>>9659361

citation required

>philosophy teacher deplores a bunch of memeing, frog posting illiterates
in what way is this surprising

???

Just google the name of his wife.

you mean obama right

Maybe if Obama was half the muslim socialist Hitlerian boogeyman his detractors wanted him to be. It's necessarily a quasi-apocalyptical fantasy that borrows heavily from medieval Christian imagery.

I want to see Land and Jacobson face off in a mud-wrestling MMA no-hold's barred battle.

>the name of his wife
Which is...

What actually is nick land's philosophy?

cyberpunk neo-medievalism

So basically all those shitty YA dystopia novels but its actually a good thing?

neoliberal racism

the economy nick land want to bring into being is the exact opposite of anything medieval. Medievalism subordinated the economy to the aristocracy and the church.

Anna Greenspan.

Every moral/aesthetic/whatever criteria bare effectiveness is nil. Free market capitalism is the process that maximises effectiveness by definition. Humans are nowhere near the theoretical maximum of effectiveness, hence they should (and would) be replaced by free market AIs.

git crackin'

Anna Greenspan. Yes, the daughter of THAT Greenspan.

>Fascistic
I hate that word so much and I despise the mouth breathing lefty retards who use it. "Fascist" is the adjective meaning "of relating to Fascism". And he's not even a fucking Fascist so it's even worse.

really? wow

t. has no idea what neo-medievalism actually is

>Olivia Goldhill

i've actually read several articles from her (almost all of which were sent by friends), and literally every single time i concluded that she almost certainly hadn't read the primary sources she was writing about. i have a feeling this time won't be any different.

get a copy of this too, Veeky Forums's very own publication

u.nya.is/oauzos.pdf

Wasn't she publishing like 20 articles a week at one point? I'm pretty sure she's just buying ghostwritten pieces off the marketplace.

explain it then faggot

wouldn't surprise me, but all i can say for certain is that i'd bet good money she's never read so much as a sentence from freud.

Gimme dat tl;dr

Basically hypercapitalism fucking the nation-state so hard the international order turns into a big Holy Roman Empire

And additionally:

>Stephen J. Kobrin in 1998 added the forces of the digital world economy to the picture of neomedievalism. In an article entitled "Back to the Future: Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy" published in 1998 in the Journal of International Affairs,[5] argues that the sovereign state as we know it – defined within certain territorial borders – is about to change profoundly, if not to wither away, due in part to the digital world economy created by the Internet, suggesting that cyberspace is a trans-territorial domain operating outside of the jurisdiction of national law.

Archive link, you fucking dumb nigger cattle

>The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

Kant inaugurates capitalist time, Marx argues that Kant was himself historically produced, D&G resolve the dilemma by positing two modes of time (hello, Spinozistic God of Nature) and Land loses his shit after realizing that this points towards a techno-commercial cybertime has basically fundamentally fucked-up the order of creation as capitalism-as-time-altering possibility returns upon itself potentially in the form of AI.

Best and most lucid story of this process available right here. No late-Landian hijinx, no werewolves, nothing. Just the story of capital, metaphysics, and time.

wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4520/1/WRAP_THESIS_Greenspan_2000.pdf

>Kant inaugurates capitalist time,

gobbledygook

HRE != patchwork

yes the HRE is literally a "patchwork of states" but the internal structure of those states were dominated by dynastic politics, aside from the occasional free city.

ok what else did kobrin say about it aside from a wikipedia quote

Despite their long lineage, the ideas fall apart under scrutiny. “To those of us who were more skeptical, it looked like it had the seeds of a disturbing belief in a superman: This kind of digital hybrid cyber-being who was a lot better than the ordinary weak people,” says Golumbia. “His writing is more and more obsessed with race, Islam, echoing the things that people like Nigel Farage say. He sounds like a visionary but really he’s nothing but these reactionary clichés about how minority people are to blame for all of our problems.”

kek

How will Nick ever recover

did this lad even read Landy boy

The HRE was literally a "patchwork of states" post-1638. I am referring to pre-statehood medieval politics. And why wouldn't Land's vision of the future become dynastic? Especially if the upper class will segregate itself and practice eugenics as he proposes?

Not remotely. Weber came to a similar conclusion. Greenspan is identifying the Kantian idea of time as one which, once it becomes completely abstracted, is then almost *inevitably* launched into production for the same reason that the Devil always found work for idle hands. The Benedictines are potentially the original founders of capitalism. It's just that we have a much more worked-out theory of why that is so in Kant. Enlightenment clock-time - and bear in mind that the citizens of Konigsberg literally set their watches by Kant's schedule - synchronizes with merchant capital. Kant's thinking disenchants the world (Reason!) but, of course, he's no nihilist or pessimist. He's just carrying reason to its natural limits. Once time wholly becomes abstracted - and this requires Kant's thinking of time *and* the subject which *thinks* time, at the same time - then you're ready to begin measuring it out very precisely.

Were people already doing this beforehand? Of course. But now they had some cutting-edge Enlightenment thought to go along with it.

what a dope

Disengenuous bullshit from agenda-driven media hacks shouldn't aggravate me, but it does.

The more humans abstract time from the calendar, the more we bring the abstract into our possession as something we can control, measure, and invest in feedback loops.

What this unlocks is everything. Kantians and Marxists will never ultimately agree on what it is that constitutes subjectivity, and then D&G enter the picture with another update to the story: Aeon and Chronos. Time and metaphysical difference.

Land sees in turn where this leads once abstract time begins to fold in and duplicate on itself in accelerationist take-off. Combined with the psychoanalytic reading of the unconscious that suggests that, if not Oedipus, that we really have no idea what it is that we actually want and the depths are much depthier than we previously surmised. Or even have the capability to surmise.

Of course, there are counter-arguments to this theory. It depends ultimately on how you think time and difference.

Land presents capitalism as antagonistic to humans. Dynasties are unnecessary, and to the extent they exist, they will be optional luxury goods subsumed within the system of capital. Longevity will not be guaranteed by forming a dynasty, which represents a significant cost of investment. The choice is between kids and power.

Now the polities within the HRE are based upon dynasties, because finite human life and the vagaries of fate (and lack of antibiotics) necessitated a solution to political instasbility upon succession, for which passing authority down to your heirs was the answer. And of course production was intimately entangled with reproduction. Literally.

This is such shit. Kant was talking epistemology and metaphysics. Anyone who tries to take Kantian ideas and fit them into some half-baked obsurantist social philosophy nonsense is retarded. This is why I don't read continentals

so will blockchain solve the problem of spacetime or what

Except it's relevant if that's literally what happened. Just as Marx transposed Hegel onto the material plane, Capitalism instantiated itself through Kant.

medium.com/@0xHYST3R14/the-incredible-mediocrity-that-underpins-both-journalism-and-the-academy-6cb834cf0cb6

Even if I were to grant this as being true, what does it have to do with Kant's philosophy as he expounded it?

And on how interested you are in mimetics in this question of metaphysical difference.

>Anyone who tries to take Kantian ideas and fit them into some half-baked obsurantist social philosophy nonsense is retarded.
Henry Morgan would like to have a word with you. So would most 19C Europe.

Kant as ultimate exponent of Reason (Subject + Time) is also ultimate exponent of Capitalist Reason.

I'm not sure. I haven't listened to all of those lectures yet. My guess - for whatever that is worth - is that Land is positing a world of economics that, since it becomes encoded in blockchain, actually does, as he says, restore the world to artificial Kantian time.

That's my reading of it, anyways. If all labor (and by labor we are talking about also that infinite explosion of culture, technology, intelligence, etc) becomes frozen in a web of computer-math, then I think I can understand what he is talking about. Basically you would be eradicating non-Kantian work by taking everything up to the next level of measurement and abstraction and mathematizing the entire planet under a single process of work/time/money. Something like that.

Again though, that's just my own ten-cent reading. tl;dr no fucking clue.

youtube.com/watch?v=2PMGuNZreWA

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPs4TRYh1Unr-_knTP9pf84eT698qCj-I

don't go away, I need some time to respond to this, since the concept of time is one that goes substantially unaltered in the history of metaphysics since it's Aristotelian definition in the 4th book of physics.

I feel like Carneades battling the stoics here, but with less canche of shanking any dogma.

Well I haven't read Greenspan's paper, but the historical method is not new. You can recognize that Kant was claiming this universal transcendental thing, but also ask well what made it possible for him to posit that at all? Now instead of claiming that there was a sociohistorical undercurrent that both made Kant and Capitalism possible (e.g. Weber and Protestantism) Greenspan I think is saying that Kant's concept of time itself is what makes Capitalism possible.

Cool. Take your time. And I'd be happy to learn something interesting too. In the interest of you not expending more brain-sweat on this than you need to, I tend to follow more from Nietzsche than on the Greeks on this: everything is desire first, last, and always. I am still in some sense one of those Transcendental Miserabilists Land talks about coming up in this odd away against the horizon of something even more miserable than my own reasons for being miserable. It's how I wound up getting sucked into this black hole and now I'm sort of trying to puzzle how to get out of it.

To my mind Land is worth reading as an anodyne for cynicism in the face of what is signified by capital as world-historical metaprocess. It's the BBEG of Western Civilization but there are ways - lots of different ways - of responding to this.

I'm repulsed and fascinated by it and kind of perpetually in this wonky place of figuring it out. for what it's worth.

Well the thing is, information cannot travel faster than light. So it doesn't solve the problem of spacetime? The spatial "center" still enjoys an advantage. Hence, geographically concentrated financial hubs much like we already do now.

>Kant as ultimate exponent of Reason (Subject + Time) is also ultimate exponent of Capitalist Reason.

Why should I bother with this when I can instead focus on the ontological and epistemic claims he made about the world and the relationship between reason (as in rationalism) and experience (empiricism)? It's a lot more relevant to the problems that Kant was actually wrestling with.

You can recognize that Kant was claiming this universal transcendental thing, but also ask well what made it possible for him to posit that at all? Now instead of claiming that there was a sociohistorical undercurrent that both made Kant and Capitalism possible (e.g. Weber and Protestantism)

Why does this matter? We can inquire into this without misinterpreting and butchering Kant.

>Greenspan I think is saying that Kant's concept of time itself is what makes Capitalism possible.

This seems trivially true to me. Regardless of how you choose to define time, whether as an attribute of movement or something Kantian or whatever, anything that exists in time is made possible by its ability to temporally persist.

Quantum physics are above my cognitive pay grade, but I think the Techno-Pessimistic rejoinder is to say that the question of space-time is always-already resolved as a part of capital's infinitely futural dialectic with itself. It's not really an argument, mind you, and even if it was it would be a shitty one. To say that the mysteries of space and time are operating costs of doing business is probably sufficient.

But who knows, right? If we at some point - and by we, I mean Our Robot Overlords - become advanced enough to poke around more thoroughly in some of these mysteries they may not need to worry so much about market share. Right now of course technocommercialism is the order of the day and a corporate logic drives a lot of things. Capital as psychic process is why Land is so floored by Deleuze and Guattari. There's just all kinds of crazy stuff going on.

The problem of space-time connects quantum physics to economics, and in turn to psychology, in ways that are always going to be interesting.

tl;dr.

So philosophy can be understood as always reacting to previous philosophy. Kant was reacting to a loss of shared principles after Reformation. The Church, authority, tradition, etc. was no longer the arbiter of shared social reality. Protestantism's sola scriptura sounds authoritative to us but for them it represented a departure from the "center". So since any literate person could decide for himself what the Bible meant, how can we continue to agree on what is Truth? What is the Good? etc. The answer of his time was Reason, because even it was independent/disembodied (made possible by the mythos of the cogito) and hence immune to the vagaries of social instability, we could still ideally reach the same conclusion. Hence the undercurrent in Kant's work that if it was understood through the lens of a perfectly rational being, they would not able to present no better alternatives.

Now Kant himself does not spell this out, or maybe assumes that it's a given because his contemporaries understood why he was undertaking the project. So paradoxically if you only listen to Kant you won't understand the context of why he thought his project was necessary. As post-Kantians, it would seem that either we're fundamentally not perfectly rational, or that Kant has failed. Or rather that he succeeded in so radically deterritorializing God, Time, Man, Ethics, etc. that we're left with nothing of them.

Wait, Anna Greenspan is the daughter of Alan Greenspan? No fucking way!

Alan Greenspan is childless.

This is a little better, but I'm wondering if this debate is not impacted by advances in analytic philosophy. Specifically Quine's undermining of the analytic-synthetic distinction and Kripke's "discovery" of a-posteriori necessity. What if we CAN actually intuit truths about the a priori structure of reality? Where does that leave us in the context of continental responses to Kant's project?

No, she's the daughter of Mr. That Greenspan.

>Or rather that he succeeded in so radically deterritorializing God, Time, Man, Ethics, etc. that we're left with nothing of them.

Maybe we just need some new and better ways of understanding those concepts tho, something more fluid and adaptive. Something that doesn't see them perhaps as discrete categories: perhaps much as quantum physics, economics and psychology are supposed to be fellow-travelers. More holistics. What globalization and neoliberalism was supposed to be.

All signs point to fragmentation and bewilderment. Deep ecology is a good look, that attracts people on all sides of the spectrum. There's lots of new age psychobabble I'm fond of but I will refrain from posting here.

The memes either don't work anymore or work too well. Humans either need a new sense of centre or a sense of being without one that doesn't make them feel like worms or make them immediately reach out for the nearest Great Signfier.

It's nearly as surprising as the tumblr grammar and lack of board culture one associates with those who denigrate them

Here's another problem of mine with Land. His whole time machine shtick. You can't have a time machine, not even sending information, without entering into paradoxes unless you are predetermined to not be able to cause a paradox. I don't know if he's using it allegorically. But time compression/acceleration is a thing, and what is a debt driven economy other than literally borrowing from the future? "Spacetime" btw doesn't need to deal with quantum physics, just relativity.

Your whole posts reads like nonsense. Fucking pseud.

>the problem of spacetime
This is why the Sokal affair was possible. Christ what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual drivel.

wrong

The Transcendental Time Machine is Greenspan's title, not Land's. And it's not schtick, it's just metaphysics. Metaphysics at play with *other* metaphysics. The original form of Land's *preferred* time machine was theorized by Deleuze and Guattari, if not Spinoza, because he's fascinated by the libidinal unconscious. Kant (who is not) of course has another one. Heidegger (somewhat more so) does too. How you think time is everything. And somehow all of this wonderful stuff percolates up from a few pounds of grey matter.

>what is a debt driven economy other than literally borrowing from the future?
...nothing? And this is the thing. Boehm-Bawerk thought that he had dusted Marx pretty neatly by substituting a credit/debt mechanism instead of the labor theory of value. That's Kantian thinking. Marx is going to say, of course, that it doesn't matter: somebody still builds the pipe, and the end result is the same.

>I don't know if he's using it allegorically.
Hyperstition. Granted, this can be potentially one of the weakest areas of his thought. If the subject is radically open to the Outside and so on then the line between allegory, inspiration, desire and so on becomes blurred. If psychoanalysis or the more hyperbolic parts of his writing don't appeal to you, that's fine. He went to those dark weird places and found dark weird things there. As did Freud, Nietzsche, Bataille, and so on.

>You can't have a time machine, not even sending information, without entering into paradoxes unless you are predetermined to not be able to cause a paradox.
And yet it moves. Paradoxes are what fringe continental thinkers do. And old Chinese sages. And the One Who Sniffles And So On And So On.

>Quantum physics are above my cognitive pay grade, but I think the Techno-Pessimistic rejoinder is to say that the question of space-time is always-already resolved as a part of capital's infinitely futural dialectic with itself.

SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP
GIRARDFAG

I'll have to get to that sometime because the issue is part of the contemporary "canon" after all (at least enough to bluff my way around it). It appears to be no coincidence however that analytical philosophy has taken root in America, a nation that lacks a "grounding". And the inquiry proceeds from a deep seated need to clarify things. I don't see China surpassing America in terms of philosophical "development" despite likely surpassing America in terms of scientific development (lack of universalist state religion probably helping) because it's a parlor game for them. They are after all secure in being between heaven and earth.

Alright, let's go. 1/2

I assume everyone here knows the fundamental kantian gesture, the so-called "copernican revolution". The radicality of this movement cannot be understated, but at the same time it is a radicality that doesn't invest metaphysical concept as the tradition brought to us. They don't get revised substantially, they "just" get moved from an ontological plane to an epistemological one.
It's in fact revealing to see how the kantian categories don't differ from the Aristotelian ones, but they're judgements of how we represent them and not how they are in themselves.

Time get fundamentally the same treatment. Here I'm using an english traslation I just found since I red them in my native language usually.

In both cases time is subjected to a being: things or us as perceptors:

(K) "Time is not something that would subsist for itself or attach to things as an objective determination, and thus remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of the intuition of them"

(A) But neither does time exist without change

In both cases succession is evidence-necessity for time to be conceived

(K) It has only one dimension: different times are not simultaneous, but successive (just as different spaces are not successive, but simultaneous).

(A) But we apprehend time only when we have marked motion, marking it by 'before' and 'after'; and it is only when we have perceived 'before' and 'after' in motion that we say that time has elapsed.

Both link it with movement

(K) the concept of motion (as alteration of place), is only possible through and in the representation of time

(A) It is clear, then, that time is 'number of movement in respect of the before and after

Both think it's central to internalized states

(K) Time is nothing other than the form of inner sense, i.e., of the intuition
of our self and our inner state

(A) for even when it is dark and we are not being affected through the body, if any movement takes place in the mind we at once suppose that some time also has elapsed;

And last but not least, there's founding minimal unit that constitutes time

(K) The infinitude of time signifies nothing more than that every determinate
magnitude of time is only possible through limitations of a
single time grounding it.

(A) If there were no time, there would be no 'now', and vice versa; Time, then, also is both made continuous by the 'now' and divided at it

2/2

This is central, because it shows how both Kant and Aristotle conception of time lead to the same "levelling", the time arbitrary and regular divisions, the one which society used to organize itself since we started having any cognitio about our place in the world. There's nothing inherently "capitalist" in what Kant does of time, unless we assume (and I would put anything past (sophistry) that the movement of trascendetalization is in some way capitalist. But then why specifically time? Why not the kantian concept of space instead?

Another conception of time radically (and judaic in origin) different is that of St. Paul, of the eschaton, of the time that's left, the Jetszeit of Benjamin, the temporaliti of the Dasein in Heidegger. Funnily enough this one conception that's been linked with marxism more often then not.

Truth is that I see a great deal of badly hidden idealism (so much for the Deleuzianism) in assuming that idea, theory engender material relationship of production. Talking about difference, cybercapitalism, hyperstions and AI, we're still stuck with Hegel here circa 1807.

>Alan Greenspan is Nick Land's Father-in-Law
Total lies. Alan Greenspan has no children.

>Anna Greenspan. Yes, the daughter of THAT Greenspan.
nope. this user is right

Anna and Nick are both British. Alan has no children with either his current or former wife.

It's best not to invoke too much hyperstition. You don't know what will rise from the depths. Memeing time machines is utter irresponsibility. I'm not convinced the problem of spacetime is "solved" because spacetime precedes information. It will always take 7 minutes for light to reach the Earth from the Sun, so information will have to take at least that long. That means Sun-space and Earth-space are not interchangeable. Spacetime presents a hard limit for Matryoshka minds because they literally cannot think faster than spacetime. Even (let us assume) we could rewrite physics itself. How will this be achieved while remaining within its hard limits? Will there be enough time until maximum entropy and heat death?

>And yet it moves. Paradoxes are what fringe continental thinkers do. And old Chinese sages. And the One Who Sniffles And So On And So On.
Language is paradoxical, not reality. The Greeks had it right. The universe is orderly. The acceptance of paradoxes is a last resort, not a first option. We have to manipulate meaning and move, but the world moves on regardless and needs no paradoxes.

>idea, theory engender material relationship of production.
I think ideas are symptoms of the attempt at understanding underlying crises. Were we not slowly marching then accelerating into modernity there would be no theories trying to explain it. And the cracks were already beginning to show since Aristotle and his ilk. We are not the hidden legislators. The Socratics already were "levelers" in that sense, because poetry and drama were found lacking.

>Talking about difference, cybercapitalism, hyperstions and AI, we're still stuck with Hegel here circa 1807.
Generations from now our descendants will have difficulty understanding what seems to be obvious to us. It's a sobering thought.

Awesome stuff.

>There's nothing inherently "capitalist" in what Kant does of time, unless we assume (and I would put anything past (sophistry) that the movement of trascendetalization is in some way capitalist. But then why specifically time? Why not the kantian concept of space instead?
It's not Kant by himself, of course. It's a question of human thought processes and abstraction. The more time becomes measurable, the more we can see it, the more we turn it to our own benefit. And the question of Kant's own theology plays a role in this. It's not crazy to think that it follows from this Benedictine origin. Or that the questions of guilt and salvation don't enter into this either, as Weber suggests: salvation by works/salvation by grace. These are different phenomena that are potentially still unwinding.

>Another conception of time radically (and judaic in origin) different is that of St. Paul, of the eschaton, of the time that's left, the Jetszeit of Benjamin, the temporaliti of the Dasein in Heidegger. Funnily enough this one conception that's been linked with marxism more often then not.
Right. There isn't one necessarily correct or best or final reading of this. Whether it's Kantian time, Marxist time, D&G time, Heideggerian time (Taoist time?) - Land's own reading derives from his preferred intellectual sources and towards his own conclusions. They point towards a future which is provocative as hell and lines up pretty well with the cyberpunk aesthetics of his time period. It's a story well-told, in a sense.

>Truth is that I see a great deal of badly hidden idealism (so much for the Deleuzianism) in assuming that idea, theory engender material relationship of production. Talking about difference, cybercapitalism, hyperstions and AI, we're still stuck with Hegel here circa 1807.
Sure. Pic related is neuro-Hegelian. The arguments over this stuff are going to go on for a while but when they're as nuanced as Land's I find them interesting. It is perhaps a kind of idealism, although it's a very strange form of idealism.

>It's best not to invoke too much hyperstition. You don't know what will rise from the depths. Memeing time machines is utter irresponsibility.
Very true. And hats off to you for the most charitable reading possible of an easily misread theory.

>Even (let us assume) we could rewrite physics itself. How will this be achieved while remaining within its hard limits? Will there be enough time until maximum entropy and heat death?
Of course I have no idea. Certainly paints a scary future though.

>The acceptance of paradoxes is a last resort, not a first option.
Could be. I've found paradoxes pretty helpful in coming to understand how this world works, but it's not like I wouldn't like to get back to First Principles and so on in more ways than one. An orderly universe would be lovely. Hope that's how it shakes out.

How rude.

>>idea, theory engender material relationship of production.
>I think ideas are symptoms of the attempt at understanding underlying crises. Were we not slowly marching then accelerating into modernity there would be no theories trying to explain it. And the cracks were already beginning to show since Aristotle and his ilk

There's an implicit thoery of the event working here. The emergences of capitalism that created both it's past conditions and the future we're headed. Much like Borges theory of Kafka creating his precursors. This is all taken for granted without discussion. Just accepted.

>And the question of Kant's own theology plays a role in this
I don't see how since I think I showed sufficiently how it's all dipendent from a traditional conception of time.

>The more time becomes measurable, the more we can see it, the more we turn it to our own benefit
This is exactly Heidegger critique of metaphysics/teknhé/Vorhandenheit. I can accept this, but it all comes before the emergence of capitalism, not just right then as the material conditions were in place. The relationship between structure and superstructure (to put it in marxian terms) isn't univocal, ok, but at the same time we can't reverse it willy-nilly. And I'll tell you why, otherwise it would be much simpler to stop capitalism. If it's accellerating it's not because of ideas, it's because of its material conditions and those are much harder to change.

But this is all beside the point, what I wanted to show is the it's patently wrong to say that Kant Invented capitalist time, and I think it hasn't been refuted.

But as a personal note I'll tell you why I have gripe with all this stuff.
> It's a story well-told, in a sense.
That's it, it's a surrender of everything pphilosophy is and ever was. A surrender of criticque, of praxis, of the polemos inscribed in every society, a surrender to an aesthetic choice. Just because it ties up everything neatly towards an end, maybe an horrible one. but at least it's a resolution. It's mysticism (and I personally loathe mysticism) for those who can't live up to the secularization

>I dream of being a cuck

...

Stop dreaming about a messianic leader, even if it happen, he will never be enlightened because a single person can't have all the wisdom and knowledge to wisely rule by himself.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men".

As long as people keep thinking naively that a master can save them, they will never be free.
The only true form of democracy is direct democracy and it must be a grassroots movement.

Nowhere near close.

>durrmocracy
Start with the Greeks.

I don't know what happened here but somehow my post got posted with just the image and now the rest of it is lost. Damn. Anyways, I'll try to retrieve what I was going to say:

Basically, the issue with Kant is not Kant-by-himself but also how Land's reading of Kant is filtered through Bataille, since the positivist aspects of Kant's thought disavow all of the other stuff that Land will find on the other side of the rational subject: namely, death.

>With Kant death finds its theoretical formulation and utilitarian frame as a quasi-objectivity correlative to capital, and noumenon is its name. The effective flotation of this term in philosophy coincided with the emergence of a social order built upon a profound rationalization of excess, or rigorous circumscription of voluptuous lethality. Once enlightenment rationalism begins its dominion ever fewer corpses are left hanging around in public places with each passing year, ever fewer skulls are used as paperweights, and ever fewer paupers perish undisturbed on the streets.
>Even the graveyards are rationalized and tidied up. It is not surprising, therefore, that with Kant thanatology undergoes the most massive reconstruction in its history. The clerical vultures are purged, or marginalized. Death is no longer to be culturally circulated, injecting a transcendent reference into production, and ensuring superterrestrial interests their rights. Instead death is privatized, withdrawn into interiority, to flicker at the edge of the contract as a narcissistic anxiety without public accreditation. Compared to the immortal soul of capital the death of the individual becomes an empirical triviality, a mere re-allocation of stock.

It's hard to tell Land's ultra-late Marxism from his nihilism at this point. But it's still there, however fossilized and scoured by heat and darkness. And maybe meant to be picked up by some other wasteland traveler. But he intimates a horrible positivism in Kant and he goes to Bataille to unpack it. Finding even worse shit in the process.

>That's it, it's a surrender of everything pphilosophy is and ever was. A surrender of criticque, of praxis, of the polemos inscribed in every society, a surrender to an aesthetic choice. Just because it ties up everything neatly towards an end, maybe an horrible one. but at least it's a resolution. It's mysticism (and I personally loathe mysticism) for those who can't live up to the secularization.
I'd rather be wrong than right. Retracing Land's steps to the inferno is depressing but I feel like it's better to be horrified than naive. If anything nihilism is supposed to be a speculative opportunity and not a death sentence. And it's not like there aren't structural flaws in Land's arguments either: Mark Fisher had ideas, they're even in the reader. Whether Capital in this sense is actually bad for markets and so on.

I need a break from all this stuff myself anyways for a bit.

>it's better to be horrified than naive

you can actually be both

I want to return to "problem of spacetime", because unlike some of the anons here who deride it as nonsense it does have much import. For now, treating blockchain as insufficiently "solving" spacetime, let's take Capitalism's homogenizing tendency to apply selective pressure to its objects (and we are but its objects) to take on the traits of interchangeability (whether race, gender, nationality, etc.) as being ontologically posterior to the limits of spacetime.

So let's turn to Blame! and probe it as a metaphor. In Blame! we are presented with an infinitely growing City that has fallen out of our control. Allegedly it's the "size of Jupiter", but the question has been asked "what will happen when its growth outpaces its structural integrity?". Namely, the question is that of gravitational collapse under its own mass. And as we know gravity is basically the curvature of spacetime. "Artificial gravity" as an answer that is a cop out, because like I said before, we should assume order before introducing paradox in treating the drama as a microcosm of the world. So if we assume the non manipulation of the rules of spacetime and limits on the structural integrity of mass, then the City is going to collapse at one point. Far from the end of it though, it will keep rebuilding, growing, sucking around resources to fuel itself.

This should put into context our concept of the "sustainability of our economy" into perspective. Peak oil, ecological catastrophe, etc. What is the bust and boom (and crash) cycle other than the ominous cardiogram of Capitalism's future? And "dark ecology" is relevant here. We think too small. Sustainability isn't what we think it is. Capitalism is infinitely sustainable. The final form of the City is infinite mass.

Now as one passes the event horizon, time dilates (really, spacetime curving inwards). The world becomes (subjectively) frozen in time. And so does one ever approach ground zero? We won't know because we can't observe it. You might retort that "we just have to cross it" and yes, local time subjectively remains the same, but when we look at those who came before us, we cannot see them. And when we look at those who will come after us, we never see them coming closer. We become phenomenally blind to the future and infinitely torn from our past.

Ofc "you" will really be crushed way before then. But this is a future outcome that modernity is a microcosm of.

Now Land's darling is intelligence which is presented as the telos of Capitalism. And our black hole is not incompatible with intelligence. But spacetime singularity still precedes intelligence.

And really I prefer this outcome aesthetically. Blame! does dangle hope in front of us in the form of the Net Terminal Gene. A non sequitur that is irrelevant to the Blame! City as thought experiment ofc. But I like my happy coincidences. Synchronicities even. Hyperstition.

The question is, what is our Net Terminal Gene?

Link isn't working

This is a great post, just wanted to give it the (You) it deserves. Going out for a bit to clear my head, will probably return at some unspecified point someday. Unless the hyperstitial werewolves get me.

I just checked it, seems to be working on my end.

>That's it, it's a surrender of everything pphilosophy is and ever was. A surrender of criticque, of praxis, of the polemos inscribed in every society, a surrender to an aesthetic choice. Just because it ties up everything neatly towards an end, maybe an horrible one. but at least it's a resolution. It's mysticism (and I personally loathe mysticism) for those who can't live up to the secularization
Heh, well i'm guilty of aestheticization sure. But i'm much more optimistic than the accelerationist death cult. And you have to note that the birth of Western philosophy coincided with drama's death sentence being signed. Plato wanted to kill "false" drama, to turn it into a prescriptive rather than descriptive endeavor. Aristotle merely took umbrage at the deus ex machina, but the intercession of the gods were authoritative solutions to intractable social problems. The other solution of course, is human sacrifice...

>Net Terminal Gene
I'd gloss over this more. But suffice to say, the answers i'm toying with has something to do with bicamerality. And The Greeks.

Arguably, Kant as understood as default-Kant is already filtered through his own lens as an Enlightenment philosopher. Tu quoque. But yes there is a lot of blatant theory fictionalizing and the aesthetic is no doubt part and parcel of Landianism. Kant was under an Enlightenment aesthetic himself tho. Maybe it was more "sincere", but he seemed to be less aware of it and the ramifications. I don't think he'd be happy with freshman undergrads getting the impression than Kantian ethics renders God obsolete. And they're not even wrong (maybe wrong argumentatively, but not historically) because that's the direction history took.

Thanks. I should really go watch the new movie. Expecting to be disappointed ofc.

>Talking about difference, cybercapitalism, hyperstions and AI, we're still stuck with Hegel here circa 1807.
Can you expand on that and how it relates to Hegel?

I said it in the other thread, Land's philosophy is almost antithetical to the alt-right at large; accelerationist techno-capitalism seeks to crush blood-and-soil traditionalism as much as any progressive.

Maybe there's something to Silicon Valley billionaires, particularly Thiel, buying into it, but any alt-right involvement there is a cynical alliance either which way guaranteed to end in backstabbing.

You might get a kick out of Land and others trying to work that very process out, if you haven't seen it already. Building a successful government-as-paranoia-container is interesting.

xenosystems.net/trichotomy/
xenosystems.net/trichotomocracy/

Rechecked. Still not working. I-Is it possible that it's b-blocked in Sudan?

The media keeps trying to push the narrative the "alt-right" cares about Land, they really fucking don't.

Could be. Can always read Fanged Noumena in the meantime. The reader is great since it culls from FN and the blog and other articles related to DE/NRx &c. That user knew what they were doing.

But in the meantime -

s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/406213/42bdb859549f609953a0ca61aca0bee3.pdf