Ideology, Intelligence, and Capital with Nick Land
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2024
- Learn more about the greatest books ever written and the wildest thinkers who ever lived. Read by 9,000 readers, writers, founders, and investors: otherlife.co
Nick Land is a British philosopher living in Shanghai. Nick is one of the main figures in the school of thought known as accelerationism. He is currently writing a book about the philosophical implications of Bitcoin. We talked about accelerationism, cybernetics, ideology, the evolution of Nick’s perspective, Deleuze and Guattari, emancipation and dehumanization, artificial intelligence, capitalism, Moldbug, mathematics and the significance of zero, religion, blockchain/Bitcoin, Kantianism, synthetic time, and more.
We recorded this online, over two sessions. We did have some unavoidable connection problems, so you'll notice some imperfections such as clicking sounds throughout. We did the best we could; big thanks to those who helped with the editing.
◆ A full-text transcript with timestamps is available at vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ide....
◆ Become a member of the community otherlife.co/upgrade
◆ Subscribe to the Other Life podcast link.chtbl.com/otherlife
◆ Subscribe to this UA-cam channel here: / @justinmurphy
the absolute madman
If you sort of understand where Land is coming from philosophically, you see that he is just following in a long tradition, if in a rather hackish oppertunistic way.
Philosopher stops being a hack only when he dies, only in the retrospect. .
Not really, he just likes technology.
how so?@@izrick2841
He did waaaaaaaaaaay to many rave parties during the 90s. The mollies fried his brain.
Glad I spent twelve years of my adult life reading philosophy nonstop so that I could understand 2 hours of Nick Land talking.
i understand you
@@than9025 L
Listening to Land speak makes me feel so dim-witted and inadequate, it makes me want to study philosophy for real instead of just doing cursory readings. There are no shortcuts on this road either.
I've spent nearly every day at work for the last year listening to TTS articles about Landianism over and over again trying to bore the concepts into my head. Totally worth it.
@@Deliverygirl Drugs are the shortcut to insight, but you still have to do the readings.
I keep coming back to this... thank you so much for arranging and making public this conversation!
Five minutes in and already hooked. Thanks for doing this interview!
Well Justin I've only recently discovered your channel and subscribed .Just wanted to say the conversation between 49 mins and 1.15 is amazingly good. Land is brilliant but your questions and comments are so pertinent and astute. Best and most relevant philosophical speculation I have heard in a long time .Thanks
Probably listened to this 8 times in the past 2 days
bruh
Can you tell me in bullet points what in hell are they talking about. Thanks so very much, thanks.
@@naushadahmed8090 yes, the gist is that, due to Kant, bitcoins cant lie. invest in kantcoin
@@tonegoober Head.
@@naushadahmed8090 pretty much if you get it or you don’t and Justin is almost there but doesn’t still GET IT
You asked fantastic questions, exactly what I was wondering when I found this video. Thank you!!!
thank you for this justin and nick!
Very welcome, glad you enjoyed it.
Well, I think blockchain fixates a timed event within its block arrangement, but only from its unique situation and individual perspective. It fixates a point in time as invariable insofar as it relates to the blockchain. Einstein´s critique of absolute time is on point. Even if a single perspective is fixated (since another blockchain can perform the same task at the same time) it does not preclude another perspective to be formed too, it just freezes it in its own framework or system. Suppose an alternate blockchain, recording individual transactions, is moving near the speed of light, it might record the events, the single transactions inside a block, in a different sequence than it otherwise would. It was an amazing conversation Mr. Murphy !!!
Damn, finding this is like a hidden gem. 3 hours!
Also, land seems kinda chill
JM is a circa 2020 intellectual gem. Awesome fella!
people think, that he is a madman, while actually the system is absolutely mad beyond understanding.
Who is mad, the person who yells: "Soylent green is people." Or the society who makes Soylent green out of people?
Underrated comment
Both, no?
The legend. Great conversation Justin thanks for uploading
Thanks, very welcome.
Coming back to this again.
2:40:25 "I only read it once fast"
Now that's accelerationism😎😎
Land's analogies are probably what makes his vision, or at least some of his intuitions, still profoundly interesting. He contextualizes things by giving them a place in a wider (at least, wider than its own) coherent system. This should be philosophy, though: placing concepts in the system that appeals to them the most in order to understand what kind of potential or actual function they carry.
Why do you think that limiting account of philosophy is desirable?
wtf you on about?
Its disturbing how little people have something to say, and how little the people who do have something to say are understood (by people like you).
1:10:00 Moldbug
1:30:00 the importance of the arrival of 0 to Europe. (Will they get into the importance of its even more mind-fucking co-concept, infinity?)
1:36:40 “”Positive feedback production of intelligence”” “A runaway intelligenic process”
Brilliant, will be worth another listen.
Thanks!
More Land! Thanks.
Nick Land offers a very interesting perspective on technology, but it ultimately seems like he takes some science fiction a little too seriously.
Culture as graphite rods- love that analogy! 10/10 starts around 51:00
For a possible rectification of Kant and Non-Euclidean geometry see CH Hinton’s the fourth dimension as well as Ouspensky’s Tertium Organon
Damn, been ages since I read Ouspensky
Insightful questions and repartee that led you guys to interesting points, although I wish that towards the end Nick could’ve pontificated without needing to accommodate communes.
Containment impossible during the Renaissance and afterward for the discovery of the Americas and the growth of trade. That doesn´t have to be argued, it´s a fact (and facts are not simple cf. John Anderson, the great Scottish-Australian philo.) Nick Land, I thank you for submitting yourself to this interview. Fanged Noumenon an ok book. Look forward to more (perhaps something on Heidegger - less on Kant - following your essay on, I forget, was it Trakl?)
2:00:20
“Yes”, spoken like Salieri discovering Mozarts music
1;13:00
“What is collapsing is a certain kind of extremely smug notion of transcendent secular rationalism, as if it’s really looking at the world’s cultures from outside and above, in some position of perfect neutrality - whereas instead, it’s massively historically and culturally embedded, and it’s looking out of its own very specific cladistic branch of cultural development at other parts of the planet’s cultural shrubbery”
Yet the Landian notion of an allegedly anti-humanist transhistorical ‘intelligence’ seems to fall prey exactly to this kind of criticism.
@@ancapistan Force, then? Is that all we're left with? I'm not necessarily opposed to violence, but it needs to be a specific mode of violence ie: Zizekian. Otherwise, we'll just end up with something worse.
@@mattgilbert7347 yes sir ;))) sky net transhumanist fascism
@@thotlinemiami6627 incredibly exciting and based
2 years ago I wouldn't have understood a word he was saying, today I understand one sentence maybe every 10 minutes 😂
I'll come back after another 2 years of studying philosophy 😂
Can someone explain why Land finds the name Facebook ironic in the context of Deleuze and Guatari?
Nick Land: These things come in waves. Wave motion is crucial to this. There was an extremely exciting wave that was ridden by the Ccru in the early to mid-1990s. You know, the internet basically arrived in those years, there were all kinds of things going on culturally and technologically and economically that were extremely exciting and that just carried this accelerationist current and made it extremely, immediately plausible and convincing to people. Outrageous perhaps, but definitely convincing. It was followed - and I wouldn’t want to put specific dates on this, really - but I think there was an epoch of deep disillusionment. I’d call it the Facebook era, and obviously, for anyone who’s coming in any way out of Deleuze and Guattari, for something called “Facebook” to be the dominant representative of cyberspace is just almost, you know, a comically horrible thing to happen! [Laughs.]
Look into “body without organs” and the anti oedipus
d & g use the term “faciality” or “the face” to refer to a homogenized identity, a sort of captured subjectivity, that they call to be destratified and destroyed. so “facebook” being at the helm of cyberspace is ironic in the sense that the internet, in the eyes of deleuzoguattarian accelerationists, is supposed to be the frontier of imperceptible anonymity, total deterritorialization, and desubjectivation
This was really interesting thanks
Holy Shit you've hit the big time Justin
Thanks!
Well well well, we meet again Nick. My arch-nemesis.
It is remarkable to see the post-modern, post-structural radicals of the end of the 20th century and today come to the same conclusions about Marxism, particularly the incite that true liberation of the capitalist subject can only be achieved through technological dehumanization, that the Italian Futurists did at the turn of the century. Likewise, it is the State that both D+G and the early fascists identify as the ultimate metaphysical object in history. The more I learn about accelerationism the more it appears these two ideologies are one in the same.
What does he say at 6:45?
Closed captioning says "Dualism atari" (obviously not that, just asking what word is supposed to be there) (On topic of Facebook being a horrible name)
Deleuze and Guattari
anyone who knows the marxist (accelerationist?) Nick was referring to around 10:00?
He talks about damn jehu a little after that
I was most interested in the idea that by the relentless pursuit of rationality, the rationalists have validated the religious. Can anyone recommend any reading along these lines? I, too, have noticed a similar trend in the last 5 to 10 years, and I'd like to understand it better.
Let me know if you find something. Jonathan Pageau talks in the ballpark of this subject, but I'd like to find someone who's addressing this exact thing directly.
@@JakeBowenTVlmk too
It’s pretty simple: the human creature is naturally imbued with the impulse toward religiosity, and the rationalists have deified logic and reason (to their incredible spiritual detriment, these people are unanimously miserable fucks) in place of a traditional religious figure
Deleuze: "postscript on the societies of control" shows total disillusion in cybernetic project in like 1990.
Land: when the internet became face book, it's so ironic because D&G's "Year Zero: Faciality" (which basically is a treatise on the insidious ways the white/Christian identity captures becoming), that's what pushed me over the limit to reaction.
Land: deterritorialization=good, reterritorialization=bad
D&G: it's complicated interdependent dynamic.
Can you identify the paranoiac?
D&G: Capitalism is an assemblage which accelerates decoding and allows for new becomings, at the same time it brutally reterritorializes that potential and staves off the point at which it would pass over into a different, presumably more interesting assemblage.
Land: Capital is life, being and the only game in town.
Land: emancipation of means of production now!
D&G: The social is the machine. "emancipate" the social machine escape from the capitalist axiomatic.
Land: That's humanism, I'm more into my robot fetish.
Justin: But can I have my freedom and own the left with hardcore acceleration too?
Land: no that's kitsch, the only real freedom is a commitment to a reactionary anti-humanist imaginary which identifies with subordination and extinction by the machine.
Justin: let's move on
I obviously think what Land has done with D&G is a shame, but I can't help enjoying Justin haplessly trying to map his small minded, gloomy catholicTM worldview onto him. Land want's to LARP as a reactionary, but not in the traditional sense mind you! but seems (perhaps wilfully) oblivious to the cloud of vulgar ur-fascism type stupidity he attracts.
For a more through immanentist critique of "the secular religion" check out Danial C. Barber's "Deleuze and the Naming of God: Post-Secularism and the Future of Immanence" or his "refusal of conversion" essay www.jcrt.org/archives/13.1/barber.pdf
Justin: Europeans are in intelligent right?
Land: for very mechanic non essential reasons "intelligence production" emerged in Europe.
Me: and capitalism doesn't have it's own "inhibitor mechanisms"
Justin: emancipation for humanity.
Nick: emancipation from humanity.
Btw, if Nick ever needs reminding of “the cloud of vulgar ur-fascism type stupidity he attracts,” he only has to read the comment section of his blog.
"Land didnt read D&G the same way I did so hes dumb"
You sound dumb af
Thank you
No idea what any of this means. Neither does anyone else. This is a jerk off circle in the comments.
Who is the author mentioned at 45min ? I can't understand and find the essay about intelligence explosion. Edit: it's I.J. Good.
I think one of the main triggering modernist events was.....Germ Theory
Interviewers voice is the embodiment of this emoji 🤓
“erm, akshually” 🤓
SOOO UUmmmmmm
*CLACKS TONGUE*
iT'S LIKEEEEE
*SMACKS LIPS*
uUuAAA uuuuaaaHhhhHHHH
*clack* *clack*
Shlurp
its brutal
Someone should go through and capture all the sHurlp and smacks and edit it into a video
Zizek
Who else sped this up because it's only right?
This is finally starting to sink in.
it's about time i checked out this justin murphey dudereno people keep talking about
Damnit 🤯
After this, I'm not sure to whom belongs my mind👏
can someone explain why he talks about bitcoins and why am I hearing Einstein and the theory of relativity? Help, I lost the track.
Its a pretty in depth topic, it requires a lot of understanding about Bitcoin as well as the concept of trusted third parties and decentralized consensus.
Land is in the process of writing a book about it that goes into detail: etscrivner.github.io/cryptocurrent/
@@NotraNaum Thanks!
Block chain can solve a problem formerly thought to be unsolvable within eucldian space by fudging the constraint of uniformity on the time variable. Since agreeing on the order of blocks doesn't require all blocks to be constructed in uniform time, just approaching some uniform time. That was my take anyway.
@@NotraNaum nice do you know any info on it?
@@thotlinemiami6627 No, I think he abandoned the book, for now all that exists is the link I shared above.
Moar Land!
Wow Jreg really hasn't read any of Nick's work
As much as I love Jreg, the only unironic statement he's made on his channel is that he's never full read a single book about politics in his life: ua-cam.com/video/OVWjVQ8mtZ8/v-deo.html
@@Michael-Hammerschmidt and that is very obvious if you have read any Land. No s*** he hasn't ready any political theory. He's completely uninformed
Anyone think it's funny that he sounds just like the actor Jared Harris, and that Jared Harris played a crazed accelerationist terrorist in the show Fringe?
1:42:39
As a mathematician, Nick Land's argument on the idea that the notion of technology as applied mathematics is instrumental to the cataclysmic event of modernity seems utterly simplistic and erroneous. In many places around the world during the antiquity but especially in Ancient Greece and Egypt it was no secret that technological advancements were not sort of a trial and error stroke of luck. Back then indeed technology was applied mathematics and especially geometry. This happened also while the ancients held contradicting notions or didn't know what to make about zero.
Absolutely brilliant exegesis on cryptocurrencies
Agreed, the subject of cryptocurrency is already very hard for people to grasp. Land takes it even deeper by discussing how its invention fundamentally changes the landscape concerning certain assumptions surrounding spacetime. Satoshi truly was a genius and the invention of Bitcoin will continue to transform the world.
Shame AnarchoPapist isn't still around, he'd be a great guest for you to talk to.
Let me know if he makes a comeback.
I want to have Nick Land vs Ted Kazynski debate. It will be confusing brutal but a futurist epoch.
Kaczynski hasn’t lived through the 90s or Internet in general which takes quite a few years to even grasp IT.
@Jordan Rogers yeah but he’s taking peoples word for it not seeing for himself
Or the venerable Charles Manson, PBUH.
This man represents everyone who's ever wanted to wear a top hat with welders goggles.
Ah, a man of culture.
"coming down the pike" is the correct phrase.
I'm not sure I understand the analogy between critique and bitcoin, but here is a go at it.
1) So, critique insists on a distinction between objectivity and object, against metaphysics. I take this to mean, in Kantian key, that one cannot confuse the conditions that structure phenomena for those that structure noumena, i.e. we must not confuse things as they appear for-us, and how things are in themselves.
2) Bitcoin proposes a peer to peer currency exchange system that bypasses the mediation of a trusted third party qua "central commanding hub". The destitution of such centralized command systems, first by the internet and second by Bitcoin, is identified as the overcoming of the "the supreme metaphysical error" analogous to what "objects" are for pre-critical philosophy,
So I suppose the analogy is: phenomena are to metaphysically postulated objects as bitcoin is to trusted third-party mediated currency exchange protocols.
4) But this doesn't quite seem to fit. What is the subject, for Kant, if not a "central command system" which produces representations and so determines the conditions of possibility for every object of experience? If Bitcoin is the abolition of such a centralized command system in favor of a distributed system, then it is surely, at least post-Kantian, and thus not analogous to phenomenal constitution. It does not trade third-party trusted constitution by some other centralized constitution.
5) However, this does not mean it is not still critical. If Bitcoin is the realization of critique, it is because the incipient Kantian apparatus was precisely still overladen with metaphysical assumptions, i.e. the transcendental subject was still a metaphysical construction. But insofar as it dispenses of any notion of centralized command system, the blockchain actualizes a genuine post-metaphysical system of informational exchange, that does not require the unifying agency of a subject, and thus which escapes the lingering metaphysical burden in Kant's first attempt at critique.
is this really not gibberish? you aren't able to discuss these ideas using plain english?
ice la honk it’s all bullshit, all these words were made to forget about the fact that we die.
Bitcoin does still contain a centralized constitution. The protocol ruleset was a subjective set of parameters decided by Satoshi. Just as with the internet, the protocol rulesets are subjective. The difference is the ability to maintain verifiable decentralized consensus without the need for centralized oversight.
@@crieverytim It's standard Kantian terminology. Why do you expect a discussion of philosophy to not use philosophical concepts? Don't be lazy, and read.
@@danielsacilotto6235 read what? contemporary philosophy and a thesaurus? so i can sound Lyotarded? I understand your need to flex and extract *something* out of all that time and money you dumped into your degree, but deciphering your verbose wankery is not the measure of a man's laziness or lack thereof. Analgously, don't be lackadaisical and settle for a mere youtube pronouncement - have a real go at it, write that tractatus! And remember, “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Now *that* would be impressive. - Badieu!
1:15:31
On the one hand, the relationship between humanity and intelligence is decaying due to the impending "singularity." On the other hand, we are all religious even atheists. Then, anthropomorphic religion is a mirror version of anthropomorphic AI. (Stimulating conversation, but sort of maddening at the same time.) Intelligence optimization runs head up against species survivability. The Robot apocalypse.
What Murphy seems to obfuscate about Land is his utter disavowal of both religion and human subjectivity altogether. Taking Deleuze as a point of departure, Land envisions intelligence as artificial in itself; thus, it is not God who is intelligent, but rather some Other which has no personality. Evolution is not a person. Neither is exogamy (radical genetic difference). Neither is (solar) economy, otherwise known as entropy / death (drive). All of these qualities of forward movement, of positive loop(ing)s, do not have a subjectivity. They are intelligent systems, but they are not agentive in the human or divine sense. They are intelligent automata, multiplicative systems of radical difference. The confusion is partially semiotic-the term “artifice” implies an artist, and thus also an agent. But artificial intelligence is a misnomer insofar as beyond the horizon of programmability, machines become naturally intelligent beyond artifice. That is, though we as humans might program the machinic Adam, once Adam(‘s line) achieves a threshold of intelligence, his (heirs’) further development is “natural”. It takes on its own tendency, it’s own telos.
Very interesting perspective but I cannot shake the conviction that Teleological
drive must have a personal awareness behind it.
@@thenowchurch6419 It doesn’t need to be personal in the human sense, it could just be Heidegger’s technological will to will
@@thelasttruegamer2221 How does Heidegger explain a machine or algorithm having a will at all?
@@thenowchurch6419 I see it as a description of the cybernetic capitalist process wherein the goal is simply (intelligence) production; to make more of itself
@@thelasttruegamer2221 Okay, but the whole cybernetic capitalist process was initiated and is driven largely by human wills right?
2:12:32
Specious argumizzle
the smacking! wtf is he eating?
Could Justin or someone edit a shorter version this? It seems interesting but 3 hours is too much.
Listen to 5 minutes at a time.
I don't know man, all I wanted to know was how to fix my car.
would disagree w Lands estimate and point regarding some grand 'Return to Ideology,' -just sayn :)
How?
You people should study non ironically more theology, like Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
Yur, yur, yur. do you mean You're?
FALL LYRICS PROVE TOO DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET
35:15min What makes him think that politico-economic analysis that detailed the sources of concrete problems are too abstract and idealistic? Is his critique of capitalism similar to Heidegger, and technology: the latter similar to Marx minus understanding the social relation that yields the type, and governs the temporality of planned obsolescence, etc? Nietzsche is also a critic of "modernity", but from the fascist end of the political aisle.
Naja keine weiteres Wort
@@jwaxmcgeeg9706 Could...give...a fuck.
Well we shall just see how this all plays out
“best of luck with your communist blockchain” wholesome land
I tried ilstening to this but the ads every 5 minutes is a huge turn off
Listen on the podcast! plnk.to/otherlife
@@JustinMurphy , Fuck you
@@googleacount3611 my man, how does Justin deserve this ire?
Coherently incoherent
This is incomprehensible to me. Is the guy saying to abandon humanist ideas of liberty and serve capital by furthering is with technological advancement?
I'll take accelerationism for $200, Alex.
He is not abandoning it, he is just acknowledging the writing on the wall in terms of an emerging super intelligence.
@@anti-hermes2541 Well that retarded. Return to monke
@@TheSaltyRainbow You can only return to monke with the aftermath of nuclear anihilation, the genie of technology is out of the bottle, it is inescapable. And even if you returned to monke it would only be temporary. Are you willing to repeat the cycle forever?
@@Deliverygirl gib banana
47
Science is fueling limitless wonder about the universe, but there’s no readily apparent reason in my mind to worship, fear, or praise such an impersonal “God”. The age of Deism led to more and more questions, and convinced those inclined to religious thinking to seek their easy answers elsewhere
im sorry but most of what nick land says is gibberish
Okay. 4th listen. Let’s go...
There’s interesting stuff here, but I can’t hear it above all the damn tongue clicking against teeth noises.
MORE ELVIS COSTELLO THAN IAN CURTIS
1:11:40 Reminds me of Gil Anidjar
plant trees
‘Modernity is dominated by positive feedback processes.’ Surely modernity is negative and homeostatic insofar as it assimilates all alterity. This is partly what deleuze was getting at in Control Systems
57:00
2:00:18 .......yes......................😂
"Nick Land is a crazy hyper racist."
Land: *is entirely coherent in this podcast*
More like a 58 years old edgelord
Marxism contains the reactionary longing for the Ancien Regime within in it. The submission of the merchant class to the aristocracy corresponds exactly the submission of global capital to national governing elites. This is hidden under the mysticism of “the marginalized” and “liberation” but it is there never the less. In many ways the communist revolution brings about the ideal form of the ruling aristocracy, an aristocracy as it should be, ruling for the people with an infinite time preference.
@@NorthernObserver Yeah, the idea that communism is devoid of an aristocratic hierarchy and is "for the masses" is obviously false. You're saying that the spirit in communism of justly-minded leadership class leading as if they are part of their constituency is effectively the same a the best of monarchy, minus the whole hereditary crown-inheretance?
If so yeah I totally see that and agree. The fact that your day to day leftist doesn't see this is really frustrating. I know it's a meme at this point, but it's increasingly clear to me that they've been purchased into playing a pointless language game.
@@IsoMorphix so the right’s groveling about Marxism celebrating weakness and mass mediocrity is also confused and incoherent?
@@DilbertHernandez idk. I think that the Marxism that most on the right are talking about is the useful-idiot variant, and they're probably seeing the *effects of it's intrusion* on their own culture.
Like if what we're talking about is the true sort final Marxist communist form (effectively a monarchy, but selected for on the basis of a labor-politics-informed schema of 'merit'), thats such a change that first you'd have to dissolve the original culture first to make the communist alternative the only viable alternative.
If you're asking sincerely, I think the right is noticing the early onset effects, and refers to them as being synonymous with Marxism...because in a sense it is, even if it's not the functional destination.
Everything recrystallizes into a hierarchy of value.
Brilliant.
He can't be amazing at everything, but was a little disappointed he didn't know that the scripting language, lack of turning completeness and small blocks of bitcoin make it radically (sic) less faceted than certain other chains.
I wouldn't be upset if human's only notable accomplishment was the creation of a transcendent AI. The fact of the matter is that human beings are no match for this universe. We are extremely fragile and limited. I see no reason why an AI would bother in exterminating humans. We will probably very quickly become bug-like to an AI and would likely be preserved as a zoo specimen and a curiosity, along with this planet.
Use the constantly accelerating new techonolgical horizon to fix your lisp
Was Pinochet accelerating capitalism?
Pinochet was accelerating cringelords down from the sky
@@TheCulturedThug Soon the helicopters will be self-piloting!
Staggeringly inarticulate waffle
Old OddJobs pfft everyone's a critic
I suppose Land isnt suitable for braindead drones who want information fed to them like animals in a cage.
@@blktarhero3337 he certainly isn't suitable for oral interviews
Nick my dude, gotta tone down that *SCHMACK*
One big advertisement for bitcoin?
No, when you understand what Bitcoin truly is you understand what he is saying in regards to it. The price of Bitcoin is just a reflection of its accomplishment of verifiably removing trusted third parties from capital exchange.
@@NotraNaum (and that's a good thing)
He did waaaaaaaaaaay to many rave parties during the 90s. The mollies fried his brain.
source? new to land, trying to understand what he’s about
@@selfhelp7130 Sources??? The Ccru of course.
I STRONGLY recommend his earlier work, but I guess Fanged Noumena works alright as a compilation of his descend into the abyss.
@@OjoRojo40 not sure if it’s a good idea, had kind of a rough year myself as far as losing your mind goes. this is something powerful though, either the negation of the negation or rambling schizophrenic nonsense, no in between haha
@@OjoRojo40 thank you though!!
I would strongly suggest that people who are concerned about losing their minds not read, or at any rate not - study - Fanged Noumena. That which applies to Nietzsche applies all the more to Land. Tread -carefully-.
If you want auto-induced psychosis and creative dissociation into depersonalizing flows of becoming OR are a strong stomached mentally 'healthy' subject, then go right ahead.
I was Warwick in the 1990s when Nick Land taught there and formed the CCRU. He attracted a clique around him and was charismatic from a certain perspective. He was fond of making grand millenarian claims back then too: that convergence would take place in 2010 and there would be a black box in your living room that did everything. In a sense he was right of course: the internet was the beginning of the acceleration and all media and human experience folded into technology. It's a shame his trajectory has become the intellectual parallel of Morrissey and he has become a grumpy old racist, beloved of Steve Bannon and the like.
This is an abundantly banal take. Nick's stated stance on ethnic politics is one of utter dismissal.
@@venomgroyper3954 would be nice to get a clear and unambiguous statement from Land that he disavows the Bannon school of political philosophy. As it is, Land appears to be caught by re-territorialising vectors, all under the guise of accelerationism.
@@jeremyweate4045 "We can see from this derisory description of white nationalism that Land actually rejects its racist biological determinism as much as the left’s social constructivist views of oppression. For Land, what both left and right’s obsession with all-too-human differences overlooks is that an entirely new, artificially intelligent species is on the rise. Whereas white nationalists, conservatives and libertarians alike argue that capitalism is good for humanity (or at least the West) in that it generates the wealth of nations, Land holds that it is good because of the way it renders us obsolete before its technological march towards the creation of a new AI technospecies, or what Land calls ‘the bionic horizon’: ‘when seen from the bionic horizon, whatever emerges from the dialectics of racial terror remains trapped in trivialities. It’s time to move on’.
- Vincent Le, 2018, in Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 14, no. 3
@@jeremyweate4045 "We can see from this derisory description of white nationalism that Land actually rejects its racist biological determinism as much as the left’s social constructivist views of oppression. For Land, what both left and right’s obsession with all-too-human differences overlooks is that an entirely new, artificially intelligent species is on the rise. Whereas white nationalists, conservatives and libertarians alike argue that capitalism is good for humanity (or at least the West) in that it generates the wealth of nations, Land holds that it is good because of the way it renders us obsolete before its technological march towards the creation of a new AI technospecies, or what Land calls ‘the bionic horizon’: ‘when seen from the bionic horizon, whatever emerges from the dialectics of racial terror remains trapped in trivialities. It’s time to move on’.
"
- Vincent Le, 2018, in Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 14, no. 3
“STEVEN BANNON” lol! keep reading mainstream trash... Bannon is 100% civnat non ethnomcentrist... you brit lefties equate immigration reform with racism! you dont even have 1/100th of a percent in IQ required to understand or critque nick you idiot!
Why do so many people find this guy interesting?
Why do you not? I think some of the stuff he says is interesting
I hate it when Brits use the lazy D like butter as buddet
desperately trying to make him sound like a lefty
you're the one that sounds desperate ;)
@@dillonv5345 nah i don't really care lol.
He is a post-capitalist
The lip smacking though
TERSE NERDS BRING ABOUT THE APOCALYPSE IN TRANSTEMPORAL VIDEO GAME, HIDE.
The lip smacking is driving me insane
I didnt notice it. Maybe you are autistic