Space taoism thread

There we go!

Attached: The_Three_Vinegar_Tasters'_by_Kano_Isen'in.jpg (3264x2152, 802K)

Guenon (pbuh)

yeah but who is an intelligent person whose ideas aren't highly predicated on those of jews?

this is a philosemetic board

this is a philosemitic world, more like

ok yes. thats a good quad system of thought. however you probably havent read them so good thread. /thread

Guenon was the most intelligent and important thinker of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. What can alleged luminaries like Whitehead or Deleuze do but weep impotently in the face of such brilliance?

he is a nobody

>tfw the power of metaphysical insight are so strong they allow you to live for three centuries

His influence extends from all the way on the left like Bataille and Breton to the right with Schmitt and Evola.

What is space taoism?

""Space Taoism" is somewhat of a meme name and I've jettisoned it in favor of pancreativism which isn't as loaded, more descriptive, and references Whiteheadean thought as it should. However as based as Whitehead is he still retained some essentialism in some respects, especially with his process God and his doctrine of eternal objects. He also came from a modest time and couldn't expose his sense of God to its fully naked organism as a sexual relatedness, which Deleuze and Guattari delve balls-deep into.

What is pancreativism? In a sense it is the extension of evolutionary thought into the domain of metaphysics, with "what is evolving" not being stuff but relationships or "betweenesses." Relationships require perspectives for relationship-making, which leads into the foundations of human perception and empirical experience as an evolutionary system, so the subject of metaphysics and our perception of experience is one and the same.

Pancreativism is literally "all is creativity" not as a creator-creation dialectic but the ongoingness of co-creativity among all things which is very much along the lines of thought of D&G. Art is life and life is art. In addition to a philosophy able to be examined technically it is a mode of engagement with life, and a teleological directedness towards higher intensities of co-creative relationships that will if my theory is correct coalesce into a movement of recursive self-improvement of human relationships on every level: a psycho-organic singularity. Pancreativism doesn't deny that conflict and competition exists, but that it exists on the larger background of co-creativity, whereas the relational premise of capital (exemplified in game theory) is that life is unending war, conflicts of interests between self-interest-maximizers being the omnipresent condition of life with cooperation only existing as the alignment of mutual interests against some common foe (even if such a foe be physical reality itself.)

In pancreativism the philosophy, the personal relationship, and the movement are one and the same, making it very difficult to get a hold on. Theory and praxis are irremovable, subject-object distinctions are thrown right out. One can only jump aboard the crazy train of creativity and see where it leads - or rather realize that one has been on board the train all along. I can only speak for myself, but it's led me on a fantastic adventure of ideas and actions that has no end in sight, and I wouldn't have it any other way."

based, but "pancreatism" unless you're actually better at giving names than what I believe you to be and -creat- is from the greek kratos, sounds like some sort of pancreas disease. call it pan-poiesis or pan-fecundism.

>""Space Taoism" is somewhat of a meme name and I've jettisoned it
That's good, given that the nonsense you're spouting has nothing to do with Taoism, "space" or otherwise.

Space jihads will be a thing

Mark my word infidels

This is pseud version of Aristotle for brain-fried autists.

aristotle is essentialist

how is it nonsense?

And? That is the purpose, to fix the watered down essentialism Of This Day.

This is now an Afronautic mMb'ug'umB'uist thread.

Attached: Science is Afronauts.jpg (1918x1151, 583K)

Why do you fucks need three containment threads?

capitalism is horrible

Attached: Universal Form.jpg (500x656, 70K)

i think there needs to be about the largest about-face in philosophy or else we are looking at the thirty years' war redux lads. i don't even know what the words for this would be but i seriously think in the best of all possible worlds something like a total overhaul of things that takes everything we have learned about postmodernity would be a really really really good look.

i can ramble more about this if anyone gives a shit. if not that's fine too. but basically we've hit Peak Relativism and i seriously think something like *prismatics* is required > increasingly hysterical postmodern relativist bullshit. there's no guarantee it will take place but i have virtually zero doubts about what will happen if that doesn't take place. we're just doing psychology completely ass-backwards and there's going to be serious consequences for continuing on in this way.

Attached: 130307-004-4F8BD9EE.jpg (343x450, 36K)

basically the same madness that has been going on in the Middle East for millennia can completely reproduce itself throughout the whole of the West, and more or less for the same reasons and with the same absolutely fuckhead consequences.

Attached: Wallenstein_A_Scene_of_the_Thirty_Years_War.jpg (800x501, 104K)

Yeah yeah well 1) if everything changes, what about the fact that everything changes? Why doens't that change? and 2) how are deriving any ought from theses is's?

You have my attention. Please, continue.

How do I unfuck myself and find a meaning to live

The central flaw behind Western civilization is the creator/creation dichotomy which is associated with substance metaphysics and the idea of thing-in-itselfness, that something only needs itself to exist, removed from anything else. This is the philosophical justification for private property, which requires dismissing parallelism and focusing only on linear causality. Substance metaphysics is the metaphysics of alienation, and one possible route to transcend this is process metaphysics, in which thing-ness is the total web of relationships between an event and everything else. In this view there is no distinction between a creator and a creation, and the concept of a singular creator creating a singular creation is replaced by an immanent creativity in which all events co-author the tapestry of existence.

The perception of reality that comes with this is all of existence as continually co-creating art, of not a singular purpose and meaning but an infinite number of them, a universe alive with unfathomable richness and depth of meaning that while we can only glimpse a small fraction of, such glimpses give a hint of the hidden vastness that while unreachable to us, can be experienced. Try to imagine your life as a relationship with the universe, not in a paternalistic sense or a dominative sense (as with the idea that the universe is a passive, meaningless void upon which one creates meaning out of,) but in a mutualistic sense of complete equality. Remember that this isn't a relationship between yourself and a singular unity, but a web of relationships of which the totality comprises your life, including your relationship with yourself. Seek mutualistic co-creative relationships in all affairs, not just between humans but all things, including elements of yourself, and you will find well-being and happiness.

Your afterlife is literally what happens after your life: there is no distinction between you and the rest of the universe, and so your becoming is truly immortal; you live on as the universe. Those who place all meaning in their own existence have their meaning die with them, but those who place their meaning in all that is outside them have immortal meaning.

You're horrible

Attached: CB7241D3-A84D-4A6D-83E1-2E596A045A81.jpg (1379x689, 312K)

I feel like this could be syncretic with Christianity. I do think god created time, space and matter, but past that we live in a web of networks with relationships that are constantly evolving, creating, and transforming. Even things like rocks and trees. Which we don’t take to have agency, but are at the very least affected by this web of randomness (God’s energies). This *essential* components of this network would be literally impossible to isolate due to the p problem. Which is more indication to me that God is in there. Even the Christian patriatic tradition believes there is a component (the mysteries, the essence) of god that is unnkowable. Basically, makes sense to me

anarchy and war are what happens when we cannot integrate multiple perspectives. and that to my mind is what all this shit is about. i know it sounds simplistic to characterize things in this way but i'm not advertising myself as any kind of guru or sage or claiming to know or to have all the answers. i really, really don't. but i really, really do think that what is missing most today is a way of integrating a plurality of perspectives into a common framework.

in the Axial Age they had similar problems, i suspect: that's the birth of the great wisdom traditions, and they are coupled together with a shift from the country to the city. i think we are *still* dealing with the consequences of the French and Industrial revolutions now, and simply because the West won in WW2 - and in the Cold War - doesn't mean that things are over yet. this is what Land saw on the horizon after 1990: okay, so free markets and social democracies win. so now what? is that it? even Fukuyama i think would have to ask himself sometimes if the End of History really was as Ended as he might have thought.

because now we have turbocapitalism and about fifty different little mimetic tribes, all of which are competing for media presence, philosophy positions, government policy, all the rest, and all in those places that thirty years ago were the victors of the post-war world. the US, Canada, England, Germany, France, Italy and Scandinavia are all now going to have to face up to a rolling wave of postmodernity that gets increasingly Woke by the hour. wat do?

(cont'd)

Attached: 39594675bdd9daaa2068ad3fbcdec69a.jpg (1024x572, 136K)

No. Capitalism is. Capitalism makes you wretched

Wilber was right that something like synthesis and integration would be a better look all round than Just Moar Relativism. that's the issue with relativism - when everybody's relative, nobody is. and then absolutism starts to look pretty good in return. that's exactly what social justice is, it's Applied Postmodernity - and if i want to be provocative, i would also say that once upon a time, back in the day, that's what made Christianity equally appealing: it was Applied Nondualism, and a hell of a working arrangement between the bishops and the emperors of the 4th century and afterwards. if you're Constantine a new arrangement brokered between a rising religion that gives you imperial theocracy and a total media package - i apologize, profusely, for the cynicism - you take that deal. i don't mean to shit on the legacy of Catholicism or Christianity here, or on the West, or on anything like that. i'm saying that political theology works really really well, especially if you have no idea how powerful ideology or media is later going to become.

we have today serious problems reconciling competing theologies to a single order. who's right, Islam or the feminists? the Catholics or the Protestants? the atheists or the believers? for a while we've kinda-sorta been able to make it work by the interesting workaround of deconstruction and postmodernity, which is as dead today as Lenin. it was fun while it lasted, i guess. but it has given us nothing more now than a road to anarcho-mimetics which i think is going to be spectacularly unsightly. i'm sure i don't even have to belabor this point at all. nor do i think, really, that it's a dead certainty: i just think it's one possibility among many. but it's definitely one, and one that i would prefer to avoid.

one of the major factors in WW1, i would argue, would be the combination of rapid technological development in conditions in which philosophically (and scientifically!) things were heading in the direction of relativism...and this was tremendously corrosive to anything like diplomacy too. speed gets ahead of even the speediest, and results in those conditions are unpredictable.

(cont'd)

Attached: wp2745608.jpg (1146x940, 332K)

what happens when there is *a war among mediators?* the Protestants were right to rebuke the Catholics over indulgences (among other things) - after all, they had monetized sin. and they had wielded the ban-hammer of excommunication, i suspect, a little too comfortably. and yet the Catholics are saying, in turn, hey, you can't tell us what to do. we're the guys who do that! and then all hell breaks loose.

i think the future looks bleak for anything like moderation, things that prevent the escalation to extremes. but this is a challenge and a puzzle, not necessarily a giant Game Over screen. in many ways the wars of religion are necessary for demonstrably showing that in the years going forward religion could not be allowed to play *such* a major role in political life. the Age of Reason followed, and the Enlightenment in turn - which includes, sadly, the Terror and the guillotine and much much else. we almost never solve any of our problems but with larger problems. we're funny like that.

but our challenge today i think is to wrestle with the ghost of postmodernity such that it doesn't simply become a kind of means by which to re-weaponize every batshit insane ideology we have ever invented, and to corrode reason, trust, discourse, charity, empathy, tolerance, or lots of other things. i understand what Land would say about these things, of course - and i'm not only a guy who has drank his koolaid, i've fucking bathed in it. my skin is now a florid orange for having done so ad nauseam. and to me Land is like a plague doctor trying to warn people about the total futility of trying to experiments with the Black Death and thinking you won't catch something off of it.
>i don't think that's how plague doctors worked
>never mind that. look it's an analogy okay

capital is the driving motor in a lot of this stuff, but what has to be done is finding some way of *deactivating* the infernal machine, or at least bringing it under control in some sense, without pretending to think it can be completely shut off by anything short of meltdown.

(cont'd)

Attached: il_794xN.1290118395_7fby.jpg (794x1105, 124K)

Here’s the thing though: theology must be reconciled with ideology. They are so similar. Doctrine, teleology, prophets. There is something there that is fundamental about human organization in toto. For example, an ideology or religion allows its disparate members in completely different locales to have an organizing logic and a fundamental goal of interaction that is absolute inviolable and clearly defined. With the internet, these nodes now have instant communication with one another and the networks are basically nonfunctional up to the point that force is used. But there is no incentive to communicate with any other node let alone follow the same guiding logic outside of natural selection, purely. Which is completely soul-deadening.

So basically you're saying that Western thought has hit it's logical dead end and our only options are to retrace our steps look for another possible turn or to just adopt Eastern though and become Sinocized termites.

Actor network theory is the solution read Bruno Latour’s Science in Action. It’s a book that ought to be memed

being the completely wretched anus-fungal subhuman nonentity that i am skeptical about having any effect whatsoever on the Powers that run the world. but i do think that there are a hell of a lot of interesting ideas that can be borrowed from Eastern thought and Traditional thought in general that can at least suggest a few ways through the Not Really All That Pleasureable Pleasure Garden of postmodernity. even a brief glance at history indicates that periods of at least intellectual anarchy tend to be a boon for philosophy, sometimes, in that it produces interesting developments in psychology and other things. in the Axial Age people were smashed together, from the country to the city. the Industrial Revolution cranks this up another notch, and now everybody pretty much now lives on the Internet, which is where all the fun is happening.

and thank god for that, because without the Internet we would have no idea how absolutely ass-backwards clueless (or cynical) our media cartels have become. thought-fluencing is now a much more open field than it used to be, and we can watch a mash-up or two of talking heads repeating This Is Extremely Dangerous To Our Democracy and realize that we have more or less been captured by the black mirrors, which plug directly into our pleasure centers and allow us to fill entire warehouses full of computers with the data they need to give us exactly the commodities we want in this great age of pharmacology. we have signed up for the Matrix and now we are getting it and finding out that even in the simulation things are just as fucked up as they are here.

we have to find some way of incorporating this awesome explosion of interconnectivity once again. and i believe we will, i have faith in that much. but i think it's going to be a car-wreck scene viewed through a kaleidoscope on the way there, and so partly i am recommending adapting a kaleidoscopic vision to beat the traffic. Deleuze has done some of the heavy lifting on this, Land too, but i also think there is a pretty wonderful module to be added borrowed from how Eastern stuff has mediated some of its problems over the years also. if we insist on having it ugly we can have it ugly, but there's no reason to insist on having it ugly just because the ugly is familiar to us.

Attached: tumblr_nrczfkQNn01qg20oho1_1280.jpg (1000x741, 267K)

>even a brief glance at history indicates that periods of at least intellectual anarchy tend to be a boon for philosophy, sometimes, in that it produces interesting developments in psychology and other things.
this is what gives me strength desu. the intellectual world will become even more powerful once Gen Z comes of age.

Rene Guenon was right. The West needs to be ruled by an Illuminati of intellectual elites that are educated and trained in the theory and practice of Eastern metaphysics so that we won't kill each other.

i very much agree.

>But there is no incentive to communicate with any other node let alone follow the same guiding logic outside of natural selection, purely. Which is completely soul-deadening.
but haven't you answered your own question? you know there's an incentive to communicate because the non-communication is deadening. i agree, *forced communication* sucks too, just look at how the Chinese have to roll every day. they all have to basically live with this stupid app on constantly and it's horrible. and yet i was thinking to myself just the other day how horribly *attractive* this would be in many parts of the world today - just imagine if you had a fucking Woke Calculator that you could update in real time, that quantified your virtue all the way, all of it...it's horrible.

*all this shit is horrible.* it is a fucking *smorgasbord* of shitty dishes. but we can so clearly see why we have gotten here, it's media explosion. McLuhan saw it coming, as did many others. and we don't have a way of shutting it off. maybe it can't be shut off. could be that also. but just ratcheting up more hate and fear and tension and paranoia and grief and reciprocity is only going to lead to a clusterfuck of epic proportions. if you're Hegel, maybe you can say that this is necessary. maybe. or maybe it will just be epically fucking stupid, and catastrophic, and whatever else.

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger all prefigure some very interesting stuff going on in the East, imho. Schopenhauer loves him some Vedas. Nietzsche's Dionysus is like *right next door to Shiva,* and i don't think it's so hard to draw parallels between the ER and the Gita. Heidegger says only a god can save us - he's right about that - and also is way more agreeable to Zen than is Lacan, who says 'these people can't be psychoanalyzed!' this is true, and wonderfully so. and i think Lacan was pretty keen.

we need to put some of these things together, usefully. that's all i'm saying. i think it can be done, and frankly it's a fucking relief sometimes to not just stare into the void constantly and laugh grimly with Land as it all falls apart. even if he too is confounded by the surprising fact that Capital prefers Wokeness more than cyberpunk (although pseudo-cyberpunk is nevertheless produced as a byproduct).

Attached: _105656466_screenshot1.jpg (624x895, 70K)

are you familiar with Japanese philosophy? Check out the Kyoto school, people like Nishida Kitaro specifically. They were speaking to Western philosophy with Zen buddhism and made some interesting arguments. Recapitulating them is outside my ability, but they're worth an investigation. Similar intellectual environment to now.

i think it has hit *a* dead end, and a logical one at that. Anarcho-Tribal Applied Postmodernity makes perfect sense, in an absolutely horrible way. this is why Girard was not a Hegelian, and why i think RG was one cool guy.

retracing our steps sounds like a great idea. and the fact is that *we are going to become X-ified rage zombies* by a lot of different means, *and it really doesn't matter which one.* large numbers of completely activated drone-soldiers suck royal ass regardless of which ideology produces them. *and they all can, and they all do.* this is what i think needs to happen. it's not One True Matrix, it's 99 billion mini-Matrixes, and they can all fucking allow you to go stone-blind thinking you've got the answer when you absolutely do not. people are very confused and highly suggestible. i know this because my one salient and defining characteristic is that i am one of the most confused and suggestible fucking toolboxes you are likely to ever encounter. i have Detailed Files when it comes to gullibility. ask me anything.
>don't ask me anything
being a Sinocized termite is no more desirable than being a woke ideologue of any stripe. and all these things produce each other the crazier things get. a kind of prismatics - and by this i mean a theory of postmodernity that can recognize relativism as historically necessary but not fundamentally, absolutely true - is required. it leans a little on Wilber - i'm okay with him - but also on just the general sense of wanting to understand postmodernity as still being a phenomenon within modernity itself, as a commentary on Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, and a few others. real postmodernity begins when we can finally have something more than irony and simulation.

cheers, ty

Attached: 06a623726aff665ed2aed1673e2a6234 copy.jpg (844x1123, 128K)

so basically this situation:
ccru.net/swarm2/2_killing.htm

diamonds out of coal, you know the deal. sometimes of course the coal is just crushed into fucking pieces too. depends on the coal i guess. don't kill yourself just yet is what i'm saying. there's a possibility that some good stuff might come out of all of this. but it's going to be fucking McDiculous on the way to it.

yeah, i've read some of there stuff. i like Heidegger and he had a lot going on w/the Kyoto School. Zen is dope shit and i would love it if somebody would translate pic rel.

my only issue with the Kyoto School is the one i have with Heidegger too: while i like Zen, and i like Being, the trap is in becoming a fucking hardened warrior Revolting Against The Modern World. i'm a softie about this, and probably disastrously mistaken too, but it's part of the paradox: when everyone is revolting against the modern world, wat do? i've had no end of fun reading Land et al and watching the first couple of years of the Trump presidency, but i am fucking wiped out at this point by rage and irony and memes. i think a softer touch is required. this is no knock on the KS, or Zen, or lots of other stuff, really. just where i'm at now. i want a way of looking at things that isn't predicated on the revolt or the hatred of modernity, or the rest of it. the Hindus have a lot going on that i like these days, as do the Buddhists, as do some of the Greeks. i'm all fucking raged out at this point. i feel like i've been fucking blasted with an artillery shell and now i am lamely limping off of the battlefield now because plainly the war doesn't need my help anymore and moreover it is going to go on for a long time yet to come. but i deserved it, i think. i deserved it for stumbling onto the field like a fucking idiot and wearing a wizard hat of some kind.

that is a brilliant essay, as is much of the CCRU stuff, and Land, and and and. all that stuff is absolutely fucking great. Land is great and horrible through all of his transformations. life post-Uncle Nick is going to take some thinking tho.
>like there is a post-Nick life
>there is inner self, there is

Attached: 9788425433801.jpg (264x430, 13K)

the thing about the intellectual elites tho - are we sure that's what we need? excess intellectual elitism is arguably one of the major problems we have right now. and it's a very old problem too - at the level of the *affects* who gets to be the elite there?

what we need, as we have needed in any age, are people who *know what the fuck they are talking about.* part of the crisis we have right now is the intellectual - and moral - bankruptcy of exactly those elites. spiritual elites are nice at some times and disastrous at others. what you often get are people who are really good at speaking to large numbers of people...

i have no real beef with Guenon himself, i've read many of his books and enjoyed them all. Schuon and Coomaraswamy also. and Aldous Huxley, lots of these guys. i have couple of books by this cozy gent open now and now that i have pointlessly ranted and rambled i will go back to reading those, feeling slightly vented. and almost certainly having missed the point by getting all worked up about shit in the wrong ways. but i like this idea. a kind of renaissance not of the world beyond, but the world within. that to me seems entirely agreeable and perfectly sane. withdraw from the fucking deadly merry-go-round and try and get a fucking grip on the passions.

it's one of the things i find interesting, about how many wisdom traditions have a role assigned for the *body* that prevents things from getting out of hand. i love Freud and Freudian stuff has been an enormous blessing. but man would i have loved to see him try a yoga pose or too. Nietzsche too, he'd be fine with it. and how much of his assault on the tradition comes from having discovered that the Greeks did not forget the body? but that's the thing...we don't have to overhaul the entire fucking Western Tradition if we can just *step outside of it* to find what we are looking for *elsewhere,* that we might later return to appreciate what we in fact *do have here* with fresh eyes...

ah lads. some days, you know? some days.

Attached: quote-if-we-believe-in-the-rebirth-of-our-civilization-then-clearly-this-renaissance-must-georg-feue (850x400, 80K)

It seems an insurmountable task to retrace out steps and find a new road to walk down, we can't even decide how far back we have to look. Liberals will tell you it was Hegel, reactionaries will say Locke, and Nietzsche wants to go all the way back to Socrates. I have the feeling though that an aversion to retracing out steps is built into the current system and any attempt to go back and take a different fork in the road, so to speak, will be seen as "fascist" when in fact it's merely going back to make progress in a different direction.

yes, but haven't you *exactly* described the feeling of all of this shit, right now? that we are flooded with options? all of these philosophers mashed together in time and space, the kind of overwhelming immanence?

in some sense these are unique scenarios, in some sense not. in China it's not called the Hundred Schools period for no reason. and this spawned at least Taoism, which proved to be pretty fucking slick with it when it came to having an overwhelming number of options. historically, the Hobbes-Locke-Kant trifecta emerges historically, and today each of them kind of has the kryptonite for every other - totalizing systems playing a kind of game of rock-scissors-paper. but why would having a kind of great age of customization lead anywhere else?

this is the dilemma today: when you want to have it your way, either personally or politically (and another thing, the absolute catastrophe of making the personal inseparably political, and the political inseparably personal) - what do you do if you *don't* want to choose? you may not have an interest in capital but capital has an interest in you, all of this.

and of course you get the comedy of a hundred LARPing fascists calling each other fascists and behaving fascistically to show how un-fascist they are. total fucking irony meltdown. and the universities were first on the block to show how compeletely *un*able they were at maintaining anything like mediation. the French were right, and many others. deconstruction had to happen, it was necessary. but the line is very thin between deconstruction and anarchy.

without a historical perspective (and in conditions where the future seems to be cancelled at every turn, and even this by the sheer preponderance of options) people will understandably go blind not from the darkness but from the overwhelming power of images. we need a new way to look at things that doesn't just make us go batshit mental. partly this will be helped by mind-machine stuff, neuroscience stuff, lots of other stuff...but there is still going to be a need for good old-fashioned nondualism, or a kind of psychology equipped for ideological post-apocalypse.

Attached: 2019-04-11-03-16.jpg (1000x562, 187K)

The problem with deconstruction is that it is impartial. The progressives/sjws/cathedral/whatever successfully deconstructed traditional Western morality and is imo pretty successful right now at using institutions to replace it with their own. But obviously there are many people who were stupefied at this deconstruction and were not happy about it, they wanted to continue living with traditional morals. The Boomers were these people, the ones that lived through the deconstruction and replacement of Western ethics. They realize what happened but they don't understand how it happened and now they're floundering around trying to cope with it. This is why Boomer conservatives/right wingers were so ineffective, they have no idea what the fuck happened.

But now you have a new generation of the right who are almost bending deconstruction and "postmodernism" back on the left, and the left are becoming stupefied at the idea that this could be happening, much like right wing Boomers were when it happened to them. Because the thing with deconstruction is that it can be applied to ethics and tell you why not to follow it, but if you want to come up with reasons why you should believe something you're on your own. So we're stuck in this Mexican standoff of deconstruction where everyone points to everyone else and says "AHA I'VE DECONSTRUCTED YOUR WORLDVIEW!" thinking they've won when the same thing just happened to them as well.

Your solution is just to come up with a new paradigm of thought, but even that I think would just add to the Mexican Standoff of Deconstruction. You brought up the Hundred Schools period, which I think is an interesting and apt parallel. But you know how that all ended of course? The Warring States Period where eventually one side one and burned everyone else's books. The ending possible for a Mexican Standoff with too many sides to coordinate a truce is a shoot-off with one guy left.

What is your hot take on the clown world meme? Has the Right inherited Postmodernism?

i've said this before, but a Zombie Foucault resurrected from the dead and ordered to be a Right Foucault would be a nightmare for progressives. trying to win social media battles without a copy of Foucault in one's hand is a terrible idea. this is not to say that trying to talk politics and so on with people you disagree with online is an even worse idea, but you get my point. the only way out is through. not that, in a certain sense, the Overton window hasn't really closed on this, as i think it has. and even if it hasn't, i really don't care as much as i used to because the whole thing is such an atomic cluster-fuck. it's enough to just say that if people really did want to try and school the other side at their own game the way to do it isn't to fight against MF but use him against those who use him against you.

but i agree, the much more interesting question is about this paradigm shift you have described, and in which we do indeed have a standoff of deconstruction. or, basically, ironic rhetorical suicide bombing. 'ha ha, think you've deconstructed me, have you? i've already deconstructed myself! joke's on you, loser!' and so on. it's grim, and it's fucking depressing. and it works, but only because of this ridiculous spasm of ultra-super-ironic modernity we are in. whatever we wind up calling it. again, i think Thirty Years War or Black Death plague symbolism is about right. everyone possessed by the same rage-inducing disease, contagious in all directions.

>But you know how that all ended of course? The Warring States Period where eventually one side one and burned everyone else's books.
this is true. and in the 1920s after the collapse of the Empire much the same, with Mao on top. even Napoleon could not have gotten where he was without the Jacobins, or Hitler in WW1, or Stalin, and all of this. tyranny is absolutely my prediction also, it's just that the One Guy Left is almost always the most cynical opportunist and rarely what people want in the long run. but they do it to themselves.

you don't have to be on the Right to believe in Clown World tho. the NPC meme extended to rage zombies on both sides, and Honk Honk is just a sane observation of where things are at. Callot is slightly more elegant but the point is the same.

Attached: 2pantalo.jpg (1062x700, 176K)

What would you say are the core or necessary readings of Foucault's oevre?

MF?

U/acc is what /lit needs. Try to read some vincent garton, edmund berger xenobuddhism, nyx or accelerated_citizen. Those are the true interpreters of nick land's accelerationism

i do think a new paradigm of thought is good, it's just that it really wouldn't be all that new, just a synthesis and integration of the old - a reconstruction to follow the deconstruction. progressivism is a unique affliction of the wealthiest and most liberal countries in the world, in which cultural relativism is amplified by wealth and technology to produce mutations in thought that go too quickly - and are too profitable *not* to import and export. that is a unique conundrum! rather like a fisherman who goes fishing and catches a shark - he's in the fish business, after all, it's just that he didn't know there were sharks in those waters...and if his hubris is such that he just can't let that one go, then...and you know, i swear, if somebody could just write a novel about obsessive modernism it would really be good...oh well...

the thing is that - as Lacan says - the people are thirsting for a master, and they will get one. the 20C always delivered the goods on this, and before that also. said Masters only appear when the sociopolitical climate is right for them. me? i would prefer *not* to have a Master appear and rather to withdraw and evaluate not only how it was that we got to this place, but also where This Place is likely to evolve (or regress) in the future. i think it would not only proceed from an analysis of those aspects of both Eastern and Western thought that have a lot of overlap (and you can re-read Aldous Huxley, or Campbell, or Wilber for the Plotinus-Aurobindo connection, or many others) but also from the sense of needing to take a hard look at the technological realities also, namely machines, bots, intelligence, and all the rest. catastrophes are produced by combinations of technological blast-off and cultural relativism, neither of which are bad by themselves, but so too are *renaissances.* history isn't a neat or orderly or in any way progressive phenomenon. and in some sense i would say there has to be some serious re-evaluations of the role of Hegel and many others in our lives. Hegel is awesome, and the Hegel-Lacan bromance too is awesome.

but *after 1990 things change.* after that it's Land's world, for at least a decade, because he asks questions about the Boomers hard to answer. so too does Peterson, and Wilber even before then: 'Boomeritis' or the Mean Green Meme are not altogether terrible ways of understanding what is happening now. Wilber had an absolutely prescient view on the future history of postmodernity in the early 1980s and i think things are playing out pretty much the way he said they would, as intolerance in the guise of plurality. the endgame for that sucks. Land said it also, Peterson is saying it now. these are three different guys all triangulating on the same phenomenon, that Max Relativism ends in disaster. i agree. what the new paradigm will look like, i have no idea, or what the cures are, besides Enlightenment, personal or radical (in the Jonathan Israel sense).

Attached: cf175140e802d87a67ef74349c7ea641_original.jpg (1552x873, 214K)

Thanks for your posts user. I hope you write this all down

he gives you the Panopticon as model for the society of control par excellence, among other things. this is a major thing to understand about Foucault: like Baudrillard, he isn't really a *champion* of neoliberalism, he recognizes as presciently as anyone that *you don't need Actual Fascism if you have soft power control,* if you have discipline and punishment. the people will discipline themselves. i never thought i would find myself saying this, but guess what? he's absolutely fucking right. if you read his Lectures at the College de France you can learn more about this. i know everybody thinks that because Foucault we have Judith Butler and the rest, but this is as uncharitable as blaming Nietzsche for the Holocaust or Baudrillard for simulation. yes, his politics were on the left, and he says all kinds of shit that basically is capitalized on by Facebook and other companies for the worst and most cynical ends. but he is also a brilliant theoretician of exactly the world we live in now. you can read Byung-Chul Han for critique of Foucault, and this is a good idea. but Foucault himself should also be read so that one can observe that all of the shit we hate about bullshit Meme World in which we live, he also saw. and you don't have to double down on his politics either. i don't know, i've spent enough time being a homer for Land on this board that i don't have a problem with Foucault anymore, maybe that's it.

if there is one word that comes to mind when you think Foucault, it's *discourse.* he is that guy for that, and that word revolutionized the academy, for better and for worse. thirty years ago, better. today, worse. but that's how it is with the theorists. and now it's time to move on. decades from now Land too will be seen as having been a man of his time. it's how it goes.

Michel Foucault

i agree on all of those names, is EBB Xenobuddhist guy? those are interesting papers. stick Justin Murphy in there too, he's done some good work interviewing people and written a couple of good things. i disagree that u/acc is the way to go, i think it's all about Land and when you're done wrestling with him, move on to something else. everything else is just watering down the deadly but necessary blackpill. also Reza. and Amy Ireland, who is the best /acc writer after Land himself.

Attached: michel-foucault-472672.jpg (640x852, 134K)

Human perception has its limitations. Heh, better luck next time kid.

Attached: 1647DF5B-E7CA-4C36-B435-6FFB7843D0E4.jpg (318x325, 10K)

kek, don't thank me. i periodically feel the need to come to Yea Forums and abuse the patience of anons here venting about Land and whatever else i am reading at the moment. my posting here borders on the pathological, but it's all in good fun and i'm very grateful to be able to have a board at all to throw my demented opinions around. in a previous life i would have been some demented flagellant or ascetic slowly going insane in the desert and dying of starvation.

plus this is an image board and we can post cool cyberpunk stuff and music too. have some.

The Chemical Brothers: Music/Response
youtube.com/watch?v=iVsL3EX7384

Attached: logo_Neuromancer-1460371 copy.jpg (1600x900, 99K)

W-w-whaaat?

Attached: 7880E218-8AFF-4C81-8B38-C704A54BDA59.jpg (500x332, 71K)

>if you read his Lectures at the College de France you can learn more about this.
Which lectures, specifically? There's a shitload of them published!

The flaw with all of these threads--ALL of these threads, going back to when they were started and maintained by Girardfag--is that you people assume the world is 100% input and 0% output. You look at the world as humans washing in and out with the tide of ideas, big and small, and that there's no output--no expression--from outside the human system. This is precisely the fault of all the "closed" systems of human thought, from Marx to Foucault. You all assume that humans must speak purely to humans and that only humans will hear them.

But this is not so in the ancient traditions. And I include Christianity and Islam and Hinduism in these ancient traditions. In the ancient traditions, there's always an Other that hears, and reacts to, what humanity says. And it is not powerless.

Yea Forums and /x/ should really interact more often, it would clear up a lot of the trouble on this board.

Attached: miracle2005-10.jpg (500x400, 67K)

it's been a while since i've read those in depth, but Hermeneutics of the Subject had one of the best one-liners on Nietzsche i have ever read, such that i have committed it to memory:
>truth is given to the subject at a price that brings the subject's own being into question.
that always struck me as being one of the best introductory lines to Nietzsche ever, that a world of risk comes to replace one of anything even remotely resembling a gold standard. so that's a good book to read. Biopower is another concept associated with Foucault and is a big one, and that's in Birth of Biopolitics. Discipline and Punish is probably his best-known work. iirc Order of Things ends with the famous line about the face of man being erased by the sea. the Lectures are mostly him just talking, it's not quite the single-package mindfuck that Anti-Oedipus or Fanged Noumena or SE&D are. they're just him talking about what he talks about. you'll see.

as with any of the philosophers, if you like them you like them, and you can pretty much jump in where you like and just start trying to figure them out until you understand them. that's my approach, anyways. and if you don't like them, don't force yourself to read them because somebody else told you to. just read the guys who are really working for you and come back to the guys that aren't later. they all read and bounce off of each other, and eventually you'll wind up reading all of them (incredibly) and then you too can enjoy annoying your friends, becoming depressed, losing all your hopes and dreams, and shitposting in Land threads. woo!

or just find one of those introductory guides that talk about all of the postmodern guys together, that helps too. sorry if that's all kind of vague, i have to admit i'm not really a major Foucault guy, just feel like he too needs to get his props for what he did produce. maybe somebody else on this board can direct you to the good stuff better than i can. but basically if you like a philosopher - any one of them - you'll find a way to get through the rest of their work eventually. even Wilber, who i have been re-reading a lot of these days, is a big fan of Foucault. kind of interesting, that.

try Discipline and Punish, that's his most famous work. see if that works for you. i recall it being pretty good.

Attached: 1__7m8im8h2WmfWYOGs0xSPA.jpg (1278x479, 133K)

while i support and encourage all criticism of girardfag, i respectfully disagree with your characterization of him (that is, me) that everything is 100% input and 0% output. in fact i would say in my own case it's the opposite! and given how much i reluctantly admit to being a mouthpiece for a guy whose handle is Outsideness i think it is not too much to ask for a minor ratio rebalance there. not 100% input and 0% output. say 95-5. no doubt it's massively imbalanced, however you slice it, that's fine. but it's not like there is *zero* appreciation for traditions and humans speaking to humans...we have pretty mad love for Whitehead in these threads too, and he's hardly By Humans For Humans kind of guy.

i do like your throwing some shine on the ancient traditions, tho, i support that too.

>Yea Forums and /x/ should really interact more often, it would clear up a lot of the trouble on this board.
Aminom Marvin came here from /x/ and he's basically the inventor of Space Taoism. just sayin'.

Attached: 5edac89f351dd9c73d38d224992f46b9.jpg (474x775, 49K)

So... it is just whitehead adaptation version of I Ching.

holy shit this goes yes

kind of a beautiful thing, no?

Maybe if you fucks would read up on philosophy from the Egyptians to the Neoplatonists to have a firm foundation on Western esoterism, instead of diving right into Crowley, Gurdjieff, and the Kybalion like a fucking consumer occultist, perhaps I would give a damn talking to you!

Oh, good, it is you! It's nice to see you again. I'm glad you're still kicking around. It's good to see you've not yet abandoned Yea Forums, despite how shitty it's gotten.

For what it's worth, I wasn't criticizing you negatively, but constructively. You have been a great boon to my understanding of things that are going on in higher philosophy these past few years, you specifically and Yea Forums more broadly. It is good that Yea Forums keeps tabs on accelerationist/reactionary/Marxist thought, because I'm not sure where I could find anything like these threads elsewhere on the internet.

I guess, for my part, that I'm still trying to clarify matters. I've been coming to threads like these for years now, but I struggle to fit into them. Because I'm not a Lacanian or a Foucaultian or a Landian. Instead, I'm a devout Catholic, a slightly (but not overly) traditionalist Catholic, a Catholic whose faith in the Church, despite all scandal, is ironclad. And I admit, also, to being a semi-regular denizen of /x/, and somebody who takes an interest in Fairy business, among other things.

My point in this is that I think the flaw of Karl Marx is trying to translate Hegel into a materialist conception of the world. Hegel cannot be confined to the material; Hegel trades in the occult and the hermetic, notions of Spirit and Will that Marx, with his focus on the material, doesn't grasp. And I think Land makes the same mistake when he approaches, not only Hegel, but also other thinkers that flirt with the immaterial, like Girard. There is a component of this world which I think Land misses. I think Land's view of Capital as a kind of god leaves out the idea that there are OTHER gods in the world, including the big guy, God Himself. Land's view is fundamentally materialistic; he sees Capital as a dominating thing because he cannot conceive of a metaphysical reality. And this is my problem with Land. Like Saruman, he has a mind of metal and wheels. I think Land's error is his assumption that humans are alone in the midst of reality. And this is something with which I disagree.

But I'm saying this more for the benefit of the thread than for you, Girardfag, because you've always been appreciably open to supernatural/miraculous/otherworldly topics of discussion.

Attached: 01_Rings.jpg (600x300, 27K)

Have you ever heard about "宇宙變化의 原理 (The principles of universe change)"?
aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ItemId=277219
It is a book read by Oriental medicine professors. I think this book has perfect fit to your theory, in eastern side.
Sadly it doesn't have any translation but it's ok because the vast majority of words are written in Chinese characters, making it hard even for koreans to read.

well, i'm glad that these conversations have been a boon to you. they certainly have for me, it's really helpful to be able to talk things out from time to time. and yes, i do try to be open about things, if only because experience has taught me to remain open to the possibility of being really, really *wrong!* so it's a good thing all round, i think to be flexible. and i certainly don't mind being criticized negatively or constructively, so don't worry about any of that. life is too short and things move too quickly anyhow.

as for Land, what i appreciate about his stuff - however dark it is - is that he prevents me from getting too carried away with my own desire to immanentize the eschaton, i think. he reveres Bitcoin like it is the demiurge itself, in the way that perhaps Marx himself and many other Young Hegelians revered the Phenomenology of Spirit. he's given me a new appreciation for a lot of things, however disagreeably they are often presented. his line of thinking is consistent enough to hold my interest over time, and again, i don't ask of my philosophers that they be paragons of virtue, only that they be interesting. i like paragons of virtue also, and have a lot of things to learn from them too! but for some thinkers i prefer that they cut to the chase and do what they, and perhaps only they, can do, and do it really well. Land removed a great many skeletons from a great many closets left over from the 1960s, and i think even would agree that that is more than enough for one intellectual career.

i think it is absolutely wonderful that you have been visiting Land threads for this time and have found your faith in the Church unshaken. good for you! i mean this quite sincerely. i don't think it's easy to have done that, i am much more intellectually promiscuous about things and frankly this sometimes gets me into trouble! i don't know if my various nervous tics and habits can be attributed to anything else...

i agree in many ways with your descriptions of Marx and Hegel also. Zizek often says that the most momentous shift in philosophy is the one between Kant and Hegel, but as a Hegelian (and Lacanian) i don't think he's exactly being objective about this. the Hegel-Marx shift is equally powerful, and for me the Nietzsche/Marx assault on the foundations of Western thought is still an event towering over us today, that in many ways we still haven't really felt the full impact of, although perhaps now people are beginning to understand the implications of some of it by way of the career of postmodernity and what may yet still have to play out. you're also right to point out Land's materialism, altho as you know he wouldn't see this as a flaw: for him, it's basically the only criterion.

(cont'd)

Attached: tumblr_mi5xoyqTYR1qetnlco1_500.jpg (500x343, 77K)

Panspermism. Or panjism.

and that is how he has chosen to play the game. and yet to call his attitude to capitalism as 'gnostic' also seems appropriate, in a way: he really does have a kind of occult or mystical feeling for it. it's not Gnostic in the conventional sense of the word, but i don't know what other is really appropriate. he really does think BTC is a legit and epochal contribution to the history of transcendental philosophy, and completely in line with his own understanding of Kant and Deleuze as well. like any great philosopher, there are a whole bunch of concepts associated with him, and he's also allowed this whole other reading of capital to take place that lines it up with computer technology, much else. and perhaps most intriguingly, he doesn't give much thought at all to the need to impress or convert anyone else to his own way of doing things. this to me is what makes him quite attractive, particularly given how often people are often led down the garden path by other philosophies which promise them the moon.

>I think Land's error is his assumption that humans are alone in the midst of reality.
i do too. i know for sure that my brain is not wired the same way that his is, i lean way more over towards the sentimental side of things. i appreciate what Land does because, if you are kind of naturally more empathetic by nature, *you can get stung by things* - or, as is often the case, *sting others without knowing it,* or worst of all, sting yourself! the affects are interesting like that, and so there was room for me for an absolutely cold-blooded and ruthless approach to these questions which helped me to parse out a lot of pseudo-social affect-peddling from something methodical and rigorous that i thought made sense. but this is complicated to explain sometimes, not only because Land is a difficult guy to champion, but also because we also don't want to feel like we are tied to somebody else's thought all of the time. eventually we have to work things out on our own, it's just better that way. so i'm grateful to him for having introduced me to a bunch of other writers i might not have explored - Deleuze, Bataille - as much as for having read Heidegger before and made my way to him. now there's a big beautiful horror story slowly self-assembling in my mind, huzzah. there will be life after /acc stuff, but it's all part of assembling the big map, in a way.

anyways...this was a very kind post user, ty for writing it. i'm glad to think these threads have been illuminating for you (and that your spirits haven't been crushed completely also!) they're always a pleasure for me too. even if i think i'm not going to be quite as active on Yea Forums as i used to be, perhaps: it's good to withdraw for a while and reflect on the things you are *grateful* for also. perhaps my favorite of all Land-lines, and it's very Zen indeed:
>what if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing?
that's *such* a good line. so so good.

Attached: tumblr_nja03l6COH1sulnzno1_500.jpg (500x375, 28K)

i have not! but i will look into that, thank you. i was just looking at this the other day, because i was reflecting on the nature of Yoga and how important - and different! - the role played by the body is in Hinduism. and then it occurred to me - of course, China does this also, in a variety of forms. and Nietzsche's own appreciation for the Greeks also has obvious connections to this. if anything, the West has been profoundly shaped by its attitudes towards the body, and the meaning of the body and its workings in religion. again, this is not to shit on the West, because this to me is the last thing i want anybody to do now. i'm trying to actually see if i can get people to stop beating on the West all the time for not being something it was never meant to be, as well as wrestling with the giant holes in space and time opened up by Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin and Freud...and mostly puzzled about that, although perhaps not as puzzled as i used to be...

but yes, the philosophy behind Oriental medicine is indeed something quite interesting to me, and has a lot of parallels with other stuff. so thank you for this recommendation user. are you Korean? i have very fond memories of teaching overseas, Korea was like a second home to me for many years. i have very fond memories of being there. it's way too hot in the summer tho!

Attached: 519KPVKY9GL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (332x474, 31K)

well, not *many* years. a few years. just feels like it in hindsight...

i see on the back cover that that's Chu Hsi's Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate also (i think?). funny, we were comparing that to the CCRU numogram in one of the earlier Cosmotech threads. is that what this book is about? reading Yuk Hui's work made a very compelling case for Neo-Confucianism and other things. that was how i learned about Mou Zongsan and Wang Yangming...

arr, so much fun.

Attached: taijitu.jpg (265x494, 28K)

>>what if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing?

It is, indeed, a powerful line. It's a very Christian line, as well. Consider Saint Teresa of Avila. She is among the wisest of all the Catholic saints, a Doctor of the Church; but she's fundamentally a mystic, someone who relates to God on a miraculous level. She knows God in a way that transcends knowing. A knowledge that is a not-knowledge. Both everything and nothing. "I am an empty cup," as the Taoists say, and there's some wisdom in that.

And I think Land is useful in this regard, to illuminate things about the modern world, as you say. Yet there is something in Land, or his children, that nonetheless troubles me. Mark Fisher begins to get at it, but his analysis of things is only limited. To wit: I think the god Land perceives coming into the world is a terrifying thing. Land seems to think that there's something beyond it which is beneficial; but I'm not nearly so confident as he is. Again, this goes back to my idea of entities outside the material. I think there is something of Satan in the marshaled forces of Late Capital; that there is a whiff of brimstone in Land's cold, tentacled god. And I think it is the duty of Christians to oppose this. It's pure instinct on my part, I know. But I think that we cannot sit idly by while Capital rises triumphant. I think there is a folly in acceleration, that assumes the monster they are beckoning into the world will die a natural death once they've summoned it. This seems frightful and dangerous to me. One shouldn't summon demons with full confidence that they'll be defeated. As C.S. Lewis writes, in the final book of the Chronicles of Narnia: "People shouldn't call for demons unless they really mean what they say."

This is a danger I think a lot of people supporting acceleration flirt with. You all naively assume that what follows in the aftermath of collapse will be good. What if it isn't? What if instead the end of norms and rules unleashes demons into the world? Real demons, not the demons of philosophical arguments? And this is where the /x/ part comes in. Land and others speak of a cold, cruel god. I guess they assume this isn't a REAL threat, a metaphysical threat, a threat that could alter the fabric of the cosmos. But what if it is? Or, maybe some demon, a real demon, won't be summoned at the end of it all. But what if the world that's created is one that makes you long for such a thing?

Attached: 31aa2e1255a31091359dac4a90767db9_original.jpg (1552x873, 308K)

>it is a mode of engagement with life, and a teleological directedness towards higher intensities of co-creative relationships that will if my theory is correct coalesce into a movement of recursive self-improvement of human relationships on every level: a psycho-organic singularity. Pancreativism doesn't deny that conflict and competition exists, but that it exists on the larger background of co-creativity, whereas the relational premise of capital (exemplified in game theory) is that life is unending war, conflicts of interests between self-interest-maximizers being the omnipresent condition of life with cooperation only existing as the alignment of mutual interests against some common foe (even if such a foe be physical reality itself.)

It's nonsense because both your theory and your bugbear entail assumptions--unproven and incorrect. Things are neither 'as good as all that' nor as bad.

Humanity needs to get over itself--especially when it comes to nonsense like the PP.

>i think there needs to be about the largest about-face in philosophy or else we are looking at the thirty years' war redux lads
an AI-Leviathan sorts the world into different groups and assigns them a piece of land to live on. The AI also controls weaponry and such

for me at least i obsessed about Land as much as he did not only because he was anathema to the 90s-style deconstruction that gives you everything that drives you nuts about Woke stuff today, but also because he's really writing about some of the stuff that actually is going to matter going forward: AI, for instance, and finance, and much else. end of the world scenarios and collapse don't interest me so much: i'm not *rooting* for the apocalypse in a literal, Mad Max sense. i would much prefer people just get the message and optimize for intelligence as he suggests. the picture thus painted is more of a transition period, a kind of leap to another dimension of experience and existence. how vigorously anyone wants to take it or how much they want to risk is up to them. the other thing about Land is that he's theorizing automation in a way that presents a pretty good picture of what happens if people *don't* do this either, like the world's most passive Hegel: what if the Spirit of the Future just takes care of itself? and perhaps in a way Hegel too had some sense of this.

so it's not like i think the aftermath of a collapse will be good. the collapse as it happens isn't good, and frankly the reasons for the collapse happening in the first place aren't good either. very little of any of it is actually good! philosophy can be a pretty grim and gloomy business. but this too comes as a result, and perhaps a necessary one, of the fallout from idealism, and the fallout from the romanticism that followed it: capitalism for Land *is* nihilism, nihilism in the 21C isn't quoting Kierkegaard and staring at stars, it's Instagram and complete self-absorption into the algorithms. Baudrillard saw this too.

i think on some level there is a kind of politics that has always been a shield or mask for existential dread, for people who need meaning and find it in those ways. Land is basically diagnosing a lot of all-too-human problems with this approach and finding new configurations for nihilism that people didn't even know they had. in the age of the computer protocol it makes way too much sense. but it is my sense these are things that have to be engaged with on their terms rather than our own. humans are up to this challenge, i think.

Attached: a2dbf23bb3cb86c19a4983e31a2f3f2c--jean-baudrillard-postmodern-theory.jpg (640x551, 132K)

i was thinking more along the lines of a kind of Yoga for the West that wasn't just fascism. failing that just encouraging those with eyes to see to get off the trains that head for one place and one place only. Peterson is more than a little interesting in this regard also: if you don't want tyranny, don't produce a society of confused, angry bots. and yet this is precisely what is happening, arguably even what is desired, both by the cynical opportunists who play on their fears and those who consent to have their fears played upon. all this is done in the service of ideology, as it has been done before. remember the Crusades? 'go and take Jerusalem and you're good, i *promise* we'll wipe the slate clean.' the only problem was the guys who were already in Jerusalem who objected to this, and then there's the matter of explaining why so many other people got killed too. theocratic power-politics and holy imperialism abroad isn't exactly a new thing, i just think the next iteration of it will be a protracted civil war over righteous indignation. it's a common trope of both World Wars as well, as well as the Thirty Years' War. the Hegelian perspective is one way to view it, it's true, but i am less optimistic that *anything* good will come of another go-round, except to lay the foundations for Neo-Enlightenment: see? the banks were right all along. stop with all this God stuff...irony of ironies!

you see where i'm going with this. the aftermath of another righteous war may displace the role of ideology from public life and help to usher in an even more powerful era for those in control of technology - an Age of Cybernetic Reason, as it were - but it may not clarify the kinds of questions that might have explained why said civil war both was and was not historically necessary, and this in a sense because humans are not purely historical beings. history is made manifest by ideology when it begins to write its own scripts, just as pathology does in the mind. we have reasons before and we have reasons afterwards, but in the end it's all just another go-round on the carousel. these are things that the Indians have known for a long time, as well as the Chinese. and, to his enduring credit, Rene Girard, as modernist political experimentation is impossible without scapegoats. and many others.

AI-Leviathan is just Hobbes with a fresh coat of paint. Locke had more interesting ideas about that and Kant in turn. Moldbug's contribution was to suggest that, in a pinch, people could simply move and choose the sovereigns they like, which is a novel reading of European history. it *might* work. but even then it would be less desirable than people actually just getting the leaders they *want* rather than having to opt-in and opt-out wherever. but that may be how it has to go. in the end tho i think you get essentially exactly what the Chinese have already: total ideological control. the Soviets had this too once and they still lost the Cold War.

Attached: images.jpg (178x284, 18K)

the irony of our time is that we arrive at a point where we can say, ok, it's all just money and tech and media, we can't do anything, it's the end of history and all of this stuff. and yet it is by that very same process that Silicon Valley cannot seem to keep itself *out* of deals and arrangements that are in the long run going to be disastrous for them: that is, everything has to do with the attempts to regulate hate speech, or produce the ultimate non-conformist utopia, or whatever else. they are basically trapped within the self-imposed confines of rules they discover and attempt to regulate, and in the end this brings them into close proximity with all kinds of stuff they would probably prefer not to be associated with: for example, the complex nature of Middle Eastern policy, or postmodern theory, or any number of other things. but in the age of the internet the whole nature of broadcasting fundamentally changes, because we can see what Twitter is: it's a direct line straight into the mind of your fellow consumers with a minimal role assigned to media pundits, because the pundits - rather like the philosophers! - eventually get crowbarred into a position of having to admit that they too cannot be experts in The Feels, because there's simply too much information for even the most ironic stance possible to be presented with a straight face day after day. eventually you have to Take A Stand, and Taking A Stand is a death sentence. in the age of Trump it has become more permissable, because now it seems like #Resistance, but the facts don't bear this out either. it's like trying to fight asymmetrical media warfare using Napoleonic tactics. or perhaps like trying to convince others you're fighting WW2, when in fact this more resembles the Cold War and the kinds of McCarthyite tactics he would have preferred. except that we know McCarthy is politically beyond good and evil, and that too is outdated - now, *everybody* is beyond good and evil and that is exactly the problem. it's fucking anarcho-tribalism, and all you have to do if you are the news is *try and represent what is actually there* without the ideology. we've become completely overwhelmed by the *need to editorialize.* and all of this shit has to stop, because there is no longer a one and true correct Position to take on this shit.

b/c the deluge is in. what would be good is if we *just allowed people to think for themselves,* rather than taking it upon ourselves to do their thinking for them, because this is really not good, this isn't what it means to be Heroic Media Guardian or any of this shit. it is cynical, it is deluded, it is wrong, and it is the same bullshit fallacy that once took place in the universities also. people never really learn anything if someone else is doing their thinking for them, and people who want to think on behalf of other people may be very confused, very opportunistic, batshit insane, all of the above, and so on.

Attached: Dick Tracy Jun Bob Kim.jpg (980x1250, 1009K)

irony and relativism and suspicion are terms frequently associated with postmodernity, but this isn't i think what it's supposed to be. the deconstruction and plasticity of reality invites the worst and most tyrannical to play cynical and reductive power games with other people's minds when they are confused. that i think will be one of the most damning verdicts on the whole period: that for all of its End of History hyperbole, the fact is that *these things actually have happened before.*

here is one thought i had on this the other day, that what i would like would be a kind of fusion of Hegel and Nietzsche that reflected a post-existential worldview. because in both cases you have a kind of a weird move that solves existential despair in particularly narcissistic ways. with Hegel the great movement comes with the *crowd,* and with Nietzsche from the bottomless depths (and horizons) of the self - and both of these men are absolute geniuses, in their own way. but both of them, in a way, have to deal with the problem of suspicion relating to the other in ways that i think today are more harmful than helpful. there are all kinds of these ways of relating to the other as if he were either *too* unknowable to ever be related to in a kind of sane or charitable way, or *too much like yourself* to be related to as if they in fact *were* an other. it's hard to explain, but i think there's something to this: the idea that you can't resolve social horror either by saying

a) nobody understands me, or
b) the Absolute always-already understands everybody.

both of these things actually prevent you from encountering the other guy on a way that doesn't force them to play by your rules, or that forces both of you to play by rules neither really understands. both lead to kind of wheels of doom in mysterious ways, and both are awesome, awesome feats of psychology and metaphysics. but what if it didn't have to be like this? what if we understood that all of this stuff has a historical and a futuristic dimension, but that we were capable of recognizing when we are about to repeat history once again, and take another course? so that we aren't forced to choose between Idealism and Nihilism in ways that aren't really choices at all?

Attached: tumblr_npgmcopt5U1qg20oho1_1280.jpg (1140x1435, 629K)

>i'm not only a guy who has drank his koolaid, i've fucking bathed in it. my skin is now a florid orange for having done so ad nauseam
>we can watch a mash-up or two of talking heads repeating This Is Extremely Dangerous To Our Democracy and realize that we have more or less been captured by the black mirrors, which plug directly into our pleasure centers and allow us to fill entire warehouses full of computers with the data they need to give us exactly the commodities we want in this great age of pharmacology. we have signed up for the Matrix and now we are getting it
Unironically teach me Senpai. What comes after Pomo? What is the 21st century? What are the underlying changes in the structure of thought that brought us here? Who do I read about this?

Attached: C86E9128-83E8-40A0-AD91-C45A6C40D71E.jpg (720x638, 41K)

Obtain procreative exercises

the 20C is in many ways the acting out of theories of psychology developed in the 19C by the great modernist writers and philosophers, and what is so depressing about the 21C is that *that will continue,* as anarcho-terrorism in a kind of long and protracted civil war over concepts and ideas so divorced from either reality or history now as to be completely unrecognizable. the future may not in fact be an infinitely editable and re-cognizable text to be played with, however much Silicon Valley or the CCP would like to think so (and China has a more sober view, or at least is more comfortable being what it is: an absolute media dictatorship. in the West we need our cartels to apologize profusely as they do this to us, and then we're okay with it).

but what if the human mind was *not* such terra incognita? what if we could recognize and learn and borrow and adapt from some of the things that we have learned about ourselves along the way, such that we didn't always have to solve our own existential problems with recourse to solutions that worked a century and a half ago, and now work only too well today because we can infinitely repeat them in the worst possible ways? Hegel works, Nietzsche works, they work *entirely too well.* and that is the dilemma, because there never is or ever will be anything like a Final Showdown or resolution between those forces, any more than there was a Resolution to Protestants and Catholics fighting. the Protestants just eventually splintered into a thousand groups, the Catholics stopped being influential, and eventually the Revolution appeared and channeled all of this into a new dimension and a new order. that too is what gives you the great theopolitical struggles of the 20C as fascism and communism, and on into today, in all of its new multiplicity.

what we need is a new human system that is aware of its own limitations, as well as the power of its own creations. hubris and nemesis never go out of style. it would just be nice if we could recognize this and update our firmware a little to produce something reflective of this.

Attached: Chronopaper.png (1600x1200, 1.31M)

>a kind of prismatics - and by this i mean a theory of postmodernity that can recognize relativism as historically necessary but not fundamentally, absolutely true - is required. it leans a little on Wilber - i'm okay with him - but also on just the general sense of wanting to understand postmodernity as still being a phenomenon within modernity itself, as a commentary on Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, and a few others. real postmodernity begins when we can finally have something more than irony and simulation.
This is beautiful user and I agree 100%. Where do I start with Wilber? Also what exactly do you mean by applied post modernism?

Attached: A3740620-BE35-4C52-BFB0-2E58D1B042EF.jpg (400x400, 32K)

Wtf genuine and intresting dialectics on Yea Forums, I love you landians (or whatever the fuck, I kinda feel dirty using the words "space taoism")

>Unironically teach me Senpai.
kek. no senpais here amigo, i'm as confused as you are.

>What comes after Pomo?
this is the great question. there are a lot of possibilities, one of which is exactly that Kali-Yuga Winter Phase suggested in various forms by Heidegger, Spengler, Guenon, Baudrillard, Marty Glass and others. the whole idea of postmodernity is that *nothing* comes after it, which is precisely the lesson it can teach us. historically these are the times and contexts in which new things *do* in fact happen - there's room for Hegel here, after all - but they are almost never what we expect them to be, altho in hindsight they seem to be inevitable. for one i would start with Land, to flush the remaining traces of Jacques Derrida's ghost kingdom out. but you will want to read Derrida and those guys too, such that you have a sense of how it was that postmodernity came to be in the first place, and what it grew out of - mainly the Big Four, Marx/Nietzsche/Darwin/Freud, who in turn are following from Spinoza/Kant/Hegel. and many others. the Wild Ride is long but worth taking. and even Kant himself is produced out of earlier writers. they all connect on Planet Meme.

>What are the underlying changes in the structure of thought that brought us here?
tech. and Revolution, both French and Industrial, and also - in the 20C - German. also globalization and the discovery of mass media, computers, much else. changing roles of the Church, displacement of European power, the self-immolation of European power. a lot happens in the 20C. today the themes are automation and intelligence, things we have very much brought into play ourselves, but do not have easy off-switches. it's man's discovery of his own unconscious as market, but also perhaps the need to understand that there is - what a surprise! - more to life than the hardest of hard materialisms. this is not Land's sense, and he is who he is because he detests all things Hegel. and Land should be read, like Deleuze, and many others, but not only just to double down on everything he says. also to raise the possibility of life after this, in a sense.

>Who do I read about this?
basically, everyone. that's the bad news. the good news is that you will have the time of your life doing so. you will fall in love with multiple writers multiple times, and cry, and moan, and drink yourself senseless, and hate everything, and occasionally wonder what the fuck you are doing. but i think that's pretty much what they did too. personally i'm a big fan of Girard, Land obv, but Heidegger too, Eastern/Traditionalists, and all those annoying French and German fucks. don't forget the Greeks.

ya gotta collect 'em all, in other words. it's a tortuous process sometimes, but eventually if you keep at it you will get there. and seriously, there is nothing quite like those Aha! moments when somebody really, really clicks with you. who that will be for you is anybody's guess. but guaranteed someone will do it.

Attached: 1oaCIOu.png (480x360, 95K)

Bomb Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple headquarters.

The people who write the most on this board, generally say the least.

i found this one to be pretty great. as i've said in previous threads, one of the big realizations for me was that the thing i thought the study of postmodern philosophy would give me was a sense of underlying unity that i was certain *had* to be there, and it was - it was just that it was found in perennial philosophy and not with postmodern guys. it would have been nice if somebody had *fucking told me that* when i was an impressionable youth, but of course...why would they? that's not what postmodern guys do. and they all shit on Wilber and call him a pseud, but really it's because he's very interested in spirituality and they are not. i have a foot in both camps, as it were, which is why i'm such a big fan of Girard.

anyways, i'd check this one out, and Up From Eden too.

>Also what exactly do you mean by applied post modernism?
Social Justice, that's exactly what it is. and - although i hesitate to offend the Catholics on this board - that is in a sense one of the aspects of Christianity too that has given it problems, in that Augustine's awesome contribution to the history of Western thought was to give it Applied Nondualism. this is a very, very complicated story and not one to be glossed over lightly, but i think it has major significance today for developing anything like a theory of human relations compatible with the 21C that takes into account everything we have learned along the way: that is, the role played by the bishop, or mediator, or the enormous overhaul that takes place within Christianity that coverts Platonic and Plotinian/Neoplatonist thought into Christian thought, which in turn will be what produces, among other things, the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and much much else.

the fact that postmodernism can be directly applied politically *at all* is precisely why we are going batshit insane today, and also suggests to me that - *finally* - we can finally begin thinking through the possibility of an alternative. and thank god for that because reading through Land just about fucking killed me...

Attached: 71JZEKOk6mL.jpg (1251x1853, 210K)

Landians, traumatized post-Landians, skeptical anti-Landians, whatever. it is indeed cool tho to have an interesting conversation once in a while. poor Aminom keeps trying to tell people he doesn't really want Space Taoism to become a cringe meme and yet it appears to have taken root. it doesn't really matter what you call these things, they're just fun places to speculate about philosophy for a bit in a kind of a relaxed atmosphere.

i don't know about this one. i mean i'm typing this on an Apple now and i have to say i'm pretty satisfied with it. i also like libgen and the connection to it that Google gave me. Twitter allows me to Connect With Things I Care About - mainly, Land's feed and about six others. Microsoft is okay, i can play emulated games on my PC. Facebook can eat a hairy ballsack tho.

going to relocate gents, will check on this thread later on. getting stuck into Feuerstein's books on Yoga today, looking forward to it. also note that YH's new book is out on libgen now too. honestly i was kind of disappointed, given how much i enjoyed his book on China, but it's still pretty good for all that. the field still seems to me very open indeed for somebody to take the most interesting part of Land's work and translate it into a less gloom-and-doom register, talk about computer intelligence and philosophy in our virtual era. artificial memory? computers that remember you? emergent algorithms? all of this? there's theoryposting fun to be had for days in those realms.

Attached: 41XZrezn6xL._SX298_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (300x499, 23K)

>doesn't really want Space Taoism to become a cringe meme and yet it appears to have taken root
You are the one spamming these threads pretending it's something but it's all pseud air.

not me. my threads usually have a bunch of greentext in them, a link to some paper or whatever else. also i have learned that it is a particular tactic of Yea Forums to spam the shit out topics in order to produce antipathy towards them. given that i like talking about a lot of this stuff, spamming threads seems pretty counter-intuitive.

i will perhaps try another metaphor here: what i am asking for is something like the pinball's discovery of the existence of a pinball machine, and that beyond that the thing with which to identify itself is neither its own being-ball, nor being-machine, nor being-in motion, but the player itself playing the game. between the ball and the player is some relation that is worth puzzling out, but again: i think it's more appropriate to think of ourselves as spending much of our lives not even realizing that we are pinballs.

pinball psychology, at least in my own case, makes a lot of sense. essentially that there is a kind of need to radically reinterpret what being-in-the-world means in an age of simulation, speed and technology.

Attached: 2007-01-13-09-45.jpg (1920x1200, 721K)

because the thing is that beyond a certain horizon recognizing that we do indeed live in Spectacle still isn't quite enough. there may indeed be no Purer Reality beyond this, unless it is *the arcade* -

this is one of the ways in which i think some interesting thought-experiments might be conducted, which aren't even all that original, really. it's just about kind of realizing that there is some kind of functional relation between the ball, the machine, and the player, and that we can oscillate, in a way, between being a ball thinking they are a player and a player thinking they are a ball. somewhere in there the machine. all of this.

total madness? probably. but there's something in this metaphor that i like, maybe you guys will enjoy it too.

Attached: 1119443.jpg (5616x3744, 2.45M)

and because in a way i feel that reality viewed through this kind of lens takes us perhaps helpfully away from bullshit forms of reductive postmodernity, fundamentally predicated on what is a machine and what isn't, the right way to design games, all of this.

there are a lot of different pinball machines, and they vary in all kinds of ways. some are hard and some are easy. but they are all machines, they all work, there is *some kind of way of fundamentally theorizing what a machine is.* and so too our relation to it. sometimes you can get the multiball, all of this stuff.

pinball metaphysics. maybe i'll let this one simmer for a bit and come back to it later, but i'll leave it there in case any of you guys want to noodle around with that idea.

Attached: 1119404.jpg (1920x1200, 544K)

Girardfag, try to summarise space taoism to a normie who doesnt read

if you google the Cosmotech threads you can find Aminom doing just that. i put his Quick Rundown at the top of all of those threads in there.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S12027035#

also, just so that i don't forget: the interior of a pinball machine strikes me as being a highly Deleuzian concept as well, or at least Deleuze-compatible. and Pinball Metaphysics doesn't seem like the worst way of characterizing some of the other interesting relations going on.

Attached: aacdd1e3f6634fa2b3ae04129c24ffbf.jpg (952x500, 118K)

one (provisional) tenet of pinball metaphysics:
>the Spectacle you know to be a Spectacle neither is, nor is not, Spectacle.

but life proceeds from this multilayered understanding, that beyond each deconstruction only ever lies a further phenomenon to be deconstructed, until eventually you have the dim intimation that in fact you are not purely and solely a pinball, but a human being in fact actually in control of the flippers and the paddles. and you are in fact playing a game. whether you continue to play the same game, play a different game, leave the arcade, whatever the fuck - all of this is up to you. but first of all we have to basically de-Matricize ourselves with this understanding, that we are in fact 'thrown into existence' much like Heidegger says, and caught up with being a pinball unaware they are in fact a pinball, and this long before we have even the slightest idea that in fact there is a machine going on we are inseparably bound up with.

also that Breaking The Machine is really not going to solve the problems of being a pinball, because the point of the pinball is only to be what it is. what frustrates us - as in so many other things - is forgetting the relationship between the pinball and the player, their mutual relation to the machine, and the fact that they are in fact in control of this process, although they perhaps have never really thought about it all that much. after all, if all you see are other pinballs crashing around, and if all of this only seems to be the workings of an a priori reality...right?

i'm not really giving any advice, i'm more basically just trying to articulate by way of this metaphor how it was that i came to find myself thinking this metaphor works, and with a view to my own theory of postmodernity and reading of continental philosophy.

Attached: 1119508.jpg (1024x506, 124K)

>He stands like a statue,
>Becomes part of the machine
>Feeling all the bumpers
>Always playing clean
>He plays by intuition,
>The digit counters fall
>That deaf dumb and blind kid
>Sure plays a mean pin ball!

>I thought I was
>The Bally table king
>But I just handed
>My pin ball crown to him
>Even on my favorite table
>He can beat my best
>His disciples lead him in
>And he just does the rest

The Who: Pinball Wizard
youtube.com/watch?v=4AKbUm8GrbM

Attached: Dark-Enlightenment-Nick-Land2334683534.jpg (620x350, 49K)

I was thinking this exact same song, but I'm more impartial to the Elton John cover.

youtube.com/watch?v=DthtDjhqVOU

Guenon spends 2/3 of his book supposedly introducing Hindu metaphysics complaining about other scholars.

>Waaah, the orientalists suck! Fucking pseuds
>DAE the Greeks are overrated? Lol

Christ, we get it. It's fine for a bit but when most of your book is spent reiterating your disdain for other scholars you hamstring yourself into not delivering any real didactic content.

good call. definitely the better version. and again, this is all here to give Uncle Nick his massively well-deserved props. i believe in the Unapologetic Homer approach to philosophy. in order for there to be life after Nick it is to my mind absolutely necessary to understand that few if any have ever had a clearer sense of the breadth and depth of the Great Machine to which we are bound. Deleuze and Heidegger also, for their respective eras. for *this* era? the age of the internet and automated finance? it's Nick Fucking Land all the way.

and we say this - he says, referring to himself as a plurality - because there has to be something else. and verily i say there will be something else, and what it looks like nobody knows, but slowly we will figure out how the fuck to claw back those remaining scraps of sanity. or to give away the moribund ones and surrender them to the Celestial Arcade. or something like this. it's been a good day.

also, more music.

Fantastic Plastic Machine: Luxury
youtube.com/watch?v=GSQvqmhb8Xc

Attached: 4da714e850996130b08a19d874f9a4da-1.jpg (1600x1200, 272K)

I was reading the wikipedia article on Foucault's lectures, and in Society Must Be Defended, he discusses race quite a bit. From the article it seems he makes an argument in favor of racism. By race, he doesn't mean in terms of biology or skin color, but in the abstract sense of "us vs. them." Was he an advocate for racism?

Foucault making an argument in favor of racism seems like a pretty un-Foucault thing to do. maybe you could post the excerpt you're referring to? Us vs Them makes more sense, as he is the patron saint of power dynamics in neoliberal society and critic supremo of soft power and much else. but my sense is that it is highly unlikely he's going to champion any one particular segment of society over another. i don't know where i read this, but it stuck with me: one of the things that he recognized as being a danger in his own work would be the tendency of people to capitalize on it by marginalizing *themselves* - which is more or less what has happened. this is why he wanted to put himself in the center of things, in the College de France, rather than on the outskirts.

you're better off reading his work for yourself, of course, and coming to your own conclusions (as would i, warrants mentioning) but i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Racism, Yes! is probably not what Foucault would have had in mind.

he's back

Is there a website where all Space Taoism threads are collected?

Attached: Confession-1937-3.jpg (640x480, 37K)

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_lectures_at_the_Collège_de_France
It's in the Society Must Be Defended section, but yeah, I do think he meant it in the "us vs. them" sense.

>This is where Foucault discusses a "counterhistory" of "race struggle or race war."According to Foucault Marx and Engels used or borrowed the term "Race" and transversed the term race into a new term called "Class struggle" which later Marxist accepted and began to use. This is more partly to do with Marx's antagonistic relationship with Karl Vogt[6] who for his time was a convinced Polygenist which Marx and Engels had inherited Vogt's belief. Foucault quotes letters written by Marx to Engels in 1854 and Joseph Weydemeyer in 1852

>"Finally, in your place I should in general remark to the democratic gentlemen that they would do better first to acquaint themselves with bourgeois literature before they presume to yap at the opponents of it. For instance, these gentlemen should study the historical works of Augustin Thierry, François Guizot, John Wade, and others in order to enlighten themselves as to the past 'history of classes.'Where the history of the revolutionary project and of revolutionary practice is indissoluble from this counterhistory of races[7]"

>Foucault challenges the traditional notions of racism in explaining the operation of the modern state. When Foucault talks of racism he is not talking about what we might traditionally understand it to be–an ideology, a mutual hatred. In Foucault’s reckoning modern racism is tied to power, making it something far more profound than traditionally assumed.[8] Tracing the genealogy of racism, Foucault proposes that ‘race’, previously used to describe the division between two opposing societal groups distinguished from one another for example by religion or language, came to be conceived in the late 18th century in biological terms. The concept of "race war" that referred to conflict over the legitimacy of the power of the established sovereign, was "reformulated" into a struggle for existence driven by concern about the biopolitical purity of the population as a single race that could be threatened from within its own body. For Foucault "racism is born at the point when the theme of racial purity replaces that of race struggle" (p. 81).[8]

>For Foucault, racism "is an expression of a schism within society…provoked by the idea of an ongoing and always incomplete cleaning of the social body…it structures social fields of action, guides political practice, and is realized through state apparatuses…it is concerned with biological purity and conformity with the norm" (pp. 43–44).[9] In modern states, racism is not defined by the action of individuals, rather it is vested in the State and finds form in its structures and operation–it is State racism.

>State racism serves two functions. Firstly, it makes it possible to divide the population into biological groups, "good and bad" or "superior or inferior" ‘races’. Fragmented into subspecies, the population can be brought under State control. Secondly, it facilitates a dynamic relationship between the life of one person and the death of another. Foucault is clear that this relationship is not one of warlike confrontation but rather a biological one, that is not based on the individual but rather on life in general "the more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more I – as species rather than individual – can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be, I will be able to proliferate" (p. 255)[8]

>In effect race, defined in biological terms, "furnished the ideological foundation for identifying, excluding, combating, and even murdering others, all in the name of improving life not of an individual but of life in general" (p. 42).[9] What is important here is that racism, inscribed as one of the modern state’s basic techniques of power, allows enemies to be treated as threats, not political adversaries. But through what mechanism are these threats treated? Here the technologies of power described by Foucault become important.

>Foucault argues that new technologies of power emerged in the second half of the 18th century, which Foucault termed biopolitics and biopower(Foucault uses both terms synonymously), these technologies focused on man-as-species and were concerned with optimising the state of life, with taking control of life and intervening to "make live and let die".[8] Importantly, Foucault argues, the technologies did not replace the technologies of sovereign power with their exclusive focus on disciplining the individual body to be more productive by punishing or killing individuals, but embedded themselves into them. It was in exploring how this new power, with life as its object, could come to include the power to kill that Foucault theorizes the emergence of state racism.

>Foucault argues that the modern state must at some point become involved with racism in order to function since once a State functions in a biopolitical mode it is racism alone that can justify killing.[8] Determined as a threat to the population, the State can take action to kill in the name of keeping the population safe and thriving, healthy and pure. It is racism that allows the right to kill to be squared off with a power that seeks to improve life. State racism delivers actions that while appearing to derive from altruistic intentions, veil the murder of the "Other"[10] Following this argument to its logical end, it is only when there is never a need for the State to claim the right to kill or to let die that State racism will disappear.

>Since killing is predicated on racism it follows that the "most murderous states are also the most racist" (p. 258).[8] Foucault refers to the way in which Nazism and the state socialism of the Soviet Union dealt with ethnic or social groups and their political adversaries as examples of this.

>Threats, however, can change over time and here the utility of ‘race’ a concept comes into its own. While never defining ‘race’, Foucault suggests that the word ‘race’ is "not pinned to a stable biological meaning" (p. 77).[8] with the implication that it is a concept that is socially and historically constructed where a discourse of truth is enabled. This makes ‘race’ something that is easy for the State to adopt and exploit for its own purpose. ‘Race’ becomes a technology that is used by the state to structure threats and to make decisions over the life and death of sub-populations. In this way it helps to explain how the idea of ‘race’ or cultural difference are used to wage wars such as the "war on terror" or the "humanitarian war" in East Timor.[11]

&c
seems a pretty sober analysis of how things work, doesn't suggest that Foucault himself thought that there was any right side to be on. that racialized politics go hand in glove with war and conflict and propaganda is hardly news, he's right. it is a powerful tool for any state apparatus to wield, and a dangerous one.

there are some pretty good Land threads you can find on warosu but i'm too lazy to dig those up. the Cosmotech megathread has more discussion on these kinds of things if you want to poke through that.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S12056787

Attached: cosmotech.png (750x1000, 1.86M)

I just read the Tao Te Ching and I can't figure out how any of these threads connects in any way to Taoism and also the first google result when searching "space taoism" is a reddit thread.

Attached: really activates the almonds.png (680x680, 59K)

It's not. The coiner of the phrase scrapped it in favor of Pancreatism since Space Taoism was too confusing and didn't capture the Whiteheadean nuance.

what does space taoism mean

still dreamin of assrape, eh?

Attached: 480480492q5.png (1435x598, 270K)

not really. the next step after Land stuff isn't more politics but less. the anger isn't doing me any good.

i believe the hype about philosophy, and also that the 20C was a fucking shitshow. the 21C will also very likely be a shitshow. it still doesn't mean being an asshole is good.

just because the process is worth chasing towards the past and at the same time irrevocably outrunning it doesnt mean you should forget the pace. isnt that the tao? getting eaten by punching above never ends well.

basically what i have learned is the value of not thinking i have new or original ideas to contribute to philosophy itself, let alone politics. i'm pretty sure that if people want to go off the deep end getting tangled up in finger traps they're going to find a way to do it. the best parts of the reading for me are the ones that tell me where to not go any further, to know a dead end when i see one. these days i see a lot of dead ends, but hey, one person's dead end may be another person's royal road.

it's mostly *dis*entangling myself from a whole lot of shit that does not, in fact, belong to me that i have found useful. not playing rigged games and not having pointless arguments and not getting trigged over bullshit that really does not require my hot takes. there are a lot of these things. Heidegger says, and correctly, that we are thrown into existence, but it never really *feels* like what it really is, which is an endless falling. and being Woke or getting in some sense politically activated is i guess for some some kind of moment of awareness but for me what i want to do now is fucking de-Woke myself from a lot of this.

i was thinking of it in kind of a weird way, as though some demiurge were to offer me a deal: 'hey, tell you what - how about i trade you something of inestimable value, that you really want, for all of that horrible toxic garbage you're carrying around with you, that kills you and quietly makes everyone around you feel horrible. how about you give some of that shit to me, and in return, i will exchange it for peace and love and understanding.' obviously i would accept this, but the weird thing is...i find myself refusing to give up ugly shit in exchange for things that are absolutely the things i say that i want. and i know why i do this, too, it's because i somehow want to perform a magical alchemical act on it entirely in my own way and carry on some demented fantasy. but i know it's stupid. i do it anyways. i check Twitter feeds and watch the news and brood on all of this ugly shit as though somehow i think it's going to be something other than what it was today, tomorrow, and get all worked up over it, and i do this over and over again.

i'm reading more of Feuerstein's stuff on yoga and it's vastly preferable to continental stuff these days, it really is. i'm tired of being mad and salty all of the time, it doesn't matter whether you can give a good historical explanation of stuff or not. it's enough to just work on the negative shit that creeps into your brain and that you obsess about all the time. sure, it lines up with Deleuze or whoever else, lots of stuff does. but just kind of staring at the world and wringing my hands over it...it's something i need to stop doing. i believe the hype now about the philosophers, i really do. and if people want to go fucking crazy scapegoating each other they're going to find some way to do it. it galls me, but i'm no fucking saint either.

Attached: 019.jpg (1067x800, 578K)

this is not to say that i am not a little proud of Pinball Metaphysics today, i am (what if the unconscious were structured like a pinball machine, a desiring-machine...) or that i don't thin Wilber is cool, he is. or that Land has given a terribly consistent theory of late modernity, he has. or that i would expect to see the ghost of Rene Girard standing around the craters and other horrible scenes that i dread are going to appear, as he would. and the Buddha would probably go to hell if he had to and squeeze a few drops of compassion out there too. all of this.

i guess it's just that philosophy really doesn't make you a better person, in the end. it can make you a marginally less selfish and foolish one, if only because skilled writers have a particular way of describing the nature of our psychological processes in such a way that, even decades later, we can encounter writers who describe our inner workings better than we could have ever described them ourselves, and that is often a kind of a minor miracle when it happens, when we realize that we are allowed to make moves we didn't even know we could make, as if some weird invisible software program with which we are always struggling has made things This Way, and they are That Way, until, one day, they just Aren't That Way anymore. this is kind of an incredible process to me, because so often it seems like we are engaged in this mysterious kind of weird and grotesque ballet that we do on behalf of...i don't know even know what it is, it's the General Will or whatever the fuck we have absorbed from media or from our parents that makes us act the way that we do. and nobody fucking knows why this started, or why things are the way they are, or how they are going to end up. and it all just keeps going, year after year, generation after generation. and may indeed just do so forever.

the Indians have a lot of cool ideas. the Chinese do too, i read a lot of those guys. but for whatever reason these days it's the Hindus. being me i have to fucking read everybody, and this is definitely a quirk in my psychology to feel the need to do this.

anyways. i'm tired of grief and grievance, salt and outrage, shock and trigger. paying attention to these things has given me some interesting things to brood on and helped me to view the world in a different way, but sometimes the machine gets kind of tired and the game becomes a little less fun. so i get frustrated and dream of just living in a cave somewhere.

>tldr: waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh

Attached: e5a9ca939128250273313cf5b39f7427--cutaway-architecture-drawings.jpg (400x772, 90K)

so start now. you laid it out yourself, the demiurge as an encapsulation of crystalized dharma that it doesnt realize it itself is part of. out of breath and deflated, denied by the mechanical air.

there's a book called Teachings of Yoga on libgen, this is from that. i've found it to be full of insightful stuff, figured i'd share a screenshot with you. i really like this idea of the thief stealing consciousness, maybe it's because i've had this hang-up about thieves and the law and so on for a while.

anyways, you're right. and it really is the thing: there's no chill in militant activism, no meditative practice. protest - if not war - *becomes* the practice, but this is obviously a disaster. philosophy helps one (read: me) to get worked up over all kinds of things, but it ultimately really isn't a substitute for just living right. i know i needed some kind of beatstick to wield to explain why i was so irritated by postmodernity, and i found it in Land (and Girard). so i guess in some sense it's Mission Accomplshed (even if the nature of the Mission itself, or why i would so obsessively brood on this for years is a mildly embarrassing unanswered and unanswerable question). but you are correct, user. and tomorrow there will perhaps be more Spicy Takes, or not, and you will be correct then too.

the best thing about the meatbag is not his capacity for deconstruction and critique, but integration, i think, the capacity to lose oneself in the objects one is looking at. we are wired for it, for better or for worse. but this is also the line that separates Nietzsche from Schopenhauer, in a way. and maybe it had something to do with Schopenhauer opting for India and Nietzsche rolling with the Homeric Greeks. to each his own, i guess. tragedy probably is the endgame, and it's kryptonite for irony. but there is no kryptonite for tragedy, really. and perhaps this is why it is best to count breaths once in a while.

i'm going to bed. catch ya's later.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 12.28.05 AM.png (512x688, 119K)

>it's mostly *dis*entangling myself from a whole lot of shit that does not, in fact, belong to me that i have found useful.
From my reading of books on Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Meister Eckhart, and Alchemy among others, they all say the same thing here. We all need to unlearn and undo ourselves to realize our actual Selves and the Absolute. It like peeling away all the layers of conditioning and sense-object experience like an onion (I know this analogy isn't perfect, it's more like shoveling away heaps of garbage that is burying the atam/soul, but whatever) to find the unconditioned and unqualified Self.

But we only end up creating more layers of conditioning to keep us trapped in samsara-maya. New media, new technology, new foods, new fashions, new events, new spectacles, new ideas, new ways to think about this and that, and infinitely categorizing to oblivion. All of these things disjoining, fracturing, breaking, tearing, dismembering, atomising, alienating, disenfranchising ourselves from ourselves and from Reality. The Forms! The Forms! Stop creating new things! The Forms are only pure when we have no knowledge of them. "It is the smell," said Smith. It is that awful, putrid stench that gets worse and more pungent each and every infinitesimally small unit of time! Everyone stop! Just stop it! Just. Make. It. All. STOP!!!

well, and because it's unbecoming to just take a steaming dump and vent personal bullshit in such an otherwise fine thread - seriously, who the fuck came up with these things? and why...are they so perfect?

sleep well lovely thread and gentle anons. perhaps it's not really our fault and we have simply been attacked by Thought Eaters from the 1e Monster Manual. with their fucking webbed paws and weird heads and shit. man fuck these guys

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 12.45.36 AM.png (517x714, 219K)

cant have dread without humor.
this is pretty much it and it all comes down to maintaining once youve seen the same things over and over again. maya is over attachment to the intricate wirings. until you finally understand the biting of your tail and raping your own ass in a dream.

Bump

i watched this yesterday, it's like a horror movie in the guise of a comedy. people will wake up at some point and realize how insane this is all is. in the 1950s keeping the Soviet Union going was a necessity, by the 1980s everybody could see the handwriting on the wall. but even then they must have been thinking: okay, but what comes after this? in the 1990s Russia was in complete free-fall and they probably wondered if the entire country was going to fall apart. eventually it stabilized itself again after some rocky years. i don't know if it has to get as bad as that in the West but historically Europe has gone through all kinds of changes too. the Thirty Years' War led to the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. for two decades Revolutionary France was completely explosive. Germany from 1914-1945 is the fucking inferno. and nobody could have imagined defying Hitler while he was alive, or even beginning to think about what would come after, if there was an after. and yet there was, although that story includes four decades of Cold War also. now we're here.

this party apparently never stops, but maybe it will begin with people just realizing that they don't want to get sucked into whirlwinds that are so attractive at first and then so subtlely deranged later on, when you start trying to stay on the right side of history. there is something truly insane about it, there really is. but the interesting thing is that we as human beings can at least *see* it, it's not a mystery. whatever we are doing now, these carousels of doom that we are producing and feeding, *we* do that. nobody else makes us. which means we can bail on it too. the system as it is set up now benefits skilled players of turf wars, but in the end it winds up producing guys like Beria (or Cheney, or a hundred other examples from history). China's done it too, look at Han Fei, who is Xi Jinping's favorite guy. now Trump has entered the arena and basically live-tweets the dementia.

>and it all comes down to maintaining once youve seen the same things over and over again. maya is over attachment to the intricate wirings. until you finally understand the biting of your tail and raping your own ass in a dream.
this.

Attached: mediadc.brightspotcdn.jpg (1320x880, 279K)

the other thought i have is the desire of people to be *in* history, to want to make history or Be A Part of some great cause or whatever. maybe i used to feel like this too, it's certainly a good cure for existential crisis. and also, you find yourself asking: well, what then should i do? i don't want to 'just enjoy life,' i need there to be some pain in it somewhere...and so you get Woke or whatever, and then join some crusade that if you have any historical perspective at all makes you realize that the crusade you're on isn't any better just because you're on it, and you're so fucking special. Fukuyama predicted a lot of this stuff with his book on the End of History, where he guessed - rightly - that our problem in the long run would be decadence. i don't think he expected then that that decadence might indeed cause people to need to get woke...unless he was just wrong about everything...

because it's not like Land didn't have a reason for being Land in the 1990s, when he was hearing these arguments as Young Nick: 'the end of history? really?' because he was seeing that the social problems were still very much there, they were just imperial-hyperpower problems, and on top of that, you now had explosive computer tech and internet capital was soon to arrive, much much else. and a whole new era is inaugurated only then, when the cheese truly stood alone and it was the boom times for globalization. Baudrillard saw a lot of this stuff too, where things were going to go in the age of simulation.

and now we're here, where the simulation has gone full circle and converted itself into AI and this automatic planet, to make the great carousel of doom do another turn. what if the great irony of the Kali-Yuga is that infinite spiral? it just keeps turning on a pivot there...but at some deep level it's there because we don't look away, because we don't know what else to look at. just having gone completely blind through the images, through this demented insistence that we know what we're doing, that there is this horrible pot of stew on the stove that nobody wants to eat and began cooking before you arrived, and new ingredients keep getting added...

blech. there must be better things to do.

Attached: 39745739523.png (997x704, 826K)

it's Gothic, is what it is. and better expressed by a kind of absurdity that achieves its peak as satire. for the Space Marines of the 40K universe it is unconscionable to think that the Emperor upon the Golden Throne who one serves is in fact the problem and not the solution - who'd have thought? ever wondered if...maybe this *isn't* the guy who has the answers to the universe's problems? in the 40K universe of course there really *are* horrific xeno swarms and Chaos Demons and all of the rest, and so the medievalism works, in a great many ways. i get all that.

but at the same time imagine if you had the Golden Throne and so on *without* the Chaos forces. then we might look and wonder - so, this gigantically powerful psyker whose death-wish animates us all, and protects us from things unknown to man - are we *so sure* that this is in fact the hero? the 40K universe accomplishes a kind of commentary on human psychology that in some ways goes well beyond Orwell, or indeed many other writers from the 20C. the Emperor himself is no accident, he is the benevolent caretaker of mankind, Jesus, Hitler, and Napoleon all in one. and the psychic link established with all things produced by death and heresy and history, the cancellation of the future in the name of the unending war - i mean shit, it's pretty fucking spectacular imaginary stuff. i don't know if a Freudian death wish has ever been so clearly illustrated.

what makes it work is belief, and aesthetics. that's the logic of history, of capital, of machines for you. and after one Emperor there has to be another, even though advancing the plot is unthinkable, in a way. because it is, or at least in the way we understand things now. to serve is impossible, to defy is heresy. again, in the world of 40K it all works and is necessary - after all, the Great Unclean Ones are actually out there. but in our world? purest ideology.

Attached: Emperor_Upon_Throne-790x982.jpg (790x982, 196K)

i read somewhere - i think in Han's book on Shanzhai - that the Chinese have no real interest in *ruins.* i thought that was pretty fascinating: even the famous Terracotta soldiers are basically modular. *old things* are okay, the Forbidden Palace, the Great Wall, that's fine - but those things aren't *ruins* either, they aren't left to crumble. the insistence on *holding on* to history in some way, or retrieving it, or the weird way in which The Future will haunt a guy like Land, or Nietzsche, or Hegel, or whoever else - it's not there in the same way.

maybe that's a good thing. the Chinese have no problem with things being ancient, it's all there in the Tao, and the TTC is very wise on this: every good thing always arises as a part of something older and more natural having become lost, and the real summum bonum is the primordial, the natural immersion in the Way of things and their constantly rejuvenating flow. a crusade To The End Of Infinity And Beyond is unthinkable there. maybe it has something to do with Plato and Pythagoras, or other influences, the role played by the mathematical in our thinking that leads into all kinds of insane and occasionally brilliant calculating thinking. Heidegger had a sense of this, as did Nietzsche, Hegel and many others. when Schopenhauer got to the Vedas that seemed to fill the void for him quite well.

but it's that weird compulsion to be a part of history, that alchemical wish to unlock the secrets of time, that leads to paranoia. in The Death of Stalin you can see what this does to your political systems, that the whole thing becomes completely surreal and theatrical, that everyone who was on your side today is against you tomorrow, and all of this pantomime has to go on for the sake of the people, all of this. and behind it just this awesome cynicism, and within that just petty gangsterism and murder. and in the background we have had these wisdom traditions saying the same things for centuries: 'so, uh...why are you doing that? we told you not to do that. it's more simple than you think. don't do that.'

too much philosophy and not enough wisdom is a bad scene. there's no way to be on the right side of the right side of history. the Right Side is just the Only Side and there never is an Only Side. a guillotine is about the only think i can think of that perfectly symbolizes this, the ultimate 2D instrument for the inevitably 2D logic that follows from this.

Attached: _collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9780262534369&type=.jpg (550x856, 45K)

the satire - the word is inappropriate - of the Golden Throne is that it conflates the impossible, Christ and Hitler, with all of the mythology being activated by a death that isn't quite a death, and a second life that isn't quite a second life. the conception of this stuff is pretty fucking brilliant when you get into it, and to cap it off the role played by technology in producing this legendarium is crucial. psyker technology and the astropaths, broadcasting and media, all of the rest of it is crucial.

because the role of mythology in grounding and establishing the meaning for this new political frontier is everything. Christianity itself, historically speaking, is a wedding between the teachings of Christ and the Roman Law, and afterwards there is a fascinating process by which the neoplatonism that helps to produce it allows for the concept of heresy and excommunication afterwards. a massive psychic shift takes place: no real heresy before Christ on that scale (although there is something of an asterisk here for the death of Socrates) and no real tragedy *after* him, or at least until Nietzsche. what could be more tragic than the death of god?

well, there are a couple of possibilities for that answer, and one of which was the Thirty Years' War, along with the twentieth century, and lots of other things that would result from the collapse of this one central narrative, which to my mind has to be recapitulated today to save us from all the LARPing (the 'sacred games' that Nietzsche says, and which Girard would agree with). and the scale and extent of these things will beggar the imagination.

the point here is just to indicate the brilliance of that 40k legendarium. somewhere along the line it is possible for us to have fallen in love with the wrong gods and wind up staying with them because we cannot realize how truly captivated by them we have become, such that countenancing an alternative seems impossible. and yet when that thing happens we cannot imagine in hindsight that it would ever have been any other way, or what the fuck we were doing before. and yet we did it to ourselves the whole time. and will do it again.

Attached: 5ea037543dd204b84fd27aad01559d00.png (1024x1332, 1.86M)

i apologize also for what is obviously a massively reductive interpretation of this, there is also a whole other side to this story. the whole story of Christianity and its relevance today is a complex one, and in Augustine himself you have one of the great thinkers for all time: in him is Greek philosophy, Roman law, Judaeo-Christian religion, and Manichaean thought also. and his influence, together with things like the Arian heresy, the donation of Constantine, and all of the rest of this stuff goes way beyond anything that can be crammed into a 2k character text-box.

but the origins of our present ideological shitstorm don't make any sense without a look backwards that opens up onto some pretty incredible vistas and transformations, epochal shifts. i think this is another area where i am more with Girard (and more recently, Wilber) against Hegel (for reasons explicated by Land) - that there really *isn't* a lot of ways to go *forward* that aren't going to repeat themselves. as Stiegler, and many others, have said: the future is cancelled. this is why i like a lot of the Integral theory guys who are saying you have to look *back* but not *only* back in the sense of nostalgia, or palingenesis, but in a kind of way that allows for a synthesis, digestion, and integration of how it is that we got to where we are now. i agree with this completely, and nothing in Land has made me think otherwise. yes, it is true, we absolutely can take a deep dive into the psychic underbelly of capitalism and meditate on technology, and all of these things are valuable and necessary and riotously interesting. cyberpunk is for real.

but cyberpunk also kind of posits an Egyptian pharaonism lit up in neon, or a neo-feudal corporate barony, or whatever else. Thomas Piketty also thinks this, he thinks the future looks like Sense and Sensibility. i'm inclined to agree. of course, it would be Sense and Sensibility With Occasional Terrorist Attacks (reported on by CNN as being 'real head-scratchers,' no doubt). and all of this just fuels my own pointless rage and irritation.

to really understand ideology it is necessary to go all the way back, *and* as far forward as you can go, and then, i think, to try and align those things together by a kind of more holistic view that isn't always just the view that asks for another crusade, or is bound up in one, or any of this shit. you know what i mean. apologies again to the die-hard Catholics for the meme treatment of some of this stuff also. i'm just venting and rambling anyways.

Attached: Gerard_Seghers_(attr)_-_The_Four_Doctors_of_the_Western_Church,_Saint_Augustine_of_Hippo_(354–430) (1000x803, 83K)

of course even writing that somehow Hegel was not aware of this is ridiculous also. obviously he was, he knew better than anyone that things only make sense in hindsight, and that there are a million and one ways to get to Absolute Knowing. it's not like he would have been completely confounded by the futility of crusade, or how the Terror was an inseparable part of revolution, or anything else, including the fact that things were almost supernaturally determined to repeat themselves forever. and Kojeve would have agreed with him.

but there seems to be something in us that goes squirrelly whenever we feel that the future has been cancelled in this way. more disturbingly is the impulse in human beings that goes to the brink, goes to frenzy, and eventually decides that beyond a certain horizon, Hate trumps Fear. even if they are two aspects of the same thing, the self-destructive other-destructive loop of despair and delirium. things we ought to know about by now, and why they are not good to produce. but wat do? the US cast its votes for Trump in 2016 because they were no-confidence votes in the Blue Team that claimed it, and only it, was on the Right Side of History, and it is very likely to do so again next year, and give us another fucking deep dish apple pie of total fucking stupidity. around and around we go.

maybe this is the gods fucking with us, to punish us for our hubris and arrogance. maybe Trump was made the president as punishment for crimes in a previous life, for being such a dick and being needed to receive a harsh lesson in the impossibility of governing in the way that he does, just as punch as the Blue Team needed an orange Nemesis as their own reckoning. a kind of mutual karma, as it were, and a great Teaching Moment that they could both learn from. as could i, perhaps, from staring into this like it was a toilet bowl full of shit that for truly insane reasons i insisted on staring at with my face about six inches away from it. why am i doing this?

'because,' i say, 'i want the truth.'
but you are just staring a fucking bowl full of shit.
'yes,' i respond. 'i am reading it, as if it were an oracle.'
'it is not an oracle, tho, girardfag. it is a bowl of human shit. and you should probably not spend all of your time in the bathroom staring at it. because this is a Starbucks, and you are frightening the other customers.'

Attached: hegel_phenomenology.jpg (694x514, 121K)

>what's happening in this thread
>girardfag posting

Attached: 1543864386025.jpg (250x325, 19K)

Capitalism is good. It just doesn't exist yet.

He wrote more than one book retard, his first book is childs play compared to the expositions of metaphysics in his later ones

>The left all believe that the process of production, being rationality in action, only needs to be made to function for human needs. But this rationality is capital itself.

Attached: Jacques-e-Armando.jpg (472x433, 101K)

We are ruled by an illuminati of intellectual elites (sort of), they just aren't trained in Eastern metaphysics as far as I know. They definitely aren't Christian though.

To me, the 20th and 21st (thus far) centuries have been characterized by Rule by Intelligence Agency. Almost all of the most idiotic forms of wokeness can be traced back to CIA/KGB spy wars. Fundamentally, you have forms of government that are deeply dishonest about how things actually are, and serious harm results.

>To me, the 20th and 21st (thus far) centuries have been characterized by Rule by Intelligence Agency.
this is a great characterization. the ways in which we fall in love with ideological security apparatuses is a fascinating human phenomenon, especially when we start pretending as if these things don't always come back to devour themselves in the end.

back in the Xenosystems days Land used to tweet about political polarization in the intelligence communities as being a huge problem. i think he was right about that. the future is going to be very closely surveilled, and encrypted, and hacked, and patched, and updated and identified as X-Compliant in about thirty million different ways. when the domain of computer programming goes all the way over and links up with psychology at the level of mass control - well, i say this like it isn't already happening...

Attached: BN-XJ121_FACERE_GR_20180207042432.jpg (1242x810, 94K)

Silly anons there's no such thing as space.

it's why things like this along with BTC are absolutely worth the insomnia. what else do we expect to happen? tying finance to ideological control through tech both was and was not possible in earlier ages, but we are both more closely linked up now by the internet and subsequently more able as a species to do all kinds of mischievous shit to each other by and through those same channels.

social credit may well be one of those things that just defines an age, as much as the atomic bomb was the symbol of an era a few generations ago.

Attached: Screen Shot 2017-07-30 at 15.39.26.png (1137x736, 1.23M)

Much appreciated.

Attached: hooper.jpg (650x432, 112K)

then mix in with that AI and DAO corporations and sentient burger-flipping algorithms and all the rest. all this shit. the internet changes everything, but then mix in money and security and terrorism threats, the need for control and surveillance...

you will have to look through all the glittering surfaces and past the Byzantine tangles of security and privacy and identity to see the real cyberpunk goodness going on underneath, but it will be there.

Attached: amTnqkdTlvUWoD3DAh2ywdsigoG1oEmswHaCNxDvqlQ.jpg (1045x648, 93K)

also, in case if anyone was wondering that amidst all of this cyberpunk fun that Islam would somehow be left in the dust, you might want to check this out. i look forward to many more years of hearing how much Sharia prefigures the computer age as an infinitely hackable and patchable operating system.

i'm tempted to update Deleuze's characterization of societies of control to being societies of *compliance,* only another turning of Foucault's Screw.

Attached: pid_25341.jpg (400x600, 35K)

Could you explain what you mean by it just doesn't exist yet?

also, random thought, but what would be interesting would be if people wrote works of philosophy that were basically vacuum-sealed and only intended to be read in about twenty years. the present changes too much, and everybody's in a kind of a race to get the right handle on a thing that absolutely cannot be handled in that way. cyberpunk fucking rules. it's the only way of actually taking the correct view on this new intersection of money/tech/knowledge that is basically the only thing that matters in philosophy.
>he said
>like a fucking asshole
life on the other side of Woke Revolution - in *any* form, just the process itself observed dispassionately, without trying to box everything into one side of the political spectrum or the other - really is legit fascinating. money/mind/tech. find a flaw.
>found one, you're stupid
>i mean other than that

Attached: 3.jpg (752x1063, 239K)

What are your thoughts on Negarastani's book that'll be released next month?

Attached: _collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9780997567489&type=.jpg (550x837, 76K)

looks good! i read I&S and it was way good. Negarestani doesn't get me right in the feels as much as some but it's only because of how i am wired. my fetishization of pinball machines is also borrowed from him, he's written a bunch of stuff about them, toys, all that good stuff.

it's enough for me at this point to just root for the direction that philosophy is taking towards those places that Land got to first. personally i think i am at my limits, and i just need to work on my own system and try and live right, be grateful, not freak out, not panic, not bring any more gasoline to the world's biggest fire. but that's just me, blah blah.

Negarestani is cool. all the cyberpunk stuff is cool. maybe i'll have some more interesting thoughts than this tomorrow, i don't know. but in general all the stuff that leads into /acc territory is cool as hell, and it is imho the right direction for continental stuff to go, 100%. and then perhaps when one is maxed out on that and is just a bundle of grief and madness like me to take the nondual turn. that's what i've got atm amigo.

Attached: 1539632173834.png (1280x720, 1.25M)

I'm not into all of this but after reading the thread I discovered that many fiction works follow this same narrative. For instance, I was rereading some fragments of The Book of Disquiet yesterday (a book memed to death here but yet brilliant) and I found this:

"We generally colour our ideas of the unknown with our notions of the known. If we call death a sleep, it’s because it seems like sleep on the outside; if we call death a new life, it’s because it seems like something different from life. With slight misconceptions of reality we fabricate our hopes and beliefs, and we live off crusts that we call cakes, like poor children who make believe they’re happy.
But that’s how all life is, or at least that particular system of life generally known as civilization. Civilization consists in giving something a name that doesn’t belong to it and then dreaming over the result. And the false name joined to the true dream does create a new reality. The object does change into something else, because we make it change. We manufacture realities. The raw material remains the same, but our art gives it a form that makes it into something not the same. A pinewood table is still pinewood, but it’s also a table. We sit at the table, not at the pinewood. Although love is a sexual instinct, it’s not with sexual instinct that we love but with the conjecture of some other feeling. And that conjecture is already some other feeling.
I don’t know what subtle effect of light, or vague noise, or memory of a fragrance or melody, intoned by some inscrutable external influence, prompted these divagations when I was walking down the street and which now, seated in a café, I leisurely and distractedly record. I don’t know where I was going with my thoughts, nor where I would wish to go. Today there’s a light, warm and humid fog, sad with no threats, monotonous for no reason. I’m grieved by a feeling that I can’t place; I’m lacking an argument apropos I don’t know what; I have no willpower in my nerves. Beneath my consciousness I’m sad. And I write these carelessly written lines not to say this and not to say anything, but to give my distraction something to do. I slowly cover, with the soft strokes of a dull pencil (I’m not sentimental enough to sharpen it), the white sandwich paper that they gave me in this café, for it suits me just fine, as would any other paper, as long as it was white. And I feel satisfied. I lean back. The afternoon comes to a monotonous and rainless close, in an uncertain and despondent tone of light. And I stop writing because I stop writing."

Attached: blamecity.png (640x384, 448K)

Bump