Nick Land

Land has actually that indiscriminate migration (eg from the third world) is bad for capitalism as it creates badly-governed, low iq, low trust societies. More of a HBD guy than an ethnonationalist

How should I into Land and should I wait until I finish Marx and Hegel because I'll be doing that anyway

>Thatcher did not support the causes of the alt-right

Nor does Land.
He's looking for a crack-up. Tribalisms and universalisms do not interest him. He see privatization as a possible opening through which fissiparous forces might enter our world paving the way for dissolution and unimaginable reconstitution.

He negates that most off-key technology, such as computers, the Internet or space technology was a result of government funding. Private companies are neither interested nor able to invest into completely game-changing technology, they stick with what could sell in current conditions.

I like the animations his videos have. They remind me of MDE. I figure whatever he's talking about is probably right because he does such a good job of representing the 21st century aesthetic with his visuals and naming of things.

But will Neo China arrive with cute girls (male)?
That all that i care about

Bitcoin is Neo-China arriving from the future.

I have a hard time comprehending his psychology

How does someone actually develop a desire to be dominated and assimilated by an AI machine god

I would say inceldom and loserdom, but neither seem to apply to Land, as he is highly successful in his own way of existence.

So no idea.

yes with sexbots. easier to handle than real girls and smell better

S C H I Z O T Y P Y

femdom + blade runner

I haven't read much of him, but I get the impression that Land doesn't really understand what capitalism is or how it works

Nick Land probably has an IQ of 180 and an EQ of 20.

>and smell better

I doubt it.

>I haven't read much of him, but I get the impression that Land doesn't really understand what capitalism is or how it works

What makes you say that?

Mark fisher is largely where I'm getting this view from:
"Land collapses capitalism into what Deleuze and Guattari call schizophrenia, thus losing their most crucial insight into the way that capitalism operates via simultaneous processes of deterritorialization and compensatory reterritorialization. Capital’s human face is not something that it can eventually set aside, an optional component or sheath-cocoon with which it can ultimately dispense. The abstract processes of decoding that capitalism sets off must be contained by improvised archaisms, lest capitalism cease being capitalism. Similarly, markets may or may not be the self-organising meshworks described by Fernand Braudel and Manuel DeLanda, but what is certain is that capitalism, dominated by quasi-monopolies such as Microsoft and Wal-Mart, is an anti-market. Bill Gates promises business at the speed of thought, but what capitalism delivers is thought at the speed of business. A simulation of innovation and newness that cloaks inertia and stasis."

markfisherreblog.tumblr.com/post/32522465887/terminator-vs-avatar-notes-on-accelerationism

It seems like Land believes that accelerated capitalism reveals itself as being not only against the general stability of mankind and so on, but indeed can and will exist without humanity altogether, leaving only purely technocratic and cyberpunkish robotics to roam the earth continuously, without any regard or worry about the increasingly failing environment and whatever. But sorta ignores how capitalism inherently relies on the continual motion of humanity's relation to capital.

if you read the chapter from D&G in Mille Plateaux about Bodies without Organs + The Meltdown, you should get it.

EQ was invented by women and doesn't exist scientifically

IQ and EQ are about as reasonable and scientific as an astrology reading or myer briggs test

this is a real test, replicant liar
youtube.com/watch?v=Umc9ezAyJv0

>IQ not science!!!
You don't understand basic statistics, yet you act like science is the decisive analytical method. Like pretty much every 'fuck yeah science' brainlets out there.

>act like science is the decisive analytical method

Why isn't it?

Blah blah blah. Look, my basic qualm with IQ is that it doesn't seem to have any philosophical foundation whatsoever. It's one thing to say "This person seems to be generally smarter than this other person," it's another thing entirely to distill "Intelligence" into a numeric measurement without making gigantic epistemological assumptions. You have to define what intelligence is, what knowledge is, the difference between the two, and how it can be at all measured. Trying to avoid dealing with its implications by calling it "science" is a just a lazy cop-out.

Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of the muh science sperm wastes who have high school level understandings of it. But yeah, newtonian science is dated and dumb anyhow.

How does today's science differentiate from Newtonian science? Is this what Kuhn wrote a book about?

>any philosophical foundation
Two posts above you were invoking science as the Great Tool to differentiate truth from falsehood. Is it philosophy now? Your qualms about IQ are founded, but your attitude completely incoherent.

I only posted
In my mind, any decent science takes this shit into consideration, IQ doesn't seem to at all.

Today's science is still newtonian. Quantum physics isn't though, and we have more and more scientists pushing the boundaries, notably the ones involved in holotropism/holography. It still is a mess and pure speculation as the scientific method requires observation not intuition. We won't make great discoveries anymore until the scientific paradigm shifts to something I can't even begin to describe, or comprehend.

IQ tests are assessing an individuals ability to perform abstract, mathematical and spatial tasks. These are closely correlated to what is generally called Intelligence. There are no big assumptions and philosphical foundations needed.

I know I'm just being a shitposter. The point being, IQ is what is is because scientists realize we cannot quantify (yet?) your very qualms. So the best we have is a standardized test to rank people statistically.

And why does this Newtonian science fail? Because quantum physics seem to undermine the principles of certainity and causality?

Some books on the topic of newer scientific theories?

The measurement of anything requires foundation. There's a reason Aristotle never conducted imperical tests.
IQ necessarily relies on implicit philosophical grounds that go undefined and undefenced. Aside from the basic assumption that mathematical ability is related to, or entirely makes up, intelligence, which is left ungrounded, but to further state that one's ability to perform a certain test can reveal anything about one's relationship to "knowledge", whatever that means for IQ, is in itself a big jump. Treating the mind like a computer requires a lot of defending of which the IQ test provides none. Basing an entire system off of "what is generally called intelligence" isn't good enough.

But to even rank people relies on the notion that something can even be ranked. Look, maybe IQ is even correct, but the framework needs to take these necessities into consideration. At the moment it serves as a vague measurement of nothing.

>to rank relies on the notion that something can be ranked
Have people do arithmetics and rank them according to who got the most right answers? You're making this way more complicated than it is.

Dude, we're talking about intelligence, science, and measurement; they're complicated.

Arithmetics is pure math, it's not supposed to measure or represent anything in the world other than itself as a value---there's a whole field dedicated to understanding how that even works in the first place. It's one thing to grade a test, it's a totally different matter to use that grade to represent a loosely defined concept.

from the thirst for annhil.
>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.

the person who wrote that line is awesome

>appealing only to the indolent, the maladapted, and the psychologically diseased.

Ain’t that the truth?

I don't see anything 'alternative' there.

>
>Capital’s human face is not something that it can eventually set aside, an optional component or sheath-cocoon with which it can ultimately dispense.
>capitalism inherently relies on the continual motion of humanity's relation to capital.

I think it's you and Mark Fisher who misunderstand capitalism.

How so?

What part of capitalism requires the concept of human?

honestly this dude sounds awesome kek. i'm watching an interview on youtube right now to get a feel for how seriously he takes himself

Value as a whole?

nick land is for nerds who masturbate to ghost in the shell stand alone complex

>obscuriantist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistolæ_Obscurorum_Virorum

as much as i think he has an interesting point of view, i don't think he actually has a high iq. and after reading his insights into theoretical physics, i'm pretty sure he's not good at math or quantitative problem selving in general.

Which parts did you find to be false?

It’s obvious he’s highly intelligent. His analysis of Western philosophy after Kant taught me more than university philosphy courses.

>he thinks there's no hard problem

You probably believe in other minds too huh

Why?

>Enlightenment philosophers used the term for conservative, especially religious enemies of progressive Enlightenment and its concept of the liberal spread of knowledge.
Either I've not read enough original Enlightenment philosophers or that article is bullshitting because I've literally never seen that.

Exchange value only arises out of the objectification and equalization of labor via the exchange itself. I mean, Land's not a marxist per-say, but he's a follower of Marx's critique. He ought to know that humans' relationship to the division of labor, value, and commodities, define what capitalism is.

I'm not that guy, but I'm a physicist and read a lot of Land. His "physics" stuff goes right into the "not even wrong" territory. He commits what seem to be purposeful redefinition with no warning or reason and doesn't care to throw words around that may or may not actually mean what he intends them to mean.

To be fair, only some things are borderline cringy, where I mostly pretend/hope he's not really trying to talk about actual physics but merely comparing social entities to dynamical systems according to their limit behaviors, which still somewhat fails to entertain much sense, but I digress. There are other things that are more lightweight and his more philosophical/social commentary really shines through, such as in the "Lure of the Void" essay.

Also, regardless of his intelligence, I think he scores way up high in the entertaining department, which is both rare and welcome for someone of his caliber/political leaning. His texts, although somewhat obscure/very freehand-ish with science concepts, are pleasuring to read which I believe makes the "hard philosophy" he talks about easier/funnier to learn.

Labor is not a human exclusive concept.

i wouldn't call his descriptions false so much as confusedl, and clearly indicative of a mostly superficial interest in the relevant concepts. which is fine, because anyone who is expecting to learn thermodynamics from him is retarded.

his description of intrinsinc vs extrinsic processes in physical particles literally makes no fucking sense. actually, if you choose to assume he's using technical terms unironically, that whole section on negentropy makes no fucking sense. which is fine by me.

I'm not a marx scholar by all means but that argument could probably use an update: deterritorialization of values into markets can be done pretty much without humans as long as whatever entities that remain possess that built-in along their utility functions. A Self driving car does not need to work for money to still be the active agent in an exchange of economical value, and although it still transports a person, you can change "car" by spaceship and "person" by "resource to build more machines" and an exchange of nature-to-economy is now going on in a potentially human-less environment. With that said, I too believe it's very hard to take humans out of capital, but it's somewhat presumptuous to assume it can only exist as an emergent effect of human populations.

Thing is, does Land even think like that nowadays? His recent stuff on Jacobite seem much more, and quite literally, down to earth.

Tbqhwy, I'm a philosophylet and I just wanted to introduce this interseting and – as I assume – not so well known fact about the origin of the term.

I called him obscuritantist because hes indeed an Enlightenment critic

It is for Marx who, you know, is the origin of accelerationism in the first place.

Didn't mean to deny that, see .

Just because Marx was on the right track when it came to some things doesn't mean you need to keep clinging to the all the things he was wrong about.

He's schizotypal

Marx's whole philosophy doesn't work without his definition of the human being, which is pretty robust:

"Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation."

"Man is a species-being, not only because he practically and theoretically makes the species – both his own and those of other things – his object, but also – and this is simply another way of saying the same thing – because he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being"

"It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty"

Land, insofar as he's an accelerationist relying on Marxist economics, also must basically follow Marx's definition of the human.

>Marx's whole philosophy doesn't work without his definition of the human being, which is pretty robust:
I agree.
What I take from Marx is his correct diagnosis of the symptoms and effects, not any insight about cause or solution.

>But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so,
That's just blatantly not true.

Accelerationism obviously does not rely on Marxist economics if Marxist economics is so narrow as to fall apart without the presence of humans.

>That's just blatantly not true.
Even so, it doesn't really negate the "he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being," i.e. conscious laboring for the sake of laboring, which animals seem to totally lack.

>Accelerationism obviously does not rely on Marxist economics if Marxist economics is so narrow as to fall apart without the presence of humans.
Which is why Fisher was suspicious of post-human accelerationism at all; he's seeing Land as missing the core element of what makes capitalism function at all, stating that what Land describes can't and shouldn't be called capitalism.

Marx's "capitalism" is a labelling of a collection of symptoms. Land talks about the underlying force.
If you want to say that one or the other is the 'true' meaning of the word, you're just having a semantic argument.

You don't develop a liking you dolt. It is happening without your consent

>Even so, it doesn't really negate the "he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being," i.e. conscious laboring for the sake of laboring, which animals seem to totally lack.
This is the biggest problem with Marx, he has this religious anthropocentric humanism.

Humans are animals.

>Marx's "capitalism" is a labelling of a collection of symptoms. Land talks about the underlying force.
Oh please, materialist dialectics explicitly deals with the essence of historical development. Scare quotes alone aren't an actual critique.

I wasn't using the quotes as a critique. I was emphasising that the word was being used with different scopes and meanings.

I don’t get what he’s trying to say with his alternative conception of the Boltzmann law then, if he isn’t even interested in properly studying the original concept.

>He has this religious anthropocentric humanism
not in his later works

well...

What are these about?

Fortean Anti-Humanism?

>tfw Nick Land is an edgy fedora tipper

I have not been a theist for a single second of my life. In my first
assemblies at primary school, when the theistic idiocy was first
wheeled out, I remember thinking: it is natural that adults should
lie to you, but is it really necessary for them to insult the
intelligence quite this much? As for the longing to believe, nothing
could be more alien to me, because nothing is more obvious than
the fact that humanity - far from being a creation - is a disease.
Why should the absence of a divinity analogical to mankind be
more disturbing than the absence of a giant tortoise supporting the
world on its back? If pressed, I would be forced to argue that the
latter belief offers more consolation, adds greater richness to
cosmology, exhibits greater intellectual sophistication. Monotheists
are like those dull and uninspired children who compel you to
patronize them. In the end, one has to ignore them, one cannot
stoop far enough to argue, after all, if they are capable of believing
such things what are they not capable of believing? An insipid
pseudo-religion in the terminal phase of its senescence is perhaps
safer than the rejuvenating absurdities into which its disillusioned
adherents would undoubtedly stumble.

>*Blocks path*
>Heh, you have schizotypy too huh?
>*Unloads hyperobjects*
>Welcome to the anthropocene kid
>downloading.schizotypy.zip

...

...

Ah, someone even more autistic than Nick Land. Fascinating.

Morton is actually good though

Do I have to read these to understand Fanged Noumena?

Please do go on,
Why do you think so?

No. You have to have a general grasp on the history of Western philosophy, Deleuze and Kant.

Land doesn't seem awkward to me desu, at least judging by his interviews

His philosophy is awkward.

wtf I love Bitcoin now

I get the first chapters of his book, but when he begins to dive deep into medieval theology and ontology, he loses me.

all political theories pretty much assume intentionality of some kind. whether it depends on the existence of humans or other self-interested beings

>marxist per-say
stopped reading
quit larping as an educated person whose opinion matters

You never read marx you dumbfuck. Pathetic. I never see you guys saying such inane bullshit irl lmao, you'd get shank on the spot . I'm absolutely not a communist or marxist, but he is the greatest influence in modern western thought. Then you act like the op you replied to is a pseud. haha. kill yourself.