It's time to admit that nobody knows what he's talking about.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's time to admit that nobody knows what he's talking about.
It's time to admit that nobody knows what he's talking about.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
nice crop
I do. Ask and I'll try to explain it.
Is surrogacy the path to acceleration?
Yes and no. On as well the surrogacy as well as the 'stay true' ends there is affection and the simultaneous feeling of dissatisfaction. In between is everything else on the spectrum of life and entropy. At least it's good to see that most are doing well, and it's good to contribute to that well-being.
Explain to me what makes something oedipal or a-oedipal. Also rec me writers with similar style
Since he's for complete laissez faire, what would he say about 60% of men being single under such conditions?
not him, but Land is against human rights, so he'd probably tell them to just go and get the woman
and yeah, by get i mean rape
Desire goes hand in hand with technocapital. If you want to own a catgirl, study genetic engineering an get building one.
Nowhere near.
>engineer your own cat-girl
So he's a crypto Randian?
Why
Who cares? No one cares about Land. I actually wasted time reading some of his essays. Its a meaningless bet, but I would bet both of my testicles and all the money Ive ever made that his body of work will be virtually forgotten a generation after his death.
Dont waste time even thinking about reading Nick Land
filtered
Lol i bet you think the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ is a legitimate philosophical movement
No, but I bet you're a midwit with no philosophical background
I have a PhD homosexual. I completed my thesis on Quine
Nice appeal to authority
>I completed my thesis on Quine
Quine was hardly a philosopher. He was just a mathematician who wasn't good enough to succeed in mathematics proper, so he jumped ship for analytic philosophy.
What do you think of his criticisms of Kant in his Two Dogmas?
He doesnt think anything because he hasnt got the slightest idea abouy anything quine wrote
> I have a PhD
moron alert
>not realizing the Dark Enlightenment is Land proffering to reactionaries the tools of critique traditionally reserved for the left for the sake of accelerationism
filtered
I honestly kind of like him. Everything I’ve read is summarized and filtered by I can appreciate Nietzsche pushed to the limit.
he's the most influence philosopher this half century, everyone seethes about him and the "damage" he's causing
Land has done nothing but give a little spooky story justifying the elite destructive endeavour of all culture and autonomous freedom. Do you think they would have cared if nobody bothered to make a pseudo-myth about it ?
You can keep looking at the finger as long as you wish youll never see anything new.
>justifying
?????
>destructive endeavour
lmao
>of all culture and autonomous freedom
please read late land
pseudo myth about what? you see his ideas everywhere, in almost every movement, maybe except orthodox marxists, imagine if he didn't do anything after the CCRU debacle, yeah he'd become some underground academic with interesting ideas (for leftists), but nothing else.
it's the stuff he did after the CCRU that's way more interesting, and which probably started a whole series of evenst which led to neoconservatism dying, and more and more techbros joining e/acc stuff.
Lol nobody cares anout Land. No reputable philosophical academic institution has discussed him ever, even the lesser ones that did have forgotten about him sonce th late 90s.
He hates humainity and wants it destroyed.
I confidently know what I'm talking about.
hello nick, do you disavow your older writing
based
>hello nick, do you disavow your older writing
Cite me the scripture
Is he going to debate Zizek or what?
inshallah
The theory underground gays tried to contact him using his old twitter. I sent them the new one. They told me it's not really him. I showed them evidence to the contrary. They never responded.
Looks like they're not really serious about it. Probably just a bit of cheap publicity for them.
Nick Land has a new twitter account that isn't @Outsideness?
He got locked out of @Outsideness. He's on @xenocosmography now.
Is Zizek /x/pilled enough for it?
He stopped posting on Xitter in October this homie ded?
HIC SUNT DRACONES There are both unknowable things, and things that desire not to be seen outside the structures of our subjectivity.
Hegel was a Christian. I don’t know why people insist on depicting him as some Luciferian occultist.
Im so tired of midwits extracting artificial meaning from these philosophers. Theres nothing esoteric about Hegel, Deleuze, Land. Nothing. Now do your homework moron.
Read Thirst for Annihilation it is somewhat bearable if you have some understanding of the thinkers he talks about. It gives you a good idea where he is coming from.
Will do
Justin Murphy had a go at explaining Meltdown, but it looks like he gave up after the first 3 sentences.
He’s a former Marxist that saw capital everywhere and so transmuted his horror into fiction-as-philosophy. The whole thing is a description of some emergent, Lovecraftian entity that lurks beneath technological innovation and market forces.
There you go. Now you also know what he’s talking about.
Is the Lovecraftian Entity named “Techno-Capital AI God”?
Pretty much yeah
This is a good light on Jargon intro:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230405174532/https://www.return.life/p/endgamers-a-history-of-accelerationism
You can follow up with Fisher's Notes on Acceleration, though it is tougher going:
https://www.tumblr.com/markfisherreblog/32522465887/terminator-vs-avatar-notes-on-accelerationism
>What, then, is Land's philosophy about?
>In a nutshell: Deleuze and Guattari's machinic desire remorselessly stripped of all Bergsonian vitalism, and made backwards-compatible with Freud's death drive and Schopenhauer's Will. The Hegelian-Marxist motor of history is then transplanted into this pulsional nihilism: the idiotic autonomic Will no longer circulating idiotically on the spot, but upgraded into a drive, and guided by a quasi-teleological artificial intelligence attractor that draws terrestrial history over a series of intensive thresholds that have no eschatological point of consummation, and that reach empirical termination only contingently if and when its material substrate burns out. This is Hegelian-Marxist historical materialism inverted: Capital will not be ultimately unmasked as exploited labour power; rather, humans are the meat puppet of Capital, their identities and self-understandings are simulations that can and will be ultimately be sloughed off
You need some background in continental philosophy to follow along.
That said, his crypto-current text flipped my world view upside down. Even if bitcoin is a dud, the wide range of topics he covers in that text and it's notes should not be ignored.
I strongly believe that he really died.
>I strongly believe that he really died.
He's dead but still publishing.
Also I know what he's talking about but he's wrong. And uninteresting.
READ HEGEL
Alright, Morty, let me lay it out for you. This Nick Land guy, he's like a discount version of a discount version of a discount version of me, Morty. He thinks he's some kind of genius with his hyper-accelerationist, techno-capitalist mumbo-jumbo, but let me tell you, Morty, he's just a glorified internet troll with a keyboard.
I mean, come on, Morty, this Land guy's philosophy is about as deep as a kiddie pool. He's like, "Let's embrace the chaos and let the machines take over," but he's probably never even built a robot in his life. He's all talk and no action, Morty, like a wannabe supervillain with a bad case of verbal diarrhea.
And don't even get me started on his followers, Morty. They're like a bunch of brainwashed sheep following their shepherd off a cliff. They eat up his ideas like they're candy, but they couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it.
So, here's the bottom line, Morty. Nick Land thinks he's some kind of intellectual powerhouse, but he's just a second-rate thinker with a first-rate ego. He's like a mosquito buzzing around your ear, Morty, annoying as hell and impossible to swat away.
The fact that you took time to write this, is much more interesting and funny than the text itself.
Clearly ai cmon you got to be able to detect by now
>He's like, "Let's embrace the chaos and let the machines take over," but he's probably never even built a robot in his life.
Nonetheless, his thesis that Qabala is a proto-computer computer algorithm (and that we should find another more objective principle to meaningfully apply numbers to words), hits close enough to Large Language Model's embedding.
Thread Theme:
Technospasm
§0.03 — It approaches a truism – although not one for this reason to be glibly dismissed – that philosophy assumes, as if by right, a position of sovereign authority relative to everything it touches upon.[5] A discussion of Bitcoin and Philosophy amounting only to a confirmation of this stance would merit contempt, even if it were packaged as humor. Since any attempt to philosophize about Bitcoin would already be a joke, it is better to get it. Bitcoin seizes philosophical attention because it is already doing philosophy – or what philosophy is still (on ever rarer occasions) expected to do – and at multiple levels. It tells the truth. Bitcoin is not only a recognizable philosophical statement, but also, and more importantly, a philosophical automatism, a synthetic philosophical machine.[6] It not only philosophizes in the manner of a man – although this is its certain prospect – but also finally in the way of an angel, or a lesser god. The ‘intellectual intuition’ (Intellektuelle Anschauung) that is for Kant a mortal impossibility, is for Bitcoin an operational principle. It is destined to close upon itself, and thus know itself. By becoming time, Bitcoin promises an exhibition of unleashed thought, in a way no introspective anthropology ever can.
Thoughts?
I have often pondered using a large set of latent spaces to find the limits of definitions (and thus detect definitional retreats). Basically a superhuman sophism filter. Probably needs a a breakthrough in processing to be done though, like cheap quantum processors or something.
https://vocaroo.com/1fmRUNSk4LcA
hey, this is alright! it's actually alright!
thx
Nick Land is a product of the atheist academix industry and the atheist freedom of speech. It's garbage, thus consumed en masse.
I AM A TOOTH IN TIME
Low IQ thread.
Is that a good thing? Is being inexplicable and incomprehensible a good thing? Is it being 2deep4us a good thing?
>Is being inexplicable and incomprehensible a good thing?
"What if curiosity was worth more than comprehension? This is not such an impossible thought to entertain. Nor is it unreasonable to ask after the necessity that has led the motor of thought to be subordinated to its consequences. Resolution could only be desirable if there existed an interest superseding thought. Otherwise it should be merely a means, the end of which is the promotion of enigma and confusion. That thought has to tolerate solutions is simply an unfortunate necessity. Perhaps not even that.
Curiosity is a desire; a dynamic impulse abolished by petrification. It would be an idiocy—although an all too familiar one—to try to preserve it in the formaldehyde of obscurantism and mystique. For an eternal mystery is as devastating to curiosity as any certainty could be. The ideology of thought’s exterminators is dogmatism, it scarcely matters of which kind.
It is not the ability to preserve riddles that has value, but the ability to engender them. Any text that persists as an acquisition after coming to a comfortable end has the character of a leech, nourishing itself on the blood of problematic, and returning only repulsive inertia. The fertility of a text, on the contrary, is its *inachievement*, its premature termination, its inconclusiveness. Such a text is always too brief, and instead of a draining anaesthetic attachment there is the *sting*. "
"What I offer is a web of half-choked ravings that vaunts its incompetence, exploiting the meticulous conceptual fabrications of positive knowledge as a resource for delirium, appealing only to the indolent, the maladapted, and the psychologically diseased. I would like to think that if due to some collective spiritual seism the natural sciences were to become strictly unintelligible to us, and were read instead as a poetics of the sacred, <...>. At least disorder grows."
"Disorder always increases in a closed system (such as the universe), because nature is indifferent to her composition. The bedrock state of a system which is in conformity with the chance distribution of its elements has been called ‘entropy’, <...> With the concept of entropy everything changes. Natural processes are no longer eternal clockwork machines, they are either extinct (Wärmetod) or tendential. Mechanisms are subordinated to motors; to thermic difference, energy flux, reservoir, and sump. Order is an evanescent chance, a deviation from disorder, a disequilibrium. Negative disorder—negentropy—is an energetic resource, and chance is the potentiation of the power supply. Macht, puissance, as potential for the degradation of energy, as the fluidification of matter/energy, as the possibility of release towards the unregulated or anarchic abyss into which energy pours, as the death of God. Upstream and downstream; the reserve and its dissipation. Order is not law but power, and power is aberration."
Ok. Anyway…I loathe being uncharitable and I loathe being matter-of-fact, so do forgive me if any of what I’m saying comes off as critical.
There’s a scene in the 1970s pornographic film, Foxy Lady, in which the hapless heroine played by Valerie Driskell is persuaded to have sex with American Black porn actor, Pharoah Amos, in order to escape an island upon which she finds herself kidnapped, ransomed and raped. Anyway, being a pornographic film, she has sex with him…shocking I know. Anyway, Pharaoh is alleged to have been schizophrenic and says a lot of bizarre nonsense while fricking her, which to say wildly entertaining and funny. That being said, I fail to understand some of what he says in between grunts, kind of like the twitter philosopher you’ve posted or popular songs I sing along to. Am I tricking you into thinking watching vintage interracial porn to find out? Maybe, I’m not the most reliable narrator. Speaking of schizophrenics, Terry A Davis has a great quote about complexity vs simplicity for which I’m too lazy to dig. Simplicity>complexity. People think simplicity is facility and ease. Is it simple to lift 40 lbs.? Yes. Is it simple to lift 300 lbs.? Yes. Is it easy? No.
Authors of all stripes are not, as it were, baseball cards or obscure shitty bands or obscure shitty anime or whatever bad taste [x] IQfy anonymous likes (yours truly included), which is usually objectively trash and not good—who could have possibly known a bunch of people who came from SA and totse and anime conventions would have bad taste...color me shocked. Authors (novelists, philosophers, whatever) become obscure because their ideas lose-out. There’s not some secret novel or poem or text that’s ’great’ or going to impart some sacred wisdom that puts you ahead of anyone. E.g. JM Coetzee is likely the most important extant novelist in the English canon at this very moment. Widely read and lauded, it’s easy to see why what he has to say is important. It’s moments like these I praise the French Academy or lit snobs and other gate keepers. Anyhow, I’ll try to calm this screed down, but IQfy’s tastes are the tastes of outsiders, art brut weirdos, schizophrenics, miscreants, people who believe in magic, ironic homosexuals, troons and racists, tweens, etc. Sometimes, when I read what people have to say on this website, I find myself screaming like my family used to shout when I was child “why can’t you be normal?” Meaning healthy, well-adjusted, not maladaptive, etc. not all that is normal is bad; not all that is strange is good.
Anyway, I have some predictions. In 5 years, no one will be reading this guy. In 10 years, when people say Benatar, people will think of Pat (love is a battlefield!) and not David. In 1000 years, will still be reading Augustine and Aquinas.
>In 1000 years, will still be reading Augustine and Aquinas.
Apropos of nothing, anti-natalists, futurists and Utopianists are cringe because they get zero pussy
Good to see the pseud poseur twitter philosopher is also reading and responding to the good angelic doctor. Otherwise, I have no response. You should use PIE as a rhetorical technique to enrich your posts. For instance, you’ve illustrated something without point/explanation. I have no frame of reference for it, hence my lack of a response. You could try this. 1. Make a point. “Aquinas is outmoded.” 2. Illustrate, “According to Nick Land, a literal who gives a frick, who gives a shit philosopher, ‘Aquinas is a poopyhead. ‘ 3. Explain (because not all quotes speak for themselves “evidently, Aquinas is literally le bad according to Nick Land and me.”
Amen.
>because they get zero pussy
"Zero is indivisible, so that zero belief cannot be rigorously differentiated from belief in zero. It is in this sense that atheism is a religion. Not that atheism is committed to a specific conviction, quite the opposite; it is precisely the specificity of conviction that it attacks. Understood negatively it denies the false absolute of theos, but understood positively it affirms the true absolute marked by the ‘privative’ a-; the nihil from which creation proceeds, the undifferentiable cosmic zero.
Everything has obviously gone wrong for us in order for Plato to begin with One rather than Zero. To take One as originary is to presuppose everything; such as unity, individuation, achieved form, and dogmatic plenitude. The One is the phallomorphic base of Occidental culture, in the sense that Irigaray understands it. It is the mono—of monotheism, and monotheism is condensed irreligion; the definitive patriarchal effacing of intra-uterine indifferentiation (and thus of the primary ripple from out of chaotic zero). The differentiated one is the Father, and his adorers understand nothing of religion. Even in writing the nothing, as Aquinas does, they eclipse it with absolute ego (Him). Nor is it the case that primary immanence is merely crushed with arbitrariness beneath a partially inadequate metaphorics, since—far from being neutral between the sexes—it is precisely because indifferentiation (= 0) is sexually unsegmented that it is even more feminine than the mother. The femininity of zero is uncompromised by its indifference, due to the unilateral character of individualizing deviation. Whilst zero is certainly alien to the Father, there is no differentiation from zero. Indeed, zero is so utterly vulvo-uterine that patriarchy is synonymous with irreligion (faith).
Like zero, money is a redundant operator; adding nothing in order to make things hum. When Marx associates capital with death he is only drawing the final consequence from this correspondence. Surplus value comes out of labour-power, but surplus production comes out of nothing. This is why capital production is the consummating phase of nihilism, the liquidation of theological irreligion, the twilight of the idols. Modernity is virtual thanocracy guided insidiously by zero; the epoch of the death of God. There is no God but (only) zero—indifferentiation without unity—and *nihil* is true religion.
Schopenhauer remarks of the cosmic vulva (=0):
We must not even evade it, as the Indians do, by myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahman, or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. On the contrary, we freely acknowledge that what remains after the complete abolition of the will is, for all who are still full of the will, assuredly nothing. But also conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this very real world with all its suns and galaxies, is—nothing [Sch II 508]."
Nick Land was the best prose stylist of the 20th century but unironically
>There’s not some secret novel or poem or text that’s ’great’
wrong
Do you prefer gothic cathedrals or protestant churches?
OP is an illiterate homosexual
Read Meltdown
http://www.ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm
i made the post as bait
agree
more like him?