Accelerationism

pretty sure it's just a place to throw links, people don't hang out there because it's reddit

That's a good stance to adopt, I'll make sure I know my Deleuze then.

Fanged Noumena shouldn't be too hard if you're about to graduate. Make sure you're up on ancient and early modern thought and history (I'd suggest a reader of ancient philosophy such as barnes and maybe the empiricist and rationalist compilations for early moderns [just search the terms]) and German Idealists and French Pomos too (maybe Beiser and Pinkard for gerrys and idk what for frogs) especially if you go this route:

There's only one acc.

G/acc

Attached: d3goq84-9692c057-3686-4e2f-9bd8-b083f45ab247.jpg (643x800, 500K)

kek
i thought it was all statistics, grug land?

Attached: get out the fine china.jpg (687x637, 85K)

Start with Kant and the prohibition of incest

I should have clarified that I am graduating in English studies in a French university. So I don't know if I can actually cover Deleuze that much since he's a frog. I can of course talk about his influence as well as dig into German Idealism and French Theory too, but I can't base my study on those things.

Seems like I need to focus on anglophone thinkers. So I'm back to Fisher and the like.

I've seen you in a bunch of these threads, are you l/acc or r/acc? why do you hate g/acc so much

lun/acc is the only acceptable response.
Acc is the formalisation of racket thinking.

Attached: CapitalIs_Squelch_.jpg (1644x1105, 384K)

Based Land

>dystopia is impossible
this is literally the opposite of what Land thinks

>t. doesn't get it

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

Well, Reza and Land and Plant and Hawaway are all anglophones too -- but they might all be difficult if you are an English major and not philosophically trained. I think Delanda is also an anglophone maybe -- and simpler than Deleuze qua Deleuze. All under the umbrella of Deleuzeanism in English. And Acceleration.

I believe the recent English book Dark Deleuze deals some with Nick Land.

Capitalism and Schizophrenia is probably a must even if only to flip through by index or something.

Some philosophy would be good for ya. Sociology and linguistics and anthropology knowledges are important in addition to the pure philosophical influences too in D's thought.

Personally, I think Fisher's like a less talented Zizek but if he floats your boat then good for you.

Attached: catch em.jpg (631x533, 69K)

>The Anglo Ideology

Attached: 1560447361603.jpg (900x1200, 286K)

if it makes sense then I'm sure you can explain it. it does make sense, right user? you wouldn't be completely ignorant of the subject matter, would you?

I am a bit blackpilled about this whole project at the moment, since my teachers have not exhibited any interest in such topics yet.
I would probably sound like a lunatic when I get to explain to one of them what I want to work on. But that's a risk I'm willing to take. I just have to trace out a solid plan for a thesis.

Also, I need to frame a specific argument, something along the lines of "How did accelerationism influence [insert topic]" I guess.
My biggestfear is that they will tell me it's too ambitious for a first thesis (which is meant to show that you can do research, you don't have to be original in the end), or that it's too much of a fringe movement to have had any incidence on current events. Although I am sure they are mistaken, it remains true that I only know the movement's existence because of my edgy teenager attitude and connected existence. I am not sure any of my teachers has ever heard of Acc, since they don't do philosophy per se.

>because a cult listens to arguments

Attached: 1566794310523.jpg (600x338, 33K)

so you can't explain it, okay, good to know

Learn to read faggot

He's just posting random shit because he's a retarded outsider.

shockingly retarded is possibly the best description of Land's oeuvre I've ever come across. It should be the subtitle to fanged noumenon

Just say you wanna work on writing a thesis on and their influence on popular culture and events (memes, protests, internet, sjws, nrx, etc.) and you can even try translating it into your frog language as well and become like the frog accelerationist bro.

The absolute state of twitter trannie academics.

>trannies
>cults
>discord groups
just make an argument against it if you think it's wrong. even if you don't think accelerationists will listen, surely you want to convince the fencesitters/uninitiated that come to these threads?

I am not familiar with Hawaway?
Thanks for all the recommendations.

It is true that I will have to work mostly on philosophical ideas, so I can even frame my chosen topic under "History of Ideas".

>just make an argument

Attached: Coomemenon.jpg (3226x1462, 906K)

Based advice. I guess the time has come for memeology (actual edgelord memes) to be recognised for its importance in the public sphere.

c/acc

I have similar tendencies of wanting to do "new hotness" theory shit but I have to tell you, 99 times out of 100, it smells like dilettantism to a) your professors and b) the people in your field who know what they're doing and whose respect you consequently want. There's already a conceit about MA students that they're much more likely to be trash because a lot of them are just paying into the program.

In general, I've always felt the classy way to do a project like this is to be influenced by the ideas you are influenced by, to think about them at a high level because you are committed to them and care about them, and then to let that commitment become an organic part of your intellectual framework and worldview, so that not only are you "saying it without saying it" in your thesis, its emanations can be detected in your work more broadly by those with eyes to see them. I've always found this safer than the "I WILL BE APPLYING DELEUZE'S CONCEPT OF X BUT PROBLEMATIZING IT WITH LACAN'S IDEA OF Y."

Since you mention history: I don't know where you live or the nature of your program, but where I am, most history professors would eat you alive for this kind of thing. If you're going to be working with mainstream North-American history professors, be very wary of mentioning "theory" in general. Many of them are fine with theoretical perspectives, but trend-whoring "look at me, I read Derrida for a semester and now think I've unlocked the mysteries of the universe" types are generally frowned upon and come across as naive.

An example of my first paragraph, re: subtlety, is a book I read last year by some historian who was rather openly applying Deleuzian rhizome stuff to the history of the Sino-Russian frontier during the Cold War (or something), and he was also rather openly an anarchist, but the book was so solid in terms of research and subtle enough in not blowing jargon up your ass every five seconds that it was respected.

In other fields or even other academic milieus (like maybe Europe, or just different programs within NA, idk) all this advice could be wrong though. Maybe Lit dept people are crazy about this kind of "FRONTLOAD YOUR PAPER WITH JARGON, DISTINGUISH YOURSELF WITH JARGON, DO ANYTHING YOU CAN TO APPEAR CUTTING-EDGE!!" stuff. Fuck if I know.

academics are faggots who destroy the essence of ideas

Attached: 1537142164795.jpg (1080x846, 175K)

The risk isn't just looking like a lunatic, it's possibly looking like a naive dilettante too. If this MA program is a stepping stone to PhD, and you're aiming for top tier programs, you will want to be careful with how you appear to the professors you will be working with. Remember, they are writing your letters of rec. Don't write off the possibility that they will simply force a different project on you.

One major risk (if the above in fact describes your situation) is that you'll out yourself as a "clearly shouldn't be here, let's just push him through the program and let him fall out of academia like 80-90% of the MAs do" dilettante, which will become a self-fulfilling prophecy because they'll assume there's no point working with you as you're already tainted.

Always get the lay of the land before pitching anything too aggressively. It's good to have enthusiasm and some professors might be very open to wackiness, but certain disciplines and certain professors are extremely conservative (and prone to playing favorites with mentorship), and you can't afford to take dumb chances.

>I don't see myself having a future in academia by writing exclusively about 'hyperracist' Nick Land
You don't have a future in academia if you lack balls, my friend. Stop sucking cock and do a piece on Land

I've read his works and he's interesting, but I think as with most Marxist his critique of the system is far stronger than his proposed solutions. Left acc is confused as fuck about the future it envisions. I think one of the most valuable thing you get from Deleuze (&G) is their ethical system which is very local-moment oriented. Fisher (and to a lesser extent Land) does not start from this notion but drones in Marxist rethoric.

/u/acc solves the problem of praxis through the Daoist Heavenly Man "well, Gnon is going to beat us anyway, might as well wander the earth and adapt to the times." This is the path that Deleuze clearly laid in front of us.

Thanks for this. You formulated it better than I could.

That's why I need to be sure of what I am doing. My department warned us of the dangers of using jargon and wanting to appear more intelligent than we actually are. So there's that, and Acc is full of jargon. Maybe that's what brought me to it in the first place as well.

However, I think that I can still pull this. I just need to be careful of the topic I choose, and how I present it. The business of Acc seems to enter into what I see as worth studying in relation to future trends and ideas. That's also what's problematic I guess, because by anticipating too much, the risk of being plain wrong or seeming like a dilettante is very high. That's why I should probably stick to older, more established/conventional ideas, but it wouldn't be as stimulating I think.

It is true that accelerationism is pretty far on the wacky spectrum. But simply to put things in perspective, I'd rather study this than do yet another progressive type essay about Black Lives Matter or Feminism in the US, two topics that one of my teacher's students picked under him, he seemed pretty content with it, and showed the thesis to our class. So yeah, I guess you can see where I'm coming from.

Attached: 1566055560229.jpg (1307x900, 446K)

I guess I will just have to live with the impostor syndrome then while trampling nonchalantly over the people who actually deserve better things than I do.

>Acc is full of jargon
80% of it was borrowed from French cybernetic theory anyways

>I think one of the most valuable thing you get from Deleuze (&G) is their ethical system which is very local-moment oriented.
>/u/acc solves the problem of praxis through the Daoist Heavenly Man

Where can I read more about this? Or could you explain what you mean?

Ultimately you have to do what suits you, but just as a cautionary tale: when I came into my program I was doing a much much milder form of jargon-heavy philosophy stuff and I almost got kicked out and ruined my entire career for it. It would have changed my whole life. It's a fluke I was able to change tracks, let alone in enough time that it even would have helped me. The really funny thing: I haven't changed my perspective in the slightest, and in fact I've only deepened it and I now study that jargony shit full-time. But because I was trying to pitch it to the wrong people, at the wrong time, with too much of an air of naivete, my whole life was almost different.

And again, what I was doing was much milder than accelerationism. And while this was going on, I was watching MA students get treated variously by the professors "managing" them: some were told to fuck off and not even given rec letters, some were cultivated into obvious "we're getting you into a PhD program no matter what" things, some just coasted. Like I said, ultimately what matters is your relationship with your professors, and especially the main guy whose task it is to oversee you.

Unfortunately you have to make strategic choices. So just consider: sometimes toning things down in the short term and doing simple good work, when you're a young dumb full of cum (no offense) beginning graduate student, can set you up for more freedom down the line.

I guess the tldr is, probe to see if you can do a project like this if you like, but don't come across as arrogant and brashly committed to this like it's your magnum opus, and be ready to readjust if it's strategic to do so. Also consider that this MA thesis is likely meant to be your writing sample for future applications, and professors who take a shine to you will want to groom you by grooming your MA project. If they can't recognize it, and if the programs you want to apply to won't recognize it, it's unstrategic.

I'll stop sperging out now, I just went through something similar so I wanted to pitch in my two cents. One final note for what it's worth: I've mostly sublimated my earlier jargon into higher and more developed interests now, but a buddy of mine who was one year behind me in my program is now even more committed to that same jargon methodology than I was, and he's had a VERY bumpy ride getting his professors to be cool with it. During his MA, his big-name adviser/professor outright said "cut that shit, it's fucking pretentious," and he did - which was a good move because now he's an Ivy PhD student. Just sayin'.

Based advice again. You're probably right, I should tread more carefully for now and jump headlong into the rabbit hole when I'm both more established in my potential career and more knowledgeable about the whole subject. But only then.

Thanks for sharing your experience and anecdotes, that's also what I'm looking for in this thread. I guess I'll have to be more tactical and hide the power level I'm aiming at. I'll have to go for something milder, as you say. I'd rather do that than sticking a red flag in my neck.

Well, just read A Thousand Plateaus and Zhuangzi. The books fit together really, really well - they help to find a path in the other.