Write endlessly about desire and the symbolic/imaginary

Pythons and Sleepwalking Philosophers

I believe this one is from 'America' if memory serves correctly. I lost my copy of that. Don't lend books you love :(

...

Also-

>The sad thing about artificial intelligence is that it lacks artifice and therefore intelligence.

The boy was a samurai.

It's dangerous to go alone, take this:

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=518570968F5F8F42A50EDBEEAEC1CC0F

Also, since this is a Baudrillard thread, plz enjoy the most Baudrillardian tumblr I have ever seen.

rekall.me

Thanks! But I do already have the pdf version. I just like books better because I read them on a couch or at the laundromat or auto shop or wherever and have physically separate myself from this desktop computer. Good way to make sure I focus.

"postmodernist" is a bullshit ideological insult designed quite instrumentally to overshadow the fact that the analysis of postmodernism as a facet of late capitalist cultural life was always a critique of the latter, not an endorsement of certain ways of living within it.

jordan peterson is a retard, stop listening to him.

Baudrillard is /ourguy/

insomnia.ac/essays/the_spirit_of_terrorism/

What order should I read this nigga in?

are B + (D+G) the most patrician french philosophers to read? i guess. F and D can suck my ass. right?

I suggest starting with America or the Transparency of Evil. Both are essentialy collections of aphorisms. It'll give you a good feel for him.

If you want to get into his theory on simulation, then Simulation and Simulacra, followed by The Perfect Crime are what you want.

Impossible Exchange is a good half-way point between simulation arguments and aphorism.

IF you want commentary on current events, then The Spirit of Terrorism, The Gulf War Did Not Take Place aregood.

Yes yes my man. /ourguy/

That very page was my gateway drug into continental philosophy. The pill doesn't come much redder.

You could do worse than here.
insomnia.ac/essays/

Deleuze and Derrida are the only actual philosophers of the usual rogue's gallery. The rest are culture critics.

They're all worth reading, of course. Right now D&G are hip b/c of Land and Baudrillard is cool because he was just an all-time cool motherfucker.

Foucault is dope in his own way but it's not how Veeky Forums is trending at the moment, perhaps. Derrida's time will come again, I've seen/read him referenced in interesting conversations about posthumanity and transhumanity (which is going to be a thing). Shitting too hard on any of those guys is usually a mistake. It's just the nature of these things. They're all worth knowing about.

street fighter wallpaper because reasons

Yeah, I'm going to agree with this poster. Fuck everything you've heard about continental philosophy from /pol/ or jordan peterson or richard dawkins. It's all worth investigating, if only to figure out that you don't agree with it. This trend to outright reject it is a mistake.

What did he mean by this?

He develops F's criticism of the "repressive hypothesis" by stating that the hypothesis that sex has been liberated throughout history is fabricated, since the primitive forms of sex suffered less repression than ours exactly because they were not bound by a "discourse of sex" which needed to establish primitive forms of sex as repressed to artificially liberate sex throughout history. And Foucauldian power = Deleuzian/Lyotardian desire.

Now, is his main thesis that the "genealogy of power" proposed by Foucault no longer applies because power has lost its "reference point" and has been replaced by the simulacrum of power, since there is no longer a necessity to produce "productive discourses" and "force relations", maintaining an order that is not grounded in reality (hyperreality)?

Help.

Anyone interested in some critique of Baudrillard? Simulacra are common signs of third stage of signification, first having signs signifying reality based on perception of God and the nature, which is premodern mode of signification, second incorporating exchange value of the capital and signs in their classical, de Saussere's way, marking modern stage of signification development. Postmodern state of sign comes from signs having two possible references: reality, which is their "life", or, in marxist terms, their use value; second possible reference is other signs, their exchange value. Now simulation is a situation in which borders between two possible references of a sign blurs. Authenticity and artificiality are now empty, lacking meaning terms (as in Debord's theory). It cannot be explained simply by saying, that signs signifying other signs are exchangable for signs signyfing non-signs. We need the term simulation. Simulating and faking have same starting position: lack of certain feature. But their dynamic is different: simulating becomes simulated. Therefore simulacrum isn't just a sign signifying other signs, it's a sign signifying other sign and having a status of a sign signifying non-signs. That's how hiper-reality is created. And here comes Baudrillard's apocalyptic imagination: signs having once entered third stage of simulation, post-modern hyper-real stage of signification, cannot point at reality again, because reality becomes reality of simmulacra.
What is to be considered about this theory is what role does history plays in the linguistic system development? Three stages of singification are tied with three stages of history. But consider this: why would system, having inherent possibility of changing in certaing direction, it being directon of simulation of third stage, not do it instantly? We need to seperate the chronological and logical requirements. Logical requirements are met on the very begining of systems life, and so, it's every possibility must be actualised. Every stage of system's development happend at the very same moment at system's beginning. If this is true, then continnum of facts would not be history of system's development, but history of system's users growing awarness of the system. The history would follow logical development. And that's how Baudrillard's thought can get traced back to Hegel.
If the asertion that if logical requirements of system development are met, the develompent must happen in the very moment they're met, is not true, then the question for the role of history can be asked: is linguistic system actually determined by it?
If my asertion is true, then: a) cultural signification was always in at least third stage. Our times wouldn't differ from any at all, making it conceptually possible to go back to other modes of signification. b) third stage doesn't have to be the last one: what would be later called the progress, would be us realizng the system.

That's some pretty thorny terrain, but yes. Basically I just think they had very different conceptions about the emancipatory potential of female sexuality and its significance for culture and politics.

Take Zizek, for example. Serious communist, wants to keep the conversation on capital rather than race and gender. Even Land, in Fanged Noumena, says that feminism has revolutionary potential.

The author of pic related not so much, I think. For him femininity is this seductive mystery that is a major part of his thought:

>It is the transubstantiation of sex into signs that is the secret of all seduction.

And signs/power/discourse/gender was Foucault's thing more than Baudrillard's. If it's possible to distinguish meaningfully between private/existential modes of critique and social/discursive ones, as Baudrillard's career progresses he kind of turns away from the social and begins writing in that increasingly mannered style. Meanwhile critical theory went on more towards gender and race theory. But for Baudrillard it was and remained all simulation and he sort of exited stage left in his own way. That's just my perspective, though. And I'm just another pseud-user.

paragraphs homeslice that shit is hard to read

Apparently that tumblr was set up by one of the developers at Fullbright (company that made Gone Home and is now working on Tacoma)

I'm thinking of reading this next, the part on reversibility and seduction went over my head. Is it too hard if I've only read a few essays and In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities?

Basically, how power/desire can be properly characterized and explained becomes a kind of grail quest for continental theorists. If sexual relations are in some sense inescapably sadomasochistic (and already you can hear some French thinker sigh and light a cigarette as the bloom is taken off the rose, how gauche we are required to be with these things) then what characterizes that? Foucault - and Lacan - skews towards Sade, Deleuze towards Masoch. And those two guys had a wonderful friendship. Oedipal castration, or Reichian schizoanalysis? They both seem to work in terms of making theory happen.

Baudrillard just seems to have preferred the concept of seduction. I don't know if he wrote, for example, about homosexuality, but I don't think it really would have mattered. Lacan's objet a can be explained in terms of Baudrillard's concept of seduction, and vice-versa. There's something going on in the concept of attraction, and where there is attraction between humans is everything else: violence, power, desire, simulation, dissimulation, the whole libidinal enchilada.

So asking if has power lost its reference point is kind of interesting. If sexuality and seduction are things we lay out on a morgue table to perform an autopsy on, in the interest in getting down to the ones and zeroes of interhuman affect, then perhaps Baudrillard was right. But if leaving those places unexplored only leads to more misunderstanding and power inequalities and so on then perhaps Foucault is the guy. Or both, or neither, and so on.

Personally? I like a little mystery in the thing. I don't really want to see the unconscious modernized. Maybe I'm sentimental like that. Or maybe because it all feeds the horrible machine Land is talking about. Could be that too.

In the end all of this stuff made me fall for a gentle Catholic literary critic who says more Shakespeare is required. Funny way to find your way back to great books but hey. For whatever that's worth.

Interesting. There's some pretty Veeky Forums vidya out there...

so using Baudrillard to justify beloved by /pol/ concept of going back? tying him with Hegel is interesting. but your writing is too technical. also, sorry to be pedantic, but it's literary board...
>asertion

Nah, just get in there. It's always like that at first. And then eventually it isn't. If it sucks and you can't make sense of it just read something else.

To me System of Objects and especially pic related were necessary to understanding Baudrillard. Reading this was one of the all-time Holy Shit moments in my own weird misadventure reading this stuff. It may not be the same for you but it hit me like a ton of bricks. This was where JB tapped into that deep deep sacrificial weirdness/primitivism to start looking at culture. One of the books I shilled the hardest when I started posting on Veeky Forums.

So yeah, I don't know. Probably reading early Baudrillard is good because around Seduction and S&S he turns into old Baudrillard. But, like pizza, all Baudrillard is good Baudrillard.

And The Consumer Society, of course. In the end he just traces all of the Marxist stuff back to a theory of consumption that lies outside of economics and more in psychology and anthropology. Ultimately for him women just become the thing. They're the straw that stirs the drink. And whatever is meant by the terms sexuality, femininity, &c.

Also plugging Cool Memories, so much fun.

He never denied his status as a Pataphysician, FWIW.

I wish I had a group of friends that I could smoke weed with and discuss Baudrillard, Derrida, and DeLillo

i still don't get how people can consider this kind of shit edgy, oh boohoo consumerism, i guess when only the ruling aristocracy could afford gaudy trinkets it was ok? i know life denying asceticism when i see it, fuck off christfags

>i guess when only the ruling aristocracy could afford gaudy trinkets it was ok
The irony is that it's actually a pretty insightful remark. In the middle ages there actually was a stricter control of signs than there is now, owing to the proliferation of - hang on

>i know life denying asceticism when i see it
*sweats*

>fuck off christfags
m-my feelings tho

I really wish there was a dedicated insomnia-approved tumblr.

isn't 'Pataphysician the protected term, though?

This thread has also made me realize something:
Eventually, talking about Politics makes it about *you.* That's why political conversations, when they become capital-p Political, are so crushingly boring, it's when all the tediousness begins. It's like a game where every move is perfectly obvious, because no matter what it's inevitably going to be the furtherance of one thinly-veiled partisan interest or another. One, or the other, or some reference to a vague totality by means of the virtue signal.

Seduction might be called, properly speaking, the iniquity signal.

The reality principle is like a hot potato that you never want to get stuck with, because as soon as the music stops - and it will stop whenever you wish it to do so - the person holding it has to explain what they plan to do with it. And of course there is no answer to this, it's a trap. You're going to want to Do You and everybody knows this. The idea of style in some sense means knowing how to do nothing in a mannered way.

The "reality principle" has a kind of politics of its own. They're the politics - and the ethics, and the aesthetics - of *disaffection* and *disappointment.* Baudrillard is not only channeling Nietzsche's aristocratic sensibilities, he's also channeling the sensibilities of a guy left completely disappointed in the revolution. He's *extra*-bored. What's left? Nothing but a whole lot of Gauloise cigarettes and hotel rooms while you wait for the nukes to drop.

Or videogames...

Where does Baudrillard's "theory of women" shine through the most? Consumer Society mainly? It sounds interesting.

>What's left?
“If it is nihilistic to be obsessed by the mode of disappearance, and no longer by the mode of production, then I am a nihilist. Disappearance, aphanisis, implosion, Fury of Verschwindens.

Transpolitics is the elective sphere of the mode of disappearance (of the real, of meaning, of the stage, of history, of the social, of the individual).”

The Transparency of Evil has a whole chapter on what he calls 'Transexuality', though he doesn't mean chicks with dicks necessarily.

This clipping is from that chapter

I'd also point out that there is a substantial shift in his mode of thinking, perhaps best situated in 1976 with Symbolic Exchange and Death. The earlier works are definitely within a semiotic/marxist system, Symbolic Exchange and Death, but also Simulation and Simulacra, mark his shift into thinking about disappearance, impossible exchange, simulation, and the whole 'why is there nothing rather than something' type of thinking.

this is one of the funniest, scariest, and truest things I've read.

Seduction. I'd say that's the turning point. Although he does have some fascinating writing in TCS about how commodities sell the image of women back to women in this way. S&S always struck me as needlessly arcane. In pic related he's still working out his McLuhan stuff as well. In SE&D it's all death and Bataille and so on, although it's been a while since I read it. All worth reading tho.

And here's another thing that this thread has made me realize: just as D&G talk about deterritorialization and deterritorialization, Baudrillard is also fascinated with the dual process of the *production* and *consumption* of signs. This of course isn't perhaps such a remarkable idea at first glance - McLuhan/Marx/Debord/et al - but there is in his work a sensitivity to what D&G will call desiring-production, and then ultimately there is seduction as desiring-consumption (or, perhaps, desiring-to-be-consumed).

Down this road lies also icycalm, I think, playing videogames on nightmare difficulty and flirting with being wiped out by the image in virtual reality. Dude really is a genius. Artaud for the 21C? Don't shit on me too hard for this. I know a lot of the stuff he writes is berserk but he's the only guy connecting this to videogames.

Yes, exactly. But he was such a fucking romantic about it and so goddamn elegant. It wasn't just throw your hands up and sulk or find God or whatever.

Such an interesting guy,

where would one start with him? In both senses of his works and thinkers before him that are necessary

>where would one start with him?
I posted this in response to the same question, but I forgot about 'Passwords' which is an incredibly brief kind of 'glossary' of his terminology. It was written in 2000, so it misses some interesting stuff from the end of his life. But its a quick read and might get you hooked.

As far as other thinkers, I guess Marx, McLuhan, Nietzsche, Virilio, Bataille, Debord (and the situationist manifestos/journals) and Alfred Jarry are important influences. I might be missing some.

Marx, Debord, Bataille, Mauss, McLuhan, Levi-Strauss...and Nietzsche. Lots of Nietzsche. And lots of other guys I've forgotten.

it's not like you have to read all of those guys before tackling Baudrillard, but the more of them you know the more sense he'll make and vice-versa.

In terms of starting with him, basically, start wherever things seem to be making sense and just go from there. Profound! But true. He's not that hard to read. None of them are, really. Continental stuff is a kind of vernacular after a while.

Now Kant, on the other hand...that motherfucker is hard. Just spoiled maybe by too many good writers.

More videogame images b/c why not.

thanks. Working through Kant's cpr right now trying to get to these guys. It's hard seeing how this labyrinth connects up later but I'm trusting lit that it is necessary

>working through cpr to get to these guys
Damn. That's a work ethic. I've put off reading Kant forever and I'm only reluctantly going back to it now because Land holds him in such high regard. Well, you'll be in for some "fun" when that's over.
>inb4 reading kant b/c of nick land, kys, &c

And because I wanted to spend as much time as possible in Nietzsche's moustache.

I mean the labyrinth kind of breaks, or at least goes through some serious twists and turns. I was actually reading Fanged Noumena yesterday and Land actually has a really good synopsis of how and where thought goes from Kant, to Schopenhauer, and then to Nietzsche and Fraud. I don't remember what if anything he had to say about Hegel.

But reading and kinda-sorta understanding Kant was interesting. But reading it all out of sorts as I have has probably permanently skewed my vision of things, who knows. And after Deleuze metaphysics suddenly seems pretty cool again also.

Ah philosophy. Such fun.

>That's a work ethic
yea, I also read a lot of anal philosophy so I figured it needed to be done eventually

>Nietzsche and Fraud.
>anal philosophy

These freudian slips are getting intense

a true kek was had that day

>anal
kek it was on porpoise though

I'm going to spam this Sloterdijk quote - again, and for the last time - and then something else.

>Without a doubt, Marx’s future theoretical fame will be linked to his achievements as the conjurer of dead labor. The core of his critique of political economy is necromancy: as the hero who descends to the realm of the dead to contend with the shadows of values, Marx remains uncannily relevant also for the present. The undead—which walks among humans as the value of money and which, as a laughing communicator, strips the living of time and souls—rules today almost without any pretexts over the advanced societies. Work, communication, art, and love belong here entirely to the endgame of money. These form the substance of contemporary media and experiential time. And because money requires time for its utilization, so-called great history is also continuing in some eerie way; it is a game that is always played for extra time. Yet such history is no longer the conversation of the living with the dead about the goodness of the world, but the ever more thorough pervasion of the living by the economized specter. The money soul peers ever more undisguised out of the human subjectivity of our time: a society of bought buyers and of prostituted prostitutes is making a place for itself in globalized market conditions. Classic liberal laissez-faire is becoming explicit as the postmodern sucking and letting oneself be sucked. Telecommunication is increasingly difficult to distinguish from tele-vampirism. Tele-viewers and tele-suckers draw from a liquefied world which hardly still knows what a resistant or autonomous life might be. Is it not possible that a time is coming when those who do not wish to speak of vampirism should also be silent about philosophy?

To me Baudrillard transitions into Land pretty well, and from Land into the new Outer Dark of speculative realism and so on. Marxism and existentialism seem to get wrapped up together out there in this rather poetic way as how the last of the old-school revolutionaries take their leave. Beyond them is the new school of cybernetics and so on, which makes these grand aristocratic gestures seem, perhaps, somewhat passé.

But how the monster of Capital is characterized, together with what some of these thinkers identify or privilege as being nevertheless, in spite of all of this, beautiful enough to hang in for, is interesting to me. There isn't really a right or proper way to confront the imminent possibility of being wiped out by industrialization. But there are options on the table: doubling down on Mao, fatal/aristocratic games of seduction and death, social justice warriorship, posthumanity and transhumanity, Bitcoin worship...

I don't know. The figure of the true revolutionary seems no longer to be tenable in the age of the meme, the virtue signal, and so on. But when even cynicism and refusal feeds the beast...

I think this is what I found interesting about Land's return to Kant.

OK, I'll bite: what is interesting about icycalm? every single thing i've read of him is cringy misreadings of nietzsche. does he have any original ideas?

I find icycalm pretty darn interesting and I obsessed about videogames and art in general for years because of him.

First, disclosure: those essays (, ) were my own gateway into continental philosophy. Prior to that I had read the Stoics, Plato, some various other history stuff. I was kind of familiar with a few other guys, not much. Then blast-off from Nietzsche. I've been reading shit like crazy ever since: Heidegger, Lacan, Land, just whatever.

So in terms of original ideas? I mean his stuff on art games is super-interesting (minimalism/gimmicrky/difficulty), and the Arcade Culture essay is an all-time piece that I would include in any book of theory or criticism about videogames in general. He's a reactionary art critic (is anarcho-fascist a term? does that exist? would it make sense?) and honestly for me that's enough. More than enough, in fact. Now he's writing on aesthetics/mechanics in games. That will be cool.

But ultimately he's articulated something like the *arcade sensibility* - and that is really amazing. Playing games on nightmare mode, all this. What game designers should and should not do. He is remarkably *consistent.* To me that says something.

Nietzsche can be read a lot of different ways. Interpretations vary. icycalm has his own take and it seems to be working for him, and so it works for people like me too. So say what you will about him, the one thing that he is *not* is boring.

Essentially, the Nietzschean challenge to capitalism by way of simulation. Land is right about cybertechnics but one thing Land does not do is really appreciate *art.* And art matters. So icycalm found a way to make himself *happy.* Ecstatically happy, in fact. In this world. In spite of everything. I'm sure there is also crushing depression. But.

So as the guy who is fond of quoting Girard and the universal theatre of envy, someone who can find a way to *envy himself* as a means of fighting encroaching ressentiment is kind of wonderful enigma. And there's a lot to learn from that.

Although every time I heard the word "shmup" I die a little inside too. But yeah, on the grand tour of philosophy I think time spent in arcade wonderland is time very well spent indeed.

>le japan
Stop

why hate on japan

Oh yeah he has an 'original' ahistorical and nonsensical understanding of art if that's your thing.

I'm really enjoying this conversation about Baudrillard, but I have to admit I think icycalm is a hack and quite likely a narcissistic asshole. Wire fraud should be a big enough warning sign, as is having a pay wall to read his work.

Hey girardfag do you know about REI KOZ?

mundusmillennialis.com/

Here's a (you), remind myself for a lengthy reply later

Baudrillard reading group? and we're stoned

Also, while I kind of cringe at equating Baudrillard and vaporwave, cyberpunk aestheticism, I wonder if the reading group shouldn't have some kind purely aesthetic element. Like after we shoot our mouths off about Baudrillard, we then practice some non-theoretical, dada-esque, pataphysical act of disappearance: some kind of noise music jamming, or maybe we just spend 10 minutes grunting into microphones and making sex noises.

I was just coming here to ask how to put baudrillardianism or acceleration into practice?

smoke heroin

I shot smack for like ten years and I stopped recently because all the smack has been replaced with fentanil.

Anaesthetic hypnosis != morphine euphoria for fucks sake

What does that mean

The chemical and subjective effects of fentanil are radically different from those of morphine based drugs like heroin. For the past two or three years pushers have been importing the increasingly potent iterations of fentanil from shady Chinese labs (if you search for it on google you can buy it online) and over that time i as a user have noticed that the substance being sold to me has changed in terms of content. Five years ago were the heady days of black tar from Mexico and today the same dealers/networks are selling a light grey powder. Fentanil is also slated to kill 1 million people in the us this year alone. It is so powerful that drug dogs can't be used since if they sniff it they often overdose on the spot. Naked Lunch is happening. And I'm just pissed because the dope is getting wack.

Anyway the idea that more or something is better is driving people to unironically prefer fentanil. Fentanil has street names like ISIS and grey death. Last year around Mardis Gras I witnessed a kid die from it with my own eyes. Injected him with narcan and danced around with his body to get blood flowing. Did mouth to mouth on him and he breathed his last right into me.

Baudrillard wasn't really a writer of praxis. He works in aphorism, analysis, pataphysics.

I wish I had a good quote for you on his concept of disappearance that wasn't just obviously about death. I'm find stuff like "Dying is nothing. You have to know how to disappear. Dying comes down to a biological chance and that is of no consequence. Disappearing is of a far higher order of necessity. You must not leave it to biology to decide when you will disappear. To disappear is to pass into an enigmatic state which is neither life nor death. Some animals know how to do this, as do savages, who withdraw while still alive, from the sight of their own people." but there are better quotes than this which don't promote disappearance through death, he certainly wouldn't advocate suicide. He'd probably see that as part of our culture of negativity towards death and pain, euthanasia as the ultimate form of brainwashing by the spectacle.

Accelerationism is trickier. You've got left/acc, right/acc and some very recent twitter meming about unconditional acceleration.

For left accelerationism, you want to read the Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics. For Right Accelerationism you read Nick Land Dark Enlightnement, Moldbug, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Unconditional Accelerationism is barely a thing at this point, but Vincent Garton's 'Unconditional Accelerationism as Antipraxis' is the clearest document.

But none of this is like Enviornmentalism, Christianity, Political Parties. Its mostly not praxis, your question about 'putting into practice' is mostly answered by: read and write accelerationist theory.

But writing implies a reader which implies a relation of force of knowledge/power so to speak. I adore that metaphor about disappearance but it isn't hard to get my head around why one would do it. Obviously the acceleration/baudrillard millieu is operating from a position only tangential to ethics/morality/politic it operates on those fields but it does not seek to be operative within them--I get that, but is it enough to just read, to just acquiesce ? And by "enough" I am not talking about is it enough for a subject/agent I mean is it enough for the creative ego?

baudrillard is meaningless waffle. french post modernists just wax poetic and it doesnt translate into english very well.

Icycalm's writings are fucking painful. He has written things that made me literally cry myself to sleep. In the long term he's been a huge net gain for me but holy shit that guy fucking hurts.

illiterate youtuber

pussy bitch

Alright, you got me interested enough that I read "Arcade Culture." I can see that he does have a good sensitivity to actual criticism that goes beneath discussions of mere qualities of a work - the only remotely similar thing to him I've read is Jonathon Blow. He has a grip on what videogames *are* in a very comprehensive way. His thinking reminded me a bit of McLuhan in drawing specific aspects media specificity to certain forms of social organization.

On the other hand, his style is undeniably awful. The way he needs to build up every point is almost intolerable (Wonder why arcades are better? I bet you can't. But if you really think about it, you'll know. I'll tell you, maybe, after I describe 600 games.) I want to read more of him for his ability to genuinely analyze, but I'll really have to weigh whether it's worth weathering his pompous and meandering style lol

>And by "enough" I am not talking about is it enough for a subject/agent I mean is it enough for the creative ego?

that's a really great question. And honestly I struggle with it a lot. There is a lot of perverse pleasure to be found with the practice of reading and right (both in u/r/accelerationism and in baudrillard), but I honestly don't know if it is enough 'for the soul'. Mark Fisher recently killed himself. One of my friends says he won't read anything by anyone who killed themselves.

Left Accelerationism, does propose a political program of sorts... but it's really fucking unclear what it means. The key feature is to disentangle technology/creativity from capitalism and wage or slave labour. They're really unclear about how these platforms are specifically accelerationist, and have much more in common with left marxist praxis.

One thing that Nick Land (right acceleration) and Srniceck and Williams (left acceleration) seem to agree on is that the foundation of accelerationism is Nietzsche and Marx, which is pretty fucking telling about the divide between right/nietzsche and left/marx.

damn, that Sloterdijk quote is a surprise to me. From what I've heard about 'You Must Change Your Life', I'm surprised how much he is hitting on accelerationism with this.

Capital is a game, and as such it has to posit itself as eternal and never ending. Have you ever played a video game or board game where you accumulate resources? You spend the game growing and stockpiling and then suddenly some other player wins and ends the game. Suddenly all of your resources mean nothing. You waited too long and the game is over.

Capital has to eternally dispel this posibility. If we knew that the world ended tomorrow, or we knew that our dollars would no longer be accepted tomorrow, then we would discard with them today, even though they are supposedly still good. Capital only has value so long as you can assume it has value tomorrow, as well as today.

This seems like the biggest part of the fantasy to me, and one that accelerationism has to address. Given entropy, an eventual end (the end of a state, the end of a currency, the end of a species, the end of a planet, the end of a sun, the heat death of the universe), we must consider an end game.

The only interesting response to entropy, and end to Sloterdijk's vampirism, that I've encountered is the idea of civilization in a black hole. The theory goes that given the trend towards miniaturization and increase speed and energy, the ultimate technology may be for a civilization to retreat into a hyper dense state that could escape entropy and decay. Essentially, maybe every black hole in the universe is the final phase of some hyper-advanced technological civilization.

>Essentially, maybe every black hole in the universe is the final phase of some hyper-advanced technological civilization.

to tie this back to baudrillard, maybe this is disappearance.

finding a pretty metaphor that removes what makes marx inconvenient for a professional philosopher upset about culture critics doesnt make him any less a symtom of the forces marx describes

only simple-minded plebs bare mind to contradictions

only good post

Samefag.

i'm not though.
i agreed with him because this
>he does A
>but he says he's not A
>WOAH SHIT
works on the same level as youtube videos of minorities saying "I'm but I support trump WOAH SHIT YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING"

Join the crowd. There was a time when I really wanted to hear what he was laying down. I've mellowed somewhat since then. Tastes vary.

Yeah, I found out about him recently. He's definitely got things to say. There's so much going on with the six or seven guys that I'm into as it is that I don't need have my world anymore rocked. But that guy's definitely interesting too, no doubt. For really extreme stuff I'm okay with Land for now.

Love it. Dissipation and disappearance is a Deleuze thing too, Brian Massumi makes a reference to this. How to disappear, how to let go. Those ideas all sit very well with my love of all things Eastern and nondual. If Capital really is this replicating undead monstrosity then pataphysical disappearance is definitely a thing. See also the symbolic destruction of wealth as potlatch in SE&D: where'd *that* go?

Good post. The right/left distinction is key.
>euthanasia as the ultimate form of brainwashing by the spectacle
Legit interesting.

Yeah. He's got his quirks. But to me they're forgivable. For me if you're really really interesting there's wiggle room.

Stellar post and super-interesting. YMCYL is a 10/10 read also if you haven't read that yet.
>Capital has to eternally dispel this posibility. If we knew that the world ended tomorrow, or we knew that our dollars would no longer be accepted tomorrow, then we would discard with them today, even though they are supposedly still good. Capital only has value so long as you can assume it has value tomorrow, as well as today.
>we must consider an end game
Yes my man. Dope shit. This is the whole time-warp aspect of civilization Land taps into. We can't let go of what is killing us. It's addicted to us and we're addicted to it. We need some more good films about this to go with the theory.

I see no problems with black hole civilizations. We're building one.

Clarify this one? Sloterdijk's not part of the problem to my mind. But maybe I'm missing something here.

I just watched GITS 2017, btw. Apparently Land liked it, I thought it was just kind of meh. The anime is awesome tho. Sorry for the short posts, I'm kind of tired but I was really looking forward to coming back to this thread. Cheers all round for the cool conversation, hope it continues to percolate. Land/Simulacrum 2024.

Also I haven't read this yet but I'm pretty sure Baudrillard did. Should be fun for you Debord guys.

I don't see how his money scheme discredits his philosophy. It's not like he is charging money for Orgy of the Will so how can it be a fraud?

I also don't see what's wrong for charging money for game criticism. Magazines used to do that all the time.

It is.

Kant was so far ahead of his time he literally wasent wrong about anything and if he was a required reading in schools iq worldwide will go rapidly up

In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of some phony Reality's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

m.soundcloud.com/youngthugworld/take-care-1?in=youngthugworld/sets/beautiful-thugger-girls-1

>Clarify this one? Sloterdijk's not part of the problem to my mind. But maybe I'm missing something here.

i just do not really care for his particular brand of object orientation. you see the same, pathic appeal in the critique of cynical reason. the idea is that whatever your epistemology, underlying it is an irreducible quantum of feeling for the object of study, and whether you love it or hate it determines everything (this is in the chapter Heraclitian Meditations). it really only reifies empiricism though, which so much theory tries to get out of because it cant show you social forces impinging on freedom. this also explains his admiration for foucault, i think, who has a similar ethic but in regard to textual statements instead of empirical objects. the effect is the same: with foucault you're left with a handful of Concepts extrapolated from discourse but no real idea of how they explain reality today, so you end up with a cottage industry of anglophone academics attempting to extract his local, contingent understandings of discipline and biopower to world politics in a way they were never formulated to fit.

>lacanian
no

>marxist
nope

>deconstructionist
nah

>postmodern
most def

saying something fashionable and stupid like this only makes you look like a pretentious adolescent

If you want to see the social forces impinging on freedom, a good definition of what freedom is in the first place is always good.

ok dude but im raising a local objection to sloterdijk's object orientation on a Veeky Forums image board not writing an essay on the topic