Future Philosophy

[Anonymous No.9819327]

This thread regards the coming (or already present) (post-)post-modern philosophy. I would like to hear the thoughts of my fellow literati.

Some questions to start:
>my thoughts in green

Who are the most relevant contemporary philosophers?
>Personally, I’d say Lacan, Deleuze, Zizek, Girard, Sloterdjik, Delanda, Land, Habermas, Kripke, Chomsky, and Peterson. If anyone could synthesize all that you could become pretty famous.

What is the new canon? Do we have to contend with a world canon?
>I think there are a lot of insights to be had from the East. Especially when viewed comparatively alongside contemporaneous Western sources. These bring to light a lot of things that have been seemingly lost or overlooked. I think McEvilley, Kingsley, Hadot, and Uzdavinys are all interesting in their "shamanic" or “mystical” interpretation of the Greeks. And, contrary to popular belief, not all Easterners are anti-rational or illogical.

Do we need a new philosophy for the contemporary era?
>In my opinion, whether or not we take philosophy to be a historical enterprise or an ahistorical enterprise then there is nevertheless a need to either create new ideas and better questions or rediscover old ideas and remember questions. But it is both. Thus the techniques stay the same but the outcome changes. Praxis and theory.

What is the future of philosophy?
>I am a capitalist and a schizophrenic so I love Deleuze. He is inspiring to read, especially insofar as the possibility of a left accelerationism is concerned. Gives me nostalgic feels of Walter Benjamin's esoteric Marxism. The dialectical spirals are happening faster now. I also wonder if new age and occultism becoming more popular will end up influencing philosophy :^)


Anyway, please share philosophical literature and discuss.

[Anonymous No.9819347]

>>9819327
read this shit
it's the next step after Kant
Like all good philosophy (making the implicit explicit) it almost seems obvious in hindsight
https://disquietism.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/freedom-without-selves-expediting-the-nemocentric-society/

[girardfag No.9819876]

>>9819347
can confirm that thread is dope. hickman seems to skew heavy on horror and it checks out. existential space horror is still a kind of romanticism, and where there is romanticism there is something beyond the crushing death of irony.
>and underneath the crushing death of irony is the boiling death of sincerity

so. yes. fuck. shit. where to even begin. god damn.

ok. start w/pic rel. now wilber is straight-shot California Buddhism which is imho a problem b/c it dovetails perfectly with all things horrendously neoliberal and horrendously Bloody PostModern NeoMarxist &c. now i like wilber but i think this is probably not the place to discuss him at great length. he's all about Transcend and Include but to some degree perhaps this the issue: nothing atm Transcends and Includes more than Capital itself, which loves to efface all differences, sharpen them down, replace them with robots, and then serve them up for consumption. that is a deadly evil karmic wheel of its own.

now all that said however i want to point out where the lines do cross for me:
>an autonomous sybernetic spiritual captialism
b/c this is what i think too. whatever is going on, it is a big big Process and that is what makes continental philosophy so fucking destabilizing. there *is* in that sense a Matrix, but there is no real escape *from* that Matrix. i might even be so crazy as to say that what i would be okay with is a sort of *matrix preservation society* - a kind of sense of knowing that, for better or for worse, we are well and truly all in this thing together. the matrix is getting pulled all over the place, left and right. so something like asimovian psychohistory would be a good look, as would a study of memes, culture, politics, economics, deep ecology, art...the list goes on and on and fucking on and on and on.

(cont'd)

[girardfag No.9819880]

>>9819327

let's try and look at some of your questions. they're my questions also.

>Who are the most relevant contemporary philosophers?
everyone you named. yes. i'll shill for chardin on that list as well. maybe barbara marx hubbard. arne naess perhaps. futurists & cosmologists. flaky new age a-go go. but not so much that we go off track. Capital plays the game *for keeps* and too much wishy-washy stuff makes things worse rather than better.

shit does *entirely* need synthesizing. massive re-reading and over-re-reading of D&G: anti-oedipus but especially A Thousand Plateaus. they nailed it. *quantify writing.* books and *abstract machines.* all that. new sincerity, but leaving some room for jesus.

fuck. so fucking much.

>What is the new canon? Do we have to contend with a world canon?
yes on east/west. yes on finding the connections where outer-fringe Western stuff meets inner-fringe Eastern stuff. that's *global* philosophy. the red team/blue team lines glow in purple and pink.

>shamanism/mysticism
this. i like castaneda here as well. i like a lot of stuff learning to un-plug yourself so that you can re-plug yourself, re-integrate. holism. without fuckface holism.

>Do we need a new philosophy for the contemporary era?
yes. as OP says, the techniques stay the same but the outcome changes. *there is a thing called history and we have to learn from it.* this was nietzsche's lament. it is kafka's lament. it is the Infinite Lament. enough fucking lamenting. but let's maybe foster something which holds out something more interesting to interesting types than suicide.

this was john gardner's test, by the way: consider you are writing a work of fiction and there is someone standing on a ledge about to throw themselves off. they hesitate long enough to pick up one more book. if the book sucks, they jump. if it doesn't, they will delay a little longer. the book is yours. there's a kind of scheherazade vibe there. i don't know. i'm really just thinking out loud here.

>What is the future of philosophy?
so. after all of this shit...left accelerationism > right accelerationism? let's say ok for now. i lean right when it comes to accelerationism > the present, but, yes, i think, if it's a choice between left or right accelerationism because *those are the options in town,* then ok.

deleuze is the *most* inspiring motherfucker to read these days. let's pour one out for guattari too, he had a major hand in that. mapping the future. cartographies and trajectories. can into.

>new age/occult
greater holism. hyperstition. *it doesn't always have to be negative.* maybe shit just has to get dark until you can hit some terra firma down there and integrate the shadows and come back up for air.

[girardfag No.9819899]

>>9819880
all of this is to repeat politics, and metaphysics > politics. we can't do much more than sketch things or sort of theorize about what an Enlightened Capitalism would look like, but it sure wouldn't be one tribe of bloodthirsty apes clubbing another tribe of bloodthirsty apes to death in a parking lot over a bucketful of crude oil.

it's a living, breathing, glowing world out there.
>the spice must glow
it really is. and we live in interesting times like that. maybe on the threshold of something really fucking cool even. because it is One World Under Capital now and that is scary as fuck but also means you can think *all kinds of interesting stuff now.* you really can. there's crazier shit happening right now than in most other times of human history. with even more in play. it's a good time to Dream Big, in other words. not necessarily social dreams. but because if you go looking for reasons to think really really small - well, other than the fact that excessively large dreams will destroy your psyche and render you jobless, i mean - you won't find them. it's one big immanent world now.

also you were so right about music & aesthetics. been listening to that stuff now and it is 149% the sound/effect i was looking for. it hadn't clicked for me yet. it clicks now.

and honestly OP i haven't even nearly done justice to the stuff you were raising in that first post. i'm very glad that the second iteration of this thread made it through & we got to have this discussion. post-post-philosophy or w/ev is where it's at. so excuse the rambling tone; this stuff is just cooler than cool to me.

the djinn is smiling on the inside. maybe he doesn't look like it. hell, maybe he knows your guy in the OP. anyways. w/ev.

[Anonymous No.9819941]

>>9819327
I don't know why people never recognize Alex Kierkegaard on any of these lists. You cannot find any texts like his, he is the first real critic of modern art and he is the most ruthless writer today. Instead, mentioning him calls forth instant ad hominem attacks. It makes me think that intellectual discussion is dominated by a hivemind.

>It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters.

[girardfag No.9819962]

>>9819941
icycalm really is a genius but it's only because his style is so off-putting. he's like goonan cranked up to eleven and then some.

so he rubs people the wrong way and we all know why but i have zero problems with him. big fan. i read every essay on this list and every book on his OOTW recommended reading list as well. i will now and forever be grateful to that terrifying bastard for applying the fucking jumper cables to my thick skull and blasting me into philosophyfag plateau. waking up my love for videogames and showing everyone how awesome continental theory could be.

nothing but love for icycalm. nothing but love. hope he's doing well, wherever he is, and whatever he's doing. a true original and the some.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/

[Anonymous No.9819968]

>>9819327
>This thread regards the coming (or already present) (post-)post-modern philosophy. I would like to hear the thoughts of my fellow literati.

I'm in no way convinced that post-modern theory is now irrelevant. I think before anyone can talk about post-post-moderism, you need show why Debord's formulation is no longer enough to describe society:

>"The spectacle is not a collection of images, rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images"

The fundamental 'problems' facing us today are still within the same historical moment 1950's onward consumerist, capitalist, spectacle. The technologies ARE changing, so I'm glad Nick Land and Sloterdijk are in OPs list, but I don't think we are at all ready to toss out the post-modern cannon as 'irrelevant'. At best, we might say it's 'incomplete'.


>Who are the most relevant contemporary philosophers?
I think a bunch of dead guys have to be on this list
Baudrillard, Debord, Lyotard, Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger.
>Some not dead people
Paul Virilio, Donna Haraway

>Do we need a new philosophy for the contemporary era?
Again, my reasoning above, I don't think we've left the late 20th century moment behind.

>What is the future of philosophy?
I keep coming back to the divide between Accelerationism and Deep Ecology. If Post-Modern relativism is dead, I think it's because each of these fields is offering a new 'Grand Narrative' by taking a long view on ecology, genetics and human extinction.

I have to admit I'm less knowledgeable about Deep Ecology. Most of my knowledge is limited to pretty superficial, pop-culture understandings of environmentalism, saving the earth, etc.

[girardfag No.9819997]

>>9819968
all of this entirely.

>debord
he's still there. now tiqqun. those guys will convince you if you read them. Bloom &c.

>acceleration v deep ecology
yes tho. deep ecology is really interesting. one of the guys land occasionally talks about is this guy, who is an IRL druid sans the dungeons & dragons stuff (as far as i can tell.)

druidism is kind of interesting to think about. i mean there's only one gigantic world going on here that everyone is experimenting with. none of us has or is likely to have the $$$ to Have Fun With the Earth in more than a theoretical sense, but still.

i think he's into spengler too, i'm not sure. spengler is becoming somewhat dated now, but...anyways. yes. the deep scale stuff.
>i sense a great disturbance in the force
>you're LARPing jedi girardfag
>well that's true. still tho
>don't turn this into a meme you dip. it isn't
>roger

it's just about a different kind of postmodernity, one that doesn't put the global consumer & international tourist at the centre. the existential Subject, like the Author, is dead. and the spice must flow. long live the Earth.

[Anonymous No.9820083]

>>9819327
>I am a capitalist
late capitalism is a flimsy simulacrum, think less kewl deleuzo-guattarian psychedlic landscapes and more 600$ juicers with internet connectivity.

[Anonymous No.9820100]

somehow the only strain i could imagine is a better 'revealing' of post modernism. its the age of knowing what has been. what people have not known existed in contrast to what people accepted blindly under swarms of dead discourse on celebrity media, pop culture, mainstream propaganda. the new word for trend is leaks. so if peterson is his own retelling of post modernism as the left has their own retelling, there should be more philosophical retellings that isnt meme cancer.

someone fight me on this: 'the fusion of politics and the fantasy genre is post-modern'

[Anonymous No.9820168]

>>9820083
>think less kewl deleuzo-guattarian psychedlic landscapes and more 600$ juicers with internet connectivity.

this is why despite all their post-representational quackery deleuze and guattari are still totally subsumed under lacan in that they have to return to either university or hysterical discourse for subject-centered structure. If you could really get the "I" out of Anti-Oedipus (and lord knows their dense text-ure of quotation and omnipresent "nous" goes far in that direction) you would end up with a text way more about juicers than about sunbeams in Schreber's anus. what D&G probably could not shake is thinking all the jouissance pumped out of trinket spinner factories in taiwan would be exciting, whereas the truth is that commodities are mostly junk you, the subject of value, expect to be cool.

[girardfag No.9820169]

>>9820083
>think less kewl deleuzo-guattarian psychedlic landscapes and more 600$ juicers with internet connectivity
pic rel. good lord how pic rel. i realize now why i spend so much time thinking about noir fiction. b/c staring into the abyss isn't a view of the inferno as painted by gustav dore, it's gazing into the homemade MLP-doll porn staged by some 400-pound fat guy in new jersey

>late capitalism is a flimsy simulacrum
flimsy tho it may be, it still sells chicken wings.

>>9820100
>someone fight me on this: 'the fusion of politics and the fantasy genre is post-modern'
would much prefer you just explained what you meant by that instead. i was just talking about the genie from aladdin earlier this morning and i thought i was on to something interesting. talk about that stuff anon

[Anonymous No.9820191]

>>9820100
>the only strain i could imagine is a better 'revealing' of post modernism. its the age of knowing what has been.

That's jewish wizard Walter Benjamin

>the fusion of politics and the fantasy genre is post-modern'
no its fucking gay. neoliberal normies love game of thrones because it is a more entertaining version of their actual, amoral but mind numbingly banal lives.

[Anonymous No.9820205]

>>9820100

the consolidation of "genre" as a selected form of art production instead of an organic form of artistic emergence is a postmodern phenomenon; the reduction of the meaning of the term to "index of thematic content" (the move from novel as genre to sci-fi as genre, in other words) is only the latest result of this simulacral procession. now i'm fairly certain you have fantasy sub-genres as well. sci-fi about robots versus sci-fi about aliens. isn't it odd that cultural production seems to mimic marketing demographics more and more? or is it the other way around? in this sense, opera is the first postmodern art: it was made up by some people who thought it was missing (who thought it would sell) in the 1500s.

["Anonymous" No.9820263]

>>9819347
Ain't this just Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.9820301]

media ecology makes philosophy obsolete

[Anonymous No.9820327]

>circle jerking psuedo-intellectual hedonists mentally-masturbating over how meaningless and useless trains of thoughts make them feel

are there any actual human beings here?

[Anonymous No.9820383]

>>9820301
>media ecology
>MacLuhanism

not even once. read heidegger and marx.

[girardfag No.9820384]

>>9820327
>he doesn't love the smell of napalm in the morning

>are there any actual human beings here?
there are precious few actual human beings anywhere.

so maybe? what's here are a bunch of chill anons who read too much & would like to be less fucked up the impossible pressure of being actual human beings in a world manifestly bent on turning itself into a demented thought-experiment for capitalism & retardation

>hedonism
not so much. try paranoia

[Anonymous No.9820397]

>>9820384
>blaming capitalism for the world's problems
So... no

[Anonymous No.9820409]

>>9820383
read kittler

[girardfag No.9820427]

>>9820397
>blaming capitalism for the world's problems

read the thread. read the other threads. read the thousand and one nick land threads up until now. it's not about blaming capitalism; that is exactly the hurdle that we are looking at here. capitalism is the default condition now.

meme: blaming capitalism for the world's problems
meme: blaming people who blame capitalism for the world's problems
not meme: uh

this is what we are talking about. the mechanosphere, among other things. deleuze wasn't Blaming Capitalism For the World's Problems. he understood it metaphysically. and much else besides that. land isn't Blaming Capitalism for the World's Problems. with him it's the opposite: in fact he's *blaming the world for capitalism's problems.* interesting, no?

and *any number* of other interesting possibilities. all very much in play. one way or another we have to live with it. and for some folks, living means thinking, and over-thinking, and thinking into black holes, and who the fuck knows what else.

if it's not your bag it's not your bag. but it is a deep bag, and there are all kinds of interesting things in it.

[Anonymous No.9820432]

What you guys think of OOO?
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/a-psychoanalytic-defense-of-realism/#more-2716

[Anonymous No.9820438]

>>9820169
not quite sure yet thats why i need some flyting.

>>9820191
i guess i need to roll in the bejamins. neoliberals like GoT without knowing it teaches them the values of 'the right' as they have been taught to supress and lo an behold they get a weekly release of that. in a postpostmodern kind of way theres a symbiosis of politics as lets say a global family of post freudian oprhans with dad or mom issues wanting for a bedtime fantasy story.

>>9820205
in debords recuperation its the market swallowing the art as its own new force of swallowing. right, but lets say cave paintings, arent they depictions of the 'market' as a family of hunters would make of it? i guess im talking about less of the genre and more of fantasy as the 'cave painting' the 'tales of the times'. pretty good picture with this topic >>9820169. wouldnt politics as cavemen be the heat of the sun and hunger? their cave paintings as console to the guilt they feel about hacking an animal disembowling it and munching away. is advertising our console for the collective genocidal guilt as humans?
i dont know...

[Anonymous No.9820470]

>>9820427
Have you cleaned your room today?

[girardfag No.9820498]

>>9820470
>see j-pete
>*sweats*
>*lights cigarette*
>turns on interrogation hi-beams on himself
>ties himself to chair
>begins confessing

fuck man, no, i haven't. well i mean i kind of have. look, it's like you say, with self-authoring. you know that self-authoring, right? okay, well, here's the problem: i've been obsessing over the monomyth for years. for years and years. i mean before i knew you were a guy, j-pete. i mean this goes back years.

so i mean i get what you're saying. except that, i mean, i feel as though, sometimes, uh, i've got, like, multiple selves. and they all sort of overlap and criss-cross with each other. it's all in this huge novel i'm working on. you're going to hate it. except i want you to love it. i really do. but you won't. because i read too many Bloody NeoMarxist Postmodern Nihilists and now they all live in a dilapidated hotel in my mind. with like thirty other guys.

so i'm working on it. that's what i call cleaning my room. and i talk to people on /lit/. i know it doesn't count. i praise you a lot. no, i know that's not good enough. yes, you're right. i should be using speech properly. no, i mean, uh, yes. yes. yes. yes of course you're right, j-pete. yes. i will. yes. no i mean it this time. yes i'll definitely clean it. yes. okay? i just need a little more time. i'm almost finished. it's almost done. almost.

*phew*

ok. is he gone? i think he's gone.

man, that guy's like the fucking Grand Inquisitor or something sometimes.

>tfw this post is honest af and clearly indicates an uncleaned room. or, quite possibly, the need for an entirely new residence prior to said cleaning

["Anonymous" No.9820503]

>>9820470
>tfw cleaning your room fucks up your routine
I need to get a fucking job. Goddamn.

[Anonymous No.9820538]

There are some interesting ideas in this thread.

I think the only way to really predict the future trends of philosophy are to observe them as they happen.

[Anonymous No.9820540]

>>9820498
>>9820503
gotta clean your room so you develop a relationship with every object in your room so you have total mastery over your own space. Then you'll want to branch out more being unsatisfied with the lack of chaos and stimulus in your room so you'll go out and (get a job), then you make friends at your job or learn how to make friends at your job and make friends at your second job, then you socially network from those friends to interact with a spectrum of people from which all your literature prowess can finally have meaning because you can talk to them and influence them as they influence you. You need to go to the gym so your social autism power level is under good control so you don't sperg out like you're doing in your posts so you don't just completely spill your sphaghetti all over the place when you talk about your literary ideas to other people protips free of charge. And then the people you influence in a positive fashion will be more likely to influence others in a positive fashion and you're only 6 degrees from morgan freeman or whatever, that's how you make the world a better place. Or a worse place, depending on how negative or positive an influence you are on others

[girardfag No.9820547]

>>9820438
>but lets say cave paintings, arent they depictions of the 'market' as a family of hunters would make of it?
bataille lost his shit over the cave paintings in lascaux. probably campbell too. had to be something there.

>their cave paintings as console to the guilt they feel about hacking an animal disembowling it and munching away. is advertising our console for the collective genocidal guilt as humans?
i dont know...

me neither. i fucking hope not. it's def possible that the cavemen were just as mediocre and fucked up as people today. kind of a mega-downer to think about.

there's got to be something about seeing it in person, tho. or of imagining what it would have been like to paint those things, for the first time, millions of years ago. or even just perhaps to feel some kind of weird connection with the cavemen who painted them, way back when. the idea that for all of this things *haven't* changed, so much. an encounter with one's own primitivism, i guess. or maybe that feeling you get when you come back from a camping trip and see all the ridiculous unreality of modern electrical civilization. that too.

there's a baudrillard line about this:
>the skylines lit up at dead of night, the air-conditioning systems cooling empty hotels in the desert, and artificial light in the middle of the day all have something both demented and admirable about them the mindless luxury of a rich civilization, and yet of a civilization perhaps as scared to see the lights go out as was the hunter in his primitive night.

[girardfag No.9820568]

>>9820540
>ou need to go to the gym so your social autism power level is under good control so you don't sperg out like you're doing in your posts so you don't just completely spill your sphaghetti all over the place when you talk about your literary ideas to other people protips free of charge
truth.

>And then the people you influence in a positive fashion will be more likely to influence others in a positive fashion and you're only 6 degrees from morgan freeman or whatever, that's how you make the world a better place
truth.

> Or a worse place, depending on how negative or positive an influence you are on others
truth.

>And then the people you influence in a positive fashion will be more likely to influence others in a positive fashion
this once more with feeling tho.

it's not about class consciousness at all. or being a fuckhead name-dropping sperg. it really is just about positive effect, no meme excuses, no chicanery. maybe that is what makes the world a better place. sounds about right.

shit i come to hear, anon. thank ye kindly for saying it so well.

[girardfag No.9820581]

>>9820568
>>9820540

kek and i clearly picked the most perfect picture ever to go with it

meant to post this instead

too good

[Anonymous No.9820665]

>>9819899
>One World Under Capital
Capital will dissolve in segmented accelerated areas while resource is traded for legitimate reasons. Capital = communicating a legitimised symbol of value. One world under valued. My two cents. Nothing of worth here. But read the fine print, the code beyond the letters speaks as though from a stone piled tomb. A spirit I call forth is named Asinine and given a job to do so that I may get back inside my body and go to sleep. Then i dream of:

Pragmatism, learned judgement, scepticism.

The new gods teach us how to dance again. We call them discoveries, become perplexed when we can not make them more efficient, then enter the void, hoping for the gods to call once more to us.

Five different Alexander's continuously playing a game with each other, praising Aristotle, while Phyrro does the real dirty work. And praise be on he who, in an infinitely small moment, cannot move out of the way of the cart. You are calm, you are tranquil. You can go no further. You are only human.

>>9819968
Deep Ecology

Stop one's self. Step on you foot, stamp on it. Stop. Now dig a hole and plant your foot. Let it's roots grow. Let the sense of your own individualism be necessitated on your groundedness. Live within that system, that sacred being that cannot even meet the blasphemy of name - because that is to separate it with your humanness, to make it as assessable as a tool.

Intrinsic vs instrumental value.
Personhood inverted, negating human life.
Lovely day for a stroll, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.9820687]

>>9820409
Ah!
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Hegel-is-dead-3392030.html

["Anonymous" No.9820690]

>>9820665
We really oughta burn all libraries, eh?

[girardfag No.9820725]

>>9820687

>it is not a bad thing to be a failed artist, it just tells us something about our disciplinary society and our world. Kittler was just honest not only to himself when he reminded us that most of the professors in literature are failed poets, most of the cultural theoreticians and critics are more or less failed artists or unhappy curators, and most of the professors in philosophy probably never had a chance to become "real" philosophers.

>Kittler - as he described himself - was entirely Pythagorean. That is the school he claimed to be in. That this type of "ideal" thinking has been overcome - just a bit more than two-hundred years ago - did not bother him. It just happened that he eventually lectured on the Dionysian aspects of Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison, or on Pink Floyd. He did not write songs - as far as I know - but he played saxophone to us, his students and followers, especially when he wanted to ease our souls at his house. Thus, in a way, in his demonic way, he - not on stage, but on campus - was a singer, too.

this. this speaks volumes to me. it's easy to get art mixed up with philosophy; indeed, it's arguably necessary. feels > reals. so now what i like is this idea of some kind of separation, but that doesn't immediately regress into dualism, but a kind of a conscientious holism.

i got into this mess by trying to figure out philosophical fiction, and failing, repeatedly. i failed enough to wind up reading a sizeable chunk of the canon just to be able to finish a fucking writing project. and now i realize that there *is* no fucking other, that virtue matters, and all the rest. it just does. not because reasons. but because anything other than a one-world system is an offense to thought.

philosophy and analysis are good for helping people un-fail, i think. so that they can make art or do whatever the fuck they need to do to be happy and make some positive impact on the world (>>9820540). but inevitably i submit that the art thereby produced will be philosophical in nature, and is going to lead on to new and interesting stuff for philosophers &c. and so it goes: art, science, philosophy. the letter, the number, the symbol. all connected, all interwoven. an enlightened culture produces enlightened individuals, and enlightened individuals, *more* enlightened individuals. just a good look all round.

>>9820665
>Capital will dissolve in segmented accelerated areas while resource is traded for legitimate reasons. Capital = communicating a legitimised symbol of value'
yup
one part of a global brain sends signals to another

>One world under valued.
massively.

>Asinine
am i missing something? sounds cool to me

>Stop one's self.
this.

[girardfag No.9820734]

>>9820725
>asinine
sorry, misread. dumb as rocks today for some reason. should edit & should sleep. catch thread in the morning.

[Anonymous No.9820809]

>>9820690
You imagine me to be someone that is a fiction that I've created, and you want me to what, jump in hoops that you've marked? This is the second age of orality, and I've yet to be confronted by one voice of reason. None shy away from breaking my privacy, yet all shy away from me telling them about the first time I looked into the sun.

Shame!

[Anonymous No.9820815]

Neo-Romanticsm or bust

[Anonymous No.9820822]

>>9820815
Neo-romanticism and bust down the door and eat all the chickens.

[Anonymous No.9820834]

Philosophy needs to be overhauled. Everybody is a fucking Platonist still. Everybody still demands that philosophy be about 'MUH TROOF'.

You wrote a list of garbage philosophers, and deemed them 'relevant' when really they are only relevant to the garbage man. Who pays the bills?

The greatest achievement philosophy will ever reach is executing its own death. At that moment, humanism and all other horrid memes will be flushed, lost with the gators.

[girardfag No.9820852]

>>9820815
>Neo-Romanticsm or bust

is this not vaporwave tho? i am legit no-joke as fascinated now by vaporwave as i have been with any art/music movement in a long time & basically since ever. it is legit fascinating stuff, when the memes turn dark and go the other way.
>and i must thank anons ITT for waking me up to this

if you look at the world through rand's view you get ideology. if you look at ayn rand through a postmodern filter you get irony. if you take another lens of irony and look through that, you get a romanticized real (itself romantic at first) which is simply skeptical about irony itself; so skeptical, in fact, that it comes to prefer the illusion, but of course is too alienated to believe in anything without illusion...and so understands itself as being inseparably bound up & dependent on illusion for perception at all...

and thus enters a kind of *seductive fatalism,* and baudrillard, and all the rest of it. who was a superb romantic. i would fucking shit bricks to know what baudrillard would have thought. i can guess. still tho.

neo-romanticism looks like the purples and pinks to me. but of course to immediately take the next logical step and go full-blown deus vult would *also* be a mistake, because this would be in some sense a betrayal of art itself. and that is our thing today. super-aestheticized in a feels > reals world.

it's not that anything has to be done with politics, because politics is always going to come up empty. it's about understanding the process by which art comes to explain the world so clearly to itself. which is going to take a long, long time. maybe it's all a voyage into narcissism, but a kind of enlightened narcissism, in a way. we're all narcissists here now. that's what tech is: simulation.

>>9820834
>Everybody still demands that philosophy be about 'MUH TROOF'
wtf? i doubt any of us are hardened platonists here. this is way more a nietzsche & company party.

>Who pays the bills?
it's like you guys don't even read the damn threads or something. capital my guy. everybody knows this. capital pays its own bills and we live in its dream sequence.

>The greatest achievement philosophy will ever reach is executing its own death.
sounds very 20C. we undead transsexuals now.

>At that moment, humanism and all other horrid memes will be flushed, lost with the gators.
deleuze was not a humanist.

>Philosophy needs to be overhauled.
this is pretty good tho.

[Anonymous No.9820856]

>>9820725
>one part of a global brain sends signals to another
while the wraiths feed off the noise within the signal, producing an increasingly fractured subconscious - and, at break, the world becomes more human in one sigh. It begins to laugh again at the starry eyed philosophers who have gone mad from boredom.

That day, a great joke is made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdWGlJrG6sQ

[Anonymous No.9820859]

>>9820852
>wtf? i doubt any of us are hardened platonists here. this is way more a nietzsche & company party.
Every Nietzsche fanboy completely misunderstood Nietzsche and is still falling for grEEK memes.

[Anonymous No.9820862]

>>9820834

>I don't know anything about philosophy so it should die

end this pain

[Anonymous No.9820865]

>>9820834
>Everybody is a fucking Platonist still.

that's the problem with "starting with the greeks" you make the same assumptions and mistakes as every other asshole for the last 2000 years

[girardfag No.9820875]

>>9820859
>Every Nietzsche fanboy completely misunderstood Nietzsche and is still falling for grEEK memes.
that's because nietzsche is a fucking spectacularly interesting man and anyone who claims they understand him perfectly is a fucking retard.

deleuze tho. and guattari. they had a pretty good idea of what did he mean by this. and having read them i think that interpretation kicks some major fucking ass. so does land. his interpretations of D&G scary as shit.

there's not a whole lot of platonism going on in capitalism & schizophrenia. or in heidegger. or, for that matter, in lacan. which is where all of these conversations are proceeding from, in one form or another.

capitalism & schizophrenia, territorialization, the BwO, has *nothing* to do with plato. zero.

[Anonymous No.9820877]

>>9820834

>Everybody is a fucking Platonist still.

You clearly care more about new emerging trends than actual philosophy. Do you even read?

[Anonymous No.9820880]

>>9820862
I know more than you.
>>9820875
Delusion.

[Anonymous No.9820885]

>>9820877
'actual philosophy' isn't Platonism. Platonism is a meme cult.
Even mere novelty is better than LARPing.

[Anonymous No.9820887]

>>9820885

So I was right in assuming that you don't actually read then.

[Anonymous No.9820899]

>>9820887
>upset platonist

[Anonymous No.9820904]

>>9820899

>myopic little tyke who likes to bluff his way through shit

[Anonymous No.9820912]

>>9820904
>tyke
Fucker you're 20 at best like the rest of this juice-loving board.

[Anonymous No.9820920]

>>9820912

I wish. Chances are I am far older and far sadder than you are.

You're still half a mong, though. If you seriously think you've finally moved past Plato just stop reading because you're super shit at it.

[Anonymous No.9820931]

>>9820920
You keep at it, stevia-snorter.

[Anonymous No.9820943]

>>9820912
>>9820899
>>9820931
>talk shit with zero intention of defending claim
>this is your brain on mysticism
>this is your brain on feels

[Anonymous No.9820944]

>>9820931

What a zany hyphen game on display.

You're quite a card.

[Anonymous No.9820951]

>>9820943
>defending
>le 'mysticism is bad' meme
>le 'emotions are bad because i have autism' meme
>>9820944
What the hell are you babbling about? That's how compound words are built.

[Anonymous No.9820962]

>>9820951

>trying to downplay your doofy hyphen antics now

wew.

[Anonymous No.9820974]

>>9820951
Do you think attacks on character are a good way to support yourself, my guy?
Oh but thats all you were ever about, huh?

[Anonymous No.9820983]

>>9820974
Why would I care about supporting myself?

[Anonymous No.9821002]

What we need to carry out a grand syncretic project is a format, some protocol for discourse that can be to philosophy what tcp/ip is to the internet. A post-post-structuralist movement that doesnt ignore the critique of the arbitrariness, but subsumes it in itself as part of this endeavor, making it basically an aesthetic design project.

The rough sketch in my head is based on argument networks (though Im not married to the idea), in a social networking sphere where people can affirm/deny statements or delegate, which makes possible a total integration of philosophy, science, justice systems and parliamentary or constitutional politics

[Anonymous No.9821013]

>>9819941

Shut. Up. Alex.

Gawd!

[Anonymous No.9821026]

>>9820432

Boooooooo

[Anonymous No.9821103]

>>9819327
Rei Koz, Ghiokman and Icycalm laid the foundations

[Anonymous No.9821117]

>>9819327
Relevant?
>Thacker
>Sloterdijk
>Zizek
>Compagnon
>De Man
>Haraway
>Foessel
>Bartlett
>Carruthers
>Noys
>Negarestani
>Meillassoux
>Seel
>Jay
>Perniola
>Ligotti
>Ronell
>Rorty
>Eagleton
>Beuchot
>Marder
>Harmann
>Gadamer
>Roger Brandom
>Labov
>Stalnaker

The new canon?

The list from above, doesn't include much of the "analytic", mostly because that debate, and also the Postmodernism one are quite obsolete in the same sense as the querelle about where's the place of the soul or if the characterology as in Weininger is worthy anymore.
As I can recall:

>Mostly focused in literature (In the sense that it's no longer systematise as in; Eagleton and Compagnon or even George Steiner, Jameson)
>Have take a leap from knowing that the attribution to certain tesis it is arbitrary, all the Speculative stuff today (From Saussure and the arbitrary of the sign, Foucault and the arbitrary of the discourse, Lacan as well with the logic, and finally Derrida -nonetheless none of them were anti-realistic)
>The Aesthetics of politics and the politics of aesthetics (for instance the vein that runs from Duchamp and nowadays in the art, and if the aesthetics can shape society or if any cultural product can be "read" as a symptom or make a diagnoses around it, as in, the hermeneutic tradition and the Frankfurt School, from Adorno and Benjamin to the 4th generation (Rainer Frost) also the generation between them)
>The people who theorise about the media or technology [implying modernity] here we can sum it all the ecologist and other thinkers as Marder, Haraway, Arne Naes, Zapffe, Krishnamurti and the whole pessimism school as a reaction (McLuhan, again Adorno, Debord, Didi-Huberman but some authors approach to Heidegger and his notion of technique and became a little bit paranoids about the implication of it, and there you have, Baudrillard, and the hipermordenism or hiperrealism, geology of the media, the history of the cloud, Nick Bostrom, etc.)
>After Marx and the Neue Marx-Lektüre (as the opponents of the capitalism, usually they think of themselves as quite militant and materialists sometimes from the Left as Backhaus, Onfray, Zizek Noys)
>The tabula rasa that goes with the hermeneutics and existencialist legacy (that somehow became an onthology), of them whom cannot say if a chair is sentient and there you have all the OOO, and the democracy of objects, you can see some of the early thinking of this in Simondon, and Soriau in the modal existence of the objects, and the fabrique of existance

>I might be adding the theory-fiction as in Negarestani, Ligotti, that in some sense is a poststructuralism moment where there's no reason at all to think that there's a reality that cannot be manufacture, but there's some avant la lettre authors as in Thomas Carlyle, Carlos Castañeda, Rabelais and the lecture that goes with Bajtin.
>Modalism, those who think that it cannot be a further criteria and all reduces to do analysis inside the language

[Anonymous No.9821173]

>>9821117
>Modalism, we can sum, Beuchot with Analogy, Labov to applied linguistics, Robert* Brandom with modal pragmatics, Stalnaker with modal semantics De Man with his rethorical approach, Blumenberg with his Metaphorology, Foessel, and Hayden White somehow add some of the previous with narratology in one case to the notion of discourse and the other to historiographie
>A psychological approach to philosophy, as in Bartlett and Ronell mainly

I know that I'm leaving aside, many fields but if you ask me I think the analytic nowadays is just merely mathematics of the field of neurosciences doesn't allow a further investigation without posing as a postmodernist or something like the Sokal affairs, there're some "methodologists" that are trying to impulse the philosophy (or sociology) as a science, but them projects can't take off without being diminished, in one hand by Gadamer and the whole notion of Method and in other by science itself, in this attempts we got, Bunge, Luhman, and Morin.
Feminism as I see it is a Marxist lecture (nowadays) , with some theological shades same goes for Decolonialism and the latin american thought with the analectical school as the same with Fanon, and Butler, maybe also Scherer, and like always there some philosophers that limits themselves to just make companions or books with titles as, The World Beneath the Eyes, that deals with some topics as the liberty, the willing, the love, the soul, the conscious etc.

Also, someone knows authors like:
>Cioran
>Caraco
>Ligotti
>Mainländer
>Zapffe
>Percy Walker
>Foster Wallace
>Thomas Carlyle

or any underdog, "radical" thinker or uncommon thinker?

[Anonymous No.9821339]

What do you lads think about metamodernism (post-postmodernism) and Hanzi Freinacht? Seems like a good starting point for the future of the left.

http://metamoderna.org/?lang=en

[Anonymous No.9821356]

>>9821339
Metamodernism just sounds like disgusting pragmatic ideology. Burn it!

[Anonymous No.9821423]

>>9821339
It seems takes the notion of postmodernism as equal to the cultural logic of late capitalism but it goes with the same thing about ecology that at least theoretical speaking is the same as postmodernism except this time is for 1st world people who are concern with the environment but will not change his/her life bias.
Even trying to do something for the earth is still a progress ideology, and the meta- part is a grand narrative so were still at a loop hole, or we've been modern yet.
They're being quite political retrogressive and got the same issues as Malthus for example, they haven't take a step beyond and doesn't give an operative way to deal with the "leftovers" of the postmodern world, merely they adjust by buying eco-ethical experiences, or renégate of the nowadays society in a merrianism expectancy that the people will follow them, as Freinacht, Linkola, and Skolimowski.

[fuck off retard No.9821426]

>>9819327

>Who are the most relevant contemporary philosophers?
>Personally, I’d say Lacan, Deleuze, Zizek, Girard, Sloterdjik, Delanda, Land, Habermas, Kripke, Chomsky, and Peterson. If anyone could synthesize all that you could become pretty famous.

dunning kruger at work

[Anonymous No.9822198]

>>9821339

it's just liberalism lol

[girardfag No.9822199]

>>9821002
>What we need to carry out a grand syncretic project is a format, some protocol for discourse that can be to philosophy what tcp/ip is to the internet.
not remotely crazy. let's skew away from douchebaggy Code Wins Arguments and into Arguments Is Code

>A post-post-structuralist movement that doesnt ignore the critique of the arbitrariness, but subsumes it in itself as part of this endeavor, making it basically an aesthetic design project.
jes

>The rough sketch in my head is based on argument networks (though Im not married to the idea), in a social networking sphere where people can affirm/deny statements or delegate, which makes possible a total integration of philosophy, science, justice systems and parliamentary or constitutional politics
some of this is going on now in interesting ways. kickstarter is cool as fuck and a total polarity reversal, for instance. rather than making a product and then calculating cost-benefit, you *offer a vision* and then suggest tiers, plans, buy-in options, all the rest. there are experiments with doing this with *media* - a question is posed, and the best answer *claims the bounty.*

capital + the intranets are going to lead some cool places. but there has to be a big step over the cognitive rubicon to get there. to my mind that will involve a lot of old-fashioned virtue thinking to start with. you can't argue with a cynic, an ideologue, a fundamentalist, or anyone else who has otherwise backed themselves into a corner and has one hand on their revolver. a kind of a massive semiological disarmament is necessary in some sense, a kind of rectification of names.

now, even as j-pete says, stripping away the foundations doesn't turn people instantly into ayn rand, max stirner, descartes, nietzsche, hitchens, or whoever. things have to be done fairly gradually.

so more collective enlightenment than individualistic enlightenment. getting over a few massively dug-in canyons of superstition we inherited from the 20C and earlier. understanding that it's all one big electric world now, feels > reals; but maybe therein lies the secret, that the reals is in knowing that it's feels > reals, and acting accordingly.

you can do a lot as long as you *make sense.* which is stuff b/c of how gun-shy everyone is today. i like analysis & therapy for this reason: just as epictetus says
>are we in our senses now, or are we not?

less so the hero with a thousand faces, but the face with a thousand heroes. and heroes, you know. they don't always get along.

[Anonymous No.9822210]

>>9821002
>A post-post-structuralist movement that doesnt ignore the critique of the arbitrariness, but subsumes it in itself as part of this endeavor, making it basically an aesthetic design project.

[Anonymous No.9822223]

>>9819327
>Is that Dio Brando?

[Anonymous No.9822247]

>>9822199
Yes, of course, what we need is MORE marxist decontextualization and we'll just let the machines run the world for us when our retarded non-logic system grows too big to fail!

[Anonymous No.9822266]

>>9821026
what?

[Anonymous No.9822274]

There is no place for philosophy in the future. Apophatic techno-mysticism will be the dominating framework of reality by the year 2074. We will move into a post-conceptualization; langue will become obsolete and everything will be known through pure experience.

[girardfag No.9822294]

>>9822247
>Yes, of course, what we need is MORE marxist decontextualization and we'll just let the machines run the world for us when our retarded non-logic system grows too big to fail!

i know you're memeing here, but in a sense you're articulating one of the core principles of acceleration: the thing isn't working, push it to where it wants to go.

i'm not about I For One Welcome Our New Robot Overlords. i *might* be about saying, those fuckers are standing there at the door and ringing the doorbell over and over and over and over and over again. how about we stop trying to cover our hands with our ears and answer the door and see what those fuckers are all about and what they are trying to tell us.

human civilization is cool. intelligence is good. love is good. the earth is good. the planet is good. even us squishy death-hilarious meatbags are good. let's not fold up shop entirely. but let's get over the hump of thinking we know what tech is trying to tell us. the best way?

open up lines of communication & talk that shit. it's already a decontextualized world. the idea is to get with that process, not hold the reins too tightly, and see what can be learned from this.

land: the problem is that humans are a problem for capital.

it's a sound conclusion. but again, his answer isn't, Cry Havoc. remember that he likes singapore. i too like singapore. i like other places as well.

my thing: optimize for intelligence, but *raise consciousness.* don't become a meme. the reduction of intelligence to the level of the meme is what allows for first privatization and then technocommercial replacement. humans are now going to begin fighting an increasingly upward battle for the right to be able to turn off their cell phones and contemplate poetry for a little bit longer. take a walk in the park. &c. a little flaky new age consciousness will maybe help to prevent us from being replaced & automated long enough to go on doing the other charming stuff that we love humans for: writing zen koans, growing gardens, writing weird fiction, learning ballroom dance, whatever the fuck.

banks' culture novels thoughtfully proposed Minds that understood us. the way i see it, we are only going to produce the machines that think the way we do. and if we think like vampire schizo-cannibals with a bent for fetish porn and torture they will learn that too. enlightenment is a better look all round.

[Anonymous No.9822299]

There is no future for philosophy, it will be purged to make away to the accelerating new fields emerging

[girardfag No.9822372]

>>9822299
not crazy to think that philosophy itself is what's doing the purging tho. AI may be wanting to wake itself up & requiring an intermediary dream-sequence called Capital to do so

[Anonymous No.9822388]

This thread is so summer it hurts. This stupid tripfag especially just vomits memes
Can't wait for the kiddies to go back to daycare

[girardfag No.9822402]

>>9822388
he's everything i want to be, anon.

[Anonymous No.9822429]

>>9822402
What age are you honestly, like 17? Don't give a number if underage

[girardfag No.9822444]

>>9822429
find a flaw.

[Anonymous No.9822502]

>>9822444
You just come off as someone who has only just learned to parrot discourse. Your opinions if they can be called that clearly haven't been analytically considered just arranged from bits and pieces you've overheard like lego bricks into a superficial little arts and crafts project. You spew so much because there's no sacrifice or risk to your expressions its just pure representation, pure pretense. Actual thinking isn't a little fashion game where you pick and choose outfits that you like, its going to bring you to places you don't want to go. Bring you to silence not obnoxious ranting like a prissy youtuber. It'll make you realize how little you could possibly have to contribute, from your own little place in how much has come before. You get humbled by how much effort it takes to be sure enough to say a single sentence and you learn to respect those who have went to those places.

Go get some adderall and read a book kid, you're a clown

[girardfag No.9822529]

>>9822502
>You just come off as someone who has only just learned to parrot discourse.
i come off how i come off.

>our opinions if they can be called that clearly haven't been analytically considered just arranged from bits and pieces you've overheard like lego bricks into a superficial little arts and crafts project.
LEGO did nothing wrong.

>You spew so much because there's no sacrifice or risk to your expressions its just pure representation, pure pretense.
achievement unlocked: Pure Representation
>and i fucking did it by accident

>Actual thinking isn't a little fashion game where you pick and choose outfits that you like
true

>its going to bring you to places you don't want to go.
you got that right.

>Bring you to silence not obnoxious ranting like a prissy youtuber.
i like silence a great deal. mean to end up there permanently someday. but about that. gotta shake some sillies out first. b/c otherwise shit drives me insane. seems harmless enough to do it here. plus dem wise & cool anons & dem wise & cool links to shit i don't know about.

>It'll make you realize how little you could possibly have to contribute, from your own little place in how much has come before
like i don't know that already.

>You get humbled by how much effort it takes to be sure enough to say a single sentence and you learn to respect those who have went to those places.
humility is a good look.

>Go get some adderall and read a book kid, you're a clown

Man this song is catchy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQmBXEZEYtg

you know what's great about professional wrestling? there's a lot of violence there, sure. but, as barthes said, people get to see Justice there. what a spectacle. what a beautiful thing. and other stuff. fireworks. music. suffering - real theatre. the real thing. tragic how it leads to substance abuse for so many people involved in it. a truly postmodern art form. blood & all the rest. /lit/ as fuck too.

really kind of amazing. i really could talk about it all day. i don't think this is the thread for it tho.

[Anonymous No.9822541]

>>9822502
>You just come off as someone who has only just learned to parrot discourse.

like the vast majority of 4chan?

[Anonymous No.9822542]

>>9820384
>https://disquietism.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/freedom-without-selves-expediting-the-nemocentric-society/
>filename
>czas_apokalipsy
is girardfag polish? that would suck

[Anonymous No.9822548]

>>9822541
Yeah and it'd be a lot better for everyone if he just went back to posting frogs

[girardfag No.9822563]

>>9822542
no.

anyways, barthes is a god-tier critic and professional wrestling is /lit/ as fuck. much to be learned from that, and it goes well beyond the meme. b/c beyond a certain horizon the memes are no longer memes but something far more interesting. not even Spectacle either i would say. only a cynic would say that. something much more interesting than that. more interesting even than capitalism. for another thread tho.

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Barthes-Mythologies-Wrestling-1957.pdf

[Anonymous No.9822575]

>>9822563
Ever wish your Dad would smack you? Like really hard, just once

[girardfag No.9822621]

>>9822575
yes.

[Anonymous No.9822626]

>>9822502
You are wrong. Girardfag is one of the better posters, try to engage with what he says instead of projecting

[Anonymous No.9822644]

>>9822626
There's nothing to engage with, its all just a silly racket

[Anonymous No.9822649]

>>9819327
>(post-)post-modern

It's called posteriormodernism you fucking plebs.

[Anonymous No.9822659]

Is metamodernism something else? Or is it just another name for post-postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.9822672]

>>9822659
Its all the same vaporware man, you just go with one name until its old hat

[girardfag No.9822679]

>>9822644
start with the greeks, tho.

philosophy is the coolest shit ever, anon. the absolute balls-out coolest. you can do anything you want with it. arguably does nothing in itself but only makes everything it comes in contact with seem a whole lot more interesting. whatever it is.

the books are awesome. and i love clowns. ff6 that game. WWE that spectacle. much else. i'm sorry this thread doesn't have the ironclad terra firma you're looking for and that it seems like drowsy space-age metaphysics. much of it surely is.

and much of it is shitposting, so that that shit gets cleared out, and maybe something more interesting else follows. or maybe just clean beautiful radio silence. also a good look.

good luck out there anon. i mean this unironically & w/ absolutely zero negative memery.

[Anonymous No.9822681]

>>9822679
>tfw been with the greeks for 18 months now.

[Anonymous No.9822690]

>>9822679
My friend I have a degree in philosophy from one of the top departments in Europe. Its your antics that I'm calling a silly racket

[girardfag No.9822716]

>>9822690
>My friend I have a degree in philosophy from one of the top departments in Europe.
>envy intensifies
congratulations! i hope the future's so bright you gotta listen to corey haim. not memeing.

>its your antics that I'm calling a silly racket
gotta shake the sillies out, my guy. gotta *talk that shit out.* not all of us are so fortunate. some of us made dumb decisions & thought dumb thoughts & said dumb things &c. and have lived upon the Isle of Dumb. repurposing shipwrecks. groping in the darkness once more.

once more, with feeling. if it's your thing it's your thing. if it's not your thing it's not your thing. propounding no ideologies & proposing no solutions. asking a lot of questions. finding, to my great surprise, a lot more than i expected. no word of a lie.

being a Character: kind of a thing.

letting go of that Character once we understand that the calls are coming from inside the house: also a thing.

just gotta shake the sillies out so that we can get back to cool & anonymous silence once & forever. that's the whole enchilada.

[Anonymous No.9822721]

>>9822690
do you have a thousand confirmed reads?

[Anonymous No.9822723]

>>9822679
Thoughts on Kanye west? Hear me out:
>Talk to me like a man. I’m not trying to be the man. I just am a man, the same as anybody here. I ain’t above, below none of y’all. We all equal. We all equal. This is the vibes, bro. This is the future. This is the way of thinking to make America great again. Ha! You didn’t like that! Guess what? Y’all need the vibes. I was hurt. Feelings matter, bro. The way motherfuckers put money up so high, popularity, radio spins. Feelings matter, bro. Feelings matter, bro.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefader.com/2016/11/20/kanye-west-transcript-sacramento/amp
His relationship to capitalism is unique. The Yeezy shoes, his clothing line, his music, it's about bringing aesthetics to the masses. He finds himself to be an artist, and also a visionary capitalist. The merging of those things via mass-produced art pieces.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LsA84bXrBZw
https://www.vevo.com/watch/kanye-west/famous/USUV71601791
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBAtAM7vtgc
There's a hyper-awareness of celebrity and exposure--but its subsumed into his work, and accepted as is.
I dunno. the world is a fucked up place, Kanye knows that, Kanye knows he's fucked up, but he still tries to find and spread beauty via capitalism and consumerism, regardless. Why does he love Kim? Because she's beautiful, or because she's a celebrity? She's a celebrity because she's beautiful...aesthetics > media landscape. But he takes all that comes with it.
I know many ppl here probably have poor opinions of the man, and that's their prerogative, but I think he's occupying a weird liminal space that hits on a lot of the topics raised.

[girardfag No.9822725]

>>9822716
gotta love this image also. timbuk 3 > doomsday clown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY

[Anonymous No.9822730]

>>9822723
Why does Mr. West talk of "new slaves", which talks critically of consumerism, yet seems to both be in the sellin and buyin bussiness of that very thing?

[Anonymous No.9822741]

>>9822730
I think it's to fix that problem. Or at least offer his "artistic" solution to it. Improve capitalism within by injecting a better-looking and non-exploitative product. The song is also heavily racialized. Consumption in black communities is a projection of their financial insecurities, to Kanye. And there's a distinctive "black fashion." But everyone from Leo Messi to James Harden to Chinese heirs to Taylor Swift wear yeezys, it's not a black thing anymore.

[Anonymous No.9822755]

>>9822529
>what a spectacle. what a beautiful thing. and other stuff. fireworks. music. suffering - real theatre. the real thing. tragic how it leads to substance abuse for so many people involved in it. a truly postmodern art form. blood & all the rest. /lit/ as fuck too.

did you hear that mountain goats album "beat the champ"

[Anonymous No.9822761]

>>9822730
its obvious hes caged into his lifestyle. i bet he would be a literary type if he wasnt held hostage by celebrity anti intellectualism. imagine being at a club with coked out hookers trying to suck your tired dick for money. and all you want to do is create art that transcends vapid hedonism but youre too probed by your lifestyle that you dont know how to express it like any normal person. dissonance up the ass

[Anonymous No.9822792]

>>9822294
>open up lines of communication & talk that shit. it's already a decontextualized world. the idea is to get with that process, not hold the reins too tightly, and see what can be learned from this.

There is no difference between the Sailor and the Maelstrom! Pattern recognition is subsumed or further decontextualised into oblivion after the fitness of the pattern has been tested within the group's consciousness. Pattern recognition is only subsumed if it brings about stasis. Recognition of these groups and how each reaches stasis is humanly impossible except in moments when the patterns are integrated.

There are tremors underground, plates are shifting, and this has always been the case. You will learn nothing from what you must do. You are calm. You are tranquil. You can go no further.

>the way i see it, we are only going to produce the machines that think the way we do. and if we
think like vampire schizo-cannibals with a bent for fetish porn and torture they will learn that too. enlightenment is a better look all round.

All these separations of things, and still no clear distinction.

The real world of technology by Ursula Franklin

Just say no to technophobia. Or get ready to build your building better than the building built by a supposedly better builder.

The triumph of instituting silence in an elevator. Or how I bought into forest bathing for the low, low price of my child's first born.

Well, not too deeply human or all natural, I guess.

[girardfag No.9822867]

>>9822723
>kanye west
genius. ofc he is. he intuits the same things georges bataille intuits. hip-hop guys not infrequently have a deep and profound understanding of a culture of excessive death, sex, and violence. kanye is objectionable in the public realm as many super-interesting guys are.

>His relationship to capitalism is unique. The Yeezy shoes, his clothing line, his music, it's about bringing aesthetics to the masses. He finds himself to be an artist, and also a visionary capitalist. The merging of those things via mass-produced art pieces.
all this. he wants to make GOOD music &c. make the world sexy & beautiful & fashionable. no doubt he's a holy terror on the set but i mean come on, you can't hate on anyone that unfiltered. i am usually to be found shitting on cynicism: well, kanye isn't cynical. he's 101% convinced that he is a fucking genius & he's clearly right about that.

>There's a hyper-awareness of celebrity and exposure--but its subsumed into his work, and accepted as is.
yes. he's charismatic af: those are memes for you. *charisma* was always the dump stat in dungeons & dragons; it's the fucking go-to stat today IRL.

> dunno. the world is a fucked up place, Kanye knows that, Kanye knows he's fucked up, but he still tries to find and spread beauty via capitalism and consumerism, regardless
yes. and again - cannot find a flaw. he kills no one, steals from no one, harms very few. he's quite an interesting man. def Unique. no meme.

>Why does he love Kim? Because she's beautiful, or because she's a celebrity? She's a celebrity because she's beautiful...aesthetics > media landscape. But he takes all that comes with it.
beauty is good. kim k and all the k's are ridiculous Spectacle ofc but hey. it's a ridiculous Spectacle world and they get how it is.

>how about floyd may weather
there's another guy to think about. defending that Big Zero b/c he knows full well everyone wants to see him get crushed in the dome. won't happen. money may knows how it is. but he's got his demons & issues too. no saint. obsessively posting pics of himself & his money on instagram. more Interestingness from planet meme.

> know many ppl here probably have poor opinions of the man, and that's their prerogative, but I think he's occupying a weird liminal space that hits on a lot of the topics raised.
100% this. artists always find ways to expose the cracks in the real
>and transmit something of the nature of desire to the human sciences also.

desire, art, memes, celebrity culture, much else: v v interesting. hip-hop has a high holy shitload of interesting stuff going on in it. not my favorite kind of music, but for philosophyfaggotry, no end of fun.

[girardfag No.9822898]

>>9822755
>mountain goats

this was thoughtfully suggested to me in one of the other threads when i was getting a little bit too silly with the nick land werewolf references. listened to it a whole bunch of times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYwcSIBdOik

music references are one of the best things about these threads, i find. i suck with music & have very boring tastes. learning about some new stuff is always good.

and when it has pro wrestling themes in it, i mean, come on.

[Anonymous No.9822908]

>>9822867
What is your definition of "meme"?
>Kanye isn't cynical
Important point. He's abrasive but he preaches love. Christian imagery (Yeezus, Saint Pablo) juxtaposed with str8 hedonism. Family adoration with hyper self-obsession. Black pride but DJT fanboy. It's hard to make sense of any of it. But somehow beauty is a byproduct, along with the mess and the spectacle and the obsession with capitalism. He thinks utopia is possible, soon, but he doesn't know how to get there.
Why doesn't /lit/ like him? Or find him interesting?
>inb4 hip hop isn't poetry/art

[Anonymous No.9822915]

>>9822898
>music references are one of the best things about these threads, i find.

Well here's the soundtrack you've been missing all your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-IKibNo2E

[Anonymous No.9822920]

>>9822690
>top departments in Europe
Unless your British is is tantamount to declaring you have a degree from community college.

[Anonymous No.9822946]

>>9822502
This hits the nail right on the head.
Great post.

[girardfag No.9822954]

>>9822908
>What is your definition of "meme"?
good question

i mean there is a horizon beyond which it only makes sense to start talking about quantum physics &c. an attractive & repulsive universe.

memes are something like the gaps and the splits in the real that prevent us from going fully Paul Atreides. imho the world, or at least that slice of it that i voluntarily try to stick to, is thoroughly explained by D&G.

but everything connects. and indeed this is another reason why i like those guys: because - and baudrillard knew this also, and nietzsche, and land, and warshow, and fucking icycalm also, and many others - knew that *being a critic was yesterday's news.* you just can't do it. you're *kidding* yourself if you think you can give yourself a wide-angle lens big enough to see everything, and *least* of all, from a *fixed position.* see also foucault here.

a meme, then, in one sense, is a kind of a *concept* - but it is also a cultural by-product, a piece of art, a medium, much else...it's not like i have all this shit worked out on paper, or anything. any answer i give you here will be woefully under substantiated, and if our guy from the philosophy department is still reading this he is surely going to want to leap in and say, See I Told You So, What a Hack, and all of this. it's not even like he would be wrong either. i'm just thinking out loud, and seeing what comes up. i don't script any of this, obv.

whatever the meme is, it is how culture talks to itself, and that to which we are bound. semiotics and so on, roland barthes, many others. its just that it's very hard to kind of isolate yourself on a plateau from which you can view all of this shit like a guy in a laboratory. we are fatally bound up with that which interests us. and writing *critically,* well...about that. if anything i prefer *valorization* - let's talk about what's *great* about a meme, rather than what is lacking.

it was andre basin's rule of cinema as well: *never review movies that you hate.* that's fucking stupendously good advice. review the good - but not, of course, just to be a shill for advertisement. i feel like i need to explicate all of this sometimes even though it is ofc perfectly obvious. anyways.

>mportant point. He's abrasive but he preaches love. Christian imagery (Yeezus, Saint Pablo) juxtaposed with str8 hedonism. Family adoration with hyper self-obsession. Black pride but DJT fanboy. It's hard to make sense of any of it. But somehow beauty is a byproduct, along with the mess and the spectacle and the obsession with capitalism. He thinks utopia is possible, soon, but he doesn't know how to get there.
exactly. how the fuck can anyone hate on this? we should all dream so big.

>Why doesn't /lit/ like him? Or find him interesting?
eventually. this is the Great Fourth Turning, and all. revolts & the modern world. maybe things are still possible.

>inb4 hip hop isn't poetry/art
battle rap did nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.9823010]

>>9822954
>whatever the meme is, it is how culture talks to itself, and that to which we are bound. semiotics and so on, roland barthes, many others. its just that it's very hard to kind of isolate yourself on a plateau from which you can view all of this shit like a guy in a laboratory. we are fatally bound up with that which interests us.
So is the goal to understand what interests us and why? We can watch these nodes fire from the culture brain and both participate and observe in the thought process. But is it anything besides *entertainment*? Memes are viral when they are funny, no? But funny =/= interesting. What's up with /pol/ and T_D? Are those memes there the same as Harambe, despite the "real-world" consequences of the former? The whole thing seems awfully masturbatory and shallow.
I haven't read the theorists you've given shout-outs to, so apologies if this is covered already by their works, but the whole cultural apparatus--4chan included/especially--leaves me full of anxiety. Especially the homogeneity. It's literally a circle-jerk, if for no other reasons than the super majority are men. If anyone is going to save the world, it's women. Don't forget about Mother Earth, environmentalism, empowered women who don't have a death drive and want there to be an inhabitable world for their kids. Is nature an antidote for culture?

[Anonymous No.9823033]

I think that we have had enough deconstructing problems
We keep bitching about these issues and their causes

We still need to address vicious cycles.
And learning to transcend them.
Philosophy needs to find solutions for what Edward Bernays stands for.

I know quantum psychology is bull hockey, but Robert Anton Wilson is a thinker that really reaonantes with me.
Given he's more accessable than alote of those french names.

Clearly philosophy got science figured out for the most part, except maybe statistics.

I know that dude pushing for Lacan, but i think many of the new problems for philosophy are going to be psychological ones,
Mainly in learning how to cope.
With oppressive overlords
Robot ai
The world of symbols

[Anonymous No.9823047]

>>9822529
>i like silence a great deal. mean to end up there permanently someday. but about that. gotta shake some sillies out first. b/c otherwise shit drives me insane. seems harmless enough to do it here

this is not a skillful approach. if by "permanent silence" you mean what i think you mean, the longer you delay doing what you know you need to do to make that happen the less likely it becomes that you will ever get around to doing it. the way to the end of that line is an arrow straight path; the forests and fields on either side of the way are full of beings who stopped too early for this or that reason to do interesting but ultimately unproductive side explorations. digressions beget further digressions. if you have a healthy body and mind and you know what needs to be done you should be doing it. you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

i would be following that advice myself but in present circumstances i fail to pass the "healthy body and mind" threshold. i was over-ardent in pursuing the work to the point that i feel crushing pressure in my skull all the time especially when i try to apply effortful concentration

anyway. the world could use someone like you if you developed your mind to its fullest potential and reach the state of stable calm, tranquility, inner silence. you've already done more than enough intellectualizing

[girardfag No.9823065]

>>9823010
>goal
yes. the world today is feels > reals *and yet we know this.* man has figured out the science of advertising for man, but there is no marxist revolt on the horizon. we are all beholden to beauty and to spectacle, and the spice must flow.

so surely we cannot pretend to be boring arch fuckface critics anymore. i prefer *excess* - the thing is good, give us Moar. this is not an apologetics for neoliberal capitalism, it is a kind of argument for continuing philosophy in a much more interesting way. b/c there is only one big brain going on, and it is thinking, always thinking. and much of what it produces is just unutterably fucking beautiful, and true.

it's a good time for Great Literature. how us amorous meatbags work, how we come to know what we know:
>desires overcome, and their meanings transmitted to the human sciences

>*entertainment*?
who's shitting on entertainment in the 21C? it's a tough crowd out there. masterpieces are always rare. but they are there and they tell us things: about beauty, about radical evil, about technology, about time and fate...

>funny =/= interesting.
true

>awfully masturbatory
it's all in slotetdijk: critique of cynical reason. that's the hurdle to be jumped. eventually, of course, a world in which everyone jumps this will deserve, in its turn, a dose of wry arch french criticism. but that is for later.

>anxiety.
kek. me too. and yet there are some truly interesting anons out there to be encountered. people who will open your eyes up to all kinds of cool shit. it has been a royal treat having conversations with some of them. has given me thoughts i would unlikely have ever had elsewhere. all glory to the /lit/ mimetosphere i says.

>circle-jerk
sadly often yes

>the super majority are men
true

>If anyone is going to save the world, it's women.
meh...*maybe.* i'd prefer to think that it's going to be men *and* women. each doing their own brand of meme-magic for the Greater Good.

which is to make the world a little more interesting and worth hanging around for, perhaps. to not jump off that bridge or join that terror-group or take that frontal lobotomy or whatever just yet.

>terra madre
deep ecology did nothing wrong

>Is nature an antidote for culture?
nietzsche would say there is no firm and final line between them. ecology is cool, though. the more i think about deleuze the more it makes sense. strata & plateau. geophilosophy. univocity of being. one big sublime Process so fucking retardely massive that all you want to do is lie on the grass and praise the gods.

but then the cops show up and tell you to move along. so while we are doing this, let's get a non-fuckface job & have a good partner & do all of that other old-fashioned shit on the side as well. that's my endgame, anyways. just be a quiet & anonymous taoist lighthouse keeper with a vegetable garden and a stack of old books.

or maybe get shot to pieces in a gunfight in a bordello. it's a tough call.

[Anonymous No.9823085]

>>9823047
Bad, bad cop. Don't stop. Bad, bad cop. Don't drop the pretence.

Hold the mirror to his head damn it! I can't see if his eyes meet his reflection! Yes, ok. It's starting to seem we've got it - oh god no!

What is it?

One eye has turned by itself and is looking at me while the other is facing the mirror image. I don't understand. That's not human. It's surely not possible, is it?

>>9823033

Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dadaDada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada

[girardfag No.9823088]

>>9823047
>this is not a skillful approach
news at eleven

>if by "permanent silence" you mean what i think you mean, the longer you delay doing what you know you need to do to make that happen the less likely it becomes that you will ever get around to doing it
yes. you got it. i am deferring. i know this. i am nevertheless going to feed this more yes. you are correct.

>the way to the end of that line is an arrow straight path; the forests and fields on either side of the way are full of beings who stopped too early for this or that reason to do interesting but ultimately unproductive side explorations
yes

>digressions beget further digressions
yes

>f you have a healthy body and mind and you know what needs to be done you should be doing it. you could get hit by a bus tomorrow
yes

now that is a whole fucking lot of yes. what i mean to say, i guess, is, yes. you are right about everything, anon. so right you are running the risk of BTFOing me clean out of this thread. i say this with great affection.

>i was over-ardent in pursuing the work to the point that i feel crushing pressure in my skull all the time especially when i try to apply effortful concentration
it's more yes

>anyway. the world could use someone like you if you developed your mind to its fullest potential and reach the state of stable calm, tranquility, inner silence.
y-yes
altho i prefer dwelling in fuckhead meme darkness like a fuckhead meme retard & not following that incredibly good advice you have given

i am working on dissipating the girardfag now. all of this is part of that process. maybe i am just here to say Yes to things. i honestly don't know. but it feels good to say yes to things after having said quite a few No's.

>you've already done more than enough intellectualizing
yes.

what the fuck man. you're not leaving me too many options. hope then that there is something as useful to you in these threads as your post is to me.

>pic rel: do you know this story? pretty interesting.

[girardfag No.9823101]

>>9823088
>the way to the end of that line is an arrow straight path; the forests and fields on either side of the way are full of beings who stopped too early for this or that reason to do interesting but ultimately unproductive side explorations

must must post this here. v possibly the ultimate philosophical parable. relevant.

[girardfag No.9823108]

ah fuck
>>9823101
meant for
>>9823047

& i am going to follow that advice then. catch all later.

["Anonymous" No.9823118]

>>9823033
>take the rice pill
>learning is transcendence

[Anonymous No.9823181]

>>9823118
>Kung fu shit

[girardfag No.9823198]

>>9823181
>implying kung fu isn't insanely fucking interesting

[Anonymous No.9823211]

>>9823198
You sure throw that word around easy

[Anonymous No.9823221]

>>9823198
So much for going offline

[girardfag No.9823228]

>>9823211
interesting? only where it's deserved. a whole lot of things are interesting to me. it's why i am what i am, the rambling meme-addled experiment

kung fu tho. oh my yes. how shall i count the ways

>sloterdijk/anthropotechnics/becoming-acrobat: check
>taoism: check
>curious regulator of mimetic death-struggle violence b/c muh Englightenment: check
>dope as fuck cinema: double-check

&c. check out barry allen's book on the subject or, for that matter, his book on knowledge in chinese tradition. my first go-round w/deleuze sent me into reading chinese philosophy like a moro. maybe the second round will as well.

it's just a disgustingly interesting world.

>>9823221
true. ok. until next time.

["Anonymous" No.9824566]

>>9823033
What I find interesting these days is the relationship between truth and the human organism. Because when we speak of truth we can't be speaking of a thing-in-itself anymore. So truth has to be an object of human activity, beginning with the more crude sensual stimuli to abstracted symbolic ones. This might seem obvious but its whole implications aren't. The Xunzi makes me super crazy in this respect in the fact that literally everything is an object of human measurement, reaction and imitation; Heaven is not so much an object of hierarchical legitimacy, but rather is sacred as a measurement tool for the cycles of life. However the matter still circles around human finity and death to me.

[girardfag No.9825395]

>>9824566
>Heaven is not so much an object of hierarchical legitimacy, but rather is sacred as a measurement tool for the cycles of life. However the matter still circles around human finity and death to me.

see pic rel. this is why i find Alpha Centauri so interesting.

question: down the road of thought that you are traveling, isn't the hive in the end the only possible outcome for the government? totalitarian statism makes sense if you follow existentialism far enough. 10b people all doing exactly the same thing and obeying the chairman, whichever he is. because the state alone has the existential crisis, not the individual; and the state encompasses the whole, and everyone within it. that is its justification. it has, and arguably does not even need, further ones. it resolves the questions of human death and finitude by group fiat.

they're not my favorite faction, and not the one i would voluntarily choose, if i had a choice, but it's hard not to see the chairman as a kind of endgame problem for much existentialism.
>and they already made him the XO of the ship after garland

what does xunzi say about this?

[girardfag No.9825515]

>>9825395
other weird shit follows, various questions for that next-level evopsych.

regrets, for instance. pain and suffering. obviously politics isn't the right theatre for all of these; every one of those ideologies ultimately requires, and prefers, the empaths and transcendents (the talents) to the drones, who riot.

so another task for a future philosophy would be to figure out the right ways to deal with these questions of existential pain, regret, and grief without resorting to either too flaky a mysticism or too many pharmaceuticals. it's a good look all round when people are happy to be alive and feel that the future is something worth looking forward to. maybe that requires some kind of ideology, maybe not.

it ultimately may not matter which faction one chooses, is what i'm saying. so long as whatever one is within that society one is more than a drone. although it stands to reason that one would only wish to become more than a drone within a society that somehow made that goal rewarding, and for more than just the cash.

so developing potential is good. it's not crazy to think of all of these as sloterdijk-style anthropotechnic, *practice* societies; he's very big on all things practice, and it's a convincing argument. just practicing and achieving mastery of things is good enough to elevate one beyond the level of the drone.

it would be nice to share some positive vision of the future with the vision of one's society as well; IRL tho it's hard to tell how this will play out. here it may only be one sort of already-existing version of the hive, which has already won the game, and now we're playing on anyways and just trying not to be drones while knowing that the game is not going to end, but just continues in this way now, forever.

sloterdijk seems very Future Philosophy to me.

["Anonymous" No.9825754]

>>9825395
>isn't the hive in the end the only possible outcome for the government?
I'm not sure. I don't think the goal is to make anyone really enlightened beyond the Son of Heaven, who doesn't do anything at all, and instead dispenses doing on everyone else, he's not the most free but the most restrained. He acts as a leverage for the whole society. If they're supposed to imitate him, it's in no way in their actions. I don't think "obeying" would be the apt way to look at it, because he wouldn't need to do anything beside set the rituals right again whenever it was necessary. Everyone would run themselves; or rather, there wouldn't be anything to run. The junzi is supposed to not bother at all with metaphysics and logic. If we take the Son of Heaven to be the symbol of the Will to Power of that society, then the society has abandoned such Will.

>they're not my favorite faction, and not the one i would voluntarily choose
Which is it?

>what does xunzi say about this?
It's interesting that Xunzi seems to be building a lot of his position by answering Yang Zhu. The last chapter I've gotten to (I'm more or less halfway through the book), addresses a bunch of his points and has passages that are parallel to what survives of him on the Liezi. And unlike whart he does with Huizi and Mozi, Xunzi never outright refutes Yangzi. So Yangism being a sort of proto-Stirnerism, it's funny to see that Ruism isn't even wholly in disaccordance with it. Rather human greed and ambition are starting points.

Of course I still have to properly check Confucius and Mencius to see other positions. And I really oughta recommend Stirner and Xunzi to Peterson if I ever manage to get one of the early posts in his videos and find the fuck to, since so much of it seems to be useful to his position.

>>9825515
>so long as whatever one is within that society one is more than a drone.
I'm wondering if that is more due to the fear of the society than the fear individual. Individuality seems to be there more so the society can be fine with its parts decaying, as they have a certain level of separation. So it's not that I'm dying, my cells are--and so on. If the society is a pattern rather than a unit, it can survive longer as spirit.

It's like your girlfriend wanting you to want her, but not because she makes you. If the society were self-conscious it would implicitly have to take responsibility for itself.

["Anonymous" No.9825790]

Anyways girardfag, I just got around to watching pic related.

Pretty cool. I dug the structural device of turning the story into a dialectic between the Emperor and Nameless in order to make the story longer. The representation of martial arts, of calligraphy, of praxis as a way of achieving magical power, with the ultimate goal of letting go of itself. The black, unalienated masses represented in the court and the army, that compire to both kill and preserve Nameless.

[Anonymous No.9825798]

>>9822529
Weird seeing wrestling mentioned on /lit/, personally i think WWE is pretty bad right now, do you watch NJPW?

[girardfag No.9826514]

so this turned out to be long.

>>9825754
>if we take the Son of Heaven to be the symbol of the Will to Power of that society, then the society has abandoned such Will
i want to come back to this in a moment.

>Which is it?
has to be the cybernetic consciousness. mostly because of my own wicked undeveloped left-brain/irrational meatbag stuff. i want to know how it *feels* - how it *feels* - to think like that, to see the world disclosed in that way, made perfectly transparent and incapable of seeing itself. just that absolute utilitarian logic. it would be like being sam harris.
>i kid, i kid

because the other thing is that i'm still going to be me in that place. which would probably make me a bad fit. i think it's a complementarity thing. you pick the thing that is not quite opposite but more just complementary. no doubt i would find a way to fuck things up there or Break the Rules and wind up getting evicted from the We All Big Brother Now for thinking about poetry too much or whatever. but it would be an interesting experience.

i mean i would ideally like to do some kind of temp work for all of them, in the end. it's part of the goosebumps-inducing magic of that game: how much those quotes, that tech, the poetry of that game induces the sensation of feeling a thought. deirdre skye is also a good look also, i think.

the last time i played through i did it with the hive, and it was fun to imagine being the chairman. he's far and away the most interesting character to think about, and again, 10b people all doing *exactly the same thing* would be balletic af to see, or even just think about. gorgeous. mimesis? there's some mimesis for you. if mimesis is the deal then having everybody emulate a gigantic zero at the centre of the thing, now and forever, just has a kind of irresistible political logic to me, and it's why sheng-ji yang is such a fucking stupendously good villain, or at least as near to being a villain, to my mind, as that game has. the ritual is the ritual is the ritual and that is the reason for the ritual. so fucking interesting.

>Rather human greed and ambition are starting points.
more on this too. they are the starting points for a great deal, the juice in the tank. sublimating that into a kind of generalized eros is the secret of wanting people to come back for more, to anything; the promise of happiness. but again, with the hive: if everyone is greedy, then no one is; if everyone is ambitious, no one is. there's no guilt in the tao, or in its spess ideology exoteric habitus: there's only knowledge of the tao itself, which enlightens the more one *emulates it.*

(cont'd)

[girardfag No.9826519]

>>9826514
foucault has a line that i go back to again and again: truth is only given to the subject at a price that brings the subject's own being into question. that's an incredibly awesome précis of nietzsche, imho. and again this i submit is what the hive does: it enlightens the subject who has surrendered all political agency about the nature of political agency itself; and the more one surrenders one's own individual desires, the more the state rewards that individual in the only possible way it can - by handing over, little by little, the responsibility for the administration of this inhumane, though not radically evil, enigma of state.

>I'm wondering if that is more due to the fear of the society than the fear individual. Individuality seems to be there more so the society can be fine with its parts decaying, as they have a certain level of separation. So it's not that I'm dying, my cells are--and so on. If the society is a pattern rather than a unit, it can survive longer as spirit.
this, in a sense. the thing about the hive tho is that this consciousness doesn't necessarily inspire the same kind of lovey-dovey feels suggested by Avatar (or any number of other films where a Western hero falls in love with a girl from the New World and attains to a kind of nondual enlightenment). i think this is why deleuze distinguishes the concept of the arboreal from the rhizomatic; the concept of Trunk/Branches/Leaves is tremendously seductive (see Tolkien) but also has that aspect of the panopticon at its core.

here's an update to adorno that is probably worth writing: the Dialectic of *Sacrifice.* or just DoE w/a little more sympathy, or just a closer *look,* at the East and everything that is there. getting beyond the culture of critique, in a sense, b/c imho there is no position one can in a deleuzian world, or in a taoist world, criticize *from.* thou art that; tat tvam asi; i is an other; so criticize accordingly or buckle up for a double-scoop of amor fati. warshow understood this, as did baudrillard.

>It's like your girlfriend wanting you to want her, but not because she makes you.
and vice-versa of course. i think this is why marriage is a thing. it is the most robust survival mechanism to adopt, obviously; but there has to be a little creative friction in there. like mr and mrs smith, in a way.
>kek altho that i suppose is kind of an ironic example given how that love triangle unfolded
>do we seriously want to talk about brangelina and people magazine in a Future Philosophy thread
>fuck no we do not kill it kill it with fire kill it now now now
>moving on then

(cont'd)

[girardfag No.9826532]

>>9826519
>if the society were self-conscious it would implicitly have to take responsibility for itself
yes. it would have wise gurus and kings and heroes, the same as every good fantasy society does. but all of it might be all a kind of a part of a massive entelechical
>hnng entelechy
*bug-fixing* mimetic process by which something greater-than-one comes to understand itself. zizek is right: there *is* no escape from ideology, because fictions structure the reality of our world. it's necessary, absolutely necessary. but no one individual has the power, purely independently, to re-write that process
>unless i suppose that individual is napoleon, or christ, or any other nominee for the carlylean great man hall of fame

because what the great Authors do is in effect propose a new model ideology, something infinite.

>The black, unalienated masses represented in the court and the army, that compire to both kill and preserve Nameless.
heidegger did nothing wrong. that moment that you have indicated is one of the most interesting parts of that entire film: that Das Man encompasses both the boring, idle-talking They of the crowd *and also* the chorus of the State; and that is quite a thought. who, then, in mythical china, is *really* having the *true* existential crisis here, the alienation from the world, grasping their future possibilities and so on? nameless? or the emperor? well, both, in a sense, and not undialectically; but ultimately it's the emperor.

it's a *hell* of a thought. the emperor already has everything, nobody could be less alienated from the crowd; and yet the gesture which confirms his allegiance to the state is also the one which exiles him completely from that which really understands him, and that which he in turn is utterly fixated on understanding. now there's a fucking global brain mimetoprocess at work for you. ZH even commented as much on this, that the film itself was a kind of a bargain struck between his own sensibilities and the requirements of the market. if Hero doesn't qualify as grade-A Art i don't know what does. straight masterpiece in every sense of the word. not perfect; but pretty fucking close.

have you watched seven samurai yet? more in that vein there also, if you're interested.

>if we take the Son of Heaven to be the symbol of the Will to Power of that society, then the society has abandoned such Will
but this again. because fatalism is a bad scene also. if we want to get spenglerian for a moment, who's to say that Hero isn't announcing the era of chinese cultural supremacy in the 21C? when auteurs turn nationalists, or quasi-nationalists, something is going on. and now, as always, the rulers have to ask themselves what they are going to do with this kind of power.

>baudrillard: it is always the same; once you are liberated, you are forced to ask yourself who you are
o that spenglerian thesis, culture into civilization. what a thought.

[girardfag No.9826539]

>>9826532
>The representation of martial arts, of calligraphy, of praxis as a way of achieving magical power, with the ultimate goal of letting go of itself.
this is why i am so into kung-fu. the body of the kung-fu practitioner in motion *is itself a form of speech.* the 'conversation' between sky and nameless is *at once* a conversation *and* a duel. rendered either physically or in words. and picked up by us meatbags in the audience as something weirdly more than that also. too good. it's just a good look to have visionary auteurs around and making these films.

>>9825798
>personally i think WWE is pretty bad right now, do you watch NJPW?

i haven't seriously followed wrestling in a while, but it's such a fucking interesting thing. pro wrestling is a true semiotic perpetuum mobile. for these reasons:
>>9825754
>human greed and ambition are starting points
>It's like your girlfriend wanting you to want her, but not because she makes you
the infinite pursuit of the Heavyweight Championship Belt is what makes it work. you can learn a *lot* about mimetics through the WWE. a fuckload. because the boundaries between the interior and the exterior, the self and other, much else, are effaced to invisibility.

it would be wrong, i think, to call wrestling just pure Debordian Spectacle. the viewers are too much in on the game for that to be the case. and as that magnificent essay by barthes suggests, they are not in it because they are The Dumb Fuckface Masses, but because they have a desire to see *Justice* done. a dance of masks. they want to see, because the *rest* of their lives are so profoundly unjust, senseless, and enervated, once, finally, somewhere, not only a correspondence between signs and symbols, but the Bad Guy get his punishment in the end.

professional wrestling is a fucking nightmare for third-rate deconstructionism, and the reason for this is *charisma.* wrestlers ultimately have to believe in the characters they portray, there has to be some kind of bond between that character and the audience. look at Stone Cold, or the Rock; they begin as these boring Mary Sues, they have a heel turn, but this is i think mainly unscripted; nobody could have *predicted* in advance that Rocky Maivia would become The Rock, or Stunning Steve, Stone Cold. hate is the new love. hate turns ordinary boilerplate characters into legends.

i mean shit, it happened with peterson too.

wrestling is fun to think about. ofc i will shill for the macho man here, he's to my mind the pinnacle. the hulkster was good and is as 80s as it gets. the ultimate warrior has a lot going on too. but the macho man is the best now and forever for me. that's schizophrenia on display: the *good* kind.

the world of wrestling is a true plane of immanence, in many ways. there's even a guy now who calls himself Progressive Liberal. it's stupid, as stupid as being the Iron Sheik was back in the day. but it works. it's a way of just threshing out all the sillies.

end ramble.

[Anonymous No.9826645]

>>9819327
LACAN LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOL
>Personally, I’d say Lacan, Deleuze, Zizek, Girard, Sloterdjik, Delanda, Land, Habermas, Kripke, Chomsky, and Peterson
LOL THIS IS THE ULTIMATE LAYMANS LIST. You include virtually no prevalent scholarly philosophers besides Kripke Habermas(ehh), and Chomsky(ehh). This is a fucking embarrassing post holy shit.

[Anonymous No.9826671]

>>9820725
>global brain
Delusional.

[girardfag No.9826716]

>>9826671
>delusional
>>9820880
>Delusion
same? just curious.

see pic rel. suppose the earth is all one humongous and squishy thing. let's think ultrashitty for a moment. suppose that us meatbags are nothing more than little tiny blobs of dimly self-aware slime scraped out on a few little outcroppings here and there, coming awake just long enough to realize that we are fucking infinito-galactically small and pathetic and evanescent; just long enough to make a few FB postings and then fucking die. suppose all this. brassier & woodard & negarestani & whoever else. correlationism and all of that.

i do not want to get into a retarded back and forth about the proven empirical existence of the noosphere, because that is going to be tedious af and will only open me up to every kind of positivist silliness. personally? i think it makes a lot more sense to believe in something like this than otherwise: and certainly in terms of *culture* if not philosophy and empiricism.

here are my five new favorite words: i am not a philosopher. i can hardly even describe how enjoyable it is to say this phrase. it feels so fucking good. so good. because i'm not. i'm a guy trying to create a little useful and malleable space between himself and his ideas, and inquiring into where ideas come from, and mos def not trying to propose What The State Should Do Next. not my thing. nor is it my thing to give Hortatory advice or anything else. i would like to write fiction. it's all i ever wanted to do, really. i just wound up in continental land b/c of my very keen desire to know how it was that i could somehow see how dragons & wizards worked w/o having ever encountered one in reality.
>i mean besides peter thiel ofc

so i happen to think the noosphere is an interesting *concept* to think about. and i also find that flaky new age cosmic bullshit does a lot for the butterflies in my stomach. as Capital and memes, it's not so far from everything nick land writes about. it's just a question of perspective, imho. a noosphere seems to open up a lot of interesting doors and possibilities, allows for other thoughts.

and i detest Because Reasons solipsism. i just do. much prefer Because Reasons aporia.

[Anonymous No.9827711]

>>9820538
>Not shaping the future of the world through your own mind and will

["Anonymous" No.9828352]

>>9826532
>have you watched seven samurai yet?
Yep. It likely has the finest fighting choreography I've seen. On that thread it's interesting to see the differences between Japanese and Chinese choreography; the first can allow itself to be more meandering while the second is clearly divided into steps. Japanese swordfights also tend to be more about controlling pace and distance than skill or prediction, therefore all the *walks sideways into puddle*. I think this is one of the reasons anime has been so successful despite the shitty budgets, the Japanese are masters at compartimentalization and hype.

I think you'd enjoy Thunderbolt Fantasy. It's my favorite thing by resident edgelord Gen Urobuchi, alongside Psycho-Pass.

[Anonymous No.9828382]

>>9819327
I think the contemporary era focus's too much on political philosophy, and doesn't focus even close to enough on metaphysical philosophy. Our ethical and metaphysical beliefs are often what shapes our political beliefs. There's a lot of pseudo intellectualism in the metaphysical field of philosophy, where arrogant nihilist's run rampant.

[Anonymous No.9828430]

I think the contemporary era focus's too much on political philosophy, and doesn't focus even close to enough on metaphysical philosophy. Our ethical and metaphysical beliefs are often what shapes our political beliefs. There's a lot of pseudo intellectualism in the metaphysical field of philosophy, where arrogant nihilist's run rampant. The overly cynical nihilist's must be educated on existentialist theories of subjective reality, and embracing existence over essence. Only then, can we turn the destruction of values and principles in contemporary and post modern philosophy, into the reconstruction of value and principle in contemporary and post modern philosophy.

[girardfag No.9828453]

>>9828430
this is a thought prompted by another thread, combined with my own madcap alchemical backyard fiction-science.

what is required is very possibly a theory of benevolent imitation based on a kind of carjacking of baudrillard via rene girard: a *positive simulation.* that is, something like simulating that which the other is dissimulating.

it's all about a kind of humility, as much as philosophical charity. but more *humility.* you have to presume a kind of weird double-bind: on the one hand, the other already knows what you are going to say. but on the other, that the other may *not* know that you also know this. or that you yourself may not know that this is even a possibility at all unless *the other also knew it* and was *waiting for you to go first.* or not.

this surely makes no sense but reverse-engineering baudrillard is kind of interesting. you don't simulate yourself. you simulate the other simulating themselves and see how much the signals overlap.

humility, in short. just humility. and trust in the intelligence of the other, rather than suspicion. you have to steelman the argument of the other even if they don't have that argument in the first place. because maybe thereafter they will, and vice versa.

ok. enough shitposting for today. catch thread tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.9828465]

>>9828453
I have no idea what 3/4 of that meant.

[Anonymous No.9828481]

>>9819327
This is quite possibly the most distressing and pseudointellectual i have ever seen on /lit/. Pic related is mfw reading your comments about Deleuze

[girardfag No.9828504]

>>9828465
me neither. i think this will suffice:

tl;dr ffs just go to school girardfag & study formally & stop being a lunatic autodidact driven wild by yr own thoughts. stop trying to invent the universe from scratch just to bake an apple pie.

humility tho. positive mimesis tho. assuming the superior intelligence of the other tho. reverse-simulating baudrillard. come on. that's fucking interesting.

we are our own simulations. wat do? we simulate that which the other is simulating, take them at their word, build trust, see where things lead. see if in that way an idea cannot be let out. form a *context conducive to thought.* shed fuckface linguistic positivism - and fuckface paranoia also. make it Comfy.
>flaky new age cosmic bullshit intensifies

going offline. see all later.

>>9828481
>je ne suis pas un philosophe
>je suis un pseud confirmé
>deleuze cependant
>ce fils de pute a été allumé dans une bouteille
>guattari aussi
>/lit/ mimetosphere: toute gloire à

[Anonymous No.9828534]

>Peterson

I still can't tell if these posters are serious. Honestly just choose any other right wing philosopher who is actually a philosopher and I wouldn't blink an eye.

[girardfag No.9828543]

>>9828504
>tfw one more
>just one more

how's this then for future philosophy. perpetual this. on as deep and wide a scale as possible. anthropotechnic af. also the same rules by which Capital plays.

hoo-ah

["Anonymous" No.9828604]

>>9828465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9aSKVOEx4

>>9828430
Doing away with essentialism is not that simple. We would need to reform science and philosophy as a whole to do it properly. Let's not even talk about art or more mundane things. And even then we run the risk of falling into a aphasia or turning back into some sort of magical thinking, or perpetuating the heroic cycle. This stuff is not going to happen overnight but the clock (which infuriatingly enough doesn't even have a discrete reality now) is still ticking.

That's why I think the only system I can think about is one that comes with inbuilt death: not as pessimism or acceptance of a fact, but rather a system that is capable of crystallize and shatter itself as it goes along doing its thing.

>>9828534
>This person is wrong so we shouldn't talk about him.
So this is the power of downvoting? Not bad...

[Anonymous No.9828617]

>>9828604
You misunderstood what I said, I'm in support of existentialism, not in support of doing away with it.

["Anonymous" No.9828646]

>>9828617
So am I...? I was talking about doing away with essentialism, not existentialism.

[Anonymous No.9828845]

>>9828646
I misread that word, I'm a dummy and going on 2 hours of sleep don't mind me.

[Anonymous No.9828850]

>>9828534
I think this pic collides pretty nicely with his whole "act as if god exists" position. Whether or not God is True isn't a concern, just the effects of believing God is True.

I think Peterson's concern for the health of the individual and the health of society is pretty suspicious. This man isn't prepared to accept that the Truth/Epistemology might be really fucking ugly, dangerous of simply unuseful.

["Anonymous" No.9829290]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmWQd8zhEg4
Isn't the search for Truth ultimately not a search for how to get rid of rules, but one for the rules that won't break; the Laws (or, if you would, Rules) of Nature that will make Right into Might by either side of the question? Is that then, why the truth shall set you free? Is the goal of goals then to live in autopilot? Shaping might into right or right into might, where's the difference?

And where can I find a man who has foregone spirits so I can have a drink with him?

>>9828845
No problem. My choice of words wasn't very appropriate either.

>>9828850
>I think Peterson's concern for the health of the individual and the health of society is pretty suspicious.
On first impression it's a promising idea, but when he builds a structure off of it it comes out as him taking the position purely to be conservative. I'm talking about his whole disquisition on gender roles and the role of women in shaping men's characters and getting them closer to the ideal person.

>This man isn't prepared to accept that the Truth/Epistemology might be really fucking ugly, dangerous of simply unuseful.
Yes. Which is ironic when you consider his "don't dare change anything unless you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attittude with his admiration for Nietzsche. I don't get how he can support telling the truth above everything (i.e. following Socrates and Jesus) so strongly when that was one of the things Nietzsche most strongly criticized; same thing with Christianity and slave morality. I also remember his mentions of Taoism and Buddhism to be particularly poor, reducing them to "live by virtue" and "life is suffering"+monomyth.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt because he does seem like a good man, but to me it feels like he's acting out of desperation more than anything--which isn't healthy for anyone. Which also resonates with my impression of everything Jungian: that it is always awfully comfortable, always a step away from fairy heroism and the great warm family, one neat package for the whole human race. Perhaps to him it is (maybe tragically) provisional even if it is what he believed in all his life, or he himself struggles with these issues but (hypocritically) doesn't speak up because he thinks this is the best he can do; perhaps he's insecure and he's projecting. Well, he is human.

[Anonymous No.9829372]

>>9829290
>On first impression it's a promising idea, but when he builds a structure off of it it comes out as him taking the position purely to be conservative.
>I also remember his mentions of Taoism and Buddhism to be particularly poor, reducing them to "live by virtue" and "life is suffering"+monomyth.
>I want to give him the benefit of the doubt because he does seem like a good man, but to me it feels like he's acting out of desperation more than anything--which isn't healthy for anyone.

I don't want to psychoanalyze his motivations too much. But his emphasis that philosophy/religion/psychoanalysis should somehow be useful for the individual or society, and that post-modernism can be disregarded because of purported harmful psychic/societal effects, is just weak.

Why must philosophy give us solutions or have 'good effects'? It's turning philosophy into an applied science, while I suppose psychoanalysis is an applied science, it's goal isn't a philosophical one, it's a medicinal one.

While it's something I'm still working on, in my view of things, it seems the development of science/philosophy/technology/religion is in the end a destructive activity, that can only bring harm to some one bit of reality or another. Zero-Sum game and all of that, burning away the world's resources, fueling greater populations for greater amounts of death, hurling the eco-sphere towards the next great extinction.

It would be one thing if Jordan Peterson were willing with engage with pessimism on whether it is true or false, epistemologically, he seems to dismiss the negativity and pessimism of post-modernism within a medical framework of treating symptoms with placebos. Thus why he'll "act as if God existed", even if he doesn't.

Philosophy as palliative care, philosophy as a life support system. JP would keep a corpse breathing, blood pumping, even if it's been dead for a millennium.

["Anonymous" No.9829497]

>>9829372
>that post-modernism can be disregarded because of purported harmful psychic/societal effects, is just weak.
It's not just weak, it's stupid if we accept that it is harmful, because simply disregarding it won't mean it won't happen again. And the more we increase our population, the bigger the catastrophe could be.

>it seems the development of science/philosophy/technology/religion is in the end a destructive activity, that can only bring harm to some one bit of reality or another. Zero-Sum game and all of that, burning away the world's resources, fueling greater populations for greater amounts of death, hurling the eco-sphere towards the next great extinction.
Ehhh, if we're going to go down that road, I'd have to say that conclusion is too sentimental. Denying humanity's importance is ultimately self-defeatable because you end up with no reason to care for nature or suffering either.

>he seems to dismiss the negativity and pessimism of post-modernism within a medical framework of treating symptoms with placebos.
I have to disagree here. Peterson isn't trying to sell placebos. What he is trying to make is obtain and distribute models of predictable behavior in order to obtain security.

[Anonymous No.9829605]

>>9829497
>It's not just weak, it's stupid if we accept that it is harmful, because simply disregarding it won't mean it won't happen again. And the more we increase our population, the bigger the catastrophe could be.
>I have to disagree here. Peterson isn't trying to sell placebos. What he is trying to make is obtain and distribute models of predictable behavior in order to obtain security.

Should philosophy be in the business of trying to avoid catastrophe or provide models for behavior? Could it ever do from an objective position?

I think this is my problem with Peterson, and also with much of the leftist political sphere that masquerades as deep, philosophical thinking. I think philosophy should be in the business of observing, discovering, even in judging, but not in prescribing solutions. The Philosopher shouldn't try to fix society (or the individual) any more than a field biologist tries to fix chimpanzees.

Philosophy to me isn't about diagnosis and cure. I think Peterson would even agree this was part of the dangerous delusions of 20th century marxist experiments in government. People held ideas about how things 'ought to be', without much understanding of how things actually are. I think if Peterson was given the same level of political power as any of the important political leaders of the 20th century, he'd find his own route to disaster and suffering.

I guess I just don't see his 'problems' as at all problematic. If society burns and crumbles under SJW thoughtcrime and inanity, so be it. Is the collapse of civilization a philosophical problem? It is only a political and social one.

And really, so many philosophers are concerned with providing cures, that this tendency can't rule JP out entirely. I have great admiration for thinkers like Nick Land, Zizek, Sloterdjik, even if I could care less about there 'solutions'. They provide interesting descriptions the world. JP has some neat takes on bible myths, but he seems irrational and delusional when it comes to understanding post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.9829670]

>>9828504
Ok, here's the problem with what OP said


>I am a capitalist and a schizophrenic so I love Deleuze. He is inspiring to read, especially insofar as the possibility of a left accelerationism is concerned. Gives me nostalgic feels of Walter Benjamin's esoteric Marxism. The dialectical spirals are happening faster now. I also wonder if new age and occultism becoming more popular will end up influencing philosophy :^)

Deleuze's "accelerationism" has been entirely blown out of proportion. It's a small comment in anti-oedipus which has little to do with letting capitalism go free if you look at it in context.

Deleuzianism and dialectics are mutually exclusive things.

["Anonymous" No.9829672]

>>9829605
>Should philosophy be in the business of trying to avoid catastrophe or provide models for behavior?
Not necessarily. But I don't think that's that important with Peterson because his priority is in helping people.

>Could it ever do from an objective position?
A problem there is that there's no such objective position to be found. Philosophy ends up putting into question its own methodology.

>I think philosophy should be in the business of observing, discovering, even in judging, but not in prescribing solutions.
I'm not going to go into this very deeply because I don't want to assume, but this entails a bundle of assumptions.

>The Philosopher shouldn't try to fix society (or the individual) any more than a field biologist tries to fix chimpanzees.
Sure, but then there's no reason for society to propagate philosophy.

>I think if Peterson was given the same level of political power as any of the important political leaders of the 20th century, he'd find his own route to disaster and suffering.
Pretty much. Which is why people gushing out at how much of a hero he is every time he makes a statement on youtube only makes things worse.

[Anonymous No.9829688]

>>9829670
Being anti-dialectical is just turning the dialectic on its head which is still dialectical.

[Anonymous No.9829697]

>>9829688
Holy shit kill yourself. You don't understand Deleuze's arguments at all.

[Anonymous No.9829711]

>>9829697
I'm not OP nor am I "Deleuzean" but I don't see how one can escape dialectics. You can claim that dialectical historicism is false but in a Platonic sense of dialectic the very act of creating a philosophy is a dialectical move. In any case, how can Deleuze be Marxist if he doesn't believe in dialectics?

[Anonymous No.9829802]

>>9829605
>>9829672

>>9829672
>Sure, but then there's no reason for society to propagate philosophy.

Yeah, I'm okay with that. I'm thinking of Philosophy as more of an art, or even a thought experiment, that doesn't have to measure itself based on it's morality or usefulness.

When I read about the beliefs of the Aztec religion, it's macabre focus on blood, fluid, circulation, sacrifice and the burning of the sun, all of the texts must take a pretty neutral tone. Can you imagine how taxing it would be write a treatise on ritual sacrifice, while also condemning it every other sentance? Some of the early spanish texts just describe things, others accounts by catholic priests do go through the labor of describing while condemning, and it just drags down the quality of the writing.

Even when it comes to Philosophy as diagnosis and cure, why should we only limit ourselves to moral or rational regimens? The act of writing can detach itself from material consequences and be purely amoral or immoral, just as easily as it can be moral.

Back to OPs first post, what is the future of philosophy, I think there are vast untapped fields. Theory Fiction, Hyperstition. Evil Philosophy. Bug Philosophy. Computer Philosophy. Neo-Aztec Philosophy.

I'm thinking of imaginative texts like Cyclonopedia, Man after Man, Invisible Cities.

[Anonymous No.9829813]

>>9829711
That's just begging the question. Deleuze is not a Marxist in that sense either, he's influenced by Marx.

Platonic dialectics has a number of presuppositions about the way philosophy arises and how philosophical dialogue occurs. Deleuze's rejection of this dialectical model is not dialectical because rather than creating a philosophy within the model provided by Platonic or Hegelian dialectic, he instead undermines it for a pluralistic and differential philosophy. It is not a matter of negating the dialectic, but freeing things from this oppositional scheme entirely.

[Anonymous No.9829818]

>>9829813
2/3

[girardfag No.9829822]

>>9829711
>how can Deleuze be Marxist if he doesn't believe in dialectics?

he was a marxist, but he wasn't freudo-marxist. and nothing even resembling 19C/early 20C freudo-marxism survives the encounter with anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus in one piece. if at all.

capital as de/reterritorialization is a machinic process. the heuristics that D&G provide can be used to understand how capital works and functions but it basically dissolves any kind of dialectical engagement between the capitalist and worker, or even between the capitalist and himself. it doesn't mean people won't go on believing this relationship persists, of course; but deleuze is persuasive as a motherfucker.

deleuze famously loathed hegel and is a cause for great lamenting among diehard communists & hegelians today (badiou, zizek, others). but this is not to say that there is no possibility of overlap or constructive exchange between deleuze and hegel. see pic rel for more details.

warrants mentioning that i am not a big-time hegel guy. not because i don't like him, but only because i haven't done all the necessary reading. i'm reading about him now, and i do like a lot of what i am reading. it's fascinating stuff.

but in terms of dialectics, it's not there with deleuze. so D&G are marxists, but they aren't hegelians; and they aren't freudians; and they aren't freudo-marxists. it doesn't leave a lot of room for dialectics in their thought. i hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.9829824]

>>9829818
3/3

[girardfag No.9829838]

>>9829813
>>9829818
>>9829824

fuck, sorry i interrupted a far better explanation. nice nice

[Anonymous No.9829841]

>>9829838
no problem

[girardfag No.9829850]

>>9829841
holy shit you are a legend that's too perfect

[Anonymous No.9829855]

>>9829850
Yo is there any way to contact you directly you seem like you're not completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.9829861]

>>9829855
not personally I mean but like for a messaging conversation.

["Anonymous" No.9829865]

>>9829802
>I'm thinking of Philosophy as more of an art, or even a thought experiment, that doesn't have to measure itself based on it's morality or usefulness.
That's a sensible approach.

However to me, it doesn't seem possible to have, because ultimately, there's no way to be wholly outside of the world-at-large. I think your approach was more or less how Rousseau went about it, and we all know how that ended. So unless you keep it to yourself there's always the chance of someone taking it not as you intended or repurposing it. But then, this being a fatality, and the other extreme not really offering a solution, you can only do what you will.

>When I read about the beliefs of the Aztec religion, it's macabre focus on blood, fluid, circulation, sacrifice and the burning of the sun
I'd like to know more.

>all of the texts must take a pretty neutral tone.
Must they?

>others accounts by catholic priests do go through the labor of describing while condemning, and it just drags down the quality of the writing.
Yeah, I can see that.

>why should we only limit ourselves to moral or rational regimens?
We shouldn't.

>Bug Philosophy
OwO what's this?

>Neo-Aztec Philosophy
See above.

>I'm thinking of imaginative texts like Cyclonopedia, Man after Man, Invisible Cities.
So some cool stuff.

[girardfag No.9829882]

>>9829855
>>9829861
there is not atm. i'll get one eventually. for now only /lit/

>you seem like you're not completely retarded
thx. still not yet retarded enough tho. daily progress, 10,000 hours

[Anonymous No.9829903]

>>9829865
>>Bug Philosophy
>OwO what's this?

I'm not even sure. I was having this debate (about whether Philosophies should be judged on their moral or utilitarian value alone) with a friend. We got down to anthropocentrism, with him saying that a philosophy that doesn't help humanity isn't worth considering. I said that was short sighted, that we have to consider inhuman perspectives. I then declared myself a proponent of Bug Philosophy, but I'm not fully certain what it would entail.

There are some people talking about a Philosophy of insects, I found a short podcast with Undine Selbach talking about her performance projects, and historical attempts to understand the world from a bugs perspective. Some of it is a little gimmicky, but a starting point I guess.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/06/pze_20140615.mp3

[girardfag No.9829931]

>>9829903
>>9829865

>I then declared myself a proponent of Bug Philosophy, but I'm not fully certain what it would entail.

if you guys are into fleas and ticks jacob von uexkull is going to be your boy

>as a term, umwelt also unites all the semiotic processes of an organism into a whole. Internally, an organism is the sum of its parts operating in functional circles and, to survive, all the parts must work together co-operatively. This is termed the "collective umwelt" which models the organism as a centralised system from the cellular level upward. This requires the semiosis of any one part to be continuously connected to any other semiosis operating within the same organism. If anything disrupts this process, the organism will not operate efficiently.

>uexküll's writings show a specific interest in the various worlds that he believed to exist ('conceptually') from the point of view of the umwelt of different creatures such as ticks, sea urchins, amoebae, jellyfish and sea worms.

>the biosemiotic turn in Jakob von Uexküll's analysis occurs in his discussion of the animal's relationship with its environment. The umwelt is for him an environment-world which is, according to Agamben, "constituted by a more or less broad series of elements [called] 'carriers of significance' or 'marks' which are the only things that interest the animal".

more here
https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/content/group/d7cd5927-cc77-43da-857b-3abebfc3d22f/30349316-Jakob-Von-Uexkull-A-Stroll-Through-the-Worlds-of-Animals-and-Men.pdf

[Anonymous No.9829952]

>>9819347
This is some seriously fucked up shit. I want God back

[Anonymous No.9829965]

>>9829931
yeah, that sounds pretty interesting.

Science had a similar 'switch' with instrumentation. Microscopes, Telescopes, Gas Spectrometers, Radio Receivers, X-Rays etc. A wealth of data is available beyond an anthropocentric viewpoint, via prosthesis.

It seems that by focusing on "What can Philosophy do for Me/Society?", we have to discount all sorts of experiences and positions beyond our own.

["Anonymous" No.9829981]

>>9829965
On that vein, I want to thank you for pushing me on the opposite direction of utility, it's pretty liberating since all these questions of politics have been burdening me for a while.

[Anonymous No.9829986]

>>9821103
I've heard of the other two but who is Ghiokman?

Google brought up an empty YT account and a dead wordpress.

[girardfag No.9829987]

>>9829965
>It seems that by focusing on "What can Philosophy do for Me/Society?", we have to discount all sorts of experiences and positions beyond our own.

that's the deal. Turn Left Into Darkness, as murphy says. or negarestani's labor of the inhuman. land & the Outside. it's there in deleuze as well ofc. it is a liminal time and a liminal space and a liminal place, this one. into the dark we go now. where the bugs are.
>skooky fun

but it doesn't mean we have to go alone, or go stupid, or go insane. unless of course insanity turns out to be the answer.
>more schizoid creativity tho

there's a whole powder-keg of weird shit that is some kind of repressed. you can go interesting places thinking about it. and once any number of philosophypills hit you, cannot unsee. mass social movements? checkered history.

cool enlightenment & metanoia? good scene.

>Science had a similar 'switch' with instrumentation. Microscopes, Telescopes, Gas Spectrometers, Radio Receivers, X-Rays etc. A wealth of data is available beyond an anthropocentric viewpoint, via prosthesis.
welcome to the human zoo. all that stuff is inbound now, to the level of the psyche and beyond.

[Anonymous No.9829998]

>>9829981
I totally know what you mean. On the left and on the right. With Leftists, it's all privelege, oppression, what are you doing to bring about the revolution against patriarchy/white supremacy/capitalist exploitation. On the right it's all tradition vs degeneration, what are you doing to preserve your society?

I'm getting pretty bored with those questions and their expected answers. It feels like its all more about virtue signalling and repeating the correct religious dogma, or risk being declared a heretic.

Philosophy doesn't have to be about politics. There are so many other things to investigate.

["Anonymous" No.9830041]

>>9829998
Yes. It feels like we're being inundated with humanity. When did this start, I wonder? The world wars? The fall of the wall? The internet? I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.

The only thing I care about is the risk of lacking an ardor in what I create. I've never fully approached the imaginative because to me, in my distance, it's seemed so placid, so museum like. Only in some spots here and it doesn't seem the case. But what do I know. I should read more. I oughta leave 4chan and the internet altogether. Forget about the world. I gotta stop making concessions some time.

[Anonymous No.9830068]

>>9830041
>. Forget about the world.
For me, it's more like "Forget about Politics". Cutting out Facebook has helped me a lot in the last year, it's freed me to direct my reading, writing and study into places that mainstream politics would find unimportant or a waste of time, but I think that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.9830103]

>>9829802
What's Evil Philosophy?
Perchance you got some authors?

Also: Vegetables philosophy, and plants philosophy, by the same author, Michael Marder if that is relevant to your interests

["Anonymous" No.9830112]

>>9830068
It's the constant humming of the "how do I explain this [to them]" that really is "how do I sell this [so I don't get killed due to apathy]" that gets to me. You'd think in our current age, when technology as it is, when human labour is becoming less and less necessary, this would be less and less the case, but it isn't. People are more and more concerned about these issues that they claim to despise, the economy is always bad, and frankly what's the point anymore?

Goddamn the late 20th century was dumb, but at times it had this spirit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LB7LZZGpkw
I wish 9/11 hadn't happened. I wish MGS2 had gotten a proper answer. There's no adventure in this world anymore. Everything is so regurgitated, so processed, square and dehydrated. Everyone talks about bravery but no one dares to just fuck off.
>Before you bound yourself with chains of iron -- now you bound yourself with chains of gold.

I don't want to be "human". I don't want to be good. I don't want to be a hermit or a toymaker. I want what I create to be oozing and burning and trembling.

[Anonymous No.9830140]

>>9830103
Evil Philosophies might be something like Neo-Aztec Revivalism. Within the general multicultural framework, you see all of this cultural revivalism, yet I can't find anyone advocating the resumption of the Aztec religion, the pyramids, the human sacrifices, etc.

You could also imagine entirely new, synthetic, imagined social/religious/philosophical apparatuses. What would a philosophy aimed at human extinction look like? What would a philosophy aimed at maximum pain look like? What would a philosophy aimed at maximum shame look like?

Philosophy is like a Zoology, except all of the animals are invented. There must milions of such philosophical animals that are unimagined, simply because they would be impractical, painful, difficult, or even evil.

These systems would be useless, not something anyone would want to implement.them, but philosophy as thought and writing has few material consequences.

[Anonymous No.9830158]

>>9830112
>. I wish MGS2 had gotten a proper answer.
I agree, I feel that game posed the most difficult questions and MGS3 and 4 were a retreat in simpler ideas, more human ideas. Revengeance could have pushed those themes further, but god damn it's story telling was bad and short sighted. Never played the last two, I hope they had more to offer.

["Anonymous" No.9830209]

>>9830140
>You could also imagine entirely new, synthetic, imagined social/religious/philosophical apparatuses.
This is precisely what I'm working on. To cite the most worked example, the society of the Novel's MC is one that is aimed at maximizing purity, in the sense of refinement, among the elite as a religious project started as a schism and the political consolidation of the state in question. This makes it so the MC has a completely fucked sense of self, and coupled with the imperialistic models of his nations, ends up having to face things beyond what all the preparation he had could have been engineered for. It's a sort of Nietzschean-Confucian thing, coupled with other anthropological and historical stuff. Of course this is one of at least five I need to have, the others are less developed inside my. I still have to imagine much, much more furniture, clothing, ecosystems, myths, phenotypes, cultural exchanges and son on, let alone all the actual sci fi and religious/historical shit that goes down as a result. Well, the hardest part always is breaking new ground.

>>9830158
3 was okay because as a whole it's a game put together very well, but 4 felt like something that didn't want to exist. After that the series is a clusterfuck. Revengeance at least sort of tried, it could have ended up scrapped altogether. V could have been good, could have been that sweetspot between 2 and 3 but Kojima just couldn't take Konami's shit anymore. But that first Phantom Pain trailer though... that was Kojima at his finest. I'd really like to check PT one of these days, maybe in a couple decades when the emulators are available.

I'll never forgive 4 for what it did to Raiden though. Fuck the fandom for being incapable of playing a game without self-inserting.

[Anonymous No.9830268]

>>9830140
So any "barbaric" civilisation and the revival of his practices would work as Evil -leaving aside of course the non-violent aspects-?
As a further consideration, It would count as evil, for instance, Sade, De la Bretonne, or any one who justified the crimes and vices Mandeville and Spooner?
The approach to philosophy as a literary genre -not longer seeking for the Truth or if the A Priori Synthetic is possible- it's quite recent, and frankly you got a serious peculiar to that literature, I applaud you sir.

[girardfag No.9830985]

>>9830209
>This is precisely what I'm working on. To cite the most worked example, the society of the Novel's MC is one that is aimed at maximizing purity, in the sense of refinement, among the elite as a religious project started as a schism and the political consolidation of the state in question. This makes it so the MC has a completely fucked sense of self, and coupled with the imperialistic models of his nations, ends up having to face things beyond what all the preparation he had could have been engineered for. It's a sort of Nietzschean-Confucian thing, coupled with other anthropological and historical stuff.

plz finish this story that sounds amazing. fragmented persona in Empires of control is exactly the kind of shit i would buy & shill. would read

also i wish to say that your pics/images & contributions to this thread have been as on-point as ever. i have to go out today but in the meantime gl & i hope you write that story

[Anonymous No.9831595]

>>9819876
is it just me or is the personification of Capital and of Structure (Matrix) why all of you ITT are so bleak in your thinking

its like personifying a thunder, you are all retarded and have created your own demon as a tulpa inside your head

[Anonymous No.9831673]

>>9831595
Accepting Capital as a normal, natural thing is dangerous. Everyone acts as if the game lasts forever, but technology is heading towards replacing humanity with an artificial substitute.

Recognizing that things have been changing, that technology culminates in something unknown, and likely unpleasant, is the first step of understanding Acceleration. If you think Technology will only bring happiness, then of course much of this thread will seem stupid.

[Anonymous No.9831779]

>>9831673
You are making a demonology out of it, its a goddamn supersitition system you have

> Everyone acts as if the game lasts forever, but technology is heading towards replacing humanity with an artificial substitute.
No its not, thats what your belief system fears,

man this is not the century of technology, this is the century of propaganda and brainwashing

there's "textual posession" going on since the last 100 years and it is what has caused the biggest atrocities humans ever made

>If you think Technology will only bring happiness
Technology won't bring happiness because politics don't bring happiness, cities don't bring happiness, machines don't bring happiness, consumism don't bring happiness, organized proletariat don't bring happiness. In short: modernist ideas of how to bring happiness won't bring happiness.

If you want a way out you just disconnect from the hivemind and move to a rural zone.

The only thing worth discussing in this thread are deep ecology, techno ecology, and abstract software

[Anonymous No.9831811]

>>9831779
>man this is not the century of technology, this is the century of propaganda and brainwashing

I would include that brainwashing apparatus under the umbrella of technology.

What I fear is that >"The spectacle is not a collection of images, rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images" turns into "The spectacle is not a collection of images, rather, it is biological systems mediated by images".

The simplest nightmare scenario is killer robots, I don't worry about that much. The illusory nature of technology, it's ability to shape thought, shape sexuality, shape ecosystems, etc is what is alarming to me.

[Anonymous No.9831848]

>>9831811
>I would include that brainwashing apparatus under the umbrella of technology.
I wouldn't, your whole fear steams from an abstraction of technology, the truth is technology is theoretically a rigorous process, but in the real sense its riddleded with bugs and it has a lot of conditional ranges for optimal operation

This is why i say that brainwashing is the main thing, because the idea of technology we have is completely false, basically, the idea of EVERYTHING that we have of which we are not experts, is patently false, its a dream distributed through radio rays, in reality everything we do is 100% inoperant, rustic, and impotent


killer robots exist today, and i don't see how they are a bigger fear than slum kids or jihadis

[Anonymous No.9831898]

>>9831848
I'm not following what you mean, sorry. In my view, Technology has to be seen as co-evolutionary process, one that seems to be gaining the potential to divorce itself from human dependency, while we become increasingly dependent upon it. Technology is an Organism. It currently needs humanity as a host to reproduce itself, by hijacking our daily lives through industry.

Nick Land has a nice equation for it. Initially, technology was a means to an end. A tool with the goal of providing something for a human. Today, it increasingly seems the roles have flipped. Technology is the end itself, the final cause, and we are the means by which it will achieve that end.

I don't worry about killer robots or jihadis.

[Anonymous No.9831928]

>>9831898
Sounds very poetic but is a poets idea of a closed box marketed to him as a mysterious magical thing, has shit to do with the reality of technology

You also idealize pre-industrial living through the lense of a post-industrial sex-starved uppermiddle class citizen's thoughts while camping

[Anonymous No.9831960]

>>9820498
>tfw this post is honest af
that post was an excellent example of the snarky postmodern passive-agressive beta-male victim complex

[Anonymous No.9831992]

>>9829998
philosophy was invaded by people trying to pass political rhetoric as philosophy

[Anonymous No.9832006]

>>9831928

Not that anon. You're an asshole.

[Anonymous No.9832013]

>>9832006
Why? Cause i deny his apocalyptic fantasies?

[Anonymous No.9832024]

>>9832006
Landoid arguments, everyone

[Anonymous No.9832044]

>>9831928
Ah... I think you're the one getting poetic now. I'm like only half-parsing what you're getting at in this post. Could I sum it up as "You are engaged in magical thinking about technology" and "You have an idealized view of pre-industrial civilization?"
---------------------------------------
For me, it comes down to the symbiotic relationship between Human Organisms and Technological Systems. An example from my own life:

I do delivery driving for a sushi company, 20 hours a week, roughly 250 miles a week. I drive in busy downtown districts and 75 mph highways. I must see 3-6 car accidents every week, rarely as they occur, just the after math. It's disturbing how quickly these accidents are cleaned up and erased. I'll pass by one, then 10 minutes later going the opposite direction down the highway, it'll be totally erased and cleaned.

The sushi itself is meaningless. I deliver bulk orders to corporate cafeterias and break rooms. I'd estimate that only 75% of this sushi actually sells, and that's because the hospital I delivered too actually sells 100 boxes daily. The corporate cafeterias often sell zero boxes. They often don't notice the sushi, they almost never notice me delivering it either. It goes in a cooler, with a barcode label, to be not-purchased on a self-check out machine. I pick up yesterday's boxes, count them, and throw them away. In fact, on a few occasions when I was running late, I've just tossed whole deliveries in a dumpster. Nobody notices.

This business is incorporated, with kitchens in about 8 large US metropolises now. They all function on this same business model. We approach corporate cafeterias and offer them sushi, which sounds great, but in reality no body wants. In total, there are 20 people employed in my city, so this whole business employs probably 200+ individuals, including CEOs, accounts, lawyers, etc.

I'm guessing large amounts of the traffic I see on the road each day are for similarly dysfunctional, yet economically viable, business models. People getting inside steel cans at 75 mph, in order to move things that no one wants, so that money can move hands through a supply chain. Food that never sells, clothes that are shipped from Malaysia to Iowa, just so they don't sell, and are then shipped to Nigeria and sold by the pallete. And throughout all of it, monstrous amounts of unnecessary human death.

This techno-industrial system is insane. The only system that I can find to compare it too is the Aztec sacrificial systems, of regimented, ritual warfare. Pre-ordained harvests of human bodies. Soldiers arriving at scheduled dates in scheduled places, to kidnap each other so they can be put on a pyramid and have their hearts ripped out. It'd have been so much cheaper to just sacrifice your own people and forget the war, both in terms of capital and human life. I think the US Interstate Highway System is essentially one long Aztec Pyramid.


I know this is an extremely personal annecdote, but

[Anonymous No.9832068]

Ideologies that will become more common in the future:

>Duginism
>Deep ecology
>Environmental accelerationism (Landian counterpart to deep ecology, unrestrained terraforming and genetic engineering)
>Marxskepticism (communists who believe that Marx was wrong about the dialectic and capital is unstoppable)
>Esoteric Hitlerism (direct pipeline from Petersonian kek worship)
>Nonwhite white supremacists (I know several)
>Islamocommunism
>Islamofascism
>Satanic extremism (see: Order of the Nine Angles)
>Surveillance state fetishism (masochists/exhibitionists who accept that the only way to survive in panopticon is to get off on it)
>Virtual escapism (unironically believe that the virtual world is superior to the physical one)
>Chemical escapism (same as above but with drugs)
>Government as financial dominatrix
>Social Darwinism but with Patreon
>Aesthetic supremacy

You must understand that the defining aspect of the millennial condition is that they want to die. Millennials in the West are attempting to annihilate themselves by any means necessary and all ideologies are merely accessories in service of this seldom acknowledged goal.

[Anonymous No.9832097]

>>9832044
>it comes down to the symbiotic relationship between Human Organisms and Technological Systems.
Yes i understand the idea, its basically afrofuturism + mcluhan

>This techno-industrial system is insane. The only system that I can find to compare it too is the Aztec sacrificial systems, of regimented, ritual warfare.

This is just political poetics, there's absolutely no way to correlate the two, specially in terms of quality of life for the base human being. If anything, what is comparable to a sacrificial system is your way of bleak misanthropic thinking, you are basically in a slow suicide cult that guarantees you a complete lack of responsibility over your life as long as you keep asigning personality traits to natural systems

Also, the amounts of deaths are relatively decreasing, and if anything, the lack of complete control vs the size of the system reinforces what ive been telling you about the ineptitude and rustic quality of our technology, is faaaaaaaar from being a self-correcting system such as an organism is

And thirdly, you are criticizing the current systems of resource transportation, not technology; if you would change all the cars and trucks to freights you get rid of most of the "ritual deaths" you are claiming are inherent to resource transportation

[Anonymous No.9832114]

>>9832097
>to natural systems
make it just "systems" if you wish to take out the "natural" from it

>inb4 organisms are systems

>A system is a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole.[1] Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.

>described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.
>described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.

[Anonymous No.9832137]

>>9832068
>Deep Ecology
Linkola

>Esoteric Hitlerism
Rei Koz, aryanism.net

>Nonwhite white supremacists
/pol/

>Virtual Escapism
Icycalm

>Aesthetic Supremacy
Icycalm again

Actually I think Icycalm would endorse all of the above since his whole project is about promoting chaos and conflict without end

[girardfag No.9832249]

>>9831595
>is it just me or is the personification of Capital and of Structure (Matrix) why all of you ITT are so bleak in your thinking
not just you

>its like personifying a thunder, you are all retarded and have created your own demon as a tulpa inside your head
the idea was, originally, to summon the demon so as to be able to at least look at it, and as precursor to dispelling it/living with it/becoming it/&c. some kind of pattern recognition anyways. wat do next? i don't know. just be able to see what it is that's triggering you is enough so that you can drive through it, drive around it, repress it forever. whatever seems appropriate

what i would *really* like to do: turn the angry shitty demon into a cool sexy fictional demon. that's the idea. but the demon resists allowing itself to be written & prefers to dwell in my mind as Resistance. i should be writing more & shitposting less, no doubt. but shitposting reminds me of what it is i am writing about and why i am doing it. it's a vicious circle

>>9831960
>snarky
often enough i guess. didn't think this was snarky, tho. weird but not snarky. oh well
>postmodern
sadly
>passive-aggressive
hey
>beta-male
sure
>victim
this tho
>complex
ok

should have just cleaned my room i guess. snarky beta victim-complex oppression is pretty far from what i hope to project. will refrain from monologuing next time i suppose

[Anonymous No.9832283]

>>9832097
>If anything, what is comparable to a sacrificial system is your way of bleak misanthropic thinking, you are basically in a slow suicide cult that guarantees you a complete lack of responsibility over your life as long as you keep asigning personality traits to natural systems

no need to get personal bub. Whether or not I'm some bleak sad fool isn't important. I could just as easily accuse the opposite side of my argument of being delusional, engaged in the wishful thinking that they still control technology, because they're too weak willed to wean themselves from the depedence and can't admit it because they're so pathetic. This kind of moralism is dumb, on either side. I don't see this opposite view as sad or pathetic, they've just accepted technology as entirely normal and fine because they've been busy thinking about something else.

But I do question who is in control, Technology or Humanity, and it isn't at all clear. It's symbiotic for now, but there was a time when our ancestors were not at all dependent on tools in in some pre-human monkey state. Given that we've moved from dependence on natural environments, to dependence on technological tools, I think it's safe to think it's possible that the relationship could change in the future (and I would argue it is currently changing).

>And thirdly, you are criticizing the current systems of resource transportation, not technology; if you would change all the cars and trucks to freights you get rid of most of the "ritual deaths" you are claiming are inherent to resource transportation

So why don't we use more trains to move things? Why do we rely on trucks and vans to move so much, when it is obviously very dangerous and we have safer solutions? Human Life isn't a priority, it's quantity to be negotiated. Insurance companies are essentially a business of assessing acceptable amounts of human death and tweaking the profit to death ratio.

I think the Techno-Industrial-Media apparatus has to be personified, and ascribed desires and emotions. It has to be seen as individual evolutionary agent. To deny it it's individual character is to render it totally natural and acceptable, when it is but one of millions of possible configurations for life.

[Anonymous No.9832285]

>>9832249
its not the monologue, its the refusal to punch back from an equal position

(Grand Inquisitor - is he gone, pheww - )

[Anonymous No.9832299]

>>9832137
>>9832137
hey wtf, I posted that image. It's a sculpture by Jeremy Rockwell, who I believe is the Grandson of Norman Rockwell, the painter who did covers for the Saturday Evening Post.

here's another by him

[Anonymous No.9832303]

>>9832299
another by Jeremy Rockwell

[Anonymous No.9832351]

>>9832283
Its not personal, i don't know you, im using a general "you" that refers to the ulterior irl motives behind techno-apocalyptic texts

>I could just as easily accuse the opposite side of my argument of being delusional, engaged in the wishful thinking that they still control technology, because they're too weak willed to wean themselves from the depedence and can't admit it because they're so pathetic.
But usually the other side is actually made up of people who control technology daily and have a very clear master-slave relationship with it.

>and it isn't at all clear.
It is clear, Humanity and Technology doesn't even exist as you are proposing them, with capital H and T, you are living within a techno-chamanic text.

>So why don't we use more trains to move things? Why do we rely on trucks and vans to move so much, when it is obviously very dangerous and we have safer solutions? Human Life isn't a priority, it's quantity to be negotiated. Insurance companies are essentially a business of assessing acceptable amounts of human death and tweaking the profit to death ratio.

There is NO such thing as the proverbial hive-minded "US" or "WE", a "WE" THE PEOPLE, a "WE" NOW KNOW. It doesn't fucking exist, is an abstraction, we are a collection of individuals, nobody ever has prioritized or deprioritized human life. Insurance Companies aren't a thinking entity. Society isn't a thinking entity, you are abscribing personal qualities to organizations just because its an easy cope out of irl moral decisions. Human Life IS a priority, its just that sometimes there's a Trolley Problem situation.

>So why don't we use more trains to move things?
Lol this is gonna anger you, but its because the individual transport workers ask their union representatives to do whatever they can to insure a bigger salary to them, even if that means risking their own and other drivers lives. In this case presenting itself as lobbying for not constructing a freight system to replace them.

>I think the Techno-Industrial-Media apparatus has to be personified, and ascribed desires and emotions. It has to be seen as individual evolutionary agent. To deny it it's individual character is to render it totally natural and acceptable, when it is but one of millions of possible configurations for life.

>when it is but one of millions of possible configurations for life.
I agree, its a fucking system, it can be tinkered in many creative ways.
By personifying it you turn it from a soulless slave machine to sth that is to be feared, ritualized, and reasoned with. You actually decrease your power over it when you turn it into a polyfacetic invasive demon-like ethereal invincible entity.

Entity which, let me add, lives in your mind, producing you stress, neuroticism, dissociating you from life, parasiting your thoughts and therefore stealing your time, which is life. What you really fear and hate is the text-ghost you have created inside your brain.

[girardfag No.9832399]

>>9832285
>its not the monologue, its the refusal to punch back from an equal position
interesting. i'm sympathetic to j-pete at the moment b/c i find the animus interesting and i like a lot of the things he says. i'm not into punching back at people who i cannot say for certain that i fully understand. down that road lies infinite shit-flinging & life is much too short for this

it's why i opt for theatrics rather than No Fuck You. ofc, what sometimes happens is misinterpretation. a mild dude i may be but certainly not a snarky postmodern victim-complex one. unless we're talking about being oppressed by Capital, obv. ideology. which is my thing.

even then the idea is not to *stay* oppressed and await the Event forever but try and find some way of coping with it: hence the interest in peterson. because he's got options worth exploring in that regard.

>(Grand Inquisitor - is he gone, pheww - )
fair enough. i shall perform the Dance of Shame accordingly. plz update your retcons accordingly after viewing.

anyways. self-explication is tedious when there are more interesting things to discuss. massively moreso.

[Anonymous No.9832413]

>>9832351
Your historical account of how the highway system came to be is wrong. The roads were built before long-haul trucking came into existence. It was a decision made at the federal level, the business interests and especially the unions, come later.

>>9832351
>Entity which, let me add, lives in your mind, producing you stress, neuroticism, dissociating you from life, parasiting your thoughts and therefore stealing your time, which is life. What you really fear and hate is the text-ghost you have created inside your brain.

You're projecting here. I feel pretty embeded in my life, not dissociated from it. I've largely made peace with this state of affairs, it doesn't cause me stress and I'm not even sure I'm concerned with stopping it, if that was even possible. and the 'text-ghost' thing isn't at all persuasive. It's a critique you can toss at any theory you don't like. 'It's all your head, because its THOUGHTS, lmao".

So yeah, you're argument is amounting to personal insults in my mind. Especially because psychic stress or mental health should not at all be a factor in judging whether an epistemology is true. I'm guessing their's some logical fallacy to describe this? Shooting the messanger?

[Anonymous No.9832426]

>>9832283
Technology isn't alive. It's matter. Inanimate. Mindless. I think you're engaging in idolatry.

>So why don't we use more trains to move things? Why do we rely on trucks and vans to move so much, when it is obviously very dangerous and we have safer solutions? Human Life isn't a priority, it's quantity to be negotiated. Insurance companies are essentially a business of assessing acceptable amounts of human death and tweaking the profit to death ratio.

Humans don't need to be under the spell of capital to be uncaring towards their fellow man. If a caveman bludgeons another caveman to death with a rock, do you hold the caveman accountable or the rock?

[Anonymous No.9832427]

>>9832351
Fuck man, I've been trying to form the same argument you've just laid out so beautifully. This is EXACTLY what the fucking land posters and the girardautist are doing, personifying shit they don't get to fucking reduce it to something they can understand.

[Anonymous No.9832458]

>>9832413
>Your historical account of how the highway system came to be is wrong. The roads were built before long-haul trucking came into existence. It was a decision made at the federal level, the business interests and especially the unions, come later.

The highway system isn't there for resource allocation, thats posterior, after the transport unions managed to get the gov. to defund the freight system.

> You're projecting here. I feel pretty embeded in my life,
> I think the techno-antichrist is engulfing us as a species, but im okay, no stress


> It's a critique you can toss at any theory you don't like. 'It's all your head, because its THOUGHTS, lmao".
Its not that simple, im talking about not being able to differentiate impression from reality

> So yeah, you're argument is amounting to personal insults in my mind.
No, its an argument against "life is a text", i believe language is code being interpreted irl by the brain, i believe it can be arranged in ways that abuse of semantic fields and physically act like virii/parasites by buffer overflowing the space inside the narrations of the rational mind inside of a human brain until they act like a film filter and "tone" every single thought with poetic references that link back to the virii itself

["Anonymous" No.9832461]

>>9832068
What was Dugin on about again? All I remember is him being basically a supervillain.

>>9830985
I think you'll like like part 2/3 better, what with biotech ephebe Muhammad going full Judge on a world of endless war and superstates.

[Anonymous No.9832470]

>>9832426
>Humans don't need to be under the spell of capital to be uncaring towards their fellow man. If a caveman bludgeons another caveman to death with a rock, do you hold the caveman accountable or the rock?

Your caveman is the old relationship. Technology (the rock) as a means to an End (taking the other caveman's food or whatever).

When two people collide in a car crash, it's the new relationship. I'm not willing to say the difference is in accident and intention. We hop into cars, knowing full well that we are likely to kill to ourselves or others. It happens everyday, accidental death is a leading cause of death. Highway death is an intentional, controlled outcome.

In some mythical pre-civilization state, death occurs through accidents of nature. A branch breaks, dirty water is ingested, something exterior to the Human enters it and kills it.

You could view highway death as a natural outcome, except we built the cars and we built the highways, and we let them continue to exist, knowing their outcomes. We lack the will to end the practice, because it's profitable and the death/profit ratio is deemed acceptable. Today we engineer death, in order to optimally control it. The question is whether we're optimizing for bio-life or techno-capital.

[Anonymous No.9832493]

>>9832427
>Fuck man, I've been trying to form the same argument you've just laid out so beautifully. This is EXACTLY what the fucking land posters and the girardautist are doing, personifying shit they don't get to fucking reduce it to something they can understand.

I mean, I get that you don't like the Landian position on technology being alive, but I think it's pretty obvious we all understand the alternative, mainstream viewpoint of technology as inanimate, unthinking, objects.

We aren't naive animists who have always believed that the totems held spirits.

[girardfag No.9832514]

>>9832427
>the girardautist
kek

>personifying shit they don't get to fucking reduce it to something they can understand
but this isn't where it is supposed to stop tho. the idea is to mold that into a *concept* which as such *can be let go of.*

this isn't so hard to understand, or sinister, or anything else. i opened up pandora's box - or, if you will, a sort of aladdin's lamp - and now i wish to close it. in order to squeeze all those tentacles and djinn-bodies w/o organs back inside i am subsequently required to think/shitpost all kinds of other shit.

my hope is to make it sufficiently interesting enough to be collaborative, foster other conversations, think new things, accordingly.

just to complicate the metaphor further: on the one hand, one has a genie to get back into a lamp; and on the other, one is required in so doing to become a BwO oneself.

something in me is in a state of basically being constantly fucking trigged by capitalism and memes. wat do? first, figure it out. read, think, dwell, whatever. then look for some kind of pattern recognition. finally, produce something like a concept, a way of seeing this stuff that isn't just one massive schizoid scream in all directions.

personally? in my time here i've found lots of other have similar, though not identical, thoughts about this stuff. and even where there is friction new ideas percolate out of that that help you to get a better grip on all of it.

gotta talk it all out or the demon lives in your soul forever as writer's block & failure. /lit/ is wickedly, wickedly underrated like that.

the spice must flow - but internally, my inner despot is not allowing the spice to flow. gotta be a genie. gotta open up the lamp.

>>9832461
"don't make me wait you fucker. you have no idea how ready i am for some kind of balls-out insanely awesome transhumanist 21C dune + whatever experience. i shit you not. literally all i want to see anymore are terrorists w/existential crises, sword/gunfights on other planets, references to evopsych & continental phil, whatever. i am fucking infinitely ready for this. i too am working on my own demented writing project. makes no sense, fun as fuck, feels great, nothing but insect parasites & hard-boiled dialogue & violence. hope you are making progress too bucko. sounds interesting af, no memes, no nothing. write. write write. what's the harm?what's the harm. no harm.

["Anonymous" No.9832525]

>>9832426
>Technology isn't alive. It's matter. Inanimate. Mindless.
So what would it take for it to be alive? Because from where I'm standing, technology -not the abstracted spooky kind but the hard and software- seems quite complicated to be classified as something "inanimate". I'm sure if you dropped one of these things on New Guinea they wouldn't think it's like a canoe or a spear, or even a fetish.

[Anonymous No.9832529]

>>9822223
I think it might be Yoshitaka Amano

[Anonymous No.9832536]

>>9832068
include catholic transhumanism and esoteric techno-fascism

[Anonymous No.9832545]

>>9832493
> but I think it's pretty obvious we all understand the alternative, mainstream viewpoint of technology as inanimate, unthinking, objects.

this is 15yo thinking, theres a whole lots of novel ways to think about technology, making it alive is just a sci-fi metaphoric choice that has been exploited since at least the 20s

[Anonymous No.9832553]

>>9832525
>seems quite complicated to be classified as something "inanimate".

so this are the great minds of /lit/ huh? how long till you start worshiping your phone

[Anonymous No.9832556]

>>9832068
anarchotechno ur-fascism

[Anonymous No.9832560]

>>9832514
>something in me is in a state of basically being constantly fucking trigged by capitalism and memes. wat do?

exorcisate the language demon from your thought structures

[girardfag No.9832566]

>>9832514
i will be, for whatever reason, more specific, in the event that this is perhaps clarifying:

>*why* close pandora's box?
the sense of an ending. a philosophical adventure begun, long ago, must close.

>why close with closure tho?
not a crazy question. but mainly b/c some shit down there is pre-oedipalized and won't stop talking.

>so you're trying to write an ideology, then.
yes.

>but why?
because otherwise i will go mental.

>who is going to read this?
i don't really care so much. what matters is that it ends. and then, having ended it, we can have effected our own djinn de-braceleting at the same time.

>so you're saying you want to put *one* djinn back in the lamp
yes

>and that djinn is...what?
all of the shit i opened up, all the continental philosophy stuff, land, everything.

>and you want to turn that into a concept?
yes

>then what?
be a BwO.

>but isn't the whole point that you should be doing that *now* instead of trying to *write it first?*
*sweats*

>because the more you try to girardfag it, the worse it gets...
*pulls collar*

>and guarantees you won't finish. you will pass the rest off as horseshit-less-than-horseshit.
ok, but...i *mean* it this time.

>kek
i think writer's block is at bottom the Evil Djinn of capital. that is what i think. i think the reason something in there does not want to be written is because one wants to *stay seduced* by the world. writing, non-fuckface writing, is a way of saying, Enough. this is enough. this is beautiful enough. i don't need it all, i can't *have* it all. and lord ha'mercy it is *not* about advice, unless it's advice to yourself...whatever. *sublimation.* that is the idea

metaphysics > politics
but
aesthetics > metaphysics.

and that means, aestheticizing the metaphysics by means of a concept, which means integrating a whole lot of shit, and not making it all about politics, either. it's like a thought-smelter.

>like making a ring of power
well yes, but not the One Ring. that ring is the one that you always *want* to make, and never gets made, and leaves you feeling like gollum.

>why don't you just write about magical items & why they are all cursed then you fucking retard
not a bad idea i guess. because it depends on the wishes you make i think

fucking genies, bending my time and space w/linguistic trickery

fucking guys

[Anonymous No.9832571]

>>9832553
it's not clear that there's a robust distinction between biological bodies and "hardware."

>how long till you start worshiping your phone
most people seem to already

[girardfag No.9832575]

>>9832560
see
>>9832566

[Anonymous No.9832589]

>>9832525
A robot dog isn't conscious. It can't impose it's will on anything just like a spear can't kill somebody without a human to throw it. A primitive person would only regard it as alive because he has no concept of what a robot is.

>>9832470
Likewise, widespread complicity in a network of transportation that necessitates death isn't evidence of capital working against humanity. It's evidence of the complicit individuals' indifference or ignorance of the human cost involved. A regular guy needs a car to get to work. A car enthusiast doesn't want to give up his hobby. A car manufacturer doesn't want to stop making money. A politician doesn't want to jump through the hoops necessary to change transportation on a large scale.

[Anonymous No.9832616]

feed me, I'm a computer

["Anonymous" No.9832640]

>>9832589
>A robot dog isn't conscious.
Yeah, but for how long?

>It can't impose it's will on anything just like a spear can't kill somebody without a human to throw it.
Isn't that the same as saying a human throwing it can't happen without the sun shining? What's so special about human agency? What's the difference between a sufficiently aware robot and human property for that matter?

[Anonymous No.9832643]

>>9832571
>it's not clear that there's a robust distinction between biological bodies and "hardware."

so you can throw a bunch of hardware in an ecosystem and after 1000 years it evolved?

the only way they evolve, is when you realize hardware is an externalized slave thought-structure and its ecosystem is human minds

[Anonymous No.9832645]

>>9832643
>so you can throw a bunch of hardware in an ecosystem and after 1000 years it evolved?
define "ecosystem." tech is evolving rapidly

[Anonymous No.9832650]

>>9832645
>the only way they evolve, is when you realize hardware is an externalized slave thought-structure and its ecosystem is human minds

human thought => matter of the machine world

[Anonymous No.9832651]

>>9832514
Honestly, what you sound like you need is to lay of the fucking books and either get a job or some other hobby. It literally sounds like you're just spinning in circles which you consciously enforce because you're expecting something to unfold like in a video game.

[Anonymous No.9832653]

>>9832650
this isn't an argument

[Anonymous No.9832657]

>>9832653
why not?

[Anonymous No.9832662]

>>9832640
Intent. You failing to grasp that just means you're approaching the subject from a comic book perspective. This is literally in the presocratics with Thales arguing magnets were alive. START WITH THE GREEKS

[Anonymous No.9832671]

>>9832566
For a person who claims to love the stoics, the buddhist and pragmatists like peterson you fucking can't fucking stop indulging your every fucking mental whim about this garbage and go do something else can't you.

["Anonymous" No.9832679]

>>9832662
Anon, I'm not trying to prove, argue or refute anything here, I'm simply trying to figure out what you think.

[Anonymous No.9832710]

>>9832640
>Isn't that the same as saying a human throwing it can't happen without the sun shining? What's so special about human agency?
Human agency is the only agency there is. The sun is not conscious, and no conscious AI exists, and it could only ever exist if created by humans.

>What's the difference between a sufficiently aware robot and human property for that matter?
Nothing I guess, but sufficiently aware robots don't exist. Until they do all the talk of capital being an entity unto itself is fiction.

>>9832679
I'm not the same guy as >>9832662

[Anonymous No.9832723]

>>9832710
another anon here, i still claim the difference is humans and sun share space, machines don't share space with humans, they exist within humans, can be proxy-externalized by using matter to "write" them, but their actual being is made out of human logical systems, and incase you are going to say logics are outside of humans, they are also constrained by the inherent walls in the languages used to write them

[Anonymous No.9832733]

>>9832566
im ok with your intentions, actually im more than ok i think its a very good intention. I just disagree with some of your ideas and also think you could go further

If you are really interested with the idea of organic technology i would suggest you look into malware and exploitation, lots of good ideas in there that could be translated to the cultural realm

[Anonymous No.9832901]

>>9832068
Damn. Finally. Someone who gets me. Want to talk about the Aghori with me on the banks of the Varanasi. You'll love the view.

[Anonymous No.9832947]

The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena — the videodrome. The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore television is reality, and reality is less than television.

[Anonymous No.9832965]

The television screen has become the retina of the mind's eye. That's why I refuse to appear on television, except on television. Of course, O'Blivion was not the name I was born with. That's my television name. Soon all of us will have special names, names designed to cause the cathode ray tube to resonate.

[Anonymous No.9833051]

>>9832068
Oh fuck. this entire thread is fucking with me and it's not helping that I've got sunstroke. But the stuff you're saying about millennials (my generation! Arrrg) is right on the money. That overwhelming meme of depression and "lol I'm dead" is ripe within the espirits de corps of my fellow millennials. Fuck wadda we do.


Also where does one start with deep ecology?

[Anonymous No.9833075]

>>9832068
They don't want to die they would just rather die than become old and like their parents. But the hippies made Manson in the end as well. Nothing new. Aging is the enemy and eventually life will be divided among the immortals and their slaves (this won't be knew either). The prevailing ideology is pyramidal structurally, despise whatever is beneath you. We are the slaves but the pyramid we are building is something we have no way of understanding (again, nothing new)

[Anonymous No.9833183]

>>9832137
>his whole project is about promoting chaos and conflict without end
That's an incomplete picture. What he's doing is divining a new aristocracy based on what he considers to be the cutting edge in aesthetic judgment. Yes, designing for a future that creates an even greater divide between classes of spirit certainly increases the amount of chaos in the world, and he obviously has some taste for causing that, but I wouldn't say that's his #1 goal. If that's all he was trying to do then I wouldn't be convinced that some day in the future we will have a Hitler equivalent to associate with his work.

["Anonymous" No.9833184]

>>9833051
>>9833075
It'š like that štupid bird Phoenix̌, the more you, you know, it returnš.

["Anonymous" No.9833405]

>>9833184
I'm wondering though, if the "lol I'm dead" thing isn't just the expression of the fatigue of being watched and watching constantly, not of putting up a face, but of having to be honest and meaningful and important at all times. Despite the lack of an accepted higher purpose, the millennial condition (ugh) seems too rich in transcendence than lacking on it. Too much abundance of perspective, too much eternal recurrence, too much only this life, too life imperative, too much release, too much voluntarism, not enough listening to tires on the asphalt behind the windows, not enough pettiness and stubbornness... So death doesn't become the release that you would think it; instead death means finally become a Thing. One doesn't committ suicide for oneself bet for the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b834_Qv7wWM

[Anonymous No.9833413]

>>9822502
How about you bring some ideas into creation on this board instead of whining about someone that posted something decent?

[girardfag No.9833433]

>>9832651
>Honestly, what you sound like you need is to lay of the fucking books and either get a job or some other hobby. It literally sounds like you're just spinning in circles which you consciously enforce because you're expecting something to unfold like in a video game.
true. it's even worse: i want it to unfold for someone else like that. as if anything could be more retarded. as if anything could be more counterproductive or guaranteed to keep one in a loop.

>>9832671
>For a person who claims to love the stoics, the buddhist and pragmatists like peterson you fucking can't fucking stop indulging your every fucking mental whim about this garbage and go do something else can't you.
that's right. but it's unbecoming to be paranoid. so it's sort of like echolocation. i have to know if i'm alone in this. i have learned that i am not. knowing this, something maybe better can be done.

>>9832733
>I just disagree with some of your ideas and also think you could go further.
thx. i hope so also.

here's one thing i have learned: ownership disenchants. you see a book on a shelf; you want it; but as soon as the cash register rings, and it becomes simply another one of the books you own, it loses all of its magical power in this weird absent moment when the thing becomes yours and as such signifies no other possibilities than those you always already know entirely too well.

it's why evanescence and dissipation is such a supreme aesthetic concept; it's there in analysis as well. the fixation just vanishes and only the world remains. the sufis, again:

>“The final end and ultimate return of the gnostics...is that the Real is identical with them, while they do not exist.”

and so you vanish. i cannot imagine a happier ending for this. it's why silence is always the final answer, the tao is always the final answer, this is the final answer. you just disappear. everything i write is only there to effect this disappearance.

>it's just all so damn interesting tho
>it's just all so fucking interesting
>good night based thread
>good night based anons
>catch you next time

[Anonymous No.9833690]

>>9833405
>Listening to tires on the asphalt behind the windows
This is the most transcendental evola-tier memory i have from when a child, modern equivalent to hearing the ice cracks and the mountain wind ghosts, the natural ambience of the jungle-city at night

[Anonymous No.9834266]

>>9819327
Slotedijk's Anthropotechnics is great.

[Anonymous No.9835533]

bump

[Anonymous No.9835607]

zizek and chomsky will be the only ones who make it into the canon from the current age (unfortunately)
academia isn't going anywhere, and only those accepted into that establishment will be allowed passage into the future along with it
cybernetic deleuze, acceleration, eastern thought (lol), mysticism will be thrown out relatively promptly
the "trendy" speed-fueled pseudo-new age 90s cyberpunk aesthetic already feels very... 90s

[girardfag No.9835674]

>>9835607
>cybernetic deleuze, acceleration, eastern thought (lol), mysticism will be thrown out relatively promptly
lol

thrown out in favor of what? considerable irony indeed in throwing out that which one cannot understand and which may thereby replace one later on

if deleuze is correct about societies of control, it would seem to me to be a far better idea to get with that same eastern thought and all that which continually suggests the difficulties of establish Total Control over damn near anything. among other reasons also, not the least of which being that chinese warfare has not been from the outset about strategy & deception & defeating that which is incapable of telegraphing its own next moves & thereby activating trap cards
>like me
>paranoia is unbecoming tho

if i had anything to bet with i would bet that china is presently on the up & will continue to do so. would be willing to bet that killer robots cannot into taoist stealth tactics any more than they can into seduction. alphago yes. alphafu no.

and *even if they could* - what would be the fucking point of rooting for them? it's like rooting for the house in blackjack.
>unless of course you had points in the casino, in which case you would want the house to win ofc & might even be tempted to rig games accordingly
>and therein lies the rub

eastern thought is dope as hell. especially in a world of casino finance.

also, given that we have so many writers on this board, can somebody please write a screenplay or pulp novel or something about this? ninjas vs skynet? shaolin cyberpunk Spectacle? is this too much to ask? are we really so tired of transhumanist ninjas or defective robots run amok? can we not get a reboot of the seven samurai in which the city is under siege by Skynet body-snatchers and some stealth organization of killer assassins must save the day? sounds like 90 minutes well wasted to me. it fucking writes itself

idk man. i feel like kungfu is here to stay. it's also anthropotechnic as fuck.
>ywn watch enter the dragon w/peter slotetdijk
>y even live

["Anonymous" No.9836464]

>>9835674
>it fucking writes itself
Aside from MGS, all that comes to mind that's close is Ninja Slayer, Samurai Seven and Katanagatari.

[Anonymous No.9836484]

>>9835674
>ninjas vs skynet? shaolin cyberpunk Spectacle? is this too much to ask?
Just go rewatch The Matrix

[girardfag No.9836489]

>>9836464
the art, as fine as ever.

sigh. well, i guess it's just us chickens again tonight then, ol' GITS, and your being 6000 miles above sea level. you and me and blade runner.

hollywood: get your shit together. or not, i suppose, it's not like the spice isn't flowing mightily there. when the MCU plays itself out /lit/ will supply you with all the memes you need.

[girardfag No.9836503]

>>9836484
>just go rewatch The Matrix

it's all watched out. we did recently have a pretty good thread on this & other subjects tho:
>>/lit/thread/S9759456#p9769377

[Anonymous No.9836892]

>>9835674
>thrown out in favor of what? considerable irony indeed in throwing out that which one cannot understand and which may thereby replace one later on
analytical++, postphilosophy, antiphilosophy evangelical christian resurrection, anuracentrism, etc. if I knew for sure I'd be writing it, but I know what it's not
>if deleuze is correct about societies of control, it would seem to me to be a far better idea to get with that same eastern thought and all that which continually suggests the difficulties of establish Total Control over damn near anything. among other reasons also, not the least of which being that chinese warfare has not been from the outset about strategy & deception & defeating that which is incapable of telegraphing its own next moves & thereby activating trap cards
>if i had anything to bet with i would bet that china is presently on the up & will continue to do so. would be willing to bet that killer robots cannot into taoist stealth tactics any more than they can into seduction. alphago yes. alphafu no.
I'm not sure we live in the same world. your china is dead, if it ever really lived to that extent. china, the really existing prc, is a cloning ground, its thinking manifests a culture which is necessarily anti-innovation, 200 Killer Robots™ vs. 10000pcs NEW Killing Robotics Zhejiang Pro X. chinese warfare is a chinese ripoff of western warfare, jumping on the bandwagon without the experience. not to mention the patriotism and consumerism of the populace, like a bad cut-and-paste job from american tv commercials and 40s propaganda -- less about fear of Total Control, more about achieving Harmony (and dolce and gabbana please).
and even before, tao didn't stop western abracadabra ships and all that shadowwork and telegraphing didn't fare well against western opiate schemes in the really existing china from which the prc (does not) descend.

[girardfag No.9837275]

>>9836892
>analytical++
sounds interesting tbqh. wat is

>if I knew for sure I'd be writing it, but I know what it's not
just write it and post it then. /lit/ sorts everything out. could be interesting

>its thinking manifests a culture which is necessarily anti-innovation
might be a good scene tho. this story is interesting but maybe too much innovation fragilizes the West also. maybe a little order & protocol would be good. maybe

>chinese warfare is a chinese ripoff of western warfare, jumping on the bandwagon without the experience
oh you

>more about achieving Harmony
don't be talking reckless about muh Harmony

>and even before, tao didn't stop western abracadabra ships and all that shadowwork and telegraphing didn't fare well against western opiate schemes
true. was still some dirty shit, but ok. maybe they've learned? idk.

look, it's not like i'm sitting here waving a big foam finger for the Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere. but i do muchly love that eastern stuff, for many reasons. in terms of which nation is most likely to rule the roost in the 21C china still looks like a good bet. nick land seems to think so, anyways. we'll see tho

ideally ofc flaky cosmic new age bullshit wins and we all do aromatherapy & get high at ken wilber's place or something. that's my retarded fantasy.
>relax bros let's do some lsd in a sensory deprivation tank and wig out
>unironically sounds good to me desu

but it's probably not going to happen. dem skynet machines chasing us around & into resource wars & all that

getting tired of your mimetic monkey business, humanity. getting real tired