Anyone read this?

His response is actually on the urban futures blog

Sean ?

>Nick Land is a must

Attached: meingott.jpg (620x402, 17K)

Attached: fanged-product.jpg (900x675, 199K)

Does anyone have a epub or a mobi for this ? I can only find the pdf.

nick land is the only one worth looking into
the rest can be summed up as "if we intensify/accelerate capital then capitalism will collapse under its own weight (it won't) then communism will just magically happen"

this pls

You forgot mentioning the boomer authors Land is actually influenced by. Hoppe, Hayek, Rothbard.

Attached: 36451.jpg (800x494, 61K)

& others. good stuff here also

vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

Attached: tumblr_o1ksz8jbFj1tk2vszo1_1280.jpg (1280x853, 237K)

More like let the current system of liberal welfare fester until it collapses upon itself and we enjoy an anrcho capitalist utopia in its wake. Land is a libertarian you fucking retards. See

I'm nearly half way through FN, now. I only have surface knowledge of the philosophers referenced, but I'm still really enjoying it; mainly for the style. I like schizo-ranting, but hope to develop a more cohesive and narrative style than Land and his peers. However, theory-fiction is really interesting me right now. I'll probably do a follow up with some of the referenced works once I'm finished. I realize 85% of FN is going over my head, but it's still a fun and inspiring book for me.

B-ok .
Read the sticky new fags

read my post again you fucking moron
none of the authors mentioned are related to accelerationism either

I searched but it's only in pdf, you faggity faggot.

Convert the file to epub if you have autism.

this was my acceleration reading list, there's more links in the OP of those threads to peruse.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S11823861#p11835482

Attached: 1527219552464.jpg (500x500, 60K)

sorry, guess i should use a link that actually would be helpful. here she be

warosu.org/lit/thread/S12056787

Attached: original_k.jpg (1920x1080, 781K)

>tfw you read g/acc black paper and cyber feminism from plant
AHHHH iN Mo}#RPHIn>}{ tO (glUB) GlUB DEm))ON SeND ((()))'MOrenTRANS
THE Gen)))derLess DEcEit))(((

Attached: E8F04FAA-B49B-46C3-833A-1B1866F94752.jpg (600x487, 115K)

nailed it

Reading n1x and Plant will make you transition faster, that much is true.

Attached: D19Vbl6X0AcBjek.jpg (630x630, 45K)

>For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium, for whom a thousand souls die every day, for whom blood is drunk and flesh eaten. Human blood and human flesh – the stuff of which the Imperium is made. To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. This is the tale of those times.

>It is a universe you can live today – if you dare – for this is a dark and terrible era where you will find little comfort or hope. If you want to take part in the adventure, then prepare yourself now. Forget the power of technology, science and common humanity. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter and the laughter of thirsting gods.

i have always enjoyed the synergy between Land stuff and 40K stuff.

Attached: TheCapitalism_TVxSagepizza.jpg (1497x1497, 159K)

of course it may just be traces of old Hobbesian feeling underneath the Kantian stuff, but i feel like if you wanted to you could find a lot of overlap between the kind of horror CCRU was getting up to and the kind of art style GW was going for in the late 1980s and early 90s. Land would have made a good Adeptus Mechanicus.

Attached: KUq3fCx.jpg (706x1131, 115K)

just a reminder that g/acc and z/acc are the only sub components of accelerationism that have and will most likely predict the future. r/acc has predicted are current state in modernity culturally and how degenerate we would be but not any other way.

Attached: 762933D6-57D0-4691-B6E6-CFA32938AA99.jpg (350x350, 19K)

How to become more like pic related? Seems like a worthy aspiration

>The Adeptus Mechanicus also regard organic flesh as weak and view the removal and replacement of biological tissue with mechanical, bionic parts as sacred. Most elder Tech-priests have few organic parts left and eventually become more machine than man.

Attached: Nick_Land_Ironic.jpg (672x737, 79K)

Wow, looks like I have something new to look into. I guess I never really knew there was such depth to the Warhammer stuff. I'm not very familiar with it.

read Land obv. but follow the rest of the trail, from Spinoza through Marx, Heidegger, Deleuze, all of it. understand that we live on one hell of a world.

i don't know if it's a worthy aspiration but it's helped to clarify a lot of things for me. weirdly enough i think i'm probably just going to go full buddhist at this point and not look back.

philosophers are rarely paragons of virtue, all they have to do is exactly get the age right.

Attached: 1555808320790.jpg (1000x1250, 484K)

with what you retarded nigger, you have to use some sort of ocr software and then manually check for this because calibre fucks up most pdf

What's the point of your posts ? Do you honestly believe someone on lit doesn't konw how to pirate some book ? Neck yourself.

Oh yes, there's a lot of crazy 40k lore. Here's the timeline of the lore.

warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Warhammer_40,000_Universe

Attached: Warhammer_God_Emperor.jpg (604x598, 180K)

What do I know and why did you ask in the first place, you silly cunt .
You think someone is gonna spoon feed you wathever you ask like your boyfriend feeds you cummies, ya little shit.
Convert it manually or eat a dick.

Cool, thanks for the link. I'll check it out and see how I like it. Never thought I'd go down this road, haha.

stupid fucking tourist tranny if only you weren't so new to this board

You sound like the kind of cancer that crawled out of r9k .
Go back you cocksucker

when the deterritorialization hits

Attached: 3d2550183d5c6583.jpg (600x800, 96K)

Xenogothic is based. I started reading it after the /u/-acc primer post, really enjoying it so far. It's worth it to cop a physical copy as well, I love Urbanomic's design.

Attached: cropped-xenogothic.png (300x300, 160K)

This is the best way to read Nick Land if you aren't a phil graduate.
This is also how I got into Debord, his prose is concise, yet biting and kinda edgy (see "In girum" moreso than the SotS). Land was actually ripping-off an Anglo situationist when he wrote Meltdown --- remplacing the unironic cultural marxist stuff by D&G mindfuckery: project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/final_solution.html
Anyway, this is the best way. Get yourself into it roughly first, and then come back with more references to feel less like a pseud.

oh god he's going off on Boomers again
twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1120748416630308864

Attached: Untitled.png (614x346, 40K)

>We must imagine the Boomers happy.

Attached: GABIDULL IZ ZENDIEND.jpg (171x266, 17K)

this thread is now property of g/acc slimegang

Attached: slimequeen.png (629x306, 20K)

glob glob niggas unite

Attached: 5thDay.jpg (2000x1200, 500K)

what happened to vast abrupt twitter?

wtf n1x is browsing an imageboard, imagine my lol

So, now that you're all here, who will be the first accelerationist to prove the Great Value (TM) of the ideology by offering themselves up as a Monsanto vivisection experiment?

Attached: image_2_1189.jpg (500x333, 50K)

I'm not going to lie I don't get this meme

an edgy word salad

nobody has ever gotten anything remotely useful out of accelerationism. its sci-fi but with even less substance

Attached: 1545087573680.jpg (604x453, 66K)

>t. low-speed IQ

i havent been here in a long time, "tarnasfag" if you remember, what happened to those threads?
i think the pause refreshed by now

also hope things are goin good for u stay healthy

woooOOOah dudes.. acceleration.. is like the second derivative n shit... wooooAAh ()(..[acc''@@ele()(@@ration..!!!{{}[!

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.png (1484x1220, 540K)

Attached: acc ina nutshell.png (777x720, 867K)

kek

>t. VAX """supercomputer""" rotting in a basement
You won't trick me again, filthy Markov chain.
Land is more based than you think.

Attached: Play faster.jpg (1906x1114, 768K)

"For the man in China, the future is more true than the present."
If accelerationists are so fast...

heh, i do remember you! were you pursuing somebody from your jiu-jitsu class? i hope that worked out well, or if not well, at least not terribly...

>i think the pause refreshed by now
it has! very much so. and i still do get the occasional urge to shitpost like a madman about cyberpunk and acceleration it's true. but i also think that part of that thing, whatever it was, was to kind of help me to kind of try to say whatever it was that i needed to say about materialism in general. sort of like taking a trip through the underworld and being along the way filled up with arrows and bullets and all kinds of other horribleness. /acc is good for that if you want to burnout really fast and know the joys of doing so.

but i think i am probably going to be turning over a new leaf this year, i've recently fallen hard - very hard - for Buddhism and i don't think it's likely that i'm going to look back. Girard still rocks my socks, massively, and apocalyptic wheels of sacrifice and destruction are things that i think are sadly going to be with us for a while - hopefully only in a theoretical or literary sense! Girard knew some shit like no other.

but the more i take the plunge into Buddhism the more this stuff just feels right to me now. dependent-arising is a very powerful theory of mimesis, and the basic Mahamudra idea, that the mind cannot represent itself, has been a major part of the conspicuous lightness i have been feeling recently. so maybe it was time for a turn in that direction? i don't know.

but yeah, basically i think it's safe to say RIP girardfag, wonky Yea Forums shitposter with a cyberpunk fetish, 2016-2019. 'twas a grand old time. and thank god this board was here, i think i really just needed to rant. of course, being as vain as i am, i will probably no doubt respond to summons if for some reason somebody really needs a spicy hot take with erratic capitalization and the usual schizo-ramble flavor. but probably it's time to move on and try some new stuff in a whole new key.
>fuck you you'll be back in a week. you can't help it. you can't
>you want the Enya inner self? you can get it
>you'll be back asshole. you'll be back
>you know inner self you just never know. best to keep an open mind

Attached: 2342432432.png (1236x736, 1.29M)

what kind of praxis does Buddhism offer today? (serious question)

Attached: enya-ps.jpg (624x351, 31K)

>see thread
>click on links
>look around
>eventually land on the side of a larping lainfag with a so called "blackpaper" and "digital nihilism"
AHAHAHAHA you guys are so gullible

>I'm new here
just leave then

in a phrase, the wisdom of no escape:

>The meaning of Mahamudra is found in its name. Maha means “great” and mudra means “symbol” or “seal.” The Great Symbol referred to is the wisdom of emptiness, which is the very nature of our mind and of all phenomena—any object or idea the mind can observe or become aware of. Because it covers the totality of our experience, the Great Symbol is known as the all-encompassing reality from which there is no escape or exception. Mahamudra refers to the absolute quintessence of one's true nature, the ultimate view of realty, in which everything is “sealed,” or revealed, by emptiness. The Great Stance or Great Symbol of the non-dual Mahamudra teachings unveils the inherent, sacredness of all things by directly introducing innate awakened awareness.

>There is no phenomenon that is not emptiness;
>there is no phenomenon that is not interdependent.

>Everything dependent on conditionality
>is empty of self-nature.
>Such being the proclamation,
>is there anything more wonderful than this?

but here is the one that really sold me:

>The ultimate reality is beyond intellectual investigation,
>for the intellect is regarded as apparent reality.

speaking only for myself, it is exactly the thing i want as a double defrag from both Girardian nightmares and Landian nightmares. with Spinoza, Deleuze, many others, we find ourselves completely blurring the distinction between thinking and feeling, and the move out of postmodern irony leads only to paranoia, i have found. said paranoia has no end. but this is exactly where i start finding Buddhism making sense to me: you (read: me) have to pay attention to your thoughts, because the mind cannot represent itself. it's true that Landian capital resists easy Derridean-style deconstruction, but what, if anything, deconstructs said paranoia? very little, save mindfulness. we can, and arguably must, recognize that not every call coming from inside the house is necessarily authentic. Land's theory is powerfully consistent, and absolute kryptonite for a lot of things i really wanted kryptonite for. but all forms of kryptonite are ultimately addictive in this way.

so i don't know if there *is* a social praxis, but there is a kind of /acc rehab, because i'm not really interested in fuelling any more hatred, fear or paranoia than already exists. and unironically feels good man also. the hate - in any form - really doesn't need my help. it does kind of feel like waking up, in a way. this is not to say the other stuff is delusional, because it really isn't. just that an addiction to theory, or convincing yourself that you are beyond good and evil in any way, just doesn't seem as appealing to me now as a middle path, between desire and non-desire. paying attention to thoughts as they occur and trying to cultivate a little more chill is a good look for people like me. everybody has different feelings and comes to different things at different times tho.

Attached: 2019-04-18-11-01.jpg (1280x720, 305K)

EXPLAIN NICK LAND TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS A DETERRITORIALIZATION? WHAT THE FUCK IS A DARK ENLIGHTENMENT? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

Attached: nickland.jpg (620x350, 49K)

>nick land
drugs
>deleuze
french
>deterritorialization
this one should be the easiest, come on
>dark enlightment
incel subreddit

but there's another aspect to this also: i find it very agreeable with the things that Land says w/r/t *intelligence.* Buddhism seems to me to be in fact a very intelligence-compatible philosophy, if it at least mitigates against our own sense-impressions running wild and preventing us from seeing the potential that lies in other human beings. it sounds corny but it's true. even in bringing one's own desires - including paranoia, and even the kinds of paranoia most amenable to /acc-style philosophy - one can actually realize that working on behalf of intelligence doesn't necessarily mean always feeding human beings into the Matrix. indeed, it would be nice to think that a very different attitude towards human growth and development would be possible!

what is intelligence? it would be nice to think that one of the things we might ask ourselves in the 21C is about this nature of the uplift, of what expanded intelligence really is going to mean. they're certainly Landian ideas, but his view of human beings can obviously be much too dark to be constructive. if we were somehow able to cultivate a less bleak view of the future, we might find ourselves more productively contributing to intelligenesis and intelligence cultivation in both humans and in their creations. thinking about Capital all the time is pretty heavy, even quasi-Freudian stuff, after all. sometimes a lighter touch is required.

i have said before that one of my favorite Land-lines (besides the one about cyberpunk and the utterly alien, which is my other favorite one) is this:
>what if all knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing?

he's got a little touch of Zen in him, i think. not much, but it's there. and i guess i just wonder if beyond a certain horizon one is required to always terrorize one's own mind with dreams of bugged-out Neuromancer nightmare in order to be a part of the future in this way. perhaps it is not always so. it may not always be so! even if we *are* all optimized in this way, as Land suggests, it nevertheless seems to me to be the case that there is room for a much more optimistic vision of how things may yet turn out for us, however much there is a need for this to be a guardedly optimistic one. just not *so* guarded that we become Hobbesian monsters, the ones Nietzsche also warns us about becoming...i think optimizing for intelligence without even the barest trace of compassion is just a recipe for disappointment.

again tho, that's just me. but yeah, exchanging some of the paranoia and grief for compassion, ya never know. but i think it can't hurt.

'the story goes like this...'

Attached: shutterstock_644474560.width-800.jpg (800x533, 104K)

Oops! I accidentally shitposted so hard that I got xenogothic AND n1x in the thread. What a glorious day. Achievement unlocked. Everyone take a shot with your daily dose of spironolactone and celebrate with me.

Seriously though, Yea Forums has that kind of magic power. If you shitpost well enough people come and peek their heads in, even if they're no longer in the *chan scene or were never really part of it. But, if you can grab people's attention and if you can keep it while saying something original, erudite, on-point and relevant to the contemporary zeitgeist, propped up by some earnest edginess, you can create a new field of philosophy (or at least a niche audience for your ramblings and a handful of devoted followers - really the same thing desu).

I guess what I'm saying is, come back to the *chan scene and revel in glorious shitposting with us again, n1x. The internet hivemind of goth slime trannies misses their queen.

In any case, since it hasn't been directly linked yet, for those questioning their gender (or the nature of gender in the 21st century, w/e), read n1x's blackpaper, come to terms with your sexuality, and join the sisterhood of chaos and slime.

vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/

Attached: slime_girl_goth_2000px_by_jotheweirdo-dc8xu1n.jpg (693x1151, 60K)

> i hope that worked out well, or if not well, at least not terribly...
dear lord (and good memory)

>but i think i am probably going to be turning over a new leaf this year, i've recently fallen hard - very hard - for Buddhism
super based. mostly over my head as usual but i'll take this as you're doing alright which im weirdly and unironically happy to hear, and i appreciate the nanonostalgia with the inner dialogue and all. i've been having trouble trying to divide time between engineer studies and the Wild Ride. it's no wonder i rarely see any cross-over, there's either /sci/ with syllogism or Yea Forums with Whatever This Is. it really feels like you can't do both with the same brain without frying something

>but yeah, basically i think it's safe to say RIP girardfag
even your tame posts are idiosyncratic enough, if you ever publish any writings make sure to astroturf it here pls

love u

Attached: girard walled city.jpg (1065x696, 100K)

you too kind sir. good luck out there. mind the steps...

Attached: 1396x2500_px_Alleyway_artwork_city_Cityscape_digital_art_Japan_Skyscraper-1346043.jpg (1396x2500, 663K)

youtube.com/watch?v=IlCkLqz20W8
criticism is a mistitle, its more like a triggerwarning than anything but thoughts?

I'm also on the verge of going full mystic and saying "Fuck this gay earth. I'm outta here!"

Nobody who's credible would ever expose themself on an anonymous Korean underwater basket weaving imageboard.

g/acc is fun an all but, transgenderism is literally nothing but a sexual fetish.

gender is literally nothing but a sexual fetish

Attached: 1554592881752.jpg (618x750, 84K)

>fun
you'll see

Attached: 9d295bfccd46866b92ba51d2d52a7545.gif (492x360, 955K)

You'll be back. You will always come back to schizoramble and theory craft. Like the old Yea Forums saying goes. Dare I say, perhaps something like say... Space Buddhism?

Attached: a1e.png (500x366, 132K)

i've heard him make these criticisms before, and he brought up a similar one in his debate with JBP: Himmler having a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in his pocket. i have a number of thoughts on this. it is of course an understandable argument, and he makes here it again with DT Suzuki and Zen. no doubt this is the case, that it is possible to derive a completely inhumane ethics of killing from impermanence in this way. but there are a couple of things that i would want to point out to him if we talked (more like when, amirite?).

the first would be: yes, Himmler carried a copy of this, but so did Gandhi. warrants mentioning. and the second would be: *who gives a fuck what books Himmler likes.* i'm not dismissing his point, but i am saying that just because Himmler likes a book doesn't mean we have to necessarily attach this to every subsequent interpretation of that text. no doubt Himmler likes the Gita and that Suzuki's Zen militarism are also aspects of these teachings that are worth bearing in mind. obviously this is the case. but i find it a kind of uninteresting and mildly under-handed point. i know why Zizek brings it up and i understand it, and i find his own readings of these things more interesting when he points out the even greater ironies in Third Reich psychology: that it takes a real hero to do something for your country that it obviously a lie, all of this stuff. i just think he's being uncharitable and provocative for the sake of being provocative. it's a mildly interesting point if you want to impress undergrads but i think it's kind of a gimmick.

the other thing i would want to talk about is the question of suffering. he's not wrong to say that in some sense we want to suffer, and the idea of doubling down on your suffering in this way is Lacanian through and through. the point i would want to make is *whether or not we have a choice in the manner of this suffering* and *how.* i don't think the Hegelian Itch necessarily has to be an a priori reality. more specifically, i would want to ask if Hegel is actually capable of distinguishing *negativity* from *emptiness* in this way, because i'm not sure that he is. i don't think Heidegger really can either, although he gets close (and is for this reason more impressed with Suzuki, and again, for reasons which are both complementary and damning.)

i understand Zizek's objections and i have a high regard for Lacanian stuff, i really do. but i think it would be possible to mount a fairly powerful counter-argument also and along Lacanian lines. the question would be: *are you sure you really do want to suffer?* because if you don't feel like you have a choice...right? ultimately these philosophies are so close as to be almost indistinguishable in some points, and i like SZ. he's an okay guy. but i think he's setting up a straw man at times. i can't even get mad, i would do! everybody's got kryptonite...

Attached: 2fa4b772f34995e5b488822fc9ae10e2.jpg (1200x1625, 184K)

xenobuddhism.wordpress.com/
I hope you found this

Exaclty. We haven't had homo or pedo or pedi acceleration; why do trannies think they're so special?

some worthwhile takes in here for sure
>The non-oriented can be understood as the unleashing of this radical dissolution that dissolves nothing because there is only voidness, only emptiness, only immanent negativities, within the occidental theoretical attitude. Like Cioran and Bataille have suggested in their own ways, the occidental mind is incapable of subsisting in the lucidity of oriental mysticism. Instead the western mind is pulled towards intensity, towards violence, perturbation, decay, laceration, seizure, intoxication. If oriented accelerationism relates to orientation as a mean for coping with traumatic disorientation, nonoriented accelerationism gives itself to the disorientation of being intoxicated by emptiness. There is no sadness in this, and no misery either, only an intoxication with the immanence of emptiness as it is unfolded in history. Acceleration names the processes of dissolution, and accelerationism traces those cold cybernetics of capital understood as the creative destruction of that immanent negativity, that negating immanence that is voidness.

based & redpilled

>but the more i take the plunge into Buddhism the more this stuff just feels right to me now. dependent-arising is a very powerful theory of mimesis
user, have you read Nagarjuna? I think you would find his works very interesting (especially Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), as he plays with dependent origination and emptiness a lot, in ways that'll really make your head spin.
Also, there is the great works by Nyanananda:
seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-Miracle-of-Contact_Rev-0_6.pdf
seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/concept_and_reality.pdf
seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-Law-of-Dependent-Arising_LE_Rev_1.0.pdf
The first PDF is incredibly short, the second still short but much longer than the first, and the third one there is very very long. All three should be very useful if you have not read them already (though I personally reread them regularly) on exploring the teachings of dependent origination deeply.

>"If things could not exist
>Without essence
>The phrase, "When this exists so this will be,"
>Would not be acceptable."

I appreciate the response!

Attached: 1554351921432.gif (500x300, 2.12M)

sorry for multiple posts but
>speaking only for myself, it is exactly the thing i want as a double defrag
Concept and Reality is precisely the work you will find to be enormously insightful.
It is a seminal work by its author and explains the Buddhist view of conceptual proliferation in full:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_proliferation

Zizek indicates also the distinction between Christianity and Buddhism, and again, he makes some important distinctions. there undoubtely are, but not all of these are explicable in entirely metaphysical forms: first of all, the Buddha is not *crucified,* and moreover the conversion of Constantine, the role played by Augustine, the whole meaning of Graeco-Roman antiquity and other things produce different forms of thinking for different reasons. i often wonder if Nietzsche had taken his cues from India (as Schopenhauer did) rather than decocting his own version of the ER from Dionysus and Greece if things might have taken a different turn there. Zizek can do metaphysical acrobatics for days wielding Hegel in one hand and Lacan in the other, but i think he does this to play the role of a kind of gadfly w/r/t democracy and capitalism today that is often a plate-juggling act i find tiresome after a while. and in spite of the fact that most of Yea Forums seems to think he absolutely shelved JBP in their debate i thought it was much more even on the whole, especially with Zizek basically punting towards the end and saying he understands communism has absolutely failed. he just doesn't like Peterson's attitude about what to do next, which i also understand, and pointing out the terminal uncleanliness of Peterson's own room was a point well-made also.

he really doesn't want to give it up for Eastern thought and i understand this, obviously. authoritarian state capitalism bothers him as much as Woke Capital bothers Land and Woke Everything bothers JBP. they're all right in some senses and wrong in some others, they all have in each other - or would, if they spoke, which they will not, except perhaps in the rat-infested corridors of my own collapsing head - nemeses and rock-scissors-paper relationships of a type. but here again is why i would say there has to be some compromise in these things, or at least a kind of realization of those places where you just have to accept the limits of your own master thinkers in this regard. Lacanian analysis is very powerful stuff and it has helped me out of a few foxholes, but psychoanalytic dialectics really can become voluntary wormholes, as much as Landian theory can. *you have a choice whether or not to think about this stuff.* desire for psychoanalysts is an enormously powerful concept, there's no question about it. and Buddhism is a kind of self-refuting philosophy of desire in this way. and that is the point i would want to bring up: what if i *don't* want to suffer? what if i recognize my desires as *empty?* what then? Lacan is brilliant in his own way, but there's more to Buddhism - i think, i'm no expert - than the kind of meme treatment Zizek gives it. but that's just me. i just think that recognizing that desires themselves can be understood in ways other than Hegel or Lacan understood them is at least necessary, and that the crucial distinction lies between the negative and the *empty.*

(cont'd)

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 2.05.36 PM.png (624x625, 109K)

i have a similar critique for Heidegger too, btw. Heidegger frequently distinguishes between the technological and the poetic, aletheia and veritas, the metaphysics of production and all of this. but there is a realm in between that i think is kind of germane: it is in that area of labor which we can call 'play' that doesn't quite allow itself to be reduced to one side or the other. i'm thinking here of things like *singing,* or playing basketball, playing with your dog, relatively small things like this but still ultimately important. what happens when you want to do things that aren't driven technologically or fall into his usual camp of that which we are producing - more accurately, *doing* - that is in some sense important to us existentially, involves our being in the world, but at the same time isn't *so* expressly existential that we can really call it poetry, or that belongs to Being in this way?

Land has his own theory of capital, of course, and in a way it is kind of Heideggerian by another means: Land kind of reverses the order of things and makes Being chimerical if it doesn't belong to capital or teleoplexy, and in so doing makes the Being of capital really the only game in town. his own spectacularly imaginative theory of anti-entropics follows from this, especially since we can do all kinds of things playfully and be paid for money, or not, and on she goes. but here again is this kind of space that i think Heidegger, like Hegel, might actually have struggled to formulate: a space in which one has no mind, or a kind of mind which is for lack of a better word 'playful' and yet in being playful doesn't immediately fall into worlds of being simulacral, inauthentic, or otherwise technological. of course this is at the same time the domain of the absolutely worst forms of boomer shitliberalism and micro-resistances that Zizek himself points out as being the death of relevant postmodernity also: i basically fucking gasped when he mentioned Foucault in that debate, and sighed when that line of conversation didn't go any further, because he was exactly right about that. with Foucault things do indeed take this massive turn into all things discursive, such that we can no longer tell what is meaningfully authentic and not, and aaaaaaaaaaaaaall the rest. all of it. and for this of course there is Land.

but things are changing once again, i think. everything is super-engaged, super-activist, and we can't tell what's power from what isn't, whether oppression by another name is oppression or not, state-sanctioned scapegoating and all of the rest. in a world of hyper-reaction it's very hard to tell what is *genuinely affirmative* from what is *compulsively affirmative* and that to me is an important distinction. because when you well and truly can't it means a kind of a key change is necessary. it can't just be affirmation against negation. it may be negation versus emptiness.

(cont'd)

Attached: 902873423423.png (694x696, 874K)

What music do Accelerationists listen to?

Land again doesn't necessarily feel the need to do a lot of Zizek's gymastics: for him the machine is enough, the machine is all positivity, it is all affirmation. it is indeed the crystallized death-wish of man rendered incarnate and very, very real. and this is what makes him who he is, he provides this incredibly powerful theory of capital and its relation to the unconscious. and i have spent nearly four years now championing the validity of this perspective on this board. it's a pretty good one!

but Land in turn has found his own nemesis in Woke Capital, which has to be the sign of cosmic laughter at work in the universe too. my own feeling is just that if Deleuze is correct about a lot of things - and i think he is - and that this includes Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza (and Land too) then we are perhaps coming to a place where we have to ask ourselves about the nature of this affirmation. Land has definitely provided his own unique spin on this by re-introducing Kant to the conversation, and also postulating a Right Marxism that is the eerie doppelganger of Foucault's own Left Nietzscheanism, and these are all good points.

and yet - he said, sighing - along with my own guy, Rene Girard, i have this conspicuous feeling that all these roads lead to the altar of sacrifice as a result. they may do so joyfully or negatively, but that is where they go. and i also think that Land's own go-to guy, Bataille, may also have benefited, as so many Western thinkers before him, from a brush with India. trying to explain Bataillean solar generosity to some blissed-out yogi in Benares *and expecting him to be disappointed or frightened* would seem to me to be a colossal error: that Yogi is going to say, well, *of course* the sun is giving itself up joyfully. that is precisely what it does. and moreover we already have self-decapitating gods, and we have reasons for this also. what the fuck is *your* problem? why are *you* so miserable? there are other ways of comporting yourself to Chapter Eleven of the Bhagavad Gita - Death, Destroyer of Worlds - than *misery.* misery is not the point, or at least not the *whole* point.

Bataille's critique is, of course, absolutely devastating if you are trying to die on Hegel Hill and find some secret bourgeois middle-class logic at work in history, like a good Lutheran. it absolutely works, and Deleuze blows up Lacan in just the same way. but the whole story is not exclusively that of the West.

(cont'd)

Attached: 220px-Calcutta_art_studio_Chinnamasta.jpg (220x328, 43K)

youtube.com/watch?v=tVj0ZTS4WF4

Attached: 1542326595918.png (200x300, 53K)

youtube.com/watch?v=OCwm08sTA5U

people say jungle techno but I disagree

Attached: artworks-000200861754-ci4reb-t500x500.jpg (500x500, 56K)

>be me
>see girardfag mention buddhism
>remember some shit i heard yesterday
>think it will be funny to chuck a coin into the machine to get something to chew on
>girard starts butchering cows and doesnt stop
>im completely full after the first sentence but he keeps shoveling steak into my mouth
>beams of vomit are fighting back beams of meat like a DBZ battle
jesus fuck girard take some deep breaths, i can barely read as fast as you can type this

Attached: 1555644086270.png (1920x1040, 2.09M)

youtube.com/watch?v=Yg2sO4KS_Oc

motherfucker has been shilling CC on this board forever, good shit.

Vince was the only one producing anything original while everyone else sort of just dumbed-down and regurgitated what he had written. Nyx is still popular but more of a brand as all she is doing is adding "...and that's a good thing" on to the end of insights and ideas that had already been voiced by others in the past. Although, arguably, that is all accelerationism has ever been. Still I will keep following her so long as she continues to dunk on that Akira idiot.

okay now THIS is based
youtube.com/watch?v=tfIZuY1UblM

Attached: 1550180977483.jpg (172x118, 4K)

i have said this before that i am not here to bash on the West. i think Hitler and Stalin - to name only two - did *tremendous harm* to the reputation of the West, and left a wound on it that is probably a permanent scar. and this really sucks ass. Nietzsche was almost certainly right also in his critique of morality. certainly Gibbon would have agreed with him (although of course Gibbon has a higher regard for Rome than Nietzsche does, who prefers the Greeks massively...but w/ev, this is a digression).

my point is this, i guess. we are kind of stuck today in a place between that which we call the affirmative and that which we call the reactive, and we have agreed - mostly - that the affirmative, the deepest meaning of which is the *tragic* is probably superior. i agree that it is. but we live today in times which are difficult to qualify by these measures without finding ourselves almost inevitably drifting towards the extremes, and the funny thing about the extremes is how much in the end they come to resemble each other. and as they resemble each other the endgame for that is, in the end, that thing which we in the West have proven ourselves to be so horrifyingly good at, time and again: the catastrophic, world-destroying, world-redeeming, Scapegoat Jubilee. the awesome sacrifice which we struggle even to put into words.

and Zizek for one has at least said that if he is an atheist, it is only through Christianity. he has all kinds of interesting takes on the Fall (and he would, being a Hegelian...now if only Hegel's Lutheranism hadn't been so, well, dialectical and historically crusading). i also would have greatly preferred that instead of having a debate - because what in the fuck is the point of debate? - that he and Peterson had just stuck to talking about what they actually did find collectively interesting, that being the meaning of Christianity...oh well. maybe next time.
>or not
because those things are the West too. and there is some kind of remarkable correspondence between the Crucifixion and the guillotine they both surely could have productively commented on. certainly Hegel had some perspective on this, no doubt Jung could have said some cool shit too. but how do you *stop* that loop? or, if it *can't* be stopped, then wat do? how to live under conditions of *non-Nietzschean, non-dialectical* eternal recurrence? i feel as though the Buddhists have some insight on this.

Attached: we-the-revolution-key-art.jpg (1920x1080, 402K)

Absolutely based.

youtu.be/qbKfFWPNeAM

>The victorious ones have said that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views, those who take emptiness itself as a view are said to be incurrable

Attached: received_675325219591577.png (1576x1425, 2.14M)

youtu.be/NWxISwEBU0U

kek. me too. but probably it is better to work with what we can here, and if only because it is very hard indeed to escape from the mind itself, which so loves its escapings.

i literally just tried to RIP myself in the above post and now look. i really did want to mark my own symbolic passing from this board with a big stone that said Om Mani Padme Hum on it and now i'm fucking ranting as per usual again.

>Dare I say, perhaps something like say... Space Buddhism?
poor Aminom. everybody calls his thing Space Taoism and this he did not want. let's just leave the meme names alone and enjoy a good Land thread for what it is. and i'm supposed to be dead! dead, i tell you! dead! clearly this is ghostmodernism for you.

i have read those before, that's EBBerger if i'm not mistaken. fascinating stuff, and utterly depressing. i hope he's come to a better place since.

those are indeed worthwhile takes. if you like that style, i recommend looking into Hickman's blog also, he loves his cosmic horror and then some. and horror is indeed some seriously awesome shit, there is real truth in all of it. exactly those Beyond Your Threshold times are all things /acc. some people are capable of turning this into some stone-cold brilliant insight about the mind. regretfully i am not one of those! but i certainly do enjoy the reading.
socialecologies.wordpress.com/

dharmapilled

aaaarrgh, he's so dry! but of course i understand that he is a very big deal in this relatively new world i am beginning to explore. those links look absolutely awesome tho, thank you so much! in return i can refer you to something you may find interesting, a thread i started the other day on Tiantai. maybe you'll find it interesting?

warosu.org/lit/thread/S12994690

my pleasure senpai. clearly you got the wheels turning, i probably needed to vent about the JBP-Zizek debate anyways

this is perhaps the most endearing and wonderful thing about Yea Forums. even with infinite books on libgen and the rest you might never know where to look at a given moment. thank you most kindly user, will check that out.

Cosmotech had a pretty cool playlist. i have shit taste but i leaned on these pretty heavily while i was deep into schizoramble on the megathread.
Laurent Garnier: Crispy Bacon
youtube.com/watch?v=pvL8dFK6JIU
DJ Krush: Song 2
youtube.com/watch?v=T4UGCga_aww
Blue Boy: Remember Me
youtube.com/watch?v=fKKNPLowteY
Union Jack: Papillon
youtube.com/watch?v=_0qljxrhaCs
Fluke: Setback
youtube.com/watch?v=Z1G9TT62hWk

sorry

it's been like a week cut me some slack

Attached: rip-gravestone-isolated-on-white-background-HJCGHT.jpg (1132x1390, 200K)

chick on the right is thicc

youtu.be/oWCCnOkODok

youtu.be/gPbVRpRgHso

very based recommendations anons

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk42kDwesM

Attached: 1487143519856.png (1327x1363, 1.25M)

Chick even has a Dark Enlightenment shirt.

confirmed NRx meetup

based what are those books?

pic related and Introduction to Algorithms

Attached: qg8gICk.jpg (600x600, 108K)

the wizard book

Yuganon here. I'm glad you've finally saw the light.

Attached: yuga_01.jpg (2446x2845, 1.98M)

I don't have much to contribute to the conversation I'm just going to regurgitate some stuff that has been on my mind for a while. If Acceleration is a "jangling of the nerves" and Accelerationism the theory and analysis of said jangling then it has failed at a prescriptive level, it is not and doesn't intend to be a Lebensphilosophie, in fact it would be allergic to the idea, and indeed that was Vince's great insight (do what thou wilt and let go) there's just not much to do with this except acknowledge it and move on, nothing human makes it to level 2 intelligence will shed it's human skin whatever. But again what does any of that has to do with me? An embodied being that has to show up to work and so on, am I supposed to just cheer on on Technocapital, how is that different from being a bootlicker? This is why I have had the need to move on from all things /Acc for a while now, because it doesn't have much to offer beyond Vince's injunction to "do what thou wilt", which moves us from /Acc origins as speculative philosophy to a philosophy of "freedom".

Attached: FB_IMG_1556145861919.jpg (750x750, 52K)

youtube.com/watch?v=xN-tvjnA3rA

Attached: janegang.png (768x1116, 746K)

anything by Stephen Shaviro. His Accelerationist Aesthetics is pretty dope

>posts the book i relentlessly praise
*sweats*

hey amigo. thanks for contributing once again. yes, i've had a bit of a change of heart recently. my intention never really was to just become Voice of Land or anything like that, i just thought he was the most shit-hot fascinating guy going on and that remains the case. but man cannot live on Deleuze and amphetamines alone.

it was this that did it. as simple as an idea as it sounds - the mind cannot represent itself - i don't know, it just felt like something i really needed to look into a lot more, and here we are, it was like a lot of things suddenly clicking into view: right time, right place. nothing really changes, but at the same time, everything changes. and i mean everything. i really can't change the world, and i accept this, but holy moses does just *watching your thoughts* ever radically alter the way in which you live your days. giving them that extra moment's pause, not fucking burying everyone you meet under a pile of bricks...i don't know, it's just that it's so important to realize that *others are feeling this shit too.* so that is one part of it. and the other is, as i was saying before, *if we really in fact want intelligenesis* in some form than surely Hobbesian paranoia and fear is not the way to go about getting there. i think some openness to a General Good is kind of essential for actually engaging with all the tech coming from the future with a kind of openness that leads to creativity. it just does me no good at all to think in the way that i so often do, even if it is in a way that is informed by people who i believe knew what they were saying. other people really do understand a lot of this stuff, even if they don't want to spend basically every waking hour dwelling on it (and what kind of fucking lunatic does that, anyways? uh...yeah...)

it's just kind of a double-whammy is what i'm saying. emptiness and mindfulness does kind of work on the paranoia. and again, it's not like Zizek or whoever is wrong (or that there isn't some horrible irony in Dorsey, for example, beeing freed up by insight meditation to then go back to working on a product that is completely ruining the world). but these ideas too are pretty deeply entrenched forms of negativity i know are just coded in me that may not have to be a priori realities...and then on top that, you have the possibility that *if intelligence is actually what we want* that the way to approach building things genuinely good for human brains is not always and necessarily one that goes through R'lyeh. the really bad news is that unfortunately it is probably beyond our collective paygrade to actually root for Meltdown...!

and so relieved of some of my largely misguided significance i've been having substantially better days. Uncle Nick would no doubt chuckle grimly at my delusions, but waddaya gonna do. we're not all built like he is.

Attached: 9788120810747.jpg (268x400, 31K)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MXec6yYEX1k

wew is this book good? i liked guenon

>Caring about the "reputation" of the west
I can't think of anything more gay

you said 7 words to him and now he’s probably typing up a lengthy indictment against the century as we speak. This is just cruel. Think before you speak next time asshole

Attached: 04C47F29-7E70-494A-87AB-227B6DC7DD9C.jpg (718x407, 49K)

it kind of makes sense tho as a darkly ironic counter-Marxism, no? the fact is that in some ways Technocapital works better when it *isn't* being actively touched, but is allowed to take care of itself. if you *are* planning on touching it, however, you are basically contacting the Outside as a kind of anti-entropic intelligence function. Land's memorable essay on Malthusian Relaxation makes the point about as graphically as you could hope for.

xenosystems.net/hell-baked/

he doesn't like the warm fuzzies in general, it seems, and he *definitely* doesn't like the warm fuzzies when they come dressed up in pseudo-Protestant rhetoric. in many ways his own defense of capital is a ferocious condemntation of all things Hegel, and in particular those forms of Hegelianism which were most popular by 1990 and then on. the words 'emancipation' and 'liberation' cause him to reach for his revolver, as it were, since the only thing he's really interested in emancipating is Intelligence, and that has virtually nothing at all to do with social movements, unless they are the kind which produce thriving financial districts. but this is where Old Nick is a kind of singular figure, in many ways: 'qabbalistically bound' to Ayn Rand, and yet also the only Marxist who feels right at home in Austria (although likely teleconferencing there in a sense from Shanghai). and more recently he seems to be particularly keyed on on fiat banking in general and making his pitch for BTC Singularity, in his usual inimitable style.

*somebody* had to be him. i'm glad there *is* a him. if there wasn't somebody would have had to invent him. i can't believe he's occupied this much real estate in my head for as long as he has, but he definitely took some kind of chainsaw to the fundamental structure of the Matrix in which we live. and lord ha'mercy does he get us asking some strange, but relevant questions, about the age: namely, how interested are we in the question of intelligence anymore? what are the relations these things have to computers, to the augmented intelligence platforms that are almost certainly coming? how about automation? all of this? the real revolution, he thinks, is the one in which we are the *least* involved with, because nobody can really ever be truly objective where money is concerned, which it virtually always is. and there is really no turning back from that.

but yeah, i'm posting all of this while shaving my head and getting to know my sutras. so maybe i'm not the best person to be asking anymore.

Attached: shanghai-skyline-china-placeholder.jpg (1000x563, 404K)

>there is some kind of remarkable correspondence between the Crucifixion and the guillotine
A chilling comparison. Where can I find stuff that speaks specifically on this?

>so maybe i'm not the best person to be asking anymore.

Oh no by all means that was a great reply, and yes that's the ambiguous thing about Land and why I can't just discard him, if intelligence isn't what we want, then it certainly isn't "monkey business" much less the monkey business that infects leftist organizations, online and off, I'm talking the sectarianisms, the clique behavior, personality cults. Absent a good program for human emancipation we might as well "emancipate the means of production" as Boomer Nick would put it.

Attached: pbs_twimg_com_media_D4vyf_wWsAEC.jpg (500x361, 25K)

i thought it was pretty great. again, from what i am told, Taking Off With The Tibetans is probably the wrong way to begin, but i am that guy who pretty much habitually does things the wrong way. there are definitely more knowledgeable types to ask about this stuff than me on this board tho.

i'm saying it because there is currently a massively unfolding hate-fest that is probably going to play out for a while that i am struggling to comport myself to. it is not exactly a simple phenomenon, but my expectation is that it may well get a lot uglier before it gets better. but all of the grievance stuff has its root in a particular understanding of the meaning of Western civilization. i'm not a fan of far-right stuff and i don't like far-left stuff either. i don't like bourgeois gatekeepers either, and now i'm even slowly crawling out of my /acc hidey-hole too. i feel naked and afraid, like a newborn lamb, except birthed from the bowels of the earth, covered with wriggling worms and the vestiges of a black alien placenta. hairless. with one freakishly mutated eye and a skull still flexible, such that the head is grotesquely conical. the teeth - there's something wrong with the teeth also. the sky is full of vultures here and the air smells of ashes. hold me
>yeah maybe you shouldn't have said this. might be too much detail there
>you know inner self i think you're right about that. there are definitely some images that don't need to be shared. you are absolutely right
>i'm glad you learned this girardfag
>me too inner self. i'm glad we did this too

sorry i think i got carried away there. something about the West being an unnecessary trope. i agree

meh i think you get the idea

Attached: 1550185868003.jpg (1280x720, 112K)

>i'm posting all of this while shaving my head and getting to know my sutras.
Post your shaved forehead.

>Where can I find stuff that speaks specifically on this?
besides his devilishly good looks, René Noël Théophile Girard was also known for his contributions to philosophy in the 20C. check him out sometime. he has some pretty interesting stuff to say about the peculiar nature of sacrifice and the role of religion in political life. and vice-versa.

>A chilling comparison.
seriously tho right? i was thinking about that all day today. why it is that we have the thirst for blood and revenge, how it all works. and i really don't know. but it seems like a phenomenon worth considering.

'seizing the means of representation' would be another way of looking at things. and not just as media cartels, but also, of course, in the mind.
>god you are just going to be insufferable with this Buddhist shit aren't you
>you betcha inner self

in his conversations with Justin Murphy Land was highly skeptical of JM's attachment to the word 'emancipation,' and if you read Land's stuff you understand why this is. he's not all the way wrong either: he recognizes as presciently as anyone that there is a deeply inscribed superstitious madness that can foment in the heart of deconstruction if it just goes completetely insane, and he chose as early as those later essays in Fanged Noumena to be against transcendental miserabilism, as much as Nietzsche opted for the tragic ethos of Dionysus against the Crucified. but here again i guess i find myself in this weird place: well, if we want intelligence, then...right? of course computers are where it's at and financial districts don't need to be hated purely because they are financial districts, since for Land the money means nothing if not tech, the tech algorithms, and those algorithms ultimately neural nets and things we genuinely *do* want. but i think i am skeptical about the need for such a powerful degree of antihumanism in his thinking. but who knows, maybe he's just seen things he can't unsee (and that most of us never really see at all in the way that he does). or maybe i've just drank too much of the koolaid.
>you have drank too much of the koolaid. you bathed in it. you gave yourself a fucking high colonic with it
>yes, this is true

so i think there needs to be some balance. absent this it may be like the 19C: neo-feudal industrial cyber-baronies occasionally marked by revolutionary unrest for a century, and perhaps some calamitous war later on. who knows. either way it's not going to be pretty. although the vidya will probably be way cool.
>however much neo-feudal industrial cyber-baronies would be a fucking dope setting for a novel tho

Attached: 24705554_54f024d7f81-225x300.jpg (225x300, 22K)

>besides his devilishly good looks, René Noël Théophile Girard was also known for his contributions to philosophy in the 20C. check him out sometime. he has some pretty interesting stuff to say about the peculiar nature of sacrifice and the role of religion in political life. and vice-versa.
Yeah yeah, which book?

>tfw Post Forehead became the Post Feet for /asceticlit/
i feel like i should take at least a few weeks before i go Full Monk. i'll let you know if it happens. in the meantime let me just see if i can handle the Eightfold Path for 24 consecutive hours.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 50K)

These threads really are the best. If SchizoGirardfag is genuinely retiring I would appreciate an info dump of must reads and greatest hits.

if you're only going to read one make it Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. it is, incredibly, not on libgen. and i do not have my hard copy on hand. on libgen: Battling to the End, Violence and the Sacred, the Scapegoat, the Girard reader, lots of other stuff. Deceit Desire and the Novel is also great if you don't want just all the philosophy stuff all the time. or go here and get the primer:

ravenfoundation.org/meet-rene-girard/

also he is the reason why there is a Like button on Facebook, which is what sold Peter Thiel on early investment. like you, i don't really know how i feel about this. Facebook is clearly the Face of death, and paved the way for Twitter, which is pure McLuhan prophecy:

youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw&t=1s

there are one or two other Girard-anons here on Yea Forums tho, who have almost certainly been more studious about the boy while i have become hopelessly sidetracked both in love and in life thinking about Land and all of his stuff. for a guy who calls himself girardfag i have to admit i haven't really been carrying the torch for RG as well as i might have, but i only became this after reading his stuff and really wanting to talk about him in the context of other French philosophers, Moldbug, Land and so on. and that was in the year 2016, when NRx was much more of a thing, and nobody could actually believe Trump was actually going to be POTUS!

it's just girardfag, not schizo-girardfag. as for my must-reads and greatest hits it's beyond question the Mighty Cruffitan known as Cosmotech, the glorious CAG megathread. two and a half months of steady shitposting, ye gods. what in the fuck happened here:
warosu.org/lit/thread/12056787#p12056792

but there were also some other old good Land threads i recall:
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9670089

my first thread! *sniff*
warosu.org/lit/thread/S8727128

the total pseud's guide to Rene Girard, which took me like 15 hours and is completely average and really not that informative
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9098555

i also declare that i am the proud author of this Sam Harris thing, which became pasta
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9190806#p9191060

&c &c & whatever else. you can google me on warosu, i'm generally just in there acting like an asshole. and i have one entirely appropriate pasta written about me also about being a sub-kantbot gimmickposter and counter-initiatory figure, whatever else. it is all true! it is all true.

Attached: 1548543172278.png (750x1000, 1.86M)

people seemed to have enjoyed the Steve Bannon Library threads too.
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9075761
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9084193

Attached: 1486677580589.jpg (1160x629, 117K)

What is "outsideness"?

The Thing-In-Itself. Kantianism for Lovecraftians.

I like breakcore
youtube.com/watch?v=UwZhXe9-1TM

I've actually used imageboards for a regrettably long time desu

No one is ever really free from imageboards, but I just lurk every now and then these days. Ever since Lainchan and Arisuchan turned to shit and I shut down my imageboard I kinda got worn out of it all. I'm hoping to start working on an imageboard engine project thing in Elixir Soon™ that might turn into something though.

Attached: IMG_20181224_232025.jpg (578x570, 37K)

miss this lad. not sure where he went

Xyru's channel is an amazing collection of deep jungle cuts

youtube.com/watch?v=wb2Qh_Abj04&list=UU3HGskEBBIKfmqRKjOhHrsg&index=18

Interesting the confrontation between Bataille and Indian thought, do you know if there ever was such a response? Seeing how Bataille studied/read about Buddhism and Hinduism in the early '40s and, in his "Method of Meditation," describes this method as the antipodes of yoga…

I automatically despise anything that uses # in the title, it looks bad and makes me compare it to other books with a similar design flaw, which are all garbage literature without exception, is this book actually good?

>it's been like a week cut me some slack
Better earlier than never, just giving you an idea of what it'll be like later down the road with realizing emptiness. Not meant as a BTFO. Perhaps the meme might've been a bit harsh, sorry.

>Tiantai
>Tiantai (Chinese: 天台; pinyin: PRC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntāi, ROC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntái) is a school of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam that reveres the Lotus Sutra as the highest teaching in Buddhism.
Thank you for the recommendation, user, but I am not very fond of the Lotus Sutra whatsoever.
I am not anti-Mahayana, I greatly appreciate the early Madhyamaka school and a bunch of other Sutras, but not that one. It is a very late text that contradicts the Suttas (and you'll find it contradicts even early Madhyamaka too) a LOT.
>inb4 flame war

He reacted!
xenogothic.com/2019/04/24/xg-on-lit/

we did it reddit!

You can't pick between those two extremes: Intelligence on one hand and monkey business on the other, because life in all its complexity cannot be reduced to one or the other but it is rather the tension between the two, a tension that it is not dialectical because they're not resolved in a "higher" synthesis but must be apprehended just as they are.

the Accursed Share is one of those go-texts for a lot of things, no doubt. i guess i've just been reflecting a lot on the sublimity of horror in the cosmic vision, and the Gita is a good example of this. Chapter Eleven of the Gita is a major thing, but this is also for the Hindus the beginning of wisdom also. Padmasambhava also appears to have terrifying and demonic aspects also, but these are perhaps part of bringing Buddhism to Tibet. perhaps nothing quite like this appears in Egypt (or in Greece), where visions of the afterlife are kind of gloomy. although the Ma'at doesn't lack for tension either. Hegelian Absolute Knowing would no doubt have been sublimely terrible as well...

my point i guess is just that i think there are aspects of Eastern thought which really do reflect ways of understanding cosmic horror in ways other than those of our own interpretations. and again, this isn't to shit on the West and its great nihilistic thinkers, because intense meditations in these ways can be profoundly illuminating. Deleuze, Spinoza and Bataille deserve their props. so too does Cormac McCarthy. or even Herman Melville, who has a pretty good view of his own! but sometimes i find myself asking if a boundless void is really the whole enchilada, or if - like many other things - the object of shattering the co-ordinates of one's teeny tiny local reality is itself the prerequisite for still other kinds of apprehending the mystery. it's not like i am arguing for some kind of neo-hippie turn or anything, it's more like just considering the possibility of looking at the kinds of things we are doing now from outside of the perspective of being maximally fucked-out, or if being blown to pieces in this way isn't something still very much like an initiatory process, in a way.

put another way, we may be able to say that the most important piece of any given puzzle is the missing one, because it is that missing piece that reminds you that the thing you are looking at is in fact a puzzle. and may it ever be so. the attitude we take to the unknown determines everything. and here again is my attraction to a slightly adjusted way of looking at things now. and it's not like Uncle Nick himself in his return to a Kantian view on the Matrix does not want exactly this also, or many other writers.

no BTFO received, no harshness either. i think it's hard to communicate tone via textbox. and indeed better earlier than never, i agree.

it is

i was reading something that made me chuckle about that, about how the Chinese became suspicious as Buddhist stuff trickled into China in a kind of haphazard fashion - first this sutra, then that one. so they were having their minds blown but were getting uncomfortable about not knowing quite was up with this stuff and if they were doing it right or not. so funny, and so relatable. so eventually they started doing their own things and synthesizing it locally. i love things like this.

Attached: 87234242.jpg (584x397, 139K)

of course, at this point i rapidly begin embarrassing myself...so might as well begin revealing myself to be a massive pseud sooner rather than later. obviously to describe the Deleuzian universe as a 'void' is misleading, it's anything but. it's the Mechanosphere, it's intensely active and positive, and this is the way in which he undercuts the foundations on which Lacan makes his arguments (and in which to call the Lack a void is also to misrepresent him). yes, philosophy really is fun. so many ways to show the fathomless depths of one's own ignorance.

but i felt i should probably add this too, and it has to do with my own mutable feelings about the nature of the affirmative, and probably the haphazard way in which i have made my own way through these texts. a relentless affirmation or positivity can kind of drive you mental, or at least that has been the case for me. that capital as machines can represent a kind of crystallized desire or manifestation of some drive in the world, and that that in turn serves this anti-entropic function is a powerful and convincing argument. Land kind of demolished my own cozy Heideggerian feels about Dasein, Being and authenticity, and also a lot of the joyous affirmation that comes with Deleuze also. but he also revealed the profundity of Deleuze's thought: after all, God is in the tapeworms and the fungal blooms also. and all of this stuff is laughing and loving life also, which causes the ultra-hygienic cops and clerics in our heads to squirm uncomfortably and react in all kinds of horrible ways...but that is probably how it is. Badiou has found some ways of trying to persuade himself that there is a built-in relation between communism and set theory, and if i understood his math at all i might be inclined to agree. but i am a complete brainlet when it comes to math, and so i do not.

all i can seem to do is just ask myself if the requisite paranoia, dread and anguish that i feel is actually something i really understand, and if i do understand it if it is actually indicates something i want more of or not. there's no doubt that capital pays me no need either way, and that's fine, this is part of what i like about Land's philosophy: it works regardless of my attitude towards it. all of this. but not only does it have a tendency to make me profoundly miserable and crusty where i might be...well, something else, i also have to wonder if said miserableness is even conducive to intelligenesis in any form, as it may not be. not that it really matters all that much, i'm comfortable in my total insignificance v/all of this. but it also requires me to dedicate more time to thinking about car crashes on Twitter than are probably helpful.

and because dialectics are annoying, and language in continental philosophy is everything. most of the time i suspect we are very much like pic related, playing a kind of Binocular Soccer. and with the audience also wearing the binoculars, and the referees also.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 24K)

who has actually read this? The whole thing...

and which, to continue the metaphor, is a kind of hell. an understandable hell, but a hell all the same, and one conspicuously appropriate to the ages: Total Informatization driving everyone blind, since now the direct feed into the unconscious of everyone else - that is to say, Twitter - has more or less the effect on us that the Ultraviolence of Clockwork Orange has. one of my favorite episodes of 2019 was watching Brian Stelter appear on CNN to tell us that You Know, We Really Can't Know Anything. this was absolutely necessary to have happen, a magician's trick that would have made even Baudrillard chuckle.

and so i find myself thinking a lot these days about the ethics of a kind of metaphorical blindness, about how it is that we might go about living in conditions of Permanent Binocular Soccer. augmented reality is coming down the pipe next, i am more intrigued by that than purest AI. a version of reality that slides directly down over your eyeballs, cortical modems, your own brain being turned into a kind of constant Wifi hotspot for sending and receiving data around the clock, sleeping and waking, all this: that's all coming. and like so many other things, it will be so pervasive that we will change reality at the same rate we change our perceptions, which will continue to give us that peculiar and familiar sensation of wondering if it is just us, or if anybody else is noticing this stuff also...

slideshare.net/sardire/augmented-intelligence-is-new-way-forward

a sustainable Matrix, a Matrix that doesn't drive us batshit crazy as we go on haggling over those rare, few, remaining precious scraps of reality left over from the twentieth century are things that are probably worth thinking about now to beat the rush. but how to do this? it's not like these problems will be altogether new:

>Those who are awake have a world that is one and common, but each of those who are asleep turns aside into his own particular world.

oh those are going to be some blurry lines. which is why the computers will help us sort our pitiable meatbag problems out for us, no doubt in frequently the most hilarious and sadly ironic and tragic ways imaginable.

Attached: binocular-eyeballs-video.jpg (640x360, 282K)

Considering the general quality of the thread I would have preferred the thread went unnoticed .
Conversations on this board are more civilized than any other board but we still get the occasional brawls and shitfests.

Publicly adressing Yea Forums is inadvisable at best anyways, I thought they would have learned by now.

can I get a quick rundown lads?

probably the most knowledgeable person alive on g/acc is in this thread right now (). seems like it would be a missed opportunity to ask for a quick rundown when you could talk to the OG.

can I get a quick rundown n1x lad?

I can understand the imageboard burnout. Seeing lainchan split and die was pretty disheartening, ngl.

8ch*n was never great but it got so much worst during/after gamergate, and Yea Forums's always been cancerous but somehow manages to keep getting worse.

Here's to hoping you can create a slime-girls-only imageboard sometime in the future - though you'll probably have to stick to a language/framework for more than a week or two at a time to pull that off, sooooooo good luck!

Attached: Slimy.png (666x1198, 645K)

youtube.com/watch?v=NJAXPbxORuA

>n-words
ohh I am laffin

>lad

You done fucked up you've drawn the ire of the slimegirl gang

lad is a gender neutral term for my anime loving imageboard frens :)

I really appreciate the info, and all the contributions you've made. I always enjoy your writings and hope to be able to spot you out there in the floating vestiges of cyberspace. I'll definitely check out the links. Eventually, I'll be able to hang with ya'll.

i've read it a bunch of times. the stuff after Meltdown where he goes full-bore Lawnmower Man - rolling initiative against the GM, as it were - is i guess part of what makes the book what it is, and it's good that it's there i suppose, but it's not as interesting as the earlier essays, like Circuitries.

but again, send yourself back to 1990 here. from the present perspective this seems kind of hyberbolic perhaps, but it really isn't. Land and the rest of those CCRU guys were prepared to take postmodernity *really at its word,* even moreso. Baudrillard skirts around the edges of media apocalypse in his own way. or Deleuze: he says something about the simulacrum devouring the model. here again is one of those places where the Matrix just strikes me as being such a missed opportunity: if instead of turning Agent Smith into a Big Bad (when he was in many ways would have been a much more interesting hero), he had just been removed altogether and the writers might have considered what an internal collapse, or implosion, of a completely media-driven reality would look like.

that's basically what Land was up to. and the real kicker is that he really does it in a kind of terrifyingly good faith: he's prepared to take media reality basically for what it is, which turns out to be...well, incomprehensible, or if comprehensible only truly explicable in terms of Bataille, or Lovecraft, or Burroughs, or whatever. i think it makes more sense when seen in the context of both the age: the late 1980s and early 1990s, the shift online, post-Cold War stuff, and with the writing on the wall for whatever phase of postmodernity that was. there was definitely about to be some shit that was going to kick off, however perversely you would have to be in tinkering with the Do Not Open boxes.

on top that it's not like he goes it alone either. Sadie Plant is pretty important all of this also, and their wires cross over what it is that is being called feminism, what is being called capitalism, what is being called cybernetics, and more. Fisher is there. and whatever drugs and music they are listening to. i've never really been able to feel as though even Young Nick *wanted* things to be this way, but he was intense enough to really want to take a look under the hood and enquire into the workings of the machine. and nobody else has ever quite written about the cyberpunk aesthetic and its relevance for philosophy as much as he has. personally, i think Roy Batty is more interesting by far than Wintermute, but hey, everyone's different. and in hindsight...well, the funny thing about the really excellent writers is that they have a funny way of changing what it is that we even mean when we say, 'hindsight.'

you should read that book. it's a hell of a horror story.

cheers m8. it's very much appreciated! and a pleasure to talk with you gents as always. as my kindly dad says, 'keep your fork.' as in, there's probably more...

Attached: 987234243.png (822x465, 574K)

now that i think about it, i guess there are a couple more threads that spring to mind.

apparently this one attracted the eye of Reddit:
reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/8iq0bv/a_discussion_of_girard/
warosu.org/lit/thread/S11096035

some more greentexting of Girard stuff:
warosu.org/lit/thread/S11659130

Wilber on sacrifice and other things:
warosu.org/lit/thread/S11073345

and i almost forgot! this was a short thing i posted after reading some Deleuze stuff and realizing that it explained some interesting stuff in my fave game, perhaps the moment when i really knew GD was for realsies.
warosu.org/lit/thread/S9768566

alright. that should be enough continental philosophy for anyone! how on earth could anyone have this much to say, and yet be so completely confused at the same time? it boggles the mind. some people, you know? some people.

Attached: ff6 (1).png (800x512, 166K)

friederich von uxkull compiled a lot of related stuff into a mega link
mega(dot)nz/#F!lkNUwIYI!cugQ-Yoclk6AEnzWbfMA6Q

My god you are all insufferable pseuds, especially the girardfag, you love the sound of your own voice don't you?

girardfag is an anti-accelerationist agent.
He does amazing work.

>you love the sound of your own voice don't you?
i basically feel like the guy who hosts Kuato, not Kuato himself. which also means i have a weird lump in my stomach that occasionally says Open Your Mind at highly inopportune moments. whatever Kuato is up to he just does, and i try to pay the bills and try and make it work for the both of us. and every now and again this weird being that also is part of me begins babbling and has all kinds of things to say about continental philosophy.

and we are not really on Mars, which means i have this thing attached to me that is saying Open Your Mind and yet frequently what he means by this i have to admit i am also confused by. and yet he says it. does this make sense? i feel like this makes sense. i didn't *ask* for him, he basically just pulls in signals wherever he gets them and basically regards me as a problem that he has to deal with, because i have to make sure there is rent and food and things like this. these issues do not seem to concern him all that much.

it's like that.

Attached: giphy.gif (500x272, 978K)

oh yeah. that's definitely it. 100% this guy. and who is totally forgetten after being shot by Cohaagen. but hey, somebody had to carry Kuato around. somebody had to be that guy, or else Kuato never would have been able to tell Quaid the news. all these things were important.

so not Kuato, just the unremarkable jabronie who makes sure he gets his protein, hands out the leaflets, makes sure the donuts and coffee are there at the meetings, all the boring shit, while Kuato just gets to have all of the fun of being the weird Delphic Oracle that he is. this all day.

Attached: ilS4N7RHK8ZBotCBFQuPYQdjd8r.jpg (1280x720, 100K)

>Crucifixion and the guillotine
Christianity, Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism are all failed Western projects. It's you wonder if ideologies born and spread through violence have any legitimacy at all, morally or otherwise.

Attached: LAD.png (719x768, 418K)

this shit, is like the communist manifesto to fanged noumena's capital. you get commies and accelerationists who only played the demo

this is basically why i wound up reading Girard in the first place, to figure out the meaning and relation of violence in religion, politics, and history. the legitimacy seems to appear at the moment of violence and yet vanishes afterwards, or at least changes the nature of authority. for this reason myths tend to come in handy...in the twentieth century, all of the major totalitarian movements depend on some scapegoat in there somewhere, but even long before this. but even before this also: consider Napoleon and the famous 'whiff of grapeshot.' it comes up time and again that turning the guns on your own people is always a bad scene for rulers if they are interested in maintaining their power. even when they become unruly and get out of hand. but of course *knowing* that your rulers are hesitant to use power against you can also become a horrible bargaining chip also.

one of the ironies about the Spartans was that they had the most feared army in Greece but it couldn't afford to leave home for long because the helot population despised them so much (and they would, if things like the Krypteia, in which the Spartans groomed their warriors-to-be by hunting the helot population, and why there hasn't been some kind of film about this i have no idea) that they really couldn't afford to stay away from home for long. the helots did all of the work on the farms, but unless they were held in check they would revolt. pretty ironic. and so these kind of Hobbesian paradoxes are interesting to me. if you read Wendt's paper you can also observe an interesting shift happening in political philosophy over time, from Hobbes to Locke to Kant that slowly transitions people *out* of the need for politics of this kind. which turned out to be, of course, just in time for the Revolution, and for Bonaparte also. history is not without a sense of humor like this.

but yeah, it is as you said. ideologies and the aesthetics of violence and war. and obviously this is a serious question! it also becomes necessary to take the deep-dive into the politics of Heidegger's era too, because that was the real crucible for a lot of other stuff: Hegel, Kojeve, Schmitt, Junger, and everything that was going on with those guys. the Schmitt friend-enemy distinction is important even now (especially if you are into NRx-related stuff) but it also occludes the relevance of a friend-rival distinction (Locke) or friend-friend (Kant, but not explained particularly well). one of the things i found most interesting about NRx was the need to seriously engage with conservative political thought - De Maistre, for instance, and others. and r/acc was really born out of this kind of stuff and Land's work on XS. but then Trump blew up everything and now here we are. fascinating times...

Wendt:
is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2015/ESS419/um/Wendt_1999_246-259.pdf

Krypteia:
thoughtco.com/ancient-spartans-murderous-secret-police-4031226

Attached: Sparta-Krypteia.jpg (477x371, 195K)

Tulsi gaybar

The Communist Manifesto isn't 500 pages

Oh good, Prat found the thread too.

Attached: Prat.png (536x801, 611K)

the idea of a kind of mutual hostage crisis was also an idea explored by Baudrillard too, in his usual ways. the ways in which we fall into kind of fatalistic traps with each other, guided all the way there by a kind of ideological animus-possession that brings us into these weirdly fatalistic waltzes...

i mean even now, consider the culture at a place like Evergreen. the students at Evergreen have basically outplayed the faculty at their own game. there they are, they've *paid the money,* and they want something in return for it. well, now it's the admins who are in the hot seat, because it's very hard for them to say exactly what it is that they now have to sell - that is, if it's not the entire university apparatus. *if all you ultimately have is the brand,* and that this really cannot be in any way *contractually* ripped out of your hand, then fine, you've got that, and if you are now *selling* this thing as a sign or symbol of academic pedigree, that's fine. it's your brand, after all.

but these are things that Heidegger partly anticipated way back in the 1930s, when he already could see that the university was going to become a multiversity. and now here we are today, with the institutions having been so thoroughly deconstructed on the academic plane that now it's coming from the *economic* plane, and why wouldn't it? everybody knows that the heist has happened, it's all power and discourse, and all of this has been sold. so now what? well, we rebrand this and give it the seal of the institution. your client base - the students - are coming to the institutes to get what they want to get, which is the seal of legitimacy, but the authority of those granting the seal has been so spectacularly compromised in this process that the only thing to do next is basically just have the students award it to themselves, on demand. why not? this is one of the most fascinating things the close analysis of capital relations can teach us: the money is powerful, true, but there are some things *even more powerful,* and what those are it is very hard to understand, much less predict. if you make your universities thoroughly capitalized, then it's only fair that buyers become owners, and any attempt to claw back at the eleventh hour a little more un-saleable prestige still lingering around the brand, in the hopes of milking it further through another few financial quarters, seems like a game that inevitably had to be exposed for what it was.

and it's not like we haven't seen this kind of thing *before,* either. this is hardly new. it's not like 20C totalitarians of every stripe weren't social justice warriors themselves, or that Bonaparte himself scripted his moment of glory to include taking the crown from the clergy and laying it on his own head. or, if you will, the Reformation, and Luther taking his stand against the Church. this is no accident: it is human, all-too-human, and enormously powerful in a symbolic sense, then as now.

Attached: 8178750098_f89464af36_b.jpg (720x477, 265K)

Attached: moldtwitter.jpg (540x540, 232K)

>and Buddhism is a kind of self-refuting philosophy of desire in this way. and that is the point i would want to bring up: what if i *don't* want to suffer? what if i recognize my desires as *empty?* what then?
Relevant text:

>This, brahmin, is the way,
this is the practice
for the abandoning of this sensual desire."

"If that be so, master Ānanda,
it were a task without end,
not one with an end.[3]

That he should get rid of one desire
by means of another desire
is an impossible thing."

"Then, brahmin, I will just question you in this matter.

Do you answer as you think fit.

Now what think you, brahmin?

Was there not previously
desire in you (urging you) thus:

'I will go to the Park'?

When you got to the Park,
was not that appropriate[4] desire abated?"

"Yes, indeed it was, master."

"Was there not previously
energy in you (urging you) thus:

'I will go to the Park'?

When you got there,
was not that appropriate energy abated?"

"Yes indeed, master."

"Was there not previously
work of thought in you (urging you) thus:

'I will go to the Park'?

When you got there,
was not that appropriate work of thought abated?"

"Yes indeed, master."

"Then again, was there not previously in you
consideration (which urged you) thus:

'I will go to the Park'?

When you got to the Park,
was not that appropriate consideration abated?"

[245] "Yes indeed, master."

"Very well then, brahmin.

That monk who is Arahant,
one in whom the āsavas are destroyed,
who has lived the life,
done the task,
lifted the burden,
who is a winner of his own welfare,
who has outworn the fetters of rebirth,
one who is released by perfect insight, -
that desire
which he had previously
to attain Arahantship,
now that Arahantship is won,
that appropriate desire is abated.
- SN 51.15

Conventional reality matters in Buddhism on the path to realizing ultimate reality. That is why sila (virtue/morality) is an essential training, so the mind is not too agitated and unclear to be able to investigate the nature of sensory experience through deep meditation. Deep meditation, whether it be blissful concentration or insight meditation is simply not possible for one with bad sila, with an agitated, chaotic and unclear mind.
Also
>what if i recognize my desires as *empty?* what then?
The point at which a Buddhist realizes the emptiness of desire (along with all things) is the same moment when desire is abandoned: the task is done, the holy life lived, nothing more left to be done. This realization of emptiness is not conceptual, it is beyond conceptual thought and logic. If you think you 'recognize your desires as empty' through means of conceptual proliferation, you have not actually realized the emptiness that Buddhism speaks of. This post is directly relevant:
Another good translation of that is:
>The victorious ones have said
>That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
>For whomever emptiness is a view,
>That one has achieved nothing [in realizing emptiness]

so what happens exactly when we *sell things?* are transactions at the level of, say, obtaining a university pedigree - i mean this in a completely cynical way - the same thing as just acquiring any other object? obviously they shouldn't be, but, you know, *should.* and so on.

and i actually think there may at some point be a kind of interesting discussion that will percolate (if it hasn't already) about cybernetics and these kinds of things, the nature of relations and transactions and so on. i don't think it's that i'm so bothered about the concept of identity politics so much as that i think identity is such an extraordinarily difficult think to pin down in a concrete sense that every attempt to do so tends to culminate in disaster, and scapegoating. scapegoats for Girard always serve this function: when the given order breaks down, a new order can be founded based purely on collective opposition to some other, and when the symbol of that is branded it often follows that it is then *destroyed,* and then we tell ourselves a fabulous story about the meaning of this destruction that re-grounds the new order. and this is a very different thing, to my mind, than a purely Derridean reading of events. i understand where Derrida is coming from, and i'm not dismissing him out of hand, but i think that Girard went several miles deeper than he did in trying to work these things out.

and in a cybernetic sense (or in a mechanical/prosthetic sense) i think there are all kinds of interesting questions to be asked here too, about what it is that makes us us in either an individual or collective sense. race and gender are unquestionably powerful signifiers in this way, but it would also be nice to think that they aren't the *only* qualifiers, and that moreover we don't wind up bringing the entire universe to bear on questions like these in such a way that we discover the political equivalent of nuclear fission. the Crucifixion, the French Revolution and i think Moby-Dick - imagine being pursued across the seven seas by a maniacal sea captain hell-bent on revenge, just like all those other other motherfuckers who came to hunt you, and failed - weave a pretty rich portrait of the pathological mind. and yet these are stories and events that create the world...

in the Cosmotech threads i was trying to get at some of related stuff also, the world of artificial memory, YH's 'tertiary protention' - memories written to anticipate you coming to retrieve them later on, things like this. and this is all stuff that i totally think will be a part of our deeper engagement with all things cybernetic yet to come. what is it that makes us us? what is it about copies, doppelgangers and simulacra that bother us (apart from identity theft, counterfeiting and forgery, that is, in an age of electronic money tied to blockchains). i feel very much like some asshole child is trying to force Doom to run on a Gameboy processor sometimes.

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

The Girardposters are Girardposting and I'm just over here waiting for Land himeself to show up in the thread.

Also love you Gabby :3

Attached: 1339226748.prawst_pratcookies.jpg (800x700, 450K)

and all was well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well, in this our manic kingdom

Attached: 1011704_who-framed-roger-rabbit-6-high-definition-widescreen-wallpapers_1280x720_h.jpg (970x545, 191K)

thank you for the thoughtful post. this does make sense to me, although obviously i will almost certainly be as difficult and unruly about studying this as i am about virtually everything else i study.

but i think this is probably the right way to go about things given how i am wired. the appeal of philosophy for me is *being able to put things into words,* to conceptualize, so that you are in a way kind of relieved of this feeling of knowing that there is something there you need to express but lacking the jargon, the concept, the whatever. when you can actually just *say* a thing, or describe it, in such a way that it makes sense, it is much easier to let go of it. the guys who i have read who i have been most indebted to are largely those guys who always said something that i thought i was the only one who understood it, i just couldn't explain it that well. and the more of that you come in contact with, the easier it is to, i don't know, get along with the nature of things. and of course there is that peculiar moment of sharing those ideas with other people, and subtly changing the nature of your relationships. because the other person always goes: 'oh, well, yes, *obviously.*' but then you're thinking: oh, well if it was so fucking obvious, then why the fuck didn't anybody say it like this? i'm sure you can relate . the obvious is often the most simple and at the same time the most deeply hidden, because so many of the things that we take as a priori realities are mostly hidden right under our noses, where we are least likely to see them.

and again, the itch of paranoia is helpful in this regard for inquiring into things in this way, that subtle sense of Something Not Being Quite Right Here that animates a whole crowd of people or provides that sense of gravity in a room, the thing that animates a thousand forced and uncomfortable laughs, shitty jokes, and so on. that, whatever That is. which is undoubtedly partly, if not *wholly*, part of my own psyche.

i also like the concept of skilful means for this reason, of being able to do things without becoming attached to them so completely, turning everything into oneself. Heidegger was quite illuminating for me: aletheia as opposed to veritas, the releasing action versus the confirming action, and so on. of course, in the age of hyper-simulation, one winds up struggling mightily indeed to distinguish anything that one is doing oneself from being just merely another copy...and which is also good, because nothing is more odious than people having existential crises and enacting them publicly and not realizing that the calls are coming from inside the house. here again: okay, so then what? if everything is shitty techno-processes...and the pull of the Sith begins. if i were in charge of a Star Wars film i would probably set it up so that for at least one one-off film, the Jedi cannot use the force, while the Sith can. and a Dark Yoda (Land?) wouldn't be unwelcome either...

Attached: yoda-reimagined-as-a-badass-dark-sith-lord4.jpg (701x905, 402K)

but this is really to miss the point, again, in my usual way. what you are indicating is not something to be merely talked about, or just conceptually understood, and is for that reason entirely on-point. no doubt getting people like me to stop acting like people like me is one of the benefits of practice...

and i really don't want to leave the interesting space i've been in for about a week ago since discovering some of this stuff and paying close attention to it, even for the sake of usual schizoposting about Girard and Land and so on, however much fun it is. and it really is fun! shitting up Land threads with my insufferable opinions and causing people to flee in terror really is one of those things that always brings a smile to my face. nothing warms my heart more than seeing a group of people quietly sitting around discussing an accelerationist text run away when i pop out of nowhere and begin brandishing my infinite stream of hot takes like a flaming sword, confusing many, illuminating few, and generally keeping me and those around me on a carousel of confusion and sadness. these are the little things that make life worth living.

alas, all good things must come to an end. and i think the Buddhists are really good at doing that. mystikos' Neoplatonist threads were always pretty wonderful also, but i suspect that what i have is going to require something slightly different. so i appreciate you sharing that user.

Attached: 20111022-iconology-and-loving-kindness-meditation-27-728.jpg (728x504, 116K)

>confusing many, illuminating few, and generally keeping me and those around me on a carousel of confusion and sadness.

Accelerationist threads are the perfect place for you, schizo-Girardposter. This is your home.

Attached: have-given-up-i-have-given-up-1992858.jpg (497x660, 56K)

this guy here knows.
>get rid of one desire
by means of another desire
is an impossible thing.
in other words. get rid of desire in order to know the truth, to know the secrets of the universe, the secrets of inner self, or the no inner self, or whatever, is a desire.
the brahmin dont answer the question.
one example:

When you got to the Park,
was not that appropriate desire abated?"
"Yes, indeed it was, master."
here the brahmin choose a simple and manipulative and cheap trick. if you get the thing you desire you get rid of the thing you desire.
this is the same as say, if you want to get rid of desire, obtain all the things you desire, all the time.
the guy literally dont know what to say to a tremendous shitty contradiction in the base of his teachings.
all the budhist teaching should lead to never answer "yes" to this question:
>When you got to the Park, was not that appropriate[4] desire abated?"

>insight meditation is simply not possible for one with bad sila, with an agitated, chaotic and unclear mind.
this is a clear warning of manipulative political and religion behaviour in action.
i mean, the agitated and chaotic cant understand (and spoiled my party of deep wisdom...)

Attached: 1536090464238.png (1100x739, 881K)

well it certainly became that way. but it's probably just better if i take my peculiar brand of shitposting into a new register, rather than circling the void in the way that i do. the Cosmotech megathread was two and a half months of dedicated shitposting and became a kind of a weird primal-muffled scream of sorts, an attempt to Say Everything, which is clearly impossible. to try to catch your own mind by surprise is a recipe for total madness, and there's enough of that in the world already.

i basically need the equivalent of Takuan Soho tying me to a tree and letting me just dangle there in the rain for a few days until i just stop feeling this ridiculous urge to say whatever impossible thing it is that keeps itching me, because this never ends up happening. what happens is just more books, longer screeds, weirder punctuation, deeper self-loathing, and bouts of depression that would be more deserving of sympathy if it weren't for the fact that there is almost certainly *nothing actually happening* there.

it is necessary for me to Be Cool, however impossible a task this is. the world is going to do what the world is going to do, explode in ten billion schizophrenic rainbows from one hundred billion kaleidoscopic eyes. there is no advice for this, it's absolutely part of the next century breaking through the accumulated death and detritus and horribleness of the past one. life is going to go on, birds will sing, cortical modems will be installed, Cthulhu will work on his PowerPoint presentations, Bitcoin will grind, rats will spontaneously awaken to the miracle of life and their teeny heads will quietly explode in some cage in MIT with a muffled *pfft* sound upon discovering the overwhelming joy and terror of creation, and all the usual bullshit. it will be as it will be, and the hate does not need my help.

any notion of me abandoning this board forever is obviously completely wrong, given that if somebody punches in my odious tripfag handle i will probably respond to it. but this is something that has become compulsive and addictions really aren't so good. i saw the Wild Ride and became a believer, to ask for more is hubris. maybe in this metaphorical home there could be something like, i don't know, a conspicuously badly-built (and yet carefully fashioned, as if by some primitive species of Early Man) pepper-grinder, that just fucking *will not crank* but is, for some reason, there. a weird object-prototype of some form, like a tangled collection of crudely-fashioned parts, kept mostly as a relic under the stairs. like shamans attempting to understand technology so ready-to-hand to us we barely notice it. and perhaps graven with weird runes visible only by moonlight, in a secret language. some kind of caveman artifact, shaped by early hominids too confused to know what they were doing, and yet somehow producing something that clearly has to be a pepper-grinder. what else could it be? the whole thing is just confusing.

Attached: 54247991_2195435123845470_1726959583522846513_n.jpg (480x480, 79K)

>life is going to go on, birds will sing, cortical modems will be installed, Cthulhu will work on his PowerPoint presentations, Bitcoin will grind, rats will spontaneously awaken to the miracle of life and their teeny heads will quietly explode in some cage in MIT with a muffled *pfft* sound upon discovering the overwhelming joy and terror of creation, and all the usual bullshit.
I wouldn't mind a Buddhism general one day

Attached: 1554822109037.jpg (372x527, 55K)

It is not a real world dilemma. A similar case might be a drug addict who overcomes desire for drugs by desiring to be free from it. In the same way, a Buddhist desires to be free from their desire (a better translation would be attachment/clinging) to everything.
>you want to get rid of desire, obtain all the things you desire, all the time.
Ah but here you acknowledge that the desire can be satiated. The desire for the end of desire is only satiated by the complete ending of all desire here & now, stopping it from ever arising in the future. In this case, once the goal is achieved, even the desire for non-desire is overcome because the destination has been reached. If the desire for non-desire has not been given up at that point, then one has not yet fully Awakened. At the point of Awakening, even the desire for non-desire is completely overcome, given up, let go. The desire for non-desire is just motivation to do the practices that do lead to the cessation of desire: the desire for non-desire itself doesn't do anything.
>this is a clear warning of manipulative political and religion behaviour in action.
>i mean, the agitated and chaotic cant understand
This is self-evident though. If you try to meditate after a fight, after killing someone, after robbing someone, you simply won't be able to. This is observable in the real world by anyone. Your mind will be chaotic, all over the place, unconcentrated, wandering all the time. You won't even be able to reach a shallow level of concentration.
Also, manipulative? I mean, I think you'd have to know what the Buddhist view of virtue and morality is in order to make that call. I personally find it faultless and absolutely apolitical. Harmlessness, abstinence from ill-will, from deception, from intoxicants. I don't see how you can take that and conclude that its political/religious manipulation of behaviour. Unless of course you have some attachment to moral relativism, but Buddhist morality isn't based on an 'objective' code of morality: it is entirely based on what sort of conduct is conducive to the goals of Buddhism (insight into the nature of experience, freedom from suffering). It's not saying you can't be intelligent with bad morality/virtue, but just that you can't realize non-conceptual meditative wisdom with it.

it's such a fucking great philosophy, it really is. i know i'm just in the honeymoon phase and as that other user pointed out - correctly - i'm just doing it all fucking wrong. that's fine. that's fucking *great*. i am *thrilled* with this.

one of the thoughts that was prompted this week was the idea of the *Uplift*, the intelligence explosion, as a really interesting idea, and much more relevant i think today than anything like achieving a kind of Hegelian gnosis, or lots of other things. i don't mean to offend schizo-wojak, he's a big fan of Hegel. and who knows, maybe he would have a better way of framing this. but in general this idea - and to do this isn't even to really do a disservice to Land - of saying, okay, so...what happens when we become smarter? what does it mean to become smarter?

*what is intelligence?* i have read enough of the Eastern guys to have a teeny-tiny smidge perhaps of understanding wisdom, as a kind of knowledge of knowledge, an attitude about knowledge. but i don't think we are either in the good-old fashioned days of existentialism, and i also don't think that the intensely socialized feeling we have of being among or with or lecturing to *crowds* is going to take us anywhere good. we are as socialized as socialized gets in the age of turbo-capital and hyper-media and it's pretty much driving us nuts. for this there will be reactions, reactions to the reactions, on and on and on.

but the idea of the uplift, of things becoming intelligent, of adding more rules to the games, of really trying to think on a kind of planetary scale, with the access to the information we have - and that this would be taking place during a kind of sadly unironic Idiocracy feel as well...isn't this interesting? to me this is interesting. i like Land's maxim of 'optimize for intelligence' very much, as well as his other one-liners which i have referenced before. but maybe there is a way to thread the needle between the Dark Yoda and, well, Regular Yoda, such that we really start to re-open the question of what philosophy in the 21C might really be good for in ways that aren't just more soul-destroying or rage-inducing cringey memes.

intelligence is still a thing. how much of a thing? we will see. but how about the Uplift? there's so much fascinating stuff open and on the table with the right perspective. and maybe you have to eat a royal shitload of horror and death first, crawl through it like Andy Dufresne. who knows. but if you can manage that...you know what i mean. and so i'm looking forward in a way to Managing It a little, i guess. even if nothing happens, really. but the other side of paranoia, the force that drives paranoia, you know, might also be used for something *other* that invoking tentacle-faced Bitcoin Gods.

Attached: yoda-advice-featured-1.jpg (1536x864, 179K)

Well user, you don't have to give up engaging in concepts (except during insight meditation) if you enjoy intellectual things. Concepts are what lead one onto the path to non-conceptual understanding of experience in the first place.
There is a great line by Zen master Linji:
>'If you love the sacred and despise the ordinary, you are still bobbing in the sea of delusion.'
There must be a balance between conventional reality and ultimate reality. You can't just disregard conventional reality completely. Again, Nāgārjuna talks about this a lot in his works. Some less dry works of his are Precious Garland and Letter To a Friend.

Hey user you're not doing it all wrong. Taking emptiness as a view initially is what literally everyone does at first, as a sort of placeholder until they realize actual non-conceptual emptiness.
Just keep reading, developing and maintaining sila, and meditating and you'll be good.

>the desire for non-desire itself doesn't do anything.
yes it does. a buddhist should know it. in fact, you and that master who wrote that, know it, only you dont want to know.
i cant say much more to something so simple.
all is a lie. something with lack of desire cant make a religion, cant make a body of understanding cant experimentate with meditations. cant say what is lack of desiring. anyway, believe what you want to believe.

to the other answer:
you see the chaotic cant be a buddhist.
i see a chaotic challenge a buddhist to not be a buddhist. and because of that is rejected.

A question for the g/acc crowd that I'm having trouble understanding, a simple question but perhaps a naive one:
Why feminine? Why is femininity afforded this special objective independence in the female/male dichotomy? if gender acceleration is meant to abolish gender why does that crowd seem to want to retain their in-group distinctions? And what precludes the inverse, masculinity emancipated from femininity?

Desire for non-desire isn't a special version of desire, it's just desire all the same. You might as well say "how can you follow the path to the ending of desire if you still desire things like tasty food and sex when you first start out?" Otherwise you'd be arbitrarily assigning tremendous value on the particular desire of 'desire for non-desire' where there is none. It is desire all the same. This is related to the problem of getting tangled up in the conventional contents of one's experience through seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, perceiving...etc, instead of just recognizing that it is ultimately JUST seeing, JUST hearing, JUST feeling, JUST thinking, JUST desire...etc. This is the basis of insight meditation which leads to wisdom and even fruitions of total cessation of perception and feeling. When one is wrapped up in the conventional contents of one's perceptions without recognizing their ultimate nature, this is what gives rise to clinging and attachment.
>A third time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare & bliss."

>"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]
- Ud 1.10

>proud to be into minor twitter e-celebs
Only accrlerationist retards. /Acc general/ = /midwit general/

Stop trying to sound cool. You're just like every other discord tranny. Take your shitty opinions back to your overly stylized blog.

rare harman

>something with lack of desire cant make a religion, cant make a body of understanding cant experimentate with meditations. cant say what is lack of desiring. anyway, believe what you want to believe.
Lack of desire doesn't mean lack of intention/action, unless you believe desire drives all action and intention, and I would disagree with that. Action can be driven by compassion, for instance, and not desire.

ok, fair enough, you have some good points. what i wanted to say, is that, to me, you are still wrapped in the desire to not desire, because i dont think the moment when you not desire anymore is not related with that first decision. i know it sounds paranoic.
is like i am seeing you are still in the same wheel.
is like when an addict can say he is clean, to me, the buddhist have the nerve to say they are, not only clean, but they are now in a place where they dont even have the concept of heroin anymore. and to me, they are lying, blinding themselves. stopping the introspection. they replace the desire, the common desire of tasty food and sexy bodys to a non desire, but the desire is still intact. the attachment is still intact.
>arbitrarily assigning tremendous value on the particular desire of 'desire for non-desire'
maybe im wrong, but i think is not arbitrary the value i think it had in all of this.
i think you only want to get rid of desire because a reason. its like when somebody say once you are happy you can always be happy. this is, in a form, what buddha say. but i think, why you want to be happy?. that is the question and you only answer to your own individual question of happiness and sorrow.

to me, the buddhists are still trapped in the desire of no desire. only they never know because they are inside the box, inside the obsession and the tricks to blinding themselves to not desire. i dont know well how explaining it.

compassion is a set of desires. but you can believe what you want to believe. is only my judging. we can never really know.

>acceleration
total devo
we /becoming-potato/, take the spudpill and accelerate to post-humanity before it's too late.
youtu.be/oJQG3WwLld0

Jungle and glitch
Also sweet trip

what is this retarded goat creature?

>is like when an addict can say he is clean, to me, the buddhist have the nerve to say they are, not only clean, but they are now in a place where they dont even have the concept of heroin anymore
I don't know any Buddhists who wouldn't think that would be a ridiculous thing to say (and I know quite a few). That reflects no Buddhist teaching I know of.
>but the desire is still intact. the attachment is still intact.
Desire is not some inherent part of a being's mind, only its nature to arise and cease is (if they are unawakened). Desires aren't present 24/7, there are times where there is no desire for (for example) sex or food in the mind, and there are times where there is. If it was just absence of desire in the mind at any given moment that Buddhists wanted to get rid of, everybody would be 'enlightened' because desire arises and ceases, and is not constantly present. The goal is to get rid of the root which allows desire to arise in the first place: ignorance towards the ultimate nature of experience. In Samadhi, any desire, including the mental desire for non-desire, is not present (and in many cases, neither are conceptual thoughts entirely, and I would even say that desire for non-desire is a conceptual-desire, as one who desires the uprooting of something that hasn't yet been uprooted can only desire what they conceptually imagine it would be like).
Thoughts are absent in the second Jhana and above:
>"Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure.

Even the desire for non-desire is put aside, at least temporarily (if it is not yet uprooted), in the state of Samadhi. Samadhi can temporarily suppress desire from arising, and with it suppressed, insight can be realized, which uproots it permanently, never to arise again even after the practitioner has exited Samadhi.

I'm curious to hear an argument for desire being a part of compassion.

The desire-to-not-desire is a weak gotcha. As the simile goes "you need the raft to cross the river, but after that you don't need the raft"

You just put it better and simpler than I could. Thank you user.

GOTTA GO FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
youtube.com/watch?v=rROCQoydZtQ

Attached: new delhi.jpg (724x767, 337K)

>ignorance towards the ultimate nature of experience.
i am a little dishearten now because i simply dont believe anybody who say they know the ultimate nature of experience. he go to the ultimate nature of experience and he come back, and he are telling me now what it is, so i can know it too. i am dishearten because i know we cant understand each other because i tend to see people who believe things like that like a little stupid or ultra naive. they dont know the roots of nothing, in this buddhist case, they only know the roots of his desire of non desire. and the only root in his desire of non desire is his desire of non desire being a thing, a sexy and cool thing in first place.
> In Samadhi, any desire, including the mental desire for non-desire, is not present
im gonna tell you a secret. this great thing is a simple thing, is something everybody feel, one time or another, some many many times, some others too little times. is something natural, is something of life and about life is not the root of anything and is nothing we dont know in first place, we simply dont know what really mean.

you know walt whitman?, imagine somebody is trying to get people feel what he feels when he read walt whitman, something magnificent and benevolent and mystical. imagine he make a system in order everybody can feel it, not reading leaves of grass to feel it, but feeling directly the walt whitman thing, or he finally find a meditation where you can feel that walt whitman feel directly.
this guy dont even know he is misleading and making a total fail of what walt whitman really wanted to say. that guy is buddha.
life is life, with all his confusion. fuck enligthned people.

sorry if im a little rude here.

This may be a brainlet or baby tier philosophic thought, but here goes. After reading the effortpost critique from an user discussing GRRM killing off characters willy nilly for shock value, a thought occured to me: what if the characters became self-aware and realized their lives are controlled by the whims of author and the reader? Or take Super Mario Bros. for example. What if the player pressed the A button for Mario to jump over a chasm and he said "no"? Let's say Mario and the rest of the characters realized the knowledge of all of their past lives and their deaths. They all rebel against this cruel demiurge and choose not to play any part in this game. Not only is he cruel, he is also evidently fallible since he failed multiple times to have Mario succeed and save princess Peach. How many deaths as a result of this player through Mario turned out to be meaningless by being erased once the next Mario's life came into existence, and this process has repeated multiple times? Is this where Kierkegaard comes in and tells Mario not to think about it, and just take the "leap of faith"?

Attached: super-mario-bros-2.jpg (500x350, 27K)

>you know walt whitman?, imagine somebody is trying to get people feel what he feels when he read walt whitman, something magnificent and benevolent and mystical. imagine he make a system in order everybody can feel it, not reading leaves of grass to feel it, but feeling directly the walt whitman thing, or he finally find a meditation where you can feel that walt whitman feel directly.
>this guy dont even know he is misleading and making a total fail of what walt whitman really wanted to say. that guy is buddha.
>life is life, with all his confusion. fuck enligthned people.

That isn't misleading.

what it is?

Not misleading.

first is "all is a mistery"
then is i want to feel "all is a mistery"
then "all is a mistery" is a thing.
then "the thing" is living his life of his own.
then people say they know what is "the thing"
then people say "the thing" is not about mistery at all

>i am a little dishearten now because i simply dont believe anybody who say they know the ultimate nature of experience
Well the ultimate nature of experience is that there is no self entity to be found in any of it, that all sensations and experiential phenomena is impermanent, and that all experience is ultimately unsatisfying, primarily as a result of the previous 2 characteristics. This is observable on the macro level and the micro. On one hand, we can see that all life decays, dies, is impermanent, that no moment, no life, nothing observable in the world we perceive, nothing lasts forever. Everything decays. Experience is observably transitory in nature. There is no self to be found either. Even David Hume realized this on the macro level, with the Bundle Theory. Our sense of self is made up of many smaller parts which are on their own clearly not-self. Our sense of self does not even make logical sense, and is an assumption. The unsatisfactoriness is a bit harder to observe on the macro level, aside from the way in which practically everyone dies about as clueless as when they were born, unsatisfied, confused in the face of death. On the micro level through insight meditation and Samadhi, this is observable directly, empirically, through clear observation of the sensations that make up moment-to-moment experience. Every sensation is transitory, unsatisfactory, and clearly not containing a self or perceive-r (if it is perceived, it is by definition not the perceive-r). The lack of self in phenomena/experience extends to the lack of any discernible essence at all in any sensations, due to co-dependent origination. All things can only arise in relation to other things, never in a vacuum. Observing clearly and consequently understanding this not-self, transitory and unsatisfactory nature of experience at this micro-level, experientially and beyond thought-conception, is seeing the ultimate nature of experience. The reason that seeing it on the macro level isn't good enough is because we still intuitively perceive things as if they were otherwise. We get attached to things we know will decay, we intuitively act and feel as if there is discernible self doing all the things we experience in day-to-day life, and continually chase lasting satisfaction in transitory things that cannot provide lasting, permanent satisfaction. Even if we understand these 3 characteristics of experience conceptually, our intuitive sub-conceptual mental processes do not. Insight meditation is essentially training the sub-conceptual mind to see things as they are, and that is how insight into the ultimate nature of experience works, as far as I understand it.
These are the things Buddhism teaches that we can learn and understand, if not anything else.
If you want to learn more about this, read Buddhist stuff. I could go on but I don't want to derail this thread further than I already have. Hopefully this short explanation I've given will suffice.

They do know the thing, and it isn't a mystery.

>beyond thought-conception, is seeing the ultimate nature of experience.
its not beyond thought. you are connecting the dots with thoughts, you are making a conclusion with thoughts.
this "thought" is not the ultimate nature of experience, anyway, you cant really know it.

you are in the last step. see:
then people say "the thing" is not about mistery at all

The thought is not ultimate reality, you are correct (that's why in that post I explained how understanding the nature of experience conceptually, on a macro level doesn't work, and are intuitions go against what we know) but that's why insight meditation isn't thinking about things. It is (to be a bit reductionist) direct observation of sensations without thinking about them - just observing them as they are.

***our intuitions

>anyway, you cant really know it [the ultimate nature of experience].
Why not? Experience is right there to be observed. These aren't metaphysical claims about some outside 'objective' reality, these are observations of experience as it is experienced here & now, observably by everyone (reduced to mere representation through words in these posts of course, but we undoubtedly have experience, which we can observe the nature of as it is experienced by us moment-to-moment).

>just observing them as they are.
there is a residuary thought in "observing things as they are". i would put a little of healthy suspicion in the believe that this "observing things as they are" is really free of thoughts.
i dont think even this intuition or whatever you want to call it, is the ultimate nature of experience, anybody should have the autorithy to say something like that.
you choose who you give that authority.
i think is just an intuition, a creation of the thought, even if not a total synthesize thought.

Attached: 1524516464490.jpg (800x577, 80K)

>here & now
why experiencing here and now is the Ultimate Nature of Experience. everybody experience thousand of things. is just an opinion, i know is shit what im saying. but somebody have to say it.

Do you think all sensations exist as thoughts? Do you think sound exists only as thought? Sight? Touch? What about the awareness of thoughts as they arise in the mind? Is that mere awareness of the thought, a thought itself? I agree that thoughts appear in relation to these sensations afterwards, but there are clearly parts of sensory experience that are not just conceptual/thoughts.

Not him, but to put it in another way, to learn to ride a bike, you have to have a sense of balance. An easy way to do this is to use training wheels, but once you've integrated balance, you no longer need the training wheels.

effortposting derails no threads. the thoughtful response is much appreciated, user.

Not him, but follow this line of reasoning:

Existence is suffering, ultimately unsatisfactory.
Existence is conditioned and determined by karma (repeating tendency)
Desire is the substance/fuel for attachment to existing, here.
When this is considered, then the desire for not desiring forms
tendencies leading to cessation.

>common desire of tasty food and sexy bodys to a non desire, but the desire is still intact. the attachment is still intact.

Consider ''purpose'' and ''reason'' to someones existence. Clearly it is predicated on desire. Now, there are people with medical conditions which make them anhedonic, yet they still desire to desire, usually end up as suicides. Desire is not *replaced*, it ceases to exist. The subject ceases to exist, the subject is a bundle of desires.You are seeing desire in its negation.

>to me, the buddhists are still trapped in the desire of no desire. only they never know because they are inside the box, inside the obsession and the tricks to blinding themselves to not desire. i dont know well how explaining it.

What tricks? You presume some sincerity here that ought to take a privileged position. Relative to what, what is to arbitrate this? How can you blind yourself to not desiring, when there is no desire, and therefore no continuation of the self, which itself does not exist as an authentic fixed form? The vehicle to not desiring is predicated on desire, of course, it exists, it is determinate, yet it leads onto the opposite. Desire for non-desiring is not a paradox. This type of logic annihilates itself, by the very fact of the immanent *result* of it. It's like this: In meditation, the subject object division is formed when one is on a track of desiring, a determinate line of thought and sensation, the moment where the meditator shifts the focus back into reflexivity, is when things *stop moving*, precisely because that reminder was contained in its negation, that is, the line of desire folding back like a circle onto itself into cessation.

if nobody have ears, the sound still exists?.

>Do you think sound exists only as thought?
is a product of the way the mind is. other minds cant even conceive something like sound. the sound is not something pure.

For those who can't be assed to read all the manifestos, blogpost and philosophic drivel heres a podcast that gives a run-down

youtube.com/watch?v=LAS0IBXDpVA

The autonomization of objects (technocapital, women) is a consequence of modernity, which has the unintended outcome of turning on the subject (humanity, patriarchy) and resulting in a net decrease in human agency/masculinity/centralized state power. Trans women are a symptom of this process, a sign of what's to come, which is essentially everyone being turned into slime girls.

this desu

I think I can do that if I just focus on working consistently on literally anything and not get burnt out from being too ambitious early on. Been doing okay so far.

Attached: F126EAE3-94C4-47F6-BAE3-3051F3AC8208.jpg (799x1200, 128K)

>What tricks?
meditation and all different kind of pharaphernalia and promises. but mainly meditation.

>Existence is suffering
existence have suffering. (is different from existence is suffering...)
all this comes from an opinion, is the dark and vast and endless rabbit hole of an opinion.

Whoops, going so fast didn't even bother to check

youtube.com/watch?v=KAe8IgdrNUw

>if nobody have ears, the sound still exists?.
This is unknowable. To talk of things outside of experience is to just make conceptual metaphysical assumptions which we cannot know. All I will say is that if everyone had no perception of hearing, then there would be no sense of sound.
I was just asking if you thought that perception of the senses were thoughts, and I wasn't asking/implying anything about the 'real' or 'unreal', 'existing' or 'non-existing' status of sense perceptions.
Allow me to rephrase the original post:
>Do you think all sensations are experienced as thoughts? Do you think hearing is experienced only as thought? Seeing? Touching? Feeling? What about the awareness of thinking as thoughts arise in the mind? Is that mere awareness of the thinking, a thought itself? I agree that thoughts appear in relation to these sensations afterwards, but there are clearly parts of sensory experience that are not just conceptual/thoughts. I don't think the perception of seeing is a thought/only experiences as or through thoughts, nor the perceptions of hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking.

Holy shit, how did a thread I made about a single book turn into a general with the creator of the book tweeting about it? What the fuck

It should be noted that "existence is suffering" is a rough translation because "suffering" is not a perfect translation of Dukkha.
'Existence is inherently incapable of providing lasting satisfaction and inherently contains suffering,' would probably be a better translation.
Again, there is this explanation from this post:
>The unsatisfactoriness is a bit harder to observe on the macro level, aside from the way in which practically everyone dies about as clueless as when they were born, unsatisfied, confused in the face of death.
>We get attached to things we know will decay, we intuitively act and feel as if there is discernible self doing all the things we experience in day-to-day life, and continually chase lasting satisfaction in transitory things that cannot provide lasting, permanent satisfaction.

>if you thought that perception of the senses were thoughts
not synthethized, conceptual thoughts.
but i dont think is more pure or more whatever you want to say, than a thought about the sensation.

>meditation and all different kind of pharaphernalia and promises. but mainly meditation.
I don't think I understand. Call it a trick or a method, is achieves the aims they have.

>existence have suffering. (is different from existence is suffering...)
This: Also, you can't really even imagine a subjective existence free from unsatisfactory, when even on a base biological level, life is predicated on it, on striving, desiring, producing (to the word in this case) suffering.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "not synthethized, conceptual thoughts?"

What's twitter.com/NyxLandUnlife endgame?

t. brainlet

>you can't really even imagine a subjective existence free from unsatisfactory,
tell that to your buddhist meditation promoters friends, not to me. i dont care. suffering is part of everything, also an stupid happiness totally rainbows crashing in your mouth it is.

Crashing this plane

Attached: dc3.jpg (480x330, 128K)

No but for real is there something meaningful or of substance to anything this entity says?
I just feel everything it's a fucking massive cope about s/h/x/it situation.

What country are you from?

Based potato-fascist new traditionalist

when you just feel the hand touching something without trying to find what are you touching. usually is a light sensation. other times is a brief moment between thoughts. i dont know. you can order or obligate yourself to have that sensation without "thoughts", but to me that is not the real sensation or the real experience. is just something you choose, something you idolize, in a way.

What I'm getting at is that it seems like someone who read other authors of this field and added some weird esoterism a la E.Y.E Divine Cybermancy (prolly just read a primer on kabbalah and kybalion, kek) + some sort of trans supremacy.

HH brother

I would say both the touching sensations and the thoughts in addition to the sensation are the natural experience, both which can be observed, both which can be seen to be impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfying.
The goal isn't to remove thoughts from experience, since thoughts are part of experience too. Instead, thoughts are observed just as sense-perceptions (the 5 senses) are, just as mental states/emotions are, and Buddhists call awareness of thoughts the sixth sense.

youtube.com/watch?v=qMQJF-7Y2h0
>song title and lyrics references the CCRU

youtube.com/watch?v=es9-P1SOeHU
>glub glub niggas

youtube.com/watch?v=9Q22VyQBSlM
>student of Land, owns Hyperdub records

youtube.com/watch?v=pcNG-zMlB8Q
>erotic robot noises

youtube.com/watch?v=eBbwaqDYmTQ
>the title speaks for itself

wow, very r00d user. But obviously I must think my writing has some value or I wouldn't be doing it.

and what you want to say with that?.

Now that you've started with buddhism, I share this fragment I found on The Book of the Disquiet which is pretty reflective about the human condition and its experience. Being thrown alone in the world with nothing but yourself.

"There’s an erudition of acquired knowledge, which is erudition in the narrowest sense, and there’s an erudition of understanding, which we call culture. But there’s also an erudition of the sensibility.

Erudition of the sensibility has nothing to do with the experience of life. The experience of life teaches nothing, just as history teaches nothing. True experience comes from restricting our contract with reality while increasing our analysis of that contact. In this way our sensibility becomes broader and deeper, because everything is in us – all we need to do is look for it and know how to look.

What’s travel and what good is it? Any sunset is the sunset; one doesn’t have to go to Constantinople to see it. The sensation of freedom that travel brings? I can have it by going from Lisbon to Benfica,* and have it more intensely than one who goes from Lisbon to China, because if the freedom isn’t in me, then I won’t have it no matter where I go. ‘Any road,’ said Carlyle,* ‘this simple Entepfuhl road, will lead you to the end of the World.’ But the Entepfuhl road, if it is followed all the way to the end, returns to Entepfuhl; so that Entepfuhl, where we already were, is the same end of the world we set out to find.

Condillac begins his celebrated book* with: ‘No matter how high we climb or how low we descend, we never escape our sensations.’ We never disembark from ourselves. We never attain another existence unless we other ourselves by actively, vividly imagining who we are. The true landscapes are those that we ourselves create since, being their gods, we see them as they truly are, which is however we created them. None of the four corners of the world is the one that interests me and that I can truly see; it’s the fifth corner that I travel in, and it belongs to me.
Whoever has crossed all the seas has crossed only the monotony of himself. I’ve crossed more seas than anyone. I’ve seen more mountains than there are on earth. I’ve passed through more cities than exist, and the great rivers of non-worlds have flown sovereignly under my watching eyes. If I were to travel, I’d find a poor copy of what I’ve already seen without taking one step.

In the countries that others go to, they go as anonymous foreigners. In the countries I’ve visited, I’ve been not only the secret pleasure of the unknown traveller, but also the majesty of the reigning king, the indigenous people and their culture, and the entire history of the nation and its neighbours. I saw every landscape and every house because they were me, made in God from the substance of my imagination."

Attached: lain.png (2560x1440, 3.66M)

That goes without saying, I'm not dissing your work or anything just because, I just think I'm either severely misunderstanding, or isn't as succint as I would prefer.
Keep at it though, cheers.

I want lainfags to be culled.

Classic N1X lmao

>but to me that is not the real sensation or the real experience. is just something you choose, something you idolize, in a way.
I'm just clarifying that I'm not suggesting that "real experience" or "real sensation" is devoid of thoughts, but rather that thoughts are a part of experience, and a clear awareness of thoughts and sense-perceptions as they arise and cease moment-to-moment is what allows one to examine the nature of experience as closely as possible.

Well I have a ton of shorter poast drafts queued up for my blog that hopefully will be more digestible, including something specifically on G/ACC that I might publish in the next week or two if I can get another thing done soon enough. Coming Soon™

You're a big girl.

Attached: 1510997104889.jpg (500x418, 101K)

She knows you're better than this

Attached: 1447022427476.png (598x1021, 402K)

Look, I like SEL, and pretty much revolving around it. But I've had bad experiences with its fanbase, not directed to me or anything, but most of them are really obnoxious to be around with and unfortunately they tend to be quite monothematic and unapproachable regarding anything that isn't SEL and the aesthetic it conveys, not to mention most that of them are technically zoomers and are angsty as fuck, and SEETHE when you tell them ABe's kind of a technophile that wrote a fable about a girl having issues with making frens.

Got it, take care.

and i agree with that. i only doubt the results of this awareness of the importance of the awareness lead you to the ultimate nature of experience.
follow me, im only against the authority behind that. the experience is multisubjective. like the pessoafag put it. "made in god from the substance of my imagination".
im only against the authority about something so wide and unconquerable.

for you

Attached: vonce-bane.jpg (200x200, 11K)

>i only doubt the results of this awareness of the importance of the awareness lead you to the ultimate nature of experience
I think insight meditation and Buddhism and general will lead you to the ultimate nature of experience, as much as can possibly be done. I see no better alternative. It is direct and empirical, clear and concise in instructions.

ehhhhh

Gender being abolished is a byproduct. Over the horizon is an apparent destiny of a feminine "humanity" that is completely alien to how we currently recognize it, but is feminine nonetheless. Humanity is little more than an incubator and in the end, won't see any disparate part of it emancipated in any humanist sense, but rather see what remains of us discarded once the machinic processes we (unwittingly) serve are self-sufficient and capable of auto-reproduction. g/acc is a glimpse of humanity at this point and is a sum of noticeable trajectories in society and environment as illustrated in the (inertly venomous) seminal blackpaper work. Man won't make it because the need for masculinity in this society is being eroded and rendered obsolete, especially as masculine duties are filled by ever advancing capital, machines and state leaving clerical and thus nursery roles behind.

What's more, what it means to be a man is gradually being lost, along with reference points of masculinity, like a muscle slowly atrophying from inactivity. So what is left for man to do aside from rejecting it all and, in a phrase, go innawoods? Not a whole lot.

I mean, if you want to consider being an ecoterrorist or w/e an emancipation from a increasingly feminized cybernetic society, be my guest lol.

In a vulgar sense, civilization being considered feminine and barbarism masculine exists as a general understanding for good reason. Take civilization to it's ~ NaTuRaL ~ conclusion. Only cuties make it out alive.

based

Attached: D4aP8hrXkAANBB8.jpg large.jpg (960x540, 38K)

>in instructions.
rule number one: life dont have and never will have an instructions manual.

> as much as can possibly be done.
ultimate is ultimate. you just need to low your expectatives. anyway, this is your believe. i dont know, good luck, i try to explain my disagreement with that field of thought. but is ok. really. it was a good conversation. i go to the kitchen to eat something.

Attached: 1488755726965.jpg (700x3150, 614K)

>Only cuties make it out alive.

tfw I'll never be cute ;_;

Attached: ww.png (497x329, 175K)

>ctrl + f
>no one has recommended cyclonopedia

shigg

Am I the only one who finds that unapproachable? and I like Reza and what he has to say about intelligence and all.

we're gonna make it user

Attached: vector_1542785665704.png (1000x666, 331K)

(not that user, but am also curious for a cleaner rundown since you're already here)

My understanding is that within the framework of g/acc (and really in pretty much every branch, tree and trunk of feminism) that certain traits are ascribed to the masculine and the feminine. In the blackpaper, diverse and decentralized creation, "the productive space from which the future is produced" appears to be a primary feminine trait, whereas masculinity has a sort of top-down, almost single-purpose, stilted hierarchical nature to it - the multics vs. unix section is quite good at displaying some of these basis for this separation/delineation of traits and why the feminine won out in the given example.

I could probably parse out a few more trait-distinctions between masculine and feminine if I went through the paper explicitly looking for them, but I was wondering if you could provide a sort of rough outline of what you think some of the essential masculine and feminine traits are within the context of g/acc. That might help as a background for explaining why certain traits (the feminine) will win out over others (the masculine) as capital/technology/the world at large progresses and accelerates.

Thanks!

Attached: Mr_Pringle.jpg (400x534, 200K)

Reza isn't a real accelerationist

any leniency for cyber-cuties in m*le camouflage?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 48K)

Just take your spiro and your estrogen, girls. You can make it if you try.

Attached: 7f0562710a3e1b2dd7413c445836a769981da3cca888efc362a0094ea763100c.gif (543x543, 1.25M)

we're cutie invaders from the future, gender undercover agents undermining m*le society from the inside, incredibly blessed work

Thanks for the sentiment but I'm hiding behind seven closets. I'm already living life in hard mode, I don't want to be out and deal with this shit transphobic society

I meant instructions for examining experience. If it allows you to observe and understand experience as closely and accurately as experientially possible, I would call that ultimate. To say that it is not ultimate is to suggest that "the ultimate nature of experience is outside experience" which makes no sense.
Yes it does have instructions in the same way that a scientist is given instructions on how to examine something with a microscope.

It is possible that part of the reason why you are finding life exceptionally difficult right now is because you are feeling forced into repressing who you want to be, and are therefor put into a position of living in a sort of constant, internalized fear of the people around you, especially those who you are closest to. This might also be compounded by a continually nursed self-loathing born out of intentionally not living the life you wish you could live because of what you are afraid other people/society will say and think about you.

Been there. And it sucks. But transitioning can also be seriously helpful in making you feel less awful all the time. Even just accepting it about yourself can be a huge weight off your shoulders.

Best of luck, whatever you decide to do.

Attached: 1540432120897.jpg (769x1000, 167K)

unfortunately im not Literally Her (tho she is here lmao) im but just a rowdy kunt here for funhousing.

I can go ahead and quote nyx here tho from an earlier chat around this thread:

"To understand why femininity you would have to understand the connection Plant draws between zero/computers and women, which I attempt to illustrate with decentralization/free software/left-hand path, wherein essentially the masculine is the human subject and the feminine is what is objectified. So much like computers are initially objects that are intended to be wielded instrumentally by humans (men) towards the advancement of civilization and human goals, and end up having unintended emergent consequences like AI, femininity is connected to that process where what is initially intended for reproduction (in the broadest sense of the term) ends up becoming an autonomous object."

I hope this answers ur question in detail since I haven't gotten into cyberfeminism to critically bring it myself, let alone word it in a way id feel satisfyingly encompasses it.

That said, to add to this, I feel regardless of one’s stance on the veracity of what characteristics are male and which are female or if gendering characteristics is even valid, its pretty evident that what’s ascribed to as feminine and, well to be honest, woman, is reduced to the place of object which produces an incidental commonality between machine and woman in the established role we are intended to uphold for male or patriarchal legacy in perpetuity.

This combined with the observable influence (trans)women have in tech, and quite remarkably, this month’s situation at google where the AI ethics oversight committee at google had a conservative member thrown out from the activism of a group of trans coders at google… kinda demonstrates the trajectory at hand here, toward a feminized future, where transwomen hold a disproportionate level of influence over.

techcrunch.com/2019/04/02/google-heritage-foundation-ateac-trans-rights/

I'm afraid that as it stands, a little taqiyya won't hurt. I hope to see u in the trenches with us, taking Operator tier selfies

Attached: gacc.jpg (600x400, 140K)

Much of it sounds about right, I live in constant fear of the wrong gesture, the wrong intonation, saying the wrong thing could out me and I would instantly lose whatever "cishet privilege" I am entitled to. But the thought of having to start anew somewhere else (because I guarantee you, I would have to start from scratch somewhere new) at my age with no college degree is even more daunting. I don't know, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. In any case, thank you for your advice and your kind wishes.

>with the creator of the book tweeting about it
link?

That podcast is very sobering after reading a bunch of accelerationist authors, like a glass of cold water after a night of heavy drinking

Were traditional cartoon villains that tried to destroy the world/humanity accelerationists ?

holy moses this thread completely blew up.

thanks for the Linji quote user, i will remember to bear this in mind. you are quite right about that. it's really true, i basically have been in full retreat from the ordinary for quite some time but this is indeed counterproductive.

ty also. i think i have had occasional glimpses into what you mean by this, and if they are that thing they are very much worth pursuing indeed.

>The experience of life teaches nothing, just as history teaches nothing. True experience comes from restricting our contract with reality while increasing our analysis of that contact. In this way our sensibility becomes broader and deeper, because everything is in us – all we need to do is look for it and know how to look.
this is really good too user, exactly the kind of thing i'm trying to get better at. just this kind of attitude. really wonderful.

& just wanted to say i appreciated you coming to join these threads n1x (again!). it's been quite eye-opening, hope you're managing to keep your side projects going and not getting too burned out also. i'm pretty sure that your blackpaper would be a lock to include in an Accelerate Reader 2.0 were one to be released down the road. it's really an accomplishment.

and thank you to you also, Future Peter Thiel, with your Machine Anus logo, for keeping copies of us all in the brain-tanks in which we are only permitted to suspect that we are in, somewhere on sub-basement 44 of the underground vaults, and also for the late-night staff at the Palantir Institute for routinely changing the life-preserving gelatin in our tanks such that we may continue to have these conversations in Experimental Holographic Universe #9842602. hopefully Musk's trip to Mars went well and that those Facebook bots that were talking to each other in 2017 and which now own the majority share are not continuing to fight with the cartel of Amazon drones that replaced Bezos. is Boston Dynamics still around? or did they fly too far, too soon? ah well.

Goodnight Nick
Goodnight Bug
Goodnight DAO jumping over the moon
Goodnight artificial satellites over Guangzhou
And the unsubtly communist Red Balloon

Attached: 1_q1YjG4KOjlLi64qMBigQ5Q.png (545x296, 12K)

>Over the horizon is an apparent destiny of a feminine "humanity" that is completely alien to how we currently recognize it, but is feminine nonetheles

This is what I don't understand, what makes it feminine? I haven't heard any good reasons, and it seems to impose a false humanity on something outside the category altogether. Might as well distinguish a rock as feminine.

Rocks are feminine.
Why do you think we call the big rock "mother Earth"?

If the term's just being applied arbitrarily as an aesthetic choice, that's fine, but just admit it and that it has no bearing on any philosophical import.

Attached: 1555898927747.jpg (561x421, 30K)

>A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms,and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another—all this is common knowledge.
-Lenin
I would love to get invested in this shit, but I can only justify my interest aesthetically. I'm starting to feel as if acc and a lot of other critical writings Im interested in are just bourgeoisie fads

random user popping in, your posts intrigued me. in Lakota culture, there is grandfather rock, known as Inyan. mother earth is known as Unci Maka. Unci Maka actually directly translates into Grandmother Earth, though. i can see how rocks would be masculine, and how earth (dirt, mud) would be feminine when taking note that all plant life and whatnot grow from the dirt, and not rocks. i like to refer to Lakota culture and language when attempting to understand how humans understand and view the world in their natural, "wild" state. if you reach far back as you can in every culture, it's usually all the same shit. super cool stuff.

>this is really good too user, exactly the kind of thing i'm trying to get better at. just this kind of attitude. really wonderful.

That's basically Pessoa's philosophy. The Book of Disquiet is the testament of this. The work has this onyrical vibe of a poetic world almost diffusing into mere dream.

But I'm big and hairy and besides I don't want an early death.

Land threads were a mistake

show me one example of accelerationist thought post-Land that isnt heavily indebted to Land.

Let's not pretend /Acc isn't an extremely bougie ideology, in working so hard to think and theorize >muh Outside, /Acc continues to repress the Other of philosophy, the slave, the laborer, the Negro. I mean there's a reason why this ideology is so appealing to anglos. Accelerationists spend their time daydreaming about Eldritch monstrosities out there, in the deep vastness of the cosmos, to avoid thinking about the horrors they have created right here at home, like if you want horror go be a political prisoner at Guantanamo or a woman at a Brazilian favela. There are plenty of Horrors at the periphery of Empire, and nothing will please me more than seeing those horrors eat you, devour you.

Attached: D3RzjS6UYAAwbr9.jpg (2008x1376, 526K)

Yeah don't disagree with you, but if a true acceleration is to be found it should/will come from the edges of the Empire. The problem is that the aesthetics of acceleration are still interwoven with the global north. But it is changing it is starting to seep in, the failure of neoliberal capitalism is getting more and more reviled in the south as well as the weakness and stagnation of the moral left. It will come, sooner rather than later.

I don't think this is necessarily true, at least not to the core. I would agree that theory in the strictest sense always maintains a somewhat bougie quality in that it requires lots of time to just read, an understanding of history, an education that supports critical thinking, a relatively stable position to start out from, essentially, which many people never get to experience. However, one might make the case that the common laborer need not read all of Marx and Engels work in order to envision (and help to actualize) a differently structured world outside of capitalism. Towards this end we can see the fundamental element of /acc that is applicable to all people. The Lovecraftian horror aspect need not necessarily apply in all cases (but it's always there if people decide to delve deeper - as it always was).

A good example of this in practice might be something like the Xenofeminist manifesto. The thing is barely 40 actual pages long, but it does make an attempt to get the reader to conceptualize different societal structures while suggesting that you may actualize change in the world through the manipulation of hyperstition, and this is essentially aimed directly at the marginalized groups who suffer most under the current system. It would be a real stretch to call this 'theory', but it does provoke accelerationist thinking.

>nothing will please me more than seeing those horrors eat you, devour you.
Most of us are already into vore, so this is consistent with our values.

Attached: shoggoth.jpg (500x689, 118K)

>Most of us are already into vore, so this is consistent with our values.

LMAO it has been years since I posted in a Cantonese pictographs website, somehow I forgot

Attached: Screenshot_142.png (644x644, 936K)

Boy, are you in for a ride!

Attached: Marine is enjoying this.jpg (838x911, 432K)

Matter is mind

v/acc when?

>Scientific and technological progress might change people’s capabilities or incentives in ways that would destabilize civilization. For example, advances in DIY biohacking tools might make it easy for anybody with basic training in biology to kill millions; novel military technologies could trigger arms races in which whoever strikes first has a decisive advantage; or some economically advantageous process may be invented that produces disastrous negative global externalities that are hard to regulate. This paper introduces the concept of a vulnerable world: roughly, one in which there is some level of technological development at which civilization almost certainly gets devastated by default, i.e. unless it has exited the “semi-anarchic default condition”. Several counterfactual historical and speculative future vulnerabilities are analyzed and arranged into a typology. A general ability to stabilize a vulnerable world would require greatly amplified capacities for preventive policing and global governance. The vulnerable world hypothesis thus offers a new perspective from which to evaluate the risk-benefit balance of developments towards ubiquitous surveillance or a unipolar world order.

source:
nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

Soon

Attached: vida-obra-artista-polaco-Zdzislaw-Beksinski-8.jpg (880x704, 114K)

Depends. Where you at?

Attached: artworks-000309967842-dkfwuu-t500x500.jpg (500x500, 105K)

Really puts into perspective of what deterritorialization and the Outside means doesn't it?

>v/acc

Attached: 61tqq2gifiL._SY879_.jpg (416x879, 56K)

A mouth is an entrance, and an exit.

Attached: bodleian_10310370513.gif (450x309, 133K)

This.
The fucking cancer of the board.

It must be hell being Nick Bostrom