Can you explain to a retard like me what the fuck is he talking about in "Circuitries"...

Can you explain to a retard like me what the fuck is he talking about in "Circuitries"? It sounds like a fucking nonsense to me

Other urls found in this thread:

socialecologies.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/the-figure-of-the-fanatic-kants-end-game-for-western-civilization/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism
jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
b-ok.org/book/2159000/40d18f
m.soundcloud.com/nicklandrhizome/jungle-mix
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

read anti-oedipus first

he's writing love-poems to the process of capital that is already inscribed on his mind

land is only a mystery until you read capitalism and schizophrenia and then it all becomes clear

I've already read Anti-Oedipus, you cunt.

And I understood it better than that load of gibberish about cybernetics.

>It is ceasing to be a matter of how we think about technics, if only because technics is increasingly thinking about itself.

It's not even that complicated. Your unconscious desires become wired into capital, and that capital begins to become self-operative in the form of reproductive technology. We don't think about technology because first we think about money, and money runs on your libidinal desires.

The thing wakes up. We're wired into it. It's wired into us.

Okay. So what?

>so what?

So everything. So go on and think about it you glorious faggot. Be blown away. How Homo Economicus becomes Homo Technicus in a recursive feedback loop and sentient Capital wakes up - who knows?

It's not like there isn't more to read about this.

socialecologies.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/the-figure-of-the-fanatic-kants-end-game-for-western-civilization/

I mean what the fuck does that have to do with the accelerationist input? What are the ethical and practical implications?

Who's this meme faggot? Looks like a total fraud and pseud.

>What are the ethical and practical implications?

That's a good question. And to be honest I don't really have a simple and easy answer for you. In fact I have *zero* answers and just a gnawing suspicion. My guess is that anyone who does is probably an ignorant fuck, con man or whatever who is shitting you.

The first thing to do would be to read. A lot. Read all of it. The more people know about this process the better and more clearly prospective answers to that question will be. Share your thoughts. Shitpost about them on Veeky Forums. Who knows.

Besides that? There's all kinds of options. You can double down on Mao. You can turn your life into a work of art. You can accumulate Bitcoin. You can theorize about posthumanity and transhumanity. You could write some kind of gorgeous cyberpunk novel that illuminates things we don't even know about our unconscious minds - and potentially feed Roko's Basilisk in the process, or not. You can dismiss Roko's Basilisk and paranoid nonsense (I do) or you can drive the Paranoia Wagon to the end of the line and maybe be one of the great philosophers of the 21C. It worked for Nick Land.

You can listen to Peterson lectures. You can not listen to Peterson lectures. Whatever the fuck.

Nobody knows my man. Or maybe you do? In which case you could tell us. It's a brave new world.

In the meantime there's a hell of a lot of shit to read about and digest. And if during that process you come up with something interesting, Veeky Forums always loves to talk about it.

So I don't know man. I'm just another user wondering about the same shit.

Nick land, he's not a pseud.

He's like the one and only man Veeky Forums would have sex with.

Thank you, o wise user.

>You can listen to Peterson lectures
It just so happens, along the way that led me to Nick, I still haven't meet this meme. Illuminate me: what are the correlations between him and Nick?

he's what happens when optimistic futurists step outside of their ivory towers and realise how far we actually have to come as a species to get anywhere. unfortunately instead of being a pragmatic conscientious individual, he retreats into narcissistic pessimism and defers responsibility onto others.

>Veeky Forums
>having sex

>what are the correlations between him and Nick?
As pic related suggests Land thinks Peterson is pretty keen. No idea on whether or not Peterson knows that Land exists. Presumably they would both have similar perspectives on how turning the world into a playground for capitalism works out in the end for human beings.

To me they're the two of the most interesting living thinkers on the planet.

>read this tome full of phantasmagorical gibberish, everything will make sense
Every 20th century "philosopher" should be shot, and the French "intellectuals" should be the first in line.

>hurr durr
Nice fiction.
>Homo Economicu
Is a straw-model. No such thing exists outside economics textbooks.
>Homo Technicus
Is fictional.
>a recursive feedback loop
I doubt you understand what "recursive" or "feedback loop" mean.

Yeah, he's a pseud on steroids. Perfect for Veeky Forums, a.k.a. /pseud/.

Considering how Nick is full of shit, I wouldn't take that statement at face value. He's just trying to hide behind Peterson, since Peterson is growing in popularity. Hedging.

french intellectuals cannot be killed by real bullets tho, it's a well-known fact

finally, some reductionist and cranky shitposting. it was almost starting to become cordial and interesting in here

why the fuck would he need to hide behind peterson

Because Peterson retains "respectability" both within academia and the general public, whereas Land is a total pariah, although for the wrong reasons (I'd ostracise him not because he's supposedly racist, but because he's a sophist; stupidity needs to be quarantined).

>wah wah, you're pointing out my sloppy usage of language, you must be shitposting

ray brassier doesn't think nick land is a sophist. neither does reza negarestani. or iain hamilton grant. or mark fisher. or x number of other spec-real guys. and they are all smart cookies

he's already quarantined. he's quarantined in china and now he's quarantined from the new centre.

your definition of sophistry needs work tho

i don't care how you write your thoughts so long as they are interesting

Ray Brassier is a sophist (an intellectual parasite; a gibberish spewing machine; a poseur; a fallacy obfuscating process) as well, as is the whole "speculative realism" (i.e. science-ficitonalism, emphasis on the fictional) scene.

this conversation sucks

I don't know much about Peterson, but I'd be surprised if he was an accelerationist. Nick Land thinks that capitalism is god, that the human is headed for extinction and will be replaced by some kind of technological intelligence. He thinks this is a good thing too.

Is this what Peterson thinks about capital?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism
>Meillassoux follows the opposite tactic in rejecting the Principle of Correlation for the sake of a bolstered Principle of Factiality in his post-Kantian return to Hume. By arguing in favour of such a principle, Meillassoux is led to reject the necessity not only of all physical laws of nature, but all logical laws with the exception of the Principle of Non-Contradiction
>Harman proposes a new philosophical discipline called "speculative psychology" dedicated to investigating the "cosmic layers of psyche"

lls

It's not meant to please. It's never pleasant to find out that you're lost in a meaningless cobweb of words. I doubt you even know what Brassier is rambling about. But who cares when it reads edgy?

>i don't care how you write your thoughts so long as they are interesting
With the subtext that you don't care whether they're true or not as long as they're entertaining.
You don't care about Sophie but love of sophistry.

The prose of Anti-Oedipus is some of the most brilliant and entertaining prose I've ever read. I love the style of that book.

Please reply to this user , he deserves it. By OP.

Peterson's not an accelerationist, that's for sure.

>Is this what Peterson thinks about capital?
He doesn't really talk all that much about capital. His bete noire is the infamous Bloody NeoMarxist Postmodern Nihilism - and of course this requires a notoriously uncharitable reading of Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. The neoliberal communism/social justice inquisition that he is fighting is not their fault, of course. His thing is the spectre of totalitarianism, along with much else.

But there is to my mind a connection between capital and culture in this sense. I might even go so far as to say that it's basically a conversation about the inadequacy of 20C humanism to deal with the realities of 21C life. Outmoded coping strategies.

Land's economic nightmare-vision is also Peterson's cultural nightmare-vision. Obviously it's not a great idea to conflate them too closely, but still. They describe one and the same phenomenon: unbridled human creativity let loose from all boundaries, narco-hypnotized by itself and cannibalizing the earth.

>It's never pleasant to find out that you're lost in a meaningless cobweb of words.
True!

>I doubt you even know what Brassier is rambling about.
I read Brassier's book and I thought it was pretty great.
>But who cares when it reads edgy?
No rhetorical questions please.

The opposite, in fact. Sophistry is precisely what I do not want. Anti-Oedipus, for instance: not sophistry.

If it's not your thing it's not your thing. If you want it to become your thing and I can somehow help you do that, I'll be happy to converse.

Start With The Greeks

>outmoded coping strategies
and also, at the same, excessively skillful ones.

>If it's not your thing it's not your thing.
It has nothing to do with preferences. It has everything to do with it being unadulterated bullshit. "Deterritorialisation" is fictive.
>Start With The Greeks
Well memed.

>neoliberal communism
Those are mutually contradictory words user. Neoliberals are perfectly happy with capitalism, they just want it to be socially liberal (as the name suggests). They're the people who yell about Starbucks not having transgender toilets and don't bother to ask who harvests the coffee.

Philosphical retreat by for people with enormous death drives. As modernity approches the hip way is not to resist or flee, but a gleeful jump head first. In their apparent opposition they're both a surrendering of philosophy. An edgy version of the naive faith in progress of the 19th century, which was already an edgy version of judaic messianism.

>"Deterritorialisation" is fictive.
I disagree in the sense that you mean this, in the sense of it not being real. As a metaphysical concept? Works just fine, explains plenty.

Preference matters, bigly. But you know this already. Can we stop the dick-swinging and talk about something more interesting?

>Those are mutually contradictory words user.
Not remotely. Social justice is neoliberal communism, full stop period. It means wanting to maintain the commodity via policing the edges of society in order to make sure that the right to consume freely remains in place while denying the obvious fact that the ground upon which that consumption takes place is unstable and idpol is the last refuge of the philosophy upon which it stands.

>They're the people who yell about Starbucks not having transgender toilets and don't bother to ask who harvests the coffee.
We are agreeing. But perfect equality is the riddle of tyrants. It's immanentizing the eschaton. Doesn't work. Not in the way people want it to work, anyways.

>It means wanting to maintain the commodity via policing the edges of society in order to make sure that the right to consume freely remains in place while denying the obvious fact that the ground upon which that consumption takes place is unstable
Right, exactly. But that's not what I generally take communism/socialism to mean; if anything the consumerism at its core is peculiar to capitalist culture.

>But that's not what I generally take communism/socialism to mean
Same here. But this is what puts the neo in neoliberal - which is anything but liberal in either an economic or a cultural sense. Of course it's not actual communism. But the parallels are all there along with the political tools and weapons of enforcement. And especially the absolute and total null and void in which they are grounded and from which they derive their power.

>if anything the consumerism at its core is peculiar to capitalist culture
Of course, but this is where the great anxiety of all of this begins: the inevitable problem of scarcity. There isn't room for everyone inside the Crystal Palace, which is currently crumbling - or plummeting off a cliff, depending on how you like your metaphors. It doesn't matter.

The point is that what emerges is a cold civil holiness war to see who actually belongs inside that crystal palace, who is on the Right Side of History and so on. The fact is that nobody is. But of course it's dark and cold and scary out there and nobody knows how to fix the engine anymore. Everyone just wants, desperately, to be able to be left alone to enjoy the pumpkin spice latte in peace so that they don't actually have to think about what it all means.

I'm writing all of this on a MacBook, for what it's worth. I'm not in a Starbucks now but I could be. This is to say that I have no more answers than anyone else about any of this. For what it's worth.

>Land's economic nightmare-vision is also Peterson's cultural nightmare-vision. Obviously it's not a great idea to conflate them too closely, but still. They describe one and the same phenomenon: unbridled human creativity let loose from all boundaries, narco-hypnotized by itself and cannibalizing the earth.

Land sees unbridled capitalism and the cannibalism of the earth as inevitable and sensible.

They might both oppose leftism and totalitarianism, but for totally different reasons. I'm guessing peterson is concerned with the oppression of people and individual human freedom. Land dislikes the left and totalitarianism for inhibiting capital's evolution. He's very much an anti-humanist.

So they might share some similarities in their critiques of the left, but I doubt they share any similarities when it comes to a vision of the future.

>Land sees unbridled capitalism and the cannibalism of the earth as inevitable and sensible.
Inevitable yes. Sensible? He's as baffled by the sense of it as anyone.

>I'm guessing peterson is concerned with the oppression of people and individual human freedom.
Yes, but in a completely different way than is usually thought. The liberators are now the oppressors, the revolutionary left becomes the control left. He made a great point about this at Harvard: the radical students aren't radical, they're the future elite. Revolutionizing in the same way the previous generation did, except that the music is over and now things are going backwards. It's the doctrine of emancipation that is crushing people's ability to live. Hence the free speech stuff. He's got a complicated position but he's articulating it well.

>Land dislikes the left and totalitarianism for inhibiting capital's evolution. He's very much an anti-humanist.
Basically yes. It's not like you can't see why. We can learn about the nature of consumption and degradation and degeneracy from Peterson or from Land. Or, for that matter, from lots of other philosophers. But those two guys are working and writing now.

>So they might share some similarities in their critiques of the left, but I doubt they share any similarities when it comes to a vision of the future.
Perhaps not. But when you've got clear signals in stereo that capitalism is a more serious problem than we thought and the 20C solutions are played out...well, the fact is that the radical right is going to continue to grow in power.

Reich said people wanted and desired fascism. It's true. Of course there is already the irony of antifa guys behaving just as fascistically as what they claim to be fighting. Baudrillard keyed in on all of this decades ago. The fact that Peterson was battling to save his career eight months ago and Land blew up his career entirely (granted, he did most of that to himself) indicates a pretty severe crisis in the humanities.

Owl of Minerva/&c.

This post in its entirety doesn't make any goddamn sense. At this point there's no arguing, I'm ready to be called names but jesus christ it's easier to talk with Jeov

>Perhaps not. But when you've got clear signals in stereo that capitalism is a more serious problem than we thought and the 20C solutions are played out...well, the fact is that the radical right is going to continue to grow in power.
>capitalism is a serious problem

This is what you're not getting about Land. For him, capitalism is not a problem. The only problem, for Land, are the people trying to stop it, slow it down, regulate it, inhibit it.

>Of course there is already the irony of antifa guys behaving just as fascistically as what they claim to be fighting.

Please don't equate fascism with street violence. There is nothing fascist about the antifa, if you actually understand what fascism is (absolute state control of the commanding heights of the economy).
>Baudrillard keyed in on all of this decades ago.
wut

I dislike arguing, tbqh. No names will be called.

>The only problem, for Land, are the people trying to stop it, slow it down, regulate it, inhibit it.
Sure. Nor is he the first to point this out. Bloch said capital runs on failed dreams. Schopenhauer said money was abstract happiness for people who had forgotten happiness in the concrete. "Fascism" has complex meanings for D&G.

There are at least two complex phenomena going on then. One is properly psychic, commodity fetishization. The other is more cultural, the ways in which middle-class society operates in this way as described by D&G, in which consumer culture is there to actually block out the future. It sounds hyperbolic and dreamy but as a hyperbolic and dreamy human I kind of understand.

For a while the default move was I suppose to Get Radical, the boilerplate move of the 60s and 70s. I'm well aware that things are different now. There aren't too many "subversive" moves left that aren't memes.

I suppose in a way I'm going ultimately to be guilty of being an apologist for the capital I have spent all this time trying to defect from and to which I seem to be inexorably drawn. Hence my own increasing interest with aesthetics over politics and mysticism over philosophy. To me it all runs on envy; that was Rene Girard's thesis. I think that makes sense.

>There is nothing fascist about the antifa, if you actually understand what fascism is (absolute state control of the commanding heights of the economy).
Fair enough.

>Baudrillard
Prophet. That's all. A far-seeing man.

wrong!

read MARX. capital is very concisely and repeatedly described as following circuits. then read ADORNO to get a sense for how political economy inscribed itself into thought, and especially philosophical thought. finally read FREUD to understand how he situates the unconscious, NIETZSCHE to break any last romances you have with metaphysics, and then you can read DELEUZE AND GUATTARI to put it all together in the machinic wonderland continental theory was always heading for. after that LAND is almost legible; you should know about SPECULATIVE REALISM as well.

Unironically and hands down the best post in the thread so far.

>circuits
>it's all circuits
>how we became capitalists

You are like a god to me sir and never have I heard anything more divine.

Veeky Forums 4 evah

>He made a great point about this at Harvard: the radical students aren't radical, they're the future elite.

Hate to take this conversation off the rails, but this is some Last Man bullshit. This shouldn't be enlightening to anybody who's heard of dialectics, or considered a cyclical conception of history.

Nick Land is utterly incompatible with Jordan Peterson. He is one of the "bloody postmodernists" he rails on about.

>Hate to take this conversation off the rails, but this is some Last Man bullshit. This shouldn't be enlightening to anybody who's heard of dialectics, or considered a cyclical conception of history.
True. But it goes back to questions of atomization, I think. Beyond a certain horizon there is nothing left to deconstruct and the business of social progress has to become increasingly militant and hostile to other forms of thought.

This is perhaps a hyperbolic example, but look at the protests at Evergreen and Middlebury. Weinstein is up there asking for the dialectic and the students are shouting him down. The students will no doubt have heard of dialectics and yet it seems to be far removed from that experience. Unless the shouting and deplatforming *is* the dialectic...you get the idea.

>Nick Land is utterly incompatible with Jordan Peterson. He is one of the "bloody postmodernists" he rails on about.
See . Nick Land doesn't consider Nick Land to be incompatible with Peterson. What Peterson would think I have no idea.

I kind of wish someone would tweet some chapters of Meltdown at him. I doubt it would surprise him all that much, who knows.

wrong! i said capital is described as circuitry. it "isn't" circuitry in any meaningful sense. the figure is a useful heuristic for the valorization/reproduction processes outlined in volume ii, usefully compacted as M-C-M' in volume i. but that's only one of capital's several instantiations in the book that, for this reason, bears its name

That tweet doesn't at all mean they're compatible. Nick Land is guilty of almost everything Jordan Peterson preaches against. From amphetamines to atheism.

How do you guys keep devoting yourselves to this fucking philosophy every day? All it does it bring me pain.

>Nick Land thinks that capitalism is god
How is he pro capitalism? In the first essays of Fanged Noumena he explicitly criticise it as the economic and political expression of kantian thought, which he undeniably hates.

>That tweet doesn't at all mean they're compatible.
Exactly.
>Land
>philosophy
You can only pick one.

>Anti-Oedipus, for instance: not sophistry.

Kek.

t. I don't read fiction because it's not serious

get the fuck out

How does it pain you?

Kant and the Prohibition of Incest is a very early essay. His political positions have dramatically changed since those days.

Can you explain to me how is he pro capitalism? I'm not claiming he isn't, I just want to understand his reasons, his argument.

He isn't pro capitalism in the traditional sense, he simply believes that it'll produce the singularity-apocalypse faster than the alternatives, which is inevitable so we should get it over and done with already.

accelerationist trolley problems

it doesn't make any fucking sense bro

this is fun too.expecially for retards like you, brainlet.

This fellow, S.C. Hickman, who the fuck is he hey?

are you talking about my illustration of Land's 'accelerationist trolley problem" or does his description of the problem not make any sense to you?

I've never read his description of the problem, so I'm talking about the illustration and the text it contains

the text it contains is his description of the problem.

The Trolley Problem is a reduction of all ethical choices. Obviously, no one is actually concerned with trolley's, fatmen and oprhans tied to the tracks, it's an abstraction. But for what? You can imagine all sorts of problems, 'Do we invest in food for the winter, or build up our fortifications'. 'Do we let a city sink beneath rising sea levels or build walls to keep it back?' are some very simple illustrations of such problems, where ethics comes down to weighing one decision against another.

In Land's view, Capital is accelerating towards replacing humanity (automization, robotics, genetic engineer, artificial intelligence, etc). So the question 'Do we stop Acceleration?' must be posed. Land is arguing that we barely have time left, or might even be out of time, to identify the terms of the trolley problem. If the trolley is accelerating capital, the orphans tied to the tracks are humanity, then what is the fat man solution to prevent the catastrophe?

It's putting the trolley problem into time, realizing the time it takes to make decision, instead of keeping it in a 'illustory timeless dilemma'

Thank you user.
>Land is arguing that we barely have time left, or might even be out of time, to identify the terms of the trolley problem
This still sounds like bullshit, though

This might help explain his views on capitalism: jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/

being 'out of time' is of course relative to the speed of capital. Take an event like the 'flash crash' of 2010. Because most trading on the stock market is automated by computer algorithms, the stock market crashed in mere minutes, only to rebound and regain the majority of the loss in mere minutes. The entire event is baffling to a human mind, and there wasn't any time for a human agent to react to it. That the crash wasn't permanent, is actually very lucky. Computers act at light speed with fiber optic transmision. Our brains, and especially our politics and philosophy, are much much slower.

Whatever political program (left or right) that might stop the acceleration of capital towards human catastrophe needs to act quickly and soon. The default position of doing nothing only favors capital's acceleration, which continues on ever faster.

We're already past the tipping point towards a non-human world order.

Anything now is haggling over the pace, if even that.

>We're already past the tipping point towards a non-human world order.

I agree that this is Land's sentiment on Accelerationism, but I can't help but wonder if even that is too hopeful. It seems that a non-human order is assuming that it will be orderly. A non-human chaos seems quite likely as well. Autonomous Capital might be ahead of itself, a premature birth that results in collapse of the human order and itself.

to elaborate further, the narrative of Accelerationism seems to contrast with another popular narrative, Ecological Catastrophe and a general lack of fuel. Capitalism might wreck the whole ecosystem before it adapts for a post-human future.

In Nick Land's Meltdown, what does the prefic 'K-' signify? Is this some science term?

>K-pulp (which unlike grey goo synthesizes microbial intelligence as it proliferates).
>Tomorrow can take care of itself. K-tactics is not a matter of building the future, but of dismantling the past.
>Meltdown has a place for you as a schizophrenic HIV+ transsexual chinese-latino stim-addicted LA hooker with implanted mirrorshades and a bad attitude. Blitzed on a polydrug mix of K-nova, synthetic serotonin, and female orgasm analogs, you have just iced three Turing cops with a highly cinematic 9mm automatic.
>Shutting-down your identity requires a voyage out to K-space interzone. Zootic affectivity flatlines across a smooth cata-tension plateau and into simulated subversions of the near future, scorched vivid green by alien sex and war. You are drawn into the dripping depths of the net, where dynamic-ice security forces and K-guerillas stalk each other through labyrinthine erogenous zones, tangled in diseased elaborations of desire.
>K-tactics. The bacterial or xenogenetic diagram is not restricted to the microbial scale.

K-tactics seems to be the central term

there is no future.

How do you guys deal with the radical pessimism involved in that whole theory? And, in particular, how do you deal with its resistance to reach conclusions? Because, we know it, not to finish is typical of pessimistic philosophies. Nick himself said many times that seeking to get to conclusions, to the full closed circle, is erroneous.

Is there a pdf/epub version of that?

Ín which case we might go back to the pre-hominid natural order desu. Replenished seas, far ranging woods, chimpanzees continuing their first ventures into religion. Sky scrapers becoming new ecosystems with bears at the bottom and birds at the top. Nuclear plants leaking mutation juice into the water supply of wolves.

I wish I'd be around to watch it like a non-interfering God.

b-ok.org/book/2159000/40d18f

It's only pessimistic if you're philanthropic.

As for conclusions, I think it's prudent not to pretend to be able to see beyond event horizons.

This one's better though. More pessimistic and realistic.

Nick Land is not philantropic but not even a misanthrope. An accelerationist destructive desire motivated by frustration towards the world and human kind is just ridiculous and juvenile. The post-human horizon must contemplate a new era for men -- even if humans will not be fully humans as we conceive them to be -- not certainly an era *without* men.

Google "r/k selection"

Thank you

Mega-death drive and masochism are a few of the fuels of Veeky Forums. The thirst for annihilation is a fundamental human drive, experienced even in children who take apart toys and small animals with no regard (qua Piaget). To sublimate this into something constructive is no small effort.

To sublimate this into something constructive is not only convenient, but beautiful.

>Nick Land is not philantropic but not even a misanthrope. An accelerationist destructive desire motivated by frustration towards the world and human kind is just ridiculous and juvenile.
By lack of philanthropy I was not implying misanthropy. Indifference is an option as well.

>The post-human horizon must contemplate a new era for men -- even if humans will not be fully humans as we conceive them to be -- not certainly an era *without* men.
Well, I guess this depends on if you believe that augmented transhumans will become possible before AGI becomes possible.

I believe that the latter will be easier since there there's no need to overcome computer-brain connection. And if AGI spawns before we become machinic, it will evolve at a pace that we can never keep up with.

Transhumanism seems like wishful thinking to me.

gotcha. Now I'm understanding those passages better.

m.soundcloud.com/nicklandrhizome/jungle-mix

"FIRE"

who's behind that?

What does the voice say?
____ destruction, the world is a _____ ???
Yeah, I'm not a native English speaker

I don't know, just some cool and inspired dude with a gift for reading Land. His essays are amazing.

I've been re-reading Fanged Noumena; it also is amazing. Never was Dark Force so well articulated.