I don't get it

[Anonymous No.17606902]

Is this a meme? Why is it so long and has so much effort put into it if it's a meme? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.17606936]

Start with the Germans: Kant, Schopenhauer, Schelling.

[Anonymous No.17606953]

>>17606936
Lol Schelling

[Anonymous No.17606974]

>>17606953
Cited all over the place in Spinal Catastrophism so yeah

[Anonymous No.17607419]

>>17606902
Is it really going to be a big loss if I just skip this one boys?

[Anonymous No.17607514]

>>17606902
try heraclitus

[Anonymous No.17607526]

>>17606902
It has a lot of meme potential partly because he boroughs a lot from Nick Land. There are a ton of citations and crossover with CCRU era literary analasys. If remember correctly he directly cites Daniel Charles Barker, a CCRU/Nick Land universe fictional professor of Anorganic Semiotics.
Overall pretty neat book and definitely worth the buy if you're into that kind of philosophy

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607564]

I read it, it’s a fun read and it’s meant to be a fun read. It’s basically philosophical/theoretical fiction, trying to create through history, fiction and their own conceptions and re-utilization of various things a very odd Philosophical conception. On one hand you’d need a bit of education on philosophy to enjoy it but on the other hand, lacking that education would just amplify the intended aesthetic.

It’s definitely a fun little book.

[Anonymous No.17607603]

>>17607564
Do you like Urbanomic?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607666]

>>17607603
No particularly strong feelings, I disagree with OOO for phenomenology reasons and a lot of these types come off as basically larping for aesthetics, even reza negarestani who I like, tried larping about how all of the sufis were rationalist atheists and when I argued against him, he argued back only a little bit and then folded as his ignorance on the topic of Persian Sufi mysticism was pulled out of him.

A lot of these types of people should just admit they want to do an aesthetic larp, that they are only partially interested in philosophy for its own sake. I think nick land is the father of this philosophy-as-aesthetic(specifically scifi-esque schizo punk aesthetic) stuff.

[Anonymous No.17607674]

I enjoyed it. It's not that long and actually a quick read
>>17607564
Agree with everything here. It's a great way of 'seeing' how far someone can take an idea. It won't enlighten much of the world but will show you how to make connections and stuff.

[Anonymous No.17607679]

>>17607666
hellish trips
- you had a discussion with reza? details?

[Anonymous No.17607681]

>>17606902
I don't doubt it's effortful and making insightful or at least interesting connections. The problem is that the topic is so obviously uninsightful in the end. You could spend your time telling us why the basis for critiquing everything should be genealogy of morals, or material conditions, or the subconscious, or power dynamics, or signs bouncing off one another, or immanent contradictions, or any such things. Those are compelling, insightful critiques. Or you could argue that the backbone is the key to everything. That's what Moynihan is doing. I could do the same, I could say upward mobility is the key to understanding everything right and wrong with the world, from Aristotle's fire and air, to the construction of buildings upwards not downward, to the firing of fireworks, flight as a means of transportation, going up staircases, and doing jumping jacks. The elevator going up becomes the symbol of it all, a sort of passivity, a sort of very basic repetition, a vehicular waiting period, wrapped up in condescending opiate music, but always a means to some sort of end we aspire for, always physically upward. It's honestly really easy to bullshit this stuff into existence, and if I dug deep and refined the connections I made to make them as compelling as can be, I could crank out something really good. I could pick anything and, Archimedean style, make it the fixed point around which I can shift the entire universe. That's not hard to do, and Moynihan undoubtedly knows that. He's wasting your time, in a sense, but not wasting his time, and that's the joke, the trick he's playing, and you'll appreciate it if you can get the joke, but once you get the joke you'll only read the book if you've got the time so you can see how good of a joke it is. Otherwise you're deluded and you're being played. Moynihan and myself will just laugh at your expense.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607717]

>>17607679
Oh I mean I had multiple, I used Twitter for about a month or so but couldn’t keep on it because I found the amount of vanity, the youth, pride, ego, normies and so forth absolutely disgusting and I just couldn’t do it. In that time I befriended/got followed by nick land and would argue with him, reza, graham hartmann (absolute Mongoloid, doesn’t get Husserl at all.) and a few others. I’m sure if I had the stomach to see all of the scum on Twitter I could probably be decently big on there but I really don’t see the point. Besides, it’s suffocating. The 3000 character limit on here is suffocating enough.

Tldr, reza started larping that all of the sufis were rationalist atheists so i explained and showed how that wasn’t true and gave examples and he kept trying to argue that they were only like that for political reasons, then I showed how those sufis became martyrs and literally died for their beliefs in Allah. And so forth. It sorta disappointed me in him.

In fact going on Twitter and actually having discussions with these popular philosophers was pretty unsatisfying because I was able to more or less talk at level or overwhelm them at points. Which is disappointing honestly.

[Anonymous No.17607731]

>>17607526
>boroughs

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607753]

>>17607681
I fundamentally agree but I would say the point is just for fun, it’s theory fiction. Philosophy as an aesthetic. I mean I get the appeal, I’m the type of person who will read the writings of people with literal schizophrenia and the like to see how weird and exotic their model of reality and philosophy is.

I think if you approach it knowing it’s just a game, a toy, a fiction piece, it’s fine.

[Anonymous No.17607764]

>>17607717
How long did it take for you to reach this level?

[Anonymous No.17607770]

>>17607717
Can't speak for you or for them but "character limits" can be generalized to the very limitation of the speaking medium itself when two people come together and at least one side has years and years of contextual knowledge that just can't be expressed. Unless one side knows as much as the other, people who aren't careful can go Dunning-Kruger and assume another side is really just dumber than they seem, when in fact it's the first side who is showing how overconfident they are in their own skills. From my experience, talking to famous philosophers or just philosophy professors in general always makes them come across as short of genius, and that's because of the medium of language always doing them no favors. They're a lot smarter than they seem, with some exceptions, if you get to know them much better. But I don't doubt Reza or Land or Harman are pseuds about some topics seeing as Meillassoux's After Finitude shows no deep familiarity with certain topics even undergrad philosophers sometimes know better than he does. The guy still has a medieval conception of modality in the 21st century, and his anti-correlationist arguments recreate arguments found in a book by Thomas Nagel from 1986, to give just one example.

[Anonymous No.17607772]

>>17607731
>burroughs

[Anonymous No.17607776]

>>17607753
I agree. I think that's how I approach it and that's the way to realize what Moynihan is doing is pretty fun, in good spirits. Larpers don't catch that though, and I feel they're sort of playing themselves. If I was Moynihan I'd be having a bit of a laugh.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607777]

>>17607764
Of discussion with them? About a couple days/week, you just reply with effort posts on relevant topics, usually citing your sources or the like and they basically are forced to argue and talk back.

[Anonymous No.17607790]

>>17607777
I meant years of study to feel like you're on par with them lol

[Anonymous No.17607804]

>>17607666
>>17607777
Nice digits mang.
If you think that you can do better than them then what is stopping you from writing a pure philosophy book?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607826]

>>17607770
>but "character limits" can be generalized to the very limitation of the speaking medium itself when two people come together and at least one side has years and years of contextual knowledge that just can't be expressed.

Yeah but this wouldn’t be so much the case because I seen them trying to make “obscure “ references and being shocked when I caught them. Not to say there aren’t people with giga-brains. I much more respect Nicholas rescher, Edward Zalta and other types who are quietly doing their work in the universities. I’m sure these people could dominate me intellectually without effort.

>But I don't doubt Reza or Land or Harman are pseuds about some topics seeing as Meillassoux's After Finitude shows no deep familiarity with certain topics even undergrad philosophers sometimes know better than he does. The guy still has a medieval conception of modality in the 21st century, and his anti-correlationist arguments recreate arguments found in a book by Thomas Nagel from 1986, to give just one example.


Yeah, i in general find someone like Dan Zahavi many times greater than Meillassoux, I really think a lot of these people are like Cobras, puffing themselves up you know? So many of them have arguments and systems which could be dissolved by just saying “no.”

Besides I have mutual friends who regularly speak to reza and so forth semi-regularly, eh, nick land from what I understand when asked hardly even remembers the stuff he wrote about, because age and drugs really did fry him. And I’m not mocking him I genuinely find that sad.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607846]

>>17607790
>>17607804
Oh I’m not saying I’m something great, there’s plenty of people of substance, I just see these people as pop-schlock. As for myself, my own philosophical and esoteric system is basically impossible to make into a normie friendly system. It would require understanding/knowledge of various strands of Hebrew Kabbalah, Christian mysticism, Sufism, Hindu tantra, Vedanta, various stands of Buddhism, Typhonian esotericism, esoteric Taoism, Husserlian phenomenology, laruelle, meinong, Dante, hegel, Deleuze, merleau ponty, abulafia, Bertiaux, John Dee and a lot of other stuff. I have no interest in publishing and I don’t believe anyone would find my model consumable.

[Anonymous No.17607877]

>>17607846
Well I think you're pretty impressive, and even though I find some of the things you say repugnant, if I ever become as knowledgeable and well spoken as you I will be quite excited about the accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.17607886]

>>17607846
>I don’t believe anyone would find my model consumable.
Do it for vanity's sake. You have such a diverse big brained spectrum of influences. Don't waste all of this potential.
Publish a book man and /lit/ will hold(break) your back.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17607923]

>>17607877
Eh, apologies if my opinions and personality comes off distasteful, I can only speak in accordance to what I’ve found correct in my contemplations And so forth.

>>17607886
Eh, maybe in a couple years, maybe in 10. Maybe then I’ll have enough knowledge to produce something of substantial worth and refinement and elegance. But eh, I’ll stop hogging the thread, too off topic.

[Anonymous No.17608001]

>>17607846
Good luck anon. I'm presently drafting three separate philosophical systems (one I believe, one I used to believe, and one I never believed) on purpose, and they're so different and yet have things in common that I think someone's bound to find them interesting or at least realize that there's something attractive to the entire idea of the three.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608054]

>>17608001
Eh, if you’re interested, I keep a diary for my philosophy, poetry and fiction. If you click the soseinology category, you’ll find my writings on my own philosophy. It reaches iirc around 80 pages? I’d have to double check, but be warned, it isn’t written for consumption just my own thought processes, as such it’ll come off pretty schizo.

https://pastebin.com/tiCSYRhh

Kaaba of 237 is the first and by extension probably the least complex write up.

[Anonymous No.17608358]

>>17608054
Thanks anon, I wish other people on this board could at least try to do original things for once, so thanks for putting in your best. I respect that. All that being said, I'll confess something, since you admit you understand Moynihan and others are mostly doing what they do for fun. My worry, and it might not be a worthwhile worry for the above reason (fun is fun for its own sake), is this: I worry that these theory-fictional projects don't have good capacity to become virulent. On the other hand I look at founders of religions, even founders of more applicable philosophical systems, wrong as they might be, and I see endless evidence of virulence there. In a way, the more-ordinary philosopher, and the prophet, and other such people, are better at crafting hyperstitions than the current accelerationist-adjacents. Obviously many of these people are either intentionally asserting things they think are true, or otherwise intentionally trying to lie and deceive, neither of which captures the sense of the true hyperreal, where the lines between fiction and reality are intentionally kept blurry. But that's a problem of form, not one of capacity. These people have the greater capacity to develop virulent strains of belief, inject them into the ecosystem, watch them bloom for generations. And I guess, unless we say "It's for fun, no worries!" these increasingly obscurely erudite projects are essentially born stillborn. Do you share my concerns here? In the end though, "It's just for fun" might be enough, so I won't fault anyone wanting to have fun.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608495]

>>17608358
The problem Anon is I do not share your worry/concern. By this I mean to say, i agree far more with baudrillard than the others that this cultural simulacra is such that there is no way out of it, that it will consume and integrate (especially now through the internet ) any critique, any foreign system and any attempt against it into state-techno-capitalism. And further more I (due to my Hegelian conception of freedom, knowledge, will, etc) do not see this as a bad thing, but rather I support without question capitalism and the current cultural structure (especially for eschatological reasons, as I do support my religion full heartedly.) so what I mean to say by this is, we are already within the fascist body without organs, the schizophrenic forces cannot actually break the pattern, they’re simply integrated into the digital world. All revolutionary force is clearly devoured into the system. And again, to me this is fundamentally a good thing because my concern is Society as if a singular entity. To quote Schiller, the Artist has no fear in performing violence upon his art piece because violence will be needed to carve the stone into the statue. In this same regard, I fully believe man is most fulfilled when devoured/integrated into the State-cultural construct.

My interest in philosophy is not political as my political system is currently winning globally and shall continue to dominate. My concern is the question of knowledge, truth, consciousness, self, other, fundamentally the structure of God and his thought.

I am not a part of the cult of vitality, nor the cult of youth, nor even the cult of the aesthetic. My lot is with Urizen and not with Los, for Los can dominate and absorb the other 3 and bring them into a new complexity.

I don’t believe for a second these strands of belief will ultimately flourish as group beliefs, my lot is with Nietzsche’s dragon, that is the winning cultural force globally. The lines of flight will continuously be consumed by the cancer cell. To use their aesthetic language, Kek.

I know this might sound horrid, but it is in accordance with my ethical system (which I’ve written on ) that for the greatest Good, for the greatest knowledge and longevity, man’s absorption into society and technology is fundamentally the best for the course of time.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608519]

>>17608495
>can dominate and absorb the other 3 and bring them into a new complexity.

Whoops,

Can be dominated and absorbed*

[Anonymous No.17608526]

>>17608495
That makes sense. I like the idea of being able to be a clinamenic force, the primeval swerve that can throw the course of history off its existing course in at least some detail. Even if history has some general fated course, some of its modalities may differ, even if it's just a difference that lasts for a period of time before some supposed homogeneous fated end limit is reached either way. If one's too fatalistic, and rejects such aleatory faith, I guess one may as well just sit back and watch the show, playing games of no effect for leisure's sake but otherwise worrying no more that one's games won't change a thing. After all, no one will change a thing, I suppose that's the moral?

[Anonymous No.17608538]

>>17607717
>vanity, ... pride, ego

Complains a tripfag.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608580]

>>17608538
I trip to To save conversations, save critique, key posts, arguments, recommendations and so forth. Also a matter of sentimentality, a group of friends of mine would all use the frater name and though we no longer speak regularly, I still like it. If there was no archive I wouldn’t use it.

Apologies if I’m too obnoxious.

>>17608526
This assumes fate has a bad or distasteful end, that time’s end is somehow bad. In my eye, the course is good and the end result is Good. The moral is one has to do for themselves what is best and not be subject to the cult of youth until their youth has faded and the cult throws them away.

By this I mean to say, while being an activist, a radical, an aesthetic larper or the like might be fun for the moment, it’s really just a manifestation of a youthful way of life and thought, one that is also not even so youthful as to be innocent and pure, it’s the angst of a teenager rebel. How can you read someone like nick land and not taste the teenage aspect within his thought? But everyone must go in accordance with their own, their inmost aspects. I simply do not see value in playing the teenage rebel.

[Anonymous No.17608619]

>>17608580
I'd guess Land actually agrees with you about your view of the thrust of history, especially the bits you mentioned about Marx and Hegel. He even has the same all-devouring techno-capital thing. He just characterizes this as an amoral, sort of horrific, process because he's an atheist and a pessimist, he doesn't have you religious framework.

[Anonymous No.17608645]

>>17608580
>This assumes fate has a bad or distasteful end, that time’s end is somehow bad.
Nah I wasn't trying to assume that. I just mean there's something I like to believe over something else. We all like to believe things, or rather, we all believe things. Just how it is.
>I simply do not see value in playing the teenage rebel.
I don't even want to be a rebel in a sense. I sincerely believe things I believe, prior to any motivation to rebel. I like the idea that I can affect the world if I throw my ideas in. All that means is that I think there are genuine counterfactuals, which isn't very crazy to accept, I feel. Like I said though, that's separate from what the end result will be and whatever, it could be just that there's different ways things for a period of time will be, etc.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608649]

>>17608619
Without a doubt he eventually does accept and embrace it, but he keeps the edge about him.

The horrific aspect doesn’t even need religion to remove, we can just look at society as it is right now and notice that a good portion of these ideas are already in effect, we simply just don’t live in a cyber punk dystopia, life isn’t that bad, perception is a major aspect of the quality of life we first worlders have. If you look at the situation and where it logically leads without eyes looking for an aesthetic story, it’s really not a scifi horror story.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17608675]

>>17608645
Sure, I understand the drive and force of will and belief. I don’t want to crush your spirit/hope, you already know about how much of the political process is money based, how much culture is crafted, how much power corporations and technocratic agencies hold, how much the common person doesn’t care and lives a good enough life not to complain too much.

It’s good to have Will and force, to want to cause change, but I’ll put like this. It’s better to use that will for your own betterment and the betterment of your local community. You will see results, real people increasing in quality of life, even if that’s just you. I don’t mean to sound harsh, it’s just realistic.

[Anonymous No.17608762]

>>17608675
>It’s good to have Will and force, to want to cause change, but I’ll put like this. It’s better to use that will for your own betterment and the betterment of your local community. You will see results, real people increasing in quality of life, even if that’s just you. I don’t mean to sound harsh, it’s just realistic.
I think I agree with that. Thanks for carrying out this conversation with me.

[Anonymous No.17608775]

>>17608649
>If you look at the situation and where it logically leads
I don't know if anyone can claim they can really do this. There's the possibility of AI and other very disruptive technologies.

[Anonymous No.17609052]

>>17607666
>checked
>argued against him
Do you live action shitpost niggarestani?
>>17607717
Lmao

>>17607717
One can generally expect to concert 10% of ones audience into sales (at least from youtube), you should definitely keep the Twitter if only for self-promotion clout once you’ve published

>>17607846
>>17608495
>impossible to make normie friendly
Land is a meme, and he’s got far, embrace the memes