image exists as a reflection as the form, and no popular conception can overcome this, even if it becomes the dominant image within an era. The Beatles have little enduring quality in the realm of music as a whole, especially when considered next to Beethoven or Monteverdi. Similarly, Kant appears completely dominant in the modern era, but is essentially useless outside of it.

You would think the future noumena would have some control over the phenomena of digits.

>>14888888
The capitalist dilation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

January20: I know more about viruses than anyone.”
January 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
February 25: “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.”
February 25: “I think that's a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine.”
February 26: “The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
February 26: “We're going very substantially down, not up.”
February 27: “One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
February 28: “We're ordering a lot of supplies. We're ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn't be ordering unless it was something like this. But we're ordering a lot of different elements of medical.”
March 2: “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don't think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?”
March 2: “A lot of things are happening, a lot of very exciting things are happening and they’re happening very rapidly.”
March 4: “If we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work, but they get better.”
March 5: “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work.”
March 5: “The United States… has, as of now, only 129 cases… and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!”
March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.”
March 6: “Anybody right now, and yesterday, anybody that needs a test gets a test. They’re there. And the tests are beautiful…. the tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.”
March 6: “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it… Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.”
March 6: “I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault.”
March 8: “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.”
March 9: “This blindsided the world.”
March 13: “National emergency, two big words.”

>>14875151
this but unironically

>>14895557
>Another acc quote was something about viruses and time, data and forcing generations etc. I didn't read it all that closely, but to me there seems to be an extreme conflation of ideas, and I am not sensing that this is ironic, a metaphor, but illustrative.
>I am not going to provide this quote and admit that I didn't read it carefully but here are my empty speculations on why it's wrong
oh God, I don't know why I even engage with this level of barrel scraping intelligent. I'm busy anon, but the response is coming. keep it bumped

>>14875070
A lot of people, I think, misread Land. I don't think he believes that capital as it stands now is actually sentient (though I doubt he doesn't believe it to be one day possible). His point is that capital, in its globalized form, fulfills the criteria to be considered an agent capable of action with intent. The consequences of such an account are worth giving serious thought.

If you want to talk acceleration, 18 weeks in 2007 is 3 weeks this time.
There's a fine line between acceleration and deceleration. But deceleration is always faster and more explosive.

>>14895732
So you're just going to cherrypick things you don't like again. Who could have seen this coming?
Your own interpretation of the nonsense is here >>14893885 so anyone can see how shit it is, and no one but accfags would blame me for not giving it any thought.

>>14895472
>and I have made arguments for why you are mistaken
No you haven't. You just make accusations of YOU DON'T READ. NOT WHAT KANT SAYS. You haven't once shown that you are even capable of following a simple logical argument, you drag the conversations down to a low level and then blame the other person.
But post one (1) single effortpost you ever made on this board, then we can switch roles for a second.
An accelerationist playing defense all the time. Doesn't make sense, you must not have read Nietzsche.

>>14895747
Aren't these two contradictory? If he believes that current capital is an agent capable of action with intent, would this not be sentient? It must fulfill its need of being.

>>14895774
patience young one, your reply is coming. so the quote about viruses, are you talking about the OP of that thread or that anon's explantion of it? (neither are my post)

>>14895720
Jesus

>>14895774
>>14895732
>According to the tenets of Hyperstition, there is no difference in principle between a universe, a religion, and a hoax.
All you need to know that this philosophy is useless.

>>14895555
I did say capital was just the phenomenal aspect of a larger force, which means it isn't just a phenomena, it is a phenomena underlied by a larger force... I don't know how to explain this to you again without explaining Kant to you for the umpteenth time. all phenomena are underlied by noumena. everything from a cotton loom to the chair you sitting on. I haven't even been trying to argue Kant is right here, so don't pretend I'm trying to win you ever to anything. I am just explaining to you what some philosophical terminology means. I could give a fuck if you disagree with Kant, Deleuze made a whole career off it, but when you obviously don't understand the terms noumena/phenomena I really start to question your abilities. if you want an effort post, read this one, or, read the Deleuze pasta that goes around, or the Nick Land pasta. there were days when these threads were full of effort posts, back in the cosmotechnic threads. now I pretty much just explain Kant and Deleuze every thread.
>Your obsession is data and intelligence, yet you present this in the most extreme way possible. Even though it is essentially the same thinking as Moldbug he presents his pseudo-kantianism as a Barney show while you all are the edgy emo kids larping as Lovecraft. There's not much rationalism or intelligence left at the end, just feelings wrapped in technocratic language.
if you feel this way, you should make an argument to demonstrate why it is the case, rather than simply saying it.
>What did he say?
Read Terminator Vs. Avatar, he directly attacks Nick Land's take on deterritorialization. there is a reason I give his criticism weight and your none, and that's because it's obvious that Fisher has read the material, understands it, and provides arguments against it. not this posturing, fart smelling shit
>The Thirty Years War is just one example that occurred well before capitalism.
how does it prove anything if it happened before capitalism?
>The World Wars had a significance that went well beyond economy
citation needed. Jews were scapegoated because of financial ruin over reparations. Europe was being appropriated. America was going to lose its support as the global power (a rank decided by economic dominance and wealth collection).
>and the law of modernity is something much deeper than capital/economics. In fact, capital follows its laws entirely
you can't just pose something like "the law of modernity" without a source or an explanation or something. what is the law of modernity? was it in play in the Thirty Years war? when did modernity start? is modernity the only law which things follow? do you have any reading materials I can follow up on for this? is it an original philosophy or did you borrow it? there are endless materials on acc, where are the reading materials on the law of modernity?

>>14896240
>Not exactly sure what you mean. But if I get you correctly then I only see this as a process, a means.
of course the appropriation of wealth is a means, it's a means people use to get more wealth.
>I mean anticapitalism as a general movement... One's worldview can severely distort their perception of reality in the world - one looks through a telescope, the other through a fish-eye lens.
what does any of that have to do with phenomena becoming noumena to maintain organizational reality? how does any of this have to do with Kantian epistemology?
>inb4 Kant was wrong so it doesn't matter if I misuse basic Kantian terms
>>14895557
okay, so this is another example of no argument, just self-gratification and posturing. take these sentence for example:
>The form is subject to reality, but this itself is a reflection which distracts one from the form. The form is always one and cannot be divided. Their being is that they must exist in paradox or resolve without being diminished. Totality is what allows this to occur free of contradiction.
what does that have to do with the passage at hand? if you are posing it as an argument against it, then do so. why do I have to do so much legwork trying to comprehend what you are talking about? I'm an accfag anon. I read the most convoluted, painfully technical shit, and somehow trying to put together a single one of your syllogisms just exhausts me. this is too vague to even start arguing against. quite frankly, as far as I see it your statements could be true and it wouldn't disprove hyperstition in the slightest, although I don't even know what parts of the passage you are taking issue with so I'll leave this one, unless you feel like clarifying.
>But it is exactly what you are saying.
quote me then
>If capital is becoming an unknown, something we could never fully comprehend, an AI from the future, is this not a noumena?
no? do I need to explain Kant to you again? capital is already "a noumena" so far as there is some thing-in-itself which MUST underlie capital as an appearance. this is not you disagreeing with Kant or Land, it's you misusing terminology to the point of absurdity. what does noumena mean to you anon? what could it possibly mean for a phenomena to become a noumena? do you really want me to explain Kant 101 to you again? because I am out of ideas on how to teach you the terminology. you simply don't know what you are talking about. those words might as well be gibberish (and that's coming from an accfag).

>>14896241
>If I have to uphold a kantian formulation how am I ever going to be able to critique kantian ideas?
you can't critique Kantian ideas if you think phenomena can become a noumena. I only expect you to "follow" them insofar as you know what they are talking about, but you don't. this is like someone presents a theory of gravity, and someone throws a ball up in the air and thinks they proved them wrong. it's not that the person is wrong because they didn't become an ardent follower of Newton, it's that they literally didn't understand what Newton was talking about in the first place. I really think this is the last post I can waste on you anon.

>>14880201
What is "D & G coin" and how can I amass credit card debt to acquire such a thing.

>>14896537
lrn2comprehension

>>14896537
It's a little late to buy D&G coin. Should have got in at Dow 29,000 to get your money's worth.

>>14896240
>>14896240
>you didn't read
I was just going by what you said anon, >>14893679
and now you're saying something else. Don't blame me if you can't get your own ideology right.
>make an argument
What better argument is needed? Barney isn't intelligent
>Terminator Vs. Avatar
lmao and that's what you call intellectual thought?
>how does it prove anything if it happened before capitalism?
Oh yes, my mistake. Teleoplexy and time gargoyles mean that the origins of modernity are completely meaningless. I'll have to rewrite this in light of Back to the Future 2 and GOT Season 5.
Fucking idiot.
>citation needed.
lmao MAKE AN ARGUMENT ACCFAG
READ THE MATERIAL
You fucking idiot. The World Wars were one of the most significant events in history, they weren't just a Keynesian spergout you dumb cunt.
>America was going to lose its support as the global power
America didn't join the war until 1918 (1917 formally) so your theory is trash. You know nothing of war.
TRY READING SOMETIME ACCFAG. HAHA NEVER READ A SINGLE WAR BOOK
>economy following laws of modernity
A simple start is in terms of the social contract. A more difficult one is that of freedom of speech and science. Capital follows those laws exactly. I'm not going to waste time explaining things to you because you're stupid and inconsiderate.
You clearly haven't read Hobbes. Just as a start. Or do you think he was talking about capital? Just an algorithm of Roko's Basilisk?
>of course the appropriation of wealth is a means, it's a means people use to get more wealth
Circular argument.
TRY READING SMITH SOMETIME ANON
>I read the most convoluted, painfully technical shit
It's not that difficult. It's actually pretty simple. You're just an idiot.
TRY READING SOMETIME ACCFAG HAHA PARMENIDES TOO HARD FOR THE NOUMENAL AI TO ACHIEVE BEING? LMAO

>>14897560
In simple terms an argument could be made that the form either is or it is not. Either it has being or it does not. For acc there is no difference between capital, virus, and chaos just as there is no difference between universe, religion, and hoaxes. But then why does the dominant form have any essence? They become mixed and there can be no essence since its essence is essentially the other.
Of course acc has a big cope in that it is all just process and of course we can't argue against it because some day there really may not be a difference between the cosmos religion and capital.
Shit philosophy for people who didn't read actual thinkers.
>quote me
You don't realise you are saying this, clearly. But to really get at this I would need your definition of phenomena and noumena, as well as capital and deterritorialisation. But of course you won't do that since your only argument is WTF YOU DIDN'T READ KANT OMG 101 101 101
You're a fag. How's that for a noumena?
>capital is already "a noumena" so far as there is some thing-in-itself which MUST underlie capital as an appearance
How is this any different you fucking retard? If it is the AI from the future that underlies capital then that is its noumenon.
But how many times do I have to point out what you said you dumb cunt?
>>14893679
>>14893679
>>14893679
>>14893679
>capital is just the phenomenal aspect of a larger force
>capital is just the phenomenal aspect of a larger force
>we didn't understand what capital could be, what the feedback of m-c-m' could unleash
>we didn't understand what capital could be, what the feedback of m-c-m' could unleash
Now hold on for a minute since this one is going to be difficult, but wasn't Deleuze critical of Kant? And Land at one point too? I think you may have even said this once. How is this reconciled? If they are anti-Kantian then why must we follow the Kantian system as if it were dogma?
The other problem, of course, is that such a switcheroo (I know, real intellectual term, but I think it's better for you) may cause your misunderstanding of the Kantian and capital terms. If Land's philosophy is at one point anti-kantian and then again kantian perhaps it is you who is having a difficult time parsing these differences. Did he not himself denounce his earlier writings?

>>14897564
So again, it is you who is misunderstanding things. What I am saying is that a certain enframing of phenomena can essentially turn them into a perceptual noumena. There is a point in which the analysis of the phenomena becomes so confused, so conflated with other forms and ideas that they themselves become a thing-in-themselves. Let us say that one becomes obsessed with the noumena and its impossibility and constructs some field to peer into to try and find it, as Narcissus gazed into the black pool. Is this not essentially what hyperreality is? The question is to what extent the phenomena and their analysis become a thing-in-itself, or at least create a secondary field of apparitions/appearances which distract from reality/phenomena and make them a thing-in-itself.
Land himself does this when he conflates all of these separate aspects of modern society as a single thing, capital as intelligence, virus, the cosmos itself. The theorising loses any qualities, becomes a completely unknown noumenon as the phenomena no longer have a basis in reality. They are simply conjured up things, recuperation of other essences due to the loss of appearance. This is clear in the switch from a focus on capital to that of vague information, as if there were no difference between capital and technology, the economist and technician. The game wins because of information; strangely similar to the Christian logos and occasionalism. As long as the process continues then good remains victorious over evil.

This is also seen in the paradox of kantian thought (not as kantian thought, but in a criticial sense), the collapse in meaning and essence necessitates reformation, an equal weight of the noumena in its appearances eventually forces its own qualities. The phenomena are lost and must be replaced. Kant only has value in his own era, with like men who only exist in their own head. This value is completely lost once practical concerns arise, as becomes clear when the complex theory is applied to the phenomena of politics ad war. 'Politics is the continuation of war by other means,' and so must be subject to its own Westphalian limits.

Do you get what I'm saying here? An example where our reality has become the noumenon (without any strict Kantian definition) may illustrate this better. The stock market, which functions as something of a discovery of phenomena of capital valorisation (which in itself is unknowable), has been at a point for some time where there is a complete disconnect from the real economy and its representation. In a sense, the phenomena have been misrepresented and become hyperreal. This would make the real economy something of a noumenon, a thing-in-itself which is completely unknown.

>>14897567
You made this very clear when you stated that the economy is booming, in a great state and that the market would not crash. Which suggests a total disconnect from the understanding of economy, and so begs the question, what is your philosophy in regards to if it is just a speculative theory of a false reality? You only have two noumena because the phenomena you rely upon for your interpretations are conjured up from nothing. You are a Kantian who has completely betrayed his philosophy.

Of course, you will try to mock this, but we're just having a discussion. The main difference between you and me is that you think you are some brilliant thinker talking about ultracomplex ideas while I only want to discuss simple reality. I want to discuss the phenomena and their form, as well as what it means for our lives as human beings. You seem to want some theoretical escape, so it is fitting that your philosophy itself has gone into feedback runaway and has no relation to reality.
But if this is not the case explain how. As a relation of money, valorisation, and machinic becoming explain in simple terms where this supposed capital is. (I know, everything right. Even the collapse of its phenomena are an increase in strength.) What I am seeing is a total collapse, people are buying toilet paper and canned food (if that) while the majority of money is being injected into a mere appearance. Trillions of dollars disappear instantly, and all economic actions and thinking have no real effect. What does this indicate? That economy itself is a mere reaction to something much greater (no not its noumena). Value is becoming apparent through total deflation and all that capital has left is the most extreme money velocity to keep up appearances. In your terms this too is acceleration, because the process is everything. But what this really indicates is the complete powerlessness of the economy over greater forms, and the complete disconnect of capital mechanisms from either. The very form of capital has devalorised itself into a machine that can only produce money which disappears instantly. Production of useless information that everyone is beginning to see through. This, no matter what your philosophy says, is not a strength. It is a form of curling up into a fetal position before death.

>>14897571
For my part, I will note my prediction of bitcoin being worthless, that the economy is essentially zero in value, and that this would be reflected in the stock market being forced back to reality even as it functions as the last facade of capital. Notably, I even said that we are likely to see trillion dollar days in propping this thing up. Now it seems even worse than this, all those who believe in eternal capital are even dumber than I thought and may try to dump even more in while proclaiming bitcoin a safe haven (remember that one?). If I was shortsighted it was in underestimating just how low people would sink to try and hold on. But those are still good predictions, and suggest that even someone as ignorant of kantian economics as I am has a much better grasp of the reality than you.

The deleuzian misunderstanding of schizophrenia also allows for an interpretation of kantianism and its inversion.

-13%
>-3000
-13%
>-3000
-13%
>-3000
-13%
>-3000
-13%
>-3000
-13%
>-3000

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>14898487
Just keep it shy of -3000, but that -13% after pumping friday the 13th. This is either a sacrifice or they're mad.

Only the government is keeping bitcoin up at this point.

Pathetic

>>14897708
Would you care to expand on that remark?

Imagine this as your legacy

This principal purpose of this seminar is to constitute Bitcoin – in all of its main senses, as a protocol, a currency, and a contemporary industrial revolution – as a definite philosophical object. Through this process, philosophical conceptuality and method undergoes significant reciprocal modification. In particular, the understanding of philosophical appropriation as a hash of its object introduces cryptographic principles into its most basic procedures.

The first module of the seminar is devoted to an analytical abstraction of the Bitcoin system, accommodated to the language and problems of philosophy. A close reading of Satoshi Nakamoto’s catalytic 2008 paper provides an anchor for discussion. By methodically reconstructing the Bitcoin solution to the double-spending problem, in terms that fully-capture – but displace – its articulation within computer science, the Bitcoin system is brought into communication with more highly-generalized philosophical concerns.

The second module turns to the inherited fundamental concepts that have been re-installed by the Bitcoin machine. These include: money, contract, property, work, society, power, knowledge, truth, signs, history, agency, identity, time, and being. By grouping these concepts into four coherent clusters – duplicity, singularity, and the sign; the open secret (the public and the private); computer power (politics, anti-politics, and the Bitcoin commercium); and artificial singularity (truth, time, and being) – some tractable compression is achieved.

REQUIREMENTS AND DETAILS
Each module of the two-part seminar will be composed of four two and a half hour sessions, each of which will be conducted as an extended seminar. During this period material blogged the previous week will be discussed alongside the set material. Based upon the set readings, online news and commentary, and ongoing class discussion, students will be expected to contribute ~400 words of content to the seminar blog on relevant topics. (This will additionally be posted to the google classroom page for everyone to read and comment upon as they wish, providing some preliminary threads for the group discussion). The final assessment will consist of a 2500 word extended blog essay on a topic agreed upon with the instructor in advance.

Still waiting for an effortpost accfag. And some shitty acc pasta doesn't count, I want to see your intelligence on display with another philosophy.

>>14899170
Bitcoin tv. Sad it only lasted one season.

>>14899501

>>14895790
It might fulfill technical criteria but it would not be something you or I would readily recognize as sentient. The "intent" of the machine is informed by collective human participation in the economy, which they are unable to do with true intent as they do so out of necessity. Every "smart business decision" someone makes is really just loaning their cognition to Technocapital to exert, at least functionally, as will. I will say that I think this make sense from my perspective but Land may literally believe we're in the matrix for all I know.

>>14875132

>>14900179
Cringe