Reza Negarestani - Cyclonopedia

[Anonymous No.14780840]

What am I in for?
What are other influential philosophy/philosophical fiction books that came out in the last 20 years?

[Anonymous No.14780850]

>>14780840
This is what the twitter faggots going on about collapse, k-war, lemurian time war, and so on look like. Shut. the. fuck. up. sissy.

[Anonymous No.14780889]

>>14780850
ah yes, I prefer my philosophers to look like big mad bearded man instead

[Anonymous No.14781710]

>>14780840
Negarestani publishing this as """fiction""" is a literal "I was only pretending to be retarded hehe"

[Anonymous No.14781731]

>>14781710
it's theory-fiction, and he obviously planned it to be like that
he cites people and books which don't exist

[Anonymous No.14781734]

Technobabble

[Anonymous No.14781766]

>>14781731
Okay, and what the fuck is theory-fiction? The book is an exegesis without any fictional elements except the 2 pages of framing device at the start. So either the theory is meant to be taken somewhat seriously (after all, it's no less stupid than anything Deleuze wrote), or it isn't. If it isn't, there's nothing else there. If it is, then publishing it as fiction is just a frank acknowledgement that in this day and age noone would take it seriously.

I was honestly expecting to really enjoy this when I picked it up, because I expected it to blend the exegesis format with some actual fiction, House of Leaves style. Whether or not you like House of Leaves, it is a successful attempt at pulling off that trick. Unfortunately, Cyclonopedia is virtually unreadable, and is more interested in faithfully copying (I don't think it's parody) a certain kind of philosophy speak than it is in engaging the audience.

[Anonymous No.14781818]

>>14781766
I haven't read it yet myself, but I feel like it's more akin to speculative realism in a way that the presentation of a theory is not about the theory itself and instead about the way of thinking that leads to formulating theories and worldviews like that.
As in what a theory would be like if it was written by (x), where (x) is non-human agent, oil in his example

[Anonymous No.14781847]

>>14781818
I have nothing against this idea, and I really like the basic premise of the book, but it leaves the question of why he made it so fucking painful to read. It really is shockingly un-entertaining. How can a book about sentient oil, the personification of vermiculous rotting Earth's rebellion against the sun, infecting the minds of all who consume it from the US war machine to the eschatological Islamists - how can an idea that good produce such an awful book??

It's only because he doesn't know how to actually write fiction, and was consciously aping a writing style that is intended to bamboozle you into accepting wacko ideas (going right back to Hegel). There is no need to do this in fiction, besides for parody purposes. You have to then signal that you aren't being serious, and leaven the effect with some entertaining writing in another mode.

[Anonymous No.14781921]

>>14781847
>How can a book about sentient oil, the personification of vermiculous rotting Earth's rebellion against the sun, infecting the minds of all who consume it from the US war machine to the eschatological Islamists - how can an idea that good produce such an awful book??
breh this is the /lit/ equivalent of that shayamalan flick about people running from the poisonous pollen of sentient plants.

[Anonymous No.14781927]

>>14780840
Almost every Iranian "intellectual" supported by Western academia is an idiot. Jason Reza Jorjani is a literal Satanist. Reza is a memelord obscurantist whose real views are somewhat simple-minded. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a Islamist commie who probably has links to MEK.
They are all pieces of shit.
>>14781847
>how can an idea that good produce such an awful book??
Most modern continental philosophy from Deleuze to Derrida is trash. It is just gobbledygook covering up some interesting ideas here and there. I guarantee you most people who "read" Deleuze rely on secondary sources written in plain language.

[Anonymous No.14781939]

>>14781927
>Jason Reza Jorjani is a literal Satanist
So was Zoroaster. It's a long held Iranian tradition to overturn the dominant values of the era.

[Anonymous No.14781944]

>>14781939
No, he wasn't, you utter buffoon.
>It's a long held Iranian tradition to overturn the dominant values of the era.
Iran never had a Faustian spirit, idiot.

[Anonymous No.14781949]

>>14781944
That's not Faustian. Yeah, Zoroaster was a Satanist. He was against the evil Zeus-Jehova type God.

[Anonymous No.14781951]

>>14781766
it's a new and experimental approach to both philosophy and fiction in which the lines between the two become blurred. asking the question "what is theory and what is fiction?" here is a recipe for disaster. the line isn't determinate, and the interplay between the two, the overlaps, them vanishing into one another, it's all part of the genre. you are like some normie wasp picking up Naked Lunch in 1962
>Cyclonopedia is virtually unreadable
you probably just need a bit more background in the philosophy he draws from. there is still theory in theory-fiction

[Anonymous No.14781966]

>>14781921
you could say that about literally any cosmic horror desu

[Anonymous No.14781976]

>>14781951
You really don't need that much background to know that he ripped off Deleuze and that neither of them could write for shit, sensei

[Anonymous No.14782002]

>>14781949
No, he was critiquing Indo-Iranian polytheism and "oversacrifice" of cattle. He was also against the amoral, power-hungry perspective of endless war, and he tended to prefer the humble pastoralist or farmer over the warlord.
I do not see how this relates to either LaVeyan or metaphysical Satanism. There are two main types of Satanism: the egoist LaVeyan type and the metaphysical/theistic type popular among bands like Deathspell Omega.
If Zarathustra privileged Ahriman over Ohrmazd, then he would be a theistic Satanist.

[Anonymous No.14782011]

>>14782002
Don't care about hairsplitting definitions too much, or your typologies. He was against the evil Yaweh, so he was a Satanist.

[Anonymous No.14782060]

>>14782011
Regardless, Jorjani prefers the amoral Mithraic & Zurvanite* perspective over the moralist Orthodox position. When he calls himself a Satanist, he means it in the sense he rejects good/evil dichotomy or blurs their lines.

* Note: Jorjani started conflating Mithraism and Zurvanism after he was influenced by a work of mine, which he never gave credit too.

Anyways, I believe Jorjani is on CIA payroll. He is being paid to liberalize Iranians in a way that leads to selfishness, egoism, and irresponsibility by normalizing nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14782064]

>>14781976
is it nonsense or a Deleuze rip off? or do you already think Deleuze is nonsense

[Anonymous No.14782070]

>>14782060
The horror story I wrote was misinterpreted as being cool and desirable by him. When I wrote such a horrifying story, I was not expecting it to be interpreted as being desirable. It was more of a subtle critique of the terrifying antinomianism prevalent in many forms of nondualism and monism.

[Anonymous No.14782073]

>>14780889
I like you

[Anonymous No.14782088]

>>14782070
I hate you for being such a paranoid ass. Just share your story you schizo. What kind of moral dualist are you? If you believe in goodness then you shouldn't be afraid to share that goodness. Hell, you shouldn't be afraid of anything because fear is evil.

[Anonymous No.14782111]

>>14782064
It's not nonsense, it's an attempt to embrace the opening of pandora's box. Which is probably the opposite of what we should be doing, but yeah.

[Anonymous No.14782143]

>>14782111
when it's already opened, it's the best we can do I think, to give up any notion of control and structure

[Anonymous No.14782165]

>>14782064
you appear to have some moderate reading comprehension issues

[Anonymous No.14782225]

>>14782064
If you can't enjoy the fiction without already being a Deleuze devotee or otherwise finding value in the theory itself, then that just proves my original point that without the theory there's nothing there and that "theory-fiction" is a bullshit term to sell a badly written treatise that noone would take seriously at face value. I've literally never heard the term anywhere besides discussion of this specific book anyway.

[Anonymous No.14782263]

>>14782225
yes, there isn't much theory-fiction because its a brand new genre. Satin Island is called theory-fiction but it's not nearly as good as Cyclonopedia, although it is more accessible. Spinal Catastrophism is in the same vein, just came out a couple months ago and it has made some waves in the underground lit scene. if you are complaining Negarestani didn't write his book for brainlets idk what to tell you. the genre isn't aiming to appeal to the masses.

[Anonymous No.14782354]

>>14782225
Why not look at it as a manifestation of nocturnal mythos that basically drives our ultrafeminoid society now

[Anonymous No.14782507]

>>14782263
It isn't a new genre it's just a bad example of what PKD did with VALIS back in '81, also
>underground lit scene

My point, which you have repeatedly failed to engage with, is that books like VALIS and House of Leaves do not require you to see any inherent value in their exegeses to enjoy and engage with their novels. That they are both satires of literary paranoia and pretentiousness seems fitting given this conversation.

[Anonymous No.14782541]

>>14782507
I don't know what you mean by "require you to see any inherent value in their exegeses to enjoy and engage with their novels". Cyclonopedia is an exegesis. You might as well say "require you to see any inherent value in their novel to enjoy and engage with their novel". VALIS is great, but the Exegesis is a better example of theory-fiction, and it has a metric fuckton of references to philosophers and religious mystics. House of Leaves is pretty shit, Danielewski is like the Rupi Kaur of literature.

[Anonymous No.14782542]

>>14782507
Apples and oranges

[Anonymous No.14782648]

>>14782541
>>14782542

Okey doke geniuses, 2 questions then:

1. What is the difference between theory fiction and theory?

2. Is it not possible to achieve everything that Cyclonopedia set out to achieve without writing it in such a horrific prose style, and including more overtly fictional elements? If it is possible, why is it not desirable?

[Anonymous No.14782719]

>>14780840
Get ready to add Reza to twitter and see the ontic categories thread keep going to the top.

[Anonymous No.14782777]

>>14780840
Seconding the spinal Catastrophism book. Also obviously the CCRU material is all theory fiction, and perhaps even Phyl-Undhu.
and Applied Ballardianism approach theory fiction.

[Anonymous No.14782907]

>>14782777
Op here, Spinal Catastrophism seems right up my alley, gonna give it a shot, especially if it's more clearly written than Cyclonopedia.
Because for that one I had to wait 10 years for a proper academic translation to my first language, since I wouldn't get through it in English even though I'm usually not too bad at reading academic prose

[Anonymous No.14783185]

>>14782060
>I believe Jorjani is on CIA payroll
This. He is just a version of Nasr for a different audience.

[Anonymous No.14783781]

>>14782777
>Applied Ballardianism
what is this book? is it essays or a novel

[Anonymous No.14783838]

>>14782648
1) theory-fiction isn't aimed at describing an existing reality so much as it is conjuring a fiction into reality. it's about model building, and playing with those models. it's fictional theory.

2) Yes. I don't think Negarestani's prose is inherent to theory fiction, and there is no rule about how many fictional elements you can or cannot include.

[Anonymous No.14783842]

>>14782907
>>14782777
>12 posters
Stop shilling your shit book.

[Anonymous No.14783856]

>>14780850
Larger frontal lobe than u, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14783857]

>>14783842
I'm OP btw

[Anonymous No.14784433]

>>14783838
>conjuring a fiction into reality
>it's about model building, and playing with those models

[Anonymous No.14784489]

>>14784433
bugmen and soibois are reductive materialist stemfags who are utterly against any sort of creative movement which positions itself against the hegemonic knowledge of our day. theory-fiction is less soiboi more Terry Davis.

[Anonymous No.14784498]

Cringe. Go back twitterfags.

[Anonymous No.14784518]

>>14784489
>positions itself against the hegemonic knowledge of our day
lmfao. 'theory fiction' is merely serving the reign of quantity. read René Guénon.

[Anonymous No.14784536]

>>14780850
what is k-war?

[Anonymous No.14784553]

Why would you unironically write theory fiction. Theory and fiction became separated for a reason. It's a degeneration of both to combine them again.

[Anonymous No.14784570]

>>14784553
>he skipped the Greeks

[Anonymous No.14784573]

>>14781951
>>>14781766 #
>it's a new and experimental approach to both philosophy and fiction in which the lines between the two become blurred. asking the question "what is theory and what is fiction?"

Wasn’t Baudrillard already doing that in the ‘80s and 90s, Bataille between the 30s to the 60s and Jarry in the early 1900s? Among others.

[Anonymous No.14784582]

>>14783838
>1) theory-fiction isn't aimed at describing an existing reality so much as it is conjuring a fiction into reality. it's about model building, and playing with those models. it's fictional theory

So it’s ‘pataphysics. Not saying it’s bad or anything. Just that this idea has been around for more than a century.

[Anonymous No.14784603]

>>14784573
yes, the precursors to this go way back
>>14784582
not exactly but Jarry is certainly a huge influence on all this

here's some geneology
https://thewastedworld.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/a-theory-fiction-reading-list/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous No.14784607]

>>14783838
>1) theory-fiction isn't aimed at describing an existing reality so much as it is conjuring a fiction into reality.

Aleister Crowley does that, too. So do fat 40-year-old-virgin beardos who scribble sigils onto scraps of paper and beat off to them ‘cos Grant Morrison told me that’s what you do in his INVISIBLES comic books.

[Anonymous No.14784654]

>>14784607
I have never read a comic book so I couldn't tell you but Crowley did write some stuff which seems proto-theory-fictional, like the Book of the Law, or the Book of Lies