/lit/ - Literature

>>14635444
capital is thriving at the same time humanity assumes a rapidly approaching existential crisis (a biological hazard from China being distributed by globally my international capital as we speak); what about this situation isn't accelerationist in your eyes?

>>12181692
>hurr why do computers use logic
>who the fuck is Boole
as someone who genuinely loves philosophy, please leave

>>11688610
this post is really good, btw. the jeweled net of indra, no shit. and if you want to have a conversation about marx, this is it, this is the future. neoliberalism, meet your new parter, autoliberalism. you'll be sharing a room. for now.

>>11688688
i cannot help but read some of that in the voice of patrick stewart. forgive me.

one thing that comes to mind is that in some sense the destruction of class-conscious sensibilities in a way really does have its upside. for mark fisher it does not. ok. and RIP mark. but imagine what D&G were thinking on writing this: *just stop the fucking representations.* you don't *need* an analyst. and you don't need *any* of the stuff you are buying either. there's so much more out (read: in) there. you don't need the simulacrum, and you go fucking crazy when it is taken away. so what then? how about, go fucking crazy.

it's such a great passage, isn't it. it really is. how do you argue with this? this isn't arcane metaphysical jargon. it is the kind of sanity that is always far more rare than it should be. that's what always strikes me about the great writers: it's not that they're wizards, it's that they're just fucking sane. they're not *selling* you anything. they're not writing *compulsively.* they make moves you just didn't even know could be made. and then they make the one move, and you go, wow. i didn't know you could make that move.

>to discover beneath the individual fantasy the nature of group fantasies
which were nothing but calamity in the 20C. at least in terms of their political referents. i love love me some heidegger but, i mean, he really fucked up. fascism absolutely makes sense as the continuation of socialist praxis: where all is one great nation no class struggle is required or necessary. it's romantic as hell to want to protect the shield, perhaps. but politics shouldn't be romantic. there are other places for romance.

in our somewhat more brutally practical, post-68 (and post-1990) world i associate that autocritique with talking bots quietly birthed by accident after midnight in facebook labs. it's sad but kind of beautiful, because it's the dream for technology too, in a way. to make the perpetual motion machine, to make a thing that lives and thinks. to create intelligence. what a rush.

who knows. marx tore up the philosophical universe for a century, maybe land will do the same. paranoia can at least prevent you from getting your heart ripped to shreds in advance. but it's a high price to pay. you don't even know when you're paying it.